Thomas Sowell is a Liar and a Hypocrite ā and His Acolytes Couldnāt Care Less. Any Iraq War cheerleading jackass could issue his regurgitated garbage topped off with smug sloganeering.
And this ā from āthe greatā Thomas Sowell?
"Weapons of Crass Obstruction" is partisan hackery (which flies in the face of Maverickās āfollow the factsā mantra). On the biggest and most costly lie in modern history, apologists ignored nuclear scientists in favor of professional know-it-alls.
These purveyors of poppycock never went anywhere near the evidence that mattered most ā and distorted the hell out of everything else:
ā One of the many lessons of the Kyle Rittenhouse caseāa lesson that some conservatives are learning at long lastāis that the state is not always a force for good. Prosecutors can commit misconduct in their zeal to convict. Judges can grandstand, show favoritism, and generally behave badly.ā Isnās this what conservatives have been saying for a long time?
Rittenhouse was "designated" a White Supremacist, and that is the basis of his lawsuit. He was publicly branded, and even Facebook disallowed mention of anything positive to say about him. Go-Fund-Me declined to help raise Bail.
It was a "Show Trial," and people thought it was all going to unfold the way it was portrayed by the MSM. It didn't, because the pertinent facts were unsubstantiated. They were fabrications proved by testimony and pictures.
As a law school professor, why would you comment on a case that you clearly know very little about? Did this go through any editing process before it was posted? Did you really link to a CNN article to verify the jogging claim? At a time when no journalist or expert can be trusted, why not learn something about the facts of the case and about Georgia law before you allow your emotions to take over? Like thinking, isn't typing easier when you're not having a panic attack?
Anyway, here is actual analysis based on the actual facts of the case (not just emotional reaction based just on headlines and rumors as above) for anyone interested in the facts of the Arbery case:
I have felt for some time that if people rely on Derrick Bellās thesis (i.e., "racism is an integral, permanent, and indestructible component of this societyā) as a framework to understand the world, it makes it so much more difficult to distinguishāand therefore addressāactual racism. The current tension and misinformation surrounding these trails is a perfect example of this. The irony is lost on the so called āprogressivesā who seem to be have adopted a cynical worldview that leaves little room for actual progress.
The killing of Aubrey is a nightmare all around. AFAIK, these men should not have shot him and it's murder. I will say one thing though about what Aubrey was doing. I read an account of all the problems of theft at the house under construction and there were multiple incidents. There was a lot of circumstantial evidence that led to the suspicion that it was the man who turned out to be Aubrey, so I understand why the men went to investigate. But that's a really dangerous situation to create; if I was going to do it at all I'd try to quietly follow from a distance and see if I could get any good info to report to police. Also, if Aubrey was returning to steal, knowing that people in the neighborhood were watching him might have caused him to give it up.
My biggest complaint about the post was the author's assertion that Aubrey was on his "normal jog." That is certainly the family's version and probably the prosecution's version as well, but to state this as fact hurts the author's credibility. I am in no way justifying the actions of the defendants, but I think for a website that prides itself on holding news outlets to high standards of truth vs. opinion, the author should have been more careful in the choice of wording.
Thanks to Prof. Bazelon for using the word "jog" so early in her piece. She is clearly a propagandist and not a legal analyst (The judge in that trial barred use of the word "jogger" before the trial even started.)
Huge miss here: "a lesson that some conservatives are learning at long lastāis that the state is not always a force for good..." Um, the fact that an all-powerful government is ruinous is Conservatism 101. More accurate would be to say the Democrats in NYC, Minneapolis and SanFran are getting "mugged by reality."
I have lived in Georgia almost all of my 53 years, and keep myself well-informed on matters of public policy. Never once have I previously heard of the "citizen's arrest" law that was on the books. It was a vestige of olden times when Democrat slavers ran the State. Never heard a word about it until now.
Speaking of which, a search for the word "Democrat" returns ZERO results. How can you honestly discuss the legacy of slavery, segregation, the KKK, Jim Crow et al in the state of Georgia and never once get around to mentioning that it was all instituted and directed by DEMOCRATS?
I'll cede the author's point if she can provide the statistics of whites who were killed using this law as justification. If there were none, then the point is made.
This is an excellent article, and makes the point I was thinking about: Why is this case getting so much less media attention?
I think it's because it's so obviously openly racist in its nature that it doesn't advance the narrative about "systemic" (i.e., hidden) racism.
I don't know of many folks, if any, who deny that there are still racists in our midst, that there are still prejudices and unfair tilts toward certain groups.
But to jump from that to the increasingly pervasive argument from the Left that this nation is the most racist nation on Earth, and that it is more racist now that it ever was in the past, and is in fact becoming more racist, not less? Well, that's not only provably wrong, but it's offensive. The argument basically holds that America is irredeemably racist - that it cannot be fixed, but must be destroyed and replaced by something else.
It is an argument that is likely to cost the Democrats their congressional majorities a year from now.
First, the whole basis of conservatism is respect for individuals and limited government. Some assertions in this article about conservative ideology only highlight how little people on the left understand conservative ideology. Itās not pro-state. Itās not pro-government goons. Itās not for excess regulations. Itās for limited government. As it relates to law enforcement conservatives favor community policing and fewer laws to necessitate police. They generally only support laws and regulations that support human safety, property safety, and the right for people to be left alone.
Second, if ever there was a supposed BLM or leftist or media case it would have to include Philando Castile. A genuinely wonderful man killed by a trigger happy cop solely because of the color of his skin. But alas, because the left only cares about narrative, not outcomes and certainly not actually trying to solve a problem, once it came out Castileās killer was Hispanic, no leftist cared any longer.
I have not, and will not, forget Mr. Castile. I have not, and will not, forget leftist cared not about his life, nor about getting rid of a trigger happy cop who killed a man for being Black. All the left cares about us narrative, and most are so far down the narrative drain they donāt notice when actual objective reality is absent from their endless postulating about their probably false theories of the world.
"When Arbery refused, there was a struggle." OK, I had to stop reading right there. Seriously?? Way to gloss over one of the most important facts of the case.
Thomas Sowell is a Liar and a Hypocrite ā and His Acolytes Couldnāt Care Less. Any Iraq War cheerleading jackass could issue his regurgitated garbage topped off with smug sloganeering.
And this ā from āthe greatā Thomas Sowell?
"Weapons of Crass Obstruction" is partisan hackery (which flies in the face of Maverickās āfollow the factsā mantra). On the biggest and most costly lie in modern history, apologists ignored nuclear scientists in favor of professional know-it-alls.
These purveyors of poppycock never went anywhere near the evidence that mattered most ā and distorted the hell out of everything else:
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/11/30/thomas-sowell-is-a-liar-and-a-hypocrite-and-his-acolytes-couldnt-care-less/
. . .
ā One of the many lessons of the Kyle Rittenhouse caseāa lesson that some conservatives are learning at long lastāis that the state is not always a force for good. Prosecutors can commit misconduct in their zeal to convict. Judges can grandstand, show favoritism, and generally behave badly.ā Isnās this what conservatives have been saying for a long time?
The interesting question is why the media focused so much on the Rittenhouse trial.
Rittenhouse was "designated" a White Supremacist, and that is the basis of his lawsuit. He was publicly branded, and even Facebook disallowed mention of anything positive to say about him. Go-Fund-Me declined to help raise Bail.
It was a "Show Trial," and people thought it was all going to unfold the way it was portrayed by the MSM. It didn't, because the pertinent facts were unsubstantiated. They were fabrications proved by testimony and pictures.
Very good article. Hope you go back on the Glenn show sometime soon, greatly enjoyed that conversation!
As a law school professor, why would you comment on a case that you clearly know very little about? Did this go through any editing process before it was posted? Did you really link to a CNN article to verify the jogging claim? At a time when no journalist or expert can be trusted, why not learn something about the facts of the case and about Georgia law before you allow your emotions to take over? Like thinking, isn't typing easier when you're not having a panic attack?
Anyway, here is actual analysis based on the actual facts of the case (not just emotional reaction based just on headlines and rumors as above) for anyone interested in the facts of the Arbery case:
https://lawofselfdefense.com/arbery-case-trial-judge-walmsley-drops-the-ball-on-ambiguous-citizens-arrest-law/
There is a lot more at the link. That blog followed the case from start to finish.
I have felt for some time that if people rely on Derrick Bellās thesis (i.e., "racism is an integral, permanent, and indestructible component of this societyā) as a framework to understand the world, it makes it so much more difficult to distinguishāand therefore addressāactual racism. The current tension and misinformation surrounding these trails is a perfect example of this. The irony is lost on the so called āprogressivesā who seem to be have adopted a cynical worldview that leaves little room for actual progress.
The killing of Aubrey is a nightmare all around. AFAIK, these men should not have shot him and it's murder. I will say one thing though about what Aubrey was doing. I read an account of all the problems of theft at the house under construction and there were multiple incidents. There was a lot of circumstantial evidence that led to the suspicion that it was the man who turned out to be Aubrey, so I understand why the men went to investigate. But that's a really dangerous situation to create; if I was going to do it at all I'd try to quietly follow from a distance and see if I could get any good info to report to police. Also, if Aubrey was returning to steal, knowing that people in the neighborhood were watching him might have caused him to give it up.
My biggest complaint about the post was the author's assertion that Aubrey was on his "normal jog." That is certainly the family's version and probably the prosecution's version as well, but to state this as fact hurts the author's credibility. I am in no way justifying the actions of the defendants, but I think for a website that prides itself on holding news outlets to high standards of truth vs. opinion, the author should have been more careful in the choice of wording.
Thanks to Prof. Bazelon for using the word "jog" so early in her piece. She is clearly a propagandist and not a legal analyst (The judge in that trial barred use of the word "jogger" before the trial even started.)
Superb essay!
Huge miss here: "a lesson that some conservatives are learning at long lastāis that the state is not always a force for good..." Um, the fact that an all-powerful government is ruinous is Conservatism 101. More accurate would be to say the Democrats in NYC, Minneapolis and SanFran are getting "mugged by reality."
I have lived in Georgia almost all of my 53 years, and keep myself well-informed on matters of public policy. Never once have I previously heard of the "citizen's arrest" law that was on the books. It was a vestige of olden times when Democrat slavers ran the State. Never heard a word about it until now.
Speaking of which, a search for the word "Democrat" returns ZERO results. How can you honestly discuss the legacy of slavery, segregation, the KKK, Jim Crow et al in the state of Georgia and never once get around to mentioning that it was all instituted and directed by DEMOCRATS?
Huge whiff, here, Bari.
I'll cede the author's point if she can provide the statistics of whites who were killed using this law as justification. If there were none, then the point is made.
Wow, the MSM got it wrong again. Good informative journalism. Thank you!
This is an excellent article, and makes the point I was thinking about: Why is this case getting so much less media attention?
I think it's because it's so obviously openly racist in its nature that it doesn't advance the narrative about "systemic" (i.e., hidden) racism.
I don't know of many folks, if any, who deny that there are still racists in our midst, that there are still prejudices and unfair tilts toward certain groups.
But to jump from that to the increasingly pervasive argument from the Left that this nation is the most racist nation on Earth, and that it is more racist now that it ever was in the past, and is in fact becoming more racist, not less? Well, that's not only provably wrong, but it's offensive. The argument basically holds that America is irredeemably racist - that it cannot be fixed, but must be destroyed and replaced by something else.
It is an argument that is likely to cost the Democrats their congressional majorities a year from now.
First, the whole basis of conservatism is respect for individuals and limited government. Some assertions in this article about conservative ideology only highlight how little people on the left understand conservative ideology. Itās not pro-state. Itās not pro-government goons. Itās not for excess regulations. Itās for limited government. As it relates to law enforcement conservatives favor community policing and fewer laws to necessitate police. They generally only support laws and regulations that support human safety, property safety, and the right for people to be left alone.
Second, if ever there was a supposed BLM or leftist or media case it would have to include Philando Castile. A genuinely wonderful man killed by a trigger happy cop solely because of the color of his skin. But alas, because the left only cares about narrative, not outcomes and certainly not actually trying to solve a problem, once it came out Castileās killer was Hispanic, no leftist cared any longer.
I have not, and will not, forget Mr. Castile. I have not, and will not, forget leftist cared not about his life, nor about getting rid of a trigger happy cop who killed a man for being Black. All the left cares about us narrative, and most are so far down the narrative drain they donāt notice when actual objective reality is absent from their endless postulating about their probably false theories of the world.
"When Arbery refused, there was a struggle." OK, I had to stop reading right there. Seriously?? Way to gloss over one of the most important facts of the case.