Why should President Trump be impeached?

This should clear things up.



I would add that, like, the economy is really good, but, like, poor people and refugees, so like, impeach or whatever. Pence also, et cetera.

Do black people break the law more than white people?

Wait! Don't answer that question out loud. You might get in trouble.

Heather MacDonald asks a bunch of controversial questions which shouldn't be controversial in this article. We're also told that it is a good idea to ask questions, even though they might be rhetorical questions, about problems in our society. Don't you think? Liberals also like to question authority, they usually think "questioning the official statement" is a positive thing. Maybe they're right. I certainly like the questions that MacDonald asks with regard to the official preconceptions which we are told to have about Ferguson. Excerpt:

Example: Ferguson issues fines for traffic violations; 20 percent of its municipal budget comes from such receipts. If people with outstanding fines or summons don’t appear in court, a warrant for their arrest is issued. Conclusion: this is a racist system. The city is deliberately financing its operations on the backs of the black poor. The only reason that blacks are subject to fines and warrants, according to the media, is that they are being hounded by a racist police force. “A mostly white police force has targeted blacks for a disproportionate number of stops and searches,” declared Time on September 1. What is the evidence for such “targeting?” Time provides none. Might blacks be getting traffic fines for the same reason that whites get traffic fines—because they broke the law? The possibility is never contemplated. The most frequently summonsed traffic offense is driving without insurance, according to the New York Times’s “exposé” of Ferguson’s traffic-fine system. Perhaps the Times’s editors would be blasé about being hit by an uninsured driver, but most drivers would be grateful that the insurance requirement is being enforced. Might poor blacks have a higher rate of driving without insurance than other drivers? Not relevant to know, apparently.

The next highest categories of driving infraction are blasting loud music out your car and driving with tinted windows. Attend police-community meetings in poor areas and you will regularly hear complaints about cars with deafening sound systems. Should the police ignore such complaints? Are they ignoring similar complaints in white areas because they want to give whites a pass? Do Ferguson’s white and black drivers blast loud music from their cars at the same rate? We never learn. Tinted windows pose a possibly lethal threat to the police during traffic stops, since they prevent officers from assessing the situation inside the car before approaching. Ignoring this infraction puts officers’ lives at risk. Should the police nevertheless do so? Such is the implication, if doing so would mean fewer fines for black motorists. The New York Times quotes a victim of the racist Ferguson traffic-enforcement system, who was fined for driving without a license. Why was his license suspended—was he driving drunk? Did he hit someone? We will never know. What is the crime rate in the black areas of Ferguson? Also something that the mainstream press is not interested in finding out.

"Do Ferguson’s white and black drivers blast loud music from their cars at the same rate?" If you indignantly say "That's a stupid question," then, well, you've already sort of answered it.

But the most ubiquitous “Ferguson is racist” meme was the most familiar: the police force is too white. Four of Ferguson’s 53 officers are black. This imbalance must be the result of racism and must itself cause racist enforcement activity. How many qualified black applicants to the force applied and were rejected? Not an interesting question, apparently.

But interesting to me and other conservatives. Finding answers to these questions would be real journalism. We might even be able to coin a new term for that: Investigative Journalism. What a concept.

MacDonald's conclusion is chilling: "Whether or not an uncontested account of the incident will ever emerge, it is certain that the media spin on Ferguson itself has been driven by facile and ultimately dangerous preconceptions."

Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh

Awhile ago I was in the doctor's office and found myself reading the letters to the editor in the May 31, 2010 issue of Time magazine. Several were from Muslims commenting on the bombing attempt by the Islamic terrorist Faisal Shahzad. I jotted a few of them down verbatim and have read them several times over the last several months.

I was going to blog on them earlier, but I decided at the time to merely continue to think about what they wrote for a bit longer. The reason I have done this is because I want to better understand the thought patterns of Muslims and not just jump on everything they say as anyone slightly critical of Islam is currently being accused of. The people who sent these in seem like decent enough folks, and I'll assume they are. My main point here is not to argue against what they wrote. It takes some effort to write letters to the editor, so I can safely suggest that these succinct messages are thoughtful responses to Time's reporting of the attempted terrorist bombing in NYC 2 weeks earlier.

Here is the first letter:

"The worst thing that came from Shazad's botched bombing is that it further damaged the reputation of Muslims in the U.S." - Reem Bakkar, New York City, responding to "Broadway Bomber" May 17.

Here is the second letter:

"Although the events in Times Square were certainly frightening, the political backlash against the Pakistanis and Muslims was even more so. As a Pakistani American, I implore my fellow citizens to practice tolerance toward this culturally rich, peaceful community whose members have overwhelmingly turned their backs on the terrorism and violence that have plagued their native region. Don't make us pay for the mistakes of others." - Zoya Mehmoud, Alexandria, VA

Even now reading these again I don't want to pass any judgment on the words or the speakers of the words. I just want to try a thought experiment. Imagine a Catholic talking about the clergy abuse scandal with the same language, and then substitute the word "Catholics" for "Muslims". To be clear about what I mean, I'll write them out for you:

The worst thing that came from the Catholic clergy sex scandal is that it further damaged the reputation of Catholics in the U.S.

Although the Catholic clergy abuse scandal was certainly atrocious, the backlash against the Catholics was even more so. As a Catholic American, I implore my fellow citizens to practice tolerance toward this culturally rich, peaceful community whose members have overwhelmingly turned their backs on the abuse that have plagued their parishes. Don't make us pay for the mistakes of others.

If a Catholic said those things, would he be accused of not assuming the correct attitude about the atrocities? Would he be accused of downplaying the gravity of the perpetrators' actions? or of ignoring a systemic problem within his "faith community"? Would he be scolded for not prefacing these remarks with a long acknowledgment of the problem and for being glib and insensitive to the plight of the victims?

These are merely questions that I ask, and I leave others to answer them. Please leave your thoughts and answers in the comment boxes below, if you have any.