Of course, none of this surprises anyone. The crybabies took over a long time ago, and their Outrage Radar is so finely tuned that no offense, no matter how microscopic, can escape their teary eyed gaze.
This, after all, is the country that invented “trigger warnings” to prevent people from encountering opinions that might be traumatic to their fragile psyches.
It’s a country where college campuses set up “safe zones” to shield students from ideas that might be challenging and scary.
It’s a country where a man dressed in women’s underwear cries “transphobia” if he’s asked to leave a restaurant and go put on some clothes.
This is a country where dozens of media outlets have reported for days about a “controversy” surrounding the fact that Ben Affleck’s relatives owned slaves two centuries ago.
This is a country where students at Johns Hopkins want to ban a fast food company from their campus because its owner expressed an opinion two years ago.
This is a country where even our military members are subjected to sensitivity training and “white privilege” seminars.
This is a country where some schools set up anonymous tip lines to report microaggressions, which could include being asked where you’re from and if you speak Spanish.
This is a country where feminists complain that men who spread their legs too far on the subway are sexist.
This is a country where screenings of “American Sniper” are canceled when people complain that the film is “nationalistic” and “Islamaphobic.”
This is the country where people were upset that the smiley face cartoons on their iPhones weren’t ethnically diverse, so Apple provided a more racially sensitive selection, only to make more people upset when other people used them in racially derogatory ways. Finally, a detergent company Tweeted about the emojis and people were upset that the comment seemed racist. So, if you followed that one all the way through, there was controversy over the lack of multi-colored smiley faces, and then controversy about their inclusion, and then controversy about a soap manufacturer making a joke about the controversy.
These are just a small selection, off the top of my head, from the past few days or so. I haven’t even provided examples from my own life, of which there is a never ending supply. Of course, I write about “controversial” subjects, so hurt feelings are inevitable. But anyone who has an audience of any size knows that any statement of opinion — no matter the subject, no matter how its worded — will stir up anger and acrimony.
But why? Why are we in this permanent state of outrage? Why are we constantly dismayed and disgruntled and disturbed by every little thing?
This is a riddle anthropologists will be debating for centuries to come. They will look back at our culture and wonder what sort of cataclysmic event turned generations of Americans into spineless, translucent, liquefied puddles of whimpering mush. They will argue amongst themselves and write many scholarly articles to explain how there could have ever existed an entire society of finicky, overly emotional schoolgirls.
They will marvel at us. We will be history’s greatest mystery.
Category Archives: Useful Idiots
So, real talk: Your job isn’t worth 15 bucks an hour. Sure, as a human being, you’re priceless. As a child of God, you’re precious, a work of art, a freaking miracle. But your job wrapping hamburgers in foil and putting them in paper bags — that has a price tag, and the price tag ain’t anywhere close to the one our economy and society puts on teachers and mechanics.
Don’t like it? Well, you shouldn’t. It’s fast food. It’s menial. It’s mindless. It’s not supposed to be a career. It’s not supposed to be a living. An entry-level position making roast beef sandwiches at Arby’s isn’t meant to be something you do for 26 years.
It isn’t paying enough? OK, get another job. Get a second job. Get a third job. Get a different job.
Trust me, this is a better plan than asking the government to force your employer to pay you significantly more than the market allows.
I know you might not care about the economics of this thing. After all, you aren’t economists (but with $15 an hour you’d almost be in the same income bracket). But it should be of some interest to learn a $15 an hour minimum wage would represent a steep tax on jobs. And the problem is simple: when you tax something, you get less of it.
Why? Because, despite what Elizabeth Warren might tell you, these fast food franchise owners have a finite amount of money to spend on operating expenses. They aren’t making millions in profits, most of them, so when you come along and say, “Hey, your labor costs just doubled — congratulations!” that business owner will have to make decisions.
It’s not about what he wants to do, it’s what he’ll have to do.
And those decisions will likely start with the most obvious: hire less, fire more. If you do survive that first cut — which, if you’re skipping work to hold signs in the parking lot, I don’t like your chances — then you’ll have to deal with greater expectations, more responsibilities and less room for error. In other words, at a minimum, you won’t get away with treating your customers like dirt.
United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said humanity “really should make every effort” to reduce global population trends to protect the environment and fight global warming in an interview with Climate One.
The U.N. predicts the global population will number 9 billion people by 2050 — a number that makes many environmentalists worry. Climate One Founder Greg Dalton pressed Figueres on whether or not she thinks there are policies to reduce the 9 billion 2050 estimate.
“I mean we all know that we expect nine billion, right, by 2050,” Figueres told Dalton in an interview. “So, yes, obviously less people would exert less pressure on the natural resources.”
Work with me a little bit to follow this logic. If the government says gay marriage is legal, then it is required for all private citizens to approve of and cooperate with it. That which is not forbidden is mandatory.
Now, when we say that gay marriage is legal, what we actually mean is that the government is required to offer and recognize these marriages. But Tomasky assumes that what the state must do, private citizens must do also. If a law binds the actions of the state, it is also binding on Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public. There is no distinction, in Tomasky’s mind, between government action and private action.
God forbid that the concept of freedom should allow you, as an individual, to resist social changes you don’t like. Clearly, the best way to protect religious liberty is to never invoke it in defense of anything that is really, really unpopular. Or at least, anything that is really unpopular among New York and DC elites.
See what I mean when I say that the left has no concept of freedom? It may have some concept of a range of disagreement that is socially acceptable and on which the state chooses to remain neutral—though with the revival of old-fashioned Political Correctness, that range is getting increasingly narrow, even for the true believers. But they have no concept of a right to do something or think something or say something simply because it is what you think and want, regardless of whether society as a whole approves of it. And without that, there is no concept of freedom.
To be sure, the concept of freedom was damaged long ago. The whole reason the new religious freedom laws are necessary is because the ever-expanding power of the state has built up so many controls that already interfere with every little aspect of life. (The original, federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed in response to a court case involving drug laws.) So the laws inevitably clash with citizens’ private judgment and personal convictions in myriad ways. And these new laws are not even an absolute protection against that interference.
In what Indiana‘s governor and his supporters describe as defense of any given individual’s religious convictions, detractors roundly decry as blatant discrimination against the LGBT community. Possibly the best explanation of Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) rendered down to two sentences would be that as reported by CBS News on March 30, 2015, “Supporters say it protects a person or business owner from government persecution when following their religious beliefs. But opponents say the measure gives businesses a free pass to refuse gay and lesbian customers on religious grounds.”
Despite the Hoosier State’s Governor Mike Pence stressing the new law wouldn’t legalize discrimination against certain individuals or groups, but instead would protect the religious convictions of service providers such as pro-life pharmacists forced to sell abortifacients (abortion-inducing drugs), a number of high profile pro-LBGT advocates have slammed Pence and the Indiana legislature. One of the more prominent would be Apple CEO Tim Cook, who the Gawker.com news portal tagged in 2011 as “The Most Powerful Gay Man in America.”
As reported by CBS, Cook took to the editorial pages of The Washington Post slam the RFRA as he believes it “goes against the very principles our nation was founded on.” Not done yet, Cook also opined “On behalf of Apple, I’m standing up to oppose this new wave of legislation wherever it emerges. I’m writing in the hopes that many more will join this movement.”
However, Cook made no mention of Apple Inc. expanding to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia last year. As reported by Arabian Business on Dec. 20, 2014, Apple opened two new stores in Riyadh and Al Khobar. According to Apple’s official website, the corporation has well over 14 retail stores within the Kingdom, as well as numerous other stores the width and breadth of the Muslim World. A number of the same Muslim-majority nations also adhere to Islamic Shari’a law which clearly states homosexuality to be illegal.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia takes it a bit further. Saudi Arabia executes homosexuals. Publicly executing homosexuals isn’t the only Shari’a compliant move taken in the oil rich nation. Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the powerful Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared in 2012 that it is “necessary to destroy all the [Christian] churches of the region.” Not finished with calling for the death of homosexuals or bulldozing churches, the Sheikh also gave the official thumbs-up for 10-year-old girls to be married off against their will.
While it’s hardly surprising to see legally ignorant sportswriters use the language of segregated lunch counters, it’s disturbing to see well-informed CEOs such as Apple’s Tim Cook conjuring up the specter of the Old South.
Simply put, their concerns about systematic invidious discrimination are utter hogwash, and they either know it or should know it. Why? Because RFRAs aren’t new, the legal standard they protect is decades older than the RFRAs themselves, and these legal standards have not been used — nor can they be used — to create the dystopian future the Left claims to fear. After all, the current RFRA legal tests were the law of the land for all 50 states — constitutionally mandated — until the Supreme Court’s misguided decision in Employment Division v. Smith, where the Court allowed fear of drug use to overcome its constitutional good sense. And yet during the decades before Smith, non-discrimination statutes proliferated, and were successfully enforced to open public accommodations to people of all races, creeds, colors, and — yes — sexual orientations.
So what’s really going on here? A toxic combination of anti-Christian bigotry and sexual revolution radicalism. It is simply uninformed and bigoted to believe that Christians are somehow lurking in the shadows, ready to deny food, shelter, and basic services to their gay fellow citizens — blocked from such vicious actions only by the strong arm of the state. In my entire life as an Evangelical, I’ve never met a fellow Christian who wouldn’t gladly serve a gay customer. If there are exceptions to that nearly-universal rule, they are so marginal (and marginalized) in the Christian community that they’re irrelevant not only to Christendom but also to the body politic.
While RFRAs protect people of all faiths, from peyote-smoking Native Americans to Bible-toting florists, the Left’s outrage is narrowly targeted — against the Christian people whose livelihoods they seek to ruin, whose consciences they seek to appropriate, and whose organizations they seek to disrupt. #BoycottIndiana isn’t a cry for freedom. It’s nothing more than an online mob, seeking to bully those it hates.
Yesterday, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the Prince of Wales, and other climate gasbags wanted everyone in the world to turn out their lights for an hour starting at 8:30 pm in recognition of Earth Hour, a “global symbolic demand for action on climate change.”
By the time you read this, the Eiffel Tower will have gone dark for an hour, along with the Parliament building in London, and presumably Buckingham Palace. At 8:30 Eastern time, the UN Secretariat building will darken and on and on as 8:30 comes in each time zone.
Organizers claim 7,000 cities across 172 countries are expected to join in. There is a live feed you can watch as “Earth Hour” strikes in each time zone. The environmental group WWF started the event nine years ago in Sydney, Australia.
Global warming alarmists are particularly hyped up — the next round of climate talks will take place at the end of this year in Paris.
“I am usually a ‘turn the lights out when you leave the room’ kind of a guy,” said Steven K. Bannon, Executive Chairman of the Breitbart News Network. “But tonight, good global warming skeptics everywhere ought leave on every light in the house. The kind of world these folks want is that picture at night from space that shows South Korea lit up like a Christmas tree and North Korea shrouded in darkness, except these folks want everywhere to be North Korea all the time, dark and dreary.”
And if by “nation” they mean “this White House,” it’s probably true. Here’s a refresher on the administration’s moral calculus these days:
Out: Standing by the only democratic Middle East ally.
In: Entering into deals with theocratic terror-sponsoring regimes that will destabilize the entire region, without the consent of the American people.
Sure, Iran’s top ally may be dropping chlorine gas on civilians, but the real problem in the Middle East is the Israel electorate. “The Price Israel Must Pay: We no longer have a Netanyahu problem. We have an Israel problem”—not a Hamas problem, or Fatah problem, not a random-criminals-shooting-folks-in-markets problem, or a lack-of-a-civil-society-in-the-Middle-East problem, but an Israel problem—writes William Saltean over at Slate. If you turn on Obama—which is the only real “problem” here—there is always a steep price.
It is true, for many Democrats this is about Israel, not any one politician. But the irrational hatred of Benjamin Netanyahu sure does propel things
Guess who is the number one violator of women’s rights in the world today? Israel. Violating the rights of Palestinian women.
At least that is the view of the UN’s top women’s rights body, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). CSW ends its annual meeting on Friday, March 20 by condemning only one of the 193 UN member states for violating women’s rights – Israel.
Not Syria. Where government forces routinely employ rape and other sexual violence and torture against women as a tactic of war. Where in 2014 the Assad regime starved, tortured and killed at least 24,000 civilians, and three million people – mostly women and children – are refugees….
Not Iran. Where every woman who registered as a presidential candidate in the last election was disqualified. “Adultery” is punishable by death by stoning. Women who fight back against rapists and kill their attackers are executed. The constitution bars female judges. And women must obtain the consent of their husbands to work outside the home….
The Obama administration has an answer to this dilemma. Vote against the resolutions, while paying the fees to run the bodies that adopt them. Join and legitimize the institution, while consoling the delegitimized that it feels their pain.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said Wednesday that it’s possible the Secret Service erased surveillance tapes of two supposedly intoxicated agents driving a vehicle through an active bomb-scene investigation site.
Speaking to CNN and CBS News, the House Oversight Committee chairman said the revelation was made known to several lawmakers during a closed-doors meeting with Secret Service Director Joe Clancy.
“We inquired if there were additional tapes and angles and the director informed us that there may not be because it’s their policy to erase them 72 hours after they record, which is just unfathomable,” Chaffetz told CNN. “I can’t think of any good reason to do that.”
“This is not your local 7-11. This is the White House,” he added.
The Republican lawmaker told CBS News that the news left the entire room in astonishment.
“I don’t think anyone in that room could believe it,” Chaffetz said. “That’s just a stunning revelation that 72 hours after they make a tape they destroy it? That doesn’t make any sense to us.”
Chaffetz also questioned why some tapes would be destroyed, when others were preserved.
“If it’s regular policy to destroy them after 72 hours, why did they have two of the tapes, and where are the rest of the tapes? And so far the Secret Service has not been able to answer the question,” he told CBS News.
The two senior agents — including Mark Connolly, the No. 2 on Obama’s security detail — had been with other agents drinking at a bar last week when they returned to the White House in a government car, a U.S. official said. The vehicle entered an area already closed off by the Secret Service, who were investigating a suspicious package and had put the White House on lockdown. Officers on the scene saw the agents’ car, traveling slowly, make contact with a barrier, the official said.