I suppose it is a sign of something like progress that nobody else but this blog is going to bother with Pat Buchanan's 2015 ideas about the Confederacy. But fuck him.
Buchanan notes that the loved ones of the victims forgave the murderer, and notes that this is Christian.
If there is a better recent example of what it means to be a Christian, I am unaware of it. Collier and the families of those slain showed a faithfulness to Christ's gospel of love and forgiveness that many are taught but few are strong enough to follow, especially at times like this.
Of course, few are called, many are the butt of systematic oppression, but fair enough.
Here is the Fun Bit.
Their Christian witness testifies to a forgotten truth: If slavery was the worst thing that happened to black folks brought from Africa to America, Christianity was the best.
And then this lament:
Vilification of that battle flag and the Confederacy is part of the cultural revolution in America that flowered half a century ago. Among its goals was the demoralization of the American people by demonizing their past and poisoning their belief in their own history.
The world is turned upside down. The new dogma of the cultural Marxists: Columbus was a genocidal racist. Three of our Founding Fathers -- Washington, Jefferson, Madison -- were slaveowners. Andrew Jackson was an ethnic cleanser of Indians. The great Confederate generals -- Lee, Jackson, Forrest -- fought to preserve an evil institution. You have nothing to be proud of and much to be ashamed of if your ancestors fought for the South. And, oh yes, your battle flag is the moral equivalent of a Nazi swastika.
Uh, that's pretty much the world right-side up, motherfucker.
To say I stood up and cheered as I finished reading Jon Chait’s new essay on the resurgence of a toxic political correctness on the left would be an understatement.
More correctly, he came in his pants? Who knows!
Chait's brilliance, Sullivan informs us, is that he tells the story of some young anti-abortion protestors who carried around signs showing deliberately provocative images. These images then deliberately provoked someone, and a thoroughly banal and asinine bit of small-town/gown weirdness occurred.
You'd think, putting on your Scholar Cap, that you'd have a fuck of a lot of work to do if you wanted to use this one kind of batty anecdote out there as proving any sort of New Normal -- but wait!
Here's something that may be worth mentioning! Neither Chait nor Sullivan are academics! So they feel just peachy about the procedure of sucking up largely unconnected anecdotal data and positing from it the existence of an Illiberal Leftist Conscious Overbrain, as opposed to things being done by scattered young people gifted with admirable principles and poor social skills.
Sullivan stresses two remarkably dumb points.
The few brave enough to take on these language and culture police – I think of Emily Yoffe’s superb piece on campus rape in Slate – will get slimed and ostracized or ignored. Once you commit a heresy, you cannot recover. You must, in fact, be air-brushed out of the debate entirely.
Emily Yoffe still has a job. Also, journalists writing touchy stories and getting grief -- this is new? A phenomenon of the new sex feminist identialists?
This is swell:
The right has its own version of this, of course. Many of us dissenters were purged and rendered anathema years ago. But look where that has actually left today’s GOP. It’s turned into this. And the left’s new absolutism on identity politics – now taken to an absurd degree – should, in my view, worry liberals more. Because it is a direct attack on basic liberal principles.
Ha ha ha I'm so old I remember Sullivan and his 5th Columnists bullshit, fuck him. But that aside. The right's ideological cohesion exists from dumb crazed emails to paranoid racist internet memes straight through talk radio to fucking Louie Gohmert and Sm Alito. The Left's is some random shit at different campuses. Stop with the bullshit false equivalence, dummy.
Next, just FUCKING STOP, Sully & Chait. You are insanely wrong about how power works, particularly discursive power.
We didn't win the gay marriage fight by playing nice: we won because we (rightly) pointed out that if you oppose gay marriage, you are a disgusting bigot.
And we will win the violence against women argument when we convince everyone that sex without consent is a revolting crime deserving of the full wrath of the state.
Establishing a monopoly over the legitimate terms of linguistic expression is the whole point. Identify your goals, choose your language tools. That's how it works. Picking your ass on Bill Maher shows just makes you look like an ineffectual twerp.
Here: this is just flat wrong:
If you want to argue that no social progress can come without coercion or suppression of free speech, you have to deal with the empirical fact that old-fashioned liberalism brought gay equality to America far, far faster than identity politics leftism. It was liberalism – not leftism – that gave us this breakthrough.
Citations completely omitted.
The record I believe will show that this is fucking astoundingly wrong, and also besides, that the "liberalism" v "leftism" dichotomy Sully is yammering about is all my balls from an analytic or historic perspective.
I covered New York politics for 15 years, and I saw some awfully tense moments between the police and Democratic politicians. But there has never been anything remotely like the war the cops are waging right now against Mayor Bill de Blasio for the thought crime of saying something that was completely unremarkable and so obviously true that in other contexts we don’t even bat an eye when someone says it. And for that, the mayor has blood on his hands, as Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association head Pat Lynch said Saturday evening after the hideous assassinations of two NYPD officers?....
Right around the time de Blasio spoke, Marist was in the field with a poll asking people whether they think police treat whites and blacks differently. Here are some answers. In each case, the “yes, differently” number comes first.
So two decades’ worth of statistics tell us that black men are killed by police at 21 times the rate white men are, and yet half the public has persuaded itself that police treat blacks and whites no differently. And it’s controversial for a mayor with a black 16-year-old son to say something so obvious—indeed, what every parent of a black son has to say.
Sure, that's fucked up, right there.
But it's even more fucked up right below the surface.
What black people are being denied here is not simply justice for certain victims of police violence in specific cases, but the right to publicly describe their own lived experience.
What was DeBlasio's great sin? He told his kid to be extremely careful around the police -- in other words, basically, to not give the police any reason whatsoever to overreact. If, say, he were stopped while walking down the middle of street at night or something, or if he were in the process of being arrested for an extremely trivial misdemeanor, he should immediately comply with all police orders, lest he be shot or strangled.
Are there any black Americans who wouldn't give similar advice to their sons? Sure! By the poll numbers above, a whole frickin' 14% of them wouldn't.
This is really the source of the white hysteria over these protests. Only black comedians and rappers are allowed to say to a mass audience that they distrust the police, and that consent is always deeply qualified -- laughed off, ignored, sometimes denounced, never taken seriously.
You can tell a lot about a society and culture by what kinds of speech it most desperately wants to suppress. In the case of 21st century America, the hypocritical and frankly lunatic attempts to tell an entire ethnic group that they are deluded traitors for talking about their experience of government law enforcement officials, as they see it, tells us that right here, right now, too many white folks want to watch the world fall back asleep into 19th century history.
MAS. This Politico thing is revolting, even for Politico. It's pretty damn close to "Martin Luther King Jr. should have had more political savvy if he really wanted his favorite candidates to win this season's 1965 Alabama by-elections." Fuck off.
The Clemson University chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon has suspended all fraternity activity and several of its officers have resigned following a "Cripmas" party where students dressed up as gang members.
Thank goodness that "racism" bother ended in the 1960s when Martin Luther King apologized for kicking up all that fuss back in the day.
I'm at a Major Conference in DC -- at a hotel right across from the Cato Institute, as it happens. Yesterday morning I was outside and saw a whole flock of appallingly young, disturbingly scrubbed, grotesquely cheerful bright young chattery white incubi all crowding into the Cato doorway. It put one in mind of a gang of homicidal Campbell's Soup Kids in pricy too-tight suits. In the near future, I look forward to hearing their pampered ideas about Liberty as they help themselves to the Social Security money accumulated by people who have been compelled by Providence to fucking work for a living.
And then this morning, as I enjoyed a plate of hotel-grade scrambled eggs, I glanced over at a teevee screen showing Fox n' Friends teasing the next session after the break: NEXT -- Race and the American Future.
And lurking backstage was the slouchy figure of... Ben Stein. Ben Fucking Stein.
The teevee screen was perched above the table of an African-American family having breakfast. The sound was off, so they did not get to hear Ben Stein's insights about race. But maybe they've heard it all before.
The Rev. Al Sharpton says Rand Paul’s efforts to engage black voters could present a strategic challenge for Democrats: If the Republican senator runs for president, fewer African Americans may be motivated to show up and vote against him....
Democrats have traditionally done well among African American voters, especially with Barack Obama at the top of the ticket. In 2016, Democrats will “need maximum black turnout in a lot of states,” Sharpton told POLITICO.
“What I think is more dangerous for Democrats is, if a guy like Paul is out there, if he becomes the nominee, for argument’s sake, he … does not generate a turnout against him” among African Americans, Sharpton said. He added, “If he’s able to neutralize his past image on civil rights, if he becomes the candidate … and if you don’t get a huge black turnout saying ‘We’re afraid [of him],’” that could be a pitfall for Democrats.
This is top-flight Concern Trolling. C'est magnifique!
Sincerely, this is The Shit. Give it up for Sharpton.
Here is what happens when you have decided the wingnut welfare is just that sweet, you'll be glad to argue out your ass. Thomas Sowell, for fuck's sake.
The political left has been campaigning against the use of force since at least the 18th century. So it is not surprising that they are now arguing that heavily armed or aggressive police forces only inflame protesters and thus provoke violence.
Yes, I am kind of proudly "against the use of force." Please to provide the evidence pro use of force.
Statisticians have long warned that correlation is not causation, but they have apparently warned in vain.
There next occurs a bunch of irrelevant nonsense about presidents and assassins, but then -- holy shit, hark! to this cold inexorable logic:
According to the prevailing vision, ghetto riots are due to racial injustices -- and the way to deal with them is to make concessions in words and deeds, while severely restricting the use of force by the police.
Factual evidence cannot make a dent in that vision.
But, for those who are still so old-fashioned as to rely on facts, here are a few: Back in the 1960s when ghetto riots broke out in cities across the country, the region with the fewest riots was the South, where racial discrimination was greatest and police forces least likely to show restraint.
That is at least seven kinds of crazy, probably more, just counting off the top of my head.
I mean, sure, in the absence of a nigh-totalitarian racist apartheid police state, people are more likely to have the opportunity to engage in violent protests against their systematic oppression, especially when faced with the brutal reality of their inferior status, such as an officer of the law shooting dead one of their own and then going away scot-free. Tear gas and assault vehicles be damned.
What was Jim Crow but a generations-long, intimately vicious race riot?