All the arguments that have been presented for increasing the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour rely on claims that a lesser wage does not provided enough money to a worker. Such claims are based in the use of arithmetic to compute the worker’s financial status and implicitly endorse the proposition that there is such a thing as a “right answer.” However, it now received educational theory that the very idea of a “right answer” is a racist concept. Thus, in order to advance minorities and suppress white supremacy, it is vital that we not only defeat the Fight for Fifteen but also must also repeal the existing minimum wage laws that have been used as tools of oppression for decades.
Theodor Geisel’s birthday to be precise. Geisel’s pen name was Dr. Seuss.
It seems that Dr. Seuss’ caricatures of “people of color” are too raaaaacist for an outfit called Learning for Justice, and they’re demanding that schools avoid reading Dr. Seuss because his books allegedly have “racial undertones.” BTW, Learning for Justice is the education arm of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Since before the turn of the century, 2 March has been Read Across America Day in honor of Dr. Seuss’s birthday. The reading recognition day was founded by the National Education Association, but schools in some of the usual-suspect jurisdictions are removing any connection between Dr. Suess and Read Across America Day this year.
Neither the red fish nor the blue fish was available for comment.
The Gentle Reader may remember that the Washington (Democracy Dies in Derpness™) Post published a false story saying the Eire, Pennsylvania, postal worker who had offered testimony about backdated postmarks on mail-in ballots had “recanted.” I found it interesting that when Project Veritas published the raw audio tapes of the interrogation of the postal worker, we found out the investigator conducting the interrogation was named Strasser. Neither Captain Renault nor any of the usual suspects were available for comment.
Following along a mid-20th-century line of thought, Don Surber has a post up suggesting that we Don’t blow off AOC. He writes,
Let’s not blow off Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. You may not see her appeal, but millions of Democrats do. She is the soul of the soulless Democrat Party.
AOC’s danger is that unlike Obama, Manchin, and the rest of the 50 and older crowd in the Democrat Party, she does not seek power. She seeks a revolution.
I think I understand her appeal to the younger cohort of socialists. It’s this: When we had Obama as President, we were fundamentally changing America. But then the old men and women in our party let Orange Man Bad win. We were stabbed in the back.
You may not want to buy what she’s selling, but there’s historical precedent for that sales pitch working, particularly when tied to appeals to racial superiority. That’s where the other members of the Squad come in. Surber’s post notes that Politico has quoted Rashida Tlaib as saying,
“We are not interested in unity that asks people to sacrifice their freedom and their rights any longer. And if we truly want to unify our country, we have to really respect every single voice. We say that so willingly when we talk about Trump supporters, but we don’t say that willingly for my black and brown neighbors and from LGBTQ neighbors or marginalized people.”
Take her seriously.
She is playing with racist fire. Her message is clear. Black and brown people are superior to white people.
This is not the Democrat Party’s worst nightmare. Democrats believe this rhetoric and the ideas it stands for will propel them to power.
No, this is America’s worst nightmare.
I’ll be 73 on New Year’s Eve. Over my life, I’ve watched most of America move away from the ugliness of racial superiority. Most but not all. It seems that a portion of the Democrats have held on to it, merely flipping on which side they imagine to be superior.
We really don’t want a redo of the 1920’s and ’30s.
One might presume that Christopher L. Eisgruber, the President of Princeton University, would be aware of the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. After all, he has a law degree from the University of Chicago. It must be that wokeness overcame his legal training when he sent a letter admitting that Princeton engaged in “systemic racism” that injures “people of color.”
The U. S. Department of Education has responded with an investigation of Princeton, including whether the school defrauded the government when it made claims that it did not engage in racial discrimination in order to receive federal grant money.
Donald Trump is running for reelection, and it seems that he’d rather run against the sort of Progressive Democrat whose politics are strongly different from his own—”a choice not an echo” to borrow an old campaign slogan. While AOC won’t be the 2020 nominee, she’s the face of the Democrat’s for now, and that seems to suit Trump just fine.
Nancy Pelosi’s goals aren’t much different from She Guevara’s, but the two differ radically on how to achieve those goals. After six months as a congresscritter, AOC has shown that she is unwilling and/or unable to work within the established congressional order. She wants revolution now. Pelosi’s decades of practical politics have taught her that a recurring first step toward her goals is winning elections. She’s also seen what happens when her side’s politics moves too fast for the voters. See, eg., the elections of 1994 and 2010.
Pelosi isn’t all that popular with voters outside the costal blue zones, but recent poling shows that AOC and her squad of newbies are unpopular even in many Democrat strongholds. Thus, Trump would much rather have She Guevara as the face of the Democratic Party. As the coming primaries settle on the Democrat’s presidential nominee, that candidate will push AOC aside, but her effect on the party’s branding will linger, and Trump sees that as to his advantage.
So Trump is likely to continue baiting AOC and her squad. And given their mix of arrogance and inexperience, I suspect they’ll keep taking the bait.
Oh, one more thing … I’ve seen Trump’s tweets from last weekend labeled as “racist.” He suggested that a foreign-born congresswoman return to her homeland, straighten it out, and then come back to show us how it was done. How is that challenge racist?
The Guardian reports that a statue of Mohandas K. Gandhi has disappeared from the campus of the University of Ghana. (H/T, @TitaniaMcGrath)
A Mahatma Gandhi statue has been removed from the campus of the University of Ghana after protests from students and faculty who argue the Indian independence leader considered Africans “inferior”.
The statue was unveiled at the university in the Ghanian capital Accra two years ago but has been the subject of controversy and was removed in the middle of the night on Tuesday, leaving just an empty plinth.
Scholars have highlighted evidence in past years showing the revered freedom-fighter, whose theories of civil resistance helped India throw off British colonialism and inspired generations of activists including Martin Luther King Jr, held derogatory views towards native communities in South Africa.
Perhaps all of humanity’s ancestors were racists, and we should simply dispose of all of our memorials to them and their past achievements.
Jonah Goldberg’s current G-File deals with the racism being directed at white people by some on the Left. He starts by recounting a story of an incident of an older white woman going off on an bank teller of Asian heritage, saying, “You damn gooks killed my husband and my son!”
It seems to me that the old lady at the bank had more “reason” to hate Asians than Jeong has to hate white people. But the simple fact remains that the individual American of Asian descent that the old lady at the bank attacked didn’t do anything wrong.
What the old woman did was not really different from what Sarah Jeong has done, but no one would expect media outlets such as the WaPo to publish opinion pieces supporting such behavior.
It goes without saying, or should in a rational conversation, that Left’s racism directed at white is inconsistent with their criticisms of anyone else’s racism, sexism, ableism, etc. As Goldberg notes, it’s also counterproductive.
Liberals despise any argument that claims that they are part of the reason we “got Trump.” But for decades now, numerous liberals have acted like members of a cult awaiting the fulfillment of a demographic prophecy that, one day soon, whites will be a minority in this country. When that happens, various versions of this prophecy foretell, white power and culture will be wiped away. This analysis has always been deeply flawed on a number of fronts, but that’s a topic for another day. My point here is that the rhetoric associated with this hope is profoundly dangerous because it flips the switch on whites to suddenly see themselves as white. As I discuss in my book, economic issues had far less to do with Trump’s success than feelings of cultural displacement. And Trump’s margin of victory stemmed in large part from triggering or activating many voters who invest large parts of their identity in being white.
You can come up with as many polysyllabic explanations as you like for why it’s okay for you to mock, demonize, or ridicule white people. You can prattle on to your Ph.D. adviser’s content about how whiteness is a social construct that needs to be dismantled. But maybe you should have the simple decency and common sense to understand that many people won’t see it that way, because the net effect of your “counter-trolling” is that it leads to the opposite of your stated goal: You are making white people feel threatened, and, as a result, you’re making at least some of them more racist. You are making whiteness a thing. And you are blaming today’s white people for things they never did. Just as the old lady at the bank did to that poor bank teller.
Read the whole thing.
Simple decency and common sense? Good luck with that.
Fifty years ago, great men with real moral authority were leaders of the Civil Rights Movement, men the likes of Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King, Jr. Today, the nation has changed, and one change is the growth and development of what can be described as the Racism Industrial Complex. Its members are a group of “community leaders” and left-wing pundits who use the echoes of past legitimate grievances to paint current events to their political advantage. It may not be well grounded in reality, but it’s a way to make a living.
Smitty appears to have had enough of these people, and he expresses his frustration today with a partial fisking of a piece by Jamelle Bouie. Mr. Bouie’s essay at The American Prospect asserts race is a principal driver in Republican opposition to Barack Obama. Smitty points out that the opposition to the President is principled and that it is very unlikely conservatives such as Allen West and Thomas Sowell … oh, go read Smitty’s post.