AMERICAN CULTURAL REVOLUTION II -- WHERE IS THE WHITE ANGER?

                It has come to this.

                A white Democrat presidential candidate, the former Governor of Maryland, decides that he must apologize for expressing the self-evident truth that "white lives matter." 

                The groveling Quisling in question is Martin O'Malley, and he was actually booed off the stage by afro-racist democrats after he dared insinuate that the lives of whites, Hispanics, and Asians might be just as important as the lives of blacks.  Specifically, after O’Malley said, “Every life matters. And that is why this issue is so important.  Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter,” the angry rabble booed and shouted at him.

                Rather than standing up to this howling mob, O'Malley quickly capitulated to them in an act of shameful racial treachery.  He even went so far as to expressly recant, cravenly conceding that his indisputable statement – i.e., that "white lives matter" – was a "mistake."

                Think for a moment about the incredible level of abject cowardice and self-hatred to which such a man has descended.  In order to appease the demands of a malicious crowd of race-baiting radicals, this sorry excuse for an American is willing to recant his statement that "white lives" and "all lives" matter -- therefore implying that they do not matter, and that only black lives matter.

                Someone should remind this deranged poltroon that his wife and daughters (if he has any) are living "white lives," and that his cowardly kowtow to the frenzied mobs of the so-called Netroots Nation demonstrates his willingness to subordinate the members of his own family to the assertions of black primacy that the shameless Democratic Party has elevated to the status of ideological dogma.

                One's first impulse is to exclaim, "That's insane."  But the sad reality is that O'Malley, and millions of flustered whites like him, are not really insane.  It is rather that their values, morals, and notions of personal and familial self-worth have been twisted into a grotesque parody of the unwarranted white guilt harbored by liberals, democrats, and even many republicans far beyond its proper expiration date.

                As outlined in SR's last post, the ultra-radicalism of today's leftist Democratic hordes has taken on the character of the crazed Red Guards in China's disastrous Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR).  Even more disturbingly, millions of craven Americans are succumbing passively to this radical onslaught, just as the Chinese nation, to its enormous cost, allowed itself to be coerced and intimidated by mobs of radical youths who could have been quickly subdued by even a modicum of determined and organized resistance.

                In the face of the racial radicals' subversive exploitation of the slogan that "black lives matter," coupled with its obnoxious and hateful corollary that it is heresy to insist that white lives matter just as much, one is forced to ask:  Where is the White Anger?  When will a majority of white Americans come to grips with the fact, long recognized by SR and other truth-telling outlets, that the anti-white and anti-law enforcement animus of the racial radicals and their Democratic and liberal allies presents a serious threat that must be acknowledged, resisted, and overcome?

                Perhaps the tipping point will be reached when the radical racialists push their current campaign to denigrate the leading white icons of American history to a level of lunacy that even the most passive and feckless of white Americans will find intolerable.

                                                                     

       If the racial radicals come for Stonewall, it could be an ugly Third Manassas

                            

                This anti-historical madness came to a head following the murder of a group of innocent black church-goers by a deranged white madman in South Carolina.  The proper reaction to this appalling tragedy would have been sincere mourning for the victims, strong support and sympathy for their surviving families, and an uncompromising criminal prosecution of the evil perpetrator to assure his prompt execution.

                Instead, both black and white racial agitators exploited the event to instigate a fanatical, rabid assault on the white race, white southern heritage, the Confederacy, and the many worthy heroes of the Confederacy during the Civil War.

                First, the Governor of South Carolina succumbed to pressure from racial agitators and their Democrat and media allies and spinelessly signed sacrificial legislation to remove the Confederate flag from the state capitol grounds.  That flag had flown there harmlessly for decades with no discernible adverse effect on blacks or whites.  Its removal was nothing more than a deliberate insult and repudiation to southern heritage and traditions.  It was done to appease and ingratiate racial agitators and their supporters, to the deliberate detriment of southern white traditionalists who honor and respect the Confederate flag for reasons of culture and heritage rather than racial animus.

                But the removal of that flag was only the beginning of an expanding racial assault on all the memorials, statues, and other relics that commemorate the brave men who served honorably on the Confederate side in the Civil War. This was and is a deliberate and direct attack on the heritage and ancestry of millions of decent American southerners.

                In the benighted city of Memphis, the vindictive City Council voted unanimously to exhume the body of Confederate General Nathan Bedford, as well as that of his wife, and move it to another location.  When the city did not move quickly enough to execute this act of wretched barbarism due to legal barriers, a lawless horde from something laughably called the Commission on Religion and Racism grabbed shovels and dug up a patch of ground near the General's grave. 

                In Atlanta, meanwhile, the racialist radicals are contemplating an even more audacious assault on southern heritage and sensibilities, not to mention basic American history.  There, the spiteful extremists of the NAACP are demanding that the gigantic historical monument to the three most revered leaders of the Confederacy – Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis – be sandblasted into oblivion from the Rushmore-like memorial at Stone Mountain, Georgia. 

                With this outrageous demand, the Atlanta NAACP places itself in the company of such fellow barbarians as Afghanistan's notorious Taliban, who earned international condemnation and contempt when they blasted the revered mountain-side sculptures of the Buddhas of Bamiyan from the cliffs on which they had been sculpted.  Fortunately, the organization responsible for the Stone Mountain Memorial is private and self-supporting, so these racist Philistenes will not be able to achieve their boorish objective by simply intimidating spineless governors or legislators.

                Still, the crude logic of the afro-racist attack on all things commemorating the Confederacy may lead to some testy confrontations that these agitators may yet come to regret.  Already, in Arkansas, Florida, Tennessee, and Oklahoma, staunch supporters of Southern heritage have rallied in aggressive support of the Confederate flag in demonstrations, motorcades, truck convoys, and biker rallies.  

                If the anti-Confederate marauders try to take on, for example, the revered statue of Stonewall Jackson that proudly holds center-stage at the First Manassas Battlefield in Virginia, they might find themselves facing a phalanx of furious physical opposition that would make them wish they were back in the state legislature, facing only gutless and submissive politicians.  

                                                                        

        Deranged Democrats want to disassociate themselves from the great Thomas Jefferson

                But it is the gutless and submissive politicians of the Democratic Party that have allowed the race-based assault against the icons of American history to be extended beyond the relatively "soft targets" of the Confederacy.  Now the left's Racial Red Guards have turned their crazed eyes to the Nation's most revered Patriots and Founding Fathers.

                The Democratic Party of Connecticut has taken the lead in this lunacy.  The Democratic State Central Committee – which not only sounds like something straight out of Maoist China, but acts accordingly – recently voted unanimously to expunge the names of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson from the language it had long used to commemorate the party's heritage in describing the party's annual dinner.  Unsurprisingly, they acted in abject submission to the urgings of the racially relentless NAACP.  The accompanying resolution passed by these brain-addled poltroons stated:  "As members of the Democratic Party, we are proud of our history as the party of inclusion.  Democrats have led the way on civil rights, LGBT equality and equal rights for women. … It is only fitting that the name of the party's most visible annual event reflects our dedication to diversity and forward-looking vision.''  So much for the two presidents who have long stood at the top of the traditional Democratic Party's roster of heroes.

                Apart from the blatant falsehoods in the Party's statement – Republicans, not Democrats, led the way in voting for the Civil Right Act of 1964, for example – it is revealing that these pettifogging Democrats are so committed to obliterating commemoration of the great Thomas Jefferson while embracing the canard of so-called "LGBT equality." 

                Jefferson was not only one of the foremost giants among the Founding Fathers, and not only the author of the Declaration of Independence, but one of the most forceful advocates of the very democratic principles that the so-called Democratic Party purports to embrace.  A genuine Renaissance Man and diversified inventor, he mastered disciplines ranging from politics to philosophy to architecture to agronomy. On top of all that, he authored the historic Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom (the precursor of the First Amendment's religion clauses) and was the Father of the University of Virginia, one of America's earliest and greatest universities.  

               So extensive were Jefferson's accomplishments that President Jack Kennedy once quipped, when honoring a group of Nobel Prize winners gathered at the White House, "I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House, with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."  It is indeed depressing to note how far the Democratic Party has descended from the days when the likes of Jack Kennedy had a keen appreciation for the true greats of American history, unfiltered by the twisted resentments of party constituencies.

                In short, Thomas Jefferson puts to abject shame the mental and moral midgets who seek to denigrate his legacy. Although he did own large numbers of slaves -- an institution embedded in the southern plantation system which men like Jefferson inherited, rather than supported – he supported the gradual emancipation of  the slaves as early as 1779.  He supported a gradualist approach rather than immediate and unconditional emancipation because he believed, with good reason, that releasing unprepared slaves with no place to go and no practical means to support themselves would bring misfortune rather than good fortune.  

               But in the tiny, race-obsessed minds of today's Democrats and radical afro-racists, Jefferson's inherited status as a slave-owner supersedes all his historical achievements, including those which helped provide these ingrates the very freedoms they exercise in seeking to defame one of the genuine giants of American History.

                Ravenous with the media-fueled successes of their attacks on the white icons of the Civil War, and now even the Revolutionary War, America's race-obsessed latter-day Red Guards might next turn their twisted rage against the greatest icon of all, George Washington himself.  Should this vengeful movement descend to such shameful and lunatic depths, it may at last foment the dormant anger of not only heretofore docile white patriots, but outraged patriots of all races.

THE OMINOUS AMERICAN CULTURAL REVOLUTION

            As a somewhat close student of Chinese history, I had always thought that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) of 1966-74, initiated by Mao Zedong, was the most extreme example of an entire nation undergoing a form of mass insanity, or mass mind alteration, in modern times.  But what remains of the erstwhile United States is presently experiencing a collective surrender of reason that in many respects is even more radical and insidious. 

             The Cultural Revolution, after all, only worsened a nation and political culture that was already immersed in extreme communist totalitarianism and mass conformity.  In contrast, the currently deranged United States remained at least a modestly reasonable democratic republic, with considerable remaining strongholds of liberty and individualism, as recently as 2008. 

                But now those strongholds and remnants of liberty and decency are rapidly disappearing, as American continues its depressing descent into a destructive and nasty cultural revolution of its own.

                                                                   

             China's Red Guards:  Forerunners of Mass Madness in Obama's America

                During the GPCR, China was essentially taken over by hordes of radical Maoist youth, known as Red Guards.  They roamed the country at will, imposing their most extreme notions of Maoist political correctness upon a cowed and craven citizenry.  With almost no tradition of individualism or civil liberties, there was no one to resist or confront the mindless political lunacy that swept across China.

                A striking hallmark of the GPCR was its utter contempt for Chinese cultural or historical traditions – even recent ones.  Not even the most revered colleagues of Mao, who had been with him through the Long March to the triumphant takeover of Beijing in 1949, were immune from the ravenous attacks of the Red Guards.  Men who had been revolutionary icons were pilloried, humiliated, and driven to "re-education camps" when the Red Guard mobs attacked them as "capitalist roaders" or "bourgeoisie reactionaries." 

                The GPCR and the Red Guards then set out to destroy what they referred to as "The Four Olds" – old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas.  Mao specifically charged his cadres to attack and destroy "traditional values," with no distinction between good ones (like respect for education) and bad ones (like subordination of women).  Any resistance to this monolithic political and cultural upheaval was ruthlessly suppressed.  Almost overnight, the ideas, standards, and beliefs that had been embraced and accepted by virtually the entire Chinese nation were deemed anathema, and anyone who clung to them – or even failed to condemn them with sufficient conviction – was subjected to public humiliation, political show trials, or banishment to the Chinese equivalents of the Gulag in Xinjiang or other grim hinterlands.

                Which brings us to America in 2015:  the era of the lawless Obama presidency, the oligarchical tyranny of a corrupt U.S. Supreme Court, a supine and spineless Congress, and a cowed conformist populace that is only too glad to surrender the liberties and values bequeathed to them by their generational betters.

                All these circumstance have combined to subject the United States to a dark and degenerate cultural revolution of its own, completely upending the traditions, standards, and moral principles bequeathed to us by the giants and geniuses of the American Revolution, the Civil War, and other pillars of our history.

                Just as Mao and his allies unleashed cadres of rabid Red Guards to impose monolithic Mao Thought upon the Chinese people, Obama, the Supreme Court "Gang of Five," and their media minions have unleashed a political and cultural tyranny that is making mincemeat of constitutional government, individual liberties, and the longstanding moral and cultural traditions of the United States.

                Examples of America's overnight descent into a perverse cultural and political degeneracy abound.  Both high and low, prominent and nameless, legions of lost Americans have suddenly turned their backs on values, beliefs, standards, and traditions that, only yesterday, they firmly embraced.

                What was immoral and evil for nearly all of human history, has suddenly, and inexplicably, become admirable and good.  Conversely, beliefs and standards that were honored and accepted by virtually all Americans and other civilized humans for millennia, and as recently as two decades ago, are now condemned and reviled as not only wrong and mean-spirited, but deserving of societal condemnation and persecution.  The society's most basic moral beliefs and principles have been turned utterly upside down in less than two decades, and in the case of millions of Americans, in a matter of several years.

                This complete and sudden reversal – not merely change, but utter reversal – of accepted standards and norms has been most emphatic in the area of sexual morality and the institution of marriage.  This is probably the most radical and fundamental change brought about by the American Cultural Revolution (ACR) – especially if one reviews where we recently were, and where we now are, over a very short span of historical time.

                Americans of all stripes generally agree on describing the men and women who combined to defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in World War II as the Greatest Generation.  And there can be no doubt that the revered members of the Greatest Generation almost uniformly considered homosexual activity disgusting, harmful, and fundamentally immoral.  Further, the warped concept of so-called same-sex marriage would have been so utterly bizarre to the men and women of the 1940's (and the 50's, 60's, and 70's, for that matter) that their only response to a question of whether they approved of it would have been:  "Are you out of your mind?  What lunatic came up with that sick idea?"  

               There is no exaggeration in these statements of simple historical truth.  That is "the way we were," plain and simple.

                American society's overwhelming disapproval of homosexual sex – let alone the biological oxymoron of two men "marrying" one another – generally held firm for the remainder of the twentieth century.  As recently as 1987 – when the Bangles and Bon Jovi were topping the pop charts – 75% of Americans expressed their firm conviction that homosexual relations were always wrong.  And in 1988, only 11% of Americans expressed approval of same-sex marriage (SSM).

                Fast forward to the disjointed and dismal year of 2015.  In the space of an historical micro-second, millions of Americans abruptly abandoned and repudiated the standards of sexual morality and family structure they had held from childhood.  Just as occurred in Mao's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, a relentless, monolithic movement orchestrated by government, a left-wing political party, and a subordinate media imposed its will upon a cowed and compliant populace -- a nation of conformist sheep.

                Homosexual activities that had been illegal, immoral, and almost universally deplored only years before were suddenly not only legal and beyond reproach, but admirable and even celebrated.  Major American cities were suddenly teeming with pro-homosexual parades and festivals, with officials and politicians of all stripes falling over themselves to outdo each other in endorsing and embracing the sodomite lifestyle.

                

                This radical inversion of cultural and moral standards was consummated with the U.S. Supreme Court's preposterous holding that the U.S. Constitution somehow mandates the states' validation and blessing of "marriages" between two men or two women.  The politically and ideologically corrupt majority of five justices – America's own "Gang of Five" – perversely held that the liberties guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment somehow included the "right" of two men to demand that the state authenticate their unnatural homosexual union as a valid marriage -- of equal standing with the natural marriage of one man and one woman. 

                But when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted back in 1868, homosexual sodomy was universally condemned and criminalized by all the states.  Marriage was universally limited to heterosexual unions, and the suggestion that two men could "marry" – let alone that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed their right to do so – would have been met with appalled and outraged derision by every single state legislator who participated in its adoption.  In short, the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision ascribes to the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment an intent that is conclusively contradicted by the indisputably demonstrated beliefs and understandings of those men.

                A more distorted, illogical, and fraudulent assault on rational constitutional analysis would be difficult to concoct.  The corrupt Justice Anthony Kennedy's "opinion" for the court was nothing more than a free-flowing, stream-of-consciousness expression of his own maudlin and prurient philosophical preferences, bearing no discernible relationship to the text and history of the Constitution.  In short, Kennedy's opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges has more in common with James Joyce's Ulysses than it does with the jurisprudence of Marbury v. Madison.

                Yet Kennedy and the rest of the Court's Gang of Five could feel confident and comfortable that their deranged and lawless ruling would be embraced and welcomed by predominant portions of the media, the political culture, academia, and a compliant general populace.  The Orwellian atmosphere of cowed and mindless conformity  imposed by the American Cultural Revolution assured no less. 

                One thing is certain about the mass conversion of Americans from their long-held understandings about the morality of homosexual practices and the historical institution of marriage between man and woman as ordained by nature itself:  It did not result from any thoughtful and deliberate reconsideration or analysis of those understandings.

                There is not the slightest evidence that millions of ill-educated Americans suddenly discovered the egregious historical mistake of limiting marriage to male-and-female from a studious examination of the literature, data, and studies on these issues.  After all, it never occurred to the great inquiring minds of history, from Confucius to Ptolemy to Newton to Einstein, that human civilization had fundamentally erred in its universal limitation of the core institution of marriage to man-and-woman.  It is hardly credible that the untutored masses of the superficial civilization of the present age would somehow discover an egregious civilization mistake that had somehow escaped the detection of history's intellectual giants.

                Rather, it is evident from both the suddenness and superficiality of this mass conversion that it reflects nothing more than feckless capitulation to the prevailing mores and convictions of the leftist-dominated political and media culture.   Just as the Chinese people cowered and capitulated before the onslaught of Mao's rabid Red Guards, much of the American population have abjectly abandoned their standards of sexual morality and social sanity rather than resist the relentless, Orwellian onslaught of the American Cultural Revolution orchestrated by the Obamist totalitarians and their media minions.

                So complete and craven is the popular submission to this cultural and moral madness that congressional Democrats can call for the actual eradication of the terms "husband" and "wife" from the federal statute books without eliciting more than a murmur of resistance.

                But the deranged subversion of civilizational standards of sexual morality and family structure is but one manifestation – albeit a glaring one – of the dystopian cultural revolution that has descended on America.  Splashing Rocks will next examine the ACR's accelerating onslaught against the values, culture, traditions and, indeed, the basic rights of White Americans – and the obvious question of, where is the White Anger?

CUOMO IS MORALLY COMPLICIT IN NEW YORK PRISON ESCAPE

       For some two weeks now, two dangerous convicted murderers have roamed at large in upstate New York or parts beyond.  Richard Matt and David Sweat managed a brilliantly planned and executed escape from the maximum security Clinton Correctional Facility that has utterly confounded state authorities.

     At this writing, the legions of police and investigators employed on the case -- estimated to be at least 800 personnel -- remain clueless as to even the general location and route of the escaped duo.  The cost of this massive recapture operation is undoubtedly enormous, but New York authorities are understandably unenthusiastic about revealing the multi-millions involved.  At the federal level, the U.S. Marshals Service has added the duo to the list of America's Most Wanted.

       New York's liberal Democratic Governor, Andrew Cuomo, has taken a highly visible and active role in the state's response, although he possesses no apparent qualifications or experience that would make any genuine contribution to the locate-and-retrieval operation.  The fugitive-hunting skills of a liberal New York lawyer-politician are not to be confused with those of Dog the Bounty Hunter, or Lieutenant Girard in pursuit of Dr. Richard Kimble.  Cuomo would have done better to stay at his desk in Albany and leave the recapture operation to the cops and marshals, as those officers would undoubtedly confirm under grant of immunity.

                                                                 

                                                                 (hawaiimagazine.co)                    
                       Cuomo should leave fugitive-hunting to The Hunters

       Media pundits have debated whether Governor Cuomo has helped or hurt himself politically by assuming such a high-profile role in the escape crisis.  Some say it has provided a useful distraction from the more pedestrian and banal political bickering with the state legislature, making the governor appear (however falsely) preoccupied with more pressing matters of public safety.  Others note, in contrast, that the governor may appear out of his element in purporting to spearhead an operation that is best left in the hands of law enforcement and investigative operatives -- especially if the search drags on in futility or, even worse, the escapees commit further murders or crimes of violence.

       But Cuomo may have a more profound and personal motivation for his obviously intense and anxious involvement in the matter.  He may reluctantly recognize that the serious civic danger and disruption posed by the escape, and any deaths, injuries, or other harms that may yet result from it, may be attributable to the legal and policy predilections so zealously espoused by himself and his liberal cohorts.  Even if Cuomo does not come to that recognition -- and being a doctrinaire liberal, such a recognition is most unlikely -- Splashing Rocks will do it for him.

       One of Cuomo's responses to the crisis was to order an investigation by the state inspector general into "all factors" that were involved in the escape.  As Cuomo explained, "It is critically important to examine the circumstances that enabled these inmates to escape in the first place."

       But Cuomo could save himself and the state much unnecessary investigative cost and effort by acknowledging one decisive "factor" that indisputably allowed these murderers to escape and endanger the citizens of upstate New York and beyond.

       If Cuomo and his liberal ilk had not so effectively destroyed the state's ability to impose the death penalty, the two escapees would have been far too dead to escape from prison or anywhere else.

       Both Matt and Sweat were imprisoned for murders that would have been eligible for the death penalty under the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause. Richard Matt cruelly tortured his victim in an automobile trunk before murdering him and dismembering his body. David Sweat murdered a law enforcement officer in cold blood.

       Both of these murders thus included "aggravating circumstances" that would have subjected these men to capital punishment in a state that permits it.  But New York does not allow capital punishment -- thanks in large part to leftist officials, legislators, and lawyers like Andrew Cuomo.  If New York did authorize and enforce the death penalty, Matt and Sweat would have never had the opportunity to escape from prison, endanger the safety and security of thousands of people, force the costly deployment and diversion of at least 800 police officers, and possibly commit additional murders or other violent felonies while at large.

       Andrew Cuomo has long been adamantly opposed to the death penalty and has made it a major policy point in his political career.  For example, he wrote a NY Times op-ed piece in 2004 urging the New York legislature to reject efforts to enact an enforceable death penalty (the N.Y. death penalty statute that technically lingered on the books had been declared unconstitutional and unenforceable).  Among other canards and distortions in his article, Cuomo stated that "there remains no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime."  Cuomo's statement is simply false, and the escape of the Dannemora murderers aptly demonstrates why.

       Cuomo either ignores, or doesn't understand, that there are two kinds of deterrence, specific and general.  Specific deterrence simply means that an executed person is absolutely and specifically "deterred" from committing any more murders or other crimes.  This is not some jesuitical or theoretical point, but an entirely valid and practical justification for capital punishment in itself.

       Nor, as emphatically proven by the Dannemora breakout and others preceding it, is life imprisonment an effective alternative in that respect.  Both Matt and Sweatt are free to commit murder or other crimes because their life imprisonment, even in a maximum security facility, was inadequate to prevent their determined escape.  And their case is hardly unique.  The escape of the notorious Mecklenburg Six death row inmates from a maximum security Virginia prison in 1984 is another prime example that capital punishment provides the only certain form of specific deterrence.

       When a state surrenders the option of executing the likes of, say, Hannibal Lecter, it requires some poor prison personnel to guard, feed, and provide medical care to such a menacing and dangerous monster.  And it runs the risk that such a monster may escape and resume his murderous career.

       Cuomo's arrogant dismissal of the death penalty's deterrent effect is especially and demonstrably fallacious in the case of escaped inmates who are serving life sentences without possibility of parole. Because Cuomo and his liberal cohorts have succeeded in completely excluding resort to the death penalty in New York, there is little, if any, reason for escapees like Matt and Sweat to fear meaningful additional punishment should they commit additional murders or other serious crimes while at large.  They could sneer at their captors, "What are you gonna do, send me to life imprisonment at Dannemora?  LOL, suckers!"

       That is the consequence of New York's abandonment of the "general deterrence" provided by the death penalty, wholly apart from its abandonment of capital punishment's utility as a specific and foolproof deterrent as to murderers who are actually executed.  Not all potential murderers are deterred by the prospect of being executed by the state -- fanatics and lunatics, for example -- but most are.  It is simple, inescapable logic that the more severe a penalty, the greater its deterrent effect; our whole system of escalating punishments calibrated to the severity of the crime is based upon this logic.  And execution is the ultimate penalty.  If murderers did not fear execution more than life imprisonment, they would not desperately pursue every possible legal avenue to avoid execution in favor of life imprisonment.    

       So when death penalty abolitionists like Cuomo argue that there is "no evidence that the death penalty is a deterrent," they are perpetrating a massive fraud.  They are glibly and dishonestly equating the valid point that the death penalty is an imperfect deterrent with the fraudulent myth that it has no deterrent effect at all.   And the danger, expense, and disruption occasioned by the Great Escape from Dannemora is but one example of the cost to society occasioned by the "success" of Cuomo and his fellow liberals in depriving New York of any resort to the death penalty -- even when it would be demonstrably just and efficacious.

          That the New York escapees were serving mere terms of imprisonment -- with the now indisputable potential for escape and further crime -- rather than rendered conclusively harmless and "deterred" following a capital sentence and execution is both morally and legally outrageous.  Mr. Matt was not only a recidivist murderer -- one in the U.S. and one in Mexico -- but the murder for which he was serving time in New York was an especially heinous torture-murder that cried out for capital retribution. As New York prosecutor Joseph Mordino (a veteran of over 200 murder cases) told a Niagara County judge:  "Of all the cases I've tried this would top my list for the death penalty."  David Sweat was guilty of the first degree murder of a law enforcement officer in the course of committing another felony, which would have resulted in certain capital punishment in a saner state, like, say, Texas.

       So Governor Cuomo should spare us his hand-wringing concern regarding what went wrong to allow the escape of the Dannemora Duo and the resultant danger, disruption, and enormous expenditure of public funds and law enforcement resources.  What went wrong was New York's ill-considered, illogical, and emotional abandonment of the death penalty, due in large part to the fanatical advocacy of Governor Cuomo and his ilk.  Had New York retained and enforced even a narrowly circumscribed death penalty, Messrs. Matt and Sweat would be dead and buried, rather than roaming the country at large and posing a threat to public safety wherever they arrive.

BALTIMORE -- AMERICA'S HEART OF DARKNESS

        In Joseph Conrad's disturbing novella, The Heart of Darkness, the narrator Marlow discovers an enclave of primeval barbarism and degeneracy in the depths of the African Congo.  The depraved protagonist, Mr. Kurtz, ultimately gasps a fitting epitaph for the debased colony which he had helped to corrupt as he lies dying on a departing ship:  "The horror!  The horror!"

        One no longer need venture into the depths of colonial Africa to discover the heart of darkness, or to experience a society so degenerate that it inspires stark exclamations of horror. Contemporary America's own heart of darkness can be found in the physical, moral, and societal ruins of the wretched inner city of Baltimore, Maryland.

        Splashing Rocks has previously noted the decline of the city that has been described in more peaceful times as Charm City or, even more absurdly, The Land of Pleasant Living. See The Barbarians of Baltimore, at http://splashingrocks.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-barbarians-of-baltimore.html. That post focused on the deeply deranged fans of the Baltimore Ravens NFL team, who went out of their way to flaunt their enthusiastic support and affection for the violence-prone Ravens running back, Ray Rice, despite (or perhaps because of!) the viral video evidence of Rice brutalizing and dragging the hapless woman who was then his fiance.

        But the mindless degeneracy exposed in the Ray Rice episode was relatively mild compared to the depths of degradation to which Baltimore, its leaders, and large elements of its population have descended in the wake of the so-called Freddie Gray incident and the orgy of urban savagery that ensued.

        Freddie Gray was a recidivist drug-dealer and multi-purpose criminal who was arrested by Baltimore police in a high-traffic illegal drug market for possession of an illegal switchblade knife in early April.  He later died due to injuries that have been attributed to police abuse or negligence during his transport to the station house.

        The insidious liberal media (especially CNN and MSNBC) pounced on the incident -- which was otherwise a purely local story -- as another opportunity to cultivate an incendiary narrative of purported police brutality against blameless black suspects. As though on cue, black racial agitators in the Al Sharpton mold pounced to exploit the situation with the kind of inflammatory race-baiting rhetoric that has become de rigueur in these incidents. The predictable result was an extended frenzy of barbaric and violent rioting in the streets of Baltimore.

        Anyone who thinks 21st century America embodies an advanced and enlightened civilization should be required to watch the videos of the atavistic pillaging, arson, robbery, and general marauding that laid waste to large portions of Baltimore during the period April 18 to May 3.  On the bogus pretext of protesting police misconduct that allegedly caused Gray's death, hordes of African-American thugs burned, vandalized, and robbed hapless Baltimore stores and businesses -- especially pharmacies, from which they made an enormous haul of drugs and narcotics -- and generally reduced Baltimore to a state of stark urban ruin.

                                                                       

                                                                                                         (rt.com)
                  Mayor Rawlings-Blake:  "There are no thugs in Baltimore."

        Both police and innocent citizens were assaulted at will.  The police were virtually helpless in the face of the frenzied violence and pillaging because, as we shall see, the city's corrupt leadership was in open sympathy with the rioters, rather than with the police and the interests of law and order.  Nothing so aptly illustrates the utter barbarism of the Baltimore riots than the pictures of frenzied feral delinquents stomping on the roofs of ransacked and disabled police cars.

        The state of violence in Baltimore became so severe and menacing that even the sacrosanct American ritual of habitual professional sports attendance was violated.  In one of the most eerie and dystopian spectacles of recent times, a Baltimore Orioles baseball game was played before an entirely empty stadium at Camden Yards.  Neither the city nor the ball club could assure the basic safety of spectators, so the gates were closed.  The unprecedented measure was understandable, however, as the violence surrounding the stadium during a previous Orioles game had resulted in fans and players being held hostage in the stadium until a lull in the hostilities allowed their reasonably safe exodus.

        Such is the congenial atmosphere surrounding Baltimore's entertainment and civic culture.  It might be called Beirut on the Patapsco, but that would be unfair to Beirut.

        In this incendiary environment, strong and mature government leadership was needed to quell the criminal insurrection and restore a modicum of order and safety to the city.  Instead, the Afro-racist Democrats who have run Baltimore since time immemorial aligned themselves emphatically on the side of the rioters and thugs, whom they perversely portrayed and defended as "civil rights demonstrators."

        First on the scene was Baltimore's partisan, divisive, and grossly inept mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who doubles as Secretary of the Democratic National Committee when she is not presiding over the decay and desolation of her city.  She promptly made the streets safe for the rioters, but dangerous for everybody else, when she required the police to stand down and refrain from confronting the rampaging criminal mobs.

       She then made one of the most infamous expressions of deranged and wrong-headed governance in American history when she stated:  "[W]e tried to make sure they [i.e., the rioters] were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on," and "we gave those who wished to destroy space to do that, as well."  Incredibly, the mayor thus made it clear that her primary concern was the protection of the rioters, and she made sure that they would be given sufficient "space" to destroy and pillage in safety!

       Not content with one infamous statement, she then declared that "there are no thugs in Baltimore," even as thousands of these homegrown "non-thugs" rampaged and ransacked at will within a stones throw from where she made her infamous remarks.

       But Rawlings-Blake's deranged alignment with Baltimore's marauders was soon eclipsed by the even more deplorable performance of  the now infamous Marilyn Mosby.  Mosby is the sneering, callow young attorney who, despite her glaring lack of basic qualifications, is the elected States Attorney -- in effect, the DA -- for the City of Baltimore.  It goes without saying that Mosby is black.  Virtually the entire power structure of Baltimore's government (including the Chief of Police, Anthony Batts) is dominated by blacks, demonstrating the absurdity of the claims that the city's legions of lawless black males are victims of racially discriminatory law enforcement.  In reality, the only racial group likely to face official discrimination in today's Baltimore is any group that is not black.

       Ms. Mosby's professional, ethical, and prosecutorial transgressions in response to the Freddie Gray incident and ensuing riots would be sufficient to justify disbarment, removal from office, and general public disgrace in a sane and civilized community.  In the deranged netherworld of riot-torn Baltimore, however, Mosby remains an ethnic and ideological heroine to many.

      Mosby perpetrated one of the most disgraceful performances in prosecutorial history when she held a ranting, demagogic press conference to announce premature charges against the six beleaguered police officers who tried to perform their difficult jobs in the drug-infested streets where Freddie Gray and his ilk conduct their insidious business.

      Mosby brazenly pandered to the urban barbarians when she declared that the patently excessive criminal charges (including murder and manslaughter) were issued in response to their rabid cries of "No justice, no peace!"  She violated the most basic principles and rules of prosecutorial discipline and even-handedness when she declared herself the advocate for Freddie Gray, his family, and the vengeful street mobs, rather than the objective representative of the state in pursuing truth and justice, wherever it leads. And her decision to abruptly short-circuit the careful deliberation and consultation that would normally precede the leveling of such serious charges represented a crass abdication of prosecutorial responsibility in favor of race-based political expediency.

     The sum effect of Mosby's divisive demagogy was to poison the jury pool against the embattled officers and to place the city's official blessing and  imprimatur upon the barbaric street violence of Baltimore's rampaging rioters. The officers' attorneys hardly needed to compose an argument to justify a motion for change of venue, since Mosby's grossly prejudicial public rant wrote their argument for them.

       Mosby then descended from ethical malfeasance to almost comical depths of legal and prosecutorial incompetence.  Her inept office could not even accurately list the names and addresses of the officers named in the charging documents.  As a result, the hapless citizens (a cafeteria worker and a plumber) who were mistakenly named on these public charges were exposed to threats, intimidation, and harassment from aggressive press inquiries.

       Next, Mosby apparently erred in basing her false arrest charges on a mistaken assumption that the knife Freddie Gray was carrying was perfectly legal -- when it apparently was an illegal switchblade under Baltimore City's stricter weapons-carrying laws.  When the defendants' lawyers demanded access to the critical knife to resolve this issue, Mosby absurdly responded by sniffing that she would not try the case in the media, and that it would be somehow "unethical" for her to reveal information about the knife.

       This is utter nonsense, especially coming from the theatrical prosecutor who all but convicted the officers in her inflammatory press conference.  Not only would providing the defendants access to the critical knife be completely "ethical," it would be required under the well-established Brady rule giving defendants' counsel a constitutional right to discovery of potentially exculpatory information.

       But Mosby's appalling legal ineptitude and hypocrisy did not end there.  The same partisan prosecutor who had seriously compromised the case with her "no justice, no peace" press conference then had the audacity to file a motion for a gag order seeking to prevent public discussion of the case.  But with that remarkable incompetence that has been the hallmark of her performance, Mosby erroneously filed her motion in the Circuit Court while the case was still in the jurisdiction of the District Court.  The court curtly rejected her mistaken motion, at least sparing all parties the necessity of watching the court demolish Mosby's ridiculous and legally flawed contentions.

       Even as this post is written, however, Mosby has persisted in her perversity by re-filing her motion for a broad gag order, now that she has at last discovered the proper court.  The radical prosecutor who all but certified the defendants' guilt in a nationally broadcast rant is frantically imploring the court to suppress public discussion of the Freddie Gray case and the potentially critical autopsy -- even after she and her Afro-racist allies have already poisoned public opinion against the officers.  With regard to those officers, Mosby appears to have embraced the infamous maxim of the tyrannical Queen of Hearts portrayed in Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland: "Sentence first, verdict afterwords."  And none of this free speech nonsense to allow the officers' side to seek to set the record straight.

        The reckless responses of Mayor Rawlings-Blake and States Attorney Mosby to the Freddie Gray incident have since produced dangerous and deadly consequences even beyond the immediate destruction and desolation of the riots.  And it bears emphasis that these two women are hardly alone in bearing culpability in this respect.

       For months and years preceding the Freddie Gray incident, President Obama, former Attorney General Holder, and current Attorney General Loretta Lynch have stoked the fires of black urban resentment, racism, and violence by endorsing the malicious canard that young black males are unjustly persecuted by a pattern of discriminatory law enforcement.  But the complete exoneration of Officer Darren Wilson for the justified self-defense shooting of the violent Michael Brown, after the Obama Administration had joined in the insidious campaign to portray Brown as the innocent victim of police racism, aptly demonstrated that the Administration-stoked narrative of discriminatory law enforcement was and is a fraud.

       Yet in Ferguson, Baltimore, and elsewhere, police have been forced into a policy of defensive and diffident law enforcement due to the eagerness of the liberal media, the racial agitators, and pandering leftist politicians -- including Obama and his minions -- to pounce and condemn them whenever there is a confrontation with black perpetrators in the streets.  In Baltimore, especially, the consequences have been immediate, palpable, and deadly.

       Baltimore police now face the reality that any direct street enforcement action against black suspects will immediately motivate crowds of black sympathizers to surround them, often menacingly, and to start recording their every move with cell-phone cameras.  The police now understand that the racial agitators and the media will pounce on any action they take that is even remotely questionable and seek to sensationalize it in the same manner we have seen in the Michael Brown and Freddie Gray cases.  The hapless officers targeted in such episodes face the prospect of suspension and loss of their jobs -- not to mention the very real danger of vindictive physical threats and attacks -- merely for doing the dangerous job of protecting the very ingrates who are so keen to condemn them for doing it.

       The dangerous and deadly consequences are not surprising.  The incidence of murders and shootings in Baltimore has skyrocketed to unprecedented levels in the weeks following the Freddie Gray riots, even while the arrest rate has severely (and understandably) declined.  The blame for this depressing state of affairs lays squarely at the feet of Baltimore's corrupt and incompetent leaders; the retrograde segment of the citizenry that is poised to pounce on the police for any enforcement action that offends black sensibilities; and, in a broader sense, the Obama Administration that has done so much to cultivate and sustain the insidious myth of discriminatory law enforcement against young black males.

       As long as racially divisive elements in media, government, and politics continue to reinforce and exploit this canard, the destructive experience of Baltimore is apt to be repeated in cities throughout America.
   

DEMOCRATS NOW PROTECT THE RIGHT TO RIOT AND DESTROY

              On the pretext of protesting another alleged case of police brutality, a mob of barbaric black criminals is running rampant through the streets of Baltimore even as this is written.  All semblance of a civilized society, let alone law and order, has disintegrated in that wretched city -- reduced to utter chaos and corruption by decades of unchallenged, one-party Democrat rule and, more recently, seven years of Obama's misrule in Washington.

                This is what happens when a lawless President and a succession of Afro-racist Attorneys General repeatedly endorse the twisted motives and means of street thugs, and repeatedly condemn and undercut the efforts of police to enforce at least a modicum of legal restraint against those elements.  Obama, Holder, and now Loretta Lynch have effectively handed black street criminals a license to continue their lawless thuggery by repeatedly stating that police efforts to suppress such crime unfairly target "young black males" and thus present a threat to what they laughably misrepresent as "civil rights."

                But the real threat to civil rights comes from the unrestrained violence of rioters in the streets of places like Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri, when spineless government authorities abdicate their duty to employ the full force of police power to suppress lawlessness and maintain civil order.

                Perhaps the ultimate expression of the pro-thug/anti-police attitudes of Obama, newly appointed Attorney General Lynch, and their Democratic cohorts in urban governments was uttered by the outrageous black Mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.  In describing how she reined-in the police in the face of the destructive Baltimore riots, she stated:  "It's a very delicate balancing act, because, while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well."

   

                As outrageously lawless and insidious as this statement is on its face, it is even worse when closely parsed.  When the mayor of a city in the throes of rampant criminal rioting unashamedly acknowledges – indeed, she seemed to righteously declare – that her government deliberately "gave those who wished to destroy space to do that," then that city has reverted to an atavistic barbarism; its government has perversely declared its alliance and cooperation with the violent mobs bent on its destruction.

                But Rawlings-Blake's statement reveals an even more profound strain of evil.  When she said that her government "tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on," it is apparent that "they" whom she was bent on protecting were the rioters themselves, not the innocent citizens or police whom they were attacking!

                This is an astonishing statement of grotesquely wrong-headed governance in an age when we have, unfortunately, become too inured to such outrages.  The Mayor of Baltimore employs her police to protect marauding criminals and to assure them adequate space to destroy the property of innocent citizens.  

                Incidentally, if anyone thinks that Mayor Rawlings-Blake is some kind of maverick who is outside the mainstream of the Democratic Party, think again.  She presently holds the office of Secretary of the Democratic National Committee.  Her radical views on law enforcement, race relations, and riot control place her squarely in the mainstream of the Democratic Party.  Indeed, she is an important leader of that wretched party.

                Ominously, the shockingly candid acknowledgments of this lawless mayor reflect a new "turn of the screw" that takes us – or at least those who live, work, or travel in Baltimore – to a very dark place that has not been seen before, or at least not with such astonishing clarity.  The Mayor and Government of Baltimore are more in sympathy with the rioting criminal mobs than with the city's law-abiding citizens or the police who try to protect them.  And they employ their authority to protect the rioters and to facilitate their criminal activities.

                Meanwhile, streamed "news alerts" during the networks' riot coverage assured viewers that "the White House was monitoring the situation."  That is, after Obama conferred with the lawless, "space-to-destroy" Mayor Rawlings-Blake about how the federal government might be able to "provide assistance as needed." 

                In light of the Mayor's assurance of protection and assistance for the rioters, one is left wondering what kind of assistance Obama intended to provide her.  Was he planning to send in Justice Department operatives to assure that the rioters would have even more "space to destroy"?  Don't laugh. That seems entirely possible with these characters.

                What a clueless, gutless, feckless presidential response to a catastrophic violent riot in one of America's largest cities.  Meanwhile, the FBI is apparently discovering evidence that black criminal organizations are planning attempts to assassinate white policemen not only in Baltimore, but in other opportune locations.

                Instead of conferring with the deranged mayor who has demonstrated nothing beyond her support for the safety and space of the rioters, Obama should be prepared to do what Presidents going back to Dwight Eisenhower have consistently done when violent rioters run amuck beyond the control of state and local authorities:  Invoke the authorities set forth in Title 10, U.S. Code, sections 331-334, to order the use of the federalized national guard or other military units to restore law and order.  Although some of those provisions require a request from the affected state's governor as a prerequisite to federal engagement, section 332 of title 10 does not.  It provides as follows:

                  "Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."

                It appears that neither Maryland nor Baltimore authorities have the will or capacity to forcefully suppress the ongoing rioting and lawlessness in the streets of Baltimore.  The prevalent state of lawlessness and violence in Baltimore, moreover, obviously renders it "impracticable" to enforce federal laws – like federal laws protecting civil rights, the right to travel, and the conduct of interstate commerce -- in that city by ordinary means.  In comparable circumstances, Presidents from Eisenhower to Johnson to Bush have invoked the title 10 statutes to quell similar urban riots with the use of the federalized National Guard or other appropriate federal troops. 

                Even before today's (Monday's) riots erupted with unfettered lawlessness and violence, Obama and his Justice Department were on clear notice that a firm assertion of federal authority would probably be needed to quell this violent uprising.  When thousands of fans at a major league baseball game are trapped in the stadium, and unable to return to their homes due to rioting and street violence – which in fact occurred at Camden Yards on Saturday night – it is obvious that the situation is completely out of control.  And if that were not enough, the fact that the barbaric rioters were even threatening the safety of handicapped women in wheelchairs should have been enough to move even the Obama-Holder-Lynch Justice Department to initiate federal intervention.

                But neither Obama nor whichever of his Afro-racist Attorney Generals is on duty at a given time is particularly concerned with enforcing federal law against the barbaric Baltimore rioters.  Obama, Holder, and Lynch are, if anything, in strong sympathy with these rabid mobs.  They are more concerned with bringing bogus, unjustified civil rights actions against the beleaguered police than they are with protecting American citizens against the unfettered violence of the Baltimore barbarians.

                Splashing Rocks vigorously and repeatedly argued that Loretta Lynch should not be confirmed as Attorney General because she would enthusiastically perpetuate the lawless and discriminatory enforcement of federal law inflicted on the American people by Eric Holder for some six years.  But a sufficient number of Vichy Republican senators collaborated with Obama and the Democrats to enable her confirmation.  On the very day Ms. Lynch assumed her duties as Attorney General, her dangerously acquiescent response to the grotesque Baltimore riots gave us an infuriating preview of what we can expect for the dark remaining years of the Obama administration.

                If there ever were a post-revolutionary time to appreciate and exercise the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, this is that time.

                Addendum:  As though on cue to confirm this post's assertion that Attorney General Lynch is more concerned with appeasing the radical likes of Al Sharpton (a leading supporter of her nomination) by pressing anti-police "civil rights" investigations than with taking forceful law enforcement action against the rioters, Fox News this morning included the following report of Lynch's stated response to the chaos in Baltimore:

                "In a statement issued Monday, Attorney General Lynch said she would send Justice Department officials to the city in coming days, including Vanita Gupta, the agency's top civil rights lawyer. The FBI and Justice Department are investigating Gray's death for potential criminal civil rights violations."
See http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/28/national-guard-arrives-in-baltimore-after-day-and-night-rioting-following/.

ESPN'S SICK AND TWISTED CELEBRATION OF LAETTNER-LOATHING

            A nasty video recently published on the ESPN website illustrates two depressing social phenomena that most people are unwilling to acknowledge, let alone deplore.  But that is Splashing Rocks' job. 

            The charming title of the video is "I Hate Christian Laettner" (apparently ESPN will soon broadcast a full-length program with the same title).  The video is introduced with the an equally pleasant textual lead-in:  "Everyone hates Christian Laettner.  No one hates him more than Kentucky fans.  In honor of the upcoming 30 for 30 film,  Kaylee Hartung traveled to Lexington to see if, 23 years later, hatred for Laettner is still as intense as ever."

            Lovely, isn't it?

         

            For those unfamiliar with college basketball, Mr. Laettner was a college basketball superstar for the historically great Duke University basketball teams of the period 1989-92.  Without question, Laettner was one of the greatest collegiate basketball players of all time.  He led Duke to two consecutive national championships in 1991 and 1992.  In the latter year, he was not only the national collegiate player of the year, but USA Basketball's Male Athlete of the Year. 

            Laettner was one of those superior players who was at his very best when the competition was the most intense – which means the NCAA Tournament and its climactic "Final Four."  No one excelled in that event like Christian Laettner.  To this day, he holds the NCAA Tournament records for most career points scored (407), most free throws made (142), and most games played (23).  He was NCAA Tournament MVP in 1991.  He is the only player in NCAA history to start for his team in the Final Four for all four years of his collegiate career, including the two championships.  In short, Laettner's record of success in college basketball's premier event is simply unequalled.

            Yet with all his consistent excellence, Laettner is most remembered and recognized for one brilliant play.  The word "iconic" is grossly overused, but in this case it aptly describes what is known among college basketball fans simply as "The Shot."  With only 2.6 seconds remaining in a dramatic overtime NCAA Tournament game against Kentucky, Duke trailed by a point.  But then Laettner caught a floor-length pass from Grant Hill, calmly turned, and sank an astonishing shot to nail the victory in what many regard as the greatest collegiate game ever.  The man was simply "clutch," in that game and many others.

                                                             

                                            They loathe Laettner . . . .

                    . . . but love Lewis: The Twisted American Sportsmind   

            
            With all these sterling credentials, one would naturally think that Laettner would be greatly admired by most college basketball fans.  But for strange and disturbing reasons, a kind of mindless collective notion has developed over the years that hating Christian Laettner is somehow a normal and generally shared feeling among many of those fans.  It bears a striking similarity to the equally mindless and nasty dislike of New England Patriots superstar quarterback Tom Brady.  Another Duke basketball great, the incomparable long-range shooter J. J. Reddick, has also been singled out for this same kind of irrational mass antipathy.

            It all has to do with profound jealousy, self-loathing, and a Quisling-like repudiation of one's own racial identity.  Laettner and Brady are handsome, intelligent, and remarkably successful white competitors in sports that are largely dominated by blacks.  For some unfathomable reason, this inspires intensely negative feelings against these men among a certain class of white person who would never entertain, or at least never acknowledge, such rancor against prominent black athletes. 

            The collective Laettner-loathing has become so widely accepted among sports media that ESPN feels comfortable in promoting a video – soon to be followed by a full program – that portrays hatred of this remarkable man as a colorful, amusing, and even likeable quality. 

            The video starts with the fatuous premise that "everybody" is like the feckless white liberals at ESPN and naturally hates Christian Laettner.  It then finds amusement – and assumes the general public will also find amusement – in the piquant revelation that those colorful, salt-of-the-earth Kentucky University "fans" hate him even more.  This is presumably because Kentucky was the victim of Laettner's legendary and endlessly re-televised impossible shot.

            In ESPN's video, a vivacious woman reporter gleefully entices expressions of progressively more venomous Laettner-hate from a herd of unkempt and ill-mannered Kentucky basketball supporters.   Most of them are proudly wearing their garish and undoubtedly overpriced Kentucky basketball caps and/or jerseys.  An unprepossessing middle-aged man, with rapier-like wit, scornfully describes the handsome and accomplished Laettner as a "piece of crap."  The reporter smiles approvingly.  Another embodiment of Kentucky class and graciousness then declares that Laettner is "a bad person."

            Then a blonde, fortyish woman, apparently a mom, proudly displays a tee-shirt emblazoned with the slogan "I Still Hate Christian Laettner."  The classy lady then explains, "For Christmas this is all I told my family I wanted."  This Mom must be real proud of filling her house with that wholesome, home-bred Kentucky hate on Christmas morning. 

            Several of the responses are conspicuously "bleeped-out" by those clever ESPN producers.  They are subtly letting us know just how gross the invective gets when the target is a well-educated white superstar who – unlike the pseudo-students who play one year for Kentucky before promptly dropping the pretext of classes and jetting off to the NBA – actually graduated from an academically superior university after playing all four years of his eligibility.

            But the video descends to its nadir of nastiness when one of the Kentucky wits purports to quote his own grandmother as having described Christian Laettner as "the only Christian she knows that will burn in hell." 

            This distorted celebration of  irrational collective rancor is deeply disturbing on many levels, but it reflects two broader pathologies that are increasingly prevalent in a declining American culture.

            The first is the grossly disproportionate importance of big-time sports in the lives, emotions, and activities of a large portion of the American public.  SR has previously examined  aspects of this unhealthy phenomenon in a post comparing the addiction to big-time sports with Marx's depiction of religion as the "opiate of the people."  See "Big Time Sports:  America's New Opiate" (Feb/ 18, 2013), at http://splashingrocks.blogspot.com/2013/02/big-time-sports-americas-new-opiate.html. 

            The willingness of presumably ordinary Kentuckians to spew such extreme venom against a man they do not even know – on camera – demonstrates the distorting extremes of their loyalty to a grotesquely oversized collegiate basketball program.  And Kentucky's program is hardly alone in this respect.

            It is evident that these people would fanatically support the Kentucky basketball team, and ferociously revile its opponents, irrespective of any considerations of the character or integrity of the teams' respective players.  And their association of the basketball team with the University itself is purely delusional.

            These fans are apparently oblivious to the fact that most of Kentucky's star players cannot wait to toss away their books, end the pretext of attending classes, and promptly depart the Lexington campus at the conclusion of their first and only year of collegiate competition.  The blue-shirted Laettner-haters' blind loyalty to the University of Kentucky program is exceeded only by the one-and-done players' determination to immediately abandon it after less than a single academic year. 

            The Kentucky fans are being played for fools and suckers, and they either don't know or don't care.  If Kentucky fielded a team of five probationary delinquents against five altar boys, the blue-shirted herd would continue to bellow their rabid support for the delinquents.  They are just too heavily invested in the corrosive myth of big-time collegiate sports to change course.

            Apart from the corrupting influence of America's mega-sports fixation, the second pathology revealed  by the orgy of Laettner-hating – and Brady-hating, and J. J. Reddick-hating, etc. -- is a bizarre racial double standard.

 

            It is perfectly acceptable, and even kind of "cool" in the twisted realm of the ESPN sports herd, to openly revile successful white athletes like Laettner, Tom Brady, and J. J. Reddick (if you doubt this, just run an Internet search using "hate" with one of those names).  But expressing open contempt for black athletes, even black athletes who may have earned such contempt by their barbarous and violent behavior, is socially and politically unacceptable.

            You will never see an ESPN video entitled "I Hate Ray Lewis."  Or "I Hate Ray Rice."  Or "I Hate Allen Iverson."  Yet Christian Laettner has done nothing I am aware of to make him more despicable than these celebrated black athletes.

            Oh, wait.  That was kind of an understatement.  It's not merely that Laettner has done nothing to warrant the nasty invective that would never be directed against these or many similar errant black athletes.  He's not even in their ballpark.  Lewis (indicted for murder in 2000), Rice (documented girlfriend beater), and Iverson (15-year sentence for felony maiming, but quickly granted clemency) are proven perps, yet they are not remotely despised and reviled like Laettner, Brady, or Reddick, whose records are clean of such behavior.

            The classic example is Baltimore Ravens linebacker legend Ray Lewis.  He was indicted for murder, but was able to avoid conviction by pleading guilty to obstruction of justice.  But never mind.  The Barbarians of Baltimore have erected a heroic statue of the miscreant Mr. Lewis, and he has achieved the status of a beloved and respected elder statesman in the pro football and ESPN cultures. 

            So the documented criminal offender, Ray Lewis, is a revered Baltimore Legend, while the family man with the spotless and distinguished personal record, i.e, Christian Laettner, is an object of nationally broadcast rancor, even 23 years after his athletic triumphs.  This isn't Denmark, but something is seriously rotten here.

            One of the weirdest aspects of this whole sorry spectacle is that Laettner himself seems to take it in stride and even share in the "joke."  He recently appeared for an interview with ESPN host Dan Patrick which actually seemed designed to promote the forthcoming  hate-Laettner video.  Why Laettner would condone a national celebration of malice directed at him is anyone's guess.  Perhaps he is so inured to what he he has endured over the years that he has decided the best defense is to roll with the punches.

            But Laettner is now a 45-year-old family man, with a wife, two daughters, and a son.  Is it possible that his wife and children can lightly dismiss a nationally broadcast program explicitly featuring the widespread hatred of their husband and father?  More likely, ESPN's "I Hate Christian Laettner" programs are deeply hurtful to the Laettner family.  One can only imagine the nasty abuse the Laettner children will likely endure as a result of all this.

            Yet millions of mindless ESPN viewers will watch the program and join in the perpetuation of what amounts to media-approved hatred of a remarkable athlete who has done nothing to warrant such animus.  In today's America, it could only happen to a white heterosexual male who had the audacity to excel aggressively in an arena where most of his fellow whites are content to serve as props and spectators.