Can Someone Make Sense of This For Me, Please?

Earlier this week, hordes of kids - teenagers and young adults - rioted through Baltimore. They looted, destroyed private property, set fires and burned homes and businesses while most people simply looked on. They sat on the sidelines, wringing their hands but not condemning.

At one point, the mayor spoke her mind and called them thugs.  Many black leaders condemned her for that statement, but not the actions that led to it. So, she retracted her words, saying she 'over-reacted'.

Huh?

This is the mayor. She is responsible for the police, who were under attack, and she sides with the hoods who put fifteen officers in the hospital? She doesn't condemn the actors who injured her employees? Really? There's a confidence builder for the men and women sworn to protect and serve.

Personally, I think the woman is an incompetent twit. More than a few reports say that she told the police to 'stand down', that the mob should be allowed to riot, to be given space. Ignoring the fact that many of the tax paying citizens she was elected to serve were having their livelihoods destroyed. She does not call in the National Guard.

Yet she gets one thing right by calling them what they are: thugs and then is such a wildly weak sister that she retracts it when a bunch of men take exception to it.

 Now that's leadership for you...


On the other hand, also this week, we have a mom in Colorado who packs Oreo cookies in her four-year old daughter's lunch.

Oh. My. God! Crime against humanity!

The school confiscated the cookies the child's mother packed, and sent a condemnatory note home.

So here's my problem.

Not a word, not one single breath condemning the kids who burned down part of a city. Not a syllable against their parents. We're not allowed to call them thugs, because, even though it is synonymous with 'hoodlum' and 'ruffian', the black leadership likens it to the n-word.

In Colorado, a little girl doing nothing worse than eating chocolate cookies with her lunch is punished. She is humiliated in front of her peers by having a teacher take part of her lunch away. It probably was not done subtly or quietly. Four year old kids, in my experience, are not known for being quiet and meek, so I imagine there was an outburst that drew the attention of the little girl's classmates. There were probably tears and the teacher scolding. The child's mother is shamed with a derisive note all but accusing her of being a 'bad' mother.

Now, can someone explain this divide logically, because I sure as hell don't get it.

Is it because the black kids have more rights than the white kid? After all, Authority did not step into the mess in Baltimore and try to stop it. They let it go - for a couple of days, watched while business owners had their shops broken into and robbed - and they did nothing to stop it.

Is it because society fears the black mob more than we fear the single white child? After all, those black kids are bigger than a single four year old little girl.

Here's the divide for me: It is not okay for the Nanny State to intervene in or condemn the destructive bad behavior of a mob, but it is acceptable for them to tell a parent what they can and cannot feed their child?

Really?  Why?

Think about it and let me know because as I said before, I just do not see any logic in the handling of these two situations.

Have a lovely day!  (It's Friday!! Wa-Hoo!)

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories