A Thug is a thug……period, it isn’t the N-word as a city councilman in Baltimore claims it to be.   A thug is a single word that describes a persons action against its community, like looters, arsonists etc. etc. etc.   Here we go again……political correctness crap.

If you knock out a window intentionally, you are acting like a thug.   You loot, you are a thug.  Destroy property, THUG.   There are other words we could use, idiot, moron, social animal……on and on.

If you behave consistently in a manner of destruction, you are a THUG.

Don’t act offended when  you act offensively, it is what it is, and if you behave in a way that merits a one word description, you might be a THUG.

8 thoughts on “THUG AND THE STUPIDITY”

  1. Reblogged this on kommonsentsjane and commented:
    Thug is a part of the English language and no one person owns it. We have allowed the PC police to limit our ability to express ourselves, and, therefore, it has created a barrier between the cultures. We must stop letting others put us in a box. Who are these people who can tell us we can only say certain words and other cannot – again, we have allowed it.


  2. As usual you are correct, but for many they will not be happy until the word thug is deemed a racist insult. A thug is a thug and they come in all skin colors great post


      1. I thought so, and that’s exactly where things get tricky for us, so I hope you’ll indulge me in a digression to start.

        Where I grew up in Jefferson Parish, LA, for a long time we had Sheriff Harry Lee, the “Chinese Cowboy,” notoriously considered “racist” by the PC crowd and rather loved by everyone else. Jefferson Parish is a weird place to use as an example for anything because politics there is just…different. As you know, the left loves playing the race card, but it’s tricky there because many white Dems in that area aren’t necessarily to the left. They’re more like left-over Dixiecrats. And the GOP, of course, is to the right of them. And it’s an area, just outside of New Orleans, with its own racial tensions. Lee was often accused of racism because he policed more heavily in black neighborhoods. In his own defense he pointed out that he policed where the crime is.

        As an illustration, I think it sums up the mess we’re in. Crime is where the policing happens. When you police someplace with a lot of crime, that area is where most of your criminals are going to get busted. When the criminals are sentenced, the jails are going to have mostly people from where the crime is. And that makes it messy because where the crime is tends to be where poverty is concentrated. And the way things are done by both the left and the right, poverty tends to be concentrated where brown skin is concentrated.

        When Ferguson happened, I mostly kept my peace because I learned that African-Americans were under-represented on the City Council and on the police force. My own thought was, “well, why the hell is that? Nobody says you need a multi-million dollar budget to win a city council spot. Get off your asses, print some cheap flyers, knock on doors, get the word out, and get represented.” If, a big if, there was systematic racism there, the oppressed had a hand in it by not making a voice for themselves. I was relieved to see that in the last election they won seats. Maybe now things will change for the better. Maybe not. If not, at least it won’t be because they don’t have a voice.

        Baltimore, on the other hand? Dems, Dems, Dems. Even a black woman mayor. Dems for decades. And it’s alleged, probably even likely, that Dem economic policies drove the poverty nail in deeper with the way they guided housing and development. Meanwhile, poverty tied in with race, and both tied in with crime. Different strategies had been tried over the years to address the crime. “Broken windows” policing, I believe, being the most recent favorite. Whatever the method, though, one thing remained fairly constant: the police brutality.

        I’ve got a painfully simple view of that. We invest our courts with the power of trying alleged criminals. When they’re found guilty, that same court sentences. Cops are there to make the bust. That’s it. And as you probably already know from other topics, it can be hard to defend police. It just depends on what the issue is. We know from court case after court case that they have no actual duty to protect and serve the general public. We know from history that they are primarily responsible for protecting property and property rights. Which means they are primarily responsible for protecting the interests of people with property, which usually means the wealthier people. We worry about the out of control police state to the point where we’re used to seeing the occasional post about “knowing your rights when you’re pulled over or stopped at a checkpoint,” complete with scenes of cops pulling everyday Americans from their cars kicking and screaming, sometimes after bashing in a window to do so. But then the SHTF in a place like Baltimore, and suddenly the cops are the good guys.

        For just a moment, let’s pretend we’re poor (well, I’m working poor, so it’s not too pretend). And live in a high-crime area. I don’t and hope you don’t. And black. I’m not. You’re not. Seems like an unholy trifecta to me. The cops in “our” area are just policing where the crime is, right? We know, from word of mouth, from knowing people, and even from being hassled ourselves that we get shaken down. We assume it’s because we’re black. We hear news from around the country of another black man, innocent or otherwise, who never got the chance to have a trial by jury or the chance to be sentenced by a judge, because there seems to be a rash of people “reaching for their waist bands.” Let’s just assume (out of pretend here) that we actually have no way to know the truth of all that. But then there’s the issue of police brutality, we’re back in character, we’ve heard, we’ve seen, we’ve experienced it, and it’s even documented. We’ve tried like hell to play the game by society’s rules. We’ve petitioned. We’ve managed to elect one of our own to the mayor’s office. We’ve got a Dem governor. But the poor sticks to us like a stink. There’s still no opportunity because someone who’s not us keeps sending the jobs overseas. Public education sucks and there’s no motivation, partly due to crappy teachers (what you get with crappy pay), partly due to crappy parenting, partly due to peer pressure, partly due to crappy education ideas like standardized testing, teaching to the test, Common Core, and No Child Left Behind. And we *know* the people in power know there’s a police brutality issue because bills to reform the police have been introduced in the statehouse and only the really watered down stuff gets passed, if anything at all. What do you do? Keep taking it?

        Most of the population there says yes. Keep taking it and keep fighting within the system. There were thousands and thousands of peaceful protesters, but they didn’t get the news coverage. The relative handful of bad apples who finally snapped, who finally said, “screw it, playing by the rules doesn’t do any damned good, so *this* will get their attention,” and rioted, they got the coverage. And now I bet you there will actually be reforms, and that’s a good thing because we agree that cops who brutalize are thugs. And it won’t be because most of the people were patient.

        And you know what all this reminds me of? Our own American history. Before Lexington, before the Boston Tea Party, we had tried like hell to play by the rules and keep asking politely, “please, King, stop oppressing us.” Nice didn’t work. Polite didn’t work. We got rowdy about it. There were riots. They were equally chaotic, dangerous things, and as much as the agitators would have liked to have only “bad” people and businesses targeted, rioters do what they do best. They ran riot. Hell, back then we tarred and feathered, ran people out on rails, and on several occasions took the fight right to the problem people in charge on behalf of the crown. We’d surround their houses, we’d terrify them, sometimes we’d break in and trash the place. Sometimes we’d rough up the jackass making our lives miserable. Sometimes we, hundreds strong, would tear the jackass’s house down around their ears. Predictably, this got bitter, nasty, violent response from the crown until we got to the point where we couldn’t take it any more.

        So no, I don’t side with the rioters in the sense of thinking they did the right thing. I just understand why some (but not all) people there have finally had enough. Powers beyond their control and possibly beyond their comprehension have stacked the deck against them and, for whatever reason, they can’t figure out how to stop playing a rigged game. So they snapped. Here’s what I think they did wrong, though. They rioted someplace close to home, someplace symbolic to them. By all rights, they should have rioted downtown, mid-day, trashed City Hall, and maybe torn down a house or two. They’d still be the bad guys, but that would be a point that’s hard to miss.


      2. That needs to be published Frank. People need to read that. I agree, they, those that have had enough should have rioted downtown, City Hall, the Police Station. I have in the past felt the halls of Congress needs to be approached the same. Go in, physically remove them, most of them are worthless. Corrupt power needs to fear the people. Thank you for your commentary Frank, it was excellent! In relatively few words you pretty much described how we got where we are today. I don’t know if I have ever heard it stated better.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.