Back in July,
we noted an article about a San Juan Cap city councilman—and
Saddleback College Poli Sci adjunct—who sought to allow citizens to carry guns at the city park.
Evidently, Derek Reeve is some kind of libertarian gun nut. His Neanderthalic nature became clearer when I dug up Reeve's so-called “mission,” which appears on his election website:
I pledge to represent San Juan Capistrano according to these principles:
1. America Is Good.
2. God is the Center of Life.
3. Your family is sacred and the ultimate authority, not the government.
4. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
5. We have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
6. You work hard for what you have and you will share it with who you want to. Government cannot force you to be charitable.
7. It is not un-American to disagree with authority or to share your personal opinion.
8. The government works for you. You do not answer to them, they answer to you.
9. Semper Fidelis
Well, Mr. Reeve is in the news again. Evidently, he has named one of dogs “Muhammad,” a fact he went out of his way to report at a recent City Council meeting:
 |
| Nicknamed "Muh" |
San Juan Capistrano Councilman Named His Dog 'Muhammad' (
Voice of OC)
San Juan Capistrano City Councilman Derek Reeve announced at last week's council meeting that he gave one of his dogs—animals considered particularly impure in the Muslim world—the same name as the Muslim prophet Muhammad.
"That's right," Reeve said at the council meeting, "I named my dog Muhammad."
The remarks came during a discussion about a planned dog park in the city. Reeve pulled the item from the meeting agenda, which was scheduled for adoption without discussion, to ask questions and make a brief comment.
Apparently Reeve thought the remark was funny, and so did some meeting attendees, who could be heard laughing on the audio tape of the meeting.
"I have two new dogs. I'm excited about a dog park," Reeve said. "America and Muhammad may want to play with [other] dogs."
. . .
Mayor Sam Allevato said he was "frankly shocked" when he heard Reeve make the comment. Allevato said elected officials need to be held to a higher standard.
 |
| His pig, Moses |
"I do not believe that comment does any good in the furtherance of good relations with members of the Muslim faith," Allevato said. "We have to be mindful as the elected leaders of the city. What we speak from the dais reverberates throughout the community and throughout the organization."
. . .
This isn't the first time this year that a local city council member has made comments offensive to Muslims. Hundreds turned out at a Villa Park City Council meeting in March to protest comments made by Councilwoman Deborah Pauly, who called attendees at a Muslim charity event "enemies of America."
38 comments:
He teaches Poli Sci for us? Oh my. Can you imagine him and this attitude in a classroom of our students?
*cringe* Ah yes, Orange County makes us so "proud" once again. He is really in the classroom teaching Poli Sci?
He's been at Saddleback for awhile. Also at Concordia.
I am sure he meets the qualifications to teach Poli Sci but the kind of insensitive arrogant ugly pride he exhibits here is quite breathtaking. Imagine him in a typical classroom of our students, some of whom no doubt are devout or even not-so-devout Muslims. One wonders how they believe Professor Reeve perceives them.
Who teaches in that department? Who manages it?
Obviously Reeve "pulled" the item so he could make his sick "joke." he was going to vote for it anyway.
Disturbing in all sorts of ways.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
It is hard to fathom that someone with a degree or two would go out of his way to be disrespectful and hurtful. This really flaunted his ignorance. I deplore SC for employing such a jerk!
10:58, is there some prereq to earning "a degree or two" that requires one to be respectful and kind? In my experience, there are a lot of a-holes out there in the world; some with degrees, some without. It makes no difference.
By the way, 8:39 lifted that remark from RMP without indicating so. It may have been made by one of Reeve's recent students, but not directly to this blog.
A non-story driven by leftist political correctness.
Please don't feed the troll. —The Management
Ignore him.
Change a few nouns here and there in his pledge points, and it would fit right in with a dictatorial theocracy, like Saudi Arabia or Iran. What irony.
I've commenced deleting our Troll's comments. Eventually, he'll pick up his whoopee cushion and go home.
Bvt, that person did raise some good points. Instead of deleting his coments, why not debate him? His point about the national socialist party taking away everyone's guns is valid. We all know how that ended up.
What was the alleged "valid" point?
Please, let's not encourage the troll and his/her supporters. The "point" about Nazis and guns is manifestly weak. Causal claims are notoriously difficult to establish, a point plainly foreign to our Tea Partying friends. I want this blog to attract and solicit the comments of thoughtful people who reason carefully. The troll and his defenders--probably foolish young men--are of that loutish generation of "conservatives" who take a sneer to be an argument and a mere assertion to be an essay. Please, let's ignore them. Utterly.
Of coruse Mr. Reeve wanted exactly this - attention, reaction, "offense." He set the whole thing up. He's not serving the community - he's serving his own ego and ambitiopn at the expense of the community - and no doubt his students. No more humble public servant, huh?
Hey bvt, how is it manifestly weak? The Holocaust most likely wouldn't have happened if it weren't or the National Socialists confiscating everyone's guns several years before. The social engineers would like to have it both ways; gun control in urban areas. You can't have the second amendment both ways.
I do however agree with you on the point re. the guy publically commenting on his dog's name while working in that public capacity. It was in bad taste, equal to the move forward on the ground zero mosque.
1:39, again, causal claims (whether one event "led to" another) are notoriously hard to establish. It is not enough, of course, merely to reason a la "post hoc ergo propter hoc" ("after this; therefore, because of this").
As I'm sure you are aware, there are a great many Western nations that have (and have long had) far more restrictive laws re guns than we have. By the Troll's logic, these nations should have experienced the rise of Naziism. That obviously has not occurred. This neatly refutes the argument. But the more important point is that these types of causal claims are notoriously hard to defend. Just where is this confidence about what leads to what coming from? From nowhere.
These are logical truisms, not really worthy of discussion, in my opinion, unless one is engaged in remediation. This is one of the reasons I believe that the troll should simply be ignored. He forces us to make very basic points, distracting us from useful discussion.
It seems to me that those who speak critically of "social engineers" cannot also be making the kinds of claims you are making regarding what caused or allowed the Holocaust. There is a thread in the "conservative" tradition that is hostile to "social engineering", and that hostility is, I think, based on skepticism about knowledge of such things. We really don't know much about what works and what does not in human communities; hence, we should not seek to "engineer" societies to some alleged perfect or improved state. Conservatives used to insist that reform must always be gradual and careful; never sudden and with confidence. This is an aspect of the conservative tradition that has always made much sense to me. You might take a look at Oakeshott's "Rationalism in Politics." --BvT
So in other words you're saying our founders were wrong with the second amendment, like they were also on slavery, and that therefore is what drives the left to dismantle our constitution piece by piece until its rendered insignificant? The slavery issue was already constitutionally corrected 147 years ago, BTW...
I'm sure that a few Jews with guns would have easily staved off the Wehrmacht with no problems--right? Geez. And this apocalyptic crap about "dismantling the Constitution" is just pure hysteria. Read up on Constitutional law a bit before telling us what the founders meant--as far as I'm concerned, it's to have a militia in place for national emergencies, not for gun nuts to openly carry assault weapons and scare the children.
3:18, exactly what or who are you responding to? Slavery? Start making sense.
3:18, you are confusing argumentation with bloviation
3:28, it wasn't about a few Jews being armed. Everyone knows its about the whole population... And no its not apacolyptic or hysterical to be protective of our constitution we're sopposed to protect and defend as Americans. That's the same argument the National Socialists made in the ghettos when the Jews got word of the gas chambers. They were told they were just being hysterical, to calm down; just get your family into the boxcar so we can take you to the nice family camp, where everything's going to be okay. We all know how that turned out... My point is that the govt. should never be entrusted with too much power.
And bvt's point is that govt should have too much power so they can reengineer society. I don't believe that's our govt's role. The less govt in our lives, the better off and more free its citizens are. It's not really that difficult to understand. Call me a troll for that...
Reeve's is a true patriot. Now all he needs to do is clean out all those slums in SJC.
5:32 said: "...bvt's point is that govt should have too much power so they can reengineer society." --That quite plainly is not my point. If you can't read, 5:32, you shouldn't try to write. Please go away.
I've got to say, the generally dismal quality of blog comments in recent days has started me thinking of blog retirement. It's as though fifth graders have suddenly wandered onto it.
"As I'm sure you are aware, there are a great many Western nations that have (and have long had) far more restrictive laws re guns than we have. By the Troll's logic, these nations should have experienced the rise of Naziism. That obviously has not occurred. This neatly refutes the argument."
BvT, that is plainly NOT "the Troll's logic." You mistake a necessary condition for a sufficient one. "Manifestly" you have failed to refute the point, "neatly" or otherwise. It does seem time for blog retirement.
6:34, you don't have a clue, do you? Go away.
No retirement please - just forward movement. Retire the trolls instead. Thanks for the blog. It sustains community and we need it. Keep it up.
"... the less government in our lives, the better off and more free its citizens are." 5:32, you may or may not be a troll, but you seem not to imagine what our lives would be *without* government. Imagine no public sewer systems, no workplace safety laws, no pollution controls, no traffic lights, no prisons. And the absence of so much more. We would suffer vastly more illness and deaths. We'd have child labor and slavery. Life would be vastly more "nasty, poor, brutish, and short." None of this would amount to more freedom. I can't imagine how intelligent people could say what you do unless they have simply not looked around them at all.
MAH
I have to say, I don't know how Bvt can stand it. He has done a huge public service with this blog, with the excellent collaboration of Rebel Girl and others. But he's right: sometimes, as here, the quality of some comments are more to be expected in some sort of (literally) sophomoric setting. Really disappointing--especially those who, no doubt just to dig at BvT, feel compelled to defend troll-speak.
I wouldn't blame you a whit if you did retire, BvT. Or at least for your Sabbatical, which should not be taken up with such exasperating forms of stupidity and vice.
The pet's full name, according to another Facebook post by Reeve, is Muhammad Winchester Boone.
Ah, yes, well known fact that pets need a first name, middle and last.
Oh my.
7:57 am says "Of course Mr. Reeve wanted exactly this - attention, reaction, 'offense.' He set the whole thing up. He's not serving the community - he's serving his own ego and ambition at the expense of the community - and no doubt his students. No more humble public servant, huh?"
Close, but not exactly true. He does want attention and he did set the whole thing up, but not to serve his ego and ambition. Derek represents a segment of the community that likes to portray itself as embattled, downtrodden, and unable to exercise its various Constitutional rights. Whenever Reese is attacked, he holds it up to his supporters as an example of how his/their rights are being violated. He's a martyr and hero to them.
7:19, lately it’s really had nothing with “quality of comments” or “rational thinking” and more to do with liberal idealist sycophancy. It’s plain to see how one-sided this blog has been and become.
A case in point: when bvt was acting as the underdog for IVC’s maintenance dept. some time ago, there were all kinds of incoherent & dumb comments posted, and never was there any condescension, belittlement, ad hominem or any critique of grammar, spelling, etc… Why then does it happen only with opposing political ideologies? Why do their posts get deleted? I think its self explanatory. If you don’t see the America and our constitution the way they do, than you’re just stupid…
9:16, how about your Westfall case? isn't that the same thing, but on the liberal side? I haven't yet heard of Reeve taking any of his battles to court...
1:54, you too should invest in a good dictionary. I never acted as anybody's "underdog." Perhaps you mean to say that, on several occasions, we gave Maintenance workers an opportunity to voice their concerns. They, of course, not BvT, were the underdogs.
During those periods, we did in fact regularly delete particularly crude and offensive remarks by some Maintenance workers, among others. We do that routinely, and regardless of the commenter's stand on the issue in question.
The Westphal case (I was a plaintiff) concerned whether the district (and some college personel) were violating the First Amendment--whether they were acting to establish religion through such acts as showing "Jesus saves" videos to employees. In the course of that case, the judge did rule that at least two district actions (trustee Wagner's comments during a scholarship dinner and Chancellor Mathur's infamous video) violated the Constitution.
The judge is a noted conservative.
Westphal case? It seems to have escaped me. Can you please give us a quick refresher on it?
1:11, read about Westphal v. Wagner case here.
Post a Comment