Current Events

Spare Me the Hate Crime Rubbish and Stop Blaming Conservatives

Left-wing ingrates over at the Huffington Post, and presumably everywhere else, are now telling us to hold our sympathies for the Orlando massacre victims. Evidently, conservatives are to blame, and Omar Mateen’s homicidal rage was merely (or mostly) the product of an Evangelical-influenced, homophobic culture. Hogwash. That this deluded claim has even been proffered just goes to show how far gone the LGBT community really is, and I fear that we’ve nearly lost a whole generation of them to this tortuous, intellectual violence.

The reason many haven’t called this tragedy a hate crime is quite simply because it is not yet clear that it was a hate crime at all. After all, how can we draw any serious conclusions without being given clear motives? The killer’s professed allegiance to ISIL strikes me as more disingenuous than authentic, and biographical reports from those who knew him suggest that the real cause in all of this was internally psychiatric, rather than externally psychological. To the extent that outside influences did play a role, it would appear that the enigmatic Miguel has more to say than all of the pundits combined: “this crazy, horrible thing he did was for revenge.” That Omar was a semi-closeted homosexual now looks to be beyond doubt, and it hardly seems reasonable to suppose that a gay man can demonstrate a hostile bias or “group animus” towards other gay men. Thus, we’re left with the story of a deranged and jilted lover who is no more guilty of a hate crime than Christina Grimmie’s shooter, Kevin James Loibl. The biggest difference: In an opportunistic turn of events, Mateen took advantage of his Muslim heritage and sought to identify himself with the largest Islamic group known for mass homicide.

Given the gay community’s persecution complex, however, it’s only natural that they are now seeking to pin the blame on a rival community whom they have lately come to despise for reasons which only betray their vast ignorance of religion, morality, history, and politics. More telling is their strange obsession with hate-oriented language, which, if the old, Freudian projection theories hold true, probably reveals more about them than it does of their opponents. Consequently, it would be their own inner demons that drive them with such vitriolic fervor to castigate, incriminate, and ultimately castrate any other group that might show signs of even the most benign disapproval. And conservative Christians are at fault? Spare me. Coming from a faction who still considers Matthew Shepard the poster child for LGBT victimization, this is hard to believe.

Should we choose to damn any party for the vile atrocity perpetrated in the Pulse nightclub, it seems far easier to lay the guilt upon those who have belligerently continued to fan the flames of social unrest and to construct straw men in an ill-founded effort to radically alter the nature of reality. If you declare war as enthusiastically, don’t be surprised at the collateral damage. But even this seems a stretch, and we have to admit that this was neither terrorism proper nor a typical crime of hate, at least insofar as Mateen was a part of the ostensibly hated group. It was the vengeful act of an emotionally disturbed lunatic that came about with very little outside prodding. Those of us who are level-headed enough to see this will continue to offer our sympathies, whether they’re appreciated or not.

Advertisements

Thoughts in the Wake of Eric Harris’s Death

If I were to imagine a police sting gone wrong, an operation wherein the victim was accidentally killed by one of the officers on duty, it would probably unfold in a manner almost identical to what we’ve seen in the Eric Harris footage that’s been in the news lately and making rounds on social media. You might speculate that racial motivations lay behind the execution of Walter Scott or, to invoke namesakes, the strangling of Eric Garner, no matter how much and how deeply I hope to the contrary; but as far as I can tell, everything in this most recent travesty points to an unfortunate, though honest, mistake, plain and simple, albeit the kind of mistake one would expect to see when some geriatric rent-a-cop (actually, I think it’s called “pay-to-play”) is given permission to handle a deadly weapon that looks all too much like a taser.

Perhaps I should be a bit kinder to Mr. Bates as the immediate disposal of the still smoking gun and concomitant apology strikes my eyes and ears as nothing less than a sincere expression of shock and disbelief at what had just happened, while the aggression, brutality, and callous disregard exhibited by the accompanying patrolmen bring to mind a passage from Malcolm Gladwell’s Blink.

David Grossman, a former army lieutenant colonel and the author of On Killing, argues that the optimal state of “arousal” — the range in which stress improves performance — is when our heart rate is between 115 and 145 beats per minute . . .

“After 145,” Grossman says, “bad things begin to happen. Complex motor skills start to break down. Doing something with one hand and not the other becomes very difficult . . . At 175, we being to see an absolute breakdown of cognitive processing . . . The forebrain shuts down, and the mid-brain — the part of your brain that is the same as your dog’s (all mammals have that part of the brain) — reaches up and hijacks the forebrain. Have you ever tried to have a discussion with an angry or frightened human being? You can’t do it . . . You might as well try to argue with your dog.” Vision becomes even more restricted. Behavior becomes inappropriately aggressive . . . [emphasis mine]

This is precisely the reason that many police departments in recent years have banned high-speed chases. It’s not just because of the dangers of hitting some innocent bystander during the chase, although that is clearly part of the worry, since about three hundred Americans are killed accidentally every year during chases. It’s also because of what happens after the chase, since pursuing a suspect at high speed is precisely the kind of activity that pushes police officers into this dangerous high arousal. “The L.A. riot was started by what cops did to Rodney King at the end of the high-speed chase,” says James Fyfe, head of training for the NYPD, who has testified in many brutality cases.

However one feels about the previous law enforcement encounters that have made headlines over the past couple years (and weeks), I find it remarkably difficult to interpret this one as anything more than a mishap of the most tragic kind, fueled by the incompetence and poor judgement of whoever decided it would be a good idea to send an elderly reserve officer into a high pressure and volatile situation. Robert Bates deserves the conviction of second-degree manslaughter since “culpable negligence” is precisely how his behavior ought to be defined. The real responsibility, though, lies with the Tulsa County Police Department who should have never allowed this situation to happen and should have been far more diligent in assessing the type of work Officer Bates was being assigned.

Freedom and Fear Are Strange and Secret Bedfellows Who Need a Divorce.

As a corollary to the supercilious bullshittery being peddled by the worst representatives of leftist politics is the tragic proposition by California’s Matthew McLaughlin not only to outlaw homosexual behavior, but to make it a crime punishable by death (via bullets, though it’s not clear if the traditional methods of stoning and burning are acceptable). From one point of view this latter suggestion would appear substantially worse than the gross intolerance demonstrated by mainstream LBGT advocates, as seen especially in the wake of Indiana’s RFRA debacle, yet the matter is nonetheless precisely the same in both cases, i.e. a totalitarian imposition of personal morality upon a vast and diverse population who should have every right to judge for themselves what ethical and religious beliefs they consider best.

It’s hard to imagine McLaughlin making any pretensions of inclusivity, since I suspect most of those embracing his form of theonomy care little for the classically liberal, Enlightenment-based political philosophy of the American way and would prefer instead to live in a Geneva-like utopia, complete with consistory and all just to make sure there’s not too much dancing in the streets. But semantics and persona aside, is there any real difference to the underlying thought processes that inform the polar ends of our ideological spectrum and the participants in modern policy debate? As I see it, one of the major driving forces behind the vitriol of both sides is an incessant and nagging fear, likely stemming from a primitive instinct to favor the group, which can, in turn, cause us to view outside individuals as inherently suspect and potentially dangerous to our own well-being. Beneficial though this may have been in our ancestral environment (and maybe even today in certain contexts), when applied to a world in which democracy reigns, the inevitable result is a sort of political tribalism that elevates identity and ideology over reason and logic, thereby engendering a measure of strife that can’t be assuaged by rationalization, but only by bloodbath and sheer disaster.

At Least Some People Are Still Thinking Rationally

Here is one of the better write-ups I’ve seen on the current RFRA situation going on. Dougherty really nails is when he states,

There is something truly paradoxical about the progressive desire to vindicate secularism by compelling objectors to participate in another person’s marriage solemnities. That’s the sort of thing the Puritans of Massachusetts Bay did. Religious liberty — including the liberty not to participate in another’s private ceremonies — is a liberal value. And liberty of conscience should be protected for all small proprietors, even those who are not religious, or even anti-religious.

I can appreciate where certain individuals are coming from when they express their fear that Bill 101 will lead to gross and justified discrimination under the guise of religious freedom, I really can. At the end of the day, however, that’s all it really is — fear. There’s simply nothing in the text suggesting that such a scenario could ever reasonably occur.

Why All the Hate?

I’m getting tired of people slamming Reza Aslan for not being “qualified” to write a book about Jesus just because he doesn’t have a Ph.D. in history, religion, or something of that sort. In fact his doctorate was in sociology with a focus on the history of religion, which I suppose doesn’t count. Add to that a bachelor’s degree in religion with a masters in theological studies from Harvard and you’re still left with a man who’s not allowed to write a scholarly book about Jesus all because his Ph.D. isn’t the right kind. Seriously, I think people only bring these arguments out when someone writes a book they don’t like, just as people did when Dr. Lillback from Westminster wrote a book on the Christianity of George Washington a few years back. In fact, I think a doctorate in church history, a discipline which includes studies of the Christian religious climate of the early modern period, makes him far more qualified than someone with, say, a doctorate in ancient history.

But anyway, say what you will about these works, whatever errors are contained within them didn’t come from a lack of training as many assert or seem to imply, but instead from an agenda that leads them to the conclusions that they want to see and possibly even laziness that causes one to overlook information vital to the argument. Competence quite simply isn’t the issue and never was.

Interestingly I just stumbled across this quote from Aslan’s doctoral advisor:

“Since I was Reza’s thesis adviser at the Univ of California-Santa Barbara, I can testify that he is a religious studies scholar. (I am a sociologist of religion with a position in sociology and an affiliation with religious studies). Though Reza’s PhD is in sociology most of his graduate course work at UCSB was in the history of religion in the dept of religious studies. Though none of his 4 degrees are in history as such, he is a “historian of religion” in the way that that term is used at the Univ of Chicago to cover the field of comparative religion; and his theology degree at Harvard covered Bible and Church history, and required him to master New Testament Greek. So in short, he is who he says he is.”

Whether or not this is a legitimate quote I don’t know. Maybe I’ll look it up later. Maybe I won’t. Probably not; but suffice it to say that no matter how good or bad the man’s work is, the training he received was more than enough.

Who Still Carries Their Lunch in a Brown Bag Anyway?

Yes, radical, right-wing conservatives often annoy me with their nonsensical intolerance and occasionally merciless demeanor toward those who are different; but Ellen Bronstein and lawmakers in Seattle have proven once again that many modern liberals on the far left are even worse by proffering one of the most half-baked, dimwitted ideas to ever come forth from a human brain. That this could even be considered makes me wonder if these individuals shouldn’t be kept from procreating so that their moronic ideas don’t have to live on and poison the minds of the next generation. One step at a time, though. Let’s first make sure that President Obama has undergone his gender sensitivity training before we move on to more lofty projects.

Where’s the Beef?

It really does look more disgusting than I imagined, but this whole story has sort of fascinated me since I first heard of it a month or two ago. The weirdest part is that they actually feed and exercise the thing. I mean, it makes sense and all; I just never really thought of it as an organism that needs such treatment. The real question, though, is how they’re going to dress that bad boy. Lettuce? Tomato? Mayonnaise? Maybe McDonald’s will offer some of their special Big Mac sauce to throw on that sucker to make it taste a little better than it looks.