Apparently telling the truth is a “microaggression.” If we cannot call criminals criminals, can we at least label idiots idiots?

The rhetorical question that is so often used, “What part of illegal don’t you understand?” might not be as rhetorical as you might think. From the sanctuary city of San Francisco:

San Francisco neighbor says don’t call thieves ‘criminals’

A new extreme in political correctness?

Amy Graff | Updated 9:52 am, Saturday, October 31, 2015

Is it wrong to call someone who steals a “criminal”?

In a recent thread on NextDoor, a group of neighbors living in the Noe Valley-Glen Park area were engaged in a discussion around the city’s crime and debated whether labeling a person who commits petty theft as a “criminal” is offensive.

Malkia Cyril, poet, activist and idiot

In the site’s Crime and Safety area, where residents share strategies for fighting crime, Malkia Cyril of S.F. suggests that her neighbors stop using the label because it shows lack of empathy and understanding.Cyril pointed out that instead of calling the thief who took the bicycle from your garage a criminal, you could be more respectful and call him or her “the person who stole my bicycle.”

“I [suggest] that people who commit property crimes are human and deserved to be referred to in terms that acknowledge that,” Cyril, who’s the executive director of the Center for Media Justice in Oakland, writes in the thread.

“I think we should think twice before speaking in disparaging terms about ‘those criminals,'” she adds later in the thread.

Cyril started the thread because she wanted to shift the NextDoor conversations about security cameras, alarms and the police to more thoughtful discussions about strategies for addressing the cause of crime. In her posts, she blames our societal problems — gentrification, economic inequality, lack of affordable housing, the defunding of public schools — for pushing people into lives of crime.

You know, I grew up poor, but somehow, some way, that didn’t lead me into stealing someone’s bicycle, or anything else. Actually, I was devastated when someone stole my bicycle (some time between the fourth and sixth grades), a Schwinn Spitfire, off of our front porch; my mother couldn’t afford to replace it. I knew other poor kids as well, and I don’t recall ever knowing that any of them were thieves.

In a world of extreme political correctness, washing away words that have been deemed inappropriate is becoming commonplace. Many of these words are blatantly inappropriate, but with others, such as “criminal,” the offensive implication is subtle. These less obvious insults are often referred to as microggressions, which a recent article in the Atlantic Monthly explains are “small actions or word choices that seem on their face to have no malicious intent but that are thought of as a kind of violence nonetheless.”

Is referring to a person who steals as a “criminal” an example of a microaggression?

I would think that it is an example of telling the truth! Apparently telling the truth is a “microaggression.”

The San Francisco Chronicle captured some of the discourse:

Boo hoo. Poor people. Malkia you’re totally right. How dare I call the low life who last Wednesday stole my gym bag a “criminal”. After all he’s probably not even reading this, since he goes to fitness sf Castro like I do (did). No, he’s not a criminal, you’re right. He’s a f______ thief. And deserves to be caught and go to jail. But he likely won’t because this city is soft.

To which Miss Cyril responded:

Your gym bag was stolen? People’s lives are being stolen by poverty, over policing, and more. You can recover stolen property, and even if you can’t — you’re alright. But it does not compare to the primary drivers of crime. Addiction is not a selfish act, it is a medical crisis. People are not simply lazier than you, and there’s so much underpinning your assessments that it’s best I don’t respond to . . . .

And the Chronicle even agreed, writing:

Cyril pointed out that the man’s loss of his gym bag is a small inconvenience for someone of privilege.

Well, you know what, there actually are people lazier than the man who had his gym bag stolen. We don’t know much about the man who had his gym bag stolen, but we can assume that he had to spend his own money to buy it, and the money he spent on the gym bag was money he could not spend on something else. We don’t know the motivation of the criminal who stole the man’s gym bag, but I assume that Fitness SF Castro has a membership fee1; it’s a privately owned business.2 One would think that the thief had enough money to actually pay the fees at the gym, so he was (probably) not the poverty-stricken victim of society Miss Cyril assumed.

As for the City by the Bay looking the other way, not treating criminals like criminals, Kate Steinle was unavailable for comment.

People like Malkia Cyril are a huge problem in our society. Rather than insist on civility and order, they excuse and enable criminality; we can bet that if she knew who stole the gentleman’s gym bag, she wouldn’t turn him in. If San Francisco suffers from “over policing,” as she says, it is because too many ordinary citizens enable criminals, and allow them to be criminals, allow them to continue breaking the law and getting away with it.

Way back in 2007, we noted how the city of Philadelphia didn’t take crime seriously, and the result was a dead police officer. In 2008, it happened again, more than once. We also noted how San Francisco released an illegal immigrant and “alleged” gang member, refusing to turn him over for deportation, and he then murdered three people. But people like Miss Cyril don’t seem to have a problem with things like that, just as long as we don’t hurt the poor dears’ feelings by calling them criminals, by telling the truth, and by treating crime seriously.

If it’s wrong for me to call criminals criminals, is it at least acceptable for me to call Malkia Cyril an idiot?
Cross-posted on RedState.

  1. I searched, but was unable to find the fees online.
  2. Fitness SF Castro had to shut down the steam room because there was too much “hanky panky” going on. Gosh, what a surprise that is!

Rule 5 Blogging: The IDF

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as putting pictures of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Esti Ginzberg in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude. This week, the Israeli Defence Force again! Click on any photo to embiggen.

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: The IDF’ »

From Around the Blogroll

From The Wall Street Journal:

Marco Rubio Moves to Seize the Moment

GOP presidential hopeful tries to extend the momentum from his debate performance

By Patrick O’Connor and Byron Tau | Updated Oct. 30, 2015 10:34 p.m. ET

SIOUX CITY, Iowa—The days of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio flying under the radar may be coming to an end.

For months, the Republican White House hopeful was content to keep a low profile while he built his campaign and his rivals attacked one another. Now, the Rubio camp is working hard to translate momentum from a well-received debate performance Wednesday into a much-needed fundraising boost and expansion of his base of support, while the candidate barnstorms in Iowa over the weekend.

RubioLogo“Sen. Rubio has put himself in a position to organically pick up [former Florida Gov. Jeb] Bush voters, just like he put himself in a position to pick up [Wisconsin Gov. Scott] Walker’s voters,” said Iowa state Sen. Rick Bertrand, a Rubio supporter.

Eager to pounce on Bush donors after an underwhelming debate performance by the onetime front-runner, Mr. Rubio’s super PAC advisers circulated a memo Friday making the case that just four Republicans can win the nomination at this point: Mr. Rubio, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, celebrity businessman Donald Trump and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

On Friday, billionaire hedge-fund manager and major GOP donor Paul Singer sent a letter to his network of donors announcing that he had decided to support Mr. Rubio, the senator disclosed at an event in Iowa. Mr. Singer met with Mr. Rubio last week. The move is a major blow to Mr. Bush and other Republicans who had been vying to win Mr. Singer’s support and could encourage other big donors to get behind Mr. Rubio’s campaign.

“When people donate to us, they buy into our agenda, and I’m glad that he has,” Mr. Rubio said. “I mean, it will help us with resources.”

Mr. Singer’s decision was earlier reported by the New York Times on Friday.

The Rubio campaign’s aggressive posture reflects the sense of shifting momentum since the third GOP debate, which elicited plaudits for Messrs. Rubio and Cruz for their forcefulness, as well as criticism of Mr. Bush.

There’s more at the original.

Can Senator Rubio sustain his momentum? Carly Fiorina had a big jump due to her performances in he first two debates, but hasn’t been able to sustain the momentum, and a pedestrian performance in last Wednesday’s debate hurt her. Mr Rubio will need to try to build on his performance in a way Mrs Fiorina did not. Eric Wilson, the “Digital Director” for the Rubio campaign sent out an e-mail under the heading “A Treat,” in which he wrote:

Thanks to the support of thousands of donors who have stepped up and chipped in to support Marco and our campaign for the debate, we’ve exceeded our fundraising goal for the month and don’t have to ask for you to contribute in this email.

Click on the icon to go to Carly Fiorina’s campaign website; The First Street Journal encourages you to make a campaign contribution there.

Of course, that e-mail was dated on Hallowe’en, the last day of the month, so he can start asking for donations again tomorrow! :) But it was an interesting tactic. The Editor still supports Mrs Fiorina, of course, and hopes that readers will consider a donation to her campaign, but, if she falters and has to drop out, he would not have a problem supporting Senator Rubio.

And now, onto the Blogroll!

Take this lawsuit and shove it

I will begin by stating what ought to be obvious: we do not think much of President Obama’s foreign policy, seeing it as a combination of ineptitude and weakness, when not actually harmful and dangerous. That said, this lawsuit is ridiculous, and no foreign government ought to have any standing or rights to challenge American foreign policy in our courts. From The Wall Street Journal:

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro Says He Will Sue U.S.

Seeks U.S. court action to force White House to lift executive order declaring country a threat to U.S. security

By Kejal Vyas | October 29, 2015 8:29 p.m. ET

CARACAS—Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro said Thursday he would sue the Obama administration in an attempt to lift an executive order signed earlier this year that declared the South American country an extraordinary threat to U.S. national security.

“We can’t have that decree around. It’s like the Sword of Damocles here,” Mr. Maduro said in a televised address, pointing to his neck. “We’re going to file a lawsuit in the U.S. against that decree.”

He said the suit would expose the “international illegality” of President Barack Obama’s March 9 order, which also slapped sanctions on seven Venezuelan government officials accused of committing rights abuses during a clampdown on protesters last year.

I have not looked closely at either the President’s executive order or Venezuelan policy, and take no position as to whether the policy is a good and wise one. But it doesn’t matter: unless the Congress passes legislation explicitly prohibiting the President’s policies, his foreign policies are valid, and ought to beyond challenge in the courts. Whether the Venezuelan government is an extraordinary threat to the national security of the United States is questionable, but it certainly is an extraordinary threat to the people of that poor country.

Last week, Venezuela’s government also turned to the U.S. legal system to help ease its economic troubles. The country’s central bank filed a lawsuit seeking the shutdown of a U.S.-based website called DolarToday, which is allegedly run by Venezuelan exiles and publishes the black-market value of the country’s collapsing currency, the bolivar.

In the suit, Venezuela alleged the website was destabilizing its economy and damaging the government’s reputation.

I’m not certain how the Venezuelan government’s reputation could be damaged any worse by a website than its own policies have done to it, but so what: we have freedom of speech and of the press in this country, and the neither the courts nor the Obama Administration, if it disapproved of the site, should have any authority to shut it down.

These lawsuits should be dismissed out of hand.

Donald Trump says that only Donald Trump should be allowed to run for President

At CNBC debate, Donald Trump denounces super PACs, rivals who rely on them

October 28, 2015

A lot of Republicans at Wednesday night’s debate lobbed criticism at Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the self-described democratic socialist running for the Democratic presidential nomination. But it turns out that Donald Trump and Sanders have something in common: Neither has a super PAC supporting them. (Trump is largely self-financing, while Sanders is taking in mostly small donations.) And like all the Democrats, Trump is opposed to super PACs.

“Super PACs are a disaster, they’re a scam, they cause dishonesty, and you’d better get rid of them,” Trump said on Wednesday. “Because they are causing a lot of bad decisions to be made by some very good people. And I’m not blaming these people,” he said, pointing at his rivals on the stage, adding to laughter, “but, I guess I could.” He repeated that super PACs cause good people to make bad decisions, then said that if “anything comes out of this whole thing, with some of these nasty and ridiculous questions, I will tell you: You’d better get rid of these super PACs, because they’re causing a big problem in this country,” citing how they favor lobbyists and “special interests.”

As has been noted previously, Carly Fiorina’s campaign relies heavily on the SuperPAC, Carly for America. From The New York Times:

Carly Fiorina’s ‘Super PAC’ Aids Her Campaign, in Plain Sight

By Nick Corasaniti | September 30, 2015

LEXINGTON, S.C. — The table festooned with red “Carly for America” placards arrived hours before the candidate. Political operatives took up positions outside the front door to catch supporters of Carly Fiorina, the corporate executive turned Republican presidential contender, and gather their contact information before steering them inside to the room where she would speak.

But the table, the placards and the workers did not belong to Mrs. Fiorina’s campaign. They were there because of the “super PAC” supporting her run for president.

The Federal Election Commission forbids direct coordination between campaigns and super PACs, lest candidates effectively rely almost entirely on the huge, unlimited donations of a small number of billionaires. But in 2016, the groups are aggressively exploiting gray areas and loopholes in the rules, few of which the commission — deadlocked with its three Republican and three Democratic members — has hastened to close.

One of the most important openings is the simplest: Candidates and super PACs are free to coordinate their plans if the information is shared in public view.

There’s a lot more at the link, and though the story notes that all of the Republican candidates except Mr Trump are using their nominally-independent SuperPACs for their campaigns, the story concentrates on Mrs Fiorina. That the story came out right after her very successful performance in the second Republican debate and subsequent surge in the polls just might have had something to do with that focus. And the Times has noted in another story that the SuperPACs have enabled the “outsider” candidates to compete in raising money with the more solidly establishment candidates. Lawyers for the Federal Elections Commission don’t like the way SuperPACs are doing business, but, thanks to the decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, it is legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures related to campaigns, but they still may not make direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns. It seems like a strange way to set things up, but sometimes the action of the law requires strange things.

But, for Donald Trump, a billionaire five or ten times over, and a man who can finance his presidential campaign out of his own revenues,1 telling us how terrible SuperPACs are is his way of saying that only billionaires can run for President. Neither Ben Carson nor Ted Cruz nor Carly Fiorina, nor any of the Republican candidates with the possible exception of Jeb Bush, could ever have raised enough money to have even started a presidential campaign without the exception in the laws that allows the SuperPACs to exist and operate. Only candidates like Hillary Clinton, with her huge name recognition, and Mr Trump, with his personal fortune, could run.

Click on the icon to go to Carly Fiorina’s campaign website; The First Street Journal encourages you to make a campaign contribution there.

Do I like the SuperPAC formulation? No, of course I don’t: it is a backhanded way of having to finance a campaign, and the solution is simple: remove the restrictions on regular campaign contributions, fund raising and spending.2 It costs a huge amount of money to run for President, and that means that the campaigns have to raise that huge amount of money. If we were to eliminate the silliness of the individual campaign contribution limits, and allow the regular campaigns to do the things that the candidates increasingly rely on SuperPACs to perform, we could at least get the honesty of not having candidates go through silly contortions just to be candidates. SuperPACs are a form of a-wink-and-a-nod lying that only candidates like Mr Trump don’t have to do.

Just for John Hitchcock, you can contribute to Ted Cruz’s presidential campaign by clicking on this icon.

Mrs Fiorina is a millionaire several times over, with a net worth of $58 million according to Forbes, but she’d soon be a pauper if she had to finance her campaign the way Mr Trump is, and Forbes lists her as the second wealthiest candidate. Ted Cruz, with a net worth of about $3.5 million, much of which is due to his wife’s earnings at Goldman-Sachs,3 and the favored candidate of both Patterico and John Hitchcock,4 could never have run for President without a SuperPAC.5 We might not like SuperPACs, but it would be a much worse thing to limit a presidential candidacy to the super-rich.

  1. A prosaic formulation which brings to mind how the kings of England had to operate before they consented to a Parliament to raise funds.
  2. My contribution to Mrs Fiorina’s campaign was made directly to her campaign; I did not make a contribution to the Carly for America SuperPAC.
  3. A position she left when Senator Cruz declared himself a candidate, to avoid any conflicts of interest.
  4. While I would find Senator Cruz a perfectly acceptable nominee, he is not my preferred candidate.
  5. Farris and Dan Wilks, billionaires who made their fortunes in the West Texas fracking boom, have given $15 million to the pro-Cruz super PAC, Keep the Promise.

When I was in college, the left were demanding absolute freedom of speech Now, the idea of hearing dissenting views absolutely terrifies them

From Robert Stacey Stacy McCain:

What No One Can Say on Campus

Posted on | October 28, 2015

“So what is feminism? What do feminists believe? Namely, that American women are oppressed by a patriarchy hell-bent on keeping women down, and that men and marriage are expendable. . . .

“What feminists want is to make men and women interchangeable. . . .

“I am not a feminist because I don’t believe feminists have an accurate understanding of human nature.”

Susanne Venker

Great minds think alike, and Suzanne Venker sees the problem with feminism exactly as I see the problem with feminism. It is a War Against Human Nature aimed at using the coercive power of government to bring about an androgynous “equality” that ignores the actual differences between men and women. Feminism is a totalitarian movement to destroy civilization as we know it — and feminists say so themselves.

There’s a lot more at the link, in which the esteemed Mr McCain spends rather a lot of bandwidth1 taking apart the “logic” of modern feminism, but I prefer to address a different issue, the utter fear of the modern left to be exposed to any views other than their own.

Uninvited to Williams

October 21, 2015 | By Josh Logue

Williams College students invited Suzanne Venker, a writer and longtime critic of feminism, to speak Tuesday night, but changed their minds and took back the invite for her talk, “One Step Forward, Ten Steps Back: Why Feminism Fails.”

Venker had been invited to participate in a student-run, alumni-funded speaking series at Williams called “Uncomfortable Learning.” The program’s purpose is to expose students to controversial voices and opinions they might not otherwise hear. Many of the speakers tend to be conservative or people whose views don’t square with those of most students.

The students who run the series decided to cancel the event, co-president Zach Wood explained, after its Facebook page began to attract acerbic comments and “things got a little out of hand.”

The page has since been deleted, but one comment, which Wood quotes in an article he posted, said, “When you bring a misogynistic, white supremacist men’s rights activist to campus in the name of ‘dialogue’ and ‘the other side,’ you are not only causing actual mental, social, psychological and physical harm to students, but you are also — paying — for the continued dispersal of violent ideologies that kill our black and brown (trans) femme sisters … you are dipping your hands in their blood, Zach Wood.”

The concern, Wood explained, was that “people would get riled up while she was speaking,” maybe even throw things, and there wasn’t time before the event to organize security. “You never know,” he said. “We’re just trying to think ahead here. The last thing we wanted to do was do something destructive.”

Still, Wood said, “If it was just my decision, I would have brought Venker to campus …. Suzanne Venker’s views are views that are held by millions of Americans whether we like it or not, and if we want to push back against them, we have to try to understand them.”

Venker is the author of a number of books, including The War on Men and The Flipside of Feminism. In the past, she’s written that modern women are “angry” and “defensive” because “they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy,” or, in another article, that “Unlike women, a man’s identity is inextricably linked to his paycheck. That’s how most men feel a sense of purpose.”

Suzanne Venker

There’s more at the original. Mr McCain noted that we can read the text of the speech Mrs Venker online. The oh-so-offended-left at Williams College have actually exposed Mrs Venker’s views to more Williams’ students than would have been the case had she spoken on campus; such lectures are normally very poorly attended, but the added publicity the left has provided will (probably) lead more Williams’ students to read what she would have said than would have heard her speech.

From Jonathan Adler in The Washington Post:

Last week, a Williams College student group decided to cancel a lecture by Suzanne Venker in response to outspoken criticism from other students. Since then, the group has had second thoughts. According to Reason, the student group sought to reinvite Venker, but she is unlikely to accept. The speech she would have given is available here.

The editor in chief of the Williams Record also seems to have had second thoughts about the awful editorial her paper ran about the episode. In an op-ed published Friday, she wrote:

Although it was not our intent, I understand and accept that our editorial, as written, does advocate for limited free speech, and that was a mistake.

This letter is not a result of backlash but rather a result of the discussions that have occurred amidst that backlash. While we intended to critique the initial choice of inviting Suzanne Venker to campus, we did not intend to critique the right of Uncomfortable Learning to bring her to campus or the right of her ideas to be present here. Each time we silence one perspective or label it as “dangerous,” we compromise the freedom of speech. A newspaper – campus or otherwise – should never advocate to limit speech.

She goes on to write that student groups should be free to invite speakers to campus from any perspective, “provided of course that these speakers do not participate in forms of legally recognized hate speech.” Huh? There is no such thing as “legally recognized hate speech.”  So-called “hate speech” is entitled to full First Amendment protection — which is something I would think the editor in chief of the student newspaper at one of the nation’s premier undergraduate institutions would know. I also don’t quite understand her claim that student groups should consider “the potential for their speech to discriminate against members of our community” when inviting speakers.

I suspect that Mr Adler understands perfectly well what the left see as “the potential for their speech to discriminate against members of our community;” I certainly do! The left have become so thoroughly enmeshed in the idea that controversial speech might hurt somebody’s feelings that they believe that the poor dears must be protected from such hateful thoughts and ideas.2 Mr McCain noted that the annual tuition at Williams College is $50,070; that seems a fairly steep price for parents to pay to see to it that Johnny or Janey are never, ever exposed to the cruelties of the real world. When they do get out of school and into the real world, they won’t have the benevolent leftist student leaders to protect them from harmful thoughts or ideas, they won’t be insulated from people who do not care if they are offended by their views.

Now, had Mrs Venker been allowed to speak at Williams, and some students thought that her ideas were too offensive to hear, they always had the option of not attending her lecture. That, it seems, was too little protection.

That, however, is the charitable version, the version which assumes that the left are really only concerned with other people’s feelings being hurt. The less charitable view is the one which I find more probably correct, that the left really want to silence all dissent. It isn’t that Mrs Venker’s opinions would hurt their feelings, but that they would hurt their arguments, hurt their political positions.  The left know that they would not have had to attend Mrs Venker’s lecture, because they already have the experience of choosing not to watch Fox News or anything else which they don’t want to see or hear. What they really want to do is see to it that other people don’t have the choice to choose to listen to Mrs Venker; I’ve noted before that the left are pro-choice on exactly one thing.

Naturally, it has backfired on them: not only were they forced to reissue the invitation, but they gained more publicity for Mrs Venker’s views,3 and revealed themselves to be sniveling little [insert plural vulgar slang for feces here] at the same time.

This is not a First Amendment issue to me. Williams College is a private school, while the First Amendment is a limitation on government power. Further, the school itself did not take the invitation/ disinvitation/ reinvitation action itself; those were the actions of a student group, not the administration. And finally, the freedom of speech and of the press does not guarantee that any other person must listen to you, or that any other organization must publish or broadcast what you want. I see this as simply another example of the hypocrisy of the left; they want to say what they want to say, but will attempt to use every means they can to prevent the opposition from speaking. In the end, the left have no confidence the strength of their views or their “logic,” and a form of fascism is really all that they have left.

  1. If you thought that I can be verbose, well, I’m not in Mr McCain’s league when it comes to that!
  2. The idea that perhaps some pro-life students might be offended that a pro-abortion speaker could speak on campus, well that would certainly never get the left to “uninvite” a pro-abortion speaker!
  3. I, for one, had never heard of her before today.

It’s just a shame that the people now have more of a voice! The patricians don't like the plebeians one little bit!

From Breitbart:

Mitt Romney: Demise of Legacy Media Empowering Conservative ‘Insurgents,’ Preventing More ‘Collaborative Action’

By Tony Lee | October 20, 2015

Failed GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney lamented that the demise of traditional media is empowering Republican “insurgents” and preventing establishment Republicans from compromising more with Democrats.

As the Republican establishment is trying convince Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) to run for House Speaker, Romney told David Axelrod on a recent “The Axe Files” podcast that the “extremes within our respective parties are having a louder and louder voice and demanding more attention” and “immediate action” as opposed to more “collaborative action.”

Romney said this phenomenon flows in part from the “change in the world of media.”

“There was a time when we all got the news with the same facts, if you will,” he said. “We had three networks we watched for the evening news. Most of us got newspapers. Everybody in the middle class got a newspaper, so we got the same facts whether we agreed or not with them.”

There’s more at the original, but what former Governor Romney is lamenting is that the internet has allowed ordinary citizens a freedom of speech which extends beyond the range of their own voices. Before the internet, to publish something or get your message across to a wider audience, it had to have been approved by a media gatekeeper, whether that gatekeeper was a newspaper, magazine or book editor, or a broadcast producer, a process which was heavily weighted toward the views of that gatekeeper.

Rush Limbaugh provided the first real crack in that gatekeeping wall, and even that was due solely to him being a tremendous radio talent.1 The vast majority of the rest of the media hated Mr Limbaugh and resented his success, because a message of which they did not approve was getting out, was being spread far and wide.

Mr Romney ought to appreciate that: were it not for Rush Limbaugh, and that first crack in the liberal media barrier walls, it’s entirely possible that the Republican revolution of the 1994 elections would never have occurred.

Mr Limbaugh and the other conservative radio talkers who followed in his wake2 were followed a few years later with the internet, opening wide the doors for conservatives to get out their message, and to subject the traditional media to the light of truth:

  • In 2004, Dan Rather and CBS News used forged documents to try to swing the election away from President Bush to Senator John Kerry. It was the efforts of two conservative blogs, Little Green Footballs3 and Powerline, when their owners recognized that the documents were obviously forged,4 something CBS claimed not to have spotted, and they exposed the truth. Had CBS not been challenged, it is possible that that faked story could have changed the outcome of the 2004 election.5
  • In 2008, then Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) claimed, during her presidential campaign, that her daughter Chelsea and she had to duck from sniper fire when disembarking from an aircraft on Kosovo. There was plenty of videotape showing that no, there was no dodging of bullets, the landing and disembarkation were safe and uneventful, and that Mrs Clinton was lying through her scummy teeth, but without the gatekeeperless internet, that information would never have been made public.
  • Early in 2015, it was discovered that NBC Nightly News anchorman Brian Williams had “embellished” some nationally broadcast news stories. Without the internet, those discoveries would not have been made, and Mr Williams would still be lying on the air to millions of people instead of being forced out in disgrace.6

When Mr Romney said that “we got the same facts whether we agreed or not with them,” what he is ignoring is that the “facts” the professional media gave us were not always facts at all.

Of course, what the 2012 Republican presidential nominee is really most upset about is that the internet is allowing ordinary people, the grassroots, to connect and communicate with each other, to have some actual influence on politics beyond casting our votes every couple of years. Why, it’s almost as though there’s some democracy in our democratic representative republic!

The elites don’t like that, don’t like it one little bit.
Cross-posted on RedState.

  1. He tried branching out into television, but that didn’t work for him.
  2. The left tried to do the same thing, but with little success.
  3. Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs fell off the wagon later.
  4. The documents were printed using a proportional spaced type font which was not widely available at the time the documents were dated.
  5. Undaunted nevertheless, CBS News was sitting on a story concerning seized weapons in Iraq which hadn’t been properly accounted, and some of which had been lost, planning on broadcasting it on 60 Minutes the Sunday before the election, which would have given the Bush campaign no time to respond. Fortunately, The New York Times, of all organizations, chose not to sit on it, and published it earlier, giving the Bush campaign time to respond, perhaps saving the election for President Bush.
  6. Rather than being fired outright, Mr Williams was eventually assigned to MSNBC, which pretty much qualifies as being forced out in disgrace.

Glamour’s Woman of the Year Have the left gone so far over the edge that they have to resort to lying to themselves?

From Breitbart:

Women Cry Foul as Glamour Magazine Names Bruce Jenner ‘Woman of the Year’

By Thomas D Williams, PhD | October 25, 2015

Glamour magazine’s Woman of the Year for 2015

The politically correct Glamour Magazine has reportedly waived the one defining requirement of candidates for its “Woman of the Year” honor—a double X chromosome—in conferring the title for 2015 on crossdresser Bruce Jenner, a move many women are finding insulting.

The magazine is expected to formally announce its choice of Jenner as woman of the year, along with actress Reese Witherspoon, on November 3.

Criticisms are already piling up from women who find the choice of Jenner to be demeaning, and are falling into two main camps. First, out of all the real women in the world, could Glamour not find one worthy of the title of Woman of the Year without needing to fish in the male pool of boys dressing as girls?

Second, what in the world has Jenner done in the past year—other than get a makeover—that qualifies him as a model for achieving woman around the world?

Other than causing a fatal automobile accident, perhaps?

In a stinging commentary, Nicole Russell writes that by choosing Jenner as woman of the year, “Glamour endorses the idea that men are better at being women than we are.”

Russell compares Glamour’s insulting maneuver to a cover of New York Magazine featuring transgender Martine Rothblatt as the “highest-paid female CEO” in the nation. “Apparently real women can’t cut it, so we’ve got to import men into our ranks to win awards,” Russell notes.

“Jenner might feel like he is a woman,” she writes, “he might want to be a woman, he might be living as a woman, but thoughts do not generate biology or reality.”

Australian-born feminist Germaine Greer accused Glamour of “misogyny” in its decision to award Jenner its woman of the year award, noting that transgender women are “not women” and do not “look like, sound like or behave like women.”

“I think misogyny plays a really big part in all of this,” Greer said, “that a man who goes to these lengths to become a woman will be a better woman than someone who is just born a woman.”

There’s more at the original, but the whole notion is ridiculous and laughable. Bruce Jenner was born male, and all of his very publicly documented experiences, including his athletic ones, have been as a male. Everyone has reacted to him as they would react to a male. Despite whatever he might think, he has no experience in being female: he never had a period, never worried about getting pregnant — and might have worried about getting someone else pregnant! — never waited for a boy to ask him to the prom, never found certain opportunities more difficult for him because he was a girl, and his closest female role models have been the Kardashians.

But, apparently the editors at Glamour magazine somehow think that he’s a woman. He has his name legally changed to Caitlyn Marie Jenner1 and the State of California now officially recognizes him as being female, but he isn’t female, and isn’t a woman, and will never be female. He has money, and found a plastic surgeon to give him fake breasts, and I’m sure that he’ll be able to find some quack to castrate him and build him a faux vagina,2 but that will not, and cannot, make him a woman; it will make him nothing more than a mutilated male.

Glamour readers should be insulted.

But, really, it is virtually the entire left who are insulting women in this. Every mainstream medium I saw referencing Mr Jenner was using the feminine pronouns to refer to him, as well as calling him “Caitlyn,” even in those things published prior to his legal name change. No one with any common sense at all could really think that Mr Jenner really is a woman, but all of the liberal outlets are using language forms which go right along with his personal delusions.3

Is this really what liberalism has become? Have the left gone so far over the edge that they have now resorted to lying to themselves?

  1. The First Street Journal will continue to refer to him as Bruce Jenner.
  2. A Google search comes up with both yes and no answers as to whether Mr Jenner has had those procedures yet.
  3. The First Street Journal will continue to use the masculine pronouns and honorifics to refer to Mr Jenner.

From Around the Blogroll I've been too lazy to write edition

I should have written something brilliant, or at least pithy, for this weekly post, but I was too lazy. I did work for eight hours yesterday; that’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it!

Rule 5 Blogging: The fun times in Iraq

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as putting pictures of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Olivia Wilde in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude. This week: fun times in Iraq. Click any picture to embiggen.

Working on her weapon

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: The fun times in Iraq’ »