A couple fighting about which gang their 4-year-old toddler should join caused a public disturbance that resulted in the father’s arrest, Commerce City police said Thursday.

Ok, you want to have gangs because your daddies didn’t wuv you?  Fine, you just go to town, but I’m going to need you to hand over your testicles and ovaries first.

Right there…put ‘em in the box.

pan·der (pndr)intr.v. pan·dered, pan·der·ing, pan·ders
1. To act as a go-between or liaison in sexual intrigues; function as a procurer.
2. To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses.

I’d like to submit a third definition: to write a blatantly fellating piece about a political candidate, loosely disguised as social commentary, while simultaneously managing to promote your own whingy-liberal agenda.

So, it’s like sex with a skanky hooker, and masturbating at the same time. Win!

Ms. Mary Mitchell is guilty of option #3 in Sunday’s Chicago Sun-Times, with the implication that the NIU shooter was, like so many of Obama’s faithful, guilty mainly of a loss of hope:

According to university officials, Kazmierczak’s behavior while a student at NIU raised no “red flags,” and he was “revered” by faculty and other students.

Yet something drove this seemingly normal graduate student to drive three hours on Valentine’s Day to carry out a deadly plan that he obviously thought out in advance.

Yes, Mary, he was a bug-eyed crazy person. And frankly, I don’t appreciate you impugning the relative hopeful- or hopeless-ness of bug-eyed crazy people. It’s demeaning to them, and we should be abjectly respectful of their right to be both bug-eyed, crazy, and as full or empty of hope as they want to be. *sniff*

The man went off his meds. End of story. There is nothing socially meaningful about someone suffering from depression, being bipolar, etc. etc. etc. Bad chemicals have been a factor in human existence since the dawn of time, and no amount of happy-happy-joy-joy feelings from others can change that. The sooner bleeding-heart nancypants face the fact that there are culls in the human race, just as in any other species of mammal, the more pragmatically we can deal with them, whether it’s a bullet to the brain (as folks like the NIU shooter rate), or confinement in a nice soft room.

One experience-lacking socialist-wannabe with a skillful speechwriter isn’t going to single-handedly dispense rainbow-spewing hope nuggets, no matter how hard you clutch at your Polly Pockets pillow, squinch your eyes shut and wish for it.

I see I’ve been posting a number of anti-Obama pieces lately… I don’t want you to think I actually LIKE Hillsy, it’s just that the messiah-ization of Obama irritates me on a cellular level. And his worshipers do make it so very easy.

Another radical question(ing): It is assumed that we should clothe and feed our fellow man when he cannot do so for himself (some go so far as trying to do so even when he can do so for himself). Why should we?

I suppose the only answer to that is “compassion,” but from where does that compassion spring? Religious training? Parental indoctrination into the mysteries of the Golden Rule? Instinct?

Sociology 101 tells us many of the customs that still exist today originated in either self- or species-preservation, and are so ingrained at this point that to flout them is considered “uncivilized” even though the continuation of our species is hardly in danger.

That collection of genetic culls in Africa who insist on hacking each other apart with machetes (due solely to tribal affiliation, mind you) do not appear to have much in the way of compassion for their fellow man…so did their indoctrination fail, or was it simply abandoned due to the lack of imminent threat (other than from itself) to the species?

Any street gang in any city in any country likewise fails utterly to exhibit compassion, for each other, for their victims. Again, did the indoctrination fail? Or is it being overridden by the “too many rats in a cage” syndrome? Not enough territory (and no requirement to work for survival) inevitably equals warfare.

Fathers who rape their stepdaughters, parents who murder their children, children who murder their parents…not a lot of compassion exhibited there. It has to be something more than lack of proper indoctrination. I would say we’re not so nearly removed from animals as we’d like to think, but you don’t see a lot of piping hot crazy in the animal kingdom.

Yes, home schooling. Apparently due to the fact that the “mother” in question pulled the children out of school, and glibly told a visiting social worker that she was now home schooling. She killed her four daughters some undetermined time thereafter.

The reasoning behind this ridiculous claim is that DC is one of six states in the Union that has no regulations on the books regarding notification of intent to home school, or any sort of oversight requirement. Meaning, if only this genetic defective had been watched like a HAWK by some omniscient bureaucrat (oxymoron alert) then these kids would still be alive.

Bunk. We’ve looked into home schooling several times, but it is a bit difficult to actually DO when you both have jobs outside the home. The laws in Alabama (where Scions 1 and 2 were born) stated that you had to either be a certified teacher, or teach under the auspices of a church. No other oversight, no home visits. The laws in Florida, where we now reside, do not require that the home schooler have any particular education requirement, but the school superintendent must be notified, both a log and portfolio of work accomplished has to be presented, and the child must submit to an annual education evaluation and assessment test. Again, no home visits required.

Now, those are just two states. If I had the stomach for it, I’d go survey all 42 other states that have home schooling laws on the books, just to quite thoroughly demolish what passes for “journalism” at the New York Times.

The fact of the matter is the woman killed her kids because she wanted to, and even had they been in public school, she still would have found the time to do so when they were home. Yes, if there had been a pattern of abuse, perhaps some responsible, observant adult would have seen it…if there still exist such a creature in the public school system. But that doesn’t change that the conclusion drawn by the “journalist” in this article is lazy, spurious, and wholly fabricated out of their own foetid imagination.

Let’s face it, true journalism (with all the ugly fact-checking required) is in its death throes…sped along by hacks like Ms. Jane Gross here. Hildy Johnson is surely spinning in her grave.

Others on this same subject:

• Overlawyered

None of these men had actually committed a real live, honest to goodness crime when they got arrested. They were arrested for thought crime. They were arrested for talking dirty to someone on the internet. The were arrested for a made up crime against an imaginary child. IF NO CHILD EXISTED FOR THESE GUYS TO TALK TO, THEY COMMITTED NO CRIME UPON A CHILD.

Ok. Everyone breathe. The Florida prosecutor was talking online to an adult. The trucker in Kansas was talking online to an adult. The guys who are galactically stupid enough to be caught by the tv show were talking online TO AN ADULT.

The nannies are so worried about the new boogieman that they have passed laws that empower police forces across the country to assume the persona of an underage child and lure people to their social (if not actual) dooms.

Wait, wait, wait…I can hear the keystrokes already calling me every foul name in the book. Do not misunderstand me. These people, these beasts, who would prey on those we as human beings are supposed to be programmed genetically to protect, are the worst and most vile among us. The trucker listed third is already convicted of a sex crime. The federal-freaking-prosecutor listed first stated online to the officer that had done this lots of times. (Even though not one person has come forth to say he actually had, it does indeed indicate a pattern of thought. But are we arresting people for thoughts now?) The men arrested on the tv show range throughout the gamut of society, and yes, some of them do indeed have criminal records.

But they didn’t break a law this time. At least not a law that has any business being on the books let alone enforced. If an actual child was in danger from one of these guys and the parents found out someone was coming to their home to play house with their kid, I’m all over the cops being there with guns drawn waiting for the goblin to show his face.

Blam blam blam “Show me your hands and step out of the car or I’ll shoot!

“Deputy, you did that in the wrong order, again. You only get fifty or sixty more chances to get that right or it will reflect on your performance review.”

“Sorry, sir.”

I understand that bureaucracies move glacially slowly and that new crimes are being committed, if not invented, on the Web. I understand the need to protect our children from the goblins. I even understand that many times humans are moved by the need to ACT even if they don’t have all the possibilities and variables worked out yet. But to invent a crime where no actual victim is, well, victimized is the wrong way to solve the problem.

Stepping aside for a moment…

Remember that firefighter who got arrested for showing his winkie to a lady who was sunbathing topless? Under a tree. Where she had been for days. In a park where semi nudity is allowed. Where SHE TOUCHED HIM IN A SUGGESTIVE MANNER AND ASKED TO SEE THE MAN’S CRANK. Did the guy act in a foolhardy fashion? Yes. Should he have asked to take her to a hotel or even back to his place? Yes. Did anyone, other than the woman who quite literally asked for it even SEE the man’s unit? No. Would the silly man have whipped it out had a female undercover cop NOT asked him to do it however is anyone’s guess. (If it turns out that this woman wasn’t a cop, I would like to know how come she wasn’t charged with soliciting. But law enforcement officials breaking the law in order to enforce it is a lesson for another day.)

Now stepping back in…

It is very easy to claim “the bitch set me up” when police are dealing with scumbags. And these guys, the ones actively seeking sexual congress with a minor are indeed scumbags. Entrapment is a real, albeit rare, occurrence however. How much harder would the police have to work if the sexual predators didn’t literally come to them is a question no one can answer. How many of these guys are just Joe Average on the path to depravity and need to be examined for the bad chemicals in their heads is the other half of that question though. Arrest for a crime against a fairy tale persona is not the answer.

Understand this too, please. I do not think these people need to be let free to roam the streets. Public shaming and humiliation used to work. I think branding may be too far to go, but what about the modern equivalent: Use the Web to make sure that these animals are known publicly for what they are—perverts in waiting. Next comes the question: If we as a society aren’t going to put these guys in jail, just give ‘em the old Hester Prynne treatment, why are we spending police budgets to catch them? My very question and the reason I wrote this piece.

Parents: parent your own kids! If you are incapable of teaching your kid right from wrong, honorable from wicked, scary from safe… maybe your kids don’t need to be on the internet in the first place. If you have failed so utterly and completely as a parent that your kid thinks a forty year old man is the answer to his or her thirteen year old problems, then you should be ashamed. In the long run, the police can help you pick up broken pieces, maybe even catch the bad guy after the fact, but you, parent, are the one responsible for protecting your own kid and teaching them how to deal with the goblins.

There is, of course, a 1st Amendment factor in all this as well and we could sit and enumerate the violations of free speech all night. The case could be made that violations of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and possbily 8th Amendments have occurred in other cases of this nature. I guess it would take a really bored, rich , and patient ‘pervert’ to go to the time and expense to defend himself on those grounds, thereby making himself an even bigger object of public derision.

So, if a guy knows that Chris Hansen is setting up a ‘sting’ and goes along with it just to fight the case in court…