While lefties get their panties in a bunch over news articles that accuse black looters of “looting” while noting that white non-looters merely “found” the items they found, some of my friends on the right are getting equally silly in the opposite direction, refusing to admit (out loud, at least) that there is any moral distinction to be drawn between people who “steal” food so they can eat and those who steal guns so they can shoot at FEMA officers, electronics so they can do God-knows-what, or anything else they steal simply because they can and not because they need to in order to survive. John Hawkins of Right Wing News is one of the worst offenders. Not being content simply to disagree, he instead resorts to pop psychology to explain away the inconvenient fact of other conservatives actually disagreeing with his self-evident viewpoint:
While I like and respect Peggy Noonan and other conservatives who’re making this argument (like Jonah Goldberg), this is completely bogus. It’s an example of conservatives taking a position they know is morally wrong just because they don’t want to be perceived as “mean.” It’s also — in almost every case — hypocritical.
For those keeping score, note that he made a similar argument when that idiot manager at a Loews theater kicked an autistic kid out of a matinee for laughing too loudly, an act for which Loews itself rightly (and promptly) apologized. I could try reverse-pop-psychology and argue that Hawkins is a liberal at heart who feels deep-seated guilt for his “heartless” conservative views, and feels the need to overcompensate by bashing any conservatives who actually do have a heart, but that would be stooping to his level so I won’t do that. Instead, I’ll simply point out a very basic distinction between stealing to survive and stealing for other reasons: one is legal, and the other isn’t. Happy?
UPDATE: A non-looting “looter” faces criminal charges for an act of heroism. Lovely.
UPDATE x2: Or maybe not.