On Tuesday, the Los Angeles Municipal Star Chamber (a.k.a. City Council) voted 14-to-1 to follow Seattle over a fiscal cliff and increase the city’s minimum wage to $15/hour (given that California law does not allow workers earning tips to be paid less than the minimum wage, that means waitstaff would earn fifteen dollars plus tips.) The city’s non-Mexican, anti-American Mexican-American mayor Eric Garcetti has been fervently pushing for Los Angeles to commit economic seppuku since taking office, and he has gotten his way. One can only assume the one holdout vote simply wanted a more reasonable living wage of $100/hour.
While The New York Times cheers this lunacy on, anyone with half-a-brain would know that this scheme is madness. Of course, the collective population of much of Los Angeles can barely cobble together a third of a cerebellum, so it is entirely understandable that this nonsense would pass in a town as overwhelmingly stupid as this one. But what is the real aim? Well, the unions were the real drivers of this wage hike, so that should explain everything. After all, there are only three major industries that remain unionized in L.A.: the entertainment industry (which is coughing up blood like a consumptive); the public school teachers; and the government employees. As the first group really does not have to worry about making minimum wage once it secures union membership, the latter two unions are certainly the real culprits.
Category Archives: Entitlement
The American left has spent the past few weeks trying to tell us that they believe in free speech, but…—and the “but” is that anything that offends the sensibilities of Islamic fanatics is unnecessarily provocative, hateful, and possibly racist. Therefore, such “hate speech” shouldn’t be allowed.
Now they’ve gotten a taste of their own medicine. They tried to censor an anti-censorship event.
This raises a big question, one of the great paradoxes of our era. Why is it that a large segment of left has embraced a code of appeasing “sensitivity” toward Islam—when they are its obvious next victims? Why do they wring their hands over “microagressions,” while urging us not to provoke people who execute homosexuals and throw acid in women’s faces?
They kowtow to Islam precisely because it is a real threat, a macroaggression that trumps all of the microaggressions. So you could say that it is simple cowardice. They protest against people they know are extremely unlikely to harm them, and they shut up about the fanatics who might actually follow through on their threats.
In fact, a running theme of the left’s arguments, repeated with a great deal of apparent sincerity, is the notion that it is irrational to fear Islam, that describing the religion as violent and dangerous is “Islamophobia.” They seem to have largely talked themselves into believing that they have nothing personally to fear from Islam. Jihadists may throw gays off of buildings in Syria, but it can’t happen here.
This is nonsense, of course, but it is revealing of the mindset. They actually talk themselves into believing that “censorship of LGBT artists” is an equal or even greater threat, far more urgent than anything having to do with Islam. For the left, the main source of evil in the world always comes from within America and from within the West, never outside of it.
The left is fundamentally reactionary. It is a reaction against capitalism and against America. The left are defined by what they are against, or more accurately who they hate. So they are drawn to sympathy toward Islam because it is not-us: non-Western, non-American, neither Christian nor a product of the Enlightenment.
Emma Sulkowicz. Lena Dunham. UVA’s “Jackie.” These days you can’t turn around without running into somebody who’s making a false claim of rape to get attention. And our moral, ethical, and intellectual betters applaud them. The truth doesn’t matter. The lives of the falsely accused don’t matter. Only the agenda matters.
If you’re as sick of these liars as I am, this will be a welcome sight:
I don’t know who’s behind the @FakeRape account, but I like his or her style. If the media won’t tell the truth, tell it directly to the people who need to hear it most:
In other Mattress Girl news, she screwed Columbia University really hard by carrying that stupid mattress during graduation. Ashe Schow at the Washington Examiner reports:
Allowing Sulkowicz to carry her mattress may have helped Nungesser’s case in court, as the school made clear that large objects were banned but then did nothing to stop Sulkowicz.
Nungesser’s lawyer, Kimberly Lau, told the Washington Examiner that Columbia’s acceptance of Sulkowicz’s graduation stunt was “absurd” and would help her client’s case.
“This goes beyond mere facilitation; they have now granted a special exception,” Lau said.
I’m curious if this wunderkind will be schlepping this mattress to future job interviews?
A study claiming that gay people advocating for same-sex marriage can change voters’ minds has been retracted due to fraud.
The study was published last December in Science, and received lots of media attention. It found that a 20-minute, one-on-one conversation with a gay political canvasser could steer voters in favor of same-sex marriage. Not only that, but these changed opinions lasted for at least a year and influenced other people in the voter’s household, the study found.
Donald Green, the lead author on the study, retracted it on Tuesday shortly after learning that his co-author, UCLA graduate student Michael LaCour, had faked the results.
“I am deeply embarrassed by this turn of events and apologize to the editors, reviewers, and readers of Science,” Green, a professor of political science at Columbia University, said in his retraction letter to the journal, as posted on the Retraction Watch blog.
Chicago Law Prof on Obama: “Professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified & never attended any of the faculty meetings”
The highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law spoke out on Barack Obama saying, “Professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings”:
I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.
The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).
The Obama administration blamed a technology glitch for why it continued to approve new amnesty applications in February, even after a federal judge issued an injunction, telling the court late Friday that they are now begging about 2,000 illegal immigrants to tear up their three-year work authorizations.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Homeland Security agency that approved the deportation amnesty applications for Dreamers despite the judge’s order, insisted it’s corrected the immigrants’ records at headquarters, but said it’s also asking the immigrants themselves to send back their three-year documents and accept two-year papers instead.
The agency also told Judge Andrew S. Hanen that more botched cases could still be found as employees dig through tens of thousands of applications.
President Obama’s lawyers are desperately trying to head off punishment by Judge Hanen after several embarrassing missteps.
It worked with the IRS, right? And it took them how many months to come up with that excuse?
This, at its most basic level, is disgusting and reprehensible.
We know how far America – and the Left in particular – have strayed from religion. It’s really sad, and if the trend continues, will ultimately lead to our demise.
Ask yourself, why is radical Islam so strong at the moment? The answer: religion.
No matter how much radical Islamists have distorted the Quran, religion remains a main tenet of their teachings.
In the U.S. today, you can’t turn on a TV show anymore without seeing at least one homosexual character, no doubt because Hollywood liberals want you to believe that out of every 10 people, gays make up half.
In no world is that correct, and what we get because of this is leftist academics promoting gender confusion to our youth.
Now, Fairfax County Public Schools will teach students that “there’s no such thing as boys or girls.”
School choice, anyone?
I wrote about President Obama’s press conference following his meeting with representatives of the Gulf Cooperation Council at Camp Davis this week in “An uncertain kazoo, cont’d” and John followed up in “Obama’s revisionist history on Syria.” The White House transcript of the entire press conference is posted here. I want to pause briefly over the question Obama took on Syria and the preface to his substantive, extremely misleading response.
Syria is obviously a sore subject for the Great Obama. He threatened military action if the government crossed his purported “red line” prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. The government not only did so with impunity, the government of Syria is back at it. Responding to a question about it, Obama employed pretzel logic and self-invented factoids to acquit himself of error or misjudgment. The Great Obama does not err.
When Obama called on Al Jazeera America White House correspondent Michael Viqueira, Viqueira thanked him and posed this question (video below):
Q On Syria, one of the reasons we’re here is because many of the nations in the region were upset that more than two years ago when Bashar al-Assad deployed chemical weapons, there was no military response as you appeared to promise, no retaliation on the part of the U.S. Now there’s a possibility that Assad has once again used chemical weapons. What did you tell these leaders here who were disappointed last time? And will you use a military response if it’s confirmed that he used chemical weapons again, once again deployed them?
The other side of Obama’s vanity is his pettiness. The man from Al Jazeera America displayed an attitude not fully reverent toward the Great Obama. Viqueira’s bad attitude could not pass without note. The president of the United States accordingly prefaced his substantive response to the question with an in-your-face putdown of the man from Al Jazeera America:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: First of all, Michael, I don’t know why you’re here, but the reason I’m here is not because of what happened in Syria a couple of years ago. The reason I’m here is because we’ve got extraordinary challenges throughout the region — not just in Syria, but in Iraq and Yemen and Libya, and obviously, the development of ISIL; and our interest in making sure that we don’t have a nuclear weapon in Iran….
I trust that readers can sort this out on their own. I will just add this prediction. Obama won’t be calling on the man from Al Jazeera America again any time soon.