Janet Daley has just published a stunning column that gets to the heart of the aftermath of the UK riots. It begins as follows:

There is no national debate about the epidemic of riots and looting that spread through our cities like a bush fire. Out there in the real world, where people go about the normal business of life, there is no sign of the heated argument that the media is so determined to air. In fact, I cannot remember a time when there has been such crushing unanimity on a matter of public importance: the answers to the questions of why this happened, what went wrong when it began to happen and what needs to follow in its aftermath are considered so blindingly self-evident as to be beyond rational disagreement.

And then continues later:

What real people know – and have known for quite a long time – is that the great tacit agreement which once held civic life together has been deliberately blown apart. There was a time within living memory when all reasonable grown-ups were considered to be on the same side. Parents, teachers, police, judges, politicians – decent citizens of every station and calling – formed an unspoken confederacy to uphold standards of behaviour within their own communities. But their shared values and expectations about human conduct were systematically undermined by a post-Sixties political ideology that preached wholesale disrespect for authority, and legitimised anti-social activity in the name of protest.
What real people saw on their television screens this fateful summer seemed to them to be the final vindication of their instinctive judgment: they may have been shocked but, on some level at least, they were not surprised that it had come to this. What else were these terrible events but the definitive disproof of a doctrine that had subverted adult authority in all its official and unofficial forms?

You can read more of Daley’s great work on her blog.

Do you remember President Obama’s call for civility earlier this year?
Apparently Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters never heard that speech:

If you’re an African-American and don’t think the way Janeane Garofalo insists you must, then you are clearly corrupt or mentally ill. This is precisely what she said about Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, on a recent appearance on Al Gore’s Current TV network. On Keith Olbermann’s new show, Garofalo insisted that Cain must have been paid off or “has a touch of Stockholm Syndrome“.   More here.
Pause for a moment to consider what reaction there’d be if Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann or Stephen Harper said the following:

“If _________* don’t support conservative principles then they must be getting paid off by someone or are mentally ill.”
Note: * = Asians, Blacks, Latinos, Quebecers, or Jews.

Do you think the MSM footsoldiers of Obama (or the Liberal Party of Canada) would remain silent then?   Doubtful.
P.S. In a related narrative, just over 2 years ago, Garofalo & Olbermann discussed Tea Party members.

Imagine having a dream about a bizarre farm run by Farmer Pete. His wife recently finished a book written by a socialist academic in which the author put forth the case that if you’re nice to every animal then they will be nice back to you. Pete was quite skeptical about this but his wife kept on urging him to give the philosophy a try. So he did. Being a sheep farmer, he had barbed wire fencing all around his property. He removed it all as he knew that it could hurt the wolves in the surrounding countryside. He had a couple of sheep dogs that roamed the fields, there to bark if any wolves came near. Pete brought them inside and rarely let them out. Finally, he got rid of his shotgun because, as his wife told him, such an instrument of violence was not in harmony with the philosophy they were now going to live their lives by.
What do you think would have happened next in this dream? If you woke up and found yourself to be a citizen of the UK then you would immediately realize that this dream was simply a metaphor for the nightmare that is your country today.
Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm has written a fact-filled article about the nightmare that is modern day Britain. Starting in the 1950’s the state has systematically removed the rights and the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. Here’s a snippet:

Burglars who injured themselves breaking into houses have successfully sued homeowners for damages. In February, police in Surrey told gardeners not to put wire mesh on the windows of their garden sheds as burglars might hurt themselves when they break in.
If a homeowner protecting himself and his family injures an intruder beyond what the law considers “reasonable,” he will be prosecuted for assault. Tony Martin, an English farmer, was sentenced to life in prison for killing one burglar and wounding another with a shotgun during the seventh break-in at his rural home in 1999. While his sentence was later reduced to five years, he was refused parole in 2003 because he was judged a danger to burglars.
In 2008, a robber armed with a knife attacked shopkeeper Tony Singh in West Lancashire. During the struggle the intruder was fatally stabbed with his own knife. Although the robber had a long record of violent assault, prosecutors were preparing to charge Mr. Singh with murder until public outrage stopped them.

You can listen to WABC’s John Batchelor interview Professor Malcolm here, beginning at 19:00 (about mid-way).
Note: Only an abridged version of the article may display. In that case go to Google News here and then access the article from there. It’s the one entitled “The Soft-on-Crime Roots of British Disorder”.

Is Matt Damon a social crusader or just a guilty rich white guy? You decide.

A most informative segment was aired on John Batchelor’s show last night, illustrating the stark contrast between Canada and the U.S. these days. It featured guest Jason Clemens, of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, who recently wrote this column. Lorne Gunter has an equally interesting follow-up piece.

“Spain vs. Poland” could alternatively have been written as “A bloated, inefficient public sector vs. A thriving, efficient private sector”. The BBC’s Peter Day explores the differences in this most excellent podcast. More info here.
It’s so brutally and blatantly obvious, yet socialists the world over will never understand.