College kids have terrorists in Gaza weeping with joy

©2024

By Don Frost

            Hamas of Gaza and the Houthis of Yemen are Islamic terrorist groups. The Houthis have been attacking international shipping in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden in support of the Gaza terrorists in the war they started with Israel. They are separate, but brothers united in their hates. This is the slogan of the Houthis, their guiding spirit, as reported by the Associated Press: “God is the greatest; death to America; death to Israel; curse the Jews; victory to Islam.”

            This is the mentality of the people America’s college kids are supporting and encouraging with their riots on campuses across America. Make no mistake, these are intended to be riots in the guise of protests. Marching with picket signs and chanting slogans is boring; the news media would stay away in droves.

            But, as with the riots of ’60s, the object of the “protesters” is not to get a message across, it’s to create a riot. Marching peacefully while carrying picket signs and chanting in unison is dull television. But screaming college kids being  dragged away by police in riot gear is great television.

            Somewhere in Gaza the Hamas leadership is popping champagne corks and toasting their success.

            As noted here before, their brutal attack on Israeli civilians and the taking of hostages on Oct. 7 has been largely forgotten and is playing out pretty much as planned. Now college students all across America are rioting in support of the terrorists. The nation’s Left-leaning press has joined in, calling the kids’ destructive tantrums simply “protests in support of Palestinians.”

            Their chants and placards mention only Palestinians, but Hamas knows it’s code for “terrorists.” The kids – puffed up with self-importance – echo the demands of Hamas: End military support for Israel, end political support for Israel, boycott companies that do business with Israel, and the resignation of Benjamin Netanyahu.

            Hamas terrorists have even gotten the kids to demand that Israel “end the genocide” as if it was actually happening. The campus simpletons don’t know the difference between regrettable collateral damage and genocide, the latter being “the systematic killing of . . . a whole national or ethnic group.”

            If Israel’s goal was to exterminate the “national or ethnic group” of Gaza (which would be damn near every man, woman, and child), we’d be reading reports like “1,200 civilians slaughtered in Gaza.” Come to think of it, that’s how many Israeli civilians were slaughtered when the terrorists launched their attempted genocide of Israel on Oct. 7, starting the war. Instead, all we read is reports like “five civilians killed in Israeli bombing attack” and “two children die in Israeli ground assault.” At that rate it would take a thousand years to complete the alleged genocide of Gaza.

            The simplistic campus supporters of the terrorists don’t know squat about the history of Gaza. They love to chant, “Free Gaza!” Really? Yes, really. Israel used to rule Gaza. Then they left. Then Gaza was “free.” Then Hamas took over. Then Hamas terrorists invaded Israel on Oct. 7.

            Campus rioters see the world as divided into oppressors and the oppressed. Israel, being the stronger, is, of course, the oppressor and the terrorists are the innocent oppressed. Just ask the college kids.

            The kids’ knowledge is limited to buzz words and phrases. What they do know with certainty (and it’s accurate) is that donning a kaffiyeh and shouting “stop killing children!” will gain them the approval of the popular kids on campus and even some professors. Pumped up with adrenalin and hormones, it will even get some of them laid.

            Like petulant children they (at least the ones at Columbia U.) have vowed to continue their support of the terrorists until their demands are met (including amnesty for themselves). If I were Hamas and if I figured the college kids needed a little more ammo, I’d murder a couple of hostages and make it look like Israeli soldiers did it.

            Hamas will never return more than a token number of hostages; they will always hold back some. Rescuing them is why Israel continues the war. As long as the war continues more innocents will die. As long as innocents die the more eagerly college kids will help the terrorists.

They’re leading college kids around by the nose and they’ve even gotten the support of opportunist politicians like Democratic Senate majority leader Charles Schumer and Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi who have demanded Netanyahu’s resignation. For their help the terrorists will be forever grateful.

            But most especially Hamas sends its regards to college kids for their continued support and encouragement. For the forces of reason, forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Re my last column

© 2024

By Don Frost

            Not surprisingly, the “liberal” American press is showing sympathy toward, not just Palestinians, but Hamas. It’s beginning to look like the press has switched sides, from sympathy and support for Israel to sympathy and support for the terrorists.

            In the immediate aftermath of the terror attack on Israel on Oct. 7, the press reported the news thus: “Hamas terrorists . . .” “Atrocities by Hamas terrorists . . .” “Barbaric actions by Hamas terrorists . . .” “Hamas terrorists murdered . . .”

            In the eyes of the press, the terrorists have been upgraded. More and more they’re described as merely “Hamas militants.” Sounds like a rag-tag gathering of farmers and shopkeepers of Gaza have taken up their squirrel rifles and Molotov cocktails to valiantly defend against the onslaught of the invading horde of jack-booted professional soldiers.

Hamas is winning the war for men’s minds

©2024

By Don Frost

            The Hamas-Israel War is going exactly as the terrorist organization planned when they invaded Israel on Oct. 7, murdered 1,200 people, and kidnapped 250 hostages. According to a United Nations report, Hamas committed rape and gang rape; “mutilation of corpses, including decapitation . . . genital mutilation and sexualized torture.”

            And yet, they have much of the world believing they’re the good guys and Israel is the bad guys.

            The terrorist’s fantasy scenario was to ignite a world-wide jihad that would result in the end of the Israeli state and the deaths of all its Jews.

            The more realistic goal is turning out every bit as Hamas planned: Governments the world over are turning against Israel. Even Israel’s staunchest ally, the United States, is cracking under the strain of maintaining support.

            Within hours of the Hamas attack Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee issued a written statement which held the “Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.”

            Ryna Workman, president of NYU’s Student Bar Association, wrote in a student newsletter that the atrocities were Israel’s “full responsibility.”

            A poll shows that 60% of college-age Americans (18-24) believe Hamas’ attack was justified; 2/3 of those see Jews as oppressors, not just Israelis, but Jews. Anti-semitic actions in the U.S. jumped 361% since Oct. 7.

            Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the hard-Left Democrat from Michigan – whose other political association is the Democratic Socialists of America – refused to vote on a House measure to condemn Hamas for “countless incidents of rape, gang rape, and sexual mutilation” by Hamas.

            Gaining the condemnation of Israel by the world required the sacrifice of thousands of Gaza civilians in Israel’s response to Oct. 7, the violence of which Hamas was counting on. All Hamas has to do now is hang onto the hostages and let Israel rain destruction on Palestinian civilians. If they return the hostages, the war ends. That is the last thing Hamas wants.

            It is inconceivable that the terrorists will release the hostages while their continued captivity serves Hamas’ purposes: The deaths of Gaza’s Palestinian children. So be prepared for more scenes of death, destruction, and suffering in Gaza. For a people who celebrate the deaths of suicide bombers and the deaths of thousands of innocents, the deaths of even their own innocent people is part of the plan. It is, in fact, the single most important element of the plan.

Editor reveals paper’s excuse for its bias

© 2024

By Don Frost

            For decades America’s purveyors of news have been known to be “liberal” and that those leanings spill over into their objectivity in reporting the news. Not surprisingly, they have consistently denied that this is so: “We are professionals, trained to keep our views out of news reporting. We edit for clarity, fairness, and objectivity. It says so, right there in our mission statement.”

            I tricked one senior newspaper editor (likely with the endorsement of four other senior editors) to unwittingly admit to bias in news columns. Doubtless all five would dispute that it was an admission of “liberal” leanings in its news columns. Instead, they certainly would claim it’s just good, responsible journalism.

            I say “tricked” because I have complained several time to this particular newspaper about editorializing in news columns. My observations were always ignored. So I determined to get provocative to assure the preordained response so I could expose it here.

            Background is required.

            On March 3, 2024, the Daily Herald, Chicago’s leading suburban newspaper, published an Associated Press story which – with the Herald’s blessing – called Donald Trump a liar. I wrote to the editors: Jim Slusher, managing editor/administration & opinion; Jim Baumann, executive editor; Lisa Miner, managing editor; Kelly Vold, digital editor/engagement; and John Lampinen, editor (retired), asking why they allowed the AP to get away with editorializing in news columns. (I would have included city editor Robert Sanchez, but I had a bad email address for him. Possibly the others shared my comments with him.)

            After some laudatory observations about two recent stories, I got to point three:

            Why do you allow the AP to editorialize in news columns? On 3/3, page 2, lead paragraph: Trump “baselessly accused President Joe Biden of waging a conspiracy to overthrow the United States of America.”

            Again in the 3^rd graph: Trump “alleged without proof that Biden is responsible for the indictments he faces . . .”

            It could just as easily, and truthfully, been, “Trump accused President Joe . . .” And “Trump alleged that Biden is . . .”

            Call Trump a liar on the editorial page, not in news columns.

            P.S. I don’t like Trump either. I hope I don’t have to vote against him for a third time.

Don Frost

            Miner evidently was chosen to respond on behalf of the other four editors. She responded, as expected, with a variation on the time-worn theme: That’s not bias; that’s not editorializing; that’s good journalism. After the customary courtesies granted to readers, she wrote, in part:

            “When Trump accuses Biden of trying to overthrow the government, it is fair to point out that he made a very serious charge but offered no evidence. Otherwise, public officials can say anything without challenge.”

            I responded to her:

Lisa –

            They chose well when they designated you to rationalize insinuating the Herald’s opinion in news columns. That opinion, by the way, is disputed by millions of people. But they don’t run a newspaper. Tough luck for them, right?

            If you’ve ever wondered how America’s news media lost the trust of Americans, I suggest you study the AP-NORC Center poll published last spring. A sampling: “. . . the news media is increasing political polarization . . .” “Four in 10 say the press is doing more to hurt American democracy . . .”

            It happens slowly, when journalists decide “. . . it is fair to point out that he made a very serious charge. . . offered no evidence.”

            Somewhere in this country there must be a source of unbiased news. Obviously, it’s not the Herald. Hope springs eternal, so I’ll keep looking.

            Thanks for writing.

            Thus ended our correspondence.

            Editors everywhere seem to take the position that just because something is true they are somehow exempt from a charge of editorializing in news columns. Readers are not stupid. We don’t need reporters to tell us when a charge is serious, nor do we require a reporter to tell us when the charge is not accompanied by evidence.

            We’re fully aware that when reporters squirt in “baseless” or “without evidence” they’re not doing it to make sure we understand it’s a serious charge and that there is no evidence to back it up. Repeating: We’re not stupid. It’s a veiled way of editorially shouting “liar!”

            Miner’s words point directly to the growing arrogance in the new reporting business: “Otherwise, public officials can say anything without challenge.” And here was me, and the rest of the news consuming public, assuming challenges to what public officials say have always been properly addressed on the editorial pages, not in news columns.

            All of this harkens back to what might accurately be called American journalism’s last hurrah, the 1950s. It was then that Sen. Joe McCarthy, almost daily, “was making very serious charges,” seeing Communists under every bed in America.

            America’s press duly reported, “Sen. McCarthy said Hollywood is rife with Communists.” And, “McCarthy charged the State Department is riddled with Communists and Communist sympathizers.” And, “McCarthy claimed universities have been infiltrated with Communists.”

            These were serious charges and, as Miner pointed out, serious charges so trouble the editors of the Herald that they have decided their readers cannot be trusted to have the wit to figure this out for themselves. Apparently, reporters/editors of the ’50s respected their readers.

            If todays’ reporters/editors were working in the ’50s, they would have written, “McCarthy made the baseless claim . . .,” And “McCarthy charged, without evidence . . .,” And “McCarthy made the false claim . . .” Then they would have been tossed out of the newsroom on their self-righteous asses for violating the most basis tenet of journalistic ethics: Thou shalt keep thy opinions unto thyself unless thou art writing a clearly labeled editorial.

            McCarthy’s claims and charges were challenged at the time, but on editorial pages not in news columns. Turning journalistic ethics on its head, editors of today boast of challenging news makers in news columns.

            What is destroying American journalism has a name. It’s called “interpretive reporting.” From there it’s one small step to “advocacy journalism.” It goes on and on, rolling like a snowball, gathering more and more exceptions to the code of journalism ethics, until interpretive and advocacy become indistinguishable. That, in turn, led inevitably to what the AP-NORC Center poll revealed: Widespread distrust of America’s news media.

            Reporters and editors keep ignoring or misunderstanding what American consumers of news are saying: “When we want your opinion we’ll turn to the editorial page as our grandparents did. We’re not stupid; you insult us when you bash us over the head with news as you see it.”

            I wonder what would happen if editors suddenly stopped referring to Trump’s claims and charges as “baseless,” “without evidence,” or “false.” I try to picture, unsuccessfully, an angry reader writing a scathing letter to the editor, demanding, “How come you reported that Trump made a claim but didn’t point out that it was baseless?”

            Editors just don’t get it. At least, I hope that’s the case. The alternative is that they know full well what they’re doing and have no intention of stopping: Pimping for the “liberal” agenda.

Persecution that’s disguised as prosecution

© 2024

By Don Frost

            Some months back I asked the question (without expecting an answer), “When banks grant loans hadn’t they first checked the applicants’ claims as to the value of their collateral?”

            To my pleasant surprise, columnist Byron York answered it, and I am deeply indebted to him for much of the research that went into this column. Yes, he said, they do check the applicant’s claims; they don’t just take his word for it.

            It’s simply a sound banking principle, part of routine due diligence. Everybody knows that, except the legal brains in New York State. Apparently, they thought several major banks took Donald Trump at his word when he exaggerated the value of the properties he cited as collateral when applying for loans.

            The state wouldn’t wait for defrauded banks to complain that they’d been duped. It volunteered to do their job for them: Investigate whether Trump had truthfully reported his wealth to them. Surprise! They found he’d overstated his wealth.

            This evil cannot be tolerated, New York State decided. Accordingly, it spent a considerable sum to prosecute Trump for falsely stating the value of his properties. He was found guilty and was fined $350 million which will expand to $450 when interest is tacked on.   

            Perhaps this is how New York figures to recoup their expenses for filing the lawsuit in the first place.

Or perhaps the Democratic attorney general of the state, Letitia James, had another purpose in mind when she launched the suit.

            Or perhaps Democratic Judge Arthur Engoron had another purpose in mind when he imposed a fine of such mind-boggling proportions.

            James and Engoron can repeat to their last breaths that Trump’s was not a victim-less crime. That will not make it so. James had no one to put on the witness stand to testify how they’d suffered at Trump’s hands. Her entire case was Trump’s numbers vs. the numbers of independent analysis of the value of his properties. Little noticed by the Trump-hating press was that all the loans not only were repaid on time, but the banks profited, and they remain willing to do business with Trump again.

            So what if Trump fudged the value of his properties when he applied for the loans? The banks due diligence had revealed their true value. But they granted the loans anyhow. And they made money. Move along; there are no victims to see here.

            Engoron, acting as judge and jury, issued a 92-page report explaining his actions. In it he admitted several things that make clear that Trump was right in accusing him and James of conducting a political witch hunt.

            This entire case was persecution disguised as prosecution.

            (For the record, I am no fan of Trump. I voted against him twice. I hope I never have to do it again. I do, however, believe in equal justice under the law. But more to the point, I am vehemently opposed to using the judicial system for political purposes and that is clearly what this lawsuit was all about. That crime is worse – more dangerous – than anything Trump did.)

            Engoron couldn’t cover up the politics that permeated this trial from start to finish. In his report he:

            Admitted that despite Trump’s fraudulent claims, the banks independently investigated those claims and happily granted him the loans he sought.

            Admitted there were no victims because the loans were repaid.

            Admitted that exaggerating Trump’s wealth – the alpha and omega of why the suit was brought – was not a serious offense.

            Admitted what he found unforgivable was Trump’s refusal to admit he was wrong to bloat the value of his properties. And that was why he imposed the draconian fine.

            It sounds awfully like Engoron was saying that if Trump had merely bowed his head and mumbled an apology for doing wrong, Engoron would have given him a slap on the wrist and sent him back to Mar-a-Lago.

            Think about that: The judge admits the charge against Trump was not serious, but he’s going to expose him to financial ruin anyhow (and, perhaps, cripple his presidential aspirations?) because he wasn’t contrite. As the Wall Street Journal put it, Engoron’s $450 fine was like “using a Hellfire missile to annihilate a shoplifter.”

            The verdict and Engoron’s fine had a chilling effect on the New York business community. Individually, they expressed fear that they would face similar crippling penalties should they err. This raised the frightening specter of businesses moving to less vindictive states. New York’s Democratic governor, Kathy Hochul, reassured them. She acknowledged the outcome of the Trump case might make some businesses nervous, “but this is really an extraordinarily unusual circumstance that the law-abiding, rule-following New Yorkers who are businesspeople have nothing to worry about.”

            “Extraordinarily unusual circumstance.” Translation: Not to worry; we were after Trump, not you.

            Trump is appealing, though James promised she’s not going to wait for an appeal to play out. She’s going to start seizing his properties immediately.

            A vindictive attorney general and a petty judge. Shameful. Embarrassing. Disgusting.

            Trump may very well end up paying a heavy fine, but New York State and its legal bureaucrats exposed themselves as the biggest losers in this case.

            Hunter Biden is under investigation, his apologists claim, because his name is Biden. Engoron’s report, James’s actions, and Hochul’s assurances to New York business leaders make clear that Trump was sued and convicted because his name is Trump.

Racism still being ‘carefully taught,’ but there’s a twist

©2024

By Don Frost

            I recently watched, probably for the fourth or fifth time, the movie “South Pacific.” It reminded me of the beautiful message in one of its songs. In poetic simplicity it conveyed a truth every bit as relevant today as it was when the musical was released in 1958. It was sung by a young Marine officer expressing his regret for having rejected the love of a young Polynesian girl while denying his own love for her. The tune is called “Carefully Taught”:

            “You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear/You’ve got to be taught from year to year/It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear/You’ve got to be carefully taught.

            “You’ve got to be taught to be afraid/of people whose eyes are oddly made/and people whose skin is a diff’rent shade/You’ve got to be carefully taught.

            “You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late/before you are six or seven or eight/to hate all the people your relatives hate/You’ve got to be carefully taught!/You’ve got to be carefully taught!”

            Too late he was coming to terms with his own upbringing, fraught with the racial prejudices that have plagued mankind for thousands of years. Composer Richard Rodgers and lyricist Oscar Hammerstein combined to put into song the heavy price people pay for their hates.

            People from every corner of the globe and of every race have practiced racism since the dawn of time. It will never be eradicated through a song, through reason or logic, and it most certainly will never be legislated away. But as we are human we must try; if we want a better world we must try.

            You have to be “carefully taught,” the lyrics warn against. We are still being taught to be racists. Today the lesson, though the same as it was in 1958, has been turned on its head. You see it in the news almost daily: “America is a racist country.” “America’s legal and social institutions are riddled with systemic racism.” Without openly saying so, headlines like “white cop kills black man” teach the racist lesson that – without a shred of evidence – the white cop killed the black man because he was black. The lesson comes screaming through that white cops hunt and kill innocent black men and boys. Nuances aside, it teaches that all white people hate all black people. That is being taught to us; oh, so carefully taught.

            It’s a filthy lie.

            America is not a racist country; we are not a systemically racist people; white cops do not indiscriminately murder black men. The result of this repeated lie serves to “justify” the hatred of black people for white people. This is not the lesson the song tries to teach.

            Wealthy professional race hustlers (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Colin Kaepernick as well as part-time race hustlers in the political arena, people like Maxine Waters, Cory Booker, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and others) reinforce the myth that all white people hate all black people. Crying “racism!” is their stock in trade. Without it they’d have to find honest employment.

            If what they preach/teach were true, how could they explain that it is impossible to legally discriminate against anyone on the basis of race or color; to apply unequal voter registration requirements; to enforce racial segregation in schools, public accommodations, in housing, and in employment? All of this was carved in granite with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and reinforced over the years since with supplemental laws that gave the original law more teeth, more specifics.

            Do white racists try to circumvent these laws? Of course. Repeating: Racism can never, will never be legislated away. So white racists will try. But if they do, the allegedly “systemically racist” American legal system will slap them down.

            In the past white racists could be open about their prejudices. No longer. Now they must hide their racism, expressing it in whispers among themselves.

            Americans are so terrified of being labeled racist we dare not say aloud things like, “It is despicable to call someone a nigger.” We must claim that even whispering the word is painful to hear or to say. So we are compelled to use the euphemism “the N-word.” (Writing “nigger,” even in this context, where clearly no racist insult is intended, subjects the writer, myself, to being, at the very least, shamed.)

            White America’s terror of being called racist is so profound every newspaper, magazine, and television news outlet in the country has adopted a policy of capitalizing black when it is a reference to race. But white is lower cased when it’s a reference to race. The rationale: White supremist groups capitalize white in that context as an expression of white supremacy. Think about that. Capital W is racist; capital B is not? This in “systemically racist” America.

            It is illegal to physically beat a black man. You can go to jail for that. It’s called assault. But if some court decides you did it because you just don’t like black people, time can be added to your sentence. It’s called “enhanced punishment,” a provision of a “hate crime” law, aka a Thought Crime. Think about that. In “racist America” you can be punished for thinking a racist thought.

            I used to work with a black racist. She was unabashed about her racism, her contempt, if not outright hatred, of white people. At times she was even boastful about it. We worked side by side in an office. I will not name her. When downtime occurred we chatted as office colleagues routinely do: How was your weekend; have you seen the vacation schedule yet; how about those Cubs? That sort of thing.

            One day, after returning from a trip to the Bahamas, she told me she got a bad sun burn. “For the first time in my life I felt sorry for white people,” she said. I laughed. It was a funny, banal observation. But over time I learned there was a dark side to her “humor.”

            She and her husband bought a house and I congratulated her on it. She volunteered that it was in a black part of town, adding, “I work all day with white people; I don’t have to put up with that when I go home.”

            In the same conversation she mentioned another black colleague who lived in a white part of town. “I told her she should move to my area,” she said. “I told her she should be with her own people.”

            It became known that she and several other people were being considered for promotion. She did not get it; a highly qualified man did. I watched her storm off to confront our boss who had the ultimate decision on this matter. When she came back she was grinning.

            “How did it go?” I asked.

            “I said to him, ‘Didn’t I get the job because I’m black or because I’m a woman?’” She was laughing. “He sputtered and stammered. I almost laughed.”

            Another time a street beggar was the topic: “My mother told me to never give a white beggar anything because he’s had everything his way his whole life.”

            I countered that it was a pretty racist attitude; that every legitimate beggar has a story; that being white doesn’t guarantee anyone blue skies, wealth, and happiness for life; that being white does not insulate people from tragedies that might reduce him/her to begging. I doubt I changed her attitude toward beggars. This was a lesson she learned at her mother’s knee; a lesson carefully taught.

            In time it became clear that she was just getting even with the race she’d been taught was somehow privileged; a race that “had everything his way his whole life”; a race that hated her because she was black. And so the cycle of racism continues. Was this Martin Luther King Junior’s dream? No. Racism will never end until white and black people stop trying “to get even”; until my former colleague and everyone like her is dead and buried. No one alive today will live to see it.

            Incredibly, black racism has become acceptable, approved, tolerated. It had been “carefully taught” by my former colleague’s mother and no doubt by her father as well. It is inconceivable that she is the only black racist in America. And white America has embraced black racism. White America dares not reject it, criticize it, or even admit it exists. Guilt? Possibly. Fear of being labeled a racist for condemning it? Certainly.

            That black racism has become acceptable can be seen in riots perfunctorily disavowed by the Black Lives Matter organization. Even white news reporters support it. With cars burning in the background in front of smashed storefront display windows, television reports on “the mostly peaceful civil unrest.” If that’s not acceptance of black racism; if that’s not giving rioters permission to continue, nothing will stop them and we have more of the same to look forward to.

Some silly, some sensible, ideas for stopping mass shootings

© 2024

By Don Frost

            There are as many motives behind mass shootings as there are mass shooters. Some do it because they got fired and they seek revenge on their ex-boss and former colleagues. Some do it because they’re racists. Some do it because they’re religious fanatics. Some do it because they have simply given in to acute paranoia.

            But most do it because they have an unhealthy need to get attention; for people to notice them. And the news media have laid out a blueprint for getting just that: Kill a great many people all at once.

            The Daily Herald, Chicago’s leading suburban newspaper, solicited readers’ advice on ending mass shootings in schools and elsewhere. I thought I was alone in laying the blame for mass murder at the media’s doorstep. I was wrong. A sampling of readers’ endorsement of my theory:

            “The news coverage empowers mentally ill people to do the same thing. . . . Gun control does not work. . . . My solution is to not participate in the coverage and not watch it on TV nor read your [the Herald’s] articles.”

            “It would be best to provide minimum coverage on the shooter. . . . I really don’t want to know that a person is mentally ill to shoot 18 people. I already know that. Less fame would be good.”

            It is a given that all mass shooters have mental problems. It could be a passing rage over a particular issue, person, or group of people; or a long-simmering hatred that drives them to kill. But the bottom line remains: They’re mentally disturbed. Whatever their specific motive, future mass killers view with envy the media hysteria that follows a mass shooting.

            “Does the front page attention glorify the warped/immature mind causing that person to commit the next murder or mass shooting? Well, certainly it is possible, but social media is the real creator of many of these crimes.”

            “I suggest burying the news article [of shootings] in the middle of the paper or more towards the end. . . . It doesn’t need to be in the face of the masses. A quiet, few paragraphs or less, with a simple small headline.”

            “It is certainly true that some killers thrill to their 15 minutes of fame in the mass media. . . . most people have no need to know [the shooter’s identity]; just morbid curiosity.”

            Mass news media give mass shooters considerably more than a measly 15 minutes of fame. They get weeks of it, enough to convince future copycats that even their own deaths would be worth it.

            My own contribution to the Herald’s poll:

            “I applaud the Herald’s policy of naming mass shooters only once per story. If I had my way, it would be a federal offense – with severe penalties – to name the shooters at all, ever. Columbine and the media circus that followed taught that mass murder could get (the assailants) attention, perhaps for the first time in their lives. Now the science is in: Mass shooters are basically copycats, thirsting for notoriety. Society would be well served if they went to their graves or to prison in ignominious anonymity.”

            Subsequently, the Herald ran more ideas from readers. Predictably, most of them were depressingly familiar, naïve, or warmed-over failures:

            “Angry Men + Assault Weapons = Mass Death! Which is easier to remove from the equation? I suggest removing assault weapons takes away the ability to kill large numbers.”

            Same old, same old: People don’t kill; guns kill. And cars cause drunk drivers, and forks cause obesity, and pencils cause spelling errors. Mass killing is the rifle’s fault. And “removing assault weapons” is naïve in the extreme. There are an estimated 15 million or 16 million AR-15-style rifles scattered across the U.S. Removal of same would require confiscation, a clear assault on the 2^nd Amendment and that would not be “easily” removed from the equation.

            “If he or she [the shooter] didn’t have easy access to guns and ammo, it couldn’t become a mass killing in a matter of minutes. . . . More extensive mental health services are needed also. But the big problem to me is the hatred in our country . . . National seminars on hate, how to combat it, teaching tolerance and acceptance of others would be wonderful”

            Where to begin on the sheer naivety of this “solution”? The mass media’s narrative on this holds that “easy access” to guns is behind mass shootings, making it an article of faith in “liberal” world. It will never die, even in the face of undeniable reality. I must repeat myself: I (along with millions of other Americans) bought a rifle and ammunition in 1957. I was a kid, 16 years old. My access to the rifle and ammo was simplicity itself. It was like buying a pack of bubblegum baseball cards. There were zero forms to fill out, no waiting period, no background check, no mental health check. And there were zero mass shootings and zero drive-by shootings. Anyone with two or more brain cells to rub together knows what changed after 1957: Guns got harder – much harder to access. Yet the drumbeat goes on: everyone has “easy access” to guns. No rational, intelligent person could possibly believe that. If you believe it, you’re a fool, blindly repeating what you’ve been told to believe; if you don’t believe it, you’re a liar.

            “More mental health services.” Precisely what does it mean? Precisely how would it find and stop future mass shooters? And “national seminars on hate”? Really? Fighting hate and “teaching tolerance and acceptance of others” has been a cornerstone of Christianity and other religions for thousands of years, making seminars on hate just one more naïve idea, a platitude so simple-minded it’s embarrassing.

            “Our challenge is to identify those who want to kill and treat them and to enforce background checks, no matter how much or whose ‘rights’ are being ‘violated.’ Also, there is no reason for average people to have guns with the ability to fire multiple rounds. They should not be available to anyone but military personnel.”

            Identifying and treating people before they kill is simply pie in the sky. So nobody “needs” a semi-automatic rifle? In other words, what this country needs is a benevolent Big Brother who will violate the rights of only bad guys, leaving the rest of us alone. If Big Brother gets to decide who has sufficient reason to own a semi-automatic rifle, where does his authority end? What if BB decides you don’t need two cars; that your second car would only increase air pollution; that it would increase global warming; that you should use public transportation or ride a bicycle to save the planet?

            If it’s okay to apply a need test to the 2^nd Amendment, what about the other nine basic rights in our Bill of Rights? Do you really need freedom of the press? Do you really need the right to freely express your opinions? Do you really need the right to peaceably assemble? It is terrifying to contemplate our Bill of Rights ever being subjected to the government’s determination that we need or don’t need a particular right at a particular time.

            “Even among friends, people are reluctant to say they are consulting with a mental health professional. Maybe if students and adults were educated to see mental health as a normal piece of our general health, they would be more open to seeking help.”

            People used to be reluctant to broadcast that they’re undergoing mental health counseling, but not now, not in the 21^st Century. They do tell their friends with no shame attached. Celebrities go on television and tell about their mental health struggles. They write books about it. Everybody knows it’s a “normal piece of our general health,” no special “education” needed.

            Besides, mass killers believe they’re sane. In their minds, they don’t need counseling, they will not seek it, and no one can make them undergo counseling.

            It is nothing less than nonsense that there’s a stigma to seeking mental health counseling today. Schools employ full-time counselors. When a high school kid is killed in a car accident fleets of “grievance counselors” are dispatched to the school to help students eager to have professional help in dealing with it. A friend of mine was killed in a hunting accident when I was a high school freshman. We talked about it among ourselves, but no one was dismissed from class to meet with a grievance counselor.

            Of course, there are and will always be those who would rather be shot than admit they’re seeing a psychotherapist. They’re the exceptions. For decades seeing a “shrink” has been de rigueur. The stigma of that has been passe for years. It long ago was accepted as nothing to be ashamed of, and now it has almost become something to be proud of.

War is still hell

©2024

By Don Frost

            It’s hard to see pictures and videos of the suffering in Gaza caused by Israel’s response to the barbaric attack by Hamas on Israelis Oct. 7. The images of bleeding, crying children cannot fail to move anyone with a soul. They are the innocents, civilians who had nothing to do with Oct. 7.

            But at the same time, it cannot – should not – be forgotten that we Americans, in concert with our allies, similarly killed innocent civilians in World War II: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, firebombings of Tokyo and other major Japanese cities; the Dresden firebombing in Germany, strategic conventional bombings of Berlin and hundreds of other targets throughout Germany. These civilian deaths were no accident. We knew with absolute certainty that noncombatants would die.

            Estimated civilian death toll in Germany during WWII is 1.5 million to 3 million. It’s 550,000 to 800,000 in Japan, including both atomic bombings.

            We did it then because we were faced with implacable enemies dedicated to our destruction. Israel is doing it now because they are faced with an implacable enemy dedicated to its destruction.

            German civilians died because they accepted a monster, Adolf Hitler, as their leader; their conscience. Japanese civilians died because they accepted the myth that the emperor could do no wrong.

            Yes, weep for the innocent civilians of Gaza, but never forget they allowed the barbarous Hamas to rule them. They stood by and watched while rockets were fired from their country into Israel; while massive machines dug miles of tunnels under their hospitals and neighborhoods; while terrorists used those tunnels to launch attacks on Israeli innocents.

            Perhaps now the innocents of Gaza will claim that they never liked Hamas; that they abhorred its policies and practices. German civilians did the same when the war landed on their doorstep. But now, as then, qui tacet consentire – silence gives consent.

Incompetent banks, Thought Crimes, and a clever ploy by NYC

© 2023

By Don Frost

            I’m no fan of Donald Trump, but bear with me here. He’s on trial for exaggerating his wealth in order to secure loans at favorable interest rates. Isn’t it standard practice in the banking industry to verify such claims?

            Say I ask a bank to loan me $1 million, using as collateral my home which I swear on official forms is worth $2 million. Isn’t it incumbent on the bank to check that out; to find out if my home is really worth $2 million? Do you think I’d have a snowball’s chance of securing that loan?

            I’m serious about these questions. Did Trump’s bankers just take his word for it? If so, why aren’t the bank’s stock holders suing the directors for criminal incompetence?

            Surely there’s a logical or legal explanation (they’re not always the same) for this.

            On Nov. 25 three Arab students at the University of Vermont were shot while walking down a Burlington street. A man simply walked up to them and shot them without preliminaries. Two of the men were struck in the torsos and the third suffered a serious spinal injury. He may be paralyzed.

            The alleged gunman has been charged with attempted murder and has pleaded not guilty. But the way the press is carrying on, “attempted murder” is the least significant aspect to the crime; almost a “by the way” observation. What truly matters to America’s activist press is what the alleged gunman was thinking when he did it: A Thought Crime, aka, “a hate crime.” (In his prophetic novel “1984” George Orwell spelled it “thoughtcrime.”)

            Ordinarily, attempted murder cases are investigated by local authorities. But this one has caught the attention of the socially/politically sensitive United States Department of Justice and U.S. Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland. They have joined forces with the locals in seeking evidence of a Thought Crime.

            Careful what you think. Big Brother is watching.

            New York City is groaning under the weight of 130,000 so-called asylum seekers, shipped north by such states as Texas, weary of years of caring for them. Politico reports that the city has found a novel way of dealing with the problem: Offering them free one-way airplane tickets to almost anywhere in the world.

            City officials have determined that, in the long run, the flights are cheaper than the $380 it costs to house and feed a migrant in a shelter for a single day. It’s working. Some have taken advantage and flown to such places as Colombia and Morocco.

            No word yet on how these other countries feel about being forced to deal with America’s southern border crisis. Perhaps they’ll take it up with President Biden. Oh, to be a fly on the wall of the Oval Office when Biden gets the call from Prime Minister Aziz Akhannouch of Morocco, demanding he foot the bill for taking care of America’s asylum seekers.

            “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” – Mark Twain.

Chaos in House bares deceit of the press and Democratic Party

© 2023

By Don Frost

            “Liberals,” the Democratic Party, the news media, and others on the Left have been having a right jolly time making sport of the Republican Party over its difficulty in electing a speaker of the House of Representatives.

            In so doing, they reveal, yet again, three basic truths about politics in America today. One, the Democratic Party doesn’t know the meaning of the word “democracy.” Two, America’s news media is not to be trusted because its bias is showing. And three:

            Every member of the GOP – every American – should stand tall over this warts-and-all display of democracy at work. It is nothing less than the party’s proudest moment. As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said, “Democracy is messy, and it’s hard. It’s never easy.”

            The Republican Party, it seems, allows its members to vote their minds, their conscience, their convictions. On the other side of the aisle in the House “vote the party line” is the guiding principle. If you’re a Democrat, and you want to get re-elected, you’ll vote as the party leader tells you. To a Democrat, democracy is easy, it’s never messy; it’s cleaned and sanitized for your protection. The Democratic Party’s brand of governing is done behind closed doors where outsiders – mere citizens – are not welcome.

            The Republican’s main stumbling block in finding a speaker is – according to the Left-leaning news media – the “radical wing” of the party; the “hard Right” and “far Right” Republicans. The Democrats have a “radical wing,” too; they’re the party’s “hard Left” and “far Left.” But you’ll never see those characterizations in American news reports. No, this wing of the party, if it’s alluded to at all by the news media, is comprised of “liberal Democrats” or “progressives.”

            “Progressive” has a nice ring to it. It sounds like “progress” and progress, as every school child knows, is a good thing. Stripped of political equivocating, it’s also Democratspeak for “Socialist.” And America’s news media trots right along with the party’s agenda, never using that dirty word, “Socialist,” opting for party-approved euphemisms like “progressive.”

            The House has a powerful bloc of Socialists who serve under the Democratic Party’s banner – they have so much in common. Why would these Socialists not vote with their kindred spirits in the Democratic Party?

Norman Thomas, a six-time Socialist candidate for president, is credited with saying in a 1944 speech, “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. . . . The Democratic Party has adopted our [Socialist] platform.”

Snopes, the rumor-busting website, says it can neither prove nor disprove that Thomas made that speech. Instead, Snopes verifies that the quote goes back at least 58 years. If not Thomas, then somebody else noticed the Democratic Party was going Socialist back in 1965.

            Camouflaged by the Democratic Party label, the party’s Socialist wing in the House is led by The Squad. Originally there were four members, but the list has been expanded to eight.

            The Squad includes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose “other party affiliation” is listed as the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). This is an offshoot of the Socialist Party of America (SPA) whose leaders included Thomas and Eugene Debs. Ocasio-Cortez shares this DSA affiliation with fellow “Democrats” Ilham Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Jamaal Bowman, Cori Bush, Greg Casar, and Summer Lee. Delia Ramirez doesn’t share her fellow Squad members’ affinity for the DSA, but she is proud to be counted on to vote with them on most issues.