Monday, June 15, 2015

Crime & Punishment


The role of the police in 2015 America has suddenly become such a contentious issue that even presidential candidates have been forced to offer comments. Not too surprisingly, Hillary Clinton has opted to come out on the same side as Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Loretta Lunch, Al Sharpton, Bill Di Blasio and the lizard ladies of Baltimore, Marilyn Mosby and Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, in favor of the rioters and in opposition to the cops.

But that’s not too surprising if you’ve read Ron Kessler's books about the Secret Service in which he quotes past and present agents discussing Mrs. Clinton’s open contempt for the military and the members of law enforcement, including, incredibly, even those responsible for protecting her, Bill and Chelsea.

Nobody on the Left ever wants to discuss the abominable way the black community treats cops, only to parrot the complaints of those in the community, including street thugs and the sleazy members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who have a vested interest in promoting an “Us against Them” narrative.

Years ago, when I was working as a copywriter in an ad agency, I had a friend who had a friend, a white college graduate who decided to become a cop for all the right, idealistic, reasons. My friend reported that a year later, after his friend had spent several months in a black-and-white, patrolling a pre-riot Watts, he was referring to the members of the community as the Mau-Mau.

First, the liberals told us we don’t need our guns because we have the cops to protect us. Then they told the cops to stand down.

Which brings us to my new favorite bumper sticker: It shows the back of a cop’s shirt. On it is written “My job is to save your ass. Not kiss it.”

When I recently wrote that I would make computer hacking a capital crime, I wasn’t referring to the sort of state-funded stuff that governments such as China, Russia and, yes, the U.S., all engage in, as they try to find out each other’s secrets. I was referring to the stuff that nerds do for no other reason than to aggravate other people. When someone wrote to suggest that I was going overboard, that the punishment should fit the crime, I told him, as respectfully as I could, that he was all wet.

The sad fact is that the punishment never fits the crime. Even when it comes to murder, the killer generally gets off with a mere prison term. Besides, even if he’s executed, how can that make up for his killing and possibly raping and torturing his victim? And if he killed more than one person, the imbalance becomes even greater.

We know that if there were no risk of punishment, there would be even more murders committed. But we don’t know how big a deterrent capital punishment is because nobody ever announces how many people he didn’t murder because of it. What we do know is that certain people kill in spite of the risk.

However, when people do things just for the sake of annoying people, motivated not by a profit motive or even for revenge, but just because they’re punks -- be it hacking a stranger’s computer or spray painting somebody’s wall -- my guess is that they’d think twice about it if they risked being executed if caught.

Such prominent leftists as Barack Obama and Pope Francis have decided that in a world beset with such existential dangers as Islamo-fascism, an expansionist China, a Stalin wannabe named Putin and a psycho named Kim Jong-un, the thing we really have to worry about is a globe that hasn’t shown any signs of warming over the past two decades. If nothing else, it should prove to skeptics that just because people such as presidents and popes are duly elected doesn’t mean a damn thing if those casting the votes are pinheads.

Some people like to deride social conservatives as being on the wrong side of history simply because polls indicate that a majority of young people favor government-funded abortions, same-sex marriages and legalized drugs. All it really shows is how many millions of parents have stood idly by while the left-wing schools and media have turned their impressionable young brains into mush, convincing the young louts that being empty headed and non-judgmental is synonymous with being broad-minded.

In case you missed the news, a report that Science magazine had published on gays was retracted when the editors discovered that the report was basically a work of fiction with no statistical underpinnings. What’s more, bribes had been paid in the process of putting together the phony data.

Although I had been unaware of the original article, I was not the least bit surprised that, as with the global warming hoax, it turned out to be the inevitable result of a political agenda and had nothing to do with actual science.

When it comes to homosexuality, which has labored for years to appear far more commonplace than it actually is, the best advice is to divide the purported number of sexual deviants by five or ten in order to approach the actual figure.

For some reason, those engaged in research on the topic-- people like Havelock Ellis, Alfred Kinsey, William Masters and Virginia Johnson -- seem obligated to inflate the numbers, perhaps as a way to magnify the importance of their labors.

I can only imagine that when they got word that Science magazine had acknowledged the error of its ways, the four of them all started spinning in their graves. That, as I see it, is only fitting, considering how much spinning they did when they were still alive.

A reader wrote to ask me if I thought that now that Bruce Jenner is calling himself Caitlyn and posing for a Vanity Fair cover in a fetching one-piece bathing suit, he/she should be allowed to compete in track competitions as a woman.

I reminded him that 40 years ago, Richard Raskind underwent radical surgery and emerged as Renee Richards, and demanded to play tournament tennis as a woman, albeit a 6’2” woman. After being initially turned down by the officials at the U.S. Open, Richards won in the courts, where lunacy is often known to prevail. Renee went on to compete for about five years and even wound up the subject of a 1986 TV movie starring, ironically, the virulently anti-Semitic Vanessa Redgrave as the transgendered Jewess.

My correspondent then asked, if Bruce Jenner wound up competing in female track meets and set records, I thought asterisks would be appropriate.

After giving it some thought, I decided asterisks would be out of place so long as Jenner elected to have them removed before competing.

©2015 Burt Prelutsky. Comments? BurtPrelutsky@aol.com.