Our hearts go out the good folks of Canada. Unfortunately, Canada too is not immune from the effects of the laissez-faire attitude the world takes when dealing with the “religion of peace.” We’d rather cut our own throats than admit to ourselves that Islam unchecked is a violent political ideology, no less dangerous than other fascist ideologies that we’ve seen in the less than recent past. We twist ourselves into all sorts of contortions to avoid insulting, embarrassing or bruising the tender sensitivities of those we label as “moderates;” those billion plus Muslims we are told, who have nothing to do with the radical off-shoots in their midst, wishing nothing more than to live their lives peacefully among us, victims too of their own ideology.

Vickers Looking like a very unlikely hero...

Vickers Looking like a very unlikely hero…

The common threads among the liberal press and those on the left are that all religions are good, or all religions are bad; take your pick. That’s a neat trick that they won’t apply to Islam. All Muslims are good or all Muslims are bad? Nope, doesn’t work that way. Only some Muslims are bad; those that sit next to flaming jihadists in their local neighborhood mosques listening to the heated rhetoric of the warriors for Allah or the Imams who entice them, are simply victims in their own right, at the mercy of those with deeper, more violent passions of their shared beliefs. Of course, if you are a practicing Muslim, leaving the faith is a death sentence; not sure why anyone would decide that, hey, that’s the religion for me. Nor can I understand why any rational woman would decide that she’d love to be owned by her father or her husband, just itching to get into that black head-to-toe sleeping bag designed purely to obliterate her identity as an individual. Or a person for that matter.

Of course, I’m no scholar on Islam, or any other religion for that matter. I just find it quite confusing that there seems to be no scholar among them either. There would appear to be a great number of Muslims who find peace and inspiration from Islam; and there are also many who feel that Islam instructs them to throw acid in the faces of their own women. Of course, authorities were quick to condemn the attacks but not the motive behind them, as one of the police chiefs in Tehran stated; “All the victims were sitting in their car waiting at a red light, the attackers approached on motorbikes and threw acid on them through the car window,” he said on national television. “Most of the women were not dressed appropriately,” the statement added, in reference to the country’s strict morality laws that require Iranian woman to wear all-enveloping veils covering their hair and body.”

Yes, she shouldn’t have had acid thrown in her face, but she had it coming. One would think that with billions of peaceful Muslims around the world, this type of thinking would be eradicated. One would be wrong. The forces of radicalism far outweigh any thoughts of reformation or enlightenment. So the west had better get used to this type of acquiescence as we import more Muslims into our small towns in rural Canada and the US, into the crowded tough streets of our cities. This is the fruit of the diversity we so cherish, the multiculturalism that we worship in hopes that we too can be enlightened by cultures we deem to be far superior to ours.

All religions have their fringes, as do those groups who have no faith at all. Why then, do we excuse this one religion from its violent tendencies while at the same time deriding others, faulting them for their beliefs in the deceitful dance of moral equivalency? Not sure how many Buddhist monks flew planes into the twin towers; remember those nuns who slit the throat of the “Piss Christ” artist? Me neither. And who can forget those radical Mormons placing their death-filled pressure cookers at the finish line of the Boston Marathon? Of course, the argument is always “well, such and such a religion did such and such a thing hundreds and hundreds of years ago.” Even-Stevens I guess. Yet we continue to allow thousands and thousands of Muslims into our culture without question, with no expectation of assimilation and when something like this happens, we grasp at any excuse we can imagine to avoid stating simply that Islam was at the heart of the matter. At least prime Minster Harper doesn’t suffer from the Madrasa-induced paralysis of our President as he clearly stated this was an act of terrorism, not “work-place violence” or the administration’s famous “man caused disaster.” Bravo Mr. Harper. The question remains however, what are you going to do about it? I don’t think you’ll keep your fellow Canadians safe by watching the comings and goings at the local Tim Horton’s. I think you may have to take the drastic step of peeking into some of these Mosques. Of course, we can’t have that, that’s discrimination. We’d have to peek into every house of worship, run our hands through the magic undies of the Mormons, peek under the Turbans of every Sikh, all because we wish to believe that every religion is just like every other religion.

I guess that now as I reread this, I’ll be accused of being an Islamophobe, a hater, painting with a broad brush, etc, etc. I just accused every Muslim of being a terrorist, guilt by association if you will. So be it. I can’t get over the concept of Taqiyya, can’t get past the thought that there are billions more moderates than radicals, yet they still allow their religion to be defined by be-headings, stoning of women, strapping bombs to their own children and yelling Alluha Akbar as they gun down soldiers standing guard at a war memorial in Ottawa. My distrust, my doubts, will be seen as hateful and repudiated, not even a blip on the grand scale to be sure, but I am not alone. Muslims everywhere need to ask themselves; In this century, in this point in history, do I truly believe I am a citizen of a greater world where all citizens worship as they please, governed by laws that protect their individual rights, or should those citizens of the greater world conform to my beliefs, and only my beliefs, under laws that are imposed by the few, not agreed to by the many? And is it far nobler to die for my beliefs, or kill for them? Will I allow any atrocity in the name of my religion, whether I was actively involved, or will I bear any guilt for being silent while women and children are being slaughtered for not wearing the correct color headscarf?

The death of western culture will be laid squarely at the feet of progressive thought and unbridled liberalism where everyone is equal, there is no good or bad and individualism really means taking your proper place in line for your government rations. They can parse it anyway they want, but tearing down the culture that was built in the western world of free thought and opportunity has been forever diminished by efforts to make us all look the same, speak the same, believe the same and live the same. No dissent will be tolerated, people are not allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits; outcomes will be decided by those in charge. Once this type of mentality is accepted, institutionalized in our entitlement-minded society, how can anyone expect an all-encompassing political ideology masking as a religion not to flourish? Or how can we expect those who are totally incapacitated by their own self-imposed shackles of “political correctness” to stand up to such an ideology, one that will surely target them first?

Harper went on to address his country later in the evening, saying “We will not be intimidated. Canada will never be intimidated.” One can only hope he’s true to his word. The west continues to be cowed, not by sociopaths in black masks, but by our own elitists who assure us that it’s all our fault anyway and we should be ashamed of ourselves for what would normally be considered rational suspicions; the shame that forces us all to be groped at the airport while these miscreants develop their hatred for us in our own backyards. Maybe Canada will lead the way; or will she wait for yet another episode of workplace violence at the hands of a truly peaceful religion?

The White House is starting to take flak from the public and some members of congress over its refusal to halt flights from West African nations currently in the throes of the Ebola outbreak. It’s interesting to read all of the contortions and gyrations that this administration will go through to protect whatever the hell it’s trying to protect from the travel ban; it certainly doesn’t appear that they’re too concerned about the general population of the U.S. Maybe it’s an esteem issue; certainly don’t want to “stigmatize” those folks in Liberia. If we banned travel from Liberia, we’d be horrible people; haters, no better than, oh, say Columbia, St. Lucia, South Africa, Jamaica and Guyana. Or maybe any of the thirty other nations that have imposed such a hateful ban. Question? What do they know that we don’t? Are they just panicking or do they hate the president because he’s black?

Ineffective; they'll just swim to shore....

Ineffective; they’ll just swim to shore….

Is the call for a ban really as irrational as the administration and its cadre of supporters want us all to believe? The current line of reasoning is that a ban would drive these folks underground, that they’d find other ways to get out of the affected areas undetected. That line of reasoning doesn’t really hold water in light of the fact that Thomas Eric Duncan lied his way onto American soil; we may never know how successful he would have been trying to cross the border from Liberia into the surrounding countries that have now secured their borders, a phrase quite unfamiliar in this country.

For me, it’s simple math. The number they bandy about is 150 people a day come to the U.S. from anyone of the hot zones in West Africa. Sounds simple right? Surely we can’t go apoplectic over 150 people a day. However, that doesn’t tell me how many flights per day, how many planes, how many passengers they may have spent ten hours mingling with. An Airbus can hold well over 300 people, about the same for a Boeing 777. Put those 150 on one plane and you’ve got another 150 people exposed. Distribute the 150 by 50 per plane and you get 3 planes with 250 available airborne petri-dishes per plane just pouring through the gates of Kennedy or any other major international airport. Where, of course, they come into contact with any number of TSA agents, attendants, food service workers and the general travelling public. Hey no issues there. Remember, it’s only 150 people a day.

The president, the congress and the CDC all have a constitutional and a moral obligation to protect the citizens of the United States. Why this fact is lost on them is anyone’s guess. Bigger question is why any of these idiots are still in office. The CDC can’t get their collective thumbs out of their asses long enough to provide clear directions to health care workers but it makes sense to send our troops and the national guard to ground zero? And the fawning press is making sure that anyone who rings the alarm bell is ridiculed and belittled; it’s fear mongering. This from a press that supports an administration that would never let a good crisis go to waste.

Frontier Airlines is now trying to locate up to 800 people who may have had contact with the Dallas nurse who contracted the virus from Duncan. Another worker from the same hospital who handed samples from Duncan is currently quarantined off the coast of Belize with her fellow Carnival cruise passengers. Does anyone know how many people are currently on that ship? Better than 2,000 one would think.

Any attempt at logic here is futile. We don’t allow school children to attend classes in our little podunk town without proof of inoculations; they can’t come back to school if they have been sick; a minimum of 24 hours fever-free is the guideline. No one is suggesting that these policies are draconian or fear mongering. Are we just hysterical for wanting to protect ourselves from the common cold or flu?

No, we’re actually quite reasonable. And doing what common sense, non-politicized, rational common senses suggests. The kind of common sense that Belize is employing. Reflect for a moment on their government’s statement regarding the quarantine of the Cruise ship just off its coastline;

“We remain in close contact with U.S. officials … we have maintained the position that when even the smallest doubt remains, we will ensure the health and safety of the Belizean people.”

That’s how it’s done folks. No whimpering. No excuses. No apologies. The government of Belize is ensuring the health and safety of its citizens; sensitivities of West Africa be damned. And us? We’re assuming that if we take the harshest of measures, that most punitive step of banning air travel, well then these folks might just find another way to enter the country anyway. One would assume by taking the “unaccompanied minor express” that rolls through most of Latin America with its final destination of anywhere USA.

I don’t care what your political leanings are at this point; Ebola doesn’t register as an “R” or a “D.” Epidemics don’t start with thousands, they start with a few. Maybe as few as one on a cruise ship or one of 150 on a daily excursion into the land of the free.

Are the administration’s excuses the real hysteria? The world used to look to the U.S. for leadership in a time of crisis; what a shame that the world must now turn to a small country on the eastern edge of the Yucatan peninsula to see what true leadership looks like.

Poor little Johnny. Johnny gets up every morning and tosses aside his superman bed sheets and races down to breakfast in his batman P.J.’s. His mom says “good morning my little man” as she pours his morning fuel from his favorite box of Wheaties, the one with Kyle Bush on the cover. Johnny loves racing; the walls of his room are plastered with posters of cars; hot wheels and matchboxes litter the floor. The only thing little Johnny loves more than racing is wrestling with the other little boys in the neighborhood. Or maybe playing soldier in the woods or hanging upside down on the monkey bars at recess. Or quite possibly, catching frogs at the pond so he can gross out his sister and her annoying friends. Yup, at nine years old, little Johnny loves all things about being a little boy, except grandma’s sloppy kisses. He doesn’t know it, but he is deluded into thinking he’s a well-adjusted little boy; and that must change. Little Johnny needs to be a bit more introspective about his sexuality, even though his interest in the opposite sex, at least the only other one he’s vaguely aware of, focuses squarely on cooties and making sure he doesn’t accidently grab his sister’s horrible pink book bag on the way out the door in the morning.

What if we wanted to be a hippo instead?

What if we wanted to be a hippo instead?

Today, Johnny becomes a purple penguin. Not by choice mind you. Johnny doesn’t realize it, but he’s afflicted. His parents weren’t aware of it either; the local news station had the courtesy to let them know. No, from now on, the local school board and the all-caring liberal establishment has decided that their little boy, mom’s “little man” is suffering from a false sense of security and an over-inflated sexual identity. How horrible at his age never to have questioned his gender. It’s high time he started doubting his falsely “normative” socially imposed gender identity, and fast. Every time he goes to school in his Ked’s and wranglers, he oozes hate and subtle bigotry that affects the lives of others who aren’t so infected with his brand of selfish, socially-constructed gender identity which he clings to rabidly, even if subconsciously. It probably stems from early childhood rearing; likely an over-bearing mother, potty training him to stand in front of the toilet, targeting the cheerios she dropped into the bowl in order for him to perfect the aim of his weapon of confusion. There are no cheerios at school; he can’t impose his bathroom proclivities on others who may wish to hike up their little boy skirts and squat daintily over the bowl. Of course, they wouldn’t feel comfortable next to the “excluding” little neanderthal; no, they’d rather squat next to his sister, someone who may be suffering her own delusions of well-adjustment. She too needs to be monitored, lest she decides to become the dreaded housewife or heaven forbid, develop a raging crush on any other of the mud-covered cretins who haven’t the decency to question their own sexual identity. That’s how it spreads, you know; this infirmity of normalcy. Seemingly well-adjusted children, hanging onto the outdated genetically insignificant drives that force them to sprout breasts or facial hair, leading them to be confused about how different they are from other children who refer to themselves by other grammatical articles. She, he, her, him, boy, girl. These are the symptoms of the affliction that can only be eradicated if we catch it at an early stage in their lives, well before they are infected by their parents, their friends, older siblings or even their own bodies. We can’t allow these children to feel secure in their gender if others aren’t. We must make sure we separate them from their false sense of securities of little boy, little girl.

Little Johnny needs an advocacy group; he needs his own bathroom. He needs to be appreciated, celebrated for who he feels he is at any given moment and if he feels no need to surgically remove his non-offending appendages, who are we to judge him? He is after all, a purple penguin; part of the group, regardless of the fact that he’s a purple penguin who strongly identifies with the gender of his birth chromosomes. Underneath it all, we are all just purple penguins. We must all make accommodations for his affliction as if it were our own. As everyone knows, the best way to gain total inclusiveness is to celebrate our differences loudly, force everyone to recognize and accept them, live with them, accommodate them; if not by force of law then by force of shame and ridicule. That’s how we gain true acceptance. Grudgingly. One colored animal at a time.

Now, what shall we do with the orange orangutans?

Victims, victims, everywhere. At one time in the dark period before liberal enlightenment, we used to think that the person on the business end of the pistol was the victim. But of course, that’s because, as our liberal friends have shown us over the last thirty years or so, we were some type of “phobe” or suffer from our own evil “ism” or another, both instances blinding us to the fact that we’ve oppressed, abused, cheated, hated and god-forbid, stigmatized those poor unfortunates who couldn’t really control their behaviors and just had no choice but to stick the barrel of their dysfunctions underneath our hateful noses to liberate us from our Nikes and Iphones. How hateful of us to try and marginalize them to the edges of a civil society. But “hate the sin, love the sinner” is no longer good enough. No, now it’s love the sinner and accept the sin as the new normal, lest we offend.

Tell me Ms. Kaplan, which of the 50% is he?...

Tell me Ms. Kaplan, which of the 50% is he?…

There are few stigmas left in society today; you know, stigma, the extreme disapproval of a person or group of persons associated with some characteristic or behavior that the greater society deems is outside of cultural norms. Of course, that would mean that society is being judgmental here; who gets to decide what act or what persons should be stigmatized? What the hell is a cultural norm anyway? And we certainly cannot let society at large make those distinctions anymore; because that of course, produces victims. Maybe we need to let assistant law professors from Rutgers and the ACLU decide for us what acts we need to be repulsed by, whether it makes our skin crawl or not.

Margo Kaplan, of Rutgers wants to be the voice of reason and societal conscience for you. Her op-ed in the New York Times gives a clear and succinct defense of removing outdated concepts such as stigma and societal norms, pointing the crooked finger of blame at a society for the hardships endured by those afflicted with pedophilia. Yes, the new victim class for the left is going to be pedophiles. Bet you never saw that one coming did you?

Although she’ll never admit it openly, Ol’ Margo and her buds at the ACLU would love to continue to move the boundaries of acceptable behavior by pushing the “disenfranchised class” model, that of gaining victimhood status which has worked so well on a genuinely compassionate society. Compassionate or cowardly, I can’t really tell; maybe it’ll be clearer in a few years as the slow progression towards normalizing yet another deviancy marches on, with the general public cowed by charges of “you hate this person” or “you’re bigoted” or probably coming soon, “you’re a Pedo-phobe.”

I’ve read her piece several times and still walk away shaking my head in a “WTF” moment. I had to finally put it down, get a lousy cup of coffee and stew over it for the afternoon. And of course, it just pissed me off more; the hater in me I guess.

Ms. Kaplan wants you to know that “pedophilia is a status and not an act.” Yup, okay. And because it’s a status, people are being discriminated against and live in great fear and trepidation because of that “status.” She’s not talking about child molestation here; she takes great pains to let everyone know that “one can live with pedophilia and not act on it.” Hence, status, as in, “Hi, I’m a non-practicing pedophile.” Love me please. Hold me close; I’m a victim, you see.

Of course, she wants you to know that pedophilia is not a choice. Again, another idiot with a Ph.D. in “friggin’ obvious.” I’m not sure if anyone ever said it was. Choice or no, it’s still pretty damaging to those it’s practiced upon, you know, those with the real “status” of victim. But it’s not about the children; it’s about those who fear loss of their jobs, harassment, and even violence, all because they want to claim their “status.” Whatever the hell that means. Are they standing up in town hall meetings, letting everyone know that they’re the local non-practicing pedophile? Or are people actively searching them out, looking for the pedophile in their midst, whether he has molested or not?

Just exactly what argument is she trying to make if not to normalize the “act”? It looks on the surface like she’s very concerned, wants to be a spokesman and an advocate for the truly afflicted. How sweet. However, it actually comes down to only one line in the whole piece;

“And yet, when it comes to public policies that might help people with pedophilia to come forward and seek treatment before they offend, the law omits pedophilia from protection.”

Another protected class. Another opportunity to define pernicious laws based on imagined rights of possibly less than one percent of the male population who may or may not be suffering for not acting out on their impulses or changing their “status”.

It’s telling that Ms. Kaplan talks about protections not afforded to pedophiles under The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and notes in brief passing the DSMMD definition of pedophilia. Ask yourself; which does she find the most reprehensible? Obviously both. Why else would she state;

“The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders defines pedophilia as an intense and recurrent sexual interest in prepubescent children, and a disorder if it causes a person “marked distress or interpersonal difficulty” or if the person acts on his interests. Yet our laws ignore pedophilia until after the commission of a sexual offense, emphasizing punishment, not prevention.”

Simple. She disagrees with the definition. The DSMMD has that horrid phrase, “recurrent sexual interest in prepubescent children.” Sounds too clinical, unsympathetic; even damning. Of course, it’s not really about sexual attraction at all, as she lets us know farther in the piece;

“In fact, research shows, about half of all child molesters are not sexually attracted to their victims.”

Interesting isn’t it, that those she champions are suffering from “intense and recurrent sexual interest in prepubescent children” but when it comes to actually acting out, changing their “status” or as we like to call it, “molesting children,” only half of all molesters are actually looking for sex? Question; what the hell difference does it make to the child or society at large for that matter? Does she wish to protect those who do molest or those who don’t? Because if she wants to protect those who don’t molest, then she needs to come to grips with the fact that fifty percent of child molesters, by her reasoning, were pedophiles who just happened to change their status. Maybe she’s happy saying that only half of all child molesters are pedophiles, but in my book, anyone who molests a child is a pedophile, whether it meets her twisted definitions or not.

Of course, once you change the mindset of the public at large and make these individuals a little less scary, a little more acceptable and sympathetic, your next step is to change the DSMMD so they can fit nicely on the accepted sliding scale of normal sexual behavior. We’ve seen this before actually. I have previously written about B4U-ACT, a group who is working to pressure the APA to change the DSMMD classification of pedophilia from abnormal. They too are looking to make pedophiles much more sympathetic, conferring victim status and trying to remove the “stigma” of pedophilia. This is the group that classifies pedophiles as “minor attracted persons;” “minor attracted person” just happens to be their status.

Like B4U-ACT, Ms. Kalplan is only interested in changing the definition of what is considered a deviant behavior and wants to shape public opinion in order to build another class of victims that she can then protect with spurious legislation. Why must they be protected if they are not acting out, or changing their “status?” Is there a rash of people being fired for their “status?” Not yet, but wait; there will be soon.

How long will it be before some “victim” sues in court over the loss of a job because he blurted out in the company cafeteria that he’s a non-practicing pedophile? Hey, you can’t fire someone with the new “status.” And just how do we deal with these people? If stigma no longer keeps them in the closet, what do we do with our currently normal repulsion to a guy who tells us he likes to diddle with little kids? Did it ever occur to Ms. Kaplan that stigma is much more effective towards them maintaining their status than whatever “prevention” measures she is claiming are inhibited by current law? Maybe she needs to look at John Burbine; John was a practicing pedophile and hey, he still had the wherewithal to run a freakin’ daycare. Makes one wonder what it was that made John flip his “status.” Now let’s see, was he molesting because he was one of the fifty percent that is sexually attracted to his victims or was he not sexually attracted to them? Ms. Kaplan, a little help here; tell me what the difference is.

After all, Ms. Kaplan tells us that both the ADA and the Rehabilitation act contain exemptions for people are not qualified for the job, or may pose a direct threat to and safety of others; the out that keeps us from being forced to hire them as baby sitters if they decide to announce their “status.” So she needs to change the attitudes of the public at large before she ever can hope to change the law in favor of the new victim class.

Maybe what she needs to tell us is what made Mr. Burbine suddenly switch his “status” and why the current law, if it’s so oppressive and discriminatory, was inadequate in keeping all those children from yet another of the left’s protected species of vermin.

Stigma indeed.

Did common sense finally prevail? No, it didn’t. The NFL finally made the decision to suspend world renowned, undefeated, “gender-mixed-elevator-cage match” champ Ray Rice only after the recent video of him taking out his latest opponent surfaced. With all the bad press surrounding their original decision to suspend the champ for only two games, they couldn’t afford to stumble again. Indefinite suspension. Hey, they finally got it right. Pure genius. In light of what both videos show and their original response, someone else needs to be sent packing. Someone in the hierarchy of the NFL. And I’m not talking about some PR flak or an un-named staffer. Maybe someone in a position of authority with shit for brains. How about good old Roger Goodell?

How does her father feel? How does his father feel? What will his children feel?

How does her father feel? How does his father feel? What will his children feel?

I don’t know about you Roger, but when I saw the first video, you know, the one where this 220 pound seething bag of steroid filled rage drags an unconscious female by the shoulders across the elevator floor into the hotel corridor, my mind went immediately to “hey the sonofabitch knocked her out.” Gee Rog’, couldn’t make that leap by yourself? Let’s see, they get in together and then magically, he’s dragging her limp body out like a bag of yesterday’s dirty practice uniforms. Well, we gotta protect the franchise at all cost. Can’t have that, let’s suspend this wife-beater for two games. The good name of the NFL remains intact. Which is probably more than we can say for Janay Palmer’s dental work.

So exactly what did you suspend him for? Dragging his unconscious wife across the floor in public? Was that the stain on the NFL you were trying to wash way? Or were you afraid of the players’ union, who probably would have defended him to the end even if he was spattered with her blood?

Not buying the fact that you or the league hadn’t seen the full video either. The league has teams of investigators, many ex-FBI agents, and you mean to tell me no one, not one person looking into what happened here thought to ask the casino for any video inside the elevator? Or did they even care to know how Mrs. Rice just happened to become prone? When it didn’t come out (or was suppressed?) the NFL had a manageable affair on their hands. A little suspension, some league funded counseling for the criminal and his speed-bag wife, and we’re all set for the season. This is a league that has between ten and twenty cameras at every game and spends countless agonizing minutes under the review hood to determine if some arcane undecipherable infraction has occurred and it never dawned on anyone that there might be a reason why this woman was lights out as her brute of a husband dragged her face across the floor? And hey, maybe just maybe, if there was one camera angle, there might be another? Lying bastards.

Almost as sickening (almost, but never quite to par) as a man beating a woman a hundred pounds lighter than he, is the piling on by all the righteous, virtuous idiots currently espousing how disgusted they too are over his actions. Well, at least now that the true brutality of his nature is on full display. Easy to condemn him now isn’t it, you spineless cowards? Where was your indignation when the first video came out? Were you too, like Goodell, thinking at that time that gee, that’s tough, but he got two games and now we can move on? Nothing to see here folks, move along. Didn’t quite play out that way and now we find ourselves treated to talking heads, players, coaches and NFL officials horrified over a video that clearly shows what they all knew dammed well happened in that elevator in the first place, each one of them a feckless Captain Renault; “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”

Football is a violet sport, played by men with violet tendencies; many juiced up beyond their limited capacities to make good decisions. So be it. I can take the sport or leave it. But we continue to wonder what the hell is wrong with society as we make excuses for the behavior of miscreants like this. Go Team! We’re the “hear no evil, see no evil” society now. We all knew he punched her lights out and we were fine with his suspension. (The colloquial we.) Hey we were even fine with the Ravens trying to resurrect Rice’s image by tweeting a comment from their press conference in May implicating Janay in her own beating: “Janay Rice says she deeply regrets the role that she played the night of the incident.”

It’s up to the fans and the owners. Start picking side folks. You can continue to buy the jerseys of your favorite felon, pay over a hundred dollars to get a good seat close enough to look into the eyes of criminals or you can demand better. Will the owners demand more from the league? Will the league demand more from itself? Will the union continue to protect these hero-villains at all costs? Will you sit there, a willing fan, apologist or co-conspirator?

Enter your email address and I'll let you know when I post!

Join 220 other followers

hey, pick a topic

Other stuff you gotta see…

The Matt Walsh Blog

Absolute Truths (and alpaca grooming tips) **Facebook.com/MattWalshBlog


totally random and unconnected thoughts...

The Gateway Pundit

totally random and unconnected thoughts...


totally random and unconnected thoughts...

totally random and unconnected thoughts...


totally random and unconnected thoughts...


Just another WordPress.com site

Accuracy In Media

totally random and unconnected thoughts...


A fine WordPress.com site

Bucket List Publications

Indulge- Travel, Adventure, & New Experiences


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 220 other followers