Who Is IOZ?: Miranda Rites

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Miranda Rites

You know, first of all, there are, technically speaking, no such thing as Miranda rights. There are Miranda warnings. This is a distinction with a difference. The Miranda ruling established that suspects in custody must be informed of their basic legal rights prior to interrogation. Those rights weren't established by the Miranda rule. They were established by the Constitution.

Anyway, Joe Feebleman and the usual gang of Senatorial cockatoos are apparently concerned that our global gulag garrison state is insufficiently unconcerned with its own putative legal and moral standards when it comes to The Terror, and have thus proposed that we strip citizens of their citizenship in order that we may dispose of them without any due legal process. I think this is a valuable argument, as it shows just how blinkered and naive are any notions of inherent human rights. Instead, what you have are arbitrary privileges granted to those in temporary possession of a revokable designation: citizen. Oh, but did you just jaywalk? You are endowed by your creator with shit, Jacko. Now spread em!

Meanwhile, let's not forget, let's not forget, that this latest round of self-soiling hysteria is the result of some faggot parking a van-ful of firecrackers and lawnmower fuel in a handicapped zone. I've set off bigger bombs in the shitter.

60 comments:

la Rana said...: they were threatening castration!

This has got to move Lieberman into the top ten most despicable people in the world. I'm tempted to call his office and threaten to yell Kablowee! I'm gonna do it!; 3:17 PM
Dan said...: Also, Dude, faggot is not the preferred nomenclature. Gay American, please.; 4:11 PM
pistoffnick said...: Come see the violence inherent in the system!; 4:12 PM
Justin said...: The rug pissers did this?; 4:19 PM
mds said...: See, I went with "sock drawer" in the previous thread to avoid getting all scatalogical. Obviously I had briefly forgotten where I was.

And Rabbi Lerner needs to send some goons into Holy Joe's office to educate him about tikkun olam with tire irons.*

*Of course I am not actually advocating that a touchy-feely pwoggy Jew engage in violence against a US senator. But gad, it is ever sexually satisfying to fantasize about.**

**Too much information, you say? See "scatalogical" above.; 4:19 PM
Inkberrow said...: Yup, this latest Islamist attempt at mass murder of Americans (in New York alone) failed, as it happened. Should attempted mass-murder even be a crime, I ask ya? You can't talk about omelettes without breaking a few eggs.....; 4:21 PM
la Rana said...: What's a crime?; 4:23 PM
la Rana said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4:23 PM
IOZ said...: Those shoes are a crime with that bag, grrrrl.

Anyway, you can't murder mass.; 4:52 PM
AlanSmithee said...: This post has been removed to protect the innocent.; 4:53 PM
Inkberrow said...: Y'all are killing with these jokes!; 5:33 PM
la Rana said...: At least as much as that "bomb."; 5:59 PM
Justin said...: One serious point, the Miranda warning is only relevant if the prosecution wishes to make use of the witnesses statement to the police as evidence. In other words, they could interrogate the subject without reading the Miranda Rights just the same as if they did, but then they couldn't use the statement in a court of law. The problem law enforcement has with Mirandizing is that the suspect then knows that he can request a lawyer.

What Lieberman et al should really propose here is that we wave the right to an attorney for a suspected terrorist, because the Miranda Rights exist whether they are read or not. The rule is in place only so the suspect is informed of exactly what his rights are before proceeding with an interview.; 5:59 PM
Michael Dawson said...: How does this lawn-mow the idea of inherent human rights? It certainly lawn-mows the idea of "nation," but I don't see the larger clipping here.

Gods and nations neither exist nor give anything to anybody, granted. But I say the core claim of the declaration that all people are practically equal is a hard-won social-scientific conclusion, richly supported by the empirical evidence. Big difference between that and stories about nations, all of which are baseless shitswamps.; 6:05 PM
la Rana said...: I'm not sure I agree with our host, but key word is "right."; 6:14 PM
mds said...: Yes, the US was threatened yet again by a non-suicidal Islamist motivated by politics. He thus joins the ranks of fellow non-suicidal Islamists Tim McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, and Scott Roeder, rather than the suicidal Islamists Joe Stack and John Patrick Bedell. We can only thank G-d that this Islamist plot was thwarted by the vigilance of a Senegalese Islamist street vendor, who should never have been allowed into the country.; 6:44 PM
Gridlock said...: Every single Mythbusters viewer is a more informed terrorist than this guy.; 6:59 PM
Inkberrow said...: Glib discounters of this particular Bomb and Bomber, as if that has a major bearing on a discrete, chronic threat, resemble in this connection those degraded souls placing bets for or against Chris Walken's character in "The Deer Hunter". Meanwhile, the reflexive minimizing here of radicalized Muslims and their incessant efforts to murder American civilians reminds me of the lightning transition between that lengthy mod-prog "Racist Paranoia" period between the early nineties Twins Towers attempt (those krazy incompetent kutups!) and 9/11 itself, followed almost immediately by the Failure To Connect the Dots recriminations from the same indolent perspectivists. Whatever keeps you sneering on the divan, I suppose.

"Motivated by Politics", mds, you sad clown? They were Town Hall meetings of some sort which Shahzad was attending in Waziristan, you suspect? Or more accurately, you don't care. Even taking your juvenile conflation at face value, for quite some time now the soldiers of Al-Lah have far outstripped the soldiers of YHWH when it comes to American plots, burial and otherwise. Of course, true to form it's only negative attention to one side of the monotheistic aisle which gets you squealing and tapdancing like this.; 8:22 PM
Justin said...: Strong men also cry, Ink... Strong men also cry.

What is being ridiculed here is that we have to throw out the right to a lawyer when being questioned by the police because some moran managed to almost set his car on fire.; 8:33 PM
Enron said...: What about the reflexive maximizing here of radicalized Americans and their incessant efforts to murder Muzzlim civilians? Sounds like you've got Jimmy Carter syndrome.; 8:50 PM
davidly said...: I'm not how I should feel about this complex issue; with any luck Holder will cum up with a compromise plan.

Hey waita minute. Didn't Bo Rama graduate Feel, Holder, Cum? He'll show us the way.; 9:08 PM
dan said...: yawn. if this inept assclown had successfully detonated a car bomb, the death toll would have been comparable to the number of civilians our goons just in Afghanistan murder every day before breakfast.

take all the soi-disant terrorists in the world and collectively they are absolute pikers at murdering civilians compared to the US military and its subsidiary the IDF.; 9:21 PM
TGGP said...: The Constitution doesn't say anything about your right to be informed of your rights.

Michael Dawson, regarding inherent human rights I recommend L. A. Rollins. But if nobody has any such rights, I suppose we are equal in that sense.; 11:24 PM
Professor Coldheart said...: Hey, good thing we tortured the guy for nine months and tried him before a military tribunal, right?; 11:54 PM
Soj said...: IOZ is right, with the numbers of LAWYERS in the Senate, it's time to call out the FailWhale for mixing up Miranda "rights" versus Miranda "warning".

What I always find particular hilarious is agents are always trained to read it EXACTLY off the card, word for word as it is printed, despite no mandate for that (as long as the gist of it is expressed, it counts) and the last sentence invariably is:

"Do you understand these rights I've EXPLAINED to you" to which I always want to scream and say "enumerated" or "stated" or "expounded upon" or anything but the word "explained" :P

LOL but what do you expect from a country where the citizen's knowledge of his basic rights is so poor that the government is required to literally (re)inform you of them as soon as you get in their custody?

Gov't: Warning citizen, you have rights!
Citizen: Whaa?; 12:26 AM
Anonymous said...: inky,
as a resident of hell's kitchen (i'm two blocks away from times square), allow me to explain something to you. this happened in perhaps the most heavily surveiled stretch of land in the entire world. there's more police power concentrated in times square (elevated surveilance units, machine-gun toting national guardsmen, undercover drug dealers, patrol, mounties, etc.) than in entire cities.
and guess what? NONE OF THEM NOTICED THE FUCKING BOMB! whatever "extreme measures" would make your worried ass more comfortable, they've already been taken, in times square. and any old asshole is still free to drive a car full of propane anywhere he wants.
only about a month ago, there was actually a shooting spree that went down broadway from times square to macy's. a few people actually died. were you scared?; 12:33 AM
Gridlock said...: I'm scared. Hug me.; 5:26 AM
Jack Crow said...: The point of sending an idiot to "bomb" Times Square is that *he will fail.*

Full stop.

If he does bomb Times Square, and manages to kill more than his own idgit self, he demonstrates the *failure* of ubiquitous law enforcement.

This guy was in contact, by all available accounts, with overseas operators who know a thing or two (Kashmir, Peshawar, Quetta, Lahore) about actually blowing shit up.

The "Pakistani Taliban" is a adjunct of the Pakistani ISI. Like Sauds using Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, the Pakistani security services export internal violence by funding rad groups and then shipping them off to fight infidels elsewhere.

If this clown bomber really was in operational contact with the "Pakistani Taliban" he was probably being managed by the ISI - especially given his pedigree and his father's connections to the security services.

And those guys know how to make things go boom.; 8:41 AM
Mr.Fundamental said...: apparently the dude had trouble finding reverse.; 9:26 AM
la Rana said...: Everyone is always reflexively minimizing my radical utopia and my incessant efforts to spread infinitely-balkanizing agrisociominarchical hedonism. We must suspend the constitution and hide under bullet proof vests. It reminds me of a failure to connect the dots.

Instead of linear, Inky has machine gun thoughts. Motivated by the same thing, and effective at short range, but scattered once they hit the page and ultimately impotent against the march of history.; 10:15 AM
Montag said...: say i want to kill my next door neighbor. and with that intention, i go about trying to do it by hand throwing bullets at him, but i have a weak arm and the bullets sail high over his head.

of what does that make me guilty? attempted murder? what if i really believed it would work?; 11:22 AM
la Rana said...: assault. if this guy gets a good defense atty this could get interesting.; 11:51 AM
mds said...: Alas, la Rana, the world is more fucked up than that. The charges against Shahzad apparently contain that phrase to conjure with, "weapons of mass destruction," which means he's in for it. In the ultimate double-reverse irony, his attorney would probably have to end up arguing that Shahzad's dud posed less of a risk to America than Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons. At least Shahzad is unlikely to end up on Candid Camera dangling from a noose, though he'll probably end up with a lengthy all-expenses-paid stay in Florence, Colorado. The fact that this counts as an improvement in the status quo is not entirely encouraging.

Looks like I picked the wrong century to avoid perpetual drunkenness.; 1:00 PM
Jack Crow said...: mds,

I try to avoid shameless plugs, but I have a pictorial demonstration of How This Stuff Works:

http://the-crows-eye.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-stuff-works.html; 1:22 PM
Mr.Fundamental said...: attempted winging! lulz

YOU'LL SHOOT YOUR EYE OUT!; 2:14 PM
Inkberrow said...: Montag---

If you indeed tried to carry out that genuine intention by bullet throwing, you'd be either mentally enfeebled or insane. The same if you think your analogy is worth a tinker's damn.

Anon @ 12:33---

Your phrase, not mine, but based on the kneejerk apologias here and in the major media, it would appear that "extreme measures" may be defined as "deploring Islamist murderers qua Islamist murderers". Something tells me we'd hear a bit less of this insider's pragmatism and contextualizing from you had a cap 'n goatee militiaman exited the same Pathfinder instead of a fellow wearing Victim Skin.

Jack Crow---

Almost as many yuks as (get this!) the, the "Underwear" Bomber, eh? What a Keystone Kop Killer Shahzad is, ho ho. We Americans punish failure more than anything else. "Come back [again] when you can slaughter some folks [again] willya?"

La Rana---

I'm afraid you only recognize the March of History if the correct anthem is playing. The greatest irony of all is how the mod-prog sermonizers, here and elsewhere, who've made their intellectual bones deriding and deploring Christianity and Christians with undergraduate and cocktail-party panache, on the basis of everything from superstitious irrationality to systematic, bigoted inhumanity to organized mass violence, now find themselves--- in the service of globalism, anti-capitalism, and Victim Skin appeasement --- defensively drawing up some sort of rhetorical "Live and Let Live" equivalency for another violent, oppressive, monotheistic superstition with an imperialistic pedigree. A pyrrhic victory once you successfully draw that functional realpolitik equivalency, eh La Rana? Because then y'all need to hate and hold in arrant contempt Islam and Muslims for their sins as much as you do their benighted colleagues for their sins......well, absent craven hypocrisy and ahistorical blinders, that is.; 2:29 PM
Jack Crow said...: Ink,

I'm not sure if you willfully misread (which would at least have the virtue of creative self amusement), or simply cannot help yourself.

I've only suggested that it serves the interests of state and federal law enforcement to capture a "would be terrorist" before he can milk his rage into human corpsification.

That fits the prevailing narrative much better, fits the "collateral damage" storyline that follows upon every bombed wedding party or baby naming ceremony, fits the professional liberal rejection of "Bush era abuses" whilst they congratulate Obama on more of the same.

Cops (and this includes the feds) depend upon the assumption of ubiquity. It's part and parcel of the complete lionization of cop culture that makes up something like 50% of all television entertainment.

If the average schlub ever really got it into his beer and boob sotted head that there just aren't enough cops and guns to actually control a city of a hundred thousand, never mind the many that are larger, the cops would be in for it.

My own city is about 105k people, and there are about 200 cops on the force.

They absolutely rely on the belief in their ubiquity, which is why there's so much focus on early childhood contact (DARE, etc) and over-powering of opposition.

Cops that fail to nab crooks, or who fail to demonstrate, repeatedly, that they can and will control even large chaos situations, are cops who find themselves running from people no longer intimidated.

So, it serves the feds and the NY cops very, very well that they have a "thwarted terrorist."

It plays into the myth of ubiquity.; 2:42 PM
mds said...: I try to avoid shameless plugs, but I have a pictorial demonstration of How This Stuff Works:

Whoa, making toy airplanes and pie charts means a good-looking black guy will show up at my door selling Scout paraphernalia? That's actually a fantasy of mine. <Poe> ;-) </Poe>

Still, even if the US government had been pure as the driven snow in its avoidance of "foreign entanglements" (stop laughing), it wouldn't give us the moral right to simply throw terrorism suspects down a well, especially based solely on their Islam-ness. (As a practical matter, it does help establish motivations, of course: "They hate us for our repeated blasting of civilians into bloody rags" makes slightly more sense than "They hate us because the Qur'an commands them to despise representative democracies.")

Also: "and traveling over an international border to commit an act of terrorism." This precedent is going to play holy hell with Metro North commuters.; 3:21 PM
Rudolph said...: Ink - define 'incessant'.

Anon 12:33 - what Ink wants to know is if the guy was Islamist.

I relish the fact that this guy joins the loser pantheon of the Glasgow airport docs, the Tiger, Tiger failed SUV bomb, Richard Reid and hte underwear guy.
That's the best you got?! We got drones bitches!; 3:52 PM
mistah charley, ph.d. said...: I feel sorry for the kids.; 4:20 PM
Mr.Fundamental said...: my misanthropy definitely precludes any inclination towards a bow towards Diversity, the holy progressive calf, Inky. though you can note the cultural uptake, as when I wince when people use racial slurs. SO UNSIGHTLY. it was a roundish world the last time I checked, bubs. I'm sure we'll all come to loathe and hate Rising Islam in the coming millennium, for which I'm sure you're game as can be, in some form or other. I do so think we're good for it, the loathing and the hating part. thoughts? or don't you think we have it in us?; 4:28 PM
Inkberrow said...: Jack Crow---

I don't know if I wilfully misread. Are you really asking if I wilfully miswrite?

Obama and His Progressive's defensive crime/terrorism conflation is by logical extension quite similar to the defensive Christianity/Islam conflation---it seemed like a good idea at the time, but it's a bittersweet triumph. Let's get started. Islamist crimes like Shahzad's and Hasan's (and 9/11) are hate-crimes at least, right Jack? Incited by hate-endorsing, violence inciting websites, recruiters, and organizations? That mosque in Virginia where a couple of the 9/11 bombers and then Hasan received aid, comfort, and jihadi encouragement---RICO action, maybe, or a Southern Poverty Law Center lawsuit for triple damages under federal civil rights statutes? You agree with then, Jack, just enforce the laws we have and forego some silly separate category for terrorism?

Rudolph---

Incessant means "not ceasing".

Glad you mentioned those drones. Will we see the e'er sensitive Obama progs and his media acolytes acknowledge Obama's own moment of "Bring It On" foolhardiness? After all, by all prog accounts Muslims are highly-sensitive, mercurial creatures who react on auto-pilot to perceived setbacks and offense, and when that happens it's the Obstacle's or the Offender's Fault. Shahzad was reportedly exercised, just like you, Rudolph, about U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan. Even as Shahzad's abortive cri de couer shut down midtown Manhattan, Obama was cracking wise with the melted brie crowd at the Correspondents Dinner, threatening the Jonas Brothers, beloved of the First Daughters, with "Two words. Predator Drone". Let whatever deadly reprisals which enraged pull-string Muslims now find themselves unable to resist be on Mr. Obama's callous head.; 4:33 PM
Anonymous said...: inky,
your point seems only to be that we should hate muslims more. or that somehow by not reacting in some particular way (is berating this board the appropriate reaction?), we are weakening our team in some cross-cultural fight to the death. bush-league psych-out shit. laughable, man.

also, the phrase "victim skin" is very highly revealing. this is an obsession of yours, as i said nothing even remotely hinting at the idea that i consider this "terrorist" a victim. in fact, my point had fuck all to do with race, so you can shove that right up your ass.

are you sick of hearing bad things about white people? you know, there's communities for that, and this ain't one of em...; 4:33 PM
Inkberrow said...: Anon @ 4:33---

What I want is what you sanctimonious mod-progs manifestly disdain to provide: equal treatment for the equally situated. You're such a navel-gazer that simply reacting to Shahzad in fractional comparison to the way you hypocrites reacted to Roeder or the Michigan Militia constitutes "hating Muslims more".

With Muslim hate-criminals (thanks Rudolph) recruited online, mod-progs and major media intone, "Don't fan the flames. Take it for what it is, and move on". With Christianist radicals, it's "Vigilance, all, against the enemy within. Are they in YOUR neighborhood? Next, a look what these dangerous radicals Eat For Dinner!" "Victim skin" is a term I coined to satirize sermonizing, race-obsessed proggies like you, and it's quite apt.; 4:45 PM
Rudolph said...: Does anyone have a Inkberrow - Real World dictionary?
Je ne comprends pas

Really, dude, time for the Paxil.; 5:04 PM
Professor Coldheart said...: man what; 5:04 PM
Inkberrow said...: Addendum, Anon @ 4:33---

As to the point of departure here, once again it was not me insisting, "Let's change the subject to American Whites", but our host's own clever but predictable minimizing of just the latest of many occasions for "self-soiling hysteria", in which Victims (because Non-Whites) target citizen Victimizers.; 5:09 PM
Jack Crow said...: Inky,

You think I'm going to sign on to your pogrom just cuz you calls it "law enforcement"?

Fat chance, falangist.; 6:41 PM
la Rana said...: Inky, you hope that by pretending that IOZ and those on this thread treat Christianity and white militia-types more harshly than the Muslim counterparts (find an example, I dare you), and retreating to banal claims for equality, we won't notice that you really want the opposite - to treat "radicalized Muslims and their incessant efforts to murder American civilians" as a unique, and uniquely dangerous threat. Its a clever trick, but it won't fly.

We are arguing for treating all unscrupulous incompetent yahoos with a grudge against the government and access to something that goes bang! the same. You are the one who is not. But rather than attempt to justify this proferred distinction (perhaps recognizing that it reduces to simple racism and tribalism), you try to flip the sitation. Rather than stand on your beliefs you hide behind those of another.

This is nothing more than a retooled argument against civil rights legislation, cuz southern white guys really just care about equality. Its justifying barbarism by denying the same to others. It is the actual moral relativism twits you like are always yabbering on about. Its racism in drag, a lie and pathetic.; 7:00 PM
Inkberrow said...: Jack Crow---

Nice bit of soft-shoe, there, but my "program" was actually a simple question, inspired by your own "crime and criminals" construct, and it's a question you dodged.

Shahzad and Hasan and the Arkansas recuiter-shooter's conduct, if "crimes", were hence hate-crimes to boot, yes or no? Go ahead and answer directly if your integrity allows you to. Additional ad hominem avoidance is welcome if not.

La Rana---

First off, I have no problem whatsoever speaking in terms of tribalism and race-ism. Our implacable enemies think that way, as does most of the rest of the world, ally or enemy, so we too must conceive of them accordingly, at least in terms of formulating a strategy for survival. Please don't tell me you emulate the New Manifest Destiny neocons with their self-referential assumptions about the universal efficacy and ultimate appeal of Western socio-political creeds. My "racism" at Muslim "expense" is your own unctuous and patronizing projections, at American expense. Because of your doubly-despised weakness and disloyalty to your own people, your throat is even more slittable than mine and Daniel Pearl's, and will remain so no matter how many sermons about "racism" you deliver into your mirror.

Secondly, our host's own posts, and most of the comments thereupon, are more than adequate proof of what I'm positing. There are many examples, as with the Shahzad posts of the last few days, wherein "Muslim Killer" current-events manage to warrant mention from Host and commenters, as opposed to silent indifference, but only for the purpose of expressly taking time to pooh-pooh the danger, and concern about future danger, while making sure to ridicule those who might disagree. That's precisely when I myself have commented. On the other side of the fence, it's usually a case of the dog that didn't bark. This substantive bias is analagous to MSNBC news-pundits knowing they must address or acknowledge a now-inconvenient and off-narrative story, in the interests of journalistic "legitimacy", so their obligatory Shahzad story appears e.g., through the prism of excoriating Lieberman and the dread dangers from Lieberman's Bill to All of Us (read: non Caucasian terrorists).

Despite himself, IOZ can't resist water-cooler topics, and while he never openly attaches undue significance thereto--- in fact, he inveighs most strenuously to display his disdain --- yet the selection process, all-told, what rates a post, what doesn't, and in what terms, remains quite telling indeed.; 7:48 PM
Inkberrow said...: Jack Crow---

Ooops, my "pogrom". Even worse (as in, even more stupid of you).

My local falangist gave me a parking ticket today.; 7:54 PM
Enron said...: La Rana for the win.; 7:58 PM
Montag said...: Inkberrow, do you really think the sanctimonious mod-prog straw man you burn applies to most of the commenters here? because i haven't found most folks here to be that exactly.

i may be misreading, but you seem to rail against the idea of creating a separate category for hate crimes. you certainly, at least, maintain that mod-progs put too much stock in the skin color of the victim. yet you seem to at the same time condone, snark or not, "a silly separate category for terrorism." who's being inconsistent here?

what i was driving at with the thrown bullet example, was that when i evaluate a crime i place more importance on the harm done, or the potential harm that might have been done, and just as the judicial system does, look at the perpetrator's capacity to do harm (are they "mentally enfeebled or insane"?) to the point that motive doesn't matter to me hardly at all. a person's motives may lead me to think the guilty party is more of an asshole, or more of a zealot, or more of a misguided rube, but it doesn't make the harm done any more or less inexcusable. i apply this standard every bit as much to the idea of hate crimes as i do to car bombs.

(so far, very basically: what La Rana said.)

as for the apologist accusations, or accusations of minimizing the grave and gathering threat of radical Islam... i would only minimize the threat to the extent that: of the billion Muslim religious adherents, Muslims who hate us for our freedoms are a subset. And Muslims who hate us for our freedoms and are willing to react with violence against civilians are in turn a subset of the subset. And Muslims who hate us for our freedoms and are willing to react with violence against civilians and have the plans and materials and the full intention to carry them out are in turn a subset of the subset of the subset. And Muslims who hate us for our freedoms and are willing to react with violence against civilians and have the plans and materials and the full intention to carry them out as well as the capacity to do so are in turn a subset of the subset of the subset of the subset. (i likewise recognize the set and subsets of American Christians exist.)

i could care less that there are people who hate America out there. i don't take it personally. i was just born here. i don't want to see any special categories for thought crimes.

all of this aside, fuck, would i pay to see you cut loose with this stuff in the comment section over at _Shakesville_.; 8:55 AM
IOZ said...: I am a staunch defender of Timothy McVeigh.; 10:02 AM
Mr.Fundamental said...: I'm a. . .what day is it?

Speaking of which, would it be possible for me to get my twenty grand in cash? I gotta check this with my accountant of course, but my concern is that, you know, it could bump me into a higher tax--; 10:29 AM
Inkberrow said...: Enron---

Darn it all, why does La Rana always get the win ?

Montag---

As I've tried to explain, with the atypical mod-progs here it's certainly not about affirmative, doctrinaire support for one worldview or demographic versus another. It's a crew of skeptics, cynics, and radicals for the most part. The prog-conditioned double standard nonetheless appears in the selective objects or occasions for ridicule, deflection, dilution, and minimizing, among the people and events in the relevant pool.

IOZ's top-post and last reply captures this passive bias perfectly. He doesn't "support" Shahzad any more than McVeigh (congratulations, IOZ!). But never, ever in a year of Sundays would we see an IOZ post referring to "self-soiling hysteria" emerging from a white-boy wingnut SUV attack, however incompetently assayed, nor four or five additional posts on the events all with the theme, "Much Ado About Nothing". Same orientation with you, Montag, and your fellow-travelers in the Comments brigade.; 11:46 AM
Anonymous said...: @ Inky's "Fear Da Muzlimz"

Verily I quote unto thee:

"Don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna."

If you think that the cries of the "collaterally damaged" went unheard, you're in a for big surprise.

Capt'n Obvious; 11:47 AM
Anonymous said...: @Inky
.
Wait a minute, mister!
.
A stooge of the Yankee state of bringing up "fellow travelers"?
.
The Yankee state of Tehran and Yalta fame, the buddies of Uncle "Who Should I Kill Today?" Joe, of free trucks-engines-airplanes-gunz for commies, and of "What Katyn?", "What Vorkuta?", "What Struma?" fame?!?
.

You, YOU!, bringing up fellow travelers?!
.
For shame! For shame!; 12:04 PM
Montag said...: Inkberrow,

has there been a "white-boy wingnut SUV attack, however incompetently assayed"? wasn't the discussion here a few weeks ago, about the state claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of coercion, in the context of the MI militia plot and accusations of sedition against the tea party?

had the comically absurd "explosive device" been left in Times Square by a conservative white dude, it would be of no greater concern to me.

it would be funnier though. what does that say about me? (maybe i am caught up in some kind of pwog-conditioned double standard after all.) ;); 1:45 PM
davidly said...: Haha! Not that it makes me particularly insightful or anything (above at 9:08), but American hero and General Attorney Hold'em just announced his compromise.; 11:19 AM

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Miranda Rites

60 comments:

Axis Mundi

About Me

Hypocrites Lecteurs, Semblables, et Frères

Archive