Search Results

WELL, THAT’S THE TRUTH: Joy Behar: We jumped to conclusions about the Covington Catholic kids because we desperately want Trump out of office.

God love ‘er for betraying no shame in recognizing that the proposition that All MAGA Hat-Wearers Are Bad in this case seems to require the continued pummeling of a bunch of children. And I stress “continued.” I jumped to conclusions too when the first carefully edited clip of the confrontation emerged but it’s one thing to render judgment rashly and regret it and another to double and triple down after evidence to the contrary emerges, as some of the Lords of Tolerance have done over the past 48 hours. . . .

My thought last night was that the last thing this clusterfark needed was Trump weighing in. Every controversy he touches turns more bitter; God knows what he might say about it off the cuff to damage his own side; and it’s a bad look for him to be taking time out for something like this when the government’s shut down and federal workers are looking at another missed payday. The right has done quite well without him over the last few days prosecuting the case in the kids’ defense too, with help from Fox News. The more I think about it, though, the weirder it would be if he *didn’t* weigh in. This sort of cultural brawl is why he was elected, after all. Ann Coulter has convinced herself that it was because of the wall, but no, it’s because Trump is willing to grab the left in a headlock unapologetically whenever a nasty bar fight like this breaks out. Fans will forgive him sooner or later (spoiler: sooner) if he doesn’t get a wall but Trump refusing to throw a chair at SJWs trying to smear a bunch of kids for “the cause” really would be a “Why did we elect this guy?” moment.

Well, when you’re in a bar fight, it’s nice to have a guy at your side who realizes that you’re in a bar fight.

UPDATE: Related:

KAEPERNICK SACKED IN END ZONE, OPPOSITION SCORES SAFETY: Nike Makes Kaepernick Face Of Brand, Nike Shares Fall.

On Monday, the new face of Nike’s 30th anniversary “Just Do It” campaign was unveiled, and NFL fans will have no problem recognizing him: Colin Kaepernick, who started the protest movement back in 2016, when he declared, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

In early trading Tuesday, Nike’s shares dropped by nearly 4 percent, “the biggest intraday slide in five months,” Bloomberg reports. “Nike shares slipped as much as 3.9 percent to $79 as of 9:31 a.m. Tuesday in New York — the biggest intraday slide in five months. They had climbed 31 percent this year through Friday’s close.”

* * * * * * * *

Yahoo Sports’ Charles Robinson reported Monday that despite Kaepernick having a deal with Nike since 2011, prompted by “interest from other shoe companies,” Nike worked out a new, far more extensive contract with Kaepernick. The deal is a “wide endorsement,” Robinson reported, a “star” deal, which will include royalties. The former QB will have “his own branded line,” including shoes, shirts, jerseys, and more.

Hey, what about socks?

San Francisco 49ers quarterbacks Blaine Gabbert, left, and Colin Kaepernick (7) stretch during NFL football training camp, Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2016, at Kezar Stadium in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Ben Margot.) Click to enlarge image.

In the crowded marketplace of athletic apparel, presumably Nike’s overnight transformation from selling an apolitical product to “woke sneakers” for the SJW set is a brand strategy similar to the reason why late night TV aims hard left, as described by Robert Tracinski of the Federalist:

This is also my theory about the big entertainment awards shows like the Oscars and the Emmys. If the big, broad, general audience you used to have is gone, and deep down you think it’s never coming back, then why not make a harder bid for the loyalty of the smaller audience you’ve got left? In a time when the entertainment industry is (or thinks it is) a one-party state with no dissenters, you had better echo that politics back to your base.

What were once cultural institutions with a broad, bipartisan audience are becoming niche players with a narrow fan base. They no longer view partisan politics as a dangerous move that will shrink their audience. Instead, they’re using partisan politics as a lure to secure the loyalty of their audience, or what is left of it. Not that it’s going to work over the long term, because people who want to have their biases confirmed will just watch the five-minute YouTube clip Chris Cillizza links to the next day.

And no doubt, as with ESPN’s own descent into a collective of SJWs with an occasional passing interest in sports, Nike decided to listen to the loudest voices on social media, rather than football fans at large:

Clay Travis’s new book, Republicans Buy Sneakers Too, is due out on September 25. Note the football player on the cover.

UPDATE: Kaepernick won’t stand for the flag but he’ll bow down to the Nike dollar? So much for ‘sacrificing everything.’

MARK PULLIAM ON TEXAS: The Snowflakes Take Charge at UT Law School: Political Correctness Trumps Pedagogy in Constitutional Law I.

Case in point: At UT law school, Professor Richard Alpert gave his 1L Constitutional Law I students a final exam consisting of half multiple-choice questions and half an essay responding to a prompt. The prompt asked students to assume they were advising the Governor of Kansas regarding the legality of segregated schools, prior to Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Students were asked to write a memo, no more than 1,000 words, raising the best legal arguments. Given the sensitivity of matters relating to race, it is unlikely that a white professor would have used such a prompt for an essay exam. Professor Alpert, however, is African-American.

After the exam was over, leftist students began to whine. One student, a white SJW, wrote an email to the class objecting that the question left him “shocked and disgusted.” The student encouraged his classmates to complain to the law school’s administration, asserting that “No one should have been forced to write an essay defending segregation.” Another white student defended Professor Alpert’s essay question as a legitimate pedagogical exercise.

A student of color admonished her classmates, asking that they “remember the amount of privilege that each of us sit in as we work towards solutions to mitigate or, possibly, remedy these concerns.” Continuing, this student scolded the initial objector with these words: “If you are not a person of color and you felt triggered by the exam question, I would encourage you to actually talk to a person of color in the class because, to be frank, the question did not address your experience. And because it is not your experience, it is not you [sic] place to take charge of the dialogue without consulting the individuals who are actually impacted.” Nevertheless, the student of color indicated that the Thurgood Marshall Legal Society, a student organization at UT affiliated with the National Black Law Students Association, “has been made aware of this exam question.”

The UT administration quickly assumed the fetal position. Within days, Professor Alpert sent an apology to the class, reproduced in full below.

This isn’t going to make Texas grads more appealing on the job market.

ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE’S DEMISE WAS SELF-INFLICTED:

This is not surprising, in fact, it was all too predictable. Growing up in the post-punk and pre-internet 1980’s, if you wanted to learn more about your favorite bands, you had few options. You could watch MTV, which actually played music videos, or you could read magazines like Rolling Stone.

At some point over the last two decades, Rolling Stone decided to focus more on politics and in the process, fully embraced the progressive platform.

Yes, I’m old enough to remember when MTV was a watchable cable channel showing rock videos, and Rolling Stone was an entertaining show business magazine featuring record reviews (remember records?), interviews with rock stars and Hollywood actors and directors, additionally, as a Kevin D. Williamson writes, in a piece titled “Jann Wenner — Man of the Past,” “About 90 percent of what’s in Rolling Stone would be at home in US Weekly, if it were a little more plain. But, oh, that other 10 percent:”

Wenner sent Hunter S. Thompson tear-assing around the world to invent a new kind of journalism and published important pieces of more traditional investigative journalism. He also helped to launch the careers of two of the most important conservative voices of their generation: P. J. O’Rourke and Tom Wolfe, whose fiction masterpiece, Bonfire of the Vanities, might very well have never come to completion without Wenner’s encouragement and his agreement to serialize it. More recently, Matt Taibbi gave the magazine a real claim to continued relevance with his reporting on the financial crisis and various shenanigans associated with it. Between the whatever-happened-to-Hanson features, Rolling Stone has published some astonishingly good writing about important things.

There were of course catastrophic misjudgments, too: Rolling Stone infamously put one of the terrorists behind the Boston Marathon bombings on the cover in a glamour-boy pose to advertise a not-especially-insightful piece of prose. It also published a laughably, shockingly shoddy piece of journalism alleging to detail the case of a rape at the University of Virginia, a piece of non-journalism that turned out to be something much closer to pure fiction, one for which the magazine has already lost one defamation suit and has been obliged to settle with another party for more than $1 million. The damage to Rolling Stone’s bottom line could have been worse; the damage to its reputation could hardly have.

The high-minded magazine also once fired a guy for writing a negative review of a Hootie and the Blowfish record.

Rank those transgressions as you will.

In a way, MTV foreshadowed Rolling Stone’s hyper-politicization by going all-in on their lefty “Rock the Vote” campaign to aid Bill Clinton’s election odds in 1992. Ace of Spades has a had a couple of recent posts linking to a video that discusses how the increasingly SJW-obsessed comic book world has embraced the concept of “No-Escapism,” particularly when combined with the politicized overculture of the NFL, TV, and movies. It’s good to see that there’s a price to be paid by going to war with your audience – who are pushing back with what Noah Rothman of Commentary dubs America’s “Great Tune-Out.”

Related: Judge Re-Instates Group Defamation Lawsuit by UVA Fraternity Against Susan Erdeley and Rolling Stone for Fabricated Rape Story.

As a legendary community organizer advised his constituents, get in their faces and punch back twice as hard.

THE GOOGLE ARCHIPELAGO: In an article at the Weekly Standard that was likely written before Google’s meltdown this week headlined, “You Can’t Say That,” a review of the recent book The Demon in Democracy, Matthew B. Crawford asks, “Has liberalism taken a Soviet turn?”

Through the ’80s, ’90s, and into the new millennium, the phrase “politically correct” would crop up here and there. Among people who were credited as being sophisticated, use of the term would be met with a certain exasperation: It was needling and stale. The phrase had been picked up by the likes of College Republicans and Fox News, and if you had an ear for intellectual class distinctions you avoided it.

Originally a witticism, the term suggested there was something Soviet-like in the policing of liberal opinion. When it first came into wide circulation, was it anything but humorous hyperbole? Is that still the case today?

A sociologist might point to a decline in social trust over the past few decades—they have ways of measuring this—and speculate about its bearing on political speech. One wonders: Who am I talking to? How will my utterances be received? What sort of allegiances are in play here? In the absence of trust, it becomes necessary to send explicit signals. We become fastidious in speech and observe gestures of affirmation and condemnation that would be unnecessary among friends.

It’s a great review, and well worth your time to read the whole thing. Crawford’s question, “Has liberalism taken a Soviet turn?”, dovetails remarkably well with this week’s events. In the article by James D. Miller that Glenn linked to on Wednesday titled “Get ready for the ‘tech alt-right’ to gain influence in Silicon Valley,” Miller wrote:

It will be poisonous if the tech right feels compelled to not only hide their beliefs but also to actively pretend to believe in progressive diversity values. This pretending will embitter them, probably pushing many to the more radical alt-right.

It will prevent the left and right from getting meaningful feedback on their belief. Plus, if progressives never talked with people on the right, they wouldn’t get to learn that most of us do not fit their stereotypes of being sexist monsters.

When SJWs in Silicon Valley realize that their ideological enemies are hiding, they might actively search them out. They might become suspicious of the guy who was the first to stop clapping when a new diversity initiative was announced. Even worse, SWJs in human resources might become reluctant to hire those with characteristics correlated with conservatism, such as past military service.

That line about SJWs becoming suspicious about “the guy who was the first to stop clapping when a new diversity initiative was announced” is Straight Outta the Kremlin, comrade. In The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote of the fate of the man who stopped clapping first:

At the conclusion of the conference, a tribute to Comrade Stalin was called for. Of course, everyone stood up (just as everyone had leaped to his feet during the conference at every mention of his name). … For three minutes, four minutes, five minutes, the stormy applause, rising to an ovation, continued. But palms were getting sore and raised arms were already aching. And the older people were panting from exhaustion. It was becoming insufferably silly even to those who really adored Stalin.

However, who would dare to be the first to stop? … After all, NKVD men were standing in the hall applauding and watching to see who would quit first! And in the obscure, small hall, unknown to the leader, the applause went on – six, seven, eight minutes! They were done for! Their goose was cooked! They couldn’t stop now till they collapsed with heart attacks! At the rear of the hall, which was crowded, they could of course cheat a bit, clap less frequently, less vigorously, not so eagerly – but up there with the presidium where everyone could see them?

* * * * * * * *

Then, after eleven minutes, the director of the paper factory assumed a businesslike expression and sat down in his seat. And, oh, a miracle took place! Where had the universal, uninhibited, indescribable enthusiasm gone? To a man, everyone else stopped dead and sat down. They had been saved!

The squirrel had been smart enough to jump off his revolving wheel. That, however, was how they discovered who the independent people were. And that was how they went about eliminating them. That same night the factory director was arrested. They easily pasted ten years on him on the pretext of something quite different. But after he had signed Form 206, the final document of the interrogation, his interrogator reminded him:

“Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding.”

And the world’s biggest search engine is well on its way to becoming The Google Archipelago. In an article Orwellianly titled “Internal Messages Show Some Googlers Supported Fired Engineer’s Manifesto” (heaven Lenin forefend — root out the hoarders and wreckers!) in Wired, which began as a libertarian-leaning publication before being purchased by the lefties at Condé Nast, the writer quotes from an anonymous Google employee. “‘Let’s take a step back,’ the Googler wrote, ‘and look at what is actually making everyone in Google upset on this thread and in general since the start of the 2016 election season.’ He went on to describe how the apparent uniformity of thought at Google led people like Damore to feel ‘like they are being forcibly dragged into [sic] ideological indoctrination chamber,’” including these passages that sound like mash notes smuggled out of the Ministry of Truth:

Weekly public (though thankfully anonymous) shaming of employees for misdeeds as slight as anachronistic use of “guys” for a mixed gender group

Frequent references to documents that stigmatize open disagreement with a a rage [sic] of positions

Call for employees to give each other hugs at an all hands meeting because the wrong candidate won a presidential election in the country, following by a mass mailing on how to help your kids deal with grief due to the same occurrence

In a piece at the Federalist titled “No One Expects The Google Inquisition, But It’s Coming,” Robert Tracinski spots another Stalin-esque element to be found in the above article at Wired:

In the new Internet version [of commercial advertising], we know these big companies are gathering specific personal information about our habits and preferences, far more than anyone has ever done, but we accept it because we think they’re just going to use it to sell us stuff, which might sometimes be annoying but isn’t ominous. But if we think there is a wider purpose, if we think they’re going to use our information for social engineering or political manipulation—will that break the bargain?

In this regard, the most important part of the story is those photographed screenshots intended to out Googlers who agreed with Damore. Why were they photographs of a computer screen rather than actual screenshots grabbed by the computer itself, which would have had much better resolution? I suspect it’s because this would leave evidence behind on work computers, so the leakers might get caught. This implies the leakers know what they’re doing is against internal Google rules—just as leaking Damore’s original memo to the media was against internal Google rules.

I don’t want to get into the debates we see around the Trump administration about which is worse: what we found out about our leaders because of the leaks, or the fact that so much information is being leaked. What’s relevant here is that Google now faces a pattern in which its employees are taking internal information and leaking it to the media, against the company’s own rules and safeguards, in order to achieve political objectives. If the wider public starts to figure out that this is happening, they just might decide this is not a company they want to trust with their information or access to their lives.

And they would be wise to do so. At the conclusion of a post today on the hypocrisy of Google firing Damore over his memo but making billions off of gender-based data-mining and targeted advertising code, Rod Dreher links to this scene from the 2006 film on the East German Stasi, The Lives of Others:

Dreher’s captions the clip, “A scene from the Google cafeteria.” He’s likely not all that far off.

LATE-NIGHT LEGEND DAVID LETTERMAN’S UGLY PERSONALITY NO LAUGHING MATTER, FORMER COLLEAGUES SAY:

The tale of Tim Long, one of several head writers hired during the show’s run, was typical. Unable to deal with the host’s constant rejections and dark moods, Long took to chewing Coke cans — and swallowing pieces of tin.

* * * * * * * *

Comic Rich Hall, a writer for Letterman’s NBC show, was floored by the host’s new, abrasive nature when he appeared as a guest. Hall followed actress Andie MacDowell, who had just flopped in her segment. Before the cameras came on, Letterman leaned over and snarled, “How’d you like to be married to that c—?”

* * * * * * * *

The feeling of foreboding was exacerbated by the 1980 cancellation of his NBC morning show, “The David Letterman Show,” within months of its debut.

His girlfriend at the time and for years to come, Merrill Markoe, was a brilliantly inventive comedy writer and instrumental in shaping the show…[Markoe] told the author about the resulting fallout.

“If it weren’t for you and your crazy ideas,” Letterman shouted at her on the street, “I’d still have a talk show like John Davidson!”

It’s a comment funny only in retrospect.

“A veteran staffer who served under Letterman through both his late-night shows” quoted in the article “observed that getting close to the boss was perilous: ‘There comes a moment when he turns on you.’”

Shades of Letterman’s idol turned boss Johnny Carson, who, by the end of the 1980s had dispatched both Joan Rivers and longtime business advisor Henry Bushkin to the Los Angeles-equivalent of Siberia, and whose inner-circle at the time of his retirement, at least as depicted by biographer Laurence Leamer was down to his wife Alexis and Ed McMahon. Both Leamer and later Bushkin describe Carson as a miserable man when the cameras weren’t rolling. As Rob Long, who knows a thing or two about television, wrote in his 2014 review of Bushkin’s book:

We’re all primed to hear stories of movie stars and celebrities and their creepy emotional problems. But for actors—who, after all, appear only on screen, in character, or in a few carefully stage-managed publicity appearances—it’s easy to cover up the seams of a psychotic or broken-down personality.

But Johnny appeared on television every weeknight. He was playing himself—or, rather, an idealized version of himself: jovial, chummy, witty, warm. The strain of that kind of acting must have been monumental. It’s no wonder that real movie stars—Jimmy Stewart, Michael Caine, a whole bushel of A-listers—respected him so much. In one of the best stories in a book filled with great stories, when Johnny arrives late to a very exclusive industry event filled with movie stars, he lights up the room. He wasn’t just the king of late night television. He was the king of managing not to appear like the rat bastard he clearly was.

Of course, in the ‘60s, every guy in America wanted to be as cool, handsome, and outwardly charming as Carson. (My businessman dad, who never missed at least the first half-hour of every episode of the Tonight Show during its entire run also owned a couple of Carson-branded sportcoats in the early 1970s, as I recall.) I doubt few guys watching Letterman, even during Late Night’s mid-‘80s peak, wanted to be Letterman, with his famously prickly on-air persona and all of its weird tics. But the brand of irony that Letterman’s show launched is absolutely omnipresent in American culture. Or as Markoe warned Salon in a 2015 interview:

More broadly: Does the knowing, ironic style you and the others traded in in the ‘80s seem to have filtered more deeply into comedy in specific and American culture in general? Do you see or hear echoes of it now as you go through your day?

Yes. It’s frequently the language of advertising and corporate P.R. now. It is the voice of what [musician Andy Prieboy of the rock group Wall of Voodoo, her longtime companion] calls “Your buddy the corporation.” Everyone’s hip. Everyone’s ironic. Everyone who is selling you something wants you to know they have the same limitations and daily strife that you do. You definitely should be wary when you hear this voice now. It’s not to be trusted. Unless you’re in the market for an aluminum cookware set or an Apple watch.

And politics as well – to those of us who didn’t drink the Second Coming Kool-Aid in 2008, Obama’s eight years frequently seemed like a postmodern Letterman or Saturday Night Live sketch come to life, from his Ten Commands-like shtick while receiving the Democratic nomination to his interviews with YouTube “stars” who bathe in milk and Cheerios to his vicious “The 1980s are now calling” Letterman-esque putdown of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential debate, when Romney warned of the geopolitical dangers of Russia. And Obama flashed more than a hint of Jerry Seinfeld’s “it’s a show about nothing” detached wry bemusement throughout it all. (Perhaps the apocalyptic doomsday-fury of the hypersensitive SJW screaming campus garbagebabies* is in part explained as a reaction to a generation of detached leftwing irony — or nihilism with a happy face, to paraphrase Allan Bloom.)

And yet, between the earlier, funnier SNL of the 1970s, the 1980s-era Letterman, and Jerry Seinfeld in the ’90s having set the tone of the American overculture, the left seemed astonished that another veteran of NBC television could have bested the plonking Hillary Clinton. Funny, that.

* A registered trademark of Iowahawk industries.

YOU WENT FULL SJW, POPSCI. NEVER GO FULL SJW.

Who am I kidding? PopSci went full SJW years ago.

UNEXPECTEDLY! Here Come Big ESPN Layoffs. You went full SJW. You never go full SJW.

TWITTER WENT FULL SJW. NEVER GO FULL SJW. Since @Jack Put SJWs in Charge, @Twitter Has Lost $457 Million.

YOU WENT FULL SJW. NEVER GO FULL SJW. “Twitter Posts 10th Straight Quarter of Lower Revenue.”

ESPN WENT FULL SJW. NEVER GO FULL SJW. Disney Q1 Revenue Weighed Down By ESPN Struggles.

ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES:

Shot: Controversial QB Colin Kaepernick named most courageous and inspirational player by his 49ers’ teammates.

Chaser: ‘The Big Bang Theory’ Threatens to Dethrone Sunday Night Football as TV’s Most Watched Show.

You went full SJW, NFL. Never go full SJW.

iowahawk_skin_suit_5-28-16-1

YES, LET’S USE CARRIE FISHER’S DEATH TO GO FULL SJW ON HER FELLOW CELEBRITIES EXPRESSING THEIR CONDOLENCES:

steve_martin_carrie_fisher_crimethink_12-27-16-1

Because there’s never a wrong time to shame someone for doubleplusungood crimethink, not least of which when they’re in shock, mourning the death of a colleague. That way, they’ll really learn their lessons.

When George Lucas wrote Star Wars, he viewed North Vietnam as the good guys and the America of the ’60s and ’70s as the evil Empire. And in the last quarter century, the American left have been busy trying to inflict communist speech codes on the rest of us. Now they’ve spread to attacking their own, including fellow leftists, such as Martin. It’s a shame Martin deleted his tweet – he should have kept it online to demonstrate that he won’t be bullied by the PC police.

YOU WENT FULL SJW. NEVER GO FULL SJW. ‘Star Wars’ Against Hate: ‘Rogue One’ Writers Get Political.

Two of the writers who worked on “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” jumped into the political fray on Friday with not-so subtle anti-Donald Trump messages.

“Please note that the Empire is a white supremacist (human) organization,” screenwriter Chris Weitz tweeted. Gary Whitta, who also worked on the film, followed up by adding, “Opposed by a multi-cultural group led by brave women.”

Both writers also changed their Twitter profile pictures to the symbol of the Rebel Alliance with a safety pin through it. The safety pin has become an anti-Trump symbol, with people wearing them to show minority groups and immigrants that they are safe with person wearing the pin.

Dudes, the Rebel Alliance keeps slaves.

THE GRAHAM FAMILY’S LAST MEDIA PRESENCE IS FADING: Slate head leaves amid company’s financial woes. Back around the turn of the Millennium, Slate was really interesting. Then it gradually went full SJW. You never go full SJW.

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS REPORTS STEEP DECLINE IN CIRCULATION.

You went full SJW, man. Never go full SJW.

ny_daily_news_2-18-16-1

 

 

YOU WENT FULL SJW, MAN. NEVER GO FULL SJW. ESPN Admits They Mistreat Conservatives, And It’s Killing Their Ratings.

CLOWN KAEPERNICK NOW WEARING SOCKS DEPICTING POLICE AS PIGS: “This ass**** is just begging to be cut, which he probably soon will be, so then he can cry racism,” JWF writes, linking to a CBS Sports article that notes, “It appears that over the past few weeks, Kaepernick has been wearing socks that show a pig in a cop’s hat. The quarterback has been wearing them since at least Aug. 10.”

The L.A. Times confirms that’s indeed what they are, but helpfully adds, “Kaepernick says the pigs on his socks were only meant to represent ‘rogue cops.’”

As Scott McKay of the American Spectator writes, Kaepernick is beclowning himself “according to the cultural Marxist playbook:”

Black Lives Matter masks failure. The Left has proven that practice works. So when one of the cultural Left’s protégés, a San Francisco radio DJ and MTV host named Nessa Diab, an ethnic Egyptian whose ideological curriculum vitae includes Islam, Fidel Castro fandom, and Black Lives Matter agitation, found her way into the life of San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick as his girlfriend since last year, the stage was set for the conversion of a prominent athlete into perhaps America’s most high-profile meltdown.

Read the whole thing. In the wake of 1985’s Live Aid, it was fascinating to watch one superstar rock star after another cash in his chips for whatever the cause du jour was — usually PETA, Amnesty International, the rain forest, and/or an attack on this week’s Emmanuel Goldstein — Reagan, Thatcher, Gingrich, Bush, etc. Once a performer morphed into what we would now call a fullblown SJW, it was a sign his career as a creative artist was over. He had built up his fan base, didn’t need to worry about offending new potential fans, as he could play the hockey arena circuit forever, and could stop focusing on any pretensions towards art and channel his energy into fundraising and cocktail parties with Bianca and Yoko and John Kerry.*

Kaepernick seems to have accelerated the process exponentially, once he was benched last year and replaced by former Jacksonville Jaguar QB Blaine Gabbert. This preseason, as McKay writes, “the business decision for San Francisco is obviously to find a way to cut Kaepernick loose for football reasons; he’s a declining player with a negative attitude whose on-field performance doesn’t match his compensation, and having a brooding ex-star in the locker room is poison to team chemistry.”

What happens next for Kaepernick? Well, according to sports blog Bleacher Report, “If you thought fans on Twitter were upset about Colin Kaepernick, you should talk to some people around the NFL…. Across NFL front offices, there are team officials who are not offended, and even embrace, the controversial position of Colin Kaepernick. They are out there. Statistically, they have to be. But they are keeping a low profile. They seem to be far outnumbered by the members of NFL front offices who despise him. Truly, truly hate him. ‘I don’t want him anywhere near my team,’ one front office executive said. ‘He’s a traitor.’”

If Kaepernick was a linebacker in the Ray Lewis mold, or a DB ala “They call me assassin” Jack Tatum, he might be able to get away more with the SJW performance art. But the QB is supposed to be the clean-cut face of the team, the guy who sells the most jerseys, is plastered on the most magazine covers. Historically, the most controversial thing front offices wanted to see from their quarterback was that he was reported out late in a bar having fun and entertaining the fans, ala Kenny Stabler, Terry Bradshaw, or Dandy Don Meredith. To build your franchise around a guy who alienates half your potential ticket and merchandise buyers doesn’t seem to be very smart from a PR or marketing stance. But as Scott McKay writes at the Spectator, “perhaps the politically correct NFL league office will exhort some team to give him another chance next year lest the league look like reactionaries. None of which would make him a good quarterback, after all. That throwing motion still stinks, and he never did fix it.”

But as with Hollywood perpetually handing roles to box office poison like Sean Penn and Alec Baldwin, perhaps politics trumps performance in the NFL these days as well.

kaepernick_pig_socks_sml_9-1-16-2

San Francisco 49ers quarterbacks Blaine Gabbert, left, and Colin Kaepernick (7) stretch during NFL football training camp, Wednesday, Aug. 10, 2016, at Kezar Stadium in San Francisco. (AP Photo/Ben Margot.) Click to enlarge image.

* See also: the fellow who once sang backups on a song that noted, “if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow,” before selling out a half century later to a zillionaire dowager typically photographed wearing a Mao suit.

REPORTS: ESPN EASING OUT ICONIC SPORTSCASTER CHRIS BERMAN:

The New York Post noted that Oppenheim did not say that Berman would remain at ESPN, but only that he was not retiring. The Post suggests that the agent’s remarks “carries the whiff of a power struggle at the Worldwide Leader” and that they may “have grown weary of his over-the-top shtick.”

The network has also lost an enormous number of subscribers in recent years, making the possible high-profile departure perhaps a cost-cutting move.

That tends to happen when media outlets cease being in the entertainment business and go full SJW. (hint: never go full SJW.)

GOOGLE GOES FULL SJW. NEVER GO FULL SJW: Today’s Google Doodle Celebrates a Bin Laden Supporter:

In response to the United States’ actions following the September 11 attacks in 2001, [Yuri] Kochiyama stated that “the goal of the war [on terrorism] is more than just getting oil and fuel. The United States is intent on taking over the world” and “it’s important we all understand that the main terrorist and the main enemy of the world’s people is the U.S. government. Racism has been a weakness of this country from its beginning. Throughout history, all people of color, and all people who don’t see eye-to-eye with the U.S. government have been subject to American terror.”

In 2003, while being interviewed by Tamara Kil Ja Kim Nopper, Kochiyama said “… I consider Osama bin Laden as one of the people that I admire. To me, he is in the category of Malcolm X, Che Guevara, Patrice Lumumba, Fidel Castro, all leaders that I admire.

“Because like Che and Fidel and Mao and and Lenin, he killed the right people,” James Lileks wryly adds.

google_obl_supporter_5-19-16-1

HEAT STREET: THE MOST SOCIAL-JUSTICY SJWS PART TWO – MEET THE ALL-WAHS.

Including Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey: “Oh Jack Jack Jack. Shadowbanning #NeverTrump. Taking Milo’s blue tick away. Censoring Adam Baldwin because he so correctly said pro-GG were more attractive and joyous than anti-GG. Sending Twitter profits tanking as half of us who have fun on Twitter have less fun.”

Related: “Jack Dorsey got a double dose of investor anger this earnings season…And the rough reception on Wall Street took a hefty, $180 million chunk out of Dorsey’s net worth.”

These things tend to happen when you exit the job of CEO to be full-time SJW.

THIS IS INDICATIVE OF A DIVERSITY PROBLEM ON THE GEORGETOWN FACULTY: ‘Scaliagate’ At Georgetown Law: The Conservatives Strike Back.

For one’s colleagues to write, within hours of the death of someone one knows, likes, and admires, that he was a “defender of privilege, oppression and bigotry, one whose intellectual positions were not brilliant but simplistic and formalistic,” is startlingly callous and insulting, not only to his memory but to those of us who admired him. To hear from one’s colleagues, within hours of the death of a hero, mentor, and friend, that they resent any implication that they might mourn his death — that, in effect, they are glad he is dead – is simply cruel beyond words. But, though the insult and cruelty of our colleagues was grievous, at least only two of us had to bear it.

Unfortunately, the next day, recognizing full well that he would “cause … hurt [to] those with affection for J. Scalia,” and in violation of Georgetown email policy, Prof. Peller forwarded his email and Prof. Seidman’s to the entire student body at Georgetown Law, some 2000 students. Of those, at least a few hundred are conservative or libertarian. These students received an email yesterday, from a Georgetown Law professor, just three days after the death of Justice Scalia, which said, in effect, your hero was a stupid bigot and we are not sad that he is dead. . . .

Sadly, as just two professors on a faculty of 125, we are in no position to offer much reassurance to our students, beyond reporting that we have heard on the faculty email list, and privately, from a few of our Georgetown colleagues who objected to these messages. All we can do, really, is convey our solidarity with our wonderful students. We share your pain. We share your anger. We stand with you. You are not alone. Be strong as Justice Scalia was strong. Remember, he heard far worse about himself than we have, and yet never wavered in both his convictions and his joy for life.

Lefties preach about tolerance, but what they practice is control. But not, you know, self-control. Plus, David Lat comments:

I noticed the SJW-ish tone too, but thought to myself: that’s not a bug, it’s a feature. To the extent that the left is often about playing the victim, it seems to me that Barnett and Rosenkranz are saying, “Two can play at this game.” The conservatives are taking the “talk of micro-aggressions and trauma,” typically deployed so effectively by liberals, and turning it around on them.

Is it sincere, or trolling, or a little bit of both? To be honest, I find it hard to tell (but perhaps that’s a sign of how exquisitely calibrated the Barnett/Rosenkranz message is).

With two right-leaning professors out of 125, Professors Barnett and Rosenkranz are possibly Georgetown’s smallest minority group. But you know what they say: Always outnumbered, never outgunned.