A rare moment when TV doesn't suck triggers a bit of thought
Was watching "Law & Order" earlier. Yeah yeah, it was a rerun, blow me. Uh, anyway...
The episode dealt w/ a case of a homeless skitzo being beaten to death by another homeless guy -- over a friggin orange. The guy's lawyer, fitting a Leftist archetype, tried to get him off by spinning the whole thing as if it's some gross hypocracy to apply the law to homeless people -- in a nutshell, "they've been abandoned by civil society, how can they be expected to follow it's rules?". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why that is bunk: by that logic there'd be no difference between killing a homeless person & putting down a rabid dog, what is ironically claimed to recognize a "special circumstance" actually classifies them as subhumans. Basically, the left-wing activist lawyer used a tactic of sideways declaring superiority, which the radical Left commonly charges Conservatives with doing.
But that's not the thought I was referring to necessarily. This is:
Does anyone out there have the intellectual gonads to give an explanation, in any form, of why I should not interpret that as a clear parallel to the current popular neo-Marxist habit of excusing brutality in middle-eastern dictatorships & theocracies to spite "AmeriKKKa" as they so cutely put it? Because that conclusion has gone off on a 12-0 scoring run, and it's the 4th quarter & the opposition's best defender just fouled out.