Day: March 11, 2017

Senior Magazine Editor Dies In DC After Getting Hit By Bicycle


5527380

The senior editor of the magazine Kiplinger’s Personal Finance was hit and killed by a bicycle late Thursday in Washington, D.C.

Jane Bennett Clark, 65, was struck when she stepped into the crosswalk just off the southwest curb at 13th and I streets NW. She hailed from Takoma Park, Md.

As soon as the bicycle struck Clark, she fell and the bicyclist remained on the scene and waited for police to arrive, The Washington Post reports.

Unfortunately, although Clark was whisked away to the hospital, she succumbed to her injuries Friday.

The investigation into her death remains open.

While at Kiplinger’s, Clark wrote about retirement and dedicated space to discussing post-career life.

Her Twitter account describes herself as a mother of three.

A Takoma Park resident said Clark’s death deeply affected her friends and neighbors.

Follow Jonah Bennett on Twitter

Send tips to [email protected].

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].




Source link

1489263307340.jpg

'DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE' Video shows clerk shooting would-be robber in hand


Surveillance video obtained Friday shows a clerk at an Ohio convenience store shooting and wounding a would-be armed robber.

“It was really tough,” the clerk told Fox 28 Columbus, which aired the video. “It’s not easy to shoot someone, especially with someone who never had to deal with guns.”

Emanuel Hamm, 27, was charged with aggravated robbery, according to the station. He reportedly suffered a gunshot wound to his hand.

The clerk was behind the counter when authorities say Hamm walked into the M & M food market and gas station in Darbydale Thursday night with a handgun, the station reported.

The clerk told the station Hamm looked suspicious to him.

Terrifying gas station robbery caught on camera

The video shows the clerk reaching in his back pocket for his gun as Hamm nears the counter.

“As soon as I saw the gun, I pulled mine and I shot him,” the clerk said.

In the video there is gunfire and then Hamm is seen running towards the door.

The clerk didn’t want to be identified, according to the station.

He expressed sympathy for the man he shot.

“I feel bad for him, but I didn’t have a choice,” the clerk told the station.



Source link

694940094001_5212717314001_Assad-President-elect-Trump-could-be-natural-ally-.jpg

SMOKE AND MIRRORS? Assad calls out Trump over his efforts to fight ISIS


Syrian President Bashar Assad says President Trump has so far failed to show “anything concrete” toward his pledge to defeat the Islamic State terror group and calls U.S. forces inside his country “invaders.”

“We haven’t seen anything concrete yet regarding this rhetoric,” Assad said in an interview published Saturday. “We have hopes that this administration… is going to implement what we have heard.”

Trump won the presidency in large part on his promise to defeat ISIS. And upon taking office in late January, he ordered his top military leaders to present within 30 days a new draft plan to dismantle the terror group. However, it is unclear whether or not they have delivered a report to Trump.

Assad also said the U.S.-backed military effort against ISIS in Syria has so far amounted to “only a few raids” but “in theory” he remains optimistic about cooperation between his regime and the Trump administration, according to the roughly 27-minute interview the Syrian president did with Chinese TV station Phoenix, which was posted Saturday on Syria’s state-news agency SANA.

Many Republicans and military hawks were critical of former President Obama’s efforts on ISIS and his dealings with Assad, the target of a six-year civil war to topple his regime.

Such critics point out that Obama and his administration would not acknowledge “radical Islamic terrorism.” And they say Obama failed to follow through on a 2012 statement that Assad would cross a “red line” in using chemical weapons on civilians, after evidence of such attack later became apparent.

Meanwhile, ISIS has flourished in largely the northern and remote regions of Syria amid the civil war.

U.S. military leaders have essentially limited public comments about the war of ISIS to efforts in Iraq, particularly now in west Mosul.

However, they said earlier this week that the United States is preparing to send roughly 400 additional support troops to Syria — in addition to the roughly 500 already in the country — for a multi-national effort to defeat ISIS in their stronghold of Raqqa.  

Assad said in the interview that winning in Raqqa was “a priority” for his regime and “any foreign troops coming to Syria without our invitation or consultation or permission, they are invaders, whether they are American, Turkish, or any other one. And we don’t think this is going to help.” 



Source link

1489244381637.jpg

'IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE' Missing woman found dead in car pulled from river


The desperate search for a missing 20-year-old woman ended Friday with the discovery of her body in a car that was pulled from the Missouri River.

Toni Anderson disappeared Jan. 15 on her way to a gas station from a Kansas City entertainment bar where she worked as a server. A volunteer rescue team using sonar found her 2012 Ford Focus in several feet of water near a town outside the city, the Kansas City Star reports. The paper reported that the woman’s sobbing mother confirmed that the car had been found.

“We just got the news — there’s a body in her car,” Liz Anderson said. “There is somebody inside.”

MISSOURI WOMAN, 20, VANISHES AFTER TRAFFIC STOP

The medical examiner will confirm the identity and determine a cause of death. Cops don’t suspect foul play, according to the paper.

“I don’t know how she got there,” Anderson sais. “It doesn’t make sense, one bit.”

The sonar search team also stumbled on a second vehicle during a search of the river. Cops said it was an SUV not connected to any investigation.

Fox 4KC reported Friday that Anderson’s family asked the sonar team to search the river.

The young woman disappeared after she texted her boyfriend at 4:42 a.m. The text said “I just got pulled over again,” according to one of her friends.

Police said a North Kansas City officer stopped Anderson for an illegal lane change. He issued her a warning and that watched her head to the gas station.

“After that Quik Trip, it’s almost like she vanished,” police spokesman Darin Snapp told Fox 4KC in January.



Source link

Trump's Wall Is Already Paid For


Critics of the border wall proposed by President Trump have said the cost is prohibitive under current budget and economic conditions, that no way is Mexico going to pay for it, and shifting funds away from the TSA, Coast Guard, and FEMA are counterproductive in terms of national security.

These criticisms ignore the costs to the U.S. in terms other than money — increased crime, overtaxed law enforcement, the drain on public resources such as education, medical care, etc., and the driving down of real wages through an endless supply of cheap labor.

In fact, thanks in large part to the mere threat of the wall, the sudden enforcement of existing law, and the stripping of funding from sanctuary cities by President Trump, illegal immigration has plummeted by 40 percent in February, a trend that if continued will reduce the costs and burdens of illegal immigration to the point that the benefits of enhanced border security, including the wall, will be more than paid for. As the New York Post noted:

The number of illegal immigrants crossing into the United States from Mexico declined by 40 percent from January to February, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said on Wednesday.


The downturn came after President Donald Trump took office on Jan. 20 vowing to deport many of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States…


He said the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, which compiled the data, historically sees a 10 percent to 20 percent increase in apprehensions of illegal immigrants from January to February…


“Since the administration’s implementation of Executive Orders to enforce immigration laws, apprehensions and inadmissible activity is trending toward the lowest monthly total in at least the last five years,” Kelly said.

President Trump has shown that border security is not that hard. It merely requires willpower and resolve that puts the impact of illegal immigration on America and its citizens above the impact on the political fortunes of pandering politicians. Now comes a study from the Center for Immigration Studies showing that this ongoing reduction in illegal immigration will reduce related costs to the point the wall is paid for:

President Donald Trump’s border wall only needs to stop about 10 percent of illegal crossing in order to pay for itself, according to an analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies.The estimated $12 to $15 billion cost of the wall would quickly be offset by the savings to the government if fewer illegal immigrants arrive in the country over the next decade, CIS found. Only a small portion of the population of people who are expected to attempt an illegal crossing in the next decade — between 9 and 12 percent — would have to be stopped for the wall to totally pay for itself.


The analysis from CIS, a group that advocates for moderating immigration levels, relies on fiscal estimates from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) for the average cost to taxpayers of illegal immigrants. NAS estimates one illegal immigrant costs state and local governments approximately $75,000 in a lifetime, taking into account taxes paid and the cost of providing benefits such as education and health care.

Critics say the costs of illegal immigration fall largely on state and local governments and it is a federal government burdened with debt that has to write the checks. But the costs in either case are born by the American taxpayer and the American worker. Ask Kate Steinle’s father what the true costs of illegal immigration are and who pays for them.

Trump was able to begin immediate construction of the border wall and opening up bidding for contracts thanks to a 2006 measure signed into law by President George W. Bush and supported by Democrats including then-senators Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. 

Democrats are already grumbling about Donald Trump’s proposed border wall, though Barack Obama and other leaders in their party voted not so long ago for George W. Bush’s proposal to build a major wall on the border with Mexico.


Bush signed the proposal into law in 2006, after it was passed by huge bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate. The law ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to construct about 700 miles of fencing along the southern border, and authorized the addition of lights and cameras and sensors to enhance security. The law explicitly required the wall to be constructed of “at least two layers of reinforced fencing.”


Two-thirds of the Republican-led House approved the bill, including 64 Democrats, and 80 of 100 senators approved the bill in the Senate. Then Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton were among the 26 Democrats who approved the bill. Supporters also included Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is set to take over leadership of the Senate for Democrats in 2016.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 required the construction of 700 miles of new border fence along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border. “The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide for at least two layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors…” the act said.

It was to be modeled on the success of the border barriers in the San Diego sector of the U.S. border. The operative word was “secure.” Instead of this two-layer secure fence what has been built consists of flimsy pedestrian fencing or vehicle fencing consisting of posts people can slither through.

The two-tier fence in San Diego runs 14 miles along the border with Tijuana, Mexico. The first layer is a high steel fence, with an inner high anti-climb fence with a no-man’s land in between. It has been amazingly effective. According to a 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service, illegal alien apprehensions in the San Diego sector dropped from 202,000 in 1992 to 9,000 in 2004.

Cameras and sensors played a part but the emphasis was on physical barriers and roads that were patrolled by real live border guards, not by robots. Then in 2006 the Democrats took back Congress and, in 2008, the White House.

They saw in unrestricted immigration a means to fundamentally transform the demographics of America and its political landscape. A wave of what some called “undocumented Democrats” would be allowed to flood across the border as ICE was told not to enforce the law. Former border state governor Janet Napolitano, who became DHS secretary, reportedly once said: “You show me a 50-foot fence and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border,” The rest, as they say, is history.

But the consequences of unrestricted illegal immigration soon became too big to ignore and with a candidate willing to touch the new third rail of American politics, border security, a political movement chanting “build the wall” swept Trump into power.

The San Diego fence worked. So will Trump’s wall. Build the Wall.   

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.              

Critics of the border wall proposed by President Trump have said the cost is prohibitive under current budget and economic conditions, that no way is Mexico going to pay for it, and shifting funds away from the TSA, Coast Guard, and FEMA are counterproductive in terms of national security.

These criticisms ignore the costs to the U.S. in terms other than money — increased crime, overtaxed law enforcement, the drain on public resources such as education, medical care, etc., and the driving down of real wages through an endless supply of cheap labor.

In fact, thanks in large part to the mere threat of the wall, the sudden enforcement of existing law, and the stripping of funding from sanctuary cities by President Trump, illegal immigration has plummeted by 40 percent in February, a trend that if continued will reduce the costs and burdens of illegal immigration to the point that the benefits of enhanced border security, including the wall, will be more than paid for. As the New York Post noted:

The number of illegal immigrants crossing into the United States from Mexico declined by 40 percent from January to February, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said on Wednesday.


The downturn came after President Donald Trump took office on Jan. 20 vowing to deport many of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States…


He said the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, which compiled the data, historically sees a 10 percent to 20 percent increase in apprehensions of illegal immigrants from January to February…


“Since the administration’s implementation of Executive Orders to enforce immigration laws, apprehensions and inadmissible activity is trending toward the lowest monthly total in at least the last five years,” Kelly said.

President Trump has shown that border security is not that hard. It merely requires willpower and resolve that puts the impact of illegal immigration on America and its citizens above the impact on the political fortunes of pandering politicians. Now comes a study from the Center for Immigration Studies showing that this ongoing reduction in illegal immigration will reduce related costs to the point the wall is paid for:

President Donald Trump’s border wall only needs to stop about 10 percent of illegal crossing in order to pay for itself, according to an analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies.The estimated $12 to $15 billion cost of the wall would quickly be offset by the savings to the government if fewer illegal immigrants arrive in the country over the next decade, CIS found. Only a small portion of the population of people who are expected to attempt an illegal crossing in the next decade — between 9 and 12 percent — would have to be stopped for the wall to totally pay for itself.


The analysis from CIS, a group that advocates for moderating immigration levels, relies on fiscal estimates from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) for the average cost to taxpayers of illegal immigrants. NAS estimates one illegal immigrant costs state and local governments approximately $75,000 in a lifetime, taking into account taxes paid and the cost of providing benefits such as education and health care.

Critics say the costs of illegal immigration fall largely on state and local governments and it is a federal government burdened with debt that has to write the checks. But the costs in either case are born by the American taxpayer and the American worker. Ask Kate Steinle’s father what the true costs of illegal immigration are and who pays for them.

Trump was able to begin immediate construction of the border wall and opening up bidding for contracts thanks to a 2006 measure signed into law by President George W. Bush and supported by Democrats including then-senators Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. 

Democrats are already grumbling about Donald Trump’s proposed border wall, though Barack Obama and other leaders in their party voted not so long ago for George W. Bush’s proposal to build a major wall on the border with Mexico.


Bush signed the proposal into law in 2006, after it was passed by huge bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate. The law ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to construct about 700 miles of fencing along the southern border, and authorized the addition of lights and cameras and sensors to enhance security. The law explicitly required the wall to be constructed of “at least two layers of reinforced fencing.”


Two-thirds of the Republican-led House approved the bill, including 64 Democrats, and 80 of 100 senators approved the bill in the Senate. Then Sens. Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton were among the 26 Democrats who approved the bill. Supporters also included Sen. Chuck Schumer, who is set to take over leadership of the Senate for Democrats in 2016.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 required the construction of 700 miles of new border fence along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexico border. “The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide for at least two layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors…” the act said.

It was to be modeled on the success of the border barriers in the San Diego sector of the U.S. border. The operative word was “secure.” Instead of this two-layer secure fence what has been built consists of flimsy pedestrian fencing or vehicle fencing consisting of posts people can slither through.

The two-tier fence in San Diego runs 14 miles along the border with Tijuana, Mexico. The first layer is a high steel fence, with an inner high anti-climb fence with a no-man’s land in between. It has been amazingly effective. According to a 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service, illegal alien apprehensions in the San Diego sector dropped from 202,000 in 1992 to 9,000 in 2004.

Cameras and sensors played a part but the emphasis was on physical barriers and roads that were patrolled by real live border guards, not by robots. Then in 2006 the Democrats took back Congress and, in 2008, the White House.

They saw in unrestricted immigration a means to fundamentally transform the demographics of America and its political landscape. A wave of what some called “undocumented Democrats” would be allowed to flood across the border as ICE was told not to enforce the law. Former border state governor Janet Napolitano, who became DHS secretary, reportedly once said: “You show me a 50-foot fence and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder at the border,” The rest, as they say, is history.

But the consequences of unrestricted illegal immigration soon became too big to ignore and with a candidate willing to touch the new third rail of American politics, border security, a political movement chanting “build the wall” swept Trump into power.

The San Diego fence worked. So will Trump’s wall. Build the Wall.   

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.              



Source link

Twin explosions kill at least 40 near religious sites in Syria's capital


Twin explosions Saturday near religious shrines frequented by Shiite pilgrims in the Syrian capital Damascus killed at least 40 people, Syria’s interior minister and media reported.

Syria State TV aired footage from the scene showing blood-soaked streets and several damaged buses in a parking lot, apparently where the explosions went off near Bab al-Saghir cemetery. The cemetery is one of the capital’s most ancient and is where several prominent religious figures are buried.

Interior Minister Mohammed al-Shaar visited the injured in local hospitals. He said 40 were killed and 120 were injured. He said the attacks targeted civilians, including Arab visitors, who were frequenting the shrines in the area. He didn’t elaborate, but Iraqi Shiites often visit shrines in Syria. Iranians and other Shiites from Asia are often also among the pilgrims to the area.

There were conflicting reports on what caused the explosions. State news agency SANA said the blasts were caused by bombs placed near the cemetery and that at least 33 were killed and more than a hundred wounded.

Lebanon’s al-Manar TV quoted Syrian officials saying twin suicide attacks killed 40. Arab TV Al-Mayadeen said at least 40 were killed, and the area was sealed by security after the explosions.

Britain-based Observatory for Human Rights, an opposition monitoring group with activists on the ground, said at least 46 were killed in the explosions that targeted buses arriving near the cemetery. The Observatory said the death toll is likely higher because dozens were wounded.

A similar attack in Damascus last year targeted one of the most revered Shiite shrines and was claimed by the Islamic State militants.

Bab al-Saghir is one of the seven gates of the old city of Damascus and houses a cemetery where a number of early Islam religious figures, including family members of Prophet Muhammad and figures revered by Shiites, are buried.



Source link

1489244368892.jpg

Robert Blake to marry a third time 12 years after murder acquittal


Robert Blake reportedly will marry for the third time, some 12 years after he was acquitted of murdering his second wife.

TMZ identified the bride to be as 55-year-old Pamela Hudak, an old flame of her 83-year-old ­fiancé.

The two have known each other for decades and in the past had dated, the Web site said.

Blake who starred in the 1970s TV detective show “Baretta,” and his second wife, Bonny Lee Bakley, had just finished dining in a California restaurant in May 2001, when she was shot dead in his car. The jury bought his story that he returned to the restaurant to retrieve his gun — and when he returned to the car, she was dead.

Prosecutors accused him of hiring a hit man for $10,000.

Blacke and Hudak applied for a marriage license in Beverly Hills on Thursday, TMZ said.

Click here to read more in the New York Post.



Source link

The New Dystopias


But, prior to them the most successful — which is to say, the one with the longest duration — was that of the Spartans. Sparta was characterized by its militarism, the total equality of citizens, brutality, absence of a normal family life, an authoritarian government, poor consumer goods (including food), and the absence of art, literature, commerce, and architecture. Spartan society actually rested on the back of a population of non-Spartans (the helots) who were unapologetically enslaved. Plato was an admirer of Spartan society; he was the first of a long, long line of intellectual apologists for totalitarianism. In fact, Plato could be called the Father of Totalitarian Ideology.

In 1515, Sir Thomas More wrote a fictional description of a foreign land that he called “Utopia” (meaning “nowhere”). It may be remembered that Marco Polo had previously created a new literary genre, the travelogue. In Utopia, private property and money had supposedly been abolished (Hatred of private property is a common theme running across revolutionary writers advocating utopias. We see it in Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origins of Inequality, on Marx’s and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s What is Property? And Peter Kropotkin’s Anarchism), there was complete equality, travel was restricted and could only be done with permission from the authorities, euthanasia was encouraged, goods are held in common, individuality and diversity were suppressed, everyone wore drab clothing of the poorest quality, yet everyone was supposed to be happy. Also, work was mandatory for everyone though intellectuals were exempt (in all totalitarian societies, fictional or factual, some animals are more equal than others). Centuries later, Looking Backward would be written along similar lines.

This work was followed a century later by Tomasso Campanella’s The City of the Sun, which describes a theocratic state wherein there is total equality, there is no money, and where goods, women, and children are held in common.

Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward is the 1888 American version of utopia, although the basic details remain for the most part identical.

Attempts at Utopia

From the 1800s right down to the end of the 20th century, there were “utopian” communities that were established in parts of Europe, Israel, and North America. It appears that the guiding principles of these communities were the usual clichés: a communal ownership of property, complete equality of its members, an emphasis on primitive life and a suppression of individuality. The emphasis on each principle varied, as well as whether other principles were also adopted (e.g., dietary restrictions, or communal sex partners). Most of these communities collapsed after a period of either some months or some years; the ones that survived the longest did so upon divesting some of those principles or radically amending them. None of them caught on and propagated to the rest of society; in other words, they remained isolated and rare. Of those that failed, numerous excuses were invented to explain their collapse.

However, the real reason they disappeared is that they went against human nature. This human nature was not the result of a lifetime of bad habits and education and values, as the utopians insisted, but rather what constitutes a human being. These utopian communities were the inventions of intellectuals, who, as is their wont, were out of touch with reality and besotted with particular ideologies. (As John Dewey pointed out in Human Nature and Conduct, artificial systems of morality have been based on a disregard for human nature instead of being based on it. Moral constructs, whether religious or philosophical, are fantasies, they are ideals created outside of man and if people do not live up to those ideals, well, it just means that human beings are too corrupt.) They invented castles in the sky, convinced others through their verbal virtuosity (to use Thomas Sowell’s apt phrase) and then were bitterly disappointed when reality repeatedly slapped them in the face. The fact of the matter is that people, by nature, want to own things. They want to excel. They have pride. They have individuality. They have their own opinions. They are not “equal” in the extreme sense of the word. They want a spouse who is faithfully exclusive. They enjoy good food, homes, clothes, property, possessions and objects of exquisite quality. That is normal. It is normal to enjoy life.

Proof of this is the undeniable fact that these communities never spread. Apart from a handful of dogmatic intellectuals, people did not want to worsen their lives. Think how effortlessly, by contrast, fashions in clothes, films, books, diets, activities (from dancing to excursions to sports to trips to clubs) spread throughout any one country (or internationally) like wildfire, without coercion. If something is beneficial and/or appealing it will be embraced. It is that simple. Free citizens will do what they want to do. With “utopian” communities people have to be cajoled, browbeaten, tricked, brainwashed, or forced to participate, whereupon at some point, they want out, leaving an embittered (privileged) leader and his (equally privileged) inner circle behind, handing out excuses and hurling blame. Whether we are talking about Jonestown in the middle of the jungle or Robert Owen’s Home Colonies, or hippie communes, or Communist Cuba, the pattern is the same.

But the ideological zealot will not admit to this. The intellectual fanatic will claim that the previous efforts failed because of this, that, or the other, and that if the above principles were to be now strictly adhered to — under his supervision of course — why, its participants would joyously rejoice in their new status, linking arms in a circle and joining in songs of thanksgiving.

Whereupon the same pattern would manifest itself.

The 20th Century

Yevgeny Zamyatin’s satirical We was written shortly after the establishment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, whose rulers claimed to be building a society along scientific lines as put down by Karl Marx in Das Kapital. We was pretty much ignored by the Western intelligentsia, who was besotted by the new society and its claims (in fact, many Western intellectuals saw the Soviet Union as a true, modern-day utopia). In the novel, an authoritarian society is ruled along what is considered to be scientific principles, striving to be more perfect. People do not have names, they have numbers. Life is regimented. There is an overlord. Unanimity of thought is encouraged. Ultimately, a revolt takes place, instigated by outsiders living more close to nature, but it is suppressed and the protagonist of the story is subjected to a lobotomy, whereupon he is accepted back into the community.

The next dystopia to come along was Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and it stands apart from all other utopias and dystopias. Simply put, it is a thriving, modern, comfortable society based on stability and hedonism. It was created after a calamitous world war in order to save what was left of civilization, but in order to achieve permanent stability many important things had to be abandoned: literature, monogamy, history, philosophy, family, military, politics and scientific innovations since they invariably, and automatically, create strife. Departing totally from the usual philosophical underpinnings (or clichés) of the 1800s advocating utopias, there is no equality, there is in fact a caste system, but since everyone has been conditioned since birth to accept their status, there is no resentment. On the other hand, it takes up the theme of free sex (actually advocated by the pro-utopian writers of the previous century) as promiscuity is seen as admirable and part of the philosophy of hedonism.

If one has to accept a dystopia, Brave New World is definitely the place to be.

The underlying premise to Brave New World is John Locke’s concept of tabula rasa. It may be remembered that Locke postulated that a person’s mind is born as if a blank slate, so that a person’s personality, habits, thoughts, etc. are the result of his environment. To a large degree, this is true: if a person is born in Norway, he would speak Norwegian, prefer Norwegian food, become Protestant, would be sentimental about fjords and so forth, but if he was born in Japan he would speak Japanese, be Buddhist, be obsessed about others’ opinion of him, have a diet of fish, rice, and seaweed, or, if he was born in the American Mormon faith, he would speak English, wear “temple clothing,” etc. In Huxley’s society, there is a caste system, there is rampant promiscuity and group sex, the concept of family, father, mother, husband and wife considered laughably obscene, yet everyone is happy and content with his life in society for the simple reason that they have been indoctrinated since childhood to think their society to be normal.

The third fictional dystopia to come along, and indisputably the most famous, was 1984, finished on Orwell’s deathbed. It is a political novel, more so than the other two and profoundly depressing. No other published novel can boast of so many contributions to the English language: doublethink, Big Brother, Newspeak, telescreens, the thought police. It is no exaggeration to state that it burst on the world like a literary atomic bomb. Apart from the book’s obvious literary merits, it disrupted the zeitgeist: during WWII, the Soviets were vigorously viewed as gallant fighters for freedom against the Nazis by the West, forgetting that they had been the Nazis’ allies in the first half of the war as they butchered Europe between them. Along with its predecessor, Animal Farm (a satire, in fable form, on the Bolshevik revolution) and Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon, 1984 caused a tectonic shift in literary circles which, up until then, had waxed lyrically about Stalin and the Soviet Union.

The world of the novel is one that is divided into three totalitarian superstates in perpetual warfare with each other: Eastasia, comprising eastern Asia; Eurasia, comprising western Siberia, Europe, and northern Africa; and Oceania, comprising the Americas, Australia, the British Isles, and southern Africa. Within a year of its publication, it seemed like two-thirds of the novel’s predictions had come true as China became Communist under Mao Tse Tung and the Soviet Union reached central Europe and the Adriatic. And because the novel did not require any fantastic paraphernalia as in the case of Brave New World and We, it was more believable than the other two.

What is so striking in reading 1984 is just how realistic and accurate is the description of life in a totalitarian Marxist society during its hysterical phase (as was the case in China during the Cultural Revolution, the Soviet Union during the Leninist-Stalinist periods and today in North Korea). The minutiae of details involving the paranoia, the persecutions, the wariness of facial expressions and in carefully choosing the right words while avoiding other words, the constant state of semi-starvation, the drabness of everyday life, the constant mutilation of historical records to conform to the latest shift in policy, is simply amazing.

It also begs the question: where, exactly, did Orwell get all of his detailed information? After all, during the first half of the century, anything detrimental about the Soviet Union was exceedingly hard to come by. We know that he fought in the Spanish Civil War on the Republican side, an experience that he recounted in Homage to Catalonia. But nowhere in that narrative can we find an echo of the numerous details of 1984, except for the account of the anti-Fascist POUM suddenly being persecuted by the Communists for supposedly being Fascist. True, being an ardent Socialist while also being an anti-Communist, he moved in circles where he could witness doublethink in the Trotskyites and Stalinists that he rubbed shoulders with in England.

Nor can it be based on information based on the other totalitarian regimes of the era. Pre-war Nazi Germany, for all of its brutality, was never drab, nor its people constantly on the verge of starvation, nor its citizens saturated with paranoia for enemies within the Third Reich. The same can be said for Fascist Italy, which never reached near the level of sadistic cruelty of Nazi Germany, preferring instead to send its opponents to internal exile. Where, then, did Orwell get the details?

My supposition is that he probably got them from the émigré groups that lived in London. Most leftist intellectuals shunned the émigrés because their accounts jarred with the idealistic delusions that those intellectuals held and would have experienced cognitive dissonance if they had listened to their accounts. George Orwell was unique among his Socialist peers in that he kept an open mind and could accept unpleasant facts which may have upset his worldview. We see this in his Road to Wigham Pier, his sympathies being with the working class, but also presenting some of its members as being vulgar, brutish and filthy. He was no Frank Capra. Instead, he was that rarity, a Socialist who was also rabidly anti-Communist.

The novel had another unique feature. At its end, Orwell included a nonfictional essay explaining Newspeak at length. The practice of Newspeak in Oceania was to systematically destroy more and more words with the aim of ultimately reducing speech (and print, of course) to a fraction of the present vocabulary. The purpose of this policy was, in the end, to eliminate intricacies of speech but, more importantly, to eradicate concepts which were anathema and which could be ultimately described with simply one word: crimethink. George Orwell may have indirectly gotten the idea for Newspeak from a famous article written in 1940 by Benjamin Whorf. In it, the author put forth the thesis that if a word does not exist in a certain language, the users of that language are incapable of grasping the concept behind that word. If Orwell did not benefit from that article the coincidence is remarkable.

1984 was a warning of impending totalitarianism. Big Brother’s physical description is exactly that of Stalin, and that of his arch-enemy, the traitor Goldstein, is exactly that of Trotsky (Bronstein was Trotsky’s real name). Oceania is clearly a Communist society. Yet, in one of those bizarre ironies, the Afterword to 1984 was written by Erich Fromm, an intellectual Communist who assured readers that the book really applied to Western democracies. (Nor was this a rare instance. Giovanni Guareschi, for example, published The Little World of Don Camillo, which satirized Italian Communists in small Italian towns. A film of the book was made in Italy that portrayed them as adorable. The Italian Communists loved the movie.) Indeed, during the late 1960s and early 1970s, Marxist terrorist groups in the United States like the SDS, Yippies, the Weathermen and The Symbionese Liberation Army issued manifestos proclaiming that they were fighting Big Brother.

Another bizarre irony is that, of all of the details that the dystopia abounds in, the one that Americans have to this day fixated upon is on the telescreen, the instrument with which citizens were spied on by the government, although the citizens themselves spied on each other and denounced each other, including family members (which is yet another characteristic of Marxist societies). Americans’ obsession with their privacy is almost certainly the reason, but the fact that they have paid less importance to the rest is odd.

Many other minor dystopias were written after 1984, several of them borrowing details from their predecessors e.g., Logan’s Run is almost identical to Brave New World. By “minor” I mean twofold: not as influential in the long run, though momentarily interesting when they were initially presented to the public, and, usually the inhabitants are not constantly under surveillance by the State. Nonetheless, they offer some variations on the dystopic theme: Fahrenheit 451, The Handmaid’s Tale, Utopia X, Utopia Minus X, Anthem, The Hunger Games, Divergent, Atlas Shrugged, The Turner Diaries, Battle Royale, Farnham’s Freehold, The Giver, Make Room! Make Room!

Some of them were made into movies of varying success; the films THX 1138 and Aeon Flux, although not adaptations of particular books, were simply variations of Brave New World, while Brazil was in a category by itself.

The idea of utopias as an ideal seems to have gone out of fashion, understandably so considering the 20th century which promised utopias and instead delivered catastrophic dystopias. An exception is Walden Two, written by the foremost psychologist of the time, B.F. Skinner, who implied that a perfect society could be possible through the implementation of behavioral principles. Years later, the introduction of behavior modification would resuscitate the claim.

Today, of course, we live in a world where totalitarianism — of whatever political persuasion — is rare, relegated to a handful of countries which are viewed with scorn, not fear, by the rest of the world. Dystopias are relegated to the realm of science-fiction movies and books. But, for decades, the possibility of a permanent, all-powerful, dystopia encompassing the globe was a real possibility and if that possibility was averted, we have Orwell’s 1984 to partially thank.

So why is it important to remember these historical and literary fiascos? Partly because people have short memories, but more importantly because the peddlers of totalitarian utopias have not disappeared and can still be found justifying and sugar-coating those ideologies. You find them all over where mass information is being generated. True, they are not peddling utopias — yet. Instead, first things first: with cynicism, lies, intimidation, and repetition they undermine the society that they live in, they exalt like-minded persons while denigrating their opponents. And Newspeak is nowadays called Politically Correct speech while its opposite, thoughtcrime, is referred to as hate speech.

The Original Dystopias

Prior to the 20th century, totalitarian societies had been rare. There had been the brief reign of Savonarola in Florence, who imposed a theocratic, egalitarian order, cut short when the citizens revolted. The equally brief Terror of the French Revolution was likewise curtailed by the citizens overthrowing their intellectual overlords, but the French Revolution had the distinction of engendering the totalitarian movement, which saw its greatest culmination in the Bolshevik and Third Reich despotisms of the 20th century.

But, prior to them the most successful — which is to say, the one with the longest duration — was that of the Spartans. Sparta was characterized by its militarism, the total equality of citizens, brutality, absence of a normal family life, an authoritarian government, poor consumer goods (including food), and the absence of art, literature, commerce, and architecture. Spartan society actually rested on the back of a population of non-Spartans (the helots) who were unapologetically enslaved. Plato was an admirer of Spartan society; he was the first of a long, long line of intellectual apologists for totalitarianism. In fact, Plato could be called the Father of Totalitarian Ideology.

In 1515, Sir Thomas More wrote a fictional description of a foreign land that he called “Utopia” (meaning “nowhere”). It may be remembered that Marco Polo had previously created a new literary genre, the travelogue. In Utopia, private property and money had supposedly been abolished (Hatred of private property is a common theme running across revolutionary writers advocating utopias. We see it in Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origins of Inequality, on Marx’s and Engels’ The Communist Manifesto, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s What is Property? And Peter Kropotkin’s Anarchism), there was complete equality, travel was restricted and could only be done with permission from the authorities, euthanasia was encouraged, goods are held in common, individuality and diversity were suppressed, everyone wore drab clothing of the poorest quality, yet everyone was supposed to be happy. Also, work was mandatory for everyone though intellectuals were exempt (in all totalitarian societies, fictional or factual, some animals are more equal than others). Centuries later, Looking Backward would be written along similar lines.

This work was followed a century later by Tomasso Campanella’s The City of the Sun, which describes a theocratic state wherein there is total equality, there is no money, and where goods, women, and children are held in common.

Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward is the 1888 American version of utopia, although the basic details remain for the most part identical.

Attempts at Utopia

From the 1800s right down to the end of the 20th century, there were “utopian” communities that were established in parts of Europe, Israel, and North America. It appears that the guiding principles of these communities were the usual clichés: a communal ownership of property, complete equality of its members, an emphasis on primitive life and a suppression of individuality. The emphasis on each principle varied, as well as whether other principles were also adopted (e.g., dietary restrictions, or communal sex partners). Most of these communities collapsed after a period of either some months or some years; the ones that survived the longest did so upon divesting some of those principles or radically amending them. None of them caught on and propagated to the rest of society; in other words, they remained isolated and rare. Of those that failed, numerous excuses were invented to explain their collapse.

However, the real reason they disappeared is that they went against human nature. This human nature was not the result of a lifetime of bad habits and education and values, as the utopians insisted, but rather what constitutes a human being. These utopian communities were the inventions of intellectuals, who, as is their wont, were out of touch with reality and besotted with particular ideologies. (As John Dewey pointed out in Human Nature and Conduct, artificial systems of morality have been based on a disregard for human nature instead of being based on it. Moral constructs, whether religious or philosophical, are fantasies, they are ideals created outside of man and if people do not live up to those ideals, well, it just means that human beings are too corrupt.) They invented castles in the sky, convinced others through their verbal virtuosity (to use Thomas Sowell’s apt phrase) and then were bitterly disappointed when reality repeatedly slapped them in the face. The fact of the matter is that people, by nature, want to own things. They want to excel. They have pride. They have individuality. They have their own opinions. They are not “equal” in the extreme sense of the word. They want a spouse who is faithfully exclusive. They enjoy good food, homes, clothes, property, possessions and objects of exquisite quality. That is normal. It is normal to enjoy life.

Proof of this is the undeniable fact that these communities never spread. Apart from a handful of dogmatic intellectuals, people did not want to worsen their lives. Think how effortlessly, by contrast, fashions in clothes, films, books, diets, activities (from dancing to excursions to sports to trips to clubs) spread throughout any one country (or internationally) like wildfire, without coercion. If something is beneficial and/or appealing it will be embraced. It is that simple. Free citizens will do what they want to do. With “utopian” communities people have to be cajoled, browbeaten, tricked, brainwashed, or forced to participate, whereupon at some point, they want out, leaving an embittered (privileged) leader and his (equally privileged) inner circle behind, handing out excuses and hurling blame. Whether we are talking about Jonestown in the middle of the jungle or Robert Owen’s Home Colonies, or hippie communes, or Communist Cuba, the pattern is the same.

But the ideological zealot will not admit to this. The intellectual fanatic will claim that the previous efforts failed because of this, that, or the other, and that if the above principles were to be now strictly adhered to — under his supervision of course — why, its participants would joyously rejoice in their new status, linking arms in a circle and joining in songs of thanksgiving.

Whereupon the same pattern would manifest itself.

The 20th Century

Yevgeny Zamyatin’s satirical We was written shortly after the establishment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, whose rulers claimed to be building a society along scientific lines as put down by Karl Marx in Das Kapital. We was pretty much ignored by the Western intelligentsia, who was besotted by the new society and its claims (in fact, many Western intellectuals saw the Soviet Union as a true, modern-day utopia). In the novel, an authoritarian society is ruled along what is considered to be scientific principles, striving to be more perfect. People do not have names, they have numbers. Life is regimented. There is an overlord. Unanimity of thought is encouraged. Ultimately, a revolt takes place, instigated by outsiders living more close to nature, but it is suppressed and the protagonist of the story is subjected to a lobotomy, whereupon he is accepted back into the community.

The next dystopia to come along was Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World and it stands apart from all other utopias and dystopias. Simply put, it is a thriving, modern, comfortable society based on stability and hedonism. It was created after a calamitous world war in order to save what was left of civilization, but in order to achieve permanent stability many important things had to be abandoned: literature, monogamy, history, philosophy, family, military, politics and scientific innovations since they invariably, and automatically, create strife. Departing totally from the usual philosophical underpinnings (or clichés) of the 1800s advocating utopias, there is no equality, there is in fact a caste system, but since everyone has been conditioned since birth to accept their status, there is no resentment. On the other hand, it takes up the theme of free sex (actually advocated by the pro-utopian writers of the previous century) as promiscuity is seen as admirable and part of the philosophy of hedonism.

If one has to accept a dystopia, Brave New World is definitely the place to be.

The underlying premise to Brave New World is John Locke’s concept of tabula rasa. It may be remembered that Locke postulated that a person’s mind is born as if a blank slate, so that a person’s personality, habits, thoughts, etc. are the result of his environment. To a large degree, this is true: if a person is born in Norway, he would speak Norwegian, prefer Norwegian food, become Protestant, would be sentimental about fjords and so forth, but if he was born in Japan he would speak Japanese, be Buddhist, be obsessed about others’ opinion of him, have a diet of fish, rice, and seaweed, or, if he was born in the American Mormon faith, he would speak English, wear “temple clothing,” etc. In Huxley’s society, there is a caste system, there is rampant promiscuity and group sex, the concept of family, father, mother, husband and wife considered laughably obscene, yet everyone is happy and content with his life in society for the simple reason that they have been indoctrinated since childhood to think their society to be normal.

The third fictional dystopia to come along, and indisputably the most famous, was 1984, finished on Orwell’s deathbed. It is a political novel, more so than the other two and profoundly depressing. No other published novel can boast of so many contributions to the English language: doublethink, Big Brother, Newspeak, telescreens, the thought police. It is no exaggeration to state that it burst on the world like a literary atomic bomb. Apart from the book’s obvious literary merits, it disrupted the zeitgeist: during WWII, the Soviets were vigorously viewed as gallant fighters for freedom against the Nazis by the West, forgetting that they had been the Nazis’ allies in the first half of the war as they butchered Europe between them. Along with its predecessor, Animal Farm (a satire, in fable form, on the Bolshevik revolution) and Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon, 1984 caused a tectonic shift in literary circles which, up until then, had waxed lyrically about Stalin and the Soviet Union.

The world of the novel is one that is divided into three totalitarian superstates in perpetual warfare with each other: Eastasia, comprising eastern Asia; Eurasia, comprising western Siberia, Europe, and northern Africa; and Oceania, comprising the Americas, Australia, the British Isles, and southern Africa. Within a year of its publication, it seemed like two-thirds of the novel’s predictions had come true as China became Communist under Mao Tse Tung and the Soviet Union reached central Europe and the Adriatic. And because the novel did not require any fantastic paraphernalia as in the case of Brave New World and We, it was more believable than the other two.

What is so striking in reading 1984 is just how realistic and accurate is the description of life in a totalitarian Marxist society during its hysterical phase (as was the case in China during the Cultural Revolution, the Soviet Union during the Leninist-Stalinist periods and today in North Korea). The minutiae of details involving the paranoia, the persecutions, the wariness of facial expressions and in carefully choosing the right words while avoiding other words, the constant state of semi-starvation, the drabness of everyday life, the constant mutilation of historical records to conform to the latest shift in policy, is simply amazing.

It also begs the question: where, exactly, did Orwell get all of his detailed information? After all, during the first half of the century, anything detrimental about the Soviet Union was exceedingly hard to come by. We know that he fought in the Spanish Civil War on the Republican side, an experience that he recounted in Homage to Catalonia. But nowhere in that narrative can we find an echo of the numerous details of 1984, except for the account of the anti-Fascist POUM suddenly being persecuted by the Communists for supposedly being Fascist. True, being an ardent Socialist while also being an anti-Communist, he moved in circles where he could witness doublethink in the Trotskyites and Stalinists that he rubbed shoulders with in England.

Nor can it be based on information based on the other totalitarian regimes of the era. Pre-war Nazi Germany, for all of its brutality, was never drab, nor its people constantly on the verge of starvation, nor its citizens saturated with paranoia for enemies within the Third Reich. The same can be said for Fascist Italy, which never reached near the level of sadistic cruelty of Nazi Germany, preferring instead to send its opponents to internal exile. Where, then, did Orwell get the details?

My supposition is that he probably got them from the émigré groups that lived in London. Most leftist intellectuals shunned the émigrés because their accounts jarred with the idealistic delusions that those intellectuals held and would have experienced cognitive dissonance if they had listened to their accounts. George Orwell was unique among his Socialist peers in that he kept an open mind and could accept unpleasant facts which may have upset his worldview. We see this in his Road to Wigham Pier, his sympathies being with the working class, but also presenting some of its members as being vulgar, brutish and filthy. He was no Frank Capra. Instead, he was that rarity, a Socialist who was also rabidly anti-Communist.

The novel had another unique feature. At its end, Orwell included a nonfictional essay explaining Newspeak at length. The practice of Newspeak in Oceania was to systematically destroy more and more words with the aim of ultimately reducing speech (and print, of course) to a fraction of the present vocabulary. The purpose of this policy was, in the end, to eliminate intricacies of speech but, more importantly, to eradicate concepts which were anathema and which could be ultimately described with simply one word: crimethink. George Orwell may have indirectly gotten the idea for Newspeak from a famous article written in 1940 by Benjamin Whorf. In it, the author put forth the thesis that if a word does not exist in a certain language, the users of that language are incapable of grasping the concept behind that word. If Orwell did not benefit from that article the coincidence is remarkable.

1984 was a warning of impending totalitarianism. Big Brother’s physical description is exactly that of Stalin, and that of his arch-enemy, the traitor Goldstein, is exactly that of Trotsky (Bronstein was Trotsky’s real name). Oceania is clearly a Communist society. Yet, in one of those bizarre ironies, the Afterword to 1984 was written by Erich Fromm, an intellectual Communist who assured readers that the book really applied to Western democracies. (Nor was this a rare instance. Giovanni Guareschi, for example, published The Little World of Don Camillo, which satirized Italian Communists in small Italian towns. A film of the book was made in Italy that portrayed them as adorable. The Italian Communists loved the movie.) Indeed, during the late 1960s and early 1970s, Marxist terrorist groups in the United States like the SDS, Yippies, the Weathermen and The Symbionese Liberation Army issued manifestos proclaiming that they were fighting Big Brother.

Another bizarre irony is that, of all of the details that the dystopia abounds in, the one that Americans have to this day fixated upon is on the telescreen, the instrument with which citizens were spied on by the government, although the citizens themselves spied on each other and denounced each other, including family members (which is yet another characteristic of Marxist societies). Americans’ obsession with their privacy is almost certainly the reason, but the fact that they have paid less importance to the rest is odd.

Many other minor dystopias were written after 1984, several of them borrowing details from their predecessors e.g., Logan’s Run is almost identical to Brave New World. By “minor” I mean twofold: not as influential in the long run, though momentarily interesting when they were initially presented to the public, and, usually the inhabitants are not constantly under surveillance by the State. Nonetheless, they offer some variations on the dystopic theme: Fahrenheit 451, The Handmaid’s Tale, Utopia X, Utopia Minus X, Anthem, The Hunger Games, Divergent, Atlas Shrugged, The Turner Diaries, Battle Royale, Farnham’s Freehold, The Giver, Make Room! Make Room!

Some of them were made into movies of varying success; the films THX 1138 and Aeon Flux, although not adaptations of particular books, were simply variations of Brave New World, while Brazil was in a category by itself.

The idea of utopias as an ideal seems to have gone out of fashion, understandably so considering the 20th century which promised utopias and instead delivered catastrophic dystopias. An exception is Walden Two, written by the foremost psychologist of the time, B.F. Skinner, who implied that a perfect society could be possible through the implementation of behavioral principles. Years later, the introduction of behavior modification would resuscitate the claim.

Today, of course, we live in a world where totalitarianism — of whatever political persuasion — is rare, relegated to a handful of countries which are viewed with scorn, not fear, by the rest of the world. Dystopias are relegated to the realm of science-fiction movies and books. But, for decades, the possibility of a permanent, all-powerful, dystopia encompassing the globe was a real possibility and if that possibility was averted, we have Orwell’s 1984 to partially thank.

So why is it important to remember these historical and literary fiascos? Partly because people have short memories, but more importantly because the peddlers of totalitarian utopias have not disappeared and can still be found justifying and sugar-coating those ideologies. You find them all over where mass information is being generated. True, they are not peddling utopias — yet. Instead, first things first: with cynicism, lies, intimidation, and repetition they undermine the society that they live in, they exalt like-minded persons while denigrating their opponents. And Newspeak is nowadays called Politically Correct speech while its opposite, thoughtcrime, is referred to as hate speech.



Source link

1489222425509.jpg

DEADLY SHOOTING Bloody man chases kids during soccer practice


A bloody, shirtless man with what appeared to be a broken wine bottle turned a balmy evening of soccer practice and batting cages into a scene of chaos and panic.

It didn’t end until police shot and killed him.

A man later identified by authorities as Steven Schlitz, 29, followed an adult soccer player over a 3-foot barrier and onto a soccer field at the Huntington Beach Sports Complex  where children were practicing Thursday night and began chasing the kids with the bottle, witnesses said.

As screams filled the air and children climbed fences to escape, Schiltz moved toward a woman on the bleachers who appeared frozen with fear, said Jose Sanchez, a coach whose team of 13-year-olds was practicing on the field.

Two police officers opened fire, killing Schiltz.

“I feel like the cops tried not to shoot him and when they did it was because they had to,” Sanchez told The Associated Press. “He was going toward her, and you could see he was about to start swinging.  … One more second, and he would have struck her.”

There were about 200 people at the facility that includes eight softball fields and seven soccer fields.

As the bizarre scene unfolded, Sanchez said two adult soccer players tried to topple a 6-by-8-foot soccer goal onto Schiltz to stop him. He continued toward Sanchez’s team and another team of 11-year-old boys.

“I started yelling to the girls to jump over the fence, and we started tossing some girls over,” Sanchez said.

“I was looking around to see if I could find something to grab onto, to protect myself,” he said. “I didn’t really have anything. After getting the girls over, the only thing I could do was put my hands out and hopefully that would delay him or get him to come to me instead of the girls.”

As the kids were scrambling over the fence, Sanchez said Schiltz was stumbling around when a police officer arrived with gun drawn.

A parent then showed up with some sort of stick and chased Schiltz away from the area where the children were, Sanchez said. Schiltz ran toward a set of bleachers, prompting two parents and their children to make a run for it while a woman remained behind.

Sanchez said two offers yelled to Schiltz to “drop it, drop it,” and when he moved toward the woman they opened fire.

Schiltz was shot three times, but he was still moving toward the woman so the officers shot him three or four more times, Sanchez said.

Huntington Beach police confirmed both officers opened fire and said the Orange County Sheriff’s Department is investigating and seeking to interview more witnesses.

Schiltz’s mother, Angela Hernandez, told KCBS-TV that her son had drug issues and was in a psychiatric ward last year. Court records show she took out a restraining order against him in 2013 and she said he threatened relatives with knives, baseball bats, pool sticks and chairs.

But Hernandez said she spoke to him hours before the shooting and he sounded fine. She accused the police of overreacting.

“To me, it was excessive force,” Hernandez told the AP. “He was good-hearted. He would never go after kids.”

Schiltz was known to friends as “Steve-o” and was a baseball fan. At times, he lived on the streets, said Tom Hester, a homeless friend who said he saw Schiltz bicycling to the park just before the violence.

“He had a drinking problem, and when he drank he got real violent,” Hester said.



Source link

Duke and Sexual Assault


People think of Duke University in Durham, NC as a top-tier school bumping up against the Ivies. Witnessing students on campus or in Cameron Indoor Stadium, home of the school’s vaunted basketball team, you can see why students are nicknamed the Cameron Crazies. But overall, the impression is high-IQ students, mostly from the North, who are actually in school to learn and achieve, unlike party-school UNC-Chapel Hill just eight miles down Tobacco Road (a totally inaccurate name) where it is assumed sexual assault is more likely to occur regularly.

Therefore, it is a surprise that 40% of female undergraduates (and 10% of male undergraduates) of Duke students who had attended over the past ten years  reported being sexually assaulted (Duke University Student Experiences Survey). Yet, there has been no police record of charges, arrests, or convictions. And 40% reporting sexual assault surpasses the number of attacks published in Jimmy Carter’s book A Call to Action, which reports 25% of coeds are sexually assaulted annually. Why would Duke have almost double the (in itself rather questionable) national average, even if measured over a longer period?

Partly because Duke faculty and female agitators are attending one of the most radicalized schools in the U.S. Remember that the Duke lacrosse players’ ordeal was started by the Group of 88, composed of radical current and retired faculty and fellow travelers. To them facts and statistics are obstacles blocking the path to expose class warfare in the lacrosse case, and today female discrimination in the sexual assault matter. In typical scenarios on campuses everywhere, the victims are secondary to the ideological purpose. The lacrosse players are guilty anyway, though proven innocent. Males everywhere are guilty so who cares if their lives are ruined by made-up sexual episodes?

Additionally, the figures on sexual assault are likely pulled out of the air. How far from reality the numbers actually are is anyone’s guess. The reports and estimated cases are fairly recent and appear to be tied in to rumbling in the women’s groups in the U.S. Remember the inchoate speeches by Ashley Judd and Meryl Streep to hordes of females gathered in the streets to demonstrate hatred for males, angst at being a woman, or a desire to throw out Donald Trump? Or Nancy Pelosi leading congresswomen on Capitol Hill to celebrate International Women’s Day — and A Day Without Women — somehow supposedly signaling Donald Trump “they weren’t backing down on equal rights.”?

While the exaggerated number of sex cases reported is aimed to paint all males with the “rapist” brush, the real damage lies in the goal to ruin individual males with false charges and kangaroo courts on campus, more akin to Soviet show trials than what occurs in American courtrooms.

The several cases of alleged sexual assault at Duke follow the same process: the female student claims she had sex against her will the but did not make a report to the Durham police. The male, now judged guilty before the so-called trial begins, is sideswiped with charges from campus officials.

He reacts predictably and lines up witnesses to show the coed voluntarily engaged in sex, only to find out the guidelines, enforced through the federal government’s Title 1X regs, only allow testimony from the female and her witnesses, who cannot be cross-examined.

The cases are usually heard by a three-person quango of female students and a faculty member. The decision comes down in typical college bureaucratic PC doublespeak but always containing the same verdict: guilty as charged. The next step is applying punishment that fits the crime, which always seeks to impose on males a stigma, like registering child molesters, by ruining the guy’s reputation for choosing to have sex with a vengeful liar. Purposefully harming a man’s reputation by insisting his permanent record ballyhoos a false accusation of sexual assault and rape, is as low as you can go. The “guilty” male is suspended from school, even if he is near graduation.  In one recent case at Duke, the poor guy was forced to contact his new employers to tell them he will not be able to start work when agreed, in his case six months late.

The mandates ordered by PC protocol are one thing. Women interfering with the procreation of the species is likely to create unknown negative consequences.

People think of Duke University in Durham, NC as a top-tier school bumping up against the Ivies. Witnessing students on campus or in Cameron Indoor Stadium, home of the school’s vaunted basketball team, you can see why students are nicknamed the Cameron Crazies. But overall, the impression is high-IQ students, mostly from the North, who are actually in school to learn and achieve, unlike party-school UNC-Chapel Hill just eight miles down Tobacco Road (a totally inaccurate name) where it is assumed sexual assault is more likely to occur regularly.

Therefore, it is a surprise that 40% of female undergraduates (and 10% of male undergraduates) of Duke students who had attended over the past ten years  reported being sexually assaulted (Duke University Student Experiences Survey). Yet, there has been no police record of charges, arrests, or convictions. And 40% reporting sexual assault surpasses the number of attacks published in Jimmy Carter’s book A Call to Action, which reports 25% of coeds are sexually assaulted annually. Why would Duke have almost double the (in itself rather questionable) national average, even if measured over a longer period?

Partly because Duke faculty and female agitators are attending one of the most radicalized schools in the U.S. Remember that the Duke lacrosse players’ ordeal was started by the Group of 88, composed of radical current and retired faculty and fellow travelers. To them facts and statistics are obstacles blocking the path to expose class warfare in the lacrosse case, and today female discrimination in the sexual assault matter. In typical scenarios on campuses everywhere, the victims are secondary to the ideological purpose. The lacrosse players are guilty anyway, though proven innocent. Males everywhere are guilty so who cares if their lives are ruined by made-up sexual episodes?

Additionally, the figures on sexual assault are likely pulled out of the air. How far from reality the numbers actually are is anyone’s guess. The reports and estimated cases are fairly recent and appear to be tied in to rumbling in the women’s groups in the U.S. Remember the inchoate speeches by Ashley Judd and Meryl Streep to hordes of females gathered in the streets to demonstrate hatred for males, angst at being a woman, or a desire to throw out Donald Trump? Or Nancy Pelosi leading congresswomen on Capitol Hill to celebrate International Women’s Day — and A Day Without Women — somehow supposedly signaling Donald Trump “they weren’t backing down on equal rights.”?

While the exaggerated number of sex cases reported is aimed to paint all males with the “rapist” brush, the real damage lies in the goal to ruin individual males with false charges and kangaroo courts on campus, more akin to Soviet show trials than what occurs in American courtrooms.

The several cases of alleged sexual assault at Duke follow the same process: the female student claims she had sex against her will the but did not make a report to the Durham police. The male, now judged guilty before the so-called trial begins, is sideswiped with charges from campus officials.

He reacts predictably and lines up witnesses to show the coed voluntarily engaged in sex, only to find out the guidelines, enforced through the federal government’s Title 1X regs, only allow testimony from the female and her witnesses, who cannot be cross-examined.

The cases are usually heard by a three-person quango of female students and a faculty member. The decision comes down in typical college bureaucratic PC doublespeak but always containing the same verdict: guilty as charged. The next step is applying punishment that fits the crime, which always seeks to impose on males a stigma, like registering child molesters, by ruining the guy’s reputation for choosing to have sex with a vengeful liar. Purposefully harming a man’s reputation by insisting his permanent record ballyhoos a false accusation of sexual assault and rape, is as low as you can go. The “guilty” male is suspended from school, even if he is near graduation.  In one recent case at Duke, the poor guy was forced to contact his new employers to tell them he will not be able to start work when agreed, in his case six months late.

The mandates ordered by PC protocol are one thing. Women interfering with the procreation of the species is likely to create unknown negative consequences.



Source link