Black Shards Press – Electronic Gumbo is Our Specialty

Kids and Violence

17.04.2007 (12:13 pm) – Filed under: Child Care,Society ::

In the wake of yesterday’s slaughter at Virginia Tech the questions “why did this happen?” and “how can we stop it from happening again?” are on everyone’s lips. I think that the two questions are closely related, but perhaps not for the same reasons as others who might agree.

I think events like these have root causes that can be understood. A caveat to this discussion is that I don’t discount the fact that there are people in the world and in America who are simply psychotic. There is no hope for them, in my opinion, and they are outside the scope of this post.

Most infants have the capability of being raised into responsible, law-abiding adults, ones who won’t murder dozens of people for no reason, ones who won’t beat their wives and kids, and ones who won’t pass these and other character flaws onto another generation.

Unfortunately, in the U.S. too many people are doing a pretty piss poor job of raising their children. This can be shown in numerous ways, including: poor scholastic achievement, unacceptable work ethics, high rates of juvenile pregnancy and incarceration, etc.

But perhaps no single indicator of America’s failure to parent properly is more telling than the one entitled “Violence against guardians an ‘alarming trend’” in the Houston Chronicle on Friday. From the article:

One longtime prosecutor in the juvenile courts said he was “floored by the numbers” after a survey found 1,831 young people had been charged with assaulting a parent or guardian. Another called it an “alarming, alarming trend.”

“It’s scary,” added Kris Moore, a juvenile prosecutor in Harris County since 1980. ” … I don’t know if it’s media or television or violent games or what. You’ve got so many parents out there working their butts off trying to make ends meet, and it’s harder for them to supervise their kids. If you get into a situation where parents aren’t in control of their kids, they’re going to get into trouble.”

Moore said the violence against parents is escalating.

“It used to be that we never had an assault on a parent,” she said. “Would you have pushed your mother down the stairs? Would you have stabbed your grandmother?”

The answer to Ms. Moore’s question is an emphatic “No!”. Few children in earlier generations would have even acknowledged the idea of assaulting their parents or grandparents. This is a modern problem, one that’s been created in the eras of “peace, love, and understanding” and the aftermath.

Whether the V.T. murderer Cho Seung-hui was one of the children this country has failed to raise correctly remains to be seen. Indeed this may never be known. But consider the trends already seen and understood by Harris County’s prosecutors.

Our children are perhaps no more violent than previous generations; however, the targets of their aggression are more and more often chosen inappropriately. Parents, relatives, siblings, small neighborhood children, the elderly. All are potential victims of a generation without boundaries.

I believe that the failure of parents to properly discipline their children at a young age is responsible for a large percentage of behavioral problems experienced by school-age children. Anyone who is involved with children can see which at a glance which ones have been raised to respect authority and other people and which ones have not. Children who are rewarded for behaving well and punished for breaking the rules grow to fit into society when they become adults. Often those that are allowed to wreak havoc as children become misfits later in life. Not all misfits are bad. But some are and we’d do well to give them a sense of propriety from the very beginning rather than suffer the consequences later.

Of course there are other societal factors such as violence on television, crude and violent music lyrics, and a barely acceptable education system. These factors should not be discounted.

Nevertheless, I believe that the home is where children learn how to behave long before these external influences converge on them. The home is where we should begin to make these little people into the children, neighbors, and friends we’d like to have living in America with us.

It should be obvious that children need two parents, a man and a woman, who are dedicated to making them grow up tall and strong and the best that they can be. Give a child that kind of environment and he or she will almost always do fine later in life.

Discipline is key and two parents working as one is essential to discipline. When one is weak the other can pick up the slack for a time. No parent is perfect – it takes two to even come close to doing what’s needed every single day. It should not be a surprise that children are underachieving and overly frustrated, angry, and violent in this modern age of broken homes. This should be understood to be inevitable.

Why? Too many children are never taught how to accept boundaries. They’ve never been made to do what is right when they don’t want to. They’ve never been forced to do what needs to be done when the work is no fun.

In short, too many of our children have never been shown how to live correctly. Small wonder they do it wrong.

Virginia Tech

16.04.2007 (12:09 pm) – Filed under: Crime,Society ::

I was going to write about an unpleasant article I saw in the Houston Chronicle recently in which Harris Country prosecutors said that they’re seeing evidence of a dramatic increase in the number of juvenile criminals who attack their own parents. I do some theories about why that’s happening but I can’t discuss them now.
That’s because, upon opening what’s fast becoming the dreaded web browser, the first thing I saw was that 21 people, mostly students living in on-campus dorms, were murdered at Virginia Tech University this morning.

While I can’t help but wonder if the two issues are related in some way, the truth is that the impact of a homicidal rampage such as the one at VTU is just too much for me to intellectualize about why this country seems to be producing so many vile, perverted misanthropes at a time of when we’re enjoying virtually unequaled and unlimited prosperity. I can’t do it today. As much as I’d like to, as much as it’s needed, I cannot.

Instead, let me leave only this bit of wisdom for any homicidal maniacs in the audience.

If you’re hearing voices in your head or your dog or your god or your television is telling you to pick up the AK-47 that your uncle back to the states, strap on your black market Kevlar vest, and drive down to the local school, grocery store, post office, or office building and start wasting people, don’t.



Stop, read, and think. Your evil twin/dog/god/telly is wrong and quite possibly insane. Don’t do it. Stick the AK in your mouth and jam that trigger down if you want to. But don’t leave the house. You’re not fit to do so.

Don "Who?" Imus, Duke, and the Race Card

14.04.2007 (9:19 pm) – Filed under: Discrimination,Justice,Society ::

Maybe I’m just a right-wing Christian square, but I’d never even heard of Don Imus before he made an ass of himself by called in the Rutgers women’s basketball team nappy-headed hos.

Whoever the heck he is I wish he wasn’t white and I wish he hadn’t said that. Why? Lots of reasons. Why a grown man, a multi-millionaire by all accounts, feels the need to attack a group of essentially defenseless college students is beyond me. What a man.

More importantly it gives liberal know-it-alls something else to blame on American corporations. “It’s all about the money,” they cry in their most piteous, angst-filled voices. Of course it is. That’s the purpose of corporations. Rather than blaming CBS for airing a legal but profanity-laced program they – and all of us – should be asking why the FCC started allowing this garbage to grace our airwaves. Furthermore, it’s the individuals who choose to listen the jerks like Imus who make sure there are plenty of them to hear. How about a little old-fashioned personal accountability? Turn him off and he’ll go away, I promise.

More important still is that the damn fool gave Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton the opportunity to crawl out from under their respective racist rocks and recite their ridiculous rhetoric of hate. Says recently turned-on Tom DeLay:

The message of the ongoing Imus scandal is simple: Verbal offenses against anyone, other than conservatives or Christians or Jews, will be treated as crimes, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the judge and jury. Remember Trent Lott’s ill-fated tribute to Sen. Strom Thurmond or Rush Limbaugh’s criticism of Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb? This is the political strategy of the Left—unite to destroy.

One more word from the left, this time from the Rev. Dr. DeForest Soaries:

“If Don Imus had called the wife of a CBS executive an ugly whore he’d have been fired.”

Maybe. But if Imus was black and the insults were thrown at white players none of this would be happening.

Or should I say “has happened”? CBS fired Imus this afternoon.

The firing I don’t have a problem with. I do object, however, to doing it because of pressure from black activists demanding special treatment.

Here’s a brain-teaser: If the Duke Lacrosse players accused of raping a black stripper had received this kind of high-powered support from white power brokers, could the power of the resulting liberal shit storm be measured? Or would it have blown away the scale?

Happily an abbreviated form of justice was done in this case yesterday. Abbreviated in that an either corrupt or incompetent District Attorney still has his job pending a hearing before the State Bar association. Abbreviated in that the 88 Duke University professors who publicly lynched the three young men falsely accused in this case have never apologized and probably will never admit that they were wrong. Abbreviated in that these so-called educators continue to hold their jobs despite the fact that their racially and politically motivated actions publicly embarrassed their employer.

In fact, earlier this year one such Duke professor resigned after two of the players were re-admitted to school (the third having already graduated). Karla Holloway said then:

“The decision by the university to readmit the students, especially just before a critical judicial decision on the case, is a clear use of corporate power, and a breach, I think, of ethical citizenship.”


“The public support [the administration] has extended to these students has been absent in regard to faculty who have been under constant and often vicious attack.”

Perhaps, Ms. Holloway, the university refused to pander to you because the facts of the case dictated otherwise. For my money, the breach of ethical citizenship was committed by ex-Professor Holloway when she pre-judged the case in a public forum.

Reputations, sadly, can never be fully repaired once sullied, even when the accusers and their accusations are both proven false.

I wish these three young men the best of luck. I’d recommend them to my own alma mater if North Carolina wasn’t so far away from Texas. Then again, perhaps that’s what the two who remain undergraduates have in mind.

Personally I hope that they will re-enroll at Duke University and finish their education there in such a manner that proves their superiority to the petty, mean-spirited jackals who used a woman’s false accusation as an opportunity to promote their own misguided agendas.

Don Imus won’t have a chance to redeem himself at CBS; frankly I don’t think he deserves one. But the Duke boys do and I pray they make the most of it.

So what’s the point of all this? There’s a double-standard in this country that favors social groups that liberals champion. Justice, economic, criminal, and otherwise, is increasingly hard to find for people who happen to be part of the wrong demographic. This is another reason why I believe that American liberalism has lost its way and rather badly at that.

What ever happened to the idea that truth and justice were the American way?

It’s important that we re-establish this principle. One way to do that is to cry foul whenever injustices are done. Another is to not perpetrate them ourselves.

(Hat tips to the Texas Rainmaker and Sister Toldjah)


Read Debbie Schlussel’s take on the difference between black and white “comedians” and you’ll understand what I was saying earlier this week about free speech being dependent on the speaker’s color.

I don’t quite buy the example Debbie gives but there are plenty of other examples out there, particularly in the black music biz.

I happened to download a Missy Elliot MP3 a few years back in which the theme of her song was that she was a crack whore who’d do anything for whichever guy was the most vicious gang banger. Nice.

This sort of “artist” – and Elliot’s by no means the worst of them – is a disgrace to America. Yes, their “speech” is protected but that doesn’t mean their trash should have been put on wax in the first place.

Michael Grant, to whom I linked above, says that corporations should have been the target of Imus’ detractors. But where is the outrage over black rappers who advocate killing cops and whites in their music? Clearly we should put economic pressure on record companies to convince them to drop racist, degrading acts, right?

No. As Ms. Schlussel says, whites aren’t entitled to protection from minority racism or to hold opinions about the subject. Only Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are entitled to discuss the issue of race because they are so knowledgeable, open-minded, and even-handed, or so they say.

I don’t think that race can ever be discussed openly so long as these relics from the past continue to have the influence they possess today. If I were optimistic I would say that all it would take for them to lose that power is for the media to report on what these gentlemen actually say, do, and believe. Surely the white liberals who sponsor Sharpton’s hate speech would run screaming when they realize what he really stands for, wouldn’t they?

Sadly, I’m not that optimistic. Democrats – all politicians, true, but particularly the Dems – are more interested in getting re-elected than doing what’s right for America, even if that means bowing and scraping at Jesse Jackson’s feet for the right to buy “his people’s” votes.

Sigh. It’s discouraging, but all one can do is keep trying to move the pile in the right direction.

With regard to race, the right thing is for all Americans to stop being so obsessed by it. It’s natural and right that we prefer the company of those who look like us. There’s no point in pretending otherwise or that it’s wrong.

It is, however, unhealthy and untrue to believe that one’s own kind are inherently better than another race or creed.

It’s the impact we have on the lives of others that determines our worth, not how much money we make or what color are skin is. That’s a lesson that all of us could stand to re-learn, the all-too-common race and religious haters most of all.

ARI Counters the U.N. “Human Rights” Council

12.04.2007 (7:05 am) – Filed under: Free Speech,Islam,World ::

Yesterday the Ayn Rand Institute weighed in on the farce that is the United Nations Human Rights Council by saying:

The U.N. Human Rights Council recently passed a resolution urging nations to pass laws prohibiting the dissemination of ideas that “defame religion.” It appears that the resolution was partly a response to last year’s Danish cartoon crisis, where hordes of angry Muslims rioted in violent protest of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

“To morally equate the Danish cartoonists with the Muslim rioters is to wipe out the distinction between speech and force. It is to declare there is no essential difference between the filmmaker Theo van Gogh,and the Muslim who murdered him for producing a film that ‘defamed Islam.’

“Freedom of speech means that individuals have the right to advocate any idea, without the threat of government censorship, regardless of how many people that idea may offend. To silence individuals in order to protect the sensibilities of mullahs and mobs is to wipe out this crucial right–and it is to whitewash the blood-stained hands of killers by declaring that they are no worse than those who peacefully criticize them.

“The United States should condemn this resolution–and the morally corrupt organization that produced it.”

If we have the desire and the courage to stand for truth and justice then yes, the U.S. should reject this resolution utterly for the lie that it is.
If as a nation we do not, we can expect to see attempts to bring this exact form of censorship to media publications and the public square here at home.  Moreover we will have asked for these attacks on our freedoms by virtue of having failed to protect them from the outset.


12.04.2007 (6:49 am) – Filed under: Music,Site News ::

One’s perspective is all-important in forming opinions.  It also defines how one will express those opinions.  This observation is nothing new – I’ve made it before yet failed to fully integrate it into my life and writing.

But there are moments of clarity in which one sees things are they are – or perhaps as they could and ought to be.  A Newsboys concert recently made me realize that two of my personal duties are:

  1. To defend not only my own home but my county, state, and America
  2. To make the U.S. a better, safer place to live and a stronger, more cohesive society

Duh.  That’s just basic high school civics.  I guess I’m not too bright – the lesson didn’t sink in until now.

Black Shards is one way that I can make a difference.  In a halting, half-blind way I’ve always known that was what I wanted for this blog.  But my lack of perspective kept me from bringing that goal into focus.  No longer.  A target seen is one that can be hit.  I plan to aim now.

So how does this impact my previous posts and positions?  It doesn’t.  I stand by everything I’ve posted here.  My positions re Bush, liberals, the “war on terror”, Iraq, illegal immigration, abortion, the death penalty, and education remain unchanged.

What will be different?  Morals, ethics, knowledge, and reasoning are the tools I use in my work here.  The Newsboys epiphany isn’t about altering any of them; it’s about purposefully combining them with language to create a weapon.  A war is being fought on multiple fronts and the right words can be used in the fight to achieve the best possibly outcome for my family and America.  The realization is knowing that it’s my duty to do so.

That much has been achieved.  As for the rest, time will tell.

An Example of the New Liberal Intelligentsia

09.04.2007 (8:16 pm) – Filed under: Justice,Law,Politics,Religion ::

Today I spent my lunch hour with my stomach being twisted in knots. The food wasn’t bad – the problem was that I was reading a draft of an article that David Schraub’s going to have published in Dartmouth Law Review later this year.

To read it you’ll have to follow the link and register before you can download it. As I commented on the original post, it’s a well-written and logically put together argument. David is a bright young man who’s probably smarter now than I ever was. Wisdom, however, doesn’t come from intelligence; rather, it comes from understanding. That, I think, is lacking.

I don’t want to pick his article apart, particularly since it hasn’t been published yet, but I can’t quite bear to let it alone either, not after ruining a perfectly good lunch hour over it.

Thinking about yesterday’s link to Marc Schulman’s essay about George Orwell’s debate with the left, I don’t think that David has not sunk to the level of the deliberately self-destructive leftist dilletante. But his opinion that minority religions should be given legal preference in U.S. courts via a new interpretation of church/state separation called “anti-subordination” is too dangerous leave unchallenged.

This statement captures the essence of Schraub’s complaint:

Generally speaking, a view from the perspective of the minority group will not condition equality on sameness with the majority, but rather will define equality as equal entitlement to pursue their own conception of the good. At the very least, an affirmative effort to include subordinated perspectives into legal discourse would enhance their moral and democratic legitimacy

And this is his remedy:

We would be better served to view religion clause controversies from the perspective of the religious minority, with an affirmative goal of remedying their subordination, and then perhaps weigh those concerns against other values necessary for maintaining a liberal, tolerant, democratic society.

Schraub’s minority religion of choice is Judaism, a fine bunch of fellows who haven’t been treated fairly in any country in the world except the U.S. Who would begrudge the Jews a few special favors after the Holocaust?

Me, for one. Read the paper and substitute the word “Islamic” for “Jewish”. In this context Schraub’s remedy is a disaster in the making given the world situation and its trend for the worse where Muslim terrorism is concerned.


On one hand we have a solid, logical argument in favor of enhancing the legal status of a benign religious group. What could be wrong with that? But on the other hand there is an unstated implication that a majority of Americans’ religious freedoms would and must be held legally subordinate those whose faith is directly responsible for mass murder on an international scale. All of this follows if Schraub’s standard of separation is implemented.

That’s what I mean by wisdom and the lack of it.

The truth as I see it is that Schraub’s argument is flawed from the outset. Separation of church and state is not definitively defined in the Constitution. It is a subjective state derived from precedent, one that he claims allows an inherent Christian bias and discriminates against Jews (and Muslims, although I rather think that David would approve of this, as I do).

To that my response is: “So what?” The Constitution and the form of legal precendent was established by Christians, for Christians, and its protections designed for various sects thereof. That it allows for Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Hindus, et al, to practice their religions freely is proof of its inherent wisdom but not of its equanimity toward all creeds and their practices.

This is perhaps best exemplified by U.S. laws precluding polygamous marriages. Although many religions regard this as a fundamental right of its male practicioners, it is legally unacceptable in the U.S.

Why? Because Christianity disallows it. As I’ve said before, America is a Christian nation, like it or not. Those who come here expecting to change our way of life by exploiting the letter of our laws are in the wrong and not our customs.

A second argument I would put forth is that the legal system does not, in fact, favor Christians. Did it favor Judge Roy Moore when the boom fell on him and his monument to the 10 Commandments? Did it favor the city of Houston in regard to its display of the Bible at the local courthouse?

No. In both cases the beliefs of the majority of Americas were trampled at the altar of separation of church and state.

The irony is that Schraub, acting in his role as a Jewish activist, would usher in changes that would inevitably lead to greater Muslim dominance in our society. Jewish people have never had and never will have a better home on Earth than the one they have in the U.S.

Wisdom would dictate ensuring the status quo is maintained rather than compromised.

The problem in all of this isn’t that a bright young man made what I believe are a series of thoughtless errors.  I’ve done far worse here on this blog.  My fear is that time won’t correct the problems in the thought processes of his generation.  That’s why I spent my time writing this instead of doing something I’d enjoy.  Hopefully it will make a difference.

Marc Schulman re Orwell and the Left

08.04.2007 (9:58 pm) – Filed under: Politics ::

Everything Marc writes is worth reading but I found his recent essay about George Orwell’s criticism of the British left during WW II and the early Cold War fascinating because it so effortlessly caused my many dislikes of and doubts about our modern Americal liberals to coalesce into comprehension.

Particularly to the point of today’s troubles with so many American Democrats is this snippet:

This disengagement from the common culture emerged in the 1920s and was a reflection of the intelligentsia’s education:

In the last twenty years western civilisation has given the intellectual security without responsibility, and in England, in particular, it has educated him in skepticism while anchoring him almost immovably in the privileged class. He has been in the position of a young man living on an allowance from a father he hates. The result is a deep feeling of guilt and resentment, not combined with any genuine desire to escape.

Having disengaged itself from the common culture, the intelligentsia, during a time of war, disparaged patriotism and the worth of venerable English institutions. Its members formed “a sort of island of dissident thought”:

England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution . . . the negative, fainéant outlook which has been fashionable among English left-wingers, the sniggering of the intellectuals at patriotism and physical courage, the persistent effort to chip away English morale and spread a hedonistic, what-do-I-get-out-of-it attitude to life, has done nothing but harm . . .

English intellectuals, especially the younger ones, “are markedly hostile to their own country.” In some circles, “to express pro-British sentiments needs considerable moral courage.” The people who should be “the guardians of freedom of thought” were anything but.

(Note that Marc’s are the outer quotations while Orwell’s are the inner.)

These paragraphs are telling about American liberals, the lot of whom I’ve bashed about in recent posts without quite being able to pin down the exact reasons why their actions were so inappropriate.

Marc’s post makes those reasons perfectly clear by channeling Orwell who, I believe, if he were still alive and writing, would quickly identify American liberals as Islamist apologists and collaborators.

Immigration Reform, 2007

07.04.2007 (10:49 pm) – Filed under: Immigration ::

Usually it’s good news when illegal immigrants and their supporters are unhappy with proposed legislation – that’s an indication that legislators might be on the right track.

Unfortunately I don’t think that’s the case with George Bush’s new plan, which centers around the nonsensical notion of illegals going home before re-applying for admittance into the U.S.

On a personal level I think it’s a great idea. Clearing the streets of America of every single illegal immigrant would be a wonderful beginning to real reform. Doing so, however, requires a political will unlike any that exists in America today. It’s just not possible because Democrats, who benefit tremendously from the Latino vote, will never allow immigration laws to be enforced.

Neither will illegals return to their homelands to wait for months or years for the opportunity to pay thousands of dollars in fees to return. Why should they when they can simply stay in the U.S. virtually risk-free?

As much as it pains me personally, I believe that most of the illegals who are presently in the U.S. must be “grandfathered in” and given a short path to citizenship. They’re going to stay anyway because we don’t have to willpower to root them out. Why not acknowledge facts and make these people, most of whom are good and decent human beings, a real part of our society?

Bush’s notion of background checks, while likely to be inconclusive in many cases, is a good one and should be implemented as part of an “amnesty” program. Needless to say it should also be administered to all incoming immigrants, foreign employees, and students going forward.

But these checks are meaningless without border enforcement, something that’s been a joke under the Clinton and Bush administrations. In my opinion, these presidents’ failures to secure our borders is criminal. It’s imperative that we understand who is coming into our country and where they are and what they are doing while they’re here. Anything less is unacceptable.

There’s no use spending time and money designing and pushing legislation that’s not going to work. Bush’s original plan was far superior to this one and it seems to me that a Democratic Congress should be more amenable to that plan than the current one. Perhaps after it is rejected a more realistic and effective plan can be put forward in its place.

10,000 people marched against the plan in L.A. today. Many of these people were undoubtedly illegals themselves and many others are complicit in generating and sustaining illegal immigration. But if nothing else they demonstrated both an understanding of the American way of protesting a perceived injustice and their willingness to be part of our way of life.

That’s far more than I can say for certain other minority groups already in this country.

It’s the failure of the federal government that has allowed 10 million illegal immigrants to take up residence in this country. The feds need to stop bickering like spoiled children, step up with some good ideas, and solve the problem they created.

There’s no reason to expect these people to go home, not when Clinton, Bush, and their respective Congresses in effect invited them here. Bush and Pelosi just need to do the right thing so we can move on.

It’s what we do after today’s illegals are legitimized that matters. Here are some of my ideas.

Moral Judgments

03.04.2007 (10:18 pm) – Filed under: Crime,Justice,Society ::

One of the fundamental pillars of American liberalism is that we should not make moral judgments about the worth of others or the worth of their actions. We’re all more or less the same according to liberal dogma.

The death penalty is the ultimate moral judgment and the forbidden nature of moral judgment is, in my opinion, why liberals oppose this form of justice.

This is, of course, utter crap, particularly when such an argument is advanced by the stalwarts of abortion. But even if liberals’ views were internally consistent they would still be completely wrong. In the world of men there is right, there is wrong, and there is ambiguity. But not as much of the latter as we are all trained to believe.

Rebecca Griego was murdered Monday by an ex-boyfriend who had been stalking her for weeks. She’d changed her phone number and even moved to get away, to no avail. To say that she is the moral equivalent of her murderer is a lie.

It’s more than one lie, however. There is a flawed system of thought that is responsible for the aptly named criminal justice system we now endure, a system that is more concerned with the rights of criminals than of their victims or society at large.

Its problems are all based on the one little lie that says we shouldn’t pass judgment on people or their actions.

It’s my belief that liberals choose to deceive themselves into believing this way in large part because they feel uncomfortable making these kinds of ethical decisions. It’s part sloppy thinking – the killer had a hard life, he wasn’t a bright man, he was under a lot of stress lately – and part gutless denial – gee, I don’t want to be responsible for putting a criminal in jail or, Marx forbid, on death row.

I understand. I’m uncomfortable making certain value judgments myself. There’s no shame in being unsure. However, not being content to stew in their own indeterminate juices, liberals instead chose to create and foist this misbegotten ball of feel-good goo on the rest of us. In many ways their softening of American values has gone a good distance toward the destruction of our justice system.

It wasn’t long ago that a policeman’s warning meant something in this country. If a cop caught a punk misbehaving and reprimanded him there was a good chance the behavior might stop. Why? Because if the two met again in similar circumstances the punk was going to learn a hard lesson about how to behave and wasn’t going to like it.

This, however, is far too close to being a moral judgment for liberals’ peace of mind. Who can know the punks’ motivation? Perhaps he had an abusive father and doing B&Es is his way of crying out for help. Certainly no mere peace officer is qualified to handle the situation outside of a courtroom. As a result, cops’ ability to make these decisions has been cut back dramatically with the result one would expect: their authority is lessened.

From Rebecca’s article:

University of Washington spokesman Bob Roseth said police files showed Griego had received phone threats against her life from the former boyfriend at least twice at work. But she apparently chose not to press charges against him, Roseth said.

“In terms of police action, there wasn’t much the police could have done to prevent it,” Roseth said. “Whether there are other things she could have done is a matter of conjecture.”

It’s not conjecture to realize that dozens of people knew what Rebecca was afraid of. Some of them were in the business of law enforcement. Others were not. Someone could have, should have, done something to give Rebecca’s killer a reason to behave. And the justice system should have let it happen.

The justice system should be primarily concerned with generating the right outcomes, not about making liberal thinkers feel good. But who can we expect to have the courage to act on her behalf when the authority of the system is as likely to be applied to good Samaritans as to the criminal?

From a more intimate perspective, if Jonathan Rowan simply could not live life without possessing Rebecca then the least he could have done was to kill himself with a little dignity in the privacy of his own home. But in his eyes Rebecca’s right to exist was no more important than his desire not to die alone.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Rowan may never have made an important decision in his life up to the moment he took his gun, went to Rebecca’s office, and killed her. Like most Americans he had probably never had to and had no idea how to do it.

It’s just a damn shame for Rebecca that he made the wrong choice Monday.

One could say that it’s not surprising that so many people seem to be making disgustingly bad decisions now that we’ve given up on teaching people how to decide between right and wrong.

But that would be too easy.