A gentle, loving reminder.
— ShannonMAGA🇺🇸 (@GeorgiaDirtRoad) August 22, 2017
And yes, there was violence on both sides in Charlottesville. You would be blind not to see it.
A gentle, loving reminder.
— ShannonMAGA🇺🇸 (@GeorgiaDirtRoad) August 22, 2017
And yes, there was violence on both sides in Charlottesville. You would be blind not to see it.
Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia, I continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, thanks to my shameless contract, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show™ each Wednesday evening.
Our guests were Dan Butcher of High Plains Pundit Media/Radio/TV, who weighed in on Charlottesville and its implications, as well as Dave Milner, the Unpleasant Blind Guy, who weighed in on the English Defense League and Islam’s plan for Europe and beyond.
Tonight in the Saloon:
If you care to listen to the show in Spreaker, please click on start.
If you care to watch the show on YouTube, please click on start.
Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.
As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.
First, the background to the headline, in terms of the predicating event prompting mayoral candidate Raymond Dehn’s statement about disarming the Minneapolis Police Department, first from FoxNews.com:
Minnesota cop who fatally shot Australian woman was ‘fast-tracked’ into the force
Australian woman shot by cop ‘did not have to die,’ Minneapolis police chief says
by Ami Forliti and Steve Karnowski
The fatal shooting of an Australian woman by a Minneapolis police officer responding to her 911 call “should not have happened,” police Chief Janee Harteau said, adding that the officer’s actions “go against who we are in the department.”
In her first public remarks since the death of Justine Damond, a 40-year-old life coach and bride-to-be, Harteau on Thursday defended Officer Mohamed Noor’s training but criticized his actions.
Wait, wait wait wait wait. He was well-trained but he screwed up? Just what are you saying here, former Chief Harteau? What are you trying to justify? His training or his actions? Because training, or lack thereof, does have a good deal to do with reactions in the field.
Oh right. She’s a former chief of police.
“He was well trained but we don’t act like this,” is what you’re saying Harteau? It would seem to me, at first blush, that you’re attempting to justify something — a Somali Muslim cop — that many would say needn’t be justified. Just what are you saying?
I’m sorry; were saying. Past tense.
Harteau faced several questions about her absence in the days following the shooting, which sparked anger and a demand for answers in the city and in Damond’s home country. She said she had been backpacking in a remote area, it was “challenging” to return and that she had been in touch with her command staff.
Priorities. Please see above.
Damond had called 911 twice late Saturday to report a possible sexual assault in the alley behind her house on Minneapolis’ southwest side. Noor, who was in the passenger seat of a squad car, shot at Damond through the driver’s side window.
Noor has declined to speak with the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which is handling the investigation. His partner, Matthew Harrity, told investigators he was startled by a loud sound right before Damond approached the police vehicle.
Perhaps his right in Minnesota, but not his right in California. When I was in Homicide, I happened to be tasked with investigating OIS, or Officer Involved Shootings. I had to be well versed in OIS investigations as well as POBR — the Peace Officer Bill of Rights. Officers had the right to determine not to speak to me in detail but they didn’t have the right to not tell me the basics, such as firearm, place, position, backstop, number of rounds fired, location of suspect and the like.
It was a long way to get here, yes, but we can now get to the point: add a Minneapolis mayoral race.
Minneapolis Mayoral Candidate: Maybe Cops Should Just Leave Their Guns In The Car
by Matt Vespa
Is this guy high on drugs? That’s the only explanation for this nonsensical policy proposal regarding law enforcement coming out of the Minneapolis area. Mayoral candidate Raymond Dehn pretty much put forward a policy that would disarm police, requiring them to leave their firearms in their car.
The most striking proposal came from Raymond Dehn, a state legislator who finished first in the Minneapolis DFL’s no-endorsement convention on July 8, beating out Hodges, Council Member Jacob Frey and Tom Hoch and attracting more than a third of the support from party insiders.
“We must divest resources, disarm officers, and dismantle the inherent violence of our criminal justice system,” Dehn said in a statement Friday.
He later elaborated on what sounded like a call to take guns from cops, adding he is not advocating against police officers having access to weapons when they need them.
“Officers don’t need to carry guns on their person all the time,” Dehn said Tuesday. “Currently, officers carry all sorts of assault weapons in their cars. So why can’t one of those weapons be the side arm? It’s important that we begin to have a conversation, and I would say that all things are on the table.”
Look. I’ll be honest. Quite a number of persons have asked me to weigh in on the initial shooting involving Noor. Having served not in the military but instead 41 years in law enforcement, I have something of a perspective from the front lines.
And that is this.
No matter how Noor was trained or whatever his reputation may have been or not been, an individual who, sitting in a vehicle shared by a partner, deigns to reach across and in front of said partner crank off rounds within the unit is one of two things:
I suspect a bit of the latter. And most everyone in that department now knows just about everything regarding Officer Noor. There are few secrets when lives are on the line.
I also suspect this. Due to his incomplete training regimen — that is to say, the “fast tracking” the department admits to having done — much was known about Noor before he even opened his first Crown Vic door.
That said, I highly suggest each and every Leftist Urban Rat Cage eschew their police and disarm them completely. Take their guns. Give them short truncheons. Whistles. A nice dark hat like Scotland Yard. Give them Smart cars or bicycles and tablets and social media. And sarcasm. Sarcasm can be a weapon. But not too much sarcasm. You wouldn’t want to offend.
In terms of this Great Disarm the Police Experiment, I suggest these cities first:
It’s already been suggested, for example, that Chicago defund its police department. No. I’m not kidding.
I think the best summary is this:
But the head of the police union, Lt. Bob Kroll, says there’s not a chance this idea would fly with any cop.
“I don’t think the people in Minneapolis are logically ready for anything like this,” said Kroll. “Who would ever do the job of policing again? It’s absolutely an absurd thought.”
As long as it fails to correspond to their version and values attached to speech. Any speech. All speech.
And to think we once had a First Amendment.
In my mind, that bespeaks much more about all of those other countries than it does about the United States.
But isn’t some speech the equivalent of brutality? Can’t much of speech be the equivalent of brutality? Let’s consult a Leftist psychology professor.
When Is Speech Violence?
by Lisa Feldmann Barrett
Imagine that a bully threatens to punch you in the face. A week later, he walks up to you and breaks your nose with his fist. Which is more harmful: the punch or the threat?
The answer might seem obvious: Physical violence is physically damaging; verbal statements aren’t. “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
But scientifically speaking, it’s not that simple. Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sick, alter your brain — even kill neurons — and shorten your life.
Wait. So can eggs. Cow farts. A blue ringed octopus. Loose lug nuts. The cargo door from a 747. A bee. Bad spinach.
If words can cause stress, and if prolonged stress can cause physical harm, then it seems that speech — at least certain types of speech — can be a form of violence. But which types?
There you go. Speech is in fact violent. With that in mind, I wonder just what kinds of speech Leftists will consider violent because, after all, the author is quite the Leftist herself? Moreover, who will make these weighty decisions?
This question has taken on some urgency in the past few years, as professed defenders of social justice have clashed with professed defenders of free speech on college campuses. Student advocates have protested vigorously, even violently, against invited speakers whose views they consider not just offensive but harmful — hence the desire to silence, not debate, the speaker. “Trigger warnings” are based on a similar principle: that discussions of certain topics will trigger, or reproduce, past trauma — as opposed to merely challenging or discomfiting the student. The same goes for “microaggressions.”
Ah, here we go. Safe spaces. Coloring books. Safety pins, trigger warnings and microaggressions. The only things truly required at universities any more are drool cups. And sippy cups.
The scientific findings I described above provide empirical guidance for which kinds of controversial speech should and shouldn’t be acceptable on campus and in civil society. In short, the answer depends on whether the speech is abusive or merely offensive.
Again: define “abusive.” In whose eyes? And who makes that ultimate determination?
What’s bad for your nervous system, in contrast, are long stretches of simmering stress. If you spend a lot of time in a harsh environment worrying about your safety, that’s the kind of stress that brings on illness and remodels your brain. That’s also true of a political climate in which groups of people endlessly hurl hateful words at one another, and of rampant bullying in school or on social media. A culture of constant, casual brutality is toxic to the body, and we suffer for it.
Wait. Are these hateful words. Is this an advocacy of violence?
A history of violence? On whose side?
What of the loving and peaceful Diablo College professor Eric Clanton? Correct me if I’m wrong, but this appears to be actual violence committed by a Leftist on camera.
Then there is Leftist professor Kevin Allred from Montclair State University who Tweeted last Friday night, July 28th: “Trump is a fucking joke. This is all a sham. I wish someone would just shoot him outright.”
What does that sound like to you? Just a wee tinge of violent speech? Enough to nut up a snowflake? Not necessarily for, you see, it is all quite topic-dependent.
To me it sounds like the environment one customarily encounters on any given campus in the United States when any student, singly or in a group, begins speech which is conservative in nature. In this aspect Barrett makes a perfect point. But not the one she intended.
That’s why it’s reasonable, scientifically speaking, not to allow a provocateur and hatemonger like Milo Yiannopoulos to speak at your school. He is part of something noxious, a campaign of abuse. There is nothing to be gained from debating him, for debate is not what he is offering.
Let me unpack the obvious here, something few people point out. Milo is or isn’t anyone’s particular cup of tea. Frankly, I enjoy his willingness to display pushback right in the revered houses of “education” so unfailingly determined to restrict speech. But the reason debate isn’t generally acquired in a Milo campus presentation is because of two aspects: 1. He thinks on his feet with remarkable rapidity, and 2. He is quick to throw facts and situations back at the commenters and questioners in the audience. Leftists don’t operate in the sphere of facts but instead of emotions.
That was pretty emotional, I’d wager. Thanks, professor. Nice advocacy of violence.
By all means, we should have open conversations and vigorous debate about controversial or offensive topics. But we must also halt speech that bullies and torments. From the perspective of our brain cells, the latter is literally a form of violence.
Then Barrett encountered a problem. She appeared on the Tucker Carlson show.
Leftists are at least nothing if not consistent. They only deign to answer questions fitting their narrative. And certainly not the questions I posed as did Tucker: define abuse and tell me who becomes the ultimate determinant of same?
Leftists would resoundingly answer in unison to the one question: government should be the determinant by way of laws restricting speech. Damn that First Amendment.
Oddly enough an article exists in New York magazine countering Barrett’s argument.
Stop Telling Students Free Speech Is Traumatizing Them
by Jesse Singal
One fairly common idea that pops up again and again during the endless national conversation about college campuses, free speech, and political correctness is the notion that certain forms of speech do such psychological harm to students that administrators have an obligation to eradicate them — or, failing that, that students have an obligation to step in and do so themselves (as has happened during recent, high-profile episodes involving Charles Murray and Milo Yiannopoulos, which turned violent).
Agreed. Just ask snowflakes. I love that word. It’s so apropos.
So it’s weird, in light of all this, to see the claim that free speech on campus leads to serious psychological harm being taken seriously in the New York Times, and weirder still to see it argued in a manner draped in pseudoscience. Yet that’s what happened. In a Sunday Review column headlined “When Is Speech Violence?” Lisa Feldman Barrett, a professor of psychology at Northeastern University, explains that “scientifically speaking,” the idea that physical violence is more harmful than emotional violence is an oversimplification. “Words can have a powerful effect on your nervous system. Certain types of adversity, even those involving no physical contact, can make you sick, alter your brain — even kill neurons — and shorten your life.” Chronic stress can also shrink your telomeres, she writes — “little packets of genetic material that sit on the ends of your chromosomes” — bringing you closer to death.
Is this the same science to which Al Gore shakingly refers? The same science the Australian Weather Bureau used to cobble together false climate numbers?
This is a weak and confused argument. Setting aside the fact that no one will ever be able to agree on what’s “abusive” versus what’s “merely offensive,” the articles Barrett links to are mostly about chronic stress — the stress elicited by, for example, spending one’s childhood in an impoverished environment of serious neglect and violence. Growing up in a dangerous neighborhood with a poor single mother who has to work so much she doesn’t have time to nurture you is not the same as being a college student at a campus where Yiannopoulos is coming to speak, and where you are free to ignore him or to protest his presence there.
Thank you. Finally, someone points out the Captain Obvious aspects of campus speech and pretty much speech everywhere.
And that’s this. You have two legs and at least something of a brain. You can decide to leave the room, turn off the television, stop reading, leave the website, put down the magazine, turn off the iPad, etc. Any number of logical adult decisions can be made. Logical. Adult. Decisions.
This is apparently a concept with which Leftists, snowflakes, raindrops and all makes and models of emos are stultifyingly unfamiliar.
Nowhere does Barrett fully explain how the presence on campus of a speaker like Yiannopoulos for a couple of hours is going to lead to students being afflicted with the sort of serious, chronic stress correlated with health difficulties. It’s simply disingenuous to compare the two types of situations — in a way, it’s an insult both to people who do deal with chronic stress and to student activists.
Thank you. Again more shocking clarity and honesty.
Now, it would be just as much of a stretch to say that a single column like Barrett’s could cause students to self-traumatize as it would be to say that an upcoming Yiannopoulos appearance could traumatize them. But in the aggregate, if you tell students over and over and over that certain variants of free speech — variants which are ugly, but which are aired every moment of every day on talk radio — are traumatizing them, it really could do harm.
Yes. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
And there’s no reason to go down this road, because there’s no evidence that the mere presence of a conservative speaker on campus is harming students in some deep psychological or physiological way (with the exception of outlying cases involving preexisting mental-health problems). This is a silly idea that should be retired from the conversation about free speech on campus.
From whom does trauma occur to others? Leftists.
From whom does violence on campus occur? Leftists.
Who cannot brook or tolerate opposing viewpoints, thoughts or exposition?
I’ve said it for over six months and, despite that, some elements of the media are just now beginning to catch up. And that is this.
The Demorats, the DNC, Leftists and the American Media Maggots themselves have not been able to psychologically migrate from November 8th, 2016 to November 9th, 2016.
As in: Hillary Rodham Clinton should be president and we — all of us — cannot possibly believe that the man with the dead orange cat on his head is in charge of anything at all.
From the WashingtonFreeBeacon.com:
The One Sentence That Explains Washington Dysfunction
by Matthew Continetti
The other day Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania explained why Republicans are having such trouble with health care. Speaking at a town hall during the July 4 recess, Toomey said, “I didn’t expect Donald Trump to win. I think most of my colleagues didn’t. So we didn’t expect to be in this situation.”
No kidding. I too can report that, from June 16, 2015, to November 8, 2016, the feeling among the elected officials, party functionaries, consultants, strategists, and journalists in our nation’s capital was that Donald J. Trump stood no chance of becoming president of the United States. And because the political elite held this view with such self-assurance, with all the egotism and snobbery and moral puffery and snarkiness that distinguishes itself as a class, it did not spend more than a second, if that, thinking through the possible consequences of a Trump victory.
I repeat, at the risk of being repetitive, live and direct from the Department of Redundancy Dept., what I’ve said for at least nine months. Absolutely no one was prepared for or anticipated Donald Trump to win.
“I didn’t expect Donald Trump to win. I think most of my colleagues didn’t. So we didn’t expect to be in this situation.”
Please allow me to translate EstabliHack GOP Speak for you: “we didn’t expect Donald Trump to win so we essentially prepared nothing, thinking we’d be riding on more of the standard ‘talk much/do little’ strategy so customary with Establishment Republicans.”
That also accounts, you see, for the GOP having no cogent, conservative, logical alternative to ObamaKare prepared on paper though all of the candidates swore — as did the entire GOP itself — to repeal and replace the ACA.
Just as the Demorats were convinced Hillary Clinton would clap her canky little ankles up the White House steps, so were the Republicans convinced that Meb Bushney or Lindike Grahabee would settle a derriere behind the Resolution desk.
Not so, boys and girls, not so.
Further, all the oinking DC piglets lining up at the trough on both sides of the aisle have had their muzzles occasionally pulled from the DC nipple in a most disconcerting fashion and they are anything but pleased. The man with the dead orange cat on his head has most certainly upset the proverbial apple cart and, frankly, couldn’t care less who is affected, donk or phant.
This accounts for the true underminers on both sides to have wound up and pitched their most hellish opposition to damn near everything Trump has wanted to do. Internal squabbles Inside Power don’t help, either.
Despite all of this ridiculous shite President Trump has managed to do just a bit of politicking and directing which has resulted in any number of corporations deciding to stay stateside, a nice stock market, an uptick in jobs, an accountable VA, an exquisite Supreme Court selection, a reduction in illegal immigration from Mexico, an increase in deportations, the curtains finally having been pulled back on the American Media Maggots, an improvement in military and national confidence and the wholesale elimination of any number of executive orders penned by one Barack Hussein Obama.
All in six months.
Then there’s this: the absolute stark explosion of raving moonbattery from the Demorats and Leftists.
Why stop there? Pelosi so perfectly typifies and embodies the current status of the Demorats today: disjointed, stuttering, rambling, going nowhere and accomplishing nothing yet making a loud noise doing so. The abject moonbattery is quite delicious.
To that I can only add that I’ll gladly do for the Demorats what I’ve offered to do for the American Media Maggots: pleasantly allow them to commit seppuku. I’ll cheerfully be their second as well and suggest lovingly where and how to make that second very important sword cut.
Impeachment for Trump? Hardly. All the Demorats are doing is, thankfully, unraveling and unfocusing. 2018 is starting to look better and better.
Bravo, Demorats and GOP EstabliHacks.
We see you.