Category Archives: Crime

Updated: Hornbeck: Too Busy Playing Dragon Ball Z and Gears of War

Crime, Morality, Psychology & Pop-Psychology

To all the muddled thinkers out there, who’ve bought into the (decidedly progressive) paradigm, according to which every misdeed is a disorder–think about Shawn’s parents. Quit working overtime to reduce cognitive dissonance and, instead, think rationally:

If my daughter were abducted, and given such freedoms as this boy was given; if she then visited her mom’s website and posted a message thereon, as this boy did, saying, “For how long will you be looking for your daughter?”–I would be furious. A parent in this situation is beside himself with worry — all he or she can think of is, Is my baby alive; is she warm enough. Is she suffering? Parents would be living every day with the fear that their child died in agony.
And this little shit can’t even add to his e-mail: “Your son is alive, don’t sweat … like, whatever. Sorry gotta run; I have a game of Dragon Ball Z and Gears of War on the go with my buddy Tony.”
Use your heads!
I know that my daughter, who still checks in with me even though she’s an adult, would have let me know she was alive. She’d be too scared not to. And she knows better than to try this line on me: “Mom, I was suffering that syndrome that nice lady on TV said I had, and that prevented me from calling.”
Perhaps my kid was brought up to think logically, which is why she’s such a mensch.

Update: Consider: small children during the Holocaust performed amazingly brave acts, such as smuggling food in and out the ghetto for their families. Some were shot on site by the Nazis. Read about the brave children of Afghanistan. The human spirit — that of children too—is irrepressible. Yet here people are suggesting that this lad was incapable of contacting his poor parents for 4 years, not even to let them know he was alive.

O.J.’s Manual For Murder

Crime, Criminal Injustice, Media, The Zeitgeist

What a performative contradiction: cable’s point men and women have been contorting like Cirque du Soleil contortionists because of the despicable antics of HarperCollins publisher, Judith Regan, in publishing the sociopathic rants of the killer, O.J. Simpson. Yet they’re all giving this uninteresting, idiotic development time—almost as much time as they devote to the bubblehead with the double chin and chubby cheeks, Britney Spears.

From an impassioned interview Mark Fuhrman gave Hannity & Comles, it transpired that Allan Colmes is a pretty weird gnome; he believes O.J. is innocent, and has written as much in his “book.” On the program, Colmes attacked Fuhrman furiously.

I admire Fuhrman. He did his job and was slimed for it. He then bootstrapped his way back into so-called polite company. There is something utterly revolting about a liberal who, bereft of an argument, reaches for his standard stock-in-trade: accusations of racism. Colmes threw everything but the kitchen sink at a guest who’d come on to speak about this latest low in the American publishing world—a How-To instructional by a murderer—because he had investigated the case.

Fuhrman told the two talking heads, whose books Regan has published, that he would no longer be dealing with said publisher. Needless to say, the two hosts did not join Fuhrman in a show of principle.

What was also of interest was Hannity’s contaminated perspective. Conservatives have absorbed the therapeutic idiom completely. Hannity expressed the view that O.J. was consumed by guilt—could no longer contain the remorse, and was using a book as a confessional. He, Hannity, wanted closure too.

My God. I don’t know if there’s anything that disgusts me more than this meaningless, immoral mumbo-jumbo. Fuhrman, far more intelligent than his hosts, tried to explain to both about the nature of evil. There are people in this world, O.J. being one such specimen, who can kill another human being (or a couple), and then pop into KFC for some chicken, he said. Murder is nothing to them. (At this stage, Rumpelstiltskin intensified the racism accusations, because of the mention of KFC. Don’t ask me why.)

Neither one of these gents got it. The root-causes rot runs too deep in both. As for publisher Regan, she says, “What I wanted was closure, not money.” Since when is every self-appointed proxy of pain in a position to seek closure (whatever that means) for pain she has not sustained?

The only two people who have the moral authority to forgive this monster have been dead for a decade, their throats slit from ear to ear. (There’s more here. Send these on to Judith Regan so she can have “closure.”)

O.J.'s Manual For Murder

Crime, Criminal Injustice, Media, The Zeitgeist

What a performative contradiction: cable’s point men and women have been contorting like Cirque du Soleil contortionists because of the despicable antics of HarperCollins publisher, Judith Regan, in publishing the sociopathic rants of the killer, O.J. Simpson. Yet they’re all giving this uninteresting, idiotic development time—almost as much time as they devote to the bubblehead with the double chin and chubby cheeks, Britney Spears.

From an impassioned interview Mark Fuhrman gave Hannity & Comles, it transpired that Allan Colmes is a pretty weird gnome; he believes O.J. is innocent, and has written as much in his “book.” On the program, Colmes attacked Fuhrman furiously.

I admire Fuhrman. He did his job and was slimed for it. He then bootstrapped his way back into so-called polite company. There is something utterly revolting about a liberal who, bereft of an argument, reaches for his standard stock-in-trade: accusations of racism. Colmes threw everything but the kitchen sink at a guest who’d come on to speak about this latest low in the American publishing world—a How-To instructional by a murderer—because he had investigated the case.

Fuhrman told the two talking heads, whose books Regan has published, that he would no longer be dealing with said publisher. Needless to say, the two hosts did not join Fuhrman in a show of principle.

What was also of interest was Hannity’s contaminated perspective. Conservatives have absorbed the therapeutic idiom completely. Hannity expressed the view that O.J. was consumed by guilt—could no longer contain the remorse, and was using a book as a confessional. He, Hannity, wanted closure too.

My God. I don’t know if there’s anything that disgusts me more than this meaningless, immoral mumbo-jumbo. Fuhrman, far more intelligent than his hosts, tried to explain to both about the nature of evil. There are people in this world, O.J. being one such specimen, who can kill another human being (or a couple), and then pop into KFC for some chicken, he said. Murder is nothing to them. (At this stage, Rumpelstiltskin intensified the racism accusations, because of the mention of KFC. Don’t ask me why.)

Neither one of these gents got it. The root-causes rot runs too deep in both. As for publisher Regan, she says, “What I wanted was closure, not money.” Since when is every self-appointed proxy of pain in a position to seek closure (whatever that means) for pain she has not sustained?

The only two people who have the moral authority to forgive this monster have been dead for a decade, their throats slit from ear to ear. (There’s more here. Send these on to Judith Regan so she can have “closure.”)

The Logic of La-Raza Libertarians

Crime, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, The State

“Utopian libertarians are especially fond of claiming the welfare state is the sole reason illegal immigrants cost much more ($26.3 billion) than they contribute ($16 billion). Were it not for its provisions, they say, these unskilled, uneducated, non-English speakers would become a boon—not a burden—to the communities they infiltrate. In its determinism, the thinking of the love-in-at-the-border libertarian is indistinguishable from that of the left-liberal. Both see the social environment as the single most important determinant of behavior.
However, what of this cohort’s cultivated militant distinctiveness? What about crime and disease? Will these dissipate with the unlikely dissolution of the welfare state? I suggest the hippies have confused the causal sequence. The point of departure is the quality of immigrants entering the U.S, post the 1965 Immigration Act. For the kind of immigrant given preference under current policy, welfare is more of a magnet. Also ignored by La-Raza libertarians is the evidence of the rapid acculturation among post-1965 immigrants to U.S. largess: the longer these immigrants reside in the country, the likelier they are to receive welfare…”

More non sequiturs from open-border fetishists in my new WND column, “The Logic of La-Raza Libertarians.”