from Never Yet Melted (in part):
Rodrigo Kazuo and Meg Perret found their classroom environment at Berkeley hostile, even when their professor was lecturing on Karl Marx (!), because the Western canon is exclusively composed of works by dead, white, European males, not a single person of color or transgendered individual makes the cut.
Because a majority of founders of Western thought were gay, Black women…
BTW, have you noticed more ‘persons of color’, homosexual, transgendered or perhaps gender-confused folks in your favorite television shows of movies?
NOT THAT I CARE, PARTICULARLY.
I remember my Father (who had some bigotry issues) railing against the infusion of Black folks in 60’s and 70’s TV in much the same way. He said it was much the same in the 40’s and 50’s with Jewish people. They went from being 3% of the population, to a significant minority of those in entertainment media. (He, of course, forgot that the only work many Jewish folks could get was in the entertainment field!)
And it was much the same with Black folks. 13% of the population, but represented numerically larger in the entertainment media in the 70’s.
NOT THAT I CARE, PARTICULARLY.
My questions are these: Does the actor bring quality to the role, or further the plot? Or were they just added because of political correctness?
And now we have this infusion of gay/transgender etc. folks. Some are quite entertaining, but in my humble opinion, some are just over-the-top. And included for shock effect and/or political correctness.
Which does a disservice both to them in their sexuality or color, and to the audience by their inclusion for political reasons.
Stepin’ Fetchit meet Myra Breckenridge.
Don’t get me wrong, there are some folks I find clever, and entertaining, regardless of ethnicity or bent. Others are just plain annoying. I won’t give you specifics – you probably have your own.
A couple generations ago, Black people were largely invisible, or stereotyped, and gays (etc.) were just flamboyant characters. No mention was made of their sexuality.
But now it seems we’re out of the box, for certain.
There’s a popular cable series about polygamy.
What’s next, pedophilia and bestiality?
Where do we go from here?
We should be inclusive of different cultures and sexuality. As long as it reflects percentages and social mores.
Of course, I’m a libertarian. (Until mandated) I can always change the channel.
Via my friend Borepatch:
I find it very hard to argue with this:
Leftism has not won these arguments, the Left has simply punished those who argue on the other side: and when I say ‘The Left’ I mean particularly Leftist intellectuals in the mass media, public administration, the education system, and bureaucracies generally.
What can be concluded?
Our society is far more corrupt than people realize – why wouldn’t it be? What’s to stop it? But just how corrupt it is impossible to know, even approximately, since any ‘evidence’ consists of lies built upon lies.
Our society is far less smart than people realize, because good arguments are punished and demonized so bad arguments (or no arguments at all, but merely faked moral outrage/ scapegoat hatred) wins vital arguments by default.
In sum, we live in a world ruled by dumb liars.
Asa I oft respond to another wise Internet blogger ( e.g. Rev. Paul)…
I’m a big believer in giving credit where credit is due. And blame. AND RESPONSIBILITY.
Much of the media likes to pin the badge of how evil the Koch Brothers are, because they support conservative causes. Funny how they rarely look at George Soros and his tentacles with anything more than a passing glance.
90 Miles From Tyranny recently posted a list of those organizations funded by Mr. Soros and his minions. A smattering off the list:
- American Civil Liberties Union: This group opposes virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by the U.S. government. It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board.
- American Institute for Social Justice: AISJ’s goal is to produce skilled community organizers who can “transform poor communities” by agitating for increased government spending on city services, drug interdiction, crime prevention, housing, public-sector jobs, access to healthcare, and public schools.
- Center for Community Change: This group recruits and trains activists to spearhead leftist “political issue campaigns.” Promoting increased funding for social welfare programs by bringing “attention to major national issues related to poverty,” the Center bases its training programs on the techniques taught by the famed radical organizer Saul Alinsky.
- Democratic Justice Fund: DJF opposes the Patriot Act and most efforts to restrict or regulate immigration into the United States — particularly from countries designated by the State Department as “terrorist nations.”
- Free Exchange on Campus: This organization was created solely to oppose the efforts of one individual, David Horowitz, and his campaign to have universities adopt an “Academic Bill of Rights,” as well as todenounce Horowitz’s 2006 book The Professors. Member organizations of FEC include Campus Progress (a project of the Center for American Progress); the American Association of University Professors; theAmerican Civil Liberties Union; People For the American Way; the United States Student Association; theCenter for Campus Free Speech; the American Library Association; Free Press; and the National Association of State Public Interest Research Groups.
- Green For All: This group was created by Van Jones to lobby for federal climate, energy, and economic policy initiatives.
- Institute for America’s Future: IAF supports socialized medicine, increased government funding for education, and the creation of an infrastructure “to ensure that the voice of the progressive majority is heard.”
- LatinoJustice PRLDF: This organization supports bilingual education, the racial gerrymandering of voting districts, and expanded rights for illegal aliens.
- Media Matters for America: This organization is a “web-based, not-for-profit … progressive research and information center” seeking to “systematically monitor a cross-section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation.” The group works closely with the Soros-backed Center for American Progress, and is heavily funded by Democracy Alliance, of which Soros is a major financier.
- Prison Moratorium Project: This initiative was created in 1995 for the express purpose of working for the elimination of all prisons in the United States and the release of all inmates. Reasoning from the premise that incarceration is never an appropriate means of dealing with crime, it deems American society’s inherent inequities the root of all criminal behavior.
- Working Families Party: Created in 1998 to help push the Democratic Party toward the left, this front group for the Soros-funded ACORN functions as a political party that promotes ACORN-friendly candidates.
As with so many progressive-based organizations, they may have been started as independent of politics, with good intentions, but later co-opted by the progressive movement. Others were poisoned from the beginning.
You should really visit 90 Miles From Tyranny and see the whole, long list.
Then go back to poo-poohing the Koch brothers.
I enjoy a good political discussion. Or even a debate. Unfortunately, in today’s climate, they often regress into name-calling, accusations and loud pronouncement as akin to grade school’s “Oh YEAH? Yeah!”
Why does this happen? Back as early as the 80’s, political enemies would do the “Oh Yeah” thing across the aisle, then adjourn to the neighborhood bar to share a beverage or two, and tell each other how great and principled each one was.
It’s become a sharper exchange, now. One where one might be reviewing the dark bar parking lot for the presence of ‘friends’ as well as enemies!
The reason? People no longer seem to subscribe to agreeing to disagree, because whatever the political cause, it’s become their RELIGION.
Want to annoy a Roman Catholic? Tell him he’s a papist, and that the Pope IS indeed fallible. A Republican? That he’s a shill for corporate lobbyists, and therefore has no soul. A Democrat? That most any policy foisted upon this nation by the current President is extra-Constitutional and illegal, and he deserves to be impeached, convicted and imprisoned.
Their response will undoubtedly be you don’t like him because he’s Black, and you are therefore racist. And that makes any argument you present invalid.
And that will p*** you off!
No more are there rational, reasoned exchanges back and forth regarding policies. Now it’s all name-calling and telling people what they believe is B.S.
It indeed may be, but that is not a way to discuss and argue.
“Just the facts, Ma’am.” – Sergeant Joe Friday (Jack Webb)
THAT should be everyone’s mantra.
Five weeks ago, Campus Reform went to Harvard and asked the students if ISIS or the U.S. poses a bigger threat to world peace. The answers that were given were entertaining enough to create a viral video that has since received about half a million hits.
In addition, the video received air time on Fox News.
Somewhat skeptical of the video, a few students at Harvard decided to go around and ask their fellow classmates some questions of their own. The questions focused on ISIS and the Pledge of Allegiance.
When one student was asked if ISIS or the U.S. posed a bigger threat to world peace. He said:
“I guess I’ll have to say America. I think ISIS as a group… I believe as Ben Affleck said, could fit into a baseball stadium, so they don’t have the potential to put countries into war as America would.”
Also, the response to being asked to say the Pledge of Allegiance, which anyone applying for U.S. citizenship must to be able to recite, was even more concerning…
Disgusting. And shameful.
To disagree with a political philosophy is an American Right, a tradition. But, to do so in complete ignorance is SHAMEFUL. Of course, look what we see every day on the ‘news’, the Internet.
Of course, sometimes there it’s an agenda.
I was surprised to hear people must apply for citizenship, anymore. I thought it was just granted – like a fief.
h/t Facebook, IJReview
There’s an old joke about a woman who gets to the Pearly Gates, and wants to know if her husband is there. She tells St. Peter that his name is Frank, and he said he would turn over in his grave if she ever had relations with another man after his passing. St. Peter had trouble identifying which Frank, then suddenly exclaimed, “Oh, you mean Pinwheel Frank!”
I saw this thing from Guns & Ammo about a new 1911. I became excited. I like 1911s. And this was a Browning!
Then I saw the caliber…!
1911 – .380 ACP
I do agree that any gun is better than none, but I was disappointed.
What’s next, a Velo-dog single-action semiautomatic?
(uh, Col. Jeff Cooper, for the uninitiated, was a big proponent of the .45 ACP caliber. He passed in 2006. I suspect he’s taken Frank’s place.)
h/t Maddened Fowl
(as purloined from Random Nuclear Strikes…)
While writing about the NYT tale of how “Assault Weapon” is a term made to scare white folks, Surber refuses to hold the tough questions back.
Instead of going after the gangs, Urban Democrats go after the law-abiding citizenry, unconstitutionally banning handguns and the like until the Supreme Court’s Heller decision reversed that.
In politics, unintended consequences are rare. By going after the weapons white suburbanites and rural people enjoy, Democrats obfuscate the real issue: Black young men killing black young men for profit in cities controlled by Democrats.
Don Surber – Do Democrats Care About Dead Black Men?
The answer is: Only if will help them get votes.
(Guffaw says) To be fair, every time this game has been played in a major metropolitan area in The United States (over the past 70 years) it hasn’t always been Democrats. But it’s always been Progressives of some ilk. And how have such policies worked in places like Chicago, New York and Los Angeles?
I’m not even expanding to discussing economies in such places as Detroit.
That’s for another blog.
Or rather MY libertarian conundrum!
I’m generally a libertarian (small L), politically and philosophically. Want to MAKE me do something as a function of government? I don’t think so. (conscript me, tax me w/o representation, ad infinitum). Want to believe something different than me? Sure – have at it! Believe in Krishna or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or nothing. I don’t care.
Just don’t knock on my door demanding I believe as you, with or without the force of government behind you!
I respect your right to think and act and believe differently, as long as you leave me to do the same. Period.
Now comes the conundrum –
I tend to be isolationist. If one tribe or political party in far off Boogaboogastan wants to kill another tribe or political party, it’s no skin off my nose. As long as it doesn’t affect me. Or the National interest. (whatever THAT is!)
BUT, what if I had this opinion (and had been alive) during WWII? What if The United States did? Would we all be speaking German or Japanese now? (Those of us who are alive?)
In short, what is in keeping with libertarian principles, but allows us to have our National Security and Sovereignty and be able to look ourselves in the mirror?
Do our National Principles apply only to us? And if not, to whom, and when?
ProudHillbilly posted on 09/11 about the numerous folks killed and injured because of their religion World-wide.
A partial sampling:
||Thirty-seven Iraqis are reduced to pulp by a Shahid suicide bomber.
||Two Shahid suicide bombers take out a half-dozen human beings.
||A Shahid suicide bomber disassembles six other people.
||Boko Haram militants spray machine-gun fire into villages while yelling praises to Allah. At least fourteen are killed.
||Muslim terrorists murder a teacher with a bomb.
Should we have gone into Iraq initially? I won’t debate that, because the fact is we did. And we then left.
hundreds thousands are paying for our having done so.
A libertarian tenet is WE ARE NOT THE WORLD’S POLICEMAN. We cannot afford to be, and we are not going to make everyone believe as we do.
It would be great if we could just leave others alone to their own Destiny. Or Hell. Pick one.
Then look in the mirror the next morning.
Not even shock and surprise from me. Perhaps this…
I seem to remember posting something years ago regarding how individual political groups constantly fight for power and position. One would think that two sub-entities of the same government would play by the rules (laws) and operate on the same page.
Of course, these are the same folks who smuggled guns to Mexican cartels under the guise of ‘investigation’ only to have them used against our own Border Patrol and DEA. (and people died). And the folks who pursued conservative folks with possible tax violations as a political ploy. And those who claim Israel is an ally, to bad mouth their actions and excuse actions of their enemy. The entity who almost universally badmouths Christians, but refuses to speak against Muslim extremists.
I could go on.
But, seriously, what’s the point in so doing?
Most of you regular readers know my position on government (and others) snooping, especially when said snooping is against innocents.
I long for the day of the pre-Patriot Act (and it’s fellow legislative travelers) wherein it was illegal for the CIA to operate domestically. And the FBI was primarily a law enforcement agency.
It’s one thing for us to spy on France or even Israel, but each other?
That’s just counterproductive and wasteful.
I’ve stated before, I’m a believer in the conspiracy theory of history. Not that all heinous acts (like political assassinations) are accomplished by groups, with accessories-after-the-fact to cover it up, but that some are, and we need to continue to look at all such acts and their aftermaths to determined what actually happened. Who were the participants? What were the motivations? And most importantly:
QUI BONO? (Who benefits?)
(from Clayton Cramer)
He says the FBI won’t release videos that show a second person was with Timothy McVeigh when he parked a truck outside the Oklahoma City federal building and detonated a bomb that killed 168 people.
The government says McVeigh was alone.
U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups sent the case to trial after remaining unsatisfied with the FBI’s responses in the five years since the lawsuit was filed.
This is a very interesting case. I was glad that McVeigh admitted his guilt in this matter because from reading the transcripts of his trial, it is pretty clear that the federal prosecutor failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that McVeigh did it. There was certainly evidence that supported that claim, but it is was not spectacularly impressive, and McVeigh’s defense attorney Stephen Jones did a spectacular job of poking big gaping holes in the government’s claims. Perhaps the most important is the questions raised about the leftover leg. (Did 168 people die in this tragedy, or 169? The leftover leg raised some serious questions.)
The claim that a second person was involved was based on eyewitness reports (which are often unreliable) and the FBI’s initial attempts to locate a second person of interest (of Middle Eastern appearance). There have long been questions about whether there might have been Iraqi involvement in this bombing. McVeigh’s partner, Terry Nichols was in a Philippines hotel at the same time as some of the people involved in the first World Trade Center bombing, such as Ramzi Youssef, and by some accounts, actually met with him. (…)
I know there has always been conspiratorial chatter about such events, in part because our collective psyches don’t want to believe one man is capable of such horror.
But sometimes, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.