It's Subtle

 Without realizing it the Academy Awards this year showed us what America is like.  We have a problem with black-on-black violence.  Everyone has an opinion as to why, but no one has a solution on how to fix the problem.  We stand amazed that this kind of thing can even happen.

We can resign from an institution, we can promise ourselves we'll do better, but at the end of the day, the problem will actually continue to exist.

There are those who will fly into outrage this is all caused by white racism, the former President, or even climate change, but let's be honest, those are all bizarre rationalizations for why one man attacks another.

Then there are those who will cite the problem with declining male masculinity or the value of a husband protecting his wife (which seems to run counter to the societal view that women should stand up for themselves.

The news is not interested in really reporting on this unless it supports their agenda, and then it's usually only to point out how someone is a victim.

When Reality Strikes Too Close to Home

As we approach Christmas, a time when Christians are supposed to remember the salvation of their souls by a merciful God who sent his Son to earth to atone for our sins it seems kind of ironic the most progressive and liberal among us are now being confronted by their own choices.

Recently, a killer broke into the home of Clarence Avant and killed his wife, Jacqueline Avant.  Ms. Avant, who at 81 was a long-time Philanthropist and supporter of liberal causes.  Also attacked were Droit Kemsley, a star from “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” and Terrance J, a host from BET were both targeted by “flash mob” robbers.  It seems crime is beginning to affect even the rich and isolated of Beverly Hills, or as Oprah Winfrey, also known as a progressive who likes to give things away, says: "it has “shaken the laws of the universe.”

Crime and violence are not supposed to directly affect those who can afford their own security, who support the release of violent felons back into their neighborhoods, or who fund causes, where felons are the good guys and cops, are the enemy.  Those "good guys and gals" are supposed to stay where they belong and prey on those who also live in those areas, leaving the rich to feel good about helping society.

As Ann Althouse^[1] points out radical leadership is concerned enough to say “They're trying to move us backward,' said Melina Abdullah, co-founder of Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. 'We don't want to move backward; we want to move forward... We need to think about what kind of economic desperation actually creates property crime and how do we get people out of that state... How do we create livable wage jobs? How do we create affordable housing?'"  All great ideas until those rich liberals are actually expected to make choices that may affect their own standards of living.

The problem with all these movements is no one is really willing or able to address how dependence on the government is destroying the essential building blocks of society.  When these building blocks are gone, society will fail and we will have to start over.  The first block is a family.  Not a family unit, but a real family where there is a mother, a father, children who are taught common values by their parents and aren’t just turned into wards of the state.  The second block is a community where all the members share common values of hope (for a future better than today), respect (for the rights of others), and value for themselves and those around them.  The final building block is a trust for a standard of laws that are blind to the color of skin, gender, and the wealth or power (or lack) of the accused.

---

[1] https://althouse.blogspot.com/2021/12/crews-of-burglars-publicly-smashing.html

Civility in an Age of Uncivil Society

It has become an almost nightly fixture on the news these days.  Some news channels reporting of an unruly passenger on an airline assaulting either the flight crews or other passengers.  It appears most of these events involve the millennial generation.  Passengers ranging from their twenties to early forties.  If true, it suggests to me just one more manifestation of a generation created with a sense of entitlement and self-importance that leads to outrage anytime they are forced to comply with some social norm.

These are the people who now control social media and who seem to believe being an “influencer” is actually a profit-making occupation.  I’ve been criticized by progressives for believing there is such a thing as a “slippery slope” where bad behavior, once tolerated, will lead to increasingly bad behavior. 

But I see in the Millennials a generation that has little respect for the history and culture of the nation and has been told their behavior will be tolerated.  We have legal and legislative systems around the country now committed to releasing violent individuals in the name of social justice.  We have judges who place their political beliefs before their role in the law.  In the eyes of Beryl Howell[1], an appointee by the Obama Administration, she is outraged the DOJ is allowing the January 6^th rioters plea deals that tie her hands in handing down serious prison time.  I don’t recall those same complaints with rioters in Minneapolis or New York as they protested the George Floyd death.  It seems in the eyes of liberal judges not all riots are created equally.  Those that pass their social muster are okay, those that don’t are a serious threat to democracy.

It will be interesting to see how the airlines and the government now deal with the increasing violence in the skies.  Whatever the course of action airlines will need to rethink their advertisements and perhaps even the "woke" political choices they support?  Since the "woke" tend to eat their own and if you get even a little out of step you will be condemned anyway.  

Can we really say “Fly the friendly skies” anymore?  Perhaps, “Fly with us, we are only mildly passive-aggressive” would be more accurate.  Remember, we are all in this together, unless your entitlements are more than my entitlements.

---

[1] https://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-criticizes-dojs-plea-204112591.html

Has the Democratic Party Ever Changed?

When I see the people defending the "mostly peaceful" rioters destroying our cities I see exactly the same people who were part of the Democratic Party in the times of the Ku Klux Klan.  People who use fear and racist violence to intimidate the voters into submission.

The idea that Black Lives Matter is, on its face a reasonable one, except as you look around it is usually voiced by a group of anarchists and Marxists (often exclusively white) who are raging against people and businesses who have no history of violence against blacks.  They will memorialize individuals whose lives have been filled with drug abuse and violence while ignoring the innocents killed within the inner cities.

Some will claim this is a social movement, but the reality of their actions is political.  The fact one political party and its group of liberal/progressive activists all refuse to condemn their violence until polling numbers suggest they should do otherwise is telling.
If we are ever to unite as a nation we need to accept that change can only come from the hearts of our citizens and with the entire history of man it is unlikely a universally agreed to answer of racial discrimination or equality will be reached anytime soon, the best we can hope for is to protect the young and the innocent and help them understand love rather than hate.

We've spent almost 60-years attempting to overcome discrimination through social welfare and social advantage programs and what has that achieved?  We have a generation of people who believe they are owed something for the wrongs done their distant ancestors and since the election of Barrack Obama, the issues of race have gone from the back burner to the front.  It looks to me we are no better off today than we were at the start of the Great Society.

Sometimes I Can Only Laugh Out Loud.

When I was a young lad I could hunt with my own gun at 16, drink and be drafted at 18, and vote at 21.

Then things changed.

We had a war. Politicians and their experts said if young men can die for their country they should vote – and with the 26^th amendment the voting was changed to 18 years of age

Then politicians and their experts looked at alcohol-related traffic accident rates and said "golly young people aren't ready to drink until they are 21” so the minimum age for drinking was raised by the National Minimum Age for Drinking Act in 1984. (BTW the Center for Disease Control says 4,300 deaths/year still occur from underage drinking)

Today we have the on-going debate as to when young men are mature enough to own a gun and reasonably be expected not to shoot up a school. 

The politicians and their experts now say 21 years old is the age when that occurs.  Even though we can arm 18-year olds with rifles, fully automatic weapons, grenades and grenade launchers, guided and unguided rockets, and tanks with 50-caliber and 120mm weapons (if they have adult supervision). 

I find this amusing since recent history suggests if age is the true variable it should probably be over 64 if we want to account for the violence of people like Stephen Paddock.

Since it seems unlikely we will ever have enough agreement to amend the constitution again how can we ever decide when a whole population is mature enough to do something?  Maybe we should have a test?  Like a driving test or “common sense” test where if the candidate fails he or she receives a “not mature enough” stamp that remains until they are retested at 40.