Category Archives: Culture War

Fault line in the Left: Progressive playwright is blacklisted for dissenting from transgender groupthink

Libby Emmons is a New York playwright, writer and feminist whose play, “Wanting It,” was produced by the New York City theater company Working Man’s Clothes.

She now finds herself blacklisted because she refuses to subscribe to the Left’s totalitarian groupthink on malleable gender identity and “transgenderism”.

Below are excerpts from her essay, “Writing for Quillette Ended My Theater Project,” November 20, 2018:

It was suggested that I apologize, and that an apology might help. This wasn’t an assurance, but an idea—if I walked back what I had written, there might be a way forward. I looked around the table at these four women who knew me too well to believe that I would apologize for something I had written. Before each of us sat the full length script on which we’d spent several months collaborating. I’d formed this theater collective precisely to make a play based on a killer idea I’d had, and I’d asked each of these talented, thoughtful, intelligent, creative women to work with me.

We were only in the first few months of what was meant to be a year-long residency in a theater space in downtown Manhattan. What I wanted most of all was to develop this project. By the time it was suggested that I apologize, I knew full well that I wouldn’t, and that the project, the theater company, and the residency were all dead in the water.

At issue was an article I’d written for Quillette, entitled “The Transhumanism Revolution,” about three undercurrents of transhumanism presently circulating beneath Western culture: bio-hacking or grinding, AI, and trans gender ideology….

The lack of heterodoxy in Western universities has been extensively documented … many of the extreme ideas that percolate in universities then boil over into the arts, and, in the arts, dogmatic positions on gender identity are now the norm. Trans ideology has been met with a loving embrace, complete acceptance, and fighting words for any who dares to disagree in public….

In the arts community, as well as in universities, it is assumed that a specific gender, racial, sexual, or community identity determines opinions. It is widely believed that traditionally dominant identities produce opinions and ideas that must be considered suspect (i.e. those of the deplorable white women who voted for Trump), and taken with a tablespoon of salt. This is especially true when those ideas or opinions are interacting with ideas or opinions that are considered the purview of those whose identities have been historically disenfranchised. The higher up the privilege ladder you are perceived to be, the less you should have to say about any group occupying a lower rung. For example, my perceived identity as a cis straight white woman is a clear indicator that I should neither have nor express opinions about trans queer white men.

Women like me aren’t supposed to say that men aren’t women. We’re supposed to believe that some men are women. We’re supposed to believe that these men who really are women really believe that they are women, and that we should believe it too. Women like me are not supposed to speak about female erasure, because trans erasure is more important. Women like me aren’t supposed to express the opinion that womanhood is defined by more than mere appearances or performance. We’re supposed to defer to those men that really are women and respect their perspective of what it means to be a woman more than our own.

“You’re punching down,” my director announced from across the table, our scripts and a selection of snacks between us. She said that she’d been contacted my members of our theater community who had let her know that I had hurt them. These theater people wanted to make sure that she knew about the article I’d written and what people on social media were saying. The director reviewed the thread on my Facebook timeline from July, and determinedfor herself that I had participated in “trans erasure,” and hurt people by equating medical gender transition to rapidly growing trends in AI and body hacking….

“You are cis gender,” she informed me. “You need to educate yourself.”

“I am not cis gender,” I replied.

Note: Cisgender is a term for people whose gender identity matches the sex that they were assigned at birth.

Women like me are supposed to understand that we are privileged to be women in women’s bodies. Did I get that right? Privileged to be females who are perceived to be females? Is that it? Wait, privileged to be women who like being women? Maybe that’s it. We’re supposed to understand that it’s different for those who don’t like being in women’s bodies. Or who don’t like being in men’s bodies. I am supposed to understand this because I am a “cis gendered” woman.

For someone like me, who is identified as (as opposed to identifying as) a cis straight white female, to have ideas or opinions relating to trans ideology that are contrary to the progressive narrative recited by rote is already enough for me to be chastised by my community. I knew this, and I often kept quiet during conversations with others in the arts community when these topics arose. But, by espousing them in public, and then doubling down on social media, I had crossed a line drawn to keep my identity separate from certain contentious subjects.

If anything, it is the knowledge that I don’t identify with those things stereotypically female (high heels, makeup, being quiet while the men are talking) that has led me to believe that what society defines as belonging to the domain of women or the domain of men are not what make women and men what they are. Instead, it is our bodies that have the job of determining male and female, and the mind that is free to do as it pleases no matter the confines of the physical form. Yes, the physical form has its limits, and we ignore those limits at our peril. In college, I knew a PCP user who once uttered this truth: if there’s two of you, you can fly; if there’s one of you, well then you can’t fly. Because ideally one of the two will remember that the body has limits, and no flight capability.

“I don’t want to debate this with you,” my director said.

And that, of course, is the problem. No one wants to debate trans ideology. No one wants to talk about it at all other than to say it’s literally as glorious as unicorns shitting rainbows. I explained that I have no problem with pronouns, or bathrooms, or how people want to live, but that I don’t accept the identifier of “cis gendered,” I don’t think kids should be transitioned, and I don’t believe men can change into women or vice versa. I believe being a femme man doesn’t make you female and that men should be more accepting of their femme brothers. I argued that gender is performative and sex is innate, and that gender is not the soul, living somewhere deep inside us waiting to be realized.

“Don’t judge people,” my director advised, and went on to remark that I’d “really hurt people, you made them hurt, especially in a week where Trump said they didn’t have the right to exist.”

My exploration of the ideas behind transgender ideology was painful for people. But it was only a discussion of ideas. Because I had written about the ideas behind the social movement of individuals chemically and surgically altering their bodies so that they appear to be a member of the opposite sex, I was no longer welcome in the feminist theater company I had founded, and no longer welcome among those I had thought of as friends. Exploring a new idea in a longstanding philosophical debate regarding the interconnected nature of human mind and body was hurtful because it did not uphold the delusion that biological sex is malleable. I had committed apostasy against the new gender religion.

All of us around the table had attended liberal East Coast undergraduate universities, and had four graduate degrees between us, two of them held by a professor and a friend of over 20 years. This was an educated group. Stumbling into any downtown indie arts enclave will land you in the presence of enough degrees to warm the planet right out of existence. In the arts, bachelors degrees are standard, masters degrees are commonplace, and progressive orthodoxies are strictly enforced.

The basis of this enforcement is a kind of groupthink, derived from a politics of compassion, moral relativism, and privilege theory. Divergent opinions are not censored, they are self-censored. Artists who disagree do not speak up. To do so is to risk losing funding in an industry that relies almost entirely on philanthropic donations from organizations that routinely signal their virtue to one another, the artists they supposedly serve, and the progressive milieu at large. Artists who value their careers and industry friendships will not express views that put those things at risk. But I did. I knew what I was doing when I wrote it, although I must admit that I thought more highly of my intimate colleagues’ tolerance for controversy than was exhibited at our last meeting, or since.

Do we really think our era is so fraught and divisive that we must abandon our principles in order to achieve something that we absolutely will not achieve if we abandon our principles? It is neither reasonable nor possible to force everyone to believe a given ideology. People can be forced to espouse it, primarily through punitive measures such as imprisonment, blacklisting, gulags, etc., and social measures such as the denial of funding, denial of camaraderie, and denial of resources. But they can never be forced to believe it. It is to precisely this kind of ideological authoritarianism that my work has been opposed since I began writing.

The other women had been pretty quiet up until now. An old friend spoke up.

“Do you think you’ve done something wrong?” She asked.

“No,” I said.

“Then why would you apologize?” She asked.

“I wouldn’t,” I said.

And I won’t.

See also “American College of Pediatricians speaks truth on transgenderism

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Implicit bias? Uproar over black man asked to leave yogurt shop after loitering there for 30 minutes

On November 7,  Menchie’s frozen yogurt shop (in Kirkland, WA) owner, Ramon Cruz, received a call from two teenage girl employees who said there was a suspicious man at his store. The man had been there for 30 minutes and didn’t buy anything from the store. He was looking at his phone a lot and also watching a woman and her child.

Ramon called Kirkland Police and they came to remove the man as an “unwanted subject.” Ramon says that in the past his store has been robbed and the man’s activity wasn’t normal for a customer (technically he WASN’T a customer).

Police came and asked the man to leave. The loitering man told officers the request to leave was “not necessary,” but he left the store without incident or complaining.

Turns out the man, Byron Ragland, is a court-appointed supervisor and was watching a visit between a mother and son. He was sitting at a table by himself without buying anything. He had not informed the store employees of what he was doing there.

Fast forward to today and all heck has broken loose with this incident.

Now the “victim,” Ragland, is making all kinds of demands. From MyNorthwest.com:

“The victim of the incident, 31-year-old Byron Ragland, suggested at a press conference last week that proper reparations would be for the yogurt shop to fire the two girls, for the shop owner to lose his business license, and for Byron himself to get hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy all the restaurants currently operated by the yogurt shop owner. Oh, and he called the business owner, who is by the way a Filipino-American, a white supremacist.”

Also, from the Seattle Times:

“Ragland, a University of Washington, Tacoma student, called for a boycott of the yogurt shop during a protest outside the store Tuesday, the same day Menchie’s said employees were undergoing their own training. “That’s how you punish white supremacy and anti-black behavior,” he said. “You hit it hard, and you hit it fast right in its pockets.”

The City of Kirkland has issued an apology. Excerpts from their statement:

Mr. Ragland left Menchie’s feeling that he was unwelcome in Kirkland based on his race.  We want to reiterate our sincere apology to Mr. Ragland and all parties for the result of this encounter.  On November 17, we initiated an investigation of the incident.  In reviewing preliminary findings, we have determined that the arriving officers missed the opportunity to mediate between Mr. Ragland and the shop owner to a better outcome.

The incident at Menchie’s has caused us to ask ourselves many difficult questions about race and inclusion.

In times of difficulty, we turn to our values to guide our path forward. In Kirkland, we value being a safe, welcoming and inclusive city.

While our investigation of the incident is not yet completed, we know that this issue goes far beyond the Kirkland Police Department.  We want to assure the public that all employees of Kirkland are committed to our values of keeping Kirkland safe, welcoming and inclusive.  All of our employees are equally committed to fixing problems when they occur.  We do not want to see an incident like this occur at any other business, at City Hall, in our parks, on our sidewalks or at our community centers.

Most importantly, we recognize that achieving a safe, welcoming and inclusive community requires all of us.  We need ideas and innovations from our entire community in order to improve.  We will be launching a new community outreach strategy that starts with many of the groups that worked closely with us on our previous welcoming and inclusive initiative, and our gun safety and community safety initiative.

Also it turns out that the city has mandated that ALL employees will receive “implicit bias” training. The City Council will partake in the training as well.

The City is also reviewing their policies and practices related to “unwanted person” and “trespass” dispatch calls.


Just my two cents: If you are going to do “supervisory/surveillance” work, you might want to blend in and not call attention to yourself. If you are going to be hanging out at a private business it wouldn’t hurt you to buy a drink so you aren’t considered “suspicious” or accused of trespassing/loitering.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

 

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Ethics philosophers argue for ‘after-birth abortion’ of babies

We were warned about the slippery slope of legalizing abortion.

Legalizing abortion has already led to legalizing euthanasia, euphemistically called “physician-assisted suicide”.

The latest in the slippery slope is a call for infanticide.

In an article, “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?,” published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Medical Ethics, two philosophers propose that mothers should have the right to kill their newborn, which the two philosophers call “after-birth abortion”. The two authors are:

  • Alberto Giubilini, who was at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University, Australia, and is now a post-doctoral research fellow at the Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, England.
  • Francesca Minerva, who was at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Australia, and is now a post-doc research fellow at the University of Ghent, Belgium.

Here is the article’s Abstract:

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

The authors begin their article by arguing that “the same conditions that would have justified abortion,” such as Down’s syndrome and other severe mental and/or physical impairments, should also be “applied to killing a newborn human” because “children with severe abnormalities whose lives can be expected to be not worth living and who are experiencing unbearable suffering.”

But the authors then go further, arguing that even if severely disabled children are happy, they should be “aborted” after birth because of the problems they create for the mothers and for society:

[H]aving a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for her already existing children,1 regardless of the condition of the fetus. This could happen in the case of a woman who loses her partner after she finds out that she is pregnant and therefore feels she will not be able to take care of the possible child by herself….

[T]o bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

Playing word games, the authors say they eschew calling “after-birth abortion” either “infanticide” or “euthanasia” because “the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child,” and because “the best interest of the one who dies is not necessarily the primary criterion for the choice, contrary to what happens in the case of euthanasia.”

In short, the authors justify “after-birth abortion” on the grounds that the newborn infant is just like the unborn fetus in that “neither can be considered a ‘person’ in a morally relevant sense” because neither has “the potentiality to become a person” in the sense of forming any future aims.

By “person” the authors mean “an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

By that definition, “many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons,” but newborns and fetuses are not persons because they “are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence”. At best, newborns and fetuses are only “potential persons”, which means that the interests of “actual people” (parents, family, society), no matter how weak their interests, always “over-ride” the interest of “merely potential people”. The latter “cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence” because the interest of non-persons “amounts to zero”.

Giublini and Minerva even argue against adoption of unwanted newborns if the mothers could be “damaged” by giving up their newborns for adoption.

The authors do allow that since newborns and fetuses are “only capable of experiencing pain and pleasure,” they “have a right not to be inflicted pain.”

How humane and generous of Giubilini and Minerva. /Sarc

As to how old a newborn would be when killing him/her is no longer “permissible”, Giublini and Minerva refuse to specify. Instead, they leave the cut-off threshold open-ended. In their words:

[W]e do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.

You can read their short article here.

According to the Daily Telegraph, the editor of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Julian Savulescu, a professor of practical ethics at the University of Oxford, said the article had “elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety”. He said some of comments included:

“These people are evil. Pure evil. That they feel safe in putting their twisted thoughts into words reveals how far we have fallen as a society.”

“Right now I think these two devils in human skin need to be delivered for immediate execution under their code of ‘after birth abortions’ they want to commit murder – that is all it is! MURDER!!!”

“The fact that the Journal of Medical Ethics published this outrageous and immoral piece of work is even scarier”

“Alberto Giubilini looks like a muslim so I have to agree with him that all muslims should have been aborted. If abortion fails, no life at birth – just like he wants.”

Savulescu defended Giubilini and Minerva on the grounds that their arguments are not new and in the interest of academic freedom. He said:

“The novel contribution of this paper is not an argument in favour of infanticide … but rather their application in consideration of maternal and family interests. The paper also draws attention to the fact that infanticide is practised in the Netherlands…. More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

See also “Celebrated moral philosopher Peter Singer: It’s okay to rape the mentally disabled”.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

European Jewish Congress: Bible should contain warnings about antisemitic passages; governments must fund fight against antisemitism

Founded in 1986, the European Jewish Congress (EJC) is an umbrella organization of 42 national Jewish communities in Europe, representing more than 2.5 million European Jews. Affiliated to the World Jewish Congress, the EJC is one of the most influential international public associations. It works with national governments, European Union institutions and the Council of Europe. Based in Paris, the EJC has offices in Brussels, Strasbourg, Berlin and Budapest.

The Jerusalem Post reports that on November 21, 2018, the EJC convened a high level conference in Vienna, Austria, on “Europe beyond antisemitism and anti-Zionism – securing Jewish life in Europe”.

The conference was arranged by the Federal Chancellery of Austria led by Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz who, in his opening address, said “Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are getting blurred, but they are two sides of the same coin.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a recorded video speech at the conference, in which he said that antisemitism was resurgent again “throughout the world,” and that a new antisemitism has arisen which attempts “to demonize the Jewish state and prevent the Jewish people the right to self-determination in the homeland of our forefathers, the Land of Israel. Netanyahu said that “The Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers of Auschwitz. The Holocaust began with the spread of hate speech, the burning of books and the smashing of shop windows.”

EJC president Dr. Moshe Kantor said at the conference:

“Today, on European streets, people are being killed again simply for being Jewish. Jewish communities in Europe are increasingly concerned about their security and pessimistic about their future. Europe doesn’t have a monopoly on antisemitism anymore. No Jewish community anywhere in the world, however strong and well organized, is now immune from Jew hatred. Fighting antisemitism deserves much more than simple statements of good will – we need concrete policies and reinforced legislation.”

To that end, the conference produced a Catalogue of Policies to Combat Antisemitism — detailed proposals and recommendations for combating antisemitism in Europe, drawn up by the EJC with the assistance of academics from universities in Vienna, Tel Aviv and New York. (Daily Mail names Israeli historian Dina Porat and New York University professor Lawrence H. Schiffman as among the academics.)

Chancellor Kurz said he intends to bring the document before the European Council, the body comprising the 28 EU member heads of state that determines policy direction, at its next summit in December. Raising the issue at the European Council would be prelude to the adoption of the recommendations by the EU and Europe’s national governments.

On its website, the European Jewish Congress identifies the following recommendations of the Catalogue of Policies to Combat Antisemitism:

  1. Adoption and implementation of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism by all countries, institutions and businesses;
  2. Governments and intergovernmental organizations should condemn the blatant state-sanctioned antisemitism that exist in a number of countries, such as Iran;
  3. All countries should appoint an envoy for combatting antisemitism;
  4. Every country should commit to a percentage of its GDP, annually, to fund the fight against antisemitism;
  5. Creating new legal frameworks to combat antisemitism effectively and strengthening existing ones;
  6. People who express or hold antisemitic views should not be allowed to be members of political parties or occupy a position of power;
  7. Companies should be advised not to do business with countries or organizations that support antisemitism in any way;
  8. Governments should commit financial and operational resources to ensure the security of Jewish communities;
  9. Internet companies should be liable for antisemitic content on their platforms.

Curiously, left out of the above recommendations is the call for new editions of the Bible and Koran to carry warning messages about anti-Semitic passages.

James Wood reports for Daily Mail, Nov. 23, 2018, that the recommendation is in the EJC’s conference document, An End to Antisemitism! A Catalogue of Policies to Combat Antisemitism, in a chapter entitled “Recommendations regarding Religious Groups and Institutions”. The document reads:

Translations of the New Testament, the Qur’an and other Christian or Muslim literatures need marginal glosses, and introductions that emphasize continuity with Jewish heritage of both Christianity and Islam and warn readers about antisemitic passages in them. While some efforts have been made in this direction in the case of Christianity, these efforts need to be extended and made consistent in both religions.

The Catalogue of Policies to Combat Antisemitism also calls for:

  • The identification and rejection of all antisemitic texts and passages in the heritage of Christianity and Islam.
  • Religious leaders and thinkers to public denounce as “unholy writ”  all canonical or quasi-canonical writings of religious anti-Semites.

The Catalogue‘s justification for these changes is because divine messages are always communicated through human beings and therefore subject to error. It reads:

God’s revelation is thus marred by human fallibility. Beginning with the New Testament, divine revelation expresses itself in Christian holy texts that also express a form of hatred. The manifestations of this hatred resulted in a tradition of antisemitism that gave moral legitimacy to crimes against the Jewish people, the epitome of which is the Shoah.

Several themes in the New Testament have come under fire for being anti-Semitic. These include blaming Jews for the death of Jesus, and negative remarks about the stubborn nature of the Jewish people and their disloyalty to God.

So what is the IHRA working definition of antisemitism?

On May 26, 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) — of which the United States is a member — adopted the following the “non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism“, which is used by the U.S. State Department:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

Alas, the working definition does not define what “hatred toward Jews” means, but that meaning can be gleaned from what the IHRA considers to be contemporary examples of antisemitism, including:

  • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective—such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
  • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

What the IHRA, European Jewish Congress and its Catalogue of Policies to Combat Antisemitism conveniently omit is that the Talmud, which supercedes the Torah (Old Testament) in religious authority for Jews, is rabidly anti-Christian.

Written in Hebrew between the third and sixth centuries, the Talmud is a collection of 63 books that together codify the oral law that Jewish rabbis claim was handed down from Moses. Jesus, in Matthew 15, however condemns that oral law when he said: “By the traditions of your elders you make void the Word of God.”

English translations of the Talmud have been watered down so as to conceal from the Gentiles the “satanic verses” contained in the original Hebrew. Those “satanic verses” can be classified into three categories:

  1. Jewish supremacy
  2. Hatred for “goys” or Gentiles
  3. Hatred for Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and all Christians. Some examples:
    • Jesus (“Yashu”) is in Hell being “boiled in hot excrement” (Gittin 57a); Jesus was sexually immoral and “worshipped a brick” (Sanhedrin 107b); Jesus was cut off from the Jewish people for his wickedness and refusal to repent (Sotah 47a).
    • Mary (“Miriam the hairdresser”) was a prostitute who “had sex with many men” (Shabbath 104b, Hebrew Edition only); “She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters” (Sanhedrin 106a).
    • “Christians who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations” (Rosh Hashanah 17a); “All things pertaining to the Goim are like a desert; the first person to come along and take them can claim them for his own” (Babha Bathra 54b).

Sources:

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Perpetually offended: Actor Kevin Hart under fire after “Cowboys & Indians” birthday party for his son

Kevin Hart’s family enjoying a “Cowboys and Indians” birthday party

Celebrities and us normal folk don clothing to celebrate and imitate. Granted, some people do it with intent to offend yet for the majority that it not their goal, the just do it for fun.

Some people have so much butt hurt in their lives they seek out ways to be offended – even if it’s a little boy’s birthday party.

From Yahoo: When Eniko and Kevin Hart planned their son Kenzo’s first birthday party, it’s possible they were thinking of nothing but the kind of themed birthday parties they’d attended as children, then selected one that seemed like it would appeal most to their toddler. But once Eniko posted the photos from the cowboys and Indians party, they raised a storm of opinions about what such a theme really means.

“Zos cowboys & indians party was nothing but amazing! Thanks to everyone for coming.. we love you guys!” Eniko Hart wrote on Instagram Thursday, sharing photos of her family and friends decked out in cowboy costumes or draped in Native American blankets next to a teepee at an outdoor venue.

In the comments, amid the cooing — that is one very cute little boy — came critiques from Native Americans. Just as they often call for an end to dressing up in “Indian” costumes during Halloween, indigenous people have long called cowboys and Indians parties offensive.

“Disgusting. This is equivalent to having a kkk and black slaves party. #interminorityappropriation,” wrote @smitmk01.

Many called upon African-Americans like the Harts to see the parallels between blackface and turning native culture into costumes.

So when ppl do blackface or dress as slave and owner for halloween ya cool with it? Yuuuuuup thats what i thought,” wrote @gymandtattooposts.

Adrienne K. on the website NativeAppropriations.com further uses the comparison between the way white Americans used negative stereotypes of both groups as a means to create the identity of a dominant white American culture.

“So, it’s clear there are large similarities between blackface and playing Indian — both are intentional acts that draw upon stereotypes and a racist history to enact whiteness — but our Nation has created a narrative in which blackface=racist, while redface=normal,” she writes. “Just because our national narrative and history has somehow normalized the phenomenon does not excuse its roots in the process of systematic erasure of the First Peoples from our homelands.”

That argument played out somewhat less eloquently on Eniko Hart’s feed, with many defending the party and calling the haters overly sensitive.

“I truly hope you and Kevin don’t apologize for this!!”@through1eye wrote to Eniko. “Welcome to the generation of offended. It’s a sad day when a child can’t even have an innocent cowboy and indian themed party.”

Neither Eniko nor Kevin Hart has commented on the controversy.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

#BelieveSurvivors: California Democratic Party Chairman Eric Bauman accused of sexual assault

Demorat Eric Bauman

Eric Bauman was all for destroying Justice Kavanaugh based on flimsy allegations. Some of his tweets/retweets during the confirmation process:

“This says it all: #DefeatKavanaugh. Time for justice for the 1 in 6 women who are victims of sexual violence. #MeToo #BelieveSurvivors #TimesUp #WhyIDidntReport”

“Any person listening to #ChristinaBlaseyFord testify who does not hear & feel her pain & see her deep emotion as she relives this trauma, is heartless & utterly inhuman. The contrast between the sensitivity of the Democratic Senators & the GOP prosecutor is stark. #KavaNOPE

‘The safety and dignity of women is no longer secondary to the needs of powerful men.’ @timesupnow is calling for Brett Kavanaugh to withdraw his nomination to the Supreme Court”

“A vicious, vile and soulless attack on Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Is it any wonder that she was terrified to come forward, and that other sexual assault survivors are as well? She is a remarkable profile in courage. He (President Trump) is a profile in cowardice.”

Wonder if Bauman still wants us to #BelieveSurvivors now that he’s being accused of sexual harassment? Is it time for Kavanaugh-style justice or for Bauman to have his due process?

From SF Chronicle: California Democratic Party Chairman Eric Bauman has been accused of sexually assaulting or harassing staff members by Vice Chairman Daraka Larimore-Hall, the party’s third-in-command.

In an email sent Saturday to the party’s executive board, Larimore-Hall said he has filed a complaint with the party’s human resources department, calling for Bauman to be removed as chairman in light of what Larimore-Hall called “credible, corroborated and utterly heart-breaking allegations.”

“I take seriously any allegation brought forward by anyone who believes they have been caused pain,” Bauman, the state party’s first openly gay chairman, said in a statement Saturday evening. He said an independent investigation of the allegations had been undertaken by a “respected outside investigator” to ensure that staffers making the charges are “free from any concerns of retaliation.”

“Procedures are in place to handle these matters, and independent counsel will ensure that they are followed. I look forward to putting these allegations behind us and moving forward as unified Democrats.

Larimore-Hall did not respond to requests for comment, but in the email to the executive board he said that he had been recently approached by “a number of party staff” who said they had been sexually harassed or assaulted by Bauman at party functions.

“I will forever be inspired by the bravery of these young political professionals, many of whom are at the very beginnings of their careers,” Larimore-Hall wrote.

Larimore-Hall included no details about the alleged incidents or the staff members who reportedly were assaulted. In his email, he said that he would allow the victims to decide whether to come forward. “Obviously, it is completely unacceptable for Chairman Bauman to remain in office” given the allegations, he said.

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Fremont, called the allegations “shocking” on Twitter Friday evening and suggested Bauman be replaced by Michele Dauber, a law professor at Stanford who spearheaded the effort to recall Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky. The judge sparked national outrage after he sentenced a Stanford athlete to six months in jail for sexually assaulting and attempting to rape an unconscious woman.

“We need a bold feminist to lead for 2020,” Khanna said. He also said he’d also support Kimberly Ellis of Richmond, whom Bauman bested in the contentious race for the party’s top job by just 62 votes last year at the state party convention.

That race exposed deep fault lines within the state’s Democratic Party. Bauman, a longtime party insider, was seen by the party’s more left-leaning faction as insufficiently progressive, too cozy with business interests and willing to disregard the demands of the party’s grassroots members.

Hene Kelly, an executive board member and regional director for the party in the Bay Area, said the allegations ought to be investigated but worried that they would sap some of the momentum built up in the wake of state Democrat’s resounding victories during the midterms.

“I’m absolutely torn up about this, because this is not what we need right now,” she said.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Murphy Brown to ICE agents: “I will spatchcock you”

How original: A re-booted TV show bashing President Trump. Yawn…

This show has seen a consistent drop in ratings each week. Too bad, so sad.

See also:

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Facebook facilitates human trafficking, allows family to auction off daughter for marriage

I guess Facebook didn’t deem this marriage arrangement “sensational” enough to warrant immediately remove from their platform.

From NY Post: Facebook is facing outrage after a 17-year-old girl from South Sudan was auctioned off for marriage on their platform.

The incident took place in October, when a family posted a Facebook message calling for men to place bids for their daughter.

One businessman from Juba, South Sudan, won the auction with an offer of 530 cows, three Land Cruisers and $10,000.

Although it was widely circulated online, Facebook didn’t take down the post until Nov. 9, three days after the daughter was married off and two weeks after it first appeared, Vice reported.

Information minister Taban Abel told Reuters that the girl has gone into hiding in Juba, but did provide any more details.

This is the first reported situation where a teenage bride was sold on Facebook. Now activists are calling out the online platform for how they’ve handled the incident.

“This barbaric use of technology is reminiscent of latter-day slave markets,” George Otim, country director of charity group Plan International South Sudan, told Reuters. “That a girl could be sold for marriage on the world’s biggest social networking site in this day and age is beyond belief.”

“Any form of human trafficking whether posts, pages, ads or groups that coordinate this activity are not allowed on Facebook,” a Facebook spokesman told Reuters.

Although the legal age of marriage is 18 in the war-torn country, more than 50 percent of underage girls in South Sudan are married.

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

The True Meaning of Thanksgiving: A Christian holiday to thank God, not another occasion for white guilt

George Washington prays at Valley Forge, winter of 1777-1778 (painting by Arnold Friberg)

Thanksgiving is one of the most beloved holidays in America.

But in the hands of “progressives,” public schools and the Hate America Media (HAM), Thanksgiving has long become yet another occasion for white guilt. If you want an illustration, see my 2010 post, “Thanksgiving card from my liberal friend“.

But did you know that unlike other secular holidays like Labor Day or the Fourth of July, the Thanksgiving that you think is a secular holiday is actually a national holiday that is explicitly religious in nature?

As shown in the quotes below, Thanksgiving was instituted as a day to thank God for the many blessings He has bestowed on America.

In 1789, in his first year in office, President George Washington called for a day of Thanksgiving because —

“it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor.”

In 1815, President James Madison issued a proclamation for “a day of thanksgiving and of devout acknowledgments to Almighty God for His great goodness.” After Madison, however, Thanksgiving reverted to a regional celebration in New England for 48 years.

In a proclamation in the midst of the Civil War on October 3, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln made Thanksgiving an official national holiday. Here is the full text of his proclamation:

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God.

In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.

Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship; the axe had enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years, with large increase of freedom.

No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and voice by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility and Union.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-eighth.

Fellowship of the Minds takes this occasion to thank our readers for staying with us through the August 15 take-down by WordPress, and the continuing malicious distributed denial-of-service bot attacks that account for blank pages sometimes. When you get one, just keep refreshing the page.

Psalm 100

A Psalm of Thanksgiving.

Shout joyfully to the Lord, all you lands;
serve the Lord, with gladness;
come before Him with joyful song.
Know that the Lord, is God,
He made us, we belong to Him,
we are His people, the flock He shepherds.
Enter His gates with thanksgiving,
His courts with praise.
Give thanks to Him, bless His name;
good indeed is the Lord,
His mercy endures forever,
His faithfulness lasts through every generation.

God bless you, and may God bless America,

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

“Glamour” magazine to cease print operations, move to digital only

 

Imagine my distress…

Condé Nast publishes left-wing propaganda. Good riddance to this garbage at the grocery stores.

From Fortune: Condé Nast announced Tuesday that it plans to shut down print operations for one of its glossy publications. The 80-year-old Glamour magazine will publish its last print issue in January, before shifting to a digital-only operation, the New York Times reported.

“This is my plan, because it makes sense,” the magazine’s editor-in-chief, Samantha Barry, said. “[Digital is] where the audiences are, and it’s where our growth is. That monthly schedule, for a Glamour audience, doesn’t make sense anymore.

Last year, Condé Nast scaled back Glamour‘s publication frequency from once every month, to just 11 issues a year. Condé Nast last year lost a reported $120 million, which prompted its decision to cut the magazine’s monthly publishing schedule, and also sell three of its other titles: Brides, Golf Digest, and W.

Despite the decision to cut its print magazine, Glamour has maintained a stable 2.2 million paid subscriber base over the last three years, according to the Times. Barry added that the magazine might continue to publish special issues moving forward, including its annual Women of the Year award, and topical issues about money and power. The web magazine will remain free until further notice.

Read the whole story here.

See also:

DCG

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0