Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 6/27/2018: Unhinged

Good Morning.

1. Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias…This is one of the times that I am sorry that the Trump Deranged on Ethics Alarms have temporarily withdrawn from the Comment section battles, as I would love to hear their self-indicting rationalizations.

Here was this morning’s New York Times, big black headline:


Outrageous in every way. The Court did not “yield” to anyone or anything but the law as it stands and has stood for centuries. As Constitutional Law expert Eugene Volokh succinctly put it, “The federal government may pick and choose which foreigners to let into the country (at least setting aside foreigners who have are already been granted residence), even based on factors — political beliefs, religion, and likely race and sex — that would normally be unconstitutional.” He explains:

This used to be called the “plenary power” doctrine, referring to the principle that the government has essentially unlimited power when it comes to at least this aspect of immigration law, unlimited even by the Bill of Rights. It is not based on the constitutional text; textually, the First Amendment would apply to all exercise of Congressional authority, whether under the Commerce Clause or the District of Columbia Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause under Congress’s power over immigration. But, right or wrong, it is based on longstanding American legal history; and the majority adheres to that history.

Historically, this has even be used to authorize Congress to discriminate based on race (query whether the Court would today condemn this as “irrational”; more on that below). It has long been seen as authorizing Congress to discriminate based on country of citizenship, without investigation into whether such discrimination might actually be motivated by ethnic hostility. And, most relevant to today’s decision, it was seen in Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) as authorizing discrimination based on political ideology, which would otherwise be forbidden by the First Amendment….The Court rejected the First Amendment claim:

Recognition that First Amendment rights are implicated, however, is not dispositive of our inquiry here. In accord with ancient principles of the international law of nation-states, the Court in The Chinese Exclusion Case (1889), and in Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), held broadly, as the Government describes it, that the power to exclude aliens is “inherent in sovereignty, necessary for maintaining normal international relations and defending the country against foreign encroachments and dangers—a power to be exercised exclusively by the political branches of government ….” Since that time, the Court’s general reaffirmations of this principle have been legion. The Court without exception has sustained Congress’ “plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to exclude those who possess those characteristics which Congress has forbidden.” Boutilier v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (1967). “[O]ver no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over” the admission of aliens. Oceanic Navigation Co. v. Stranahan (1909)….

As a result, the Court held that, if decisions to exclude aliens could ever be set aside, this would be so only if there was no “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason to exclude the alien. In Mandel’s case, the dissent noted, those reasons — labeled by the government as Mandel’s “flagrant abuses” during his past visits to the U.S. — “appear merely to have been his speaking at more universities than his visa application indicated.” The dissent argued that “It would be difficult to invent a more trivial reason for denying the academic community the chance to exchange views with an internationally respected scholar.” But the Court didn’t investigate whether the government’s true motive might have been the Administration’s disapproval of Mandel’s political ideas, rather than the supposed violation of past visa conditions; the requirement of a “bona fide” reason did not appear to require an investigation into the government’s true motivations, but rather simply focused on whether the “facial[]” reasons seemed sufficient:

In summary, plenary congressional power to make policies and rules for exclusion of aliens has long been firmly established. In the case of an alien excludable under [the provision involved in Mandel], Congress has delegated conditional exercise of this power to the Executive.

We hold that when the Executive exercises this power negatively on the basis of a facially legitimate and bona fide reason, the courts will neither look behind the exercise of that discretion, nor test it by balancing its justification against the First Amendment interests of those who seek personal communication with the applicant.

The majority’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii basically applied this logic to another clause of the First Amendment — here, the Establishment Clause (which normally bars discrimination based on religious denomination, including the use of neutral rules in a discriminatorily motivated way) rather than the Free Speech Clause….

Clear? The Justices yielded to established precedent and the law, not “Trump,” in the decision. In fact, the entire Court should have “yielded,” because this is how the Supreme Court is supposed to operate. with integrity. Four justices signaled their fealty to “the resistance” by ducking their responsibilities and giving support to a partisan Hawaii judge’s unsupported and unsupportable contention that what applied to every other U.S. President doesn’t apply to this one. Shame on every one of them, but especially Sotomayor and Ginsberg, who signed on to dishonest, emotion-based, partisan dissent, as I discussed here.

The Times headline is propaganda, deliberately playing into the “Trump is a Nazi dictator who is co-opting the other branched of government,” a fear-mongering lie that is cultural poison, inching the nation toward violence. Propaganda is not only fake news, it is the worst kind of fake news. Every one of the resistance-enabling deniers—here, there, and everywhere— of the news media’s deliberate distortions since November 2016 is complicit in the damage this conduct has done, is doing and will do to the nation.

2. But wait! There’s more: The Times is pushing “the resistance” propaganda in every section of its paper. Last week, its Review of Books featured a review of Stephen Greenblatt’s “Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics.” I don’t know if the book itself is the anti-Trump diatribe it is represented as being, but the review was unhinged, finding in every section a direct or veiled reference to President Trump, who, as we all know, is an aspiring autocrat/tyrant/Nazi. The section on “King Lear,” for example:

“But what happens when that executive is not mentally fit to hold office?” Examining the great early scene of the division of the kingdom, he observes, chillingly, “It is extremely dangerous to have a state run by someone who governs by impulse.” The whole of “Lear” bears this out.”

What garbage. “King Lear” is a play: it doesn’t bear anything out, any more than “M Butterfly” proves that middle aged men will have affairs with male transvestites for years without beginning to wonder if something isn’t a little bit off.  Malcolm Gladwell, in his much-praised best-seller “Blink,” explains that often the best and indeed, most brilliant decisions are made quickly on instinct and impulse. This is especially true of leadership. Equally bad leadership decisions are made after careful consideration as are undertaken in a flash, as the entire administration of Barack Obama did “bear out.”

Meanwhile both reviewer and author are indulging a forced, ahistorical and fact-free “resistance” narrative that President Trump is mentally unstable, since Lear was arguably senile and eventually goes mad. Since President Trump is not a tyrant—we would have The Wall already if he were a tyrant—nor a Nazi—Maxine Waters, Robert De Niro, Samantha Bee, James Comey and Charles Blow, just to name a few, would be grease spots if he were—the entire conceit of the review, and perhaps the book, is based on anti-Trump hysteria. Naturally, the Times finds it profound.

Anyone vaguely familiar with history knows that Trump is no more of a “tyrant” than any strong U.S. President, many of whom were also called “tyrants” by their political foes.

3.  A fake news headline about fake news! An Axios headline:  92% of Republicans think media intentionally reports fake news.

Why is that the headline, when the poll it references shows that 72% of all Americans, including 79% of Independents and 53% of Democrats, believe that “news sources report news they know to be fake, false or purposely misleading”?  Well, you know why: the media narrative is that those dumb conservatives who only watch Fox News refuse to accept “the truth.” My position is that 100% of fair, analytical Americans should believe that the media intentionally reports fake news, because the media intentionally reports fake news.

The headline should be that there are substantial numbers of Americans who still trust the news media, which means 28% of the nation is stupid, ignorant, naive, or brain-washed. Good to know.

4. Maxine commands, and …Here is confused but typical  “resistance” member and Georgetown College student Roberto on Twitter:

“I am Roberto, a rising Senior at Georgetown University. After coming back from my internship at United We Dream, my friend texted me that both Senator Mitch McConnell and Trump cabinet member Elaine L. Chao were present on campus…My parents are Mexican immigrants, and I was infuriated that a man who blocked the Dream Act and a Trump cabinet official were invited to my campus. As a result, my friends quickly mobilized and went to the event that was held inside Copley Formal.”

Roberto and his mob harassed the McConnells, and this was the result:

Nice optics, there, Democrats: your followers now have viral videos showing men harassing an Asian-American woman! Where do they think they are, Harvard?

The same day, a group of chanting protesters gathered outside White House adviser Stephen Miller’s Washington D.C. apartment and  circulated “Wanted” flyers declaring Miller guilty of “crimes against humanity”—you know, like the Nazis.

Boy, I’m being forced to side with a lot of people I don’t like today—Chao, McConnell, Trump, and now Tucker Carlson, who said on his show last night:

“As progressives become more authoritarian and less tolerant, they seem more convinced that they’re fighting actual Nazis rather than their fellow Americans, with whom in the scheme of things, they have only mild political differences. The more they accuse the administration of extremism, the more extreme they become. Because once you decide that the people who disagree with you are Nazis, everything is allowed. Why wouldn’t you threaten them in restaurants? Or burn their houses down? Or who knows? This could very well end in tragedy… Start talking like this and you don’t know where it’s going to go.”

5. On a lighter note, a glimpse unethical America through the eyes of “The Smoking Gun”:

(This is an unethical explanation–dishonest to the police, and unfair to the dog.)

  • Finally, a Kansas man was charged with lewd and lascivious behavior for his repeated attempts to have sex with the tailpipe of a parked automobile. Best line in the story:

“Malek, whose blood alcohol content was later measured at more than four times the legal limit, continued trying to have sex with the tailpipe in the presence of officers.”

That must be one charming automobile…



129 thoughts on “Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 6/27/2018: Unhinged

  1. At the beginning of 2017 we all kinda scoffed at stupid statements like that by Michael Moore that protesters should make them move the inauguration indoors, which did indeed turn out to be mostly laughable, although there was some minor damage by protesters.

    Last year in the wake of Charlottesville popular progressive blogger Jim Wright wrote of “Nazis” that “all they deserve is a kick in their yellow teeth and a punch in the throat.” This came after, not before, Jim Hodgkinson’s deadly assault on the Republican baseball practice. Right now ICE HQ in both Portland and NYC are under siege by “Occupy” protesters, and, since the local cops won’t get involved, the Feds are about to have to go in and clear the sieges themselves.

    The harassment of GOP officials is getting worse. It’s only because security intervened and told Roberto and his raging friends to step back, as you can also see in the video, that things didn’t really get ugly. Sarah Sanders is being assigned temporary Secret Service protection just to make sure her family isn’t touched. I think it’s only a matter of time before some angry or deranged person actually goes for one of the top officials. At best, he’ll find the Secret Service’s marksmanship impressive – for a minute. At worst, we’re going to be facing either a Reagan situation or our first major assassination since JFK.

    What’s more, there won’t BE a mystery. There won’t be any shadows to chase on the grassy knoll. The cameras everywhere will tell us who did it, and there’s going to be either a difficult trial or martyrdom for them, and as a result, the left is going to have to face up to its overreach. Either it will be reduced to a rump movement or we will have a second civil war on our hands. What’s it going to be?

  2. #4 I just don’t understand why leftists can get away with attacking women they don’t like (Sanders, Nielsen, Chao, Melania, Ivanka, etc.) and still be able to claim the feminist label and fighter for women. Where is the logic? Why don’t their own folk make them accountable for their terrible behavior? I recall not long ago some TV pundit made fun of Maxine Waters’ hair, comparing to James Brown, and this was a story for like 2 days. Everybody had to have their smelling salts to wake them from their bouts of fainting. So perhaps the reasonable and sensible Americans can start to think about trusting the MSM, when they would call this stuff out, and not, to modify Whoopi’s phrase, say well, this was bigotry, but not bigotry bigotry.

    • Why don’t their own folk make them accountable for their terrible behavior?

      Same reasons moderate muslims don’t call out the radicals: 1) they benefit and secretly enjoy the extremist’s actions, and 2) they know they will be targeted by the crazy if they speak up.

      • See Danton, Robespierre, and Marat. When you deal with absolutists you’d better be prepared to go along with whatever they say or stay quiet. The minute you say hey, not so fast, not so harsh, not that way, absolutists will kill you just as quickly as they would the enemy.

        • But aren’t the absolutists just a loud minority, meaning, if you don’t acquiesce to them, so what?
          My speculation on Muslims is that extremists are just going by the book, especially the Medina part (the more violent part), while the moderates like the Mecca part (peace and love). If one were to denounce the extremists on religious ground, one can get into hot water. Since the Quran is divine in whole, you can’t quite pick and chose with out questioning its divinity in its entirety. You have to take it as a whole, otherwise you question Allah, and you know the rest. Those are the conclusions I’ve reached as a layman.

          • The absolutists tend to be more than just loud. Some jerk in a skullcap and long beard wants to rant, fine. However, it never stops with ranting, they issue a fatwa and declare war on you, and their followers make it happen. The left is becoming the same way, a few idiots like Maxine Waters spew the hate and their brainless followers put it into action. For now it’s just harassment and intimidation. The next step will be property damage, and after that, violence. Hey, when it’s all for a good cause and against a Nazi, what’s wrong with that?

  3. On the issue of the court ruling on the travel ban. Perhaps we can ameliorate the hurt by flying all the asylum families to Hawaii and let the stay there as a family. I am sure the state would be happy to provide for their needs far better than those awful concentration camps we hear about. That would relieve the nation of the direct costs if housing them while they wait for a hearing and given the state is self contained we could find them if they fail to appear. This would also help diversify Hawaii’s population making it more reflective of the mainland.

    On point 3, I don’t understand why progressives think Trump coined the term fake news when he reflexively refers to it when someine writes a critical piece. It was progressives that branded Fox News as Faux News during Obama’s term.

    The woman in the photo appears pissed, Did he fake it? Perhaps she should have showed the other guy her tailpipe.

    Just some thoughts.

    • …flying all the asylum families to Hawaii and let the stay there as a family.

      I am certain that NIMBY* applies here, as Hawaii is great at telling the rest of the country how they should live without actually living it.

      Kinda like Mass being all for alternative energy, until it spoils the view of the ocean from Nantucket. Or California being for windmills, but NIMBY.

      *Not I My Back Yard

      • SlickW

        I realize that NIMBY would probably prevail. My comment was more tongue in cheek. With that said. Hawaii is more like the Central American countries in terms of geography and climate so one could argue that it reduces the trauma of leaving their homeland.

        Nonetheless, I do wonder why 17 states can sue the feds over family reunification and not assume any financial responsibility for them. No responsibility then no standing or say in the disposition of cases

    • “…flying all the asylum families to Hawaii and let the stay there as a family.”

      Wouldn’t busing them in convoys to the Canadian border be cheaper? I’m sure Canada wouldn’t mind, and since a large portion of the “immigrants” have already passed up on several countries to get here, traversing through just one more shouldn’t be objectionable if they’re really “escaping persecution”.

      • Trying to get around the due process requirements while giving Hawaii the privilege of hosting all the asylum seekers at their expense. The intention was to drop them off on one of the islands as a family and then leave. Busing them to Canada makes it too easy for them return and disappear into our cities and towns. I wonder if all the asian americans in Hawaii will be real welcoming.

  4. Re: No.5:

    That guy is my neighbor, and frankly, his dog is a much better driver than he is. The guy is tool but the dog is careful, considerate of pedestrians, and minds the speed limits. He stops an awful lot to smell the fire hydrants, though, which makes trips to the grocery store take too long.

  5. I’m hearing and reading “crimes against humanity”, “humanitarian crisis” and similar things like this more and more.

    There is something seriously wrong with these people. I knew dumbing down has taken its toll on the population but “crimes against humanity” and “humanitarian crisis”, really? These people are mentally disturbed.

    Schizophrenia-AT is a serious mental illness that specifically affects the Anti-Trump (AT) resistance. It interferes with anti-Trump’ers ability to think clearly, manage emotions, make decisions and relate to others. It’s a complex, long-term medical illness, currently affecting a huge portion of Americans.

    Symptoms: Schizophrenia-AT causes Salem Witch Trial School of Thought brought on by Traumatic Political Stress Disorder that has metastasized to other parts of a brain that has been infected with Progressive propaganda causing spontaneous fits of Histrionic Malevolence Syndrome.

    There is no known cure for AT-Schizophrenia, but it can be treated and managed in several ways:
    • Anti-Psychotic Medications
    • Psychotherapy, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and assertive community treatment and supportive therapy
    • Self-management strategies and education
    • Exorcism of Progressive Ideology
    • Progressives Anonymous

    Related Conditions:
    People with schizophrenia may have additional illnesses. These may include but are not limited to: Substance abuse, Traumatic Political Stress Disorder (TPSD), Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Histrionic Malevolence Syndrome, Delusional Thinking, Major Depression

    Jack wrote, “This is one of the times that I am sorry that the Trump Deranged on Ethics Alarms have temporarily withdrawn from the Comment section battles, as I would love to hear their self-indicting rationalizations.”

    I think Charles left knowing full well that this unhinging of the anti-Trumper’s was right around the corner, after all the signs were there. He may have to start voting for Conservatives to get the unhinged mentally disturbed wackos out of office.

    Yes I think that anti-Trumpers have a serious psychological problem with a disconnect from reality. I think it’s becoming quite clear that this illegal immigration issue, and immigration issues in general are the straws that have broken the psyche of anti-Trumper’s and it’s their hill to die on.

    I fully expect things to start rapidly deteriorating.

    • Charles left because the fever he had was so high that he believed the right was at fever pitch. You can’t reason with the delusional. I am not at all sorry to see Chris gone, not only do I hate the man with every fiber of my being, he has nothing to add to this discussion and is probably one of the harassers.

      • I have been contacted by Chris recently. Here are the highlights:

        1. Chris is still lurking at EA. He refuses to apologize for his disrespect to Jack, and believes Jack is unreasonable for banning him

        2. Chris hates Jack. (Don’t feel special, Jack: Chris hates most people at EA)

        3. Chris hates me more. He took the time to track down a little read blog on WordPress where I have written colorful stories, mostly to preserve them for my kids. There he spewed his progressive bile, in an attempt to hurt me. (He failed) His behavior is everything I have come to expect from a progressive social justice warrior: insult instead of discussion, self righteous indignation that you would dare oppose him.

        4. Quote “…you are the single dumbest person I ever had the misfortune of speaking to back when I was still naive enough to believe that commenting on Ethics Alarms was a good use of my time.” This is a well constructed insult, despite the lack of evidence to the contrary. He wants to hurt those who oppose him, in any way he can. This is becoming more common with progressives these days, and the new right is beginning to follow suit.

        Chris really believes that his political opponents are stupid rubes who should shut up while their betters solve the world’s problems. He attempted to explain this to our benighted souls while commenting on EA, but has decided this is a waste of his time.

        Alinsky would be proud.

        • PS:
          …you are the single dumbest person…

          I take this as a sign that Chris was unable to come up with substantive rebuttal of my points, and the proof that he knew it is this statement.

        • If you are contacted by him again, tell him fuck him, fuck his family, and fuck everyone who looks like him on my behalf. I am glad his line ends with him, and he will not be raising up a new crop of social justice warriors to benight this world. He is frankly the single most obnoxious person ever to pollute this discussion, partly because he is by nature rude, partly because he does not listen, partly because he brings absolutely nothing else to the discussion but his SJW talking points, which I could and would read on Huffpo or DailyKos if I wanted to. He does not bring the occasional soft side of Spartan, the geek chic of Valky, or the at least well-researched posts of PennAgain. It says something that he hates almost everyone on this site but continued to post here. For the record, I think he is the only person I hated here with no reservations. A close friend of mine who serves in the role of Jiminy Cricket told me to at least try to look for something good in everyone. He’s the only person here I could see absolutely no good in. I’m not proud of myself for some of the outrageous things I have said here in attempts to one-up some of the other outrageous things that have been said, but I am not at all sorry for the times I slammed him, because he is one of those people that, like a punch-drunk boxer, will keep coming at you until he’s either unconscious or dead.

        • Wait. It’s a waste of him time to contribute, but he still lurks? I couldn’t think of an even greater waste of time then after a such an exit.

          That’s Stage 5 clinger territory.

          Means he wants to apologize and still contribute but he’s too egotistical to do so.

        • I got my first Twitter follower the same day I posted that here that I opened an account, I’m so very proud. I wonder what possessed him to follow me when the only tweet I posted says “Just created this to monitor some other twitter accounts”? He’ll probably unfollow me when there’s constantly nothing there that he can use to misrepresent me or smear me.

        • I tried to be civil when I engaged him, and once commended him for dealing with middle-schoolers…Perhaps I’m yet unhated (by him, anyway).

          • I’m almost certainly on his *hit list, since I questioned his professional ethics after he made a clinical diagnosis he most certainly was not qualified to make.

      • Personally I’m quite glad that Chris, a card carrying member of the California Association of Trolling Teachers, is not participating here anymore. I think we should all just let him go, continuing to talk about him just shows that he’s continuing to occupy space in our brains and stuffing more in his already over-inflated ego. He doesn’t even have to be here and he’s deflecting, that folks is feeding the trolls.

        After reading this conversation I intentionally tried to picture Chris sitting in his lounge chair, laptop in his lap, in his underwear, stuffing his unshaven face with guacamole tacos, spitting his food all over his laptop laughing when he realized that even his lack of presence was deflecting conversations.

        If you really want to take the wind out of Chris’ sail then let him go, ignore his past presence here and ignore that he’s continuing to read Ethics Alarms, that’s exactly what I’m going to do starting right now.

  6. P.S. King Lear is actually based on an ancient English legend about the pre-Roman King Leir and the main point is that it is foolish to fall for flattery, it has nothing to do with the question of the sanity of a ruler.

  7. Protesters just threw chicken feces at the Red Hen. Normally I’d say let’s not stoop to their level, but in this case it’s deserved. I’d like to take a giant shit on their doorstep.

      • Sounds like a “can’t win, don’t try” approach. Just remember, knock down the big liberal cities and leave the conservative farms and countryside be, and the cities will spring back up again as if by magic. Destroy the farms and countryside, and the grass will grow in the streets of the cities.

      • Thanks and well found. But Georgi Boorman sounds like a traditional Conservative, thoroughly decent, reliable, pillar of the community, ‘good’ etc. But Donald Trump is not one of these. And much of the Republican party seems to be abandoning old style traditional conservatism. To my mind the authoritarian bullies of the ‘right’ pose a far greater danger to the ‘decent society’ than the loonies of the left. A central alliance is urgently needed.

        • A centrist alliance would be welcome, and I would be early in line to sign up.
          I do wish the “authoritarian” talking point would be abandoned as the self-evident nonsense it is. As a lifetime student of the Presidency, I see no evidence whatsoever that Trump is more authoritarian than any other strong President, and he is quite obviously less so than some, including Jackson, Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR, Johnson and Nixon. As always, Trump-haters mistake, or deliberately confuse, words with action.

          • It’s too late for a centrist alliance, who’d just be hated by both sides. I think within a few years we’ll be headed for a second Civil War if the left doesn’t tamp down this rage. I say bring it.

              • Well, when the soapbox, the ballot box, and the jury box fail us, we turn to the cartridge box. (puts on kepi) Yes we’ll rally ’round the flag, boys….

              • luckyesteeyoreman wrote, “I just saw an article on line purporting that a third of Americans expect a second civil war.”

                Key points of the survey are…

                “The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on June 21 and 24, 2018 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.”

                “Thirty-one percent (31%) of Likely U.S. Voters say it’s likely that the United States will experience a second civil war sometime in the next five years, with 11% who say it’s Very Likely. ”

                “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 59% consider a second civil war unlikely, but that includes only 29% who say it’s Not At All Likely.”

                “Democrats (37%) are more fearful than Republicans (32%) and voters not affiliated with either major party (26%) that a second civil war is at hand.”, “59% of all voters are concerned that those opposed to President Trump’s policies will resort to violence, with 33% who are Very Concerned.”

                “Fifty-three percent (53%) are concerned that those critical of the media’s coverage of Trump will resort to violence, with 24% who are Very Concerned. Forty-two percent (42%) are not concerned about violence from media opponents, including 17% who are Not At All Concerned.”

                “Forty-four percent (44%) of blacks think a second civil war is likely in the next five years, a view shared by 28% of whites and 36% of other minority voters.”

                “Fifty-one percent (51%) of voters who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing are Very Concerned that opponents of the president’s polices will resort to violence, but just 23% of those who Strongly Disapprove of the job he is doing agree.”


                If these numbers are truly representative of the overall population we’re likely in serious trouble.

        • Mr Wakeling it’s nice to hear from you. Your point however supplies no evidence of the authoritarianism you suggest. And yes a central alliance could be something good.

          As far as loony left or right being worse, it’s probably in the eye of the (biased) beholder. My rather butch lesbian wife has only experienced of late bigotry from trans folks and a Muslim. Yet the conservatives we’ve met and befriended have shown only respect and maybe the odd look from a distance.

          As an “intersectional darling” myself I can speak easily to how my progressive (now sadly former) friends have berated my thoughts or left my life for simply questioning the “Republicans are bad” narrative. Mr. Wakeling let me be clear, there is no leftist hate like the hate for those minorities who chose to think independently about topics like abortion, reparations, unions, etc.

          Two lesbian authors you may wish to consider reading on this topic are Tammy Bruce and her book The New Thought Police: Inside the Left’s Assault on Free Speech & Free Minds. Another excellent and more recent book is Underdog: Confessions of a Right-Wing Gay Jewish Muckraker by Sue-Ann Levy.

          Thanks for reaching out so respectfully.

      • [Reply to Mrs. Q’s June 27 at 5:59 pm]
        From the same medium, at a link branching off of the link you shared, I just finished reading this:

        My own views, expressed in my comment of today in another thread (the censorship of the Ingalls book), diverge somewhat from the concluding paragraph of the piece linked above. There is a certain un-purge-ability of “original sin” that guarantees never-ending political upheaval.

    • I wish someone would tell the Media not to get unhinged.
      For example, Scott Lemieux — “Justice Kennedy’s retirement cements his legacy as an enabler of Trump’s pro-business, racist, anti-woman agenda”

      And that’s just one of many examples.

        • I think everyone needs to be more like Eeyore, like me. Calmly resigned to the inevitability of “it’s only going to get worse,” no matter what “it” is.

  8. As a conservative Conservative, I have always thought the right path was the high road. I’ve tried to talk to friends and family about politics without emotional frippery on my part, mostly because I despise it when others use it. “Stick to facts” has been my motto.

    Lately, the high road is harder to stick to, for me anyway. I’m starting to wonder how long I can keep going high before it becomes time to fight back. I recently asked a deranged friend on FB why they couldn’t just discuss facts, and leave out the name calling and hysteria. The response? “It’s not my fault! You’re a racist, insensitive, child abusing whore!” Mind you, I’ve a very diverse group of friends, no children to abuse, and I’ve never been paid for sex. I can be insensitive at times, so I’ll take that criticism. Why this tirade from my used to FB friend? Because I suggested that perhaps parents shouldn’t try to enter the country illegally if they didn’t want to be separated from their children. Aka, common sense.

  9. “Malek, whose blood alcohol content was later measured at more than four times the legal limit, continued trying to have sex with the tailpipe in the presence of officers.”

    I bet that’s fake news. It’s a common mistake in reports about drunken behavior: They’re confusing the legal limit for people who are driving with some sort of general prohibition on intoxication. And as near as I an tell, Kansas doesn’t even prohibit public drunkenness: You have to break some other law — indecent exposure, for example — to get arrested.

    • Do you suppose part of Kansas’ indecent exposure law might include language that one could reasonably interpret covers a man attempting to fornicate with a motor vehicle in public?

      • According to the Complaint, that’s basically what he was charged with, under the Lewd & Lascivious Behavior statute: “Unlawfully, intentionally and publicly exposed a sex organ…” The fornication with the tailpipe itself was probably not a crime (because who would think to put it in the statute?) but exposing himself in public to do it was a crime.

        My guess is that If he had done it in the privacy of his own home, it probably wouldn’t have been a crime. (I applaud the Kansas legislature for its libertarian sensibilities in that respect.)

    • You have to break some other law — indecent exposure, for example — to get arrested.

      Like attempting to jam your johnson into a hot tailpipe . . . .

  10. Talk about unhinged! It shouldn’t be too surprising (but it is) how the political left has gone completely over the deep end on Twitter regarding the SCOTUS ruling that Unions (I think it’s only public unions) can’t force people who choose not to be part of the union to pay union dues.

    How about this one for a sample…

    “SCOTUS has weakened workers’ rights and further rigged the system for greedy special interests.”

    “Weakened workers’ rights”, really? Where does she get her “logic” degree from, a box of Cracker Jacks?

    It seems to me that SCOTUS actually strengthened workers rights to make their own choices and strip the Unions, which is the very definition of a special interest group*, from rigging the system and force non-members to pay dues even when they are not members of the union.

    * Special Interest Group: a group of people or an organization seeking or receiving special advantages.

      • Michael Ejercito wrote, “What exactly are these workers’ rights that are allegedly weakened?”

        I’m not sure how to answer that. Can you be clearer as to what point of view you are questioning?

    • I agree with you, Zoltar, as I almost always do – “choice” and “freedom to choose,” as the left apparently claims to define it, is a particularly mysterious concept to non-union workers and abortion opponents. It’s no wonder that the left is so confused about its own terminology. To paraphrase our esteemed Steve-O-in-NJ: If it weren’t for their double-mindedness, the left would have no mind at all.

      • Today the Senate’s most liberal non-luminaries are participating in a “Save SCOTUS” rant-a-thon talking about how the right is looking to thwart the will of the American people and using the courts as the vehicle to do it. THIS from the party who repeatedly used the courts to change law that wasn’t changing fast enough to suit it? Have they no sense of self-awareness?

        • They are totally self aware. They are just dishonest crooks, who are in this for their own power and money.

          All of the Establishment class is this way, GOP or Democrat.

  11. Does anyone remember when Jon Stewart had that “Rally to Restore Sanity” (“…and/or Fear”, because Stephen Colbert was there, too)? Where is he now? We sure could use copies of his “I disagree with your policies, but I’m pretty sure you’re not Hitler” sign.

Leave a Reply to slickwilly Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.