Tuesday, March 30, 2021

Losing the Language, Losing the Argument

There’s an old saying in a debate that those who define the terms usually win the argument. That truism has been playing out on the political stage now for at least half a century, as the Right consistently concedes the language to the Left. If it seems like we’re always losing the argument, perhaps that’s because we’re always playing on their home field.

Of course, it’s true that language evolves naturally over time. Think of the word “hood,” which once referred only to a head covering. Now it’s also applied to the front of a car—the part that covers the engine. That’s a natural and logical evolution.

It’s when such shifts in meaning don’t occur naturally and aren’t logical that problems arise—when words are manipulated intentionally to make them mean things they didn’t mean before or aren’t supposed to mean. And this manipulation of language, otherwise known as propaganda, is something the Left is quite good at. In fact, rhetorically speaking, it might be the only thing they’re really good at—their entire game plan—since their arguments are rarely based on logic or fact.

Indeed, most of their arguments, like those for abortion, gun control, and “systemic racism,” are demonstrably illogical and contrafactual. But if they can get us to agree to their terms upfront, which we often do without even realizing it, then they can probably win the argument, anyway. Heck, at this point, it sometimes seems like they’ve already won the argument and all that remains for our side is rear-guard action and damage control. (But that isn’t necessarily the case).

A classic example of what I’m talking about is the word “capitalism” as used to describe our economic system. We conservatives are fond of calling ourselves capitalists or saying that we support capitalism. But in doing so, are we even aware that we’re accepting the Left’s premise—using their word? It was actually Karl Marx’s term for our system, one that he did not coin but did use extensively in Das Kapital (see?). And he certainly did not mean it in a good way.

Adopting the term as our own allows the Left to brand us as “greedy capitalists.” They can then invent pithy if nonsensical bromides like, “Capitalism is only for people who have capital.” Of course, every one of us has capital of some sort, if only our own hard work, that we can trade for goods and services in a free market economy. But since most people associate “capital” with money, it makes for a good slogan. The implied message is that capitalism is just for people with money. Everybody else can go to hell.

That’s why the other term I just used is superior: “free markets.” Free markets are something everybody can get behind because the operative word is “free.” Marxists might be able to argue that capitalism is for capitalists—it really isn’t, but that sounds convincing—but free markets are for everyone. That’s why, instead of talking about capitalism and playing right into the Left’s hands, conservatives should constantly drive home the benefits of a free-market economy.

Another example involves the labels leftists apply to themselves: “liberals” and “progressives.” I can’t imagine anything more illiberal and regressive than modern-day leftism, which seeks to deprive us of as many civil liberties as possible—including those guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, like freedom of religion and speech—and re-create a system led by the elites in which the rest of us are, in Friedrich von Hayek’s memorable phrase, “on the road [back] to serfdom.”

That’s why I always cringe when I hear conservative commentators refer to today’s leftist radicals as “liberals.” They’re certainly not classical liberals—i.e., libertarians—nor are they even old-fashioned, Jimmy Carter, Sunday-school-type liberals. It is vitally important, and becoming more so each day, to call them what they really are: Marxists, Stalinists, and Maoists. Besides accurately describing their policy preferences, such terms offer the rhetorical advantage of associating those policy preferences with some of history’s worst people, and deservedly so.

Lately, the Left has become so audacious in their manipulation of language that they’ve begun calling things the exact opposite of what they really are. Take “anti-fascism,” for example, as represented by the group Antifa, whose tactics closely resemble those of Hitler’s Brownshirts. And “anti-racism,” which is itself nothing more than a form of blatant racism.

Speaking of which, there’s another great example of language manipulation. The word “racism” literally means discrimination on the basis of race. But for the Left, only one race, whites, can be guilty of racism, because they define the word purely in terms of power. And in their Marxist worldview, in which everyone is either a victim or an oppressor, only white people can have power.

That, of course, is ridiculous on its face. In today’s America, many black people hold positions of power, from local school boards all the way up to the White House. But beyond that, the bastardization of the term allows the Marxists to claim victimhood for people who are not victims and condemn as oppressors those who have never oppressed anyone.

Indeed, given such a narrow definition of “racism,” it’s not much of a leap to assert that ALL white people are racist—because, remember, only they have power in the Left’s warped universe. And of course, that is exactly what the Left is asserting today. It is the basis for “Critical Race Theory,” that vile, hateful, racist (in the true sense of the word), viral ideology now infecting our schools and other institutions.

But it all begins when we as conservatives accept the Left’s lexicon. That’s why the front line of the current culture war must be at the level of language. We cannot simply argue policy; we must also contest vocabulary and refuse to let the Marxists set the terms of the debate. Otherwise, we’ve already lost it.


When white supremacists are brown

There’s been a lot of chatter about the spike in anti-Asian hate crimes. Asian-Americans are being targeted, yes—but the narrative may not be reflective of what liberal media outlets are disseminating. They want us to believe that white supremacy and Donald Trump are to blame. Calling COVID the ‘Wuhan coronavirus’ is what led to this recent spate of attacks. No, the virus came from China. That is a fact. You see the ‘my ethnicity is not a virus’ signs, though that sentiment seems to stop within lefty circles when they want to bash white people. There’s always a boomerang, folks. Whatever liberals dole out, eventually it will come back to split their lip open like a fool with a boomerang. Always. These people have no principles, only feelings that can land you in a lot of trouble.

The recent NYPD presser on anti-Asian hate crimes shows pictures of the suspects who look rather…nonwhite. I mean when that slide of those who were arrested was shown, there was not a white face on that screen.

This all stems from the horrific mass shooting in Atlanta where Robert Aaron Long shot and killed eight people, many of them Asian women. Cue the white supremacy and hate crime talk, though we don’t know yet why he did this. That’s what Andrew Sullivan noted in his piece on Substack, which relates to the NYPD presser here. We once again see the woke narrative replacing what’s factual. He goes long into the recent spa shootings committed by Long, the infusion of ‘critical race theory,’ which is worth a read, but he also notes that a good chunk of hate crimes committed against Asians in New York City were done by nonwhites. That shreds the white supremacy angle. He does say that Trump’s “China virus” rhetoric fanned the flames. I disagree, but here’s a key passage:

This isn’t in any way to deny increasing bias against Asian-Americans. It’s real and it’s awful. Asians are targeted by elite leftists, who actively discriminate against them in higher education, and attempt to dismantle the merit-based schools where Asian-American students succeed — precisely and only because too many Asians are attending. And Asian-Americans are also often targeted by envious or opportunistic criminal non-whites in their neighborhoods. For Trump to give these forces a top-spin with the “China virus” made things even worse, of course. For a firsthand account of a Chinese family’s experience of violence and harassment, check out this piece.

The more Asian-Americans succeed, the deeper the envy and hostility that can be directed toward them. The National Crime Victimization Survey notes that “the rate of violent crime committed against Asians increased from 8.2 to 16.2 per 1000 persons age 12 or older from 2015 to 2018.” Hate crimes? “Hate crime incidents against Asian Americans had an annual rate of increase of approximately 12% from 2012 to 2014. Although there was a temporary decrease from 2014 to 2015, anti-Asian bias crimes had increased again from 2015 to 2018.”

Asians are different from other groups in this respect. “Comparing with Black and Hispanic victims, Asian Americans have relatively higher chance to be victimized by non-White offenders (25.5% vs. 1.0% for African Americans and 18.9% for Hispanics). … Asian Americans have higher risk to be persecuted by strangers … are less likely to be offended in their residence … and are more likely to be targeted at school/college.” Of those committing violence against Asians, you discover that 24 percent such attacks are committed by whites; 24 percent are committed by fellow Asians; 7 percent by Hispanics; and 27.5 percent by African-Americans. Do the Kendi math, and you can see why Kendi’s “White Supremacist domestic terror” is not that useful a term for describing anti-Asian violence.

But what about hate crimes specifically? In general, the group disproportionately most likely to commit hate crimes in the US are African-Americans. At 13 percent of the population, African Americans commit 23.9 percent of hate crimes. But hate specifically against Asian-Americans in the era of Trump and Covid? Solid numbers are not yet available for 2020, which is the year that matters here. There’s data, from 1994 to 2014, that finds little racial skew among those committing anti-Asian hate crimes. Hostility comes from every other community pretty equally.

The best data I’ve found for 2020, the salient period for this discussion, are provisional data on complaints and arrests for hate crimes against Asians in New York City, one of two cities which seem to have been most affected. They record 20 such arrests in 2020. Of those 20 offenders, 11 were African-American, two Black-Hispanic, two white, and five white Hispanics. Of the black offenders, a majority were women. The bulk happened last March, and they petered out soon after. If you drill down on some recent incidents in the news in California, and get past the media gloss to the actual mugshots, you also find as many black as white offenders.

This doesn’t prove much either, of course. Anti-Asian bias, like all biases, can infect anyone of any race, and the sample size is small and in one place. But it sure complicates the “white supremacy” case that the mainstream media simply assert as fact.

And that NYPD presser complicated that narrative pretty well.


Judge Takes Child From Mother Because She’s “Anti-Mask"

During a custody battle with her ex-husband, Melanie Joseph had her parental rights stripped after a court ruled she’s a “danger” to the child for being “anti-mask.”

Audio recording reveals Broward County Judge Dale C. Cohen telling the court he thinks the mother’s “credibility is very low.”

“I don’t believe a lot of what she testified to,” Judge Cohen said. “Um, she’s one of these anti-mask people and she’s got the audacity to post that on social media that she’s an anti-mask people.”

Joseph told Peters she isn’t “anti-mask” and had instead posted a pre-pandemic photo online.


Under Joe Biden, Woke Banks Run Wild

During the final weeks of the Trump administration, the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued an important regulation that would have required financial institutions to base their rules governing access to banking services on financial concerns, rather than political views.

According to the Trump-era OCC, "The rule codifies more than a decade of OCC guidance stating that banks should conduct risk assessment of individual customers, rather than make broad-based decisions affecting whole categories or classes of customers, when provisioning access to services, capital, and credit."

The Trump administration's rule would have provided an important safeguard against large banks—defined by the OCC as those "with more than $100 billion in assets that may exert significant pricing power or influence over sectors of the national economy"—using their vast wealth and financial power to impose their ideological views on Americans.

Although it seems like the rule ought to draw significant bipartisan support—do liberals really want big banks punishing people who don't agree with them?—soon after taking office, President Biden put the rule on a 60-day hold.

The Biden administration's move is a clear signal that it intends to kill the regulation before it goes into effect on April 1.

One might be tempted to think big banks would support the Trump-era rule because it would allow them to take politics completely out of their financial decision-making process. The regulation would have provided them an excuse when special-interest groups on the Left or Right demand they get involved in controversial debates. That, unfortunately, could not be further from reality.

Large banks are some of the rule's biggest opponents, and many financial institutions have already started to roll out plans for using this opportunity to promote liberal ideology—and to earn a profit while doing so.

In Congress, many Democrats have aligned themselves with large financial institutions seeking to eliminate the rule, because they want to allow banks to impose liberalism on the American people.

Many on the left want to allow banks to discriminate on the basis of political ideology, among other things, because large banks have already used their power to promote a variety of causes favored by Democrats.

For instance, in February, Bank of America announced, "Building on Bank of America's longstanding support for the Paris Climate Agreement, the company today outlined initial steps to achieve its goal of net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in its financing activities, operations and supply chain before 2050."

Pay careful attention to Bank of America's statement. The bank not only promised to reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions, but to reduce emissions "in its financing activities." That means it plans to force businesses—and perhaps even individuals—who might otherwise choose to continue using fossil fuels to adopt "green" energy or else lose access to the bank's capital.

Bank of America isn't alone. Seemingly every large banking institution in the United States is now gearing up to use its vast financial resources to promote liberal causes. Earlier in March, Citibank announced commitments similar to those issued the month prior by Bank of America.

During the announcement, Citi CEO Jane Fraser said, "We believe that global financial institutions like Citi have the opportunity—and the responsibility—to play a leading role in helping drive the transition to a net zero global economy and make good on the promise of the Paris Agreement."

Institutions like Bank of America and Citi aren't stopping at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. "Our commitments to closing the gender pay gap, to advancing racial equity, and to pioneering the green agenda have demonstrated that this is good for business and not at odds with it," Fraser said in the same announcement. "And we will continue to be part of the solution to these challenges and enable others to do so as well."

Many Americans believe climate change, the gender pay gap and other causes now adopted by large banks are serious problems worthy of our attention, and thus might think the elimination of the Trump-era OCC rule is a positive step forward. Think carefully, though, before coming to such a reckless conclusion.

If massive banks and financial institutions can effectively shut down any industry or even class of nonprofit organizations because they disagree with those institutions' politics, then they have the authority to control society in ways that all Americans should be extremely uncomfortable with. There would be absolutely nothing stopping CEOs at major banks from waking up in six months and saying, "You know, maybe we were wrong about that whole climate change thing. I think we'll stop providing financial services to renewable energy companies instead."

The modern banking system cannot exist without government-created central bank currency. Many large banks have, at one time or another, received massive funding from the federal government in the form of taxpayer-funded bailouts or COVID-related financial support. The government is well within its rights to require those banks to make services available to all creditworthy groups in the United States and to prevent them from playing politics.

If instead banks are permitted to discriminate against businesses and individuals that do not share their political views, their power and influence will undoubtedly become a grave threat to the preservation of our free society.


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)


Monday, March 29, 2021

The Unaccompanied Minors

While a heart-wrenching issue -- they are a distraction from a nightmarish threat.

Americans have finally gotten a glimpse of the horrible conditions under which the Biden administration is essentially warehousing alien children who show up on the southern border in response to Biden’s words and policies.

Biden tried to block the photos and has attempted to erect a wall of secrecy around his administration to avoid being made accountable.

This is a true humanitarian crisis, make no mistake, but these children are mere pawns in the political game being played by the Biden Administration.

For all of the breast-beating by the Democrats during the Trump administration who complained stridently about the “kids in cages” we now see that the Biden administration has resorted to the use of dangerously overcrowded pens that look more suitable for holding livestock than children; and this is happening during the COVID-19 Pandemic where we are constantly told to wear masks and maintain “social distancing.”

The media will now, undoubtedly focus their attention on the children while ignoring broader issues that emanate from the immigration crisis that the Biden administration refuses to describe as a crisis. It is becoming obvious that they won’t use that term because they are getting exactly what they want: to flood America with huge numbers of immigrants for political purposes.

Flooding America with huge numbers of aliens will cause many Americans to lose their jobs and/or suffer wage suppression, pushing more Americans into poverty and reliance on government programs that the Democrats are happy to provide, thus forcing millions of Americans to vote for the Democrats--the “Party of the hand-out.”

In May of last year I wrote, For Dems to Succeed, Americans Must Fail, Many believe that the leaders of the Democrat Party seek to import huge numbers of immigrants who would ultimately vote for the their candidates. What most don’t realize that the apparent plan of the Democrat Party is far worse than that. My dad used to say that you can turn capitalists into communists by taking away their money.

However, the huge numbers of aliens who have flooded the southern border of the United States, have overwhelmed the entire immigration system; this is the obvious goal of the Biden administration.

The current situation should surprise no one given the statements made by Mr. Biden even before he was sworn in and given his selection of Alejandro Mayorkas for Secretary of Homeland Security, as I noted in my article that was published on December 7, 2020, Biden's DHS: Department of Homeland Surrender: Alejandro Mayorkas, architect of DACA, picked by Biden to head DHS.

In reality, the immigration system has been overwhelmed for decades. The key to imbuing the immigration system involves much, much more than simply hiring more Border Patrol agents.

The immigration system desperately needs to have ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents to imbue the immigration system with meaningful integrity.

Back in May 2019, during the Trump administration, I wrote an article, Jihad At The Border that focused on how the border crisis back then facilitated the entry of terrorists.

My earlier article included this passage that is certainly even more relevant today than it was then:

Thus the ability of the already beleaguered U.S. Border Patrol to secure our porous and dangerous southern border has been diminished by 40%.

Those who study history, specifically World War II know that “D-Day,” also known as “Operation Overlord” was only successful because of a diversion created by the Allies known as the “Calais Deception” that was officially labeled “Operation Fortitude.”

General George Patton was put in charge of a phantom division that consisted of inflatable tanks and trucks that from the air, created the elaborate but false illusion of a large contingent of soldiers preparing to attack Germany at the Pas-de-Calais rather than at Normandy where the attack would actually be mounted.

The Germans were thus conned into splitting up their defensive forces, leaving Normandy vulnerable to the Allies on June 6, 1944.

Today our Border Patrol and, indeed, the entire immigration system, is being inundated by huge numbers of illegal aliens forcing the Border Patrol to deploy many of its agents to assignment that remove them from the primary mission of securing vast stretches of unsecured border.

This was why the border wall was so important, not to block people and commerce from entering the United States, after all, the wall did not block off ports of entry, but to funnel all commerce and people seeking entry into the United States to the ports of entry so that they could be vetted and a record of their entry created.

Today the Border Patrol is so overwhelmed that, on March 20 the National Review reported: CBP Asks to Fly Migrants to Canadian Border for Processing amid Surge: Report.

The very next day, on March 21, 2021 Fox News reported, Border Patrol in Rio Grande Valley releasing illegal crossers into US without court date.

What happens on the border does not stay on the border. Once past the border these aliens are free to travel across the United States and settle in towns and cities across the United States.

Sanctuary cities further entice aliens who have criminal backgrounds to set up shop in those towns where the can continue their “criminal careers.” This also applies to terrorists.

It is more than ironic that while Nancy Pelosi has demanded a “9/11-style commission” to investigate the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, she and her political cohorts blatantly violate the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission where immigration is concerned.

The mainstream media is no better, ignoring the nexus between immigration failures and the ability of terrorists to enter the United States, embed themselves and go about their deadly preparations that were clearly laid out in The 9/11 Commission Report and the companion report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel: Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

The latter report addressed the importance of the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States:

Page 54 contained this excerpt under the title “3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot.”

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.

In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the United States terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

Page 61 contained this passage:

Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists

In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.149 Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.150 With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel.

On February 11, 2021 The Epoch Times reported, Terror Threat Across Southern Border ‘Elevated and Escalating,’ Expert Says.

On February 4, 2021 The Epoch Times reported, Border Patrol Agents Arrest 11 Iranians in Arizona Who Illegally Entered US

Biden’s immigration policies have sparked uncontrolled immigration to an extent that it could be categorized as an invasion.


Baltimore Will No Longer Prosecute Drug Possession, Prostitution, and Other ‘Low-Level’ Crimes

Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby declared the “war on drug users” is over and her office will no longer prosecute low-level crimes like drug possession and prostitution.

The program has been in place for the last year and was designed to reduce the population in city jails during the pandemic. Yesterday, Mosby made the policy permanent.

“Today, America’s war on drug users is over in the city of Baltimore. We leave behind the era of tough-on-crime prosecution and zero tolerance policing and no longer default to the status quo to criminalize mostly people of color for addiction,” said Mosby in an official press release.

Mosby said her office will no longer prosecute drug and drug paraphernalia possession, prostitution, trespassing, minor traffic offense, open container violations, and urinating and defecating in public.


Her decision was supported by Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott and Baltimore City Police Commissioner Michael Harrison. But Republican state Sen. Robert Cassilly told CNN affiliate WBFF that while he supports prosecutorial judgment, Mosby’s decision is closer to making the law rather than enforcing it.

“Prosecutors take an oath to uphold the constitution in the state of Maryland and the constitution says the general assembly sets the policy, not the prosecutors,” Cassilly told the station. “I respect the whole prosecutorial discretion. That’s not prosecutorial discretion, that’s an exercise in legislating. That’s what the legislature is supposed to do.”

Baltimore, already a very unpleasant place to live, is about to get worse. When mayors don’t care about the “quality of life” issues like public urination and prostitution, they invite behaviors that make the city unlivable.

Mosby said the state’s attorney’s office is also working with the Baltimore Police Department and Baltimore Crisis Response Inc. (BCRI), a crisis center dealing with mental health and substance abuse issue, to offer services instead of arresting individuals committing these lesser offenses.

“Rather than arrest and prosecution, BCRI will connect individuals with services in areas such as mental health, housing, and substance use,” according to the press release.

Decriminalizing certain behaviors and activities will only encourage those same activities. Just ask San Francisco residents what happened when the city stopped prosecuting people for public urination and defecation.

“This is not compassion for the homeless. It’s condemning people to the consequences of squalor,” wrote the editor of the police blog Law Officer.

I am a Southern Californian, but relocated to Texas upon retirement from law enforcement. I have family members who live in the Bay Area, so we’d frequently visit San Francisco. However, a few years ago I said I’d had enough after the overly aggressive panhandlers spoiled a sightseeing day at Fisherman’s Wharf. Yet the coup de grace for me was entering a public restroom near the BART station and witnessing a vagrant—high on heroin—taking a crap in the sink—when public stalls were available.

“I’m done with this city,” I declared when I returned to my waiting family.

As police forces shrink and crime grows, this policy will probably be forced on all major cities. It’s what the radicals want. And Baltimore will suffer the consequences.


Cancel Culture Comes to Medicine

The Journal of the American Medical Association is one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world and is regularly cited as an authority on everything from cancer to erectile dysfunction.

Now JAMA is embroiled in controversy over a podcast on racism and medicine that didn’t include any black panelists. After hundreds of black doctors complained, the AMA fired the deputy editor of JAMA and suspended the editor-in-chief, Dr. Howard Bauchner, pending the outcome of an investigation.

The subject of the podcast was racism in healthcare which has been much in the news in recent months as racism has been blamed for the disparity in Covid deaths between blacks and whites.

Associated Press:

“The decision to place the editor-in-chief on administrative leave neither implicates nor exonerates individuals and is standard operating procedure for such investigations,” the committee said in a statement.

Dr. Phil Fontanarosa, JAMA’s executive editor, will serve as interim editor.

“It’s a reasonable first step but it should not be seen as mission accomplished,” Dr. Raymond Givens, a Black cardiologist in New York, said Friday. He has been a vocal online critic of a lack of diversity among editors of JAMA and other prominent medical journals.

There are several possible explanations for why more blacks died proportionately than whites and most of them have to do with income disparities, not racial animus. Poor people are generally less healthy. They tend toward obesity, which makes them more susceptible to heart disease and diabetes. Black people also smoke at a higher rate than whites, which is a known factor in lung diseases like COPD and emphysema.

It’s also a fact that whites spend more on healthcare in general than blacks. And clinics and hospitals are more accessible in rich suburbs than in the poor inner city.

All of the above conditions are prime contributors to serious illness and death from Covid-19 so it stands to reason more blacks would die of Covid as a proportion of the population than whites.

What makes this podcast issue so silly is that the recording was “a discussion for skeptics” of the idea that there is racism in healthcare. Apparently, even discussing the possibility that there were other factors involved in the disparities in outcomes in healthcare proved too much for some.


A Christian Church Just CAVED To Leftists, Made MAJOR Change To BIBLE

The Swedish church hardly exists. It has very few communicants

Progressivism is infesting just about everything in Western society, and the latest casualty is the Christian Church.

The national Church of Sweden has capitulated to social justice warriors demanding everything be gender neutral as to not offend transgendered people or non-binary, gender fluid creatures of intermediate sexuality and made a massive change to the one thing that should remain sacred in Christianity – the Lord’s Prayer. In what can only be described as a totally insane move, the national Evangelical Lutheran Church has decided that God will no longer be referred to as “He,” but instead only the gender non-conforming term of “God.”

It gets worse, according to Yahoo! News.

When speaking of God, pastors are instructed to use phrases like “the Holy Trinity” rather than “the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” and avoid other masculine terms when speaking about our Lord and Savior.

“We talk about Jesus Christ, but in a few places we have changed it to say ‘God’ instead of ‘he’,” Church of Sweden spokesperson Sofija Pedersen Videke told The Telegraph. “We have some prayer options that are more gender-neutral than others.”

“A wide majority of people decided on the book,” she said, adding that she had heard of no priests who objected to the new linguistic framework.

The Church of Sweden is headed by Archbishop Antje Jackelen, who was elected Sweden’s first female archbishop in 2013.

Archbishop Jackelen defended the decision, telling Sweden’s TT news agency: “Theologically, for instance, we know that God is beyond our gender determinations, God is not human.”

The defilement of God comes as the Church is attempting to “modernize” its handbook outlining how services should be conducted. However, not everyone in the Christian community is happy about the decision, and rightfully so.

All throughout the Bible, God is referred to as “He,” “Him,” and other masculine terms, so these progressive lunatics in Sweden are attempting to rewrite God’s doctrine. Christer Pahlmblad, an associate theology professor at Lund University in Sweden, agrees, telling the Danish newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad the decision was “undermining the doctrine of the Trinity and the community with the other Christian churches.”

“It really isn’t smart if the Church of Sweden becomes known as a church that does not respect the common theology heritage,” he said.

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

Sunday, March 28, 2021

Biden cops some friendly fire

Meghan McCain has slammed the mainstream media for its fawning response to Joe Biden's first press conference, saying the new President is being treated far more lightly than his predecessor, Donald Trump.

Biden held his first press conference on Thursday - more than two months into his Presidency - where he answered questions on immigration, China, and gun control.

But while Biden made a series of factually incorrect statements and was seen referring to prepared notes, the media's response has been overwhelmingly positive.

Speaking on The View Friday, McCain said the reaction was evidence of media bias, and claimed that Biden only answered a series of softball questions.

'We're still in a pandemic, there are still a bunch of crises, and I don't think he answered nearly enough questions that I, for one, would have liked to see him answer and I think the coverage has been really disconcerting,' the conservative co-host stated.

'I was watching some shows this morning - there's no need to slobber all over Joe Biden right now. He's still the president of the United States. And I think our role in the fourth estate is to hold his feet to the fire and to ask serious questions and 'give him time, let him be president,' yes, but we didn't give this [leeway] to President Obama or to President Trump.'

McCain also added that Biden didn't take questions from journalists who may have been prepared to ask him harder questions. 'He didn't answer any questions from any media that didn't agree with him,' McCain explained. 'Peter Doocy, was not called on, Fox News wasn't called on, which I think is a huge miss for President Biden yesterday.'

She also stated that the press deliberately ignored Biden's recent stumble up the stairs of Air Force One and reports that a gun registered to Hunter Biden was disposed of in a trash can outside a Delaware supermarket in 2018.

'If President Trump had fallen down Air Force One or if his son was involved in some very serious reports involving the Secret Service and a handgun, I believe we would be having a very different [discussion] today,' McCain stated, trying to point out the perceived double standard.

McCain has been long been a family friend of Joe Biden's. Her father, the late John McCain, worked alongside Biden in the Senate for decades.

'I love President Biden as a person. I think he's a truly decent human person, and a wonderful family man and I have great love and admiration for him on a personal level,' McCain clarified on Friday.

'But I believe our role in the fourth estate as journalists and commentators is hold the president and the press's feet to the fire and I have to separate my emotions from calling balls and strikes on this.


For the Left, Bigotry Is a Tool

This week, a white man shot to death eight people in Atlanta-area spas, six of them Asian American. According to Atlanta police, the man said he was targeting brothels and blamed the women for his alleged sex addiction. The gunman stated that he had visited two of the spas before and had planned to drive to Florida and target the pornography industry. So far, there is no evidence that the shooter was motivated by anti-Asian animus, making hate-crime charges unlikely at this point.

Nonetheless, the establishment media and Democratic politicians quickly began reflecting the lie that the shooting was an anti-Asian hate crime, the latest outgrowth of a major uptick in anti-Asian hate crimes -- all driven supposedly by "white supremacy." White House press secretary Jen Psaki connected the alleged increase in anti-Asian sentiment to former President Trump, stating that his "calling COVID 'the Wuhan virus' ... led ... to perceptions of the Asian American community that are inaccurate, unfair." Racial grifter Ibram X. Kendi tweeted: "Locking arms with Asian Americans facing this lethal wave of anti-Asian terror. Their struggle is my struggle. Our struggle is against racism and White supremacist domestic terror." Nikole Hannah-Jones, pseudo-journalist and de facto editor-in-chief at The New York Times, tweeted in solidarity: "I stand with my Asian-American brothers and sisters, just as so many of you have stood with us. I grieve. We must own all of this history -- ALL OF IT -- and determine to fight for a truly multiracial democracy where we all can be free."

This is cynical politicking at best.

The same sources decrying anti-Asian sentiment have spent years expressing anti-Asian animus in the form of discriminatory college admissions standards: President Biden's administration dropped a discrimination case against Yale University just a month ago, clearly thanks to the administration's position that affirmative action for black students outweighs Asian American success in a pure meritocracy. The same people blaming "white supremacy" for anti-Asian hate crimes have militantly ignored the location of the crimes -- largely major metropolitan areas, with a large number of such crimes coming not from white Americans but from black Americans (a plurality of overall violent crimes targeting Asian Americans, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, were committed by black Americans in 2018). The same establishment media sources blaming Trump for anti-Asian hate cheer on the active closing of merit-based magnet schools in New York and San Francisco, thanks to those schools' disproportionate Asian American attendance: Hannah-Jones tweeted last year that it was "disingenuous" to talk about "specialized high schools being majority POC" (people of color) when referring to Asian Americans.

Here, then, is how the narrative works, according to the left: No matter the antecedent to any statement, the conclusion must be that America is systemically racist. When we are discussing Asian American economic success, Asian Americans must be treated as beneficiaries of a white supremacist system; when we are talking about hate crimes against Asian Americans, Asian Americans must be treated as people of color victimized by a white supremacist system. When a white person harms Asian Americans, as Trevor Noah explained, intent doesn't matter -- animus can be assumed. When a black person harms Asian Americans, as NBC News reported, "experts say it's important to evaluate each case individually."

All of this is morally base. Anti-Asian animus is anti-Asian animus, whether it comes from woke school administrators or street criminals. To treat such animus differently based solely on the identity of the offender is to make obvious that you simply don't care about anti-Asian animus. For the left, it's just the latest club to wield against the broader American system, facts be damned.


Follow The ‘Science,’ They Said

Throughout the Trump years and in particular during the 2020 COVID pandemic crisis, the nation was lectured by the Left “to follow the data,” as the Democrats proclaimed themselves the “party of science.” As sober and judicious children of the enlightenment, they alone offered the necessary disinterested correctives to Trump’s supposed bluster and exaggeration—and to his anti-scientific deplorable following (often dismissed by Biden as dregs, chumps, and Neanderthals).

In truth, leftists and Democrats have become the purveyors of superstition. Their creation of a fantasy world is not because they do not believe in science per se, but because they believe more in the primacy of ideology that should shape and warp science in the proper fashion for the greater good. What prompted Paul Ehrlich, Al Gore, or Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) hysterically and wrongly to forecast widespread demographic or climatological catastrophe in just a few years was not ignorance of science per se, but a desire to massage science for our own good.

The Godheads of COVID-19

The medical pandemic godhead of the Left has been octogenarian Dr. Anthony Fauci. His twin chief public relations explainer has been liberal darling New York governor Andrew Cuomo. Both were always supposed to be on top of “the science.”

Dr. Fauci has not just been flat-out wrong on the science of COVID—in his assessments of the origins and possible dangers of COVID-19, of when we can get back to normal, of when the vaccinations would appear, and of which particular governors have been doing the most or least effective management of the disease. He has also, by his own admission, deliberately lied.

That is, Fauci has rejected science, as he knew it, to mislead the public. For our own interests, he adopted the Platonic “noble lie” on occasion. So, for example, he conceded that he had downplayed the value of masks (he now seems to approve of wearing one on top of another) in order to prevent too many wearing them, and thus the public shorting the supply available to more important health care workers.

Fauci also proverbially moved the goal posts on herd immunity, from the high 60s to the low 90s as a percent of the population, either vaccinated or with antibodies, necessary to achieve a de facto end of the pandemic. Again, Fauci defied the science on the theory he knew better, in assuming that the childish public would become too lax when and if it believed herd immunity was on the horizon.

Unspoken, is that Fauci usually errs on the side of what is deemed progressive orthodoxy. In contrast, Dr. Scott Atlas warned us that extended and complete lockdowns in any cost-benefit analyses might well inflict more human and economic damage than the virus. And he added that an opened-up Florida and Texas might do no worse virally than a locked-down California or New York, while avoiding the severe recessionary collateral damage.

Yet Atlas was damned for “not following the science” for the crime of working for Trump and for following the science: while targeted wearing of masks and social distancing and quarantining of vulnerable populations are necessary, complete quarantines of the entire population and extended closing schools are counterproductive.

Little need be said of Cuomo other than the applicable Roman dictum he created a desert and called it peace. When the federal government delivered a tent-hospital and a huge hospital ship, they went unused. When it sent ventilators, Cuomo raged that they were too little, too late.

When his own record in New York of COVID mismanagement became public (currently over 2,500 deaths per million population, the second highest state in the nation and about 35-40 percent higher than the open, but hated Texas and Florida), he lied about his own redirection of COVID patients into pristine long-term care facilities that resulted in a proverbial bloodbath.

In his adherence to science, Cuomo received an Emmy for his narcissistic press conferences and adeptness at blame-gaming. That he was brought low not by his lethal politicking, but by serial allegations of being rude and handsy with female staffers suggests that his unscientific approaches to the pandemic were of little concern to his “scientific” supporters.

The “Science” of Quarantines

Consider another scientific debacle. In the midst of the quarantine, when governors and mayors were threatening to jail any who violated social distancing, mask wearing, or assembling en mass outdoors, hundreds of thousands hit the nation’s streets in crowded phalanxes of screaming and saliva-projecting protestors—all supposedly in violation of “the science” of epidemiology and public health.

The reaction of our elected officials—not just silence but open approbation—is to be expected, given the political class is so often timid and simply genuflects to perceived voter pressure groups. But “the science” on spec also came to the rescue of the quarantine violators to offer pseudo-scientific support for violating government-mandated “data”-driven policies.

Over 1,200 healthcare officials weighed in with their “expertise” and postmodern gibberish to defend mass violations of quarantine rules: “Instead, we wanted to present a narrative that prioritizes opposition to racism as vital to the public health, including the epidemic response.”

And the experts added all sort of postmodern hedging to emphasize that their recalibrated woke “science” was now different than others’ less woke “science”:

However, as public-health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission. We support them as vital to the national public health and to the threatened health specifically of Black people in the United States.

So in Animal Farm terms, some protests “are more in violation than others.” In a more historical vein, we might imagine these “experts” at another time and place, joining the chorus of scientists praising the agronomic genius of Joseph Stalin, whose “brilliant” and “scientific” irrigation fantasies began the destruction of the Aral Sea. In any case, millions decided why stay indoors when millions of others hit the streets to protest, loot, burn, destroy, and injure—with the sanction of our experts.

Non Compos Mentis

The Left hammered the 74-year-old overweight Trump about his supposedly iffy health. They brought in a Yale psychiatrist, Dr. Bandy X. Lee, to testify about his incapacity to Congress. There and in op-eds, she offered a pseudo-scientific assessment of debility (e.g., “I and hundreds of mental health professionals are available and eager to assist with any or all these efforts”). Yes, and unethically so, without ever having examined the patient in question.

According to Lee, Trump was mentally impaired, a sociopath, and needed an “intervention,” a serious medical diagnosis that soon became a “scientific” grounding for the wild charges leveled at Trump of incompetence on network and cable news. Trump in his exasperation at “fake news,” took the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test to prove his powers of recall and analysis. He aced the exam.

But where is Lee now in the era of a 78-year-old Joe Biden in the White House?

Or rather, where is the Left to use her “research” to question whether Joe Biden is compos mentis? In the last 30 days, he has claimed there were none vaccinated when he entered office (he was photographed receiving a shot on December 21, a month before his inauguration).

In truth, 1 million a day were receiving vaccinations when Biden assumed the presidency. He cannot at times remember the name of his own secretary of defense or of the Pentagon where Gen.(ret.) Lloyd Austin works, and increasingly needs a translator to make sense of his slurred words, raspy voice, off-topic wandering, truncated vocabulary, and fragmented syntax.

Trump was once said to be shaky and disguising an obvious illness because after a long day at West Point he walked slowly in his leather shoes on a smooth ramp. In contrast, this week Joe Biden staggered and fell three times climbing the stairs to Air Force One—without a commensurate media howl. Will Joe be subject to an outside medical assessment? Might Dr. Lee reappear to give him the Montreal test?

I think we know the answer. “Science” is used to denigrate a perceived enemy of the people, and ignored to enhance a guardian of the flock.


Arkansas Bans Transgender Athletes From Women’s Sports

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson signed into law on Thursday a bill banning transgender female-identifying athletes from participating in women’s sports.

The new law, meant to preserve the integrity of female sports and protect girls and women from competing against biological males, comes amid a push by state legislatures to enact similar protections.

“Today, I have signed into law SB354, called the ‘Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.’ I have studied the law and heard from hundreds of constituents on this issue. I signed the law as a fan of women’s sports from basketball to soccer and including many others in which women compete successfully,” Hutchinson said in a statement. “This law simply says that female athletes should not have to compete in a sport against a student of the male sex when the sport is designed for women’s competition. As I have stated previously, I agree with the intention of this law. This will help promote and maintain fairness in women’s sporting events.”

GOP lawmakers in at least 20 states have introduced similar legislation this year, according to The Associated Press. Such states are reportedly under pressure by activists and organizations such as the NCAA to avoid implementing such bans. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem recently declined to sign a similar bill and sent it back to the legislature to exempt college sports.

Earlier this week, a group of state representatives introduced similar legislation into the North Carolina General Assembly. The bill cites the “inherent differences between men and women” for banning biological males from women’s sports.

The bill states in part:

Whereas, the benefits that natural testosterone provides to male athletes are not diminished through the use of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. A recent study on the impact of such treatments found that policies like those of the International Olympic Committee that require biological males to undergo at least one year of testosterone suppression before competing in women’s sports do not create a level playing field. “[T]he reduction in testosterone levels required by many sports federation transgender policies is insufficient to remove or reduce the male advantage by any meaningful degree.”

For example, “the muscle mass advantage males possess over females, and potentially the performance implications thereof, are not removed by 12 months of testosterone suppression.” Instead, the study concluded that “The data presented here demonstrates that the male physical performance advantage over females, attributed to superior anthropometric and muscle mass/strength parameters achieved at puberty, is not removed by the current regimen of testosterone suppression permitting participation of transgender women in female sports categories. Rather, it appears that the male performance advantage is largely retained by transgender women and thus remains substantial.”

On March 11, Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves signed a bill banning biological males from competing in women’s sports.

“I never imagined dealing with this, but POTUS left us no choice,” Reeves wrote on Twitter. “One of his first acts was to sign an EO encouraging transgenderism in children. So today, I proudly signed the Mississippi Fairness Act to ensure young girls are not forced to compete against biological males.”


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)


Saturday, March 27, 2021

Minnesota theater cancels production of Cinderella because the cast is 'too white'

A local Minnesota theater has cancelled a production of Roger & Hammerstein's Cinderella because its cast was 'too white'.

Chanhassen Dinner Theatres was scheduled to stage the show later this year before its artistic director stepped in to slam its lack of diversity.

'It was 98 percent white, ' the artistic director, Michael Brindisi, told the Pioneer Press on Wednesday after looking at who had been cast.

However, Chanhassen - located southwest of Minneapolis - has a population that is overwhelming white, and the racial demographics of the cast were not strikingly different from the city as a whole.

According to the most recent census, 92.5 percent of people in Chanhassen are white. Less than 3 percent of residents are Hispanic, while 1.1 percent are black.

No photos of the Cinderella cast were officially released before the show was scrapped.

In a statement released on Monday, the theater stated: 'After careful consideration and with our ongoing commitment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, we have made the decision to cancel our upcoming production.

'In addition to changing future programming, we are establishing new pre-production protocols. We will be inviting (and paying) BIPOC artists to analyze the production with our creative teams through a new Diversity, Equity and Inclusion lens... This conversation will happen before the design and casting process has begun.'


For the People?

Democrats sure do have a way of twisting words to hide their true intent.

I’m so thankful for those in Washington, DC, who are concerned about us and want to take care of us. What would we do without them?

Nancy Pelosi is so concerned about us that she came up with HR 1, the “For the People Act.” The question is, just “who” are those people she’s worried about?

If you thought the last presidential election process was the smoothest ever, you’ll love this legislation. The rest of us? Well, not so much. I’ve talked about how words once had meaning. Bills passed by Congress, especially ones crafted by Democrats, are masterpieces of disinformation. Anyone remember Pelosi’s monstrous ObamaCare legislation? “We have to pass it,” Pelosi said, “to find out what’s in it.” How’s that working out?

HR 1 is another huge pile of legislative dung. It’s only 800 pages compared to ObamaCare’s 900-plus pages, which no one read. If any Republican senator votes for this bill, he or she needs to be voted out of office. I can’t go into all of the serious problems it will cause, but I’ll hit some highlights.

This bill will basically mean DC will control all voting law from here on out. It is designed, as I understand it, to override state legislation passed to ensure voting integrity. Democrats have to do this because, well, all you Red State residents are bigots and racists, so leftists will make the right laws for you. No worries!

No voter ID will be required. I could walk into a polling place and say “I’m Alfred E. Newman” (you have to be of a certain age to know who he is) and vote. Apparently anywhere.

The handling of absentee ballots will be so sloppy that there will be no chain of custody and no witnesses of signatures, all while states will make them available to anyone for any reason.

Voter rolls cannot be purged of people who have moved or died. We all know of states where dead people vote every election. Noncitizens would be able to vote with no problems. You don’t have to decide whether or not you want to register to vote — the government will do that for you. This will result in people with multiple registrations. But hey, you can never have too many ballots coming to you, right? Online registrations would be a blessing to hackers and cybercriminals.

HR 1 imposes onerous regulatory restrictions on political speech, including online and policy-related speech by candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. It would authorize the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy positions on nonprofit organizations when they apply for tax-exempt status. What could possibly go wrong?

It would set up a public funding program for candidates running for Congress. Your tax dollars could go to support candidates the Left chooses to fund. And we’re just barely scratching the surface.

The time of putting our heads in the sand is over. Every conservative Patriot needs to let their senators know what they think of this legislation. Don’t assume you know how they feel about this. It’s amazing how, when push comes to shove, the backbone completely disappears from some politicians.

Doing nothing will mean the Democrats won and we have surrendered our liberties! This legislation is NOT for “We the People.” It’s a leftist gift bag.


If Categories Like Women and Men No Longer Matter, Why Bother with Equal Pay Day?

Many progressives today insist that gender is fluid and that American law should abolish any distinctions between the sexes. Yet, ironically, many of these same people point to overly simplistic statistics derived from binary male-female categories to claim that women are the victims of wage discrimination and to demand more regulation, more government monitoring, and many, many more lawsuits.

Surely, such a binary approach to categorizing workers and comparing wages is woefully outdated in our new woke world!

According to progressive activists, sexism is the reason that the average woman earns only about 80 cents for every dollar earned by a man. This logic has never held up to scrutiny. Commonly used wage gap figures simply compare the average full-time working woman’s wages to the wages of the average full-time working man. Such raw statistics don’t account for occupation, specialty, years of experience, or even hours worked.

That last factor alone explains a large chunk of what’s often referred to as the wage gap. According to the Department of Labor, the average female full-time worker logs several fewer hours per week on the job than the average male. It’s hardly surprising—or evidence of discrimination—that someone who works ten percent less each week also earns less. When factors such as these are controlled for, the unexplained differences between male and female earnings shrink to just a few percentage points.

Progressives like to claim that the differences between men and women’s work-lives are the unsavory fruit of our innately sexist society that pushes women to sacrifice their careers and earnings to take on the lionshare of caregiving. To raise awareness of this alleged inequity and push policymakers to make it easier for workers to sue their employers, they created the pseudo holiday “Equal Pay Day” to mark the day that women will have earned enough to catch up with men’s earnings in 2020.

This year, Equal Pay Day fell on March 24. But it seems that in 2021, Equal Pay Day didn’t get the attention it once did. And not just because of COVID. The truth is, progressive groups that used to champion women’s interests just aren’t that interested in women anymore. In today’s woke world, women take a back seat to other “oppressed groups.”

This actually makes sense: Women aren’t a victim class at all. Women make up a majority of the population and a majority of registered and actual voters. Women are an increasingly educated and powerful segment of society. Women today dominate universities, earning 6 out of 10 bachelors degrees, and a solid majority of professional degrees. Women are a near majority of workers, and though they are still less likely than men to be CEOs, they are a growing share of business owners and making hiring and compensation decisions. Indeed, if employers are overwhelmingly discriminating against women, then women are doing a lot of the discriminating. Efforts to paint American women broadly as a victim class have long been a stretch.

It’s strange to witness the Left’s absolute reversal when it comes to their concerns about women. Those who just a few years ago insisted that sexual harassment and violence against women are ubiquitous, openly scoff at the notion that opportunistic male predators would claim a different gender identity to gain access to female-only prisons, locker rooms, domestic violence shelters, and women’s and girls’ bathrooms, in order to do them harm.

Watching Congress talk about “women” in recent weeks is enough to cause mental whiplash: After replacing the term “women” in the “Violence Against Women Act” (VAWA) with words like “people,” “adults,” or “youth; redefining “sex” in our nation’s civil rights laws to mean “gender identity;” and, trying to resurrect the misnamed “Equal Rights Amendment” to outlaw any legal protections or programs (like VAWA) aimed specifically at women (even when these protections make sense), the same body wants to pretend to care that women as a group make less than men as a group. Never mind that sex-based pay discrimination has been illegal in the United States since the 1960s. The logical fallacies, self-serving hypocrisy, and two-tongued virtue-signaling when it comes to women is too much to watch. Women should take note.

I had once hoped that we would stop fixating on the wage gap because it isn’t a helpful tool for measuring workplace discrimination. I had hoped that we would come to respect that women and men make different choices and recognize that it’s ok if these choices impact earnings. Sadly, that’s not why Equal Pay Day is irrelevant today. But I’d still take its elimination as a win.


Court Rules Professor Can’t Be Forced to Endorse an Ideology Against His Beliefs

Dr. Nicholas Meriwether enjoys a spirited debate. As a philosophy professor at Shawnee State University, there is plenty of that to go around in his classroom. And he is not afraid to voice his disagreement or bring up an entirely different viewpoint.

That’s part of what makes him a great professor. In his class, students are exposed to new ideas and opposing viewpoints. They have the opportunity to grapple with what they believe and why they believe it.

Most people think that’s what universities—the “marketplace of ideas”—are supposed to be!

But not according to Shawnee State officials. Now, Dr. Meriwether finds himself involved in a very different kind of debate—on the opposite side of the courtroom from his university, after it tried to shut down the free exchange of ideas by forcing him to endorse an ideology that he does not believe.

And, today Dr. Meriwether got some great news from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

Let’s take a deeper look at his case and the freedoms at stake.

Who: Dr. Nicholas Meriwether

Dr. Meriwether has served as a philosophy professor at Shawnee State University for over 20 years with an unblemished record. He is serious about creating an atmosphere of mutual respect in his classroom.

Dr. Meriwether is also serious about his beliefs. As a Christian, he strives to live and work consistently with his faith. In fact, his core beliefs are why he’s devoted his career to education.

Many of Dr. Meriwether’s students appreciate how he challenged them in the classroom and brought ideas to the table that were different than their own. As one student wrote:

You and I saw eye-to-eye on very little and that made those arguments all the more valuable to me. If you had only made a half-hearted attempt at a counterpoint or (far worse) neglected to even mention an opposing position in order to spare my feelings, you would have been fundamentally undermining my education. I thank you for showing me enough respect to bring your "A-Game" to every in-class debate.

Unfortunately, not every student felt the same way about encountering differing viewpoints in Dr. Meriwether’s class.

What: Meriwether v. The Trustees of Shawnee State University

One day, a male student approached Dr. Meriwether after class, informed him that he identified as transgender, and demanded that Dr. Meriwether refer to him as a woman, with feminine titles and pronouns. When Dr. Meriwether did not immediately agree, the student became aggressive, physically circling him, getting in his face, using expletives, and even threatening to get Dr. Meriwether fired.

The student then filed a complaint with the university, which launched a formal investigation.

As a philosopher and as a Christian, Dr. Meriwether believes that God has created human beings as either male or female, and that a person’s sex cannot change. To call a man a woman or vice versa endorses an ideology that conflicts with his beliefs. So Dr. Meriwether offered a compromise: He would refer to this student by a first or last name only. That way, he would not call the student something the student did not like, but he would also not say anything that contradicts what he believes is real and true.

This compromise was not enough for university officials; they formally charged Dr. Meriwether—claiming he “created a hostile environment” and discriminated against the student. Later, they placed a written warning in his personnel file that threatened “further corrective actions” if he does not refer to students using pronouns that reflect their self-asserted gender identity.

That’s why Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit on Dr. Meriwether’s behalf.

ADF filed a lawsuit on Dr. Meriwether’s behalf in November 2018. In February 2020, a federal judge dismissed the case, but we appealed that decision. In November, ADF attorneys argued Dr. Meriwether’s case before the 6th Circuit.

And today, we got some great news! The 6th Circuit issued its decision in favor of Dr. Meriwether, ruling that he shouldn’t be forced to speak a message that violates his beliefs.

Where: Portsmouth, Ohio. Shawnee State University is a public university in Portsmouth, Ohio.


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)


Thursday, March 25, 2021

Without the filibuster, H.R. 1 and immigration reform will virtually guarantee one-party rule in the U.S.

On March 16, President Joe Biden opened the door to changing Senate rules requiring 60 votes in order to advance legislation, telling ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos “democracy is having a hard time functioning.”

When asked if he had to choose between “preserving the filibuster, and advancing your agenda,” Biden’s answer was “Yes.”

Biden continued, “But here’s the choice: I don’t think that you have to eliminate the filibuster, you have to do it what it used to be when I first got to the Senate back in the old days…You had to stand up and command the floor, you had to keep talking.”

In 2020, Biden ran on a platform of enacting a public option for health insurance, raising taxes, moving to net-zero carbon emissions in energy production by 2035 and by 2050 for everything else including transportation, legalizing millions of illegal immigrants including a pathway to citizenship, passing his $1.9 trillion Covid stimulus relief legislation and election law reform.

Now, some of those things, like the stimulus and raising taxes, will be done under budget reconciliation that only requires a 50-vote threshold in the U.S. Senate, and carbon emissions regulation can be dealt with largely via regulation if Biden sets his sights lower.

But on the bigger ticket items on socialized medicine, a more expansive Green New Deal, granting citizenship to millions of illegal aliens and the H.R.1 election nationalization legislation, however, would need to go through Congress. And, under current Senate rules, need a 60-vote threshold to pass and make permanent changes to law.

Other items, like increasing the number justices on the Supreme Court or granting statehood to the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, would similarly need to be passed legislatively, all with 60-vote thresholds.

So, with the Senate split 50 to 50, the Democratic agenda is more or less at a standstill — and there is a diminishing window of opportunity to get anything done.

And in midterm elections from 1906 to 2018, the party that occupies the White House usually loses on average 31 seats in the House, and about three seats in the Senate. And with just a 10-seat majority in the House and a 50-50 tie in the Senate, there is a very high likelihood Democrats will lose one or both chambers in 2022.

Meaning, it’s now or never on the filibuster.

So far, however, Senators Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kirsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) appear opposed. “I will not vote in this Congress, that’s two years, right? I will not vote [to abolish the filibuster] And I hope with that guarantee in place he will work in a much more amicable way,” Manchin said in an interview in January. Sinema for her part through her office said she is “not open to changing her mind.”

But that was before Biden chimed in. Now, pressure will mount on Manchin, Sinema and other Senate Democrats to radically alter the way legislation is passed.

The upside for Democrats is significant long-term. If they focus their initial energies simply on the H.R. 1 election reform legislation and granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants, they will attempt to cement a generational electoral majority closely resembling the New Deal coalition that held from 1932 to 1952, where Democrats could pass anything they wanted.

It was one-party rule for close to two decades, except for a brief window in 1946 when Republicans reclaimed the House and the Senate, only to lose them promptly in 1948.

H.R. 1 would require states to automatically register residents to vote at Departments of Motor Vehicles, turn the Federal Election Commission into a partisan entity controlled by the White House party, dramatically change Congressional redistricting, require the use of absentee ballot drop boxes, eliminate state restrictions on mail-in voting, require same-day voter registration and gut state voter identification laws.

When automatic registration is combined with mailing out millions of ballots for mail-in voting, along with granting citizenship to a reported 12 million illegal aliens, who are predominantly Hispanic, and Democrats would have a virtual long-term lock on both houses of Congress and the presidency for a very long time. Democrats won Latinos 65 percent to 32 percent in 2020, according to the CNN exit polls. Republicans have no offset in legal immigration that compares, and so it’s just a numbers game.

Throw in four more Democratic senators for D.C. and Puerto Rico, plus reallocating six representatives to the new states, and GOP prospects in Congress drop somewhat.

Now, even then that might not even be enough for Democrats to win the 2022 midterms in the House, but long term, this will make 2024 and future national elections much, much harder for Republicans to win.

It would be one-party rule for a long, long time.

Now, such majorities would not last forever — they never do. But by the time the GOP gets fully back in power, the U.S. would look dramatically different from what it does today. A lot of damage will have been done by then: a packed Supreme Court, the Green New Deal, socialized medicine, universal income and so on.

How much of the Constitution and individual liberty will remain by the time a competitive two-party system is rebuilt? It’s up to Senators Manchin, Sinema and others to make sure we never find out.


Top Health Insurance Provider Tells Employees Not To Hire White Men

Cigna, one of the nation’s largest health insurance providers, has allegedly told employees not to hire white men as part of the company’s broader critical race theory campaign.

According to an internal chat log obtained by the Washington Examiner, a hiring manager at Cigna dismissed a white candidate because he did not fulfill the company’s diversity standards. In the chat, an employee suggested the company interview a man with extensive experience for an open position. The hiring manager allegedly told the employee that the man could not be interviewed because he is white.

In a separate chat log, a hiring manager dismissed another candidate who he assumed to be white. The candidate was a racial minority. After learning of the candidate’s accurate skin color — and little else — the hiring manager allegedly reversed course and hired the candidate.

Employees were also forced to undergo training wherein they were taught that white people have “white privilege,” straight men have “gender privilege,” and Christians have “religious privilege.” The company defines religious privilege as “a set of advantages that benefits believers of a certain religion but not people who practice other religions or no religions at all.”

Included in the training was an “inclusive language” guide, which told employees the phrase “hip hip hooray!” was inappropriate language.


Jordan Petersen: Abandon Woke Now

“Truth is the handmaiden of love. Dialogue is the pathway to truth.”— Jordan Petersen

Nothing reveals desperation like the human need to reduce life to basic categories of blame. At times, it is necessary to condense complex subjects into simple ideas, but today’s wokeness is a phenomenon that we have already seen end in the horrific.

Jordan Petersen in a discussion of his new book, "Beyond Order, Twelve New Rules," advised “Allow yourself to think in more complex terms. It’s useful to reduce complex phenomena to their simpler elements. But is not useful to reduce it to the point of absurdity.”

Our modern struggle originates with two seminal thinkers, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, who simplified complex reality. Both attempted to reduce nuanced subjects to simple material phenomena. Wokeness is a combination of the two of them, and a culmination of their influence.

Marx wanted to explain away hierarchical functions in economics that result from competence or intelligence and replace them with political power. Freud wanted to explain human dynamics and psychological phenomena in terms of sex.

They boil down human motivation to a single dimension. While that makes for a compelling story, it is leading to cultural suicide. Marx’s revolution via mental tyranny explains everything but, in the end, helps nothing. Freud precipitated mass sexualization.

See Cardi B during the Grammy Awards.

Most things are not simple and require multi-variant approaches to reach rational conclusions. Take, for instance, the wage gap between men and women. There are many reasons and causes, not one. So what is gained by blaming this only on gender and power?

Blame allows one to identify an enemy wholesale like “the patriarchy” or “white privilege.” Once you can identify the enemy it makes you a victim and places you on the side of the righteous.

Oversimplification based on moral justification gains an audience.

You don't have to test your theories against others or even the real world. Before being woke that was accomplished in the academy or through journalism. Now it offers a quick unearned sense of moral superiority.

What is the cause of poverty, for example? Is it only systemic corruption? What about alcoholism, drug abuse, broken families, variation in intelligence, or conscientiousness, immigration, bad luck or timing, drive, education, and on it goes?

Poverty is not the result of one thing, and will never be completely resolved with easy answers, as Marx and later Stalin and Mao promised. Even Jesus himself who some claim was a proto Communist says in Matthew 26:11, “the poor you will always have with you.”

Freud’s theory about the role of sex as the identifier of all neurosis or oppression is the woke’s sole indicator of identity. It makes things much easier than the idea of Martin Luther King Jr.’s character or the journey of personal meaning.

Life does not have homogenous categories of power or sex or pure conservative or all liberal. Ideology reveals crude and unsophisticated thinking. And most dangerous, it has no room for self-reflection.

Even more dangerous, cultish thinking allows the state to gain more control. Divide the people and unify the power. Then establish a moral woke tautology that claims those who doubt the justification of power lack moral integrity.

As Petersen suggests, “If you want to solve problems oversimplified solutions just get in the way.” Today, in the name of waking, there is blind spending, open borders, hiring for race and gender, and a growing menu of grievances.

As a result, in math class, we focus on anti-racism. Or in English literature, we teach gender inequality and often skip the readings of Petersen or Aldous Huxley’s "Brave New World," or take heed of George Orwell’s "1984" that offers us this stark warning of woke thinking: “Asleep or awake, indoors or out of doors, in the bath or bed—no escape. Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimeters in your skull.”


The Appalling Double-Standard of the Leftist Media’s Anti-Asian Hate Crime Coverage

In the Brave New Intersectional World our leftist overlords have created and rule over with an iron fist (with virtually all the power), white males, the ones they unironically claim have all the “power,” are the only group capable of committing a “hate” crime. So you’ll be forgiven for thinking, in the wake of the horrific Atlanta shootings by a white man who took the lives of six people of Asian descent, that white guys are committing all of the hate-motivated violence against Asian-Americans that the media has been all-of-a-sudden focusing on since the Atlanta shooting.

If this crime had been perpetrated by anyone but a white male, other than the predictable calls for gun control, would we still be hearing about it? Of course not, but he was, and we are - because, well, there’s a leftist narrative to drive. That narrative contends that since former President Donald Trump often pointed out the origins of the coronavirus and since Trump and his supporters (most of whom are white) are eeevil raaacists, it logically follows that they would be the ones attacking Asian people willy-nilly. You know, because they’re such uneducated, ignorant rubes that they think individual Asians they encounter in the street are somehow personally responsible for the goings-on in Wuhan and they must have their revenge.

Nevermind, of course, that the shooter has personally stated that his sex addiction drove him to his crimes, that two of the victims were white, or that all of the victims worked in an industry that fits what the attacker said was his motive. Oh no, apparently now the new narrative is that white defendants, especially this one, aren’t allowed to tell us what their motivations were, even though real hate criminals tend to not be shy about making their motivations crystal clear.

“African-Americans have to pay for what they've done,” Dylann Roof, the Charleston church murderer, wrote in a journal after his arrest. Robert Bowers, the Tree of Life Synagogue killer, made no bones about his antisemitism, accusing Jews of committing “genocide” against whites. El Paso shooter Patrick Wood Crusius openly said he wanted to “kill Mexicans” and wrote an entire manifesto about it. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

Yet, in a staggering op-ed for The Hill titled “Asian Americans are the latest victims of white supremacy,” DePaul University professor Tom Mockaitis insists the Atlanta shootings “may have been racially motivated” because, well, “racism and misogyny are often linked.”

“The Atlanta murders fit an all-too familiar pattern. An individual unaffiliated with any group becomes radicalized and lashes out at marginalized people,” Mockaitis writes before going on to list several other white-perpetrated hate crimes ... against blacks, against Jews, against Mexicans, but none against Asians. His headline referred to Asian-Americans as “victims,” but only of white supremacy, not of the actual perpetrators, who in the majority of recent cases happen to be oh-so-inconveniently non-white.

Still, it’s hard to go wrong these days by just blaming racism anyway. MSNBC writer Hayes Brown, even after acknowledging investigators’ account of the defendant’s stated motivation, nevertheless insisted the crime was “still about race and power structures, even as his direct motivation was overwhelming misogyny.”

In a piece last month, before the Atlanta shooting, cautioning against the automatic labeling of crimes against Asians as hate-motivated, NBC’s Kimmy Yam wrote this astonishing paragraph: “While anti-Asian sentiment has risen markedly during the coronavirus pandemic, experts say it's important to evaluate each case individually. They said both defendants and victims deserve a fair, rather than a public, trial no matter what race they may be. They emphasize that that's particularly important if suspects are of color in the context of a justice system that hasn't been proven to be colorblind.”

Without directly pointing it out, because that would be politically incorrect and not fit the desired narrative at all, Yam tacitly acknowledges what anyone with half a brain who is capable of looking at a surveillance video can tell - most if not all of these crimes against Asians aren’t being perpetrated by white Trump supporters. Sure, this writer gave a nod to colorblindness, but the overarching leftist narrative is becoming clearer every day. When the perpetrator is a minority, we’ve got to have muted media, fair trials, no rushes to judgment, but when a white person commits a crime against someone of another race, it’s automatically labeled a hate crime and, presumably, that defendant must somehow now prove they were NOT motivated by hate. If this way of thinking isn’t the grim foundations of a dystopian, two-tiered justice system, I don’t know what is.

Until the media had a white perpetrator they could pigeon-hole into their narrative, even if strained, Asian-American activists were literally begging the media to pay attention to the rash of violence against their people brought on by suspects who didn’t fit the preferred talking points, like the 23-year-old man from Yemen who plunged a knife into the back of a Chinese man walking home near Manhattan.

Which brings up the real question: Is that Chinese man’s life less deserving of protection than those of the Atlanta salon workers? Because if the left’s hate-narrative holds up, his attacker, had he succeeded, would get a lighter sentence than the Atlanta shooter. Of course, that’s the whole problem with the absurdity that is hate crime law. Other than as it relates to obtaining a conviction or acquittal, why should it matter in the end what a criminal suspect was thinking when they committed a crime? Is the victim any less injured or dead?


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)


Tuesday, March 23, 2021

Why Tulsi Gabbard Is Right for an America First GOP

I don't agree with all the comments below but I do think Tulsi has a lot of potential as a conservative

The political realignment caused by President Donald Trump’s rise as the undeniable leader of the Republican Party is just beginning to be realized, and it may result in the emergence of a surprising superstar: former U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii.

Gabbard first gained her following as a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders who refused to participate in a corrupt DNC process that disenfranchised the far-left presidential candidate. This made her a reviled figure among establishment Democrats, who hated her even more when she refused to buy into Russian xenophobia and opposed bombing campaigns in Syria. Her refreshing honesty has resulted in an unexpected cult following developing among pro-Trump conservatives.

While Gabbard’s economic policies vary considerably from the Republican orthodoxy, she brings a much-needed breath of fresh air on the issues of civil liberties and foreign wars. These are issues that appeal to young people who are often the ones thrown into the meat grinder of the war machine or are otherwise punished by the state for nonviolently enjoying their lives. Gabbard is an asset who should not be stubbornly rejected in Trump’s GOP. Making the Republican Party into a true MAGA coalition will require the building of bridges and the rejection of failed approaches tried in the past.

Gabbard is a politician that the Republican Party needs to rebuild its shattered credibility among the masses. She has built a brand as a maverick who will say what she believes is right on the issues, no matter the political consequences. Gabbard would also alienate all of the worst actors still festering within the Republican Party. The annoying free marketeers, who gave the cold shoulder to Trump for his economic nationalism, would naturally be up in arms, because of Gabbard’s lack of reverence for the sacred deity of GDP. The remnants of the neocon war party, including former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, would be the most triggered, and their anguish alone would be worth letting the Gabbardites into the fold.

Her entrance into the party would introduce some common sense into the fold. For instance, compare and contrast a Gabbard Republican to the Republicans of the past. A George W. Bush Republican would support lower taxes for the wealthy, paying lip service to some scribblings made by economist Milton Friedman in the 1960s, while increasing corporate subsidies and defense spending to grease his corporate buddies. A Tulsi Gabbard Republican, theoretically, would support more taxation and social spending but would end the corporate dominance of the markets and hamstring the military-industrial complex. This makes far more sense to anyone outside of the stifling Conservative Inc. bubble.

Gabbard’s full acceptance in the MAGA coalition would force the America Last forces within the GOP to expose themselves, as her coherent articulation of a noninterventionist foreign policy would put the neocons on the defense. While the neocons can easily plant a John Bolton or an H.R. McMaster into the Trump nexus (with horrible negative consequences to his America First agenda), this could never happen with Gabbard as she is unflappable on her core issues. She is emerging as a figure not seen since former Texas Congressman Ron Paul gained a quixotic following, being able to traverse chasms and divides that others cannot. The tremendous void of courage, decency and morality in the GOP has created the ability for unorthodox coalitions and strange new leaders. It is time to exploit these exciting circumstances to the fullest by fostering a strain of Tulsi Gabbard Republicanism.

Of course, for this to work, Gabbard needs to lean in and tailor her rhetoric to appeal to Republicans. There is already evidence that she is doing this, as evidenced by her appearances on Fox News since leaving congressional office. She appeared on the network to defend individuals who appeared at the controversial protest in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, calling out irresponsible Democratic propaganda meant to bring the war on terror into the homeland. She has also slammed “cancel culture” for creating the type of repression pushed by groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda. Gabbard is positioning herself to lead moderates and independents turned off by the excesses of the modern Left.

Before she left Congress, Gabbard’s defiant final act put focus on the absurd dogma of the social justice warriors. She introduced legislation that would keep biological men out of women’s sports, an issue that is radioactively unpopular with average voters. She also introduced a bill that would protect babies who survived the gruesome abortion procedure. Horror stories have emerged in recent years of babies surviving abortions and then being mangled alive for their organs to be trafficked in the medical industry. Gabbard’s awareness of these issues already beats many Republicans who only pay occasional lip service to them on the campaign trail. At the very least, it shows Gabbard has compassion that transcends the petty partisanship plaguing our civic life.

Recent news items under the Biden regime demonstrate the nature of the current political crackup and how it benefits Gabbard. Pentagon attacks on Fox News host Tucker Carlson, for having the incredulousness of suggesting that pregnant women should not be placed on the frontlines in combat zones, have been bizarre and surreal. Following that up with the National Guard mobbing Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) at her own office, and we see an emerging trend of military personnel being used as cheap props to promote woke-ism for the Democrats. With no end in sight to the war on Afghanistan and the U.S. not being able to claim a decisive war victory in nearly 80 years, this is evidence that America is a non-serious country in serious decline, or perhaps free-fall collapse at this point.

With her sterling record of military service, Gabbard could gain traction as a Republican leader who will actually stand with the troops while maintaining the credibility to command their respect. While Trump certainly had the respect of the rank-and-file military, his avoidance of the Vietnam military draft and his trashing of individuals such as deceased former Sen. John McCain allowed Trump to be attacked on the issue of defense. Gabbard is unassailable in this regard, having been proven correct repeatedly despite the objections of so-called intelligence and national security experts. Gabbard has even shown the likes of Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris what a formidable foe she can be during public spats with Democrat leaders.

Republicans who pine for the great debate between capitalism and socialism, under the notion that Gen Z and millennials are just one PragerU video away from seeing the light, are effectively dooming the conservative cause despite their best efforts. The capitalism vs. socialism debate has already concluded and socialism has won, not because of ignorance or propaganda but because of the abject failure of conservatism. Republicans blew whatever credibility they may have had with young people by supporting bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, trade deals facilitating the outsourcing of jobs, forever wars, and countless other terrible policies. The youth is in turn tuning out conservatism and embracing socialism out of misguided self-interest.

Now, those of us in the Republican Party who are forward-thinking have to pick up the pieces and clean up the damage that has already been done. It is accomplished by taking the Republican Party in a populist, nationalist, America First direction. This is achieved not just by giving dedicated principled activists control over the party, permanently displacing the lobbyist-approved milquetoast class of Romney/Ryan losers, but also by forming non-traditional coalitions to build a populist Left-Right alliance that will devastate the status quo, making it wholly untenable. Gabbard could be the linchpin in creating a formidable lasting coalition if Republicans muster the courage to leave the reservation, as they did in voting for Trump as President in 2016, and manifest national greatness.


The Rise of the Politically Correct Language Censors

Today, we are faced with a new campaign of censorship, accompanied with the demand not just to ban the use of certain words or phrases but to insist that they be replaced with other words and phrases that must be accepted and used, if the potential “word-criminal” is not to be found guilty of racism, sexism or any other of a multitude of created groups and categories, and for which the “insensitive” individual may face serious life and career-affecting consequences.

On the surface, the appeal for a greater awareness and sensitivity to what and how we say things that, unintentionally, may be taken the wrong way by someone who personally has had “harmful” and “hurtful” experiences, or who comes from a family that in the past suffered from certain words and deeds in various ways, seems not unreasonable. Jews, in the past, were often called “kikes” or “Yids,” nor “Christ-killers.” It has generally become unacceptable to use such terms in reference to a person practicing the Jewish faith or having Jewish ancestors. And, similarly, certain words used in insulting or demeaning ways in reference to blacks in America have become unacceptable in virtually any and all social settings, both public and private. (See my article, “The Case for Liberty Through Thick and Thin”.)

However, languages, with their meanings, connotations, and acceptable uses of words, phrases, and terms, are always changing in every society. Sometimes a socially demeaning word can, over time, continue to be used without the negative implication. For instance, the word “slave:” a number of linguistic sources say that it originated from the word “Slav,” referring to certain groups of people living in Eastern Europe who were captured in the Middle Ages by other invading and conquering groups and forced into compulsory work; that is, made into “slaves.” Whether or not this long-held etymology is correct or not, to call someone, past or present, a “Slav” no longer implies an “inferior” or subservient status of those who live in that part of Europe.

It is also the case that a word that has an insulting connotation in one language may not have such a necessary negative meaning in another. For instance, it has become totally unacceptable for a white person to call a black American by what has become sanitized as the “N” word. Yet, the Russian version of this word, for instance, has not and for the most part still does not carry the offending sense that it does in English. It is merely the Russian word for a black person. If a Russian, who knows nothing about the historicity of that word in the American context, were to use it in the United States that person would have no idea that in using it any offense had been given.

Word Bans and Speech Commands in Manchester

Times change, and as attitudes, understandings, and “sensitivities” change through time, so do the uses and non-uses of words. But what happens when the determination of the use and meaning of words, phrases and forms of human interaction become hijacked by those who are determined to arrogate to themselves the lexicon of language? Who insist that they, above all others in society, know what should be said and should not be said, and what words shall be imposed on everyone else as near mandatory substitutes for the condemned and “forbidden” words?

This is the world in which we are presently existing, the “woke” world of political correctness, identity politics, and cancel culture. To demonstrate that this is not purely an American ideological phenomenon, just this past week, a British publication, The Spectator (March 11, 2021) reported that, “Manchester University Scraps the Word ‘Mother.” We are told that this respected British university has issued a “guide to inclusive language” that all those affiliated with that institution of higher learning are expected to follow and practice.

Some examples. It is no longer permissible to refer to the “elderly,” or a “pensioner” or those who are members of the “mature workforce.” These all imply inappropriate “ageisms.” No, instead, you will refer to those “over-65s, 75s, and so on,” we are told. The word, “diabetic,” is prohibited as it suggests a handicap. Now the focus must be on a person’s “abilities, rather than limitations.” A person, for instance, is not “suffering from cancer,” they are “living with cancer.”

Also, it is now necessary to use “gender-neutral” terms when referring to people. Thus, calling someone a “man” or a “woman” or a “father” or a “mother” is out. The preferred terms are to be “individuals” or “guardians.” The author of The Spectator article wonders if this means that Mother’s Day now is to be called “Guardian’s Day?” But, wait, does not “guardian” suggest a hierarchy of oppressor and oppressed? The Manchester “wokers” may have subliminally fallen into the very thing they say they want to eradicate. Cancel culture may have to come after some of the culture cancellers. (In an earlier time, this was said to be the revolution eating some of its own children.)

But nonetheless, following their own train of thought, at Manchester University you may no longer say that something is “man-made,” with, instead, “artificial” or “synthetic” as the required replacements. Mankind becomes humankind, and “manpower” is to be deleted and “workforce” is to be put in its place.

Training Enterprise Managers in the Ways of Identity Politics

At an American institution of higher learning with which I am acquainted, I have been told that a proposal has been made for the introduction of a diversity and inclusion management certificate. It seems that learning relevant management skills in selecting and overseeing a workforce (notice, I’m being politically correct, already!) for product and manufacturing and marketing efficiency, productivity, and profitability on the basis of individual employee’s education, skills, experience and other background qualifications to fill positions needed within the enterprise is no longer enough.

Nor is it simply a reasonable management tool to learn to treat those hired with courtesy and respect, both as a general rule of “good managerial conduct,” and to have employees who have a positive attitude about the place in which they are working and earning a living. And nor is it sufficient (regardless of regulatory requirements) to see the ethical rightness and practical advantages of evaluating and judging and rewarding employees in terms of their individual characteristics and merits and value-added to the private enterprise.

No, this is no longer enough. Instead, the student entering into a sequence of courses leading to such a diversity and inclusion management certificate will be informed that their tasks will be for, “creating inclusive cultures, enhancing organizational effectiveness and maximizing the sense of belonging among diverse stakeholders.” When completed, the certificate receiver will have demonstrated “the capability in planning, executing, and assessing a small-scale inclusion, diversity, and belonging-related intervention in an organization at either the intrapersonal, interpersonal, group, or organizational level.”

What will the student have learned along the way? He or she (or “it”) will have “an historical understanding and fluent usage of contemporary terms and language used in the field of diversity, inclusion, and belonging.” They will also know how to “conceive of, plan, conduct, and evaluate a diversity or inclusion initiative within an organization.” And they will know how to “facilitate effective dialogue within a diverse group of individuals holding widely divergent views.”

This will include the ability to analyze “various issues related to diversity, equity, and inclusion;” critically “examine your background and self-assessment . . . on how you see the world,” and “reflect on the ways other people’s backgrounds . . . [affect] their perspectives on the world and their behavior in teams.”

The student taking these courses will learn how to “navigate the ambiguity and complexity that comes with multiple perspectives,” as well as “identifying the ways that power differentials operate, are experienced and reinforced” at different levels of workplace interactions. This will include knowing how to provide “services” to different groups, and especially “non-dominant populations.”

Identity Politics as the Child of Marxist Mind Manipulation

What stands out most noticeably is the repetition of words – “diversity,” “inclusiveness,” “belonging,” and “equity.” But what do these terms mean, and what do they imply about human relationships, starting with how the individual person views him- or herself? For the unreflective student, the prospectus for such a certificate, therefore, can easily seem innocuous, as simply being “fair” and respectful in a world in which people are different.

But it all depends upon what the words mean by both definition and context. In the world of identity politics and cancel culture, the lexicon of language is mostly the transference of Marxian concepts and categories to the “post-modern” race and gender arena. For Marxists and their practitioners in places such as the former Soviet Union, culture and language were viewed as tools used for capitalist class oppression of the working class through control and manipulation of what was written, said, and educationally learned and believed. The purpose of language and learning under capitalism was for the constructing of a societal “false consciousness” that succeeds in getting the majority of the population to accept their exploited status and to believe that there is no escape from it in this life.

Or as political scientist Tony Smith summarized it in, Thinking Like a Communist (1987):

“[Social] ‘Classes’ therefore are groups distinguished by the specialized positions they occupy in a common economic system and by their degree of control (or ownership) of the forces of production . . . Their ‘conflict’ comes from the fact that these positions are dependent upon one another but are not equal in power . . . The most advantaged class will seek to ensure its position through political means, through control, that is of the ‘state,’ whose primary function, in Marxist terms, is to serve the interests of the ruling class through a stratagem that combines force, mythmaking, and co-option.” (pp. 43-44)

Education and ideology were viewed as inseparable from each other in this Marxian world view, because the inherent nature of human relationships is dictated by who owns the means of production to oppress others for their benefit, and to assure active or passive acceptance of one’s class-determining status and place in society. The idea that education and knowledge can be unbiased, “factual,” and objectively logical is alien to this worldview. For the Marxist, education was “reeducation” to raise the ideological consciousness of those living under or threatened by capitalism; for them to know and see the “real” power relationships in society.

Or as one Soviet leader expressed it in the 1970s: “The Soviet school does not simply prepare educated people. It is responsible for the turning out of politically literate, ideologically convinced fighters for the communist cause. The school never stood, and it cannot stand, aside from politics, in the struggle of classes.” (Quoted in, N. N. Shneidman, Literature and Ideology in Soviet Education (1973, p. 2.)


'Sneering' BBC presenters mock minister over Union flag

The Culture Secretary has criticised the BBC's "sneering" attitude after its breakfast television presenters appeared to mock Robert Jenrick for displaying the Union flag in his office.

Charlie Stayt and Naga Munchetty laughed as they pointed out that large flags have begun appearing regularly in the background of ministerial interviews.

Ms Munchetty later received a "reminder" from bosses about inappropriate social media use after she liked a tweet which praised their comments and said: "The flag shaggers will be up in arms."

The BBC said the on-air exchange was "light-hearted" and not meant to offend. But speaking to The Telegraph on Thursday night, Oliver Dowden said: "I'm concerned that what started as light-hearted banter became sneering which is not the BBC at its best.

"As I've said before, it is so important that the BBC reflects and respects the values of the whole of the UK."

Tim Davie, the BBC director-general, was said to be furious that the exchange happened on the day he announced plans to shift operations away from London in a bid to end accusations of liberal metropolitan bias.

Mr Stayt made his remarks at the end of an interview, pointing out that Mr Jenrick had a large Union flag on display behind him. "I think your flag is not up to standard size, Government interview measurements. I think it's just a little bit small, but that's your department really,” he said.

Ms Munchetty laughed and added: "There's always a flag. They had the picture of the Queen, though."

The presenters' comments triggered a swift backlash on social media, with the veteran former BBC journalist Andrew Neil writing: "Sometimes the BBC forgets what the first B stands for."

Robbie Gibb, a former head of the BBC's political programming and an ex-director of communications at Number 10, said: "On the day the BBC announces the welcome news it is moving more programmes out of London, this BBC Breakfast clip reveals a sneering and cynical attitude towards our monarchy and flag that shows it's not just about where people are based, the BBC has a wider cultural problem."

One Tory MP said: "The BBC hates Britain. That's exactly what is wrong with it."

Ms Munchetty "liked" a tweet that said: "What has Charlie done? The flag shaggers will be up in arms. Tell him we love him." She was later reminded of her responsibilities in relation to social media use.

On Thursday night, Mr Jenrick said the flag was a "symbol of liberty and freedom".

After a discussion with BBC management, Ms Munchetty issued a public apology. She said: "I 'liked' tweets today that were offensive in nature about the use of the British flag as a backdrop in a government interview this morning. I have since removed these 'likes'. This does not represent the views of me or the BBC. I apologise for any offence taken."

The breakfast programme is broadcast from Salford and the incident was badly timed for the BBC as it unveiled a grand plan to become more representative of the nation by moving operations away from London.


As a 'Person of Color,' I Received a COVID-19 Vaccine Easily and Quickly

And I don't think it's fair.

Given a recent experience, I think I understand better why almost thirty percent of blacks oppose Affirmative Action. Unseen hands gifted me with quick and easy access to a COVID-19 vaccine. Why? I believe I was incorrectly classified as a "person of color." This access bothered me, not least because a friend, "Rocky," needs the vaccine more than I do. I begged Rocky to take my slot, but he declined. He wanted me to get it.

By February 1, 2021, only 7.7 percent of the US population had been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. Only 22.5% of especially vulnerable and needy people whom the CDC prioritized to receive the vaccine had been vaccinated. That means, as of February 1, 2021, 77.5% of those most likely to die from COVID-19 were yet to be fully vaccinated. This includes elderly people, the obese, those with cancer, Down syndrome, weak immune systems, diabetes, smokers, and pregnant women.

I assumed I'd be waiting my turn, while continuing to wear my mask, to wash my hands, and to isolate socially, as I had been doing since the pandemic began.

But it was a risk I didn't have to take. It was late January, 2021. While vulnerable populations were perched over their computers for days at a time, clicking "refresh" hundreds of times, while parents of Down Syndrome children were driving hundreds of miles in search of vaccines, and while grandparents were begging for help from tech-savvy grandchildren, a written invitation to receive a vaccine slid silently under my door. The highly effective Pfizer vaccine was available to me. No waiting, no line, no pressure. I just walked a few minutes from my front door, and rolled up my sleeve. For the second of this two-dose vaccine, I urged Rocky to take my place. He, manfully, refused. He wanted me to get it. I did. I felt like garbage. I was well aware that I was taking the place of someone who needed the vaccine more than I. I now have – yes, it's a thing – vaccine guilt.

I live in a majority-minority city in a majority-minority apartment complex. I estimate that about 90% of my neighbors are black or Hispanic. Governor Phil Murphy, along with all other public officials, has been under extraordinary pressure to prioritize vaccinating black and Hispanic people, and his administration is doing just that. In fact, even before any vaccines were authorized, news outlets reported that "Health experts want to prioritize people of color for a COVID-19 vaccine."

Many insisted that blacks did not want to get vaccines because the Tuskegee Experiment made blacks distrust mainstream medicine. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study took place between 1932 and 1972. It involved 399 black men with latent syphilis who were merely observed, and not treated, for the disease. Doctors could have treated the patients with penicillin, but they did not, because they wanted data on the course of untreated syphilis in black men. This study is monstrous. Those who carried it out were criminals. It stopped in 1972 after word of the study became public. Revelation of the study lead to the creation of strict standards for scientific experimentation on human beings. In 1997, President Bill Clinton issued a formal apology.

Those who attribute the discrepancy between black and non-black vaccination rates to trauma from the Tuskegee study insist that the entire US medical establishment is a white supremacist, criminal enterprise, comparable to the monsters who carried out that study, that black people risk their lives seeking medical care, and that their vaccine wariness is well-founded

The Woke, like Marxists before them, sniff around other people's pain the way rats sniff around garbage. The Woke are not looking for problems to solve; they are looking for pain to commodify. They want to overturn bad, corrupt, Western Civilization and replace it with their brave, new world. The Woke sneer at the pain of poor whites as an unworthy commodity for revolution building. The Woke focus on exacerbating division between whites and blacks.

Me? I've learned, through the school of hard knocks, that I hurt only myself when I avoid doctors. I've learned to educate myself, recruit allies, and develop a courteous and yet assertive stance. I'm still afraid when I go to the doctor; though I am otherwise a teetotaler when it comes to mind-altering drugs, I have a Klonopin prescription, an anti-anxiety drug, that I take when I go to the doctor.

Now, imagine if I were black. Teachers, politicians, ministers, NPR, the New York Times, MSNBC, would drum into me, not that my and my family's bad medical experiences were unfortunate but not part of any conspiracy. No. Powerful voices would not be telling me that I am responsible for my own care, that I need to inform myself, recruit an ally, and learn to be polite but assertive. No. I would be told, again and again, with the force of chanted, unquestionable dogma, that I was a victim of a thorough-going white supremacist society eager to use medicine to destroy me. Every white person I meet is my enemy and wields the tools of medicine only sadistically. If I heard that message from teachers, from NPR, from the New York Times, over and over, would I avail myself of a vaccine? Hell no.

Why do the Woke tell black people this story? Because it disempowers black people. In the case of vaccine avoidance, this false narrative might just kill black people. Nor is this the only Woke narrative that results in black death. Telling black people that police are all white supremacists out to get them is another death-dealer. Telling black people that standards in schools are "racist" destroys the academic lives of black students. Why do the Woke want to disempower and even kill black people, through false narratives like this and others? Because they hope that weakened people will submit more readily to the Woke narrative of salvation through Woke politics. False narratives of universal white evil and ultimate black powerlessness are the Woke's recruitment pamphlets.

And here's a kicker. Research shows that the Tuskegee study, a trope so beloved of the Woke that they mention it every chance they get, is not cited by African Americans as their reason not to get the COVID-19 vaccine. "No, the Tuskegee Study Is Not the Top Reason Some Black Americans Question the COVID-19 Vaccine," reports KQED. In fact, researchers have known for years that African Americans are not rejecting medical attention because of Tuskegee. "The conclusions were definitive … There was no association between knowledge of Tuskegee and willingness to participate" in medical procedures.

Why, then, do the Woke cite Tuskegee? Social work professor Karen Lincoln says, "If you say Tuskegee, then you don't have to acknowledge … poverty and unemployment." Well, isn't that convenient. Ignore the poverty that pushes both poor whites and poor blacks away from medical care. Why did I consent to being experimented on by a callous researcher? I was stricken with a vestibular disorder when I was a grad student, and I had no health insurance and no money. Rather than talking about poverty and health care, the Woke obsess on race. Race is more divisive, and division advances the divisive Woke narrative. Also, obsession on race exempts rich white liberals from attention to their own wealth. Every revolution needs someone to hate, and the Woke hate poor whites. Focus on skin color instead of poverty and unemployment allows the Woke their hatred-of-choice.

I am tormented by the fear that Rocky will soon die. My morbid obsession is a sign of how much he means to me. Most of my siblings have died, often young, of cancer. (Yes, even white people are subjected to the kind of environmental pollution that results in demographically atypical early cancer deaths.) After two other siblings died decades ago, both my only sister and yet another brother died of cancer in the past six years. Rocky is one of the few people I have left who remembers me from my childhood. He's a good man and he deserves a long life. I beg God to let me die before Rocky. I pray this prayer not because I'm like Father Byles on the Titanic. I pray this prayer because I'm alone and losing Rocky would gut me and I couldn't survive his loss.

Rocky was born in a high-crime, majority-minority city. His immigrant parents sent Rocky to the local bakery to beg for bread. Any meat his family saw were the cuts that butchers can't sell. Rocky was malnourished. He caught pneumonia. He was hospitalized for three months. His lungs never recovered.

Rocky experiences coughing fits. Sometimes he just puts his head back and struggles for breath. His struggle to breathe terrifies and saddens me.

Rocky, with his compromised lungs, can't get a COVID-19 vaccine. Rocky is a white male, an alleged monarch squatting atop a throne of unearned privilege. You won't hear about anyone like Rocky from the Woke peddling their divisive pamphlets.


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com TONGUE-TIED)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://john-ray.blogspot.com (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)