Did you read or hear of this from the American DEM, the Defeatist, Elitist Media?

1. Widespread French Riots (Again):

There have been three continuous days of rioting in France following Sunday’s incident in Paris, where a police vehicle accidently struck and killed two teenaged Muslims on a motorbike were killed in a crash with a police patrol car. Over 100 police officers have been injured, one lost an eye, many were hit with buckshot.

“Paris Suburb Riots Called A Lot Worse Than 2005“:

In one sense, the unrest seems to be more menacing than during the early days of the three weeks of rioting in 2005. Then, the youth seemed disorganized, their destruction largely caused by rock-throwing and arson and aimed at the closest and easiest targets, like cars. This time, hunting shotguns, as well as gasoline bombs and rocks, have been turned on the police.

“From what our colleagues on the scene tell us, this is a situation that is a lot worse than what we saw in 2005,” Patrice Ribeiro, a police officer and senior union official, told RTL radio Tuesday. He added, “A line was crossed last night, that is to say, they used weapons, they used weapons and fired on the police. This is a real guerrilla war.”

But what NO ONE will write: these “disaffected youths” are:

• MUSLIMS
• WHO LIVE IN ENCLAVES
• WHO REFUSE TO ASSIMILATE
• WHO DEMAND FRENCH ENTITLEMENTS
• WHO HAVE BEEN CATERED-TO BY THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT

Witness:

We’ve been talking about a Marshall Plan for the suburbs since the early 1990s,” said Adil Jazouli, a sociologist who focuses on the suburbs. “We don’t need poetry. We don’t need reflection. We need money.”

No CHANGE on the part of the Muslims; no WORK on the part of the Muslims; no INSISTENCE that they assimilate into the culture. NO. All they need is MONEY. Throw money at ANYTHING and that makes everything better. That’s all the work you need do, naturally. That’s certainly worked for the public education system in DC, has it not?

Sarkozy has the right idea, also:

In his six months as president, he (Sarkozy) largely has focused on injecting new life into France’s flaccid economy through job creation and lowering taxes and consumer prices. His most notable initiative in dealing with youth crime has been punitive: the passage of a law last July that required a minimum sentence for repeat offenders and in many cases allowed minors between 16 and 18 years of age to be tried and sentenced as adults.

2. Chinese Sub Surfaces Amidst US Navy Carrier Group:

From the UK Daily Mail:

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk – a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier. According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy. The Americans had no idea China’s fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

And here’s why: the US Navy commanders as well as its CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) Admiral Mike Mullen, have emphasized the littoral portion of its fleet to the detriment of its blue water capability. And political correctness has de-emphasized the threat that China and other countries pose to the United States.

Surprised that we were surprised? Unfortunately, I am not.

BZ

You are in your regional airport, the announcement has been made at the gate desk that your flight will be boarding in a minute or so.

Everyone knows that, historically, the Demorats are the representatives of the Poor, the downtrodden, the needy — because the Demorats themselves can empathize, right? Conversely, the Republicans are the party of the dirty, the corrupt, the fat, the drooling, rich Fat Cats, right?

I have this hypothetical situation for you.

Let’s say, in theory, you work for a law enforcement agency somewhere in the United States.

Let’s say you train cops and emergency personnel (police officers, firefighters, in cars, on motorcycles, on fire apparatus, box medics, etc.) how to drive defensively, with precision at low speed, with precision at speed, in pursuits and in emergency response, with safety being the overarching concern — the safety of the emergency responder and the safety of the immediate motoring and surrounding public. Let’s say you’re the current supervisor of such a program.

Let’s say you’ve been doing this for quite some time, over 25 years, so you have many contacts in the arena, you’ve attended some of the finest training available in the entire nation, in many states. Most of this training you’ve paid for personally.

In providing this hypothetical situation, let’s say you abandoned a lucrative assignment in your department over ten years ago in order to get this driver training program off the ground floor, in its infancy. Let’s say you were specifically chosen by managerial staff, at that point, due to your abilities and knowledge, to construct, from nothing, an entirely fresh series of driving courses. And let’s say that your base course was used by other immediate and linked agencies, literally word-for-word, as the foundation for their current and new courses as well — which continue to this day — because they believed the content was superior to anything else.

And let’s say you’ve personally trained, literally, thousands of students and recruits over the years. Let’s say you’re considered a Subject Matter Expert in the field and can easily qualify as an expert witness in court. Let’s say that another equally-qualified veteran supervisorial instructor for an allied law enforcement agency frequently states: “I can make more money testifying against you than I can working for you.”

Further, let me postulate this: let’s say you personally witness, enroute to a dinner engagement with your wife, a very recent egregious driving event displayed by an obvious member of your department (you can tell by the markings on the car) that leaves you speechless at the time.

Let’s say you witness that unit blow through an extremely busy intersection at what you estimate to be 65 to 70mph and, surrounding that intersection, there are numerous persons, pedestrians, bicyclists, women with children. Let’s say you see that the unit did this in contravention of most every safe principle you teach where you work. And finally, you know the unit is not in pursuit but in emergency response (at least with lights and siren activated) which should, theoretically, be some of the most safe driving cops do because they have the time to safely plot, plan, and take external elements into account.

Let’s say that, as a senior supervising instructor you’ve constructed a blog (not significantly different from this one) whereupon you’ve consistently and in-the-clear, for 3 years, conducted communications between yourself and your 45+ souls cadre of full and part-time instructors.

The goal of this blog and your prior e-mail devices was to provide your full and part-time instructor staff with timely information regarding not only departmental instructional issues but greater, overarching driving, officer survival and internal issues. These updated posts, let’s say, you’ve provided not just to your instructors but to your boss, your boss’s boss, a co-boss and others. Everyone knows your blog exists; it’s no secret at all. In fact, let’s say it was one of your prior bosses who signed off on the original idea, thinking it was a good way to communicate.

These posts have heretofore been well received and acknowledged by your current boss’s boss in e-mails (which, unfortunately, you were an idiot to not save but – so it goes) as accomplished, thoughtful, well-written and facile. This all at the behest of your communicative blog.

But once you witnessed your agency’s unit completely blow through an incredibly-busy intersection, during drive-time, against all orders, against all training, against all logic, against all common sense, and at 65 to 70 estimated mph — and then you posted truthfully about the issue on your blog. . .

Well, let’s theorize that the determination by your administration was to order you to eliminate the blog, to suppress the information. Because the uniform in your hypothetical profile kinda looks like your agency’s, because the hypothetical description in your profile kinda sounded like your agency but was never named, because you couldn’t quite read the badge, you couldn’t see your agency’s shoulder patch but — if you were sufficiently educated — you might make that link. So your hypothetical blog was eliminated because it, bottom line, displayed the truth about some immediate and personally-observed heinous conduct, not reflecting well on your hypothetical department.

Theoretically, you wrote about that event on your blog when it existed. You sent it out to all your instructors. Let’s say that one of your instructors evidently took umbrage to the truth and complained to your department’s union because — after all — that individual could find themselves subject to discipline. Your union president dialed-up the agency head, the applicable next person down, your boss, your boss’s boss.

And let’s say your boss shuts the door to your office in order to speak with you. He politely suggests that, if you were smart, you’d kill the entire blog because the administrative staff believes that you’ve embarrassed the department in public. And, theoretically speaking, because the department believes you’ve exposed it to liability — despite the fact that, thank God, no accident occurred as the result of that event and no one was injured or killed.

Oddly enough, you thought (after all those years) your theoretical department was “above” STM.

Evidently not.

Let’s say this hypothetical department realizes the event was significantly embarrassing and just wants to bury it, considering the recent death of an agency’s officer in a vehicle accident and another event involving an officer bringing much shame on a department by their conduct.

Let’s postulate that you conclude your agency just wants to “shoot the messenger” when it decides it’s time to hang you out to dry and not the perpetrator of the hypothetical act.

What might you, dear reader, conclude?

BZ

P.S.

This is all hypothetical, of course.

Only the American Left loves Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez — you know, Harry Belafonte, Sean Penn, Cindy Sheehan.