The rookie dad in question is Matt Yglesias, a charter member of the Juicebox Mafia, small children who think their political pontifications should be of interest to us all — and what is Vox except that philosophy writ large? — so you know something profoundly stupid is coming your way. But this one retires the Stupid Trophy:
Major life-changing events have a way of bringing things into focus. On March 5, my first child — a healthy baby boy by the name of Jose — was born, and I’ve been off work since then, only returning this week. Jose has changed my life already, and while it’s far too soon to say he’s changed my ideas about public policy, I will say that the reality of parenting does a great job of shifting priorities and highlighting certain key points.
Lots of parents (and non-parents!) no doubt will disagree with me about the points below. But for me, these are seven key political insights that the past 10 months have brought into focus.
Let me voxsplain some of them so you won’t have to slog through them: the U.S. health-care system sucks, mandates are bad if you don’t give the stuff you’ve just mandated to people for cheap or free, the feds should subsidize parenting through higher tax credits and force employers (yes, force) to give paid parenting leave — or, better yet, establish a federal Parenting Leave program financed by taxpayers — immigrants are great (what?) and “collective action” just can’t be beat. Right, I know: Zzzzzzzzz.
But here’s No. 4. Read it and weep:
After watching my wife gestate my son for nine months, I am 100 percent certain people who go into pregnancy with anti-abortion ethical priors come out of it with the strength of their convictions increased tenfold. I went into it with different priors and have come out with my own pro-choice convictions increased tenfold.
A beloved baby is a miraculous thing, but pregnancy is at times a truly agonizing and awful one. It’s a small price to pay for something a woman truly wants, but an enormous amount to pay for other people’s questionable metaphysical notions about personhood. In a decent society it would be both safe and convenient for women of all socioeconomic backgrounds to terminate an early stage pregnancy on demand without facing judgment and hassles.
No judgement, no hassles — and no morals. That’s the Juicebox Jeneration for you.
Jewish Americans are being baited by a radical Left that has sharpened their anti-Bibi fangs in the ready to rip apart the nation of Israel and the entire body of world Jewry. It’s a bold statement, but it’s an honest one. If you thought V15 would dissolve, their participants cashing in the last of the State Department’s change for a defeat party in Vegas, you’re wrong. The ideological fervor is stronger than ever. It has to be, because ideology is the only thing they have fueling their “hope and change” community-organizing momentum that is anything but.
Jonathan Mark at the New York Jewish Week succinctly catalogs the radical-Leftist Jewish bias against Bibi, noting that this isn’t the first time a right-wing leader’s victory has been condemned in the American media. “Begin as in Fagin” a 1977 Time magazine article explained, conjuring up one of the most insulting anti-Semitic stereotypes in history.
Today it is the J Street crowd sacrificing their pound of flesh by cutting themselves off from the “Jewish establishment” in a radical attempt to “directly take on Jewish organizations …complicit with Israel’s occupation” via the Obama method. If Israel won’t directly negotiate, they’ll just be forced into a solution …and what? Be told to deal with it, or else? According to reports, the conference was keynoted by Obama’s chief of staff and fueled nothing more or less than the “Bibi is racist” tagline.
Hannah Senesh wrote about the power of one match to light a fire. In this instance, the blaze is burning out of control in this radicalized segment of the Jewish world.
Mark adopts the Israeli attitude toward the radical Left’s recent drumming up of hostilities, concluding:
If Israel has to go alone, so be it, writes The Wall Street Journal’s Brett Stephens: “Repay contempt with contempt. Mr. Obama plays to classic bully type. He is abusive and surly only toward those he feels are either too weak, or too polite, to hit back…. The Israelis will need to chart their own path of resistance…. Israel survived its first 19 years without meaningful U.S. patronage. For now, all it has to do is get through the next 22, admittedly long, months.”
In the end, he is right. Israel has the self-determination and autonomy to weather the storm. The question is, will the Jewish American community rise to the occasion, or be consumed in the fires of its own outrageous fury, drummed up by a mad man who has no problem negotiating the Jewish people’s terms of destruction on an international scale?
First Lady Michelle Obama’s playful, cute, “girlie” outfits on her “Let Girls Learn” tour of Asia sparked the New York Times’ Vanessa Friedman to reevaluate what she has always believed about empowering women through fashion.
The Obama dresses, for Friedman, conjure the 1950s, bringing the baggage of rigid roles and female subjugation, clashing with the first lady’s mission to promote education and career options for girls.
As a woman, and one who spends a lot of time thinking about the messages women’s clothes send about their identity, I found the apparent clothes/context disjunction to be jarring. Even for a first lady who is known for her affection for a print and a dress, even in countries where color and nature are celebrated.
Shouldn’t she have worn a sharp-shouldered suit to talk about achievement?
But, oddly enough, the fashion expert doesn’t admonish Michelle Obama to pay more attention to visual elements of her message. Instead, Friedman decides that her own long-held convictions must be wrong, and that the first lady is not only right, but she’s on the vanguard of a woman-buttressing fashion revolution.
How do you erase a stereotype? You confront it, and force others to confront their own preconceptions about it, and then you own it. And in doing so you denude it of its power.
In a word, Mrs. Obama has become the avatar of “Girlie Power.”
In the midst of her eureka moment, Friedman delivers a gentle backhand to women who dress the way Friedman always believed they should, before Michelle Obama put on her playful party dress.
We live in the era of the Merkelization of female political dress, which has seen women like Ms. Merkel, the German chancellor, and Hillary Rodham Clinton adopt what is effectively the male uniform in softer, brighter colors to remove the topic from the conversation. (It’s a pantsuit. It’s a beige/orange/teal pantsuit. Enough said.) Another way to explain the strategy is “bore them into talking about the issues.”
But that testosteronian costume now seems so…February 2015.
In choosing to meet young women in clothes that, perhaps, make her look like them — or how they may want to look if they didn’t have to wear school uniforms — Mrs. Obama was implying: You can dress like a girl and dream about getting a Ph.D. (or a law degree, if we are being picayune), too.
Meanwhile, that frumpy drudge, Hillary Clinton, waddles about swaddled in her Maoist conformity to old feminist man-aping tropes.
I would suggest that you picture Hillary in a bright and winsome party skirt, festooned with newly-empowering 1950s patterns, but as you know, what has been seen cannot be unseen.
A week or so ago, everyone was having lots of Footloose-joke fun at the expense of Canada’s “The Town That Dreaded Curse Words”:
Taber, Alberta — population around 8,000 — has not only banned swearing, but “yelling and screaming” are now also against the law in the small community.
Serious questions came up, too, like whether the bylaw violated (admittedly comical) Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But what nobody dared to report, until Maclean’s did just now, was just who all these anti-social miscreants were, the ones that necessitated the passing of such a wacky-sounding law in the first place.
Turns out, they’re young Mennonites.
Huh? That sounds like a bigger joke than the original story, right?
But even Maclean’s buries the (other) lede until mid-way through their piece:
These troublemakers aren’t just Mennonites.
They’re Mexican Mennonites.
Who’ve brought with them their culture’s well-documented indifference to such uptight Anglo-Saxon values as prioritizing higher education; cooperating with one’s neighbors to maintain a safe, clean, quiet, civilized public square; and interacting with (surprisingly non-bribable!) authorities in a respectful, law-abiding fashion.
Victor Davis Hanson, please pick up the (off-) white courtesy phone.
And press #2 for Spanish.
Actor Sean Penn told the Daily Telegraph that he watches the ISIS beheading videos because “we are not seeing enough of real violence.”
Penn spoke to the Telegraph for the premier of his new film The Gunman, which is about a special forces sniper. The film is described as pretty violent, and when asked about it Penn responded, “I don’t think you can put something on a 40ft-wide screen with Dolby stereo and not be stimulated by it, whatever it is, a car going fast, a weapon firing. The only obligation of the film-maker is to show that there is a price to pay for violence. If it excites people in a negative way then I think that’s in the audience, not in the presentation.”
The actor went on to explain that people are being “anesthetized” by political correctness. He wants people confronted with the raw, violent truth.
“The problem,” he continued, “is we are not seeing enough of real violence. We are being anaesthetised when you don’t see the horror of war. In the Sixties, we grew up with the horror of Vietnam on our television screens every day. Today we have become anaesthetised by political correctness. The American news channels did this with the Iraq war; they wouldn’t show what it was about, they wouldn’t show the caskets coming home.”
To which the interviewer asked if he watches ISIS videos out of “moral responsibility”?
“Uh-huh. I’ve watched them. And anyone who sees them and claims that they were anaesthetised by violent movies, that they weren’t horrified by what they saw, on the most primal level, is intellectually dishonest or existentially unpresent.”
It might suit Penn’s political disposition to expose the public to the “caskets coming home” — but conversely, if the public were exposed to the real horror of ISIS by the news media, they might insist the president treat the ISIS threat seriously. It goes both ways, Sean.
George Zimmerman, the man acquitted in the 2012 shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, blamed President Obama for inflaming racial tensions after the 17-year-old’s death, saying in a videotaped statement that Obama “overstretched, overreached, even broke the law” by allowing the Justice Department to pursue a civil rights investigation of him.
Zimmerman also criticized Obama’s public response to the shooting, in which he said a month after the shooting, “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” and for the president’s holding a ceremony marking the anniversary of Martin’s death with the boy’s parents.
“For him to make incendiary comments as he did and direct the Department of Justice to pursue a baseless prosecution, he by far overstretched, overreached, even broke the law in certain aspects to where you have an innocent American being prosecuted by the federal government which should never happen,” Zimmerman said.
While George Zimmerman may not be the poster boy for Neighborhood Watch, he is certainly right about this. Obama to jump in and ratchet up racial tensions in high-profile stories, often before the police have had a chance to weigh in. We all know the pattern now, too. He pretends to be concerned while either damning the suspect, the police, or both. Then his henchman Eric Holder would launch a very public DOJ investigation yet not find cause to file charges against the individual who was maligned by the president of the United States.
That’s how we end up with cops being targeted by deranged gunmen.
Can’t you just feel the post-racial hope and change calm all over the land?
[Original script may vary slightly from video.]
SCOTT OTT: I’m Scott Ott, and here’s a thought.
He was born a slave with no last name, to a woman known only as Jane.
Emancipated when he was nine, he moved to West Virginia and worked at salt furnaces and coal mines.
Between shifts, he taught himself the alphabet, and then how to read. He scrubbed his way through college on his hands and his knees. He started a school for poor, Black people in the deep South, and it grew as he worked it, and prayed it, all out.
He taught them with books and taught them with toil. They built their own college, making bricks from the soil.
Although he died at just 59 he became a friend of presidents, and generals and the wealthiest then alive. Yet, he never forgot the value of working the dirt, and by the virtue of your labor, earning the praise of your neighbor.
He left, in his wake, nearly 5,000 schools, hundreds of teachers’ homes and shops full of tools.
And so, if anyone knows how to navigate in a society plagued with racial hate, it’s this boy with no last name, who grew to be a man of accomplishment, honor and fame.
His step-father’s first name was Washington, and young Booker adopted it as his own.
The man’s last name was Ferguson, but Booker took instead the name of the father of this nation — the former slave boy binding himself forever to the lifelong slave owner.
Somehow through poverty and bigotry, Booker kept his eyes on the future, and drew strength from the past.
He built the schools from sharecroppers nickels and the fat checks of millionaires, from former Confederate warriors, and retired Union officers. He earned trust and love and respect from, and for, all of them.
I just read his book, Up from Slavery. I wish I had read it 40 years ago. I wish my school had taught it.
This is what Booker T. Washington wrote in 1901, after 35 years of living in the post-Civil War South:
If no other consideration had convinced me of the value of the Christian life, the Christlike work which the Church of all denominations in America has done during the last thirty-five years for the elevation of the black man would have made me a Christian.
Here’s what Booker T. Washington said about white Southern men:
With God’s help, I believe that I have completely rid myself of any ill feeling toward the Southern white man for any wrong that he may have inflicted upon my race…I pity from the bottom of my heart any individual who is so unfortunate as to get into the habit of holding race prejudice.
And here’s what Booker T. Washington said about how to change hearts and minds:
I early learned that it is a hard matter to convert an individual by abusing him...
These United States of America were built by men like Booker T. Washington — at first by their muscles, under compulsion, then later by their minds and hearts, freely given.
His legacy of learning transformed the South. His legendary love, faith and hard work, transformed a nation.
“I have learned,” he said, “that success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has had to overcome while trying to succeed.”
The smoldering ember of our God-given potential should fan into flame at the mere mention of the name: Booker T. Washington.
I’m Scott Ott, and there’s a thought.
The idea of American exceptionalism has become a topic of debate in the Obama years. Both sides in this often heated debate dig their heels in and stand firm in their convictions. But regardless of one’s political convictions, it’s hard to argue against the idea that the United States is unique among nations. In the 19th century, French historian and political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this and was among the first to recognize that America was an exceptional nation.
A recent Pew Research survey demonstrates that, nearly two centuries after de Tocqueville, the United States stands out from other nations in some surprising ways.
One area where Americans rank well above citizens of other countries is in the notion of individualism.
When Pew Research Center surveyed people in 44 countries last spring, 57% of Americans disagreed with the statement “Success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control,” a higher percentage than most other nations and far above the global median of 38%.
The American work ethic stands far above that of other nations as well.
True to the stereotype, surveys showed that Americans are more likely to believe that hard work pays off. When asked, on a scale of 0 to 10, about how important working hard is to getting ahead in life, 73% of Americans said it is was a “10” or “very important,” compared with a global median of 50% among the 44 nations.
Americans are exceptional among wealthy developed nations as a people of faith who place their moral convictions within the context of religious belief.
In general, people in richer nations are less likely than those in poorer nations to say religion plays a very important role in their lives. But Americans are more likely than their counterparts in economically advanced nations to deem religion very important. More than half (54%) of Americans said religion was very important in their lives, much higher than the share of people in Canada (24%), Australia (21%) and Germany (21%), the next three wealthiest economies we surveyed from 2011 through 2013.
People in richer nations tend to place less emphasis on the need to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values than people in poorer countries do. While the share of Americans holding that view is far lower than in poorer nations like Indonesia and Ghana (each 99%), the U.S. stands out when compared with people in other economically advanced nations. In the U.S., 53% say belief in God is a prerequisite for being moral and having good values, much higher than the 23% in Australia and 15% in France, according to our study of 39 nations between 2011 and 2013.
Finally, Americans tend to be far more optimistic than their counterparts in wealthier nations — a fact researchers discovered almost by accident.
Americans are also more upbeat than people in other wealthy nations when asked how their day is going. While we ask this question to help respondents get more comfortable with the interviewer, it provides a glimpse into people’s moods and reveals a slightly negative correlation between those saying the day is a good one and per capita gross domestic product. About four-in-ten Americans (41%) described their day as a “particularly good day,” a much higher share than those in Germany (21%), the UK (27%) and Japan (8%).
These findings ought to lead some politicians to rethink their conceptions of American exceptionalism. The statistics prove that the United States is truly unique among its peers.
Featured image courtesy of Shutterstock / Rawpixel
+972 is about as Left as you can get when it comes to political opinions on Israel, which is why kudos go out to blogger Edo Konrad for being the only English-language Israeli writer to draw attention to Isaac Herzog’s anti-Arab campaign ad. It’s just a shame he waited for the dust to settle on the false “Bibi is racist” claims before doing so, but then again, why would he have risked screwing his own party of choice before the election?
Konrad is high-minded in his ethics, enough to criticize Herzog:
…it was Herzog’s utter indifference toward Israel’s Palestinian minority, not to mention the 47-year military dictatorship in the occupied territories, that received little media attention.
In fact, the only time Herzog’s campaign really made an effort to spotlight Israel’s Arab citizens was in a video featuring IDF veterans who served alongside him in the prestigious Unit 8200, which is part of Israel’s vaunted intelligence corps. In the video, the veterans laud Herzog as someone who “understands the Arab mentality” and “has seen Arabs in all kinds of situations,” including “in the crosshairs.”
But, don’t mistake Konrad’s commentary for caring an actual whit about Israeli Arabs. His conclusion as to why Bibi won and Herzog lost:
By warning against “buses full of Arabs,” Netanyahu crossed the line from Likud hawk to Marzel-type incitement. Herzog, on the other hand, remained strictly within the confines of “good taste” — and lost.
Disturbing to say the least. But not uncommon among Israel’s bruised and battered extreme Leftists who have decided to lash out in rage like abused, frightened animals in the wake of the Right’s overwhelming electoral victory. Which is probably why the Left is having such trouble unifying, something that inspired the following exchange between 2 Leftist friends on Facebook:
“The right and the left need to live with moderates.”
“I was thinking the right and left need to live with Xanax.”
So much for the hype that Jewish-American leftists will cut off their support for Israel in droves. If anything, perhaps they, too, will have the guts to look behind the green curtain and into the party’s psych ward.
Today, the Charlottesville police released the results from a investigation of an alleged rape at a University of Virgina fraternity that was subject of a sensational Rolling Stone magazine article last November.
Police said they were not able to conclude any that an incident occurred at the Phi Kappa Psi house on Sept. 28, 2012.
“We have no evidence that supports those assertions” in the article, Charlottesville Police Chief Tim Long said.
According to the police, “we can’t say something didn’t happen” to her, but they have “no basis” to conclude anything happened at the fraternity house on the night in question.
The investigation was extensive with multiple interviews including friends of alleged victim “Jackie” and fraternity members.
During the investigation, police talked to about 70 people, including Jackie’s friends and fraternity members, Long said. Investigators talked to nine of the 11 Phi Psi members living in the house at the time, and none of them knew Jackie or had any knowledge of the alleged assault, Long said.
In fact, police found no evidence there was even a party on the day of the alleged rape, September 28, 2012. Law enforcement obtained a time-stamped photo that showed the fraternity house empty at the time of the alleged rape party.
Even so, the police have not closed the investigation saying it’s a disservice to “Jackie” to close the investigation without allowing more time for more people to come forward and more information to come out.
“There’s no statute of limitations of this particular type of crime,” Long said, noting that Jackie declined to be questioned by police investigators.
Shortly after the story was published in Rolling Stone magazine it began falling apart. The Managing Editor of the magazine admitted that the author, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, had not spoken to any of the students involved before submitting the story. Said Will Dana, Managing Editor, “We made a judgment — the kind of judgement reporters and editors make every day. And in this case, our judgement was wrong.”
— HummusNotWar (@cityofhummus) March 21, 2015
Blogger Elder of Ziyon writes:
Deebo at Israellycool looks at some interesting statistics from the Israeli elections.
One of the facts reported is that the most pro-Likud town in Israel is the village of All Naim, where 77% voted Likud.
Al Naim is a Bedouin Arab town.
Why did they vote for Bibi? NRG went there and asked.
The NRG report is in Hebrew, but the basic story is that the village has been fighting for basic electric and sewage services for years. The Netanyahu government proved to be the one source that finally started making progress two years ago. As the secretary of the settlement explained, the overwhelming support for Bibi and Likud was due to the fact that “there is something in our heritage that we remember a person of good things.” Imagine, voting for a politician on the basis of what they’ve already accomplished instead of what they’re promising to do.
But, as EoZ explains, because this overwhelming Arab support for Netanyahu/Likud doesn’t fit the mainstream narrative, the chances of it hitting big press are slim to none. Illustrating his point, the story was covered by the Israel paper Haaretz, which sourced unnamed residents of the village who claimed the local council told the residents how to vote. Their article ended by quoting a disgruntled Arab from an adjacent unrecognized Bedouin village of 80 residents. How relevant the quote was to the story of Al Naim, versus the “Right is racist” narrative? You decide.
Watch as the infamous activist, blacklisted by Brandeis University for her anti-Islam views, discusses her new book Heretic and the concept of reforming Islam. Martha Raddatz has no problem outing herself as a turncoat feminist, accusing Hirsi Ali, herself a survivor of female genital mutilation, of unfairly attacking Islam now that she has left the religion.
Raddatz and the pro-Islam Manalo Omar are also quick to gang up on Hirsi Ali when she highlights one of the many Qu’ranic calls for death to infidels currently being used to justify Sharia law and jihad, citing both “the Torah” and “the Bible” as containing violent verses. When Hirsi Ali replies by questioning where the Christians are who take these verses as literally as their Islamic counterparts, Raddatz changes her line of questioning without changing her politically correct tone.
“Doesn’t [your book] incite people to hate Muslims?” is Raddatz’s conclusion, not her query, proving once again that the West’s multiculturalist elite are the greatest threat to Islamic reform.
I don’t drink coffee — never have, never will — so neither do I patronize Starbucks or any other overpriced java joint filled with hipsters. Still, their absurd “Race Together” campaign would keep me from ever even ordering a cup of tea. And now it’s over. Phase One, at least:
The company announced in a memo that it would stop having its employees write those words on its coffee cups as a way to spark a national conversation about race. In a news release, the company described the rationale behind the campaign:
As racially-charged tragedies unfolded in communities across the country, the chairman and CEO of Starbucks didn’t remain a silent bystander. Howard Schultz voiced his concerns with partners (employees) in the company’s Seattle headquarters and started a discussion about race in America. Despite raw emotion around racial unrest from Ferguson, Missouri to New York City to Oakland, “we at Starbucks should be willing to talk about these issues in America,” Schultz said. “Not to point fingers or to place blame, and not because we have answers, but because staying silent is not who we are.”
The plan did get people talking about race, but perhaps not in the way that Starbucks intended.
Has it ever occurred to these soft-headed, guilt-ridden do-gooders that maybe, just maybe, we’ve been having a “conversation about race” for half a century and, after electing Barack Hussein Obama twice, America is not in the mood for another one? The fact that the campaign was widely mocked on Twitter and elsewhere was, in fact, a healthy sign that Americans simply don’t want to be lectured to on the subject anymore, especially by some barista armed with corporate talking points. Still, they’re not giving up:
The memo from Schultz called the Race Together initiative “just the catalyst” for what the company hopes will be a larger dialog on race, and said that Starbucks will continue to try and further that conversation with special sections in USA Today, and by opening more stores in minority communities, the Associated Press reported.
Here’s what the AP had to say:
Starbucks baristas will no longer write “Race Together” on customers’ cups starting Sunday, ending as planned a visible component of the company’s diversity and racial inequality campaign that had sparked widespread criticism in the week since it took effect. The coffee chain’s initiative will continue more broadly without the handwritten messages, Starbucks spokesman Jim Olson said.
The cups were always “just the catalyst” for a larger conversation and Starbucks will still hold forum discussions, co-produce special sections in USA TODAY and put more stores in minority communities as part of the Race Together initiative, according to a company memo from CEO Howard Schultz said.
The campaign has been criticized as opportunistic and inappropriate, coming in the wake of racially charged events such as national protests over police killings of black males. Others questioned whether Starbucks workers could spark productive conversations about race while serving drinks.
The phase-out is not a reaction to that pushback, Olson said. “Nothing is changing. It’s all part of the cadence of the timeline we originally planned.” He echoed the company memo, saying of the Race Together initiative, “We’re leaning into it hard.”
Yeah, right. Goodbye and good riddance, Starbucks: the backlash is going to be a bitch.
Meyers asked Leno how colleges have changed since he played them decades ago. Leno said, “College kids now are so politically correct.”
He gave an example of a Tonight Show intern who said he sounded racist for not liking Mexican food. Leno said, “Being anti-guacamole is not racist, okay? You have no idea what racism is. That’s not racism, you idiot, you moron!”
A cursory glance at campus protests on any given day will prove that Leno is correct. What should be the segment of the population that is carefree and enjoying life has been turned into a bunch of perpetually aggrieved shrews by their commie masters in academia.
The single-digit IQ brain trust at Salon, which loves to write stories decrying ageism, by the way, responded with this:
This has to be one of the odder theories ever floated about the purpose behind Stonehenge on the Salisbury plain in England. And just what Mecca has to do with it is beyond me, although the Brits obviously need to make ready a place for their new Musselman overlords in which to feel comfortable:
Whether it was a Druid temple, an astronomical calendar or a centre for healing, the mystery of Stonehenge has long been a source of speculation and debate. Now a dramatic new theory suggests that the prehistoric monument was in fact “an ancient Mecca on stilts”. The megaliths would not have been used for ceremonies at ground level, but would instead have supported a circular wooden platform on which ceremonies were performed to the rotating heavens, the theory suggests.
Julian Spalding, an art critic and former director of some of the UK’s leading museums, argues that the stones were foundations for a vast platform, long since lost – “a great altar” raised up high towards the heavens and able to support the weight of hundreds of worshippers.
“It’s a totally different theory which has never been put forward before,” Spalding told the Guardian. “All the interpretations to date could be mistaken. We’ve been looking at Stonehenge the wrong way: from the earth, which is very much a 20th-century viewpoint. We haven’t been thinking about what they were thinking about.”
Sure. Makes perfect sense. Early Britons (real Britons, not Muslims holding British passports) dragged the stones all the way from Wales and carefully arranged them so they could climb up on top of them. Right. And Chartres Cathedral was really intended as a platform on which to celebrate Mass on its roof.
Spalding, who is not an archaeologist, believes that other Stonehenge theorists have fallen into error by looking down instead of up. His evidence, he believes, lies in ancient civilisations worldwide. As far afield as China, Peru and Turkey, such sacred monuments were built high up, whether on manmade or natural sites, and in circular patterns possibly linked to celestial movements.
He said: “In early times, no spiritual ceremonies would have been performed on the ground. The Pharaoh of Egypt and the Emperor of China were always carried – as the Pope used to be. The feet of holy people were not allowed to touch the ground. We’ve been looking at Stonehenge from a modern, earth-bound perspective.”
Spalding’s theory has not met with universal approval. Prof Vincent Gaffney, principal investigator on the Stonehenge Hidden Landscapes Project at Bradford University, said he held “a fair degree of scepticism” and Sir Barry Cunliffe, a prehistorian and emeritus professor of European archaeology at Oxford University, said: “He could be right, but I know of no evidence to support it”.
Sounds about right.
Get your vomit bags out before watching this shameful attempt at brainwashing the next generation into thinking Hillary Clinton should be their feminist savior. The YouTube account “Bill for First Lady 2016″ has released a campaign spot featuring a series of little girls rhyming 5 reasons why Hillary should run for president in 2016.
They promulgate the requisite pay-gap myth with the tacky line, “In the USA, having a va-jay-jay shouldn’t mean less pay,” explaining why Common Core is so into sex ed. The girls also get in a line about Republicans bullying women over “reproductive rights,” leaving one to wonder if these girls know they’re the third generation to have survived legalized abortion in America (apparently not a lesson in the Common Core curriculum).
The most unintentionally comical point comes in the conclusion that, “As First Lady, Bill will rock the dress.” I guess Common Core hasn’t gotten to the ’90s, either. Bill definitely rocked the dress, in Democrat blue no less. Not surprisingly this one is red, reminding women they should vote Republican instead.
What the Netanyahu election-day robo call actually said:
Voter turnout in the Arab sector is three times higher! The threat is real: Abu Mazen’s calls and American money are getting the Arab vote out. Go and vote.
Why it was a reiteration of the truth, not race-mongering:
After the V15 story broke, the Free Beacon reported on a “confidential strategy memo” sent out last December by Ameinu, the American wing of Israel’s Labor movement, soliciting funds for a “massive, non-partisan Get Out The Vote (GOTV) campaign” in Israel. Touting their American contacts “…with experience in similar recent operations, including the Obama presidential campaign,” the memo details a direct link between Ameinu and the organization tagged to operate the GOTV campaign, Givat Haviva, a recipient of State Department funding.
Ameinu claims it broke from the alliance with what eventually became V15 before the V15 campaign was formed, instead choosing to direct its non-partisan fundraising efforts specifically towards Israel’s Arab community who, while traditionally Left-leaning, were not necessarily registered with any particular party.
The post-election reality? The Joint List, a coalition of three Arab and one Arab-Jewish party “will be the third largest faction in the Knesset bringing with it formidable political power.” Something that does not reassure anonymous Israeli Christian Arabs who refused to vote for an Islamic party, along with more anonymous Israeli Arabs who “…feel uncomfortable voting for a party that has members who will do nothing to advance the rights of women and homosexuals.”
How the Leftist-funded and fueled “Anybody but Bibi” crowd is playing it:
#hardball Netanyahu proves fanning racist fears and warmongering wins elections, just like Bush/Cheney and Republican Party.
— Bill Wong (@ten24get) March 17, 2015
Like Taylor Swift, no matter what tune they hum their lyrics remain the same.
Conversation OVER: Starbucks Exec Behind ‘Race Together’ Lunacy Deletes Twitter Account After Backlash
As we reported last night, Starbucks decided to ruin everyone’s lattes by having their baristas discuss racial tensions in America.
When it quickly became apparent that many Americans want the last thing they hear from the baristas is “Here’s your change,” the executive who dreamed up the idiotic idea deleted his Twitter account.
Starbucks is in hot water after launching a campaign that encourages baristas to talk about race relations with customers.
Critics have been lashing out at the company on social media, saying Starbucks is trying to capitalize on racial tension in the US.
Following the backlash, Starbucks’ senior vice president of communications, Corey duBrowa, deleted his Twitter account, which added to critics’ outrage.
So it would appear that Starbucks is super interested in having a conversation, but only as long as they control it. Dissenters or people with opinions about the appropriateness of the conversation need not interact.
This was an idea that was so patently absurd that it should have been thrown out the window when it was suggested. That a bunch of high level executives at a very successful corporation gave it a green light shows just how much can go awry when hippienomics are applied to a grownup business.
Now, baristas, as my good friend Kurt Schlichter is fond of saying: Fetch my latte.
For the second consecutive year, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and the City Council are boycotting the nation’s largest and, at 250 years, oldest St. Patrick’s Day Parade.
The reason: After a backlash last year against a ban on gay groups led to de Blasio being the first mayor in 20 years to stay away from the popular event, parade organizers said they would allow only one gay group to march with a banner in this year’s parade.
That unit will be OUT@NBCUniversal, a corporate group for gay employees of NBCUniversal, a parade sponsor whose local affiliate will broadcast the event Tuesday.
Cities such as Boston and Washington had gay groups in their St. Patrick’s Day parades this year.
While the glories of capitalism may have turned St. Patrick’s Day into an opportunity to make some good money, it is still a religious feast day. I am not at all asserting that a parade is some sort of sacred religious event, but if the local cardinal is your grand marshal, there are still some ties to the Church. The Roman Catholic Church isn’t obligated to overhaul doctrine to accommodate the angry activist group du jour or a commie like Bill de Blasio. There are always activist groups and commies angry with the Church and there just isn’t that much time, even for an ancient institution.
Now, as is typical with activist groups, a concession was made but-IT’S NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
It never is.
Inclusion here doesn’t satisfy them, they want to be able to hijack the parade. If five groups are allowed to march, they’ll want ten, and so on.
Because, as with all militant activist groups, it is never about the thing they say it is.
http://t.co/0VdBfi4zs4 “They called us nazis, what do we do?” “Ban their ability to make fun of or criticize us.” “That’ll show ‘em!”
— Kevin Alfred Mastron (@ShamefulHipster) March 17, 2015
Mozilla acted quickly to remove a hilariously controversial app, Men Kampf, from its site out of fear of radical feminist retribution.
Beta News reports:
Mozilla could soon find itself at the center of a new controversy, as it just approved a Firefox extension, called Men Kampf, designed with the sole purpose of replacing so-called “radfem rethoric [sic] with nazi friendly alternatives”.
Men Kampf scans the page that the Firefox user visits for any words considered to be linked to feminism — certainly not radical feminism, as claimed in the description — and replaces them, on the fly, with said “alternatives”. As such, an article about feminism will quickly appear to be one about nazism. The developer behind the extension, Erim Secla, says that it’s all “just for fun” in Men Kampf’s description.
…Men Kampf is apparently inspired by a Chrome extension called “Man Kampf” (in reality, it’s called Men Kampf and is available in the Chrome Web Store), which is equally offensive. The Chrome counterpart “Turns SJW nonsense into pro-Nazi propaganda. Changes words such as ‘Men’ into ‘Jews’ to make any radical feminist post sound like something straight out of Hitler’s mouth!”, claims its developer in the description.
While Men Kampf is no longer available through Firefox, it is still available for download through Google Chrome where users have given it a 4.5 star rating.
Not only can Starbucks baristas make the perfect latte for customers, now CEO Howard Schultz is encouraging them to discuss how to improve race relations in America at the same time.
The topic is often taboo in corporate America, but over the past few months, the company has held open forums for workers to talk about race. They have taken place in cities where racial tensions have recently run high, including Oakland, Los Angeles, St. Louis, New York and Chicago, as well as at corporate headquarters in Seattle.
The forums are “not to point fingers or to place blame, and not because we have answers, but because staying silent is not who we are,” Schultz said.
He wants the conversations to continue, and to involve Starbucks customers, too.
The company ran full-page ads in The New York Times and USA Today this week announcing its initiative “Race Together.” Baristas in cities where forums have been held began writing the slogan on customers’ cups last week, aiming to spark a dialogue.
Schultz’s contention that we aren’t talking about race enough in Obama’s America is laughable. I’m trying to think of anything that’s happened in the last six years that libs didn’t tie to race.
If, however, we were in need of a conversation, it wouldn’t need to be led by the people charged with making sure my latte doesn’t suck. I am a political animal and one of the ways I maintain what little sanity I have is by taking deliberate breaks from the issues of the day, both large and small. When I leave the house for coffee I do it expressly to avoid dealing with much of the real world. I am certainly not interested in what the local espresso slinger imagines are his deep thoughts on divisive issues.
They’re ruining sports for me. Now they’re ruining coffee. If Archer does a “very special episode” about global warming, I’m outta here.
The same day as the re-opening of the Hyper Cacher kosher supermarket in Paris, Israeli music artist Gad Elbaz released an English-language music video shot in the Jewish section of Paris. Dubbed by the Jewish Standard as “a fully remixed and re-imagined version of Hava Nagila – an early Zionist call to optimism,” the video features “crowds of Jews and other Parisians dancing through the city’s Le Marais historic Jewish quarter” to the classic Jewish folk song.
“We chose to record there to march as Jews in pride and with heads uplifted,” said Elbaz. “To say we are here to strengthen the Jews of France and Europe in their spirit and pride, not with protests and cries of war but rather with drums, dance and eternal Jewish singing that has been strengthening our existence for two thousand years of exile.”
HAPPENING NOW: Police in Tel Aviv estimate about 100,000 people participating in a pro Likud rally in Rabin square. pic.twitter.com/hv37bEklQe
— Israel News Feed (@IsraelHatzolah) March 15, 2015
Ahead of Tuesday’s elections, an estimated crowd of 100,000 Israelis rallied in support of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square, where only one week ago an estimated 40,000 rallied in support of the opposition.
Speaking to a rally of thousands of supporters of Israel’s right-wing parties from behind a bulletproof screen at Tel Aviv’s main square, Netanyahu warned that the right-wing government he leads could be voted out of office.
“Our rivals are investing a huge effort to harm me and the Likud, to open a gap between my party, the Likud, and (our rivals), and if we don’t close this gap, there is a real danger that a left-wing government will rise to power,” Netanyahu said.
Final opinion polls published on Friday predicted the center-left Zionist Union led by Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni would take between 24 and 26 seats in Tuesday’s vote, compared to 20-22 seats for Likud.
No single party has ever won an outright majority in Israel’s 120-seat Knesset and the party leader with the best chance of forming a coalition would lead the new government.
While admitting he is trailing in the polls, Netanyahu is hoping that right-wing parties can narrow the gap sufficiently for him to be nominated by Israel’s president to form the next coalition and win a fourth term as prime minister.
Partisanship is at an expected high in the last days before the election, with left-wing sources coming out swinging against the prime minister and his right-wing “settler” crowd.
Meanwhile, a bi-partisan congressional investigatory committee is “probing possible Obama administration ties to the anti-Netanyahu effort” in Israel in a move that “could be seen as a rebuke to President Obama.”
Let’s be clear about one thing: The only time Kathy Griffin shows up anywhere is when her fellow D-lister Andy Dick is unavailable. And apparently even Andy Dick didn’t want to touch the hot mess that is Fashion Police in the wake of Joan Rivers’ untimely death.
The chaos began when the Empress of E! Giuliana Rancic lamely joked that Disney Princess Zendaya’s dreads smelled like “patchouli oil…or weed.” Because Zendaya is African American, the entire world jumped to defend her Marleyesque hairstyle, raking Rancic through the standard hot coals saved for politically incorrect commentators like herself. In the wake of the “scandal” Kelly Osbourne decided to leave the show and yesterday Kathy Griffin tweeted her resignation, commenting:
“…I do not want to use my comedy to contribute to a culture of unattainable perfectionism and intolerance towards difference. I want to help women, gay kids, people of color and anyone who feels underrepresented to have a voice and a LAUGH!”
Sounding more like Patricia Arquette backtracking after her Oscars flub about “gay people and people of color,” Griffin proved she’s no Joan. None of them are. That’s why Fashion Police couldn’t survive a day without her.
Gen-X and Millennial hacks the lot, watch Griffin and her crew run and hide behind their beloved “gays” and “people of color” like a human shield designed to protect their own inflated egos in the wake of the minefield of political correctness. Only Joan Rivers, born before all this post-1960′s liberation activist schlock could navigate this battle unharmed. In seeking out her replacement the only thing these doobs saw in Joan was a woman unafraid to offend. They didn’t see the honesty in her “Can We Talk” comedy because, to them, talk is nothing more than a media appearance and a quick paycheck. They’re too busy hiding behind the latest cause celeb to begin to attempt the kind of self-honesty Joan emoted with every barb.
Fellow narcissist Lena Dunham, a common victim of Joan’s silver-tongued quips, tweeted support for Kathy Griffin “saying enough is enough to intolerance”. Spare me, you Queens of Intolerance hiding behind a human shield of your own making. Come up for some air in-between Tweet praises and go shopping for matching outfits. You’ll need new camo when your beloved “gays and people of color” turn to you and say, “Can we talk?” Now that’s a show I’d watch.
Don’t take it from me; take it from Arthur Brooks in the pages of, believe it or not, the New York Times. A life entirely devoted to the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain is a fool’s errand:
We don’t want to suffer — we hate it, in fact. Yet it is suffering that often brings personal improvement. Not all pain is beneficial, obviously. But researchers have consistently found that most survivors of illness and loss experience “post-traumatic growth.” Not only do many people find a greater emotional maturity after suffering; they are even better prepared to help others deal with their pain. That is why after a loss we turn for comfort to those who have endured a similar loss.
Sages throughout history have relished the enigma that pleasure is undefined without suffering. In the words of Carl Jung: “There are as many nights as days, and the one is just as long as the other in the year’s course. Even a happy life cannot be without a measure of darkness, and the word ‘happy’ would lose its meaning if it were not balanced by sadness.” The Tao Te Ching extends the metaphor: “Difficult and easy accomplish each other, long and short form each other, high and low distinguish each other.”
… in this season of Lent, hundreds of millions of Catholics are pondering their own inadequacies and inviting discomfort through abstinence and fasting. In a postmodern era, where death is taboo, pain is pointless, and sin is a cultural anachronism, what could be more rebellious?
But the spirit of these practices is open to everyone, religious or not. Think of it as a personal declaration of independence. The objective is not to cause yourself damage, but to accept the pain and fear that are a natural part of life, and to embrace them as a valuable source of lessons to learn and tests to pass.
A few years ago I attended Mass at St. Monica’s in Santa Monica, Calif., about as “welcoming” a parish as you can imagine. It happened to be the Sunday before Lent and the padre’s sermon was on the subject of the season fast approaching three days later. “Have a good Lent,” he told the congregation, an expression (coming from the Irish penitential wing of Catholicism as I do) I had never heard before. But, for the reasons Brooks points out above, it made a lot of sense. No pleasure without pain, no gain without loss. As the poet Milton wrote in the famous Areopagitica:
Good and evil we know in the field of this world grow up together almost inseparably; and the knowledge of good is so involved and interwoven with the knowledge of evil, and in so many cunning resemblances hardly to be discerned, that those confused seeds which were imposed upon Psyche as an incessant labour to cull out and sort asunder, were not more intermixed. It was from out the rind of one apple tasted that the knowledge of good and evil, as two twins cleaving together, leaped forth into the world. And perhaps this is that doom which Adam fell into of knowing good and evil, that is to say of knowing good by evil.
I’ll have a lot more to say on this subject in my forthcoming book, The Devil’s Pleasure Palace, out this summer from Encounter Books. I hope you will have a chance to read it.
Soviet leaders just killed their enemies and told the world they went on extended vacations. American politicians prefer more Dallas-like drama — the Democrats do anyway. The latest accusation in the Hillary Clinton email scandal comes from Ed Klein’s “sources inside the White House” who claim the most powerful duo since Batman and Robin, Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett (you decide who’s playing who), is out to take down Hillary before 2016. Why? Simply put, she’s just not progressive enough.
Apparently the Clintons are aware that Hillary is “under not 1, but 6 investigations” prompted by the Obama administration. Basic cable channels everywhere wish they could get this kind of stuff on tape for a reality TV series, that is how delicious it sounds. Which makes one wonder if it’s really true. Ed Klein’s telltale book Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas has scored big in the charts for what has been dubbed its “stunning exposé of the animosity, jealousy, and competition between America’s two most powerful political couples.” But the journalist’s sources go largely unnamed and more than one anecdote hasn’t held up well under scrutiny. Does this boil down to more he-said, she-said fodder for popular consumption?
Then again, Hillary has been the whipping boy of the Democrat Party since Lewinsky (if not before). She is the epitome of Whittaker Chambers’ sad fact that Communists will never hesitate to take a personal hit for the sake of The Party. Whether the blue dress or Benghazi, Hillary has never hesitated to make a complete ass out of herself for the good of the gang. Which leads one to question: If Klein’s sources are correct, is this really a “feud” between the Obamas and Clintons, or yet another maneuver to entertain the masses while Jarrett and her cronies empower another up-and-coming radical progressive (think: Obama II: Spawn of Obama) ahead of 2016?
ISRAEL! If you are a Meretz supporter you NEED to VOTE MARCH 17. Every vote counts. If you don’t vote, you can’t complain
— Sarah Silverman (@SarahKSilverman) March 11, 2015
Comedian Sarah Silverman is politicking again, this time for Israel’s Meretz Party ahead of the contentious March 17 elections. A fairly typical Left-wing party, Meretz emphasizes social justice, advocacy for a variety of minority groups, and a two-state solution to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What makes Meretz so special in the eyes of the Jewish American comedian may have less to do with its politics and more to do with the fact that her sister, Rabbi Susan Silverman, is #20 on Meretz’s slate of candidates. Meretz’s greatest challenge comes from the Zionist Camp, a mashup of the Labor and Hatnua parties co-led by Boogie Herzog and Tzipi Livni that is proving to be Likud’s greatest contender in the race.
Silverman’s Meretz campaign has yet to mirror the tactics of her pro-Obama “Great Schlep” of 2008 in which she informed young voters to tell their Floridian grandparents they’d withhold visits if the seniors didn’t vote for Obama. As of now, El Al isn’t expecting a downturn in ticket sales if Meretz loses at the polls.
The New York Times reports:
Like many survivors of the Holocaust, after World War II, Saul Dreier and Reuwen (“Ruby”) Sosnowicz moved to America, started families and careers, grew old, and retired to Florida. For these octogenarians, settling near Boca Raton could have been the last chapter in their story.
But then, last summer, Mr. Dreier, 89, decided to start a klezmer band, drawing upon the music he grew up with in Poland. Playing the drums, he teamed up with Mr. Sosnowicz, an 85-year-old Polish accordionist. This Op-Doc video profiles the two men and their group, which they’ve named the Holocaust Survivor Band. In recent months they have performed for audiences at venues ranging from local nursing homes and temples to The Venetian in Las Vegas.
…For them, music is catharsis. The Holocaust Survivor Band summons the bittersweet memories of childhood, but more than that, it is a celebration of life.
Seniors Dreier and Sosnowicz prove that life doesn’t stop and start at the convenience of a radical dictator or cultural norm.
Helicopter parenting, along with other forms of over-parenting, have come under considerable criticism in recent years for creating a generation of kids who can’t problem-solve for themselves. Now, a related parenting behavior – “overvaluing” one’s kids – has come under similar fire: But here, for creating narcissists-in-the-making. A new study from The Ohio State University suggests that constant – and perhaps undue – praise for our kids’ tiniest accomplishments, or non-accomplishments, may have the unintended side-effect of creating an over-inflated ego. And this can have serious consequences both in childhood and later on in life.
“Research shows that narcissism is higher in Western than non-Western countries, and suggests that narcissism levels have been steadily increasing among Western youth over the past few decades,” the authors write in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
This is something I’ve been railing about for years (I wrote an ebook about it) and my feelings about it has just been reinforced while raising my teenage daughter. When childhood is spent being rewarded for nothing, adulthood can be a bit difficult to navigate. There seems to be no balance between avoiding damage to children’s psyches and coddling them to the point of inducing neuroses. Yes, psychotic, screaming parents at sporting events are awful, but last Saturday I saw pre-season parade for a Little League, celebrating merely getting through the registration process, I guess.
Narcissism is at the core of progressivism. The sense of entitlement inherent in leftist ideology is being nurtured in public schools that decades ago began prioritizing feelings over achievement.
The New York Times reports:
China detained at least 10 women’s rights activists over the weekend to forestall a nationwide campaign against sexual harassment on public transportation that was to overlap with International Women’s Day, according to human rights advocates and associates of those detained.
At least five of the detained were still being held on Sunday evening, while the others had been released after being interrogated. All were women.
The women still in detention on Sunday evening live in the eastern metropolises of Beijing, Guangzhou and Hangzhou, and had timed the start of the anti-harassment campaign to coincide with International Women’s Day on Sunday, according to Chinese Human Rights Defenders, an advocacy group based outside China that had posted on Twitter about the detentions.
…“The attack this time is a big deal for us because the people who have been taken away formed the growing core of our movement these last few years,” said a young woman in Beijing who spoke on the condition of anonymity, also out of fear of official retribution. “They are the core strength of the women’s activist movement.”
The All-China Women’s Federation held a gathering attended by female domestic workers and foreign diplomats in Beijing on Friday ahead of International Women’s Day.
The Chinese government attaches great importance to the protection of women’s rights, said Shen Yueyue, president of the federation, when delivering a speech.
Shen, who is also vice chair of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, China’s top legislature, said she hoped women would work hard to help realize the “Chinese dream” of national rejuvenation.
Shen also urged women worldwide to work together in promoting gender equality and world peace and development.
The best way to celebrate women in China these days is to tell them to work harder and keep their mouths shut.
If you can bring yourself to ignore the contextual inconsistencies between his rhetoric and his record of action, President Obama’s speech commemorating the 50th anniversary of the “Bloody Sunday” march in Selma was pretty good. If you put aside the president’s bastardized definitions of words like “justice” and “freedom,” his observation that our American experiment plays out in continual societal change toward a libertarian ideal borders on insightful.
There was a snippet toward the end that stood out, however. As the president wove his 2008 campaign slogan into the tapestry of civil rights history, he expressed a sentiment precisely opposite that which should inform our thinking regarding Selma.
Because the single most powerful word in our democracy is the word “We.” We The People. We Shall Overcome. Yes We Can. It is owned by no one. It belongs to everyone. Oh, what a glorious task we are given, to continually try to improve this great nation of ours.
Confronted with this, my mind shifted to a lesser known novella authored by philosopher Ayn Rand entitled Anthem. Written in the first person, the story chronicles the struggle of a man living in a highly-controlled dystopian society which is so collectivized that each individual thinks of his self as “we.”
It’s the word “we,” and everything it represents when used in the manner that Obama wields it, which underscored the atrocities of Jim Crow. It’s collectivist thinking which enables and fuels racism in all is forms.
As Rand’s Anthem protagonist concludes:
The word “We” is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it. It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages.
What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree and to obey?
One cannot judge a man by the content of his character without doing so individually. Thus the explicit goal sought by Dr. Martin Luther King, his resonate dream, requires us to dispense with “we” and deal solely in “I.” Individuals, not groups, exhibit character. Individuals, not groups, affect change for good or ill.
The appropriate call on this historic anniversary is not an appeal to “consensus,” as Obama makes. Rather, we each should seek a rational pursuit of life-affirming values. Reason defeats racism, as it does all forms of irrationality. Reason endows men both with the capability to judge character and to exhibit it. If we shall truly overcome the darkness which those who marched on Selma opposed, we will do so by individually embracing reason as our means of dealing with our reality and with each other.
(Today’s Fightin Words podcast is on this topic available here.)
A crowd estimated at 40,000 filled Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square this weekend in what is being called an “anti-Netanyahu” rally ahead of the elections scheduled for March 17. Former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan keynoted the rally calling Netanyahu, ”the person who has caused the greatest strategic damage to Israel.” The rally was reportedly organized by the Million Hands grassroots campaign “along with other social movements.” The Millions Hands organization “campaigns for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians and the creation of a Palestinian state.”
Twitter reaction to the rally was mixed with several users referring to the organizers of the rally as the “Obama Army”:
— Nerd Nation (@Nerditupnation) March 8, 2015
While others noted the rather un-productive nature of the rally’s negative theme:
It’s too bad that tonight’s Tel Aviv rally is #anti-Netanyahu and not pro-somebody… anybody…
— David Brinn (@davidbjpost) March 7, 2015
Most Israelis remained unmoved, chalking the rally up to a typical pre-election political demonstration:
There were many Meretz, Avoda, Peace Now flags & activists, organizers of rally said it was for ”the center and to the left” @BlueMeanie4
— Ben Hartman (@Benhartman) March 7, 2015
…and waiting for Bibi supporters to do the same thing next week:
That’s a wrap folks, ‘Imagine’ by John Lennon playing on stage, Next weekend – right wing rally, same spot.
— Ben Hartman (@Benhartman) March 7, 2015
According to the latest polls, Netanyahu received only a slight bump in the polls after his speech to Congress, illustrating once again that Israel, like every other nation on the planet, has more than just matters of national security to address in an election. Still, in a nation of millions of voters, the most 40,000 demonstrators can do in a tight race is pose for an impressive Twitpic.
As the Islamic savages who can have no “idols” to compete with their moon god continue to wage war on the world’s collective cultural heritage — all in furtherance of their goal of one world unite, prostrate, at the feet of “Allah” — the United Nations finally rouses itself from the enduring problem of Israel to take a modicum of notice:
Archaeologists and officials have expressed outrage about the bulldozing of the ancient Assyrian city of Nimrud by Islamic State militants in Iraq. On Thursday IS – which controls swathes of Iraq and Syria – began demolishing the site, which was founded in the 13th Century BC, Iraqi officials said.
The head of UN’s cultural agency condemned the “systematic” destruction in Iraq as a “war crime.” IS says ancient shrines and statues are “false idols” that have to be smashed.
“They are erasing our history,” Iraqi archaeologist Lamia al-Gailani said.
Well, that’s the whole point, isn’t it? Be sure to watch the video at the link.
In a world where non-PC utterances are cause for ruining careers, the notoriously unhinged Dan Savage is given the opportunity to be the executive producer of a network comedy based on his life.
Savage gets a pass on his lunacy, however, because he’s in an Approved Victim Group (AVG) and fought against bullying.
For quick reference, here are a few examples that should be fun to play a game of “What if a conservative had said this?” with.
Real mainstream America stuff there, ABC.
This is why conservatives need to continue to fight in Hollywood, and trust me, the fight is happening. America doesn’t need a conservative alternative, it needs us to battle to shred the entertainment industry status quo, which not only overlooks, but rewards, all things leftist.
Uphill battle, you say? Most goals worth achieving are.
Before any agenda-driven lefties try to say (and they will) that my beef is with Savage being gay and getting a network show, let me be clear: it’s only because he’s a jag-off.
Well, here’s one now. With a Monkey God, too!
The jungle-choked remains of a “lost city”, abandoned by a mysterious civilisation several centuries ago and long fabled for reports of its gold and “monkey children”, have been uncovered in the depths of the rainforests of Honduras. A team of American and Honduran archaeologists, aided by the bushcraft and survival skills of former British SAS soldiers, has just emerged from one of the most remote locations on Earth with news of their stunning discovery.
The expedition was seeking the site of the legendary “White City”, also known as the “City of the Monkey God”, a goal for Western explorers since the days of the Spanish conquistadores in the 16th century. The city, believed to be one of many lost in the Mosquitia jungle, was home to an unknown people that thrived a thousand years ago but then vanished without trace – until now.
Unlike the Maya, so little is known of this pre-Columbian culture that it does not even have a name.
“It shows that even now, well into the 21st century, there is so much to discover about our world,” said Christopher Fisher, the lead archaeologist. ”The untouched nature of the site is unique and if preserved and properly studied can tell us much about these past people and provide critical data for modern conservation,” he told the Telegraph.
The site is located deep in the Mosquitia, a vast and barely inhabited region of swamps, rivers, and mountains. To navigate the choking foliage, the team was guided by Steve Sullivan and Andrew Wood, the former SAS soldiers who are experts in bushcraft survival skills.
Like this, you mean?
(And, yes, that’s Alfred Molina as the treacherous native guide.)