Watcher’s Council members and their friends are at it again, writing insightful, entertaining posts about the situation at home and abroad.
By popular demand, it’s back — the Bookworm Room illustrated edition! You’ll enjoy these pithy images showing all that’s right or wrong with America.
When it comes to Leftist insanity, 2017 is the year that keeps on giving. Whether it’s transgender madness or racial madness, it just never stops.
I haven’t done a Bookworm Beat in a while. I was hoarding articles, but so much time kept passing between hoarding and then writing them up that the articles became stale. A few gems, though, have crossed my screen today, so I thought I’d pass them on.
All your children are belong to us. It’s been a couple of months, but parents of kindergarten students in Rocklin, California, are still outraged that the children’s teacher decided, on her own initiative, to introduce them to the whole topic of transgenderism. The teacher’s excuse was that one of the students (a five-year old, mind you) was transitioning:
The teacher defended her actions to read two children’s books about transgenderism including one titled “I am Jazz.” She says the books were given to her by a transgender child going through a transition.
It didn’t seem to occur to the teacher that she should consult with the parents first. Several children were quite traumatized to have their firm grasp on reality jettisoned thanks to their teacher’s buy-in to America’s ongoing insanity:
“The kindergartners came home very confused, about whether or not you can pick your gender, whether or not they really were a boy or a girl,” said England.
“I want her to hear from me as a parent what her gender identity means to her and our family, not from a book that may be controversial,” a parent said.
“My daughter came home crying and shaking so afraid she could turn into a boy,” another parent said.
The worst line in the MSN article is the following:
Parents say besides the books, the transgender student at some point during class also changed clothes and was revealed as her true gender.
Let me translate that into normal for you. (“Normal,” incidentally is Kurt Schlichter’s word for those of us who have not caught the Social Justice Warrior, Leftist, Democrat, Intersectionality insanity that has been burning through American culture since Trump’s election.) The normal version of the above quoted sentence is this:
Parents say that, besides the books, the kindergarten teacher urged a five-year-old boy, who either has no father or who is being raised by at least one, and possibly two, Leftist or otherwise mentally disturbed adults to put on a dress and announce to his deeply confused classmates that he thinks he’s a girl.
The ultimate anti-Bradley Manning moment on Twitter. Bradley Manning became a hero on the Left by betraying the United States and then announcing that he believes he’s a girl. The Left calls him a “transgender woman.” I call him a traitor and a fake woman. Both those attributes qualified him for a photoshoot in Vogue, which left us with this eyeball searing image: [Read more…]
Letting the losers in a war write the history causes fake histories, such as the one claiming that a 1960s switch turned Republicans into the racist party.
In the context of world affairs, victory doesn’t always belong to the side that won the actual battles; it really rests with the side that writes the history. Viewed in that light, the last shot fired in the Civil War didn’t take place on the battlefield. Instead, it took place in 1936, when Margaret Mitchell’s Gone With The Wind hit the shelves.
GWTW took the South’s mythology and nationalized it. The epic 1939 movie was a force multiplier. Suddenly, the South, rather than being the losing side in a war fought primarily to end slavery, a foul institution in its own right and one made especially awful in America because it betrayed the promises in America’s founding documents, was a romantic entity, built upon unending charm and graciousness. Moreover, thanks to Margaret Mitchell, readers were well-schooled in two facts that perpetuated black subordination: (a) good slaves loved their masters and (b) bad slaves were evil and/or stupid.
The hold that Margaret Mitchell’s dynamic, romantic, fascinating narrative had on the popular consciousness probably started weakening during WWII, when Americans outside of the South got to see blacks in action, in factories and on battlefields. Truman’s executive order integrating the military, causing black and white troops to serve side by side further educated white Americans about their black fellow citizens.
The final rewrite was the Civil Rights movement. Thanks to television, Northern whites got to see a different side of blacks. They were no longer Margaret Mitchell’s plaster saints, grateful for the chance to serve their white masters or Topsy-esque fools. Instead, they were people of immense dignity, led by a man of God whose words burned themselves into American souls.
People understand the outlines of the Civil Rights, but too many do not know that, in the 1950s, it was the Republican party that drove that train. And it was the Democrat party that fought tooth-and-nail against any effort to remove the legal and social impediments imposed upon blacks, mostly in the South, but also throughout America.
This political division was unsurprising to people at the time. The history of the Democrats from their founding to the Civil Rights movement was as a slavery party, dedicated entirely to ensuring that blacks remained subordinate in America. It was open and proud about its status as the racist party. Meanwhile, the Republicans came into being as an abolitionist party, with Abraham Lincoln becoming their first standard-bearer.
Why then, are Republicans tarred as the racist party today? After all, Republicans won the Civil War, freeing blacks from slavery, and the Civil Rights war, freeing blacks from Jim Crow and the myriad other discriminatory laws in America. Shouldn’t they be viewed as the non-racist party? [Read more…]
The Black Lives Matter movement will be a dead-end until American blacks start focusing on the scourge of missing fathers in their poorest communities.
Buzzfeed, of all places, has an excellent article about the turmoil in the upper echelons of the Black Lives Matter movement. The article was a reminder, if one was needed, that the Black Lives Matter movement is an entirely outward looking movement. That is, it targets non-blacks — in law enforcement, education, employment, etc. — and demands that these people and institutions change for the benefit of American blacks.
As best as I can tell, the Black Lives Matter movement never had an inner focus, looking at the black community to see what changes it can make to improve the quality of black lives, including those black lives that intersect with law enforcement, education, etc. Indeed, at least on college campuses, as one looks at self-segregation and demands that education be brought down to an infantile level, ostensibly to benefit blacks, the Black Lives Matter movement seems to have had a negative effect on blacks, leaving them less, not more, capable of functioning in the world of money and power.
This is a shame because there is one thing above all things that the Black Lives Matter movement can do to ensure that black lives do in fact matter — that thing is to encourage the magical middle class model of education, job, marriage, and family, in that order. Even more, within that model, black lives activists should push for a dynamic in which heterosexual couples have monogamous relationships that see the man stick around to parent his children.
Study after study shows how much fathers matter. When it comes to girls, girls with supportive fathers are happier people who engage in safer relationships with the opposite sex:
The hallmark characteristic of a fatherless daughter is fear of abandonment. Because they never got the direction needed from a father figure, they learn to make up their own survival playbook. This can lead to negative coping skills such as sexual promiscuity, total avoidance of intimacy, isolation, substance abuse, anxiety and depression.
Fatherless daughters report having difficulty in relationships and in the workplace interacting with men because they were never taught how to feel comfortable with a man in their father’s absence. They can also carry into adulthood conflicting issues with their mothers from becoming her caretaker for a time or witnessing so much chaos in the home. Financial distress or poverty often follows father loss, and this can have a significant impact in every area of a girl’s upbringing.
The American media suddenly discovers antisemitism in America. You know it’s not a coincidence when several mainstream media outlets that every non-conservative Jew reads suddenly announce that Donald Trump’s supporters are crazed antisemites. These are, of course, the same media outlets that have been silent for years about the antisemitism at the heart of the Democrat base. My friend JoshuaPundit has written an excellent post highlighting the Left’s despicable and manipulative hypocrisy when it comes to Jew hatred. He left out only one point, which I’ll illustrate with a poster:
In sum, a small, disfavored fringe of Trump voters are loathsome antisemites. Hillary’s antisemitism problem, however, starts at the top with the lady herself, and drips on down to the campuses, the Black Lives Matter activists, and the Muslims who are central to her constituency.
Is this a race between a crook and a monster? Scott Adams says that the race has been framed as one between a crook (Hillary) and a monster (Trump). Dropping for a moment his mask of complete neutrality, though, he points out that, while there is convincing evidence that Hillary is a crook, there’s no evidence that Trump is a monster — a not-very-nice-businessman, perhaps, but not a monster.
Hillary reiterates the Left’s assault on Free Speech. Kevin Williamson points out something that every American should fear: Hillary Clinton’s straightforward assault on free speech. Except that it’s only straightforward if you’re informed about the issues, something the Democrats avoid at all cost. You can change that as to yourself and any open-minded friends you have by reading, and having them read, Williamson’s article.
I have been remiss. Because the revamped Watcher’s Council site — WOW! Magazine — is fairly new, I know that you all are not yet used to checking it as a matter of course. You really should, though. It’s an amazing collaborative effort from people who are (in my opinion, at least) some of the internet’s smartest conservative writers and analysts. Here’s just a sampling of the latest batch of posts there:
Obama spokesman Josh Earnest revealed a deeper truth when he said of US engagement with ISIS that we are “in a narrative fight.” How true. In all matters, the Left shapes a narrative untethered from reality — and then forced American law and culture to conform to this narrative. Nowhere is this more apparent than with Black Lives Matter.
The Leftist Narrative Does Not Care About Black Lives
If Black Lives Matter, the protesters would be in Obama’s Chicago every single day, standing as a human bulwark protecting innocent people from the killers among them.
If Black Lives Matter, the protesters would spread out to failing schools and (a) help maintain order so that children can learn and (b) impress upon the children that knowledge is the key to freedom and personal financial stability.
If Black Lives Matter, the protesters would be agitating for right-to-carry laws in majority black communities so that law-abiding citizens can readily defend themselves against men who ignore the gun control laws controlling America’s most dangerous communities.
If Black Lives Matter, the protesters would be working as hard as possible to shut down all of the Planned Parenthood facilities situated (as Margaret Sanger once dreamed) in primarily black communities that often abort more black babies than are born.
If Black Lives Matter, we would accord American blacks the dignity of expecting them to conform to the life plan that sees so many white people achieving economic stability: get educated, get married, get a job, have children, and make sure daddy sticks around. Instead, the professional Left contends that it’s racist to preach this colorblind conduct to an American cohort that, in the early 1960s was ascending the economic ladder based on this behavior until Johnson’s Great Society chased fathers out of the home in favor of welfare checks from Uncle Sam.
If Black Lives Matter, the infamous “talk” that black parents have with their children wouldn’t tell them that whites are out to get them but would, instead, tell them (a) in any interaction with police, follow their orders and save your fight with them, if you have one, for later when you won’t get shot and (b) reinstate the black middle-class pattern predating the Great Society: education, marriage, children…. Parents would teach their children to become masters of their destiny, not flotsam and jetsam drifting through increasingly perilous waters to an inevitable violent death.
With the debate nearing, it’s time to remind everyone who and what Hillary is. I’ve also thrown in some relevant Black Lives Matter and gun posters. I hope you enjoy all of these. I know that I did.
A new thing called cultural appropriation is suddenly in the news lately. Just yesterday, designer Marc Jacobs was in the news because the Social Justice Warriors were appalled that his runway models — mostly white — wore fake, multi-colored dreadlocks. (SJW’s have a real problem with white people wearing dreads.) That they said, speaking in English, which is probably not a “heritage tongue” for many of them, was impermissible cultural appropriation. To his credit, Jacobs had a great bitchy comeback and refused to apologize. Jacobs is not the only cultural icon pushing back against the totalitarian impulse behind the SJW’s attacks on so-called “cultural appropriation.”
Lionel Shriver, a well-known American novelist, got invited to give the keynote speech at the Brisbane [Australia] Writer’s Festival. Her speech was entitled “Fiction and Identity Politics.” However, she had a surprise for an audience expecting her to tell them that the only person who can write about American Blacks is an American Black, the only person who can write about gay men is a gay man, etc. Instead, she launched a polite and comprehensive attack against the stifling effect on fiction when an author stands accused of cultural appropriation. For those of us who value free speech, and who fear the totalitarian instincts behind the social justice warrior’s attacks on free speech through the vehicle of identity politics, it was a call to arms:
I hate to disappoint you folks, but unless we stretch the topic to breaking point this address will not be about “community and belonging.” In fact, you have to hand it to this festival’s organisers: inviting a renowned iconoclast to speak about “community and belonging” is like expecting a great white shark to balance a beach ball on its nose.
The topic I had submitted instead was “fiction and identity politics,” which may sound on its face equally dreary.
But I’m afraid the bramble of thorny issues that cluster around “identity politics” has got all too interesting, particularly for people pursuing the occupation I share with many gathered in this hall: fiction writing. Taken to their logical conclusion, ideologies recently come into vogue challenge our right to write fiction at all. Meanwhile, the kind of fiction we are “allowed” to write is in danger of becoming so hedged, so circumscribed, so tippy-toe, that we’d indeed be better off not writing the anodyne drivel to begin with.
A good start to a speech, right? It got better from there. Shriver’s factual starting point was an incident at Bowdoin College, a small, prestigious liberal arts college way up in Maine (annual tuition around $45,000). Bowdoin’s grammatically creative “purpose” statement promises that it offers incoming students an “intellectual challenge and personal growth in the context of an active and engaged learning community closely linked to the social and natural worlds”:
A liberal education cultivates the mind and the imagination; encourages seeking after truth, meaning, and beauty; awakens an appreciation of past traditions and present challenges; fosters joy in learning and sharing that learning with others; supports taking the intellectual risks required to explore the unknown, test new ideas and enter into constructive debate; and builds the foundation for making principled judgments. It hones the capacity for critical and open intellectual inquiry – the interest in asking questions, challenging assumptions, seeking answers, and reaching conclusions supported by logic and evidence. A liberal education rests fundamentally on the free exchange of ideas – on conversation and questioning – that thrives in classrooms, lecture halls, laboratories, studios, dining halls, playing fields, and dormitory rooms.Ultimately, a liberal education promotes independent thinking, individual action,and social responsibility. (Emphasis mine.)
Think of this self-praise when you think of the incident Shriver talks about: Two well-respected Bowdoin students threw a tequila party for a friend and, in keeping with the theme, gave guests little miniature sombreros:
My time today was dedicated almost entirely to Navy League matters. The San Francisco chapter has a great president who has two admirable goals: (1) to ensure that members are educated about and supportive of America’s maritime services; and (2) to try to make San Francisco every sailor’s and marine’s best shore leave ever. You can get some inkling of the San Francisco Navy League chapter by liking its Facebook page.
Of course, being out and about limits my blogging but fear not! Thanks to WOW! Magazine, the new collaborative online magazine from the Watcher’s Council, you’re a click away from reading astute commentary about . . . well, about everything: politics, social issues, national security, world affairs — you name it, someone on the Watcher’s Council probably has something to say about it.
So, even though I wasn’t blogging, fellow Council members were, and here’s a straight-out list of articles you may want to read:
- School Attacks: Feeling Good Or Saving Lives, Part 4
- Broadway Fundraiser For ‘Black Lives Matter’ Canceled Over BLM’s Anti-Semitism
- Oh, The HORROR!!!!!!!!
- Huffington Post Deletes Post Telling Young Women to Cover Up at Football Games
- (Video) Kid Rock To Cheering Crowd: “F*ck Colin Kaepernick!”
- Tim Kaine: Muslim Brotherhood Ties, Communist Groupie, And Grifter
- The Bookworm Beat 9/13/16 — the “I feel deplorably faint” edition and open thread
- A Tribute To Adolf Hitler, Progressive Pioneer
- The Deplorables – The Movie
My Little Bookworm has had only four classroom days since her freshman year began at an Obscenely Expensive Liberal Arts College (“OELAC”) in the midwest. Today, on Facebook, she posted her first video supporting Black Lives Matter. I’m actually impressed at the speed with which OELAC’s indoctrination works.
The video, from a Lefty site called Upworthy that routinely substitutes emotion and irrational thinking for data and rational thought purports to explain that only black lives matter because only blacks get the short end of the stick. Nobody else’s life is of any consequence because allowing them to think that means that they are incapable of understanding that blacks are entitled to equal treatment under the law and in the public square:
Taking a page out of a friend’s book, I’m trying a little indoctrination of my own. I send Little Bookworm links to videos — mostly Prager U videos, which are short and sweet, as well as Bill Whittle videos, some of which are perfectly on point — and tell her that I will instantly deposit $5 in her account ($10 if it’s a long video) if she sends me an email showing that she’s watched and thought about the video. It looks as if, in addition to the obscenely expensive annual tuition I’ll be coughing up for this Leftist propaganda factory, I’ll have to send a steady flow of small change to Little Bookworm to try to offset the insanity.
Curious about coughs. I went to Dr. Bing and checked out what illnesses are associated with chronic coughing. (Yesterday, I oh-so-delicately suggested tuberculosis, although I think the likelihood that Hillary has TB is close to zero.) Ruling out the obvious things (a cold, a simple allergy, asthma), here are some of the more esoteric problems that come up when you search “chronic cough”:
Bronchiectasis (damaged airways)
Laryngopharyngeal reflux (stomach acid flows up into the throat)
Nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis (airway inflammation not caused by asthma)
Sarcoidosis (collections of inflammatory cells in different parts of your body, most commonly the lungs)
Medicine associated with diabetes or hypertension
Regarding that last one (medicine for people with diabetes):
In my experience, prescribers often place their diabetic patients on lisinopril just as a precaution. While that approach may have some merit with younger patients, the reduced renal function of older patients tends to negate all the possible benefits of ACE-inhibitor therapy.
One of the telltale adverse effects of ACE inhibitors, including lisinopril, is a chronic, hacking cough — a potential side effect that patients often don’t hear about. Studies suggest that up to a third of all patients taking an ACE inhibitor will develop this type of chronic dry cough, and the cough often doesn’t go away when they stop taking the drug. This happens more with women than with men, and more with African Americans and Asians than others.
Hillary’s cough has sounded awfully familiar to me — and today I finally figured out what Hillary’s endless coughing jags bring to mind. To back up a minute, though. . . .
As anyone following the news knows, Hillary’s been coughing a lot . . . an awful lot. Just today, while campaigning in Cleveland, Hillary practically coughed a lung out. Moreover, she was rude enough to cough into her hand, which has been de trop ever since the swine floor, rather than her elbow, the more socially acceptable way to cough:
Watching Hillary hack away, I finally figured out where I’ve heard that cough before. Think back, way back, to the Ernie Kovacs Show. I’m too young to have watched it in its first iteration, but I did see it when it was replayed on PBS back in the 1970s. One of the images that stayed with me was Kovacs’ character “Eugene,” who brings sound effects to everything he does. Near the end of a sketch, he checks out the books on a shelf, with one of those books being Camille (the English translation of Alexander Dumas fils’ La Dame aux Camélias). I’ve queued the following clip to the correct moment, but if it doesn’t start correctly, go to 9:51.
Yup. Hillary sounds exactly like the consumptive prostitute coughing in Ernie Kovacs’ comedic moment. I won’t draw any analogies, although I can’t help but add that the prostitute in Camille was surprisingly virtuous, ending any actual comparison with Hillary. What I will say is that I’m glad to have chased down the fugitive memory that was haunting me every time I heard Hillary hack.