Free Markets, Free People

The Left

1 2 3 31

Guns rob attackers of their “right to a fair trial”. No. Really.

Yesterday, the Shark said: “Every time I think we’ve reached peak stupid, something new comes along to prove me wrong.”  Well, to prove Shark’s point, I found this:

The Second Amendment is highly contested. There is no doubt that people do have the right to carry and have a stockpile of guns (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) and a state has the right to organize a well-regulated Militia. But, the main issue is on the right to self-defend with a firearm.

The main problem with the notion of self-defense is it imposes on justice, for everyone has the right for a fair trial. Therefore, using a firearm to defend oneself is not legal because if the attacker is killed, he or she is devoid of his or her rights.

To say this is probably one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read would be an  understatement.  It is certainly an indicator of how far the left will go in it’s “reasoning” to deny you the use of a gun and your basic right to self-defense.  I said “basic” but self-defense is indeed an inherent right.  You need no one’s permission to exercise it because you own your life and without protecting it, you would obviously cease to exist.

That apparently is lost on this statist rube.  Let’s lay this out a little differently.  This Huffington Post writer is attempting to persuade you that a civil right (an actual societal construct applicable only to a particular society) is somehow superior to an inherent right (a right that is yours without anyone or anything granting it.   It is your existence and its requirements for survival that “grant” it.  The right is applicable to all mankind without exception. It can be violated, but it can’t be taken away.).  We have an idiot here who claims that if you defend yourself your action “imposes on justice”?

Wtf?  Your action, especially if you successfully defend yourself, IS justice!  And how you do it or with what is irrelevant!  Gun?  Knife?  Crowbar?  Throat punch?  Each and every one of those may “impose on justice”, as he defines it and is your right.  But this dolt tries to sell that as a primary reason to restrict the ownership of guns.  Only cops should have guns and you should defer your “self-defense” to them!

This is a person that has no concept of inherent rights, what they mean and why they’re necessary.  So he writes slop like this!  And it gets worse as his “reasoning” stays in the ditch and hits a concrete culvert several times.  No airbags deployed because his ideas weren’t worth spit to begin with and certainly not worth saving.

So Shark … suck it up bud.  We’re not even close to “peak” stupidity.  The stupid machine keeps on churning and the manure keeps on plopping out.

~McQ

Meanwhile, The New Red Guard carries on …

Under the banner, “you can’t make this stuff up”, enjoy the following bit of idiocy:

Southwestern University in Texas has canceled its annual production of “The Vagina Monologues” because its author, Eve Ensler, is white — and featuring a performance written by a white lady would just not be inclusive to women of other races.

Instead, the school will host a performance of “We are Women,” which promises to “address similar experiences while emphasizing women of color,” according an article in the Megaphone, the school’s official newspaper.

Well, it promotes “similar experiences” except for white women I guess.  Who knew “women of color” didn’t have vaginas?

Yes, this is indeed patently absurd.  The Vagina Monologues was written as a feminist play to emphasize the supposed problems of women.  Thus it was totally inclusive of … women.  But not inclusive enough for The New Red Guard.

In fact:

Cancelling performances of “The Vagina Monologues” has become a bit of a trend on college campuses these days. For example, just last year, all-women’s Mount Holyoke College canceled its own performance on the grounds that the production was not “inclusive” enough to people who identify as women but do not have actual vaginas.

No, really … it’s all about their definition of “inclusivity” and a feminist play, if written by a white woman, just doesn’t make the grade anymore.

You have to laugh at this sort of nonsense to remain sane.  The one sterling good coming out of all of this is at whom many of these attacks are aimed.  Leftists.  Old Guard leftists.  And a more deserving group I cannot imagine.

But the real point here is the implied claim that whites, no matter their gender, have nothing of value to say or add.  This isn’t new by any stretch, it’s just become more common.  For instance, this from early last year from The New Red Guard at, yeah, Berkeley:

We are calling for an occupation of syllabi in the social sciences and humanities. This call to action was instigated by our experience last semester as students in an upper-division course on classical social theory. Grades were based primarily on multiple-choice quizzes on assigned readings. The course syllabus employed a standardized canon of theory that began with Plato and Aristotle, then jumped to modern philosophers: Hobbes, Locke, Hegel, Marx, Weber and Foucault, all of whom are white men. The syllabus did not include a single woman or person of color.

Of course, if you look closely, it’s not just “white men” they’re shooting at, it is the foundational philosophies of the West.  Apparently they believe that if there were women and persons of color writing philosophy during the same eras, they must have had something just as important to say, seeing as how their cultures matured equally with that of the West (and yeah, I know that some of the dead white dudes were not especially enamored of the West’s culture at the time). What the TNRG don’t seem to understand is they live in Western culture and the class is about “classical social theory” and thus likely wouldn’t include philosophers who had no impact on that “classical society” or those who lived outside of it and had no impact.

But this is all about gender and skin color … not context or logic.

Speaking of context and logic, James Lileks adds them:

College, apparently, is now a place where the notions of people freshly matriculated from high school must be handled with oven mitts and lightly buffed with soft cloth lest their orthodoxies suffer the slightest abrasion. Like the school that canceled the annual performance of The Vagina Monologues because it othered non-traditional women who lacked the titular orifice, it’s a delightful example of leftist autophagy. Marx is in foul order in Berkeley not for his ideas, or the heaps of corpses accumulated in his name, but because he had a prostate.

Yes, indeed. Oh, and because he was white.

~McQ

Watching the Trump protest thing

There’s something very interesting going on in conjunction with the Trump protests recently in Chicago, St. Louis, etc.  It reveals how intolerant the left is, again, and it also points to where this sort of vile and violent behavior is born:

College students now are growing up on campuses strongly influenced by the radicals of the 1960s, which has been fertile ground for an increasingly illiberal and disorderly definition of “peaceful protest.” . . .

Trying to silence speakers they don’t like, along with using human chains and other protest tactics to take over central spaces, violates a norm cherished all the way up to the Supreme Court: that a person who has rented an auditorium has a right to speak, no matter how atrocious the sentiment expressed.

Well, except when lefties are “triggered” by the speech.  Then the speech is deemed illegitimate and rightfully, as they see it, suppressed. The irony, of course, is they and the media call Trump Hitler while it is the protesters demonstrating all the foul attributes of the Nazis.

Interestingly, it comes as as surprise to some members of the media that Trump’s supporters see through the media spin on this and aren’t blaming the left’s actions on Trump.  They think it has to do with ignorance or agreement.  Instead, it likely has to do with seeing through the charade that both the media and the left have put together.

Now it is certainly one thing to protest a candidate peacefully (everyone has that right), but when protesters are committed to violence and confrontation, they’re likely to find it.  You have to remember, the protesters had to travel to the Trump rally to get what they wanted.  No one sought them out for that.  The protesters have also admitted organizing to shut down Trump.  Again, they made a conscious decision to interfere in the other side’s right to hear their candidate.  And they did it precisely like they’ve done it countless times on the college campus where someone had the temerity to invite a speaker who disagreed with their views.

Heather MacDonald lays out the case for the left being the source of the divisiveness we now suffer and are suffering during this political season.  It’s just in their DNA it seems, and as pointed out above, it has its roots in radical academia:

To the mainstream media, Black Lives Matter’s claims and academic identity politics are not “divisive,” they are simple truth. But if you don’t accept those truth claims — and the data refute them — the vitriolic anti-cop rhetoric of the last year and a half, and its underpinning in academic victimology, easily match the alleged divisiveness of anything that Trump has said.

Anyone … from whence were most of the “media” birthed?  Of course they don’t see them as a problem for the left.  They’ve been raised in the culture of left academia and leftist propaganda is their “normal”.  Naturally they don’t see anything inflammatory in the rhetoric of the left or the left’s political candidates.

The rhetoric of Democratic presidential contenders is just as incendiary. Hillary Clinton says it’s a “reality” that cops see black lives as “cheap.” Bernie Sanders says the killing of unarmed black people by police officers has been going on “decade after decade after decade.” In fact, among the 36 “unarmed” black men killed by the police last year (compared with 31 unarmed white men), a large percentage had been trying to grab the officer’s gun, were pummeling the officer with his own equipment, or were otherwise so viciously fighting with the arresting officer as to legitimately put him in fear for his life.

This is the result of the Bill Ayres faction taking over our colleges and universities.  They’ve spawned “The New Red Guard”, and The New Red Guard is now moving out into the streets.

~McQ

Identity politics and the new segregation

I remember the Civil Rights era very well.  I was a teenager then and I remember the giants of the movement pushing the society they lived in to be treated as equal citizens.  They wanted “desegregation” and they wanted, as Martin Luther King Jr. famously said, to be judged by the content of the character, not the color of the skin.  They wanted to be a part of mainstream America, not “separate but ‘equal'”.

And that’s, deservedly, what they finally won.

Until recently:

Racial segregation is back. That scourge of the 20th century, with its racialised drinking fountains and buses with whites-only seats, is staggering back to life, zombie-like. Only now its loudest cheerleaders are not old-fashioned racists with a Bible in one hand and lit torch in the other. No, it’s the right-on, small-l liberals, those who, in a serious abuse of the English language, call themselves “progressive”. Welcome to the era of PC segregation.

The question you have to have is “why”?  Why would those who supposedly were in the vanguard of destroying racial segregation now be a proponent of reestablishing it?  How in the world do you justify using skin color to segregate certain elements of our citizenry?

What we’re witnessing, not only in Australia but in other Western nations too, is the reawakening of the segregationist mindset. Segregationism has been given a makeover, turned from something that once made us wince — try looking at photos of an American “Coloured Drinking Fountain” without feeling horrified — to something that is treated as acceptable, even good: a “special measure” that can benefit certain groups.

The fashion for PC segregation is especially strong on Western campuses. In the US, students who think of themselves as decent, right-minded, left-of-centre people are openly demanding segregated spaces.

At Oberlin College in Ohio, student protesters are agitating for “safe spaces” for “Africana-identifying students”. At New York University, a student campaign is underway to create “an entire floor of the mixed-use building… to be dedicated to students of colour.” Students at UCLA want a floor of the student union building to be made African-American-only, on the basis that there needs to be a “safe space for black students”.

Ah, yes … dependency.  The plantation beckons. These delicate snowflakes need “protection”.   And segregation is the answer (as is historical illiteracy).  Separate them and wall them off.  Bull Conner and the boys would heartily agree with this approach.

So what happened to flip the focus from the content of one’s character back to the color of one’s skin (or gender, or culture, or ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc)?

Why?  Identity politics as pushed by the new Red Guard of “progressives” on campus:

This is what the politics of identity has wrought. As the old left-right divide has become emptied of real meaning, and as we enter what some refer to as a post-ideological era, more and more of us are defining ourselves by our race, gender or sexuality rather than by our moral convictions. And this has nurtured a really divisive dynamic.

Where once progressive politics was about “the common man”, about the shared interests of people of various colours and of both sexes, now it’s about the apparently different experiences and outlooks of whites, blacks, gays, women, trans people, and so on. Universal ideals are being subsumed by the relentless rise of a deeply sectional politics of identity.

The end result? Segregation. Although now it’s dolled up as a “safe space”. How long before we create a blacks-only zone on buses in the name of having a “safe space for black people”? We must fight anew against racial thinking, and restate the case for character being the only criterion on which we should judge our fellow humans.

This deeply divisive concept has fragmented a society, or is at least in the process of doing so, that was learning to pull together.  Make no mistake, identity politics is a child of multiculturalism which is entirely from and embraced by the left.

So we now have a complete reversal of what was a laudable goal … desegregation and equal treatment/opportunity for all Americans.

What is to become of these delicate snowflakes on campus that must have segregated “safe spaces” to survive?

The world is a cruel place; it’s impossible to make it through life without hearing something that offends every fibre of your being. It’s impossible to make it through without your feelings being hurt, without something piquing your anxiety, and without strongly disagreeing with other people’s ideas. Outside the comfort of your campus safe space, there are people who will inevitably trample all over your delicate sensibilities, and most of them won’t care. There will be no counselor to baby you through the sexist joke you overheard your coworker telling, and no place for you in the company should you require time off to address your mental state every time your boss doesn’t use the correct gender pronouns. You will find yourself unemployed and unable to afford anything when you decide activism is more important than being an adult and making smart decisions.

They are going to fail miserably.  And it will be your fault, because society, outside of academia is systemically (pick your favorite “ist” description concerning race, gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity and insert here) and no one cares about their delicate feelings.

Well, yeah, that’s right about the lack of caring.  When you’re a 21 year old adult, you’re going to be treated like one and expected to be tough enough to endure the uncompromising reality presented by “the real world”.  This isn’t the dorm, you’re no longer in the echo chamber and not everyone agrees with your take on life, or your sentiments concerning segregation, safe spaces or race and gender.  “The real world” doesn’t much care what you think about these things, it expects you to produce and earn your way.  If you can’t or won’t then they don’t want you.  And no, it most likely won’t be because you’re whatever race, gender or sexual preference you are.  It’ll be because you have no skills, are immature and have no concept of what is required by “the real world” to survive.

Of course, there’s always academia to fall back upon.  Go back and infest the hallowed halls with your nonsense, only this time as part of the establishment.  And wait for the next generation of special snowflakes to show up and do to you exactly what you’re doing to this generation of “establishment” progressives in those ivy covered halls.

There is an alternative, however.

You could just grow up.

~McQ

Stray Voltage

A little reading for you about how awful the Obama Syrian policy (or lack thereof) has been using Samantha Powers own words against her and the administration.

Even die-hard supporters of President Barack Obama’s “realist” approach to foreign affairs are nauseated by the White House’s Syria policy. New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, a vocal supporter of the nuclear weapons agreement with Iran, is fed up with nearly five years of the “fecklessness and purposelessness” of a Syria policy that “has become hard to distinguish” from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s. “Syria is now the Obama administration’s shame,” Cohen wrote last week, “a debacle of such dimensions that it may overshadow the president’s domestic achievements.” Ambassador Dennis Ross and New York Times military correspondent David Sanger also published articles excoriating Obama’s policies in Syria. There is a military solution, it’s “just not our military solution,” a senior U.S. security official admitted to Sanger. It’s Putin’s.

Think  of the charge of “war crimes”, something the Dems used to love to try and hang on George W. Bush.  It’s a pretty negative review.

Speaking of negative reviews, here’s one for the laughs it brings.  All you ever wanted to know about Kanye West and then some.  Kanye will not be happy, but I chuckled all the way through it. Some good points, in general, are made, not just about West:

West’s prepubescent views on everything Kanye haven’t stopped over the past decade, but everyone is too scared to mock him because he’s black and they don’t want to be called racist. He’s aware of this, so when his clothing line fails he says it’s because people were too “racist” to buy his stuff (this from a guy who gets to wear the Confederate flag on his bomber jacket). His clothing line was made up of people wearing brown nylons and strange “skin-colored” sweatshirts that looked like they were made out of Nazi lampshades. We recently learned that this foolish mistake put him $53 million in the hole and he took to social media to beg Mark Zuckerberg to bail him out to the tune of $1 billion. No word yet on why you get to be $947 million in the black when you screw up that badly. Forbes’ two cents is Yeezus might be able to get the money tax-free.

Read the whole thing … it’s worth it.  Another example of the Emperor having no clothes – in this case, literally.

Another example of the absurdity of the claim that ID laws “disenfranchise” minority voters:

On Tuesday, however, it was the state of Wisconsin that had the last laugh. Just one business day after Oliver predicted mass disenfranchisement due to voter-ID laws, Wisconsin held its first election with the voter-ID requirement. And according to a study by the University of My Eyeballs, turnout increased 55 percent statewide over the last similar spring-primary election.

In 2013 — the last contested statewide supreme-court election — around 364,000 voters turned out in Wisconsin. On Tuesday night, that number skyrocketed to about 564,000 voters. Even the 2011 Supreme Court primary, which took place during the electric Wisconsin public-union battle, drew only around 420,000 voters — well short of Tuesday’s total.

And the turnout bump wasn’t due to rural Caucasians flocking to the polls en masse. In the city of Milwaukee, which is 53 percent ethnic minority, the vote nearly doubled, from 34,000 to 65,000. Earlier, local election watchers had predicted a turnout of about 30,000.

Georgia, my home state, has had a voter ID law for a few years and have had exactly the same experience.  This is the “global warming” of voting.  Or said another way, if they keep repeating the big lie often enough, it has to be “true” doesn’t it – regardless of whether or not the facts destroy the myth.

So how are we doing economically and how is that reflected in the job market?  Well, Dems are going to tell you we’re at “full employment” because the fudged unemployment rate is around 5%.  This chart gives lie to the claim:

-1x-1

Women fare slightly better, but as you can see, the US is bottom of the barrel when it come to “employment to population ratio” for men. Heck of a job there, Dems. Oh, and Bernie says he’ll fix this.  Just sayin’.

Pertaining to the GOP and SCOTUS, file under “predictable” and cross-file under “stupid” as in “Stupid Party:

The playbook is the same every time. Even in the face of less consequential political fights, Republicans start out talking tough. Then, leadership allows the weakest liberal members to begin dissenting from the party line and even trash talking the party to the media. Next, leadership says they have to embark on the legislative process to be fair but still oppose the initiative and will personally fight against it. Then, depending on how many votes it needs to pass, they decide whether to throw in with the liberal Republicans.

And sure enough:

Yesterday, the dominos began to fall. While Sens. McConnell, Hatch, and other senior leadership members were still talking tough, liberal Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) announced his support for Obama to put forth a “consensus” nominee. And although Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the Majority Whip, reiterated his desire that the next president fill the vacancy, he said that holding hearings is entirely up to the Judiciary Committee Chairman and scheduling a floor vote is entirely up to McConnell.

And then:

Obama knows how to push the RINO buttons. He will nominate someone who comes highly recommended in the legal field and it will be a big “first.” Perhaps the first transgendered Muslim immigrant to be picked. He knows Republicans are very sensitive to looking like “obstructionists,” especially in the face of such “historic” progress.    At that point, it will become a slow bleed. You will see Sens. Murkowski, Collins, Kirk, and other liberals join with Heller and call for “fair hearings.”  (How eerie that just two weeks ago, I called for Sen. Grassley to be replaced because his spot on the Judiciary Committee Chairman is too vital for someone so fickle.) Grassley will undoubtedly cave to pressure and that will get the ball rolling.

And once the nominee goes through the meat grinder of confirmation hearings, how can he not get a floor vote?  To that end, the weakest members of the committee, beginning with Lindsey Graham, will likely vote the nominee out of committee and onto the floor.

How many times have you seen this happen?

Freedom of speech is a wonderful and protected right.  But one thing some people seem never to understand is that it doesn’t shield you from the consequences of your “speech”:

In the wake of Beyonce’s controversial Super Bowl halftime performance of her new song “Formation” — which critics say contains an anti-cop message — police and politicians around the country have been speaking out against it.

But the criticism could be manifesting itself in practical ways, given what’s happened since police in Tampa, Florida, got a request to work her April 29 concert in town.

Usually off-duty officers sign up to work concerts and sporting events for extra cash, but to date no officers have signed up for the show, WTVT-TV reported. And given it’s expected to sell out, that could be a security issue.

That’s a great way for cops to get their message across.

Speaking of no one signing up, I got a huge laugh from this story.  You remember Ed Schultz don’t you?  Once with MSNBC and now with Russian (propaganda) TV?  Well, like Kanye West, Ed has become a little full of himself.  Ed decided to start a “Super PAC” feeling pretty sure he could save the middle class:

Last year Ed Schultz started the Americans for a Strong Middle Class Super PAC.

“I feel like I am perfectly positioned with my national platform, with my name and visibility and credibility with the middle class, to be the person to head up this super PAC,” he told  told the Fargo Forum. “We are a 527; we are a nonprofit; we are incorporated in Washington, D.C., and we are going to get involved in issues around the country that are vital to a strong middle class, with our focus on jobs and wages, health care, education, trade agreements and justice.”

“Middle class issues are here to stay,” Schultz continued.

Unfortunately for Ed, his PAC isn’t.  A couple of weeks ago, Big Ed quietly folded Americans for a Strong Middle Class Super PAC.

Only none of that actually happened. According to Mediate, Schultz ran up $10,345.44 in legal fees, $3,000 in web design fees, and a $100 loan and only collected $25 in donations to the organization which was apparently headquartered at a UPS store in downtown Washington D.C.

I’m sorry I coughed up a lung laughing at the donation total.  That’s about what Big Ed’s ideas are worth, and, in the market place of ideas, that’s what he was able to bring in.  Capitalism – don’t you love it?  No wonder the left hates it.

Finally, I love it when a loony law is field tested:

Seattle Parks and Recreation is facing a first-of-a-kind challenge to gender bathroom rules. A man undressed in a women’s locker room, citing a new state rule that allows people to choose a bathroom based on gender identity.

It was a busy time at Evans Pool around 5:30pm Monday February 8. The pool was open for lap swim. According to Seattle Parks and Recreation, a man wearing board shorts entered the women’s locker room and took off his shirt. Women alerted staff, who told the man to leave, but he said “the law has changed and I have a right to be here.”

“Really bizarre,” MaryAnne Sato said. “I can’t imagine why they would want to do that anyway!”

Oh, my … hoist on their own petard, eh?  The other lung was coughed up on this one.  This isn’t bizarre at all.  This is precisely what critics of this sort of stupidity said would happen.

According to the SJW’s who pushed this “gender inclusiveness” law, all one has to do is “feel” like another gender and they’re in like Flynn.  Apparently, at least that day, this guy was feeling particularly female.  And yet, those exposed to the “woman” felt the situation was “bizarre”.  Imagine.

Loved this quote – by the way, he’s talking about the new law and the SJWs:

“Sort of works against the point they’re trying to make. They’re causing people to feel exposed and vulnerable with the intention of reducing people feeling exposed and vulnerable,” said pool regular Aldan Shank.

Exactly right, sir.  This is how laws that sound wonderful in drunken dorm room bull sessions end up when put into practice.   As usual, never factored in is something called “human nature”.

Funny that.

Have a great weekend!

~McQ

Stray Voltage

Explaining the Trump phenomenon – I think this is pretty close:

“American presidential elections usually amount to a series of overcorrections: Clinton begat Bush, who produced Obama, whose lax border policies fueled the rise of Trump. In the case of Trump, though, the GOP shares the blame, and not just because his fellow Republicans misdirected their ad buys or waited so long to criticize him. Trump is in part a reaction to the intellectual corruption of the Republican Party. That ought to be obvious to his critics, yet somehow it isn’t.”

The GOP more than shares the blame, they are the direct reason a person like Trump has traction.  Gutless, spineless and afraid to do what they were elected to do election after election has finally turned on them.  They’ve been warned for a while.  The rise of the Teaparty should have given them a clue, but it was business as usual for establishment GOP types.   This last Congressional election and their ineffectiveness while in the majority appears to have been the last straw.  Trump is their creation, and they still don’t understand why.

Speaking of Bernie and why his socialism is attractive to so many, I think this is pretty close as well:

“In the same way that a Ponzi scheme or chain letter initially succeeds but eventually collapses, socialism may show early signs of success. But any accomplishments quickly fade as the fundamental deficiencies of central planning emerge. It is the initial illusion of success that gives government intervention its pernicious, seductive appeal. In the long run, socialism has always proven to be a formula for tyranny and misery.”

We’ve actually seen “the long run” in the late and unlamented Soviet Union.  We have examples with us today via North Korea where famine and poverty stalk the population constantly, Cuba, where they live in the ’50s and work for $20 a month and Venezuela, where it failed utterly and the population is now trying to dig out from under the ruin.   But Bernie supporters, apparently, think his version will work.

In the “thank the good Lord” department, this:

President Obama is not interested in sitting on the Supreme Court once he leaves office, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday.

If you think he’s been a disaster as a president, imagine the damage he could do on the Supreme Court.

Interesting.  When given a choice:

The number of dues-paying workers within the state’s labor groups has fallen steadily since GOP Gov. Scott Walker signed his signature legislation, 2011’s Act 10, which repealed most collective bargaining for most public workers. But new federal statistics show that trend intensified in 2015 after Walker and GOP lawmakers followed up on Act 10 by approving so-called right-to-work legislation last spring….

In 2015, 8.3% of Wisconsin workers, or 223,000 in all, were members of unions. That was down sharply from the 306,000 people, or 11.7% of the state’s workforce, who belonged to unions in 2014….

Labor unions are another thing the left isn’t “pro-choice” about.

ICYMI, Al Gore’s apocalyptic predictions expired recently.  Yup, Manhattan isn’t submerged in water (unless you want to count the latest footage in frozen precipitation) as he had predicted 10 years ago.  David French does a riff on the doomsayers:

Gore’s prediction fits right in with the rest of his comrades in the wild-eyed environmentalist movement. There’s a veritable online cottage industry cataloguing hysterical, failed predictions of environmentalist catastrophe. Over at the American Enterprise Institute, Mark Perry keeps his list of “18 spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions” made around the original Earth Day in 1970. Robert Tracinski at The Federalist has a nice list of “Seven big failed environmentalist predictions.” The Daily Caller’s “25 years of predicting the global warming ‘tipping point’” makes for amusing reading, including one declaration that we had mere “hours to act” to “avert a slow-motion tsunami.”

Indeed.  But the fact of the epic failure of their predictions, they will simply reinvent themselves as they always have.  Here’s French’s chaser:

Can we ignore them yet? Apparently not. Being a climate hysteric means never having to say you’re sorry. Simply change the cataclysm — Overpopulation! No, global cooling! No, global warming! No, climate change! — push the apocalypse back just a few more years, and you’re in business, big business.

Dead on.  Anyone remember who was one of the first investors in the carbon trading scam?

It appears that deploying other Clintons just isn’t quite working out as Hillary hoped.  Bill has been playing to small rooms and Chelsea, well, let’s just say she hasn’t much drawing power, or so it appears:

Chelsea Clinton hosted her highly-hyped Soul Cycle fundraiser for her mother in New York City on Wednesday afternoon.

The $2,700-a-head event, which offered just 60 seats at the popular cycling studio’s Tribeca location and promised guests a photo with Chelsea, was expected to sell out quick while raising some easy money for the Hillary Clinton campaign but was ultimately a flop.

Apparently they fire sold some of the seats at $50 each at the end to fill more and ended up with less than half the bikes filled.  This should have been a slam dunk in NYC if Hillary has the pull most think she does in the city.  Or else it’s Chelsea.  Or both …

The Trumpless debate?  Apparently about the same viewership as the previous debate with Trump included.   Make what you will of that, but regardless, Trump gave his opponents an open field last night and, at least as I view it, came off as a petty, spoiled brat throwing a tantrum.  Like I said, my view.

Have a great weekend!

~McQ

 

Free water for Flint is bad, because … no government regulation?

You can’t make this stuff up and it again points out something that I’ve wondered about for some time …. do these publications actually have editors?

Again, it’s the Atlantic.  The writer is David Graham.  His problem?  Well, you see, various corporations are providing the citizens of Flint, MI … you know, the town where the government managed to make the drinking water undrinkable … free water.

Bad, says Graham, very bad … in the long run:

That these firms are stepping up to deliver water is good news for Flint’s schools and citizens in the immediate term. But a one-time infusion of gallons of fresh water doesn’t do much to address the systemic failures of government that led to the water crisis in the first place. By making four for-profit corporations into a de facto public utility, the gift might actually risk making things worse in the long run.

Ye gods.  I must be missing something Mr. Graham.  Why is this bad again?

Walmart, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, and Pepsi aren’t just charitable organizations that might have their own ideologies. They’re for-profit companies. And by providing water to the public schools for the remainder of the year, the four companies have effectively supplanted the local water authorities and made themselves an indispensable public utility, but without any amount of public regulation or local accountability. Many people in Flint may want government to work better, but with sufficient donations, they may find that the private sector has supplanted many of government’s functions altogether.

So, wait, they fill in where government has utterly failed and you’re worried that the citizens may say, “wow, these guys are better than government” or something?  Well, if they’re providing water to schools for the remainder of the year they already are, aren’t they?  So, again, what’s the problem sir?

Oh, I bet I know … privatization.  Don’t want any privatization now, do we?  Lord help us if the citizens of Flint should find out that nasty “for profit corporations” might be able to deliver a basic commodity like water better than government, huh?  And especially if they can do it cheaper as well!

Let’s remind Mr. Graham of something he wrote prefacing the whole “OMG, for profit corporations might be seen in a positive light” nonsense:

The Flint water crisis is above all a human tragedy: The effects of lead exposure on development can be lifelong and irreversible. But it is also a fundamental failure of government. At all levels, government failed to protect citizens.

Not only did it fail to protect its citizens, it failed spectacularly in the delivery of a very basic “every-city-does-it” sort of duty – potable water.  Government has always claimed that only it can reliably deliver such a commodity safely.

Yeah, well Flint disagrees.  And it should be clear to Mr. Graham that despite “public regulation” and “local accountability”, that government failure occurred.

Now what, sir?!  Any bets on who will be held accountable?  In government, I mean.

Yeah, me neither.

~McQ

And the Oscar goes too …

Another day, another citadel of lefties under attack by … other lefties.   In this case it is the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and their “all white” Oscar nominations for this year.

And so, in true Kanye West we-deserve-stuff-cuz-we’re-black style the charge racism is being leveled at the Academy because, well, there are no blacks who have been nominated this year, just like last year.  Yes, they even have a hashtag for it: #OscarsSoWhite.

But, surprise of surprises, members of the academy are “offended” by such accusations:

Penelope Ann Miller, best known for Carlito’s Way and The Artist, is a member of the actors branch that could have nominated Creed‘s Michael B. JordanConcussion‘s Will SmithThe Hateful Eight‘s Samuel L. Jackson or Beasts of No Nation‘s Idris Elba. “I voted for a number of black performers, and I was sorry they weren’t nominated,” she tells THR. “But to imply that this is because all of us are racists is extremely offensive. I don’t want to be lumped into a category of being a racist because I’m certainly not and because I support and benefit from the talent of black people in this business. It was just an incredibly competitive year.”

And:

Jeremy Larner, a member of the writers branch — which did nominate Compton‘s (white) writers for best original screenplay — was a civil rights activist in the 1960s and won an Oscar for 1972’s The Candidate. “I cannot prove the Academy or anyone else is not racist,” he grants. But, he says in his own defense, “I have voted for many people of color for awards.”

Wait, aren’t those sort of excuses like saying, in this context, “and I have many black friends”?  I thought so.

Of note, however, is the fact that this is the second year in a row that no blacks have been nominated.   That, however, in and of itself, doesn’t mean the Academy is racist, except to those who choose to believe it.  Why?  Perhaps because the movies featuring black actors didn’t quite measure up?  Again, Jeremy Larner:

 “I happen to think Straight Outta Compton is not a great film for reasons of structure and substance. I can imagine it is a powerful affirmation for those who share the assumptions of its music and see it as fans. But to me, a good film has to show a lot more than this one does.”

Translation: as a film … meh.

Miller is a bit incensed that the Academy is the target:

“There were an incredible number of films in 2015 that were primarily about white people. Talk to the studios about changing that, not the Academy. There’s only so much we can do.” She adds, “I think when you make race the issue, it can divide people even further, and that’s what I worry about.”

Ya think!  But then, that’s been the identity politics the left has engaged in for decades.  When you let the PC out of Pandora’s box, and give it credence when used against your ideological enemies, don’t act surprised when it comes around to bite you on your Academy, or campus , or …

~McQ

The New Left – hypocrisy and entitlement

One of the things always clear about oppressive and totalitarian ideologies is the rules only apply to the ruled.  And the rulers see nothing wrong or hypocritical about that.  Today’s liberalism is precisely like that and demonstrably so.  For instance, as Victor Davis Hanson points out:

The rich supporter of affirmative action still uses, without apology, the old-boy network to pull privileged strings to get his own son admitted to the proper college. Al Gore flies on a carbon-spewing private jet, saving the planet by getting to conferences more quickly and enjoyably. High-tax proponent John Kerry docks his yacht where he can avoid taxes; how else to ensure downtime for furthering social justice?

A spread-the-wealth Obama, who warns others about making too much money and profiting at all the wrong times, nonetheless chooses the tony haunts of the moneyed and privileged — the Hawaiian resort coast, Martha’s Vineyard, Rancho Mirage — in preference to the old Chicago hood or even Camp David.

And then there are the Clintons who seem to believe that the laws of the land simply shouldn’t be something they have to follow. These are only a few of the hypocritical examples that highlight the left’s bankruptcy.  The rules are for the little people, as is the facade these sorts of people erect to attract their votes.

The examples of the left’s hypocrisy abound and aren’t at all hard to find (btw, before anyone wonders, yes, there is hypocrisy on the right … see the GOP Congress, but this is about a pernicious ideology which usually devolves into a form of oppression).   For instance, this beauty:

State Senator R.C. Soles (D – NC) Long time Anti-Gun Advocate State Senator R.C. Soles, 74, shot one of two intruders at his home … The Senator, who has made a career of being against gun ownership for the general public, didn’t hesitate to defend himself with his own gun when he believed he was in immediate danger and he was the victim.

And he has every right to defend himself.  But he’s all for taking your right away and my guess is he felt no hypocrisy at all when he defended himself with a private firearm.  Among the torch bearers of today’s progressives or liberals, there is a sense of entitlement that is astonishing.  Camp David?  My goodness, use a private and secure location built specifically for presidential vacations when one can use whatever funds needed to take dream vacations at the expense of others (especially in the midst of one of the worst economic downturns in modern history)?!  Heaven forbid! “I’m entitled!”

It is that attitude that is both infuriating and dangerous. Because it inures them to the reality that they’re attitudes and actions lead to oppression.  Since they never believe their ideology necessarily pertains to them, it isn’t difficult then for them to impose it on us … for our own good, you see.  It is a “do as I say, not as I do” ideology.

It is also an ideology that constantly gets tripped up when it’s ideas clash.  More hipocrisy ensues:

Thousands of first- and second-generation Middle Eastern immigrants, at least some of them recent arrivals, went on a rampage in many German cities over the New Year’s holidays, pawing, manhandling, and sexually assaulting hundreds of German women — a classic foretaste of the coming collisions between the Morlock premodern and the Eloi postmodern worlds.

But, in essence, the progressive leaders of Europe have suppressed these events, playing all sorts of games through the media while, I’m sure, expecting you to believe they believe strongly in women’s rights.  You certainly wouldn’t know it by their actions.  Which brings me to something else Hanson said:

How does one adjudicate when various –isms and –ologies conflict with one another — radical feminism versus sexual emancipation, environmentalism versus the customs of indigenous peoples, free speech versus correct speech, integration and free expression versus safe spaces and trigger warnings? Does not even PC marijuana tar the lungs, give off second-hand smoke, and, in double-martini fashion, impair driving?

Yet in truth, liberal correctness trumps all lesser progressive agendas. The master ring of leftwing politics rules the lesser rings of race, class, gender, immigration, and environment. Ideology alone makes Barack Obama, prep-schooled in Honolulu, a more authentic representative of the Jim Crow South than Clarence Thomas, or Bill Richardson more Latino than Marco Rubio.

 

His point is dead on.  “Liberal correctness” is the trump card they use when finally forced to choose between two competing portions of the ideology.  In this case, the rights of women take second place to the PC staple of multiculturalism (a failure if ever there was one).  One mustn’t presume to judge a culture based on our own because apparently good and evil are malleable concepts and we have no right to decide what is good or evil.

As for authenticity, they are the deciders of what is or isn’t authentic.  Why?  Because a) we’ve allowed them to introduce authenticity into all aspects of race, class, culture and gender to the point that now favored minorities are allowed to whine about “appropriation” of their culture.

It’s all a big mess – but at bottom it’s all about the imposition of “right thinking” and “right acting” according to them.  But it doesn’t apply to them.

Just you.

~McQ

The “Agenda” Media

What is that, you may ask?  Well, it’s the “new media” of sorts.  In the old days, reporters reported.  They came up through the ranks and they were fairly objective. They knew their territory and they knew their subject.  Yes, I know about “yellow dog” journalism.  But it wasn’t hidden then under the patina of “objectivity” we suffer through today.   Today’s journalists, for the most part, are agenda journalists.  They have an ideological agenda that has been introduced to them early and nurtured through years of schooling and grad school.

Given what we read and hear, most people would gather that the agenda they follow is that of the left.  Why?  Well, has anyone taken a good hard look at academia lately?  Or is asking that a micro-aggression?  Help, I need a safe space.

Here’s an example.  If you saw a headline that said “Poll: 70 percent believe in climate change“, what would you infer from that?  We all know that “climate change” is the left’s newest code phrase for man-made global warming.  They had “global warming” pretty much shoved down their throats by multitudes of questions they couldn’t answer and conditions that didn’t meet their claims.  So they decided on a squishy term: climate change.

Here’s the term in use:

“Americans know climate action is critical — they’re seeing its impacts with their own eyes. Climate change is a moral issue, a health issue, and a jobs issue — and that’s why the strong majority of Americans want the federal government to do something about it, and support the strong outcome in Paris.”

And naturally, the headline in question reinforces McCarthy’s claim.  “The strong majority of Americans” want the fed to do something about as well as supporting the outcome in Paris.  70% would sure seem like a “strong majority” would’t it?  And “The Hill” is on it, reinforcing the agenda the claim.

Unfortunately for the alarmists, the data again doesn’t support the claim.  The Hill has to admit:
But the support is complicated. Pollsters found that only 27 percent of respondents agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus that human activity is the main cause of climate change.
Oh, so wait, only 27% agree with the government and EPA?   So the headline could have been “27% agree that human activity is the main cause of climate change?”  Well, that’s certainly a different kettle of fish, isn’t it?  One could then assume that while the rest agree that the climate is likely changing and they may believe it has to do with the natural cycles of the earth.  But of course, that wouldn’t further the agenda, would it.   So a deceptive headline and the hope that the marginally informed won’t read any further has to be what The Hill is shooting for here.
Instead, The Hill decides it is the result of partisanship, not a lack of scientific proof:
“The data exposes the extent to which this has become a partisan political issue in the U.S. rather than a scientific issue,” Tony MacDonald, director of Monmouth University’s Urban Coast Institute, said in a statement accompanying the poll results.
Again, nonsense. No mention of the “scientific” problems with the alarmist “science”.  An 18 year hiatus from warming.  Fudged data.  Totally inaccurate models.  Predictions and claims that have shown themselves to be wildly false.  That’s not politics, that’s hype, based on pseudo-science, gone terribly wrong and the American people have recognized it for what it is.  But the claim of partisan politics helps the agenda, because it infers that the other side is simply too ignorant and partisan to see the forest for the trees.
As for what Americans “strongly believe”, the environment, or “climate change”, barely registers as shown here in a Gallup roundup of problems the citizens of this country are concerned with.  It comes in 16th on a list of 23.
gallupproblems2
Yes, that’s right, the environment/pollution weighs in just before “Guns/Gun control”.  Yet these two non-issues are being heavily pursued by those in charge of our agenda driven government with the aid of the media.  Will of the people?  Passe.  Used simply as rhetorical window dressing.  There is no desire to do the people’s will.  There is only a desire to fulfill the political and ideological agenda.   And that’s why the number one issue that concerns the most people is our “Government/Congress/Politicians”.  The facade of popularly sanctioned government is cracking noticeably finally and the intent is clear, even with the agenda media trying to clear the way and patch up the cracks.

It’s this unholy alliance that has helped apply and tighten the shackles that have crippled our abilities to properly exercise our freedoms.   You’d think real journalists would have a natural skepticism about anything government says, yet for the most part, they are the government’s publishing arm, putting out unchecked propaganda at every turn or, as above, twisting information in such a way as to favor the agenda talking points.

But only the agenda of the left.  They’re relentless in their “fact checking” if the agenda is challenged.
All one has to do is consider how the current president, who by any standard has been a total failure at foreign policy, has been left alone by the media where a president on the right would have been challenged at every failure and hounded for answers as to why he’s performing so miserably.

And yet, we see the media instead concentrating its efforts on numbers 16 and 17 on the above list.

Surprise!

~McQ

1 2 3 31