There’s a scene in the first Madagascar movie–the animated film–where a group of penguins are staging a breakout from the zoo. In order to cover their covert activity from the prying eyes of human visitors, the lead penguin advises his comrades, “Just smile and wave boys, smile and wave.”
That’s a pretty good analogy for Hillary Clinton’s campaign for President thus far. She may have an army of highly-paid staffers working with all the diligence of military-minded penguins, but Hillary herself is mostly just smiling and waving for the cameras.
In fact, her checking out from real campaigning is measurable. The Washington Post created a clock which measures the minutes since Hillary last answered a question from the media. Currently the clock is at 24,547 minutes, which is just over two weeks. What happened to the candidate who was going to start engaging after her re-launch on Roosevelt Island just a couple weeks ago? Instead, Hillary is once again in hiding, but it’s a strategy that polling suggests is not working for her.
Hillary’s camp has been saying that she would run as the underdog not the candidate of inevitability. But underdogs press the flesh and meet the press. They don’t get to take two weeks off between questions. Hillary is running a smile and wave campaign, and the polls indicate it isn’t working for her. She has already “launched” her campaign twice, maybe the third time will be the charm.
Author Archives: Heidi
It appears the writers over at Salon have an interesting definition of “marriage equality.” Gay marriage proponent and radical feminist Mary Elizabeth Williams showed her true colors on the issue today by claiming “fringe groups”, like those who practice polygamy, should not have access to new freedoms detailed in the recent SCOTUS case which granted gay couples marriage recognition nationwide.
Less than a week after liberals flooded the airways and social media with rainbows and declarations of “Love Wins,” liberal media outlets like Salon are already narrowing that message. Last week the argument was that you have a right to marry whoever makes you happy- only a narrow-minded . This week it must fit the agenda.
And if you’re a conservative who doesn’t fit that agenda, then you’ll not only be denied the same access newly allowed to gays, you’ll also be subject to harsh opinions like this from liberal activists:
Well, conservatives, here it is, just as you predicted. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria… And on cue, here comes Nathan Collier — a man who describes himself on Facebook as “an American, conservative, Constitutionalist, capitalist, (formerly) Christian, heterosexual middle aged white male of Southern heritage” — and his lovely two brides Victoria and Christine, asking for official recognition of their union. Coming soon: Cat ladies applying for marriage licenses!
Collier claims he just wants the same rights the LGBT community recently gained: “We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family.” But Salon would deny them of this treatment and tell them they are second class to the gay and straight communities.
If you want to argue that polygamy and marriage equality are the same thing, well, they’re not. If you want respect for how consenting adults arrange their households, though, you’ve got it. That does not however mean that because one group that has fought for friggin’ decades for basic recognition and respect finally has achieved something, that every fringe group — and yeah, sister wife families, you are fringe — gets a piece of the action too.
In the minds of Williams and Salon, it would appear love actually does not win for conservatives or polygamists. It’ll be interesting to see if other news networks are willing to be give them the same love and air time they gave the LGBT community should this turn into court battle for equality.
Over the years it has been a familiar trope to point to examples of homosexuality in certain non-human species as a way of reinforcing the normality of it in homo sapiens, but why isn’t our Latin species name sufficient poof proof? And is “transgenderism” really an ism? Whatever.
Anyway, what to make, then, of this story from the current issue of Nature magazine:
It seems certain reptiles in Australia have figured out how to change their sex when the weather gets hot. Turns out scientists discovered most of these self-mutants in . . . Queensland. C’mon people! This has to be a troll job!
From the abstract:
Sex determination in animals is amazingly plastic. . .
Seems to be increasingly so in humans these days, too. But anyway. . .
Sex reversal has not yet been demonstrated in nature for any amniote, although it occurs in fish and rarely in amphibians. Here we make the first report of reptile sex reversal in the wild, in the Australian bearded dragon (Pogona vitticeps), and use sex-reversed animals to experimentally induce a rapid transition from genotypic to temperature-dependent sex determination. Controlled mating of normal males to sex-reversed females produces viable and fertile offspring whose phenotypic sex is determined solely by temperature (temperature-dependent sex determination).
There’s a predictable punch line coming, naturally:
The instantaneous creation of a lineage of ZZ temperature-sensitive animals reveals a novel, climate-induced pathway for the rapid transition between genetic and temperature-dependent sex determination, and adds to concern about adaptation to rapid global climate change. (Emphasis added.)
So you can add Caitlyn Jenner to the list of things caused by global warming, although I’m sure further research is needed. Is there anything global warming can’t do?
Earlier this month, LifeNews.com reported on a high school in Seattle, Washington that is now implanting intrauterine devices (IUD), as well as other forms of birth control and doing so without parental knowledge or permission.
The IUD is known as a long acting reversible contraception, and may even act as an abortifacient. So, a young teen in Seattle can’t get a coke at her high school, but she can have a device implanted into her uterus, which can unknowingly kill her unborn child immediately after conception. Or, if she uses another method, she can increase her chances of health risks for herself, especially if using a new method.
The high school, Chief Sealth International, a public school, began offering the devices in 2010, made possible by a Medicaid program known as Take Charge and a non-profit, Neighborcare. Students can receive the device or other method free of cost and without their parent’s insurance. And while it’s lauded that the contraception is confidential, how can it be beneficial for a parent-child relationship when the parents don’t even know the devices or medication their daughter is using?
As it turns out, Chief Sealth isn’t the only school in Seattle doing this. As CNS News reports, more schools are fitting young girls — as young as 6th grade — with the devices and doing so without their parents knowing.
Middle and high school students can’t get a Coca-Cola or a candy bar at 13 Seattle public schools, but they can get a taxpayer-funded intrauterine device (IUD) implanted without their parents’ consent.
George Takei, last seen boycotting Indiana because religious freedom is hate speech or something, is at it again.
First, a bit of background. In Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent in the gay marriage case — #LoveWins, everybody! — he wrote the following:
Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.
The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.
His point seems self-evident: Dignity comes from within. Nobody can take away your dignity without your consent. It doesn’t matter who you are or what anybody does to you. The government can’t confer dignity on anyone, and the government can’t take it away.
This is pretty basic stuff, if you know anything about the founding of America.
So of course, elderly bigot George Takei took Thomas’ words and spiralled into a racist rant.
By referring to Clarence Thomas as “a clown in blackface,” George Takei has taken away nobody’s dignity but his own.
Why is it okay for a Japanese man to use such racist language against a black man? Because of their relative positions in the hierarchy of grievances. Sure, Thomas is black, and therefore he’s a designated victim. But he’s also a conservative, and he’s explicitly rejecting the narrative of victimhood that underpins the entire “social justice” movement. Therefore, the black dude is trumped by the gay Asian dude. Takei can spew as much racist garbage as he wants, and he’s protected because he not only embraces his own victimhood, but he treasures victimhood itself like the purest gold. Without it, he’s just another washed-up actor from a schlocky old show about spaceships.
Not that I doubt Takei means what he says. He really is a huge racist.
“The thing I miss is the specialness of being gay,” said Lisa Kron… “Because the traditional paths were closed, there was a consciousness to our lives…”
“There is something wonderful about being part of an oppressed community,” Mr. Marcus said. But he warned against too much nostalgia.
Those in the gay community, upset at their loss of camaraderie, remind me of those in the feminist movement. Without the cry of “we’re an oppressed people!” your voice just blends in with the rest of society. Modern-day feminists, who claim to have oppressors, would be bothered if the Patriarchy released its “shackles” from them. Perpetual victimhood is a shiny token, and its weakening, or loss altogether, is devastating to those who build their entire movement around it.
Meanwhile, in other parts of the globe where mere existence is a brave thing, oppression is very real. Unfortunately, we’ve seen more than once the brutality those such as ISIS carry out against the homosexuals living among them. Gay individuals are murdered by being pushed – head first – off of rooftops. I don’t doubt that they would have traded actual subjugation in their countries for even the pre-June 26 reality of the United States.
Although the choice should have been left with the states, the Supreme Court has ruled, and gay marriage is legal. This new reality was based on the desire that those in the gay community said they wanted “equality” through legal access to traditional marriage. The fallout from the ruling indicates the loss of counter-cultural relevance is a problem. This is because the fight was never about equal rights, but about hijacking a traditional vehicle in the attempts to pass it off as one of your own. Not only is this shoddy attempt a disruption at the base of our society as a whole, but also the foundations of the gay community. They wanted acceptance, but not quite. They’re beginning to notice their once-sacred novelty is wearing off. I predict unhappy demands in the future, because as we know, more is never enough.
Now you are one of us. You can marry, divorce, pay child support. You are no longer “special”.
During a town hall style event in Nashville to discuss Obamacare, President Obama referred to some illegal immigrants as “gang-bangers,” adding they should be deported.
Obama made his remarks after he was asked if he would expand Obamacare benefits to illegal immigrants.
“We should not be encouraging illegal immigration,” he remarked to the group. “What we should be doing is setting up a smart legal immigration system that doesn’t separate families but does focus on making sure that people who are dangerous, people who are, you know, gang-bangers, who are criminals that we’re deporting as quickly as possible.”
Obama boasted that “we’ve made improvements on all those fronts,” but blamed House Republicans for failing to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
During his conversation, he pointed out that some illegal immigrants are contributing to society and families need a pathway to legalization.
He referred to his executive actions on immigration reform as one way he was handling the issue in the meantime while he’s waiting for Congress to act.
“I suspect this will be a topic of conversation during the upcoming presidential campaign,” he said.
There comes a time when every conservative thinker tries to find some common ground with the left in some area. Today it’s criminal rights and the headlines have Rand Paul denouncing the racist justice system while Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers join with the left to back their reforms. As usually happens, the conservatives or libertarians turn out to be the useful idiots of the left.
Republicans are still trying to figure out a truce on gay marriage. They retreated to civil unions, then accepted a full defeat on gay marriage and then acted baffled when Christian bakery owners were dragged into court for refusing to participate in gay weddings. When the left insisted that gay marriage was a civil rights issue, they refused to take them as their word.
The left does not care about gay rights. If you doubt that, consider how many of the left’s favorite Muslim countries have gay rights. The left has recently divided its campaign passions between gay marriage and defending Iran. Iran denies the existence of gays and hangs them where it finds them.
The USSR treated homosexuality as a crime even while it was recruiting gay men as spies in the West. Cuba, the darling of the American left, hated both gays and blacks. The ACLU backed the police states of Communism. If the left supports an enemy nation, the odds are excellent that it is also a violently bigoted place that makes a KKK rally look like a hippie hangout.
To understand the left, you need to remember that it does not care about 99 percent of the things it claims to care about. Name a leftist cause and then find a Communist country that actually practiced it. Labor unions? Outlawed. Environmentalism? Chernobyl. The left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes in them, but to radicalize, disrupt and take power.
The left does not care about social justice. It cares about power.
That is why no truce is possible with the left. Not on social issues. Not on any issues.
I loved reading the If You Give a Mouse a Cookie books to my daughter.
The somewhat Aesopian theme is that if you give the mouse what it wants – a cookie – it will just want more: a glass of milk, a straw, etc.
The story came to mind last week, a week that began with many vowing to inter the Confederate flag and that ended with the Supreme Court mandating that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. As far as culture-war victories go, the flag news was big, but the marriage ruling was tantamount to VE Day.
It might be too much to think that progressive activists and intellectuals would demobilize after such a “Mission Accomplished” moment. But a reasonable person might expect social-justice warriors to at least take the weekend off to celebrate.
But no. Even when the cookie is this big, the mice want something more. The call went out that there were new citadels to conquer. Within hours of the decision, Politico ran a call to arms titled “It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy: Why Group Marriage Is the Next Horizon of Social Liberalism.” On Sunday, Time magazine had Mark Oppenheimer’s “Now’s the Time to End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions.”
I very much doubt we’ll get a constitutional right for teams of people to get “married,” but I have every confidence the drumbeat will grow louder. Social justice – forever ill-defined so as to maximize the power of its champions – has become not just an industry but also a permanent psychological orientation among journalists, lawyers, educators, and other members of the new class of eternal reformers.
By no means are social-justice warriors always wrong. But they are untrustworthy, because they aren’t driven by a philosophy so much as an insatiable appetite that cannot take yes for an answer. No cookie will ever satisfy them. Our politics will only get uglier, as those who resist this agenda realize that compromise is just another word for appeasement.