As has become standard practice in this modern age of cellphone cameras and Twitter, the Ferguson riots have generated a never-ending supply of inflammatory photos detailing dreadful acts and nauseating opinions. Next to none of these will ever be prosecuted in a court of law; the court of public opinion is the only place they'll appear, so at least they can be condemned there.
Such was this photo you see depicted here. Does not this encapsulate the stereotype of the entitled inner-city dweller who opposes, in principle, any concept of paying any price for any crime, or for any other action? The only rational response is to wish for the sign-holder to receive the same penalty as did Michael Brown who he's so arrogantly defending.
Except for one thing: It's a fake!
A little Internet research reveals that this "photo" is a Photoshop phony. The man pictured never wrote those odious sentiments.
He actually said something entirely different: "No mother should have to fear for her son's life every time he leaves home."
What's wrong with that? We certainly agree with the sentiment; how could anyone not? Unfortunately his anger is misdirected, because Michael Brown wasn't in danger because of the color of his skin.
The late Mr. Brown put his own life at risk by, first, assaulting a storeowner and making off with purloined loot; secondly, by arrogantly jaywalking down the middle of the street in the middle of the day (wouldn't we all be better off if some 18-wheeler driver hadn't been paying attention?); and, most consequentially of all, by assaulting a police officer and trying to steal his gun.
What did he think was going to happen when he did that?
Of course, the real problem most likely was that he didn't think, and, as the toxicology report showed, this lack of forethought was probably because he was high on mind-altering substances. Is this the fault of the police, or the mayor, or the citizens of Ferguson? If it's anyone's fault other than his own, it's his mother's fault for not raising him to Just Say No to Drugs.
This poor deluded marcher should be corrected with the facts. He can certainly be made fun of for his ignorance, albeit less charitably.
Regardless of his motives or his opinions, it is wrong to slander him and his community by putting words in his mouth that he did not say. Does that win any hearts or minds to conservatism? Does it persuade people that the police should be supported? Does it make black folks think that white folks don't hate them as the left and media always try to claim? Does it make us "One Nation, Under God?"
No. In fact, it does the exact opposite. For people who see the fake image and believe it to be real, it engenders hatred and fear of their fellow Americans. For those who know it to be a lie, it creates a righteous indignation against whoever started the lie. No matter who actually did it, such perpetrators are always presumed to be conservative right-wingers.
Here's a principle we all ought to grasp: There's nothing wrong with ridiculing liars and evildoers, if it makes us feel better while fighting them. America knew how to do this in Grandpa's day, as Oscar-winning cartoons like Der Fuehrer's Face vividly portray.
Whatever our feelings, it does not help to lie about our enemies, not even a little bit. Here's another example of lying fakery from the Muslim protests in England.
The sign on the left is the real one. The sign on the right is the fake.
What is it about the genuine article that requires additional spice? Isn't an honest photograph of a beshrouded ghoul holding a sign, in broad daylight, reading "Behead Those Who Insult Islam," strong enough? It ought to be more than ample ammunition against leftist fools who defy reality by bleating that Islam is a religion of peace or that all religions are equally bad.
Yet opponents of Islamofascism, who are fighting on the side of good and right; of liberty, equality, and fraternity; and even of truth, justice, and the American way; they somehow felt they had to stoop to fraud to make their point. Why?
When fighting evil and lies, it is all too tempting to stoop to evil and lying ourselves. The Republicans are famous for having no stomach for actual fighting and thus generally losing even when they ought by all rights to win.
It's possible to fight hard and fiercely without losing our standards. Americans used to know how to do that, most notably during WWII. Nobody could ever accuse Gen. Eisenhower, Gen. MacArthur, or Gen. Patton of wimpy nambypambyism.
Yet they never stooped to the depths of Hitler's Holocaust, Gestapo concentration camps, or the Rape of Nanking. While Japan was abusing American prisoners on the Bataan Death March, captured Nazis were treated humanely and kept reasonably healthy in Allied prison camps.
We won anyway. Partly as a result of our ancestors' honorable behavior, WWII is remembered as the Good War against pure evil. With enemies as obviously evil as the Ferguson arsonists and Islamic barbarians, there's no reason for us moderns not to hold to the same moral high ground, with the same assurance of eventual victory.
Over the past five years, the editors have been secretly working on a book that summarizes the fundamental viewpoints of Scragged.