Common Thread

Ignorance, Intolerance, Violence

Recent science and climate marches demonstrated how misinformed, indoctrinated, politicized and anti-Trump these activists are – and how indifferent about condemning millions in industrialized nations and billions in developing countries to green energy poverty. Amid it all, University of Michigan history professor Juan Cole helped illustrate how the marchers became so ignorant, insensitive and intolerant.

It’s always amazed me how frequently academics, journalists, politicians and students confuse poisonous carbon monoxide (CO) with plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide (CO2). But Professor Cole’s April 17 article in The Nation presents unfathomable ignorance from the intellectual class that is “educating” our young people, while displaying and teaching intolerance toward countervailing facts and viewpoints.

Bashar al Assad’s sarin gas attack “consumed the world’s attention,” Prof. Cole intones, but President Trump is committed to releasing hundreds of thousands of tons a day “of a far more deadly gas – carbon dioxide.” Even CO2 that is washed out of the atmosphere “typically goes straight into the oceans,” he continues, “where it turns them acidic,” threatening a “mass die-off of marine life.”

Cole’s polemical nonsense is too extensive to address in full. But these two claims require rebuttal.

A deadly gas? Carbon dioxide is the Miracle Molecule that enables plants to grow and makes all life on Earth possible. Plants absorb CO2 exhaled by humans and animals, and emitted by burning wood, dung, fossil fuels and biofuels – and then release oxygen that people and wildlife need to survive.

Hundreds of studies demonstrate how slightly higher atmospheric CO2 levels (rising from 0.03% a century ago to 0.04% today) are making crop, forest and grassland plants more drought resistant, helping them grow faster and better, and “greening” vast areas that had been brown and barren. Claims that CO2 has replaced the solar and other powerful natural forces that have always controlled Earth’s climate, and is now causing “dangerous manmade climate change,” are not supported by actual planetary evidence.

Marine life thrived when CO2 levels were many times higher during past geologic eras. Far from being or becoming acidic, the oceans are mildly alkaline, and their vast volumes of water will not become acidic from human fossil fuel use: that is, to drop from their current pH of 8.1 into the acidic realm of 7.0 on this logarithmic scale. Oceans may become slightly less alkaline with another century or two of human carbon dioxide emissions, but most marine organisms will be unaffected, while others will adapt or evolve.

 

The science marchers forget that President Trump’s actions are in response to eight Obama years of “highly politicized so-called research on climate,” under grants that “anticipated particular scientific outcomes before funding was provided,” Princeton University physicist Dr. Will Happer told me. Real science “is not based on political agendas, belief systems or computer models. It’s based on evidence – and actual observations have found normal icecap fluctuations, seas rising a foot or less per century, drought cycles little different from the twentieth century, and a decline in major landfalling hurricanes.”

These inconvenient truths contradict the dominant narratives in college classrooms and political circles. Climate alarmists thus demand that they be vilified, banned and silenced, through vile, even violent confrontations if need be – along with other conservative speech on and beyond too many campuses.

 

It’s as if reality, truth, discussion and debate have become irrelevant where feelings, leftist dogma, climate science or public policies are involved. Even more troubling, it’s as if our culture, education and public forums have been taken over by jack-booted fascists, Mao’s Red Guards, Maduro thugs, and “heroes” like Pavlik Morozov, memorialized by Stalin for betraying his father to the secret police.

Some intolerant protesters may be delicate snowflakes, too easily intimidated, offended or made to feel “unsafe” by conservative or other contrarian thought. However, the near-constant intimidation and threats of expulsion or violence have become a deliberate tactic, used repeatedly to impose speech codes and political agendas – and too often ignored, acquiesced in or supported by professors, administrators and politicians who welcome the silencing of opposition voices or lack the courage to confront  it. During Science March weekend in Huntsville, Alabama, shots were fired into the offices where reality-based climatologist John Christy works. “Mainstream media” and academia coverage was minimal.

 

They demand diversity of race, language, handicaps, sex, sexual orientation, transgender status and sexual self-identification. They cannot tolerate diversity of thought, speech or faculty and student ideology.

George Mason University economics professor Walter Williams calls it “a spreading cancer,” a re-emerging mentality that gave us loyalty oaths, which today come in the form of demands that faculty members sign “diversity statements, especially as part of hiring and promotion procedures…. The last thing diversity hustlers want is diversity of ideas.” The goal is “political conformity among the faculty indoctrinating our impressionable, intellectually immature young people,” Williams says.

As far-left protest marches, window smashing, limousine burning and physical assaults in Berkeley, Portland, Washington, DC and other cities attest, the cancer is metastasizing – particularly when movements and political groups believe their money, power, influence and control are threatened.

On the climate front, at stake are $100 billion a year in reparation funds for poor countries, $7 trillion a year for companies that want to build “sustainable low-carbon” energy systems, and boundless power for politicians and bureaucrats who want to control economic growth, livelihoods and living standards. They cannot tolerate “climate deniers,” even those who merely question the extent of human influences, the degree and impact of temperature and climate changes, whether changes will all be bad, or the supposed inability of wildlife and wealthy, technologically advanced societies to adapt to future changes.

Members of this activist, governing and corporate elite also excel at inflating trivial risks and dismissing easy solutions, to advance their agendas and self-interests. For example, as President Trump revises many Obama era environmental rules, activist groups are using other tactics to continue their war on coal.

Dry ash from coal-fired power plants can be used in wallboard and to partially replace sand in high-strength concrete for bridges, roads and buildings. However, regulations, engineering considerations and other factors limited that option and resulted in most wet and dry ash being sent to impoundments that can leak barely detectable pollutants into surface and ground water. Studies have shown that these levels of chromium and other metals pose little risk to humans, but scare campaigns are creating pressure to force utility companies to spend billions of dollars relocating the ash and closing more power plants.

The best solution is likely to leave the ash in place, shore up the coffer dams, put solid clay seals over the deposits, and let them dry out, locking the metals in place. Radical groups demand relocation and seek to bankrupt the utilities – after which they intend to intensify their attacks on natural gas-fired power plants, drilling, fracking, and the factories, petrochemical plants and other industries that use fossil fuels.

In essence, they have brilliantly established a mantra that can ensure victory in every campaign. Whatever they support is safe, sustainable, climate-friendly environmental justice; whatever they oppose is dangerous, unsustainable, ecologically destructive and unjust. End of discussion.

In the process, they are unwilling or unable to recognize two facts. One, cheap, reliable energy improves living standards, saves lives, and supports new technologies and opportunities, with poor families benefitting most. Policies that make energy less accessible and affordable harm the poorest most of all.

Two, fossil fuels have undeniable environmental impacts, but allow us to produce vast amounts of cheap energy from relatively few acres. Replacing those fuels with wind, solar and biofuel energy would require hundreds of millions of acres worldwide that are now cropland or wildlife habitats. Those “eco-friendly” alternatives are actually our least sustainable, most ecologically destructive energy options.

The stakes are too high to let intolerant ideologues continue to control energy policy decisions. (Paul Driessen)

 But it will make the sanctimonious feel good and the ignorant feel powerful.
Ignorance is Strength.

Resistance is Liberal

Bill Maher:“Berkeley used to be the cradle of free speech,” he stated. “And now it’s just the cradle for f*cking babies!”

The comedian lit into not just Berkeley, but other colleges across the nation, for shutting down speakers who don’t say “exactly what liberals want to hear.”

Maher added, “I feel like this is the liberals’ version of book burning, and it’s got to stop.”

Even he gets it! Yikes, Berkeley!

Anyone not loyal to a certain ideology must be resisted, rejected, and renounced. Demosthenes, the Athenian rhetorician and champion of liberty, pointed out around 355 B.C. that residents of Athens were free to praise Sparta’s regime, but Spartans were banned from praising Athens. In 1689, the British passed a law guaranteeing freedom of speech in Parliament. A century later, French revolutionaries incorporated into law the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which established free speech as a universal right. Two years later, the Americans ratified the First Amendment, which guarantees that the state shall not infringe on the right to free speech. Roughly a century and half later, in 1948, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. . . . ” I mention all of this because every time I read or hear about the pathetic state of affairs at the University of California, Berkeley — where conservative speakers and rabble-rousers alike are banned from speaking lest they be assaulted by a mob — journalists and other commentators insist on pointing out the irony that this is all happening “where the Free Speech Movement was born.” Yes, I know there was a thing called the Free Speech Movement. And, yes, its members and leaders talked a good deal about free speech. But the movement for free speech is thousands of years old and runs like a deep river across the landscape of Western Civilization. Indeed, I can’t help but get the impression that a lot of people don’t realize that the Free Speech Movement in this context is a brand name. I can tell you that the “mockumentary” band Spinal Tap was born in a 1979 TV skit for ABC. But that is not the same thing as saying the medical procedure – a.k.a. the lumbar puncture — was born in the same skit. Mario Savio, the leader of the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley, was committed to free speech. But so was Berkeley at the time. In the years before Savio’s movement, Berkeley had hosted speeches by communists, Nazis (invited by leftists to cause a stir), and political and literary speakers of every stripe. Whatever perfunctory regulations of free speech existed, then-Berkeley professor Nathan Glazer explained in his 1965 Commentary essay “What Happened at Berkeley,” went “back to a time when no political activity of any kind was allowed on campus.” Even presidential candidates were barred from politicking because, “as a state university it was not supposed to be involved in politics.” But by 1964, these rules had already been loosened a great deal. The rioters and goons — along with their pusillanimous enablers in the administration — are carrying on this tradition. As for Savio, his mission was broader than merely wanting to allow vigorous debate. He wanted students to be able to participate as much as possible with the civil-rights movement, which, obviously, was a very political movement. He was on the right side of that argument. But Savio was also a passionate leftist. (When he got married to his fellow FSMer Suzanne Goldberg, the Daily Worker’s Mike Gold asked him what they wanted for a wedding present. “All that we really want is for President Johnson to withdraw all our troops from Vietnam and the Dominican Republic. Very little would make us happier.”) Savio had a romantic hatred — in the tradition of Rousseau — for liberal democratic capitalism. His most famous statement came in his speech at Sproul Hall in 1964: There’s a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part! You can’t even passively take part! And you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels . . . upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop! And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all! Whatever legacy Savio has for the cause of free speech is dead, but this mindset lives on. The rioters and goons — along with their pusillanimous enablers in the administration — are carrying on this tradition. It is a tradition that says this is our sacred place and anyone not loyal to our faith must be resisted, rejected, and renounced. All the talk of “hate speech” is clever marketing — like the label the “Free Speech Movement” itself. What these petty, secular theocrats despise is heresy speech. And they will throw their bodies into the gears to silence it. — Jonah Goldberg

Image result for free speech berkeley
Image result for free speech berkeley

The Mirror Universe of Berkeley

1964-65: In protests unprecedented in scope, students insisted that the university (Berkeley) administration lift the ban of on-campus political activities and acknowledge the students’ right to free speech and academic freedom.

Now 53 years later Berkeley is the epicenter of the NOT HELL NO! Free Speech Movement. The want the administration to ban student’s rights to free speech.

And the irony is totally lost on them.

There is a clear and present danger to conservative students at the University of California Berkeley.  

The birthplace of the so-called free speech movement is now the epicenter of a nefarious movement to silence freedom-loving young people.

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter had been scheduled to speak… yesterday…, but she canceled. 

Leftwing groups had threatened to silence Ms. Coulter by any means necessary.

But the university refused to guarantee the safety of Ms. Coulter or the students who invited her to speak – the Young America’s Foundation.

The Police and University effectively said they refuse to do their job and that they would not stop left wing snowflakes from causing violence. They sided with them.

I know these students. I know this organization. They are good people – patriots all. They are students who battle with words and ideas – not baseball bats and switchblades.

And contrary to accusations made by some conservatives on Twitter, Young America’s Foundation did not “acquiesce” to the liberal bullies at Berkeley.

It’s important for you to understand the context of what YAF was hoping to accomplish with Ms. Coulter’s planned address.

It was not meant to be some sort of free-for-all in the campus plaza. The event was meant to be a civilized lecture inside some sort of auditorium or lecture hall.

YAF is not in the business of hosting conservative gatherings that resemble professional wrestling shows. They are meant to foster thoughtful and enlightened debate and conversation.

So why – you may ask – did the conservatives not proceed with Ms. Coulter’s speech?

It turns out the university’s police department has a stand down policy – meaning they do not get involved unless there is an imminent loss of life, according to a lawsuit filed by YAF.

In other words – liberals get a free pass to beat the living daylights out of conservative kids so long as the victims still have a pulse.

All the while Berkeley administrators look the other way – while speech liberals disagree with is silenced.

“Berkeley should be ashamed for creating this hostile atmosphere,” YAF president Ron Robinson told the Washington Examiner. “Berkeley made it impossible to hold a lecture due to the lack of assurances for protections from foreseeable violence from unrestrained leftist agitators.”

It would’ve been like throwing red meat to a pack of liberal jackals.

Inviting a Zombie Hoard to a brain breakfast while the Police and University hold open the doors for them.

“I had the misfortune of being in a leftist riot as a student, and I wouldn’t want to put my children or anyone else’s children into that situation without assurances that law enforcement would protect them,” Robinson said.

And they wouldn’t. Leftist are not in the habit anymore of caring about your safety or your rights. They really don’t give a damn anymore.

I suppose we should not be all that surprised over the campus uprisings happening across the country. These are the children of the Obama generation – a generation that was taught to silence any speech they disagree with.

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” President Obama once said.  

That is the legacy of the Obama Administration – if you can’t silence conservatives, just beat the living daylights out of them.

It is the irony of ironies.

The so-called free speech movement started at Berkeley and ended at Berkeley – not so much with a whimper – but with a punch to the face.

And with great pride and sanctimony.

 

The Struggle

As a person of absolutely no color who embodies an intersectional reality that includes my utter lack of genderfluidity and my unemployment-questioning, differently-veteraned, and non-pagan experiences, I am totally oppressed by progressivism’s hegemonic power structure. I am also the victim of a systemic system of hostile paradigms that denies my truth regarding my phallo-possessory identity.

My struggle is real, and my male-identifying genitalia will no longer be silent!

I bear a heavy burden in the form of my pasty, easily-sunburned skin. For too long, the fact that a previous Schlichter was booted out of Stuttgart in 1750 has meant that I have been subject to the hateful discourse of unabashed Fritzophobes. And that’s when society hasn’t stolen my Teutonic legacy outright. You are culturally appropriating my cold, emotionless people’s heritage every time you are punctual and efficient.

The same is true regarding my Scot ancestry. You shamelessly pillage the cultural treasures of the folk of the moors whenever you speak unintelligibly, or refuse to spend freely and without restraint. Enough of your condescending Braveheartism.

My kilt, my choice.

Even in my own home, I am oppressed. I live under a tyrannical framework of Cubano-supremacy. I am constantly reminded of my minority status as the only non-Latino in the family whenever I am prepared to leave on time while everyone else is still getting ready, whenever I am belittled for my love of mayonnaise, and whenever I am forbidden to dance in public.

“Intersectionality” means that I have lots of complaints about various stuff that I am, and I’m just getting started.

For instance, I am seen as enjobbed, in that I have a job and support my family. This hateful label marginalizes me and subjugates me to the stereotyped role of “provider” and “useful member of society.” It cruelly differentiates me from preferred progressive social actors, like “bums” and “welfare cheats.” The progressive paradigm is, after all, based upon compelling non-Democrat bodies to toil to generate tax revenue for the government to give to freeloaders.

My veteranness also makes me a target for othering. My soul roils from the conscious and unconscious prejudice poured upon me every time someone asks me if I was drafted, or if the Army is the one with Marines. Why don’t you just burn a hammer and sickle in front of my quarters, you monsters?

And no, I don’t have PTSD. I’m just really annoyed by you.

I am also victimized for my unpaganhood, and I am constantly pressured to conform and accept weird weather religions and the theological musings of internet hipsters who think the idea of Christian grace is some sort of supernatural point system where you get into heaven for accomplishing a set number of good deeds. I reject these attempts to subjugate me to the dominant discourse, just as I reject the liberal Jesusplaining that seeks to steal my savior and turn him into some sort of socialist hippie, a Bernie Sanders in a robe who thinks the only sin is generating too big of a carbon footprint.

And then there is the systemic hate for my rigidly male monosexual identification and my pronounced pro-chick agenda. Too often those of you who are genderfluid deny the identity of those of us who are gendersolid.

Finally, it is time to reject society’s paradigm of unphallused privilege. This bias results in interlocking systems of domination that produce the conditions under which oppressed peoples like me are forced to live, and usually manifests in me getting called whenever someone needs help lifting something heavy.

Those of us who wield a penis demand that you cease your dehumanizing unmale gaze and validate the manly values that stand firm against your anti-testicular hegemony.

We male-identifying men proudly shout out these radical truths:

Boys don’t cry, and it is lame to shed a tear in public, except on Memorial Day or when a dog dies.

Feelings are stupid, except for patriotism and a love of dogs.

Guns are awesome because they shoot solid lead freedom. Every man should have several guns. And several dogs, because a man with a cat is a woman.

Also, no man should ever listen to Maroon 5. Nor should anyone else. Including dogs.

We will no longer be man-junk marginalized. From this moment forth, my people’s pronouns are “he,” “him” and “if you touch my stuff, I’ll slug you.”

Your hate speech against us, which is defined as anything you say that we don’t like, must be banned, starting on campuses. As fellow social justice warriors have observed, “Free speech, a right many freedom movements have fought for, has recently become a tool appropriated by hegemonic institutions. It has not just empowered students from marginalized backgrounds to voice their qualms and criticize aspects of the institution, but it has given those who seek to perpetuate systems of domination a platform to project their bigotry.”

Right on! I mean, how could normalizing limitations on free speech ever backfire? You social justice warriors surely shouldn’t worry about this kind of thinking being expressed by people who don’t like you and who have a lot of guns.

Our initial non-negotiable demand is for a safe space for all German/Scot-Employed-Judeo/Christian-Veteran-Straight Males-Of Relatively Good Health on every college campus, as well as a Department of German/Scot-Judeo/Christian-Veteran-Straight Males-Of Relatively Good Health Studies to explore the issues regarding, and the terrible social stigma and prejudice faced by, us German/Scot-Judeo/Christian-Veteran-Straight Males-Of Relatively Good Health. We further demand a curriculum that teaches using unique German/Scot-Judeo/Christian-Veteran-Straight Males-Of Relatively Good Health pedagogic strategies, like “reading” and “studying.” It must also educate us about suppressed German/Scot-Judeo/Christian-Veteran-Straight Males-Of Relatively Good Health truths, like about how the Chinese stole the idea for the Great Wall from Deutschland’s autobahns, and how Steve McQueen is a million times cooler than Ryan Reynolds will ever be.

That is our intersectional reality; that is our cry for revolution. We refuse to allow the forces of social injustice to continue to deny our existence, and our suits, clean shaves, and combed hair shall be the transgressive body modifications that demonstrate our alienation from the dominant paradigm.

No longer will we allow our pallor to render us invisible!

No longer will we tolerate being left out of the acronym LGBTQ!

No longer will we be scrotum-shamed! (Kurt Schlichter)

Free Speech

silent

The University of California at Berkeley’s inhospitality to conservative speakers, the subject of a federal lawsuit filed on Monday, prompted a Twitter rebuke from President Trump a few months ago. Yet his administration seems determined to demonstrate that suppression of opposing views is a bipartisan impulse.

Berkeley College Republicans, which invited conservative commentator Ann Coulter to speak on campus this Thursday evening, and Young America’s Foundation, which underwrote her visit, argue that Berkeley’s vague, unwritten policy regarding “high-profile speakers” unconstitutionally discriminates against unpopular viewpoints. As a result of that policy, which was adopted after violent protests prompted the university to shut down a February 1 appearance by former Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos, Berkeley canceled Coulter’s speech, then offered to reschedule it for next Tuesday afternoon, in the middle of the “dead week” between classes and exams.

BCR says it felt compelled to cancel an April 12 talk by another conservative journalist, David Horowitz, after the university insisted that it take place at an inconvenient location and end by 3 p.m., meaning most students would be in class while Horowitz was speaking. BCR and YAF say the restrictions imposed by Berkeley in the name of public safety have not been applied to left-leaning speakers and amount to an “unlawful heckler’s veto” that marginalizes conservative voices.

After the Milo melee in February, Trump suggested on Twitter that Berkeley risks losing federal funds if it “does not allow free speech.” If the president were sincerely committed to protecting First Amendment rights, he would issue similar warnings to the Department of Homeland Security, which recently demanded that Twitter reveal the identity of a DHS gadfly, and the Justice Department, which is considering criminal charges against people who share classified information leaked by others.

Last month a special agent in charge at Customs and Border Protection, a division of DHS, issued a summons to Twitter seeking records that would unmask the person or persons behind @ALT_USCIS, an account that regularly criticizes the Trump administration’s immigration policies. There did not seem to be any legal justification for the summons, which looked like a blatant attempt to intimidate critics.

DHS dropped the summons the day after Twitter filed a lawsuit arguing that it threatened the First Amendment right to engage in pseudonymous political speech. Last week, in response to inquiries by Sen. Ron Wyden, D, Ore., DHS Inspector General John Roth revealed that his office is investigating whether the CBP summons was “improper.”

The day before Roth expressed concern about government inquiries that might have “a chilling effect on individuals’ free speech rights,” CNN and The Washington Post reported that the Justice Department is once again looking for a way to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for sharing classified documents with the public. The Obama administration abandoned that project after concluding that charging Assange with violating the Espionage Act would create a precedent that could be used against any news organization that publishes stories based on “defense information” from sources who obtained or divulged it illegally — a very common journalistic practice.

CIA Director Mike Pompeo says we shouldn’t worry about that because Assange is not a real journalist, a debatable and constitutionally irrelevant point. The “freedom of the press” that is guaranteed by the First Amendment is not the freedom of people who work for officially recognized news outlets; it is the freedom to use technologies of mass communication.

That freedom extends to everyone in the United States, whether or not he is a professional journalist or an American citizen. If Assange broke the Espionage Act by distributing classified material within the U.S., that means he used “the press” there.

Trump, who declared “I love WikiLeaks!” when it was revealing embarrassing information about Hillary Clinton, has changed his tune now that he perceives a threat to his government’s secrets. When he was asked about a potential criminal case against Assange last Friday, Trump said, “It’s OK with me.”

Logic 101

It’s basic programming/ Humans program robots. Humans are racist and sexist. Thus, robots are racist and sexist too.

Right? 😦

Robots can be just as biased as humans, according to a recent study conducted at Princeton University that uncovered gender and racial bias in an Artificial Intelligence (AI) machine.

According to the researchers, robots have always exhibited racist and sexist word associations, such as connecting women with families and households but not professionalism or careers.

“The work raises the specter that this machine ability may become an instrument of unintended discrimination.”   

Researchers from Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy decided to test this concept with Stanford University’s Global Vectors for Word Representation, or GLoVe, an AI machine that uses the internet to learn how to associate words and concepts, reports The Tartan.

The researchers put GLoVe through a replica of the Implicit Association Test (IAT), a test developed by Harvard University that is used to detect implicit bias in humans by having them associate certain images with positive or negative adjectives.

[RELATED: Research finds implicit bias training is ineffective]

One IAT, for example, has participants match up images of black people and white people to adjectives like “pleasant” and “unpleasant.” If the person takes longer to match the black images to “pleasant,” the the IAT determines that they are biased against black people.

GLoVe demonstrated a variation on this type of racial and gender bias in the study’s version of the IAT, identifying black names as less pleasant than white names and associating women with the arts rather than the sciences.

GLoVe also linked certain job-related words to masculinity, such as “programmer” and “professor,” whereas women were identified more closely with roles like “nurse” and “assistant professor” based on the proximity of those terms to gender-specific pronouns in online sources.

Since robots and AI machines learn by gathering real-world data, they apparently reflect the biases present in human language. Therefore, if humans exhibit gender and racial bias, the machines we create will too.

[RELATED: Social justice on Mars]

“The main scientific findings that we’re able to show and prove are that language reflects biases,” said Aylin Caliskan of Princeton University’s Center for Information Technology Policy. “If AI is trained on human language, then it’s going to necessarily imbibe these biases, because it represents cultural facts and statistics about the world.”

According to the study summary published in Science Magazine, AI bias could lead to “unintended discrimination” if the machines are used for tasks such as sorting resumes for job openings.

“In addition to revealing a new comprehension skill for machines, the work raises the specter that this machine ability may become an instrument of unintended discrimination based on gender, race, age, or ethnicity,” the summary warns.

We’re all doomed… 😦

 

Free Speech

The Progressive First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Any religion (except Islam),and mocking or hindering the free exercise thereof is required and sanctioned; or abridging the freedom of LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE speech, or of the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE press; but abridging those who are not us  is always in the interest of the good of society; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to worship the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES and protest it’s enemies, any assembly otherwise in opposition must therefore be “terrorism” “bigotry” or “racism”, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances against ANYONE who defies us and to seek “social justice” at all costs.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” ― George Orwell

Orwellian” is an adjective describing a situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society. It denotes an attitude and a brutal policy of draconian control by propaganda, …

“To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone— to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink — greetings!” -George Orwell

Understand that if America is stupid enough to let liberals take power again, they will persecute and prosecute normal Americans like us who dare to dissent. That’s not a guess or a prediction – that’s a commitment they have made to their fascist followers. They’ve seen what the truth can do to their schemes. After 2016, there’s no way they are going to take a chance on another electoral rejection by us normals, so they don’t even pretend to support free speech anymore. It will be one gender neutral being-one vote, one more time, and then never again.

Hold on. That’s clearly nuts, right? This is obviously crazy talk that’s talking crazy, isn’t it? Don’t liberals love free speech?

No.

We know they don’t love free speech because they tell us they don’t, in both words and deeds. The whole free speech thing lost a lot of its luster for the libs when people like us decided to try it out. The liberals didn’t count on that – free speech was supposed to be their jam, a way to offend, annoy, and outrage us squares, to blow our bourgeois minds with their transgressive, no-holds-barred free thoughtery and critical thinkery. But they never intended for it to allow those banjo-strumming rubes living between I-5 and I-95 to express wrong thoughts and thereby win elections.

So now the progressives are trying to do something about it. Recently, every single Democrat voted to effectively repeal the First Amendment. You see, the words “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” were too expansive for liberals’ tastes because they prevented Congress from making laws abridging the freedom of speech.

This creepy idiocy was in response to Citizens United, a Supreme Court case that, to people who actually believe in free speech and not liberal fascism, conforms to the First Amendment by telling the federal government that no, you can’t put people in jail for making a movie critical of Hillary Clinton.

Yes, you read it correctly. Democrats think that Congress should be able to make laws to put people in jail for making movies critical of Democrat politicians. Roll that around in your head for a while.

Now, they call it “campaign finance reform,” and their argument is that they aren’t really limiting speech – just limiting how people spend their own money. Apparently, under the First Amendment, we are allowed to say anything we want, but Congress can pass a law telling us that we just can’t spend any money to actually be heard.

It would mean the government can tell us we can’t buy paper, we can’t buy ads, we can’t buy video tape, we can’t pay a film crew or writers, and we can’t pay for airtime. Congress could even tell us we can’t buy internet access to post our thoughts on Twitter or Facebook. And Congress, in the Dems’ utopia, could even pass a law not letting you spend a few measly pennies to buy my awesome book about how liberals will split our country in two.

 

Yes, they want to be able to ban books.

Other than that, under the liberals’ paradigm, we can speak to our hearts content, though only to people within shouting range. But don’t worry. The official, approved mainstream media would be exempt – and unofficial, unapproved media, well, not so much. “Fake news” and all that – “fake” being defined as “critical of liberals.” Fortunately, we’d have such unbiased, nonpartisan, objective outlets like the New York Times and CNN (starring noted free speech scholar Fredo Cuomo) to provide us open forums to air our conservative views. Also, we could get unicorns to skywrite our opinions for free using rainbows spewing from beneath their fluffy tails.

What’s still unclear is what prison sentence Democrats would impose upon someone who breaks the law by exhibiting a film or writing a book critical of Hillary Clinton. One year? Five years? Life in SuperMax? Come on Democrats, how long would you imprison someone for illegal speech?

 

And what should the penalty be for climate change denial? Since rejecting their weird climate religion is Earth-murder, or something, you would think they’d want to burn you at the stake – or is that too carbony?

Then there’s that clinical moron Howard Dean, who is ironically famous for his own bizarre exercise of the First Amendment. Leveraging all his intellectual fire power, he recently unloaded his mental squirt gun upon those of us who think the First Amendment means what it actually says. “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment,” he announced on Twitter, apparently having discovered a constitutional exception that would allow Democrats to stifle any speech they choose to stick the “hate speech” label on. Which would, of course, be anything and everything we normals want to say.

 

This “I don’t like what you are saying so it’s hate speech now shut-up” footnote to the First Amendment is well-known at our colleges and universities. These bastions of free thinking freely admit thinking that we normals have no right to think freely at all. The fact that California law enforcement is regularly ordered to stand back and allow conservative speakers and their audiences to be intimidated and beaten in order to silence them is just a preview of the new America that liberals dream of. If you imagine the unholy love child of the economic basket case/police state of Venezuela and the grim intolerance of your local campus, you have a pretty good idea of the new, fascist America the Democrats seek to breed.

Think that analysis is wrong? Well, here’s a complete list of all prominent Democrats standing up against these free speech abominations:

_________________________________________________.

Liberals should be ashamed of themselves, but then they wouldn’t be liberal if they were born with shame genes. So, since we patriots are the only ones who actually support free speech, what do we patriots do to protect it?

Whatever it takes.

We fight peacefully in the political arena, in the courts, and in the shrinking marketplace of ideas while we can, but we must also be ready to fight in the streets when those punky puffboys try to shut us up. No quarter, no compromise, no surrender – we fight and win, or they shut us up forever.

Look, the left has told us what it wants – the power to force us to be silent and submit. That’s not wacky supposition; that’s not fevered imagination. They are open about their agenda, and it’s happening before our eyes. To pretend that our republic is not facing an existential threat from progressives who would use violence to silence their political opponents is to willfully ignore the evidence, just like a climate cultist ignores cold weather. And the violence has already begun: in fact, it is key to their plan for a free speech-free future. Today it’s gangs of masked thugs attacking us. Tomorrow, it’s uniformed men with guns – or at least those few spineless cowards among our security forces will ignore their oaths to defend the Constitution in exchange for a paycheck and a pension – dragging us off to jail for illegal speech. Or worse.

We patriots face a stark choice. We could choose the easy path of submission and hope that the left will leave us be if we just give in to their demands and give up on our right to participate in our own governance. But that won’t ever work – the true joy of leftism comes from imposing the leftists’ collective will upon its designated villains, and one guess as to the identity of those designated villains.

Hi.

No, they don’t want to leave us alone – that misses the whole point of being a leftist. A leftist yearns to be the one doing the bullying and dominating. If we give in, we will spend the rest of our lives with their soft, girly hands around our necks.

And if we are so gutless as to give up our God-given rights in exchange for “peace,” we deserve that pathetic, dishonorable fate.

But we won’t give up. We won’t surrender. No matter how hard they punch, as Instapundit urges, we’ll punch back twice as hard.

It was funny seeing those antifa dorks get wedgies in Berkeley, but our enemies are serious about stripping us of the rights that our Creator endowed upon all men and women. Many of us are veterans or law enforcement, and our oaths to defend the Constitution even at the cost of our lives did not come with an expiration date. Millions more who did not take one of those oaths subscribe to them nonetheless. We promised not to let a fascist regime take hold, and we intend to keep our promise.

The First Amendment is followed by the Second Amendment for just this reason – history will record that our people’s unique refusal to be disarmed by those who seek to steal our liberties was a key factor why we will never be Venezuela II: The Revenge.

Our only chance of avoiding a catastrophe is if our would-be progressive overlords understand that for us normal Americans, there are only two possible outcomes. And living at their mercy as their serfs is not one of them.

The outcome we want is that we normals live free in a democratic republic exercising the rights enshrined in the Constitution, whether because leftists choose to respect our civil rights, or because we force them to respect our civil rights.

The other alternative is that we die on piles of spent brass surrounded by the bodies of our enemies. Either one’s cool – but submission to slavery is not an option.

That un-American, wannabe fascist Howard Dean need only look at a license plate from neighboring New Hampshire to understand how this is going to end. We’ll either live free or die. (Kurt Schlichter)

Freedom Speech is Censorship, after all…

Political Science

I am a Carl Sagan fan from way back. His 1980 TV miniseries “Cosmos” hit me at just the right age and inflamed a lifelong love of science. But we’ve had nearly 40 years to assess the long-term effects and see how Sagan unwittingly contributed to a trend that muddled public understanding of science. This weekend’s so-called “March for Science” is a perfect example of what went wrong.

All you really need to know about the “March for Science” is that it is scheduled for Earth Day. The organizers may say the march is nonpartisan and has a variety of goals, but it’s mostly just about global warming. It’s not just about whether global warming is actually happening, or whether it is caused by human activity, but about a specific political program for dealing with global warming.

To be sure, there are other goals involved in the march and some contention, even among the organizers, about the extent to which the march should embrace causes like “diversity.” So the goals run the gamut from the left to the far-left. And that’s the problem. The “March for Science” is an attempt to equate the Left’s political goals with Science Itself, claiming the intellectual and moral authority of science for the Left’s agenda.

You can see why they would want to do that. The Left’s latest worker’s paradise—this time in Venezuela—is finishing up the usual devolution into mass poverty, starvation, dictatorship, chaos, and gang warfare. Given this ongoing track record of destruction, the Left has to seize on the illusion of moral authority however it can.

This is an old campaign—the Communists used to claim that they represented “scientific socialism”—but its modern form was largely shaped by Sagan, by way of “Cosmos.” He is remembered as a great popularizer of science, explaining the achievements of physics, mathematics, and astronomy in glowing, inspirational terms. But he faced the basic problem of all such popularizers.

Science has its own unique language and methods: the language of mathematics and a method of systematic observation and experimentation. The reason science tends to be opaque to the public is because it ultimately requires that they understand its language and learn to use its methods. But how do you communicate the history and meaning of science to those who don’t yet speak its language? You turn science into something they can understand. You make it into a narrative, a story.

Sagan mostly turned it into a story about brave and honest scientific pioneers fighting against the forces of superstition and obscurantism. He made it into a narrative of good guys versus bad guys, of the forces of light and progress against closed-minded reactionaries. This was sometimes oversimplified, but it wasn’t entirely wrong; the religious authorities who persecuted Galileo definitely weren’t the good guys. But Sagan fell into the temptation to make this narrative about science fit just a little too closely with the agenda of conventional late-twentieth-century liberalism, so he used “Cosmos” as a platform for the Cold War-era moral equivalence of the “anti-nuclear” movement and homilies about environmentalism.

“Cosmos” is an interesting intellectual time capsule, because it was broadcast just at the point when predictions of global environmental catastrophe were tipping between global cooling and global warming. So he presented the two as equally likely scenarios that required further study (and, of course, massive government funding).

But he dropped his guard at this point, forgot his own admonitions about following the evidence wherever it leads, and indulged the conceit that science would just happen to line up neatly with his own political preferences. What he didn’t do was entertain the possibility that human beings aren’t destroying the planet or cruising toward planetary catastrophe. He did not even consider this null hypothesis as a possibility.

It was a glaring hole in scientific objectivity, and it set the path for the popularizers of science who would follow in his footsteps. He had fixed the narrative in place, and they followed it.

Like I said, I’m a big fan of Carl Sagan. There was a lot of merit in his history of science, his style was thoughtful, and he was adamant about the principle of tolerance for opposing ideas. People like Bill Nye who muse about imprisoning “climate deniers” are unworthy of claiming any part of his legacy. Yet that has been the trend.

Sagan clearly hoped that his stirring narrative about science would inspire young people to go beyond and beneath the narrative and learn the actual method of science. Instead, his successors saw the success of his approach—in terms of attention and celebrity and moral authority—and chose to use the narrative as a substitute for science.

If you don’t really need science so much as the narrative, then what you get is our own era’s official replacement for Sagan: Neil deGrasse Tyson. As the decades pass, Sagan’s imitators become less thoughtful and more propagandistic, less interested in conveying the actual scientific method and more concerned with just telling the public what to think. It’s also about making those who accept the approved “pro-science” political agenda feel they are superior to all of those ignorant, knuckle-dragging bigots who disagree with them. It equates science, not just with the politics of the Left, but with the Left’s attitude of smug condescension. That’s how you get Tyson’s fake-but-accurate narratives or the meme-swapping superficiality of the IFL Science crowd.

That’s also how we get things like the March for Science, in which it is naturally assumed that defending science dovetails perfectly with the Left’s “resistance” against the current administration and every part of its agenda. It reduces science to a narrow political pose and blinds people to its big questions and radically different method of inquiry.

Popularizers like Sagan ended up achieving the opposite of what they set out to do. But every failed experiment is just an opportunity to learn something, and what we learned here is that science cannot be promoted by turning it into a political narrative—not without losing its distinctive virtues. (Federalist)

Pure Hate

The poisonous fruit of the left’s long march into academia. They have destroyed our universities and colleges, with public school education not far behind. Inculcation, indoctrination and brainwashing. Why do our taxpayer dollars still go to these treasonous machines? WE are funding this public exhibit. We are funding the new Nazi-esque youth movement. We are funding the war on freedom, truth and individual rights.

The universities are the fifth column. We must not fund it.

And don’t be fooled by the “free speech” ruse. My colleagues and I are not allowed to speak. Conservative professors are bordering on extinction. Pro-Israel voices are harassed, bullied, and beaten.

Imagine the pandemonium if Obama had been depicted beheaded.

U of Alaska: We Won’t Take Down Painting of Beheaded Donald Trump

By Jillian Kay Melchior, Heat Street, April 20, 2017:

The University of Alaska at Anchorage is refusing to remove a professor’s graphic painting depicting a decapitated Donald Trump, saying it was important to protect even objectionable artistic expression.

The painting shows a nude Captain America (as portrayed by liberal actor Chris Evans) standing on a pedestal and holding Donald Trump’s head by the hair. The head drips blood onto Hillary Clinton, who is reclining provocatively in a white pant suit, clinging to Captain America’s leg. Eagles scream into Captain America’s ear, and a dead bison lies at his feet.

The painting, created by Prof. Thomas Chung, hangs on campus as part of an art exhibition this month.

But it became controversial after a former adjunct professor, Paul R. Berger, posted the image on Facebook, saying he was “not sure how I want to respond to this.” On one hand, he posted, “first thing that comes to mind is freedom of expression,” but he also noted the university’s exhibit was publicly funded.

Berger’s post soon prompted outrage, including several calls for the university to remove the painting. By deadline, neither Chung nor school officials responded to Heat Street’s request for comment.

But in an interview with the local NBC affiliate, the chair of the University of Alaska Anchorage’s fine arts department defended his decision to keep the painting up.

“If [students] were taking a class at the university and made art that was considered controversial, no matter what their political or religious bent is, we would do our best to protect them and protect their rights to make that kind of work in the institution, whether it would be a student or a faculty,” he said.

Anyone for a decapitated Obama or Hillary? 🙂

The University of Alaska Anchorage has at least one policy in place that “clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech” on campus, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

And in recent years, art has also been censored at the university a handful of times. Nude sketches were covered to avoid offending a church group a few years ago, the Alaska Dispatch News reported, and offended parents also moved a sculpture of a penis, damaging it.

But the university also has a recent history of defending controversial expression. In the early 2000s, administrators defended a professor after a Native American grad student claimed her poem “Indian Girls” was racist. The statement issued by then-president Mark Hamilton is still cited on campus today.

In it, Hamilton wrote: “Opinions expressed by our employees, students, faculty or administrators don’t have to be politic or polite. However personally offended we might be, however unfair the association of the University to the opinion might be, I insist that we remain a certain trumpet on this most precious of Constitutional rights.”  (Pam Gellar)

 

When we get a decapitated Obama or Hillary and they support it, then we’ll talk.

Symbol of Hate

The symbolism couldn’t be more clear. The hatred more pure. But would this “artist” be reviled for it, or revered. These days that largely depends on your political bias.

head of hate

If this was a former President’s head, would it they be arrested for a “hate crime”?

Depends on your point of view. After all, we know the CIA,NSA, The FBI, and The IRS have all been weaponized for partisan politics by our former Dear Leader and his minions.

The work, created by Assistant Professor of Painting Thomas Chung, is being presented as part of a month-long faculty art exhibition in the university’s fine arts gallery, reports KTUU.

“It’s an image of the actor who plays Captain America, and two eagles are sort of screaming into his ears, and he’s holding the severed head of Trump, and there’s a young Hillary Clinton clinging to his leg,” Chung said to describe his painting, according to Campus Reform. “I was reminded of those 80’s rock posters, where there’s a woman in tattered clothes clinging to a strong male hero’s leg.”

Could the hatred by more pure. could it be more raw.

SeveredTrumpHeadGallery

But will there be any outcry from The Left. Of course not. They are all secretly or openly love it. It is as pure and as raw as they want to be.

But yet, unlike them, I don’t want to censor it.

I don’t need a “safe space”.

I hate it.

I want you to see it.

I want you to hate it too. But I know millions will not. They will love it. They will even cheer.

And that’s what ultimately make me sad about it.

house-divided

noh8-noh8-9425690-800-800

Indeed.

Unless it’s approve by The Ministry of Truth or a Progressive that is. 🙂

The Hit Squad Strikes Again

The Progressive Brown Shirt Media has scored another victim. Bill o’Reilly has been assassinated in the Liberal Press.

The Press that isn’t biased, according to them but a new study shows that 89% of the stories on The Mainstream Media are all hostile to President Trump.

So it’s assassination time. And also gutless corporate time.

oreilly.png

Then on the same day they announce Tucker Carlson will take over his slot. Boy that was a very quick “see ya” we don’t even remember you were here. Bill Who?

The Ministry of Truth has them running scared.

Sad, really.

Freedom of Speech is Censorship.

You are guilty, period. Why would you be a suspect if you weren’t guilty?  (unless you’re a Liberal then it’s someone’s fault, of course).

 

When the Devil Went Down to Georgia

The Anti-Trump money failed yesterday when the Devil did not come down to Georgia, or did he, since Trump is the new Devil.

“This race is absolutely and entirely a referendum on President Trump,” said one Republican consultant granted anonymity to speak candidly about the contest. “Every single vote Jon Ossoff receives is a rebuke of Trump from within GA-06.”
Sensing opportunity, national Democrats flooded the race with money — Ossoff raised an eye-popping $8.3 million over the last three months, 95% of which came from out of the state of Georgia (for a Candidate who doesn’t even live in the District to begin with). That massive influx of cash, coupled with a lack of any other serious Democrats in the race and a disdain among many Republicans in the district for Trump’s in-your-face style, made for a surprising opportunity for Democrats in the south — a region where the party has been decimated over the last decade.
Ossoff will now face former Secretary of State Karen Handel, a Republican who finished in clear second despite running around 30 points behind Ossoff.
While Ossoff and national Democrats acknowledged that they hoped to win the seat outright Tuesday due to the crowded and fractured GOP field, Ossoff will likely enter the runoff with Handel as a slight favorite. The question for Ossoff, and Democrats more broadly, is whether they can successfully link an establishment Republican like Handel to the less-than-popular Trump over the course of a two month, one-versus-one runoff slog.
Well, lying, intimidation and demonizing fear is what they do best.
Democrats, out of power in Congress and the White House, need a spark to convince themselves they can take back all that they had lost. Georgia’s 6th district was seen as the best chance for that spark. It didn’t happen on Tuesday night — and now Democrats will have to wait almost two months to see if they can start to build momentum for the November 2018 midterms.  (CNN)
Guy Benson: Karen Handel is a lot closer to a traditional Republican than Trump is, which could prove to be an important advantage in two months. Make no mistake about it: The battle over this seat is not over, but this one stings for the Left. They sunk millions of dollars and enormous energy into the race, and they weren’t able to win. Will they double down and focus on the run-off with equal passion, or will they shift to the next chance to score a symbolic victory? We shall see. But for now, Republicans have dodged yet another bullet, and Democrats are still seeking their first legislative gain since Trump was elected. Thus far, six special elections in, only one seat has flipped…to the GOP.  Republicans shouldn’t gloat, but Democrats have yet to see real evidence of a big blue wave building.  I’ll leave you with this fair-minded admonition:
If history is a guide, the House was in play before #GA06 results and the House will be in play after #GA06 results.

College Today

You can stand outside and protest like a mindless zombie rather than take a Final Exam to prove what a committed SJW you are.

Wow. College has certainly has changed.

Washington D.C. Analyzed

Well, at least to me this article from 2016 can be interpreted that way.

Dedicated to all The Democrats, RINOs and Deep Staters.

Toxic people such as malignant narcissists, psychopaths and those with antisocial traits engage in maladaptive behaviors in relationships that ultimately exploit, demean and hurt their intimate partners, family members and friends. They use a plethora of diversionary tactics that distort the reality of their victims and deflect responsibility. Although those who are not narcissistic can employ these tactics as well, abusive narcissists use these to an excessive extent in an effort to escape accountability for their actions.

Here are the 20 diversionary tactics toxic people use to silence and degrade you.
1. Gaslighting.

Gaslighting is a manipulative tactic that can be described in different variations of three words: “That didn’t happen,” “You imagined it,” and “Are you crazy?” Gaslighting is perhaps one of the most insidious manipulative tactics out there because it works to distort and erode your sense of reality; it eats away at your ability to trust yourself and inevitably disables you from feeling justified in calling out abuse and mistreatment.

When a narcissist, sociopath or psychopath gaslights you, you may be prone to gaslighting yourself as a way to reconcile the cognitive dissonance that might arise. Two conflicting beliefs battle it out: is this person right or can I trust what I experienced? A manipulative person will convince you that the former is an inevitable truth while the latter is a sign of dysfunction on your end.

In order to resist gaslighting, it’s important to ground yourself in your own reality – sometimes writing things down as they happened, telling a friend or reiterating your experience to a support network can help to counteract the gaslighting effect. The power of having a validating community is that it can redirect you from the distorted reality of a malignant person and back to your own inner guidance.
2. Projection.

One sure sign of toxicity is when a person is chronically unwilling to see his or her own shortcomings and uses everything in their power to avoid being held accountable for them. This is known as projection. Projection is a defense mechanism used to displace responsibility of one’s negative behavior and traits by attributing them to someone else. It ultimately acts as a digression that avoids ownership and accountability.

While we all engage in projection to some extent, according to Narcissistic Personality clinical expert Dr. Martinez-Lewi, the projections of a narcissist are often psychologically abusive. Rather than acknowledge their own flaws, imperfections and wrongdoings, malignant narcissists and sociopaths opt to dump their own traits on their unsuspecting suspects in a way that is painful and excessively cruel. Instead of admitting that self-improvement may be in order, they would prefer that their victims take responsibility for their behavior and feel ashamed of themselves. This is a way for a narcissist to project any toxic shame they have about themselves onto another.

For example, a person who engages in pathological lying may accuse their partner of fibbing; a needy spouse may call their husband “clingy” in an attempt to depict them as the one who is dependent; a rude employee may call their boss ineffective in an effort to escape the truth about their own productivity.

Narcissistic abusers love to play the “blameshifting game.” Objectives of the game: they win, you lose, and you or the world at large is blamed for everything that’s wrong with them. This way, you get to babysit their fragile ego while you’re thrust into a sea of self-doubt. Fun, right?

Solution? Don’t “project” your own sense of compassion or empathy onto a toxic person and don’t own any of the toxic person’s projections either. As manipulation expert and author Dr. George Simon (2010) notes in his book In Sheep’s Clothing, projecting our own conscience and value system onto others has the potential consequence of being met with further exploitation.

Narcissists on the extreme end of the spectrum usually have no interest in self-insight or change. It’s important to cut ties and end interactions with toxic people as soon as possible so you can get centered in your own reality and validate your own identity. You don’t have to live in someone else’s cesspool of dysfunction.
3. Nonsensical conversations from hell.

If you think you’re going to have a thoughtful discussion with someone who is toxic, be prepared for epic mindfuckery rather than conversational mindfulness.

Malignant narcissists and sociopaths use word salad, circular conversations, ad hominem arguments, projection and gaslighting to disorient you and get you off track should you ever disagree with them or challenge them in any way. They do this in order to discredit, confuse and frustrate you, distract you from the main problem and make you feel guilty for being a human being with actual thoughts and feelings that might differ from their own. In their eyes, you are the problem if you happen to exist.

Spend even ten minutes arguing with a toxic narcissist and you’ll find yourself wondering how the argument even began at all. You simply disagreed with them about their absurd claim that the sky is red and now your entire childhood, family, friends, career and lifestyle choices have come under attack. That is because your disagreement picked at their false belief that they are omnipotent and omniscient, resulting in a narcissistic injury.

Remember: toxic people don’t argue with you, they essentially argue with themselves and you become privy to their long, draining monologues. They thrive off the drama and they live for it. Each and every time you attempt to provide a point that counters their ridiculous assertions, you feed them supply. Don’t feed the narcissists supply – rather, supply yourself with the confirmation that their abusive behavior is the problem, not you. Cut the interaction short as soon as you anticipate it escalating and use your energy on some decadent self-care instead.
4. Blanket statements and generalizations.

Malignant narcissists aren’t always intellectual masterminds – many of them are intellectually lazy. Rather than taking the time to carefully consider a different perspective, they generalize anything and everything you say, making blanket statements that don’t acknowledge the nuances in your argument or take into account the multiple perspectives you’ve paid homage to. Better yet, why not put a label on you that dismisses your perspective altogether?

On a larger scale, generalizations and blanket statements invalidate experiences that don’t fit in the unsupported assumptions, schemas and stereotypes of society; they are also used to maintain the status quo. This form of digression exaggerates one perspective to the point where a social justice issue can become completely obscured. For example, rape accusations against well-liked figures are often met with the reminder that there are false reports of rape that occur. While those do occur, they are rare, and in this case, the actions of one become labeled the behavior of the majority while the specific report itself remains unaddressed.

These everyday microaggressions also happen in toxic relationships. If you bring up to a narcissistic abuser that their behavior is unacceptable for example, they will often make blanket generalizations about your hypersensitivity or make a generalization such as, “You are never satisfied,” or “You’re always too sensitive” rather than addressing the real issues at hand. It’s possible that you are oversensitive at times, but it is also possible that the abuser is also insensitive and cruel the majority of the time.

Hold onto your truth and resist generalizing statements by realizing that they are in fact forms of black and white illogical thinking. Toxic people wielding blanket statements do not represent the full richness of experience – they represent the limited one of their singular experience and overinflated sense of self.
5. Deliberately misrepresenting your thoughts and feelings to the point of absurdity.

In the hands of a malignant narcissist or sociopath, your differing opinions, legitimate emotions and lived experiences get translated into character flaws and evidence of your irrationality.

Narcissists weave tall tales to reframe what you’re actually saying as a way to make your opinions look absurd or heinous. Let’s say you bring up the fact that you’re unhappy with the way a toxic friend is speaking to you. In response, he or she may put words in your mouth, saying, “Oh, so now you’re perfect?” or “So I am a bad person, huh?” when you’ve done nothing but express your feelings. This enables them to invalidate your right to have thoughts and emotions about their inappropriate behavior and instills in you a sense of guilt when you attempt to establish boundaries.

This is also a popular form of diversion and cognitive distortion that is known as “mind reading.” Toxic people often presume they know what you’re thinking and feeling. They chronically jump to conclusions based on their own triggers rather than stepping back to evaluate the situation mindfully. They act accordingly based on their own delusions and fallacies and make no apologies for the harm they cause as a result. Notorious for putting words in your mouth, they depict you as having an intention or outlandish viewpoint you didn’t possess. They accuse you of thinking of them as toxic – even before you’ve gotten the chance to call them out on their behavior – and this also serves as a form of preemptive defense.

Simply stating, “I never said that,” and walking away should the person continue to accuse you of doing or saying something you didn’t can help to set a firm boundary in this type of interaction. So long as the toxic person can blameshift and digress from their own behavior, they have succeeded in convincing you that you should be “shamed” for giving them any sort of realistic feedback.
6. Nitpicking and moving the goal posts.

The difference between constructive criticism and destructive criticism is the presence of a personal attack and impossible standards. These so-called “critics” often don’t want to help you improve, they just want to nitpick, pull you down and scapegoat you in any way they can. Abusive narcissists and sociopaths employ a logical fallacy known as “moving the goalposts” in order to ensure that they have every reason to be perpetually dissatisfied with you. This is when, even after you’ve provided all the evidence in the world to validate your argument or taken an action to meet their request, they set up another expectation of you or demand more proof.

Do you have a successful career? The narcissist will then start to pick on why you aren’t a multi-millionaire yet. Did you already fulfill their need to be excessively catered to? Now it’s time to prove that you can also remain “independent.” The goal posts will perpetually change and may not even be related to each other; they don’t have any other point besides making you vie for the narcissist’s approval and validation.

By raising the expectations higher and higher each time or switching them completely, highly manipulative and toxic people are able to instill in you a pervasive sense of unworthiness and of never feeling quite “enough.” By pointing out one irrelevant fact or one thing you did wrong and developing a hyperfocus on it, narcissists get to divert from your strengths and pull you into obsessing over any flaws or weaknesses instead. They get you thinking about the next expectation of theirs you’re going to have to meet – until eventually you’ve bent over backwards trying to fulfill their every need – only to realize it didn’t change the horrific way they treated you.

Don’t get sucked into nitpicking and changing goal posts – if someone chooses to rehash an irrelevant point over and over again to the point where they aren’t acknowledging the work you’ve done to validate your point or satisfy them, their motive isn’t to better understand. It’s to further provoke you into feeling as if you have to constantly prove yourself. Validate and approve of yourself. Know that you are enough and you don’t have to be made to feel constantly deficient or unworthy in some way.
7. Changing the subject to evade accountability.

This type of tactic is what I like to call the “What about me?” syndrome. It is a literal digression from the actual topic that works to redirect attention to a different issue altogether. Narcissists don’t want you to be on the topic of holding them accountable for anything, so they will reroute discussions to benefit them. Complaining about their neglectful parenting? They’ll point out a mistake you committed seven years ago. This type of diversion has no limits in terms of time or subject content, and often begins with a sentence like “What about the time when…”

On a macrolevel, these diversions work to derail discussions that challenge the status quo. A discussion about gay rights, for example, may be derailed quickly by someone who brings in another social justice issue just to distract people from the main argument.

As Tara Moss, author of Speaking Out: A 21st Century Handbook for Women and Girls, notes, specificity is needed in order to resolve and address issues appropriately – that doesn’t mean that the issues that are being brought up don’t matter, it just means that the specific time and place may not be the best context to discuss them.

Don’t be derailed – if someone pulls a switcheroo on you, you can exercise what I call the “broken record” method and continue stating the facts without giving in to their distractions. Redirect their redirection by saying, “That’s not what I am talking about. Let’s stay focused on the real issue.” If they’re not interested, disengage and spend your energy on something more constructive – like not having a debate with someone who has the mental age of a toddler.
8. Covert and overt threats.

Narcissistic abusers and otherwise toxic people feel very threatened when their excessive sense of entitlement, false sense of superiority and grandiose sense of self are challenged in any way. They are prone to making unreasonable demands on others – while punishing you for not living up to their impossible to reach expectations.

Rather than tackle disagreements or compromises maturely, they set out to divert you from your right to have your own identity and perspective by attempting to instill fear in you about the consequences of disagreeing or complying with their demands. To them, any challenge results in an ultimatum and “do this or I’ll do that” becomes their daily mantra.

If someone’s reaction to you setting boundaries or having a differing opinion from your own is to threaten you into submission, whether it’s a thinly veiled threat or an overt admission of what they plan to do, this is a red flag of someone who has a high degree of entitlement and has no plans of compromising. Take threats seriously and show the narcissist you mean business; document threats and report them whenever possible and legally feasible.
9. Name-calling.

Narcissists preemptively blow anything they perceive as a threat to their superiority out of proportion. In their world, only they can ever be right and anyone who dares to say otherwise creates a narcissistic injury that results in narcissistic rage. As Mark Goulston, M.D. asserts, narcissistic rage does not result from low self-esteem but rather a high sense of entitlement and false sense of superiority.

The lowest of the low resort to narcissistic rage in the form of name-calling when they can’t think of a better way to manipulate your opinion or micromanage your emotions. Name-calling is a quick and easy way to put you down, degrade you and insult your intelligence, appearance or behavior while invalidating your right to be a separate person with a right to his or her perspective.

Name-calling can also be used to criticize your beliefs, opinions and insights. A well-researched perspective or informed opinion suddenly becomes “silly” or “idiotic” in the hands of a malignant narcissist or sociopath who feels threatened by it and cannot make a respectful, convincing rebuttal. Rather than target your argument, they target you as a person and seek to undermine your credibility and intelligence in any way they possibly can. It’s important to end any interaction that consists of name-calling and communicate that you won’t tolerate it. Don’t internalize it: realize that they are resorting to name-calling because they are deficient in higher level methods.

10. Destructive conditioning.

Toxic people condition you to associate your strengths, talents, and happy memories with abuse, frustration and disrespect. They do this by sneaking in covert and overt put-downs about the qualities and traits they once idealized as well as sabotaging your goals, ruining celebrations, vacations and holidays. They may even isolate you from your friends and family and make you financially dependent upon them. Like Pavlov’s dogs, you’re essentially “trained” over time to become afraid of doing the very things that once made your life fulfilling.

Narcissists, sociopaths, psychopaths and otherwise toxic people do this because they wish to divert attention back to themselves and how you’re going to please them. If there is anything outside of them that may threaten their control over your life, they seek to destroy it. They need to be the center of attention at all times. In the idealization phase, you were once the center of a narcissist’s world – now the narcissist becomes the center of yours.

Narcissists are also naturally pathologically envious and don’t want anything to come in between them and their influence over you. Your happiness represents everything they feel they cannot have in their emotionally shallow lives. After all, if you learn that you can get validation, respect and love from other sources besides the toxic person, what’s to keep you from leaving them? To toxic people, a little conditioning can go a long way to keep you walking on eggshells and falling just short of your big dreams.
11. Smear campaigns and stalking.

When toxic types can’t control the way you see yourself, they start to control how others see you; they play the martyr while you’re labeled the toxic one. A smear campaign is a preemptive strike to sabotage your reputation and slander your name so that you won’t have a support network to fall back on lest you decide to detach and cut ties with this toxic person. They may even stalk and harass you or the people you know as a way to supposedly “expose” the truth about you; this exposure acts as a way to hide their own abusive behavior while projecting it onto you.

Some smear campaigns can even work to pit two people or two groups against each other. A victim in an abusive relationship with a narcissist often doesn’t know what’s being said about them during the relationship, but they eventually find out the falsehoods shortly after they’ve been discarded.

Toxic people will gossip behind your back (and in front of your face), slander you to your loved ones or their loved ones, create stories that depict you as the aggressor while they play the victim, and claim that you engaged in the same behaviors that they are afraid you will accuse them of engaging in. They will also methodically, covertly and deliberately abuse you so they can use your reactions as a way to prove that they are the so-called “victims” of your abuse.

The best way to handle a smear campaign is to stay mindful of your reactions and stick to the facts. This is especially pertinent for high-conflict divorces with narcissists who may use your reactions to their provocations against you. Document any form of harassment, cyberbullying or stalking incidents and always speak to your narcissist through a lawyer whenever possible. You may wish to take legal action if you feel the stalking and harassment is getting out of control; finding a lawyer who is well-versed in Narcissistic Personality Disorder is crucial if that’s the case. Your character and integrity will speak for itself when the narcissist’s false mask begins to slip.
12. Love-bombing and devaluation.

Toxic people put you through an idealization phase until you’re sufficiently hooked and invested in beginning a friendship or relationship with you. Then, they begin to devalue you while insulting the very things they admired in the first place. Another variation of this is when a toxic individual puts you on a pedestal while aggressively devaluing and attacking someone else who threatens their sense of superiority.

Narcissistic abusers do this all the time – they devalue their exes to their new partners, and eventually the new partner starts to receive the same sort of mistreatment as the narcissist’s ex-partner. Ultimately what will happen is that you will also be on the receiving end of the same abuse. You will one day be the ex-partner they degrade to their new source of supply. You just don’t know it yet. That’s why it’s important to stay mindful of the love-bombing technique whenever you witness behavior that doesn’t align with the saccharine sweetness a narcissist subjects you to.

As life coach Wendy Powell suggests, slowing things down with people you suspect may be toxic is an important way of combating the love-bombing technique. Be wary of the fact that how a person treats or speaks about someone else could potentially translate into the way they will treat you in the future.
13. Preemptive defense.

When someone stresses the fact that they are a “nice guy” or girl, that you should “trust them” right away or emphasizes their credibility without any provocation from you whatsoever, be wary.

Toxic and abusive people overstate their ability to be kind and compassionate. They often tell you that you should “trust” them without first building a solid foundation of trust. They may “perform” a high level of sympathy and empathy at the beginning of your relationship to dupe you, only to unveil their false mask later on. When you see their false mask begins to slip periodically during the devaluation phase of the abuse cycle, the true self is revealed to be terrifyingly cold, callous and contemptuous.

Genuinely nice people rarely have to persistently show off their positive qualities – they exude their warmth more than they talk about it and they know that actions speak volumes more than mere words. They know that trust and respect is a two-way street that requires reciprocity, not repetition.

To counter a preemptive defense, reevaluate why a person may be emphasizing their good qualities. Is it because they think you don’t trust them, or because they know you shouldn’t? Trust actions more than empty words and see how someone’s actions communicate who they are, not who they say they are.
14. Triangulation.

Bringing in the opinion, perspective or suggested threat of another person into the dynamic of an interaction is known as “triangulation.” Often used to validate the toxic person’s abuse while invalidating the victim’s reactions to abuse, triangulation can also work to manufacture love triangles that leave you feeling unhinged and insecure.

Malignant narcissists love to triangulate their significant other with strangers, co-workers, ex-partners, friends and even family members in order to evoke jealousy and uncertainty in you. They also use the opinions of others to validate their point of view.

This is a diversionary tactic meant to pull your attention away from their abusive behavior and into a false image of them as a desirable, sought after person. It also leaves you questioning yourself – if Mary did agree with Tom, doesn’t that mean that you must be wrong? The truth is, narcissists love to “report back” falsehoods about others say about you, when in fact, they are the ones smearing you.

To resist triangulation tactics, realize that whoever the narcissist is triangulating with is also being triangulated by your relationship with the narcissist as well. Everyone is essentially being played by this one person. Reverse “triangulate” the narcissist by gaining support from a third party that is not under the narcissist’s influence – and also by seeking your own validation.
15. Bait and feign innocence.

Toxic individuals lure you into a false sense of security simply to have a platform to showcase their cruelty. Baiting you into a mindless, chaotic argument can escalate into a showdown rather quickly with someone who doesn’t know the meaning of respect. A simple disagreement may bait you into responding politely initially, until it becomes clear that the person has a malicious motive of tearing you down.

By “baiting” you with a seemingly innocuous comment disguised as a rational one, they can then begin to play with you. Remember: narcissistic abusers have learned about your insecurities, the unsettling catchphrases that interrupt your confidence, and the disturbing topics that reenact your wounds – and they use this knowledge maliciously to provoke you. After you’ve fallen for it, hook line and sinker, they’ll stand back and innocently ask whether you’re “okay” and talk about how they didn’t “mean” to agitate you. This faux innocence works to catch you off guard and make you believe that they truly didn’t intend to hurt you, until it happens so often you can’t deny the reality of their malice any longer.

It helps to realize when you’re being baited so you can avoid engaging altogether. Provocative statements, name-calling, hurtful accusations or unsupported generalizations, for example, are common baiting tactics. Your gut instinct can also tell you when you’re being baited – if you feel “off” about a certain comment and continue to feel this way even after it has been expanded on, that’s a sign you may need to take some space to reevaluate the situation before choosing to respond.
16. Boundary testing and hoovering.

Narcissists, sociopaths and otherwise toxic people continually try and test your boundaries to see which ones they can trespass. The more violations they’re able to commit without consequences, the more they’ll push the envelope.
That’s why survivors of emotional as well as physical abuse often experience even more severe incidents of abuse each and every time they go back to their abusers.

Abusers tend to “hoover” their victims back in with sweet promises, fake remorse and empty words of how they are going to change, only to abuse their victims even more horrifically. In the abuser’s sick mind, this boundary testing serves as a punishment for standing up to the abuse and also for being going back to it. When narcissists try to press the emotional reset button, reinforce your boundaries even more strongly rather than backtracking on them.

Remember – highly manipulative people don’t respond to empathy or compassion. They respond to consequences.
17. Aggressive jabs disguised as jokes.

Covert narcissists enjoy making malicious remarks at your expense. These are usually dressed up as “just jokes” so that they can get away with saying appalling things while still maintaining an innocent, cool demeanor. Yet any time you are outraged at an insensitive, harsh remark, you are accused of having no sense of humor. This is a tactic frequently used in verbal abuse.

The contemptuous smirk and sadistic gleam in their eyes gives it away, however – like a predator that plays with its food, a toxic person gains pleasure from hurting you and being able to get away with it. After all, it’s just a joke, right? Wrong. It’s a way to gaslight you into thinking their abuse is a joke – a way to divert from their cruelty and onto your perceived sensitivity. It is important that when this happens, you stand up for yourself and make it clear that you won’t tolerate this type of behavior.

Calling out manipulative people on their covert put-downs may result in further gaslighting from the abuser but maintain your stance that their behavior is not okay and end the interaction immediately if you have to.
18. Condescending sarcasm and patronizing tone.

Belittling and degrading a person is a toxic person’s forte and their tone of voice is only one tool in their toolbox. Sarcasm can be a fun mode of communication when both parties are engaged, but narcissists use it chronically as a way to manipulate you and degrade you. If you in any way react to it, you must be “too sensitive.”

Forget that the toxic person constantly has temper tantrums every time their big bad ego is faced with realistic feedback – the victim is the hypersensitive one, apparently. So long as you’re treated like a child and constantly challenged for expressing yourself, you’ll start to develop a sense of hypervigilance about voicing your thoughts and opinions without reprimand. This self-censorship enables the abuser to put in less work in silencing you, because you begin to silence yourself.

Whenever you are met with a condescending demeanor or tone, call it out firmly and assertively. You don’t deserve to be spoken down to like a child – nor should you ever silence yourself to meet the expectation of someone else’s superiority complex.
19. Shaming.

“You should be ashamed of yourself” is a favorite saying of toxic people. Though it can be used by someone who is non-toxic, in the realm of the narcissist or sociopath, shaming is an effective method that targets any behavior or belief that might challenge a toxic person’s power. It can also be used to destroy and whittle away at a victim’s self-esteem: if a victim dares to be proud of something, shaming the victim for that specific trait, quality or accomplishment can serve to diminish their sense of self and stifle any pride they may have.

Malignant narcissists, sociopaths and psychopaths enjoy using your own wounds against you – so they will even shame you about any abuse or injustice you’ve suffered in your lifetime as a way to retraumatize you. Were you a childhood abuse survivor? A malignant narcissist or sociopath will claim that you must’ve done something to deserve it, or brag about their own happy childhood as a way to make you feel deficient and unworthy. What better way to injure you, after all, than to pick at the original wound? As surgeons of madness, they seek to exacerbate wounds, not help heal them.

If you suspect you’re dealing with a toxic person, avoid revealing any of your vulnerabilities or past traumas. Until they’ve proven their character to you, there is no point disclosing information that could be potentially used against you.
20. Control.

Most importantly, toxic abusers love to maintain control in whatever way they can. They isolate you, maintain control over your finances and social networks, and micromanage every facet of your life. Yet the most powerful mechanism they have for control is toying with your emotions.

That’s why abusive narcissists and sociopaths manufacture situations of conflict out of thin air to keep you feeling off center and off balanced. That’s why they chronically engage in disagreements about irrelevant things and rage over perceived slights. That’s why they emotionally withdraw, only to re-idealize you once they start to lose control. That’s why they vacillate between their false self and their true self, so you never get a sense of psychological safety or certainty about who your partner truly is.

The more power they have over your emotions, the less likely you’ll trust your own reality and the truth about the abuse you’re enduring. Knowing the manipulative tactics and how they work to erode your sense of self can arm you with the knowledge of what you’re facing and at the very least, develop a plan to regain control over your own life and away from toxic people.
by Shahida Arabi

The Wall of Idiocy

Public service announcement: the border wall is even more problematic because animals and birds might be impacted. I wish I was kidding, but MSNBC ran a segment with biologist Jeff Corwin, where the latter said jaguars, the Mexican gray wolf, bats, and some birds might be impacted by the border wall’s construction.

“It would be an unprecedented environmental catastrophe,” said Corwin to host Craig Melvin.

Melvin began the segments discussing Rep. Raul Graijalva (D-AZ) and the Center for Biological Diversity’s lawsuit against the federal government over the border enforcement project. In California, the state legislature is considering punishing construction firms that participate in building the wall. 

First off, Rep. Graijalva is about as big a sycophant for Pro-Illegals as you can get.

Secondly, I guess all those thousands of feet above the wall are just to difficult to use to get over the wall. I guess the birds are also on the government dole and are fat, dumb, lazy and entitled to as much sloth as the humans provided get. 😦

As for punishing construction firms, well, there is nothing a sanctimonious liberal likes better than authoritarian bullying and intimidation to get there way. Democracy, fah…who needs it when you are a narcissistic liberal who wants the world to revolve around them.

Jeff Corwin: Well Craig, if this border wall happens it will be an unprecedented environmental catastrophe. It’s poised to cut through more than 1,200 miles of habitat along the border between the United States and Mexico. There are over 90 threatened and critically endangered species that are in the crosshairs because of this wall, and we’ve got over 100 migratory birds that will be impacted from this wall. The endangered Mexican grey wolf, only 133 individuals left of this iconic carnivore this amazing canine, its head is on the chopping block and likely could fall prey to extinction. 

OMG OMG OMG! Not that. Ok Mr. Liberal you do whatever you want… Whip me, beat me, make me feel bad for hapless birds… 😦

Next up…The Wind Farms and how much a buzzkill they are for birds… 🙂

putin

Tax Freedom Day

I decided to do a second blog today in honor of Tax Freedom Day by The Tax Foundation.

  • This year, Tax Freedom Day falls on April 24, or 114 days into the year (excluding Leap Day).
  • Americans will pay $3.3 trillion in federal taxes and $1.6 trillion in state and local taxes, for a total bill of almost $5.0 trillion, or 31 percent of the nation’s income.
  • Tax Freedom Day is one day earlier than last year, due to slightly lower federal tax collections as a proportion of the economy.
  • Americans will collectively spend more on taxes in 2016 than they will on food, clothing, and housing combined.
  • If you include annual federal borrowing, which represents future taxes owed, Tax Freedom Day would occur 16 days later, on May 10.
  • Tax Freedom Day is a significant date for taxpayers and lawmakers because it represents how long Americans as a whole have to work in order to pay the nation’s tax burden.

What Is Tax Freedom Day?

Tax Freedom Day® is the day when the nation as a whole has earned enough money to pay its total tax bill for the year. Tax Freedom Day takes all federal, state, and local taxes and divides them by the nation’s income. In 2016, Americans will pay $3.34 trillion in federal taxes and $1.64 trillion in state and local taxes, for a total tax bill of $4.99 trillion, or 31 percent of national income. This year, Tax Freedom Day falls on April 24th, or 114 days into the year (excluding Leap Day).

What Taxes Do We Pay?

This year, Americans will work the longest to pay federal, state, and local individual income taxes (46 days). Payroll taxes will take 26 days to pay, followed by sales and excise taxes (15 days), corporate income taxes (nine days), and property taxes (11 days). The remaining seven days are spent paying estate and inheritance taxes, customs duties, and other taxes.

Why Is Tax Freedom Day Earlier This Year?

Tax Freedom Day is one day earlier than last year. This is due mainly to slightly lower projected federal tax collections, as a share of the U.S. economy. While federal individual income tax revenues are expected to rise as a share of the economy, federal corporate, payroll, and excise tax revenues are projected to fall.

When Is Tax Freedom Day if You Include Federal Borrowing?

Since 2002, federal expenses have surpassed federal revenues, with the budget deficit exceeding $1 trillion annually from 2009 to 2012. In calendar year 2016, the deficit will grow significantly, from $592 billion to $698 billion. If we include this annual federal borrowing, which represents future taxes owed, Tax Freedom Day would occur on May 10, 16 days later. The latest ever deficit-inclusive Tax Freedom Day occurred during World War II on May 25, 1945.

When Is My State’s Tax Freedom Day?

The total tax burden borne by residents of different states varies considerably due to differing state tax policies and the progressivity of the federal tax system. This means a combination of higher-income and higher-tax states celebrate Tax Freedom Day later: Connecticut (May 21), New Jersey (May 12), and New York (May 11). Residents of Mississippi will bear the lowest average tax burden in 2016, with Tax Freedom Day arriving for them on April 5. Also early are Tennessee (April 6) and Louisiana (April 7).

How Has Tax Freedom Day Changed over Time?

The latest ever Tax Freedom Day was May 1, 2000; in that year, Americans paid 33 percent of their total income in taxes. A century earlier, in 1900, Americans paid only 5.9 percent of their income in taxes, meaning that Tax Freedom Day came on January 22.

Methodology

In the denominator, we count every dollar that is officially part of net national income according to the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the numerator, we count every payment to the government that is officially considered a tax. Taxes at all levels of government—federal, state, and local—are included in the calculation. In calculating Tax Freedom Day for each state, we look at taxes borne by residents of that state, whether paid to the federal government, their own state or local governments, or governments of other states. Where possible, we allocate tax burdens to each taxpayer’s state of residence. Leap days are excluded, to allow comparison across years, and any fraction of a day is rounded up to the next calendar day.

Free Speech is Censorship

Behold, the perfectly creepy and Orwellian capstone to a week of campus insanity and inanity, courtesy of the dim bulbs who populate the editorial board of Wellesley College’s student newspaper. I’ve employed that ad hominem descriptor for two reasons: First, their argument is a logical train wreck, but that’s par for the course with anti-speech tyrants. Second, a compounding sin: It’s horribly written. Their prose is truly and embarrassingly atrocious. It’s as if a group of mostly-literate sixth-graders joined forces to whip up a self-important harangue, straining and failing to evince erudition. The resulting product is a jumble of incoherence that should theoretically humiliate the “elite” all-female institution that (a) admitted these students, and (b) cultivated this sort of thinking — and I use that term loosely. A taste:

Wellesley is certainly not a place for racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia or any other type of discriminatory speech. Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech. The founding fathers put free speech in the Constitution as a way to protect the disenfranchised and to protect individual citizens from the power of the government. The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging… We have all said problematic claims, the origins of which were ingrained in us by our discriminatory and biased society. Luckily, most of us have been taught by our peers and mentors at Wellesley in a productive way.

It is vital that we encourage people to correct and learn from their mistakes rather than berate them for a lack of education they could not control. While it is expected that these lessons will be difficult and often personal, holding difficult conversations for the sake of educating is very different from shaming on the basis of ignorance. This being said, if people are given the resources to learn and either continue to speak hate speech or refuse to adapt their beliefs, then hostility may be warranted. If people continue to support racist politicians or pay for speakers that prop up speech that will lead to the harm of others, then it is critical to take the appropriate measures to hold them accountable for their actions. It is important to note that our preference for education over beration regards students who may have not been given the chance to learn.

The first bolded sentence is really quite special because it makes the case that shutting down ‘offensive’ rhetoric amounts to hate speech.  That’s not what the authors intended, I’d wager, but it’s what they wrote. Slow clap. (Very slow, just so the editors of The Wellesley News can keep up).  The next highlighted sentence fragment is pure garbage writing, replete with a non-ironic use of “problematic.”  And bonus points for proceeding to lay previous wrong-thinking utterances at the feet of our horrible, nasty society.  Socialize everything.  The last bit is nothing short of poorly-crafted, yet admirably candid, advocacy on behalf of anti-speech fascism: If re-education efforts don’t stick, and offenders rudely decline to renounce their unenlightened views, hostile consequences must ensue.  The founding fathers’ (side note: um, patriarchy much? #problematic) limited vision of free speech was to “protect the suppressed,” you see, which is why a new, ‘correct’ form of suppression is imperative.  Or something.  Anyway, I’ve embedded the full piece below because as I write this, the publication’s website has crashed under the weight of online gawkers. This editorial is so gobsmackingly dumb that the Internet just had to see it for itself; sadly, The Wellesley News’ server wasn’t up to the task.

See also: http://thewellesleynews.com/2017/04/12/free-speech-is-not-violated-at-wellesley/
Consult your physician if your headache lasts more than three hours.  And before anyone even thinks about suggesting that perhaps the time has come for Wellesley’s student newspaper to get some men to oversee the editorial process, please be forewarned that “hostility may be warranted” in response to such a deliberate and unforgivably provocative affront — especially if it’s a joke.  Those definitely aren’t allowed either. (Townhall)

We’re Screwed

The Left has things so ass backwards and they are indoctrinating people to be ass backwards…

According to diversity training materials being disseminated at publicly-funded Clemson University, expecting people from other cultures to show up on time is racist.

Yup, racist.

The university spent nearly $27,000 on diversity training materials from a company called Workplace Answers. Those materials were graciously intended for employees of the school in order to indoctrinate them.

I mean, for them to learn from.

One of the online slides depicted two groups, which included foreign professors and students, showing up to a scheduled event at 9 a.m.; one group came 15 minutes early and the other came 10 minutes late. The slide made the assertion that it would not be the inclusive thing to do to chastise the group that was late, since people must “recognize cultural differences that may impact the meeting and adjust accordingly.”

The Daily Caller reports:

One slide features a guy named Alejandro who plans a meeting between two groups. Each group contains foreign professors and students. One group shows up 15 minutes early. The second group shows up 10 minutes late.

A question-and-answer section then instructs Clemson’s professors that Alejandro would be insufficiently “inclusive” if he were to “politely ask the second group to apologize.” Alejandro would also be wrong to advise the straggling, late people who aren’t respecting everyone else’s time that “in our country, 9:00 a.m. means 9:00 a.m.”

The “inclusive” thing for Alejandro to do, the taxpayer-funded diversity materials instruct Clemson professors, is to “recognize cultural differences that may impact the meeting and adjust accordingly.” Alejandro must understand “that his cultural perspective regarding time is neither more nor less valid than any other.”

In other words, some foreigners are incapable of being on time and Americans need to shut up and accept it in the name of diversity, or something. Of course, such low expectations of those from other cultures is truly infantilizing stuff, but this is how the Left views any minority group.

These ingenuous and expensive slides were reportedly approved by Clemson Chief Diversity Officer Lee Gill. It’s unclear what a “chief diversity officer” actually does, but Gill apparently gets paid big bucks for the position, raking in over $185,000 in tax-payer funds annually.

The training materials are not mandatory by definition, but Clemson President James Clements said last year that “all employees will participate in diversity education and training,” notes Campus Reform.  (Daily Wire).

YOU ARE SO SCREWED.

It has been believed that children developed race-based bias during their preschool years, but a new study has suggested it starts much earlier.

Following a series of studies, researchers have discovered that six- to nine-month-old infants demonstrated racial bias in favor of members of their own race and bias against those of other races.

You are a born racist! You even whitey…And any “normal” behavior is Racist! You ooze it from every pore of your being from the very beginning you evil succubus of hate you…

The findings are said to be a result of the overwhelming exposure infants have to their own race, and experts have warned it is wise to introduce children to people from a variety of races before the issues deepen.

Two studies were conducted by researchers at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) at the University of Toronto and their collaborators from the US, UK, France and China, that showed racial bias among infants.

‘The findings of these studies are significant for many reasons,’ said Dr. Kang Lee, professor at OISE’s Jackman Institute of Child Study, a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair and lead author of the studies.

‘The results show that race-based bias already exists around the second half of a child’s first year.’

During the first experiment, the team had infants from three to 10 months of age listened to music clips and then watched a sequence of videos depicting female adults with a neutral facial expression. 

Babies participated in one of the four music-face combinations: happy music followed by own-race faces, sad music followed by own-race faces, happy music followed by other-race faces, and sad music followed by other-race faces.

The team observed that infants six to nine months of age looked longer at own-race faces when paired with happy music as opposed to with sad music.  (Daily Mail)

SCIENCE!

 

Animal House 2017

Kurt Schlichter:

If Animal House were to be rebooted today, Bluto – who would probably be updated into a differently–abled trans being of heft – might ask, “See if you can guess what am I now?” before expelling a whole mass of pus-like root vegetable on the WASPrivileged villains and announcing, “I’m a university – get it?”

At least popping a zit gets rid of the infection and promotes healing. But today, the higher education racket festers on the rear end of our culture, a painful, useless carbuncle of intellectual fraud, moral bankruptcy, and pernicious liberal fascism that impoverishes the young while it subsidizes a bunch of old pinkos who can’t hack it at Real World U.

At least literal boils don’t diss you while demanding you give them free money. We’re expected to shut up and write checks while the universitools ruin our culture. Luckily, due to the happy coincidence of a conservative federal government, technological advances, and the college industrial complex’s inexplicable death wish, we normals now have a chance to lance the boil that is 21st Century academia.

The purpose of universities long ago stopped being education, yet Big Edu and its liberal supporters keep pushing the lie that the only way to prepare young Americans for the future is to tie an anchor around their necks. America’s student loan debt now totals a staggering $1.4 trillion carried by 44 million Americans, and 2016 grads are weighed down with an average $37,712 each. And what do they get for it? Nothing but four years older and considerably dumber. Record numbers are using their degrees in Papuan Feminist Literature and Genderfluid Break Dance Therapy as gateway credentials into the exciting field of brewing caffeinated beverages for grown-ups who didn’t still live on the futon in their mom’s spare bedroom at age 33.

A house, a family, and a future that involves either dignity or success – these are things walking out into society with a meaningless piece of paper and nearly forty grand in debt prevent. But hey – the important thing is that we continue to subsidize one of the Democrats’ key constituencies and its prime breeding ground for the social dysfunction and soft-handed tyranny that are the hallmarks of progressivism. Too bad if it ruins the lives of the young suckers whose parents pushed them onto the conveyor belt that annually pumps out another crop of credentialed indentured servants.

But even sucking the lifeblood out of Millennials is not enough to feed the greedy academic beast. The bright new idea – one embraced by that commie from New England, that other commie from New England who tricked her college into thinking she was an Indian, and that firewater aficionado who lost the election – is “free college.” Let’s set aside the fact that community college exists to give everyone the opportunity to get some higher education; today, it’s job is to occupy high school students for a few extra years by intermittently teaching them the things the incompetence of unionized teachers ensured they didn’t learn in public high schools. The “free college” idea offers those of us who have already paid for our own education the opportunity to pony up for someone else’s. As the grade-inflated bastions of higher learning say to pretty much anyone who hands them a check and keeps his mouth shut about liking America, “Pass.”

 

If traditional colleges performed some meaningful function that only they could perform, then there might be a rationale for them in the 21st Century. But there’s not. What do four-year colleges do today?

Well, they cater to weenies who feel “unsafe” that Mike Pence is speaking to their graduates. Seventy-some years ago, young people that age were feeling unsafe because the Wehrmacht was trying to kill them on Omaha Beach.

At our nation’s most prestigious university, students are emotionally incapacitated by the fact that other Americans elected someone they dislike. Their reaction is to form a “resistance” that they refer to as “Dumbledore’s Army.” What a bunch of wand-stroking. But there is one good thing about this mortifying childishness – perhaps now, when you meet a grad, he, she, or xe will hesitate for a couple minutes before telling you it went to Harvard.

And in their quest to ensure their students’ perpetual unemployment, colleges are now teaching that punctuality is a social construct. Somewhere, a Starbucks manager is going to hear from Kaden the Barista that, “I like, totally couldn’t get here for my shift on time because, like intersectionality of my experience as a person of Scandinavianism and stuff. I feel unsafe because of your racist vikingaphobia and tardiness-shaming.”

 

Academia is pricing itself out of reach even as the antics of its inhabitants annoy and provoke those of us whose taxes already pick up a big chunk of the bill even without the “free college” okie-doke. This is where the fortuitous coincidence of two phenomena collide to give us an opportunity to fix our problem. We’re woke to the scam, and we now have a federal government dominated by conservatives that can use the law and the power of the purse to tame the beast. As the same time, technology that will allow no-frills learning is improving every day. What we must do is pass popular laws that make colleges accountable to taxpayers and students, including by shifting some of the student loan risk onto them. We must also protect that whole wacky freedom thing – colleges can always give up all federal funds if they, say, want to force college Christian clubs to accept atheist members. And yeah – that’s a thing.

 

At the same time, we can use the law to help facilitate the transition away from the current centralized campus with a bloated administration and faculty/four-year booze cruise model. Laws can mandate and regularize credentialing for technology-based learning to help make non-traditional programs a viable and accepted alternative to a traditional degree. Right now, college is less about learning than about creating a cultural signifier – someone who went to college is “one of us.” But that snobby luxury can’t endure when tuition becomes unaffordable for everyone but ultra-rich folks willing to pony up for their spawn’s sojourn on campus. And it’s unnecessary. To the extent college teaches hard skills – I learned how to beer bong like a boss – students can go on-line at a fraction of the cost to get the specific education they need, without spending time and money on nonsense they don’t. Oppression Studies requirements, I’m looking at you.

The quarter million dollar academic vacation model is economically unsustainable and poisonous to our culture. The world of Animal House was a lot more fun when it didn’t mean preemptive bankruptcy for its graduates and the fostering of a tyrannical training ground for future libfascists. It’s time to get all Bluto on the obsolete boil that is academia; time to give it a squeeze.

 

The Unfriendly Skies

United Airlines. The same idiots who wanted to charge you for using the overhead bin have done it again as you no doubt know…

united

I have been Customer Service for 24 years. In hotel reservations, rebate processing, and more and despite the fact that the general public is stupider than a bag of hammers you still have to coddle the idiots along to solve their own idiocy without them knowing you know they are complete idiots.

What United Airlines got caught doing was not it.

As the Liberal Media is fond of doing, Perception is what we want you to think of as reality. And the perception of United Airlines right now is probably only slightly better than Hillary or Trump (depending on your political bias).

Public relations experts say the CEO should have quickly offered an unreserved apology after a customer was filmed on Sunday being forcibly removed from his seat and dragged down an overbooked aircraft’s aisle.

Instead, Munoz apologized only for “having to re-accommodate … customers.”

Many customers found the response to be overly callous — and said so on social media, where video of the incident had gone viral.

 

But Munoz doubled down in a letter sent to United employees on Monday afternoon, describing the passenger as “disruptive and belligerent.” He also said that “employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this.”

Reminds me when Fry’s Electronics here in town accused me of “sexually harrasing” a customer and escorting me out even though I did nothing (really, I did absolutlely nothing except be in the same aisle as this overly-imaginative nutjob) but she was a woman and I was a man so I had to be the perp, right?

I wrote the CEO of the company and his response boiled down to “we are sorry you were offended”. That was it.

That’s is not how you deal with customers. Especially PAYING customers.

And you sure as hell don’t rub greek fire oil in the wound!

The millions they are going to lose over this, right or wrong, is going to hurt for a long time.

It took me 4 1/2 years (and a deal only found there) for me to go back to Fry’s again.

I was going to Target…Well, you know how that story ended. 🙂

On Tuesday, the top trending topic on Twitter in the U.S. was #NewUnitedAirlinesMottos, with users suggesting slogans such as “not enough seating, prepare for a beating.”

Ed Zitron, a PR expert and the author of “This Is How You Pitch,” said that United may not be offering a full apology because of fears over a potential lawsuit.

But that’s not an effective strategy, he said.

“Had United shown compassion and intent to make things right, they could have come out of this at the very least looking like an airline that cares,” Zitron said. “Instead they’ve just made it even worse.” (CNN Money)