“Unmasking Masks”

 

Mask: noun: a covering for all or part of the face, worn as a disguise, or to amuse or terrify other people.

Verb: conceal (something) from view.

 

            Here are some synonyms for mask: camouflage, cloak, veil, affectation, air, blind, concealment, cover-up, disguise, façade, front, guise, hood, masquerade, pose, posture, pretense, pretext, put-on, fig leaf.

            Virtually all of these terms have negative connotations. They all describe an attempt to hide, confuse, obfuscate, confuse and bewilder. To deny reality and truth. We may put on a mask to pretend or frighten. To do bad things anonymously. Masks are incompatible with human dignity and an open society.

            It is no coincidence that the riots, lawlessness, destruction and sheer depravity that has broken out around the country in recent days came hard on the heels of the COVID-19 pandemic and governments’ mandate that most of us give up our jobs-- and don face masks if and when we are allowed to step outside. Idleness, lack of money, loneliness, substance abuse, and resentment welled up, just waiting for a trigger to burst forth. The Minneapolis policemen who extinguished George Floyd conveniently provided that spark. The masks just made it all seem so much easier. A perfect storm. And masks aren’t just for Antifa anymore. Now they are a totem of the left, of the “resistance.” Antifa masks were illegal in some localities prior to the coronavirus crisis. Now masks are legally required in many of the same areas and de rigueur in most others.

            Masks may make rioters bolder, but they don’t make them braver. They more often are an attempt to hide the smallness, cravenness and lack of self-respect of those who wear them.

            “Experts” say masks may or may not help prevent us from getting sick. They are most certainly not amusing. Nor do they really conceal anything, other than the truth. Ironically, they reveal the sickness and cravenness that has penetrated our souls, masks or no masks.

                                                                              
        
                       

                                             

                                                                  

Joe Biden Says A Black Man Invented The Telephone

 

            Joe Biden wants to fact-check Donald Trump in real time during the upcoming presidential debates. This is endlessly amusing in that Sleepy Joe hasn’t uttered a truthful sentence recently with any greater frequency than he has a coherent one. Perhaps both candidates should be fact-checked equally. When Biden was in Kenosha, Wisconsin, recently to laud an “alleged” perpetrator of sexual assault—and other crimes-- who had scuffled with police, he took time out to talk history. He said, “Why in God’s name don’t we teach history in history classes?” Well, Joe, that’s because we are too busy revising history and promoting endless social justice wars.

He added, “A black man invented the light bulb, not a white guy named Edison.” Um, no. Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. That’s an incontrovertible fact. Lewis Latimer, a black man and researcher under Edison, discovered a better way to manufacture carbon filaments for Edison’s bulbs several years later.

You just know, the way things are going, Biden will pull out all the stops in an attempt to shore up the black vote…despite the fact he recently said, “If you’ve got a problem figuring out whether to vote for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” He’s almost certain to say something like, “It’s time we recognize that black people invented pants. And the ‘boom box.’ Moreover, black folk also invented ketchup, water polo, tennis, lattes, celery…and ice hockey.”

A Biden-Trump debate would be a fact-checkers dream…or nightmare. Hyperbole is Trump’s forte, flat-out lying is Biden’s. Although, in Sleepy Joe’s defense, he may no longer be aware that he is prevaricating. Or of where he is. Thank goodness for teleprompters.

Biden might credit black people for inventing them, too.

 

The Lady And The Tiger

                Disturbingly, pictures of a woman fondling a tiger’s testicles at a zoo in Chiang Mai, Thailand surfaced recently.  Yes, you read that correctly. VICE News, the outlet that posted images of the incident, chose not to name the Thai tourist, who was promptly criticized on social media. Locals accused the wacky woman of “humiliating” the tiger, and the zoo of allowing the abuse of animals. Two Tiger Kingdom staff members were allegedly disciplined over the incident, though they claimed they told the woman of the rules and risks before letting her into the tiger cage. Call me a skeptic, but that doesn’t seem like a sound defense. Especially since they let her into the tiger cage.

                Who should be the most humiliated, the lady or the tiger? I’ve often heard the expression “having a tiger by the tail,” but confess I can’t say the same for “having a tiger by the testes.” In truth, the big cat appeared utterly unfazed by the wanton woman’s hold on his balls, but this may well have been due to him being under the influence of sedatives. Apparently, Asian zoos frequently drug big cats to keep them from exhibiting unruly behavior.

                Tiger Kingdom’s head zookeeper stated: “We do not allow tourists to grab the tigers' testicles, but they are allowed to touch any part of the animal's body as long as our specialists are present. From now on, we will make sure that no visitor will ever be able to touch this part of a tiger's body again.” Well, they did, in fact, allow the woman to grab a tiger by the testes. And he said tourists “are allowed to touch any part of the animal’s body as long as our specialists are present.” In any case, he has now promised that his zoo would no longer tolerate such untoward behavior in the future, which is nice.

                My question is: Has everyone just gone crazy? Did either the woman or the zoo staffers do a simple cost-benefit analysis before making their decisions? The woman would naturally think: “I could cup the tiger’s balls and possibly be okay…or I could get mauled or killed. Alright, I’m gonna do it!” Similarly, the zoo staffers would say to themselves: “Hmm, we could let a woman grab the tiger’s sack, and maybe nothing heinous would happen, or she could get mauled and we could get sued. And/or it could go viral and we could be made to look as if we don’t care about our visitors or our animals. Okay, let’s let her in!” 

                How could anyone possibly reach those decisions? What possible good could come from them?

                I’ve been asking myself those very same questions far too frequently in 2020.

                         

Protesters Sue City Of Seattle

             They used to say that “crime doesn’t pay.” But, like so many other once obvious observations and helpful pieces of advice, that may no longer be the case.

              KIRO-TV recently reported that a group of “protesters” (i.e. rioters) has filed a lawsuit against the city of Seattle, claiming that the police department’s anti-riot policies have unfairly forced demonstrators (i.e. rioters) to buy prohibitively expensive protective gear in order to continue to exercise their First Amendment rights. Apparently, they mean their “right” to burn down federal buildings, loot stores and assault officers of the law.

              The suit seeks to obtain an order from a judge preventing the city from using blast balls and pepper spray on the (mostly peaceful!) rioters. It states in part: “Each of the Plaintiffs was unable to protest for a period of time for want of additional gear necessitated by SPD’s unmitigated and indiscriminate tactics utilized without restraint.” It also labels city streets “a public forum and site of protest,” and says the policemen’s actions resulted in “a pay-to-protest racket where only a privileged few who are wealthy enough or popular enough to crowdsource funds to purchase gear akin to that used by the police department they fund can truly be in the streets.”

              A few notes about that statement. Call me a skeptic, but I’m not sure the Framers intended the public streets-- and the public and private buildings surrounding them-- to be entirely covered in vile BLM and Antifa graffiti…and “F-bombs.” Also, if only “wealthy” people can afford to “be in the streets” protesting, which I doubt, the Plaintiffs could consider getting jobs. Okay, stop it, I was just kidding!

              Th Plaintiffs noted the Seattle City Council’s proposal to dramatically reduce funding for the police, stating: “It is chilling to the bone that this quelling is occurring at the hands of SPD—the agency whose very existence is being challenged, its funding debated this week.” Chilling to the bone? They are the ones challenging the SPD’s existence!

              Fox News reported that “helmets and gas masks” were among items listed as necessary protest gear by the rioters. No word if grenade launchers and sidewinder missiles also made the list. Hey, it’s dangerous out there when you’re burning, looting, defacing and pillaging! You’ve gotta protect yourself, right?

              The protesting Plaintiffs even had the chutzpah to ask the city to pay for the costs they incurred in filing the suit. Incredibly, the Seattle City Attorney’s Office issued a statement saying that it would look into the claims. Maybe they’ll offer the “protesters” reparations.

              The KKK, Al Capone, the Unabomber and Al-Qaeda all missed the boat. Had they committed their crimes and terroristic acts today, they would undoubtedly blame their actions on “American society” and successfully sue Uncle Sam.

Associated Press To Capitalize "Black" Not "White"

              Protests and rioting following the death of George Floyd have prompted many news organizations to examine their own staffing and practices. The Associated Press, for example, recently announced that it has changed its language usage rules and will now capitalize the word “Black” whenever it is used in the context of race and culture. The AP, whose stylebook is particularly influential in the news industry, has since announced that it will not do the same for “white.” As such, the Columbia Journalism Review, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune and NBC News are among the news organizations that have lately pledged to capitalize “Black” in these instances but have not yet done so for “white.” And probably will not.

              John Daniszewski, the AP’s vice president for standards, recently issued a memo to staff stating: “We agree that white people’s skin color plays into systemic inequalities and injustices, and we want our journalism to robustly explore these problems. But capitalizing the term white, as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs.” (I’m going to have to call “bullshit” on that explanation.) The AP also claims that, in general, white people have much less shared history and culture, and lack the experience of being discriminated against because of their skin color. That’s funny, I’m pretty sure white people have been around for many thousands of years. Was Socrates not white? And, I seem to recall that white Christians were thrown to the lions in ancient Rome. A practice that, if our own culture continues down the path it’s currently traveling, may be revived soon.

              The New York Times explained its decision on July 5^th, also averring “White doesn’t represent a shared culture and history in the way Black does.” Ironically, and to its credit, the National Association of Black Journalists says “white” should be capitalized, too. Several Black scholars have joined them in that assessment.

 In openly discriminating against white people in this way, these news organizations have proven themselves wrong. Reverse discrimination is discrimination, too. And discrimination solely on the basis of skin color is always wrong.

If progressive news—and social media-- outlets really want to redress grievances and right wrongs, if they want to give succor to the marginalized, shunned and abused, they could start capitalizing “Conservative.”

Looting A "Powerful Tool" To Bring About Lasting Change, California D.A. Says

“This is the end” spoke The Doors. And we may now have come to that moment as a nation.

New guidance from Diana Becton, first-term Costa County (California) District Attorney, states that law-enforcement officers must consider if looters “needed” the merchandise they stole before charging them. California law, under Penal Code 463, defines “looting” as taking advantage of a state of emergency to commit burglary, grand theft or petty theft, and those engaged in the act can be charged with a felony and serve up to three years in jail. But Becton, who is one of many radical district attorneys financially supported by George Soros, is attempting to circumvent the law by proposing preposterous charging guidelines for the crime. Becton says that when considering charging looters, law enforcement types should ask, “Was the theft committed for financial gain or personal need.” (Emphasis mine.)
“Pardon me, did you need the big screen television, those Louis Vuitton handbags and those bottles of Wild Turkey?”

Becton believes stealing is perfectly acceptable if one needs what one takes from someone else. Yet, when a couple painted over a “Black Lives Matter” message on a local street, her office charged them with a “hate crime.”

A government’s primary responsibility, be it local or federal, is to protect its citizens and their private property. Absent property rights and the rule of law, chaos, anarchy, and unfettered violence will reign interminably. The United States, uniquely founded on these principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights, would simply cease to exist without them.

And Becton isn’t the only person desperately seeking to justify looting. National Public Radio published a lengthy interview with Vicky Osterweil, author of In Defense of Looting, a book in which she argues that “looting is a powerful tool to bring about real, lasting change in society.” Yes, and so are murder, abortion and a nuclear holocaust. Osterweil defends looting and says that “white supremacy” is behind the idea of property. She claims the rioters-cum-looters who break windows and steal things from stores are merely “engaging in a powerful tactic that questions the justice of ‘law and order,’ and the distribution of property and wealth in an unequal society.” She avers that looting “attacks the very way in which food and things are distributed,” and the idea of property itself, which she believes is unjust because it means that “in order for someone to have a roof over their head or have a meal ticket, they have to work for a boss, in order to buy things that people just like them somewhere else in the world had to make under the same conditions.”  Yes, it’s called trade… and commerce. Osterweil needs to read Adam Smith’s The Wealth of nations.

Osterweil says that looting doesn’t really harm anyone. (Like CNN, she thinks it’s “mostly peaceful.”) Tell that to the countless small business owners who have seen their stores, dreams and lives destroyed. But she doesn’t worry about that, because she claims that the supposed value of small businesses is a “right-wing myth.” She further argues that the world is organized “for the profit of the people who own the stores and the factories,” and that looting allows rioters to “demonstrate that without police and without state oppression, we can have things for free.” Ah, there it is. Screw work, screw the rule of law, just give us free stuff! But wait, I thought property was bad. Why, then, do you want it so badly, free or not?

There are only two ways to get “free stuff.” One is to steal it. The other is through the forcible taking and redistributing of others’ property via state oppression. There may be a difference without a distinction here. Or vice-versa.

If the “It’s not a crime to take whatever you need” school of thought permeates the country’s institutions, no one’s property will be safe, including their own lives. No one will be secure in his or her person. An obvious rape defense would be, “he needed her, needed a release. He has never had a really attractive girl before, obviously due to systemic racism/ableism/ageism/body shaming/fill-in-the-blank.”

So everyone will be free to take what they want need from whomever, wherever…be it a business, neighbor, school or church.

It will be history’s most tragic irony if the American Revolution ends up being “cancelled” by modern-day Jacobins, leftist spawn of the disastrous French Revolution.  

Students Say Free Speech "Unacceptable"

The administration of Princeton University recently published a “Statement on Principles of Inclusivity and Free Speech.” The Statement affirmed that the school “cherishes both inclusivity and free speech, which can be protected even when the speech in question is ‘unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.’” It also noted that Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber is on record as saying the free expression policy “rests upon the idea that the pursuit of understanding, discovery, and truth benefits from the open and vigorous contestation of ideas.” That belief was the very foundation of colleges and universities for well over two centuries. Eisgruber correctly added, “We are in an era when many people mistakenly treat free speech and inclusivity as competing values. We need the benefit of multiple voices and perspectives, and we need real engagement among them.”

Not any longer. The president and two vice-presidents of the Princeton Graduate Student Government replied to their school’s shocking affirmation of free speech and the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, calling it “tone-deaf” and “unacceptable.” In a letter written in response to Eisgruber and the administration, the three opined that the free speech policy protects “hate” at the university. They stated, “We as a student body are not looking for ‘dialogue’ on how to cope with institutional racism,” and averred that an emphasis on the importance of free expression “reads as a typical dog-whistle often used to excuse racist speech and hateful actions.”

Their admission that they are not looking for “dialogue” is a refreshing bit of candor, as leftists/progressives never seek dialogue, only victory and submission. Especially submission.

The First Amendment was/is designed specifically to protect speech that some might find problematic or even “hateful.” There would be no reason to have an amendment to protect speech that was universally agreed upon or beloved. Who gets to decide what is “hate speech?” Nazis? Kim Jong un? Progressives? The NAACP? The John Birch Society? Mike Pence? Nancy Pelosi? Taylor Swift?

Maybe I should decide. Maybe I would have prohibited the heads of the Princeton graduate Student Government from saying what they did. After all, I found it “tone-deaf” and “unacceptable.” Hate speech, really.

Free speech is a dog-whistle used to excuse racism and hateful actions? (And civility and decorum are dog-whistles for white supremacy?) If so, then “tolerance” is just a dog-whistle for perversion, death and anarchy.

Little kids used to frequently say, “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” It would be nice if today’s progressives were as mature and resilient.

De Blasio Says BLM Issue "Transcends All Normal Realities"

              New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio unilaterally decided to paint his city’s streets with huge yellow letters spelling out “Black Lives Matter.” This unprecedented move prompted a reporter at a recent press briefing to ask the mayor the following questions: “I’d like to know whether you submitted a Department of Transportation application before you painted your ‘Black Lives Matter’ street murals across the city? What’s your plan for other groups that now want to see their own messages on city streets?” These are obvious and particularly valid questions, but ones which de Blasio wasn’t keen to field. He replied: “The fact is that what I decided to do with the Black lives Matter murals…it’s an important thing for this city to declare officially. That is something that transcends all normal realities because we are in a moment of history where this had to be said and done.”

              In other words, “How dare you question me! I am afraid of them!”

              “We are in a moment of history where this had to be said and done?” Really? Now? When black employment had been at its highest levels in history? After a two-term black president had just left office?

              BLM’s leaders have publicly stated they want to abolish the nuclear family and replace capitalism with Marxism-Socialism. They sure as hell don’t speak for all black people, no matter what Joe Biden might think. Why is this group’s cause being elevated over everyone else’s? Perhaps because of the threat of violence and the fact that it is essentially holding America’s big cities hostage?

              Here are some messages I’d like to see painted onto our cities’ highways and byways: “Abortion Is Murder.” “Reverse Racism Is Still Racism.” “Men And Women Are Different…Hence The Different Terminology.” “The Climate Has Always Been Changing.” “Socialism Sucks.” “’The Squad’ Should Be Fired.” And, “Make Orwell Fiction Again,” among others.

              One thing is clear: in 2020, all normal realities have been “transcended.”

             

             

Silent Majority Too Scared To Speak

Sports leagues are cancelling practices and games at the drop of a social justice hat lately, in supposed solidarity with the BLM movement. The NFL’s Tennessee Titans recently cancelled practice and held a “virtual news conference” instead, during which white quarterback Ryan Tannehill averred that the United States is “founded upon racist ideas.” (Yes, like the idea that ”all men are created equal,” and “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” such as “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”)

This idea is as pernicious as it is preposterous, self-evidently incorrect and incoherent. But no less prevalent for its falseness. And the revisionist rot percolates downward from the top, all-to-quickly infecting colleges, high schools, grade schools and even day care centers.

Soon, kids will threaten to boycott spelling bees unless they can wear shirts sporting “Black Lives Matter” and give speeches in support of Antifa before spelling “antidisestablishmentarianism,” a word describing those who they will then proceed to mock and denigrate. Tee-ball games will be cancelled unless authorities allow the kiddies to publicly denounce the U.S. as “the most oppressive nation in the history of nations and oppression” between innings.

The majority of the “Silent Majority” have earned that moniker because they are too scared to stand up for what they supposedly believe. When their leisure, livelihood, and family are threatened by close-minded fascist thugs they go along to get along instead of pledging their lives, fortunes and sacred honor to the defense of the nation and ideas they purportedly cherish. Observing this makes me sick.

Seeing a mob of anarchists, immature entitled brats, intolerant Marxists, and assorted violent criminals put a heavy knee on my country’s neck makes me sad…and angry. Very, very angry. Seeing a significant percentage of Americans morph into Comrade Karens, each competing to be the “wokest link,” makes me croak “I can’t breathe!”

No country where belief is coerced and opinions mandated can be free. Thomas Jefferson once said, “I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility to all forms of tyranny over the minds of man.” Leftists have that as their very goal, their raison d'être. They demand womb-to-grave tyranny over your mind, your body and your soul.

 Some who have been forced into complying with the wishes of a Marxist Minority appear to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. Others are simply spineless, craven. Most are virtue-signalers.

Our Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness are at stake. It is time to save our nation, niceties be damned.

California Assemblyman Proposes Taxing Californians Even After They Leave The State

                California Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Oakland) recently introduced AB 2088, “The California Wealth Tax” bill that would force wealthy Golden Staters to pay additional taxes on wealth and income (that has already been taxed). The country’s first net worth tax would apply to all those whose net worth exceeds $30 million and is estimated to generate an additional $7.5 billion in revenues per year. California currently has the highest tax rates in the nation, a fact that has already prompted many people of means to flee the state.

              Which is why Bonta’s bill proposes to tax Californians even after they move to another state. He says tax “avoidance” would not be allowed. Bonta says his proposal would apply a “phased-in approach” to stealing ex-Californians’ wealth. “If you move in Year One, 90 percent of the tax bill applies," he said, adding that in Year Two it drops to 80 percent, in Year Three 70 percent, and so on until it falls to zero by Year Ten. Seems like more of a “phased-out” approach to me, but insanity nonetheless. Conversely, when someone moves to California and happens to be worth more than $30 million, the tax would be phased-in, and that person would be taxed at ten percent the first year, twenty percent the second, and so on until facing 100 percent of the taxes in Year Ten, if they were dumb enough to still live there.

              Bonta’s website says his tax would only affect about 30,400 people, and he avers that it is necessary because the coronavirus has created “inequality” in the state. In reality, of course, it is many consecutive years of disastrous Democratic policies and legislation that have turned the erstwhile Land of Milk and Honey into the Land of Poop and Needles and chased away many of its best and brightest. Bonta’s bill, if enacted, will accelerate that trend.

              An introduction to the new bill states that the wealth tax is “for the benefit of accumulating excessive wealth in this state,” according to the California Globe. This is an affront to modern Democrats, as they believe only The State—and those running it-- should be able to accrue excessive wealth.

              Bonta and his ilk will surely propose additional bills in an attempt to find a way to continue to extract property taxes and sales taxes from those who have recently fled the People’s Republic of California.