While posters about sex scandals take pride of place in this illustrated edition, you’ll find more here than just the sordid state of our nation.
The Leftists and Donald Trump are using the NFL anthem and flag kerfuffle as a means to their own ends, but it is clarifying and it makes for good posters.
The media is using the NFL football kerfuffle is a distraction from more important issues, such as storm damage in Puerto Rico, none of which can be blamed on Trump, while Don Surber suggests that Donald Trump is using it as a distraction from John McCain’s betrayal of American voters. All I can say is that kerfuffles such as this are gold mines for illustrated editions. This edition, therefore, is mostly NFL, with a few other things thrown in for fun.
Before getting to the meat of the matter, let me restate my own position: The NFL as an institute, as well as its individual players, are free to say and do as they wish without government interference. The President, who also has First Amendment rights, is also free to speak his mind, provided that he doesn’t use the instruments of government to silence either the NFL or the players. And, in a free society, the American people are welcome to look at the NFL’s values and to vote with their feet regarding those values. This is how freedom works — if you’re the NFL and the players, you makes your speech and you takes your chances.
Illustrations about free speech: NFL owners and players are free to disrespect flag and country — and Americans are free to vote with their wallets.
If the NFL wants to let its employees use their unique bully pulpit to take a knee when the flag flies and the national anthem players, even while barring other players from honoring police officers who died on duty, that is the NFL’s right. And if millions of Americans decide that there’s more to life than seeing extremely well-paid men whine . . . well, that’s their right too. That’s how free speech is supposed to operate, with people speaking out and accepting how the marketplace metes out non-violent consequences that flow from their words.
A couple of things before I get to the images:
First, it was the Obama administration that heavily funded the NFL being overtly patriotic:
There’s something incredibly cynical about being paid to be patriotic and even more cynical about the NFL’s scrapping that patriotism with the end of Obama’s presidency.
Second, employers make speech rules all the time. Believe me, if I, as a young lawyer, had stood up in court and told the judge what I really thought (usually some variation of “you’re an idiot”), not only would I have been held in contempt, I would have been fired. On my own time, though, provided that I did not embarrass the law firm, I was free to exercise my First Amendment rights.
Regarding that freedom to speak when off the job, it’s the Leftists who fire people for pretty damn mainstream after-hours opinions, as they did to Brendan Eich. This programming genius, who was a prime mover behind Firefox, privately gave of his own money to help support traditional marriage and got fired for doing so.
Third, being president of the United States does not mean that one no longer has First Amendment rights. While President Trump cannot mandate that NFL players be fired, as that would be unconstitutional, not to mention tyrannical, he is perfectly within his rights as a citizen to say that, in his opinion, they should be fired.
Trump is also within his rights to play the NFL, both owners and players, like a cheap violin. He knew that his statement that the NFL should fire those “sons of bitches” who disrespect the flag and the national anthem would result in today’s rash of player and owner insults to the flag and, by extension, to ordinary Americans.
As best as I can tell, with the NFL getting attacked from the Left because of the game’s inherent violence and the damage flowing from it, and from the Right, because of the player’s whiny disrespect, it’s entirely questionable whether, a few years from now, the NFL will be a “thing” anymore.
Herewith, some images about the NFL today, both the good and the stupid:
Free speech is meaningless if the government can nevertheless force you to say things that conflict with your values. But Leftist governments persists…
This illustrated edition celebrates the fact that, even when the country goes insane, it’s still possible to be clever, wise, informative, and funny.
Google’s promise was that it would allow an unfettered platform for free speech and thought. Its college-grad employees, though, made it a fascism farm.
I stopped using Google’s search engine years ago, although I’m still chained to Gmail. I was one of the first Gmail users back when it was in beta and it would upset my life a great deal if I had to switch email addresses. Still, depending on how Google comports itself in the next couple of months, Gmail may have to go too. There’s no reason for my email use to advance its fascist agenda.
Did I say “fascist agenda”? Why, yes, I think I did. That’s because Google’s decision to fire an employee who dared to speak out against the Leftist lockstep that governs everything from its workplace to its search algorithm manipulations is entirely fascist. Google is its own little state, one governed by hardcore Leftist ideology, and anyone who speaks out against that must be purged.
I actually don’t have anything original to say on the subject, but there’s so much smart stuff out there, I thought I’d share it with you. Let me begin with a collection of employee self-written bios that Paul Joseph Watson found (click on image to enlarge):
With staff like this, I’m sure tolerance of conservative opinions is paramount at Google. pic.twitter.com/FqawBCilva
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) August 9, 2017
Robert Avrech takes a much-deserved swipe at the Stalinists on the Fainting Couch:
James Damore was fired for expressing his opinions. Google his name and you will find that the left-wing press is demonizing him relentlessly.
Ironically, the entire affair proves his conclusions. By firing him, Google has proven that it is an intolerant ideological echo chamber.
Several fragile female engineers stayed home from their jobs at Google because the memo made them feel uncomfortable, or unsafe, or whatever parlance these overgrown babies default to in order to impose their cultural fascism on the rest of us. Presumably, these female engineers took to their fainting couches for a few hours in order to get over the shock of a non-leftist opinion.
In Stalin’s Soviet Union, the gulags and graveyards were filled with people who expressed opinions that the leadership considered incorrect.
In America, the left does not build gulags… not yet, anyway. Instead, it resorts to shame and creates unemployment.
Read more here.
Daniel Greenfield points out that the problem isn’t limited to Google. As long as Google controls much of the internet, it’s a problem for all of us:
James Damore is an FIDE chess master who studied at Princeton, MIT and Harvard. He had been working as a software engineer at Google for four years.
Danielle Brown is the new Vice President of Diversity at Google. She has an MBA from the University of Michigan and campaigned for Hillary.
She had been working at Google for a few weeks.
Google is a search engine monopoly that makes its money from search ads. It began with a revolutionary idea from young engineers much like Damore. Then the engineers became billionaires. And the company that began in a garage hired a Vice President of Diversity to get rid of the brilliant young engineers.
Google has embedded partisan attacks on conservatives into its search and news territories under the guise of “fact checks”. It has fundamentally shifted results for terms such as “Jihad” to reflect Islamist propaganda rather than the work of counterterrorism researchers such as Robert Spencer. And it wasn’t the first time. Google had been previously accused of manipulating search results during Brexit.
Censorship has long been a problem on YouTube. And it will now officially be caging “controversial” videos using a method developed by Jigsaw. Formerly Google Ideas, Jigsaw is Google’s left-wing incubator developing social justice tech.
Damore, like so many of us, wasn’t thinking the way that Google thought he should be thinking. And so it dealt with the problem by getting rid of him. When users search for results that Google doesn’t like, it guides them to what it thinks they should be looking for. If they persist, then the results vanish. If they upload videos it doesn’t like, they get censored. That’s the totalitarian left-wing Google model in action.
Google is approaching the ecological dead end of its technological niche. There’s not much else to do except make fringe investments that are little more than disguised advertising and build more free apps to feed into its own ad business while driving traffic to them through its search and Android leverage.
If the business model ever fails or the government takes a closer look at its abuses, then it’s all over.
Yale Dean June Chu’s right to free, if offensive, speech trumps hurt feelings — and rednecks are tough enough to handle an academic’s silly insults.
On behalf of all fellow rednecks / white trash, if you believe in the First Amendment, then you should be defending Yale’s Dean June Chu from the PC Police at Yale. Prof. Stephen Davis, commander of Yale’s Special Snowflake Unit, is in epic meltdown over Prof. Chu’s private speech.
Prof. Chu (PhD, Social Psychology, UC Davis) is the Dean of Yale’s Pierson College. In that position, she “is responsible for advising about 500 students and fostering “a familiar, comfortable living environment” in keeping with the university’s residential college system. ” Ironically she was known for promoting ‘cultural sensitivity.’
Ahhhh, but now we learn that when she left the politically correct confines of the Yale campus each day, out came Ms. Hyde. Free of restraint, Dean Chu had, for years, let loose her acid tongue on Yelp reviews.
Before continuing, let me issue a TRIGGER WARNING for any of you out there that might need it. We are about to read Dean Chu’s Yelp reviews. If your mind balks at indelicate utterances and disparaging remarks about, let’s call them deplorables, . . . well, sack up, Buttercup. This from the NY Post: [Read more…]
This Bookworm Beat has all shades of Progressive insanity (fake data, attacks on free speech, Chelseamania), complete with links and my trenchant comments.
Keep circling that drain. Before I get into the meat of this post detailing the worst emanations from the Democrats and their fellow travelers on their Left, I want to lead off with Kurt Schlichter’s article begging the Democrats not to change their current trajectory and tactics:
Look, Democrats, speaking sincerely as your friend, understand that everyone who says you need to take a deep look at yourselves is a racist, sexist, homophobe who won’t even ask about your preferred pronoun. Whatever you do, don’t you ever change.
The problem isn’t you. It’s those stupid idiots who won’t obey you because they’re stupid idiots. How can those idiots be so stupid?
Who knows? But what’s clear is that it’s not your fault. It’s theirs. So when the going gets tough, and you aren’t making progress – in fact, when you’re moving backwards – what’s the smart play? Double down!
Hey, the dealer’s showing an ace in a face-heavy deck and you’ve got a six, what do you do? Double down!
Can I boast? I had the pleasure of meeting Kurt a couple of weeks ago and he’s every bit as smart, funny, and personable as his writing. Lord, but I do envy a brain like that.
Statistically illiterate accusation that Trump voters are racist. You know all about American colleges and universities by now. They’re the places in which self-regard exceeds accomplishments, feelings trump rational thought, antisemitism is great than that found anywhere else in America (except, probably in Dearborn and the DNC), and the First Amendment is subordinate to students’ feelings (provided, of course, that those feelings are consistent with the Democrat Party platform).
Thomas Wood, an assistant professor at Ohio State University, has emerged from this sewer to announce that Trump voters are racists. He thought perhaps they were mere Nazi-style authoritarians but it’s worse — they’re racists. He knows this because he’s got charts.
Why are Trump voters racist? Because Wood specifically defined racism in such a way as to apply to Trump voters. That’s how they do it at universities nowadays:
To test this, I use what is called the “symbolic racism scale” to compare whites who voted for the Democratic presidential candidate with those who voted for the Republican. This scale measures racial attitudes among respondents who know that it’s socially unacceptable to say things perceived as racially prejudiced. Rather than asking overtly prejudiced questions — “do you believe blacks are lazy” — we ask whether racial inequalities today are a result of social bias or personal lack of effort and irresponsibility.
In other words, if you believe that only government can save perpetually hapless and helpless minorities, you’re not a racist. However, if you believe that minorities are rational, sentient beings who respond to incentives and disincentives in the same way as everyone else, and that they therefore deserve to be respected as our equals and not demeaned as perpetual wards of state, you’re racist!
You always win the game if you get to write the rules after the play is already run. Woods is a perfect example of why I keep saying that the best way to get America back on a track dedicated to individual liberty, free enterprise, and constitutional governance is to take every bit of federal money out of American “higher” education.
Despite a small spark of rationality, Macalester College’s weekly paper displays the Progressive hate, ignorance, and nonsense at an American college.
Knowing my passion for free speech, someone sent me a small sign of hope: a link to a student-written opinion piece from the weekly student newspaper at Macalester University in Minnesota. To give a little context, in 2014 College Magazine ranked Macalester as the “Most Progressive Campus” in America. It’s also No. 10 on the Best Colleges’ “Most Liberal Colleges” list. In other words, it’s your average American college, right up there with some of the most prestigious, such as Yale, Harvard, or MIT, or some of the most embarrassing, such as Missouri or Pomona.
Unlike those other American colleges, however, Macalester is never in the news. I suspect this is because no student or faculty member would ever dream of inviting to the campus someone who doesn’t meet the Progressive purity scale. Without any opposing views, there is no call for violence.
It was therefore a great and pleasant surprise to discover that one young man is defending the free exchange of ideas. What moved Jacob Hill to write was the fact that the staff of the college radio station, perfectly emulating a Maoist re-education camp, grouped together to castigate a fellow employee for having dared to place on the college Facebook page a meme that “satirized the prevalence of white Adidas sneakers among women who claim not to conform to societal norms.” I’m having trouble envisioning how offensive such a meme could be but for the student’s cohorts at the radio station, it was a bridge too far. It was Mao time:
Less than 24 hours after the meme was posted, the original poster (a Mac Radio staff member) went to his WMCN staff meeting as usual. One of the commenters on the meme decided to make a speech calling him misogynistic, racist and homophobic. The speech was met with applause, and much of the WMCN staff agreed that his offensive behavior did not represent the culture of WMCN. He was not offered a chance to respond but rather asked to think about his actions for a week.
Showing a grasp of logic denied to most young Progressives, Hill points out that advancing feelings as the alpha and omega of all disputes ends rational discussion:
A later comment on the original post read: “you don’t get to decide what’s offensive to other people—if it’s offensive to them, that’s it. You don’t get to critique that fact.” This ‘fact’ is particularly what makes offense so messy. No one knows exactly what will offend others. It’s an ongoing dialogue. Macalester students, in their haste to eliminate every suggestion that may be perceived as offensive, missed the opportunity for this dialogue. I don’t personally believe that the poster had malintent, but even if he did, is calling him a racist/misogynist/homophobe really the best way to make your point? Too often, liberal Millennials believe they can end a conversation by calling out someone’s “isms.” Yes, these claims are powerful, but that is precisely why they must be backed by context, logic, and most of all, truth.
There’s more and Hill deserves kudos for every word he writes. This is a young man who, somehow, somewhere, was exposed to an intellectual world that transcends navel-gazing emotionalism that’s par for the course at an American college.
As of this writing, Hill’s short article had garnered three comments: The first agrees with and encourages respectful dialog; the third agrees with Hill and expresses surprise that The Weekly Mac published Hill’s piece; and the second . . . well, the second comment shows that the writer has embraced an authoritarian worldview that brooks no criticism:
I question the decision of the Mac Weekly to publish such a targeted opinion piece, especially as the author writes of the pitfalls of “isolating and humiliating” specific people in the name of a greater conversation. [The author did not name anybody, although it’s reasonable to assume that in a small community, most students could identify not only the daring Facebook transgressor but also his Maoist accusers.] Also: this idea of “listening politely” looks to be teetering quite close to the edge of a compulsory silence.
Hill, as I said, gave me hope. Scanning the rest of The Mac Weekly’s offerings depressed me. In just one week’s worth of writing, there are so many bad ideas. These are bad ideas arising from a solid basis of factual ignorance, unexamined bias, Marxism, Alinsky-esque thinking, self-loathing, third-wave feminism, misandry, and anti-Semitism. Here are just a couple of examples:
Milo didn’t do what he’s accused of doing — but he’s being punished nevertheless. That’s just wrong . . . and so ickily Leftist.
Sometimes the Lefties in this country get lucky. They have a truly dangerous adversary like Milo Yiannopoulos, someone who bravely and wades into the fight, and does so in such a way that he exposes to the maximum number of people how monstrous the ideological enemy really is — and then self-righteous “conservatives” take him down without the Left having to lift a finger. This is just so wrong. You’d think that people, especially those on the Right, would have learned something from the Trump “grab them by their…” debacle but, nooooo, they just fall into the same traps over and over.
Ask yourself what it was that Milo did to earn his banishment from the same halls and institutions that once welcomed him with open arms. You may be surprised by the answers. (I should state here that I’ve read the entire transcript of Milo’s more controversial remarks. You can too. Here is his defense and clarification.)
Did Milo confess that he molested a child? No. He never said he did. He has asserted steadfastly and strongly that he never has. And no one has crawled out of the woodwork claiming that Milo molested him. Lena Dunham confessed in her autobiography that she molested her little sister . . . but no one cared.
Did Milo actually molest a child? See above. He has not said he did so; he has said he never would do so; and no one has contested anything he said.
Did Milo say that he wanted to molest a child? No. Ne never said he did. Indeed, he’s consistently asserted that he finds the very idea repugnant. And again, no one has crawled out of the woodwork claiming that he and Milo had a great conversation once upon a time about their desire to molest a child.
Has Milo insisted that pedophilia isn’t really that bad, which is what one of Slate’s now-erased writers did? No. He has never advocated pedophilia, although he’s made it clear that an older gay man introduced him to gay sex (whether before or after puberty is not clear). Where Milo differs from Lefties when it comes to his having been victimized is that he doesn’t define himself by what happens to him. What Milo has done, though, is to be one of the loudest voices arguing about protecting children from sexual predators, starting with allowing predatory pedophile males into little girls’ bathrooms, which is something the Obama administration insisted was a sexually confused man’s civil right.
Has Milo tried to foist a gay agenda, with all of its bizarre behaviors on America and America’s children? No. Certainly Milo’s persona is all about being gay. He’s not the one, though, who’s advocating that we start teaching small children about gay sex or that we put books touting explicit gay sex in the library’s at America’s public schools. If that’s what you want, you have to go to Kevin Jennings, whom Obama appointed as his “Safe School Czar.” Part of Milo’s shtick is to stop pretending that gays are saints.
Did Milo talk about pedophilia in a podcast? Yes. Yes, he did, although not in the way the self-righteous crowd claims.
Prager U has another good video out, about those regressive Progressives. This video comes from Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report. He’s a one-time Progressive who finally figured out that Progressivism is yet another Orwellian misnomer from the Left. I agree completely and will only add (because if I don’t toot my own horn, who will?) that I figured this one out almost a decade ago.
Back in 2007, I followed a slightly different line of argument because the Progressives hadn’t reached their ascendancy under Obama yet. We hadn’t yet had attacks on nuns, the purification of radical Islam, triggers, microaggressions, and the insanity of the Trump era protests.
That is, the Progressives’ fascist, authoritarian conduct hadn’t yet come to the fore. In 2007, we were still addressing the world of ideas. That’s how it came about that, I argued that the Regressives were endlessly fighting battles that actually ended decades ago, battles such as abortion, race relations, unions, and anti-war stances — and that they could keep their troops excited and engaged only by telling lies about both the past and the present.
Anyway, here’s the Prager U video, which is very good. You might also want to check out my old American Thinker article about those Regressives. The battles have shifted, but the mentality remains the same:
With two days having elapsed since rioters disrupted Milo Yiannopoulos’s planned speech at UC Berkeley, using fire, pepper spray, sticks, fists, and feet in a successful effort to silence Milo, I’ve now got a bit of the distance I need to comment on the event. My conclusion is a simple and obvious one: While it was career agitators who committed the worst mayhem, there can be no doubt that Progressive ideology — which reached hysteric pitch when it became apparent that President Trump really would end 8 years of Obama’s hard Progressivism and the preceding 12 years of soft Progressivism — drove the entire disgraceful, tyrannical event.
To make this case about the inherent violence in today’s anti-Trump Progressive ideology, I’ll begin with Zombie’s photo and video record of the event. And while I’m sure you’ve seen other photos and videos, do check out Zombie’s page, as it contains unique images and footage that add to our understanding about what happened in Berkeley.
What’s clear from watching videos such as the following is that, while the professional anarchists in their black clothes and concealing face masks (they call themselves “Antifa,” ostensibly because they are anti-fascist) are the leading edge of the violence, the large assembled crowd is at all relevant times enthusiastically applauding and egging them on. The crowd is open in appreciating Antifa’s destructive, dangerous, and determined efforts to silence speech with which they disagree. That is, while some Berkeley students and citizens are now trying to distance themselves from Antifa, that was not the case when mob rule was on the streets and the Progressives hadn’t yet realized that the whole thing looked remarkably Kristallnacht-like in subsequent media reports:
Prager U today posted a really superb video about a Muslim man from England who was raised an antisemite, who became even more radicalized as he got older, and who eventually put all that aside when he finally learned the truth about Israel and about Jews. It is a temperate, thoughtful, informed, and deeply humanist video. Here, see for yourself:
So what did YouTube do with this video? It banned it! — the same thing its done to almost twenty other informed, thoughtful, humanist, fact-based Prager U videos. Please sign this petition demanding that YouTube stop the ban against Prager U videos.
UPDATE: The petition worked! At least for this video. I don’t know about the other Prager U videos YouTube banned.
I wasn’t bored by the redundancy, though, because the panel members were unusually informed and witty. I did not take notes, but I will try to dredge up from the dim recesses of my memory some of the things that particularly struck me.
The first panel, which is the subject for this post, was on the First Amendment. James Lileks moderated a panel composed of David French, Charles Cooke, Jonah Goldberg, and Ramesh Ponnuru. They spent a quick hour looking at freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
The point that most struck me was one that Jonah Goldberg made about Citizens United. He explained that the Left is being disingenuous at best when it waffles on that corporations are not people, and therefore shouldn’t have speech rights. In fact, the Left loves corporations that have speech rights: the news media and Hollywood. When Saturday Night Live or Jon Stewart or the New York Times are speaking, that’s sacrosanct, because the speech is already inherent in the corporation — and it’s Leftist speech. What the Left actually opposes is competition. It’s that simple.
Jonah made another excellent point about the fragile flowers on college campuses (a point, I believe, that he attributes originally to Jonathan Haidt). The craziness we see now started after I finished my education in the mid-1980s. What the late 1980s and early 1990s saw were some horrible, high profile cases of child abductions and murders. Polly Klaas springs to my mind because, although I was not a parent then, it happened within 50 miles of my home.
I’m going to try here to throw in as many good links as I can to help you to prepare for the upcoming election — and to understand the bizarre cultural Marxism that underlies so much of the battle in America today, as well as dislocations in the Middle East which are driving many pathologies throughout the Western world. Here goes:
No matter how bad Trump is, Hillary’s worse. One of the most infuriating things (at least for me) about this election is the grotesque hypocrisy on the Left. (Yeah, I know — what else is new?) This time, the hypocrisy takes the form of blackening Trump’s reputation in the most obscene way, while pretending that Hillary is a woman without stain. At least conservatives honestly acknowledge Trump’s personal weaknesses, only to focus on the strengths he brings to his candidacy. Meanwhile, on the Left, a substance-free St. Hillary is running against Satan incarnate. Thankfully, Ann Coulter has, with her usual élan, totally destroyed the Left’s line of argument. If you’re wavering, read it.
Hubris and ugliness. In fact, Lefty lies to the contrary, Hillary is deeply flawed. She lacks the humanity that would make an interesting epic character but, boy, does she have the hubris and arrogance that’s brought many people down. Couple that with Weiner’s compulsions and Comey’s cowardice and you have an election that, on the Democrat side of the aisle, reads like a badly written Green tragedy.
Will chaos theory still control the election? With Hillary being buffeted by Wiki- and Weiner-leaks, is she the chaos candidate in this election? And in that regard, I don’t think Comey’s reiterated decision not to recommend her for prosecution matters. Once he created an entirely fictional “lack of intent” standard and read it into the controlling statutes, unless there was an email standing, “I, Hillary Clinton, intend to violate national security laws because I’m stupid, for my convenience, and to hide the flow of illegal cash into my false charity and my very real deep pockets,” there was no way Comey could ever find anything that would justify referring her to the DOJ. That’s why he was able to get his team to “review” 650,000 emails in just a few days. But back to chaos theory. Neo-Neocon thinks that as Trump begins to look like the more stable candidate, the crown that Hillary managed to wear for much of the campaign season, he seems like the safer bet.
If you think Hillary’s bad, wait until you see Tim Kaine. I assume that, if Hillary wins, she won’t be in office long, as she’ll either die from whatever disease is bedeviling her or she’ll be arrested or impeached. Her departure from the White House won’t make things better. If you think Hillary’s an antisemitic Leftist, you ain’t seen nothing yet: Tim Kaine is much worse.
Linda Tripp — Hillary is worse than you imagine. Almost two decades after the Blue Dress, most people tend to think of Linda Tripp solely in the context of being Monica Lewinsky’s confidante. In fact, she pretty much sat right outside Hillary’s office, and had a front row seat to the true horrors of Hillary’s personal style and her politics. Given that Hillary’s corruption and pathologies have gotten worse in the intervening decades, we have to assume that everything she is and does will be exponentially worse.
The end of the rule of law. One of the reasons I think Hillary cannot win is because putting her in the White House sets the seal to the end of the Rule of Law in America. Since the Magna Carta, the Anglosphere has operated on the principle that no one is above the law, not even the King (or President). If Hillary gets the White House, we’ve abandoned that ancient, liberty-based principle and, in effect, created an American emperor. And if you’re wondering just how different the standards are for Hillary versus everyone else, just look at this nice graphic comparing her to General Petraeus.