I Amuse Myself

10 Replies to “I Amuse Myself”

1. That Jonathan Kay would put his name to the crap that is put out by Walrus says volumes about Jonathan Kay and probably explains his recent ‘4 legs good 2 legs bad’ hit piece on Ezra Levant in the NP.

2. It’s not about cops targeting blacks, it’s about police violence and militancy in general, and it ain’t about white privilege it’s about “blue” privilege.
   Police violence has escalated exponentially in the last decade due to militarization and accountability is virtually zero. Its interesting the radical left pick the only justified shootings to riot over when there are plenty of truly deserving cases – like the 7yr. old girl shot while sleeping in her home by Detroit SWAT – or the guy in NY who was strangled by 6 cops for selling cigarettes – or the 8 month old baby which had her face blown off by a SWAT flash bang grenade in a no-knock entrance – the list grows daily – why do the media left pick loser criminals to defend like Trayvon and the Ferguson thug. Its because the cops are white, – in all the other shootings and violence I cited the cops were black, Hispanic and other minorities, but the violence is just as appalling – but no mention in the current media narrative.
   But the left media must go ahead and have their race war if that what thrills their shrivelled dark little hearts.

3. Very true. There is a legitimate grievance over trigger happy police, but the Left is only concerned when it’s a white cop. The 20 year old white guy shot in Utah was killed by a black cop, but you’d never know it.

4. You might want to show evidence that “police violence has escalated exponentially in the last decade…..”. Simply saying it doesn’t make it so. Like the fraud of global warming, merely more reporting of such incidents is not evidence that the incidence is increasing. In fact, killings by police have dropped very significantly from the 1970’s when it was about 1.4 for every million population to about .4 currently.
   I will say, though, that police had better understand that they need to support of the majority which means they need to focus far, FAR less on minor “crimes” as defined by politicians (such as .05 driving), etc. and far, FAR more on the job the cops really need to do and that is deal with REAL crime.

5. well now joey, the simple fact is that the “broken window” method of law enforce is very effective, so that refutes your minor crime BS

6. Every time i look down my pants i realize my white privilege…. the lord was good to me!!!ohh lawdy and he was good to my wife too…lol.all she says is that i am blessed. thats all i know about white privilage!

7. White privilege. Well get a job, African American, First Nations, Immigrant, don’t break the law and live the dream. But if you choose to get drunk, break the law, rob businesses and people, expect the law to crap down your useless throat. And believe me, I don’t care less for your useless drunk, drug addicted ass.

8. Phooie on Reparations for Slavery how about Reparations for all those white owned buisnsses looted and vandailzed by mobs of african savages Reparations from JESSIE JACKSON,AL SHARPTON,LOUIS FARAKHAN,NBPP,RAINBOW/PUSH,SPIKE LEE,NATION of ISLAM and the parents of the infamous MICHEAL BROWN

9. Well at least according to you. However, you miss the point. Laws against property and people absolutely SHOULD be prosecuted. But “crimes” such as the .05 “law” are pointless because in the minds of the vast majority of people, they are not crimes at all but state control points. By your weak logic, the state should simply impose countless laws to control the population in every aspect of their lives. That is how totalitarianism begins. And the left loves that sort of thing because minor laws (such as the selling of single cigarettes in New York) are nothing more than regulation of society. The left LOVES regulating everything.
   Maybe when your brain completely develops you will be able to deal with the concept of logic thinking.
   Oh….and I notice you didn’t provide any evidence to prove your laughable “Police violence has escalated exponentially…” statement

10. Actually, this morning’s link by David Thompson (“Bad Medicine” re: Victor Davis Hanson’s latest column) to his own blog (“Elsewhere” thread) contains a telling further link to Brendan O’Neill’s “National Review” column on “campus-style ‘justice'”.
    Mr. Thompson quotes the key money bit in his introduction:
    “A male student told me my insistence that individuals suspected of a crime must be fairly tried and found convincingly guilty before we ruin their lives — and being expelled from a prestigious university for rape would undoubtedly be life-ruining — was evidence that I had fallen for the “liberal paradigm” of justice, which tends to benefit white, well-off men. Apparently there is another “paradigm,” a better one, in which women who accuse men of rape are instantly believed and the men in question swiftly and severely punished.”
    I took a few moments, in deference to the boss lady’s tweet, to watch “The National” segment in question. Upshot, I consider it to be the most shockingly-offensive and -disgusting thing I have ever seen on Canadian television “news”.
    To a person, the panelists engaged in precisely the behaviour described by Mr. O’Neill, with respect to another context: all assertion, vaguely connected to one or two even more vague, incomplete and tangentially-related, at best, anecdotes, all of which, we were told, had to be immediately taken as objective truth, without the slightest scientifically-gathered and evaluated evidence presented in support. With Wendy Mesley, angrily hovering over the panel: what was that about?
    Distilled, it seemed to have something to do with the police. And/or something to do with racial profiling. Unless you are “white”, of course (whatever that means; could that actually involve, for example, lumping together pur-laine Quebecois nationalists and Anglo-Canadian monarchists?). It rather seems to me that the segment was about reverse-racially-profiling “whites”, actually: the panel discussion was named “White Privilege”, after all.
    Suppose, for a moment, that racial profiling of “minorities” (whatever that means) actually existed. What likelihood would there be that the committee-in-charge, hidden from view, in a sound-proofed room (a la John LeCarre), would have been as racially-diverse as the CBC panel condemning white people last night?
    I am frankly indifferent to the police: there seem to be quite a lot of them here in Stratford ON, with quite a lot of fancy equipment, but they don’t quite seem to be where you want them, when you need them. In this particular connection, see Jamie MacMaster (and his website), who actually has a more profound message that maybe even he understands.
    And, I am frankly prejudicial toward the Communist Broadcasting Corporation: doubling-down on their previous mistakes will not work. Fire. Them. All.
    The other money bit, as regards this discussion (Mr. O’Neill’s antidote to such nonsense), comes right at the end of O’Neill’s column. To paraphrase, somewhat:
    “There really is only one thing to say to the bleating [CBC panelists], the illiberal liberals […]: You have lovely, lazy, intellectual lives that many of the world’s still-repressed […] would sell their souls for, so, please, shelve the slave songs and self-pity and grow the hell up.”
    Nobody, but nobody, likes a blame-shifter. Which is precisely why Ms. Wynne must go.