There are a couple of questions that came to mind:
What the hell was that investigator thinking?
Who is this woman, what is her story, and why did she do what she has done and claims to have done?
That the witness admitted to an affair was brought up by the defense attorney of Goforth’s murderer Shannon Miles in the hope of forbearing the death penalty for killing an officer of the law. The argument is that Goforth was clocked out at the time Miles murdered him, the implication being that he was en route to meet his alleged mistress who was found crying over his body, which under Texas state law somehow makes it no longer capital murder.
It’s a sleazy defense tactic, but in the interest of fairness, I suspect if many of us faced the needle, we’d want our defense attorney to try anything to at least spare us that. Whatever the case may be, Goforth may have strayed from his marriage, but I do have to question the motive and credibility of someone who makes that claim and then has sex with the investigating officer investigating his murder. Presuming for a moment that it’s even true, that may make him a bad husband, but not necessarily a bad cop nor deserving of being murdered. Even if it is true, what if he and his widow had some kind of arrangement?
I don’t know and you probably don’t either. I imagine the usual “fuck the police” types lick their chops at this revelation, hungry for the opportunity to smear and defame the dead who cannot defend himself from these allegations because it’s politically expedient to their cause. Because no motive has yet been released, and until that is publicly established, this leads me to my final question: Why does it even matter if it were true that Goforth was having an affair?
None of that detracts from the fact that someone still ambushed a cop and emptied fifteen rounds into him as he lay fallen. I suspect and speculate people not exactly fond of police gleefully pass this around and shout it from the rooftops as a subtle insinuation that Goforth somehow had it coming, that his brutal murder was in some way morally justified, if certainly not legally. “After all” I imagine they say, “he was a cop, so he must have done something to deserve it, right?”
Yes, it’s possible Deputy Goforth may have had an affair. So what?
A coalition of labor and community activists went on tour of local real estate developments to bring attention to tax deals the city of Houston struck with developers which they say perpetuate poverty in Houston.
I readily admit that I thoroughly enjoy the Donald Trump presidential campaign because he’s clearly trolling everyone — the GOP establishment in particular. I don’t agree with anything he says and I laugh at how ludicrous and blatantly offensive he is, because that makes his campaign the train-wreck I can’t wait to see implode, which hopefully sunders the Republican party come Election 2016. I also don’t want him to win because I’m not a conservative of any kind. I bear Old Left, Old Labor, deeply proletarian sympathies and because of that, I’m a Bernie Sanders man.
My allegiances aside, it’s fascinating to watch people — both left and right — dance to Trump’s tune. The conservative establishment shrieks that Donald Trump is an ignorant blowhard who makes the Republican party and conservatives look like lunatics. Left-wing publications like Salon hysterically clutch their pearls over everything Donald Trump says, cynically exploiting his campaign by writing about him not once or twice but ceaselessly, thereby granting him all the exposure he needs across the political spectrum. Any press is good press, as they say.
Right-on-right infighting, such as the anti-Trump establishment National Review vs. the pro-Trump insurgent Breitbart, is in full swing. Editor of conservative publication Commentary John Podhorerz calls Breitbart a “clown publication” and its readers “rape lovers.” GOP consultant Jack Wilson, who blasts 25% of his own party’s base as “low information voters,” flippantly asked Ann Coulter if Trump pays her extra for anal sex, presumably because she backs his immigration plan. Such infighting on the left end of the aisle is promising as well. In this cynical and sclerotic political climate, it’s quite fun to watch party bosses and their intelligentsia, left or right, lose control over their respective electorates. It’s impossible to understate how nasty this could get.
Despite the circus clown car of the GOP primary, there are also appreciable moments of sobriety and caution about the Trump campaign, because there are reasons why Donald Trump should be taken more seriously — however absurd or offensive he comes across. Trump is the exact opposite of what GOP presidential campaigns have been in recent years (Mitt Romney anyone?). Trump doesn’t come across as wooden and focus-group tested to death. He doesn’t seem handled by overpaid consultants. He’s blunt, and he’s not hyper-sanitized as his rhetoric clearly indicates, whatever you think of it. I’m not sure even he believes everything he says — he may be a glib opportunist for all we know — but he sure sounds like he means what he says, and that must be deeply refreshing to conservatives dissatisfied by what they feel is an unresponsive party establishment.
Trump’s critics point out that the only policy area where he has even the slightest substance is immigration, which is the only thing he seems to discuss. Of course, what he does say about immigration is flagrantly offensive, but that’s part of his appeal. He comes across as willing to say what the electorate wants to hear and what I suspect they, themselves, wish to say. In Donald Trump, the conservative base finds its champion. And while it’s understandably denounced as racist, it would be a mistake to assume his rhetoric appeals only to whites.
US demographic changes heavily favor the Hispanic community. Census figures project the Hispanic population will roughly double in size from 15% of the U.S. population now to 30% by the year 2050, which makes “courting the Hispanic vote” more electorally important than ever. Trump’s rhetoric about illegal Mexican immigrants being rapists, drug dealers and murderers has analysts both left and right eager to bury his campaign, for different reasons, as fast as possible. There is, however, another force at work which should discourage the casual assumption that he’s alienated the entire Hispanic electorate — native or foreign-born — or all immigrants from anywhere else for that matter.
Today, only the most vicious racists openly deploy racial slurs, the kind that were considered normal in the 1950’s and 60’s. In the 70’s and 80’s, we started to hear about “lazy” and “entitled” “Cadillac-driving welfare queens” as a “dog whistle,” as coded racial language for African-Americans. Today we hear the term “illegal aliens” used similarly, which, technically, is the correct legal terminology for people in the country illegally. However, it is used politically to “other” Central and South Americans in particular, immigrants from everywhere in general, and by people hostile even to native-born Hispanic Americans. Such coded racial language makes it possible to drive a wedge between immigrant communities.
“[W]ithin immigrant communities, there’s always a heterogeneity of views,” noted Ian Haney Lopez, author of The Dog Whistle Politics of Race, in a March 2014 interview on Moyers and Company. “As each generation gets established, there’s always a segment of the population that looks with resentment on the new arrivals, that says ‘These people are holding our community down. We really need to restrict immigration,’ they say, ‘because only by restricting immigration can we show that we’re actually now part of the American mainstream.’ So, ironically, I would expect an effort to reach out to Latinos and to Asian communities, not by liberal reforms of immigration, but actually by toning down some of the hostile rhetoric while at the same time promising to restrict immigration.”
While Trump certainly hasn’t toned down his immigration rhetoric, there may be opportunities for him to deliver it in a more targeted fashion. Indeed, Breitbart reports on Fransisco Rivera, a legal immigrant originally from Jalisco, Mexico, who protested before Huntington Park City Council in California against the appointment of two immigrants who are not in the country legally to city commissions:
“You want to become part of this great nation -– that’s fine — but you have to come through the right channels and background check. That’s what I see these people are not doing. I went through all the process. I really appreciate this country and this great nation. A lot of these people, these teenagers, don’t appreciate it.” says Rivera in an interview with Breitbart News.
“I literally remember this one guy, he must have been about 19 years old, bald, holding a Mexican flag. He looked at the sheriff and he literally told the guy, ‘F- the USA.’ I thought, ‘And you want to be a part of this country? Look at what you’re doing, the way you act.’ People don’t have passion and love for this country, but when they are about to be deported they say, ‘Please don’t deport me!’ They only want to be a part of this nation when they’re threatened with being deported.”
Attitudes like those of legal immigrants such as Rivera are ripe for exploitation, and you don’t need a shortage of melanin to fall for it. So, when Donald Trump makes outrageous and offensive statements about illegal immigrant rapists thieves and murders, a portion of the immigrant population, itself, will likely think or say — “Oh you mean those immigrants; I’m one of the good ones” — and vote accordingly. Donald Trump has so far demonstrated that he’s shrewd enough to strategically discriminate between legal and illegal immigrants for electoral gain. Whether he’s clever enough to capitalize on those differences effectively remains to be seen, but the possibility still remains.
Free Press Houston Columnist Nick Cooper asks in part whether we should laugh or cry about Trump. I say laugh freely…for now. I know I will. By all means enjoy the spectacle, the theatre of it all, but enjoy it guardedly. Don’t dismiss Donald Trump as the clown you might understandably think he is. After all, as an actor and establishment outsider, Ronald Reagan was once thought to be an absurd candidate too.
In order to frame gay men with racial and ethnic preferences in sexual partners as racist, she invokes language reminiscent of the civil rights movement with the implied imagery of water cannons and attack dogs unleashed to savage people who simply wanted black folks to enjoy the same rights and privileges of citizenship as white folks:
If you’re a gay man, phrases like “no blacks” and “no Asians” aren’t just words that you’d find on old signs in a civil rights museum, they are an unavoidable and current feature of your online dating experience. On gay dating apps like Grindr and Scruff, some men post blunt and often offensive disclaimers on their profiles such as “no oldies,” “no fems,” and “no fatties.” Among the most ubiquitous are racial disclaimers like “no blacks” and “no Asians,” which are most frequently posted by white men but, as Edwards’s case proves, not always.
Those who deploy these disclaimers defend themselves from accusations of “racism” by claiming that they merely have “preferences” for certain races over others. Wrote one gay blogger, “Don’t tell me I can’t have a preference! I don’t want to have sex with women. No hard feelings. Does that make me a misogynist?”
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least to hear the social justice types accuse gay men of misogyny for not being attracted to women. That aside, there is no sexual equivalent of Bull Connor here (and no, Samantha Allen, you don’t have the power or the right to tell people whom they can and cannot find sexually appealing). There are instead particular nuances of Grindr, Scruff, and other hookup apps which Allen seemingly fails to capture or perhaps doesn’t care to. Such apps attract use from people in moments when they’re most motivated by sex who tend to succumb to what turns them on sexually. If they tend to sexually gravitate towards black people, they seek out black people. If they tend to sexually gravitate towards white people, they seek out white people. The reverse also tends to be true for non-attraction when one simply seeks a quick shag. I somehow suspect that Allen and others like her wouldn’t have a problem with people who said “No Whites” on their hookup profiles.
People may react differently to those who don’t check off a lot of blocks in any given person’s “attractive” column if the relationship was deeper than a quick hookup. One could prefer Hispanics sexually, but wouldn’t hesitate to date whites, Asians, or African-Americans because they connect in many ways and on multiple levels more complicated than a simple one-off sexual encounter. This kind of nuance seems lost to people like Allen. Perhaps she knows better but dismisses it for the expedience of grievance-fishing?
Whatever the case may be, yes, some gay men do put “no oldies,” “no fems,” and “no fatties” on their hookup profiles, even if they themselves have more than a little grey in their hair, have enough sugar in their tank to turn a car into a diabetic, and who are built like a semi; there are others who openly seek out older men, lust after effeminate men and love larger guys.
It would be silly to accuse the lot of “ageism”, of whatever the term for alleged bigotry specifically against effeminate men is, or “fatphobia”. It’s just as silly to accuse people with racial/ethnic preferences of “racism”; people are attracted to whom they are and not attracted to who they aren’t, and you can’t change that by the barrel of a gun or by the tweets of immense and widespread public shaming by Social Justice Warriors.
Being generally attracted to particular races/ethnicities and generally not others on a sexual level alone is not racist and such a claim is a manipulative attempt to police people on one of their most fundamentally intimate levels. Doing so is also pointless because you can’t force, defame, shame, or socially blackmail people into being attracted to those to whom they normally aren’t.
Let’s also face the fact that those particularly on the authoritarian sectors of the left, especially non-gay men who evidently see fit to police gay male sexuality as Samantha Allen does, would never tolerate similar policing of lesbian female sexuality in this way. Doing so would invite accusations of “mysogyny” and “harassment” so predictable, you could almost set a watch by it.
It’s unhelpful and wrong to casually and simply label racial/ethnic preferences in sexual partners as racist without bothering to even attempt to explore and explain why those preferences exist. It’s also astonishingly invasive and reeks of an incredible sense of entitlement; calling someone racist for finding particular races and ethnicities more sexually appealing than others is eerily similar to suggesting to someone “if you don’t have sex with me/them, I will publicly smear you as a bigot”. It’s sexual blackmail with a politically correct edge to it.
We currently live in a time in which the professionally offended control the institutional high grounds on college campuses with an iron fist and occupy mainstream positions of power in the media (their grip is slipping, however, and those who’ve had enough of it are turning them back). It does not surprise me that people who’s ideologies lead them to think that invasive and manipulative social blackmail is an appropriate way to control human sexuality, would use those institutions and positions of power to openly tell you that you are horrible person for not being attracted to people whom they think you should be attracted to.
Lets also not forget that to SJWs, if you are attracted to a particular racial/ethnic type, you’re still a terrible person because that’s…wait for it…racist.
So…sexually attracted to someone in part because of their race? Racist. Not sexually attracted to them in part because of their race? Also racist.
You just can’t win with people like these despite the very real fact that when it comes to human sexuality, preference is everything whether your ideology commands you to like that reality or not. What people find sexually appealing is something Social Justice Warriors can’t control. Ideology does not dictate sexuality.
Nobody should be able to force you, by threat of violence or threat of personal destruction by Twitter, to have sex with someone you don’t want to. Here’s another shocker — you can treat people who are different from you entirely fine with or without wanting to have sex with them. That nuance is also lost on people like Samantha Allen.
Recently, Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King posted an entry to the Daily Kos that there is a “deeply disturbing lie” which he alleges attempts to connect the recent murder of a Houston-area sheriff’s deputy to the Black Lives Matter movement.
I’ve criticized Breitbart recently about publishing articles which I think jump to conclusions before any clear motive has been established. Despite my misgivings and reservations with the movement, without releasing further evidence which would shed light on a motive I don’t think it was helpful for Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman to invoke #BlackLivesMatter in their killing either.
I’m not being naive here; as savage and apparently unprovoked as Deputy Goforth’s murder was, I won’t be surprised if it turns out to be connected to the rhetoric of BLM folks, especially since this was the stance of some of their members just hours after the deputy was murdered:
For a moment, let’s be honest here; other than the shooter himself, nobody really knows what led to Shannon Miles murdering Deputy Goforth. Until and unless an official motive is released, we may never know. It could be BLM Connected; it could be the result of a drug deal by a dirty cop gone wrong. Miles may also have been legitimately, mentally incompetent at the time.
The bottom line is that, until a clear motive is publicly established, I don’t know why Deputy Goforth was murdered and you don’t know either. Whether it’s Breitbart insinuating that BLM had some hand in this without that explicit public information, or demonstrable frauds attempting to absolve BLM from any responsibility whatsoever, don’t expect anyone with an agenda to be honest on this.