Sunday, November 8, 2015

The United States Of The New York Times ^ | November 8, 2015 | Derek Hunter 

This country is awful. I know that because I read it in the paper and heard it on the news. The reasons for our being awful didn't make much difference. They change every day because there's always something new for which we're awful.

And when there aren't fresh pickings the media hops in the way-back machine and re-animates a greatest hit. But what would this "awful" country look like were it magically transformed into New York Times Utopia? This week gave us a peek.

The city of Houston decided it didn't want to replace gender-specific bathrooms with a communal hole in the center of town, conveniently located next to the public bucket everyone must use to shower.

In the latest example of how acronym creators are underpaid, the "HERO" act was resoundingly rejected by the people of Houston at the polls Tuesday. "HERO" stands for Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, which has anti-discrimination as its publicly stated goal.

A laudable goal, but like everything else progressives do, the way they went about it was a massive overreach.

The law allowed anyone who "identified" as another gender to use whatever bathroom they decided they were at any given moment. That would be a gross overgeneralization if the term "gender fluid" did not exit. Aside from transgender, which means you "identify" as the opposite of your scientific biological gender, gender fluid is exactly what it seems like it would be fluid. Whatever you feel like at any given moment.

It's more complicated than that, but this isn't an after-school special about the exciting new world of made-up genders. The point is HERO would have allowed people to use whichever restroom they wanted whenever the urge hit them. People tend to feel vulnerable in the bathroom and to prefer privacy. And they don't want to see a 6-foot-5 bearded dude follow their 12-year-old daughter into the john, so they told their elected officials "no."

This exercise of democracy, a word progressives love to chant when calling for the seizure of private property from successful people or drum-circling in support of cop killers, was met with resounding outrage. The cry went, "How dare those uneducated, ill-cultured louts reject the enlightened science behind the idea that gender is something we've misunderstood for the entirety of human history, missing several dozen options," or something of the sort.

The New York Times declared, "Hate Trumped Fairness."

Being devout ideological disciples of history's worst propagandists, the Times' writers blamed future suicides on those who don't enjoy the idea of a communal chamber pot. The Times editorial board wrote opponents "will be remembered as latter-day Jim Crow elders. Their demagogy is egregious because it preys on some of the most vulnerable people in our society."

Yep, having an outie but feeling like an innie is the new black, at least according to the paper of record. There is no justice unless and until the .0002 percent of the population who wake up each morning not knowing which bathroom they'll use that day get to impose their will on everyone else. To paraphrase our left-wing friends, this is decidedly not what democracy looks like.

The ordinance would not have been an issue had the left not brought it into the bathroom. But it is what progressives want America to look like unitards and bowl haircuts for all! If you're so fragile that which bathroom you use will make or break your life, or even just your day, wear an adult diaper or hold it. And get therapy. What you don't get to do is impose your will on the rest of the country.

To see what this "Utopia" progressives seek to shoehorn down the nation's throat, all we have to do is head over to Yale.

Progressive Yale students are upset administrators have not seriously addressed their fragile and damaged feelings over what fellow students wore for Halloween. An actual person of human adult human age wrote the following, publicly that administrators "have failed to acknowledge the hurt and pain that such a large part of our community feel. They have again and again shown that they are committed to an ideal of free speech, not to the Silliman community."

This stupidity stems from spoiled, mindless progressive students not liking costumes worn by students with different skin colors. They condemn "an ideal of free speech" because it offends their hyper-sensibilities.

This student continues to whine about how rough her life is because one of those people who value free speech refuses to become her father at college. It devolves into this:

I have had to watch my friends defend their right to this institution. This email and the subsequent reaction to it have interrupted their lives. I have friends who are not going to class, who are not doing their homework, who are losing sleep, who are skipping meals, and who are having breakdowns. I feel drained.

If these creatures manage to graduate, their mental instability and desperation for acceptance will make them prime recruits for ISIS.

Let ISIS have them; the world will be better off.

This temper tantrum at Yale is what the world would look like if we were run as a nation by the New York Times. A victim hiding under every bed and a grievance in every pot.

Also emotionally and mentally frail. If the left is truly interested in suicide prevention perhaps they should end the coddling that creates emotional basket cases the moment they encounter resistance or a differing opinion. In most cases, however, those who so readily embrace their victim status are, more often than not, the perp.

Progressives have spent decades dividing the American people, then convincing them their group is the victim of the "others" in order to win politically. Manipulation disguised as concern. And it's worked.

Now it's turning on itself; the monsters they've created are loose inside the castle walls. Grab a drink and watch it burn.

The Times declares, "In time, the bigots are destined to lose." Considering how much they're losing, both at the ballot box and their bottom line, it sure looks like they might be right.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is Bad for All Americans

Trevor Grant ^ | 11/8/15 | Trevor Grant Thomas 

Much of the left has always hated men like Ben Carson, but now that he has the lead in the Real Clear Politics polling average (as of this writing) for the republican presidential nomination, their desire to tear him down has intensified. With a recent column in Time magazine entitled Ben Carson is Terrible for Black Americans, NBA legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar decided to weigh in.
Sounding like a bad Elaine Benes date, Abdul-Jabbar begins his piece by asking and answering his own question—twice. He concludes that a Carson presidency would “be an unmitigated disaster.” I suppose that with record numbers of Americans on welfare, record numbers of Americans not working, accumulating more federal debt than every other U.S. president combined, a perverse redefinition of marriage, granting a “God bless you” to killers of children in the womb, promoting a culture of lawlessness, inspiring hostility toward U.S. law enforcement, encouraging the invasion through our southern border, and on top of all of that, ruining school lunches for millions of American children, for Mr. Abdul-Jabbar, the last seven years constitutes something other than an “unmitigated disaster.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Another Phony Payroll Jobs Number

Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy ^ | 06 November 2015 | Paul Craig Roberts 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced today that the US economy created 271,000 jobs in October, a number substantially in excess of the expected 175,000 to 190,000 jobs. The unexpected job gain has dropped the unemployment rate to 5 percent. These two numbers will be the focus of the financial media presstitutes.
What is wrong with these numbers? Just about everything. First of all, 145,000 of the jobs, or 54%, are jobs arbitrarily added to the number by the birth-death model. The birth-death model provides an estimate of the net amount of unreported jobs lost to business closings and the unreported jobs created by new business openings. The model is based on a normally functioning economy unlike the one of the past seven years and thus overestimates the number of jobs from new business and underestimates the losses from closures. If we eliminate the birth-death model’s contribution, new jobs were 126,000.
Next, consider who got the 271,000 reported jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, all of the new jobs plus some—378,000—went to those 55 years of age and older. However, males in the prime working age, 25 to 54 years of age, lost 119,000 jobs. What seems to have happened is that full time jobs were replaced with part time jobs for retirees. Multiple job holders increased by 109,000 in October, an indication that people who lost full time jobs had to take two or more part time jobs in order to make ends meet.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Not so much!

Pretty sure...