The Progressive Anxiety
Lifted from the comments, Mr Burkett ponders crime and its apologists:
Which means that if police and prosecutors are free to do their jobs in the most basic and obvious way, which is to say that they are free to pursue crime where it exists and allowed to arrest and prosecute those people who actually commit crimes, then those policies will reify disparities that even mainstream liberals agree are unconscionable.
This means that they will always be in tension with any attempt to effectively police crime. This tension is not incidental or tangential or irrelevant. It is core to why liberals must always to some degree be in opposition to criminal justice.
Regarding the consequent conflictedness and anxiety, all that progressive wrongness, these three posts include some fairly vivid illustrations of the phenomenon.
Among which, a claim that more theatre for schoolchildren would somehow deter the kinds of creatures who repeatedly and gleefully sucker-punch elderly ladies for being the wrong race, and a chap who insists that women should allow themselves to be mugged at bus stops lest their mugger, out on probation, come to harm.
Oh, and the belief, expressed tearfully and at length by a Guardian columnist, that when you find your home being burgled in the middle of the night, the real victims, the people deserving of sympathy and indulgence, are the ones breaking into your home while brandishing carving knives and then driving off with your valuables in your car.
In the examples featured in the posts above, the perpetrator is typically black and the apologist white. This recurring racial hang-up is often made explicit – as when the activist and lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, mentioned here, dismissed objections to being burgled as, and I quote, “idiotic attitudes,” while telling Guardian readers that the wellbeing of burglars is more important than the wellbeing of their victims, especially if the burglar is a “young black person.”
Mr Stafford Smith went on to chide and insult the victims of burglary, and the law-abiding generally, while offering implausible excuses for those who break into strangers’ homes and steal their belongings, and who do this over and over again with ever greater boldness. And none of these claims were challenged, at all, in the Guardian‘s fawning interview. Apparently, among many progressives, such contrivance is not only congenial, but terribly high-status.
Perversity as piety.
Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.
The adoption of decadent French manners by the Brits? Probably.
Blacks. That’s all that really needs to be said.
Is this cutlery-related barbarism true?
The difference is that switching hands encourages one to eat at a more leisurely pace rather than using both hands to shovel food in as if it is going out of style. True, however, is that the two fisted shoveling practice was borne of necessity due to repeated scarcity from the interminable European squabbles among inbred royalty.
Also, speaking of barbarism, we don’t eat beans with a knife as is the old world custom.
Except, in your case, with honey from heritage hives, right?
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Except, in your case, with honey from heritage hives, right?
No, with a spoon directly from the can with Spam chunks, preferably warmed on the exhaust manifold of a 1934 Delage D8. We food snobs find prepared that way it pairs well with Everclear and Nehi grape martinis.
Mind the hands!
It is your Manifold Destiny.
Paging Iowahawk….