Some people actually consider Smiley, an intellectual, when in fact he has the intellectual depth of a dried up mud puddle
In a recent op-ed for TIME magazine, Public Broadcasting Service late-night host Tavis Smiley expressed concern that blacks in America might one day return to slavery if Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wins the election on November 8.
“In my lifetime, I have never seen Congress so blatantly mock our Constitution,” he stated. “It’s especially striking that it comes from the political party that’s always lecturing us about the ‘rule of law,’ What’s worse is that they’re getting away with it.”
The host of The Travis Smiley Show continued:
When I hear Donald Trump suggest that he wants to “Make America Great Again,” it always triggers the same three questions in my head.
One: How is Trump defining “greatness?” I’m not sure he and I share an understanding of what makes a nation truly great.
“For me, it starts with how you treat the children, the poor, the aged and infirmed, how you embrace equality as you labor for equity,” he noted.
“Equality means that everyone gets the same in America, whether they need it or not,” Smiley asserted. “Equity says we commit to ensuring that all fellow citizens have the basic resources that will give them commensurate opportunities to contribute meaningfully to our society.”
Our Constitution, of course speaks of liberties, not equality, which are incompatible. the best hope for people is liberty. A government that can enforce “equality” can and will destroy liberty, prosperity, and will eventually lead the an equality of poverty, destitution, and slavery to the state. History teaches us where Marxism leads. if only Smiley were bright enough to study history rather than advocating for a failed, ideology.
Go read the rest at Newsbusters and observe as Smiley further beclowns himself
This is, perhaps the most incoherent, rambling 12,000 words I have ever read. This, my friends is the very bottom of the Pit of Idiocy
Via Moonbattery found it
The above title was taken from an actual scholarly article published in the journal GeoHumanities. Here’s the abstract:
This article examines the symbolic whiteness associated with pumpkins in the contemporary United States. Starbucks’ pumpkin spice latte, a widely circulated essay in McSweeney’s on “Decorative Gourd Season,” pumpkins in aspirational lifestyle magazines, and the reality television show Punkin Chunkin provide entry points into whiteness–pumpkin connections. Such analysis illuminates how class, gender, place, and especially race are employed in popular media and marketing of food and flavor; it suggests complicated interplay among food, leisure, labor, nostalgia, and race. Pumpkins in popular culture also reveal contemporary racial and class coding of rural versus urban places. Accumulation of critical, relational, and contextual analyses, including things seemingly as innocuous as pumpkins, points the way to a food studies of humanities and geography. When considered vis-à-vis violence and activism that incorporated pumpkins, these analyses point toward the perils of equating pumpkins and whiteness.
Good Freaking Grief! They are pumpkins, that’s it, pumpkins! Nothing more, nothing less! The only “societal impact” pumpkins have is the current inane obsession with everything, yes everything being “pumpkin spiced”from September on every year. Other than that, they are just pumpkins, which are, it seems more mentally stable than the two buffoons who actually believe their own babbling inanities!
Milton Friedman, being a wise man, said, quite correctly, that we cannot have both liberty and equality. You might have one, or the other, but never both. Why is this you might wonder. After all, many politicians, pundits, and media types use the two terms almost as if they were entirely interchangeable. Of course, they, quite foolishly also do this with democracy and republic, bu that is a different topic. So why can’t we have equality and liberty? Consider this story, by Nate Madden from Conservative Review
Earlier this week, four churches filed federal suit against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts over its now-infamous “bathroom bill,” contending that it infringes upon their basic First Amendment rights.
The law, which went into effect at the beginning of the month, comes alongside guidance from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD):
“Places of public accommodation may not discriminate against, or restrict, a person from services because of that person’s gender identity … Even a church could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the general public.”
A similar case in Iowa popped up over the summer, where the government quickly backpedaled after enough public pressure. However, Massachusetts is a whole new ball game. Despite the protests and media coverage that blanketed the issue, it would appear that everything is going forward as written and that houses of God are now required by law to keep their views on the nature of man and woman to themselves, lest they face fines and/or up to a year in prison.
Could we have a more concise case of how “equality” as defined by the Left, and liberty, as defined by our Founders can not coexist. Equality demands that everyone, have access to any bathroom, no matter their gender or gender identity any time they wish. This, the Leftist minds believes is equality. But, shouldn’t a church have a right to decide if they have unisex restrooms, or men’s and women’s rooms? Really, I would argue shouldn’t any business hold that same right? I can argue this position because, I, unlike the Left believes in liberty. So, if a church., or business decides to have separate facilities fine. If they choose to have single stall restrooms, fine. If they decide to have restrooms open to anyone fine. That is their right.
Liberty is messy isn’t it? In a nation that has freedom of expression and speech, we will all hear and see things that aggrieve us. In a free country, we will have neighbors that live quite differently than we do, who worship differently, who hold very different views on politics, culture, and everything else. That is liberty! And liberty ensures equality of opportunity, equal treatment under the law, and protects or liberties equally. But the Left loathes such ideals for the same basic reason they loathe liberty, they are Collectivists, and Collectivism certainly demands equality be enforced by the State.
Think of what the Left’s view of equality really requires? It requires empowering the State to mandate equality. What would that mean? It would mean that the government would be powerful enough to decide what type of housing you might live in. After all, if you live in a three-story mansion and someone else lives in a trailer, that is inequality. What kind of car you might drive, because you Audi A5 and my Ford Fusion are not equal. What else might an “Equality Enforcement Agency” take control of?
How much money you make? Check!
How much property you own? Check!
How many kids you have? Check!
Your health care? Check! Check! Checkmate!
What type of food you buy, grow, or eat? Check!
You can see how equality as defined by Collectivists and liberty, as defined by Individualists are wholly incompatible. These two competing ideologies are the root of every difference between the Left and Right. Individualism, and its values, and principles has been championed by people like Locke, Mason, Madison, Franklin, Jefferson, Prager, Williams, and Sowell. Collectivism, has been espoused by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Obama, Clinton, and the majority of the Democratic Party.
In closing, understand one thing about Leftist equality. That equality demands everyone, except the elites, of course, be equal. A look at the history of Communism gives us a lesson on the pursuit of Utopian equality. That pursuit has led to poverty, starvation, slavery to the State, and complete destruction of individual liberty. But, that is OK with the Left, because equality of destitution is still equality, and equality is the goal. Not success, not competition, not limited government, not pursuing your dreams. All of those are by products of liberty, and liberty, although it makes everyone’s plight better and gives true opportunity to all, leads to inequality. To the Left equality, even equality of destitution and misery is preferable to inequality. The consequences of Marxism, and all its bastard “isms” matter not.
Young girls may be discarding their princess wands for superhero capes this Halloween, but not so in the canine world.
The glass ceiling appears to be firmly in place at PetSmart, where career costumes labeled “male” include firefighter and police officer, while female dogs can choose between a pink cowgirl costume and pink loofah.
By now, you must be thinking this is a spoof right? I mean no one could be this intellectually vacuous could they? Could they?
“It seems silly on the surface, but this is part of a larger message we’re sending, that there are certain jobs for men, and certain jobs for women,” said Scott Lawrie, 36, who co-hosts a podcast, ‘She will not be ignored,’ about gender issues. “The career options for women — and dogs — need to go beyond pink loofahs and pink cowgirls.”
Is there nothing the Social Justice Warriors will not take great offense at? Consider Lawrie’s final bit of idiocy
“Even if it’s just on principle, this is important,” he said. “I’m waiting until they fix it.”
I tried to get through this without an obligatory Good Freaking Grief, but I just can’t do it. The things the Left lends genuine value to amaze me. Apparently, completely eliminating gender is a crucial issue for the SJW gang