Category Archive: These Are The Crazy Years

Huh.

UK supreme court backs bakery that refused to make gay marriage cake

A Belfast bakery run by evangelical Christians was not obliged to make a cake emblazoned with the message “support gay marriage”, the supreme court has ruled, overturning a £500 damages award imposed on it.

The unanimous decision by the UK’s highest court was greeted as a victory for free speech but condemned by gay rights groups and the Equality Commission of Northern Ireland as a backward step in combating discrimination.

Of all places, the UK.  And of all newspapers, the Guardian.

Freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, includes the right “not to express an opinion which one does not hold”, [Justice and Supreme Court President Lady Brenda] Hale added. “This court has held that nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe,” she said.

“The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed.”

How about that.  Note that this is pretty much the same conclusion the US Supreme Court reached in the recent Masterpiece Cakeshop decision.  It seems pretty cut and dried to me; the concept of free speech dictates that you can’t force me to agree with you, which extends to forcing me to produce something that makes it appear that I do agree with you.  Yet the dingbat who brought the case seems unable to process that simple concept:

After the ruling, Lee said: “I’m very confused about what this actually means. We need certainty when you go to a business. I’m concerned that this has implications for myself and for every single person.”

Well, if you really want certainty, businesses could go back to posting signs like “NO DOGS OR IRISH”, but that would be rude.  But what it means, Mr. Lee, is that you can’t walk into a business and expect that business to cheerfully create art for you that goes against their personal beliefs, regardless of whether or not you believe that should be the case.  Nobody went out and made you king of the world because you happen to be gay, just like nobody goes out and makes someone king of the world because they’re Christian, or female, or black or white or whatever.  And since you aren’t king of the world, you can fuck off; and you’ve now been told that by the highest court in the UK.  Do you really want to take it all the way to the EU?  Is it really worth it?  Think carefully before replying.

As in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, I’m going to guess that the folks at Ashers had no problem selling you anything pre-made out of their inventory — the only thing they refused to do was decorate a cake in a particular way that offended their beliefs.  And instead of politely declining their offer, and finding another cake shop that would do what you wanted, you got all huffy and filed suit.

One would almost think this was really a setup, just like the Masterpiece Cakeshop kerfuffle was.  Hasn’t anyone made it clear yet that the rest of the world is really sick and tired of this sort of confrontational bullshit?

No, really. You should all be worried.

There’s a saying about fascism that’s always amused me — “The dark night of fascism is always descending in the United States and yet lands only in Europe.”*

I’ve long thought that there is a corollary:  “The dark night of political violence is always descending on the Republican Party and yet lands only on the Democratic Party.”

Physical attacks on members of the other party are not new in the American Republic.  If we count the Hamilton-Burr duel, they go clear back to the Founding.  Add in Preston Brooks and his caning of Charles Sumner in the Senate chamber.  Brooks, like Burr, was some form of Democrat (the Democratic Party of today is the descendant of earlier parties that we would consider leftist).  Brooks was also a slaveholder from South Carolina.

And while the above are fairly egregious and amount to cherry-picking on my part, the fact is that most political violence that has occurred in the United States has been engendered by the people of the Left.  Republicans since the Civil War have been pretty civil, all things considered.  Democrats have tended to be associated with unions, big city machines, and organized crime.  Of course there are exceptions to every rule, including this one.  But by and large, you can pick an act of American political violence at random and there’s a good chance that it was perpetrated by a leftist who more than likely associated with the Democratic Party.

The assassins of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy were all leftists of one stripe or another.  The attempted assassinations of Ford and Reagan were perpetrated by leftists.

The so-called “antifa” which smears the right with charges of fascism, is itself fascist in nature.  Facism, as I have explained MANY times on this blog, is a philosophy of the Left.  Ask Benito Mussolini where he got the idea.  Hint:  It was from an American President who fucked over this country almost more than Barack Obama.

But all of this pales in the recent attempts by leftists to intimidate (or, simply kill) Republican politicians.  The shooting by an avowed Bernie Sanders supporter at a GOP softball practice in which Congressman Steve Scalise was badly wounded.  The beating and near-crippling of Congressman Rand Paul by a neighbor, sketchily attributed to a spat about lawn care but more likely an act of political violence.  (Paul was also present at the GOP softball practice.)  The “soft” violence of the Kavanaugh accusations, which turned out to be a tissue of lies after the GOP leadership found its cajones and forced hearings and testimony under oath, followed by the resultant doxxing of several GOP Senate leaders by a former member of a Congressional Democrat’s staff.  The continued calls for violent behavior from the likes of Rep. Maxine Waters and Sen. Cory “Spartacus” Booker.  The abusive sexual antics of Senator Robert Menendez and Rep. Keith Ellison, which Democrats have tried to keep quiet and shoved in the closet while prating about the supposed kinks of Brett Kavanaugh.  And let’s not mention Bill Clinton and his sexual escapades (the Democrats are certainly trying to ignore them).

But let us not forget that the charges against Menendez, Ellison, and Clinton have evidence behind them.  The charges against Kavanaugh were clearly made up out of whole cloth.

The very idea that we should automatically believe a woman’s story when she claims rape, and toss the hoary old concepts of due process and “innocent until proven guilty” out the window — proposed by no less than the Senate Minority Leader — is an act of political violence against our very system of justice and law.**  This idea is no different than the idea that a university tribunal should be able to prosecute a rape case without any due process at all, and undoubtedly stems from the same Gramscian damage that affects our universities.

This is akin to what the Nazis did in Germany before World War II.  The GOP is accused constantly of being the new Nazi party and its leaders are always worse than Hitler.  Yet it seems that the Democrats who make these accusations are actually looking in the mirror and projecting their own faults onto the GOP for political gain.  The sheer evil of some of the social media postings I’ve seen emanating from American leftists suggest that the antifa folk and their ilk are simply the new Brown Shirts.  “Punch a Nazi,” indeed — they’re the Nazis.  At any rate, we’ve seen this movie before, and frankly, we’re sick and tired of it.

The sad thing is that the progressives are punching far above their own weight class, and we’re letting them get away with it.  They complain mightily about “white supremacists” and yet the very people against whom they inveigh can barely get a hundred people to show up for a “national” protest march in DC.  The Ku Klux Klan is dead, antifa boys and girls; the Civil Rights Act pretty much put paid to it, although vestiges do survive to this day.  But the effort to portray white supremacists as some sort of monolithic national fraternity consisting of millions of card-carrying members who are out to hold down the black man (and anyone else they can manage to hold down) got some traction, particularly when useful idiots in the South started clamoring to tear down monuments to old Confederate generals — and even some Union ones who happened to have held slaves at one point or another.  Shoot, even George Washington got mixed into the fray, even though he died just over 61 years before the first guns were fired at Sumter.  He was a slaveholder; that was sufficient.

And yet, the actual number of progressives who are actively involved in all the screaming, yelling, punching, and tearing down of monuments is very, very small.  It cannot be otherwise.  Millions of people are still going to work, going to church, raising families, going shopping, having social events, taking vacations, and otherwise acting like normal Americans while all this hooroar*** is going on.  The Resistance isn’t getting much traction among the common folk, because the common folk have lives and jobs and plans for the future that don’t include dystopian Big Brother government.

The screaming fits and the violence threatened and perpetrated against conservative lawmakers and citizens alike is the thrashing of a beast that has found itself stuck in a trap of its own making.  The trap is the progressive conceit that only progressive elites know what is best for the “little people,” who aren’t capable of thinking for themselves (made clear by the fact that so many people consider progressive ideas to be little more than pie-in-the-sky bullshit).

But like any beast caught in a trap, the progressives are still dangerous.  And that’s why we should be worried.  Things are crazy enough now, with actual lawmakers advocating with straight faces the end of the rule of law.  They scoff at due process.  They want to throw the borders open and abolish ICE.  They support so-called sanctuary cities and refuse to let local police assist the Feds.  They want all US citizens beholden to the great god Government, from whom they believe all blessings emanate.  They want to control where you go to school, how much health care you get, whether or not you can drive a car, and just about everything else down to levels of privacy invasion the Russian Communists only dreamed of and the Chinese variety are putting into daily use.  Do you want the government to maintain a database of “social credit” that establishes your reputation and status as a citizen?  The Chinese will have that implemented by 2020, or so they say.  Our progressives would love such a system.  It would make it so easy to determine who got food, water, housing, clothing, education, transport…passports…and don’t even think about having a gun under a system like that.

The problem with a Republic is that we have to be vigilant in order to keep it.  Americans have largely laid down on that job for the past century and let government have its way.  A lot of Americans are finally waking up to the idea that we’re going to have to do something about it, or lose our freedoms altogether.

Not to dwell on the Kavanaugh nomination, but this is a critical time in our history.  The Supreme Court shouldn’t be this important, but because of the continuing inroads progressives are making into turning the US into another shitty little third-world country, someone has to have the sanity to say no.  A Court divided 4 to 4 plus a swing vote nobody can depend on is not how this is supposed to work.  If we have any hope of returning to Constitutional government, the Court needs to have thoughtful jurists on the bench who can read the text of the Framers’ document and derive judgement from its plain meaning.  We have had enough of penumbras and emanations, and of a “living” Constitution whose meaning changes with the wind.

And yet, the Court has often indicated its unwillingness to save Americans from themselves and legislate from the bench, instead of forcing the peoples’ representatives to do their jobs and write cogent and Constitutional law.  Can you blame the Justices?  We started out in 1789 with a user’s manual for a country that made clear what the government could do and what it could not do.  And we’ve let the government get away with murder ever since.

Progressives who do not want to see conservatives get a solid 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court would like to keep getting away with murder.  Sometimes literally.  And that’s why you should worry.

And maybe — just maybe — we’ve finally woken up to the idea that it’s time to put an end to that, and stop worrying so much about the future.

November 6 is coming.  Will you do your duty?

__________________

* The quote is generally attributed to Tom Wolfe, but apparently Wolfe was either quoting or paraphrasing Jean-François Revel.

** Before you tell me what a bad man I am not to automatically believe a woman when she cries rape, my wife is a rape victim.  She went immediately to police and made out a report and submitted to a rape kit examination.  She testified at the rapists’ (there were two) trial.  They went to prison for raping not only her, but another woman as well.  Case closed.  This was only a few years after Christine Blasey Ford thinks she might have been raped or molested or maybe even just looked at lasciviously by Brett Kavanaugh.  I assure you that my wife remembers quite well what happened to her, where it happened, and when it happened.  Conversely, I don’t believe a word CBF says, because even if something did happen 35 years ago, she’s spent so much time and effort repressing the memory that anything she says today about it would have to be suspect.

*** A word I will swear I learned reading Walt Kelly’s Pogo comic, but I can’t find a reference to same.

Correct.

Kavanaugh won because he fought back. Kavanaugh won because he was unwilling to suffer from the ritual defamation of the Left. He broke free from the traditional advice administration handlers give nominees — to be deferential and measured to the senators — and went after the Democrats and his opponents for what they were.

J. Christian Adams

Now, if the Republicans would all grow spines like Lindsey Graham did, we’d be in a lot better shape.  The takeaway message here is that the Democrats will stop at nothing to regain power, and when they do, that will be a very, very bad day in American history.

If there is a blue wave, it won’t be due to anything the Democrats have done.

Ed Driscoll over at Instapundit links to this:  Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ): We Are Less Than 60 Days From Totally ‘Kicking the S–t Out of the Republicans.’

Lovin’ the new civility, there, Rube.  You don’t mind if I call you Rube, do you?  Hey, Rube!

And yet…three days of the Democrat Follies last week coupled with this completely unbelievable rape charge from some Dem bint professor cunt (but I repeat myself several times) that was hidden conveniently away by Sen. DiFi (D-PRC) until it was obvious that Bret Kavanaugh was a shoo-in for confirmation, regardless of the three-ring circus the left put on at the hearings…folks, if you think that has changed anybody’s mind about voting for people who (well, we hope anyway) will continue to advance the Trump agenda in Congress, you have a raging case of TDS, and I have land to sell you in Florida.

Because all this shit?  All this shit is how you GET MORE TRUMP.

I won’t even go into the polling numbers, because polls lie.  They are wholly-owned by the Democrat Industrial Election Complex at this point.  The internals of the polls may indicate that they talked to x number of Dems, x number of Pubs, and x number of independents, but they don’t (and can’t) show that most people on the right do one of two things when a pollster calls or a canvasser knocks on their door:

  • Don’t answer.
  • Lie.

Because we all know the game at this point…and we refuse to play.  Anybody who chooses for whom to vote based on polling is either a Democrat, or stupid (and there I go again, repeating myself).  Indeed, we’d rather see you puff up the numbers for the ‘Craps so the run of the mill ‘Crap voters feel all confident and think, “eh, we’re safe, I don’t really have to go vote.”

And then we do what we did in November 2016 — run the table on all y’all where it counts.

Even if we don’t run the table, I’m willing to predict that the GOP doesn’t lose control of either house…and that Bret Kavanaugh will be confirmed before the election.

Trying to Anita Hill Bret Kavanaugh just got a lot of people really angry…at the Democrats.  We didn’t like it when you pulled that shit with Clarence Thomas, and we like it even less now.

But keep on trying to Barnum and Bailey the American public, if that’s how you think you’re going to win.  Just remember:  A lot of people really don’t like clowns.

The next pandemic

We get so up in arms about the stupidity of anti-vaxxers that sometimes we overlook the fact that the next pandemic might not have anything to do with anti-vaxxers at all.  H7N9 flu virus may be next on the agenda. China is refusing to provide samples to the CDC, in violation of WHO protocols.  Shades of SARS in 2002.

This might help explain why doctors are advising that children receive this year’s flu vaccine as soon as it’s available.  (H/T:  Instapundit.)  Even though the current vaccine isn’t tailored for H7N9, it still might provide some limited immunity.

Anyway, John Ringo, call your office:

In a town called Jungbao, a lot of people suddenly got sick. Really, really incredibly sick. Dying sick. There’s all sorts of estimates. Jungbao is about the only place that people are starting to open up the mass graves to get a count. And what exactly happened might never be known. Currently, the best estimates I’ve found go like this:

A lot of people got sick. The local medical boss, who was a WHO reporter, contacted Beijing with his estimate that H5N1 had become human to human transmissible and had, possibly, become more lethal. He wanted to report it to the WHO. He was told to hold the fuck on.

— John Ringo. The Last Centurion (Kindle Locations 363-367). Baen Books.

Just sayin’.  True, it’s probably more that China is in a snit over Trump tariffs than anything else at this point…but in the world of viral pandemics, things could go pear-shaped in a hurry, and a snit over economic inconvenience is no reason for China to be withholding flu samples from analysis.  Virus don’t care if you’re Chinese or American, when all is said and done.

This is, for what it’s worth, just another pressing reason for humans to get the fuck off this rock and out, at minimum, into the rest of the solar system.

UPDATE:  Perhaps I wrote too soon.  “Emirates plane carrying sick passengers lands at JFK airport, officials say.”  The flight originated in Dubai.  “The [Emirates] spokesman also initially tweeted that the flight from Dubai stopped in Mecca, where there’s a flu outbreak. He later clarified that some of the passengers came from Mecca and the flight was a direct one from Dubai to New York City.”

Great.

The right way to boycott Nike

If you’re trashing or burning (or even donating) your Nikes, just remember that Nike has already been paid for them. They’re not out one thin dime because you’ve decided to junk them and buy something else.

The smart way to boycott Nike is to use ’em till they wear out, then buy replacements from a manufacturer who doesn’t purposefully alienate a significant portion of its customer base. Get your money’s worth first, and then spend your money elsewhere. And be sure to tell anyone who asks about your Nikes that you’re only wearing them because you don’t see the point in throwing them away and spending money you don’t have on new ones. There’s no shame in being frugal.

I quit buying Levi’s years ago, too, when they first started getting ideologically squirrely. I’ll admit to buying a couple pair off of Amazon a couple of years ago, when I was having trouble finding jeans that fit, but what I got were of such poor quality that they’ve been reduced to serving as work pants at this point. But I won’t stop wearing them just because Levi’s has now upped the ante on their Second Amendment stupidity. There’s still some use left in them for dirty jobs. But otherwise I’ll wear the ones I’ve been buying from Duluth Trading. Yeah, they come from China. So what? So does damn near everything else. (And yes, I’ve tried USA-made Texas Jeans; nice, but they really don’t fit me right, and I can drive up to Noblesville and try on and buy DT off the rack.)

But don’t bother with the quintessentially lefty tactic of cutting off your nose to spite your face.  No publisher ever cried over book burnings; they got their money, and now the book burners just have empty shelves.  And Nike and Levi’s certainly aren’t going to cry over you trashing merchandise you already paid them for.

If you’re going to boycott, for the love of God, boycott smart.  Even my lefty wife gets that (and said so this morning as she laced up her Nikes for work — “Glad the new shoes I just bought were Skechers and not Nikes, but I’m not throwing these Nikes away till they wear out — and anyone at work who says anything about them can bite me”).

As for me, I’ve never owned a pair of Nikes and likely never would have anyway.  But I haven’t worn sneakers for quite a few years, either.

Slope, slippery, 1 each, redux

In an earlier post, I questioned whether a large media corporation should be held to the same standard as a custom cake designer, or a wedding photographer, when issues of serving or not serving customers due to civil rights issues arise.  In my opinion, the answer is yes, but if you want to argue with me, go read carefully the other post before you do.

Today’s slippery slope questions whether a Catholic high school with a rigorous code of conduct that extends not only to its students but to its faculty, may terminate a faculty member who has violated the terms of her contract by entering into a homosexual marriage — something said contract prohibits.  I’ll just come out front and say that the school in question is Roncalli High School in Indianapolis, and you can read about this gigantic clusterfuck here.

Like the previous question, this does not admit to a simple solution.  The school, while privately owned and operated by an Archdiocese, does accept state funding in the form of vouchers (the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program), and some families may be able to take a state tax deduction for some private school tuition expenses for dependent children, as well.  However, that doesn’t seem to have any bearing on the situation:

The Catholic high school that suspended a counselor for her same-sex marriage is within its legal rights to do so, despite having received more than $6.5 million in public money over the last five years through Indiana’s school voucher program, according to an expert on LGBT legal issues.

Actually, it’s simply within its legal rights to do so, without qualification.  The “despite” bit is projection on the part of our local “journalists” and has absolutely zero to do with what the school may legally do in this situation.  Anyway, from the same article:

“The U.S. Supreme Court has long been clear that just because an organization, whether it’s a school or any other kind of private organization, gets a certain percentage of its budget from government sources doesn’t automatically mean that it then comes under the coverage of the Constitution,” said Steve Sanders, an associate professor of law at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law. Sanders specializes in constitutional law and LGBT legal issues.

(…)

“The state could say that in order to get voucher money (schools) must agree to non-discrimination policies,” he said. “When the government hands out money, as it does in the form of vouchers, it can put strings on that money.

“It hasn’t done so in this case.”

So Roncalli is on much stronger legal ground than the folks we were discussing in the earlier post.  It’s unlikely to face trial in the court system, but that isn’t stopping people — including the center of attention herself — from trying the school in the court of public opinion.

However.

This woman has been a guidance counselor at Roncalli for 15 years.  She’s been with her partner for 22 years, but they did not marry until 2014 (for obvious reasons).  Which means that for 11 years prior to her marriage, she had to have been fully aware of the clause in her contract that forbade her from contracting a same-sex marriage.

She claims that her marriage was an “open secret” at the school and can’t imagine what has caused the ruckus now.

Moreover, legal experts are trying to claim that as she is a guidance counselor and not a teacher, she does not fall under the normal “ministerial exception in anti-discrimination laws”, which treats teachers in parochial schools as ministers whom the church may discipline on that basis.  The argument as to whether or not she falls under this exception seems specious to me; while it is certainly true that ministers are teachers, are not ministers also counselors?  And let’s not get into whether a high school guidance counselor is only there to tell you what classes you need to take, because guidance counselors also have a responsibility to watch out for the psychological health of the students they counsel — just like teachers do.  To claim that guidance counselors have only administrative duties in the school is ridiculous on its face.

And the four-year gap between her marriage and the current contretemps doesn’t seem all that odd to me.  I would imagine that if the marriage were really an open secret, she had probably been advised all along by administrators that she needed to reconsider her actions.  Plus, there’s an adopted child involved, and the administrators were probably loathe to disrupt the child’s family life routine, either by forcing the couple to divorce, or by terminating the counselor and forcing her to find another job.  But when she dithered, or flatly refused, to make a decision to either dissolve the marriage or leave Roncalli, administrators finally acted — probably based on a decision made at the archdiocese, not at the school proper.  The time involved could simply indicate that the school was performing due diligence rather than simply firing her outright at the time.  After all, I am told that the sinner can always repent; and I’m sure that’s partly why there may have been (and still is, since this is just a suspension, not a firing) hesitation on the part of the school.

But to take this out of the context of the current situation:  What’s wrong with firing someone who is in blatant violation of a contract she signed, knowing full well she was in violation of it at the time?  Who is actually injured here?  You could as easily ask, why is the accusation, “You lied to me!”, always pointed at the person who, well, lied?

The school is actually injured in this case because it could not point to its contracted faculty and staff as being 100% in line with Catholic doctrine.  That’s a problem for a school which prides itself in its Catholic roots.  What example is being set by continuing to allow a guidance counselor, who is a partner in a union that is prohibited by the Church, to remain in a position where she may influence Catholic youth?*

Do I really need to point out that the Church** has severe problems*** right now with pedophilia and child abuse?  And should I have to point out the horrific number of women in education who can’t keep their hands off their young charges?  Please read the following VERY CAREFULLY, because I’m not saying this particular woman has any prurient interest in the young boys and girls she counsels, but I can easily imagine Roncalli and the Archdiocese see this as an “appearance of impropriety” moment — and are fully aware that a simple matter of ignoring a term in a contract could blow up into something a lot bigger if accusations were suddenly made.  Not only that, if you don’t enforce the contract terms now, you’ll have a harder time doing so later.

Besides that, what the hell is wrong with people who don’t understand (or pretend not to understand) that when you sign a contract, you’re expected to live up to its terms?  I can assure you if I were to violate the terms of my at-will employment contract, my employer would tell me to shape up or ship out, and if I continued in violation, he would have every right to fire me, and it’s very unlikely I’d have any recourse if it could be shown I was in fact in violation.  Roncalli already has cause to fire this woman; it’s on paper and recorded in the public record as all marriage licenses are.  Yet they dither…and the only reason I can think of that they’re dithering is they really don’t want to fire her and want either to give her every opportunity to recognize the error of her ways (by their lights and by the letter of the contract she signed) or give her sufficient rope with which to hang herself before they terminate her.

People anymore seem to think that they can force change by acting out and forcing other people to respond in ways they find personally offensive.  Yet they don’t seem to understand how offensive they are being in the process.  It’s almost as if this counselor, who may or may not already have been in violation of her contract, decided to get married to see how far she could push the issue.  The answer seems to have been, “barring administrative delay and backing and filling, not very far.”

Going back to the cake baker — did the cake baker throw the gay couple out of his shop?  No.  He told them his personal religious views prevented him from creating a custom-designed art cake for their wedding, but also said that he would be happy to sell them any of the standard cake designs on offer.  At that point, the couple who were importuning him and wasting his time and were doing so on purpose could have said, “Gee whiz, we understand your feelings, and we’re sorry about that.  We’ll take our business elsewhere/We’ll buy one of the standard designs because you do great work.”  But because they were in his shop with an agenda, they left and sued him for discrimination.

Maybe that’s what the counselor at Roncalli had in mind…except according to the legal eagles, she doesn’t have a case.  Unless maybe she’s got a lawyer who’s willing to try to smash up the current wisdom and push things a little farther down the slippery slope.

As I said before:  This has to stop.

When I was a kid, I didn’t get all the toys I wanted, had to settle for a second-hand “real” bike, had to work for my aunt for a summer in exchange for my first car (which really should have been mine without that hot summer of yard work since it was actually my grandmother’s car, not my aunt’s, but then on the other hand, I probably appreciated it more as a result), and we didn’t take cool family vacations or anything like that.  Indeed, my folks strained to send me on a couple of high-adventure Scouting trips and ultimately to a National Jamboree.  When I grew up and understood why I didn’t get all the things other kids got, I didn’t have any complaint.  We were poor, and then we were poorer.  Wasn’t till later years that things got better for Mom and Dad, and frankly they were never fabulous — but they were able to keep the house and the cars and even do a little traveling.  Anyway.  Point is, being a dick about it wouldn’t have changed anything, so I never really did complain that much, and around the time I was 12 or so and was beginning to understand why we were poor, I entirely stopped being a whingney little child about it.

It sometimes seems like the vast majority of young adults — if they may be called adults — of the current generation always got everything they wanted handed to them on a silver platter.  At least that’s the way they often act, as if it is totally impossible that anyone could ever say “no” to them and mean it.  Tam was writing on FB the other day about an antifa handbill she saw posted in Broad Ripple, claiming the area was a “no-fascist zone”, and she pointed out that most of the Broad Ripple “radicals” are actually scions of good families with sufficient money to have provided them with a reasonable education and comfortable home life…so that they could protest inequities and political philosophies they personally have never encountered and likely never will, by stapling handbills on telephone poles in one of the yuppiest of yuppie areas in the entire Indianapolis metro area.

Meanwhile, two or three miles south and a few blocks east begins a part of town that is full of inequities, many of whom will be happy to stop you on the street and make you a little more equal to them if you have the bad luck to run into them on a dark night.  But this is an area that is largely invisible to such people, who would rather drink a beer, have a pizza, play some pool and rock out to some tunes, and protest Donald Trump and imaginary fascists by posting handbills than actually do something of substance to help the true victims of inequity who live down there at Thirty-what and What (or whatever it is that Tam says, I can never remember; I plead age and strong drink).

Point being, kids today — the only oppression they’ve ever known is being given a time-out, or maybe being sent to bed without dessert or being told they can’t watch their favorite TV show because they need to do their homework.  (Parents are such fascists.)  So naturally, when someone doesn’t want to do what they want them to do, they go ballistic instead of simply shrugging, saying, “Well, dude, your loss if you don’t want our money.” and moving on.  Or in the current case, they get all bent out of shape because a counselor they liked in high school is getting the boot because the counselor decided it wasn’t worth her job to abide by her contract.  Or that she thought the contract was just words on a piece of paper that she was free to ignore at her discretion.  Nobody ever actually enforces those things, do they?  (Yeah, sarcasm.)

So today comes the perhaps inevitable news that this chica is going to go on the Ellen DeGeneres show to talk about her situation.  One presumes that the outcome of that will be a foregone conclusion.  But the article also says:

Leaders told her she must support the teachings of the Catholic Church, both in and out of school.

Some students have openly petitioned for her return, and some are even asking for the school to change their policy.

Oh, children.  You have so much to learn!  The school can no more change that policy than you can change your gender (current soi-disant wisdom to the contrary).  The school is bound by the law of the Church, as its leaders have already told their wayward counselor, and the idea that the Church is going to change its law, while less laughable in these degenerate times than when your humble blogger was a snot-nosed Jewish kid growing up in a liberal Jewish denomination some forty-mumble years ago, is little more than wishful thinking.

But kids today think they can change anything.  They’re in for a crashing disappointment in the not too distant future.

Here again we find ourselves on a slippery slope.  The fact is that the leadership of the Church today may actually be reconsidering its stance.  The question is whether or not this is even politically possible when it’s clear the Church already has a problem with homosexuality in its ranks.  As I think I’ve pointed out already, I’m not a member of the Church, so it’s really none of my business; those who are members of the Church either have strong opinions one way or the other, or they don’t.  My sole point in writing this post is to point out that everywhere we look, there are people trying to bring down the pillars of our society, by pushing us faster and faster down that silly old slope.

And this is just another case where somebody needs to put on the brakes and say, “Thus far, and no farther.  Indeed, put that sucker in reverse and let’s back out.”

I’d be happy to hear from Catholics on either side of the argument.  Maybe they see this in a different light.

_______________

*For what it’s worth, yes, I’m completely ignoring the doctrinal issues regarding teachers who may be living with a partner out of wedlock but still teaching at Roncalli.  As apparently did Roncalli for 11 years until these two got married.  I’m also ignoring the possibility that married teachers at Roncalli may be having affairs with other teachers at Roncalli or with people outside of the school.  And that there may be divorced and/or remarried teachers at Roncalli.  Hell, there may even be non-Catholic teachers at Roncalli; I have absolutely no fucking idea and don’t care.  I haven’t read the contract involved so I have no idea what it permits or doesn’t, and there may be plenty that’s overlooked by omission depending on the precision of the contract language.  If you have, there’s a comment box down there that is actually working these days; feel free to use it.

** Actually, not the Church per se, but the administrators and ministers and leaders of the Church are the ones who are facing a shitstorm right now.  The everyday people of the Church are not the problem, and they’re just as angry about this as those of us who aren’t members of the Church.  The distinction, therefore, is extremely important.

*** And when I say “severe problems”, I mean, “the reactor is about to melt down and radioactive gas is leaking from every weld.” 

 

Hugo away now (Part 3)

Seen on Facebook.

Yeah, pretty much just like that.

Hugo away now (part 2)

I’ve written before about my attitude regarding WorldCon and the Hugos — short synopsis, overrun by progs and no longer worth the dime.

SJWs being SJWs, it’s only gotten worse.

A panelist’s bio on the WorldCon site, apparently lifted from another website (and we’ll not go into the ethics and general laziness of that; the con should have required each panelist to provide their own picture and bio) was edited to “normalize” the odd gender pronouns the panelist preferred — apparently because whoever was formatting it for the WorldCon website thought they were typos.  Not going into that insanity either; it’s been well covered by Mad Mike and crew on Facebook.*  Bottom line is that this “triggered” the panelist, who got all huffy and opined that it would not feel safe at WorldCon.  (In other words, the usual snowflake response of someone who doesn’t understand that the world doesn’t give a fuck about its pretentious bullshit.)

So now, the whole LGBTQwhateverthefuck community is up in arms and the WorldCon committee is finding itself bombarded by demands and general pissyness from said community.  It was gigglesome to start with and now it’s completely off-the-rails insanely hilarious.  This sad person has decided to form a so-called “Queer Rapid Response Team” for WorldCon.  Now, given that I’ve never heard of this person and never read any of their work, their authority to do something like this escapes me; but there you have it.  Apparently due to the preferred pronoun “gaffe”, the queer community has decided that they are going to be suppressed at WorldCon (the opposite is more likely true, since most of WorldCon these days is SJWs), so this “team’s” brief is “about making sure [they’re] allowed to operate within the convention itself.”  Give me a fucking break.  Have you never BEEN to a convention?  Nobody fucking cares about your quirks.

I submit to you that this is another self-inflicted wound in the entirely-avoidable Death of a Thousand Cuts being suffered by WorldCon over the past half-decade or so, which are entirely due to its Gramscian capture by nutbags on the left.  When Mad Mike says on Facebook, “When you watch WorldCon self-immolate”, followed by

it’s pretty clear that the non-unhinged contingent is just sitting back watching the world burn at this point.  Well, and snarking about it, of course.  Because it is entirely snarkalicious.

My advice?  Fuck it, support and attend LibertyCon and/or DragonCon, or one of the other ‘cons where normal, rational people organize and attend.  Nominate and vote in the Dragon Awards, screw the Hugos.  They’re toast.

Heinlein was right, although the progs ruling WorldCon would never admit it:  These are indeed the Crazy Years.

________________

* I’m surprised this hasn’t shown up on his blog yet.  I suppose he’s been busy 🙂

Many reasons Democrats seek Trump’s impeachement

blares the headline over the letter to the editor in Monday’s WSJ.  A gentleman from Massachusetts opines that an op-ed from May 26 “notes that ‘many Democrats want to impeach Mr. Trump because they simply don’t like him.'”

He continues,

That’s a misleading oversimplification. Many Democrats (at least the ones I speak to) are happy to explain why they don’t like him. They don’t like him because he makes America unsafe, because of his disdain for important American principles (e.g., inclusiveness, heroism, respect, etc.), valued American institutions (the White House, FBI, science) and for his manifest disrespect for potential allies and essential friends. The president’s behavior, rather than making America great again, is weakening and defacing America’s integrity, making us more vulnerable.

OK, but what’s your point?  Absolutely none of that refutes the statement from the op-ed, and proves once again that the Democrats who have been agitating for Mr. Trump’s impeachment since the day after the 2016 election really don’t understand what constitutes grounds for impeachment.

The fact is that nobody cares that you don’t like him.  Hell, a lot of people who voted for him aren’t really all that fond of him.  But what seems more ludicrous to me is that most of the shoe this fool gentleman wishes to fit to Donald Trump actually fits his predecessor much, much better.  Let’s take this apart a bit.

He makes America unsafe:  Obama drew a line in the sand in Syria and promptly wimped out when the Syrians crossed it.  His SecState allowed the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi to be overrun by insurgents.  We took out Osama bin Laden on his watch, but by all accounts, he just sort of stood around and watched while Seal Team 6 did the dirty work, and then took the credit.  His “leaders” in the DoD left us less prepared to go to war (and more prepared to go to culture war) than we’ve been since before World War II.  Our allies considered him a joke and borderline undependable.  He clearly hated Israel and actively strove to undermine Benjamin Netanyahu’s re-election bid.  And of course, there’s the whole Iran “deal”.  And the recognition of Cuba, which simply resulted in a bunch of our diplomatic folks having to come home because the US embassy there was being bombarded by sonic waves that made them all sick, and Trump finally bringing everyone home and suspending the opening Obama made.

Conversely, Mr. Trump has fearlessly asserted US interests in Syria and the WestPac (now known as the “Indo-Pacific”) and has called Kim Jong-Un’s nuclear bluff.  Folks like the editorial staff of the WSJ think Trump is going to be steamrollered by Kim at the Singapore summit, but I suspect Kim is not going to like some of the things he hears at the summit table.  Trump, not Obama, put ISIS on the run in Iraq and elsewhere.  Whigning that “the plan was Obama’s” doesn’t wash, because Obama didn’t execute.  Trump, not Obama, has developed excellent relations with reform-minded (and Israel-neutral, at least) Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia.  Trump’s SecDef “Mad Dog” Mattis is demanding that the Pentagon shape up and that the services resume preparing for war rather than turning them into the Diversity and Inclusion Corps.  Trump has got Vladimir Putin over an (oil) barrel and isn’t taking Putin’s shit, regardless of all the screaming about “collusion” from the left (and if they want to complain about collusion, let’s not forget Obama’s open-mic “after the election I’ll have more flexibility” gaffe). Trump is alternately kissing up to and smacking around the Chinese to the point where I don’t think they know if they’re coming or going, and while that can be dangerous, it’s still better than letting the Chinese get away with whatever they want.  Hell, even the Japanese are growing some of their backbone back and getting themselves on a war footing, now that they have some assurance the Americans will not back down in the IndoPac.

The only thing I can think of that Trump is truly getting wrong is remaining in Afghanistan, but he didn’t make that mess, he’s just trying to clean it up.

Frankly, even if we go back into Cold War mode because Trump is asserting US global power, that’s fine with me.  We’ve sat on our complacent asses spending the non-existent “peace dividend” for far too long.

His disdain for important American principles (e.g., inclusiveness, heroism, respect, etc.):  Come on.  This is Obama projection writ large.  Obama never met an American principle he didn’t disdain.  Any time he stepped up for Americanism, it was because it was part of his job, not because he believed in it.  He certainly pooh-poohed the concept of American Exceptionalism, and his wife made it clear that the only thing that made her happy to be an American was the election of her worthless husband.

Trump, on the other hand, is all about American Exceptionalism.  He includes everyone, doesn’t care if they’re white, black, Asian, Hispanic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian, gay, lesbian, what the hell ever.  For goodness’ sake, his daughter married an Orthodox Jew.  His only criteria is patriotism and a love of this country.  He came down hard on the NFL anthem kneelers because he found their attitude unpatriotic and not a little rude to the people who were paying their inflated salaries.  To this day, mediocre NFL player Colin Kaepernick doesn’t have a job because he is unrepentant and has cost the NFL billions of dollars and millions of fans — not because Donald Trump tweeted about what a jerk he is.

Trump is all about heroism.  He supports our military and wants it to excel as it has in the past.  He is deeply respectful of all of the things that make America great.  He clearly dislikes cowards, traitors, and people who want to tear America off the pedestal it has occupied since it became the World’s Policeman after WWII.

Now, if someone would just take his Twitter account away…

[His disdain for] valued American institutions (the White House, FBI, science): Um, what?  Apparently the Obamas left the White House in tatters, and Trump’s comments about the White House right after his inauguration were about infrastructure maintenance (the replacement/installation of new air conditioning ductwork, as I recall) that was making the House unlivable.  Because the White House generally doesn’t get redecorated on the taxpayers’ dime, for people like the Obamas who don’t give a shit, it’s not a priority, and yeah, the place was probably fairly ratty after eight years of neglect.

The FBI…how do you write something like that with the shit that is coming out about the FBI?  The inspector general’s report is apparently scathing.  Things haven’t been this bad at the FBI since Hoover was running it.  In fact, as bad as Hoover was, the folks who have been running the FBI for the last decade or so seem to have been even worse.  How can you blame Donald Trump for “disdain” of the FBI when it’s starting to look like that’s an attitude mirrored by the majority of the citizenry?

And since when is “science” a “valued American institution”?  Science in this country has been going to shit for years, turning into a biased handmaiden of diversity and the left.  I note that the writer did not come right out and say “climate science”, because that’s really what has most people’s knickers in a knot.  I disdain climate science, too, because it’s international propaganda bullshit aimed at making the US no better than any other shithole country in the world.  And yes, there’s that word:  “Shithole”.  Which is what the Obamas were trying to make of America for eight years.  So thank you Donald Trump for withdrawing us from the joke of a Paris Agreement.

[H]is manifest disrespect for potential allies and essential friends:  Again, what?  Sorry, again, that’s Obama projection.  May one simply mention “Israel”?  And one presumes that the writer thinks Iran was a potential ally and essential friend?  Man, has he drunk the Kool-Aid, with extra-strength cyanide.

Donald Trump knows who our allies and friends are.  Well…we don’t have any friends.  Because there are no friends in global diplomacy.  We have allies, of course.  But anyone who has ever studied American Diplomatic History (raises hand) knows, nobody is our friend, and we should not be acting as if they are — not even the “special relationship” Brits.  Trump’s genius is that he knows how to pat an ally on the back until the tip of a hidden knife blade appears from between his fingers and pricks the ally’s skin — and then he promises to remove the blade if the ally will simply agree with him that America’s interests come first.

I keep trying to tell people that you have to evaluate Trump as a businessman — not as a politician.  Politicians are always hail-fellow-well-met types or they don’t succeed in politics.  Trump is not a politician.  He’s a businessman and he makes deals.  You make business deals by making an offer that’s probably outrageous in some way, the other side counters with something a little less outrageous, and then you meet somewhere in the middle.  If other countries truly understood how Trump is trying to use tariffs, we wouldn’t be dancing around the edge of a trade war.  But with Trump, it’s always about the Deal, and the Deal is always negotiable.

The president’s behavior, rather than making America great again, is weakening and defacing America’s integrity, making us more vulnerable.  Nah.  This is the Democrat/progressive short view.  They can’t take the long view anymore because they’ve weakened their intellectual chops so badly as a result of their Gramscian march through the institutions.  They simply aren’t capable of pulling all of the things Trump is doing together and seeing how there is going to be some short-term pain for long-term gain.  But that’s what has to be done, because frankly, the progs have dropped us so deeply into the pit that we’re going to be a while getting out of it.

What the progs really want is a third Obama term, and they thought Hillary! was going to give it to them.  The American people seem to be a little smarter than that.  Although in fairness, the progs’ champion ran a pretty poor campaign for someone who’s been in politics for most of her life.  Must be pretty harsh to get beaten by a guy who’d never run for a political office in his life.

The bottom line here is that it looks to me like Mr. Lawrence H. Climo of Lincoln, Massachusetts, simply made Allen Guelzo’s (the author of the original op-ed) case for him, viz., “Many Democrats want to impeach Mr. Trump because they simply don’t like him.”  Mr. Climo has brought absolutely nothing to the table to refute that and has made himself and his compatriots simply look more petulant and silly than Mr. Guelzo intended.

Progressive Trump Derangement Syndrome.  On second thought, let us not go there.  ‘Tis a silly place.

Older posts «