Recently, I wrote about the appalling Detroit-area doctor who has been mutilating little girls for her twisted cult. Both this perverse excuse for a human being and her accomplices – Fakhruddin Attar and his demented wife Farida – were indicted yesterday for scheming to disfigure little girls. When I wrote about this, I noted that Jumana Nagarwala’s claim that she was merely removing the children’s “genital membrane and giving it to relatives for burial” held about as much water as an ISIS member claiming to respect women (or Antifa claiming to respect free speech), and medical examinations proved otherwise.
But according to a juvenile protection petition filed in Minnesota, along with federal court documents, the injuries sustained by the Minnesota girls are far more severe than Nagarwala described. A doctor’s findings cited scarring, a small tear, healing lacerations and what appears to be surgical removal of a portion of her genitalia, the Detroit Free Press reported.
Seriously? What civilized human being with any shred of morality who was educated in one of the best medical schools in a developed country would harm little children in such a manner?
What galls me even more is that according to the report, at least one of the children was returned to her parents.
doctor pernicious cunt wad apparently exchanged texts with one of the mothers, confirming the time they were to meet so she could disfigure her little daughter.
The father allegedly knew about the trip through texts with his wife while she was in Detroit.
The little girl told a child protective services investigator that the doctor had “made her cry,” and the victims said they were instructed to keep what happened to them a secret.
It’s quite obvious there was conspiracy between the parents and the doctors.
And yet, at least one of the little girls was returned to her parents!
Why are these people not held liable for conspiring to mutilate their children? Why have they not been charged?
Why have the children been returned to them?
Why haven’t they been sterilized with some rusty implements, so they’re never again able to create innocent life and then harm it? (I may or may not be joking about this last part. You decide.)
We already know that Nagarwala is a sadistic, sub-human savage, who apparently lied to investigators about even being present for the procedures!
But why are the parents not being held criminally liable, and WHY for the sake of everything that’s not fucked up in this world would you return a child to savages who conspired to mutilate her in a sick effort to assume control over her sexuality?
I hurt for these little girls so much! They were awake for the whole thing, and I can’t imagine the pain and humiliation. What kind of “compassionate” agency that’s supposed to look out for the welfare of the most vulnerable among us, would return a child to these monsters?
Someone explain this to me, because I just don’t get it.
Recently Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor sat down with Aspen Institute’s Latinos and Society Program Executive Director Abigail Golden-Vazquez for a chat about civic engagement, Latinos, and opportunities. I will say I agree with her on the importance of education and civic engagement – not just for Latinos, but for everyone! The issues she discussed aren’t endemic to just Latinos. When she says, “None of us can afford to be bystanders in life. We create our community, and we create it by being active participants in our community,” it shouldn’t be limited to Latinos, or to anyone of a particular ethnicity, religious affiliation or lack thereof.
A lot of the challenges with a lack of civic participation are not limited to Latinos. When Sotomayor says, “If you’re working 14 hours a day at your job, it is hard to make time for civic participation. And for many Latinos, that’s the quality of their life. We have to engage with that reality,” this is not an insurmountable problem faced only by Latinos. It’s one that plagues much of the working class. Latinos aren’t the only ones working multiple jobs more than 14 hours per day and the weekends. But we make time, and we do what we can. And sometimes we don’t get a lot of sleep. And many times we don’t have free time on the weekends. That’s just the way it is, but we sacrifice for the things that are important. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that.
And no, it’s not fair that some people inherit immense wealth, giving them opportunities to attend the best schools without accruing massive debt.
And no, it’s not fair that some kids get to grow up without ever worrying about how much something costs, while others – that’s their first concern.
And no, it’s not fair that some kids grow up in cramped apartments, while others live in opulent mansions.
There are a lot of things that aren’t fair. Life isn’t fair. And yet, we all work to make our own opportunities.
Which is why this bit from Sotomayor’s conversation galled me.
“There’s a continuing tension in America between the image of the person who pulls themselves up by the bootstraps, and the person who believes that you need a lift to get up sometimes,” Sotomayor told the program’s executive director, Abigail Golden-Vazquez. “Those people who believe that everyone must pull themselves up ― they don’t believe that people are entitled to help.”
“For those of us who understand that sometimes no matter how tall the heel on your boot is, the barrier is so high that you need a small lift to help you get over it ― they will understand that the inequalities in society build that barrier so high,” she continued. “Unless you do something to knock it down or help that person up, they will never have a chance. I had those things. I had a unique mother who was able to understand the benefits of education and encouraged me to use education as my liftoff. But not everyone knows that.”
For a jurist on the nation’s highest court, perhaps she needs a lesson in English.
It’s not that we don’t believe in help. I’m more than happy to help – whether it’s by donating time or money – those who are in need. But there’s a difference between asking for help and being entitled to it.
The definition of “entitled” is: believing oneself to be inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
Sorry, but this is where she lost me.
No one is ENTITLED to my help.
No one is ENTITLED to the fruits of my labor.
No one is ENTITLED to what I earn – to assets that should be going, first and foremost, to help me and my family – simply because they consider themselves deserving of said assets.
Need is not a claim check.
It’s not a claim check to my work. It’s not a claim check to the fruits of my efforts. It’s not a claim check to my sympathies.
No one is entitled to anything produced by another person without that person’s willingness to give it. The value people get in exchange for helping others is determined by that person alone – whether it’s the satisfaction of helping a fellow human being, or a promise of repayment or work – and not by politicians in power who think that forcing people to give up their earnings to “help,” which usually comes in the form of a handout that keeps people dependent or a bureaucracy that does squat, is the way to get those greedy rich people to contribute.
Everyone understands that sometimes people need a hand. It’s just that we also understand that undermining others to level the playing field is not really leveling the playing field, but crippling others so everyone exists on the same field of misery. That’s not helping those who need help. It’s merely crippling the competition, and negating the need for the person to put forth effort to help themselves.
That’s what I think about when I see this graphic.
It’s not just taking away two boxes from the tall person, who can see over the fence. What Sotomayor and other statist politicians want is to cripple the tall person, so they can’t stand to see at all. They want equality of outcome at any cost – even at the cost of crippling those they consider privileged.
Equality of opportunity is equality before the law. It’s the understanding that you will not be prevented by those in power from pursuing your goals, whether they’re educational, professional, or personal.
The graphic depicts equality of outcome, which looks really good in that little picture, but assumes silliness, such as 1) the tall person needs the box to see in the first place 2) there exists an equal number of boxes 3) the tall person wouldn’t willingly give up the box they don’t need to help out the short person, and 4) the means to sustain your family, the fruits of your labor, the value of your work, the results of your achievements are somehow identical to a fucking box!
You take away a box from the tall guy in that graphic, the worst that will happen is he won’t see a baseball game.
You disadvantage a kid because you feel he’s too privileged by giving away an educational opportunity to someone you consider underprivileged, but who may not have earned it, and you have just figuratively crippled him.
You reject a college applicant, who may have higher grades, who may have worked harder, and who may have participated in more extracurricular activities in favor of a poor kid, who may have had to work after school to help support his family, or just didn’t have the talent or the drive to get the grades, and all you’ve done is taken away an opportunity from one human being and handed it to another, with the government as the arbiter of who is more deserving, rather than objective achievement.
You deny a job to an applicant with superior skills, because said applicant happens to be white/cis/male/*insert privilege here*, and you’ve just screwed a superior applicant AND your company, or worse yet, you’ve allowed the government to do it for you – to pick a winner and loser based on arbitrary politicians’ whims.
You take earnings away from one family to feed/clothe/educate another – even though may be a noble goal – and that’s that much less that family has to spend on their own food, on their own sick kids, on their ailing parents, on their leaking roof, or their car repairs.
Helping a person up does not and should not mean, crippling another to “level the playing field.”
And yes, sometimes life is unfair. Yes, some people are more fortunate than others. But to people like Sotomayor, “pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps” is somehow a negative thing, because we won’t always be successful, and because we have to work harder than some others to succeed. She assumes that certain demographics simply CAN’T succeed and achieve without government force giving them an advantage.
I find that to be an abhorrent prejudice against said demographics. Fact is they can and do succeed. You can’t tell me that Do Won Chang, who started Forever 21 after immigrating to the United States from South Korea, in 1981 and worked three jobs simultaneously, as a gas station clerk, a janitor and a coffee shop employee had a level playing field. No, he simply worked harder, even though he started out penniless, without much English, and without a college degree.
My own parents came to this country without English, and with $300 in their pockets, and they are now comfortably retired – without ever having asked the government for a hand up, because they didn’t feel they were entitled to it.
People can and do succeed, even without the advantage of starting out rich. To claim they cannot, because they have brown or black skin, and therefore are in more need of help than others, is a pernicious, racist lie.
Rob wrote a great piece last night eviscerating David Shephard’s condemnation of conservatives who actually stand on principles on the Bull Elephant. You should really go read Rob’s fisk. He uses big words, and he didn’t drop the F-bomb even once! (Note: this is why I will never write for an actual news source or political site again. Too much effort to constrain my cursing.)
Shephard, whose claim to fame is apparently being a lobbyist in Richmond, claims that the House Freedom Caucus and its “conservative” members were never meant to be legislators, because they apparently never influence policy (Except for tanking the GOP’s shit show of a health care bill, of course. You’re welcome.) They should just hang out in think tanks and attend luncheons, proclaims a snot-nosed millennial whose contribution to the economy is lobbying and consulting.
If my eyes rolled back any harder, I’d need a pair of salad tongs and a team of Navy SEALs to retrieve them.
And that’s why, Shephard claims, Trump voters hate these guys, mmkay?
Because apparently people who want to examine legislation that has the power to affect millions of Americans and significantly impact our economy by using actual economic principles and rational thought don’t belong in government.
Rob rightfully excoriated this dick weasel.
The Trump voter, for the most part, is driven by emotion rather than logic. Trump, to his credit, seized on the undercurrent of frustration with business as usual in Washington, and rode it, against all expectations, including mine, to the White House. But let us not kid ourselves, Trump has little idea, even from moment to moment, of what he actually wants to ‘get done’. All he is interested in is ‘winning’. He is an ideologically unmoored populist. Steve Bannon, his chief political guru, has little ideological compass himself, and lacks the depth of knowledge to develop one. …And this is the guy who had the unmitigated gall to tell House conservatives in a meeting this past week “Guys, look. This is not a discussion. This is not a debate. You have no choice but to vote for this bill.” This administration will never be an effective leader for conservative principles as it stands right now.
I have, for the most part, avoided partisan discussion on this blog, choosing instead to focus on particular issues objectively and examine them from both sides. There’s a reason for this. Partisans focus on party. As Shephard shows, they care little for actual principle, and care only about advancing the party brand. Even when the party elite try to advance pure shit legislation that the majority of Americans recognize as dreck, winning is more important than what’s good for the country.
Don’t get me wrong. It’s not only a Republican problem. The majority of Americans also opposed ObamaCare, but the legisleeches back then cared more about passing legacy legislation than ensuring the good of the nation. But apparently Republicans have learned nothing from that disaster.
It’s apparently more important for them to appear to be keeping their campaign promises than to actually be keeping them. Winning. That’s how you win in politics. You manipulate public perception into believing you’re doing something, and you claim victory. It’s not about America. It’s about your party winning in Congress. So yes, when intelligent people step in and put a damper on your plans with actual facts and figures, you have no choice but to malign and bully them.
What really gets me is that Shephard has so little self awareness, that he actually thinks denigrating legislators who analyze legislation and consider its fiscal implications as worthless and “a waste of a desk and a chair,” while wrapping himself in the “conservative” mantle somehow reflects positively on him and the vapid establishment squishes who pride themselves on having no principles, but “winning” at the polls.
The Trump voters work for a living, he says in an obsequious attempt to lick the taints of the ignorant, as if the members of the House Freedom Caucus have done no real work in their lives.
Mark Meadows, the current Chairman, started a small restaurant in North Carolina, and later sold it to start a successful real estate development endeavor in Florida. Yeah, what a failure!
Brian Babin of Texas is a dentist. Obviously, he can’t relate to the working man.
Rod Blum – with his degrees in finance and business administration obviously has nothing to contribute to the conversation about legislation that would affect this nation’s people and economy, and neither does economist Dave Brat.
The caucus includes businessmen, military veterans, doctors, realtors, small business owners, as well as lawyers. Obviously, they have nothing to contribute to the health care legislation debate, and they certainly don’t have anything in common with those Trump voters who work for a living, right, jackass?
Conservatives should not be defined by the number of notches they carve in the “win” column. Conservatives should specifically defined by their principles and ideology, which shouldn’t changed based on the way the political wind is blowing. If Shephard is correct, and the typical Trump voter wants results that will “improve our country,” they should be thanking the members of the House Freedom Caucus for ensuring that the GOP’s dumpster fire health care legislation, which did nothing to reduce government dependence and kept much of what Americans hated about ObamaCare in the first place firmly in place, never saw the light of day.
Members of the House Freedom Caucus were elected for a reason. They were open and transparent about their views, and their constituents selected them to represent their views in Congress. Maybe they were tired of politicians who told them what they wanted to hear, and then fell right in line with the usual bullshit once they got to Washington. There’s a reason they sent the calculating, ambitious, unprincipled Republican Eric Cantor home in favor of the educated, passionate, pro-freedom economist Dave Brat, despite Brat’s considerable disadvantage in the fundraising department. There’s only so many times you can betray the principles you claim to hold, before your constituents say, “ENOUGH!”
Congress needs more ideologically committed conservatives (and liberals), not fewer. We need less notches on our political bedposts and more actual wins. We need people who stand behind what they believe and rely on knowledge and experience, not their FEELZ, and who won’t be threatened and intimidated into backing down and doing anything less than what they objectively understand to be good for the country. They shouldn’t care that some carnival barker threatens to primary them, because this shouldn’t be a career from which to profit, but an honor to serve the people who put them in office.
The fact that these are men who stood up and opposed a bill that would have been awful for the country despite attempts to threaten and intimidate them speaks volumes about their love of their country and their respect for their constituents and yanks the curtain open on the puppetmasters, shining a stark spotlight on their lack of values and respect for America.
Trump promised us during the election that we would win so much, we’d get tired of winning.
Perhaps our definitions of “winning” need a tweak.