Anybody else sick of the constant bickering going on in the public forum? In 2016, we had a national election where we were at each other’s throats. We expected, based on history, things would calm down in 2017. They just got worse. My resolution for all of us in 2018: let’s take a deep breath and start to learn how to speak to each other again.
There is plenty of blame to go around with our national media being a prime example. Where the main purpose of the media was to inform and educate us on the issues of the day, it now seems their driving principle is to agitate. We know many in the media have a distaste for our president; but many forget that their jobs are not to drip disdain daily.
On the day the tax bill was introduced as well as Donna Brazile’s column disclosing some serious issues in her upcoming book, both CNN and MSNBC focused their evening broadcasts on their favorite narrative – the Russia investigation. Even two huge stories could not deter them from their “Take Down Trump Train.”
My God, the media has such antipathy for this administration they questioned the validity of the press secretary’s ability to make a pecan pie. Is that really what our country has come to?
It is not just the media doing the elevating, our elected officials must likewise tone it down a few notches. A client sent me an email he received from a local Congressman. Ted Lieu (D-CA) took over Henry Waxman’s seat. There are probably few safer Congressional seats in this country. It covers the Westside of Los Angeles. Yet, Mr. Lieu seems to think the only way for him to secure any national recognition from his moneyed district is with inflammatory rhetoric. I have yet to see him make a commentary where he was not on the attack. Some should tell him it is very unbecoming and not befitting his esteemed position.
Mr. Lieu assailed the Republican tax plan in the email. He called it horrible and stupid. He went on to call it a scam that will devastate California. This is all unnecessary and over-the-top language that scares his constituents instead of educating them about potential issues about which they should be concerned. Not exactly stellar leadership.
There are two ways to stop this. One is that we have a tumultuous event that so turns the stomach of all of us that we have a revelation.
The other way is that we one-by-one mimic Howard Beale (“Network”): “I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore.” In our own lives we demand that we live by a higher principle. I am not saying I am an angel or perfect, but here are some things I do as someone who has learned to cope with being a Jewish Republican in a very liberal city (Los Angeles) amongst many people who are far more liberal than I am:
1. Never bring up politics unless you absolutely know the person’s positions and you can converse with them.
2. If someone else brings up politics and you don’t agree with them, don’t launch into an argument with them. Ask first why they believe what they have just told you. Hear them out. Ask them where they read and gathered their facts from. Ask if they can forward to you what they read to obtain their position. Listen to their points and maybe you might learn something. It will open you up to listening to the opposition and maybe they will start to open themselves up to what you say.
3. Stick to the facts. No ad-hominem attacks. When someone starts calling their political opponents names or making derogatory comments about them then you know the policy points are weak. I may have slipped, but I rarely if ever said anything bad about President Obama. I just attacked him on policy points. I always said he was a devoted husband and father, thus he was a good man.
4. Read or watch the opposition. In my car, I am always listening to the Bruce channel. Having 3,000 CDs, I always have something old or new to listen to, but in my wife’s car she has satellite radio. I almost always turn to progressive radio. I find it a gas. Very entertaining and enlightening. I don’t agree and I think they are way off base, but I listen. Which is the point: we all need to do more of that, LISTEN.
5. If you find someone gets you wound up, then don’t watch them. If you are not learning from what you are reading or watching – lose it. I miss Hugh Hewitt’s radio show that used to be on in the afternoons in Los Angeles until he moved back East. He is a partisan Republican, but I always learned from his show.
6. Don’t always question someone’s motives or character if they disagree with you. Most often, we just disagree. Barack Obama was someone with whom I almost always disagreed; I thought his policies were wrong.
I have no illusion that everyone reading this column will have an epiphany and change their behavior and that will ripple throughout the country. But we must start somewhere. We are blessed to live in the most wonderful country, where people from everywhere on this planet are welcome and accepted as long as they follow the rule of law and desire to become Americans.
We must be a little bit more civil toward each other. That is my New Year’s resolution for us all in 2018.
Happy New Year!
There is a national mental health disease pandemic.
Blue States Are About to see Another Mass Exodus to Red States!
New York, California, and Illinois to take the brunt, the continuing migration from blue states to red states is about to go into overdrive.
It turns out that people hate living in blue states, where lax drug laws, tight gun control, socialist taxation, and liberal social circles make the place uninhabitable. According to The Daily Caller, three major blue states lost a record number of citizens in 2016-2017.
New York lost about 190,000 residents from July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2017, according to U.S. Census Bureau data released last week.
President Obama’s home state of Illinois has now dropped from the fifth to the sixth-most populous state in 2017.
The once golden state of California lost 138,000 residents.
Liberals in Sacramento have made it so difficult for businesses to make money they are leaving the state in droves. Those same liberals are giving away the money that is left, and those that want something for free are replacing them.
Large swaths of California look like a Third World country. They have ramshackle buildings, junky cars and trash strewn everywhere. The state even has outbreaks of Hepatitis A, just like a Third World country.
Most experts believe California has passed the point of no return for the financial disaster liberals have caused because as quickly as the producers are moving out, the takers are moving in!
A state cannot chase away the producers and attract the takers year after year without economic consequences. That doesn’t end well so there’s little doubt California is headed toward economic disaster.
California has over 250 agencies that intrude into every aspect of its citizens’ lives. Sacramento spending is completely out of control. California political writer Steve Frank estimates that the real state government debt is $2.8 trillion.
California is crashing folks, and there is no return! I am so thankful we moved to Texas!
Any logic centered person understands where that road leads. If you do not, this well done cartoon should help:
At the AMC Universal CityWalk 19 in Los Angeles – the AMC Theaters location that’s closest to where I live – a single ticket to see a non-matinee screening tonight currently costs $17.75 (plus a $1.75 convenience fee for ordering the ticket online, bringing the total to $19.50). Now we’ve learned that AMC is looking into the possibility of charging different prices for different seats within the same theater. Is there any upside here?
We received an e-mail from a reader who’s a member of the AMC Stubs reward program informing us of a survey that AMC Theaters is sending out to some of its members. The survey essentially asks members where they like to sit in the theater and if they’d be willing to pay more or less money for more desirable seats or less desirable seats. The contents of that survey have been confirmed by another person on Twitter:
Just got a survey from AMC. Basically, they’re going to start charging for sitting in different sections of the same theatre screen.
— Disneyland Doc (@DLdocumentary) December 28, 2017
And while that Twitter user may be jumping the gun a bit by assuming AMC is unequivocally going to turn the results of this survey into a new policy, it’s telling that the world’s largest theater chain is searching for outside-the-box ways to potentially charge audiences, even more, money to go to the movies. (The number of overall movie tickets sold in the United States has been on a downward slide for the past two years, which has to be something that haunts your dreams if you’re an AMC executive.)
My first thought was that maybe the theater wants to offer discount prices for seats in the front row in order to attract people who might have otherwise brushed off the idea of going to the movies at all because the prices were too steep. But almost immediately, I realized that AMC isn’t going to leave money on the table here; if this situation does, in fact, come to pass, they’ll almost certainly charge more than the ticket price to sit in prime seats. My guess is the middle of every row will be pricier to offset cheaper seats on the aisles or in the very front.
Seeing a movie in a theater can be magical or godawful, depending on a host of factors. (Seriously, is it STILL too much to ask for them to institute some consequences for cell phone usage?) But it seems to me that theater chains could be innovating new or better ways to actively convince people to spend their time and money at the movies, rather than theorizing about ways to make sure they don’t lose out on any more revenue. Evolve or die, right? As much as we rag on big theaters for their seeming lack of standards, it’d still be a sad day if they died off completely. Here’s hoping they can come up with something a little better than this to stave off extinction.
Or not. Depending on your Homo Superior Liberalis status.
- A Diablo Valley College professor recently told students they should violate “many” of our existing laws because they perpetuate “a white supremacist, patriarchal, heteronormative, capitalist system.”
- The professor also argued that about 50 percent of the students in the room should not stand for the Pledge of Allegiance because the American flag “is not really representative of everybody.”
A professor recently encouraged students to break the law in order to “destroy” the system of “white democracy,” saying the American flag doesn’t even represent about half of them.
Video footage obtained by The Red Elephants purports to show Diablo Valley College professor Albert Ponce lecturing on “white supremacy in the USA,” at one point suggesting that not all students should get up for the Pledge of Allegiance.
“Abolition means we must destroy it, not reform it. No voting is going to help. No writing your congressperson. We need to smash white supremacy.”
“And there were people here, the indigenous people, who were part—who paid a price, a very heavy price, for this project that is unfolding of white supremacy,” the professor said in one part of the lecture.
Ponce argued that Americans “exist in a white supremacist, patriarchal, heteronormative, capitalist system,” and that citizens should be violating laws that they believe perpetuate those conditions.
“That’s the beauty of the law—if you write it, you can convince all of us to follow it,” he said. “Just like all of us do today. When you shouldn’t. Many of the laws existing—we should be violating those laws.”
Laws only apply to Homo Superior Liberalis when they say so. 🙂
“We are taught to get up and to pledge allegiance to the flag every single day,” the professor continued. “The flag is not really representative of everybody who is standing up in that room. Maybe that’s the way it should be taught. All those who this flag represents stand up, and maybe 50 percent of this room, you remain seated down because this is not for you.”
So not everyone in America, is American, so the flag doesn’t represent America?
In other portions of his lecture, Ponce also suggested that the Constitution “should be called a white man’s constitution,” and that Karl Marx was “one of the most profound thinkers in the history of Western philosophy.”
“So it is fitting that a white supremacist of old with a white supremacist of today exists and sit—they are smiling in the White House,” the professor said, pointing to a picture of President Trump alongside Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a slide titled “the abolition of white democracy.”
He then elaborated on the meaning of abolition in that context, declaring that normal democratic processes are insufficient for dealing with the “white supremacy” he attributes to Trump and Sessions.
“What does abolition mean? Abolition means we must destroy it, not reform it,” he continued. “No voting is going to help. No writing your congressperson. We need to smash white supremacy.”
According to The Red Elephants, the video was recorded by a student who described Ponce’s lecture as representative of the “Neo Marxist” attitudes that pervade campus, fueled by “Anti White and Anti American teachers” like Ponce.
The student also claimed that Ponce “grades students down and fails them if they don’t agree with him,” and even threatened to send a student to the dean’s office for nodding “no” during one lecture, but did not provide evidence to substantiate either assertion.
“It was a seminar he decided to hold and he requires students to go to 2 of his so-called lecture speech events outside of class,” the student explained. “This is where he indoctrinates them with lies.”
Ponce’s RateMyProfessor page has been deluged with negative evaluations since the video of his lecture was made public on December 22, but several previous entries do allude to him as an outspoken liberal—and even a “Marxist”—who frequently incorporates his political views into class discussions.
“Ponce wasted Class time Attacking Trump and Cis Genders Males,” one user alleged on November 25. “It’s scary DVC would allow him to promote ANTIFA VIOLENCE DURING CLASS TIME. This man will send those who disagree out of class.”
Other users similarly alleged that he “puts down and bullies conservative students whenever he can” and “tries to brainwash you with pure liberal propaganda,” saying he “seems to teach from a extremely liberal point of view and belittles those who disagree.”
Even some students who rated Ponce highly acknowledged that his personal views often seep into the classroom.
“I will say his class is more preferable for the left winged perspective, so I do not recommend for conservatives,” one user wrote in May, while a previous comment noted that “the class has strong liberal undertones so if you’re not open to hearing about liberal views, I wouldn’t recommend.”
Neither Diablo Valley College nor Ponce responded to Campus Reform’s requests for comment.
Last week, Democrats and many in the mainstream media became highly perturbed by the Trump administration’s suggestion that the United States might tie continued foreign aid to support for its agenda abroad. Foreign dictators agreed. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who spent the last year arresting dissidents, announced, “Mr. Trump, you cannot buy Turkey’s democratic free will with your dollars, our decision is clear.”
Herein lies the great irony of the United Nations: While it’s the Mos Eisley of international politics — a hive of scum and villainy — and it votes repeatedly to condemn the United States and Israel, the tyrannies that constitute the body continue to oppress their own peoples. Among those who voted last week to condemn the U.S. for recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving its embassy to Jerusalem were North Korea, Iran, Yemen and Venezuela. Why exactly should the United States ever take advice from those nations seriously?
We shouldn’t. And we should stop sending cash to an organization that operates as a front for immoral agenda items.
The United Nations spends the vast majority of its time condemning Israel: According to UN Watch, the U.N. Human Rights Council issued 135 resolutions from June 2006 to June 2016, 68 of which were against Israel; the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization only passes resolutions against Israel; and the U.N. General Assembly issued 97 resolutions from 2012 through 2015, 83 of which targeted Israel.
Meanwhile, the U.N. has done nearly nothing with regard to Syria. It has instead suggested that Israel turn over the Golan Heights to the Syrian regime. The U.N. can’t even successfully prevent the slaughter of the Rohingya in Myanmar. But they certainly have something say about whether the United States ought to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
One of the great lies of the Obama administration was that diplomacy is a foreign policy. We often heard from it that the only two alternatives were diplomacy and war. That was the stated reason for pursuing a one-sided nuclear deal with Iran that left Iran with burgeoning regional power and legitimacy. “What? Do you want a war or something?” it asked.
But the moment that the Trump administration uses tools of diplomacy, including financial pressure, to achieve American ends, the left complains. Would it prefer war? Diplomacy is a tool, not a foreign policy, and the use of diplomacy to pressure other nations to follow our lead is not only smart but also necessary. That is why the Trump administration was exactly right to negotiate a $285 million cut to the U.N.’s budget. Now we ought to slash our contributions to the counterproductive organization, since we pay one-fifth of the total bill.
The U.N. has always been a foolish fantasy, a League of Nations knockoff that’s been about as productive and twice as irritating. It’s an outmoded organization that’s outlived whatever small usefulness it once had. There’s no reason for us to continue cutting checks to prop up regimes that condemn us publicly for exercising the most basic standards of morality. (Ben Shapiro)
You just can’t make this stuff up. Progressives do it to themselves way better than an cynic or critic can.
The narcissistic generation that came up with selfies in the first place is now ragging on them. The irony so delicious it’s borders on hilarious.
A group of feminist professors recently discovered that Instagram selfies taken by women in college can reinforce “traditional gender roles.”
In a study led by Mardi Schmeichel, a University of Georgia (UGA) professor specializing in “feminist theory,” a team of professors analyzed 233 selfies that were posted in 2013 within 24 hours of the first UGA football home game of the semester.
“[T]he southern lady images that circulate in these selfies reinscribe a traditional femininity organized around/on a binary.”
Schmeichel and her team analyzed these selfies to see if they represented “the idealized symbol of the southern lady,” which they note is an aesthetic trope that “has had significant and enduring consequences on notions of femininity in the South.”
This symbol of the southern lady, they argue, is typified by students’ formal wear, soft and flowy dresses, a significant amount of jewelry, and clothes that emphasize “feminine curves without revealing what might be considered ‘too much’ skin.”
Bright red lipstick and white teeth are also considered emblematic of this southern aesthetic, Schmeichel argues.
After analyzing selfies posted in the time surrounding the first 2013 UGA home game, Schmeichel found that 25 percent of women who posted photos embody this harmful aesthetic.
“The clothing, makeup, posing and editing used in the southern lady images work together to achieve a hyperfeminine gender performance that differs significantly from the images of women in the other selfies,” Schmeichel laments.
“In the southern lady images, attention to a traditionally gendered performance has been emphasized,” Schmeichel writes, lamenting that “the southern lady images that circulate in these selfies reinscribe a traditional femininity organized around/on a binary.”
She also notes that students’ embodiment of femininity can be troubling.
“The celebration of traditional femininity has been is [sic] a vexing concern for some feminists, who have interpreted it as a rolling back of hard-won progress to eliminate women’s association with these rigidly gendered and often marginalized subject positions.”
“If we are committed to destabilizing gender binaries and working toward a world in which bodies, and images of them, are not traded as capital, then there must be some attention paid to ways in which women’s [Instagram] practices and behaviors can get in the way of these goals,” Schmeichel concludes.
Campus Reform reached out to Schmeichel and her team for comment, but did not receive a response in time for publication.