PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.

Search Results

COME AND SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE LEFTISM: Self-Proclaimed Washington State Marxist Threatened Cops Who Oppose Gun Control: You ‘Will Be Shot. By Me.’


SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE LEFTISM: Leftist Thug Caught on Video Assaulting Conservative Berkeley Student While Fellow Students Laugh.

SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE LEFTISM: Incendiary Devices Found Outside Eugene Police HQ after Police Shooting of Armed Antifa Radical.

SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE LEFTISM: Car Ramming Attack on Dallas Fox Affiliate After ‘Meet the Press’ Host Says to ‘Fight Back’ Against Fox News.

Update: We know more about the (alleged) attacker now, and while it’s impossible to tell what his politics might be, he does seem unhinged enough to be triggered by what he sees on TV.

SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE LEFTISM: Social Distortion’s Mike Ness Accused of Punching Pro-Trump Fan at Concert.

SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE LEFTISM: One Year After He Was Nearly Killed, Scalise Is Still Receiving Assassination Threats.

UPDATE (FROM GLENN): Related: Bernie Bro James T. Hodgkinson, Attempted Assassin Of Steve Scalise, Already Being Erased From History.


Law professors and lawyers instinctively shy away from considering the problem of law’s violence. Every law is violent. We try not to think about this, but we should. On the first day of law school, I tell my Contracts students never to argue for invoking the power of law except in a cause for which they are willing to kill. They are suitably astonished, and often annoyed. But I point out that even a breach of contract requires a judicial remedy; and if the breacher will not pay damages, the sheriff will sequester his house and goods; and if he resists the forced sale of his property, the sheriff might have to shoot him.

This is by no means an argument against having laws.

It is an argument for a degree of humility as we choose which of the many things we may not like to make illegal. Behind every exercise of law stands the sheriff – or the SWAT team – or if necessary the National Guard. Is this an exaggeration? Ask the family of Eric Garner, who died as a result of a decision to crack down on the sale of untaxed cigarettes. That’s the crime for which he was being arrested. Yes, yes, the police were the proximate cause of his death, but the crackdown was a political decree.

Law is force. If you don’t like people being subjected to government force, you should desire a minimum of law.

SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE LEFTISM: Capitol Police Arrested Male Dem Operative For Assaulting Female Trump Admin Official.


Local media reports say more than 150 people took part in the rally against University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson. He has come under fire for refusing to use gender-neutral pronouns and opposing Bill C-16, which extends legal protections to transgender people in Canada.

Police say the woman, who isn’t a student at Queen’s, stood on one of the building’s window ledges during the protest and started to bang on the window, causing it to break and cutting her hand.

* * * * * * *

Police add that the woman also tried to kick out the cruiser’s window while she was being transported to police headquarters.

Officials say officers searched her backpack and found a weapon — a metal wire with handles commonly known as a garrotte.”

A garrotte is “a crude weapon used to strangle a person. That is: to kill them by strangulation,” Rod Dreher adds.

As Kurt Schlichter writes, “Progressives Must Stop Using Terror To Try And Intimidate Conservatives.”

(Classical reference in headline.)

NEW CIVILITY WATCH: Andrea Mitchell: Dems Must Get Deal ‘Written in Blood’ to Avoid Shutdown.

Earlier today: “CBS This Morning co-host John Dickerson on Friday touted Democratic talking points regarding a government shutdown. Talking to Senator Cory Gardner, Dickerson tried to explain away demanding a DACA fix in return for keeping the government open. He lectured the Republican: ‘Nothing focuses the mind like a hanging.’”


As Steve says, come and see the violence inherent in the leftism.


CBS This Morning co-host John Dickerson on Friday touted Democratic talking points regarding a government shutdown. Talking to Senator Cory Gardner, Dickerson tried to explain away demanding a DACA fix in return for keeping the government open. He lectured the Republican: “Nothing focuses the mind like a hanging.”

Yes, Dickerson is paraphrasing Samuel Johnson, but murdering Republicans seems to be a recurring fantasy for the CBS anchorman:

Go for the Throat! Why if he wants to transform American politics, Obama must declare war on the Republican Party.

Headline, John Dickerson’s column at Slate, January 18, 2013.



● Rand Paul: Recovery after attack ‘was a living hell.’

Bernie Bro James T. Hodgkinson, Attempted Assassin Of Steve Scalise, Already Being Erased From History.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai canceled his appearance at CES because of death threats.

Terry McAuliffe says he’d punch Trump: ‘You’d have to pick him up off the floor.’

As Steve says, come and see the violence inherent in the leftism.


Drinking while watching MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show led to death threats against Republicans Mitch McConnell and Scott Pruitt that sparked an FBI investigation.

An individual admitted to sending threatening tweets against the Senate majority leader and Environmental Protection Agency administrator, according to the EPA’s inspector general investigation document, first reported by E&E News.


● Rand Paul: Recovery after attack ‘was a living hell.’

Bernie Bro James T. Hodgkinson, Attempted Assassin Of Steve Scalise, Already Being Erased From History.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai canceled his appearance at CES because of death threats.

Terry McAuliffe says he’d punch Trump: ‘You’d have to pick him up off the floor.’

As Steve just said in response to that last item, come and see the violence inherent in the leftism. (Bumped, by Glenn, because they keep trying to bury this stuff.)

SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE LEFTISM: Terry McAuliffe says he’d punch Trump: ‘You’d have to pick him up off the floor.’

CHRISTIAN TOTO: Woke, Predictable VMAs Ignore Antifa Violence, Hate.

Even WaPo is taking notice of the violence inherent in Antifa’s system, and recent attacks on a reporter and a photographer ought to make more in the MSM recognize the truth.


Hamblin likes the idea of “redefining strength” by accepting, in the moment, that one has been “physically overpowered” and not getting caught up in “the idea of masculinity as an amalgam of dominance and violence.” Instead, Jacobs, speaking “as if narrating for the audio recorder,” said “You just body-slammed me and broke my glasses.” He also “started asking for names of witnesses to the assault who will be assets to his case as it plays out in courts of law and public opinion,” and reported the incident to the police.

Of course, Jacobs’s choices were not merely a matter of overcoming physical impulses and meritoriously eschewing violence. I don’t know how much of an impulse to retaliate on the spot he may have felt. I don’t really know how violently he was hit. I don’t even know if he did something first toward Gianforte and Gianforte was doing the old tit for tat retaliation. But narrating the audio, dropping it on line, going to the police, and taking names for litigation purposes is also a form of dominance. Some people would even call it violence. Why, here’s an article in The Atlantic from just last June: “Enforcing the Law Is Inherently Violent/A Yale law professor suggests that oft-ignored truth should inform debates about what statutes and regulations to codify.”

But personally, I’m now sufficiently woke to praise Gianforte for body-slamming rapist Ben Jacobs:

Thanks to male feminist Jordan Hoffman for enlightening me.

PRESSING THE FLESH: Greg Gianforte, Montana House GOP candidate, cited for misdemeanor assault after incident.

The Gallatin County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement that there was probable cause to issue a citation, but the nature of the injuries “did not meet the statutory elements of a felony assault.”

Still, the incident sent shockwaves across the country and resulted in two key Montana newspapers taking back their earlier endorsement.

The incident occurred Wednesday evening when a Fox News team was scheduled to interview Gianforte at his campaign headquarters. The team said Ben Jacobs, the reporter from The Guardian, pressed Gianforte about the newly released Congressional Budget Office report on the American Health Care Act.

Gianforte told Jacobs to talk to his press officer. At some point, Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground, according to witnesses.

See the violence inherent in the system?

HOUSE OF WAR: Why Europe Can’t Find The Jihadis In Its Midst. Mitch Prothero reports how “A small, well-organized ISIS cell has been at work in the heart of Europe for years, recruiting criminals, exploiting freedom of movement, and evading counterterrorism efforts.”


Since 2010, the Belgian and French authorities have been faced with a jihadist problem both more entrenched at home and more deeply interconnected to the international scene than had been previously understood. After last November’s attack on Paris, in which 130 people were killed, the full extent of the problem — not just for Belgium and France, but for the European Union — become tragically clear: An international network has exploited inherent security weaknesses of the EU’s open borders and brought French-speaking militants from Europe into the forefront of international terrorism. Between 2011 and the end of 2015, an estimated 12,000 people from 81 countries joined ISIS in Syria and Iraq, including 1,700 French and almost 500 Belgian residents, according to a comprehensive study of foreign fighters by the Soufan Group. The French S list — a database of suspected extremists and security threats — has grown to nearly 10,000 people, and those are only the people who have been identified.

ISIS militants threaten Europe with a wave of violence not seen since the heyday of 1970s political terrorism, and it appears to have the potential to be far more deadly. Previous terror campaigns led by Ireland’s IRA, Spain’s ETA, and Italy’s Red Brigades tended to have national aspirations and couldn’t exploit total freedom of movement between European countries.

Read the whole thing.

JIM GERAGHTY: So How Much of this ‘Hybrid’ Attack Was Jihadism?

Yesterday the country got the perfect Rorschach test of violence. People who want to downplay violent Islamist jiahdism and self-radicalization among American-born Muslims will see “workplace violence” or an excuse for another gun control push. Others will contend this is an Islamist sleeper cell, even if it isn’t formally set up by ISIS or al-Qaeda.

CNN summarizes what is known about Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik:

Police say Farook, 28, and Malik, 27, are either married or in a relationship. The Council on American Islamic Relations, a Muslim advocacy group, said Farook has been married for two years — but wouldn’t confirm whether Malik was the wife’s name.

Farook and his wife left their 6-month-old girl with Farook’s grandmother Wednesday and said they had a doctor’s appointment.

They abandoned their child? Okay, stop. This was not driven by a workplace dispute. To leave your infant child and then commit horrific violence that is likely to lead to your death from police action requires an almost otherworldly devotion to . . . some other cause, something you consider more important than life, death, and the inherent biological urge to protect your offspring. “Larry from accounting keeps taking the last doughnut at staff meetings” or “they took my red Swingline stapler” isn’t the sort of motive at work here.

What motivation have we seen that would make seemingly ordinary people go on mass-murdering attacks? What ideology or twisted religious fervor have we seen people willing to sacrifice their children for, willing to die for?

Plus, Jim quotes a report nothing the presence amidst the IEDs, and the “tactical clothing, including vests stuffed with ammunition magazines,” “the couple also had GoPro cameras strapped to their body armor.” As Jim adds, “That’s the sort of thing you bring if you want to make videos to terrorize other people, and rally others to their cause or ideology . . . it also would explain why they left the scene instead of staying to shoot it out with police at the social services facility. They intended to live to tell the tale, at least for a while.”

Read the whole thing.

THE SELECTIVE ARGUMENT THAT POLITICAL RHETORIC LEADS TO VIOLENCE: Jim Geraghty lists “The On-Again, Off-Again Arguments About ‘Dangerous Rhetoric’ Leading to Violence,” before concluding:

Do I have all that right? And does that make sense to anyone?

Wouldn’t Occam’s Razor suggest that those already driven by a desire or compulsion to kill other people are going to do so, and will merely latch on to whatever “reason”, justification or excuse is at hand or is most convenient? Isn’t it ridiculous to expect sane people to watch what they say and restrict what thoughts they express in order to prevent a rampage by someone with an inherently illogical, literally unreasonable, not-sane thinking process?

Isn’t “don’t say what you think, because it might set off a crazy person” the most insidious form of censorship, because none of us can really know what prompts a crazy person to go on a violent rampage?

Ace of Spades adds:

The Colorado governor says that the Planned Parenthood shooting is due to the rhetoric of “talk radio” and “bloggers.”

Ed Morrissey catches the Washington Post saying the same thing.

He notes an example where the left does not find its own hot rhetoric linked to a murderer’s rampage — the Family Research Council shooter. I can name another one — the Discover Channel Shooter, a shooter the left seized upon initially because they assumed he was rightwing, then discarded quickly when his manifesto indicated that he was so left-wing on climate change he thought the Discovery Channel was too soft in its climate change propaganda.

Gabriel Malor has documented the left’s “incurable” disease of blaming shootings on right-wing speech.

But never, ever on leftwing speech — obviously! Leftwing speech never inspires violence. Except when it does. And there’s an interesting argument to explain why, and that argument is complete media silence.

I find this part of the left’s broader mission of shutting down any thought of which they don’t approve. The left routinely — reflexively — links any sort of political thought they don’t like into a dire real-world consequence or crime.

If you deny the fake 1-in-5 claim, you’re encouraging rape.

If you publicize the fact that baby organs are in fact being harvested at Planned Parenthood, you’re encouraging shooting.

If you call a woman “bossy,” you’re both fostering an anti-woman “atmosphere” and encouraging violent crimes against women.

And so on. As I say, the left’s own hot rhetoric — that we need to reduce the human population to save us from global warming; that anyone who disagrees with this is a “denier” like a Holocaust denier; etc., etc. — is never, apparently, linked to any violence.

Well, that doesn’t help advance the DNC-MSM narrative; when it comes to their coverage of the other side of the aisle, as Andrew Klavan noted in 2009, all of their memes can be boiled down to two words:

Related: “These are some astounding facts about violence this year in Chicago,” Betsy Newmark notes:

As of November 23, there had been 2703 shootings which resulted in 440 deaths year-to date in heavily gun-controlled Chicago.

That is an increase of approximately 400 shootings over the same time last year.

And remember that Chicago has some of the most stringent gun control measures in the nation in a city that has been under totally Democratic control for decades.

Doesn’t fit the narrative; makes Obama and Rahm look bad. Thus memory holed in order to continue “defining deviancy downward,” to coin a phrase.

JAMIE KIRCHICK: Jeremy Corbyn And the Derangement Of The British Left: Revisiting the 1982 novel that foretold Jeremy Corbyn’s rise—and revealed the conspiratorial worldview at the heart of contemporary Leftist politics.

Corbyn is the most radical politician ever to be elected leader of a mainstream British political party and today stands as perhaps the most radical leader of a social democratic party in the Western world. An unreconstructed socialist, he is the sort of figure whom former Prime Minister Tony Blair was supposed to have consigned to irrelevance with his “New Labour” modernization project, which began with eliminating the clause from the party constitution mandating the struggle for “common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” Nary a colleague at Westminster—on whose backbenches Corbyn had noisily sat for his entire 32 year career as an MP, not once serving in a Labour government or Shadow Cabinet—could have expected that this bearded sexagenarian would ever obtain a leadership position, never mind become party leader himself. It wasn’t just Corbyn’s extreme left-wing views that made such a scenario implausible. A loner whose hobbies consist of making his own jam and taking pictures of manhole covers, Corbyn isn’t the clubbable bloke who gathers political chits. He’s a variation on another British type, the eccentric of the vegetarian teetotaler variety. . . .

This conviction that “bourgeois democracy” is a mere façade for the ruling capitalist class to exploit the masses has its origins, of course, in the theories of Karl Marx. German philosopher Herbert Marcuse later devised the term “repressive tolerance” to characterize Western democracy as a massive confidence trick: Its vaunted “tolerance” for classical liberal rights like freedom of speech, voting, and the rule of law is actually “repressive” as it “impedes possible improvement of the human condition” by blinding people to the inherently unfair and oppressive system under which they live. What Marcuse proposed, by contrast, was “liberating tolerance”, a deviously oxymoronic concept meaning “intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left.”

Such philosophical legitimization for totalitarianism, in its pettier form, has inspired the poisonous climate of political correctness on American college campuses, where staged outrage has become a key tool of what used to be called revolutionary intolerance. As a political agenda, however, it justifies trampling on countless millions in the realization of teleological “progress.” Marcuse arrogated to “small, powerless minorities”—a.k.a. the Leninist vanguard—a right to use force in achieving their ends, bringing about the demise of Western liberal democratic societies in the process. For “if they use violence, they do not start a new chain of violence but try to break an established one”, the “established” “chain of violence” being Western societies themselves. In this addled dispensation, the way in which the basic components of “bourgeois democracy”—private enterprise, independent media, the criminal justice system, etc.—keep power in the hands of the ruling class is “structural violence”, a form of coercion whose pervasiveness is matched only by its subtlety. Once a term rarely heard outside university sociology departments, “structural violence” has come into vogue again as a bogeyman of the anti-policing movement now sweeping the United States. . . . Jeremy Corbyn has spent his entire political career marinating in this same extremist political milieu, where notions like freedom of speech and the rule of law are considered superficial trappings propping up an unjust system.

I remember explaining “Critical Legal Studies” to a sitting judge back in the 1980s. “Crap,” he said, “I thought that shit died with Marcuse.” If only.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Ed Morrissey: Yale, Mizzou and Others—Training a Generation of Proto-Fascists. “To paraphrase an old Monty Python routine, come and see the violence inherent in campus progressivism. Academia no longer values an open and robust exchange of ideas, a pursuit of truth, and adherence to actual tolerance. Actual commitment to learning would have prompted scrutiny of extraordinary claims and discussion of differing points of view. Instead, campuses have become overrun by proto-fascists who want submission to groupthink and are not afraid to call out for ‘some muscle’ to enforce it.”

America’s unprecedented investment in higher education hasn’t turned out very well. Expect a correction.

TANKS FOR THE MEMORIES: Mizzou media maven Melissa Click’s CV is reviewed by John Hinderaker of Power Line in a post titled “The Fraudulence of Leftist Professors,” after which, John writes:

The astonishing thing is that Professor Click collects money from various sources to support her “research.” E.g.:

Women’s and Gender Studies Faculty Research and Creative Activities Grant, University of Missouri. Awarded to support research on readers’ reactions to the messages in the Fifty Shades of Grey book series. April 2013.

Richard Wallace Faculty Incentive Grant, University of Missouri. Awarded to support research on readers’ reactions to the messages in the Fifty Shades of Grey book series. April 2013.

From Fifty Shades of Grey to Thomas the Tank:

A&S Alumni Organization Faculty Incentive Grant, University of Missouri. Awarded to support initial research on the PBS children’s series Thomas the Tank Engine. February 2010.

If you put a gun to my head and made me read one or the other–Fifty Shades of Grey or Thomas the Tank Engine–I would go with Thomas. I do wonder, however, what the feminist angle on Thomas the Tank could possibly be.

Oh, that’s an easy one. Back in February a headline at — where else? — the London Guardian ran down the “Ten things feminism has ruined for me — Bras, bikes and Thomas the Tank Engine… Emer O’Toole mourns some of life’s simpler pleasures.” The previous year, someone else at the Guardian named Tracy Van Slyke wrote a piece titled “Thomas the Tank Engine had to shut the hell up to save children everywhere — Classism, sexism, anti-environmentalism bordering on racism: any parent who discovered these hidden lessons will be glad the show’s star just quit.” (The voice actor who played Thomas quit in a contract dispute; he was replaced by another actor):

And that’s not even to get started on the female trains. Well, actually it’s hard to get started on them, because they barely exist. Take a quick scan of the more than 100 trains and characters in the Thomas universe – it spans multiple books, toys and continents in addition to a TV show – and you can quickly count on two hands the number of lady trains that populate is Isle of Sodor. Emily – the only lady train to get name checked in the opening credits and the only one who regularly hangs out with the boy trains – is said to “know her stuff.” That’s the sole description of her personality. What does that even mean?

Last year, the British Labour shadow Transportation Secretary even called out Thomas for its lack of females, saying that the franchise setting a bad example for girl wannabe train engineers everywhere.

At first blush, Thomas and his friends seem rather placid and mild. And there are certainly a lot worse shows in terms of in-your-face violence, sexism, racism and classism. But looks can be deceiving: the constant bent of messages about friendship, work, class, gender and race sends my kid the absolute wrong message.

Witness the violence inherent in the HO* scale train system!

* And how dare the model railroad degrade sex-workers with these highly problematic initials!


In the past week, two television reporters in Roanoke, Va. — Alison Parker and Adam Ward — were murdered by a black man who hated whites, and a white police officer in Houston — Darren Goforth — was murdered by a black man. Neither crime has been labeled a hate crime. And no mainstream media reporting of the murders attributes either to race-based hate.

For the mainstream media, the Roanoke murders were committed by “a disgruntled former employee,” and regarding the Houston policeman, the media report that, in the words of The New York Times, “a motive for the shooting remained unclear.”

The disregard of anti-white hatred as the motive for blacks who murder whites even when the murder is obviously racially motivated comes from the same people who denied that the Islamist Nidal Hasan’s murder of 13 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood was religiously motivated. These people — all on the left — have an agenda: to deny black racism and Islamist-based violence whenever possible. Only white police and other white violence against non-whites is clearly racist — even when not. . . .

So, too, the mainstream media depicted the black murderer of eight white people at a Connecticut beer warehouse in 2010 as a man who had been angered by white racism, not as the white-hater he was. Under the headline “Troubles Preceded Connecticut Workplace Killing,” a New York Times article reported: “He might also have had cause to be angry: He had complained to his girlfriend of being racially harassed at work, the woman’s mother said, and lamented that his grievances had gone unaddressed.”

And a Washington Post headline read: “Beer warehouse shooter long complained of racism.”

The fact was that the man was fired for stealing beer from his workplace, and there was a video of him doing so.

The left denies black racism in another way. When a white racist murdered nine blacks in a Charleston, S.C., church this past June, the left and the media correctly stressed the murderer’s racism. Indeed, whenever blacks are killed by whites — which, it is worth noting, is many times less likely than a white being murdered by a black — and especially by white police officers, the left attributes the killings to racism. But when blacks kill whites, the left attributes the killings to guns. This is all reinforced by the left’s position that only whites can be racist, because only the powerful can be racist, and whites have all the power. . . .

The left has been supplying both victimhood and lies to black America. The lies are that America is a racist society — as the president of the United States himself has said, racism is “still part of (America’s) DNA” — that the greatest problem facing young blacks is racism, and that white (and even black) police routinely kill blacks for no reason other than racism. . . .

Those lies in turn produce the anger-inducing victimhood that pervades too much of black life. Just this past weekend at the Minneapolis State Fair, a “Black Lives Matter” group chanted, “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.”

Some blacks — as in Houston this past weekend and in Louisiana two weeks earlier when a black man murdered another white policeman — are taking this message literally and randomly murdering police officers. And some other blacks just want to kill whites, whether or not they are police. Such is the power of victimhood and lies.

There is a lot of blood on the left’s hands. And there will be more.

The far left notion that only whites can be racist has been part of Critical Race Theory (of which Obama has long been a proponent), which is a key component of Critical Legal Theory. CRT/CLT’s core philosophy is that whites have all the “power,” and design laws to keep minorities from getting any “power,” thus perpetually victimizing those minorities.  The far left needs hatred of whites and victimhood like fire needs oxygen; without them, its distorted view of law and society withers and dies.

The inherent evil of this far left philosophy should be obvious, as one of the founding fathers of the movement, Saul Alinsky–whose devotees include both Barack Obama and Hillary Clintonincluded in the beginning of his book, Rules for Radicals, the following statement of admiration for the community organizing talents of the devil:

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history… the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

The devil works in obvious ways sometimes. Hating other individuals simply because of the color of their skin–even if you think that brings them “power” or “privilege”–is racism. But at least two generations of Americans have been taught the opposite, thanks to the far left dominance of the academy. Prager is sadly correct when he ascribes growing black-on-white racial hate crimes to the far left’s “victimhood” narrative, as well as his conclusion that more bloodshed is likely to come.

ROGER SIMON: Why Baltimore: An American Tragedy.

Commentators were repeatedly asking – where are the parents? Ben Carson – the neurosurgeon, potential Republican presidential candidate and onetime Baltimore resident – urged the city’s parents “Please, take care of your children.”

Great idea, but here’s the problem. They don’t have ‘em. According to liberal CNN’s Don Lemon, 72 percent of African-American children are born out of wedlock. His stats were born out by the Center for Disease Control. One can only imagine what the stats would be broken down for those Baltimore neighborhoods that were rioting. The presence of a father in the home would be a rarity indeed. And a lot of the moms are probably holding their fatherless homes together for dear life, desperately trying to make a living when their kids are pouring out of school. No one was home.

Of course, it wasn’t always that way. The black family was the bulwark of that community. So what happened? I’ll be blunt, since I was once part of the problem and equally culpable – liberal racism. Ever since the days of Lyndon Johnson, social welfare programs aimed at making the lives of “colored people” better actually made them worse. The assumption behind these programs is that African-Americans – always, constantly, forever unequal and not up to the task – needed a leg up. They got the message. Wouldn’t you?

And wouldn’t it make you pretty angry too? Not that that’s an excuse for violence, not even faintly. The whole system is corrupt, top to bottom.

No wonder the mayor of Baltimore made the inane comment (and then pretended she didn’t) about giving the rioters space to wreak their havoc. That’s the logical extension of the Great Society, this time given forth by a black woman graduate of Oberlin. She didn’t even comprehend at the time the insult to her own people inherent in her comment. When I heard her welcoming Al Sharpton in the press conference, I cringed.

On the other hand, the opportunities for graft over the past 50 years have been splendid.

UPDATE: Well, some parents were still disciplining their kids.

DAVID BERNSTEIN: Are affirmative action preferences “worse” than other sorts of admissions preferences?

Put another way, the other sorts of preferences that universities use in determining admission or may not be sound policy, but they are not inherently dangerous to society. To my knowledge, there have been no civil wars, riots, or genocides sparked by government seeming to favor athletes, university alumni, musicians, people from remote states, and other groups preferred in university admissions. By contrast, world history and current events are filled with example of racial and ethnic hostility causing violence, war, and destruction. Indeed, affirmative action itself has sparked violence, especially in India, where ethnic tensions coexist with caste tensions. As Thomas Sowell points out, “complacency is never in order when racial or ethnic relationships are concerned, for even generations of peaceful coexistence can turn ugly when the right circumstances and the right demagogue come together.”

And the demagogues are always out there, ready to spread racial poison and destroy the polity, so long as it enhances their power and position.

SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM: Democratic Operative Attacks GOP Election Observer In Fairfax.

HERE YOU SEE THE VIOLENCE INHERENT IN THE SYSTEM: Sen. Orrin Hatch “doggone offended” by “radical libertarians,” threatens to punch them (us) in the mouth.

WHEN WORDS LOSE THEIR MEANING: Justices Say Fleeing Police By Car Is A “Violent Felony.” It’s one thing to say that a particular episode might be dangerous enough to approximate violence, but the notion that fleeing is inherently violent strikes me as bizarre. Note the Scalia dissent.

NEW DEFINITIONS of violence and civilization.Violence. A word Ms Gopal uses no fewer than nine times. Fiscal responsibility, albeit belated, is violence, see? Reducing the national debt is violence. Extending credit for tuition fees is violence. Attempting to contain the growth of the state – enlarged by around 30% under New Labour – that’s violence too. Audacious, isn’t it? Ms Gopal, who ‘teaches in the Faculty of English at the University of Cambridge,’ has casually redefined violence to include practically anything to which she takes political exception.” Well, if that’s the definition, put me down as pro-violence. A lot of other people may feel the same way, but beware of definitional creep, which is already showing up in the comments. . . .

UPDATE: I like this from the comments:

Georg’s Law: As any Liberal drifts closer to idiocy, their language drifts closer to a Monty Python skit.

DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system. ARTHUR: Shut up!

Heh. Though Ms. Gopal seems more a fascist apologist than a traditional liberal. Plus, on a more serious note:

There is a very dangerous subtext to defining budget cuts as “violence.”

In almost all moral systems, it is permissible to use violence in response to violence. Therefore, if you define non-violent action as violence, then you create a moral justification for using violence in response to non-violent actions. By equating non-violent budgeting disagreements with overt acts of violence, [Gopal] is creating a rationale for killing people just because they disagree with her on minor political issues.

This is the primary rationale used by violently oppressive and mass murdering regimes. They justify police states and mass killings by equating non-violent opposition or even failure to overtly and publicly disagree with a physical attack on the whole of society.

Of course, her belief that disagreeing with her is a transgression deserving of a violent response, is really just a statement of her own narcissism and hubris. She thinks herself so fantastically intelligent, moral and infallible that her word alone defines the greater good to such an extent that frustrating her will is a crime punishable by death.

She should hope that such an attitude does not spread too far.

HERE WE SEE THE VIOLENCE inherent in the system. As always, it’s the opposite of what’s portrayed.

REMEMBER HOW WE HEARD ABOUT THE DANGERS OF THE ENTIRELY NONVIOLENT TEA PARTY PROTESTS? But will we hear the same clucking-of-tongues about the G20 riots?

The marchers included small groups of self-described anarchists, some wearing dark clothes and bandanas and carrying black flags. Others wore helmets and safety goggles.

One banner read, “No borders, no thanks,” another, “No hope in capitalism.” A few minutes into the march, protesters unfurled a large banner reading “NO BAILOUT NO CAPITALISM” with an encircled “A,” a recognized sign of anarchists.

The marchers did not have a permit and, after a few blocks, police declared it an unlawful assembly. They played an announcement over a loudspeaker telling people to leave or face arrest and then police in riot gear moved in to break it up.

Protesters split into smaller groups. Some rolled large metal trash bins toward police, and a man in a black hooded sweat shirt threw rocks at a police car, breaking the front windshield. Protesters broke windows in a few businesses, including a bank branch and a Boston Market restaurant.

Nothing like this at the Tea Parties.

More here: “The peaceful protesters started throwing rocks at police and police cars, and dragging trash containers into the middle of the street to block traffic. No surprise, the police fired canisters of pepper spray, white smoke and some rubber bullets into the crowds. . . . The folks that organized Thursday’s unauthorized march, the G-20 Resistance Group, is encouraging members to spend the morning, before the march, to take unspecified actions against local offices of corporations deemed evil.”

No arrests like these at the Tea Parties, either. Until we see scenes like this, I don’t want to hear yammering about the violence inherent in the Tea Party movement.

JONATHAN RAUCH says it’s not a war on terror, but a war on Jihadism:

Jihadism is not a tactic, like terrorism, or a temperament, like radicalism or extremism. It is not a political pathology like Stalinism, a mental pathology like paranoia, or a social pathology like poverty. Rather, it is a religious ideology, and the religion it is associated with is Islam.

But it is by no means synonymous with Islam, which is much larger and contains many competing elements. Islam can be, and usually is, moderate; Jihadism, with a capital J, is inherently radical. If the Western and secular world’s nearer-term war aim is to stymie the jihadists, its long-term aim must be to discredit Jihadism in the Muslim world.

No single definition prevails, but here is a good one: Jihadism engages in or supports the use of force to expand the rule of Islamic law. In other words, it is violent Islamic imperialism. It stands, as one scholar put it 90 years ago, for “the extension by force of arms of the authority of the Muslim state.” . . .

Jihadists, she writes, are not merely angry about U.S. policies. They believe that America is the biggest obstacle to the global rule of an Islamic superstate. Ultimately, in the Jihadist view, “Islam must expand to fill the entire world or else falsehood in its many guises will do so.” Violence is by no means mandated, but it is assuredly authorized.

This squares pretty well with what Moussaoui was saying in court, doesn’t it? Read the whole thing.

MORE IGNORANT THUGGERY: “Nigerian Muslims protesting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad attacked Christians and burned churches on Saturday, killing at least 15 people in the deadliest confrontation yet in the whirlwind of Muslim anger over the drawings.”

If Christians were burning mosques, it would be portrayed as proof of their inherent degeneracy and violence.

UPDATE: More here.

CONCORDIA UPDATE: Canadian reader Nathan McLeod sends this:

The Concordia University embarrassment continues.

The Board of Governors today announced a cooling off period until December. Until then they are banning any kind of information being displayed in the main hall of the university. I assume this might be the student union building. They are also putting off making a decision on their policy regarding free speech.

Does the BOG’s not understand what happened on September 9th? Thugs upset about the idea of Netanyahu speaking threatened and intimidated those seeking to hear him speak. They broke windows and damaged property to disrupt free speech.

People supporting the Palestinians do not believe in a free exchange of ideas. They believe in intimidation and violence.

What grade school children inherently understand, the concept of free speech, will supposedly take the Board of Governors a few months to think about. Their abdication of responsibility is an embarrassment.

Although if Canadian society is willing to tolerate thugs intimidating free speech it is understandable how they tolerate being ruled by Prime Minister Chretien with his blame the victim philosophy when referring to the murder of 3,000 innocent men, woman and children.

George Bush said it is up to all nations to decide if they are with or against terrorism. In small and large ways my country is failing the test.

Also, Martin Devon has a post with links to streaming video of the anti-Jewish riot at Concordia that shut down Netanyahu’s speech.

THE VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER continues its ongoing effort to shred what little credibility it has left, with its “Alexander Hamilton essay contest,” in which students are invited to write essays explaining why the Second Amendment doesn’t actually give people any rights. But while there is — to me at least — something inherently suspect in an essay contest that’s explicitly anti-constitutional-rights, that’s not the credibility shredder. It’s the name: VPC says it named the contest after Alexander Hamilton because (by dying in a duel with Aaron Burr) he was a “victim of handgun violence.”

Eugene Volokh observes:

Wow, a victim of handgun violence. In some sense, I suppose, it’s true — he was killed in a violent act with a handgun. But surely if the NRA wanted to have a poster child for its “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” campaign, Hamilton would be top of the list! First, what Hamilton did was already illegal — dueling was and is attempted murder (or, in Burr’s case, actual murder). Can you imagine the scenario? “Mr. Burr, I would fight a duel with you, notwithstanding that dueling is a crime — but because handguns are illegal, I cannot.”

Second, surely dueling (especially in the early 1800s) was one situation where if people didn’t have guns, they’d use something else instead, and pretty much as effectively. I haven’t seen the statistics, but my sense is that a wound from a sword in 1804 would have been about as deadly as a wound from a pistol. (Pistols may be more lethal than bladed weapons, then as well as today, because it’s easier to run away from a bladed weapon — but that factor, which might be relevant to modern gun control debates, is surely completely irrelevant to a duel.)

Whatever one may say about Hamilton’s death, it most assuredly provides zero support for gun control proposals. Blaming the gun — as opposed to blaming Hamilton himself, blaming Burr, blaming social attitudes that tolerated or encouraged dueling, or whatever else — in this case is almost self-parody. If the NRA were trying to mock the anti-gun forces by putting ridiculous words in their mouths, it would be hard for them to beat “Hamilton was himself a victim of handgun violence.”

Yes, but the VPC’s descent into self-parody (there’s no “almost” about it) has become so steep that it has undoubtedly gone beyond anything the NRA could think up.

THE WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL BOARD EMBARRASSES ITSELF AGAIN with this extraordinarily lame editorial on the Second Amendment. The editorial attacks Attorney General John Ashcroft for adopting an individual-right view of the Second Amendment, using a particular case (in which a Maryland man, licensed to carry in Maryland, was arrested for carrying a gun in D.C.) as its springboard.

Here’s the dumbest passage, from among many candidates:

Our point is simply that the government cannot both embrace an individual rights view of the Second Amendment and prosecute people for wielding guns.

Well, the Post here seems to lose sight of the distinction between carrying a gun and “wielding” it, something that seems rather crucial. More importantly — as the editors of the Post would know if they bothered to read anything on the Second Amendment beyond (suspiciously similar) press releases from the Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center, both of whom incestuously feature a lot of Post editorials on their webpages — prosecution for illegally carrying guns doesn’t violate the right to keep and bear arms anyway. Scholarship on the Second Amendment is almost completely in agreement on this point. Nor is that all.

The vast majority of states have state constitutional provisions protecting the right to keep and bear arms, yet — even in states where the provisions are treated as fundamental rights getting the highest protections — “carrying” weapons in public is treated differently from owning them. So there’s no inherent conflict in Ashcroft’s position at all. The Post is just, once again, gullibly recycling sound bites from gun-control activists, and diminishing its already-limited credibility on this subject still further.

Had the Post’s editorial writer even bothered to read the academic articles cited in Ashcroft’s letter stating his position on the Second Amendment, or the sources in this letter from eighteen state attorneys general supporting Ashcroft, he/she would have known that the editorial was nonsense. Which makes me wonder: is the Post really this clueless on a subject it editorializes about so often? Or do the editors of the Post simply not care about the truth?

UPDATE: Hey, maybe this is why, as Howard Kurtz reports, the press’s reputation is in the toilet. Well, given that three quarters of Americans support Ashcroft’s position, the Post’s effort to portray it as outlandish certainly can’t be helping.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Asking “Are all the Post editors on vacation?” Mickey Kaus finds another example of the Post falling for bogus interest-group spin. Maybe they should just print the advocacy-group pressreleases directly, with the contact numbers so we’ll know who to call if we have any questions.

Kaus, who’s on a roll today, also identifies a major Krugman error, which Krugman has only corrected on his webpage, presumably next to the item about rhinoceri, and not in the Times where it appeared. Interestingly, in the poll cited by Howard Kurtz, above, most Americans thought Big Media were lousy at correcting errors. Looks like they’re right again.

PAUL TRUMMEL UPDATE: Bill Hobbs has the latest. Sadly, Trummel, an old man who has already spent several months in jail, has given in — though there’s a mirror site with all the information that Judge James Doerty ordered him to take down. (Doerty finally took down the “guestbook” feature of his reelection website, too.)

While the usual “see the violence inherent in the system” antiwar crowd has been screaming loudly about being repressed, just about everyone outside the warblogger crowd has been ignoring this genuine case of free speech being suppressed, in clear violation of the First Amendment.

Anybody know who’s running against Judge James Doerty and how I can send him/her some money?