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?
According to Johnson and other eye witnesses, however, the cop ordered the friends to "get the fuck on the sidewalk," but the teenagers said they had almost reached their destination. That's when the officer slammed his door open so hard that it bounced off of Brown and closed again. The cop then reached out and grabbed Brown by the neck, then by the shirt.
"I'm gonna shoot you," the cop said.
The cop shot him once, but Brown pulled away, and the pair were still able to run away together. The officer fired again. Johnson ducked behind a car, but the cop's second shot caused Brown to stop about 35 feet away from the cruiser, still within touching distance of Johnson. Multiple witnesses say this is when Brown raised his hands in the air to show he was unarmed. Johnson remembered that Brown also said, "I don't have a gun, stop shooting!" The officer then shot him dead.
The American Humanist Association (AHA) is about to learn a very important lesson -- folks around Gainesville, Georgia don’t take kindly to out-of-town atheists trying to bully their children.
More than 200 people turned out in defiance of the self-described atheist group early Thursday morning for an impromptu prayer rally in the middle of the Chestatee High School football field.
The previous day, the atheists (acting on behalf of a single, unnamed citizen) sent a letter to school officials demanding that the football coaching staff stop participating in team prayers and that they remove all biblical references and religious messages from team documents.
To best of anyone’s knowledge around Gainesville, no one associated with the football team has a problem with the voluntary prayers. The atheists says that’s beside the point citing the Establishment Clause.
Clearly, it is the fine fucking citizens of Gainesville, GA, who are most fucking oppressed by the fucking government. Fuck.
Many idiotic reasons have been put forward as to precisely why Freedom! would be compromised were a certain sports team to no longer utilize a racist nickname, but this emanation from ancient blog-chum Jeff Goldstein takes the, if I may say, recherché biscuit.
Goldstein excretes this Reaction in response to an article in the WaPo that puts forward the notion that it may be a bit gauche to bestow Cool Red Scalp 'Em Names upon military hardware, given how military hardware has been historically used to brutally subjugate Native Americans. Take it away, dickhead!
Not to keep beating this horse, but it’s always about language. And that’s because language controls thought and thought, when driven to consent, either affirmatively or through tacit surrender, secures power, from which all else derives.
Nobody pretending to outrage over this gives a tinker’s damn about Native American dignity. They care about controlling language and by doing so, controlling thought and collecting power. There’s nothing noble in their stance, and we needn’t pretend their is.
It may be always about language, though clearly, it is not always about the English language, precisely.
That (far, please) aside, how the hell does Goldstein know what motivates anyone who finds the military's, or the NFL's, use of Native American names at best crass, and at worst horrific? Maybe they sincerely think this!
For maybe we are compelled to take them at their word on this, at least according to the Iron Laws of Crackpot Linguistic Theory:
But the only real linguistic point here is that he and those like him can drum up phony outrage by presuming to speak to others’ intent, and by presuming to endure others’ outrage for them, whether they — or those whose outrage they claim to endure — are outraged in reality or not.
So declaims the dingbat who is presuming to speak for hypothetically non-aggreived minorities, as well as to the surely morally crystalline non-racist "linguistic intent" of rich white sports fuckos of the 1930s. And who is deigning to explain the REAL "llinguistic intent" of anyone who is white and thinks "Redskins" is just fucking embarrassing in 2014.
In December of 1865, the several American states ratified the 13th amendment, constitutionally ending involuntary servitude in the United States. In the 21st century, Americans are coming full circle. In a number of states, a black man can again be forced by the government to work involuntarily for a white man.
Yes, the Son of Erick is quite seriously arguing that if you run a wedding catering business and you might be "forced by the government" to bake a gay couple a cake, that is the fuctional equivalent of chattel slavery.
Not since the nation eliminated Jim Crow laws during the civil rights era have we seen such a bizarre conundrum. But if the black man is a Christian and the white man is gay, a court can forcibly order the black man to serve the white man or drive the black man from business. A number of states have been working to pass laws to prevent this weird conundrum, but in an irony that knows no bounds, gay-rights activists are comparing these religious freedom laws to Jim Crow.
I certainly agree that right here, "irony knows no bounds."
Therein lies the problem. One side is arguing that Christ would not do this so they should not have to do this. The other side is arguing that not only would Christ do this, but the government should be able to force Christians to do it. Gone are the days of turning the other cheek and going to another baker.
This is not actually a "my Jesus is bigger than your Jesus" argument.
In one real world case, a florist had a long-time relationship with a gay couple. She had sold them flowers on multiple occasions. She knew they were gay. She gladly served them. When they asked her to provide flowers for their gay wedding, she declined because of her faith. She assumed they were friends. They sued her business for discrimination.
Because she discriminated against them. Kind of open and shut....
She did not take the position that she should be allowed to deny gays any good or service. She only objected to participating in a gay wedding.
These are two sentences next to each other. No, honestly. These are two sentences next to each other.
This is also grand:
Christian merchants do not see themselves as passive participants in a transaction, but active in a ministry. Their work cannot be separated from their faith.
The son of Erick apparently has no clue that what he just said is exactly the reason why civil rights laws exist in the first place.
This is a thing that has a far more Internetty and mass-media hysterical existence than an actual true-fact existence.
You are as likely to be a victim of The Knockout Game as you are to be the lucky winner of a state lottery.
"Wilding" didn't exist either.
And so... Here is America's Most Tremulous Old White Man, Jay Nordlinger!
I am not one of those who want the president and other major politicians to comment on everything that takes place in America. On the whole, I think that there could be more reticence from the highest offices.
But how long has this “knockout” thing been going on? I’m talking about these racial attacks across the country, wherein thugs pick little old ladies to bludgeon. These are mainly “black on white” attacks, as I understand it. If they were “white on black,” wouldn’t we be having a national emergency?Wouldn’t politicians, journalists, and others be talking about it to the exclusion of nearly everything else?
This is one of those things that are impolite to mention but screamingly true. I’m not sure that President Obama or others can do any good when it comes to this evil “game.” I also don’t believe that Obama has a special obligation to address racial problems (although he was happy to comment on the Cambridge, Mass., police and the Trayvon Martin case, wasn’t he?). But if he or others can do any good — they should.
P.S. When people speak of “hate crimes,” isn’t this what they mean, or should mean? Although, in my book, a crime is a crime — no need for the special category of “hate.”
Christ, Nordlinger. Grow a pair.
This, though, is rich, so I re-quote:
These are mainly “black on white” attacks, as I understand it. If they were “white on black,” wouldn’t we be having a national emergency? Wouldn’t politicians, journalists, and others be talking about it to the exclusion of nearly everything else?
HOLY SHIT, NORDLINGER, THIS IS A MADE-UP PHONY-BALONEY LOAD OF HORSESHIT FROM THE GET-GO.
If the fucking National Review were to encourage roaming gangs of whites to go looking to Enact Justice upon random blacks, nobody would be surprised.
The best way to shrink Big Government is to use it to kick the everliving shit out of poor people and minorities generally. The best way to accomplish this is for law enforcement agencies to have all the tax monies and spy laws.
A White (W/ upper case "W"!) losers-too-dense-to-recognize-their-privilege get-together where this sort of thing may be overheard:
In the lobby outside of the Polaris room, young men debated whether Ayn Rand’s message of individualism served the white race or fragmented it.
During a coffee break, a discussion about whether whites of different ancestry could ever live together in an ethno-state erupted from one of the tables.
Elaborate performance art? We ask because this is beyond mockery. What could possibly top that?
But really the conference was open to any number of overlapping topics that might attract disaffected white youngsters. Jack Donovan, an anti-feminist writer and “advocate for the resurgence of tribalism and manly virtue,” served up his shtick.
His shtick: Poetry, or a run-on sentence?
Donovan has argued that feminists are trying to create “gender-neutral utopias” that will make men into “doughy bonobos and chunky Chaz Bonos playing out their endless manic-depressive melodramas in a big bean-flicking circle of sterility, sickness and desperation.”
Whichever one, I'm (easily) amused.
— M. "Doughy Bonobo" Bouffant
(Who is not chunky Chaz Bono, 'cause M.B. spells it old school: "Chas." Can't deny the "chunky" though.)
A century and a half after the Civil War, the debate continues to rage over the true causes of the war.
Oh my gosh I wonder wherever this is going. What a mystery. Whoever could predict. It is not at all horribly, banally obvious.
The menace of slavery is an obvious answer...
You don't say.
... but it wasn’t the sole cause.
Kinda knew you would say.
Many scholars argue that the fight over states’ rights led to the war --
Fuck you, he says, cheerfully, in the Spirit of Open Debate and Scholarly Discourse.
Oh let us move on.
Historian and author Thomas Fleming recently published A Disease In The Public Mind: A New Understanding Of Why We Fought The Civil War,
and the book details two compelling reasons for the war: New England’s
disdain for the Southern states – along with the ensuing all-or-nothing
attitude of militant abolitionists, and Southern whites’ fear of a race
war were the nation to emancipate the slaves.
The North should been more nicer to slaveowners, and should have acknowledged how worried they were that if the slaves were freed, they might be kind of pissed off.
It gets better, though! From the actual book:
On October 19, 1831, he told one correspondent that he
was pleased the “disturbances at the South still continue. The
slaveholders are given over to destruction…”
Here was a signal revelation of the fundamental flaw in William Lloyd
Garrison’s character, a flaw that permeated the New England view of the
rest of America: an almost total lack of empathy. Fellow Americans had
just been exposed to an awful experience – a tragedy that dramatized in
horrendous terms the problem of Southern slavery… The only emotion
Garrison permitted himself was a thinly disguised gloating – and a call
for sympathy for the slaves. No matter how much they deserved this
emotion, was this the time to demand it?
"Too soon! Too soon!"
The evidence that the South was on the road to politely getting around at some point or other to ending slavery and then saying "my bad y u mad bro" is rather thin, but here it is, from our PJs interlocutor:
On the other hand, many prominent Southerners wrestled with the issue of slavery.
They almost always lost, even two out of three.
This is all very tedious, even excruciating. But here is where it gets good. Here is the good bit. Are you ready for the good bit? In the good bit, we go back again to direct quotation from this execrable "book":
Without any hope of abolition for themselves or their children,
Virginia’s slaves were certain to revolt on a scale far larger than Nat
Turner’s berserk band. That would almost inevitably lead to another
tragedy that his grandfather had predicted to him and to the public: the
disillusion of the federal Union.
Would that the "disillusion of the federal Union" had culminated in the permanent dissing of malignant illusions.
For FUCK's sake.
Fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck did I ever mention that my favorite American ever is WT Sherman?