Bob Beckel’s Bogus Bias

So I was doing my usual channel surfing ( 6 stations in a ‘loop’ and round robin between them ) and landed on Fox ( I think it was “The Five” ) and they were covering the recent shooting of some Sikhs in Wisconsin. Yes, it was a horrid thing to have happen. Yes the guy who did it was a nut job at best and a miserable excuse for a human being.

We all know that.

Now begins the usual round of LibDems trying to turn it into a political lever via demonizing guns and gun ownership.

On the TV was Bob Beckel (one of the “Token Liberals” on Fox) who is usually presenting a particularly bent point of view. Lots of talking points, not much substance, thinking not necessarily applied. ( Though during his time at Fox he has slowly started showing a bit more tendency to think about things before talking. Perhaps there is hope…)

At any rate, all that is not what’s got me bothered. No. That was Bob Beckel spouting off that the shooters were “Right Wing”.

He got into a bit of a dust up with the others on the panel but stuck to it. Saying things like “They are all Right Wing” and “All those skinheads are Right Wing” and tying Right Wing to Neo Nazis and all the rest.

Aside from the fact that the Fascists and Nazis were NOT “Right Wing” but were, in fact, Socialists (just not Communist Socialists so Stalin called them “right wing” as anything NOT Soviet was ‘to the right’ of him…) the simple fact is that Skinheads are NOT all racists nor all “right wing”. He simply has his facts quite wrong.

One can almost forgive him his ignorance of the history of the Italian Fascists and German Nazi party as that history has been so regularly propagandized that you actually need to spend an hour or two to find the truth. ( As we did in an earlier posting series.) But the Skinheads came into existence fairly recently and the history is there for anyone who had their eyes open the last few decades to see.

Hell, even the “progressive / liberal” biased Wiki has it right:

A skinhead is a member of a subculture that originated among working class youths in London, England in the 1960s and then soon spread to other parts of the United Kingdom, and later to other countries around the world. Named for their close-cropped or shaven heads, the first skinheads were greatly influenced by West Indian (specifically Jamaican) rude boys and British mods, in terms of fashion, music and lifestyle. Originally, the skinhead subculture was primarily based on those elements, not politics or race. Since then, however, attitudes toward race and politics have become factors by which some skinheads align themselves. The political spectrum within the skinhead scene ranges from the far right to the far left, although many skinheads are apolitical. Fashion-wise, skinheads range from a clean-cut 1960s mod-influenced style to less-strict punk- and hardcore-influenced styles.
In the late 1970s, the skinhead subculture was revived to a notable extent after the introduction of punk rock. Most of these revivalist skinheads reacted to the commercialism of punk by adopting a look that was in line with the original 1969 skinhead style. This revival included Gary Hodges and Hoxton Tom McCourt (both later of the band the 4-Skins) and Suggs, later of the band Madness. Around this time, some skinheads became affiliated with far right groups such as the National Front and the British Movement.

Notice that this is largely a FASHION and MUSIC driven identity and only SOME are on the “far right” (even though we know that “far right” is often simply a bogus name that is in fact the old Nazi Socialist / Racist blend and far more “left” than “right”…)

The skinhead subculture was originally associated with black popular music genres such as soul, ska, rocksteady and early reggae. The link between skinheads and Jamaican music led to the development of the skinhead reggae genre, performed by artists such as: Desmond Dekker, Derrick Morgan, Laurel Aitken, Symarip and The Pioneers.

In the early 1970s, some reggae songs began to feature themes of black nationalism, which many white skinheads could not relate to. This shift in reggae’s lyrical themes created some tension between black and white skinheads, who otherwise got along fairly well. Around this time, some suedeheads (an offshoot of the skinhead subculture) started listening to British glam rock bands such as The Sweet, Slade and Mott the Hoople

Gee, Black Skinheads… So, about that “racist” identity Mr. Beckel?

Yes, there are SOME who are racist and haters, but that’s true of any large category of humans. (Want to see racism? Be a white guy asking to date a Chinese girl in high school… We eventually had that date, at our 10 year reunion.) So no real surprise that SOME have that attitude. Though, as we’ve seen, being Racist is an attribute of National Socialism, not “right wing” at all.

(Those wanting a review can see:

in their own words: )

Although many white power skinheads listened to Oi! music, they also developed a separate genre that was more in line with their politics: Rock Against Communism (RAC). The most notable RAC band was Skrewdriver, which started out as a non-political punk band but evolved into a neo-Nazi band after the first lineup broke up and a new lineup was formed. RAC started out musically similar to Oi! and punk, but has since adopted elements from other genres. White power music that sounds like hardcore is sometimes called hatecore.

Even the skinheads recognize it as hateful behaviour, calling it “hatecore”. Interesting to note, we continue to see the conflict between Communism and National Socialism playing out…

And anyone inside the Skinheads making noises about their Nationalist neighbors?

Also during the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, many skinheads and suedeheads in the United Kingdom rejected both the far left and far right. This anti-extremist attitude was musically typified by Oi! bands such as Cockney Rejects, The 4-Skins, Toy Dolls, and The Business. Two notable groups of skinheads who spoke out against neo-Nazism and political extremism—and in support of traditional skinhead culture—were the Glasgow Spy Kids in Scotland (who coined the phrase Spirit of 69), and the publishers of the Hard As Nails zine in England.

In the United States, anti-racist skinheads countered the neo-Nazi stereotype by forming organisations such as The Minneapolis Baldies, which started in 1986; Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice (SHARP), which was founded in New York City in 1987 and then spread to other countries; and Anti-Racist Action (ARA), which was formed in the late 1980s
by members of the Minneapolis Baldies and other activists.

On the far left of the skinhead subculture, redskins and anarchist skinheads take a militant anti-fascist and pro-working class stance.
In the United Kingdom, two groups with significant numbers of leftist skinhead members were Red Action, which started in 1981, and Anti-Fascist Action, which started in 1985. Internationally, the most notable left-wing skinhead organisation is Red and Anarchist Skinheads, which formed in the New York City area in 1993 and then spread to other countries.

Notice anything MISSING from this? It’s almost entirely about style, clothing, music, and some racist / anti-racist elements. Nothing about the virtue of home schooling. Not a lot of discussion of the merit of a balanced budget. Nothing much at all about the virtue of traditional religion in building good character. Pretty much absent is the need for the Rule Of Law and a strong support for Law Enforcement. How about “modest dress” for women? The sin of killing a child in abortion? The need for sex to be only in the context of marriage? Marriage as being between one man and one woman? Hmmm? Not seeing a whole lot of the Right Wing Agenda in the definition of who these folks are.

So what IS here? What could possibly be the thing that sets Mr. Beckel on a course of rampant insult and blatant bias?

SOME of the skinheads like guns. SOME of them are racists. SOME of them support the NAZI ideals. EXACTLY as did the Democrats in the 1920’s and 1930’s… (Heck, even into the 1960s near as I can tell. “Southern Democrats” were some of the last folks to get on board with equal rights for Blacks). And need I remind Mr. Beckel that it was a REPUBLICAN who issued the Emancipation Proclamation?

Why Do I Care?

I don’t really know. I think it is just a sense of moral outrage at the Blatant Lies foisted on the public by the Dimocrats and their Useful Idiots. There are a great many good and honest moral Democrats ( my friends and family ) and I find it offensive that they are represented by folks so willing to indulge in flat out propaganda lying.

It is as though they figured that they would just stick the Tar Baby of Racism on the Republicans to get it off of their historical card and figured they could ditch that whole connection of National Socialist German Worker’s Party and their endorsement of Mussolini in the pre-War years too via the deliberate Big Lie. And that’s just wrong.

Look, there’s nothing wrong, at all, in saying “We were wrong then. We now despise those beliefs.” Just say it and move on. No big. But to LIE about it to try to hide it, and to try to stick it on the opposition via such lies is just evil. The cover up is always worse than the original sin.

Frankly, I think part of why this is so annoying is that I can make a better case for Lange Type Socialism than most other kinds of economic structure (modulo the small fact that we’ve never had one be stable longer than 50 years…) and making the waters muddy about what IS good and DID work well in the “National Socialisms” just makes it that much harder to “make the case”.

Yes, the “National” part where they were profoundly racist and advocated for the “Folk” being only a very narrow slice of humanity was a pretty bad move. Caused millions to die and lead the Germans to believe they could just take what they wanted from their neighbors. That doesn’t change the fact that they did a pretty good job of running their industrial capacity (even if they did have a bit more emphasis on “Labor Unions” than was warranted – a classical behaviour of Socialists).

It just makes it all so darned hard to “Keep a Tidy Mind” when folks want to change some of the elements of historical fact and ignore some of their past mistakes. The parts just “don’t fit right” and it leaves a persistent discontinuity in the mind space.

So Beckel wants to define “anything evil is Right Wing” as near as I can tell. Not only is it in conflict with past history, and with human nature, but it’s even pretty lousy propaganda.

In short: Skinheads Are People Too!

You’d think that someone who’s all for embracing “diversity” would “get it”…

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Political Current Events and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Bob Beckel’s Bogus Bias

  1. Ooof! There are a lot of problems caused (and prolonged/propagated) by judging a person by appearance. At college I grew my hair long to fit in there (maybe also since when I was home I couldn’t) although the Warden of the college (Dr; Richards) was a skinhead. After I left I had a slight problem with the hair length – a clump of it wrapped around a rotating shaft which hurt, so I became a skinhead after that and have remained so. I have to report that changing the length of my hair did not change my political viewpoints or the way I interacted with other people, though the short hair was much easier to keep clean and tidy.

    As with the Aurora shooting, banning dangerous weapons will not change the number of crazy people who want to kill other people (mostly people they’ve never met before), and if you look around you there are any number of things that can be used as weapons if you are that way inclined. As has been noted in this blog earlier, a car is such a weapon that can injure or kill quite a few people at once. Ingredients for some pretty nasty chemical weapons are available freely at the drug store, garage and hardware stores. You can’t stop this by just banning the most obvious weapons that look like weapons.

    There’s probably more chance of being struck by lightning than of being involved in such an event personally, but a sick/crazy person doing such things seems worse, somehow. Since in the Wisconsin event the guy was undergoing medical treatment for mental disorder (as reported, anyway) it’s possible that the drugs he was on may have contributed to this episode. Pascvaks has proposed that the Hollywood culture (violence with guns is GOOD) should be banned (more like vaporised, actually) and this would seem to be the saner response than banning the guns themselves. Stop glorifying violence and making it look like ultra-violence is the cure for all evils, and the problem may diminish.

  2. j ferguson says:

    Skinheads abound. Is it possible that there is no connection with any particular culture?
    Or different cultures depending on which skinhead?

  3. Richard Ilfeld says:

    In the final analysis, there is only one consistency on the left. As an amalgam of the university and union elite, and the dependent, they share only one reality: if they don’t win they don’t eat as well. Every component of the left depends on either govt force majure, or direct funding. There is not an underlying intellectual consistency, nor a documentary base such as the constitution. When its ‘win or lose clout’, or ‘win or lose funding’; if you try for consistency you find yourself with parts of your mashup in conflict, ie unions and environmentalists on Keystone.

    Demonizing the opposition is where they find shared argument. Calling someone a nasty name require no thought, as we’ve all knows since first grade.

  4. philjourdan says:

    The ignorance of the origin of Nazis and Italian Facists is very widespread. Stalin did an excellent job in the PR of categorizing them. But as you noted, the truth is out there. And it is with delicious irony that I point out to the pointed headed liberals using those terms as pejoratives against the right, that they are merely impugning their own side. Always at first they protest, but when I site sources and facts to demonstrate to them their ignorance, they are reduced to sputtering useless ad hominems and words not fit for anyone’s consumption outside a sailors bar.

    Beckel is like most liberals. Extremely ignorant and prejudiced. They have to be in order to maintain their views. It is a protective mechanism that protects them from the ugliness of the truth of their prejudice and hypocrisy.

  5. j ferguson says:

    The thing we should all be worrying about is the characterization of this event as an act of terrorism. The term suggests conspiracy in support of a political view. Such characterization could support all manner of snooping, spying, harassment under color of law, you name it. And the object would be those groups that were attractive to this nut-job.

    This whole concept of “keeping us safe” can be a basis for legalized attacks on groups which don’t like the kool-aid.

    I’d like to add that while I agree that many of the remarks posted here wrt to liberals are clearly appropriate, they don’t encompass the entire liberal end of things. I would submit that it is possible to be libertarian at heart but liberal in some applications. There probably isn’t anything to be gained by debating this, but it would be helpful to acknowledge that once in a while, the country can absorb the programs of a liberal administration that is more centrist than the leftist extremes which make most of our stomachs churn.

  6. The really scary part is that we all now know, beyond doubt, that our government has purposely misinformed people. Now ordinary people are frightened and dangerous.

  7. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Bob Beckel is not the sharpest tool in the shed. He went to college on a football scholarship, I think he played too often without a helmet. I believe he had a law license but lost it for criminal activities. He often brags about dirty tricks he has done as a Democratic party operative.
    His job on Fox Friends is to make liberals look loud and stupid, a job he does very well. pg

  8. Cheerful Codger says:

    I think your definitions of Left and Right differ from the ones I was brought up with (educated in the UK).

    The definitions I was raised with is that the Left believe that power is granted by the people who are governed to the people who govern. The Right believe that power is held by leaders from some other mandate (divine right, the ‘natural’ right of leaders to lead, etc) and authority descends from leaders to those led. In this sense the Communists are Left-wing and the Fascists are Right-wing. Both are neutral on religion, seeing it as a separate debate. This is still the case in European politics.

    Modern US politics has what I would call Libertarian values (the values you list) as ‘Right’ and Authoritarian values as ‘Left’ (what we see in the Green/Watermelon movement).
    Both sides of European politics would tend to be ‘Left’ in terms of US politics, there is the beginnings of a Libertarian movement but it’s small. We’re used to high taxes, big governments and welfare states.

    So yes, the Skinhead movement that I know is Right-wing in terms of European politics, but neutral as far as US politics.

    The racist and anti-Semitic attitudes prevalent in Right-wing (European) politics is definitely a legacy of Nazism; Fascist philosophy of the time did not include those, but Nazi philosophy did, and later the two became inseparable. For example the National Front (UK right-wing party) is not racist, but continually has problems with its members making racist remarks and statements.

    This might explain some of the confusion. It’s a matter of labels.

  9. KevinM says:

    Richard said “Calling someone a nasty name require no thought…”

    I take exception. On one hand we have the misuse of the term, in this case “skinhead”, exposed here by our host as a “gaffe”. But I believe it is a different fraud than the thoughtlessness exemplified by a first grader – e.g. calling his playground competition a doodoo head.

    The “other hand” is that this misuse of the term “skinhead” reflects what has become its correct usage in the circles Beckel travels. Possibly for reasons pointed at by our host, that reason was manufactured within those circles. What raises the bar above first grade level is that Beckel et. al. have successfully exported their new definition outside of their own circulation. You know that the term “skinhead” WAS not in the union of sets for “right wing” and “racist”, but living language has accepted that it IS NOW, independent of what an actual skinhead is.

    Viewing the world as game theory, two of the main actors consistently strive for the same prize while playing by different rules. Beckel’s team, on which he is just another self selected punter, wants some form of the “socialism shiny thing”. Fox news’ team, on which they are a signicicant player, wants some form of safe corporate stasis. The mutual prize is political power to effect or prevent change. The rules difference is behavioral.

    The L-team continuously builds the world’s language structures in ways that obscures its flaws and imply etherial merits. It creates fluid things that creep unnoticed into the workings of the other actors, causing endless frustrations like “no thats not what that word means! … but it does.” and “no the science is not settled! … but it is”. The big weakness is its need for consensus, because you can not have a language without consent by usage. They run into a wall of “you go too far.”

    Whatever, nobodys going toread this far … my point is taem Beckel effectively uses language to win the war even if the specific useage was nonsense. Analogous to israel’s use liberal use of chaffe rockets in the Yom Kippur war.

  10. Dave says:

    Notice how excited the LibMedia types are that they finally got their white bigot. The last two shootings; Arizona and Colorado, were imediately linked to such people and had to be withdrawn. The solution is to ban guns. See!!!

    The directive for police to cover the Jarrett wedding arrives at a time where Chicago is facing a surge in its homicide rate. The Daily pointed out in a Friday column that more Chicago residents — 228 — have been killed so far this year in the city than the number of U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan – 144 — over the same period.


    The previous weekend, at least eight were killed, including a 16-year-old boy, and 46 wounded by gun violence in Chicago. Monday evening into Tuesday, seven more people were shot, two of them fatally. The city’s homicide rate is up more than 50 percent over last year.

    Must be nice when you can use the taxpayer funded police to protect your daughter. And hey, who cares when it is non-caucasians shooting each other. It only matters when the shooter isn’t.

  11. Yes, Dave, that is Their Bottom Line !

    The other bottom line is just this, and nothing less: “Truth is victorious, never untruth.” Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur’an 17.85; Numerous Bible scriptures

    So do not be discouraged, Mankind is at the top of the ladder of evolution and can domesticate other forms of life, but ultimately, mankind cannot domesticate and control humans.

  12. adolfogiurfa says:

    @E.M.: Many of us, not only you in the US, have lived the same ideals of individual freedom and individual autonomy, but since when some people began thinking in what was supposedly “good” for us, from not-smoking to not eating “trash food”, etc. What bothers, to say the least, is the intromission of authority in one´s own life, it does not really matter if what some have thought as the good for humanity is actually good, but to meddle in peoples´lives in every detail, trashes those ideals of freedom and liberty which were so emphasized when we were kids.
    It would be interesting,for you, being a detailed observer as you are, to make a list of all those “good intentions” of those who want to direct our lives and tell us when it al began with this state of things which now resembles anything else but less to freedom..
    There is no dignity where other people chooses instead of yourself.

  13. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Oliver K. Manuel says:
    7 August 2012 at 4:51 pm “but ultimately, mankind cannot domesticate and control humans.”

    Interesting Oliver, That is about what the gods said about their failure to domesticate humans, Over 6,000 years ago, They gave up and most of them left.
    It is unethical to force change on others, you can only change yourself. but you can prevent them from damaging your life. So you can fight, or give up. There is no longer any place you can run to. pg

  14. Gary says:

    So why don’t your Democrat family and friends reject the liars that represent them in office and the press? It’s an honest question. Why no moral outrage among these folks?

  15. w.w.wygart says:

    Kevin M makes, an excellent point [having read all the way to the bottom]

    I will extend his point by saying, as someone raised within this particular cognitive world, is that modern American political liberals having succeeding in completely conflating their politics into their religion, and have replaced all of the traditional Virtues [with a capital ‘V’] with being “Right’. For the modern liberal “Rightness” is the chiefest of all Virtues, and all other virtues become relative to it. Additionally, because they have dispensed with all pretense of an authority that is higher than their own egos, they get to decide what “Right is” – and infallibly so. Why else do you think the doctrine of the Pope’s ex cathedra infallibly drives some people so nuts, [they’re not Catholic, they’ve never been Catholic but you can’t shut them up about it] they can’t stand the idea that someone else could possibly declare themselves to be infallible.

    It becomes an easy leap then to the reflexive demonization of anyone who has a different version of ‘Right’ or might expose their fallibility, even if by suggesting there is a valid alternative to their home grown ‘Rightness’. All reality becomes subject to revision because they just can’t cope emotionally or intellectually with the possibility of being wrong about anything.


  16. E.M.Smith says:


    One relative is very “pro-gay” and is sure Republicans are all Strict Biblical Moralists…

    One friend is fond of “smoke” and is sure Republicans are the only reason M.J. isn’t legal. (And that they are the only reason there is a War On Drugs…)

    One friend is supporting a spouse who can not get disability (having not worked enough) and has huge medical bills. He is sure Republicans will not give (or now, will take away) “his medical care”. He also is a bit rabid about Republicans In The Bedroom and over moralizing…

    One Texas relative said, in a pause from bitching about the Dimocrats, that he was “A Life Long Democrat And Proud Of It.” Things like that don’t change fast in Texas. I think he was still peeved about Lincoln and The War Between The States…

    A neighbor is sure that the Republicans will just let Corporations take over the food supply and force feed them FrankenFoods. ( They are prone to eating strange things that are not FDA inspected, approved, and more. Holistic medicine stuff too. Trying to tell them Democrats are doing the same thing only more doesn’t sink in… They bought the “Democrat Protection” racket spiel…)

    I’m “not a Republican” because I’m pissed about their “Don’t Tax and SPEND! ANYWAY!!!” Also not too fond of the War On (anything / everything) and some of the intrusive “policing” attitudes.

    In short, the Republicans have a laundry list of Screw Ups largely having to do with spending the country into the ditch too, but on “things we don’t want” like putting us in jail, snooping on us, telling us we have to go kill people in foreign lands and ought to police the world. Oh, and thinking they ought to be the Morals Police… ( Dimocrats to that too, but with different morals…)

    Oh, and both sides hand out huge chunks of Pork to “Friends Of The Party” and the Republican Corporate Welfare offends some of them (more than the Democrat Personal Welfare and hidden Crony Capitalism…)

    In short: What they WANT to be given from the Democrats and what they want to PREVENT from the Republicans. (Me? I’d like to PREVENT both of them from handing out ‘gifts to friends and voters’… Just shrink the whole damn thing to about 1/4 present size; for starters.)

    So we agree on what to “prevent” and I let the rest slide…

    Oddly, like some of my Republican friends. (Though it’s a bit more touchy then and I need to avoid pointing out things like I’d like to prevent the “War on (everything)” and that the Federal government has no business inside my home in any way, shape, or form. ) They also don’t like it when I point out the amount of “largess” ladled onto corporations by the Republicrims…

    At any rate, it looks to me like mostly it’s just a pissing match over WHICH particular “goodies” you want and WHICH particular intrusions you would like removed AND which intrusions you would like shoved down the throat of your neighbor. Few folks willing to recognize that the best answer is “don’t shove anything on your neighbor and don’t take ‘goodies’ from the nice stranger…”


    Interesting observation… Explains their tendency to a War On Catholicism… (and side skirmishes with the rest of Christendom…)


    Always knew I wasn’t up for that whole Domestication thing ;-)


    6000 years ago? 4000 BC? That was about when Dynastic Egypt began. The Gods left then? Pointer? ( I was under the impression that folks were still reporting “Face Time” with the Guys In The Sky up through about 0 BC… but I’ve never calendared all of it…)

    FWIW, I have this Fantasy Model of human history that I play with that involves a very small group of technically advanced Space Aliens trying desperately to “help us along” with highly leveraged interactions (like “give them a list of ‘do not eat’ the bad stuff” and some Thou Shalt rules) but just being overwhelmed by our ability to distort even simple guidance into all sorts of crazy stuff… then giving up and just doing R&D / reporting on us… ( From “don’t cook a baby goat in goat milk” to “it is a sin to put cheese on a hamburger”? That’s silly…)

    So every few hundred years they make a swing by, see how the last intervention worked; try again, then head out for another few hundred years of doing other stuff elsewhere…


    And they don’t bother to mention that Chicago has very tough gun laws… My son has left his guns here just because it was so onerous to take them with him to Chicago as to be a “maybe later” thing. More gun laws means more murders. That simple. Facts on the ground.

    Yet it never sinks in…

    Also of interest that “last weekend” had more deaths than the shooting of the Sikhs, yet gets near zero “air time” as it is “ordinary”… Not a lot of political mileage out of “Liberal Chicago Has More Murders”…


    I’d like to think it was some kind of subtle strategy of language; but they don’t seem to be aware of what they are doing. It seems to be rooted deeper than that in some kind of “lack of memory – make stuff up to feel good” basic behaviour.

    @J. Ferguson:

    One of the “chilling” things in that “call it terrorism” was that all it takes is a desire to “change the policy of the government”. So…. if I have a “Party to Promote Liberty” and advocate for less intrusive government, and somebody gets in a fight (or maybe even is just “Drunk in public” – as that is illegal…) does that mean they can call the event “terrorism”?

    It is just so darned vague what illegal act could be suddenly defined as “terrorism” under an influence government policy banner…

    @Richard Ilfeld:

    I guess it’s that irrational desire for logical consistency that bounces me out of their side…


    I try to point out to folks who equate Nazi with “right wing” the error of their ways, but it’s an uphill battle…


    I’ve hesitated to mention it in public, but in private conversations on the topic I’ll go down a litany of simple and easy ways to have a much higher body count not using guns. ( First introduced to it talking with the County Sheriff Deputy about ‘gun control’ where he pointed out the benefit of lower body count with guns…) Simple fact is that it would be modestly easy to have done far more damage and probably not be caught either.

    In many cases the “nutcase” has a list of drugs that are prescribed that include “suicidal thoughts” on the list of side effects. The kids who did Columbine had such drugs.

    FWIW, I’ve had shoulder length hair and I’ve had a shaved smooth look. Same me in both cases. ( Somewhere there’s a picture of me with goatee, mustache, hippy kind of batwing shirt like this: and very long hair.)

    Oh Well. Some folks have trouble with not living in a land of stereotypes.

    (One “Biker Gang” I talked with had a Dentist and a Lawyer as two of the rougher looking guys… My Sister and her husband have matching bikes. She was a school teacher by training but worked as a manager in the Post Office later… Then there was me on my bike. All Black motorcycle suit. Usually unshaven on weekends. 220+ lbs. “Biker Geek” ;-) “Hey, watch it, he might start talking C at you!”… )

    Ah well, we’re all just folks.

  17. jim says:

    One thing I don’t understand is why such a large proportion of Jews support the Dimowits?

  18. Jerry says:

    and beckels just rolls on like a rock going downhill:

    Texans are not so much peeved at Lincoln and The War Of Northen Aggression as we are still peeved at the outcome! Don’t think even those ‘Yellow Dog Democrats’ can vote for a Red Dog many times!

  19. jim says:

    Speaking of drugs. Alcohol kills thousands of people a year, causes countless injuries, and breaks up families. Pot makes people lazy and fat, can’t really be all that good for the lungs, and has been known to trigger psychotic episodes. Cocaine – very habit forming.

    So, they get outlawed. So we end up with armed criminal gangs smuggling all of it the US can consume. And even worse, in a attempt to circumvent the laws, illegal chemists make designer drugs that have the potential to kill, or worse yet, make living zombies out of people who will have to be supported the rest of their vegetable lives.

    We spend billions upon billions of dollars enforcing drug laws. It takes not only the cops, but chemists, expensive lab equipment, drones, dogs, armed vehicles, and God only knows what else.

    So what’s worse? Legal alcohol, pot, and cocaine? Or what we have now?

  20. P.G. Sharrow says:
    7 August 2012 at 5:53 pm

    “It is unethical to force change on others, you can only change yourself. but you can prevent them from damaging your life. So you can fight, or give up. There is no longer any place you can run to.” pg

    I agree, P.G. My decision to fight was made on 1 Aug 2010

    When Climategate e-mails and documents were released in Nov 2009, I was already seventy-three (73) years old!

    For forty-nine of those years (2009-1960 = 49 years), I had struggled with a mystery: Why were leaders of the space science community misrepresenting scientific information on the origin of the solar system and its elements?

    After watching deceitful responses of world leaders and leaders of the scientific community to the Climategate emails and documents for about a year, I finally concluded on 1 Aug 2010 that I had no choice but to fight.

    My decision was explained on 21 Apr 2012 with these quotes:

    “Having made yourself alike in pain and
    pleasure, profit and loss, victory and
    defeat, engage in this great war and
    you will be freed from sin, Arjuna.”

    Bhagavad Gita 2:38

    “But if you do not participate in this battle
    against evil, you will be violating
    your dharma and your honor,
    and you will incur sin.”

    Bhagavad Gita 2:34

  21. philjourdan says:

    @jim – I asked that of a Jewish (non-American) friend of mine once. In Theory, Jews are very socialistic. They believe in the community supporting everyone from cradle to grave. As the dimocrats also espouse that philosophy, the American Jews often over look the end results of the actions of the democrats, and support them out of a kinship to the philosophy.

    There are exceptions of course (most notably being the majority Leader of the House).

  22. jim2 says:

    Philj. – I did read about the communes formed early on in Israel. Don’t understand it, but there it is.

  23. Pascvaks says:

    People, in general, are divisible by 2. There’s guys and dolls, there’s libs and cons, and pros and cons, and a few hundred (perhaps more;-) opposites. Throw something up in the air in the middle of a packed Olympic Stadium and half will call ‘Heads’ and half will call ‘Tails’. There’s an old saying that ‘Opposites attract, and likes repel!’ – it’s true, but even among opposites there is attraction, and even among likes there is repulsion.

    The American Revolution started way before 1775 and is still ongoing. The American Civil War started way before 1861 and didn’t end in 1865, that was just the Real Hot Phase. People like to fight. Some will provoke a fight for the sake of it by just being obnoxious to someone that they otherwise like after the lights go out and just to have something to do for an hour or two before the lights go out. Fighting, in all its manifestations, is a natural to human nature as breathing. There is no love without hate, there is no hot without cold, there is no beautiful without ugly, or so I’m told. People do work together against a common enemy, but once the common enemy is gone they will turn against each other if no other danger becomes the common enemy.

    People love fighting so much that if they have everything they need and no enemy, they will destroy their own lifestyle inorder to pick a fight with themselves.

    OK! Put up yer dukes! I’ll moyder the first bozo dat steps across dat line!;-)

  24. Jason Calley says:

    @ Pascvaks “People, in general, are divisible by 2.”

    I know it is an old joke, but “People, in general, are divisible by 10. Those who understand binary numbers, and those who don’t.”

    @ philjourdan “There are exceptions of course”

    One of my favorites is the JPFO, a Jewish Second Amendment group.

    @ jim “We spend billions upon billions of dollars enforcing drug laws. It takes not only the cops, but chemists, expensive lab equipment, drones, dogs, armed vehicles, and God only knows what else.”

    It makes more sense when you look at the other column of the ledger book. To YOU, drug enforcement is an expense; you pay taxes. But to the powers that be, what is an expense to you, is an income stream to them.

  25. Richard Ilfeld says:

    (Personal perspective, ignore if you find offensive)There are three reasons many jews support the Idea of the Democrats, while in many cases despising them personally.

    The Civil rights struggle, which is the cloak of moral superiority that unentitled Democrats still draw about themselves as protection against ideas. Jews identified with a persecuted group and in most cases fell in with the academic side of the struggle, hence the democrats. (Thomas Sowell, among others, has pointed out the amount of progress that predated the “Civil Rights struggle, but the academics wrote the history).

    Jews have a sympathy for socialism (kibbutz) which again places them academically with the left, even though the jewish implementation is nothing like the progressive hegemony someone like Obama promulgates.

    And finally, jews in America have done well financially as a whole, and have a weakness for ’causes’ — and the Democrats are amazing suck-ups.

    But it’s getting harder to hide that what they do is different than what they promise. When a jew couldn’t join a country club but was welcome at the community center hall a lot of the lies could stand….now my ancient aunt thinks its time to buy Gold again, and she was born in Germany in 1916.

    But any generalization about jews is probably inherantly flawed, as in my experience if you have a gathering of ten you’ll have twelve opinons as some folks like argument so much they will take two sides.

    Israel is exemplar – there exists a cultural consensus very different sometimes from the election results. The does more debating and less lawmaking that our congress-critters. A vote here now has perhaps more consequences — as I have a sense of some on the far left longing for the one man- one vote – one time school of democracy. My aunt experienced this in a so-called ‘advanced culture’ and does not believe it can’t happen here.

  26. Pascvaks says:

    OK! Maybe I’m wrong. I figure I have a 50:50 chance of being right, or wrong. But what if I’m right?

    Beckel is OK (when being ‘Fair and Balanced’). Most of his bias is bluster and for effect; he likes to watch how people light up, scream, yell, and sometimes vomit when he throws his bombs. He’s just a kid at heart who likes to fight. The other four on The Five are fighters too. Imagine what they’d say to each other if Beckel wasn’t there begging them to take their best shots at him.

    Have you noticed that when we’re alone, we even argue with ourselves?

    Quiet! Stop it already!
    No! I want to say somemore!
    You’ve said enough!
    Says you!
    Yeh! Says me, Bonehead!
    Beat it Meathead!
    Say Good Night Gracie!
    Good Night Gracie!

  27. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Yes, Bekel has bragged several times he likes to get into fights and doesn’t care about the outcome as long as he wins, and at any cost to others as well as to himself! The others attempt to be civil, Bob just considers that to be a sign of weakness. pg

  28. jim says:

    Richard – what you say seems to make sense. It is ironic that Jews experienced the jack boot of a maniac in control of a socialist (centralized government control) country, yet still support the socialists in the US. Marx was wrong about religion. It is merely the marijuana of the people. Socialism itself is the opiate, or heroin, of the people. I think this case proves it.

  29. Pascvaks says:

    People are funny, they can get hooked on anything, anywhere, anywhen, anyhow, anywhat, anywho, and anywhy. They can even do things for years and years that are detrimental to their own welfare. They can elect idiots that lie to them everytime they open their mouth. On the whole, they usually disappoint; they rarely make you proud. The only things that seem to change are their clothes and their toys. Mother Nature has developed several ways of dealing with the problem of ‘People’, her favorite is “Control-Alt-Delete” where the weather seems to change and people just go crazy and blend into the wood work, aka ‘forests’;-)

    PS: Our immortal souls, if we even have such things, are not ‘human’. They use us they way we would if we could be born as an ant and just go along for the ride. I think people and their immortal hitchhikers have a long, long way to go. But, maybe not;-)

  30. Jason Calley says:

    “They can elect idiots that lie to them everytime they open their mouth.”

    Yes! Yes, Pascvaks, I admit, I have done so myself! But they were such PRETTY lies!


  31. Pascvaks says:

    Indeed they are! “To dream the impossible dream, to fight the unbeatable foe…” but after a little while, especially now, even the dumbest among us should see some of the mirrors and smell some of the smoke and rub our two little brain cells together and come to the very, very simple conclusion that we bought a Chicago Cat in a big pretty bag four years ago who conned us all and who is still playing his mezmerizing Pied Piper pipe and promissing fun and games and welfare and free healthcare galore inside his Big Magic Mountain.

    BUT.. reality is such a downer drag, full of hard times and big bad knocks.. dream on America, dream on.. the Magic Mountain awaits.

  32. Pascvaks says:

    PS: (-;Did I just mix the Pied Piper with Pinnochio? My nose is so long I cant see the keys between my jackass ears anymore;-)

  33. Stan1026 says:

    The fascist are ‘right wing’, as it is on the opposite end of the Marxist spectrum from communism. The error is in calling conservatives ‘right wing’. Conservatism is not on any political spectrum that includes Marxism.

    [Reply: I would agree if we were in a world that allowed for a multidimensional matrix. As we have a single line, then fighting over who is ‘on that line’ is a bit of a waste of time… So we are in “violent agreement” in that Soviet Communism was strongly on one end of the “internationalist” line while Nazi were on the other far end as Nationalists. On another line (racism) both were not fond of Jews… though Stalin was a bit more tolerant. While Mussolini was very accepting of Jews right up until the Nazi were in his house… Unfortunately, we are stuck with “Left” and “Right” and they are just a broken concept. Also note that the Fascists and Nazi were quite sure they were Socialists (just of a Nationalist sort) and I have a hard time with the notion that “right wing” as generally used really means “socialist”… -E.M.Smith]

Comments are closed.