Tuesday, February 04, 2014

A Bizarre Twist of Fate, Indeed

In a bizarre twist of fate, as Hoffman’s body lay on the floor of his apartment undiscovered, David Codrea had released on article on how Hoffman was battling his addictions while narrating a gun control cartoon for gun-grabber Michael Bloomberg... [More]
Bob Owens shares what the rest of the media ignores, no doubt because it threatens their narrative.

As I indicated when I posted my article, I found the headline of Hoffman's death on Drudge immediately after hitting "publish." My jaw dropped. I could not believe such coincidences could happen, and if they did, that they could happen to me.  I had the fleeting suspicion I'd been hacked and punked.

I went right back in and pulled the article to think if I should alter it to reflect the news, or kill it altogether, and what I should say to those who'd noticed, particularly since I'd already sent out this tweet:

Obviously, that no longer was applicable, but that was the crux of my article and why I'd written it in the first place--to illustrate the utter hypocrisy of calling for citizen disarmament and at the same time providing funding to the violent criminal underworld -- the very people in so many cases, particularly in urban neighborhoods -- who are committing all that "gun violence."

Let me make it clear, as I have in the past, that I do not support the so-called "War on Drugs," which I parody with the very name of this blog. I see no Constitutional authority for the Feds to involve themselves, and I believe the negative impacts of prohibition at all levels, including the evils of asset forfeiture, domestic financial and other spying, police militarization, official corruption and imprisonment of non-violent "offenders" are poor tradeoffs for whatever it is all those intrusions on liberty are supposed to accomplish.  I don't think treating moral, spiritual, psychological and medical problems as criminal problems has any chance of being effective, and only guarantees more badness all the way around.

Don't let it affect the rest of us, and have at it. The second you do, it becomes our business.

The thing is, Hoffman let it affect the rest of us, because he gave money to some of the most violent criminals plaguing us. I won't get into a circular logic argument here about what things would be like IF the state hadn't interfered by making drugs "illegal," because what we're dealing with now is how things ARE, not how some might wish them to be. The fact is, if you give money to the gangs and cartels, you are enabling their ability to hurt and kill others, which they do with regularity. And finding the guy had something like 70 bags of junk in his apartment, and had most likely been using it at the same time he was doing "gun control" voice-overs for Bloomberg cartoons, indicates he was giving substantial aid and comfort to some very evil, dangerous and violent people. That makes it our business, particularly with his insistence that the state make the rest of us more vulnerable to his supplier's gangland associates.

And then to see the cavalier way Bloomberg's youthful ward Mark Glaze memorialized Hoffman as "a friend to our movement," with no acknowledgment, let alone condemnation of how the man's actions worked  directly against everything MAIG pretends it stands for, and to see the way the "Authorized Journalists" are keeping a lid on informing the public of Hoffman's connection with that group, and how the loathsome hypocrites of Hollywood are lauding the guy into martyrdom, and that's enough.

Here's how my article ended, before I learned he'd killed himself:
This is what Hoffman has helped to perpetuate. Anyone buying heroin is getting it from dangerous people.

How telling that someone who exhibited lifelong issues controlling himself insists on controlling others. This is a father who had a son born in 2003, a daughter in 2006 and another daughter in 2008, and abused narcotics and did heroin in spite of those responsibilities that are properly assumed by moral and rational people to be not just his obligation, but a sacred trust.

This narcissistic stage prop’s weakness and projection issues should have no bearing on the rights of free people who do not share his character defects and who do not require high-priced celebrity detox. Still, if the guy is truly rehabilitated, there is good that can come from his experience, by showing others that redemption can be had and that lives can be turned around.

But that’s not enough. The people causing the violence Hoffman wants to punish you and me for are still out there ruining, endangering and violently ending lives, often with “illegal” guns.

If Hoffman and MAIG and its wholly-owned Demand Action subsidiary are serious, let’s see if they’re willing to address that issue head on, or if their whole shtick is merely fraudulent political theater intended to advance citizen, rather than violent criminal disarmament. Surely if MAIG is sincere, they will join me to “Demand Phillip Seymour Hoffman rat out his heroin provider,” and possibly lead authorities further up the supply chain in an effort to save lives from “gun violence”?

No?
Not that they and the media and Hollywood and all those with real influence to shape public opinion wouldn't have just ignored it...

2 comments:

Neanderthal57 said...

David,

Didn't know if you were kidding when you used the 'non-violent' offender phrase or not, but if you were, allow me to point out that you have a serious contradiction problem, as you pointed out that Hoffman did as a heroin addict and his anti-gun stance.

Drug users are in fact, SUPPORTERS of violent crime, as you clearly prove in your article about Hoffman. Using the phrase 'non-violent' in relation to addicts, dealers, et al, locked up for plying the drug trade and using, falls directly into the Hoffman Hypocrisy model.

Please clarify if you would, concerning the phrase usage. Thanks.

David Codrea said...

It's hardly the same as being a triggerman--the only one who is violent is the one committing the violence--if I follow your logic, gun companies are responsible for all the murders committed with them because they enable them by providing the tools--and the govt is also responsible because it creates the prohibition situation where that thrives, and you are responsible because you pay taxes that enable it to do that.

My point on Hoffman is he was actively financially supporting a very dangerous chain of supply that uses violence and at the same time advocated, making it harder for good people to defend themselves from resulting crime--that was supremely hypocritical, not to mention he was out of control and presuming to control the rest of us.

In terms of a specific example of a nonviolent "offender," there are plenty of people who grow their own pot, etc. that have not gone through any syndicate networks--you could go to Col. right now and buy some and bring back the seeds to grow in your state without ever going through a pusher, all nice and "legal."