Gay Patriot Header Image

The Left Turns its Race-Hysteria on One of its Own

Stephen Colbert has been accused of racism by humorless leftists who 1. Didn’t get the joke and 2. Are perfectly fine when this sort of humor is directed at conservatives (which, technically, it was but in their deranged race-hysteria, the left can’t figure that out).

“I am willing to show #Asian community I care by introducing the Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever,” “The Colbert Report” Twitter wrote Thursday.

The joke was taken from a bit on Wednesday night’s “The Colbert Report,” parodying Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder and his launch of the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation in light of controversy over the team name. Taken out of context, however, many Twitter users saw the joke as racist, and launched a #CancelColbert campaign that quickly became a trending topic.

Believe it or not, there was a time when entertainment wasn’t subject to the outrage of puritanical leftist race-fascists.

Oh, and also, Kobe Bryant is also being targeted for a boycott by African-American activists, because he committed the unpardonable (for an African-American) sin of thinking for himself:

When McGrath asked Bryant’s opinion on the Miami Heat’s show of solidarity with Trayvon Martin in the now iconic “hoodie” photo, the LA Lakers star stated:

“I won’t react to something just because I’m supposed to, because I’m an African-American,” Bryant said. “That argument doesn’t make any sense to me. So we want to advance as a society and a culture, but, say, if something happens to an African-American we immediately come to his defense? Yet you want to talk about how far we’ve progressed as a society? Well, we’ve progressed as a society, then don’t jump to somebody’s defense just because they’re African-American. You sit and you listen to the facts just like you would in any other situation, right? So I won’t assert myself.”

Oh, and I almost forgot about this: An editor of Ebony magazine beclowned herself by calling Juan Williams’s son a “white dude,” and then continued to beclown herself in offering the “I’m sorry I mistook you for a white person” defense.

San Francisco Goes Full-On Kafka

Posted by V the K at 7:28 am - February 25, 2014.
Filed under: Liberal Mediocrity Sucks

In the Progressive Utopia of San Francisco (… cough… 6% Black) has a housing code (of course), and it s illiegal to have a rental unit that doesn’t comply with the code. So, what if a property owner has such an “illegal” unit? In a semi-rational society, he would have two choices: 1. Bring it up to code. 2. Tear it down.

That is one choice too many for the progressive utopians that run San Francisco.

Property owners looking to get rid of a unit that doesn’t meet city codes now will have to justify “why they are removing, rather than legalizing,” the illegal dwelling unit. If a property has more than two units, the owner must go through the discretionary review process, which can include a full-blown hearing before the City Planning Commission.

If planners decide there is a “feasible path to legalize the unit,” they will recommend that “the current housing affordability crisis creates an ‘exceptional and extraordinary’ circumstance such that the Commission should deny the (building) permit and preserve the unit,” Rahaim and Hui said in a Feb. 3 memo to the mayor.

No one really owns property in the Progressive Utopia; one is only allowed to administer it as the state directs.

(more…)

Lefties: No moral self-confidence – and fearfully proud of it

I had a lunch discussion recently with two former co-workers. Both of these men are engineers in their 30s who are fairly hard-working, competent and successful, pulling six-figure salaries. In the free and dynamic America of yore, these men would be proud of where their choices in life had taken them. But this is 2014, they are white, and they are MSDNC-watching left-liberals in a “Blue” area.

“Mark” started saying how lucky he feels to be an engineer because the work is physically so much easier and safer than being a field worker or factory hand, and pays more. I agreed, while reminding Mark that the work is mentally exhausting, something much-demanded by society (the market), and something most people wouldn’t even attempt. In other words, reminding Mark that he deserves his salary.

As if to answer me, “Ross” instantly went into a description of himself as “born into privilege”, saying how he had never really chosen anything in his life, but his course has always been determined by the social forces pushing him along and granting him privilege. This was strange, because I know for a fact that Ross works hard, which is a choice right there. So I reminded him of the constant stream of choices that he faces – be it as simple as “go back to work after this lunch, or not?” – and how those choices affect his results, like having a salary or not.

I won’t bore you with too many details. The conversation continued as a debate of Free Will implying self-responsibility and pro-liberty politics, vs. Social Determinism implying “you didn’t build that” and re-distributive, left-wing politics. We didn’t get into politics much; it lurked in the background.

But I want to tell you about the discussion’s ending. Here’s the short version: I was nice enough, yet Ross and Mark were red-faced with anger and embarrassment – because they didn’t “win”. I punctured their bubble.

At first, Ross could not process my point that all people have choices, by which they determine their own success. Asking near-childlike questions, he had me explain the concept over and over. “What if a person is born in poverty?” I’d explain how poverty is indeed a circumstance shaping the person’s life; but they still choose their *response* to it. Poverty may limit a person’s range of choices, but even poor people still face a stream of choices, that only ends when a person dies.

If a poor person joins a gang or develops a drug habit – and sticks with it, in adult life – that’s a series of choices they made. Likewise if, for better success, they work hard to get a G.E.D. and become a shift manager at the local McDonald’s, it is a series of choices they made. Likewise, my life-long self-education has been a choice. Thus I explained.

As Ross caught on, he correctly saw the implication that the McDonald’s shift manager would *deserve* her success being greater than the gang member’s or drug addict’s – just as he, Mark and I each deserve our success. And Ross didn’t like that idea. Smiling his best “Jane, you ignorant slut” type of patronizing smile, he suggested that I was out to rationalize backward, unjust notions.

With a smile right back, I pointed out that nobody was rationalizing anything; my success having come from my hard work and personal choices was not a rationalization, but a fact; and a fact that his determinist philosophy badly needed to deal with. That was the exact moment when Ross turned beet-red.

His words turned sarcastic (suggesting anger), while his voice turned quavery (suggesting anxiety). I could see that Mark, now silent, was also getting red – with a deer-in-the-headlights look of uncertainty around his eyes.

Mind you, nobody raised voices in this discussion; nobody called names or made the least of personal attacks. All I did was display my moral confidence, my certain knowledge that I had earned my success – and imply that Mark and Ross should also be morally self-confident, as they had earned theirs.

My doing that alone, nothing more, made these two men visibly feel both uncertain and violated. The interaction ended there, as we’d run out of time. I think it says a lot about left-liberals.

Lefties live in a world where lack of moral self-confidence is a required personality trait. Humility is not required; leftists usually proclaim their beliefs with arrogant certainty. But among those beliefs is a dogma to the effect that no one, including the leftie, *deserves* to have any confidence or any certainty, since no one is ever better than the worst “poor” criminal out there. Any educated, enlightened person must genuflect and display his official, dogmatic lack of confidence that he could ever be right about anything. THEN he can go on to make arrogant proclamations (provided they are left-wing).

If someone shows a different way of being – if someone thinks differently from the leftie, and has moral confidence in doing so – showing, for example, confidence that her success is deserved – many a leftie will find that person threatening. Tactic A is to smile and patronize the person as benighted; perhaps tactic B would be ridicule. If neither works – if the tables are turned, if the left-liberal’s worldview is punctured or exposed as the hollow thing it is – then the average leftie will go into fear and anger.

Sad!

So let me get this right:

The administration—whose latest foray into unobstructed, unlegislated, we’ve-got-this, go-it-aloneism was the fabulously ‘effed up roll-out of HealthCare.gov—is going to make 2014 the year of the Executive Branch takes on the world without the messiness of involving the People’s Branch of the federal government?

This’ll be something to see…

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from The Ranch)

Lefty Art “Scholar” – “Norman Rockwell Was, Like, Totally Homo.”

Hat Tip: AoS HQ

Proving the value of a Bachelor’s Degree in Art and a Master’s in Journalism from Columbia, New York Times art critic Deborah “Debs” Solomon has published a book of some sort on the art and life of Norman Rockwell, and has determined that his art was far gheyer than Robert “Bullwhip in the Anus”  Mapplethorpe.

For example, of Rockwell’s “Freedom of Speech,” Solomon writes: “The man standing is ‘unattached and sexually available. Unbuttoned and unzipped.’”

norman-rockwell-freedom-of-speech-picture

I guess a lefty can see an intense, homo-erotic subtext in a Hershey bar wrapper.

 The thing, I guess, is that the social left’s efforts to “legitimize” homosexuality require them to find it everywhere, and in everything. But sensible people recognize silliness when they see it.

 

Kakistocracy

Wow. Just… Wow

Larry Summers, former head of the National Economic Council, thought having Jarrett represent the White House was a mistake. Business leaders “felt patronized and offended by Valerie,” Summers told Woodward, largely due to her tendency to insist that she spoke for the president, and an approach to problem-solving that involved little more than scheduling multiple lunch meetings. One CEO complained to Alter that “when we go to the White House, we talk to people we wouldn’t hire.” Alter himself has likened Jarrett’s role in the White House to “the CEO putting his sister in charge of marketing.”

Or putting a former slumlord in charge of the entire presidency.

In the Obama Administration, you can completely botch the Obamacare launch, run guns to Mexican drug gangs, let four people die in Benghazi on your watch, commit egregious transgressions against freedom of the press, and break the law by targeting political opposition with IRS, call for a race war against white people and still keep your job. But insult Valerie Jarrett in an anonymous tweet? Clean out your desk.

kak·is·toc·ra·cy: – [kak-uh-stok-ruh-see] government by the worst persons; a form of government in which the worst persons are in power.

And close to 40% of the population still support this administration?  Good Lord. I expect Brawndo to go on the market any day now and Fuddruckers to change its name to something inappropriate but in keeping with this exciting new era of American politics.

The Left’s hair-trigger praise of…itself

First there were the Nobel Peace Prizes for Al Gore – who had only spread a hoax, a junk science – and for President Obama – before he’d done anything peaceful or otherwise, like (say) attacking Libya or Syria.

Now (via reader Peter Hughes) there is Hillary Clinton’s Elton John Foundation award for her support of gay rights…even though she opposed gay marriage as recently as March 2013, AND left the Middle East a mess where anti-gay forces are on the march.

If these people ever taught at universities, they’d give themselves all A’s, just for showing up. Oh, yeah.

Liberal Logic on Display: Two Prime Examples

I’ve seen two examples this week of jaw-droppingly appalling liberal logic which, I figure, just have to be shared in the same way that unusual specimens belong in a museum.

The first one appeared in Salon on Tuesday, and it purports to be a treatise on the necessity of “positive” rights.  It says that the original Bill of Rights doesn’t go very far, and conservatives are foolish and “short-sighted” to insist that those rights are essential and shouldn’t be tampered with.  According to the author of the piece, Michael Lind, what we really need is to endorse FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights”–which includes things like the right to a job, to a good home, and to medical care and good health.  Lind writes: “FDR’s Second Bill of Rights, and similar proposals, are not intended to replace the original bill of rights, but only to supplement it. Progressives believe that we should have both the right to free speech and the right to minimal healthcare at public expense.”

Lind’s article uses both appeals to authority (FDR and Cass Sunstein) and some sleight of hand to avoid tackling the very real contention that we can’t demand “positive rights” at other’s expense without in some sense enslaving those who are tasked with providing or paying for those “rights.”

In a brief rebuttal at PJ Media, Stephen Kruiser cites his own, contrary authority:

The negative/positive rights debate is brilliantly explored by Richard A. Epstein in his book Mortal Peril. He begins with a general discussion but his focus is on American health care. He points out that the positive rights frenzy contains “certain remnants of a discredited socialism” and that “…the protection of these newly minted positive rights invests government at all levels with vast powers to tax, to regulate, and to hire and fire the very individuals whose rights it is duty-bound to protect.”

The story, of course, is one we’ve seen over and over. The government continues to bloat itself as the social welfare state grows and in the process more rights are trampled upon than created.

The title of Epstein’s treatise can apply just as easily to the second, even more stunning example of liberal logic, which I saw linked by several folks on Facebook today.  It’s an article in Slate entitled “If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person: A Manifesto.”  The idea behind the article by Allison Benedikt is that public schools are ruined because students whose parents care enough about educational quality to devote their own resources to education aren’t forced to remain in the public school system.

Nowhere does it occur to this genius that perhaps the real problems with the public schools have to do with the teachers’ unions or with the educational bureaucracy which has arisen at public expense.  No, according to this author, the solution to all the problems with the public school system is that if everyone has to go, they will get better because parents will demand it, even if some large number of kids who would or could have had better options has to be sacrificed for the sake of liberal mediocrity.  (You really do need to read the article to believe it is not some sort of ridiculous hoax.  Even the usually liberal crowd of commenters at Slate are put off by the article.)

A much saner, contrary view appeared several days ago (before the absurd Slate article was published) at the Sippican Cottage blog (hat tip Transterrestrial Musings).  The whole piece is worth reading, but this excerpt nicely encapsulates the tone of the piece:

You see, there are no public schools in America that I know of. They’re reeducation camps for people that weren’t educated in the first place, maybe, or little prisons, or pleasure domes for creepy teachers, or places where tubby women work out their neuroses about eating on helpless children at lunchtime — but there’s not much schooling going on in school. A public school is a really expensive, but shabby and ineffectual, private school that collects their tuition with the threat of eviction from your house.

To liberal “thinkers” like Allison Benedikt and Michael Lind, unfortunately, that sort of a situation apparently sounds like a “great society.”

GM: The Deadbeat of America

I post, you decide.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

Peter Schiff Takes On Occupy Wall Street morons

This proves why some people are successful in life, and some are destined to protest, complain, whine and ask for handouts.

Must See TV!

NOTE: The video is going viral, so be patient if it doesn’t load the first time. Is WELL WORTH the wait. Best OWS video yet.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Goldman Sachs Outlook Bodes Ill for Obama’s Reelection

Via James Pethokoukis at Reuters.com:

From Goldman Sachs today: We have lowered our forecast for US real GDP growth further and now expect real GDP to grow just 2%-2½% through the end of 2012. Our forecast for annual average GDP growth has fallen to 1.7% in 2011 (from 1.8%) and to 2.1% in 2012 (from 3.0%). Since this pace is slightly below the US economy’s potential, we now expect the unemployment rate to be at 9¼% by the end of 2012, slightly above the current level.

2. Even our new forecast is subject to meaningful downside risk. We now see a one-in-three risk of renewed recession, mostly concentrated in the next 6-9 months. There are three specific issues that concern us. First, a worsening of the European financial crisis, and a failure of European policymakers to respond adequately, could lead to a further tightening of financial conditions and credit availability, which would worsen the economic outlook globally. Second, our forecast assumes that the payroll tax cut—currently scheduled to expire at the end of 2011—is extended for another year, but if that failed to happen the fiscal drag in early 2012 would increase significantly. Third, increases in the US unemployment rate have historically had a tendency to feed on themselves, and this could happen again.

Pethokoukis makes this comparison to the 1980 & 1984 elections:

The consensus used to be that President Obama might be OK if the jobless rate fell below 8 percent by Election Day.  That seems increasingly unlikely. The economy is, at best, in slow-growth mode, just churning and churning, creating few jobs.  Comparisons to President Reagan’s 1984 “Morning in America” campaign are looking ever-more ridiculous.  Under Reagan’s tax-cut driven recovery, unemployment fell from 10.8 percent in December 1982 to 7.2 percent by Election Day as the economy grew 4.5 percent in 1983 and 7.2 percent in 1984. In fact,  Jimmy Carter’s 1980 campaign might be the better comparison. The unemployment rate jumped from 6.0 percent in December 1979 to 7.5 percent on Election Day 1980 as the economy shrank 0.3 percent.

All I know is that outside of the 4% unemployment rate of the DC Beltway, it is more like Mourning In America under the Obama regime.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)