Selective prosecution in order to manipulate the narrative?

The "knockout game" -- sucker-punching random pedestrians in the head to see if you can knock them out -- has been all over the news in recent months. Often the "game" is more than a single punch, and has resulted in numerous serious beatings and even death.

From news outlets around the country, instances of such assaults seemed to be being committed primarily by blacks, with the victim pool being mostly white/Hispanic, and, in New York, mostly Jewish.

Because of the seeming racial pattern, some called for hate crime charges to be added to such assault cases. After all, that's what hate crime legislation is for, isn't it? To deter any one group from singling out any other group to victimize, no?

So, it was a relief to read that the federal government has decided to pursue hate crime charges against a suspect in a "knockout game" case.

It also was a surprise that the suspect being charged was a white guy who punched an elderly black man. Usually, in pretty much ever case I've read about, it's been a black suspect and non-black victim.

My first reaction was, "Good. A hate crime is one in which a victim is chosen based on their race, so this fits the bill."

My next thought, though, was why it took this long for someone to face charges, and why the feds chose the seemingly lone white-on-black case when there were numerous existing cases already that were met with only silence.

Then I remembered what a joke this administration is when it comes to being square with anything racial.

The Daily Kos was overjoyed that a white suspect had been arrested, because this single arrest "blows" the racial narrative that "the Right" has been pushing concerning the pattern of assaults:

"The irony of this incident is that in the last few months many on the Right have been attempting to make this supposed knockout game a black on white crime. They have been using overblown incidents of this type by the media to show some false racial divided."

Such flawed thinking.

Kos says the national media has publicized only the black-on-white assaults. I contend that there is no way in hell the national media would let white-on-black assaults slide. There are countless activists and organizers and civil rights leaders whose entire being is devoted to publicizing every perceived racial slight they can find; you're going to tell me there's a national conspiracy to cover up blatant assaults?

Sorry, that doesn't fly.

But, even if there was a massive cover up of such assaults, you expect me to believe the rich and powerful leaders of the left wing would let that stand?

Any pattern can have deviations; that doesn't negate the pattern. It's the difference between "all" and "most" .... I wouldn't think that all assaults such as these are being perpetrated by blacks. But, as with anything, if there is a noticeable "most," that is simply that; fifty is more than five, that's just the way it is.

And most normal people get that, at least subconsciously, and use it in their daily lives. We learn what to expect, based on what we've experienced either directly or secondhand.

Bottom line is that the white guy should face charges if he chose a victim based on race. But so should every other perpetrator that did the same, regardless of the color of either. To use this arrest as a way to try and nullify every other assault is ridiculous -- to say that one incident "shows" something, while 100 other like incidents don't show anything? How is that even remotely logical?

I'm waiting to see what happens, whether other suspects are charged with hate crimes as well, but I have a feeling that's not going to happen. After all, we learn what to expect, based on what we've experienced, and this type of racial imbalance/exploitation/manipulation is just par for the course from this administration and the left.

Some more ACA blues

According to the Weekly Standard, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a crowd in Miami that some folks certainly will see an increase in their health insurance costs.

She said, "There are some individuals who may be looking at increases. I think you cannot make a statement based on cost unless you compare what they had to what they're going into."

It's not so much the simple increase in premiums that bugs me, it's the flawed logic behind Sebelius' and other Dems' reasoning -- What people had was a plan they chose voluntarily based on benefit and cost; what they're going into is a plan the government forced them into.

Watch a video here.

Apply that logic to other things, and it's that much more ridiculous:

• I bought a $300 computer that works fine for my needs, but the government says I should have a faster one with more accessories that can do more things (which I'll never do with it), so they made me buy a $600 model
  
• You live in Florida so you don't have snow tires for your car, but the government says other people live where it snows and *they* need snow tires, so you have to buy them, too.

Generally speaking, the government doesn't care about increased costs. 

For one, if they want something and the cost goes up, they just spend more of taxpayers' money. It doesn't even matter if they *have* the money, they either just take more, or write more rubber checks. They just don't care.

If it's something they personally *do* have to pay for, it doesn't hurt them because they make more money than average folks, and if their budget becomes tight, they'll just vote themselves raises. They have no concept of budgets. For some people, if one bill goes up, something else has to go down. The first things to go are savings and discretionary spending, which takes a toll on the economy. Next comes "luxury" bills, such as cable TV. For others, those avenues have long been closed, and they have to start whittling away at the essentials. 

So, for some of those people, it might make more financial sense to skip insurance and pay the fine, so those folks go from having insurance to not having it. Thanks, government!

And of all this, the main beneficiary is insurance companies. So, how hard is it to think that there's some sort of kickback going on here? Just wondering.

MSNBC rewards Badwin's bad behavior with primetime gig

Flailing "news" network MSNBC reportedly is giving actor Alec Baldwin his own prime-time show.

Baldwin, known for "30 Rock," SNL gigs and other on-screen work, also is known for vicious, angry tirades on social media, including threats of physical violence, anti-gay slurs and bigotry.

In one of the more recent instances of Baldwin putting his anger management issues out for public display, he sent a series of tweets voicing his displeasure with Mail Online reporter George Stark, who had reported that Baldwin's wife, Hilaria, was tweeting during funeral services for actor James Gandolfini. It would be reported later that a Twitter glitch showed incorrect timestamps on Hilaria's tweets, so she wasn't actually tweeting during the funeral.

The bigger story, though, was that before the glitch was known, Baldwin rebutted the accusations by unleashing his own string of vulgar tweets threatening Stark and making anti-gay remarks.He also calls on his Twitter followers to attack Stark.

 

 

I wasn't really offended by Baldwin's Twitter rant, because (a) I just don't care that much about what any celebrity has to say about anything and (b) I'm rather coarse myself, so I can understand why Baldwin would be angry if a reporter mistakenly attacked his wife. I get that. What bothered me when this story broke was the lack of backlash by the mainstream media -- I couldn't help but think that if a conservative celebrity had done the same thing, he/she would be all over the news. 

 

For example, Paula Deen's career was completely ruined when it was revealed that, at some point in the past, she may have used the word "nigger" in a joke.

The admission came out during testimony in a discrimination case -- filed by a white employee -- which eventually was tossed by a judge. But still, she lost it all -- book deals, three TV shows, and her reputation.

I wasn't alone in wondering why Baldwin would get a pass. CNN's Anderson Cooper also took to Twitter to express his dismay at the difference in media attention.

 

This isn't the first time Baldwin has been shown to have a serious problem acting like an adult in the public eye. 

 

When his daughter, Ireland, was 11, during a custody dispute, Baldwin was caught on tape admonishing her, "“You are a rude, thoughtless pig. You don’t have the brains or the decency as a human being.” To his own daughter. I know I did some awful stuff as a kid, probably drove my folks batty, and yet they managed to never say something so hurtful, so awful -- and they didn't have millions of dollars and the luxury of zero real responsibility.  

 

But Baldwin also has been accused of having some racial epithets up his sleeve, too. 

 

While Deen lost her livelihood  because she used a word -- not against someone, just used the word -- Baldwin was accused of angrily calling a black photographer a "coon." 

 

In the same incident, he is said to have a told a reporter, "I want you to choke to death."

Baldwin denied the claims.

There's also the incident in which Baldwin was tossed from a flight after an altercation with a flight attendant.

Look, none of this matters, I get that. It's just more bizarre behavior from a somewhat unhinged Hollywooder. The issue is that a person who seems to consistently exhibit this type of behavior shouldn't be rewarded with more fame and fortune. If Deen's career can be ruined because she admitted to having uttered the "n-word," then why is Baldwin's behavior not only accepted, but rewarded?