The left never has, and never will, understand that the law applies to them just as much as everyone else.

(Reply) (Thread)

If I may quote: "All animals are equal , but some animals are more equal than others."

And that's what scares me. They don't see Orwell as a warning.

They see him as an instruction manual.

(Reply) (Thread)

"The second thing I note is that the behavior of the Occupiers is perfectly consistent with what I've seen on the Left when they face criticism from people belonging to groups whom they believe should have a "protected status." Heterosexual men may have the right to criticize the Left; homosexuals or women (let alone homosexual women) are expected to be grateful to the Left for their "protection," and are treated with extreme anger as "betrayers" when they dare criticize their "protectors.""
..................

So much yes. I run into this all the time.

(Reply) (Thread)

Er, as a heterosexual male (and a breeder, too!) I haven't exactly noticed a lot of tolerance amongst the Leftists for my right to criticize their positions. And as for criticizing them, oh my! They really don't like that, howsoever warranted it may be.

I can see and concede the point, though. No matter how little they may like me pointing out their idiocies the flaws in their thinking, they have even less of a liking for their "vassals" doing so. Yes, vassals - those offered protection in return for sworn servitude. Which is still nicer than the true relationship - victims of a protection racket. "Nice position in society you'se got here. Be a... shame if sumthin' wuz to happen to make it woise..."

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

In this case, they claim that they have *already* provided protection and so we have some kind of sick *obligation* to swear our servitude.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Mm-hm. Well, I suspect that your best answer to them is probably along the lines of my standard reply to protection racketeers: "Should've asked me if I wanted protection before you stuck your nose in. Now, since you've deprived me of a good fight..." *Evil grin*

That, or you could ask them which Suffragette chapter they belonged to in, oh, 1910 - as a man, I suspect they wouldn't acknowledge my right to ask the same question. In any case, these people are laying claim to victories they had no part in winning.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Not only do they lay claim to victories they had no part in winning, but they lay claim to victories that they *did* win that make *my* life as a woman much, much harder.

I've got an entire story-of-my-life about my attempt to be valued as a crack coder in the computer programming world, gaining respect from my classmates and my professors, only to find that in the real world women programmers are either maintenance coders or managers...

...because feminists push so many incompetent women into the field that the companies are used to finding ways of dealing with them.

Feminists are not happy until a given field has, out of ten people, five men and five women... even if four of those five women are incompetent at their jobs and frankly would rather be at home raising the kids. And this they see as a triumph, and therefore I should see it as a triumph too, or I don't want to own property or be allowed to vote...

Bah. It's a mess. And that's only one angle to it, there's lots more to complain about. If ya like being a heterosexual 'breeder' male, try being a pro-life woman! :)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

My husband has been having a hell of a time finding a competent paralegal for his office. Women assistants treat the job like it's a part time hobby for shopping money, and show up when they feel like it. They act like they don't really need the money, and if they do anything at all it's like they've done you a huge favor. I'm sick of watching him stress to death about not being able to reach anyone when he has a huge court case coming up.

I finally told him "I hate to say this, as a woman, but you really need to hire a man. Find someone who is serious minded and has his focus on a real career. Get a law student who needs work credits, not a secretary."

I guess I fail at that whole feminism thing. Reality keeps getting in the way.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Heh, yeah. And thus feminism disenfranchises the very women it's supposed to aid. There's no benefit to being half-hearted about the very thing you're "supposed" to be "fighting for". Better to stop fighting for it and let the people who actually value it put up a better defense.

Because I'm sure that if the only women who bothered to answer his ad were the ones actually desirous of being a paralegal, he'd have no problem with employee gender.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

HIRE ME! I am not like that!

Just kidding. I don't have paralegal training. But if I did, I swear I would not be that way. I'm the bestest worker, ever!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

...because feminists push so many incompetent women into the field that the companies are used to finding ways of dealing with them.

Feminists are not happy until a given field has, out of ten people, five men and five women... even if four of those five women are incompetent at their jobs and frankly would rather be at home raising the kids.

This, on their part, is a subset of "New Socialist Man" thinking -- by which I mean that they ignore the obvious reasons why, on the average, women (compared to men) are less likely to be interested in a lifetime career in a field, and the obvious effect that this will have on the expectations of men toward women in the field if numerical equality is demanded, and imagine that somehow, if numerical equality is forced, things will just magically turn out as the feminists desire with the women deciding to devote their lives to the careers and hence the men judging them as of equal competence. And if it doesn't, it's the fault of the saboteurs and wrecke ... I mean, the Patriarchy.

This is not to say that individual women cannot be as serious about a lifetime career in a field as individual men. Simply that women, because they are chosen by biology to bear the children and are psychologically primed to be more interested in caring for the children than are men, are on the average more likely to have one eye on eventually retiring to take care of their families than are men. Which leads to the mathematically-obvious effects on male opinions of the seriousness of their female colleagues if numerical equality is forced on a field.

Maybe feminists, like Barbie, just find math class hard?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The feminists do even worse than what you're noting here. Not only do they try to push women into the field who are not interested in it, therefore devaluing the women who *are*, but they work actively against the systems by which women who are drawn to bear and raise the children are protected and provided for.

Take, for example, the whole "free love" movement. It claims to dignify women by making them able to go have sex with whomever they please without being called names. But there is a very good reason why such behavior is frowned upon by women. It devalues sex... and sex is one of the strongest means by which a woman can attract and hold a man who is willing to provide for and protect her and her children as she goes through the vulnerable process of childbearing.

Instead, the feminists envision a world that leads to heavily pregnant women trying desperately to find a way to elevate their feet for the swelling while working in the office full-time since they can't depend on a man to bring home the bacon.

For the first time, the happiness index of women has fallen below that of men.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Add to that the whole disenfranchisement and disregard that has arisen regarding cottage industry and non-office work! It's not a 'real' job unless you're in an office full time, or a career if you're not 'globally known' even if you're doing well; work-at-home women (and men) are viewed as 'less' and 'not as respectable.' Honest work and honest pay! And, as Rhys has put it before, he really appreciates what I can bring in because every bit I contribute is that much he can put toward savings, or emergency funds.

And sure its very nice to have equality in the sexual field without being called names, but this works only if your partners are safe - being too aware of venereal disease is a darned good deterrent in my opinion, if the thought of teenage motherhood with no support is not enough to be selective of one's sexual partners.

(As a former single mum myself, I was lucky to have a supporting set of parents; but I've heard of too many stories of girls killing themselves because of finding themselves pregnant and seeing nothing but their lives and future crumble to nothing. I can't support that they are so roundly condemned instead of supported and taught to become responsible for themselves and their children, nor can I condone coddling them with welfare to the point that it's all they rely on. It's such a complex problem...)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I've got an entire story-of-my-life about my attempt to be valued as a crack coder in the computer programming world, gaining respect from my classmates and my professors, only to find that in the real world women programmers are either maintenance coders or managers...

...because feminists push so many incompetent women into the field that the companies are used to finding ways of dealing with them.

Swings both ways too. I hear from Aff that there are so few women genuinely interested in the field, goodness only knows why, but the few who are are rare. With the incompetent forced upon the field, its' probably so much harder for these few girls to be taken seriously by their male coworkers!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Exactly. :) That was my story. I ultimately was unable to break through at my first job and left when I hit burnout for a couple of reasons, that being one of them.

My coworkers were fine. It only takes a short time for a coder to size up another coder. In fact, in one of my jobs, a male coworker *advocated* for me and told his boss straight-out that I was a well-trained crack coder and she needed to be properly 'utilizing this resource'. Awesome guy. Older guy, actually... he was between the ages of my father and my grandfather.

It was convincing the managers that wasn't so easy. Half of them treated me like a maintenance coder at best from the start - the others wanted to push me into management (blech). I can manage projects. I can manage households. I can't manage people. (Raising my kids doesn't count.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I've just quit paying attention to the Occu-poo criminals. Their cause and public presence petered out here in leftist LA several months ago, despite an uncharacteristically warm, dry winter here. Kudos to you for having the patience to keep tabs on them. (Which is not to say that Occu-poo OAKLAND is not being much more active and violent than the entirely-vanished LA cohort.)

(Reply) (Thread)

I was a little disappointed when they left Boston. I wanted to see them put their plan into effect and attempt to build igloos to winter in.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

LOL, yes, that would have been amusing to watch. Of course, the actual Native American tribes who lived in New England didn't build igloos, they built timber and hide longhouses

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_long_house

to shelter from the winter storms.

Not that the Boston Police Department would have let them build any such things in public spaces. But this strikes to the root of the flaw in the Occupiers' logic ...

... they are attempting an "occupation" of territory which they have not ever "conquered." Since the territory is actually controlled by municipalities of the United States of America, their "occupation" is on sufferance of those municipal authorities, and can be terminated whenever the Occupiers sufficiently annoy them. And the Occupiers are very annoying.

This failure of reasoning in turn stems from the Occupiers' deliberate self-blinding regarding military affairs. They have convinced themselves that "battle" is just a pointless brute slaughter and that military victory over a people does nothing to degrade the resistance of a people; consequently, they fail to see how the victorious battles for (say) Iraq enabled the US Army to meaningfully occupy Iraq and the lack of victorious battle for (say) Boston or Oakland prevents the Occupiers from meaningfully occupying Boston or Oakland.

This is a subset of the general rule that an error in information or reasoning in one matter, especially if unchecked by regular examination by means of logic against observatioanl evidence of one's own ideas for error can pollute one's store of information and lead to faulty conclusions in other mattters down the line. And the Occupiers, by and large, are people unused to questioning their own conclusions.

So they pay for it -- with failure.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"Of course, the actual Native American tribes who lived in New England didn't build igloos, they built timber and hide longhouses"

Oh I know, I live in Connecticut. Hence why I would have liked to watch them try. :D The whole point of an igloo is that it's nothing but snow, so the interior temperature never falls below 32F. Boston doesn't consistently snow enough to build an igloo, and the moment that snow melts and refreezes, it is no longer kept at 32F...

I think I've said this before, but if I started out in Boston and had to winter, I would immediately get OUT of Boston, well into the woods, where I could build a shelter out of branches and logs and hunt for my keep until winter let up.

I would also gladly sell that infamous $5,000 laptop for rifle, ammunition, axe, saw, rope... you get the idea.

But then again, I'm not a Boston Occupier. I'm a rural New Englander native. In the winter, my first order is survival, not protest.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Well, the assault was captured on video, so the jury may be able to find out whether or not Huang's claims are or are not true. And even if they were, this still wouldn't explain the stolen wallet.

That's not robbery, that's spreading the wealth around, DiY style. Didn't Obama tell us this was a good thing?

(Reply) (Thread)

So, any bets on how long it will take for the video to be barred from being shown? The judge could refuse to watch it, or s/he could refuse to let the jury see it, for some vague, imaginary reason. It's happened many times before.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Sure, but this assumes the judge is extremely sympathetic to the Occupiers, to the point that he's willing to risk his own popularity by deliberately botching the trial. I so far see no evidence of this.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Except for the poor woman at whom the Occupiers' (larcenous) wrath was directed, this is one of the funniest things I've run across in the last year -- a great cure for the depression I've been in the past few weeks. XD

(Reply) (Thread)

"Note the level of bail. This is being taken seriously by law enforcement."

I'm feeling cynical today. I have a feeling that although they've tacked on all the extra charges, it's going to be bargained down to simple theft with all other charges dropped or considered "too hard to prove intent". Two will be released with a stern warning, and one will get a greatly reduced sentence.

I just have to add, Nneka? With two n's? Really?

ETA: As far as a "new low in villainy", I think that giving minors drugs and raping them in their tents as they sleep still takes the cake. And they still crow about how they're more "moral" than a banker.

Edited at 2012-03-09 07:27 am (UTC)

(Reply) (Thread)

You're assuming that the authorities are looking for an excuse not to send these Occupiers to prison, because they fear that such an action will be unpopular. What I'm seeing on the streets is that the people of Oakland are sick and tired of the Occupiers, and that sending this trio to prison will instead be applauded, and help make the political career of the prosecutor and judge involved. And the officials know it.

I think that the one who actually stole the wallet is the one who will get the harshest sentence, and the other two will get lesser sentences, yes. But I think that the bail of $150 thousand indicates that the authorities feel that there is a fairly serious flight risk, which means that they are not prepared to offer a sweet deal. The video may be sufficiently damning evidence that the prosecutors feel little need to plea-bargain.

Yeah, I noticed "Nneka" too. And her major, "African Studies." That's a girl who has been primed for a life of impotent rage -- I wonder if she'll ever realize what her parents did to her, or if she'll blame the White Establishment for it to the end of her days?

Yes, some of the other things the Occupiers have done have been vile, but this they did in public and to non-Occupiers, so it pisses people off more.

As an aside, did you notice the role the Occupiers' own stupidity had in getting them into this mess? One of the Occupiers filmed the encounter, apparently not realizing that video of a violent robbery might not be a good thing for the robbers. None of the three perps seem to have realized that they had done something from which it would be advisable to flee -- even after the first one was arrested, the other two blithely continued hanging around Oakland, not grasping that they were now wanted criminals and that this might have consequences.

Dumb. Really dumb. Guess one doesn't have to be all that smart to take "African Studies."

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yeah, and there are just soooo many career opportunities a degree in "African Studies" opens for you.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Yes there are! Endless activism and begging and pleading for funds to support the Cause and supporting charities. <.<#

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'm still waiting to hear about any news regarding the idiot 'Occumoms' who endangered their children by bringing deliberately putting them in harm's way. Have they been charged with child endangerment?

ESPECIALLY the one who put her toddler on the train tracks, certain her faith in humanity will stop that train.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I can't fathom that. Then again, my mothering instinct tends to lean *heavily* on the Momma Bear side.

I don't care if the guy already knows the kid is there, if there's already more than enough room for the train to stop, if there's nothing at all wrong with any of the brakes, if the weather is clear and dry and beautiful, if I'm being offered a million dollars... I am *not* putting *any* of my precious children on the train tracks. And I'll fight to kill anybody who tries to make me.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

With the laws of physics, pretty much if a train operator sees anyone on the tracks it's already too late. I honestly saw red, reading about those 'moms' who put their kids in front of doors, in risk of trampling, and ms "Faith in humanity". You and I are the same regarding our kids, and that is how it should be.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I really don't know much about this particular incident & don't much care, I just wanted to respond to a line you wrote here: "because "grabbing a button" constitutes assault and battery"

yes, actually, it does. The moment one person touches another without permission it's assault & battery. If someone were acting in an aggressive or threatening manner to me, I would defend myself physically the moment they tried to touch me. I wouldn't wait until they had seriously injured me!

Again I'm responding to that sentence, not to the actual incident: I make no claims to know who did what first and how bad etc

(Reply) (Thread)

Yes. If the claim that the victim touched first is true, it might enable the attackers to claim self-defense.

Unless, of course, they surrounded her and physically prevented her passage first, in which case they engaged in "unlawful detention" or "blocking a public thoroughfare" first, and in that case she would have had the right to use reasonable force to break free of the detention or continue about her business.

Much would depend on local and state law here.

The video should reveal the truth.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I agree with you that hate crime statutes are unconstitutional. They violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause. The statutes have two additional problems:

1. They can enable a clever bigot to wrap him/herself in the cloak of martyrdom.

2. They can also be used by clever asswipes to stifle legitimate criticism. It is only a matter of time before Fred Phelps or somebody tries to get a critic charged with a hate crime for criticizing their doctrines.

(Reply) (Thread)

2. They can also be used by clever asswipes to stifle legitimate criticism. It is only a matter of time before Fred Phelps or somebody tries to get a critic charged with a hate crime for criticizing their doctrines.

No offense (no, really, I'm just being cautious because I'm rather tired from work and sometimes I type out something that sounds worse than I intended), but aren't CAIR and the other Islamics 've been doing this - or trying to- all this time already? Along with the American Muslim judge who ruled in favor of the Muslim defendant for assaulting someone dressed as Zombie Mohammad? Coupled with the violence and threatening 'protest rallies' of pro-Sharia Muslims calling for the beheading of anyone who 'disrespects' or criticises Islam where the police are pretty much unable to intervene or control...

And pretty much they fulfil both of 1 and 2. I do agree that hate crime statutes are very unconstitutional and anti-freedom of speech (which is why I'm very anti-Sharia law.)

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)