Marxism, Progressivism, Leftism, call it what you like, destroys everything it touches Darrick Johnson gives us the latest example
If you want a concrete demonstration of how progressivism hurts working Americans, look no further than DC’s new child care rule rule, requiring workers to have a college degree.
While the proponents claim the rule puts them “ahead of the curve” of child care policy, its an unbelievably destructive approach.
First, it’s terribly punitive to non-college educated workers, who may have years of experience in child care, but now have to obtain an expensive degree by 2020 in order to keep their job. Child care is important work, and its not easy, but it has also been a place where less affluent people, with less formal education, could find work. Washington is running them out of a job.
Second, its going to create incredibly high prices for child care. For single moms who have no other options, shrinking the labor pool for child care (and burdening those workers who stay with expensive student loans) is making an already painful expense much worse. Monthly child care costs in the District average $1,800/month, and this will only further inflate prices.
Ah the folly of central planners. But, they care more about the control over people, than about the pain their ideology causes
There are degrees of stupid. There is stupid, then there is Jimmy Carter level stupid, then there is Nuclear Grade Stupid Bob Owens explores a case of the nuclear grade variety
One of the realities of law enforcement is that higher-level police brass are typically more interested in protecting their own power and advancing their own careers than they care at all about the realities officers face on the street. That detached and self-serving mindset is probably behind a new recommendation by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (and allegedly some other law enforcement organizations) that law enforcement officers should be allowed to fire warning shots.
Wait, wait, did he say warning shots? I would hope the idiots at the International Association of Chiefs of Police realize that bullets do not stop until they hit something, in other words a “warning shot” might very well endanger innocent bystanders, or people in their homes, etc. Of course that is not where their collective stupid stops, oh no………..When Leftists start digging in the Pit of Eternal Stupidity, they keep going and going, and
“There was a lot of discussion,” says the IACP’s Terry Cunningham, describing the process that led the 11 law enforcement organizations to include warning shots in the new consensus use of force policy. Cunningham was struck by the anecdotes of situations in which warning shots saved a life — or might have, had they been allowed.
Let us take a peek at the criteria for using “deadly force”
The new policy still sets strict conditions for warning shots:
1. The use of deadly force is justified;
If deadly force is justified then how will a warning shot help? If the officer, or innocent person is in imminent danger, a warning shot, it seems to me, would increase, and not lessen that imminent threat
2. The warning shot will not pose a substantial risk of injury or death to the officer or others; and
3. The officer reasonably believes that the warning shot will reduce the possibility that deadly force will have to be used.
That is simply adds additional layers for officers to weigh. I fail to see how this does anything positive
But Cunningham says the motivation for the change is to give officers a little more wiggle room when faced with a threat.
“We’re kind of entering into this new environment in use of force where everybody is trying to learn how to better de-escalate,” Cunningham says.
Many police trainers have come to believe that overly rigid use of force rules, however well-meant, may sometimes leave officers with no other option than to kill someone. The new model policy is a response to those concerns.
“Why not give the officers more tools?” Cunningham says. “I think it’s the right thing to do.”
Look, I am not an expert here, but Owens has a lot more training than I, so what does he think?
My training and the training of pretty much every law enforcement officer and other civilians in the United States is that if you encounter a deadly force situation, that you engage the threat with rounds fired at the center of exposed mass of the threat in order to stop the threat’s ability to harm or kill others.
Seems like common sense doesn’t it? The situation is very dire if deadly force is needed so why would anyone suggest the officer be unduly burdened with more rules made up by politically motivated police chiefs?
This new warning shot policy recommendation suggests that officers engaged in a deadly force encounter should take the time to look beyond the threat to see if there is a safe backstop for them to fire a bullet. I do not see this being a viable tactic for patrol officers in a typical encounter that occurs with little or no warning, nor one that will do anything other than greatly increase the risk of innocent bystanders being hit when officers making a split-second decision to fire a warning shot pick a poor choice of backstop that will either fail to stop the projectile, or cause the round to ricochet. In either event, a round was launched when it was not needed to be fired.
Owens adds a lot more, and sees some possible justifications for such a policy
To provide political cover for law enforcement brass, to hang patrol officers out to dry and to protect their own careers in the event of a controversial shooting. “Officer Doe had the option of firing a warning shot in this scenario according to our policy. You can’t blame me for this.”
To provide political cover for law enforcement brass who are receiving pressure from elected officials educated by the entertainment fantasy industry that “shooting to wound” is a viable alternative, apparently completely unaware of the reality that arms and legs still have major arteries, and that a shot to the knee, thigh, elbow, bicep, or should could still result in a fatal bleed-out within seconds or minutes, leaving the officer who fired the shot hung out to try as he explains he was trying to “shoot to wound.”
Much more at Bearing Arms. To me this is simply an overreaction to political pressure to agitators such as Black Lives Matter and other leftist groups, and to a media that reports for sensationalism rather than to impart facts, and useful information. In short, this is a new front in the War on Police.
And when I say evil, I mean this type of evil
On a Twitter, on a Reddit forum, I stumbled over this horrifying story: Donna Hylton, a woman who spent time in prison for participating in the kidnapping, rape, murder, and ransoming of a gay man, spoke at the Women’s March as an advocate for women of color.
What did this woman do? From Psychology Today, this:
Vigliarole believed the three girls were prostitutes who were going to have sex with him. Instead, they picked him up on March 8 in Elmhurst, Queens, at Maria’s home, and drugged him to make him drowsy. Then they drove him to Selma’s apartment in Harlem. The apartment had already been prepared for an extended torture session: The closet door had been cut, a pot put in it for use as a toilet, the windows boarded.
For the next 15 to 20 days (police aren’t sure just when Vigliarole died), the man was starved, burned, beaten, and tortured. (Even 10 years later, Spurling could recall Rita’s chilling response when they questioned her about shoving a three-foot metal bar up Vigliarole’s rear: “He was a homo anyway.” How did she know? “When I stuck the bar up his rectum he wiggled.”)
The three girls took turns watching the man. It was Donna who delivered a ransom note and tape to a friend of Vigliarole’s, who was able to get a partial license plate number of the car she was driving. He notified the police, who traced the plate to a rental car facility. On April 6 the suspects were arrested, and detectives spent 36 hours straight interviewing the seven men and women. “We had to keep going back and forth and catch them in lies,” said Spurling. “It was a never-ending circle of lies.”
Spurling himself interviewed Donna: “I couldn’t believe this girl who was so intelligent and nice-looking could be so unemotional about what she was telling me she and her friends had done. They’d squeezed the victim’s testicles with a pair of pliers, beat him, burned him. Actually, I thought the judge’s sentence was lenient. Once a jailbird, always a jailbird.”
But there was another moment, on our second day together, when she slipped verbally, and said in an almost irritable way, “He [the victim] was going to die anyway, so . . .” and then she caught herself. I just looked at her. All her previous protestations that when arrested she’d had no idea Vigliarole was dead were clearly lies.
But, still she is a victim
Of course, to the Left it does not matter what she did. It only matters that she is a devoted Marxist, and hey, what is a murder when compared to the “struggle” right? After all, she is a victim Prepare for your obligatory moral relativism from the left
The principles behind the Women’s March, things like equal rights and ending violence against women, don’t just matter to women. Women aren’t the only people capable of speaking on the subject, but Hylton brings something very interesting to the table. As Hylton very clearly explains on her website, she’s a women’s rights activist and criminal justice reform advocate. She is a woman. She is black. She was also the victim of abuse as a child and spent a long time in prison after committing a heinous crime.
Hylton’s life experiences are relevant to her causes. A white guy who’s never been to prison might be able to give a great talk about violence against women and inequality, but there’s an understandable draw to hearing about violence and discrimination against women from someone who’s experienced both. There’s an understandable draw to hearing about what happens to black women in the criminal justice system from a black woman who’s been through the criminal justice system. Hylton’s background doesn’t make her positions are any more valid, but even if her conclusions based on her life experiences are dead wrong, her perspective is colored by a very unique and very germane set of life experiences. Her views are worth hearing.
The reasoning in the blog post is dangerous for numerous reasons. Attacking something as huge and diverse as feminism in general or some imagined “Women’s Movement” represented by a single march because of the background of one person involved is the sort of thing that only succeeds with the stupidest among us. To say that such a movement is embracing someone simply by having her speak is misleading.
The point here is that no one who organized, or who is glorifying the “Women’s March” should have welcomed a murderer and kidnapper. The point is that Leftists accuse Trump, and Republicans of being sexist, Homophobic, and so on. They cast these allegations around without a second thought. Yet, they welcome a truly horrible person to join their movement. A person that not only did evil deeds, but actually uses her just punishment to scream about being a victim. In short, the truth is this. No movement can control all of those who attend their events, but they CAN control who they elevate in that movement. They can control who they give prominent positions to.
So, yes, this does say a lot about the Left, and Feminists which are part of the Left. In short, it illustrates that the Left does not value decency, or truth. All that matters to them is a person’s position on issues. To them, Donna Hylton is moral because she holds far left ideals. It does not matter that she took part in awful crimes. Hylton is embraced. Embraced while women who are pro-life, are shunned. Welcomed while any woman who voted for Trump is mocked and demonized. Hylton is praised while women who dare embrace Conservatism, in any way, are raked through the mud.
Stacy McCain ofers this excellent take
All who claim that feminism is about “equality” are either fools are liars. Feminists themselves have made clear that there is no limit to their demands. Give feminists everything they demand today, and tomorrow they will return with a new list of demands. Feminists are totalitarians with a remorseless appetite for power. Feminists are cruel and dishonest, and will tell any lie necessary to achieve their wicked purposes.
The Women’s March on Washington was a vivid expression of how Democrats have harnessed this hate movement for partisan purposes:
Donna Hylton, a woman who spent time in prison for participating in the kidnapping, rape, murder, and ransoming of a gay man, spoke at the Women’s March as an advocate for women of color.
That a criminal psychopath was a leader of this feminist rally — and no one in the liberal media even mentioned her record of hateful violence — tells you a lot about the feminist movement and its ideology. Donna Hylton is not an isolated example, but is altogether typical of the kind of mentally deranged sadists that this movement attracts.
This is what happens when values cease to matter
The University of Washington-Bothell is starting to train librarians to spot, and interrupt the dreaded “Microaggression”. I wonder if the librarians will be issued Brown shirts at the conclusion of their re-education?
The University of Washington-Bothell is offering its librarians social justice training to “interrupt acts of oppression,” such as when a male coworker speaks condescendingly to a female.
According to the UW library website, the Equity, Diversity, and Social Justice Team offers six different workshops for librarians, including “Interrupting Microaggressions,” “Intersectionality,” and “Privilege.”
During the “Interrupting Microaggressions” workshop, librarians are taught how to “interrupt oppressive situations,” and are provided with a scenario worksheet so that they can practice responses.
One scenario given to workshop attendees describes a female coworker asking for help from a male coworker when she realizes the male coworker is talking in a condescending manner.
“You’re having trouble with creating a report in Alma and a male colleague happens to walk by you at that time,” the scenario begins. “You ask him if he knows how to use this particular function in Alma. He says ‘Why, yes.’ Then he proceeds to slowly explain how to create the report in Alma. The way he is speaking immediately begins to feel condescending to you.”
Well, I am aghast. A woman asks a man for help, and he gladly offers help? My God what a barbaric act! I have to say folks, being a man is getting tougher. We have to be more “sensitive”which to the Left means less masculine, less competitive, because competition leads to bad things apparently, and we must also stop being so attracted to women because objectification or something. So now, if a woman asks us for help, we must offer said help, but recognize that helping might be considered a microaggression. And while tip-toeing that minefield of leftist inanity, we must be never take note if the woman is attractive, because that might be another microaggression. Maybe we should just avoid such a scenario by playing dumb and not helping. Of course that would make us a sexist, microaggressing pig, so we are pretty much screwed either way.
Then there is privilege. Librarians must also be on the lookout for that too. What is privilege, allow your Marxist re-educators to explain comrade!
A separate library training, called “Privilege,” which defines the concept as “a set of unearned benefits possessed by people who fit into specific social groups based on particular aspects of identity,” though it assures workshop attendees that privilege is not a reason to feel guilty.
So, after brow beating the “privileged” they say “Don’t feel bad, It is not your fault all White males are privileged oppressors!”
“No one is trying to make you feel bad. In fact it’s the exact opposite!” a workshop handoutexclaims. “The goal is to get you thinking about how who you are influences what you do and don’t experience so you can better support others who face inequalities that you don’t.”
Good Freaking grief! Remember when librarians just helped you find books, checked out your books, and said SHHHH? Ah, the good old days when policing everyone else’s behavior was not part of everyone’s job description?