This guy is great. Does anyone know who he is?
I disagree with Cleese when he says that political correctness was ever a good idea, and I hope he just said that as a polite pander in order to ensure that people stay and listen to the entire video. After all, Cleese never could have starred in this wonderful scene if any type of political correctness was around in 1979.
Otherwise, though, Cleese is right on the money when he says that today’s political correctness kills humor and, indeed, kills any form of communication. He’s especially on point when he says that those who can’t control themselves compensate by trying to control others:
If the video doesn’t load, you can see it here.
Bush didn’t, Obama wouldn’t, but the next president should: Call into the Oval Office the leaders of Muslim communities throughout America to say, “Because of the First Amendment, the fact that you and the people in your community practice Islam is irrelevant to us in America. Your faith is your business. What is relevant to me as leader of this nation is whether you support America or not. When all of you leave this office, you need to carry a single message to your communities: ‘You are either supportive of America or working to undermine America. If you’re in the latter category, you are on notice here and now that my administration will use every constitutional means available to track you, capture you, prosecute you, and imprison or deport you.’ End of story. Thank you for coming. Goodbye.”
Having got that off my chest, I’m about to engage in a speed round-up, because I’ve got about 40 articles — really good articles — to share with you.
A Cruz convert explains why. The most interesting point is that Trump started with something no other Republican has had since Reagan — vast name recognition.
Slowly catching on to the fact that Trump is the Republican Obama. I’ve been saying from Day 1 that Trump is a white Obama. He promises hope and change by using government power to shape America to his will. And let me say, that is my sole problem with Trump: That he’s all about big government, precisely as Obama is. I find that unacceptable. Jonathan Tobin is another one who’s finally figured out the whole Obama Doppelgänger thing.
Trump is a special interest candidate. And that special interest is Donald Trump.
Is the media sitting on big Trump stories? Ted Cruz thinks that there are some horrible stories to be told about Trump, which wouldn’t surprise me given his sordid personal life and . . . ah . . . colorful business life. Once Trump is the candidate, says Cruz, the media will “suddenly” discover stories that make Trump unelectable. I think Cruz is right because we all know the media, don’t we?
Trump’s enemy list makes me like him. George Soros has given money to 187 different special interest groups that are attacking Trump. (To be honest, a lot of them are attacking Cruz too. Indeed, on Sunday, I heard a New Yorker news hour on NPR during which the speakers agreed that Cruz is the more dangerous of the two leading Republican candidates because he actually believes in the Constitution.) In other words, here’s a list of 187 Soros-funded organizations that try to destroy anything conservative.
Will Trump win the nomination? Scott Elliott, an extremely astute election watcher and a man with a history of accurate election predictions, is not a Trump fan. He’s therefore created the “Stop-Trump-O-Meter,” which tracks the outcomes of state primaries and projects the outcome at the convention. Even if you’re a Trump fan, you’ll like Scott’s meter, because, if you ignore the name, it tells in a clear way where the candidates stand in the Republican primary.
If you destroy the polite people, you create room for the impolite ones. Glenn Reynolds points out that the GOP, RINOS, and the Leftist media establishment did everything possible to destroy the happy, tidy, law-abiding Tea Party. Now they’re horrified that destroying the Tea Party left rage in its place.
USA Today editors question Hillary’s fitness for office. USA Today, in its quest to be “America’s newspaper,” the one read in more hotel lobbies than any other paper, is careful about taking strong partisan stands. That’s why it’s impressive that the editors see Hillary’s penchant for secrecy, and the security-evading steps she took in pursuit of her paranoia, as a serious impediment to the presidency.
Ted Cruz is a decent human being. Contrary to Rubio, Trump, and Ted’s former college roommate (who was offended from the get-go by Cruz’s lifelong conservativism), those who know Ted Cruz say he’s an extremely nice and decent man.
Many good reasons to vote for Ted Cruz. Melissa Clouthier’s letter to her fellow Texans asking them to vote for Cruz seems to have worked. Perhaps residents in states with upcoming primaries might want to read it too.
Why does Donald Trump like Harry Reid? Nobody likes Harry Reid, not even his colleagues and constituents, but Trump keeps going around saying nice things about him.
Is Marco Rubio everything that was bad about Bush? Laura Ingraham thinks that Marco Rubio will be George Bush all over again, except only the bad parts of his presidency.
Thomas Sowell thinks this election is our last chance to get it right. Sowell, level-headed Sowell, is thinking in apocalyptic terms about the world Obama leaves us and the need to elect the right president to steer our ship of state. (NB: Sowell doesn’t think Trump has the temperament or ability to captain this ship.)
Megan McArdle on #NeverTrump people. They’re genuinely offended by Trump’s character (or lack of same).
I was discussing with a friend two articles today, when I suddenly saw the future — and believe me, it’s not pretty, or at least not any prettier than Daniel Craig in a lush blonde wig as he carries out his secret agent duties. The first article involved the trauma Milo Yiannopoulos visited upon Rutgers’ students when he gave a campus speech challenging Social Justice Warriors. The second article was learning that the CIA is incorporating into its hiring policies the same activist mindset that SJWs have been demanding on American campuses. The resulting epiphany was how James Bond would play out in this Brave New World.
It all began when Wolf Howling and I speculated about the Bernie Sanders generation — who are they and how in the world did they get so stupid? After all, despite socialism’s manifest and brutal failures everywhere it’s been tried (most recently in a collapsing Venezuela), this generation actually thinks socialism is the answer. Wolf Howling said, accurately, that the poison begins on college campuses. When he said that, my mind immediately summon up what happened after Yiannopoulos breached academia’s sacred domain to carry on his battle against the Social Justice Warriors (warning — AutoPlay video at link):
The horrible thing about Leftism . . . okay, let me rephrase that: One of the many horrible things about Leftism is that it trains its adherents to look at the world through dirt-colored glasses. Everything that is good and beautiful and charming is perceived as dark, depressing, and awful. No wonder the Progressives on my Facebook page are so big on “You are wonderful” affirmations. They need those periodic reminders to offset some of the illogical hate that fills their minds.
I have here two examples of the dirt-colored glasses Progressives have to wear in order to maintain their Leftist bona fides. The first one is a horribly shot amateur video, with tinny music, that is still well worth watching. A large dance troupe performs the national dance of Ukraine — the Hopak. It is a tour de force:
(If the video doesn’t load, you can view it here.)
When I watched the video, I was impressed and amazed. It’s beautiful and exciting and strong. But that’s not how Lefties see it. Here’s a line from the comments section that, to me, is destined to be a Leftist classic: “What they’re doing is impressive, but isn’t that focus on the men’s dancing really just a reminder of the patriarchy?”
I’m a pessimist. I’ve learned through experience that most things go wrong, whether in the world or in my life. Still, I never completely lose hope. If I didn’t have hope, frankly, I would stop moving entirely.
Despite the knowledge that my best laid plans will gang [mostly] aft agley, I wake up every morning with slightly more than half my brain saying “this time the good thing will happen,” and slightly less than half warning “you know it won’t.” The first part gets me out of bed with the sun, the second part gives me insomnia with the moon.
Anyway, that oxymoronic attitude infuses my blog. I’m never surprised when I read about Progressive perfidy, Islamist terrorism, or human stupidity and cruelty, but I always think, maybe something will change . . . maybe it will be better. And on that note, I offer you a cornucopia of things, both old and new, that acknowledge the bad, but perhaps hold out hope for the good.
If Imam Obama doesn’t speak for sharia, who does?
Obama, whose resume does not include either professional or amateur level knowledge about Islam, nevertheless is very keen to tell us each time there’s an Islamic terror attack anywhere in the world that the perpetrators are un-Islamic and do not speak for Islam. Rather than confound Obama with complicated doctrinal questions, Roger Kimball asks one very important one: So Who Does Speak for Islam, President Obama? Kimball even offers a few suggested answers to that question:
Saudi Arabia? It is the world’s most important Sunni Muslim state. One of the most ghastly things about ISIS is its followers’ penchant for beheading people, yet in 2015 alone, our “ally” Saudi Arabia has beheaded 151 people. I am surprised the number is not higher; the list of things that are capital offenses in Saudi Arabia is long and varied.
Apostasy makes the list. If you decide that Allah is not for you, it’s off with your head.
Want a glass of wine? Think twice. The consumption of intoxicants is on the list, as is consensual homosexual sex, adultery, and “sorcery or witchcraft.”
So, presumably, Obama would not let Saudi Arabia speak for Islam.
How about the world’s largest Shia state, Iran? Does it speak for Islam? If not, why not? Because it is just as much a barbaric cesspool as Saudi Arabia?
You see how it’s going to proceed. Last night, Barack Obama was at pains to distance us from “those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity.” Well, with that statement Obama forbids the majority of the world’s Muslims, including the denizens of Islam’s chief states, from speaking for Islam.
Let’s forget conquest and terror: there are millions of folks who call themselves Muslims, yet want nothing to do with jihadist violence. Do they speak for Islam?
Well, if they affirm Sharia — Islamic law — then they cannot in principle affirm “the values of religious tolerance,” etc., so Obama does not allow these Muslims to speak for Islam, either.
Using Trump’s statements about Muslim immigration as the first step in an intelligent immigration plan
If Donald Trump were an artist, he would not be a delicate miniaturist or a meticulous late-medieval Flemish craftsman. Instead, he would be Jackson Pollock or possibly Jeff Koons. He’s creating something all right, but there’s a destructive edge to his creative acts.
Thus, when Donald Trump announced, less than tactfully, that all Muslim immigration ought to step pending Congress’s ability to figure out what’s going on with Muslim immigrants (both ordinary and refugee), he created an immediate furor. There was that the destructive part of his creativity. But Trump also said something that needs to be said, which is that the American government fails in its obligation to protect Americans against enemies both foreign and domestic when it willingly lets foreign enemies turn into domestic ones.
I admit it. I can’t keep my eyes off the spectacle playing out at Yale and UMissouri, with side shows now taking place at campuses across America. I’ve been saying since my Berkeley days that American higher education is sick, sick, sick and, in a sad way, I feel vindicated. The rot that I sensed there in the early 1980s is finally working its way out from the center of the fruit, with the whole thing rupturing and spilling out its disgusting toxin. There are innumerable superb articles on the subject, and I’ll link to them below. I just wanted to point to one thing that I haven’t noticed anyone else mention.
When you read the articles about what happened at Yale, you’ll read that the Yale kerfuffle started when the “Department of Intercultural Affairs” (and God alone knows how much that department contributes to Yale’s hefty tuition) got the ball rolling shortly before Thanksgiving when it sent an email to all Yale students warning about the hidden dangers of Halloween costumes. And no, we’re not talking about costumes that (per elementary school lore) come from the undertakers and are soaked in deadly embalming fluid or costumes that make one blend into the darkness so perfectly that they raise exponentially the risk that a car will unknowingly crash into the wearer. Instead, the email warns about the horrors of costumes that — yikes! — might offend someone.
I believe this administrative email deserves to be quoted at some length, not just because it’s painfully, horribly, victim-centrically stupid, but also because of the Miss Nancy tone that I associate with the old Romper Room show from my childhood:
Should I apologize for the number of videos about free speech I’m sending your way today? It’s just that there are so many good ones that friends have sent me that I feel compelled to share them. Take, for example, Colin Quinn’s short, pungent, hysterically funny riff about the way in the Leftist speech police make ordinary conversation impossible:
I found the video especially relevant today because a friend of mine (nice gal, but very Left) posted two cartoons in the last two days, both of which she thought very meaningful and both of which are intended to shut down speech entirely:
Several bizarre trends are burgeoning on American college campuses, all of which have the potential to backfire in spectacular form against the hardcore Leftists who are promulgating these ideas. This post focuses on three of the worst ideas in modern academia:
(1) The next generation of political correctness, which classifies any speech that hurts a student’s feelings as either a microaggression or a form of triggering. Older generation Lefties are slowly figuring out that these concepts are a form of censorship — but pointing that out, of course, is a form of microaggression that can trigger feelings of persecution in women, members of the LGBTQRSTUV community, people of color, people with handicaps (including young lawyers who demand corner offices at large law offices because they suffer from claustrophobia, something that really happened), victims of rape, victims of bad haircuts, people traumatized by reading about Cecil the Lion, etc.
(2) The bizarre pretense that a person’s sex is no longer a biological matter (as in X and Y chromosomes, which manifest themselves in different reproductive systems, hormones, musculoskeletal systems, etc.), but is simply a matter of preference, so that students can now claim to have a “fluid gender identity” that changes depending upon the person’s mood. On Tuesday, feeling manly, you can put on jeans and a baseball cap, and manspread over a couple of seats at a campus coffee shop; then on Wednesday, to explore your feminine side, you can put on a nice sun dress, put conditioner in your beard to make it soft and silky, and participate in the Womyn’s Group’s latest protest against male hegemony.
(3) The rabid attack on all men as rapists. The most recent examples of this campus pathology range from a manifestly delusional confabulator (as happened at the University of Virginia), to a pathetic woman desperate for attention (as seen with Emma Sulkowicz), to a scorned woman (such as the one who fell into the clutches of one of academia’s professional man haters, and then managed to drag an innocent man into a kangaroo court beyond even Kafka’s imaginings).
The last of the three trends, incidentally, is a direct by-product of the virulent misanthropy that incubates in “womyn’s studies” departments and that thrives on American campuses. If you’re interested in learning more, I highly recommend Robert Stacy McCain’s Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature. The book, which is by McCain’s own admission a work in progress, provides chapter and verse on the man-hating lesbians who occupy academia and churn out academic bestsellers. One of the more prominent examples of these “scholars” was the late Andrea Dworkin who, in 1987, published Intercourse, which asserts that all male-female penetrative sex is by definition a form of rape.
You do realize, of course, where we’re going with these three trends? One day, it’s going to happen that a young woman, whether because she’s delusional, an emotional exhibitionist, or simply vindictive, will file a complaint with her university’s sexual harassment squad claiming that, even though she consented for months to have sex with her boyfriend, she’s concluded in retrospect that her erstwhile boyfriend raped her. Being familiar with the Stalin-esque administraition her campus, she rightly assumes that, once she’s filed her complaint, her boyfriend will be summoned before a kangaroo court and run out of campus on a rail, with his entire future destroyed. Ah, sweet revenge!
But wait! In the Perfect Storm scenario, the ex-boyfriend, when called before the tribunal, refuses to bow down. He does not beg for a lawyer. He does not offer pathetic, chauvinistic attacks against his victimized accuser. He does not beg for mercy.
Instead, the accused ex-boyfriend claims that the charge against him cannot possibly be true. The reality, he says, is that during the time he was dating his accuser, his gender identity was feminine. Not only was his gender identity feminine, it was also lesbian — and to the extent his appearance on campus was externally masculine, he behaved that way because he had discovered that he had much greater sexual success as a lesbian (with sexual success defined as encounters with other women) when those same women believed he was a man. He knew, however, at all relevant times, that he was a lesbian having sex with the woman now hiding behind a screen and accusing him of the heteronormative crime of rape.
Not only does the accused ex-lesbian boyfriend deny the charges against him, he counterattacks. His accuser, he says, the so-called “victim,” has caused him deep emotional distress. She is therefore guilty of microaggressions directed at (1) lesbians, (2) women, and (3) gender fluid individuals. Moreover, the administrative tribunal itself is a triggering factor that has caused him to relive in a post traumatic stress way the horrors of a childhood with religious conservative parents who insisted that men are men, women are women, and that marriage can be only between one man and one woman.
Because of these appalling microaggressions and triggering events, the manifestly innocent ex-lesbian boyfriend, upon leaving this administrative tribunal, plans to head directly to Leslie Abramson’s office, where he will file a suit against the University and his accuser alleging discrimination, sexual harassment, gender bias, emotional distress, and all other claims necessary to compensate him for the terrible emotional wrongs committed against him. The worm will have turned.
I’m trying to see a silver lining in the Iran deal that Obama is shilling so hard (and more on that shilling below). Although I haven’t quite glimpsed the silver, there are certainly some ironies, not the least of which is that Israel is now working openly with Saudi Arabia, the country that is second only to Iran, or perhaps even exceeds Iran, in fomenting anti-Western and antisemitic sentiment the world over. The good thing is that, when Israel attacks Iran (as it will have to once Obama’s deal goes through), Saudi Arabia will freely grant it access to the airspace necessary for Israeli fighters to reach Iran, and it will probably fuel the planes for free too.
Israel will also be joined by the Jordanian and Egyptian militaries, as well as other Sunni nations in the Middle East. Suddenly, the pariah nation will be one of the gang.
The main problem with these new alliances, of course, is that Arabs tend to be challenging partners in war. When they’re ascendant, as we see with ISIS, they’re barbaric; and when they’re not ascendant, historically at least, they’ve been given to spontaneous retreat (no doubt because their ascendant enemies are also Arabs, and they know what kinds of barbarism are headed their way).
Arabs are awful enemies, but they’re not necessarily good friends. In other words, with friends like them, who needs or wants friends?
Here’s a round-up that looks at the awful situation Obama is creating, or has already created, in the Middle East, as well as other trends at home and abroad. January 2017 cannot come a second too soon. Indeed, it may already be coming way too late.
Where there’s life there’s hope
Before I turn this into a total Debbie Downer post, I’d like to direct your attention to the story of an Israeli police woman who suddenly found herself in the middle of a violent Palestinian outbreak in the West Bank. The story starts with a proprietary photo that I won’t share with you. You’ll just have to follow the link:
Nevada puts education power back in parents’ hands
People who oppose the power of the teachers’ unions and who believe in parents’ rights to educate their children as they, not the government, see fit, should keep an eye on Nevada, which makes it possible for all Nevadans to opt out of the public school system: