Postmodern riots

Back in August, a police officer shot a black teenager in Ferguson, Missouri.  According to media accounts, the teenager was unarmed and shot from a distance, suggesting an egregious case of police brutality.  That’s what it seemed like even to conservatives like Rand Paul and to this blog.  But the testimony of two eyewitnesses, the autopsy results, and other forensic evidence has proven that this was not what happened.  It turns out, the teenager was attacking the officer and was shot during a scuffle, during which the assailant was trying to get the officer’s gun, followed by a brief chase and the teenager rushing the officer.

This was the finding of the grand jury investigating the case, so no charges against the officer are being filed.  Keep in mind that a grand jury is run by the prosecutor’s office and that the authorities had every incentive to make the officer a scapegoat to prevent the kind of riots that broke out in August.   And yet the jurors were going by the facts.

Nevertheless, riots have erupted.  Businesses are being looted, police are being fired upon by automatic weapons, and Ferguson is basically being burned to the ground.

I know that the local protesters do not believe the legal establishment.  I’ll be curious to see if political liberals –who often claim to be “the fact-based” or “the reality-based” or “the science-based” community–will side with the protesters, despite what the evidence proves.

Since postmodernists believe there is no objective truth, that truth claims are nothing but political constructions, I suspect they will.  They will think that the legal system constructed a plausibility paradigm that suggests the police officer is innocent in order as an imposition of their power.  And they will think nothing of constructing an alternative politically-motivated truth-claim of their own. [Read more...]

Supreme Court takes up Facebook threats

Does this message from an estranged husband to his wife after she filed a restraining order against him sound like a threat to you?

“Fold up your PFA [protection-from-abuse order] and put it in your pocket.  Is it thick enough to stop a bullet?”

Does it matter that it was posted on his Facebook page?  The poster is claiming that rants posted on social media should not be taken seriously and should have free speech protection.  The poster argues that his violent fantasies about killing his wife are no different from what his hero, Eminem, raps about and so deserve protection as artistic expressions.

The Supreme Court has taken up the case.  Oral arguments begin December 1.  What do you think about this?

[Read more...]

Amnesty by decree

President Obama has issued an executive order protecting some 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation.

On what authority, you may ask?  He is invoking the principle of “prosecutor discretion,” under which a law enforcement officer may choose, for example, which speeders to chase down.  So here the Executive Branch, charged with carrying out the laws passed by the Legislative Branch, is just choosing not to enforce the law against illegal immigrants unless they have committed other crimes.  (But in forbidding immigration officials from enforcing the law, isn’t he taking away their “prosecutor discretion”?) [Read more...]

The Marriage Pledge?

Some ministers are signing a “marriage pledge” promising not to sign state marriage licenses as a protest against legalized gay marriage.

This strikes me as a terrible, if well-intentioned, idea.  Doesn’t this mean that the marriages performed by these pastors won’t be legally recognized, unless the couple goes through a separate civil service?  Also, at least for Lutherans but also for most Protestants, marriage is not a sacrament; rather, it falls under the responsibility of the Kingdom of the Left, so that it falls under civil jurisdiction.  (The Reformers fought hard to get marriage out from under the restrictions of the church’s Canon Law into the laws of the state.) In a wedding, the church blesses the marriage in God’s name, which is very important, but it doesn’t create a marriage in a sacramental sense.  (It would for Catholics, so I can see how they could sign a marriage pledge, but I can’t see how Protestants could.  That marriage has to do with the temporal authorities does not mean that the state can create new definitions of marriage, but it still has a legitimate legal authority that we are obliged to honor.)

So I don’t see how the marriage pledge can be either legally or theologically correct.  But maybe I’m missing something, so I’m open to correction.  Read the pledge after the jump. [Read more...]

Immigration amnesty by executive order

President Obama, having been unable to get his way in Congress and now faced with a Republican majority in both houses, is reportedly preparing to impose immigration reform by executive fiat. granting amnesty to millions of people who are here illegally. [Read more...]

Two ways towards Net Neutrality

President Obama has embraced the principle of “net neutrality,” meaning that internet providers shouldn’t charge some big-content providers more than others.  Towards that end, the President wants to regulate the internet like any other utility.  As opposed to just tailoring a specific and limited regulation dealing with the issue.  He wants to take over the whole online universe, using a public-utility law written in 1934. [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X