Another Trayvon! Just Kidding, This Crime Doesn’t Fit The Narrative Frame

"The biggest crime in the U.S. criminal justice system is that it is a race-based institution where African-Americans are directly targeted and punished in a much more aggressive way than white people." -Bill Quigley “The biggest crime in the U.S. criminal justice system is that it is a race-based institution where African-Americans are directly targeted and punished in a much more aggressive way than white people.” –Bill Quigley

Trayvon Martin was an innocent, urban youth of promise who planned to go to college, escape the hood, write poetry in the same style as Langston Hughes, make documentary films, and probably even donate to Oxfam occasionally. He certainly wasn’t representative of the obvious-to-everyone but still a mystery to the mainstream media that young black men commit an unbelievably disproportionate amount of crime in the country.

For the thoughtcrime of thinking that probable-cat burglar Trayvon might be a cat burglar, George Zimmerman was almost convicted of murder. The entire media infrastructure and elites came out to villainize Martin. No doubt many pro-Trayvon movies are in production.

And so when, in Madison, Wisconsin, a young couple was awoken to four burglars ransacking their home, threatening to kill them, and then viciously raping the wife, you would think that, in context, it would get noticed by the mainstream media.

Oh did I mention the wife was six months pregnant and pleading for her baby’s life?

In supposedly racist America, you can’t even drive around town without being pulled over for “Driving while Black” and yet, stories like this seem to be missed by the racist white overlords running our media industry.

Surely they haven’t missed other stories like this, like those of the Wichita horror or the Channon Christian and Andrew Newsom murders. David Berkowitz killed six people and from that there have been four movies and three songs. How many times do we even hear about these kind of crimes?

Google News reports just 15 mentions of this crime in the media. There are 9,450 current news stories about Travyon Martin. This is despite the fact that Travyon Martin was shot while beating George Zimmerman nearly two years prior to this crime happening.

The most charitable interpretation of the absence of liberal outrage here, even from supposedly pro-woman groups, is that it’s just manufactured outrage in order to achieve a political end. Trayvon was a convenient media framing and so they jump at the opportunity to trot out the tired cliche of racist whites driving trucks gunning down young black men. But a slightly less charitable interpretation is that they enjoy and encourage this kind of behavior, that they feel as though these are morally justified rapes and attempted murders because the victims are from the undesirable class.

Black entertainers rap about killing whites. Leaders proclaim to kill whites. Even white liberals talk about and strategize how to kill white babies.

But white liberals repeat ad nauseum that the criminal justice system is unfixably racist. Bill Quigley, a Louisiana law professor, says, writ large, that “The criminal justice system, from start to finish, is seriously racist.” Yale Professor Vesla Weaver says we live in a “racial democracy” where only whites get to vote because they’re the ones who aren’t felons. This is the quality of intellectual honesty where they avoid any chance that the individuals convicted of crimes might actually be guilty.

Yet, it’s “racist” to talk about such things, to even acknowledge that this is the underlying mindset of a shockingly surprising amount of the left: whatever is bad for whites is good for the left. Whatever hurts white people as a group helps the organized left.

If the progressive left will justify coercive government policies to benefit one group at the expense of another, why not rejoice when those groups fight with one another and the undesirable group suffers as a result? When you operate a healthcare system that doesn’t care about individual wrongs, why would you care about one crime in one place from the undesirable group.

This type of crime cover-up by the media is nothing new, and will no doubt only continue to get worse. Hence why you’ve probably never heard of Mona Nelson. The media isn’t hiding their race agenda now when reporting the news. It’s no longer all the facts, it’s screened now to fit their particular agenda.

Talking Points Memo Witchhunt for any Gay Offense

Even Uncle Joe thinks that Media Matters and friends are going "too far."
Even Uncle Joe thinks that Media Matters and friends are going “too far.”



TPM has been attacking fellow leftist Ezra Klein for starting Vox and hiring someone who once wrote about Liberty University and also wrote a defense of Duck Dynasty.

Because, clearly, if Klein had known about either article, not only should he have made clear to tell openly-gay 23 year old writer Brandon Ambrosino that he shouldn’t write that kind of stuff at Vox, which would be censorship, or that he should apologize for what he once wrote, which would be censorship, or that they should fire Ambrosino, which would be censorship, but Klein needs to explain why he even hired him in the first place.

Being a media entity now means that proper due diligence in hiring anyone is vetting them for any past offense against the organized gay media pundits, aka “Big Gay.”

You know things are over the top for Big Gay when even the Huffington Post is defending Ambrosino. But Media Matters is always on the attack.

Mariame Kaba: Pot Legalization is Racist

These eyebrows aren't even my final form...

These eyebrows aren’t even my final form…

In an article titled, “The Unbearable Whiteness of Legalization” by Rebecca Burns in the publication “In These Times” Mariame Kaba of the non-profit Project NIA trots out the familiar hobby horse of leftists, the cause of their eternal hate, the bane of their existence: white people.

Reading Kaba’s bio is quite an impressive career of hating men and hating whitey. Kaba also once described the black incarceration rate as a “slow-moving Holocaust.”

Here is what Kaba said in the interview:

“Another concern is whether, as the prices of marijuana start climbing [because of legalization] and [poor] people turn to using other kinds of drugs, those drugs then get painted as the worst possible drugs on the planet. The people who are doing the “worst” drugs somehow always happen to be the most marginalized people within our culture. That’s why it’s so important that we focus on uprooting the whole architecture of the War on Drugs. If we’re not talking about the root issues of racism and classism, there are bound to be unintended consequences.”

Another option might be, you know, not doing drugs.

Lynn Parramore/Alternet: Libertarianism Causes “Epic Ripoffs”

I did a search for "Lynn Parramore" and this is what came up. I report, you decide.

I did a search for “Lynn Parramore” and this is what came up: I report, you decide. I’m pretty sure I dated this chick for a while before she became a Women’s Studies major.

Lynn Parramore, writing at Alternet, concludes a rambling essay against libertarianism by saying it causes “Epic Ripoffs” because it causes inequality. This came as a surprise to absolutely no one, in that people are born with different skills and different traits. It’s the kind of inequality that libertarians are okay with, you know the kind that lets women earn 104 cents for every 100 cents a man makes.

But Parramore can’t stop herself, she writes with the fervency of a shrill government stooge ten minutes before a grant filing deadline: “In the healthcare industry, as well as a dizzying array of other areas, like housing markets, energy market, labor markets, financial services markets, and perhaps most frighteningly, capital markets in which money sloshes through a global system extracting wealth through out-of-control instruments like derivatives, markets fail spectacularly. Regulation is the only way to fix these glaring market failures. Just leaving everything to the market, as libertarians recommend, is often guaranteed to produce epic ripoffs.”

I’d be interested to hear where she thinks things were ever left “to the market.”

The problem with her article is that her level of stupid throughout is so compressed and well-packed, that literally every sentence might be the stupidest thing you’ve ever read. It’s a stunning display of economic and historical ignorance, which has already generated 889 comments, mostly by libertarian fanboys dropping h-bombs of facts on Parramore, but like the T-1000, she’s impervious to facts. In fact she just keeps repeating the same tired arguments to the extent where she should be called Parrotmore.

Most of her arguments mirror a personal argument I had in middle school with fellow 12 year olds about the nature of government. I figured a Ph.D in English and Cultural Theory would have reduced the quality of her argument down to elementary school, but Parramore surprised me by using a few obscure anecdotes. After all she talks about the railroads having a monopoly in the 19th century. As if libertarians have never discussed or thought about the issue, ever, ever.

Here’s the fundamental problem: the left is incapable of understanding or empathizing with their opponents. That and they clearly never read any of the material produced by the other side. Read “The Righteous Mind” by Jon Haidt to see this theory discussed in detail.

Parrotmore just keeps giving truly inane arguments about “libertarianism” as if it’s some monolithic belief structure. She reduces it to, “I hate poor people and taxes, so I’ll stop paying taxes to help poor people, and profit!” Here’s a few gems from Parrotmore:

“The truth is actually this: Many a rich person gets wealthy just by being born to wealthy parents.”
Demonstrably false. She has a cop out here by having written “many” and so, she implies a lot, but hey, maybe “many” is really contextually just two out of a million. And what’s “wealthy” after all? Is “middle class” being born to “wealthy” parents? Lesson to learn here: never trust the writings of an English major. But just for grins, let’s show that Parrotmore is false again.

“Bankers committed massive fraud on mortgage loans leading up to the financial crisis, and continue a crime spree which includes laundering money for terrorists and drug cartels, rate-rigging, manipulating the prices of commodities, taking bribes, engaging in insider trading, participating in ponzi schemes, cooking the books, and so on. Fraud has grown so pervasive in corporate America that legendary short seller Jim Chanos describes a culture in which executives think they have a fiduciary duty to cheat.”
Parramore has apparently seen Pacino in “Scarface” a few too many times.

“Beyond the blatant crimes, bankers are engaging far more in reckless speculation that destabilizes the economy than doing useful things like lending money to people who need it. Put simply, they make a great deal of money looting the economy through cheating taxpayers and screwing customers with fees and tricks. Result: Bankers get very rich, while the rest of us get poorer.”
I don’t think Lynn understands what banks do. At all. And to be sure, many big banks are horrible institutions, and most of those are ones who have a symbiotic relationship with the government. To say that libertarians are pro-big-bank is completely wrong. Banks are one of the most regulated industries of all times. Even during the supposed Obama economic recovery, there were recent years where not a single new bank opened. Is that possible if there’s low regulation and banksters are allowed to launder Tony Montana’s drug money for obscene profits all the time?

And hey, I could regurgitate her article all day long, but she’s just a ridiculously simplistic statist.

Here’s her basic argument: Libertarians are wrong because of 1) inequality, 2) public goods, 3) regulation. Yet no libertarian on the planet claims libertarianism is a perfect utopian heaven, all the problems of human nature will still remain. Inequality is measured by either results or opportunity, and to create equal results requires coercion and force, which they reject. Public goods can be funded by private sources, not just streetlights but sometimes even entire highways. She then talks about the need for regulation by talking about how unregulated the automotive industry was.

Argument run-down

What’s going on here is that progressives are scared of Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul. They see a devoted group of idealistic young followers and they can’t wait to crush that hope with cynicism. Libertarianism may have its legitimate critiques and complaints, but Parramore isn’t capable of even understanding them. So she doesn’t offer any subtlety or nuance in her article, she just gives these broad brush critiques of libertarianism to prevent closed-minded Alternet readers from even trying to engage the issues. She knows better, but she’s writing from fear and ignorance.

For many years libertarians liked to believe that they were immune to attacks from the left, and that it was only the establishment GOP that was so traditional and backwards that caused the media to hate them so. But the recent few years and the incessant irrational attacks on libertarianism should show that the left hates them just as much. If your ideas are a threat to the left’s power, you’re going to be attacked. It’s business and it’s personal. Thus for Parramore all libertarians are riding “theoretical unicorns” instead of just having a different view of state power.

You either believe in people, or you believe in planners. You either believe in spontaneous order, or in central planners to accomplish good things. You either believe in freedom, or you believe in coercive state power. Parramore believes in the latter and ought to try reading a real libertarian book or talking to a real live libertarian before just repeating the same tired arguments against libertarians in the future.

Edwin Lyngar/Salon: Old White FoxNews Watchers have “Thrashing Hysteria”

Ed Lyngar's undergrad degree in lesbian poetry makes him basically an expert on anthropological global warming, so says Ed.

Ed Lyngar’s undergrad degree in postmodern 19th century French lesbian poetry makes him basically an expert on anthropological global warming, so says Ed.

Edwin Lyngar is a sad soul, he’s one who claims to have “lost” his father to Fox News because the guy is upset about the news he reads today.

“My father sincerely believes that science is a political plot, Christians are America’s most persecuted minority and Barack Obama is a full-blown communist. He supports the use of force without question, as long as it’s aimed at foreigners. He thinks liberals are all stupid, ignorant fucks who hate America.”

Lyngar, a stupid ignorant fuck who hates America, spends an entire article using his father as a foil to beat up proving how evil Fox News is, and how it’s creating mental diseases in old white people.

Imagine if an article were to say that BET caused neurosis in blacks, or if we suggested that QVC was making old white women too materialistic, or CNN was making retarded people more retarded. But it’s ok to beat up on white people who watch Fox, because it’s chic and hip to use racial stereotypes and prejudices against whites. By most leftists definition it can’t be racist if it’s negative against whites.

Lyngar then also talks about how his father lacks email and doesn’t surf the web, so by posting this article at Salon he pretty well ensures his father will never find it.

And Lyngar qualifies his father as a moron and him as the educated white liberal with these three simple sentences, a real gem: “I’m overeducated in the humanities, so I’m an imperfect ambassador for science. I respect scholarship, peer review and the scientific method. When I tell my dad he should believe the experts in climate science, he gets really mad.”

What a pretentious asshole.

But Lyngar doubles-down on pretentiousness, near his conclusion when he says, “While white, Fox News-addicted baby boomers have lost their sense of hope. They’ve been passed over by shifting attitudes about gay marriage, the role of government and a host of issues. They still think of themselves as the “silent majority,” when in reality they are a wounded and thrashing legacy of white hegemony. My parents’ generation is becoming fragile antiques, relics by choice, reassured by Fox News that they are still the only voice that matters.”

This is called “projection” and it’s not based on “facts” and not very “scientific” because Lyngar is just “talking out of his ass here.”

Even the New York Times admits young people are drifting conservative. Even on specific issues, like abortion, they are becoming progressively more in line with the political right than anything else. Young people have permissive attitudes towards gay marriage, but they also have permissive attitudes towards everything. It’s the current embodiment of the tired quote misattributed to Churchill that you’re liberal at 20 unless you have no heart and conservative at 40 unless you have no brain. People who have never paid taxes before have a hard time grasping why they’re so bad, thus young people have warped views about the “role of government.”

But Lyngar’s father has had a lifetime of experience behind him. His father has spent more time on the earth, and experienced more things. Yet Lyngar junior can only understand his father by dismissing him, by cheering on his demise and death so that time can finally pass him by, as if all of history is on some liberal linear graph going from George Wallace at one end to Lord Savior B. Hussein Obama on the other end.

And it’s tempting to believe that maybe Lyngar junior just wants us all to proverbially “get along” and to get past all the hate that’s in politics right now. We need consensus, says the moderates in our ears at all times. Yet in sum, Lyngar spends the entire article thrashing and promoting hysteria against Fox as some agent of elderly mental disease. Lyngar the hypocrite hates how much his father hates liberals that he wrote a hate-filled article explaining how he hates Fox for making him hate his father.

Lyngar junior is still just a boy, one with a few worthless meaningless humanities degrees (to which I don’t fault him, we’ve all got one or two in our closet we can’t get rid of and aren’t proud of), but that doesn’t make him a political sage who should sneer down his nose at his father. It’s telling that Lyngar can’t understand his father’s values except to say that they exist only through Fox’s New York studios.

If you want to see real hate, unbelievably sustained hate, just look at the left. Look at Salon. Look at FireDogLake. Look at any outlet on the left that can’t talk about the right except to reduce them to simplistic dismissive soundbites: racist, fascist, bigots, xenophobes, anti-semites, homophobes, etc. When the extent of one’s empathy and understanding is to call someone, especially a parent, just one of those dehumanizing words, there’s something wrong with you and not them. Lyngar junior, get help.

Rebecca Solnit: Buses are Alien Spaceship Overlords Oppressing Us

Every day in traffic, Rebecca Solnit sees them... watching her, plotting her demise, and no one understands the threat of... the bus!

Every day in traffic, Rebecca Solnit sees them… watching her, plotting her demise, and no one understands the threat of… the bus!

San Francisco has become a tourist-destination for crazy. Whether it’s the depravity of the Folsom Street Fair, or the other documentary evidence in SanFran provided by the wonderful photographer at ZombieTime, SanFran is well known for crazy.

So what do you do if you’re a raging leftist who is surrounded by people self-segregating into exclusively hard-left worldviews? You attack the moderate leftists of course.

Google is a left-wing company. They manipulate search returns for political purposes. Their company actions are consistently in line with a pro-state, pro-left-wing position. But they’re also enormously profitable. So that caused local ‘community activists’ to decry the growth of Google, because it’s, after all, a profitable corporation that isn’t Whole Foods.

In the same way that Starbucks engendered irrational hatred among the left-wing crowd, they are now agitating against Google, upset at the increasing property values, and the influx of highly-educated engineers into their communities. The latest maelstorm is about Google buses that transport engineers from one part of the city to another, so as to offset the impact of higher property rates around the Google campus.

Which is left-wing tactics 101: once you get what you want, demand twice as much. When you know that they’ll give into your irrational demands, clearly they’ll give in some more.

Local writer-activist Rebecca Solnit summed up the populist perspective about the buses when she wrote recently in the London Review of Books that “some days I think of them as the spaceships on which our alien overlords have landed to rule over us.”

It would have been tough to equate Google with the nazis, so that comparison was out. It would have been odd to compare it to George Wallace, so Solnit couldn’t traipse out that tired trope, there was just no appropriate left-wing archetype/framing/metaphor to explain why she should hate buses, even though she needed to, so she used aliens.

Leftist Rebecca Solnit, speaking as a wonderful representative sample of the mental disease of left-wing thought, compared buses transporting white collar engineers to spaceships of alien overlords ruling over her. Now, sure, she’s clearly insane, but her worldview is quite dangerous because without any shame she can say something like this to an international reporter, and she will be 1) taken seriously, 2) feel no shame, 3) allowed to use this and flawed thinking like this to pressure Google to become even more left-wing.

And that’s what this is all about, it’s what all ‘community organizing’ on the left is really about: power.

CJ Werleman/Alternet: Opposing Coercive Unionism = Tyranny

CJ Werleman at an Alternet editorial board meeting.

CJ Werleman at an Alternet editorial board meeting.

CJ Werleman sees Koch phantoms wherever he turns. If the weather today is bad, it’s the Koch brothers opposing climate change hype that caused it. If his stocks go down, it’s no doubt the Kochs preventing Obamanomics from creating untold wealth through regulation. Werleman has a fervent faith that Obama is Lord, and that the Kochs are the Devil in two persons.

Naturally in such a worldview, the Kochs control all politics. All political issues are really just about lining Koch pockets. Because when you become a billionaire, clearly, your only ambition is to then become a trillionaire? Over at Alternet, CJ Werleman makes the fantastic claim that, not only are the Kochs solely funding the right to kill unions, but to oppose coercive unionism is tyranny.

Here’s what Werleman starts with:

“…the right wing let the metaphorical cat out of the bag when it comes to their strategy of transforming America’s democracy for the many into a tyrannical plutocracy for the very few, revealing just how disingenuous the Republican Party is whenever it offers any lip service to dealing with income inequality.”

Werleman then approvingly quoted that paragon of reason Rachel Maddow as saying “This fight is about destroying the unions.”

So, the Kochs, who single-handedly bankrolls everything on the right to Werleman, only care about bankrupting unions. That’s the only issue folks.

Apparently all those energies spent discussion issues like energy, trade, war, gun rights, abortion, religion, the Constitution, election integrity, the environment, are all just convenient proxies for the real battle: so that the Kochs can finally get rid of those pesky unions!

Now I hate to impose logic on an article published at Alternet, but let’s give it a try. The Kochs are Billionaires from oil. Their operations are based in Wichita, Kansas. Kansas is already a Right to Work state. The Koch brothers spent an estimated $400 million in politics and political education and outreach. The Kochs are worth an estimated 50 and 30 billion each. Does it really make any logical sense that they would be taking all that action solely in order to destroy unions in order to line their own pockets?

First, they’re already fabulously rich. They could just as easily drink gold and snort platinum cocaine full-time for the rest of their lives if they wanted to, why would they care about some unions in states where they aren’t doing business? Second, they fund such a variety of efforts, that if they were solely against the unions, they would be wildly inefficient in such spending by not solely funding pro-worker groups. Third, his only evidence of this is the logic of Rachel Maddow. Let me repeat that so that the insanity sinks in: his only evidence for this is the logic of Rachel Maddow.

Werleman then explains that Kochs and their minions, i.e. us, are really tyrants, because we oppose coercive unionism. This is our strategy, in case you missed the memo, “transforming America’s democracy for the many into a tyrannical plutocracy for the very few.”

All that claptrap about freedom and liberty and low-taxes, yea, it was just to enrich the tyrannical plutocrat overlords we worship. Pro-life? You’re just empowering the tyrannical plutocrats. For a sensible border/immigration policy? Empowering the tyrannical plutocrats. Want to lower regulations to make it easy for new businesses to form? Empowering tyrannical plutocrats.

This is the logic of progressives: malign anything you mildly disagree with, using a non-thinking phrase, and repeat ad nauseum. Turn off any logic, reason, empathy or sympathy.

Here’s where Werleman, aka Weasel-man, shows his true colors: “Walker’s goal was to reduce public-sector unions to the same subjugated state as their counterparts in the private sector. Since signing the bill into law, union membership has fallen nearly 40 percent in his state.”

Yea Weasel-man, they reduced because people chose not to pay dues to a union they didn’t support. When state workers were no longer forced to join a union against their will, they chose not to. Because those former union members chose against Weaselman’s preferred unionist thugs, they’re tyrants, and empowering the plutocrats. It was evil in his mind that people were given a choice of whom to associate with in order to have a job. Werleman is a disgusting statist pig.

Randa Jarrar/Salon: White Women Who Belly-Dance are Racist


Randa Jarrar resting in between competitive belly dancing events.

In a post titled, “Why I can’t stand White belly-dancers” at, Randa Jarrar, self-described feminist and likely self-described ‘community activist’ deplores the horribleness of white women engaging in shaking their hips as an act of cultural ‘appropriation’ of Middle Eastern history.

It would be too simple to point out that Jarrar is appropriating uniquely Western values of feminism and social critique to make her point. But her typical leftist jihadi obsession (see what I did there?) against white America is tired and frankly just boring.
When white people are ignorant of backward cultures, they’re isolationist racist xenophobes. When whites engage with said cultures to exchange values, they are jingoistic and paternalistic. When whites uncritically accept other cultures and embrace them, they are guilty of appropriation. It’s almost as though there’s nothing whites can do that isn’t racist, except of course to buy Jarrar’s book.
Here’s Jarrar’s first sentence: “Google the term “belly dance” and the first images the search engine offers are of white women in flowing, diaphanous skirts, playing at brownness. How did this become acceptable?”

Um, it became acceptable when we didn’t restrict people from enjoying whatever type of dance they wanted to. Consider the outrage Jarrar would have if we said blacks shouldn’t waltz, or Arabs shouldn’t breakdance, or the Chinese shouldn’t do the Charleston.
Jarrar even treats us to her own irrelevant personal anecdotes about how to do belly dancing the right way, as she did at her wedding.

It’s easy for unemployed English majors to throw around terms like this on sites like Salon, because there’s never any consequence to maligning whites. It’s a convenient soft racism that allows them to structurally talk about race. It’s academic bullying, where no one defends white interests so hey, why not complain about suburban white women who belly dance?

And it gives license to use meaningless academic words like “appropriation” and “agency” and “space” and the various lexicon of arrogant elitists who try to oppress dissenting views through stilted language, by reflexively denying an opinion to those who read it by signalling their authority through largely irrelevant words.

Here’s Jarrar’s professional diagnosis of official, must be true, racism in a whole group of other people:

“Women I have confronted about this have said, “But I have been dancing for 15 years! This is something I have built a huge community on.” These women are more interested in their investment in belly dancing than in questioning and examining how their appropriation of the art causes others harm. To them, I can only say, I’m sure there are people who have been unwittingly racist for 15 years. It’s not too late. Find another form of self-expression. Make sure you’re not appropriating someone else’s.”

If Jarrar had even an iota of introspection she would have seen the hypocrisy in complaining about white appropriation of belly dancing while assuming that such dances are the exclusive purview of one culture, one race, one region. But if Jarrar had any introspection, she probably wouldn’t be writing for Salon in the first place.

Greg Mitchell at the Nation: Victim Nancy Lanza Deserved It

buy my books!

buy my books!

The left is continually trying to milk the murders of 26 children and 1 mother at Sandy Hook, Connecticut for their gun-grabbing purposes. Instead of compassion for the father who lost an ex-spouse and son, Greg Mitchell can’t help but wonder why the interviewer didn’t ask Peter Lanza:

“But the main failing is that Solomon, and Lanza, barely mention the ex-wife’s leaving guns (and ammo) around the house with easy access, and Solomon doesn’t bring it up either. There’s just one passing comment from Peter Lanza about his ex-wife’s allowing the five rifles and guns, which suggests she must not have been afraid of her son. And that’s it. No discussion of the overall arsenal, not securing it in the house, Nancy writing a check for Adam to buy a pistol himself and encouraging his gun obsessions, with frequent trips to the firing range, etc.

Did the father ever question any of these red flags? We’lll [sic] never know, at least from Solomon.”

At the Greg Mitchell School of Journalism, you ask the victimized father of a mass murderer, “boy, that ex-wife, she really brought it on herself, amirite? All those guns, combined with Adam’s all that crazy, inevitable that she’d be the first victim, right?”

This is the kind of thinking that passes for reason at the Nation. The logic that a third of U.S. households own guns, in a country where guns outnumber citizens, where there is widespread undiagnosed and often misdiagnosed mental illness, the main issue is the presence of the gun itself that made the crime happen, that’s the most interesting angle to Greg Mitchell.
The term hoplophobia has been used to describe the irrational fear of guns, and that certainly seems to fit Greg Mitchell’s undiagnosed biases and neurosis.
Mitchell is the author of an endless stream of books, some with cute allusions and comparing the Bolshevik Revolution to Occupy Wall Street (thanks for doing our work for us, Greggster!). One of his other books is about Hiroshima revisionism, which is his right as a pseudo-leftist quack of course, but far be it for us to suggest that by starting the war the Japs deserved it. And it would be just plain mean for us to suggest that one of his other e-books or self-published drafts or whatever, “My Book About Coaching My Son in Little League” that his son deserved losing, so we won’t.

“The Nation” Finds an Industry it Supports: Whores

StreetWalkers_the-nationMelissa Grant excerpted part of her new book, “Playing the Whore” in the recent issue of the Nation.And in it, she defends the sex trade as an industry where people do real work. It’s interesting that the calls on the left for equal pay for equal work don’t seem to apply to hookers or porn stars, where women earn up to 100x more for the same work, and frankly in many cases, for far less effort than men.

By dryly describing the mundane business details, Grant attempts to give a sense of middle-American normalcy to deviancy:

“In a dungeon a client can expect that several workers will be available on each shift, and some of these workers will want to do what he wants to and some won’t. A receptionist will take his call, or answer his e-mail and assign him to a worker based on what he’d like, the worker’s preferences and mutual availability. Some dungeons might post their workers’ specialties on a website. They might also keep them listed in a binder next to the phone, the workers each taking turns playing receptionist, matching clients to workers over their shift. After each appointment the worker would write up a short memo and file it for future reference should the client call again, so that others would know more about him. The dungeon is informal only to the extent that the labor producing value inside its walls isn’t regarded as real work. There are shift meetings, schedules and a commission split based on seniority. Utility bills arrive, and are paid. Property taxes, too. In some cases the manager would give discreet employment references. And sometimes people were fired.”

Any problems from disease or dehumanization is apparently just the evil patriarchy trying to reassert itself to put girls back in their place: 1950s sockhops in nurse’s training. If only Grant was dryly explaining the inner-workings of an oil company would the editors of the Nation suddenly found their moral outrage.