Monday, August 17, 2015

As I've been saying...

New York Times -finally- catches up to The Phantom.

White unarmed teenager shot to death by police, nobody gives a shit.

Regarding the level of attention given to Mr. Hammond's death, a search of the Nexis news database showed that in the three weeks after he was killed, including the night of his death, there were 145 mentions of "Zachary Hammond" and "police" or "Zach Hammond" and "police" in United States newspapers and wire services. By comparison, there were 704 mentions of "Samuel DuBose" and "police" or "Sam DuBose" and "police" in the similar period after his death, and 1,593 mentions of "Walter L. Scott" and "police" or "Walter Scott" and "police" in the similar initial period. 

The lack of publicly disclosed video of Mr. Hammond's death helps explain much of why it has not drawn more notice, said Richard Cohen, president of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a longtime civil-rights organization based in Montgomery, Ala.

Yet he added: "The reality is that this killing maybe doesn't get quite as much attention because it doesn't fit into the current narrative that's sweeping the country."

The guy just had to lie, and say it was about the video. But then he couldn't stand it, and spilled the truth. Media does not give a shit about anybody, they just sell newspapers.

The New York Times is so desperate to sell their newspaper they are finally resorting to reporting the actual truth, having exhausted all other avenues.

Important safety tip to all you Lefties who created this police state we now live in: police states are -bad- because the cops can kill your teenage son over nothing, and you can't do shit about it because no one will help you.

Dear Lefties, you asked for it. Now you're getting it.  Both barrels.

The Phantom


Daniel said...

Not sure I understand why the lefties have been "asking for it."

Daniel said...

Not sure I understand why the lefties have been "asking for it."

The Phantom said...

Hi Daniel, sorry for ignoring you this long.

Which party is the one that has never sought to do anything else than grow government at all times in all circumstances?

Which party is the one who makes every issue a race issue?

Which party is the one issuing weapons of war to podunk police departments in Iowa?

Here in the Demented Dominion, which parties are always wanting more cops, more regulation, more taxes, more central control?


You reap what you sow, Daniel. You sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind.

Daniel said...

I don't disagree at all. I think the Left is, and has been since inception (cf Woodrow Wilson), a totalitarian movement. (That it is so vehement in distinguishing itself from the National Socialist Party (Nazi) is just another deception.) My comment, as a first time reader, was aimed at the lack of support for the statement in the posting itself.

The Phantom said...

"My comment, as a first time reader, was aimed at the lack of support for the statement in the posting itself."

Sorry Daniel, misidentified you as a Leftie. They come on here all the time asking similar types of questions, acting all innocent like they can't see the connection between a confiscatory tax regime and a police state.

The whole thing is coming unglued today, as China finally gets its pyramid scheme economy taken to the cleaners. Problem with the emperor not having any clothes, sooner or later somebody says it.

Daniel said...

What gets me is that pointing out the complete double standards of the left to a leftie has no effect. Bush's EGREGIOUS, NON-LEGAL, etc. signing statements were so awful--but O's disregard of the law is OK. And, of course, every criticism of O is racist, whereas calling Ben Carson names is simply truth-telling. Have you ever persuaded a leftie that, say, the minimum wage actually hurts those it's supposed to help?

Alyric said...


To get them to understand why raising minimum wage hurts people, you would first have to get them to understand the difference between money and wealth.

Speaking as someone who's actually tried that, dear gods, it's pointless.

Chapter 33 of Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court should be required reading for every school in the country. The chapter is titled 'Sixth Century Political Economy', and it seems pretty clear that some of Clemens' own frustration is bleeding through into the text. This is clearly not a new problem.

A poignant sentence from the chapter: 'What those people valued was high wages; it didn't seem to be a matter of any consequence to them whether the high wages would buy anything or not.'