It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => General Board => Topic started by: rickl on August 03, 2011, 08:11:09 PM
-
From Victor Davis Hanson. (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/273487/snapshot-sick-society-victor-davis-hanson?page=1)
Normally I just provide an excerpt and then link to the rest of the article, but this one deserves to be quoted in its entirety.
Quite often a brief news story sums up the collective pathologies of postmodern American society. Here is a recent tragic news item from my local paper, followed by some commentary:
Police call slaying of Hanford woman a random act
Posted at 06:04 p.m. on Thursday, July 28, 2011
By Paula Lloyd / The Fresno Bee
A woman found slain at a Hanford car wash this week was killed randomly when a 17-year-old gang member happened to see her while taking a walk, Hanford police said Thursday.
Denise McVay was washing her car — something she did several times a week — early Tuesday morning before work.
The teen was wandering the streets after leaving a party when he saw McVay at the Royal Car Wash on Garner Avenue at about 5 a.m. and decided to kill her, police said.
The teen “simply wanted to kill somebody that night” and McVay, 49, was “in the wrong place at the wrong time,” Capt. Parker Sever said. “It was a purely random act.”
The teen stabbed McVay several times and slit her throat.
The teen took McVay’s money and her car, Sever said, and drove to the home of a fellow gang member, Mauricio Ortiz, 18, of Hanford. Sever said the teen was covered with blood and told Ortiz what he had done.
Ortiz helped him ditch the car at Tachi Palace Casino and went with him to Visalia Mall, where the teen used McVay’s money to buy clean clothes, Sever said.
The teen, whose name was not released because of his age, was booked into the Kings County Juvenile Center on suspicion of murder. Ortiz was booked into the Kings County Jail on suspicion of being an accessory after the fact.
Walk through this story to learn something about our confused American society. First, note the discrepancy between the employed Ms. McVay — washing her car in the early morning hours on her way to work, apparently intent on having a clean automobile when she arrived — and the unidentified youth who, we are told at first, was “taking a walk,” later expanded into “wandering the streets after leaving a party.” How did we go so nonchalantly in a mere two paragraphs from “taking a walk” to “wandering the streets after leaving a party”?
In our present society, an able-bodied young man of 17 has leisure to walk about at 5 a.m. after a night of partying, while a hard-working woman squeezes in such an early morning moment to wash her car in order to appear presentable at work.
Note, furthermore, that our society has no compunction about letting the world know the identity of Ms. Denise McVay, who was horribly murdered and left dead on the pavement of a car wash. But it is worried that we might learn the name of the “17-year-old gang member,” also known as an anonymous “teen.” Yet why are we, as a society, more sensitive to disclosing the identity of a gang-member and suspected killer than of a slain productive worker?
In the transition from a shame culture to a guilt culture, America has become a confused society that values the sensitivities of the felonious living far more than respect for the law-abiding dead. Could it not simply waive anonymity protocols in cases of capital crimes? If 16- or 17-year-old would-be murderers knew that their names, addresses, and photos would be published on commission of a crime, would that create any deterrence to their viciousness — or at least provide solace to the community that barbaric killers do not slide so easily through the special exemptions afforded to immature “teens”?
Unfortunately, the story only becomes more depressing. We next read that the anonymous teen “simply wanted to kill somebody that night,” and, unfortunately, Ms. McVay, 49, was “in the wrong place at the wrong time.” So a Capt. Parker Sever goes on to characterize the fact that “the teen stabbed McVay several times and slit her throat” as “a purely random act.”
The law-enforcement officer, who no doubt means well, nonetheless describes a productive worker, striving to clean her car, as “in the wrong place at the wrong time.” But in fact, it is the anonymous teen who is in the wrong place at the wrong time — as if civilization could possibly continue if the majority followed his wrong hours and wrong behavior. Ms. McVay, in fact, was in the right place at the right time, and she should have had every expectation that that she could go to the car wash before work without worry that a murderous gang-banger would slit her throat.
What sort of abjectly amoral society have we become when we metaphorically reduce a productive life to being “in the wrong place at the wrong time” — only to worry that the teen murder suspect and his family might suffer from the disclosure of his identity? Perhaps our civilization and our police forces, in fact, are in the wrong places and at the wrong times when we cannot ensure Ms. McVay the humane expectation of basic safety.
Nor do I think that the killing was quite “a purely random act,” for two reasons: (1) I suspect any gang member, as is the wont of such thugs, has had prior brushes with the law, so the latest may well have been a logical escalation of accustomed gang-related behavior. And (2) the “teen” stole Ms. McVay’s car and cash. That suggests that the murder was in some sense a means to an end as well. Apparently law enforcement terms it a “purely random act” because the unidentified killer, or his post facto accomplice, savvy to the legal consequences of premeditated violence, claims that he saw Ms. McVay and abruptly “decided to kill her.” But why believe a murderer or his associate, when it is at least as likely that the gang-banger left his all-night party looking for somebody to rob and commit violence against?
In truth, the teen was an opportunistic predator, on the prowl for an easy victim, which translated into profiling a woman alone. His killing was “random” only to the extent that had he encountered instead three large men washing down a truck at 5 a.m., he surely would have kept his blade sheathed and passed on by with no thought that he “simply wanted to kill somebody that night.” In short, he did not want to kill just anybody that night: He wanted instead to stab an easy somebody, who might offer little resistance, and perhaps cash and car as a bonus.
Examine what happens next: The murderous teen then “drove to the home of a fellow gang member, Mauricio Ortiz, 18, of Hanford . . . the teen was covered with blood and told Ortiz what he had done. Ortiz helped him ditch the car at Tachi Palace Casino and went with him to Visalia Mall, where the teen used McVay’s money to buy clean clothes.”
The bloody murderer shows up unexpectedly at the home of a friend. Mr. Ortiz apparently decides that such gore is not all that shocking, and so does not suggest that the teen turn himself in, but rather, almost by second nature, helps him to hide the crime. Both gang members apparently know well both the parking lot of the Tachi Palace Casino and the Visalia Mall, where they respectively ditch the car and buy new clothes with the deceased’s hard-earned money. The familiar haunts of a casino and mall do not readily suggest elemental poverty. And did the murderer and his accomplice really go to the mall to buy “clean” clothes? I think it would be more accurate to suggest “new” clothes — given that both undoubtedly had existing spare clothing. Why must we be insulted by taking at face value any such tale, gleaned from either the killer or his accomplice?
It leads us to wonder how many Mauricio Ortizes there are in our area, who at the first suggestion of lucre are quite ready to try to cover up a bloody murder and spend the victim’s cash. If the time comes when there are more of them than there are Denise McVays, civilization is finished.
We end this morality tale with society’s now-standard self-righteous declaration, “The teen, whose name was not released because of his age . . .” — as if we have evolved morally from a hundred years ago, when the suspect would have enjoyed no such exemption. But what really was “his age,” and did it matter whether the anonymous suspect killer who butchered the hard-working Ms. McVay was chronologically 17 or 50? The original intent of the law was apparently to protect the immature pre-adult, but it has now the effect of directing society’s empathy to a sophisticated anonymous killer and away from his publicly identified victim. Note as well that the murder suspect himself earns only Juvenile Hall; his post facto accessory rates the harder county jail — another of a sick society’s messages that we calibrate age far more than savagery.
I have no doubt that in the next two years a good deal of society’s capital will be invested in this unidentified youth and his named accomplice. Preliminary hearings, state-paid public defenders, an array of psychiatrists, and periodic proclamations from the defense team about particular childhood traumas suffered by the killer — all to be followed by years of legal counsel, further psychological examinations and treatment, and of course, if there is a conviction, nearly $40,000 a year in incarceration expenses — as our fast-paced society races onward and upward, without much thought of one productive citizen, Denise McVay, washing her car in the early morning on her way to work. None of us are exempt from such terrible arithmetic, and we now must live with the realization that tomorrow morning any one of us could be written off as either unlucky or unwise in our demise, while the rights of our killer would be obsessed over.
You see, it is characteristic of a morally bankrupt society to be absorbed with the evil living without much remembrance of the more noble dead. The former gang member and his family by all means must not be embarrassed; the dead woman is reduced to being “in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
Enough said.
(hat tip Transterrestrial Musings)
-
Last night I made the mistake of watching a POS flick called "Alpha Dog".
It featured a busload of people that I had no interest in their fate. There wasn't a redeemable one in the lot. One druggie owes another druggie money and sets out to collect. Along the way more and more of these wretched low-lives get ensnared into the cross & double-cross.
(Spoiler Alert!)
The only one who has even a shed of decency gets murdered - and he's a completely innocent bystander.
Why would anyone make a piece of sh!t like this? Who would pay to see it? Who would find any aspect of this attractive?
Bringing this back on point, I only live a dozen miles or so from the same sort of toilet that spawns sub-humans like the murderer of Denise McVay. I see them on a daily basis. I know that they're "bat-azzes" because they telegraph that fact. I on the other hand am invisible - also by choice. As long as their "lifestyle" is tolerated (screw that, it is celebrated! >:() we will continue to be treated to stories like this.
I appreciate VDH's point that she was where she belonged - it was him that had no business where he was, but the unfortunate fact is that unless she had someone posted as backup, she probably shouldn't have been there. There are any number of places I should be able to go but don't - and I'm heavily armed.
What an F'd up world...
-
VDH is always worth a read. He makes excellent points here. But rather than suggest a solution - honoring the productive dead with discretion, and exposing the criminal element for who they are - he only laments the absence of that dynamic and points to is as a sign of our decline.
I think his points are good enough to merit real consideration - not just lamentation. Protecting the rights of the accused is one thing. Treating brutal murderers like children is another. The practice should be ended, and VDH should have used his article to call for it.
-
I like VDH and I think his style has always been somewhat old school...in that he believes if one his educated truthfully to the reality of things people should naturally arrive at the proper solutions to address issues. If he has a fault it is in believing that the vast majority of people in this country are capable of making the proper link of analysis and action. He is a bright fellow so either this is intentional because he believes it or it is because he does not want to be identified with the solution.
-
Normally I don't provide an excerpt and just say read the article. It's VDH. ;)
-
VDH is always worth a read. He makes excellent points here. But rather than suggest a solution - honoring the productive dead with discretion, and exposing the criminal element for who they are - he only laments the absence of that dynamic and points to is as a sign of our decline.
I think his points are good enough to merit real consideration - not just lamentation. Protecting the rights of the accused is one thing. Treating brutal murderers like children is another. The practice should be ended, and VDH should have used his article to call for it.
I have the same problem with Mark Steyn's pieces regarding Western society/culture and islam. Always analysis, never defining a solution. This is what I believe Beck characterized as "admiring the problem".
If he has a fault it is in believing that the vast majority of people in this country are capable of making the proper link of analysis and action. He is a bright fellow so either this is intentional because he believes it or it is because he does not want to be identified with the solution.
VDH chronicles the fact that the vast majority is capable of no such thing -- mainly because they don't know; the media does a stellar job of making sure the pertinent facts are kept hidden.
As for Steyn, he came right out, once and briefly, and admitted he was afraid of the consequences of speaking the truth about immigration.
-
VDH is always worth a read. He makes excellent points here. But rather than suggest a solution - honoring the productive dead with discretion, and exposing the criminal element for who they are - he only laments the absence of that dynamic and points to is as a sign of our decline.
I think his points are good enough to merit real consideration - not just lamentation. Protecting the rights of the accused is one thing. Treating brutal murderers like children is another. The practice should be ended, and VDH should have used his article to call for it.
I have the same problem with Mark Steyn's pieces regarding Western society/culture and islam. Always analysis, never defining a solution. This is what I believe Beck characterized as "admiring the problem".
If he has a fault it is in believing that the vast majority of people in this country are capable of making the proper link of analysis and action. He is a bright fellow so either this is intentional because he believes it or it is because he does not want to be identified with the solution.
VDH chronicles the fact that the vast majority is capable of no such thing -- mainly because they don't know; the media does a stellar job of making sure the pertinent facts are kept hidden.
As for Steyn, he came right out, once and briefly, and admitted he was afraid of the consequences of speaking the truth about immigration.
So VDH like Steyn is affraid of what others might say about them if they offer viable solutions. That is still caving into multi-culti/diversity/pc group-think! This especially is not a very good point in history to pull up short and cross your fingers hoping people act properly on your analysis! God hates a coward, as do I!
::gaah::
I think I need an Ann Barnhardt fix!!!
-
So VDH like Steyn is affraid of what others might say about them if they offer viable solutions. That is still caving into multi-culti/diversity/pc group-think! This especially is not a very good point in history to pull up short and cross your fingers hoping people act properly on your analysis! God hates a coward, as do I!
::gaah::
I think I need an Ann Barnhardt fix!!!
Not just what might be said, what might be done. Remember Steyn had to sit through a Kangaroo Court trial in Canada and that must have been unnerving despite the positive outcome. Nevertheless, it's going to be the high-profile folks taking the leap for it to become commonplace and "respectable" to get down to brass tacks about solutions and that will take courage that I don't yet see. Just look at the opprobrium heaped upon TEA Partiers right now -- all based on lies and misrepresentations.
As far as Ann?
ROGER THAT!
She's willing to go where the men aren't. Sad commentary on our sick society, innit?!
-
So VDH like Steyn is affraid of what others might say about them if they offer viable solutions. That is still caving into multi-culti/diversity/pc group-think! This especially is not a very good point in history to pull up short and cross your fingers hoping people act properly on your analysis! God hates a coward, as do I!
::gaah::
I think I need an Ann Barnhardt fix!!!
Not just what might be said, what might be done. Remember Steyn had to sit through a Kangaroo Court trial in Canada and that must have been unnerving despite the positive outcome. Nevertheless, it's going to be the high-profile folks taking the leap for it to become commonplace and "respectable" to get down to brass tacks about solutions and that will take courage that I don't yet see. Just look at the opprobrium heaped upon TEA Partiers right now -- all based on lies and misrepresentations.
As far as Ann?
ROGER THAT!
She's willing to go where the men aren't. Sad commentary on our sick society, innit?!
Yup.
And (sigh) yup! But I'm thankful she is here!
-
I have the same problem with Mark Steyn's pieces regarding Western society/culture and islam. Always analysis, never defining a solution. This is what I believe Beck characterized as "admiring the problem".
You've already hit on what I believe is the reason for this, and that it's either a) he doesn't know what the solutions are and his writing is meant to implore others to consider what those solutions could be, or that b) he is afraid of saying what he thinks those solutions are.
I agree that it's more likely B, and if you think about the scale of the problem it's easy to see why he and VDH are reluctant to state the solutions with boldness, because those solutions violate every tenet of not just PC dogma but also all the romanticized "melting pot" mythology that so many conservatives have internalized. The solution to the crisis of civilization, in Europe at least, is not simply reducing or even shutting down immigration, it's also rounding up and deporting immigrants already there. That's my opinion, others may think it's too harsh, but I think it's closer to "the answer" and that is why it's not found in any Steyn or VDH articles.
-
Not harsh at all G, I think it pretty much hits the target.
This is just a really horrible time to exhibit any cowardice, no matter how outnumbered or overwhelming the odds may appear...
People in a position to make a difference have to try to make a difference, right?
::whatgives::
Otherwise we are just fooling ourselves and might as well put our toe in the trigger...
-
VDH is a historian and a prolific writer. His articles are linked all over the blogosphere, and I've never seen this kind of criticism anywhere else. It's not the first time I've seen it here, either. Some of you don't seem to like him for some reason. Fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
But what exactly do you think he should be doing?
-
VDH is a historian and a prolific writer. His articles are linked all over the blogosphere, and I've never seen this kind of criticism anywhere else. It's not the first time I've seen it here, either. Some of you don't seem to like him for some reason. Fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
But what exactly do you think he should be doing?
I like VDH just fine, and think he's a brilliant thinker and writer. My only critique here is that he seemed to highlight the problem and neglect suggesting a solution that was begging to be suggested. I kept waiting for him to call for change in the way we coddle juvenile violent offenders and trample the rights of victims in the process, and he never did. Instead, he just pointed to this as yet another sign of our decline. His piece was supporting a powerful case for such a change in how we treat juveniles, but he never made the closing argument.
-
He's a historian, not an editorial writer. Historians describe; they don't prescribe. And I thought the need to change the way we coddle juvenile offenders was blazingly obvious from his article.
-
He's a historian, not an editorial writer. Historians describe; they don't prescribe.
Then the problem is mine, not VDH's.
And I thought the need to change the way we coddle juvenile offenders was blazingly obvious from his article.
Me too! That's why I was left hanging when he never pulled the trigger and drew the conclusion!
-
What conclusion?
-
VDH is a historian and a prolific writer. His articles are linked all over the blogosphere, and I've never seen this kind of criticism anywhere else. It's not the first time I've seen it here, either. Some of you don't seem to like him for some reason. Fair enough. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
But what exactly do you think he should be doing?
No sir. It's not a matter of not liking him at all. He's a very good writer.
Somebody like him and Steyn need to take the next step is all, rickl.
-
What next step? I'm sincerely perplexed. Like I said, he's linked everywhere, and I've never seen this kind of criticism anywhere else.
-
What next step? I'm sincerely perplexed. Like I said, he's linked everywhere, and I've never seen this kind of criticism anywhere else.
Please don't get personally invested in criticism of VDH; it's not meant to denigrate him NOR YOU.
The next step is to openly advocate for what he believes may be a solution. To the extent that events are as dire as they are, someone with his widely-read profile (as with Steyn) needs to do so to help break the ice, so others will be encouraged to do so, too. It's not good enough to keep chronicling - at some point the courage is required to speak boldly about solutions.
Some of us here are a step ahead of "anywhere else", that's why we're here together. You included.
-
I'm not personally invested. No offense taken. But he writes for Pajamas Media and his posts routinely get 100-200 comments, and I haven't seen this type of criticism there, nor on the dozens of other blogs where his articles are linked.
No offense intended, but you're sounding a bit like the Bob Dylan fans I described here (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,2044.msg26234.html#msg26234), who were upset because he didn't sing the songs they thought he should.
(See how easy that was? I said I could turn any thread into a Bob Dylan thread, and by gum, I meant it. ;D)
-
I'm not personally invested. No offense taken. But he writes for Pajamas Media and his posts routinely get 100-200 comments, and I haven't seen this type of criticism there, nor on the dozens of other blogs where his articles are linked.
No offense intended, but you're sounding a bit like the Bob Dylan fans I described here (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,2044.msg26234.html#msg26234), who were upset because he didn't sing the songs they thought he should.
(See how easy that was? I said I could turn any thread into a Bob Dylan thread, and by gum, I meant it. ;D)
Heh. Congratulations; you've done it!
On the serious side, can you not admit, despite all the many comments, that we may have a point in our criticism?
BTW, I've run into some of the same resistance at Grouchy's about Steyn; multiple, and hostile, posts insisting he's to be shielded from this sort of critique, becausebecausebecausebecausebecaaaause, because of the wonderful things he's done .....
-
On the serious side, can you not admit, despite all the many comments, that we may have a point in our criticism?
No, actually I don't, because as I said earlier, "Historians describe; they don't prescribe". He writes what he sees, and it's up to his readers to "take it to the next step".
-
On the serious side, can you not admit, despite all the many comments, that we may have a point in our criticism?
No, actually I don't, because as I said earlier, "Historians describe; they don't prescribe". He writes what he sees, and it's up to his readers to "take it to the next step".
I see. That's his self-described mission, then, purely historian? Don't historians usually write the history afterward?
So, he chronicles the fall of the country around him without stepping forward to promote a solution when he has the pulpit and the audience to which to do it. Cowardly, I say.
We'll have to agree to disagree here, I suppose.
-
In this case, he's writing history in the present tense. He's writing what he observes, and is chronicling in real time what may well turn out to be the decline and fall of Western Civilization.
I simply don't understand why you think he should be doing something more than that.
Again, what "solution" do you think he should be proposing? Have you e-mailed him about it?
-
Possibly, it is that he writes with such smooth and precise clarity one feels that he (and Steyn) are the advocates conservatism is severely missing. Personally, I would speculate that he is repulsed by the political harlotry and considers presenting accurate observations his best road. I don't think he's a man who fears.
-
Possibly, it is that he writes with such smooth and precise clarity one feels that he (and Steyn) are the advocates conservatism is severely missing. Personally, I would speculate that he is repulsed by the political harlotry and considers presenting accurate observations his best road. I don't think he's a man who fears.
Thank you.
-
In this case, he's writing history in the present tense. He's writing what he observes, and is chronicling in real time what may well turn out to be the decline and fall of Western Civilization.
I simply don't understand why you think he should be doing something more than that.
Again, what "solution" do you think he should be proposing? Have you e-mailed him about it?
There is no such thing as history in the present tense, by definition.
his·to·ry
? ?[his-tuh-ree, his-tree] Show IPA
noun, plural -ries.
1.
the branch of knowledge dealing with past events.
2.
a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle: a history of France; a medical history of the patient.
3.
the aggregate of past events.
4.
the record of past events and times, especially in connection with the human race.
5.
a past notable for its important, unusual, or interesting events: a ship with a history.
No, I haven't emailed him about it. Do you suggest a badgering of him as Dylan experienced, one that you derogate?
It's a criticism and an observation, rickl. Why does it stick in your craw?
-
OK, whatever. I'll let it drop. You're entitled to your opinion.
It's just not an opinion I've ever seen anywhere else, is all I'm saying. But that's fine.
-
What conclusion?
The conclusion you and I both see so plainly. He never advocates for the obvious. He's a historian, fine. As you say. Still, as I read, I was expecting someone of his weight and audience to draw the conclusion I believe his piece supported, and I was left wanting.
It doesn't mean I don't think he's a good writer. As I said, I think he's a brilliant writer and thinker. His observations are spot-on. This particular piece left me feeling like I read something incomplete.
-
Steak tartare.
-
I don't think he pretends to be any thing other than just someone observing what this nation is becoming. Anything beyond that is for the actual advocates.