Category: Politics

Neil deGrasse Tyson gets caught lying by The Federalist; disciples at Wikipedia go full-Orwell

September 28, 2014September 29, 2014by Douglas Ernst32 Comments

If you have not checked out The Federalist, then you should do so. It produces some great content. In fact, a clear sign that The Federalist is a force to be reckoned with is the fact that Wikipedia has been throwing Orwellian temper tantrums over the website’s recent reporting. The reason: Congregants in the Church of Neil deGrasse Tyson are unhappy to find out that their god has a habit of pulling facts out of deGrassian black holes that no one else can verify.

Just one example (there are quite a few) includes the scientist’s repeated claim that George W. Bush said “Our God is the God who named the stars” after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks to find a way of intellectually divorcing Christianity from Islam.

Mr. Tyson has said the following in multiple speeches:

TYSON: Here’s what happens. George Bush, within a week of [the 9/11 terrorist attacks] gave us a speech attempting to distinguish we from they. And who are they? These were sort of the Muslim fundamentalists. And he wants to distinguish we from they. And how does he do it?

He says, “Our God” — of course it’s actually the same God, but that’s a detail, let’s hold that minor fact aside for the moment. Allah of the Muslims is the same God as the God of the Old Testament. So, but let’s hold that aside. He says, “Our God is the God” — he’s loosely quoting Genesis, biblical Genesis — “Our God is the God who named the stars.”

Unfortunately, that turns out not to be true. At all. The Federalist did some digging, and it did find that former President Bush said the following after the Columbia space shuttle disaster in 2003:

George W. Bush: In the skies today we saw destruction and tragedy. Yet farther than we can see, there is comfort and hope. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, “Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one and calls them each by name. Because of His great power, and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.”

The same Creator who names the stars also knows the names of the seven souls we mourn today. The crew of the shuttle Columbia did not return safely to Earth; yet we can pray that all are safely home.

One would think that if Mr. Tyson was going to charge people to see his presentations, then he would get his facts straight — or not, if the point was smear others while making himself look like a witty guy. The Federalist then smacks Tyson down for his blatant fabrication.

Tyson butchered the quote. He butchered the date. He butchered the context. He butchered the implication. And he butchered the biblical allusion, which was to the prophet Isaiah, not the book of Genesis (you can tell Bush was alluding to Isaiah because he explicitly said he was referencing Isaiah).

Bush’s statement about the Creator had nothing to do with making “us” look better than “them”: it was an attempt to comfort the families who lost loved ones in the crash. They weren’t nameless creatures who passed anonymously; their ultimate Creator, the one who knit them together in their mothers’ wombs, mourned them by name.

In response to Sean Davis’ reporting, Mr. Tyson’s Wikipedia page has repeatedly been scrubbed of his lies and outright distortions — again, there are enough to be rather troubling for a man whose profession relies on accuracy — and now there are even attempts to throw The Federalist’s Wikipedia page down the Memory Hole.

The Washington Examiner reported Sept. 26:

Three weeks after the oft-cited TheFederalist.com accused a popular scientist of making up quotes and numbers in a speech, Wikipedia has moved to eliminate the conservative news site.

In a surprise move, the hugely-trafficked Wikipedia posted a notice that the Federalist was “being considered for deletion” after an unknown critic said it “does not pass the threshold for notability.” Wikipedia asked users to comment on the decision, though it in the end it will not be made on a “majority vote.”

The claim shocked the new site’s staff, especially since the Federalist has been featured in mainstream media such as MSNBC and CNN.

As I have said before, when people deny God they always find a way to replace Him with someone or something else. That idol then must be protected at all costs, which is one of the reasons why Communism’s body count is roughly 100 million…but I digress.

The ease with which those who edit Wikipedia pages entertain their inner police state censorship czar is incredibly frightening, and should be exposed. However, it is also important to note that Mr. Tyson has gone out of his way to avoid telling the truth.

Here is what he said on Facebook regarding his imaginary Bush quote:

I have explicit memory of those words being spoken by the President. I reacted on the spot, making note for possible later reference in my public discourse. Odd that nobody seems to be able to find the quote anywhere — surely every word publicly uttered by a President gets logged. …

FYI: There are two kinds of failures of memory. One is remembering that which has never happened and the other is forgetting that which did. In my case, from life experience, I’m vastly more likely to forget an incident than to remember an incident that never happened. So I assure you, the quote is there somewhere. When you find it, tell me. Then I can offer it to others who have taken as much time as you to explore these things.

Translation: How dare you question the all-powerful Neil deGrasse Tyson! Be gone with you, mere mortal! Be gone!

How bizarre is it that a scientist would sneer at a reporter over the time he or she spends verifying…facts.

Mr. Tyson’s behavior is so weird that even Andrew Kaczynski at Buzzfeed was forced to call him out, saying “Just admit you either misremembered or made up a Bush quote @neiltyson. This denial [flies] in face of scientific method.”

The next time you hear a Neil deGrasse Tyson tale that sounds too good to be true, just remember: it probably is. Why? Because it’s apparently okay to lie as long as more people subscribe to his worldview in the end. As the scientist said after getting caught red handed: “If this article contains the entire critique of my presentation to Tableau Software — the contents of 2 out of 60 slides — then I consider the talk to be a success, even to eavesdroppers.”

Why does it matter if a scientist makes up quotes about someone if the end result is more people who believe in Global Warming, right Mr. Tyson? Actually, it matters a lot. Intellectually honest people understand that. Most disciples in the Church of Neil DeGrasse Tyson apparently do not.

Cenk Uygur names son ‘Prometheus’ in misbegotten attempt to smite God, fails miserably

September 9, 2014September 22, 2014by Douglas Ernst25 Comments

Under normal circumstances I would never write about Cenk Uygur of “The Young Turks.” However, it turns out that he named his son “Prometheus Maximus” as a metaphorical middle finger to the God he … doesn’t believe in. While years from now people will make the mistake of thinking his son was named after the Simpsons episode where Homer goes by Max Power, I still wanted to hear Mr. Uygur’s reasoning.

The Young Turks’ YouTube channel provides his answer:

Host: For the first question … How did you come up with the awesome name for your son? I wouldn’t have thought of that in a million years. Go!

Cenk Uygur: All right. My son’s name is Prometheus Maximus. Prometheus is my favorite mythical character of all time ’cause he had the nerve, the courage to challenge the gods to say ‘I’m going to help humanity.’ It’s the kind of thing the rest of mythology is set up to hate. … No, bow your head. Bow your head to God … In all religions, Christianity, it said bow your head to God, listen to whatever he says, do not challenge him, even if, for example, he slaughters everyone on earth as he did, you know, doing that that little fun thing called the flood with Noah’s Ark. Literally almost everyone but Noah’s family was killed. Support. Bow your head and support. No. Prometheus said I’m not going to bow my head. I’m going to take fire and give it to humans. Lovely.

Before we begin exposing Mr. Uygur’s confusion, we must first point out how sad it is that he has to crib Bill Maher’s old jokes, in which the Real Time host called the God … he doesn’t believe in … a “psychotic mass murderer” for bringing forth the flood. If this is some sort of new talking point among liberal atheist pundits, then we might as well address it now.

As Whittaker Chambers eloquently put it long ago, “Between man’s purposes in time and God’s purpose in eternity, there is an infinite qualitative difference.” That Mr. Uygur thinks his tiny insignificant mind could wrap itself around the purpose in eternity that God’s actions serve is quite hilarious. Consider this: A man who struggles to understand basic economics actually believes he could comprehend the actions of a being with the power to bring space and time into existence.

God’s role as the Creator also poses another conundrum: Whose life is it? Is it yours, or is it God’s? The Christian would say that his existence belongs to the one who breaths life into him every second of every day — God. Since life is only sustained by God, getting upset at Him for ending it makes no sense. Raising a fist in anger and shaking it at God for those who died in the flood assumes that the lives lost actually belonged to the departed. They did not. Mr. Uygur doesn’t understand that the body he has is essentially a rental home that houses his spirit for a short time before it returns to its Father.

And finally, while the young Turk may pride himself on his literary knowledge, it is quite apparent that he hasn’t read up on Dante.

In Canto XX of “The Inferno,” Dante weeps for those in hell and is instantly rebuked by his guide Virgil:

Truly I wept, leaning upon a peak
Of the hard crag, so that my Escort said
To me: “Art thou, too, of the other fools?
Here pity lives when it is wholly dead;
Who is a greater reprobate than he
Who feels compassion at the doom divine?”

God is certainly capable of separating the wheat from the chaff, and yet Mr. Uygur laments the “slaughter” of those in the flood. Those who wind up in hell do so because that is the choice they made with the free will they were given. Trying to elicit sympathy for those who made the conscious decision to reject God does not work with those who know Him.

Jesus says in John 10: 14-16:

I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

He also says in John 13: 12-17 after washing Peter’s feet:

Do you know what I have done to you? You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you. Most assuredly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.

That is a God who is worthy of endless bows. That is a God to listen to and obey. If the world wants to mock His followers as “sheep,” then it is a pejorative worth embracing because He truly is a “good shepherd.”

The funny thing is that despite Mr. Uygur’s efforts to deny his spirit, he can not rid himself of the tinctures of truth that flow through his mind:

Host: Do you believe in ghosts/paranormal activity?

Cenk Uygur: No, because I’m a rational human being. But not quite as rational as I make out. I will confess to two things: One is I know it’s not right, but from time to time I think I’ll look at signs or something and think, “Oh, is that a message?” And I’m like, ‘ Knuckle head, of course it’s not a message!’ … The second thing is one I’m perfectly proud of: I keep an open mind, meaning I haven’t foreclosed on the idea that there might be things that happen on this planet and in this universe that we haven’t yet figured out.

It is incredibly difficult to ignore the stinging slap of synchronicity, and yet the man deludes himself into thinking otherwise with each message that comes his way. He says he has an open mind while slamming it shut. He believes that with enough time humans can “figure out” the totality of the universe, when the person who truly possesses an open mind understands that perhaps reality exists in ways our five senses are incapable of detecting.

In a world of sentient AM radios, many of them would call frequency modulation a myth. Some of them would even name their AM radio kids “Prometheus.” Luckily, there is always hope that those who deny the truth today will accept it before it’s too late.

Here is what one looks like on the back end of WordPress. I erased part of his IP address because I’m a nice guy. I also erased part of the link he wanted to share. Sad. I was hoping Mr. Uygur’s Reddit fanboys would bring more to the table than “myballsinyourmouth.” I guess not. — Here is what a troll looks like on the back end of WordPress. I erased part of his IP address because I’m a nice guy. I also erased part of the link he wanted to share. Sad. I was hoping Mr. Uygur’s Reddit fanboys would bring more to the table than “myballsinyourmouth.” I guess not.

Dan Slott calls Spider-Woman #1 variant a ‘false’ controversy; feminists retreat from ‘mansplaining’ liberal

August 20, 2014August 20, 2014by Douglas Ernst46 Comments

Marvel Comics is great at patting itself on the back for temporary stories that put women in the spotlight, but when it comes to variant covers that turn women into sex objects its male readers want to pat on the butt, then the company suddenly has no comment. Luckily, Dan “Go to Christ-land” Slott was willing to weigh in on The Mary Sue’s anger over the Spider-Woman #1 variant by Milo Manara. His verdict: it’s a “false ‘controversy'”.

The Mary Sue disagreed. The self-proclaimed watchdog for female representation in “geek culture” reported:

I mean, there’s art you personally might consider too sexualized in general, but there’s that other level of comic book hell reserved for The Hawkeye Initiative-type stuff or otherwise absurd art.

Yesterday, Comic Book Resources posted exclusive November solicits from Marvel Comics, which included the anticipated Spider-Woman #1. The piece included this variant cover by Milo Manara.

I honestly don’t know what anyone involved was thinking. The series is being written by Dennis Hopeless with art by Greg Land, and although it appears Marvel is attempting to draw in women with a slew of new female-led titles, this does not instill confidence. Nor does it tell women this is a comic they should consider spending money on. In fact, what the variant cover actually says is “Run away. Run far, far away and don’t ever come back.”

That may sound like an exaggeration but it’s really not. This is what we talk about when we ask comic publishers not to actively offend their paying (or potentially paying) customers. …

Marvel has declined comment at this time.

As a conservative comic book fan, I know a thing or two about Marvel going out of its way to offend “paying (or potentially paying)” customers. Welcome to the club, Jill! But I digress. Ms. Pantozzi didn’t take too kindly to The Amazing Spider-Man writer’s assertion that her work was part of a media-orchestrated “false” controversy:

Dan Slott’s favorite go-to weapon, the red herring, was on full display when he tried to frame outrage at Marvel’s decision as some sort of misdirected beef with Mr. Manara’s artistic style. Luckily, Ms. Pantozzi was having none of it. It was never about Mr. Manara’s “style” — it was the fact that an artist who specializes in erotic (some might say “sleazy”) artwork was used for a book geared towards female readers.

Backed even deeper into a corner, Mr. Slott doubled down on the “fake” controversy line of defense. The move was reminiscent of the time he and Marvel used anger to sell the Superior Spider-Man #9, and then tried to pretend like they were doing no such thing.

But here is where it gets interesting, dear readers — the woman who works for a website that considers itself a watchdog for women’s representation then went soft on an ideological ally. Someone like me would be accused of “mansplaining” to Ms. Pantozzi if I delivered exactly the same message as Dan Slott, but she simply “walks away” from Slottian mansplaining. She respects Dan Slott (the guy whose great new female character burst onto the scene by getting super-sexy, super-fast with Peter Parker), too much to take the conversation to its logical conclusion: Dan Slott’s tolerance for other points of view only lasts until you put up a strenuous defense against his straw man arguments, red herrings and personal attacks.

“Nothing is being gained.” That seems to be a pattern with the Marvel scribe. Conservative? Liberal? Apolitical? It doesn’t matter. If you disagree with Dan Slott, your point of view isn’t valid or it’s just a “false” controversy stirred up by the media.

As fate would have it, Twitter user Ryan D entered the fray and rightly called Ms. Pantozzi out just as she did the same to Marvel and Dan Slott earlier in the day.

Dan Slott would be “crucified” if he didn’t say the right thing in his Twitter feed, and he knows it. That’s why he decided to return to “less controversial stuff” (i.e., topics where he could easily put himself up on a moral pedestal and bask in the accolades).

I look forward to the moment that Dan Slott goes back to attacking those who disagree with him politically. When that happens, then all of his Twitter followers can forget about the time he “mansplained” to a feminist about her “false” controversy — and she let him get away with it.

Editor’s note: Hat tip to reader Truthwillwin1 for the story.

California goes full ‘Demolition Man,’ seeks ‘yes means yes’ sexual consent laws for college students

August 12, 2014August 12, 2014by Douglas Ernst13 Comments

Lawmakers in California must love 1993’s Sylvester Stallone flick “Demolition Man,” because they’re now looking into ways to pass “yes means yes” sexual consent laws. For those who are a bit younger, the film includes a scene where Stallone’s John Spartan is awkwardly asked by Sandra Bullock’s Lenina Huxley if he would like to have sex. The two then use a virtual reality headset to refrain from touching during the process. Just give California ten years and the virtual reality technology will be ready for prime time…

The Associated Press reported:

SAN DIEGO (AP) — College students have heard a similar refrain for years in campaigns to stop sexual assault: No means no.

Lawmakers are considering what would be the first-in-the-nation measure requiring all colleges that receive public funds to set a standard for when “yes means yes.” …

Legislation passed by California’s state Senate in May and coming before the Assembly this month would require all schools that receive public funds for student financial assistance to set a so-called “affirmative consent standard” that could be used in investigating and adjudicating sexual assault allegations. That would be defined as “an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision” by each party to engage in sexual activity.

Silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. The legislation says it’s also not consent if the person is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep. …

After some interpreted that as asking people to stop after each kiss to get a verbal agreement before going to the next level, the bill was amended to say consent must be “ongoing” and “can be revoked at any time.”

John F. Banzhaf III, a George Washington University’s Law School professor, rightly says in the piece that the bill, if passed, would “very, very radically change the definition of rape.”

Indeed. We now live in a world where not only do officials believe they should be able to tax you per teaspoon of sugar you consume, but that they should be able to manage your sex life — down to the point where you must get “affirmative, unambiguous” consent while the process is “ongoing.”

At this point it would be easier if California just mandated that everyone have digital “sexual contracts” on hand that could be signed via cell phone apps and revoked by voice command.

The sad thing is, cultural air raid sirens are going off all around us, and the response by politicians is to create more laws.

Take the case of University of California at Berkeley student Meghan Warner, from the AP piece, for instance. She supports the legislation:

She said she was sexually assaulted during her freshman year by two men at a fraternity but didn’t report it because she believed “that unless it was a stranger at night with a weapon who attacked you when you were walking home, that it wasn’t rape. It’s just a crappy thing that happened.” She now runs campus workshops to teach students what constitutes consent.

“Most students don’t know what consent is,” she said. “I’ve asked at the workshops how many people think if a girl is blacked out drunk that it’s OK to have sex with her. The amount of people who raised their hands was just startling.”

If what Ms. Warner says is true, and a “startling” amount of kids on the Progressive UC Berkeley campus think it’s okay to have sex with a woman who blacks out during a party, then that is a problem that can not be adequately addressed by writing “yes means yes” laws; that is a cultural implosion, which requires the kind of spiritual training that is mocked and ridiculed on college campuses.

As G.K. Chesterton wrote in “Orthodoxy”:

“Not only is faith the mother of all worldly energies, but its foes are the fathers of worldly confusion. The secularists have not wrecked divine things; but the secularists have wrecked secular things, if that is any comfort to them. The Titans did not scale heaven; but they laid waste the world.”

Perhaps one day California will come to its senses. If not, they will have only themselves to blame for the creation of a cultural wasteland littered with laws that fail them.

Andrew W.K. channels G.K. Chesterton in reply to ‘Son of A Right-Winger’

August 8, 2014August 8, 2014by Douglas Ernst11 Comments

Almost four years ago I wrote a piece titled ‘The Andrew W.K. Conservative: Scaring elitists everywhere’. While I don’t know his voting history, I said then and still maintain that he is “rugged, witty, down and dirty, but dangerously intelligent.” I do not necessarily use ‘dangerous’ as a pejorative, either. Blessed with top-shelf raw material in the smarts department, Andrew appears to use it to build others up instead of tear others down.

In a recent “Ask Andrew W.K.” for the Village Voice, the artist was sent a letter by “Son of a Right-Winger.” His response is classic.

First, the letter:

Hi Andrew,

I’m writing because I just can’t deal with my father anymore. He’s a 65-year-old super right-wing conservative who has basically turned into a total asshole intent on ruining our relationship and our planet with his politics. I’m more or less a liberal democrat with very progressive values and I know that people like my dad are going to destroy us all. I don’t have any good times with him anymore. All we do is argue. When I try to spend time with him without talking politics or discussing any current events, there’s still an underlying tension that makes it really uncomfortable. Don’t get me wrong, I love him no matter what, but how do I explain to him that his politics are turning him into a monster, destroying the environment, and pushing away the people who care about him?

Thanks for your help,
Son of A Right-Winger

Now, the response:

Dear Son of A Right-Winger,

Go back and read the opening sentences of your letter. Read them again. Then read the rest of your letter. Then read it again. Try to find a single instance where you referred to your dad as a human being, a person, or a man. There isn’t one. You’ve reduced your father — the person who created you — to a set of beliefs and political views and how it relates to you. And you don’t consider your dad a person of his own standing — he’s just “your dad.” You’ve also reduced yourself to a set of opposing views, and reduced your relationship with him to a fight between the two. The humanity has been reduced to nothingness and all that’s left in its place is an argument that can never really be won. And even if one side did win, it probably wouldn’t satisfy the deeper desire to be in a state of inflamed passionate conflict. …

When we lump people into groups, quickly label them, and assume we know everything about them and their life based on a perceived world view, how they look, where they come from, etc., we are not behaving as full human beings. When we truly believe that some people are monsters, that they fundamentally are less human than we are, and that they deserve to have less than we do, we ourselves become the monsters. […] This is the power of politics at its most sinister.

Some people might say that Andrew is putting forth a kind of moral relativism that says “there is no point to having a debate.” I do not believe that is the case. I think that he’s tapping in to a mentality that used to go “hate the sin, but love the sinner.” We all have our own ideas on what constitutes “right” and what constitutes “wrong.” We tell people they “ought” to do this, but “ought not” to do that. However, we used to be able to have spirited discussions without letting politics poison our souls — and by extension our relationships with family and loved ones.

Regular readers know that this very blog has undergone a shift in tone and the type of content I tend to favor in recent years. That is because, like Andrew, I believe that it is very easy to allow “politics at its most sinister” to take root and grow like weeds resistant to the best pesticides.

Here is what I said in June, 2013:

The world’s elite would rather have you playing XBox and looking at pictures of animals on the Internet than looking into “God” or “Source” or “Enlightenment,” because when you do that everything melts away (perhaps literally, but that’s a discussion for another time). The sickest thing may be that the elite even enlisted many of your friends and family to do their dirty work for them. Is it possible to convince a prisoner to lust over his own chains? Yes.

Someone who looks within and then turns that eye back on the material world can see the charade. You have been trained to play with the anger and hate and resentment that resides on some level in all of us like a kitten with string.

There are many ways to break free from the mind-forged manacles we’ve willingly fastened in place. Without much effort, you can find many inspirational figures online who are willing to discuss this journey. I happen to believe that real change only comes from looking inward, so here now is my challenge to you:

For one year — every day — actively look for ways to give of yourself. If there’s a man on the street corner asking for change, give it to him. If you think he’s scamming people, give him some money or food anyway. If you have an opportunity to give someone a genuine compliment, do it. Call up (or text if you must) an old friend and remind them of something nice they once did for you years ago; tell them you still think about it and are thankful for what they did. Make someone feel good. Be the light in your office environment or at school or in your immediate family. There are any number of ways you can give of yourself or perform a kind gesture. The key is to make a conscious decision every day to take advantage of — or create — such opportunities.

It is possible to create a world that is more in tune with God’s plan for all of us, but all too often individuals become devils trying to make it happen.

I do not know if Andrew W.K. is a religious man, but what he is essentially getting at (whether he realizes or not), is what Christianity has always done: to balance, as G.K. Chesterton once said, “furious opposites.”

G.K. Chesterton wrote in “The Paradoxes of Christianity”:

“Thus, the double charges of the secularists, though throwing nothing but darkness and confusion on themselves, throw a real light on faith. It is true that the historic Church has at once emphasized celibacy and emphasized the family; has at once (if one may put it so) been fiercely for having children and fiercely for not having children. It has kept them side by side like two strong colors, red and white, like the red and white upon the shield of St. George. It has always had a healthy hatred of pink. It hates that combination of two colors which is the feeble expedient of the philosophers. It hates that evolution of black into white which is tantamount to dirty grey. In fact, the whole theory of the Church on virginity might be symbolized in the statement that white is a color: not merely the absence of a color. All that I am urging here can be expressed by saying that Christianity sought in most of these cases to keep two colors coexistent but pure.”

A Christian understands the importance of balancing “furious opposites,” and as such he should be able to find a way to live in peace and harmony with a father who is a “right winger” or a “left winger,” a Democrat or a Republican. It can and should be done. While my own blueprint for achieving that end comes from the Catholic Church, in this instance I readily acknowledge that we can all learn something from Andrew W.K.’s response to this Village Voice reader. I will not, however, be petitioning my local church to play its own rendition of “Party Hard” during mass.

Kudos to Andrew W.K. for imparting good advice to a young man who needed it. I look forward to reading future installments of “Ask Andrew W.K.”

Editor’s note for regular readers: As many of you know, I have been working on a book in addition to juggling personal and professional responsibilities. If you are a fan of “G.K. Chesterton” or the idea of balancing “furious opposites,” then I think you may enjoy my project when it is complete. I will continue to keep you updated on its progress. It is coming along quite well. Some of the research needed in order to create credible characters has slowed the process down, but I believe the investment in time will pay off.

Feminist ‘clump of cells’ who works at Burger King forgets that we’re ‘all the same inside’

July 11, 2014July 11, 2014by Douglas Ernst49 Comments

Burger King recently started a limited-market promotion of the Proud Whopper, which included the underlying message “We’re all the same inside.” It was supposed to be a show of support for San Francisco’s gay community, but it could also serve as Burger King’s stealth pro-life campaign. Since Burger King employee Victoria Duran of Columbus, Ohio seems to think that the unborn are just a “clump of cells,” the Proud Burger message can teach her that we’re all just bigger “clumps of cells.”

Ms. Duran is composed of many more cells than an unborn child, but no one is advocating that we kill her. It seems odd that she would a.) discriminate against someone with less cells than she, and b.) resort to assault and battery on the streets of Columbus because other clumps of cells are exercising their First Amendment rights.

Created Equal films captured it all on tape.

As Hotair’s Ed Morrisey observes, “It’s amusing in one respect to see someone so passionately engaged in exposing her ignorance of human biology while attempting to lecture someone else about it, as well as her ignorance on basic American civics.”

As humorous as it is, it’s also rather frightening. While Ms. Duran ultimately has little power to strip social conservatives of their rights, there are plenty of “Durans” out there who would love to see that happen. Sometimes they expose themselves (literally) in places like Argentina when they assault Catholic men, or sometimes such bigotry rears its head when guys like Marvel Comics writer Dan Slott tells Hobby Lobby and its Christian supporters they should go to “Christ-land.”

Let us revisit Ms. Duran’s actual speech. While it is hardly eloquent, the intellectual DNA is similar among “clumps of cells” who categorize themselves as liberal.

“This is absolute lying there, fucking dipship. That is not what a fetus looks like, okay? It’s a clump of cells at twelve weeks. It does not look like that. It’s a clump of mother fucking cells. No hands are shown at that time. You so white privilege racist fucking male that doesn’t stand for women’s rights. Get the fuck out of her, fucking dipshit. And get that camera out of my face, either. Fuckwit! … Fuck you. Fuckwit. You are fucking white male privilege assholes. What you are is a racist motherfucker as well. How dare you fucking do this kind of shit, asshole. … You fucking sexist misogynist motherfuckers. That is all you are! You don’t give a shit about women! You don’t give a shit about life! All you are is a bunch of assholes. All you are a bunch … No uterus, no right to talk about it! Understand me, motherfucker? … Your signs deserve to get fucked up!

The thought police are out in full force. Race? Class? Gender? It’s all there. “Privileged…white…males” only have free speech until that speech upsets women like Ms. Duran. Then it’s gone. Regardless, it seems odd that Ms. Duran would accuse a young man from Created Equal of being racist, when it is women like Ms. Duran that have arguably cheered on black genocide via abortion for decades.

What if science told us that certain DNA sequences are likely to result in a gay or lesbian child? Would Ms. Duran support abortion then? Does she support forced abortions in China? Burger King’s motto used to be “Your way, right away,” but in Ms. Duran’s world it’s “My way, right away. Understand me, punk?”

We used to live by the old saying: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Today, a bunch of totalitarian thug wannabes don’t even give the phrase lip service — they just get in your face, destroy your property and threaten you with violence.

At the end of the day, it is not the Victoria Durans of the world who are the most dangerous to society as a whole. Instead, we must primarily concern ourselves with influential individuals sowing seeds of hate into the fertile minds of the young. Her consciousness is filled with weeds, but it is the farmer who planted them there that we should be concerned about.

And with that, I will leave you with this: Even The Burger King Kids Club was once just a “clump of cartoon cells.”

Update:

Just in case there are any Ms. Durans who want to take part in the comments section, I have some hard science for you.

“Five weeks after conception, the embryo first begins to assume features of human appearance. The face is recognizable, with the formation of discernible eyes, nose, and ears. Limbs emerge from protruding buds; digits, cartilage, and muscles develop. The cerebral hemispheres begin to fill the brain area, and the optic stalk becomes apparent. Nerve connections are established between the retina and the brain. The digestive tract rotates from its prior tubular structure, and the liver starts to produce blood cells and bile. Two tubes emerge from the pharynx to become bronchi, and the lungs have lobes and bronchioles. The heart is beating at 5 weeks and is almost completely developed by 8 weeks after conception. The diaphragm begins to divide the heart and lungs from the abdominal cavity. The kidneys approach their final form at this time. The urogenital and rectal passages separate, and germ cells migrate toward the genital ridges for future transformation into ovaries or testes. Differentiation of internal ducts begins, with persistence of either müllerian or wolffian ducts. Virilization of external genitalia occurs in male embryos. The embryo increases from about 6 to 33 mm in length and increases 50 times in weight.

Structurally, the fetus has become straighter, and the tubular neural canal along which the spinal cord develops becomes filled with nerve cells. Ears remain low on the sides of the head. Teeth are forming, and the two bony plates of the palate fuse in the midline. Disruptions during the latter part of the embryonic period lead to various forms of cleft lip and palate. By 10 weeks after the last menstrual period, all major organ systems have become established and integrated,” (Gabbe Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 6th Ed. Copyright 2012 Saunders/Elsevier. Chapter 8: Drugs and Environmental Agents in Pregnancy and Lactation: Embryology, Tetratology, Epidemiology).

Update II:

It looks like I wasn’t too far off with my observation about the intellectual DNA of Ms. Durnan. From the Tumblr account “Pro-choice or No Voice” comes this gem: “I always look at these ‘pro-choicer assaults pro-lifer’ videos hoping to see some smug little shit get socked in the face…”

You have it first hand from the source, folks. That’s the “tolerance” of Ms. Duran’s worldview.

Slate writer: You’re ‘racist’ if you’re attracted to someone of the same race

April 24, 2014April 24, 2014by Douglas Ernst11 Comments

Slate’s Reihan Salam wants you to know: You’re a “racist” if you’re attracted to people who look like you. The great thing about his piece is that if that conclusion bothers you, reading past the headline is unnecessary. It’s titled: ‘Is It Racist to Date Only People of Your Own Race? Yes.’

Take OkCupid, for example — the dating service run by hypocritical CEO Sam Yagan, who recently engaged in character assassination because Brendan Eich once donated to an anti-gay marriage bill … even though he donated to a staunchly anti-gay marriage politician. The site asks a number of questions to figure out what type of person you’re physically attracted to. To race-obsessed Slate writers, that makes those **cough**white people**cough** who are attracted to a mate who looks like them “racist.”

From Slate:

One of OkCupid’s questions reads as follows: “Would you strongly prefer to go out with someone of your own skin color/racial background?” I was struck by the not inconsiderable number of people who answered “yes”—including some people I know “in real life,” many of whom are hilariously self-righteous about their enlightened political views.

Keep in mind that OkCupid users can skip a question with ease. The people who answered this question had every opportunity to pass it by. What I found surprising about the fact that a fair number of people answered that they would indeed strongly prefer to go out with someone of their own skin color/racial background was not that this phenomenon exists in the world. …

In The American Non-Dilemma, Nancy DiTomaso argues that persistent racial inequality in the United States is not solely or even primarily a reflection of racism and discrimination. Rather, it reflects the fact that whites tend to help other whites without ever discriminating against or behaving cruelly toward blacks and other nonwhites. As long as whites tend to dominate prestigious occupations, and as long as they control access to valuable social resources like access to good schools, the fact that whites, like all people, will do more to help family, friends, and acquaintances than strangers will tend to entrench racial inequality, provided that white people choose to associate primarily with other whites.

To the liberal mind, white people who do not discriminate towards minorities — who do not think cruel thoughts about them at all — are still “racist” if the color that they find most attractive is what they see when they look in the mirror. To liberals like Suey Park, it doesn’t matter what’s going on in a white person’s mind — their skin has determined their fate: “racist.”

To the liberal mind, it is “racist” to help your family, friends and acquaintances if you are white because white people “dominate prestigious occupations.”

Yes, even though the writer acknowledges that “all people” help those who are in their immediate circle of friends and family, we must constantly monitor non-discriminatory white people because they “control access to valuable social resources.”

What is more likely holding back black people in Chicago: white Americans who are really nice — who just so happen to be attracted to someone who looks like them — or the fact that blacks are slaughtering each other in the streets like something you’d find in the Middle East?

Time magazine reports — welcome to ‘Chiraq’:

At least nine people were killed and at least 36 wounded in Chicago over the Easter weekend, prompting a newly formed federal unit to step in to help tackle the city’s pervasive culture of gun violence.

In a Monday statement, a prosecutorial unit called the Violent Crimes section said it will put its full focus on how to use federal statutes to combat Chicago’s endemic gang and gun problem, giving the city its nickname “Chiraq.” The shootings over the weekend brought the total number of suspected homicide this year to 90, two less than during the same period last year.

These record numbers come despite the fact that it appears the city is finding creative ways to lower it’s murder rate. Need to get rid of crime? Don’t call it crime. Genius!

From Chicago magazine:

Toxicology tests showed she had heroin and alcohol in her system, but not enough to kill her. All signs pointed to foul play. According to the young woman’s mother, who had filed a missing-person report, the police had no doubt. “When this detective came to my house, he said, ‘We found your daughter. . . . Your daughter has been murdered,’ ” Alice Groves recalls. “He told me they’re going to get the one that did it.”

On October 28, a pathologist ruled the death of Tiara Groves a homicide by “unspecified means.” This rare ruling means yes, somebody had killed Groves, but the pathologist couldn’t pinpoint the exact cause of death.

Given the finding of homicide—and the corroborating evidence at the crime scene—the Chicago Police Department should have counted Groves’s death as a murder. And it did.

On a deeper level, perhaps Slate’s Reihan Salam is saying that if only more of Chicago’s white population would date black people, they could save black people from themselves. Mr. Salam, why do you have such a low opinion of Chicago’s black population? Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

According to Slate’s Reihan Salam, if you’re a white guy who was turned off to Asians because you associate them with the likes of Suey “only white people can be racist” Park, you are (ta-da!) racist. See how that works?

Remember: In Suey Park's world, only white people can be racist. Have fun trying to build a movement on that line, Ms. Park. — Remember: In Suey Park’s world, only white people can be racist. Have fun trying to build a movement on that line, Ms. Park.

CBO: This American debt bomb is going really to hurt when it explodes — just so you know

March 20, 2014March 20, 2014by Douglas ErnstLeave a comment

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf was speaking at The Atlantic’s 2014 Economy Summit in Washington and he had a message for the American people: Pain.

CNS News reported:

The United States faces “fundamental fiscal challenges” stemming from the growth in spending for Social Security and major health care programs,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf told a gathering in Washington on Tuesday.

The rising cost of those programs leaves Americans with “unpleasant” choices to make, but the sooner they’re made, the better, he said: “So we have a choice as a society to either scale back those programs relative to what is promised under current law; or to raise tax revenue above its historical average to pay for the expansion of those programs; or to cut back on all other spending even more sharply than we already are,” Elmendorf said.

“And we haven’t actually decided as a society…what we’re going to do. But some combination of those three choices will be needed.”

Elmendorf said there are various ways to proceed: “But they tend to be unpleasant in one way or another, and we have not, as a society, decided how much of that sort of unpleasantness to inflict on whom.”

I’ve been beating this drum for over four years now on this blog — I’ve called it the Jenga Economy — but Mr. Elmendorf is correct: “we have not, as a society, decided how much … unpleasantness to inflict on whom.”

The right answer is that you disperse the pain across as wide an area as possible because we are all Americans and we are all responsible for the debt tumor within. The problem is that we have “leaders” who lie to the American people about what is really happening under the surface, we have some that are just plain stupid, and we have others —like Sen. Claire McCaskill — who openly admit they have serious issues.

Hotair reported:

I do believe a $17 trillion debt is irresponsible. I do believe that. … It’s not like I am such a fiscal hawk that I don’t see that there are needs out there that we need to address. Supporting extending unemployment insurance, all of those things. … I don’t think we can keep our eye completely off that ball. So, some of the people who think, well, you know, deficits don’t matter, and debt doesn’t matter. We have cut our deficit by a lot, and that’s great, but I don’t think it’s responsible to go back to the old way, ’cause you know what the old way was? We said yes to everybody. You know, we want to be loved. That’s why we run for office. …

She wants to be loved? That’s why she runs? Again — she’s said yes to everybody because she wants to be loved.

Unbelievable. You can not make this stuff up.

Leaders do not say yes to everyone. Leaders know that they must make tough decisions and that they will not be loved by everyone. Leaders take it on the chin because they know that what they’re doing is in the long-term interest of those under their command.

It is safe to say that Sen. Claire McCaskill is not a leader. The vast majority of her friends in the Senate are not leaders, and neither are the vast majority of her counterparts in the House. But, like I said, we’re all in some way culpable for what is to come.

The constituents who elected politicians to whisper sweet nothings into their ears are responsible. The American citizen who seemingly prides himself for being an uninformed boob is responsible. Independents who only opt to rhetorically throw stones at both parties are responsible. And yes, yours truly is responsible…in many, many ways that I’d be happy to expand on in the comments section.

Are you prepared for the “unpleasantness” coming down the pike? I am.

Socialism’s failures on full display in Venezuela; NPR reports on misery, but won’t assign blame

March 19, 2014September 21, 2014by Douglas Ernst21 Comments

Last June the reports came of Venezuelan efforts to stop toilet paper and diaper shortages by raiding warehouses, and we knew at that time that it was the beginning of the end. The country had long ago swallowed the socialist poison pill, and when the predictable economic diarrhea arrived they were left with a nasty mess.

The protests, the murdered students, the jailed opposition leaders and intimidation — it was all very predictable, because socialism’s historical track record is one of pain and misery.

Today, NPR reported:

Alvaro Villarueda starts his morning the same way every day — putting in a call to his friend who has a friend who works at a Caracas, Venezuela, supermarket.

Today, he’s looking for sugar, and he’s asking his friend if he knows if any shipments have arrived. As he talks on the phone, his wife Lisbeth Nello, is in the kitchen.

There are 10 mouths to feed every day in this family — five of them children. The two youngest are still in diapers.

“The things that are the scarcest are actually what we need the most,” Nello says. “Flour, cooking oil, butter, milk, diapers. I spent last week hunting for diapers everywhere. The situation is really tough for basic goods.”

Again, completely predictable. Yes, over and over again individuals do not get the lesson. Perhaps part of the reason is because news outlets refuse to report the obvious:

As with everything in Venezuela, the reasons given for the food shortages depend on political affiliation. The government says it’s the result of unscrupulous businessmen waging an economic war and hoarding by regular people afraid of shortages.

Those in the opposition blame a system that imposes price controls, the lack of money to buy imports and problems in the supply chain after the expropriation of farms and factories by the socialist government.

Whatever the reasons, the shortages have meant that Nello spends a lot of time in long lines.

“Whatever the reasons”?! It is quite clear that socialism is to blame for Venezuela’s woes, but NPR can’t bring itself to do more than “report” on the symptoms of the disease. It doesn’t want you to know about the disease itself. All it can manage to “report” is a “whatever…” when it comes to the results of spitting in the face of basic economics.

Instead of looking at the very real history of price controls around the world — a dismal track record indeed — NPR would rather shrug its shoulders and essentially say, “Well, it could be those ‘unscrupulous’ businessmen. Who are we to say?”

The sad truth is that if you pick ten random people on the street in any country, then most of them will probably not have a firm grasp on basic economic principles. However, all of them understand hope and will gravitate to the person who instills it in them. When educational systems and news outlets fail to show people the dire consequences of socialism, the stage is set for generation after generation to fall victim to its smooth talking salesmen.

It is a very distinct possibility that Venezuela will lurch further to the left before the country collectively takes part in an ideological course correction. There are countless variables in the air at the moment, but the one constant is the cult-like addiction to the socialist vision by its advocates. As long as Western media outlets continue to engage in mealymouthed coverage of the truth that is staring them in the face — socialism doesn’t work — the cycle will continue to repeat itself.

Thank God for George Washington, the ‘indispensable man,’ on Feb. 22

February 20, 2014February 20, 2014by Douglas Ernst11 Comments

George Washington was born on February 22, 1732, in Westmoreland County, Virginia. He was one of the greatest men to ever have walked the earth, which is why I suggest saying a prayer of thanks this Saturday.

During one battle of the Revolution, at Monmouth in New Jersey, the American troops were in confused flight and on the verge of destruction when General Washington appeared on the field. Soldiers stopped in their tacks and stared as the tall, blue-coated figure spurred his horse up and down the line, halting the retreat. The young Marquis de Lafayette remembered the sight for the rest of his life, how Washington rode “all along the lines amid the shouts of the soldiers, cheering them by his voice and example and restoring to our standard the fortunes of the fight. I thought then, as now, that never had I beheld so superb a man.”

The General turned his army around. The fighting raged until sundown, and that night the British took the chance to slip away. Washington’s very presence had stopped a rout and turned the tide of battle.

It was not the only time. Again and again, Americans turned to Washington. He was, as biographer James Flexner called him, the “indispensable man” of the American founding. Without George Washington, there may never have been a United States. (Bennett, William and Cribb, John. The American Patriot’s Almanac. p.59)

The more I’ve learned about Washington over the years, the more I have come to love him. It’s hard not wonder what it would be like to serve under his command. Whenever I read of the pivotal role Washington played in helping our nation to survive such a fragile moment in its history, I can’t help but think, “There is a man who I would follow into any battle. I would die for that man.”

Think of all the men in your life. How many of them would you follow into battle without question? How many would it be an honor to serve? You could probably count them on one hand.

One day the fate of the nation will hang in the balance, and we will only be able to pray that a man of Washington’s caliber is available to guide us through the ordeal. Until then, take a moment every so often to given thanks for the “indispensable man.”

Editor’s note to regular readers: As some of you may have noticed, I have written less blog posts on contemporary politics as of late. There are quite a few reasons for that, which I’m more than willing to elaborate on in the comments section. However, the long story short is that over the next few months I will probably lean more often on the readily-available wisdom of greater men than I to keep the blog fresh. I will still write on political stories that are front and center in the news cycle, but with less regularly. I’m still trying to find the proper balance, but I think that it this point in history it might be better to reacquaint as many people as possible with our founding fathers instead of the ramblings of modern career politicians.