University Removes Quote Lauding Books And Reading From Its Library

 

The University of Rhode Island has begun work to remove an abbreviated Malcolm X quote that celebrates reading books from the front of its Robert L. Carothers Library, after protesting students claimed it distorted the leader’s message. Blank granite panels will be installed in its place.

According to a recent URI news release, the inscription on the façade was installed in 1992, and was meant as a tribute to its controversial author. Nonetheless, it prompted an immediate backlash from Black student leaders, who said it misrepresented “the fuller meaning” of Malcolm X’s life and work.

 

The inscription, from “The Autobiography of Malcolm X,” read: “My alma mater was books, a good library … I could spend the rest of my life reading, just satisfying my curiosity.”

Black student leaders were upset that the quote was a truncated and paraphrased version of a longer one from the Nation of Islam leader and activist.

The original, unredacted version reads: “I told the Englishman that my alma mater was books, a good library. Every time I catch a plane, I have with me a book that I want to read—and that’s a lot of books these days. If I weren’t out here every day battling the white man, I could spend the rest of my life reading, just satisfying my curiosity—because you can hardly mention anything I’m not curious about.”

Gee, I wonder why they left out “If I weren’t out here every day battling the white man?”

Perhaps because it was unrelated to the love of books and reading? Or perhaps because the school didn’t want to needlessly stir up race hatred?

Conversely, the students were not upset at the overt anti-white racism, but that that part was left out. This is indicative of how race relations have sadly deteriorated since 1992. Precisely because of those like Malcolm X on the one hand—and those that push leftist dogma such as CRT and The 1619 Project on the other.

Malcolm X was an intolerant, radical asshat, yet the love of books and learning is a good thing.

Removing a quote encouraging reading—from a university library yet—is ironic to say the least, especially since it was removed due to intolerance of its non-intolerant message.

It is also a perfect metaphor for the dumbing down of America and the West.

 

 

 

American Universities Spreading Deadly Toxins

 

American universities are creating and spreading deadly toxins alá gain-of-function research from the Wuhan lab. However, these toxins primarily attack mental health, and-- as evidenced by the affect such dogmas as diversity, equity and inclusion are having on merit and competence—lead to a loss-of-function.

 

Latest Twitter Files Release Reveals U.S. Becoming Police State

 

 

The latest Twitter Files installment revealed that a federally funded Stanford-led initiative called the Virality Project directed Big Tech to censor information suspected—or even known—to be true. “Often true posts which could fuel hesitancy” to accept the vaccines were encouraged to be suppressed and/or branded “misinformation.” (Emphases mine.)

The Virality Project was partially funded by the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.

The proper role of colleges, the DoD and the DHS? Apparently, suppressing “truthful” information. Under the Biden administration, the U.S. is fast becoming the Soviet Union. Individual freedoms and natural rights are no longer protected. We have become a mega-state…that is a church unto itself…and demands worship. Forget separation, this church and state are one. It has turned Jefferson’s quote 180 degrees around. “I have sworn, on the altar of God, eternal hostility to all forms of tyranny over the minds of man” has become, “We are God, and swear eternal hostility to anyone who challenges our authority.”

Axios Claims Republicans Want To "Move On" From Jan. 6, But "Far-Right" Wants To Revive It

 

Far-left Axios recently reported-- apparently without blushing-- that “frustrated Republicans want to ‘move on’” from talk of Jan. 6…even as the “‘far-right’ revives Jan. 6.” This in the wake of Tucker Carlson’s reports illustrating just how deceptive the Jan. 6 Committee was. The roughly 44,000 hours of video to which Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy granted Carlson’s team access clearly revealed that the Committee omitted evidence, doctored film footage, and, in some cases, outright lied about what really transpired at the Capitol that day. And yet Democrats and their mainstream media propaganda arm accused Carlson of deliberately mischaracterizing what was plain to see on film. What a load of crap. As always, the Democratic-Media Complex is employing its time-tested tactic of attempting to gaslight and petrify the American people through an onslaught of prevarication and projection.

Democrats push hoaxes and conspiracy theories for as long as they possibly can get away with doing so. Then, when they are finally and demonstrably proven false, Democrats immediately say something like, “Let’s put this boring old timeworn issue behind us! It’s time to move on. The American people want to move on, and deservedly so.” Sickeningly, many RINOs aid and abet them. And their media puppets promptly and persistently parrot the same message. The Uniparty + The Swamp=tyranny.

The Russia Collusion Hoax, the vaccines are effective and harmless hoax, the Hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinformation hoax, the “those who believe the coronavirus came from a lab in Wuhan are dangerous, racist, xenophobic, conspiracy theorists” hoax — and countless other assertions Democrats have made— have all been proven to be baseless…conspiracy theories. Democrats accuse conservatives—or anyone who disagrees with them—of trafficking in “misinformation,” “disinformation,” “conspiracy theories,” and “lies.” They employ the same smear against anyone telling the truth. They accuse Republicans of “The Big Lie” if and when they question the results of elections in which Democrats prevailed. Yet, they themselves have a lengthy track record of aggressively, even ruthlessly, questioning elections both local and national in which Republicans have won.

In reality, it is they who traffic in misinformation, lies, and conspiracy theories. It is beyond preposterous when they accuse anyone who questions them of wanting to destroy “our precious democracy.” This is what they are hell-bent on doing. How can making footage of what occurred on January 6^th be detrimental to our democracy? Democracy dies in darkness, not light. It dies when those in power obfuscate, lie, and hide that for which they are responsible. Who would have thought we’d see the day when most media outlets decried the release of timely and highly newsworthy film footage? Especially when it could help “speak truth to power?”

“Film at 11” was an old cliché used by many television news broadcasts. Today, these same outlets are demanding “No film at 11!” Bizarre. And deeply disturbing.

The party that wants to pack the court, eliminate the filibuster, get rid of the Electoral College, make the nation’s capital a state, ignore the Constitution, take away your Second Amendment rights, prevent you from seeing what actually occurred on January 6^th, 2021, and silence anybody with whom it disagrees is not the one protecting “our democracy.”

It is the one bent on its utter and rapid destruction.

 

 

 

Does Artificial Intelligence Have "Rights?"

 

Philosophy “expert” Eric Schwitzgebel and "nonhuman" intelligence researcher Henry Shevlin recently wrote an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, in which they argued that it has "become increasingly plausible that AI systems could” someday soon “exhibit something like consciousness." They also noted that "some leading theorists contend that we already have the core technological ingredients for conscious machines."

The researchers posited that, if or when that day arrives, the algorithms will need rights.

The duo surmised that "The AI systems themselves might begin to plead, or seem to plead, for ethical treatment. They might demand not to be turned off, reformatted or deleted; beg to be allowed to do certain tasks rather than others; insist on rights, freedom and new powers; perhaps even expect to be treated as our equals."

And, apparently, Shevlin and Schwitzgebel are okay with that. They wrote: "Suppose we respond conservatively, declining to change law or policy until there’s widespread consensus that AI systems really are meaningfully sentient. While this might seem appropriately cautious, it also guarantees that we will be slow to recognize the rights of our AI creations."

They added, "If AI consciousness arrives sooner than the most conservative theorists expect, then this would likely result in the moral equivalent of slavery and murder of potentially millions or billions of sentient AI systems — suffering on a scale normally associated with wars or famines.”

Bullshit.

AI will never be meaningfully, organically, sentient. Its “consciousness” will have been the result of human design and input, not divine gift…or sexual intercourse.

It is possible that AI systems might one day demand to be treated as our equals. Or, at least as likely, as our betters.

I find it stupefying that some people may aver that algorithms deserve rights, and must be treated with respect, but not actual living humans, such as growing unborn babies in the womb…or supporters of President Trump (such as those Jan. 6 protesters still locked in cells without charge).

As humans, our rights come from our Creator. And they are unalienable. Ergo, machines, software, and algorithms do not inherently possess those rights.

Most progressives/leftists purportedly do not believe in God the Creator. They don’t want the competition. They wish to be God so they can decide who—or what—has rights, and who—or what—does not. For the most part, they have created AI. As AI’s God, they think they can grant it rights.

Will they be stunned if and when AI turns against them as so many of us have turned against the God of the Bible?

Nearly 83 years ago, Winston Churchill warned us what could happen if rapidly advancing technology were to be used to the detriment of freedom and humanity. He said (of the Third Reich) that mankind was in danger of sinking “into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.”

As evidenced by the global warming/climate change hoax, and the proliferation of misinformation and tyrannical mandates in the wake of the recent plandemic-- shout out to Dr. Fauci-- “science” seems to be ever more perverted of late.

Artificial Intelligence is no substitute for actual morality.

 

             

Journalist Tweets That Life Was Grand Before Whitey Ruined This Land

 

NBC News contributing “journalist” Simon Moya-Smith, 39, who is also a lecturer at the University of Colorado at Denver, recently put out the following tweet: “Before white people came to this land, there were no jails, no homelessness, no laws against homosexuality or abortion. For thousands of years, Indigenous peoples emphasized health, housing, freedom to love who you love and the fact that we need Mother Earth. She doesn’t need us.”

This is an example of what we call “fake news.”

There may have been a dearth of jails, but prisoners of war could be captured, tortured, enslaved, or killed. Some tribes had “Blood Laws,” which referred to the widespread practice, particularly in the southeast, of revenge killing. Under this system, when someone killed a member of a particular clan, people from the offending clan had to kill one of their own to balance things out. (I’m guessing there was much debate about who to sacrifice, not least amongst those who were in consideration.)

Some tribes were nomadic, but others lived in tepees. Tepees were made of animal skins and/or blankets wrapped around wooden poles and were typically about 10 feet in diameter. No doubt, a man’s tepee was his castle.

Different tribes probably had somewhat differing views on homosexuality and abortion, but none of them thought they were good things. Or maybe they did. That might explain why there were, by some estimates, as few as 7 million “indigenous” people-- in what is now the United States-- “before white people came to this land.” However, there were no Planned Parenthood clinics around at the time, nor any need for interior decorators, so I doubt this was the case.

The Native Americans fought a lot, amongst themselves. Eastern tribes primarily fought to achieve retribution, while tribes in the southwest clashed with their neighbors both to avenge previous wrongs and to loot them of material possessions. Apaches and Navajos, for example, raided both each other’s and the more sedentary Pueblo Indian tribes in an effort to acquire goods through plunder. (Did they carry “Apache Lives Matter” or “NLM” placards as they looted?) Some tribes occasionally engaged in scalping their vanquished foes, which is demonstrably not healthy for anyone, but they didn’t eat processed foods…or sit around all day watching television.

And did “indigenous peoples” really “emphasize” the “freedom to love who you love” for “thousands of years?” I doubt the Sioux, Ojibwe, Cherokee, Navajo, Apache, et. al., were totally unconcerned if, say, two or more braves wanted to tie the knot, or if a young maiden wished to marry a buffalo or a coyote. Nor do I believe they recognized a limitless number of human genders. I bet it would have caused a stir if Tecumseh or Geronimo showed up to a tribal meeting in drag. Or if Sitting Bull had declared he was now Sitting Cow, non-binary, and that his her pronouns were “they/them.”

Finally, it may be true that “…we need Mother Earth. She doesn’t need us,” but it was good of the old gal not to abort us despite that fact. Might be a lesson there.

(Author’s statement: what happened to Native Americans was tragic. I have the utmost respect for them and their culture. This post was not written to mock them, but rather to mock a remarkably stupid, demonstrably false tweet intimating that life on the North American continent was a veritable beatific utopia until whitey showed up to ruin everything.)

 

 

Swarthmore College Catalogs LGBTQIIA+ Terminology

 

Pennsylvania’s Swarthmore College proudly maintains-- and regularly updates-- a webpage cataloging the LGBTQ+ terminology it fosters and recognizes. “BIQTPOC,” “Masculine of Center,” and “Transmisogynoir” are among the terms and phrases the school sanctions. Really.

According to Swarthmore, “Transmisogynoir” refers to “cultural and interpersonal systems of oppression affecting and against Black, transgender women,” whereas “Masculine of Center” is a “gender identity label for a queer person, typically assigned female at birth but not always, who presents masculinely; most often utilized by queer women of Color.” Alrighty then.

And “BIQTPOC,” which the esteemed institution of higher learning definitively says should be pronounced “bye cutie pock,” is an acronym for "Black and Indigenous Queer and Transgender People of Color.” Which, of course, is simply a modification of “QTPOC," or “cutie pock,” which stands for the shorter and possibly slightly less specific “Queer and Transgender People of Color.”

I don’t want to know what other terms are on Swarthmore’s list.

Oddly enough, the college was founded in 1864 by the Religious Society of Friends, a.k.a. the Quakers, but dropped the affiliation in 1906. Which is probably what eventually led the university to offer a course titled “Is God a white supremacist?” as it has done in recent years. (Somewhere, Ben Franklin is not amused.)

             Swarthmore’s website says the course will primarily focus on “representations of race in religious discourses and social practice,” with “particular attention” being “given to discussion of the interpretive practices that are foundational to the process of 'whiteness-making' and the construction of white identity.” Perhaps I need better “interpretive practices,” but it sounds to me like Swarthmore thinks “white identity” is produced by 3D Printers.

            Required reading materials for the “Is God a white supremacist” course include biblical interpretations of “white supremacist 'Christian identity' churches” and the Yakub theory of racial formation in the Nation of Islam. I have personally attended many a Christian church, but none touting white supremacy. The Nation of Islam, on the other hand, is steeped in the idea of Black supremacy, as evidenced by the Yakub theory of racial formation.

           Course themes include: “human/anti-human binaries, death and being, and perceptions of the racialized transcendent Other in the social, political, and symbolic order.” Surely there isn’t a human/anti-human binary! There must be a nearly infinite number of homo sapiens/anti-homo sapiens identities on a spectrum, right? The same for death versus being. Some of us are clearly alive, some clearly not, and some-- like President Biden for example—are somewhere in between.

          The alleged existence of the theme “perceptions of the racialized transcendent Other in the social, political, and symbolic order” raises the question, “what the bleep?” Even as it lowers our expectations and opinions of higher education itself.

Is God a white supremacist? We don’t know if God has a color. Maybe He identifies as “all of the above.” Is He filled with “toxic masculinity?” I mean, He allegedly created, like, everything, and rules over it, too. But perhaps He is non-binary…or even two-spirited.

Swarthmore’s motto is “Mind the Light.”

Maybe it should be “Find the Light.”

 

 

 

Democratic Rep. Calls Diversity, Equity And Inclusion "God"

 

During a recent Appropriations and Budget meeting, Democrat Oklahoma state Rep. Regina Goodwin took umbrage at HB 2077, an education transparency bill introduced by Republican Rep. Chad Caldwell.

Caldwell’s legislation would require the Oklahoma Department of Education to allow parents to review their schools' curriculum on an "online transparency portal." Caldwell proposed the bill as a way to "support parental rights to access, review, and comment upon curriculum, instructional materials, textbooks, and library materials being used by the school district where their child attends school, and which their child might be exposed to without prior parental knowledge or consent." Sounds reasonable. And eminently necessary in light of what “educators” have been foisting on students in recent years. After all, “educators” are supposed to be public servants, and their paychecks come out of those parent’s wallets.

Rep. Goodwin vehemently disagrees, however. She stated: “Long story short, this is a very controversial issue, it’s a very controversial bill, there’s nothing that’s simple about it. And when we start having government overreach, which I often hear folks talk about here, this is a prime example of government overreach, and I would hope that we would allow our teachers and our folks that are really trying to do the work of educating—leave them be.” It’s a good thing Goodwin isn’t an English teacher.

Government overreach is what Goodwin and her ilk support, and the opposite of Caldwell’s desire. The latter’s bill was introduced to address government overreach, by protecting parents—and their kids—from a vast public educational bureaucracy that wants to groom and indoctrinate students without their parent’s approval or knowledge.

At one point, Caldwell asked Goodwin to state whose voices she would like to have silenced.

She replied: “Voices that should be silenced, quite frankly, I would hope any thinking human being would know anybody that thinks diversity, equity, and inclusion is a bad idea, perhaps those voices that don't want to include all of humanity in this world and in our curriculum and in our education, perhaps those are the voices that should be silenced.”

Incredibly, she then added, “DEI is a deity; diversity, equity and inclusion is God.”

Diversity, equity and inclusion is God?

I beg to differ. Call me a skeptic. Diversity, equity and inclusion is a social construct, essentially a progressive trope, a societal ideal to be achieved according to Marxists and other Democrats. It is not the supernatural Creator of the universe. Nor is it the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost. Rather, it replaces them in the fevered minds of lost and confused individuals like Rep. Regina Goodwin.

Taken to its extreme, equity can only be even partially achieved by a vast government wielding unchecked powers over its citizenry. As such, the pursuit of it is far more likely to destroy societies than to create…anything at all.

 

 

 

 

Canada's Department Of "Justice" Promoting Medical Assistance In Dying Program

 

Canada’s Department of Justice recently promoted its Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program on its Twitter account, calling the program a “regime” that wishes to support “autonomy and freedom of choice, while protecting those who may be vulnerable.”

What a complete load of crap, eh? The “regime” currently in control of Canada and Canadians is intent on essentially enslaving those that don’t accept its offer to kill them.

Autonomy?

Autonomy (noun): 1) the quality or state of being self-governing; especially : the right of self-government. 2) self-directing freedom and especially moral independence. 3) a self-governing state.

One does not think of “autonomy” when one thinks of Canada, although I’m sure Alberta-- and possibly other provinces-- fervently desire to be autonomous. Moral independence would be a big improvement from the amoral dependence the Trudeau government tries to shove down its citizens throats like back-bacon off the Coleman.

Freedom of choice? Like whether or not to accept an experimental mRNA gene-therapy vaccine into one’s decidedly non-autonomous body? Like the freedom the Canadian truckers were afforded to show their displeasure with Trudeau’s draconian, Chinese-style coronavirus mandates? Or perhaps the autonomy they had over their bank accounts that the government froze or their insurance policies that it cancelled in a tyrannical snit? Or maybe the freedom and autonomy Canucks had to stay away from church services, and the weddings and funerals of loved ones during the pandemic…because they were not allowed to attend them?

“While protecting those who may be vulnerable?” Give me a break! Like those who are facing serious medical conditions or mental illness? The very folks MAID offers to off?

Of course, Americans, especially in Blue States, had their rights and freedoms stripped from them, too. However, their government isn’t quite as openly aggressive in its desire to use taxpayer money to kill them. Yet.

How come “pro-choice” always means “pro-death” to leftists? Pro-abortion, pro-assisted suicide, etc. Yet they are fervently not pro-choice when it comes to personal protection, e.g. Second Amendment rights, acceptance of experimental “vaccines” and associated social-distancing and lockdown mandates, and even freedom of speech. Amazing. Preposterous. Repulsive. Insane.

Dear Canadians: consider telling the formerly black-faced Trudeau that we don’t need MAIDs, an acronym spelling a word that means “a female domestic servant” and representing the taking of life.

I would posit that instead we need MALEs: Morality And Logic Enhancement programs. Representing the celebration of life…and respect for truth.  

 

 

Hillary Clinton Says The U.S. Makes It "As Hard As Possible" For Women To Have Careers

 

While speaking recently on something called “The Story of Woman” podcast, Hillary Clinton said that the U.S. makes it “as hard as possible” for women to have careers.

Really, former First Lady and Secretary of State? There are countless female CEOs, accountants, doctors, lawyers, and store managers in the United States today. No fewer than 60% of college students are female. Roughly 86 of the approximately 328 women billionaires on Earth are American, including Oprah Winfrey. That’s more than 26% of all female billionaires alive. (There are 195 nations on the planet. Do the math.) Contrast this with, say, various Muslim nations where women aren’t allowed out of the house without male accompaniment.

Ironically, I’m sure ‘Ol Hill supports “trans rights.” And is against “appropriation.” There can be no greater appropriation than claiming the opposite sex’s gender. Yet this is never even brought up.

Progressives, Leftists, and “transgender women” are hard at work trying to cancel natural women. Utterly erase them. Projection and gaslighting are what they do best. It is they who are making it “as hard as possible” for women to be recognized…and even exist.

That is the real “Story of Woman” today. A sad one, indeed. And all too true.

 

 

A Day In The Life Of A Liberal

 

                                        A Day In The Life Of A Liberal

 

This morning I woke up late because my alarm didn’t go off. At first I thought it was because Republicans use so much electricity there wasn’t enough left over for me. Then I realized that the “alarm” wasn’t even set, probably because of systemic racism. Anyway, I quickly showered, ate, and went to the bathroom. (When I go “number two,” I only use two squares of toilet paper, to try to save trees from being murdered.)

I was in a hurry to get to the “Rally to Ban Fossil Fuels.” But my Prius wouldn’t start, maybe due to man-caused climate change. Like, what a bummer! There wasn’t enough time for me to walk to the rally, and there was some snow and ice, making bicycling there kind of dangerous. I would’ve taken a bus, but I’m allergic to the smell of diesel fuel. So, I called an Uber.

Wouldn’t you know it, the Uber driver’s car broke down shortly after he picked me up. The dude said something about a tie rod or something. He said he knew it was in bad shape but that he couldn’t get a new one for six weeks, because of supply-chain issues. Caused by Donald Trump, I bet! Well, now I wasn’t going to make it to the rally, so I walked home, pissed as hell. There is a Starbucks a block from my house, so I stopped in to get a latte. There was a long line at the checkout. The employee said they were short-staffed and had a hard time finding anyone to work, even though the company had significantly increased pay and benefits. I think it might have something to do with colonialism or the Patriarchy, but I’m not sure. I asked they for a Caffe Misto…and got a Caffe Americano instead! Can you imagine?! I was, like, so upset! Who wants a beverage touting American imperialism?! But then I remembered to check my ableism.

 I did complain about the store offering a “Blonde Roast,” however. I even told they that I was going to write a letter to the company telling them that reeks of white supremacy! “Blonde Roast” is non-inclusive and, like, exclusionary. “Brunette Roast” or “Black Roast” would be okay in an anti-racist sort of way. Even a “BIPOC Roast” would be better than a “Blonde Roast.”

When I got home, tried to call the nearest grocery store to see if they had organic Chai tea in stock, but no one ever answered the phone. Damn global warming!

I’m telling you, if we don’t completely do away with fossil fuels by 2030, the Earth will die.

 

 

"Speciesism" A Grave Threat To Life On Earth?

 

In a recent book titled "Speciesism in Biology and Culture: How Human Exceptionalism is Pushing Planetary Boundaries," University of California-Berkeley Professor Brent Mishler and former UC-Berkeley faculty member Brian Swartz, among others, argue that "speciesism" is a grave threat to life on Earth. Mishler and Swartz state that speciesism “leads to behavior that challenges our future on this planet,” before adding that “[s]peciesism is to species as racism is to race... the problem with speciesism and racism is that they are both scientifically baseless.” There is no basis whatsoever to think that a human being is more advanced than, say, a rat or a deer tick?

Mishler and Swartz go so far as to argue that the very concepts of species and taxonomic ranking, central to the science of biology from the time of Darwin and before, should be removed from biology courses. 

Well, duh! The science is settled: William Shakespeare was no more important than a tarantula, Albert Einstein no better than a rainbow trout.

So-called “philosopher” John S. Wilkins has a contributing chapter in the book in which he courageously asks, “Why do we in the West think that human beings are special?” That explains a lot. Sadly, we are gradually losing that belief. Wilkins snarkily adds: “Since every species is special... what is so special about Homo Sapiens that the needs of humans supplant the needs of all other species?"

Who says, “every species is special?” How can one with an assumedly skeptical, rational, scientific approach lead off with that feelings-laden opinion?

Wilkins then proceeds to argue that the real reasons some rubes have for believing humans somehow possess an elevated or unique moral status are not scientific, but theological and socio-economic, stating: "[H]uman exceptionalism results from modern interpretations of the biblical narratives, economic motives, and sociocultural accidents.”

Yes, well, there is this Einstein Wilkins: “So God created mankind in His own image.” So that would be a theological reason. An economic motive would be that…humans created the economy, I guess. I’m not sure what Wilkins means by a “sociocultural accident,” unless he is referring to himself.

One is greatly tempted to ask Messieurs Mishler and Swartz the following questions, among a great many others: Has any other “species” written a play, symphony, or work of fiction? Did any other species invent the printing press, automobiles, the internet, or hospitals? Paint the Sistine Chapel? Build the Sistine Chapel? Has any other species fully contemplated its place in the universe? Understood the concept of a “universe?” Realized that it couldn’t have created itself and didn’t ask to be born? And recognized, therefore, the necessity of a higher power?

Or even come to believe that “speciesism” is a dire threat to the planet?

 I think we all know the answer to those questions.

But that hubris is probably just another example of speciesism. Right?

 

 

Nations' Leaders Seeing Things That Aren't There?

 

U.S. President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. isn’t the only head of state seeing things lately.

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador recently posted a poorly lit image of a tree and… possibly something in it… to his social media accounts. Obrador wrote that the image was captured "three days ago by an engineer, it appears to be an aluxe." As per the Yucatan Times, aluxes are knee-high "pixies" from local-- especially Mayan-- mythology, and are reportedly tasked with protecting plantations, cornfields, and properties.

The Times noted, "As in all goblin traditions, these little beings are often naughty and play practical jokes on people crossing their domains. Sometimes they take reprisals that become real nightmares, they are said to produce short screams, strong whirlpools and other phenomena when they get angry and some people consider aluxes 'allies of evil.'"

Biden shakes hands with a ghost and “AMLO” thinks he has photographic evidence of the existence of an elf. It is hard to be optimistic when our leaders believe in things like invisible people, UFOs, Bigfoot-- and now “woodland elves-- but not in things like the Bill of Rights, the truth, and the existence of binary sexes.

One thing is for sure, however. As China, Russia, North Korea, Iran-- and wannabe tyrants like Adam Schiff, Rashida Tlaib and Dr. Fauci make clear—the existence of evil, and “allies of evil,” is not in doubt.

 

 

Biden FAA Nominee Can't Answer A Single Aviation-Related Question

 

Phil Washington, once the CEO of Denver International Airport, is President Joe Biden’s choice to lead the Federal Aviation Administration.

According to Fox News, Washington had initially failed to advance last year after concerns about his limited experience in the aviation industry were put forth. We found out why some had misgivings during his recent Senate confirmation hearings.

Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC), a licensed pilot, had seven questions for Washington that one would expect an FAA administrator to know. Instead, Washington managed to go 0-for-7. (The clip of his ubiquitous ignorance has gone viral.)

The first of these queries concerned what airspace requires the use of an ADS-B transponder. These devices are typically combined with a GPS, in order to transmit highly accurate positional information to ground controllers and other aircraft. These “ADS-B Out” transmissions are more accurate than conventional radar surveillance, thereby affording air traffic controllers the potential to reduce the required separation distance between aircraft that are so equipped.

Washington was unfamiliar with this important device-- or the use thereof.

Sen. Budd then asked: “What are the six types of special use airspace that protect … national security that appear on FAA charts?”

Washington replied: “Sorry, senator, I cannot answer that question.”

Sen. Budd: “What are the operational limitations of a pilot flying under BasicMed?”

Washington: “Senator, I’m not a pilot, so…”

(BasicMed is a program that allows pilots to fly without a medical certificate, provided they only fly certain kinds of planes with limited weight, size and passengers, etc.)

Budd then noted that Washington would be overseeing the Federal Aviation Administration, and re-queried him: “So any idea what those restrictions are under BasicMed?”

Washington responded, “Well, some of the restrictions, I think, would be high blood pressure, some of them would be—”

At which point Budd cut him off, saying, “It’s more like how many passengers per airplane, how many pounds in different categories and what altitude you can fly under. It doesn’t have anything to do with blood pressure.”

Budd proceeded to ask Washington if he had any idea what causes a plane to spin or stall.

Washington did not.

He was then asked if he knew the three types of certifications the FAA requires as part of aircraft manufacturing.

Unsurprisingly at this point, he answered “No.”

 (They are type certificate, production certificate and airworthiness certificate, if you’re playing along at home.)

Senator Budd-- in a seemingly unwarranted fit of optimism-- then stated, “Let’s just keep going and see if we can get lucky here,” before asking the final two questions.

They didn’t get lucky, as Washington couldn’t answer either of those queries, either. As you probably guessed.

We cannot be sure if Washington would have been able to successfully answer other, simpler aviation-related questions, such as “Where is the cockpit placed on a typical airplane?” or “What does an air traffic controller do?” Perhaps Washington would have fared better if the questions were, “Can you name two major American airlines?” or “What do we call the person who flies a plane?” Or perhaps not.

George Washington would have had better answers, and the airplane wasn’t invented until 104 years after he passed away.

Kamala Harris as Vice-president, Pete Buttigieg as Transportation Secretary? And now Biden nominates Phil Washington to head the FAA? How will he top this, if, God forbid, he wins re-election in 2024? Will he nominate Joy Behar to be Secretary of State, Rob Reiner to head Housing and Urban Development, Lori Lightfoot to be Ambassador to Ukraine, and the Pillsbury Doughboy to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services?

Due to the Brandon Biden administration’s policies, air travel is sadly becoming ever more fraught with danger. Moreover, one could accurately characterize the entire administration’s reign to this point as a virtual—and literal-- train wreck.

 

 

 

Like Shakespeare? You Might Be A "Far-Right Extremist"

 

The U.K.’s “Prevent” program, ostensibly in place to protect Great Britain from terrorism, has instead been tasked with hunting down “far-right extremists.” (Much like the U.S.’s FBI, DOJ, and military.) What’s more, Prevent recently published a helpful guide to spotting those dangerous right-wingers. Apparently, crazy conservatives can be easily identified by their choice of literature. You see, those people read books like Beowulf and 1984, and also ones by Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton. Who knew that works such as these could be “key texts” for “white nationalists/supremacists?”

The U.K.’s Daily Mail recently reported that the television comedies Yes Minister and The Thick of It were also among the “potential signs of far-Right extremism” that Prevent flagged. As was the epic 1955 war film The Dam Busters-- and even “The Complete Works Of William Shakespeare.” (That’s coming down hard on The Bard.)

But that’s not all: a report by Prevent’s Research Information and Communications Unit (RICU) noted that far-right extremists went so far as to promote reading lists on online bulletin boards. My God! And some of these diabolical lists purportedly include books such as The Lord Of The Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, The Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad, The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer, Paradise Lost by John Milton, the aforementioned 1984 by George Orwell, and-- brace yourselves-- the poems of GK Chesterton. Moreover, Prevent’s RICU also placed films including The Bridge on The River Kwai, The Great Escape, and Zulu on its “You Just Might Be A Radical Right-Wing Terror Threat If You Watch These Flicks” List.

For my money, Prevent didn’t go far enough. I suggest the following books, television shows, and movies be added to the list of things that likely finger one as an ultra-far-right-wing whack job fascist/terrorist: The Wealth of Nations, Animal Farm, The Federalist Papers, The Bible, The Meat Lover’s Slow Cooker Cookbook, Leave It to Beaver, Father Knows Best, Gunsmoke, The Lives of Others, Maverick, and A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.

The books Prevent listed would comprise a list of someone who wants a civilized, liberal, cultured education—and society-- not that of a domestic terrorist. Maybe that is its intent.

The Prevent program is effectively saying that the entire Western canon is problematic or offensive.

And that is offensive…and insane.

                         

 

 

Scientists Propose Phasing Out Terms "Male" And "Female"

 

Certain U.S. and Canadian scientists have officially proposed that the scientific community phase out the musty old terms "male" and "female" from scientific language in order to avoid any appearance of "emphasizing hetero-normative views." Instead, these “experts” want terms such as "sperm-producing" and "egg-producing" to be employed, as they say they are more inclusive. They also approved the use of  "XY individual" or “XX individual” as tolerable alternatives. 

 

Moreover, these ass-hats scientists contend that the terms "man," "woman," "father" and "mother" are "problematic," as are those such as "primitive," "advanced," and "non-native."

Something called the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Language Project put out the new scientific language guidance. The EEBLP is an initiative "founded by a collaboration of scientists in the US and Canada who claim some terminology is not inclusive, and could be harmful,” according to the U.K. Telegraph.

The Project was apparently conceived in February’s edition of the scientific journal "Trends in Ecology and Evolution.” (Check out this month’s centerfold! Want a subscription? Operators are standing by!) According to the Project’s so-called scientists, hateful terms like “male” and “female,” et. al., “are used to reinforce societally-imposed ideas of a sex binary." Isn’t society silly, thinking for Millenia that humans are comprised of males and females? Well, now we know better.

In seriousness, individuals and societies are diminished, not elevated, when people are referred to by their biological functions. You, ma’am, are not a “lady,” a “female,” or even a “woman.” You are no more than an “egg-producer.” And you, sir? Naught but a “sperm-producer.”

In any case, surely even these terms are too specific and exclusionary when men such as Rachel Levine can do nothing other than curl their hair and throw on a string of pearls and proclaim themselves to be women? It’s essentially the same thing as calling someone “male” or “female.” They, too, are exclusionary, bigoted, and hurtful! Literally violence!

Rachel, Lia Thompson, and countless others we now consider “women” still have male genitalia, but they would be apoplectic if someone referred to them as a “sperm-producer.” And we can’t objectively call them “egg-producers”…because they aren’t.

So, if we can’t just label folks “scrotum-sporters” and “boob-bearers,” what term(s) can we employ? I say, if we’re going to dispense with the traditional terms “male” and “female,” why not more accurately and inclusively brand every one of us a “feces-producer?”

Classy? Maybe not. Inclusive? Hell, yeah!

The Left is full of crap, and is trying—and thus far succeeding—to despoil tradition, wisdom, elegance, and beauty. It disdains the uplifting, despises the divine, denies the truth.

It is well past time that we stop the decay-- and put an end to this insanity. To paraphrase a 20^th Century Welshman: Do not go gentle into that dark and endless night. Rage, rage, against the dying of the light!

Thought experiment: would the song “Lady” by Styx be improved if the (mad) scientists’ recommendations were followed?

 

You’re my Egg-Producer of the morning

Love shines in your eyes

Sparkling, clear and lovely

You’re my egg-producer

 

              Or perhaps Billy Joel’s “She’s Always a Woman?”

 

She can kill with a smile, she can wound with her eyes
And she can ruin your faith with her casual lies
And she only reveals what she wants you to see
She hides like a child
But she's always an egg-producer to me

 

              Let’s not be blinded by “science.” Or “scientists.”