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.
Category Archives: Stupidity
Students who don’t want to be known by their legal name on campus – because they are transgender, a victim of sexual abuse or just want to sound more American – can now play coy at Ohio University.
The Post reports that the new policy is the result of an effort started nearly three years ago by the Student Senate’s LGBT commissioners, who “worked closely” with officials “on the technicalities of the policy”:
The preferred name and pronoun policy, which was approved June 4, will allow all OU students to state their preferred names and select their preferred pronouns in their Student Portal, said Delfin Bautista, director of the LGBT Center. This name and pronoun will then show up on professors’ class rosters, advising lists and anywhere a student ID card is swiped. …
“Hopefully, what this will create is there may be faculty who may never know the legal name of a student,” Bautista said. “They may have Rachel in class, and Rachel has always been Rachel, but they may never know that Rachel’s legal name is Richard.”
Thus, students no longer need to worry about their legal names unintentionally “outing” them because their legal name does not match their identity.
The school wants to play down the LGBT roots of the change, which are evident in the “pronoun” component: The Post says “the policy can benefit international students who choose to go by an American version of their name,” and Bautista also says it will benefit students whose parents divorced.
The new policy won’t apply to diplomas, however, so “Rachel” will forever be known in school files as “Richard.”
I weep for the future of education.
Republican presidential hopeful Ben Carson thinks political correctness is breeding frustration that is erupting into violence.
“I’m not politically correct, so I can say something,” Carson said while speaking at a law enforcement forum with the National Sheriffs Association. “But don’t be surprised because I don’t spend every minute monitoring every word and phrase to make sure it’s correct because i feel very strongly that so many people gave their lives for freedom of speech. So we should not kowtow to the P.C. police.”
Carson stated that such suppression of freedoms can lead citizens to become increasingly frustrated with their government, and become not only upset with the politically correct culture, but also their economic status.
“You look at a city like Baltimore where we had all the strife a couple months ago, cities like Ferguson … I think what’s going on is a great deal of frustration because over the last few years there been a lot of change but not a lot of hope,” Carson said. “It makes it real easy for something to irritate you, sort of like a tinder box. Not making excuses for anybody but there’s a huge level of frustration because of the sluggish economy and everything associated therewith.”
“When you think of a nation that has the highest economic engine in the history of the world with this kind of sluggishness of course there’s frustration,” Carson claimed.
For those of us of faith, it appears society has collectively lost its mind. Madness has set in. Yes, in fact, we see what Paul warns of in Romans 1. The people have been handed over to themselves and we are caught in the middle. It is a wildfire of the mind and society.
A lot of you want to check out of it. You want to take refuge, hide, and protect your families. You want to go for the Benedictine Model that Rod Dreher hints at — take shelter in the monastery and wait for the fire to burn itself out.
I actually think the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday hurts the Republicans in 2016. I think a lot of people whose votes they need will throw up their hands and walk away. They see a lot of Republican politicians declaring it time to move on. They see 300 Republicans, a lot of them from George W. Bush’s administration, supporting the decision. These cultural conservatives think it is time to get out of Dodge while the getting is good.
The 300 Republicans who wanted this case to go away as a political issue, might find that the base they have relied on goes away with it. They will not expand their base with black and hispanic voters as small government, cultural liberals. They will lose more of their base as they move away from cultural conservatism altogether.
Here is what I would say, though, to the conservatives thinking of departing for broad fields, no neighbors, and a life of small town values. The wildfire is burning. But, whether you think it nature or God, nature has a way of exerting itself and wildfires eventually run out of fuel or get rained on.
The day after declaring Obamacare magically rewritten and that the lawsuits against discrimination in housing require no proof of actual discrimination, the Supreme Court found a unicorn in the 14th Amendment.
By a vote of 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy under that aforementioned 14th Amendment (adopted in 1868, when every state in America criminalized sodomy) requires that every state in America grant marriage licenses to men who want to marry men and women who want to marry women, and that every state recognize such licenses from every other state.
By this point, nobody should be surprised that the Supreme Court sees new rights in its Cheerios. As our Supreme Rulers, the Supreme Court can declare what they want to declare, since rule of law died long ago at the hands of leftist deconstruction of language. But this decision is particularly galling to those who believe words have meaning and that government is not God. The Court rejects both of those claims. Words have no meaning; they are merely tools to be used in implementation of the utopian agenda of the far-left. Government is God, a dignity-conferring institution capable of making moral that which religion teaches is sinful, logic teaches is worthless, and societal experience teaches is societally counterproductive.
Naturally, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has made it his lifelong work to read same-sex rights into the Constitution (this, after all is the man who once wrote, based wholly on the authority of the voices in his head, that the Constitution mandates “respect” for sodomy), delivered the majority opinion.
Kennedy opens by essentially paraphrasing himself in the pro-abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1989), in which he established one of his many preferred fantasy rights: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” This time, he simply says that people have a right to “within a lawful realm, define and express their identity.” Of course, the Court defines that “lawful realm” at its whim; otherwise Charles Manson would simply have been expressing his Constitutional rights. Same-sex marriage falls within that lawful realm, says Kennedy, although he fails to explain how the state not granting people a piece of paper equates to preventing them from expressing their identity. Presumably the states will now be required to give Rachel Dolezal a race-change certificate.
The College Fix gets results: After we broke the story of the University of California’s long list of “microaggression” phrases that professors should avoid, the state’s biggest paper has slammed the university system for its “over-the-top, politically correct list of unacceptable topics and questions.”
The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times says that some of the phrases are “not necessarily aggressive at all”:
If a professor asks a Latino, Asian American or Native American student to “speak up more” in class, is the professor really saying that they must “assimilate to the dominant culture”? If a university official says, “I believe the most qualified candidate should get the job,” does that really mean “people of color are given unfair benefits?”
Worse yet, the material posted on the UC website discourages faculty members from expressing legitimate political opinions. Surely a professor ought to be able to say that America is a melting pot, or that affirmative action is a bad policy because it is inherently racist. Since when are universities afraid of clashing or provocative beliefs?
Regardless of whether UC is actually punishing faculty, “the university is clearly discouraging certain kinds of statements, and faculty will take notice — especially those members without tenure,” the editorial says.
House GOP leaders and their allies retreated on Thursday, backing off efforts to punish conservative rebels who had bucked leadership on a trade vote.
Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said he was reinstating Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) as a subcommittee chairman, just a week after he stripped him of his gavel for voting against leadership and failing to pay party dues.
And hours earlier, House GOP freshmen balked at a plot to sack their class president, Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.), for defying leaders amid complaints he’s been ineffective at his job.
All the backpedaling was an embarrassment for GOP leaders, including Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who just a day earlier had publicly endorsed Chaffetz’s decision to strip Meadows’s gavel. Both Meadows and Buck are members of the House Freedom Caucus, whose co-founders cheered Thursday’s developments.
“I think what it really means is that maybe our message is finally getting through some very thick skulls,” said one Freedom Caucus co-founder. “When you have a crisis in a family, you don’t exile people, kick people out. You have to communicate better as a family.”
Throughout the week, Freedom co-founders griped to Chaffetz and GOP leaders about Meadows’s removal as chairman. The message was clear: “This is not helpful.”
But it was a GOP conference rule that ultimately helped Meadows win his job back.
In order for Chaffetz to appoint a new chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee on Government Operations, he needed support from a majority of his committee members.
The full panel, however, is stacked with many Freedom Caucus members and their sympathizers, including the group’s chairman, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio); co-founders Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) and Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.); Rep. Rod Blum (R-Iowa); Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), who already experienced some of leadership’s retribution; and Buck, who was targeted by Boehner allies on Thursday.
Those members pressed Chaffetz to reinstate Meadows, threatening to block his efforts to appoint a replacement to lead the subcommittee, GOP sources said.
The director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is coming under heavy fire on Capitol Hill, with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle demanding that she step down for what could be the most devastating data breach in American history.
Director Katherine Archuleta has taken a beating in a series of tense congressional hearings. Lawmakers have accused her of shifting blame for the hack and moving too slowly to correct persistent security problems that were apparently exploited by China in a breathtaking siege of U.S. networks.
“The hurricane has come and gone and just now OPM is wanting to board up the windows,” said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), during a four-hour hearing Wednesday.
“Personal accountability is paramount,” added Chaffetz, who is leading a growing congressional chorus calling for Archuleta to be fired.
Archuleta at one point sparred with Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) over who is at fault for the hack that has shaken the government.
“You also testified that no one is to blame, is that right?” Lynch asked.
“I believe the breach was caused by a very dedicated, a very focused actor who has spent much funds to get into our system,” Archuleta replied.
“I have worked since day one to improve …” she added before Lynch cut her off.
“Yeah I understand that,” he said. “You’re blaming the perpetrators.”
On the other side of the Capitol, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took to the Senate floor Wednesday to berate the agency head, though he stopped short of calling for her removal.
“Let’s be honest, this appears primarily to be a management problem,” he said, describing Archuleta’s testimony thus far as “world-class buck passing.”
For two weeks, OPM and Congress have clashed over the extent of the breach.
When officials first announced the OPM intrusion, they said 4.2 million federal workers had been affected.
But just over a week later, the agency officials said they had uncovered a second breach of a separate system that housed background check information for security clearances — the basis for limiting access to some of the nation’s most closely guarded secrets.
The second intrusion laid bare data on millions of military and intelligence community personnel and, potentially, people outside the government, such as friends and family members who were named in background investigations.
The second hack could have affected up to 18 million people, according to reports.
While the government will not say so publicly, it’s widely believed that Chinese hackers pilfered the data from both systems as part of a broader scheme to build a comprehensive database on U.S. government workers. The sensitive data accessed could be used to imitate officials, stage future cyberattacks, or even recruit informants or blackmail administrators.
Despite repeated inquiries during hearings and classified briefings for the House and Senate, lawmakers had complained that OPM was refusing to provide a specific number for the second breach, let alone provide details about exactly who was affected.
That started to change on Wednesday, with alarming results.
“It is my understanding that the 18 million refers to a preliminary, unverified and approximate number of unique Social Security numbers in the background investigation data,” Archuleta said before the Oversight Committee.
The estimate of 18 million people does not include friends and family members named in background checks, Archuleta cautioned, meaning the total could grow if the agency decides those people “should be considered individuals affected by this incident.”
Eighteen million “is a number I am not comfortable with at this time because it does not represent the total number of affected individuals,” she said.
While the Supreme Court’s likely attempt to create yet another legal fiction in the steady expansion of its powers is particularly dramatic, we have seen a century-long attack on marriage, perhaps dateable to the early-20th-century embrace of artificial contraception, but certainly in its wake, between various modes of sterilizing efficiency, all the way to abortion, we have witnessed a total detachment of marriage from conjugal procreation.The redefinition of marriage has been underway for some time, as many have noted. But we often miss the political significance of redefining marriage. What has happened is that the conjugal union is no longer posited as being prior to the political union, as it was for Aristotle, and even more strongly in the later development of the Western tradition. We have been witnessing the steady erasure of pre-political limits.Marriage has been severed from nature as such, and it has certainly been severed from any notion that marriage is for the propagation of the next generation of a society. We may think of the cultural transformation happening organically, but everything from contraception to no-fault divorce to abortion has been enforced by the government — most often at the highest level of the judiciary.But we should ask ourselves: Who stands to benefit from these erosions of marriage? One reason why a state might enforce a legal redefinition of marriage is that the conjugal definition reminds us that there’s something natural on which the state depends.To put it bluntly, the reason why we have seen so much power behind redefining marriage is not because it serves 1.8 percent of the population. It is because it serves Leviathan — the Hobbesian vision of an absolutely sovereign state with ever-expansive control over every aspect of our lives. There are natural checks that can curb this tendency toward absolute power, but we aren’t talking about marriage as an important pre-political makeweight to secure a free republic.We urgently need to advance a debate about marriage and the limits of government. Our current judicial regime seeks not to recognize marriage but to redefine it on a political basis. In doing so, our government is claiming for itself a power that our Founders explicitly sought to limit. That’s the debate we are not having. And not having that debate will eventually mean a loss of freedom for everyone.