bookmark_borderMelrose mayor apologizes for “All Lives” sign

In the town of Melrose, Massachusetts, the mayor and police chief have apologized for the fact that a traffic sign reading “THE SAFETY OF ALL LIVES MATTER” was displayed on a public street.

“I have ordered that it be taken down immediately and am taking steps to find out how this happened,” said Mayor Paul Brodeur in a Facebook post. “I apologize to the residents of Melrose.”

Police Chief Michael Lyle issued a statement calling the wording of the sign “unfortunate and improper” and calling the phrase “all lives matter” a “misguided counter to the Black Lives Matter movement.”

The statement also explained: “Preliminarily, the officer reported to me that he did not post the message with either malicious or political intent. The officer, by his account, was trying to type a traffic safety message in the limited space offered by the electronic sign and did not realize the totality or impact of the words he had posted. Nonetheless, I will conduct a full and thorough investigation. On behalf of the Melrose Police Department, I sincerely apologize to our residents and anyone who drove past the sign today.”

What on earth is there to apologize for? There is nothing unfortunate, improper, or misguided about the idea that all lives matter. The message displayed on the sign – that the safety of all lives matters – is 100% true and should not even be controversial. Do the mayor and the police chief disagree with this message? Do they believe that some lives do not matter? The fact that such an innocuous message necessitated an investigation and apologies from both the mayor and the police chief demonstrates the ridiculousness of today’s political climate.

bookmark_borderHate crime charges for painting over Black Lives Matter mural

A California couple have been charged with a hate crime after painting over a Black Lives Matter mural that had been painted on the street. Nicole Anderson and David Nelson could face up to a year in jail.

The police department in Martinez, CA, said in a statement: “The community spent a considerable amount of time putting the mural together only to have it painted over in a hateful and senseless manner.”

When one considers the brutal series of assaults against statues that have taken place over the past weeks and months, which have largely gone unpunished, it is ridiculous that Anderson and Nelson are being punished this severely.

First of all, the motivation for painting over the mural does not rise to the level of a hate crime. In a video of the incident, Nelson allegedly said, “There is no racism. It’s a leftist lie… We’re sick of this narrative, that’s what’s wrong. The narrative of police brutality, the narrative of oppression, the narrative of racism. It’s a lie.” Neither he nor Anderson ever voiced any racist sentiments. Neither of them made any negative generalizations about anyone based on their race. They simply think that racism does not exist to the extent that the Black Lives Matter movement claims it does, which is a very reasonable opinion that I happen to agree with. Disagreeing with the message of the Black Lives Matter movement should not be considered a hate crime.

Additionally, I would not describe painting over the mural as either hateful or senseless, as the police department does. Disagreeing with a message is not hateful; it is simply disagreement. Nor was painting over the mural senseless; Nelson clearly explains the reasoning behind this action in the video.

You know what is both hateful and senseless? The wave of violence against statues that has swept over the country. It was hateful and senseless when someone beheaded the beautiful statue of Christopher Columbus in Boston. It was hateful and senseless when someone tore down the statue of St. Junipero Serra in San Francisco, California, set it on fire, and struck it with a sledgehammer. It was hateful and senseless when someone tore down and hanged a statue of a Confederate soldier in Raleigh, North Carolina. It was hateful and senseless when a mob tore down, urinated on, and sprayed graffiti on a statue of Confederate General Williams Carter Wickham in Richmond, Virginia. It is hateful and senseless that the magnificent Robert E. Lee statue in Richmond continues to be graffiti’d with Black Lives Matter slogans every day. I could go on and on; the list of statues that have recently been dismembered, set on fire, destroyed, and/or defaced is nearly endless.

Think of the immense amounts of time, effort, dedication, and talent that sculptors put into these statues. Yet none of the people responsible for any of these acts of vandalism have been arrested, charged, fined, or punished in any way. These barbarians all need to be held accountable for their disgraceful actions before anyone even thinks about punishing someone for painting over a Black Lives Matter mural on the street.

bookmark_borderStone Mountain is next target for anti-Confederate bigots

Last year I had the pleasure of visiting Stone Mountain. If you have never heard of Stone Mountain (in which case you are really missing out!), it is a mountain in Georgia featuring a huge carving of Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. According to Stone Mountain’s official website, the Confederate Memorial Carving measures 90 by 190 feet, is recessed 42 feet into the mountain, and is 400 feet above the ground, making it the largest high relief sculpture in the world. The idea for the carving originated with Helen Plane of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Construction began in 1923 but ran into funding problems and disagreements between artists, organizers, and the land owners. In 1958, the mountain and surrounding land were purchased by the state of Georgia. Walter Kirkland Hancock was chosen as the new sculptor, and work resumed on the stone carving in 1964. Using thermo-jet torches, workers labored to complete the likenesses of the three Confederate leaders and their horses. A dedication ceremony was held in 1970, and finishing touches were completed in 1972.

It is a truly amazing work of art, and seeing it in person is awe-inspiring.

So, naturally, supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement are demanding that it be destroyed.

On June 16, the local branch of the NAACP organized a protest against the Memorial Carving. The president of the NAACP branch, Teresa Hardy, said: “We’re going to Stone Mountain where all of the white supremacy, racial bigotry, all of that is hidden in that mountain, so why not march there to let them know we’re not going to take it anymore.”

More recently, this past weekend, a large group of armed militia marched through Stone Mountain Park demanding the removal of the carving.

First of all, depictions of Confederate leaders are not the same thing as white supremacy or racial bigotry. But more importantly, what does Hardy mean by “we’re not going to take it anymore?” What, exactly, is her organization not going to take? The existence of a magnificent, amazing work of art? The fact that people who cherish the Confederacy have a beautiful memorial to visit? The fact that the brave heroes who fought for the Confederacy get to be remembered and honored by those who admire them? This choice of words implies that Stone Mountain’s existence causes pain or suffering somehow. But this is simply false. For anyone who has a soul, Stone Mountain and its Memorial Carving bring tremendous joy and awe, just as all beautiful works of art do. The carving’s existence inherently makes the world a better place. How a person could dislike Stone Mountain is incomprehensible to me. But if this is the case for you, then simply don’t go there! Problem solved.

What makes supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement think that they have the right to order the destruction of anything in the world that they do not like? They are not the only people in the world; other people’s wishes and preferences matter, too. Has anyone considered the feelings of people who love Stone Mountain and would be deprived of a unique and wonderful place to enjoy nature and history? Has anyone considered the decades of painstaking work that artists, designers, carvers, and other craftsmen put into this work of art? Has anyone considered the feelings of people who admire the Confederacy and would be deprived of this beautiful and moving memorial? Has anyone considered the thousands of people who died fighting for the South’s independence, and the possibility that they deserve to be remembered and honored?

It’s almost as if this movement is determined to obliterate every beautiful, magnificent, glorious, unique, different, interesting, cool, and good thing from the world. It’s as if they are striving to create as bland, homogeneous, mundane, and conformist a society as possible, a place where all cities and towns are the same and all people are alike. In short, they seem to be determined to make the world as bad a place as they possibly can. I can think of no other reason why someone would want Stone Mountain’s carving to be destroyed. There are no words in the English language that can fully capture how strongly opposed I am to this idea.

Fortunately, Georgia law protects the Memorial Carving, meaning that the law would need to be changed in order for it to be destroyed. Hopefully this never, ever happens, because the world would be immeasurably worse for it.

The author at Stone Mountain

bookmark_borderThe way to prevent riots is by… not rioting

As supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement continue to destroy statues and other property around the country and world, it is a good time to point out a very common, but wrong way of reacting to this destruction.

Many people, even those on the right-hand side of the political spectrum, briefly acknowledge that destruction of property is bad, but then proceed to claim that those who criticize the property destruction are more problematic than those carrying it out, or that no one has a right to criticize the destruction unless he or she is helping to fix the problems that the protesters are protesting about. If the demands of peaceful protesters are not met, goes the argument, then they have no choice but to engage in rioting and destruction to get their point across. Therefore, if you don’t want violent riots to happen, you need to support the Black Lives Matter movement by praising its peaceful protests and advocating for reform of the police, the criminal justice system, the educational system, and the economy. If you don’t take these steps, the argument goes, then you have no right to complain when riots and destruction happen. In the words of one of my acquaintances on Facebook: “Condemn riots. But do so honestly – and prevent them – by doing justice and listening up.”

This way of thinking presumes that the protesters’ cause is correct and that their demands are legitimate. It has become unacceptable to say so in today’s social and political environment, but I disagree with this premise. Yes, racism is bad, and so is police brutality. Yes, what happened to George Floyd was unjust. But I disagree with the claim that systemic racism exists, as well as with the assumption that police brutality has anything to do with race. In my opinion, there are numerous injustices more worthy of protesting against than those that motivate the Black Lives Matter movement – the Durham-Humphrey Amendment, infringements on Second Amendment rights, authoritarian measures designed to slow  the spread of Covid-19, and the assault on Confederate iconography, to name just a few. Can you imagine what the reaction of the general public or the media would be if supporters of any of these causes resorted to violence because laws were not changed in response to our protests?

It is false to presume that our society is obligated to meet the demands of the Black Lives Matter movement. I don’t agree with the message of these protests, and I’m not obligated to either agree with it or accept that violent riots are going to happen.

Many people quote Martin Luther King, Jr., who said, “A riot is the language of the unheard… And so in a real sense our nation’s summers of riots are caused by our nation’s winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.”

With all respect to Dr. King, the cause of riots is people who decide to riot. To suggest that the cause is the issues that the rioters are protesting against is to deny that people are responsible for their own actions. Why should people who have nothing to do with these riots bear the burden of preventing them, while those who are actually rioting are let off the hook? I’m not obligated to help prevent people from destroying property by addressing the issues that they are angry about. People are obligated not to destroy property, period. You know what is an absolute guarantor of riot prevention? Not rioting!

bookmark_border“A sad day for America” as mob cheers removal of Confederate statues

For anyone who truly loves art and history, the events that took place this week in Richmond, Virginia have been dismaying and demoralizing. Mayor Levar Stoney used his emergency powers to order the immediate removal of the city’s Confederate statues. Work crews promptly removed a statue of General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson on Wednesday. Then on Thursday morning, they removed a statue of Commander Matthew Fontaine Maury. There are a total of 11 magnificent statues that the mayor has ordered to be taken down.

Local news station 8News captured a heart-wrenching scene in which a lone individual ran to the Stonewall Jackson statue and stood in front of it, begging the work crews to let it stay. Nearby individuals swarmed around him, and officers led him away. Disgustingly, over the course of the day, thousands of people gathered to chant and cheer as the statue was taken down.

One member of this mob, Mac McLeob, said: “I’m just so proud. Proud that the city of Richmond, which was once the Capital of the Confederacy is now the Capital of Equality and people can be proud to be from this area.”

Another mob member, Jasmine Howell, said that she “literally had chills just watching it.”

Another, Janice Scagnelli, called the removal of the Maury statue “amazing.”

Senator Tim Kaine expressed similar sentiments, tweeting: “I am proud that my hometown is removing these painful symbols. No need to honor those who tried to destroy the USA so they could perpetuate slavery.”

As for the mayor himself, he said at a press conference: “Once we remove the remaining monuments, we can officially say that we were the former capital of the Confederacy.” Earlier in the day, at a city council meeting, he said: “It is time to fully embrace the righteous cause. Time to get rid of racist symbols. Frankly, it’s time to heal.”

Nothing could be further from the truth than these sentiments. I can think of no cause less righteous than the removal of Confederate statues. I can think of nothing less healing and nothing less worthy of pride.

The Confederacy fought against the United States government for the right to form their own country. They were rebels who fought against government overreach and tyranny. This is something that every person should admire and celebrate. Individuals who fought for the Confederacy absolutely deserve to be honored. The anger and hatred that people today demonstrate towards the Confederacy are particularly objectionable because the Confederacy was and is the ultimate underdog. To many people, it is not enough that this small, agricultural country was beaten into submission by the more industrialized and populous United States, its cities burned, its population decimated, and its rights taken away. Apparently, it is also necessary to ban its flag, desecrate the graves of its soldiers, destroy its statues and monuments, and completely obliterate its memory. In today’s United States, displays of admiration for the Union – whether in the form of statues, memorials, flags, or depictions in popular culture – are far more common and accepted in our society than those for the Confederacy. But apparently, when it comes to studying and memorializing the Civil War, even the tiniest amount of diversity cannot be tolerated. This is why those who call for banning the Confederate flag, re-naming things that are named for Confederate leaders, and tearing down Confederate statues, are the true bigots and bullies. Ironically, the Black Lives Matter movement, which claims to be motivated by concerns about diversity and inclusion, is in reality stamping out every last iota of diversity and inclusiveness in America.

In the same press conference at which he announced the removal of the statues, the mayor announced plans for a new school, saying: “This is the sort of monuments moving forward that we want to erect to our children here in the city of Richmond. This is a testament to what we can do when we all work together. Although you all know that we are removing monuments that, I think, exemplify hate, division and oppression, we’re going to build these monuments to opportunity right here. That’s our commitment.”

The mayor also promised to replace the Confederate monuments with “symbols that represent our city.”

These comments completely miss the point. Schools are not a replacement for Confederate statues. Statues are beautiful, amazing, glorious, and magnificent, particularly Confederate statues because of the values of rebelliousness and freedom that they represent. The sight of a statue of a brave leader or warrior from history stirs and inspires the soul. Schools are important, but there is nothing glorious, magnificent, or soul-stirring about them. They are simply a part of a city’s infrastructure. Every city has them. They do nothing to make a city unique or distinctive.

What symbols does the mayor plan to replace the Confederate statues with? No statue, monument, or symbol could be as good, or as fitting for the city of Richmond, as the beautiful Confederate statues that the mayor so cruelly ordered taken down. Being the capital of the Confederacy is part of what makes Richmond unique. The statues on Monument Avenue are essential to the city’s identity, and without them, Richmond is a city that stands for nothing and has no values, no culture, and no heritage. How could anyone think that a city without Confederate statues is better than a city with them?

Andrew Morehead, a spokesman for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, called this “a sad day for America.” He also said that his organization is reluctant to publicly protest against the removal of statues because of concerns that the protests could devolve into violence.

If I was asked to comment on this issue, I would not be so restrained. I believe that the removal of any Confederate statue, or any act of violence or vandalism against such a statue, is despicable, and I condemn it in the harshest possible terms. Thanks to the mayor’s order, Richmond has gone from a city filled with beautiful, glorious, and magnificent statues of brave individuals who fought for freedom to… nothing. It is incomprehensible that someone could be happy about this or consider it something to be proud of. Each and every person who cheered as these statues were removed is a bigot and a bully with no soul.

It also says a lot about the Black Lives Matter movement that organizations with dissenting views do not feel physically safe to voice those views publicly.

If Confederate statues do not represent the values of the people of Richmond anymore, then that is a poor reflection on the people of Richmond. It is difficult to think of any positives in this situation, but one tiny positive is that because so many people in Richmond have proven themselves to be intolerant bullies, then the people of Richmond were not worthy of having these magnificent statues. My hope is that the statues can be displayed on private land somewhere where the few people remaining on Earth who still have souls can give them the admiration they deserve.

bookmark_borderMark and Patricia McCloskey have every right to defend themselves

In a now viral video, a husband and wife in St. Louis, Missouri named Mark and Patricia McCloskey decided to defend themselves and their home against a large group of Black Lives Matter protesters. The mob of protesters broke through a gate and marched down the private street where the McCloskeys’ home is located. In response, Mark and Patricia pointed guns at the mob from their porch.

Mark McCloskey defended his and Patricia’s actions in an interview with KMOV-TV:

“It was like the storming of the Bastille, the gate came down and a large crowd of angry, aggressive people poured through. I was terrified that we’d be murdered within seconds. Our house would be burned down, our pets would be killed. A mob of at least 100 smashed through the historic wrought iron gates of Portland Place, destroying them, rushed towards my home where my family was having dinner outside and put us in fear for our lives. One fellow standing right in front of me pulled out two pistol magazines, clicked them together and said, ‘You’re next.’ That was the first death threat we got that night.”

The McCloskeys’ attorney added that they are both personal injury lawyers who represent victims of police brutality, and they actually support the message of BLM.

Despite the fact that this looks like a clear case of self-defense, numerous people have alleged that the McCloskeys’ conduct constitutes “assault” and have demanded that they be punished.

For example, St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner announced that her office would be investigating. She said: “I am alarmed at the events that occurred over the weekend, where peaceful protesters were met by guns and a violent assault. We must protect the right to peacefully protest, and any attempt to chill it through intimidation or threat of deadly force will not be tolerated.”

Attorney Don Calloway tweeted that Mark McCloskey “committed an assault” and “should be arrested and charged with assault immediately.” And Attorney Mark Zaid tweeted that “their actions should have consequences.”

Attorney Eric Banks told St. Louis Public Radio: “You cannot act with impunity, come out of your house with an automatic weapon, and point it in the direction of the people coming down the street. It’s just beyond the pale.”

Sunny Hostin, co-host of The View, said: “If there’s a peaceful protest and you feel threatened, I don’t know why you decide to go outside of your home and brandish a weapon. Don’t you stay inside of your home and call the police? So it just seems to me that there is quite a disconnect there, because what they did was very aggressive. There wasn’t a need to brandish a weapon in a threatening way.”

There is a petition titled, “Have the McCloskeys disbarred for Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.” The organizer of the petition writes that the McCloskeys “need to be held accountable.”

According to St. Louis Public Radio, the Missouri Bar Association has, indeed, received dozens of calls demanding that the McCloskeys’ law licenses be revoked, and cyberbullies have left thousands of negative reviews on their law firm’s Facebook page.

This is ridiculous. First of all, the McCloskeys did not commit assault. Anyone with even a basic understanding of logic would agree that in order for an action to constitute assault, something needs to actually touch the person allegedly being assaulted. The McCloskeys did not fire their guns. They did not go over to the protesters and hit anyone over the head with the guns. Neither Mark nor Patricia nor either of the guns nor any bullets made any physical contact with any of the protesters. Therefore, no assault took place.

Second, the protesters were in the wrong because they trespassed on private property. Anyone who trespasses on private property is automatically the aggressor and bears 100% of the responsibility for any confrontation or conflict that takes place as a result. In an article arguing that the McCloskeys are “screwed, and rightfully so,” Jim Swift at the The Bulwark writes: “Members of that community are not empowered to enforce trespass laws by pointing guns at unarmed people. This is why you call the police… Crimes committed on private property are not exempted from legal scrutiny.” But the McCloskeys did call police. Additionally, contrary to Swift’s claim, people do have the right to enforce trespass laws by pointing guns at unarmed people. The fact that the trespassers are unarmed is irrelevant. The only relevant fact is that they trespassed on someone else’s property. Therefore, they deserved to have guns pointed at them. Anyone who trespasses on someone else’s property deserves whatever treatment the property owner deems necessary to defend his or her property. The fact that the protesters trespassed makes the McCloskeys’ actions not a crime.

Finally, those demanding the McCloskeys’ arrest point out that under Missouri law, it constitutes “unlawful use of weapons” to “exhibit, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner.” But the mob of protesters were clearly acting in a more threatening way than either Mark or Patricia McCloskey. According to Mark, nearly 100 angry protesters broke through a gate, and one pulled out pistol magazines and said “you’re next.” Even if you don’t believe his version of events, the number of protesters and the mere fact that they were trespassing on private property should be enough to consider the McCloskeys innocent of any criminal offense. Whenever you have a conflict with two people on one side and hundreds of people on the other side, the two people are almost always in the right. How could a crowd of protesters be intimidated or threatened by two individuals? Hundreds of people are inherently more intimidating and threatening than two people, regardless of who is armed and who isn’t.

In conclusion, the McCloskeys did not commit assault or unlawful use of weapons. They did not intimidate anyone and they were not aggressive; they defended themselves against an intimidating mob. They should not be arrested or disbarred. They do not “need to be held accountable” because they did nothing wrong. The only consequences that their actions should have are positive ones… such as this salute from yours truly. Thank you, Mark and Patricia, for standing up to the mob and providing a good example of self-defense for all Americans.

bookmark_borderHypocritical and racist letter on public health and protests

Earlier this month, over 1,000 public health professionals, infectious disease professionals, and community stakeholders wrote an open letter entitled “Open letter advocating for an anti-racist public health response to demonstrations against systemic injustice occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

In the letter, they praise protests in support of the Black Lives Matter movement while insulting and defaming protests against authoritarian government restrictions. In regards to the protests in the wake of George Floyd’s death, the letter reads, “A public health response to these demonstrations is also warranted, but this message must be wholly different from the response to white protesters resisting stay-home orders.”

It is disturbing that public health professionals would openly advocate such disparate treatment towards protesters based on whether or not they personally agree with the message of the protest.

When it comes to Black Lives Matter protests, the letter reads: “We do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States.”

The letter urges everyone to “support local and state governments in upholding the right to protest and allow protesters to gather.” The letter recommends that authorities neither disband protests, not arrest protesters, nor use tear gas or any other type of respiratory irritant. The letter encourages bystanders to provide masks, hand-washing stations, hand sanitizer, face shields, goggles, and wrapped, single-serving food and beverages to protesters. (This suggestion is particularly jarring when contrasted with the uproar that took place when a college allowed police officers keeping order during a protest to use its bathroom.) And the letter urges people to donate to protesters’ bail funds.

On the other hand, when it comes to protests against authoritarian government policies, the letter has this to say:

“On April 30, heavily armed and predominantly white protesters entered the State Capitol building in Lansing, Michigan, protesting stay-home orders and calls for widespread public masking to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Infectious disease physicians and public health officials publicly condemned these actions and privately mourned the widening rift between leaders in science and a subset of the communities that they serve.”

How could the authors of this letter condemn people who are not only doing nothing wrong, but bravely standing up for individual rights? Stay-at-home orders are morally wrong, and therefore protesters in Michigan (and all over the country) were 100% correct in protesting against them. It is the stay-at-home orders that should be condemned, not those protesting against them. And how could someone “mourn” the fact that people are protesting against a morally wrong government policy? The real cause for mourning is the fact that so-called “leaders in science” have lost all sense of right and wrong and think nothing of throwing away individual rights and freedom in the name of safety. If there is a rift between leaders in science and people who are standing up for individual rights, it is the leaders in science who are on the wrong side.

Why does the letter mention that the anti-lockdown protesters were “heavily armed and predominantly white”? People have a right to bear arms; the protesters were not doing anything wrong by being heavily armed. Additionally, their race is irrelevant. Believing that people should have a right to move about freely and that the government does not have a right to order people to stay in their homes has nothing to do with race. But despite this, the authors of the letter repeatedly categorize the anti-lockdown protesters as “white” and even go so far as to accuse the protests of being “rooted in white nationalism.”

Clarifying its position on Black Lives Matter protests, the letter states that this position “should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders. Those actions not only oppose public health interventions, but are also rooted in white nationalism and run contrary to respect for Black lives.”

How is protesting against authoritarian government policies “rooted in white nationalism”? And how does this “run contrary to respect for Black lives”? In addition to accusing protesters of being white nationalists while providing no evidence to support that claim, the letter appears to be stating that respect for Black lives requires people to accept government policies that take away everyone’s freedom of movement. This is a preposterous claim. No person, of any race, has the right to demand that others shelter in their homes in order to keep him or her safe. No sane person could find it disrespectful for others to go about their lives and mind their own business. In fact, the exact opposite is the case. Allowing people to make their own decisions about risk is the only way to truly respect not just Black lives but lives of all races. Paternalistic and authoritarian government policies such as stay-at-home orders are disrespectful to all people, and protesting against them demonstrates true respect for Black lives and all lives.

Also, the fact that the anti-lockdown protests “oppose public health interventions” is not a bad thing. The public health interventions being challenged are morally wrong because they violate people’s rights to move about freely, and therefore it is correct to oppose them.

Furthermore, the letter demands that the public “listen, and prioritize the needs of Black people as expressed by Black voices.” Although this might sound like a nice sentiment, when you think about it, it is actually racist. Of course, everyone should listen to Black voices, just as everyone should listen to the voices of people of all races. But it is wrong to prioritize the needs of Black people, because the needs of all races matter equally. To prioritize the needs of Black people over the needs of others is racist and discriminatory.

So to sum up, the authors of this letter are on the wrong side of the issue of individual rights versus safety, are mischaracterizing this issue as having to do with race when it does not, and are also advocating that Black people be given preferential treatment over other races. They are advocating that protests with which they personally agree be not only permitted but actively supported and encouraged, while singling out protests with which they personally disagree for insults and condemnation. People with such racist attitudes and such disrespect for the rights of those they claim to serve have no business holding positions of leadership in their communities of in the field of public health. Each person who signed this letter should be fired from his or her job and should be sued for defamation.

bookmark_borderOn racism, anti-racism, and “white fragility”

In a Boston Globe Magazine opinion piece entitled “What Too Many White People Still Don’t Understand About Racism,” writer and lecturer Linda Chavers writes:

“You have not seen outrage until you have seen the face of a white person being called a racist. You would think seeing the image of Emmett Till’s mutilated corpse in an open casket in 1955 or Michael Brown’s body lying dead in a Missouri street in 2014 would evoke extreme shock and horror. But, actually, white people get the most worked up when they or someone they know have been labeled a racist. Witness Laura Trott, a Conservative member of Parliament in the United Kingdom, finding it ‘extremely offensive’ that a Black counterpart, Dawn Butler, called Boris Johnson a racist. Same goes for Donald Trump’s ‘I don’t have a racist bone in my body,’ or liberal whites with what Martin Luther King, Jr. called their ‘polite’ racism.”

I’m not sure why Chavers finds it so strange that people would be outraged when being falsely accused of something they did not do. It is extremely offensive to call someone a racist if he or she is not. People have a right not to be accused of doing things they did not do or having character flaws they do not have, and they have a right to be outraged and offended if this happens. Chavers seems to think that she should be free to criticize people with impunity, merely because they are white. If a particular person actually is racist, then yes, calling that person racist is the right thing to do. But if a person is not racist, then calling that person racist is wrong. Chavers does not seem to recognize or care about this distinction. Either she believes it’s OK to accuse people of something they did not do, or she believes that all white people are racist, which, ironically, is racist. Both things are equally wrong.

“This national ignorance leads white people to take offense at being called a racist or, worse, to declare the election of Barack Obama as the cause of racial strife or, worse still, to see extrajudicial executions of Black people as outside the norm,” Chavers writes. “It is absolutely the norm…. White Americans cannot deny the truth and reality of lethal violence toward Black people. They cannot say, ‘Oh, that doesn’t happen’ or ‘That’s only a few bad apples’ or ‘Let’s wait until we have all the facts.'”

Then she tells the reader, “Start listening instead of arguing.”

Well, actually, I can say all three of those things, and I can argue if I disagree with what Chavers is saying. It is entirely reasonable to claim that extrajudicial executions of Black people are outside the norm, or that only a few “bad apples” would commit such crimes. It is entirely prudent to wait until one has all the facts before making a judgment. What right does Chavers have to tell her readers that they cannot say these things? Why are people not allowed to express any opinion that differs from hers? 

This attitude reminds me of the sentiments expressed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in an interview with The Hill. In the interview, Ocasio-Cortez spoke about something called “white fragility,” the alleged tendency of white people to become upset when confronted with their own alleged racism. “Even the term ‘white fragility’ can really set a lot of people off,” she said. “It’s almost ironic.”

As you might guess from my double use of the word “allegedly,” I don’t believe in the concept of “white fragility.” Just like claiming that white people, as a group, are racist or ignorant, accusing someone of demonstrating “white fragility” is racist. Associating a negative character trait with an entire race would never be tolerated if directed towards Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or any other race. Racism against white people shouldn’t be tolerated either.

What Ocasio-Cortez got right is that the situation is, indeed, ironic. Those who believe in the concept of “white fragility” would likely use my objection to the term as evidence of its existence. The fact that I am objecting to being called fragile, goes the argument, proves that I am indeed fragile. But this does not demonstrate any fragility inherent to white people; it demonstrates a problem with the use of the term “white fragility.” It is unfair to criticize a person or group of people, and then use their objection to the criticism as evidence that the criticism is true. If one accepts this logic, then there is no way for the person being criticized to defend himself or herself. The person doing the criticism automatically wins the argument. This logic resembles the reasoning Chavers uses when she tells her readers that they cannot deny or argue against her claims. Both are essentially saying that they are right, that anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant and fragile, and that the more strenuously the person disagrees, the more ignorant and fragile he or she must be.

(This is similar to the logical fallacy called “poisoning the well“).

Strength of character does not require a person to take unfair criticism or false accusations without fighting back. Quite the opposite, in fact. Standing up for oneself demonstrates courage, independence of thought, and a sense of morality and justice. There’s nothing “fragile” about that.

bookmark_borderSaying that white lives matter is not illegal

At a Premier League soccer match between Manchester City and Burnley on Monday, a plane flew overhead pulling a banner that read “White Lives Matter Burnley.” And, as would be expected in this era of extreme political correctness, everyone proceeded to completely freak out.

Burnley’s captain, Ben Mee, said that he was “ashamed and embarrassed.” The team issued a statement condemning the banner, apologizing for not somehow preventing it from flying, and promising to ban the person(s) responsible for life.

Blackpool Airport in northern England, the airport where the company that operated the plane was based, said that it was “outraged” and suspended all banner-towing operations.

“Last night’s awful stunt was done by a small minority to offend and cause hurt to so many in our community,” lawmaker Antony Higginbotham said. “Those responsible should be ashamed of their desire to divide.”

Russ Proctor, chief superintendent of the Lancashire County police force, announced that an investigation had begun. “We will then be in a position to make an assessment as to whether any criminal offenses have taken place,” he said.

My questions is: why is the phrase “Black Lives Matter” celebrated, encouraged, and not considered the least bit controversial, while the phrase “White Lives Matter” is almost universally condemned?

If White Lives Matter is considered shameful, embarrassing, outrageous, awful, offensive, hurtful, and divisive, then Black Lives Matter should be considered the same. Black lives matter, and white lives do, too. Lives of all races matter equally. If it’s not considered racist to say that black lives matter – as millions of people have done at protests, at sporting events, in speeches, and on social media – then it shouldn’t be considered racist to say that white lives matter, either. Why are so many people offended by the concept that white lives matter, too? Do the people who are so offended by this banner believe that white lives don’t matter?

This banner is nothing to be outraged, ashamed, or embarrassed about. There is nothing offensive or hurtful about it. And there is absolutely no reason for police to investigate it. Even if you (wrongly) consider the banner offensive, that does not make it illegal. People have a right to say controversial things, or write them on huge banners flying through the sky.

bookmark_borderStatue of Confederate soldier hanged in North Carolina

In an absolutely disgusting act of bigotry and hatred, a mob of excuses for human beings in Raleigh, North Carolina tore down statues of Confederate soldiers from atop an obelisk and hanged one of the soldiers from a light post.

According to the Associated Press:

Protesters in North Carolina’s capital pulled down parts of a Confederate monument Friday night and hanged one of the toppled statues from a light post.

Demonstrators used a strap to pull down two statues of Confederate soldiers that were part of a larger obelisk near the state capitol in downtown Raleigh, news outlets reported.

Police officers earlier in the evening had foiled the protesters’ previous attempt to use ropes to topple the statues. But after the officers cleared the area, protesters mounted the obelisk and were able to take down the statues.

They then dragged the statues down a street and used a rope to hang one of the figures by its neck from a light post. The other statue was dragged to the Wake County courthouse, according to the News & Observer.

Out of all of the despicable acts of destruction that have taken place over the last few weeks, hanging a statue is the worst yet. Every person (and I hesitate to even use that term) who participated in or applauded this horrific act should be hunted down, caught, and jailed for the rest of his or her life. Then, he or she should burn in hell for all eternity.

There are no words to fully convey the moral wrongness of what was done to this statue. There is no justifiable reason for someone to have such anger, rage, and hatred towards a statue. The statue did not hurt anyone. The statue did not do anything wrong to deserve this. The artist(s) who designed and built this statue did not deserve to have their work destroyed in this manner.

Apparently, someone decided that in order to make a statement against acts of violence that have been perpetrated against African-Americans, it would be a good idea to “lynch” a statue representing the Confederacy. No idea could possibly be worse. The statue that was so cruelly destroyed represents the soldiers who fought bravely for the South’s independence, despite being outnumbered and outgunned. It represents the Confederate States of America, a country that existed from 1861-1865 before being crushed by the more populous and industrialized North. I would go so far as to say that the statue represents resistance to government authority; in other words, freedom.

By pulling down and hanging statues of Confederate soldiers, these excuses for human beings are stomping on the underdog. They are trampling on the idea of freedom, the idea of rebellion, and the idea of resistance to authority. It is bad enough that the authoritarian federal government brutally and barbarically crushed the South’s attempt to secede and form their own country. But apparently that was not enough because now, in the year 2020, mobs feel a need to brutally and barbarically destroy statues representing that rebellion as well. The fact that the brave, honorable, losing side of a war is not even allowed to be honored with a statue or monument is beyond absurd. The fact that those who sympathize with the winning side of a war would have such rage towards the side that they unjustly defeated is incomprehensible. What was done to this statue is the ultimate act of bullying and intolerance.

Every living thing (“person” is too kind a term) who participated in or contributed to this destruction is a bigot and a bully who should not be allowed to exist on Earth. I condemn this act in the harshest possible terms.