Monday, June 15, 2015
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Ain't The Devil Happy: In The News 6/14/15
Melissa Harris-Perry on Rachel Dolezal: ‘It Is Possible That She Might Actually Be Black?’
CNN’s Fredricka Whitfield Apologizes For Calling Dallas Police Shooters ‘Courageous’ And ‘Brave’
God Bless Trans-merica
Hillary: Obama Should Listen to Pelosi on Trade Bill
New York Times Encourages Student Loan Defaults, But Darkly Questions Rubio's Finances
Why Hillary Clinton Will Be Hard to Beat
Ignoring Terrorism But Celebrating Gay Pride
High School Implants IUDs in Teen Girls Without Their Parents’ Knowledge or Consent
North Carolina House Overrides Magistrate Same-sex Marriage Veto
Friday, June 12, 2015
Radio Host Charlamagne Tha God: If Bruce Jenner Can 'Feel' Like A Woman, Why Can't Rachel Dolezal 'Feel' Like She's Black?
HollywoodLife.com:
RELATED: Rachel Dolezal: ‘I Don’t Give Two Sh*ts What You Guys Think’As critics attacked NAACP leader Rachel Dolezal for allegedly lying about her race, Charlamagne Tha God quickly rose to her defense. The radio personality made it very clear that he feels Rachel is just like transgender woman Caitlyn Jenner — but transracial.
Charlamagne Tha God, 34, has caused quite the stir on social media after comparing the recently open transgender woman, Caitlyn Jenner, 65, with Rachel Dolezal, 37 — the leader of the NAACP who was allegedly caught lying about having a black father. Now, he’s slamming society for accepting Caitlyn as a transgender woman but refusing to accept Rachel as a “transracial” woman who identifies with being a different race.
This is a pretty touchy subject, and unfortunately it’s being taken as more of a joke on social media than anything else. It all started when Charlamagne Tha God sounded off on NAACP leader Rachel Dolezal on Friday morning, June 12. The radio host, whose real name is Lenard McKelvey, had some very strong words about the situation and the critics who are slamming Rachel for allegedly lying.
“If Bruce Jenner can be a woman Rachel Dolezal can be black,” the Power 105.1 Breakfast Club co-host tweeted. “So how can Bruce Jenner identify with what he wants to identify with but Rachel Dolezal can’t? I’m confused about this… Hold up so you can be transgender in America but not transracial?”
Although his tweets started out with a very serious intonation, he then went on to make jokes about the situation. His jokes were not only about the ongoing situation with Rachel, but seemingly directed towards the transgender community for being privileged enough to be accepted.Do you believe being transracial is real?
“I want Rachel Dolezal on the front ofEbony!!!! Call Me Raquel,” he tweeted as a follow up. He also posted a photo of singer Robin Thicke on Instagram with the caption, “Let People Be who they really are!!!!!” The photo had “#TRANSRACIALLIVESMATTER” written across Robin’s face.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
New FemiNazi Spiel: “You Guys” Now Too Sexist To Tolerate
HotAir.com:
And here I assumed that the valid objection to “you guys” was its lazy construction. Fortunately we have Vox’s Jenée Desmond-Harris to instruct the English-speaking world on the insult this “gendered” word imposes on women in the workplace, and everywhere else. Never mind the difficulty people would have in finding a workable and politically suitable replacement. It all pales in comparison with the need to address linguistic inequality.RELATED: CNN’s Don Lemon on ‘Political Correctness': Liberals the ‘Least Tolerant’
By the way, it’s still cool to use “pales,” right? I may need to update my scorecard:
I’m a big user of “guys,” and when it was first brought to my attention that the phrase was frowned upon among leading feminist thinkers and people concerned with equality — especially in male-dominated workplaces — my reaction was “Oh, come on. It’s inaccurate, but it’s not actually hurting anyone.”But I’ve changed my mind. As I read up on the issue, I realized that my kneejerk response (“but it doesn’t seem like that big a deal to me, personally, and changing would require effort on my part and that’s hard and tiring”) is nothing more than a very typical lazy excuse for avoiding the tiny tweaks to our lives that can, as a whole, make society more equal. …You can think of the push to drop “guys” as political correctness run amok, or you can think of it as making a tiny change that doesn’t cost you anything and will keep you from being a jerk to half the population — and help you make the world just a tiny bit more fair.That doesn’t mean it will be quick or easy: I’ve probably typed and deleted “you guys” (it turns out I loved to begin tweets and Facebook posts this way) about 15 times since I decided to write this piece a couple of weeks ago. But I’m going to keep working on it.Yes, because linguistic equity is such a useful project. It obviously far surpasses issues like urban decay, education-system failure, and the breakdown of the family structure that leaves single mothers far more disadvantaged than men. Every y’all allows social-justice warriors to rejoice that they don’t have to do any actual work other than finger-wagging people who have no animus in using an ingrained and innocuous bit of slang.
National Review’s Charles Cooke offers this timely reminder that English is in fact one of the least-gendered languages in widespread use:
Satan's Favorite Stepchild Miley Cyrus Announces That She's Bisexual
HollywoodLife.com:
No surprise here, she'll probably be 'transitioning' to become a man in 5 years anyway, either that or screwing animals.After months of speculation that Miley Cyrus might also be into the girls, the singer has finally revealed that she came out as bisexual to her mom, Tish Cyrus, when she was just 14-years-old.
Miley Cyrus, 22,has always made it clear that she’s very comfortable with her sexuality, but for the first time she’s revealing that she realized at just 14 years old that she was bisexual. Inside her telling new interview with Paper magazine, Miley reveals that she realized she was sexually attracted to girls as well as boys when she was still filming her hit television series, Hannah Montana. When she actually explained to her mom, Tish Cyrus, what she was feeling at the time, it took the mother of three by complete and total surprise.
Although the confession may seem just as surprising to those who are only used to seeing Miley date men, the truth is that she is also down with women. Throughout her revealing new interview with Paper magazine she never once uses the word “bisexual,” but she makes it very clear that she is sexually attracted to both men and women equally in her own very chill, laid back way.
RELATED: Miley Cyrus submitted a bondage video to NYC Porn Film Festival
Wednesday, June 10, 2015
Caitlyn Jenner Brought Out the Left’s ‘Speech Police’ in Full Force
Mediaite.com:
Of all the many aspects of the “Caitlyn” Jenner story which bother conservatives, the one which causes me the most agitation is how the liberal “thought police” have attempted to censor any debate over the many issues related to this extraordinary tale.
It’s not just that the vast majority of media coverage has been overwhelmingly celebratory. That alone is annoying by default. What is flat-out scary is that the many forces of the left have used media intimidation and political correctness to enforce the notion that enthusiastically honoring Jenner’s transformation is the only acceptable reaction.
I have written here before about how this very same tactic is used by media to eradicate debate over the issue of global warming. To me, when liberals (who used to believe in free expression until they realized that was unnecessary since they control almost all media) feel the need to disallow the other side to speak without fear of retribution, it is a sure sign that they are exceedingly insecure.
This has obviously been the case during the week since the new Jenner graced the cover of Vanity Fair magazine.
Numerous celebrities who dared to even slightly hesitate to join the “All Praise Caitlyn” bandwagon were roundly castigated and forced to recant at point of verbal bayonets. Snoop Dogg, Chris Brown, Drake Bell, Conner Cruise, and even Clint Eastwood have all experienced the wrath of the liberal speech policing.
Making this even more disturbing is that none of them committed a “crime” any more serious than minor blasphemy against the accepted media religion, which dictates any remote criticism of a transgender person is an inherently grievous sin.
Let’s be clear here: I don’t believe these guys directly said anything remotely bigoted about Jenner. Snoop Dogg and Brown committed the worst thought crime by simply sharing a meme which referred to Jenner as a “science project” (a phrase, which it should be pointed out, has been often used to describe those who have undergone dramatic plastic surgery).
What I found interesting about the attacks on those two is that they both possess three layers of usually strong armor under the politically-correct rules of engagement: They are black, are big celebrities, and have been inoculated by past “controversies.” And yet even such usually strong defenses were no match for the blowtorch of backlash they faced via the wrath of Jenner supporters.
Conner Cruise is also black — the adopted son of a celebrity (Tom Cruise) — but his weaker force field was unable to protect him even when he was 100% correct in blasting ESPN for its absurd, insulting, purely commercial decision to award Jenner their Arthur Ashe Award for courage — a decision even Bob Costas found “crass” and “exploitative.” What is truly amazing about this is that, in the world of liberal PC rules, usually nothing trumps standing up for the legacy of a black man who faced real discrimination. But here even that was somehow trumped by the desire to honor a biological man for looking like a woman, while she still possesses the sexual equipment of a man.
Of all the many aspects of the “Caitlyn” Jenner story which bother conservatives, the one which causes me the most agitation is how the liberal “thought police” have attempted to censor any debate over the many issues related to this extraordinary tale.
It’s not just that the vast majority of media coverage has been overwhelmingly celebratory. That alone is annoying by default. What is flat-out scary is that the many forces of the left have used media intimidation and political correctness to enforce the notion that enthusiastically honoring Jenner’s transformation is the only acceptable reaction.
I have written here before about how this very same tactic is used by media to eradicate debate over the issue of global warming. To me, when liberals (who used to believe in free expression until they realized that was unnecessary since they control almost all media) feel the need to disallow the other side to speak without fear of retribution, it is a sure sign that they are exceedingly insecure.Great piece by Ziegler, couldn't have expressed my feelings about 'Caitlyn Jenner' any better myself.
This has obviously been the case during the week since the new Jenner graced the cover of Vanity Fair magazine.
Numerous celebrities who dared to even slightly hesitate to join the “All Praise Caitlyn” bandwagon were roundly castigated and forced to recant at point of verbal bayonets. Snoop Dogg, Chris Brown, Drake Bell, Conner Cruise, and even Clint Eastwood have all experienced the wrath of the liberal speech policing.
Making this even more disturbing is that none of them committed a “crime” any more serious than minor blasphemy against the accepted media religion, which dictates any remote criticism of a transgender person is an inherently grievous sin.
Let’s be clear here: I don’t believe these guys directly said anything remotely bigoted about Jenner. Snoop Dogg and Brown committed the worst thought crime by simply sharing a meme which referred to Jenner as a “science project” (a phrase, which it should be pointed out, has been often used to describe those who have undergone dramatic plastic surgery).
What I found interesting about the attacks on those two is that they both possess three layers of usually strong armor under the politically-correct rules of engagement: They are black, are big celebrities, and have been inoculated by past “controversies.” And yet even such usually strong defenses were no match for the blowtorch of backlash they faced via the wrath of Jenner supporters.
Conner Cruise is also black — the adopted son of a celebrity (Tom Cruise) — but his weaker force field was unable to protect him even when he was 100% correct in blasting ESPN for its absurd, insulting, purely commercial decision to award Jenner their Arthur Ashe Award for courage — a decision even Bob Costas found “crass” and “exploitative.” What is truly amazing about this is that, in the world of liberal PC rules, usually nothing trumps standing up for the legacy of a black man who faced real discrimination. But here even that was somehow trumped by the desire to honor a biological man for looking like a woman, while she still possesses the sexual equipment of a man.
RELATED: Jerry Seinfeld Rants Against ‘Creepy PC’ Culture with Seth Meyers
New York Times: Marco Rubio Is Totally 'Irresponsible' Because He Bought a Fishing Boat in Florida
Townhall.com:
After doing a deep dive on the Rubio's traffic violation history last week (just kidding, it wasn't a deep dive but instead information handed over by the far left American Bridge), the New York Times is back for more...publishing of American Bridge material. This time, the NYT is letting everyone know just how broke the Rubio's were when they were young(er), just like everyone else in America. Oh, and that he's had trouble with his finances...like every other person in America. And, he likes fun toys...like any good man in America.
For years, Senator Marco Rubio struggled under the weight of student debt, mortgages and an extra loan against the value of his home totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. But in 2012, financial salvation seemed to have arrived: A publisher paid him $800,000 to write a book about growing up as the son of Cuban immigrants.Oh, and guess what guys? Marco Rubio had the nerve to buy a speed boat...in Florida. How irresponsible.
In speeches, Mr. Rubio, a Florida Republican, spoke of his prudent plan for using the cash to finally pay off his law school loans, expressing relief that he no longer owed “a lady named Sallie Mae,” as he once called the lender.
UPDATE: It was a fishing boat for his family, not an "extravagant" "luxury speedboat" as the NYT claims.
But at the same time, he splurged on an extravagant purchase: $80,000 for a luxury speedboat, state records show. At the time, Mr. Rubio confided to a friend that it was a potentially inadvisable outlay that he could not resist. The 24-foot boat, he said, fulfilled a dream.
This is so ridiculous I'm actually laughing at my computer right now. Rubio had student loan debt? Yeah, so? A lot of people do. The Rubios had trouble balancing their spending? Who doesn't? Rubio took out a loan on his home to make ends meet? Good for him, lots of people do. He was paid a hefty amount of money to write a book about his upbringing that he used to pay off debt? Even better. He had more than one home now? Cool, wish I did too. He spent $80,000 on aRELATED: Did the New York Times Just Make Marco Rubio a Lot More Relatable?speedfishing boat in ocean surrounded Florida after paying off his debt? How could he?!
Marco Rubio and his family are normal people chasing the American Dream and that scares the hell out of "dead broke so we could pay mortgages" Hillary Clinton supporters. The different between Rubio and Clinton is that Rubio embraces success and policies that allow every American to own multiple homes and a speed boat someday. Clinton, however, relishes in wealth instead of encouraging Americans to become wealthy themselves to live the good life. According to Clinton, not everyone can be queen.
Tuesday, June 9, 2015
Bruce Jenner Faces a Second Lawsuit for February Car Crash
Mediaite.com:
In May, Caitlyn Jenner was slapped with a wrongful death lawsuit for the car crash in February that caused the death of Kim Howe. Talent manager Jessica Steindorff was driving the second car that was caught in the accident, and on Monday, she filed a suit of her own.Until Bruce Jenner officially does the paperwork to change his name to 'Caitlyn', I'm still calling him by the name his mama gave him.
Jenner rear-ended Steindorff’s Prius on the Pacific Coast Highway at the end of the chain-reaction that sent Howe’s car towards oncoming traffic. Though Steindorff’s suit didn’t specify the nature of her injuries from the crash, her statement alleges that Jenner’s “negligent” driving resulted in physical harm, lost wages, and $25,000 worth of property damage and medical expenses.
The suit filed by Howe’s step-children remains separate from Steindorff’s, though they also place blame for the accident on Jenner’s “careless and negligent” speeding. Jenner previously expressed her regrets for Howe’s death, but has asked for the case to be thrown out.
Jenner made her debut as Caitlyn last week with a photo spread in Vanity Fair.
RELATED: Bruce Jenner Caught On His Cell Phone While Driving Just 3 Days After Deadly Car Crash
What’s Loving Got to Do with It? Gay-Marriage Supporters Misuse a Precedent
NationalReview.com:
In the same-sex-marriage case recently argued in the Supreme Court, the petitioners have claimed a “fundamental right to marry” protected by the Constitution and unmoored from biology, the complementarity of the sexes, or the universal understanding of what “marriage” has meant in every culture in human history until the last 15 years. Their most persistent and compelling comparison of their legal situation has been to the laws that once banned interracial marriage in many states, until they were overturned by the Supreme Court 48 years ago in Loving v. Virginia. But a closer look at that precedent reveals that it is no help at all to their case — quite the contrary. And the advocates of same-sex marriage are deluding themselves if they think that a judicial victory for their side would be widely greeted as a triumph for justice, as the Loving decision was.
As Robert P. George and Ryan T. Anderson, among others, have pointed out, America’s shameful record of “anti-miscegenation” laws is a historical anomaly. Rooted in slavery and codified during the Jim Crow era after the Civil War, legal prohibitions on interracial marriage spread ultimately to 30 states by the second quarter of the 20th century. These laws had nothing as such to do with defining marriage or regulating what was a legitimate marital union. They had everything — and only — to do with paranoid racial theories entertained by a white power elite obsessed with the “purity” of their own race.
Consider the law struck down in Loving – Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act, passed at the same session in 1924 as another on “sexual sterilization of inmates of state institutions,” upheld by the Supreme Court in its 1927 Buck v. Bell ruling. These laws were of a piece in their eugenic purpose of maintaining white supremacy; the Racial Integrity Act forbade the marriage of “any white person” with someone of another race, defining “white person” as one “who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian.” Such marriages were declared void without need of a divorce or any other process; the parties to the marriage were guilty of a criminal offense, as was anyone who solemnized their union; out-of-state interracial marriages were subject to the same strictures for any Virginia resident; and cohabitation and extramarital sex across racial lines were forbidden.
Clearly the makers of these laws understood that marriage was naturally possible for interracial couples. Ironically, these laws were premised exactly on a recognition of childbearing’s centrality to the meaning of marriage; they were all about “mongrelization” and the “amalgamation” of the races. The Supreme Court that struck them down recognized them as a white-supremacist intrusion on a fundamental right to marry of couples who could marry, and who would marry if the law let them alone. Contrast this with the “bans” on same-sex marriage enacted by many states in the past two decades. They actually prohibit nothing on the part of same-sex couples — forestalling only state recognition of their relationships as marriages. No act is criminalized, and no relationships of adults with each other or with children are targeted for disruption.In our entire legal history, no one bothered to legislate a restriction of marriage to sexually complementary couples until the day before yesterday because everyone understood what “marriage” meant and would (if asked) have thought it naturally impossible for two men or two women to marry. No injustice to anyone was ever the intent or purpose of American marriage laws where same-sex couples are concerned — in stark contrast to the purposeful Jim Crow attack on men and women of different races. When states began in the 1990s and 2000s to legislate the man–woman definition of marriage, it was to protect the conjugal meaning from redefinition by culture warriors and judicial activists — not to interfere with marriages everyone recognized as actual ones but wished to prevent for the sake of a racist ideology. And this time the law’s salute to children’s centrality to marriage was embodied merely in the elementary recognition that the institution should be restricted to those who can be mother and father to a family built on their union.Consider next the circumstances of the legal challenge to the Jim Crow anti-miscegenation laws. From a peak of 30 states with such laws in the 1920s and ’30s, the number declined to just 16 states by the time of the Loving case, only one of those states (California) doing away with its law by a judicial decree. After Brown v. Board of Education, the struggles of the civil-rights movement, and the passage of the federal Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, the Loving case can be viewed as a mopping-up operation to fulfill the long-frustrated promise of the Reconstruction amendments and Lincoln’s new birth of freedom. Make no mistake: The remaining anti-miscegenation laws still had a lot of social inertia backing them in 1960s white America, where sentiment against interracial marriage ran high. But the legal prohibitions were already an embarrassment even to their residual supporters. As Peggy Pascoe notes in her 2009 history What Comes Naturally, only one state — North Carolina — submitted an amicus brief in support of Virginia’s defense of its law in the Supreme Court.
RELATED: Why I, Unlike Senator Rubio, Would Not Attend a Gay Wedding
Monday, June 8, 2015
Why Bruce Jenner Can Never Be A Woman
NYTimes.com:
Do women and men have different brains?Back when Lawrence H. Summers was president of Harvard and suggested that they did, the reaction was swift and merciless. Pundits branded him sexist. Faculty members deemed him a troglodyte. Alumni withheld donations.But when Bruce Jenner said much the same thing in an April interview with Diane Sawyer, he was lionized for his bravery, even for his progressivism.“My brain is much more female than it is male,” he told her, explaining how he knew that he was transgender.This was the prelude to a new photo spread and interview in Vanity Fair that offered us a glimpse into Caitlyn Jenner’s idea of a woman: a cleavage-boosting corset, sultry poses, thick mascara and the prospect of regular “girls’ nights” of banter about hair and makeup. Ms. Jenner was greeted with even more thunderous applause. ESPN announced it would give Ms. Jenner an award for courage. President Obama also praised her. Not to be outdone, Chelsea Manning hopped on Ms. Jenner’s gender train on Twitter, gushing, “I am so much more aware of my emotions; much more sensitive emotionally (and physically).”A part of me winced.I have fought for many of my 68 years against efforts to put women — our brains, our hearts, our bodies, even our moods — into tidy boxes, to reduce us to hoary stereotypes. Suddenly, I find that many of the people I think of as being on my side — people who proudly call themselves progressive and fervently support the human need for self-determination — are buying into the notion that minor differences in male and female brains lead to major forks in the road and that some sort of gendered destiny is encoded in us.That’s the kind of nonsense that was used to repress women for centuries. But the desire to support people like Ms. Jenner and their journey toward their truest selves has strangely and unwittingly brought it back.People who haven’t lived their whole lives as women, whether Ms. Jenner or Mr. Summers, shouldn’t get to define us. That’s something men have been doing for much too long. And as much as I recognize and endorse the right of men to throw off the mantle of maleness, they cannot stake their claim to dignity as transgender people by trampling on mine as a woman.Their truth is not my truth. Their female identities are not my female identity. They haven’t traveled through the world as women and been shaped by all that this entails. They haven’t suffered through business meetings with men talking to their breasts or woken up after sex terrified they’d forgotten to take their birth control pills the day before. They haven’t had to cope with the onset of their periods in the middle of a crowded subway, the humiliation of discovering that their male work partners’ checks were far larger than theirs, or the fear of being too weak to ward off rapists.For me and many women, feminist and otherwise, one of the difficult parts of witnessing and wanting to rally behind the movement for transgender rights is the language that a growing number of trans individuals insist on, the notions of femininity that they’re articulating, and their disregard for the fact that being a woman means having accrued certain experiences, endured certain indignities and relished certain courtesies in a culture that reacted to you as one.
Brains are a good place to begin because one thing that science has learned about them is that they’re in fact shaped by experience, cultural and otherwise. The part of the brain that deals with navigation is enlarged in London taxi drivers, as is the region dealing with the movement of the fingers of the left hand in right-handed violinists.“You can’t pick up a brain and say ‘that’s a girl’s brain’ or ‘that’s a boy’s brain,’ ” Gina Rippon, a neuroscientist at Britain’s Aston University, told The Telegraph last year. The differences between male and female brains are caused by the “drip, drip, drip” of the gendered environment, she said.THE drip, drip, drip of Ms. Jenner’s experience included a hefty dose of male privilege few women could possibly imagine. While young “Bruiser,” as Bruce Jenner was called as a child, was being cheered on toward a university athletic scholarship, few female athletes could dare hope for such largess since universities offered little funding for women’s sports. When Mr. Jenner looked for a job to support himself during his training for the 1976 Olympics, he didn’t have to turn to the meager “Help Wanted – Female” ads in the newspapers, and he could get by on the $9,000 he earned annually, unlike young women whose median pay was little more than half that of men. Tall and strong, he never had to figure out how to walk streets safely at night.Those are realities that shape women’s brains.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)