Search This Blog

Showing posts with label WSJ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WSJ. Show all posts

Monday, April 05, 2021

Joe Biden does not have a mandate: Joe Biden lies.

 By what mandate does the Biden administration undertake the work of irrevocably altering American society? Do Mr. Biden and his people claim that the dogmatic and occasionally hysterical certitude of the woke is sufficient warrant to turn the country upside down?

There was no mandate in the outcome of the last election. November 2020 merely confirmed that the U.S. remains split precisely down the middle, 50-50, as it has been for more than 20 years, since the deadlock of Al Gore and George W. Bush and the hanging chads of Florida. If the 2020 election meant anything, it confirmed the irreconcilable differences—a standoff of the cobra and mongoose. The election certainly didn’t give Mr. Biden marching orders from the American people to open the southern border to all comers, or to redesign the natural order of biology (in regard to gender identity and all the social arrangements that have flowed from the difference between the sexes since time immemorial), or to change the country in a hundred other ways, bundling it off on an expedition to the far left fringes of reality and grievance. What the new administration proposes may be less a transformation than a hijacking. Half the country doesn’t want to be reinvented—not on Mr. Biden’s terms.

He and his people have gone into business with a bogus, echo-chamber mandate: They manipulate a media illusion of unanimity, and presume to impose a moral narrative. The Bolsheviks, a tiny but ferociously focused minority, proceeded in this way in 1917.

Most mainstream American news outlets, unblushing partisans of the left’s program, dismiss the views of the other half of the country. Whether that bad half is called Trumpian or conservative or merely old-fashioned, the left thinks it sufficient to demonize such people in annihilating terms like “domestic terrorist,” “racist,” “white supremacist” and “transphobic.”


The Democrats are the Media and the Media are the Democrats and they both lie to drag the country where it does not want to go. 

Wednesday, February 10, 2021

Believing Impossible Things

William McGurn wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal taking Democrats to tasks for failing to deliver on the promise they made of unifying the country. 


There’s an air of unreality with this article, and articles like this. As if McGurn expected unity after seeing what the Democrats have done to destroy Donald Trump and his supporters for the past four years.   

People who live in Realville believe it when people tell you they hate you and despise your manners, morals, religion, and the bit of ground you walk on. The entire world saw the demonstrations that started the day Donald Trump was elected and the riots that occurred the date he was inaugurated.

They have witnessed the rioting, burning, looting, and shooting that have occurred daily for the last year by Antifa and BLM gangs organized and controlled by Democrat

Realists saw Nancy Pelosi rip up Trump’s State of the Union speech before the entire country, an act of hate and spite that makes any Trump tweet sound like a love ballad. People who live in the real world know that changing election rules that make it impossible to verify ballot integrity is not done to make an election honest. Realists recognize that promises to abolish the Electoral College, grant statehood to DC, end the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court, grant citizenship to illegal immigrants, and open the borders are not calls for unity. Sentient beings take threats to hunt down and destroy the lives of people who supported Donald Trump and his policies seriously. Because the people who make these threats have shown that they mean every word that they say.


Thursday, July 23, 2020

WSJ Reporters Follow NYT, Tell Publisher To Crack Down On ‘Misinformation’ In Opinion Section

A group of more than 280 WSJ reporters, editors, and other staff sent a letter to Latour on Tuesday calling for more separation between the paper’s news and opinion sections online. The letter also asked for more freedom for reporters to critique opinion articles online and said the opinion staff should be more restrictive in what it chooses to publish, according to WSJ which reported on the letter.

The letter also pointed to a June 2 op-ed by The Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald titled “The Myth of Systemic Police Racism.” Mac Donald argued that the “charge of systemic police bias was wrong during the Obama years and remains so today. … A solid body of evidence finds no structural bias in the criminal-justice system with regard to arrests, prosecution or sentencing. Crime and suspect behavior, not race, determine most police actions.”

While the article has not been updated with a correction, the letter accuses Mac Donald of cherry-picking data and drawing an “erroneous conclusion.”


“Employees of color publicly spoke out about the pain this Opinion piece caused them during company-held discussions surrounding diversity initiatives,” the letter continues, adding if the “company is serious about better supporting its employees of color, at a bare minimum it should raise Opinion’s standards so that misinformation about racism isn’t published.”




Fire them.

Monday, January 15, 2018

Trump accuses Wall Street Journal of ‘fake news’ over misquote about Kim Jong-un

“The Wall Street Journal stated falsely that I said to them “I have a good relationship with Kim Jong Un” (of N. Korea). Obviously I didn’t say that. I said “I’d have a good relationship with Kim Jong Un,” a big difference. Fortunately we now record conversations with reporters,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter.
The Wall Street Journal is two papers in one; a Liberal newspaper with a Conservative editorial page.

Thursday, October 26, 2017

Democrats, Russians and the FBI

From the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board:

It turns out that Russia has sown distrust in the U.S. political system—aided and abetted by the Democratic Party, and perhaps the FBI. This is an about-face from the dominant media narrative of the last year, and it requires a full investigation.

The Washington Post revealed Tuesday that the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee jointly paid for that infamous “dossier” full of Russian disinformation against Donald Trump. They filtered the payments through a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie), which hired the opposition-research hit men at Fusion GPS. Fusion in turn tapped a former British spook, Christopher Steele, to compile the allegations, which are based largely on anonymous, Kremlin-connected sources.

Strip out the middlemen, and it appears that Democrats paid for Russians to compile wild allegations about a U.S. presidential candidate. Did someone say “collusion”?

This news is all the more explosive because the DNC and Clinton campaign hid their role, even amid the media furor after BuzzFeed published the Steele dossier in January. Reporters are now saying that Clinton campaign officials lied to them about their role in the dossier. Current DNC Chair Tom Perez and former Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz deny knowing about the dossier arrangement, but someone must have known.

Perhaps this explains why Congressional Democrats have been keen to protect Fusion from answering dossier questions—disrupting hearings, protesting subpoenas and deriding Republican investigators. Two of Fusion’s cofounders invoked their Fifth Amendment rights last week rather than answer House Intelligence Committee questions, and Fusion filed a federal lawsuit on Friday to block committee subpoenas of its bank records.

The more troubling question is whether the FBI played a role, even if inadvertently, in assisting a Russian disinformation campaign. We know the agency possessed the dossier in 2016, and according to media reports it debated paying Mr. Steele to continue his work in the runup to the election. This occurred while former FBI Director James Comey was ramping up his probe into supposed ties between the Trump campaign and Russians.

Two pertinent questions: Did the dossier trigger the FBI probe of the Trump campaign, and did Mr. Comey or his agents use it as evidence to seek wiretapping approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Trump campaign aides?

Congressional investigators need to focus on the FBI’s role, and House Speaker Paul Ryan was correct Wednesday to insist that the bureau comply with Congress’s document demands “immediately.” Mr. Sessions has recused himself from the Justice Department’s Russia probe, but he and Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein can still insist on transparency. Mr. Ryan should also reinstall Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes as lead on the Russia investigation, since it appears the Democratic accusations against him were aimed in part at throwing him off the Fusion trail.

All of this also raises questions about Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. The Fusion news means the FBI’s role in Russia’s election interference must now be investigated—even as the FBI and Justice insist that Mr. Mueller’s probe prevents them from cooperating with Congressional investigators.

Mr. Mueller is a former FBI director, and for years he worked closely with Mr. Comey. It is no slur against Mr. Mueller’s integrity to say that he lacks the critical distance to conduct a credible probe of the bureau he ran for a dozen years. He could best serve the country by resigning to prevent further political turmoil over that conflict of interest.


The American public deserves a full accounting of the scope and nature of Russian meddling in American democracy, and that means following the trail of the Steele dossier as much as it does the meetings of Trump campaign officials.

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Trump Faces the Fury of a Scorned Ruling Class

From the Wall Street Journal

A lobbyist friend who visited Capitol Hill recently came away horrified. “I now am ready to believe that the partisanship is so unhinged that it’s a threat to the Republic,” she writes in an email.

This Washington hysteria comes at a time of full employment, booming stocks, relative peace and technological marvels like an electronic robot named Alexa who fetches and plays for you songs of your choice. What’s the fuss about?

We all know the answer: Donald Trump. The Washington body politic has been invaded by an alien presence and, true to the laws of nature, that body is feverishly trying to expel it. These particular laws of nature demand rejection of anything that threatens the livelihoods and prestige of the permanent governing class.

The “threat” that has Washington quaking is the first serious effort in a long time to curb federal regulatory power, wasteful spending, and a propensity to run up mountainous budget deficits and debt. That’s presumably what the voters wanted when they elected Donald Trump. Democrats—accurately regarded as the party of government—seem to fear that Mr. Trump might actually, against all odds, pull it off.

The Washington Post, the New York Times and other apostles of the Democratic Party have apparently set out to prove that despite their shaky business models they can still ignite an anti-Trump bonfire. A recent headline in the Post. asserted that “Trump’s scandals stoke fear for the 2018 midterms among Republicans nationwide.”

What scandals would those be? There was of course the firing of FBI Director James Comey. Democrat Hillary Clinton went on TV to claim that Mr. Comey cost her the election. Mr. Trump fired Mr. Comey. Did Democrats praise the president? No, they want him impeached. Devious logic, but devious is a good descriptor of much of what goes on in this fight.

Mr. Comey retaliated by leaking a “big scoop” to the Times—notes taken when Mr. Trump allegedly asked him to back off on the investigation of national security adviser Mike Flynn. But let’s recall the circumstances of this “investigation.” The Obama administration—possibly the FBI—tapped a phone conversation between Mr. Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Then Mr. Obama’s minions used the raw data to “unmask” Mr. Flynn and get the retired general fired for not giving a full account of the discussion. Given that sorry record of political involvement, was Mr. Trump so wrong if he asked Mr. Comey to go easy?

Then there was the Post’s “shocking” revelation that the president gave classified information to Russia’s foreign minister. The president is commander in chief of the U.S. military and conducts foreign policy. The intelligence agencies work for him, and he is responsible for using what they provide to further U.S. interests. Is it so unlikely that a friendly tip to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov about an ISIS tactic was calculated to earn trust? A more interesting question is who walked out of the room and illegally handed the Post this “scoop.”

Russians aren’t popular in the U.S., for many good reasons. That has its uses for Trump baiters. Democratic claims that Mr. Trump conspired with the Russians to swing the November election led the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor, former FBI chief Robert Mueller, to investigate. But is this claim even slightly plausible? So far all we have are anonymous officials who claim that intelligence agencies know of individuals with connections to the Russian government who supplied WikiLeaks with hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta’s accounts. But these officials are still unwilling to go on the record.


The Washington community knows how to fight back when it feels threatened. Leakers are having a ball, even if it has taken a lot of journalistic imagination to turn the most notorious leaks into “scandals.” Almost everyone in town has a stake in fending off the Trump threat: government workers and the businesses that serve them, public unions, lobbyists and their clients, owners of posh hotels and restaurants that cater to well-heeled visitors seeking government favors, journalists whose prestige derives from the power center they cover, academics who show politicians how to mismanage the economy, real-estate agents feeding on the boom—to name a few. It’s a good living, and few take kindly to a brash outsider who proclaims it is his mission to drain the swamp.

Mr. Trump is on the attack and Washington is fighting back. Is the Republic in danger? Another question is how much danger will it be in if Mr. Trump loses?

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

There's a lot of undermining going on


Gerald Seib is the Wall Street Journal's Washington Bureau chief. And there resides the problem. The WSJ is generally considered "conservative" but that's because of it's influential editorial page. It's reporting from Washington is full-throat-ed Liberal.

Seib's article is headlined: Russian Hacking Report Complicates Donald Trump’s View of World Order.

It begins:
The intelligence community’s report on Russian meddling in the 2016 election didn’t merely describe nefarious Kremlin deeds. It also put a dent in the strategic worldview that Donald Trump hoped to carry into the White House.

It’s increasingly clear that we’re living in a kind of tripolar world, populated by an America that remains the most important superpower; a rising China; and a newly re-assertive Russia trying to reclaim its seat at the big table.

And while it’s hard to read the enigmatic Mr. Trump, it also appears his vision of how to prosper in that world is to develop friendly ties with Russia on the one hand, thereby improving the American strategic position to challenge China on the other.

If that is the case, the strategic equation has been seriously undermined by the intelligence community report, which represents a consensus view of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. It not only described a concerted effort to interfere with the election, but a much broader effort to undermine the very idea of American democracy.

Leave aside the hyperbolic statement that the Russians managed to "undermine the very idea of American democracy."  There's a lot of undermining going on, but it being done at the hands of the Liberal community that is refusing to hand over power to a duly elected President and Congress.

There's a lot of stupid in this column, but this jumped out at me as a classic: "And while it’s hard to read the enigmatic Mr. Trump ..."The enigmatic Mr. Trump? Are you bleeping serious?

Trump is a lot of things, but "enigmatic" is not one of them.

"Build the wall" is enigmatic? Make stuff in Mexico and I'll impose a 35% tariff on the imports Is enigmatic? "I like people who were not captured" is enigmatic? Announcing that illegal immigrants will be deported is enigmatic?

I could go on, but I have seen this accusation in other articles. I and am dumbfounded that any sane observer would call a Presidential candidate who TWEETS his thoughts enigmatic. No wonder the media never got Trump; he hits them over the head with a 2 X 4 and they wonder what happened.

Wednesday, December 02, 2015

Obama claims fish swim in Miami streets because of global warming

 Obama made the claim that fish swim in Miami streets because of global warming.  He made the claim at a press conference in France while attending the latest global warming summit.

But it’s difficult. And so I think that as the science around climate change is more accepted, as people start realizing that even today you can put a price on the damage that climate change is doing -- you go down to Miami, and when it’s flooding at high tide on a sunny day and fish are swimming through the middle of the streets, there’s a cost to that. Insurance companies already are beginning to realize that in terms of how they price risk. And the more the market on its own starts putting a price on it because of risk, it may be that the politics around setting up a cap-and-trade system, for example, shifts as well.

I'm going to be curious if this makes it to DRUDGE.  It's already made it to James Taranto's Best of the Web in the Wall Street Journal.  Taranto notes that:    
The fish story is not the only bizarre assertion to come from the president during the “climate change” conference in Paris. Yesterday he opened a speech at the gathering by suggesting the powwow itself was a way of fighting terrorism.

Saturday, October 03, 2015

A Week of Political Failures

Peggy Noonan:

House Republicans made it bad for themselves. Putin made it even worse for Obama.


Let me help you with that subhead Peg: 

Republican Establishment fails again.  Obama fails worse than usual.  

Noonan is the Republican Establishment writ large.  She calls Boehner's uselessness "dignity."  

Saturday, June 06, 2015

NY Times lies. In other news, water is wet.


The NY Times is caught lying about how it found out about Marco Rubio and his wife's traffic tickets.

The lying liars at the Times denied it was fed to them by a Democrat opposition research team American Bridge.  Except that the oppo research team is the only one to have pulled the records.





Here is the full docket for one of the Rubio citations. No "document retrieval service in Florida” seen…

As an FYI, this is a Ford F-150, a pickup truck identified in the original NT Times story as an SUV.
It's a PICKUP TRUCK YOU STUPID HOBBITS!

f-150

Some people suspect that the Times is actually trying to get Hillary to drop out of the Presidential race:

You may be wondering: Why would the Times even bother with this story? They can’t seriously think a few traffic tickets are a scandal, especially given the way people drive in Florida.

The only theory that makes sense is that the people at the Times are afraid Hillary Clinton will lose the general election, so they’re trying to drive her out of the race. And of course the Rubio story furthers that goal by establishing the precedent that spouses’ wrongful acts are fair game.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Liberal calls for attack on Israel


I think it was Yogi Berra who said that "you can observe a lot by just watching."   With that I found out that some Liberals are seriously thinking that a nuclear attack on Israel by, among others, France, should be under consideration. 

I was reading Netanyahu’s Victory, on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal when I ran across this gem by a commenter named Marc Jones:
Here is something for you to consider Mr. Perlman. There are a number of nuclear states which are dependent on Middle East oil. They include China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and France. There are several other states which have all the components and capabilities to construct nuclear weapons very quickly, that are also dependent on Middle East oil. They include Japan, Taiwan, South Africa, and South Korea. Do you really think they will allow their economies to be wrecked by a conflict between Iran and Israel? Is it Israel or Iran who's elimination would lead to greater stability for their economies? It is not just Israel that can be expected to act in its own best interests. Israelis should spend some time pondering that fact.

When someone pointed out that if Israel believed that nuclear armed nations could decide to destroy  Israel to protect Arab oil it would be a very good reason for them to attack Iran first, Marc Jones said this:
...you are off by a full 180 degrees regarding my scenario. Let me be more clear. A first [sic] against Iran by Israel is a recipe for disaster. They don't have sufficient convention capability to eliminate the Iranian nuclear infrastructure. If they decide to use their nukes, it is quite likely they will face a pre-emptive first strike by any of a number of nuclear powers dependent on Mid-east oil. Charging into a box canyon, guns blazing is generally a very bad idea and that would be exactly what a first strike would entail. The result could be existential tragedy for Israel, a truly God-awful outcome.

He decides to double down in a follow-up:
Nations act in their own best interests. Think about that. What is in the best interests of those countries? Israeli security? Not by any stretch of imagination. They will protect their own economies.

...all of the countries listed have active and effective foreign intelligence services. Several have extensive spy satellite systems. If they think events in the Middle East are beginning to risk their wellbeing, they will be watching. If they see Israel making pre-launch preparations and it makes sense to do so, they will act.

Marc Jones sees an attack, not by Arabs, but by nations depending on Mid-East oil as a real possibility.  

Outrageous? 

Perhaps. But we once thought that an American president ruling by decree executive order was outrageous.  We once thought that free speech was sacrosanct, especially on college campuses.  We once thought that we could buy a cup of coffee without getting lectured on race.  We once thought that how long you showered was none of the government's business.  We once thought that helping Israel - the only democracy in the Middle East - defend itself was as American as apple pie.  It helps to observe what the Left is thinking in its unguarded moments, because their agenda is on the march.  And nuking Israel to protect access to Arab oil is definitely on their radar screen. 


Monday, February 24, 2014

Virginian Beach Woman Sentenced to Death By ObamaCare; Virginian Pilot Silent


Today's Wall Street Journal has an article about a woman's fight with cancer and how ObamaCare is depriving her of her treatment. Stephen Blackwood: ObamaCare and My Mother's Cancer Medicine.

When my mother was diagnosed with carcinoid cancer in 2005, when she was 49, it came as a lightning shock. Her mother, at 76, had yet to go gray, and her mother's mother, at 95, was still playing bingo in her nursing home. My mother had always been, despite her diminutive frame, a titanic and irrepressible force of vitality and love. She had given birth to me and my nine younger siblings, and juggled kids, home and my father's medical practice with humor and grace for three decades. She swam three times a week in the early mornings, ate healthily and never smoked....

Carcinoid, a form of neuroendocrine cancer, is a terminal disease but generally responds well to treatment by Sandostatin, a drug that slows tumor growth and reduces (but does not eliminate) the symptoms of fatigue, nausea and gastrointestinal dysfunction. My mother received a painful shot twice a month and often couldn't sit comfortably for days afterward.

As with most cancers, one thing led to another. There have been several more surgeries, metastases, bone deterioration, a terrible bout of thyroiditis (an inflammation of the thyroid gland), and much more. But my mother has kept fighting, determined to make the most of life, no matter what it brings. She has an indomitable will and is by far the toughest person I've ever met. But she wouldn't still be here without that semimonthly Sandostatin shot that slows the onslaught of her disease.

And then in November, along with millions of other Americans, she lost her health insurance. She'd had a Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan for nearly 20 years. It was expensive, but given that it covered her very expensive treatment, it was a terrific plan. It gave her access to any specialist or surgeon, and to the Sandostatin and other medications that were keeping her alive.

And then, because our lawmakers and president thought they could do better, she had nothing. Her old plan, now considered illegal under the new health law, had been canceled.

Because the exchange website in her state (Virginia) was not working, she went directly to insurers' websites and telephoned them, one by one, over dozens of hours. As a medical-office manager, she had decades of experience navigating the enormous problems of even our pre-ObamaCare system. But nothing could have prepared her for the bureaucratic morass she now had to traverse.

The repeated and prolonged phone waits were Sisyphean, the competence and customer service abysmal. When finally she found a plan that looked like it would cover her Sandostatin and other cancer treatments, she called the insurer, Humana, HUM +5.62% to confirm that it would do so. The enrollment agent said that after she met her deductible, all treatments and medications—including those for her cancer—would be covered at 100%. Because, however, the enrollment agents did not—unbelievable though this may seem—have access to the "coverage formularies" for the plans they were selling, they said the only way to find out in detail what was in the plan was to buy the plan. (Does that remind you of anyone?)

With no other options, she bought the plan and was approved on Nov. 22. Because by January the plan was still not showing up on her online Humana account, however, she repeatedly called to confirm that it was active. The agents told her not to worry, she was definitely covered.

Then on Feb. 12, just before going into (yet another) surgery, she was informed by Humana that it would not, in fact, cover her Sandostatin, or other cancer-related medications. The cost of the Sandostatin alone, since Jan. 1, was $14,000, and the company was refusing to pay.

The news was dumbfounding. This is a woman who had an affordable health plan that covered her condition. Our lawmakers weren't happy with that because . . . they wanted plans that were affordable and covered her condition. So they gave her a new one. It doesn't cover her condition and it's completely unaffordable....

The "Affordable" Care Act is a brutal, Procrustean disaster. In principle, it violates the irreducible particularity of human life, and in practice it will cause many individuals to suffer and die. We can do better, and we must.

Once I finished reading this article, I was outraged ... for two reasons.
 
First, ObamaCare is barely off the ground and already we are learning that the infamous Death Panels are a reality.

The second reason is that the woman with cancer is a resident of Virginia Beach, but this is the first I've heard about it. America’s news media are as much to blame for this fiasco as the Democrats in office. Why do I have to read about this in the Wall Street Journal, published in New York? I reside in the Virginia Beach area and the leading area newspaper, the Virginian Pilot, has long been a vigorous advocate of ObamaCare. Not a word about this woman’s situation has appeared in the local press. In fact, the Virginian Pilot has not bothered to do any stories about the way ObamaCare has affected local residents even though thousands of stories like this have appeared nationally and on the Internet. It just doesn’t fit their narrative.
 
As Glenn Reynolds says, the MSM are Democrat Operatives with Bylines.

UPDATE: The American media, by acting as unpaid propagandists for the Obama regime has its counterpart in Ukraine as John Fund explains. There, the Inter network is the main TV organ. When protests broke out in Kiev and elsewhere in Ukraine, Inter gave the people government propaganda. And finally things took a turn on a live broadcast that could not be edited when a brave reporter told the truth.

Reporter Halya Coynash points to the Yanukovych regime’s record of media control and censorship: “It proved unnervingly easy within a matter of months of Yanukovych’s [2010] election to remove most critical analysis, negative reports about those in power, and inconvenient information from television.” Whatever new government is formed, that sorry record must not be repeated in a new Ukraine.

It proved unnervingly easy to create a news media in America that is the willing handmaid of the regime. The American media fell in love with the Obama image and has stayed smitten despite economic failure, foreign policy disasters, horrible war losses, and the weaponization of government agencies like the DOJ, IRS, CIA, DHS, and the FBI to destroy or stifle the political opposition. And now they cover up the disaster that is the hallmark of the Liberal dream: ObamaCare.

Must the always be blood in the streets before the truth comes out?

Friday, February 14, 2014

Thursday, January 30, 2014

New Euphemism for Obama Lie: "Bump."


James Taranto in the WSJ "Best of the Web" 
'Bump' Is the New 'Misspoke'
From a "fact check" of the State of the Union address by the Associated Press's Calvin Woodward:
It seems to be something of an occupational hazard for President Barack Obama: When he talks about his health care law, he's bound to hit a fact bump sooner or later.
Gotta love that "fact bump." Obama's speech might not have had much else to recommend it, but at least it's given us a new euphemism.

Or:  THAT'S RACIST!

Friday, August 02, 2013

The sky is sexist

James Taranto's Best of the Web column exposes us to a self-described radical feminist whose 10-year-old daughter takes after her. Daughter is quoted as saying:

Gender stereotypes, among other injustices, infuriate her. "This is so stupid!" she sighs at Target, about the pink rows of dolls and the blue rows of Lego. "Why don't they just put a penis or a vagina on every toy so you can be completely sure you're getting the right one?"

Why are dolls pink? Well, I suppose that's because they're flesh colored. There are also brown dolls because that's also a flesh color. Are colors sexist? And is blue a masculine color? Does that mean the sky is sexist ... for being blue as opposed to some other color? And is my skin color sexist even though I am sort of pink even if I am actually male? should I be blue? As one commenter remarked:
And, so are you. I mean really, pink? You could have chosen to be yellow or orange, but nooooo, you had to be pink! How sexist of you.
It's easy to look at these people and marvel at the bizarre way they view the world around them.  But it would be wrong to dismiss them because by sheer persistence and the willingness to be loud and obnoxious they are capable of dominating the conversation and forcing everyone else to their will.

Does Liberalism Always Lead to Tyranny?


Yes. Next question.