The next time you see a poll promising that Trump is going to lose pathetically in November 2020, refresh yourself with this “Yes, Minister” moment.
“White Supremacy” is a progressive canard to keep the race card viable in the absence of actual racism. It paints all whites as inherently racist and promotes the worst of tribalism as a progressive political tool.
The New York Times’ 1619 Project seeks to “reframe” American history to mark the year 1619 as the “true founding.” The first purpose of the 1619 Project is to cement slavery as America’s original sin. The “reframing” comes about, first, in the telling of a narrative so distorted as to be false, then, second, in redefining “racism” to attach the slander to a whole host of things that either are not caused by racism or are not racist by definition. Mirable dictu, America is suddenly a nation full of virulent racists / white supremacists.
It is helpful before continuing deeper into this morass to take a balanced look at the actual history of slavery in this country, not as an original sin that still stains us today and that can only be explicated by destroying the country, but rather as an extremely difficult issue that was set on the road to being righted by our Founders and their progeny. In a recent AEI article, author Mark Perry quotes extensively from black economist (and one-time card carrying communist) Thomas Sowell: [Read more…]
The 1619 Project – a media driven campaign to view everything about this nation through a dark and myopic racial prism — is pure evil. It is the basest of modern lies, told to stir the basest of emotions, all to separate society and, thereby, to achieve a political end unrelated to the lies.
Perhaps when you think of the founding of the United States, you think of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers. Now, the New York Times wants to “reframe” your understanding of the nation’s founding.
In the Times‘ view (which it hopes to make the view of millions of Americans), the country was actually founded in 1619, when the first Africans were brought to North America, to Virginia, to be sold as slaves.
This year marks the 400th anniversary of that event, and the Times has created something called the 1619 Project. This is what the paper hopes the project will accomplish: “It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”
With the 1619 Project, America is being subjected to the biggest single toss of the race card in our nation’s post-civil war history. According to the race hustlers and progressives pushing this hoax, our nation today has not advanced an inch from the horrendous racism of 1952 Mississippi, that racism is responsible for all the ills of society, that racism is the foundation of capitalism, and that racism is at the root of all the ills of black society today. Anything negative that happens to a black is because of racism, regardless of their own actions. This from Damon Linkler, discusses some of the things the NYT, in its 1619 Project, tie to racism and slavery:
Throughout the issue of the NYTM, headlines make, with just slight variations, the same rhetorical move over and over again: “Here is something unpleasant, unjust, or even downright evil about life in the present-day United States. Bet you didn’t realize that slavery is ultimately to blame.” Lack of universal access to health care? High rates of sugar consumption? Callous treatment of incarcerated prisoners? White recording artists “stealing” black music? Harsh labor practices? That’s right — all of it, and far more, follows from slavery.
The most impressive authors, like Times op-ed columnist Jamelle Bouie, are honest enough to admit that their chosen subject (Bouie writes about the hardball tactics of congressional Republicans since 2011) may have “nothing to do with race at all.” Yet in the end even Bouie comes back around to asserting that Republican “methods of action … are clearly downstream of a style of extreme political combat that came to fruition in the defense of human bondage.”
The least persuasive, and unintentionally comical, contribution to the issue is a relatively brief essay by Princeton University’s Kevin Kruse, a historian who’s justly gained a large online following for his deft skewering on Twitter of Dinesh D’Souza and other know-nothing pundits of the far right who like to publicly display their ignorance of the American past. For the 1619 Project, Kruse writes about how notoriously bad traffic jams on Atlanta highways are — you guessed it — the legacy of “a century-long effort to segregate the races.”
It is of course not just the NYT. As Heather McDonald writes at the WSJ, the mainstream media at large is, in the era of Trump, pushing race, racialism, and white privilege into every story it produces. It’s just the NYT that is at the center of organizing it and normalizing it at the moment.
The 1619 Project is, as Rich Lowry writes in the NY Post, a revision of history, one in which the history of slavery and race is in part warped and in part omitted. According to the 1619 Project, slavery only happened in America, for the black and Muslim enslavers and slave traders in Africa are never mentioned as an important part of the story. In America only white men owned slaves — never blacks, Indians, etc., and the white men, of course, were never Democrats. Nowhere does the material already published fairly discuss abolition’s complex history. The Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement are erased. Martin Luther King’s grand — and ultimately successful plea — to have all men judged by the content of their character, “not the color of their skin,” is ignored. Our Constitution and laws are painted as illegitimate because they are, allegedly, systemically racist. All non-progressives are portrayed as inherently racist or as uncaring enablers of racism. Hell, we’re finding out today that even Mount Rushmore is an homage to slave-owning racists (our Founders) and white supremacy.
In short, and I can’t say this too often, this is pure evil. Nothing in our country has proven more divisive nor more destructive than racism in all its forms. From the Civil War to Ferguson, Baltimore and BLM, racism, the perception of racism, race hustlers, and the efforts to consign racism to the waste bin of history have singly and together been the greatest cause of violence and bloodshed in our nation. To use baseless claims of racism now, as a political tool to, as Rod Dreher writes, “radicaliz[e] the United States along racial lines,” is not merely deeply cynical, it is pure evil.
The goal, of course, is to give progressives enough political power that they can
right these wrongs rework the nation to their ends. Trump is now the Grand Kleagle of racism and Trump voters . . . they’re barely bothering to hide their white hoods. All blacks MUST stay on the Democrat plantation keep voting Democrat. The progressive left will be happy to ride this nation into tribalism and chaos, so long as progressive (whites) emerge on top and can then rework our nation into some socialist utopian obscenity. Put another way by Thaddeus McCotter at American Greatness:
The American body politic has been sick for decades, but the current insanity may signal that the raging political infection is getting better not worse.
A friend wrote me an email in a despairing tone. He fears that the craziness we’re seeing on the Left indicates a downhill slide in America from which there is no recovery. I currently incline towards a more optimistic, although gross, viewpoint.
First off, I don’t think we can pretend that the Left hasn’t gone crazy. Exhibit A from today (emphasis mine):
Frank Figliuzzi, the former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence and a regular contributor to NBC News, told MSNBC’s Brian Williams on Monday that President Trump’s decision to fly flags at half-staff until Aug. 8 may very well be a tip of the cap to white supremacist groups. Here’s what he said:
The president’s either getting really good advice and rejecting it, or he’s getting really bad advice. We have to understand the adversary and the threat we’re dealing with, and if we don’t understand how they think, we’ll never understand how to counter them, so it’s the little things and the messaging that matters.
The president says that we will fly our flags at half-mast until August 8, that’s 8/8. Now I’m not going to imply that he did this deliberately, but I am using it as an example of the ignorance of the adversary demonstrated by the White House. The numbers 8/8 are very significant in the neo-Nazi and the white supremacy movement. Why? Because the letter ‘H’ is the eighth letter of the alphabet, and to them, the numbers 8/8 stand for ‘Heil Hitler.’
So we’re going to be raising the flag back up at dusk on 8/8. No one’s thinking about this. No one’s giving the advice, or he’s rejecting the advice.”
That is tinfoil hat crazy, yet Figliuzzi not only has been given airtime on one of America’s formerly respected major media outlets, he’s a former high level FBI employee. [Read more…]
While Leftists and #NeverTrumpers bathe themselves in ritual blood from the Manafort verdict and Cohen plea, Americans just want government to support them.
Manafort is not either a nice or a morally decent man. Today, the jury found him guilty on eight charges of tax fraud (long before he worked on the Trump campaign), while the judge dismissed the other eleven charges on grounds of mistrial. Likewise, there’s no reason to believe that Trump’s former attorney, Cohen, was a man of either decency or honor. Manafort was someone Trump ended up with when no one in the establishment would touch him in the run-up to the election, but Cohen and Trump go back a ways. Like many in New York’s big-time construction industry, Trump had his fixer.
However, it’s worth pointing out that past presidents — most notably Democrats — haven’t had very savory connections either. Manafort is no better than his past partners in business, the Podesta brothers, but while the latter continue to fly comfortably under the Clinton-Democrat-Deep State radar, Manafort, because of his connections to Trump, became a marked man.
Indeed, when it comes to the Clinton’s, I’d need to have as many fingers as the Hindu goddess Kali to count off all of their unsavory and deeply criminal connections. Obama was no better: Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Louis Farrakhan, Palestinian terror supporters, his whole top-level IRS, Brennan, Hillary Clinton, etc. He had a rogues gallery surrounding him, all of whom again had the protective umbrella of the Clinton-Democrat-Media-Deep State complex. They weren’t less corrupt than anyone around Trump; they were just better insulated from their crimes.
But going back to Manafort and Cohen, while Trump and his supporters have pointed out that none of this has anything to do with collusion and that silencing a blackmail probably isn’t campaign fraud outside of Mueller-land, the Left and their fellow travelers amongst the #NeverTrumpers are in paroxysms of excitement, believing that (again) this is the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency. I thought I’d share some of their tweets with you. As you read the tweets from Leftists, please note that they haven’t yet seem to process that, if they get Trump out, then Pence is in. [Read more…]
What Business Thinks is a mobile-friendly website that gives consumers an easy way to see whether businesses share their values before spending their money.
The problem with marketing values is that, while a majority of people may believe that Starbucks is a nice (albeit overpriced) place to hang out to meet with friends, write, or study, about half of America does not agree with Starbucks’ recently touted positions on guns, race, and homelessness. Likewise, while the NFL once sold football, it now sells racial issues along with the game, something that divides its once unified audience.
I happen to think businesses are better off selling their core product, whether it’s coffee, football, banking, or anything else. Still, whether they voluntarily promote their values or are forced into doing so, values marketing is a “thing” today.
That’s why, last year, I started a database collecting information about various political, social, environmental, ideological, etc., stances businesses are taking. That database now consolidates and organizes publicly available information on over 7,000 businesses.
Last year I also put together what amounted to a prototype of a site at which you could search businesses by name to find out what stands they’ve taken on issues. The information was presented in as non-partisan a fashion as I can manage. It was never intended to be a political site. Instead, it focused tightly on consumer information.
I was on the right track with my prototype, but the interface was terribly primitive. This year, I’ve done it right. [Read more…]
When it comes to political chess, it doesn’t matter how good your strategy is if the other side manages to collect all the powerful, important pieces.
Do you ever feel as if you’re living in a giant metaphysical chess game? Right now, I’m struggling to find patterns and connections in America that make any sense to me. I think the problem for me is that we are experiencing a vast ideological clash in which two competing realities are fighting it out for national supremacy. Moreover, not only do these ideologies not overlap, they cannot exist in the same space at the same time. They are the ideological equivalent of the common sense observation that, in the ordinary physical world (no advanced physics or metaphysics here, please), two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. If the cat wants the dog bed, the dog is dispossessed.
In many ways, we are living through a battle to the death pitting the American against the French Revolution. Back in the 18th century, the American Revolution sought to replace the tyranny of the monarchy with the freedom of the individual; the French Revolution sought to replace the tyranny of the monarchy with the tyranny of “the people.” It’s a giant chess game, with the winner controlling the board for generations.
Those of us who call ourselves conservative (or classically liberal or libertarian) are still fighting the American revolution, in that we want maximum individual liberty, with the state existing to facilitate, rather than to destroy, that liberty. Arrayed against us are those who are battling hard to replace our somewhat repressive government with a highly repressive government.
Conservatives are fighting their battles in traditional venues (polite Tea Party protests and respectable vote-casting) while the Leftists are fighting their battles in the institutions (taking over government, taking over academics, taking over media, etc.). The battle is asymmetrical because we don’t have common venues. Like chess, rather than defeating your enemy face to face, fighting it out to bloody death within a single square, the player with the most pieces wins. If they take the government (as in the Deep State), the universities (as in creating an ideologically brainwashed leadership class), and the media (leaving no voice for competing ideas), does it matter if we bring 1,000,000 to a polite street protest or even win in the polls. They’ve won the most important pieces. We may have the pawns, but they have enough control over the board to say “checkmate.” [Read more…]
2018 is rife with possibility, so the Watcher’s Council took a crack at New Year’s predictions. In this post, I offer both pessimistic and optimistic views.
As the old year dies away, and the New Year comes in with a bang, at WOW! Magazine, the Watcher’s Council’s site, a few of us had some predictions to offer for 2018. They are informed, thoughtful, and amusing. Here’s my contribution:
I have two sets of predictions, depending on whether I’m in an optimistic mood or not. I’ll start with the pessimistic predictions, so that I can end on a cheerful note with the optimistic ones:
Pessimistic possibilities in 2018 and beyond:
Mueller manages to pull together a package showing that Trump (who Wolff claims in Fire and Fury didn’t even want to win the presidency) nevertheless colluded with Russia and then engaged in obstruction of justice to hide this fact. Despite the complete absence of evidence to support either charge, the media, which remains peculiarly powerful despite open its bias and insanity, manages to convince the bulk of the American people that Trump is not fit to be president, forcing a Nixonian resignation.
The moment Pence steps into Trump’s shoes, the Progressive Wolff pack begins a sustained attack against him, alleging that his hostility to gays shows that he is mentally ill and must be pushed out of office.
With the unending chaos surrounding the Oval Office, the American people attempt to clean house by handing both the House and the Senate to the hard-Left, Progressive wing of the Democrat party. If the timing on this works out well, Pence’s being pushed out of office coincides with Nancy Pelosi having retaken her position as Speaker of the House. She is now President Pelosi.
At this point, two things can happen. First, flush with power, Pelosi clings to her new position like a tick embedded in a pig’s ear. Alternatively, having ascended to the White House, she appoints Michelle Obama as her Vice President and promptly resigns. Michelle Obama is now president of the United States and, for the first time, is really, really proud of her country. [I wrote this before the Golden Globes. since the Golden Globes, it’s clear that Oprah will give Michelle a run for her money in this dystopian fantasy. [Read more…]
Today’s Left accords great intellectual respect to Democrat actors but I can remember a time when the Left openly called at least one actor (Reagan) stupid.
Those of us alive during the Reagan era, whether when he was California governor or United States president, remember that a consistent insult that the Democrats hurled at him was that he was “an actor.” This was understood to mean that Reagan was stupid and ill-informed because actors — mere puppets who repeat words other who put in their mouths and who, often, barely graduated from high school before heading for Hollywood — could not be expected to know facts, understand complex systems, have moral principles, or function in an executive capacity.
Given the disdain for Reagan’s pre-political career, it’s amusing today that Democrats give such political deference to actors, a thought that occurred to me when I read Mark Tapson’s excellent Truth Revolt article this morning about two of Hollywood’s top-tier actors: [Read more…]
Fifty years of school histories have lied about Ulysses S. Grant, who was a gifted man and consequential president. Not being a career politician helped.
I’m reading Ron Chernow’s Grant. As I only started the book this morning, and have been reading in tiny bits and bytes, I’m only 3% into the book. Grant is just out of West Point and the U.S. is hoping to acquire Texas — with the slave states looking to tip the Congressional balance of power in their favor.
Three percent of a book about a man who was a towering figure in the mid-19th century America isn’t much, but it’s been enough to tell me that everything I’ve ever learned in American history classes about Ulysses S. Grant is wrong. According to those classes, he was an intellectually weak, drunken, ineffectual, plodding man, who rose as a general by being a blood-thirsty butcher on the field of war, and he was an ignoramus once in politics.
Chernow has already informed me that Grant did have a binge-drinking problem, but he fought valiantly; that he was brilliant at math and military strategy; that he was an intelligent man; that he was highly principled and utterly reliable; that he was a middling (not failing) student at West Point; that he had a horror of blood and violence that led him to fighting war rigorously to end it swiftly; and that he was a consequential and effective president. Some of this Chernow has already proven in writing about Grant’s youth and young adulthood; other parts Chernow promises in his introduction that he will prove in the book and I believe him.
The mismatch between my education about Grant and the reality has led me to two thoughts. [Read more…]
The sex scandals we read about are all different and require different responses, ranging from letting the voters speak to criminal prosecution.
Except for hysterical stories about President Trump drinking water or feeding fish the wrong way, it seems as if the news is entirely taken over with breaking sex scandals in entertainment and politics. Despite the efforts to conflate them in order to get rid of Roy Moore and Donald Trump, there are very different types of scandals going on here and they call for different responses. I’ve tried to break down the categories.
1. Roy Moore and Donald Trump — Let the People decide. Both Roy Moore and Donald Trump were well-positioned to win elections when they were hit by 11th hour — no, 11th hour and 57th minute — accusations that they had committed sexual improprieties against women. Both men denied doing so. (And yes, it’s true that Trump was caught on tape saying that, if you’re rich, you can grab women, which is no doubt a truism for the rich and powerful. However, he was not heard saying, “I am rich so I, personally, did grab women’s crotches.” So again, Trump, like Moore, has denied the claims against him.) The accusations against both politically-polarizing men, therefore, are “he said/she said” matters.
In the case of both Moore and Trump, it quickly became clear that the women making the allegations were politically opposed to the candidate against whom they asserted wrongdoing. The only exception is one of Moore’s accusers, who contends she is a Republican. Unfortunately for her credibility, her past is drowned in drugs and alcohol and she has a history of accusing men of sexual assault and harassment. That could mean she’s a vulnerable person upon whom men prey, that she’s hanging out with the wrong crowd, or that she’s a liar.)
In the case of both Moore and Trump, when seen in context of the time and place, the alleged behavior is not that outré. Trump was living the lush life in New York during the 1970s, 1980s, and early 1990s, when the city was drenched in hyper-sexual behavior. I’m not defending that time — it was a time of loose morals, to say the least — nor am I saying that those who participated in the debauchery have a good excuse for doing so. Nevertheless, if there’s ever a situation in which one can say “everyone was doing it,” the New York scene back then was the time and the place.
Likewise, when it comes to Moore, we’re talking Alabama in the 1970s. Alabama was not New York. Instead, it was probably closer to the 1950s, a time of unprecedentedly high teen pregnancies — high because women married and got pregnant at 16, 17, and 18. If Moore did have a penchant for teens, these girls were considered “of age” and the age difference was not seen as an overwhelming barrier. Again, I’m not saying his behavior was nice or moral; I’m saying it was not illegal and it was also not far from the mid-line of normal for that time and place.
One other aspect of the Moore case that deserves attention is the fact that people have raised credible concerns about the yearbook that Gloria Allred refuses to allow any experts to inspect. Suspicious people have pointed out that the yearbook was signed in December (who signs a yearbook then?); that the handwriting in the note differs from that in the signature; that the year 1977 is written twice, which is itself unusual, and that it is written in two different hands; and that the signature, which the initials DA appended, is the not the way Moore signed things but is, instead, the way Moore’s clerk signed his name when he presided over the divorce of the woman now accusing him. That is, she wrote his name along with her initials to show that she was authorized to sign on his behalf. Lastly, considering what an incredibly contentious career Moore has had, Alabama voters may wonder why these long-standing claims against him are emerging for the first time only when it’s too late to get another Republican on the ballot. Hmmm. [Read more…]
Every day lately brings some interesting news. This post sums up a few of the top stories, along with my opinions about why they matter.
I’m watching, fascinated, as events unfold in Saudi Arabia. I suspect Trump has a hand in it and I certainly hope the Crown Prince’s modernization push goes well. If it doesn’t, much badness will follow. I wish I had more to offer, but absent more concrete information about arrests, exiles, helicopter crashes, and alleged Lebanese war declarations, I’m in wait-and-see mode.
I haven’t missed the fact that the killer in Texas got his gun because the government — in the form of the Air Force — failed to put his felony conviction into the gun registry databases. The problem with gun control, of course, is that it not only leaves most of the guns with the government, it also puts government in charge of the guns remaining in citizen hands. As best as I can tell, government see-saws between over-zealous and completely incompetent.
The other thing I haven’t missed about the tragedy in Texas is that it was citizens who saved the day. An NRA instructor with an AR-15 attacked the killer, causing him to stop shooting. (I keep telling my Lefty friends that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun . . . and that it can take a long time before the police show up with their guns.) Then, it was two citizens who chased the killer down, causing him to crash his car. At that point, that human detritus either died from a self-inflicted shot or from an AR-15 bullet. I don’t know and I don’t care.
Incidentally, the heroic citizens who saved the day are Stephen Willeford, the NRA instructor who stopped the madness, and Johnnie Langendorff, the man who gave chase (with Willeford in the car with him). I refuse to name the killer. He deserves to be disparaged anonymously and then forgotten entirely.
I continue to believe what I tell anyone who is willing to listen to my views about the Second Amendment: There is no such thing as perfect safety. When we avoid one danger, we tend to pitch o ourselves headlong into another. Combustion engines were hailed in the early 20th century as the answer to terrible (horse) pollution. Nobody envisioned lead and other toxic emissions. Modern football helmets, were seen as the ultimate head protection. Nobody predicted that (a) players would start to use their heads like battering rams and (b) modern players, instead of being wiry little guys, would be giants.
When it comes to guns, the invariably unimaginative Leftists see only that guns kill people. They don’t see that guns save people (as happened with Willeford’s appearance on the scene of what could have been a much more terrible outcome). They don’t see that government is a terribly inefficient engine to protect us from guns.
Most of all, they don’t see (or refuse to see) that the surest way to die on the wrong end of a gun is to leave all guns in government hands. Those who could bear witness to this fact are dead — they’re dead in every land, ghetto, and concentration camp that the Nazis controlled; they’re dead in every land that the Soviets controlled; they’re dead in every place that the Maoists governed; and they’re dead in Cuba, North Korea, vast swathes of Africa and Latin America, and in every place in which Islamofascists gain control.
If I have to accept — as we all must — that there is no such thing as perfect safety, I’d rather put my faith in my fellow Americans than in my government. And yes, only Progressives could be stupid enough to demand government control over guns at the same time that they’re still vociferously claiming that our government is in the hands of a madman. That cognitive dissonance alone shows just how bad their arguments are. (You can read more of my thoughts on the subject here.) [Read more…]
A former police officer’s tale about the 1979 White Night riots in San Francisco shows a disturbing pattern when you have a Leftist police chief or mayor.
I spoke yesterday with a friend, a former San Francisco police officer, who told me something very interesting about the White Night riots that devastated San Francisco in May 1979. I remember the riots well, as I lived in the City at the time, but the behind-the-scene details were fascinating and illuminating. Here’s what I learned:
George Moscone became the Mayor of San Francisco in 1976. Today, he would be called a Progressive. Back then, he was simply a Democrat who represented the electorate’s shift away from the old-fashioned, working- and middle-class Democrats who once had a say in San Francisco politics.
One of Moscone’s first tasks as mayor was to appoint a new Chief of Police. Traditionally, police chiefs came from within the ranks of the San Francisco Police Department, which was a solidly working- and middle-class organization with conservative social views, that was just branching out into having women and minorities serve.
Moscone, however, bypassed the SFPD when looking for a new chief and, instead, appointed Charles Gain, an African-American who had been serving as Chief of Police in Oakland. At the time, Gain was widely perceived as being extremely “liberal” — as the Left defines that word, rather than the classical definition.
When he became Chief, Gain decided that the SFPD needed an image overhaul. He therefore ordered that all police vehicles should be painted baby blue, so as to appear less threatening. The police officers, when driving around in their light blue paddy wagons likened themselves to a diaper delivery service. Gain was also extremely supportive of gays, something that didn’t sit well with traditional police officers.
Given Moscone’s and Gain’s Progressive politics, it’s scarcely surprising that Dan White, an elected supervisor who was an old-fashioned, working class San Francisco conservative, would clash with them. Eventually, White announced that he was retiring as Supervisor.
Conservative elements in the City, including police officers, begged White to reconsider, so he asked for his old job back. However, the Progressives on the Board of Supervisors, including Harvey Milk, the first openly gay politician in America, lobbied against his reinstatement, so that they could get a firm lock on Leftist politics in San Francisco. Moscone had no problem with this agenda and refused White’s request to be reinstated.
White was extremely distraught. Unfortunately, his wife, who might have provided emotional ballast for him at this time, was out of town. So it was that Dan White sneaked into City Hall on November 11, 1978 and assassinated both Moscone and Milk. Most San Franciscans were saddened but gay San Franciscans were completely devastated. An icon had died. [Read more…]
I’ve been on a weekend trip and treated myself to a vacation from politics. The news has grown so grossly hysterical and dishonest that I no longer believe most of what I read anymore. It’s also become stupidly petty, with Trump castigated for failing properly to atone for the sins of white supremacists with whom he has no dealings and for whom he gives no support except in maddened Progressive fantasies.
What I did discover this weekend was something interesting about ordinary people who don’t look behind the dishonest headlines. I quizzed six people ranging in age from 18-60 about the Google kerfuffle. All of them believed the headlines about blatant sexism and misogyny. None were interested in the details.
However, all of them also believe that Google shouldn’t have fired the memo’s author. They had a cloudy belief that free speech should apply in a company dedicated to information and one knew enough to understand that the SJWs were behind the firing. The general consensus was that people need to stop taking offense and acting on it.
The one other thing that emerged is that older adults, Progressives, I might add, do not believe in the whole gender thing. They agree that the vocally transgendered are mentally ill. The recognize that fake women are destroying women’s athletics and they think that fake women have no placed in women’s restrooms.
Lastly, there was agreement that part of what’s wrong with our culture is people’s belief that they’re entitled to have want they want without compromise . . . at least without compromise on their part. We older folks (including the Progressives, spoke longingly of a time in which people who were committed to social or religious behaviors recognized that they could not bend the rest of the world to their will. The deal in America for these people has always been “We’ll leave you alone.” The new, untenable version, is that these people say “Do what I want, and think as I think, or else.”
A delectable illustrated edition tracking today’s insanity. This particular edition is dedicated to Caped Crusader, may he rest in peace.