Danger, Will Robinson!

Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell (2015)
Two Warnings

When Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress on March 3rd, it was the third time he had done so. The only other person to address a joint session of Congress three times was the legendary British prime minister Winston Churchill.

The parallels between the two leaders do not end there. Both warned the world of mortal dangers that others ignored, in hopes that those dangers would go away. In the years leading up to World War II, Churchill tried to warn the British, and the democratic nations in general, of what a monstrous threat Hitler was.

Despite Churchill’s legendary status today, he was not merely ignored but ridiculed at the time, when he was repeatedly warning in vain. Knowing that his warnings provoked only mocking laughter in some quarters, even among some members of his own party, he said on March 14, 1938 in the House of Commons, “Laugh but listen.”

Just two years later, with Hitler’s planes bombing London, night after night, the laughter was gone. Many at the time thought that Britain itself would soon be gone as well, like other European nations that succumbed to the Nazi blitzkrieg in weeks (like France) or days (like Holland).

How did things get to such a desperate situation, with Britain alone continuing the fight, and struggling to survive, against the massive Nazi war machine that now controlled much of the material resources on the continent of Europe?

Things got that desperate by following policies strikingly similar to the policies being followed by the Western democracies today, including some of the very same notions and catchwords being used today.

Just recently, a State Department official in the Obama administration said that Americans have remained safe in a nuclear age, not because of our own nuclear arsenal but because “we created an intricate and essential system of treaties, laws and agreements.”

If “treaties, laws and agreements” produced peace, there would never have been a Second World War. The years leading up to that monumental catastrophe were filled with international treaties and arms control agreements.

The Treaty of Versailles, which ended the First World War, imposed strong restrictions on Germany’s military forces — on paper. The Washington Naval Agreements of 1922 imposed restrictions on all the major naval powers of the world — on paper. The Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 created an international renunciation of war — on paper.

The Munich agreement of 1938 produced a paper with Hitler’s signature on it that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain waved to the cheering crowds when he returned to England, and said that it meant “Peace for our time.” Less than a year later, World War II began.

Winston Churchill never bought any of this. He understood that military deterrence was what preserved peace. With England playing a leadership role in Europe, “England’s hour of weakness is Europe’s hour of danger,” he said in the House of Commons in 1931.


Today, with the Obama administration “leading from behind” — in practice, not leading at all — we see in Ukraine and the Middle East what that produces.

As for disarmament, Churchill said in 1932, “Alone among the nations we have disarmed while others have rearmed.”

Today, the United States has that dubious and reckless distinction. Our pacifists, like those in England during the 1930s, argue that we should disarm to “induce parallel” behavior by others. In England between the two World Wars, the rhetoric was that they should disarm “as an example to others.”

Whether others would follow that example was just as dubious then as it is today. While Russia and China increased the share of their national output that went to military spending in 2014, the United States reduced its share. Churchill deplored the “inexhaustible gullibility” of disarmament advocates in 1932. That gullibility is still not exhausted in 2015.

“Not one of the lessons of the past has been learned, not one of them has been applied, and the situation is incomparably more dangerous,” Churchill said in 1934. And every one of those words is more urgently true today, in a nuclear age.

I am Woman

Kurt Schlichter:

Forgive me if I’m confused, but there seems to be a huge disconnect between what our would-be elite overlords are telling us about women and what they actually think. Apparently coherence and consistency are sexist, and probably also racist and homophobic, making the pooh-bahs of the establishment and their media gimps the most tolerant people in the world.


So, Hillary has some serious sads because Trump interrupted her in the debates. That’s sexist you know, because women are both just as good and tough and stuff as men and, simultaneously, little delicate flowers that we must treat like fine china. Apparently you go go go gurl until someone is mean to you and then you run run run gurl to the menfolk in the media to protect you. You can be anything you want to be except as tough and capable as a man, right Hillary?

You pathetic hack. I expect your vapid supporters, to the extent they actually consider things beyond your mind-numbing clichés, probably expect your whining about sexism is going to make Putin pause. But those of us who actually reside on this planet know that the bullies of the world have already got your number – it’s 33,000, as in the emails they have of yours they have that you tried to Bleach Bit into oblivion. They see you as weak because you are weak. You’re frail and you’re stupid and you allowed yourself to be humiliated by that dank bro clown of a husband in front of the entire world.

Respect? You haven’t earned it, you bizarre robot. Can anyone imagine Margaret Thatcher whimpering like you do? She was the Iron Lady; you’re the Grinning Hummel, a neurotic first wife who would be whining to some therapist if she didn’t have the media oiled-up and at her creepy service.

So the next freakout du jour involves Trump calling out some chunky, homicidal ex-Miss Universe, whose entire job was supposed to be not getting chunky during her reign, for getting chunky during her reign. So wait, we can’t hold women to the same standards as men? Her job was to be thin. She didn’t do it. Oh no, her boss pointed out that this woman had failed the one thing she committed to do, and he’s the villain?

There’s another organization that fat shames people for failing to meet their commitment to stay within weight standards – the military. Why do you hate our troops, Hillary? Oh right, you’re a liberal. Anyway, do women need an exception there too, Hillary? Sergeant Hester didn’t need special treatment, but then she wasn’t some gender studies major intent on getting ahead through grievance mongering instead of actual achievement.

Why do liberals have such low expectations for women? Oh right, because their pro-woman agenda is as phony as their global warming scam. They’re the hippie in Forrest Gump, smacking around the heroine and blaming it on LBJ. Just ask Juanita Broaddrick.

You better put some ice on that.”

But will people see it that way? The sad fact is that some people love cultivating fake sexism as a bludgeon to beat on their opponents. That’s the Democrat way – try to turn opposition into immorality. And among a certain part of the population, it will work – those are the people who were perfectly happy while Bill Clinton treated his succession of women like trash and Hillary came behind with a garbage pail and a push broom. Broken, shattered women are collateral damage in their struggle, a struggle that is most assuredly not for equality but about something else – unaccountable supremacy. Hillary and her ilk are saying precisely the opposite of “Women are just as good as men,” which some suckers still think is the point of liberal feminism. What they are saying is “Women are whatever we need them to be at the moment, and the second they stop being useful we’ll wad them up and throw them away.”

How do the women feel who don’t whimper when challenged, who don’t run for some man to protect them, who respond to interruptions and rudeness with toughness and firmness instead of pathetic fussiness? I don’t know – I don’t presume to speak for women, unlike liberals, but I can’t imagine they are impressed. Toughness – the ability to fight on any battlefield against any foe without backing down – isn’t a male or female characteristic. It’s a characteristic of leaders. And Hillary sure as hell has shown that she’s anything but a leader.

Doing You a Favor

Since I was, and am sick, I skipped the Debate last night. So, no comment.

Thus, Thomas Sowell:

Back in the 1960s, as large numbers of black students were entering a certain Ivy League university for the first time, someone asked a chemistry professor — off the record — what his response to them was. He said, “I give them all A’s and B’s. To hell with them.”

Since many of those students were admitted with lower academic qualifications than other students, he knew that honest grades in a tough subject like chemistry could lead to lots of failing grades, and that in turn would lead to lots of time-wasting hassles — not just from the students, but also from the administration.

He was not about to waste time that he wanted to invest in his professional work in chemistry and the advancement of his own career. He also knew that his “favor” to black students in grading was going to do them more harm than good in the long run, because they wouldn’t know what they were supposed to know.

Such cynical calculations were seldom expressed in so many words. Nor are similar cynical calculations openly expressed today in politics. But many successful political careers have been built on giving blacks “favors” that look good on the surface but do lasting damage in the long run.

One of these “favors” was the welfare state. A vastly expanded welfare state in the 1960s destroyed the black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and generations of racial oppression.

In 1960, before this expansion of the welfare state, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent. By 1985, 67 percent of black children were raised with either one parent or no parent.

A big “favor” the Obama administration is offering blacks today is exemption from school behavior rules that have led to a rate of disciplining of black male students that is greater than the rate of disciplining of other categories of students.

Is it impossible that black males misbehave in school more often than Asian females? Or Jewish students? Or others?

Is the only possible reason for the disparities in disciplining rates that the teachers and principals are discriminating against black males? Even when many of these teachers and principals in black neighborhoods are themselves black?

But Washington politicians are on the case. It strengthens the political vision that blacks are besieged by racist enemies, from which Democrats are their only protection. They give black youngsters exemptions from behavioral standards, just as the Ivy League chemistry professor gave them exemption from academic standards.

In both cases, the consequence — unspoken today — is “to hell with them.” Kids from homes where they were not given behavioral standards, who are then not held to behavioral standards in schools, are on a path that can lead them as adults straight into prison, or to fatal confrontations with the police.

This is ultimately not a racial thing. Exactly the same welfare state policies and the same non-judgmental exemption from behavioral standards in Britain have led to remarkably similar results among lower-class whites there.


The riots of lower-class whites in London, Manchester and other British cities in 2011 were incredibly similar to black riots in Ferguson, Baltimore and other American cities — right down to setting fire to police cars.

One of the few bright spots for black children in American ghettos have been some charter schools that have educated these children to levels equal to, and in some cases better than, those in affluent suburbs.

You might think that this would be welcomed by those who are so ready to do “favors” for blacks. But you would be dead wrong. Democrats who have been in charge of most cities with sizable black populations, for decades, are on record opposing the spread of charter schools. So is the NAACP.

That is a de facto declaration of moral bankruptcy in both cases, just as in the case of the Ivy League chemistry professor. In all three cases, it is a question of promoting one’s own special interests, while offering “favors” to blacks.

The Democrats’ special interest is in serving the teachers’ unions, which oppose charter schools and support Democrats financially. The NAACP’s special interest is in serving the same donors — and in keeping ghetto schools controlled by racial activists, as part of their turf.


Moral Narcissism Part 2

By Richard Kirk

I Know Best:  How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If It Hasn’t Already, by Roger L. Simon, New York: Encounter Books, June 14, 2016 (296 pages, $25.99, Hardback)

Why do few people change their political views “even in the face of literally earthshaking world events” like 9/11?  Roger Simon’s answer to that question is “moral narcissism.”  His book explains the nature and consequences of this malady that was largely spawned by members of the “Least Great Generation” – folks, including the author (1943), born during or shortly before World War Two.  These are radical wannabes that include John Lennon (1940), Tom Hayden (1939), Abbie Hoffman (1936), and Gloria Steinem (1934).

An illustration of moral narcissism not employed by Simon is the Seinfeld character Elaine – a woman whose sense of moral worth is derived from opinions that coincide with fashionable progressivism (Greenpeace activism, contempt for pro-lifers, contempt for her boyfriend’s “Jesus fish,” contempt for Christian music radio presets, contempt for women wearing fur coats).  Despite a largely self-centered, shallow, and promiscuous life, Elaine is convinced she’s a “good humanitarian” and proves it by self-consciously complimenting her waitress on “doing a great job.”

The examples provided by Simon, unfortunately, aren’t fictional and have had disastrous, perhaps fatal, consequences for the nation – fashionable anti-capitalist Marxism (espoused by thousands of well compensated professors as well as Pope Francis); a nostalgia for racism that stokes racial hatred by inventing micro-aggressions that supposedly explain and thus excuse black criminality; climate change ideologues who declare the issue settled (a ridiculously anti-scientific assertion) and who label anyone who dissents from the media-enforced consensus (even MIT’s premier climatologist, Richard Lindzen) a “denier.”

Radical environmentalism is another arena where moral narcissism flourishes – a movement whose DDT ban, spawned in 1962 by Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, led to hundreds of thousands of malaria deaths in Africa.  Then there is the non-judgmental, all-religions-are-equal view of Islam that blames Western imperialism for causing terrorism – a pat-oneself-on-the-back brand of “tolerance” that ignores or chooses to remain ignorant of Islam’s bloody, expansionist history prior to the era of Western imperialism.

The primary goal of moral narcissism is not “to do” good, but rather “to feel” good about oneself for having “the right opinion” – i.e. opinions promulgated by those who deem themselves superior by virtue of their “enlightened” views.  These moral mandarins consist primarily of left-wing politicians, leftist academicians, the mainstream media, and almost all the entertainment industry.  As with Seinfeld‘s Elaine, it isn’t how one lives one’s life that counts; it’s the political and moral slogans one mouths.  Indeed, the moral stature gained from being politically au courant serves as absolution for what used to count as personal moral failings – an arena where non-judgmentalism is demanded by political correctness, at least with respect to ideological soul mates.

Sympathy for Fidel Castro boosts one’s moral standing, since Castro supposedly believes in a utopian socialist state where folks contribute according to their abilities and receive according to their needs.  Never mind that the dictator lives “a lifestyle, including yachts and private islands, that would be the envy of George Soros, while his citizens suffer in penury under constant surveillance, the specter of imprisonment looming.”  Identifying with various victim groups and spouting politically correct mantras likewise “allows Hillary Clinton to go from undergraduate Alinskyite to Chappaqua plutocrat with a net worth in the tens of millions without missing a beat.”  The destructive consequences of leftist policies for minorities aren’t what matter.  What matters is that Hillary and the current narcissist-in-chief feel morally superior to rubes in flyover country.

Just when you think Simon is becoming tiresome (as he does when repeating polling statistics about gay marriage), he provides a critical insight in chapter 24 that should have been placed near the book’s beginning: “Moral narcissism … is a way of explaining away evil, blaming all ills on social causes and therefore pushing back the necessity of examining the human soul or one’s own, of not seeing the possible darkness within[.] … [M]oral narcissism obscures reality and therefore threatens democracy. That not everything is perfectible, that there is evil in the world, and that evil is likely to remain forever.”  In short, self-scrutiny is replaced with verbal orthodoxies promulgated by an American nomenklatura eager to secure moral status, financial perquisites, and a stream of personal indulgences by endlessly repeating politically correct slogans that are overwhelmingly destructive when applied to the real world – slogans that promise financial and personal retribution for “bigoted” dissenters.

One major mistake in Simon’s analysis is his wrongheaded O’Reillyish attempt to appear “fair and balanced” by briefly pointing to moral narcissism on the right – as if opposition to gay marriage or to abortion on demand were in the same league as vacuous shibboleths like refusing to acknowledge radical Islamic terrorism.  Far from being rewarded for the former views, believers are ostracized and punished by the dominant P.C. culture.  Moreover, no serious Christian or Jew would use these moral views to evade self-scrutiny.  Simon’s brief foray into narcissistic equivalence has the effect of putting serious, self-sacrificial morality in the same category as a self-deluding political ruse that rejects any morality existing outside the self – as if principled abolitionists would be biased “moral narcissists” not very different from slaveholders who mouthed the slogan “popular sovereignty.”

This same confusion infects Simon’s final chapter, which presents his self-proclaimed “bias” as a neocon-libertarian, someone who favors intervention abroad and libertarian lassitude at home.  The latter part of that equation does, indeed, represent a degree of “moral narcissism” on the author’s part, allowing him a small measure of expiation from colleagues in the fields of literature and entertainment for the grievous sin of rejecting, for the most part, the self-inflating worldview they embrace with a frantic death grip.

Despite these lapses, Simon’s book is well worth the time taken to understand the head-snapping moral contradictions that permeate the worlds of George Soros (chapter 21!), Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama.

Moral Narcissism Part 1


V. Saxena reports that liberals often say one thing but act in an entirely different manner. What you have observed is what author Roger L. Simon calls moral narcissism.

In a review of Simon’s latest book, “I Know Best: How Moral Narcissism Is Destroying Our Republic, If It Hasn’t Already,” American Thinker contributor Richard Kirk explained that moral narcissism is the belief that “it isn’t how one lives one’s life that counts; it’s the political and moral slogans one mouths.”
Consider for instance the ill-informed millennials who proudly tout Che Guevara as a hero over his desire to form a socialist utopia, but then ignore how he enslaved the Cuban people in a totalitarian state and then murdered God knows how many of them.

But moral narcissism extends beyond just a differentiation between words and actions. According to Simon, it also offers “a way of explaining away evil” that pins “all [of society’s] ills on social causes.”

Now think of “Black Lives Matter,” a Democrat-championed organization that blames the usually justified consequences faced by black criminals on white racism and supremacy, regardless of the facts.

As a result, Ferguson thug Mike Brown shall forever remain innocent in the minds of the most hardheaded liberals, as accepting his culpability would mean admitting that it was not racism that killed him; it was his own decisions.Moral narcissism is in many ways nothing but an attempt to hide from one’s own shortcomings and failures. Rather than admit their own lack of drive and opt for change, for example, far too many liberals pine for handouts instead.

  • “I deserve food stamps!”
  • “I deserve welfare!”
  • “I deserve free tuition!”
  • “I deserve this!”
  • “I deserve that!”

Sound familiar? It should, as we hear this exact rhetoric from liberals all the time. Instead of admitting that they need to change and better their own lives, many liberals invariably play the blame game, claiming that society screwed them over and thus owes them.

Except that society owes neither them nor their special friends (illegal immigrants, drug dealers, promiscuous women, etc.) nothing but a cold, hard dash of truth — the truth being that they might want to talk to a therapist about their clear-cut moral narcissism! (Federalist)

Another Example:

On Monday, Donald Trump gave a speech on terrorism and immigration in which he said:

We want people to come into our country, but they have to come in legally, through a process…. No one has a right to immigrate to this country.

Now, Hillary Clinton says there is such a right, at least if a tweet from her campaign headquarters can be taken for a policy pronouncement.

Shortly after Trump’s speech, the Clinton campaign in Ohio tweeted out the story of a Libyan who came to the Unites States on a student visa in 1994, was not able to renew it, and simply stayed in the country illegally. He didn’t exactly live in the shadows, settling in Dayton and founding the Islamic Federation of Ohio and the Islamic Center for Peace. After two decades, he received permanent residency in 2015. In the story, headlined “Donald Trump would have kicked my family out of the country,” the man’s son, whose name was given as Mohamed G., wrote, “There was no way that I could let a person that disrespects my father and other immigrants win the White House.”

On Monday, the Clinton Ohio campaign tweeted Mohamed G.’s picture with Trump’s quote, “No one has the right to immigrate to this country.” The campaign added the comment: “We disagree.”

The same day, the main Hillary Clinton campaign twitter account, @HillaryClinton, retweeted the “We disagree” tweet.

The world right to immigrate to the United States does not appear in the section on immigration on Clinton’s campaign website, nor does it appear in her major pronouncements on the subject. And perhaps a single tweet, although clear in meaning, is not policy. But it is something Clinton might be asked about, perhaps even at the first debate Monday night.(Byron York)

Naw, the Media will be throwing Nerf balls at Clinton, and all-out Armageddon at Trump.

And besides, if Trump brings it up its because he’s a racist! 🙂

America, what a country. 🙂



But Liberals don’t understand satire…

The National Association of Scholars (NAS) has introduced a new contest, and is inviting readers submit satirical, politically correct subtitles for classic literature works.

The “Update the Classics: Add a PC Subtitle” contest was announced September 19, and features the example submission, Tom Sawyer: Lessons in Whitewashing.

“Add a politically correct subtitle to the book of the week, and win the admiration of contrarians everywhere.”   

“Add a politically correct subtitle to the book of the week, and win the admiration of contrarians everywhere,” the instructions state. “Winners will add a subtitle that transforms the book into something today’s sensitive yet resentful students can’t resist.”

The inspiration for the competition, NAS explains, came from a request by students at Columbia University for “trigger warnings” when studying mythology, particularly for tales involving rape.

Last year, in an op-ed for the student newspaper, four Columbia undergraduates wrote that the university has an obligation to provide trigger warnings to students, even for Greek mythology or romantic poetry.

“Ovid’s ‘Metamorphoses’ is a fixture of [Literature Humanities], but like so many texts in the Western canon, it contains triggering and offensive material that marginalizes student identities in the classroom,” the students argue. “These texts, wrought with histories and narratives of exclusion and oppression, can be difficult to read and discuss as a survivor, a person of color, or a student from a low-income background.”

NAS says it finds such disparagement of classic works to be regretful, hence the competition to humorously draw attention to the “progressive content” in the works.

For example, the organization suggests that a social justice reading of Crime and Punishment could focus on the story of a student so burdened by loans that he eventually kills his lender.

“Bernie Sanders should take note. What better case for free college?” NAS remarks cheekily.

Another example submission suggests that “those tired of the jargon-filled tomes on ‘intersectionality,’ the idea that all oppression is linked, generally by capitalism, should try The Merchant of Venice. Members of two different ethnicities feud over money, demonstrating the capitalist origins of racial tension.”

According to the contest rules, NAS will propose a classic book (or series of books) as the subject for a satirical subtitle each week. Readers can enter submissions either on Twitter with the hashtag #PCSubtitle and the NAS Twitter handle, @NASorg, or else through the form on the contest page.

Winners will be announced weekly on the NAS website.

We regret that the classics have been so maligned. Human traits transcend time and custom, and classics have stood the test of time because they teach lessons that resonate in all times and places.

In fact, we believe that if we squint hard enough, we can find in the classics some progressive material that should appeal to social justice warriors too. We can bring the classics up to date. A group of artists, dedicated to giving old books fresh covers, have done their part. Their project, “Recovering the Classics,” strikes us as worthwhile but a mere facelift. We want to go deeper. In the spirit of our satirical “trigger warning contest,” we suggest proposing new politically correct labels for classic works, in order to demonstrate the progressive content buried deep inside each one.  

Classic books, if you search this way and that for long enough, can teach you lots of up-to-date, politically correct lessons. Take Crime and Punishment. A stressed-out student, dogged by debt, is driven to the extremes of mental illness until he finally kills his lender. Bernie Sanders should take note. What better case for free college?

Sometimes the title alone hints at good progressive lessons. To make those themes explicit, we recommend re-subtitling Our Man in Havana: Fidel Castro’s Legacy of Liberation and Reform and Fahrenheit 451: Projected Earth Surface Temperature in the 22nd Century.

Will you help us build our collection? Every new politically correct subtitle will help rescue a classic from the dustbins of discarded volumes.

Each week we’ll propose a classic book—or a slate of classics—that needs a new PC subtitle. Send in your recommendations, and each week we’ll select a winner to announce on our website, along with runners-up. Share your submissions on Twitter with the hashtag #PCSubtitle and the NAS Twitter handle @NASorg. You can also fill out the form at the bottom of this post. 

This week’s assignment is Jane Austen. Pick any Austen book and let us know your new subtitle. Here’s our suggestion:

Pride and Prejudice:  Finding Safe Spaces for Queer Folks Under Heteronormative Tyranny. #PCSubtitle @NASorg

Timothy Street| September 19, 2016

I Ernestly recommend that all the subtitles submitted be collected in a suggested reading list : “A Farewell to Alarms”


John J Stephan| September 19, 2016

Title for PC Manual on teaching English lit without Shakespeare:

As We Like It

Now That’s Just Silly…

Mispronouncing A Name Is Now A Microaggression

Mispronouncing A Name Is Now A Microaggression

Pronouncing a student’s name incorrectly is now a microaggression and an act of erasing someone’s identity, a new campaign is asserting. The “My Name, My Identity: A Declaration of Self” campaign was launched in 2015. Among other things, the campaign claims that a teacher mispronouncing a name can cause “anxiety and resentment” in the student, and even “hinder their academic progress.”

Really, now?

CNS News has more:

According to ‘My Name, My Identity: A Declaration of Self,’ a national campaign launched in 2015 by the Santa Clara County, Calif. Office of Education (SCCOE) and the National Association for Bilingual Education, a teacher who mispronounces a student’s name can cause that student “anxiety and resentment”.

I guess we should be happy they didn’t say it was “racist”. At least not yet. 🙂

“Mispronouncing a student’s name truly negates his or her identity, which, in turn, can hinder academic progress,” according to Yee Wan, SCCOE’s director of multilingual education services.

Rita Kohli, assistant professor of education at the University of California at Riverside, says it is a sign of “microagression” when a teacher mispronounces, disregards, or changes a child’s name, because “they are in a sense disregarding the family and culture of the student as well.”

Look, as someone with an odd last name with a lot of letters, I get it. It’s annoying when people don’t say it right. (For the record, it’s pronounced ROO-sell.) My first day of college orientation, my RA was taking attendance and called out “Christine Roo-say-lay,” which was a brand new way of mispronouncing my last name. After I figured out that I was indeed the person she was attempting to call, I politely informed her that I wasn’t nearly as Italian as she was trying to make me, she apologized, and tried again to pronounce it properly. She didn’t get it quite right, but that’s okay! She wasn’t doing it on purpose. Nearly all of my professors throughout all four years of college pronounced my last name wrong at first–if they even tried–on the first day of class. And again, it’s okay. Intent is kind of the key thing here that this campaign seems to entirely ignore.

So is it a microaggression that I have to constantly spell my last name, which ISN’T hard because people constantly misspell it?

Nobody pronounces a name wrong on purpose, and if they do, that’s not a microaggression–that’s a full-blown, regular-old aggression.

Or just being a jerk. That’s an old-fashioned term, I know.

To be frank, any student so sensitive that an incorrect vowel sound sends them into a full-blown anxiety issue that impacts their school work needs more specialized attention than a national campaign can probably provide. Sure, it’s not fun having an odd last name, but that’s something that’s going to stick around for the entirety of a person’s life–unless they choose to “erase” their own identity by changing their name themselves. I recognize that not everyone is going to be familiar with French Canadian-sounding names, and it’s a far better choice to simply educate people so they don’t make the mistake again rather than claim to be microaggressed.

America is a melting pot full of people with names as varied as “Smith” to “Wieciorkowska.” To expect people to automatically know how to pronounce them all is simply not realistic. Let’s cut it out with the new victimhood classes.

But, for Liberals, you have to be a “victim” of something. Everyone must be a “victim” so they can classify you, pigeon hole you, and try and make you dependent on their “solution” to the “problem” of your “victimhood”.

You have to have someone else to blame that they can exploit.

And just in case you thought they forgot their favorite word:

“A tiny act of bigotry,” is how former teacher and education blogger Jennifer Gonzalez succinctly put it in 2014. In a post titled  “How We Pronounce Students’ Names and Why It Matters,” Gonzalez wrote, “Whether you intend to or not, what you’re communicating is this: Your name is different. Foreign. Weird. It’s not worth my time to get it right.”

Check: You’re a Bigot!

Now we just “You’re a racist” to complete the circle…

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail