Right Wing Nation

I don’t read the Philly media — I figure it would raise my blood pressure too much — but Sebastian links to an article that is, perhaps, the most idiotic thing I have read — and just so you don’t miss the wailing and hand wringing, this moronic drivel is entitled — and I do quote — “How many must die before gun lobby gets message?” Christ, it sounds like a Peter, Paul, and Mary song already, doesn’t it? Anyway, it starts fine:

The city reels from the murder of Sgt. Stephen Liczbin-ski, and in the midst of it, there are more blows to our sensibilities:

But immediately she doesn’t put her finger on the problem, she is the problem:

There’s the sickening eruption of what looked like gratuitous violence when police arrested three men driving away from the scene of another shooting - beating them and kicking them unmercifully, over and over, in a tableau of unchecked rage.

Woe! Woe is us! A cop killer, why that’s awful, but not nearly as awful as the police subduing a scumbag criminal! Oh no! Oh dear! Whatever shall we do? These poor, oppressed, disadvantaged criminals!

Then she starts on guns, because she’s entirely too st00pid to know that criminals are the problem, not guns:

There’s the continuing mindlessness of the gun lobby’s argument that weapons such as the SKS that killed Liczbinski should be available to one and all, as if only Second Amendment rights should be impervious to modification - unlike all the other rights we have.

And it goes downhill from there.

So idiot, re-read your first two paragraphs, and tell me: Are you really so incredibly st00pid that you don’t see the contradiction between the two?

Look, idiot, here in central Pennsylvania, we have lots and lots of guns, and very little crime, absolutely none compared to you. Why is that? Don’t try to answer: That’s what is known as a rhetorical question.

Here’s why. We. Don’t. Tolerate. Crimimals.

You worship criminals. You bow and scrape at the mere mention of Mumia’s name. You elect liberals who accommodate criminals at every opportunity, letting them go free on minimal bail or OR, putting them in halfway houses, slapping them on the wrists, and sending them to group therapy. And what do they do? Why, they commit more crime as soon as they get the opportunity, and they will continue to do so as long as you elect morons who put them back out on the street.

Here, you see, we lock criminals up in prison, for a long time. We just convicted a guy of a string of robberies with a toy gun. Nobody was hurt. It didn’t make a damned bit of difference. We gave him more years in prison than you’ve probably given every criminal sentenced in the last week in Philadelphia. We don’t moan about all those poor, oppressed minorities in prison, because we don’t care if they’re white, black, orange, or polka-dotted. They’re criminals. Do the crime, do the time. Here, they’re not set free so they can further terrorize us.

Here’s another reason, idiot. Philly is full of those “sophisticated, cosmopolitan” liberals like you, and their unarmed homes. This part of the state is not, and homes are more likely to be armed than not. Criminals who break into houses here may get shot, and they know it. And guess what? Not the prosecutor, not the sheriff, not the police, nobody would wring their hands and moan if a criminal did get shot, and no charges would be brought.

Now, when you stop moaning about those awful police and those poor, disenfranchised criminals, and stop electing liberals who moan about those awful police and those poor, disenfranchised criminals, then you can complain about criminals. But as long as you accommodate criminals and whine about the police, shut up and suck it up, because you deserve all the murders and rapes and robberies you get. Every. Bit.

And that’s about as nicely as I can put it.

You want my solution to urban crime? Surround high-crime neighborhoods with barbed wire fences, and let them kill each other until they decide to act like civilized human beings. No police. That’s what they want, after all, since they love the criminals and hate the police, so give them what they want.

That would solve the problem.

And as for all of you Radley Balko fanclub idiots who whine about SWAT teams, if you don’t want to live in a war zone. move. And if you decide not to move, shut up and suck it up. If they ever implement my plan for dealing with high crime neighborhoods, we’ll lock you up inside the barbed wire. Think of it as a gift. You won’t have police to whine about any more. Then if you don’t get killed, maybe you’ll develop the smarts to figure out what the real problem is.

Grumpy, me? Naw!

Here’s proof. And when you’ve read it, read it again, substituting “Barack Obama” for “Jack Layton.”

Just go read. Schadenfreude on steroids.

Jeff feels dirty now that he’s voted.

Cindy McCain gets it, even if some slobbering unhinged bloggers don’t. On negative campaigning:

We’d rather not win than to have to do that. That’s not worth winning for. This is about being a leader and a person that can be a good example for our children, and a good role model. There’s many, many, many more things to this job than just being the president. You are an example. You have to — you have to be better than that. You have to be.

Hat tip to Don Surber, who reads MSNBC so you don’t have to.

RIP Eddy Arnold.

Bob Krumm is on his way to Iraq.

From Blue Crab Blvd, this unsurprising look at the exit polls in Indiana and North Carolina:

Forget the horse race numbers for a moment: if the surveys are accurate, the polarization within the Democratic Party has reached critical levels. Nearly six in ten Obama supporters in Indiana say they would be dissatisfied if Clinton were the nominee — that’s (I believe) the high percentage of Obama supporters who have ever said that.

In both IN and NC, two thirds of Clinton supporters say they’d be dissatisfied if Obama were the nominee — I believe that’s the highest number recorded for that question, too.

The percentage of Clinton voters who say they’d choose McCain over Obama in a general election is approaching 40% in Indiana. Put it another way: in North Carolina, less than HALF of folks who voted today for Hillary Clinton are ready to say today that they’d definitely vote for Obama in a general election.

I hate to say I told you so, so instead, I’ll say pass the popcorn!

but you’d think after God knows how many primaries that a professional journalist would at least have paid attention:

Both Bill and Hillary have noted plaintively that if Democrats had the same winner-take-all rules as Republicans, she’d be the nominee.

We don’t have winner-take-all rules. State parties decide how to allot delegates. Some states are winner-take-all; others are not. The issue is that the Democrats — the national party, mind — again showed their utter disregard for the principles of Federalism upon which this nation was based by telling states that they could not have winner-take-all primaries (or caucuses).

Pay attention, idiot.

”The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers” (Henry VI, Part II, act IV, Scene II). From Ace: “Shearman & Sterling Heroically Springs Gitmo Prisoner, Who Promptly Murders Innocents; Meanwhile, They Reap the Benefits of Their Very Lucrative Middle-East Law Practice.”

Grumpy, me? Naw!

about this video of Philly police:

Excessive force?

For cop killers? Not enough force.

Of course, the Philly liberals are having fits and demanding an investigation. Tomorrow, they’ll be wringing their hands about crime and demanding more gun control. Me, I figure they deserve all the crime they accomodate down there. It’s just too bad more of them don’t get killed.

Grumpy, me? Naw!