Tag: society

Mailvox: the homophobia hypothesis

CM was one of the few first-time emailers to write in regarding the Clementi suicide who managed to remain coherent, civil, and emotionally continent in objection to my post on the subject:

My evangelical brother told me about your blogging on the Clementi suicide. He directed me to it because he thought I had made a few observations consonant (the kid had a false sense of security, believing that official bureaucratic pronouncements matched sentiments on the ground; online coming-out is too easy and lowers the threshold for the kind of cussedness that being openly gay requires) with yours. While he cautioned that I’d still disagree with “half of it”, I wasn’t prepared to read such low snark—nor to be so misunderstood.

Poor Tyler Clementi got in over his head by bringing a man home to his dorm before developing a thicker skin. When faced with bureaucratic indifference, some revulsion or amused contempt from his dorm-mates, and possibly hostility, blame or hysteria from his lover and/or parents, he couldn’t take it. A dutiful kid, he probably naively expected support rather than to have his sense of violation compounded. It was not because he felt shame at being identified as gay or despaired over his “evil” act of sexual discovery.

You really ought to go over to Salon and read the far more thoughtful, nuanced responses to this article. They far surpass the article itself, your blog item, and the comments at your blog.

As his was a reasonable email, I did as requested and found myself actually laughing out loud at the article, although in CM’s defense, it must be noted that he was recommending the responses to the Salon article and not the article itself. The writer’s attempt to blame a gay conversion therapist and James Dobson as well as the ever notorious “society” is more than a little amusing; apparently the Boston Red Sox and Clementi himself are about the only ones whose hands are not dripping with Clementi’s blood. To quote the author: “The guilty parties are everywhere”!

That’s helpful. It would appear someone needs to let Mr. Fenton know that the man committed suicide and by definition, he is the only individual who can possibly be held directly responsible for the action. But on to those surpassing comments….

“A couple of Asian Americans college students at an Ivy League with regular tolerance campaigns hardly seem like the types to be in lockstep with the conservative Christian agenda.”

“In other words, the writer would like to see large swaths of people jailed, not becuase of their involvement in any particular crime, but because they hold beliefs that the writer opposes. Thanks for the clarification, L.M. Fenton. It is always good to know exactly where your political opponents stand. Understanding that that the left-wing and the homosexual rights community wants to criminalize their opposition for holding fast to their public views is helpful to this debate.”

“I disagree with focusing on the pranksters for the sole or even bulk of the blame. Only weak people jump from bridges and weak child jumpers belong to the ones who raised them.”

“Indeed, these are not Christo-fascist redneck southerners here, but two highly educated privileged young people at an elite liberal college, and on top of that, neither of the are white and likely neither are Christian. Most people of Indian descent are Hindu or Muslim and most people of Asian descent Buddhist or Muslim; heck, they could be atheists or agnostics for all we know. But I’ll bet neither of them are Pentecostal Christian Conservatives and I’ll bet neither Ravi nor Wei would have the faintest idea who James Dobson is. Unfortunately, like the Phoebe Prince incident, it may turn out that Mr. Clementi was already depressed and unhappy and even suicidal BEFORE this incident took place. It wouldn’t make it right — it was absolutely deplorable, ugly behavior — but it might explain why he killed himself instead of (say) beating the crap out of Mr. Ravi.”

These comments may be more thoughtful than a blog post which I admittedly scribbled in minutes, but I really don’t see much difference between what I wrote and most of the comments that don’t echo the “we are all guilty” theme. I certainly can’t say that I disagree with any of the ones quoted above. Moreover, it is worth pointing out that the “homophobia kills homosexuals” hypothesis is both logically unsound and empirically incorrect. Unlike most of my hysterical critics, I happen to be somewhat familiar with recent research into suicide statistics as part of the process of responding to Richard Dawkins’s claims about the psychological damage of being raised Catholic while writing The Irrational Atheist.

The orientationally-challenged argue thusly. Or more accurately, they would argue thusly if they had the emotional continence to actually present their argument in a rational manner:

1. Homosexuality is psychologically healthy and is not shameful. Therefore, homosexuals do not kill themselves out of shame of their sexual predilection.
2. However, homosexuals are known to kill themselves at higher rates than psychologically normal individuals do.
3. Therefore, there must be some external force that supersedes their psychological normality and causes some of them to kill themselves.
4. Society, particularly Christian society, rejects homosexuals.
5. Therefore, it is the social rejection of society, especially Christian society, which is serves as that external force causing otherwise psychological healthy homosexuals to kill themselves out of shame, guilt, fear, and/or social rejection.

The logical structure of this argument is sound enough. And yet, the argument also happens to be completely wrong. If it were true, then we should be able to observe the following material consequences as a matter of course.

1. Tolerant societies that have adopted social measures such as homogamy and orientational equality laws will have lower male suicide rates, especially among the orientationally challenged, than less tolerant societies.

2. Religious societies where the orientationally challenged are most rejected will have the highest male suicide rates, especially among the orientationally challenged.

3. Male Suicide rates will have fallen over time as societies have grown more socially progressive and tolerant of the orientationally-challenged. These declines will be most marked in the most tolerant societies.

Now let’s look at the facts. We will define a tolerant society where homogamy or civil unions are recognized; here are six tolerant societies: Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, France, Sweden, the Netherlands. Next we will define moderate religious society, where homosexuality is generally considered to be wrong, but not illegal: Ireland, USA, Italy, Mexico, Honduras, Paraguay. And finally, we will define an intolerant society as one where homosexuality is illegal: Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Libya, Cameroon, Kenya, Uganda.

According to the World Health Organization, the average male suicide rate for tolerant secular societies is 21.6 per 100,000. The average male suicide rate for moderate religious societies is 9.6 per 100,000. And the average male suicide rate for intolerant societies is unknown because as it turns out, none of them publicly report suicide rates. However, in searching for these unreported rates, I did find a study that reported primary indicators of high societal suicide rates that can be used to estimate them; perhaps one day I’ll see about doing so for these countries.

One of the only countries where the specific issue has been studied is in the heavily secular and tolerant country of Norway where 20% of gay men between the ages of 16-24 attempt suicide at least once. It would appear highly unreasonable to attempt to blame either James Dobson or intolerant Southern Baptists for the self-destructive actions of young gay atheist Norwegians.

So it is clear that the first logical conclusion of the homophobia hypothesis is false. The second conclusion is unclear, but the available evidence suggests it is false. As for the third conclusion, it is also false since suicide rates are trending upward rather than falling, especially among young men.

a) “In 21 of the 30 countries in the World Health Organization (WHO) European region, suicide rates in males aged 15-19 rose between 1979 and 1996.”

b) “Canadian suicide rates greatly increased in the 1960s and 1970s and, while they have levelled out in the 1980s, they are still at the highest level in Canadian history. Between 1960 and 1978, the overall suicide rate rose from 7.6 per 100,000 population to 14.8, according to Statistics Canada figures.”

c) “Each year, almost 5,000 young people, ages 15 to 24, kill themselves [in the United States]. The rate of suicide for this age group has nearly tripled since 1960, making it the third leading cause of death in adolescents and the second leading cause of death among college age youth.”

Although the case against it is not yet absolutely conclusive, there is definitely sufficient evidence to conclude that the “homophobic society causes suicide” argument is false. The homophobia hypothesis empirically fails, and logic points to false assumptions being made the first and fifth points. This conclusion is supported by the fact that, far from being a causal factor in suicide, religion tends to be the strongest inhibiting factor known to social science. “Numerous studies have found a statistical relationship between normative religious beliefs (as indicated by church attendance, church membership, or religious sanctions against suicide) and national or regional suicide rates (e.g., Huang, 1996; Kelleher, Chambers, Corcoran, Williamson, & Keeley, 1998; Neeleman, Halpern, Leon, & Lewis, 1997). Across different regions of the United States, higher levels of Catholic Church membership are associated with lower suicide rates (Burr, McCall, & Powell-Griner, 1994). The Ukraine’s western provinces, where more people attend church, have lower suicide rates than its eastern provinces, where fewer people attend church (Kondrichin & Lester, 2002). Nations that publish relatively more religious books tend to have lower suicide rates (Cutright & Fernquist, 2001; Fernquist, 2003a).”

In addition to their flaming hysteria, one of the most amusing things about the homocritics was their frequent reference to my supposed “ignorance” when it is completely clear that they don’t know even the most basic facts about suicide or its causal factors. Even so, does the failure of the homophobia hypothesis mean that my idea about the dichotomy between shame over one’s orientation and gay rights propaganda creating a psychological disturbance encouraging one to commit suicide is correct? No, of course not. In fact, I have come across an alternative thesis that I consider to potentially present a stronger logic. But more on that in a future post.

R.I.P. Joe Sobran

A great American has died. But we are fortunate in that his words remain with us. One of his more important articles was this one from 1999 on teaching your children about government.

Teach Your Children Well
by Joseph Sobran
Mises Daily, August 23, 1999

Because I write about politics, people are forever asking me the best way to teach children how our system of government works. I tell them that they can give their own children a basic civics course right in their own homes.

In my own experience as a father, I have discovered several simple devices that can illustrate to a child’s mind the principles on which the modern state deals with its citizens. You may find them helpful, too.

For example, I used to play the simple card game WAR with my son. After a while, when he thoroughly understood that the higher ranking cards beat the lower ranking ones, I created a new game I called GOVERNMENT. In this game, I was Government, and I won every trick, regardless of who had the better card. My boy soon lost interest in my new game, but I like to think it taught him a valuable lesson for later in life.

When your child is a little older, you can teach him about our tax system in a way that is easy to grasp. Offer him, say, $10 to mow the lawn. When he has mowed it and asks to be paid, withhold $5 and explain that this is income tax. Give $1 to his younger brother, and tell him that this is “fair”. Also, explain that you need the other $4 yourself to cover the administrative costs of dividing the money. When he cries, tell him he is being “selfish” and “greedy”. Later in life he will thank you.

Make as many rules as possible. Leave the reasons for them obscure. Enforce them arbitrarily. Accuse your child of breaking rules you have never told him about. Keep him anxious that he may be violating commands you haven’t yet issued. Instill in him the feeling that rules are utterly irrational. This will prepare him for living under democratic government.

When your child has matured sufficiently to understand how the judicial system works, set a bedtime for him and then send him to bed an hour early. When he tearfully accuses you of breaking the rules, explain that you made the rules and you can interpret them in any way that seems appropriate to you, according to changing conditions. This will prepare him for the Supreme Court’s concept of the U.S. Constitution as a “living document”.

Promise often to take him to the movies or the zoo, and then, at the appointed hour, recline in an easy chair with a newspaper and tell him you have changed your plans. When he screams, “But you promised!”, explain to him that it was a campaign promise.

Every now and then, without warning, slap your child. Then explain that this is defense. Tell him that you must be vigilant at all times to stop any potential enemy before he gets big enough to hurt you. This, too, your child will appreciate, not right at that moment, maybe, but later in life.

At times your child will naturally express discontent with your methods. He may even give voice to a petulant wish that he lived with another family. To forestall and minimize this reaction, tell him how lucky he is to be with you the most loving and indulgent parent in the world, and recount lurid stories of the cruelties of other parents. This will make him loyal to you and, later, receptive to schoolroom claims that the America of the postmodern welfare state is still the best and freest country on Earth.

This brings me to the most important child-rearing technique of all: lying. Lie to your child constantly. Teach him that words mean nothing–or rather that the meanings of words are continually “evolving”, and may be tomorrow the opposite of what they are today.

Some readers may object that this is a poor way to raise a child. A few may even call it child abuse. But that’s the whole point: Child abuse is the best preparation for adult life under our form of GOVERNMENT.

Joseph Sobran
February 23, 1946 – September 30, 2010
Reactionary Utopian Archive

Gay rights killed Clementi

The body count of the gay rights movement grows by one.

A college student jumped to his death off a bridge a day after authorities say two classmates surreptitiously recorded him having sex with a man in his dorm room and broadcast it over the Internet. Rutgers University freshman Tyler Clementi jumped from the George Washington Bridge last week, said his family’s attorney, Paul Mainardi. Police recovered a man’s body Wednesday afternoon in the Hudson River just north of the bridge, and authorities were trying to determine if it was Clementi’s.

ABC News and The Star-Ledger of Newark reported that Clementi left on his Facebook page on Sept. 22 a note that read: “Jumping off the gw bridge sorry.” On Wednesday, his Facebook page was accessible only to friends. Two Rutgers freshmen have been charged with illegally taping the 18-year-old Clementi having sex and broadcasting the images via an Internet chat program.

Steven Goldstein, chairman of the gay rights group Garden State Equality, said in a statement Wednesday that his group considers Clementi’s death a hate crime.

It was obvious from the start that the orientationally-challenged activists would attempt to blame Clementi’s death on his roommate. But the surreptitious filming of sexual activity, while an obvious breach of etiquette as well as the law in some states, is neither uncommon nor tantamount to attempting to destroy someone’s life. Nor should the online streaming be considered anything but a joke; American Pie is a comedy, not a horror flick, after all. The problem is not that American university campuses are intolerant of the orientationally challenged, as the subtext of the media coverage suggests, but rather that they are much too tolerant.

It is obvious that Clementi didn’t kill himself simply because his actions were made public; as a musician, no doubt he had been filmed before and some of those films may have even been put online. He killed himself because he could not live with the shame of knowing that everyone would be aware of his submission to what he apparently believed to be evil desires. While giving in to our desire for evil is something that we all do from time to time, it is also true that some desires happen to be more shameful or humiliating than others. For example, a man’s desire for his neighbor’s wife is sinful, but few consider it to be as appalling as his desire for his neighbor’s child.

While Clementi may have been taught that his desires were wrong, (we don’t have any details on his upbringing, but the last name suggests a Catholic heritage), he was also steeped in years of indoctrination telling him that his abnormal desires were perfectly right and should not be resisted. That is why he felt free to act on them as soon as he got to college and out from under his parents’ eyes.

And that is why his suicide poses a problem for the “morality is a human construct” crowd. Despite literal decades of preaching about the morality of homosexuality, despite the pansexual propaganda of the public and private schools, the knowledge that what he was doing was shameful and wrong still managed to penetrate Mr. Clementi’s mind. A normal man being forced to confront his immorality in such a public way might have reacted with anger, irritation, embarrassment, or amusement, but only one who is both psychologically disturbed and appalled by his own actions will destroy himself over it.

As was discussed a few days ago regarding the police, people usually have the psychological causality of the orientationally-challenged exactly backwards. Psychological disturbance and self-destructive activity are seldom the result of the hardships of the job or the intolerance of the normally oriented, they are instead usually the primary cause of the pursuit of the police occupation or the same sex.

So it was not a juvenile prank that killed the unfortunate Mr. Clementi even though it served as the proximate trigger for his lethal actions. If anyone other than Mr. Clementi should be blamed for his suicide, it is those who repeatedly encouraged him to behave in a way that would fill him with such guilt, remorse, and shame.

Need moar gayz!

Because there are too many straight men watching television these days:

“The Good Wife” is getting a gay brother; new teen TV show “Hellcats” features a lesbian cheerleader; and as for “True Blood” — TV watchers now need two hands to count the vampires who will suck the blood of either gender. The number of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) characters on prime time U.S. television is growing, with 58 regular LGBT roles on network and cable shows this season, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) said in a report on Wednesday.

GLAAD said that 23 LGBT characters account for 3.9 percent of regular characters in scripted network shows like Emmy-winning comedies “Modern Family” and “Glee” in the 2010-2011 TV season, which started last week.

In other words, there are twice as many LBGT regular characters on television as there should be if they were to be accurately represented according to their percentage of the population. Of course, there are at least 10x more Jews than make statistical sense and blacks are overrepresented too. Hispanics and Christians, on the other hand, are ludicrously underrepresented. This is but one example of what happens when minorities are permitted to impose their agendas on the majority population. Television is largely irrelevant since it’s so easily replaced with other forms of entertainment, but what has happened there is a microcosm of what can be expected in the long term from the third world migration.

Personally, I’d quite like for every character on television to be black, Jewish, and gay. The medium is a creative and intellectual wasteland anyhow, so why not kill it off entirely.

Culling the weak and simple

From the blogosphere:

As an observer to this blog controversy, I am reminded of many similar incidents over the past six years of my blogging. I can certainly remember posts that I authored that (1) were taken the wrong way; (2) really upset folks in an unpredictable way or to an unpredictable degree; and/or (3) prompted personal and quite vindictive attacks. I remember the awful way I would feel for a day or two, afraid to even look at my email for fear of comments that felt like knives being thrown my way. The feeling (let’s call it “bloghorror”) is hard to describe. First, bloghorror is in part just a reaction to being attacked, but it’s also a shame at having hurt someone else, even unintentionally, and it’s also an anger at the completely unfair nature of the response. But most of all it’s this feeling of being misunderstood. And unfortunately, there’s no way to cure this. In 2005, my first reaction would be to explain myself, so that the blog audience would say, “Ah, I understand now.” It took me a year or two to learn that once your audience has concluded that you are the devil saying devil things, any effort to explain will just add to the arsenal of the ammunition that will be hurled back at you.

As I read this, I was filled with a mix of incomprehension, amusement, and scorn. Needless to say, an AWCA feels no shame at the idea of having hurt someone else, intentionally or unintentionally, because sometimes an emotional evisceration is the entire point of a post. As it is said, no pain, no gain. By inflicting pain, I am merely helping others to grow. The humiliation that is felt by an interlocutor whose arguments have been methodically carved up by remorseless logic is my gift to them.

I ask for no thanks. Artistry is its own reward.

And there is no shame in being misunderstood. Being misunderstood is the norm. It is to be expected because it can be no other way in a world where Most People Are Idiots. Millions of people genuinely believed that Barack Obama was going to bring hope and change. Millions of people genuinely believe that the Republican Party has been chastened by its 2006 and 2008 defeats and will lead the charge for small government when it again holds the upper hand in Washington. Millions of people genuinely believe that America is advancing “democracy” and “freedom” by repeatedly invading and occupying portions of the Umma.

One will find no understanding on the part of these people. Their illusions must be shattered before they are even capable of listening, let alone comprehending. There is no “bloghorror”. Let the critics cavail and hurl what they will. The Dark Side is only there to be devoured.

The police cover-up continues

Confederate Yankee reports on the inquest:

So it would appear that the prosecutors and the police are indeed on the same page in this case. Whatever animosity they might bear toward each other is being put aside and a common front presented. What is the significance of the apparent approach of the police and prosecutors to date? Even if one accepts their theory that Scott was a drug addict and an aggressive gun nut intent on carrying a gun wherever he wanted, who, through gross drug-induced impairment, brought about his own death, all of this should rightfully be nothing more than mitigating evidence that might have some bearing on the severity of a charge to be brought against the officers, or to be considered only after a potential future conviction as mitigating factors relating to sentencing.

What still remains is what the officers knew or reasonably could have known or inferred at the time they confronted Scott at the main entrance of Costco and made the decision to pull the trigger. It is this event, compressed in time, that should be the prosecutor’s foremost concern. Scott’s life history and his physical and mental health status could have, in at least some way, put him on a collision course with the police that day. But the ultimate question is whether they, knowing nothing about Scott but what they heard on the radio on the way to Costco, and apparently finding themselves surprised when a Costco employee suddenly pointed out a man they had never before seen, were justified under the law by his actions in the handful of seconds before they fired at least seven rounds into him. Under this, the only standard that truly matters, the evidence presented at the Inquest does not yet tend to favor or conclusively exonerate the police.

There is no question that the police are lying. The fact that the man was shot five times in the back, and that an ambulance driver saw them take Scott’s holstered weapon out of his waistband and put it on the ground, is enough to condemn them of not only an unlawful and lethal shooting, but obstruction of justice as well.

One police officer commented: “Seems as if many here are not willing to give Law Enforcement the benefit of the doubt until the inquest is over. This saddens me as a Police Officer and retired Marine.”

No, we’re not. Because Law Enforcement doesn’t merit it anymore. Not all cops are murderers, thieves, and pedophiles, but most cops are willing to look the other way whenever their “brother” cops commit crimes. And that is why they fully merit the contempt in which they are now held by so many Americans. A badge is not a license to commit more crime than the average civilian, it is an indication that the police are to be held to a higher standard of behavior, not a lower one.

Sailer on Chesteron

On willful short-sightedness:

Why do people think it intelligent to say, “I can see no difference!” It is nowadays quite a mark of culture to say that one can see no difference between a man and a woman, or a man and an angel, or a man and an animal. If a man cannot see the difference between a horse and a cow across a large field, we do not call him cultured; we call him short-sighted.

It is rather amusing to witness the contortions that people, even those who are supposedly dedicated to materialism and science, will go through rather than simply admit what they are observing. Because there is no such thing as equality of any kind, not material, not legal, not social, not cultural, nor spiritual, it is provable nonsense to declare that women are equal to men, that white Americans are equal to [insert color here] [insert national identity here], or that cows are equal to horses.

The 10-percent myth

Putting the statistical nail in Kinsey’s coffin:

More than 480,000 people or one per cent of the UK?s adult population regard themselves as gay or lesbian while a further 245,000 or 0.5 percent say they are bisexual, according a study published by the Office for National Statistics. The data has been collected by the new Integrated Household Survey (IHS), which is the largest social report ever produced for the ONS. The 450,000 individual respondents to the survey provided the biggest pool of UK social data after the national census, the statistics service said.

Despite having a) played in a band signed to a gay music label, and b) having a gay fan club, I have never subscribed to the myth that ten percent of the population is gay. First, because I don’t trust round numbers. Second, because of the thousands of people I’ve met over time, far fewer than 10 percent of them were not normally oriented despite the fact that I was acquainted with a lot more gay men and bisexual women than nearly anyone else I knew.

And, of course, no one could ever provide a credible citation. I’ve always assumed the correct number was around 2 percent, which appears to be more in line with the statistical reality. The fact is that gays tend to lead very troubled lives, not because of homophobia or the contempt of the normally-oriented as many would like to believe, but because abnormality of any kind is not easy. Gays do not deserve approval for their inclinations but neither do they merit contempt. I think the correct response to someone announcing they are gay is “I’m sorry”, not because homosexuality is hateful, but because it’s not an easy journey through life.

Erik Scott memorial blog

The father of the military veteran shot dead by Las Vegas police addresses the upcoming attempt to assassinate his son’s character:

The Clark County Coroner’s Inquest Hearing into my son’s slaying on July 10th at the Summerlin Costco store will be held in Las Vegas, NV, this week. As a one-sided, unchallenged insult to the tenets of U.S. due process, the hearing promises to be quite a show. And that’s exactly how it should be viewed: As a deadly serious TV reality show. It will be nauseating amateur theater carefully orchestrated and controlled by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and their joined-at-the-hip ally, the District Attorney’s office.

This “Coroner’s Cop-Clearing Circus” is billed as an informal “fact-finding” exercise, but facts will be in short supply. Instead, this abomination of justice has only two objectives: To destroy Erik Scott’s reputation, and to exonerate the three Metro officers who gunned down Erik in a crowd of approximately 50 people, shooting him seven times. At least five of those rounds were fired into Erik’s back, after he was on the ground, convulsing, bleeding profusely, fighting for air, and dying a painful, needless death. His heart and lungs had been destroyed by hollow-point bullets that slammed into his body at high velocity, then mushroomed, ripping his insides to shreds.

Metro officers and the DA will attempt to shift the jury’s and TV audience’s attention far away from the facts of Erik’s horrific, senseless killing. First, we’ll hear that the Costco surveillance video recordings (or the store’s “critical cameras,” if we’re to believe Sheriff Gillespie’s latest comments) were “unusable,” thanks to a mysterious hard-disk “glitch.” Don’t believe it. I don’t. Any digital security-video system deployed by a $73-billion-per-year corporation that ranks Number 25 on the Fortune 500 list will have multiple hard-disk backups onsite. Further, the video will be streamed offsite to a remote storage location. I guarantee there’s an unadulterated copy of that video somewhere, but Metro will not allow it to be seen by the family, our attorney, Ross Goodman, or Las Vegas citizens.

If those videotapes are “lost” or “destroyed”, that will constitute compelling evidence, bordering on absolute proof, that the three officers involved, one of whom has shot three people in his five years as a “law enforcement officer”, murdered Mr. Scott’s son. Lethal abuses of authority, compounded by the criminal coverup, should be punished much more harshly than ordinary first-degree murders by citizens not given badges by the state and local governments. Which reminds me, it is both ironic and pathetic that so many law enforcement officers attempt to portray their occupation as non-civilian and pseudo-military even when they are defending the murder of a real military man by their civilian brother officers.

Reading through the memorial blog, am amazed by Mr. Scott’s restraint and wish him the very best in seeking justice for his slain son. Given the apparent facts, I would find it very difficult to blame him if he instead elected to personally behead those three cops and their family members with a rusty butter knife.

In the meantime, Confederate Yankee adds to his ongoing summation of the shooting.

Mailvox: the police respond

EJ replies to my column on America’s devolution into a police state:

I just read your article in World Net Daily. I was somewhat surprised by your article. I have been employed by a state law enforcement agency in California for 22 years. I was a deputy with the Orange County Sheriff’s Dept., before my current position. I have a bachelor’s degree from a state university in California. My father retired from this department after serving 27 years. My brother is also an officer with this department.

Having worked and socialized around officers and deputies throughout my life, I have determined that these are some of the finest people I have met. I am a christian and am a deacon in my church. Certainly I see a rougher crowd in church than the people I work around. I have never felt bad about arresting criminals. I didn’t go into this line of work for the authority I would receive. In college, I struggled to determine whether I would rather be a teacher at a high school, or a law enforcement officer. I finally chose law enforcement.

I too believe in the 2nd Amendment. I believe without the second, all other amendments (freedoms) would soon be lost. I am an NRA member. I don’t know what happened to the gentleman in Las Vegas. You don’t either. But some of your rhetoric sounds like far left revolutionary propaganda. Currently I reside in far northeast California. I cite motorists everyday for traffic violations. I have never considered myself a tax collector for the state. I give as many verbal warnings as I do citations. I don’t do this for the money, and having watched media report only stories for which they make money, I suspect they are more interested in making money than my department.

I am a conservative and receive respect for my position from other conservatives. Liberals (far left) usually look at me with disdain. I guess I am just surprised at your attack on me and others in law enforcement. When I was growing up, my father taught me to protect those weaker than I. I have taught my son the same values. Recently my 17 year old son told me he will not be attending college as I hoped, but will be joining the United States Marine Corp to defend his country. I’m sure you feel the same disregard for the military as you do law enforcement.

I think it’s safe to assume EJ is unfamiliar with my attitude towards teachers, at least the unionized public school variety. As for his email, he sounds like a nice, normal, largely clueless man who is paying less attention to the observable reality around him than he is to a romanticized version of it. For example, it is irrelevant that he does not consider himself a tax collector for the state, because that is in fact what he is. Due to what appears to be his kind and positive nature, he may be a bad and inefficient tax collector, but that is a question of job performance rather than the nature of the job.

It is interesting to see how he attempts to defend the police by conflating them with the military. This is common practice among the police; they have a severe inferiority complex and for obvious reason. There is nothing “far left” about my criticism of the police, and what is particularly troubling about this email is that EJ clearly believes it is “far left revolutionary propaganda” to insist that police officers guilty of murdering an innocent man in public should be punished for their crimes and that it is an intrinsic conflict of interest for the police to investigate alleged crimes committed by the police.