PC Patrol Devours Patricia Arquette for Denying ‘Intersectionality’
I’ll probably go straight to hell for this (and lose a dozen Facebook friends in the process), but I have to confess that I’ve lost any last shred of tolerance for irate politically correct rhetoric. I can’t help it; these insistent, unrelenting verbal assaults on common sense bring out my inner Scrooge.
Under normal circumstances, I’d undoubtedly care about the well-being of women, gay folk and people of color — just as I care about the well-being of everyone who doesn’t fit those categories. But let the rhetoric fly, as it’s been flying for several decades now, and all I can do now is hunker down, shout “Humbug!” and hurl contempt upon those grim agents of sexual and racial politics… those humorless graduates of collegiate Grievance Studies seminars… those bitter, impossible, obstreperous mouthpieces for divisive boutique ideologies… those snooty, sniveling, snorting gasbags of anti-male, anti-white, anti-heterosexual invective. Whew.
What could possibly have brought me to this self-damning outburst? The Oscars. More precisely, the response to Patricia Arquette’s feminist plea during her acceptance speech: “It’s our time to have wage equality once and for all and equal rights for women in the United States of America.”
Mind you, I’m not protesting Arquette’s plea, even though I’m heartily tired of politicized Oscar speeches in general and equal-pay demands in particular. (If, say, a male advertising copywriter is more experienced and expert than the women in his department, are those women automatically entitled to earn his salary? Shouldn’t individuals be treated as individuals?)
You’d never know it, but we actually have a law in place — enacted over fifty years ago, if you can believe it (it’s called the Equal Pay Act of 1963) — prohibiting sex-based pay discrimination for jobs requiring the same skill. And of course even I would agree that women should earn as much as their male peers if they demonstrate the same level of expertise in the same job.
But Arquette’s garden-variety feminism didn’t cut the mustard with the boutique elements of the women’s movement. After the Oscars, the Twitterverse buzzed with persnickety remarks from PC enforcers who recoiled at Arquette’s narrow view of feminism.
A scribe named Morgan Jerkins tweeted, “Patricia’s speech is the reason WoC [Women of Color, for the uninitiated] are hesitant abt joining in on mainstream feminism. Intersectionality seems to not exist to many people.”
Intersectionality. Ah, the vocabulary you pick up at college these days. Makes my inner Scrooge want to go on an inspired rant, but I’ll spare you the bile.
Ms. Jerkins continued: “Equal pay, yay! Gender equality, yay! Ok now let’s talk about trans WoC who are dying left and right……no?…gotcha. Bye girl.”
So let me get this straight (sorry, no offense to the LGBTQ community): Patricia Arquette, as a privileged, presumably heterosexual white feminist, didn’t give a special nod to the fraction of a fraction of one percent of the population who identify as transgender women of color, a fraction of whom are “dying left and right” — and for that fatal oversight she must be reprimanded.
How boutiquified have we become as a nation — as a people — when the most minuscule minorities feel offended for being omitted from an impromptu 30-second speech on women’s rights? What? She said nothing about Albanian-American Muslim women’s rights? Or the rights of intersex Chippewas living in Minnesota? Curses upon her for her willful ignorance!
Of course everybody’s rights matter, including those of intersex Chippewas living in Minnesota. I’m not Scrooge enough to dispute that point. But somewhere along the way, we’ve forgotten that we need to think of ourselves as human beings first and Americans second; whatever else we are should place a distant third on the identity list.
The apostles of identity politics need to heed Lincoln’s ominous warning during the build-up to the Civil War: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” They’d also benefit from a passing acquaintance with America’s national motto: E pluribus unum — “From many, one.” Right now, too many PC ideologues have it reversed.
Rick Bayan is founder-editor of The New Moderate.
THE NEW MODERATE 
First of all, I don’t even watch television, much less the Oscars! Most of it is trivial sniveling BS to me. If more people would just pull the plug from this non-sense, and pay attention to the issues of our day, we might start making some of the changes that we all like to talk about…unless it requires us to turn off the TV, that is….
In spite of that, I more or less agree with you that “political correctness” has become a scourge. I tend to fall down on the liberal side of things, and as a woman who has suffered discrimination and such from male bosses and chauvinistic employers, I’ve got my own reasons to be pissed off at the Patriarchy. That said…
I was having a discussion the other day with a friend of a very liberal friend, and I made the “faux pas” of using the word…liberal! I was corrected! “I’m not liberal”, said the 20- or 30- something tilting-at-windmills liberal antagonist female with whom I was speaking. “I’m a progressive. There *are* differences. I don’t have the time to go into them. You can Google them up.” Ex-CUSE me! Now, we have liberals taking on liberals for not discerning the differences between them! Give me a break; I’m sick of political correctness.
Then there’s the conservative in my local library forum who claimed that liberals are the only ones who use “political correctness” and that it’s killing freedom Hello? Anyone heard of book banning in the libraries? Is that coming from the liberal camp? Nooooo, I think it’s coming from conservatives. It’s the conservatives form of declaring what is politically correct..and they’ll make damn sure you don’t even READ anything that THEY don’t agree with!
Moderates. Where are you? How many of us are there, really? Yes, the world does seem to be insane, and it’s the extremists on both ends of the supposed political “continuum” who are making it that way, IMO.
Problem with moderates is them being moderate. Those with the loudest voices are the far left and the far right. And right now they control everything. Moderates seem to be those that do not voice much opinion when in a small social gathering or large professional conventions. Moderates seem to be those that quietly accept what is provided to them in the political arena and then hold their noses when voting or better yet, they don’t vote at all because they don’t see what difference it would make.
I find myself in that position most every time I go to the polls. And when I do find someone who meets my moderate credentials, there is little active support for them in a primary or general election. Usually the candidates are elected with about 55% of the people voting, meaning 40-45% of eligible voters did not go to the polls. And I bet many of them would be considered moderates.
cougrrl, that was beautiful, really spot on. Its the first time in forever I have the chance to read a post here on this kind of topic that was to my mind spot on.
Moderates are here, really, and we still affect a lot. Presidential elections for one big thing. The PC people are not really winning anything, most people rebel against them, both the right and left forms. Moderates are the dark matter that actually keeps everything from getting out of hand.
Having spent a lot of my life in academia I’ve seen a lot of this kind of thing and I fought back, a long successful guerrilla war at my state University. Three radical feminist/Marxist English professors leading 25 little ISO members. They tried to bring Ward Churchill to speak, we exposed him. They did bring Howard Zinn and every dreaded hippie (I was once quite the hippy myself) in a 100 mile radius showed up. We replaced the president, who was in great sympathy with all this kind of nonsense, with a sensible person. We shut down 4/20 day. It was just 3 professors and 25 naive kids out of hundreds of profs and 8000 students but for a while they made a big sound. Common sense won out, even in liberal old Vermont.
What some twit tweets on twitter is not something for me to get my knickers in a twist over.
As to pay equity I think the issue disappears for the most part when one looks at it, but that does not mean that there is nothing at all there. In science I can say that grad schools are more than balanced for many disciplines sexwise and yet my field of biology, where women strongly outnumber mean in grad school, is still heavily male dominated. Why? We all entered grad school thinking we wanted to eventually be a big cheese and have our own lab. Then we looked at the lives of the people we studied under and most of us canned that idea, they have no lives and are humorless driven fanatics as a group. Only a small portion of the men want that life but an even smaller proportion of the women. That is it, that is the mechanism. The women I know who were still driven after seeing the reality of the life of a PI went after it and got it. No one stopped them. People stop themselves from getting into positions of power because for most those positions are not worth the sacrifice.
As Thomas Sowell so aptly points out, one of the great things about capitalism is that the profit incentive obviates one’s desire to inappropriately discriminate. If someone can help you increase profits, it matters little what they look like. Here is to free markets!
JB, this is somewhat off the subject, but the issue of “the profit incentive obviates one’s desire to inappropriately discriminate” also leads to inappropriate actions of one’s desire to do the right thing when necessary in some cases One only needs to look at the Purina/Nestles company and the fact that thousands of dogs have died that have been linked to their Beneful diet that has the same additives that Antifreeze has in it and they refuse to recall the food or change the formula. It would be way too expensive and impact their “profit incentives”. In this case, capitalism has gone one step too far in its desire to reward stockholders and management. Hopefully the courts will rule in favor of the plaintiffs and force Purina to do the right thing. And maybe if enough people hear about their crappy food, they will be forced to stop making it. Then capitalism will have worked in the long run, just thousands of dogs and pets paid the price to make it right.
BOTH outcomes should help bring Purina back to center. The law and its penalties are indeed needed in the capitalist model (as with all models). The economic loss when customers desert the brand is also an incentive to “do the right thing.” Both are essential to the capitalist system working as it should.
This is one of the many reasons we need a free press and a free internet. If these are co-opted by economic or governmental forces, we all lose.
News media, take note. Do your job or lose you station in the system.
I agree with your friend – liberals and progressives are not the same thing.
Liberalism is rooted in liberty. Progressism is statist.
Progressives starting at the turn of the 20th century. They made a mess of things thoroughly besmirched the term progressive and had to bail on it for nearly a century to get the smell off.
For a brief time they co-opted the label liberal – which is very nearly the oppositie of nany state progressivism, but ultimatley they even slimed that term and have started returning to the term progressive – now that people have forgotten the stench.
So let me remind you:
That “social darwinism” that is purportedly conservative or libertarian – actually progressive.
Eugenics – mostly progressive.
The state expermenting on citizens – progressive.
First half of the 20th century jim crow southern (and sometimes northern) democrats – progressive.
KKK – Progressive.
It is quite interesting how the past failures of progressivism are simply glossed over. There are those who defend the “great society” programs, which on their face, have set Black Americans back about 50 years of so.
as repugnant as banning books is, it is not quite the same as PC.
Nor is it limited to conservatives – try to teach Tom Sawyer and see who complains ?
Rick,
Basically, they all have their heads up the ass. I wouldn’t watch the Oscars if paid to do so.
You should check out being a libertarian. You might fit in better.
Rick, I must agree with you about the responses to the speech and how different individuals have different perspectives. On one hand there are those that say she was talking about all women as a group earning the same amount of money as men as a group. Doesn’t matter what the positions they hold. On the other hand there were those that were saying she was talking about Jennifer Lawrence and Amy Adams being paid significantly less than their male co-stars in ‘American Hustle’: Bradley Cooper, Christian Bale and Jeremy Renner. And in this case you have equal stars in equal roles being paid less. However, she did not specifically use them as examples, but used the forum to make her point.
And one needs to remember that Sony co-chair Amy Pascale defended the difference in pay after this information was leaked. She has now stepped down from the position. Guess Sony did not like the heat it generated, so now they have used her as a sacrificial lamb.
Isn’t it interesting that the Hollywood elite that is so far left in their political positions are also the ones most guilty of pay discrimination.
I was more pissed off with her pushing the Progressive Narrative of Gender Income Inequality which is based on a myth. I’ve read the BLS report which everybody quotes from and there is zero apple to apple comparisons on pay.
Bingo Mark.
Everything is outrageous outrage all of the time for the progressive left these days, isn’t it? Leave aside for the moment that the whole “$.78 on the $1.00” that women supposedly make in comparison to men is a completely bogus “fact”, or that, if an actress like Charlize Theron is making less per picture than some lesser male actor, perhaps she should fire her agent and sign on with one who can negotiate better contracts – or maybe just be happy with her $10 million.
What Patricia Arquette said was just run-of-the-mill liberal hogwash, and the Hollywood crowd appeared to love it, as illustrated by the reactions of Meryl Streep and JLo, as well as the enthusiastic cheering of the crowd.
But apparently, well-intentioned liberal hogwash is no longer good enough for the Check Your Privilege/Trigger Content Warning/Rape Culture crowd. These people are aggressively intolerant and used to getting their way.
Scary.
It is fun to watch the libs eat their young. Sit back enjoy.
Fifty years ago Ray Bradbury in Fahrenheit 451 foresaw where special interests groups and the politics of minority status were leading America. While America is not ruled by a totalitarian government, he did foresee a time when what we call “intersectionality” would lead us deeper into ignorance. Now, I am not talking about being purposely offensive, but I am disturbed that it is growing harder to have a conversation without someone playing the PC police. And, I am not talking about excusing racist or sexist ideologues. What I am talking about is everyone taking a big breath and/or a chill pill, so that we can have true open and honest conversations about our nation and the people who comprise it. For example, we spend so much time worrying about things like whether a person wants to be called Mexican-American, Chicano, Latin-American, or Spanish and whether still another should be referred to as mentally handicapped, mentally challenged, or as having an “intellectual development disorder,” that we forget what the entire purpose of the conversation was supposed to be. Further creating strife and tension, immigrants cannot even arrive in the U.S. and appreciate the freedoms of America without being poisoned by some PC individual who soon convinces them that they are being treated horribly because they, even though they have just arrived, do not have everything other Americans have. In the end all the minority kibitzing creates more tensions between groups of people, and our aging population must keep up with the new lexicon of PC terminology that keeps on changing because, if they do not, they surely are racist, sexist, etc. etc. — but, aren’t all old people? Or, is that ageist of me to say? Hence, like Bradbury, let me portend the future: Americans will either unite, or in 100 years more, Civil War will shatter the unity of a nation who is a beacon of freedom to the world. So, guess what Americans? We can’t make things equal for everyone! They aren’t equal for me. So, how can they be equal for you? Allow yourself that two to three minutes every day when, like a paralyzed Christopher Reeve, you allow yourself to experience everything that means to you. Then, pick yourself up, do your best, knowing that it will never be enough, and in the words of a famous writer, make the life of someone else a little easier.
Well said Redland Girl!
Couggrrl asked in the first comment “Moderates where are you”? Your comment “Now, I am not talking about being purposely offensive, but I am disturbed that it is growing harder to have a conversation without someone playing the PC police” plays right into that earlier question. I offer that moderates have allowed liberals and conservatives to control the messages that we hear everyday, while the moderates (like you and I hope myself) ask why we can not have your “true open and honest conversations about our nation and the people who comprise it.
Why? For one we do not have a moderate party that allows the majority of moderate independents a voice in what is happening in America and two, there are few millionaires and billionaires that would fund a moderate party since their interest lies with the far left or far right parties we have today. A quote attributed to Alexander Tyler, (but that is debatable) states…….
” The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.”
Seems to me that the USA is somewhere between complacency to dependence depending on economic situation and political views. Moderates today seem to fall in the complacency catagory while many liberals fall in the dependent category.
Redland Girl, your comment about people stressing over what to call identity groups reminded me of when some CNN reporter referred to Nelson Mandela as “African-American.”
Redland girl. Another brilliant post. I feel rich today. Common sense. common decency. These are principles to live by. Most of us do.
I do a thought experiment where I posit that overnight, all Caucasians in the US simply vanish, gone without a trace. What happens then, to the outraged people of color. Try it, it is fun.
I have several such encounters as described in the article below. Suffice to say, they were fun for me, not so much for doctor.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/26/heres-how-to-tackle-garden-variety-political-correctness/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=5e491fdc77-RSS_DAILY_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-5e491fdc77-83789813
This most recent post of Rick’s is an outrage. He failed to even mention the struggles of Canadian-born hotel workers in Florida or the plight of BBO (big-boned and obese) horse racing jockeys in an industry dominated by petite riders. Also we need legislation forbidding employers from discriminating against people with spider web tattoos over their entire face. Those people have feelings too. Oh the unfairness!
Recently a restaurant owner refused service to a man dressed like a Victoria’s Secret runway model, i.e. wearing only a bikini and those giant white feathery angel wings. “Do what you want in your own house,” the restaurant owner said, “but in here we’re aiming for a certain kind of atmosphere. That man’s get-up was too distracting for my customers, and honestly it made me uncomfortable…” The man is suing the restaurant for discrimination. Down the street at Crazy Pete’s (a night club), however, they welcomed the winged man to join their party. Okay, very sorry folks, I just made this up, but maybe it illustrates the point that somewhere between strict, narrow-minded conformity at one extreme and out-of-control intersectionality at another extreme, there could be some common sense. Private is one thing. Public is another. What kind of atmosphere are we aiming for in 21st century America, on the streets and in the media? What kind of atmosphere can we afford? How about somewhere in between stoning people for blasphemy at one extreme and an all-out freak show at another extreme, PLEASE? Oh God are there more than two extremes???
“Oh God are there more than two extremes???”
Pat, from my perspective we may not be far off from only two extremes. Most of those in the House today are just a step away from the “all out freak show” or they are a step away from stoning people if they do not live by the word of God that those elected believe in.
Moderation in Congressional House politics is dead. And it is a step way from death in the Senate. Why else would congressional approval be in the teens. Only the farthest of the left and farthest of the right approve of their actions. Everyone else wants something done and that takes compromise, and that ain’t gonna happen.
I don’t think that is what Pat is implying as he did not advocate stoning anyone. That said, I think having a rest. owner be forced people because the govt issues a license to serve food is ludicrous on its face. Its my food, why do I need to serve it to people who offend me and drive my customers away?
Well I hope I did not come across as thinking Pat supported stoning. My point was the lack of moderates in congress and government in general today compared to years ago when we had moderate New England Rockefeller Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats that would work together and get meaningful legislation passed that did not infringe on individuals rights and did not try to control most everyone’s values like they try to do today. There was much less activity to divide the country into the needy and the 1% than there is today that is used to support the tax and spend idiocy of the far left.. Maybe I am wrong, but it seemed to me back in the 80’s that Reagan was able to work with congress and get his agenda’s passed, which I completely believe given today’s environment would never happen.
My point was we are much closer to Pat’s stoning example now than ever before and we are moving closer to those two extremes with each election. Moderates no longer have a voice nor do they have much influence in what happens in this country today, even though that group might be a larger percentage of the population than the far extremes that control each party.
This POTUS has worked from day 1 to divide. The reaction on the right is very understandable. Reparations are on the docket for his last year. If he can do anything he wants on immigration, what is to stop him?
You help make my point. But where do the moderate go when we have parties dominated by the likes of Obama (and most likely Clinton) and Ted Cruz (and house members of his persuasion)?
Right now we await the outcome of the DHS funding bill. The senate, made up of more moderate wings of each party has passed a DHS funding bill that does not meet the requirements of the conservative wing of the Republican party that dominates the house. Do we have a standoff the defunds DHS or do we have a clean bill passed and then a debate on the immigration issue that should take place separate from funding.
I suspect many would not agree with me, but I believe all funding of government agencies should be clean bills without any riders attached. Let the agendas be debated and voted on in separate bills, not funding bills. The GOP will never win when it comes to “government shutdowns” or what is really government working without pay.
The media wants spectacle and so do liability attorneys. So, that is what we will get.
Rick, I have been informed that there is a politically correct way of talking about the younger generation that is not interested in politics and do not vote. It is not that they are uninterested, selfish (thinking only of me) or just not giving a damn what happens, it is now considered “youthful detachment”. So when I am railing about the younger generation, I will have to make sure I use this to describe their interest levels in what goes on in the USA today.
haha let’s start with the fact that I am NOT pro-stoning, unless in life-threatening self-defense, and then in that case aim for their forehead with a good, heavy one. Let’s build a political philosophy from there!
So, how do we amplify the message of moderation? How do we foster strong, powerful voices of moderation? With some people here on TNM, and millions of people in ‘merica and around the world, realizing that extreme positions have usually crossed over the threshold into incorrect and trouble, and that common sense dictates that most things (not all) work in moderation, how do we break the deadlock between right and left, liberal and conservative, black and white, etc? I have a few ideas, of course, but I want to keep my posts short. What’s the list of things we can do to bring strong moderate voices above the din of the endless bickering of the extremes? Can we start with a list of ten things?
The problem is in defining “extreme.” Whatever the Tea Party advocates gets them labeling extreme and the default position supposed to be to marginalize everything they say and worse.
When Bernie Sanders advocates for wealth redistributions and reparations, no one seems to think THAT is extreme.
I don’t see away around this until something “extreme” happens to wake us up. Apparently beheadings and setting people on fire is NOT extreme. After all, the WH has told us a jobs program will turn the ISIS killers around.
With “leadership” like that, its a wonder I am try not to pay attention to anything anymore. I get depressed.
JB..it is not hard to define something “extreme” in the minds of progressives. Anything that might be broadcast on Fox News is “extreme” and anything they support is “extreme”. Anything that is heard on MSNBC and supported by MSNBC is progressive, so that is why Bernie Sanders fiscal policies is not “extreme”.
Now as a moderate, I will tell you I was 100% behind the Tea Party movement when it was first organized as a movement to reform fiscal policies in this country. But when the social conservatives hijacked the movement and brought in Gay marriage, Abortion and all their other social issues they wanted severely curtailed or banned, then they lost me as a supporter, along with any of the candidates that they may support in elections. This country did very well for years when there was compromise in government, including the Reagan years.
I do miss Reagan.
jbastiat, I share your frustration, and also the occasional depression because of current events or the status quo, etc. I am very careful about my intake of commercial, pre-paid “news” because at best it is usually terribly lopsided and unbalanced, and at worst it is deliberate manipulation to keep the masses distracted, confused, and depressed. One of the best trainings I received while a U.S. Navy Seabee was from a U.S. Marine on P.O.W. Survival Skills. Captors keep their prisoners demoralized and hopeless with steady bad news. Should the captors build up the self-esteem of the prisoners?? hell no.
Anyway, I liked your thought experiment further above. 🙂 Another mental exercise is to see the range of practical, workable, efficacious moderation in almost any situation, which then exposes the extremes. It’s really not that difficult and the gray areas aren’t so much to worry about if one is moving away from ridiculous, troublesome extremes toward the Goldilocks just right spot. Even if never arrive at perfect sweet spot balance it is still moving in the right direction. Aristotle saw it so long ago and the method still applies almost everywhere today.
Example areas to try: household finances (what is too much spending, what is not enough spending?), immigration (when is there too much immigration, when is there not enough?),eating food (when is not enough, when is the range of adequate food intake, when is too much?), military spending, local government spending on equipment…
I do hear some of our politicians talking in terms of a “good amount” of a thing, rather than one unbending extreme stance always correct, and that gives me some hope.
I think we are on the same page. The same goes for personal health. I just spent a week in Orlando and was appalled at the level of obesity. It is quite disgusting to look at and one is stunned by the present and future costs to the “social welfare” system that is the USA.
Could be something like you suggest about a link to a website about moderate issues, but it needs to have at least one moderate post daily to make individuals really interested in reading that information. And not just reposting of liberal crap like another so named moderate website posts and then chastises anyone that may question the progressive comments they support.
Yes Ron, perhaps a loose network of Moderate sites so that there’s always something fresh to see, as maintaining a site is a lot of work. So one day the tasty snack is featured on TNM, then next day on SMV (Strong Moderate Voices), then next day on Joe Schmoe’s Moderate Jump Page…quality Moderate sites with fresh daily content won’t be easy, but not impossible.
Pat, you posted this sometime ago about amplifying the voices of moderation. I heard two items the past couple of days that lend themselves to the lack of moderation in the current environment.
People ask where are the moderate Muslims and why are they not speaking up against the radical Islamist? After listening to the comments from Egyptian President, I question if the United States is really supporting moderation in the middle east since we froze military aide to that country until the last couple months. And given the fact that the UAE and Egypt have conducted military exercises without notifying Obama, do they even believe he supports moderation? One has to wonder if we will not support moderate Muslims in their efforts to fight ISIS, would they even trust the USA in any effort.
Now we hear that Hillary has a problem with her home server e-mail account. An interview with Ed Klein who has written a book (Blood Feud) about the feud between the Clinton’s and Obama’s indicated he has sources reporting that Valerie Jarrett and others in the White House have begun a campaign to smear Hillary since they view her as too moderate and one who will not continue the Obama leftist movement. They want a far left Democrat to follow them to insure that his executive orders are not cancelled and his policies continue after he leaves office. They believe she will work with congress, while they support deadlocks and E.O.’s and that is not the course they want the Democrats to take. Even Bill Clinton comments to Chelsea on this from a quote in the book”
….””Recently, I’ve heard a different scenario from state committeemen about the Obama’s preference in ’16,” Bill continued. ‘They say he’s looking around for a candidate who’s just like him. Someone relatively unknown. Someone with a fresh face. He’s convinced himself that he’s been a brilliant president, and he wants to clone himself–to find his Mini-Me. He’s hunting for someone to succeed him, and he believes the American people don’t want to vote for someone who’s been around for a long time. He thinks that your mother and I are what he calls ‘so twentieth century.’ He’s looking for another Barack Obama.’”
Neither of these positions, if true, are moderate. And how many moderate Americans even know they are happening or paying attention?
Another Barack Obama. Now, that makes my blood run cold.
1. A well-written book chock-full of examples, including a few mind-expanding examples, of how moderation works in everyday life and in political arenas. Of course followed by appearances on daytime and nighttime TV talk shows.
2. Clever T-shirts
3. A song about moderation for Taylor Swift to sing
4. Links on TNM to post some of Rick’s posts to Facebook, etc., so more people will come to TNM and join in the discourse. And they will post to their friends…and so on.
So the only thing you have a problem with is that those on the left are demanding that every 30sec litany of greivances, covers transexual indonesian Sikhs?
Discrimination is a fact of life. It is just the name we give to making choices when we do not like the choices made.
We are not equal – none of us. Just a fact of life, get over it. Life would be very boring if we were.
When 400 people compete for something that will have only one winner some means have to be chosen to eliminate 399. That is called discrimination.
Since there is no such thing as Equal, there can not be such a thing as equally qualified.
Having actually had to hire people, picking is hard. It is rare that one can say unequivically A is better than B. Normally A has differnet assets and liabilities than B.
Just to stir things up I have frequently hired women for jobs over more qualified men.
Why ? Women tended to work for less, and were more loyal.
Am I not allowed to do that ? Can’t I hire the less qualified candidate – if they are cheaper ?
Can I never order from the “value” menu ?
Actually, you can’t even imply that there is even one man that could possibly be more qualified than a women. You sire, are worse than Obama, who is worse that Hitler
Just kidding, well said. If we couldn’t “discriminate” between all manner of things, we couldn’t get out the front door in the morning. Life is essentially a set of choices and as you have said, let’s all just deal with it.
JBastiat
“It is quite interesting how the past failures of progressivism are simply glossed over. There are those who defend the “great society” programs, which on their face, have set Black Americans back about 50 years of so.”
The entire history of the left is fascinating.
Though political history in the US is not some homogenous left-right conflict, there are still historical currents.
That of the modern US left runs through 60’s liberalism and turn of the century progressives.
In an argument modern progressives claim virtually every good thing that ever occurred in this country for themselves an government – regardless of whether they had anything to do with it – even when they opposed it.
The “social darwinism” that the left tags the right with today was more commonly an attribute of early progressives.
Progressivism was strongly tied to the south, Jim Crow and the KKK – even through to atleast the 40’s.
Sen. Strom Thurmond was a Southern Progressive as an example.
Eugenics was a value more common to those on the early left.
Things like Bell V Buck, or the Tuskegee Syphillis study – progressives.
Woodrow Wilson – a fairly notorious racist.
The left denies that Hitler was a socialist – god forbid they should be tainted.
Yet fixating on equality over liberty and the state as an instrument to acheive equality has lead to rivers of blood whenever it has been tried.
It is beyond me to understand how approaches that have so universally failed so badly so frequently can still be bought by any today.
“It is beyond me to understand how approaches that have so universally failed so badly so frequently can still be bought by any today.”
Herein lies the problem. Approaches that have universally failed are not “bought” by any today. Those that have accepted those approaches are the ones being “bought”. Tax Credits, Tax subsidies, government support programs and all the other programs where individuals receive something from a government agency have created the following for failed approaches. There are those that are truly needy and government plays a role in those needs. Then there are the vast majority of those that depend on government that can provide for themselves, but find it much easier to live off subsidies and to do that , they need the failed approaches.
Hello Dave, how have you been? A belated Happy New Year to you. I wish you and your family health and joy in 2015.
Regarding your post above I look beyond some of your wording to glean the gist of your expressed view, and I think we are mostly on the same page with regard to discrimination being a fact of life, and a GOOD thing, at least for the original, general, basic meaning of the word “discrimination,” which could be defined as simply “recognizing the differences between one thing and another,” rather than the other, negative use of the word “discrimination,” which could be defined as “actions that deny social participation or human rights to perceived categories of people based on prejudice rather than any proven misdeeds of the people.”
It is a limitation and quirk of our language that the word discrimination can have two very different applications of the same word that share a core overlap of meaning, like a Venn diagram overlap, but then areas or extensions of meaning which are not in accord. And so one application or extension of the meaning of discrimination is a good thing, as when a skilled worker, such as a surgeon, discriminates among the many tools available, to choose the precisely correct tool for success on the job, or when a chef discriminates with ingredients, or when life or competition discriminate naturally to produce a better apple or tennis player.
And then there is the other application or extension of the word “discrimination” which is negative because it refers to a harmful or unhealthy coercion against people, such as when a tax-collecting arm of a government (IRS) targets a segment of a population (tea party types) because of its views, or when dark-skinned people assume things about lighter-skinned people, and vice-versa, automatically including a person in a category based on only a few, very salient indicators rather than based on facts, truths, or actions, or such as agents of a state rounding up people based on ethnicity and forcing them onto trains with the muzzle ends of machine guns…
And so be careful being absolute with words which have variations of meaning, subtle variations and strong, divergent variations. And so when someone says “…there is no such thing as Equal,” well that depends on what is meant by the word “Equal” and in what context the word equal is being applied. One might say that apples and oranges cannot be “equal” because they are different things, but an apple and an orange can be equal in weight or volume. Person A and Person B may always be different entities, never occupying the same space at the same time according to the laws of physics, but they may live under an abusive regime that does not recognize their human rights, or they may live in a society in which unhealthy discrimination is held in check, as much as possible, so that person A and person B could be said to be Equals in society, both with a Fair chance at success, not a guarantee, not sameness, not mathematical equality, but social Equality–an amorphous, unwieldy, non-precise, but very REAL thing that is healthy for humanity.
Rick in his post advocates for a reasonable and sane level of justice and a reasonable and sane check against discrimination, as opposed to an unreasonable level of hyper intersectionality. So do I. So do you. Don’t get hung up on the words. Don’t get hung up on absolutes.
5. A fun board game in which extremists lose a turn and go back 3 spaces while moderates proceed to a “balance space” and collect $200.
6. Some colleges are allowing “custom majors” that didn’t exist before, especially ones that tie in to years of work experience in various fields, and I say hurray to that. So a custom college major such as “Moderation Science” or “Sociology and Political Moderation” or what-have-you. At some point the major goes mainstream. Wars must be fought along multiple fronts with all kinds of contributions. Our culture has been under siege along multiple fronts for a long time. Time to fight back.
“United we stand, hyphenated we fall.” JD Borgman aka Marvel Mindless
I like it!
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/netanyahu-says-israel-can-stand-alone-and-pelosi-turns-her-back-videoo/2015/03/04/
Wonder why the PC Patrol has not jumped on this inappropriate action by one of our esteemed leaders?
I know when you grow up in a Muslim country and you attend churches that preach “God Damn America” you would not be a president that supports Israel. However, this action is unforgivable.
I feel like I am living in an alternate universe. Where is the American Jew and where is THEIR outrage?
I can’t figure out what’s going on either. No one seems to care what the hell happens any more. Now I hear he has directed the IRS to give him directions as to how he can tax offshore moneys through executive order and I bet no one will says a word about that either. Yes Fox News will, but everyone knows they are just a bunch of right wing extremist!
What worries me more than the next couple years left in his administration is the following presidents that will see what he has done and expand on his actions and take more power than the president was ever intended to have, just like he has and no one has tried to reel him in. (They have talked alot, but I have heard of no legislation offered to limit executive orders to clarification of existing law) Every president has been given or taken more power that the previous one, so why should Hillary be any different.
Yes, we are well past the 200 years that a democracy can survive and it appears we are quickly running out of time.
This guy would become a dictator if he could pull it off. Apparently, he can.
Ron, I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that the Constitution may be in terminal failure. The key checks and balances are simply being ignored, and, as you have observed, no one much seems to care. Federal law is rapidly becoming whatever the President and his party say it is. This will likely be true of the next GOP president as well.
Look at the debacle of Obamacare and how many times the law has been simply amended and/or ignored on the President’s say-so. Look at immigration reform (a rare issue on which I actually agree with much of the substance of the President’s EO….if only it weren’t completely unconstitutional and lawless). What has Congress done to assert its role as a legislative body representing the will of the people? Ummm, err…..not much.
And now, Iran. The President wants a treaty with our enemy, essentially, without having to get it ratified by the Senate, because…well, it wouldn’t be.
The problem, as I see it, is that politics and cronyism has so thoroughly corrupted our republican (small “r”) form of government that we have truly reached a tipping point. And I’m not sure if we get back.
(Meanwhile, the PC patrol marches on……)
Priscilla, I would love to see a miniseries on the History Channel written and directed by a non partisan individual on the Rise and Fall of America’s Constitution. The founding fathers wrote this document that was based mostly on the ten commandments and individual freedoms. Stealing, killing etc were illegal as were infringement on individual rights. It seems to me that over the 235+ years since its ratification, and especially the last 100 years, elected officials have decided that there personal views are more important than the rights and regulations written into the constitution.
From abortion, gay marriage, immigration, taxing anyone who makes a good living, controlling education, healthcare, property rights and many other domestic and foreign affairs issues, what is written in the constitution has been minimized and what one person believes to be right is maximized.
Yes, there needs to be laws to control bad people. I am not saying that we do not need government to control bad drugs, bad capitalism (monopolies), etc, but the need should be based on the constitution and not someone’s personal belief system. We have that is all levels of government including the Supreme Court. For instance, if congress writes a law and says “established in the states”, did the founders of the constitution believe the court should try to get into the mind of the legislators and decide that they really meant something different than what is written in law, or did the founders believe what is written is law.
Again, we see the split at all levels of government that is allowing a corrosion of the constitution as we know it today that is allowing our president to become a King with powers only seen in most middle eastern countries and not the western democracies that exist today.
And the most scary part of this whole picture is not one person in congress is doing anything except running their mouths to try and correct this problem.
And no sooner than we discuss this, Senate Republicans wtite a letter to Iran, putting the mullahs on notice that any treaty not ratified by the Congress may not last beyond the Obama presidency.
Now, I am a GOP sympathizer for sure, but, generally, I would be very opposed to members of Congress, stepping in and involving themselves in what is said to be an ongoing negotiation, before any agreement is announced. Nancy Pelosi did it by meeting and negotiating with Bashir Assad, undermining Bush’s efforts to isolate Assad until he agreed to certain conditions. I thought she was very wrong to do so.
And, yes, many Republicans responded by calling Pelosi a traitor, the way many Democrats are now calling Tom Cotton et.al. traitors.
But seriously, once the President has fragrantly violated his Consitiutional powers, as with the executive amnesty, and then publicly announced that he will again ignore his co-equal branch of government by refusing to submit the treat that he is secretly negotiating with Iran to the Congress for ratification, what is that co-equal branch supposed to do. Just acknowledge that the Constitution is dead, and that any President is simply law unto himself, until the next President is elected to be the new law-unto-himself (or herself)?
As you have pointed out, the POTUS has treated Congress like shit for 6 years. Now, he whines when they return the favor. Hmm, what a child we have as a POTUS.
JB..Have to agree, but can you name much that congress has done during the past 6 years that has helped the country? With the leadership we have today in all parts of government, can we agree somewhat that our elected officials have treated the USA like s—. When we see the likes of Colburn, Byah and other moderates abandoning ship, one has to wonder. Obama has set the treatment bar high, but congress does not seem to be far behind.
In their defense. many have tried. Even of late, the Keystone Pipeline veto shows exactly what this POTUS thinks of Congress.
jb..Maybe I am not paying attention, but Keystone, Repeal of Obamacare and sending 12 million illegals back to their country of birth is not doing much in helping America, They are losers from the beginning because they will all be vetoed and are only passed to placate the GOP’s base.
Priscilla, I believe that congress has accepted your position “Just acknowledged that the Constitution is dead, and that any President is simply law unto himself, until the next President is elected to be the new law-unto-himself (or herself)?” Many in congress vocalize about the actions this president is taking, but how many pieces of legislation is even talked about by members that would reign in some executive powers this president has taken. That legislation might not get anywhere, but just the fact of talking about it might open this problem up for media discussion.
But you have also identified in your comment why nothing is ever done about E.O.’s and the power the president takes that may not be granted in the constitution. “Until the next President is elected”. If you are the opposition party, you are just waiting in the wings for the next election to happen and your party takes control. You do not want to tie the hands of your president by defining in a more limited form what the president can and can not do with E.O.’s.
Well, I think there may be a few, but their numbers are small, so they lack power. And there is generally a disdain for the rule of law – up to and including the Constitution – that pervades the federal government, which really does seem to have become a leviathan.
In connection with the Hillary Clinton email scandal, which I see as a pretty straightforward case of her violating both the spirit and letter of the law, by conducting official business from a private email server, Politico has this statement from a leading Democrat in Iowa, “This story doesn’t alter my opinion of Hillary,” said Martin Peterson, chairman of Iowa’s Crawford County Democrats, “but it does alarm me that she is a lightning rod for any type of criticism of invented scandals by the opposition.”
So, rather than address the substance and seriousness of the offense, the knee-jerk reaction is to blame it on the other party? It’s this hyper-partisan mindset that makes it impossible to get anything done or address any problems.
\
I’m surprised that Martin Peterson did not say “what difference does it make?
“Clintonian” was not a word developed just for Bill.
Sorry, gang… I’ve been tied up with one chore after another, but you’ve been carrying on nicely without me. Good to see a couple of new faces (or screen names, at least) commenting here. I’ll post something new as soon as the dust clears, which should be any day now. (I have my annual tax appointment tomorrow; it’ll be a tremendous relief to get it behind me.)
I agree with any and all here that Obama has taken the going it alone idea to a dangerous extreme. That idea was roundly a loser in polls when he made a statement to that effect a year or so back. I believe that ~ 70 pooled thought that this is a bad idea. In general as a moderate I am looking to both parties to rein in their extremes, which is difficult for them to do without losing many votes. For the last 6 years its been mostly the GOP that I have been disgusted with over this looking the other way so as not to lose the support of the base. In this case I have to side with Priscilla et al. Obama is making a huge mess. Really he knew how to get elected. He does not know how to be president. His party should revolt.
On the other hand, the idea that the “Constitution is dead” is taking things to an extreme of gloom. There is a supreme court, it is fairly well balanced as of now and the forseeable future. If Obama is truly violating the Constitution itself and not just stretching his actual powers well beyond what wisdom or democracy would dictate, then this matter is for lawyers to argue in front of the Supremes. It will take time, but the Constitution is very certainly not dead.
70% of those polled. Drat.
Hey, your typos pale in comparison to mine, Roby. “Fragrantly violated” and secretly negotiated “treat” ? Oof.
“If Obama is truly violating the Constitution itself and not just stretching his actual powers well beyond what wisdom or democracy would dictate, then this matter is for lawyers to argue in front of the Supremes. It will take time, but the Constitution is very certainly not dead.”
It may not be dead, but it also is not as healthy as it once was. Someone has to bring a case to SCOTUS.
Problem is, liberals love what he is doing so they won’t. conservatives want their guy or gal to have the same powers or more when they get elect, so they won’t. And MODERATES, they just don’t care for the most part. They will accept the left or right depending our which way they lean.
I’ll jump in here as Debbie Downer and say that I don’t really have a ton of faith in SCOTUS to do the right thing either. The Obamacare mandate, tax vs penalty, decision was pretty shocking in the sense that, all along, the government had argued that the Obamacare penalty for not enrolling was exactly that – a penalty for not following the law. And then, most likely due to political pressure, SCOTUS decided that it was – voila! – a tax.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not entirely pessimistic about the demise of the Constitution. But, like Ron, I fear for its health.
Its never healthy to have a POTUS who is pushing the limits of the Constitution. Nixon, Obama, etc. I don’t think Reagan’s Ollie North Contra adventure was Constitutionally kosher either.
Votewise when you run your lame duck years doing something that 70% polled disagree with that hurts your party next time. Its a bad way to govern and it does not win in the long run.
Roby, how true it is when the country is working the limits of the constitution and SCOTUS is the one making all the decisions to insure health of the constitution. There once was a time that congress and the president made most of these calls and SCOTUS was called in on a limited basis.
But this changed some years back. It seems to me that there were decisions made in government to insure minorities had a larger voice in politics, so states redrew house district lines to make more “minority” districts. I use North carolina 12th district as an example. It runs for almost 150 miles long and in some places just as wide as interstate 85 from Charlotte to Raleigh. It was designed to capture the large percentage of black voters in the state. For liberals and conservatives both, this was a good thing. It insured one black representative in the house and also made the white districts more conservative as the liberal minority voters were removed from those districts.
With those changes, it also impacted state house representation. The states over the years have become more conservative and controlled more by the GOP. But what was once a “good” thing to liberals, is now “bad gerrymandering” by the conservatives. They forget they were all for it to get minority representation. Be careful what you ask for!!!
Why do I write all this. Because these changes have resulted in a congress that is much more divided in the House and the legislation that comes out of congress is much more politically motivated than before. Where moderates developed legislation that most presidents could sign (Reagan and Clinton for example), the legislation today that has any meaning at all is not passed unless the congress and president is of the same party. It is therefore much more left or right leaning, resulting in more challanges by others that has it end up in the Supreme Court. And with few moderates on the bench, those decisions are much more political.
That is why I think the constitution is having health problems. Not on its death bed, but a sever case of the flu or cold.
Very thoughtful and reasonable post Ron.
I agree 100%.
Is the constitution dead, on its deathbed, under siege, or alive and well? I say it is dangerously under siege but also alive and well depending on the time and place these days. We can find examples where the constitution is under attack. We can find examples where human rights are being protected. Where will we go from here?
So on the one hand you admonish folk for simply repeating empty memes, follow that with your list the remedies for curtailing the power of the oligarchy, and then you denigrate Sanders,calling him a “socialist”(I guess to a moderate that’s a bad thing) establishing a false equivalency with the Republican clown show, because he advocates all of your own solutions to the problem of a wealthy elite.
Might be best if you take your own advice and try thinking outside of your own bias and bubble.
woof, should have read the comments before I made a comment. Didn’t know this was mainly just another gathering of rightwing parrots. I guess the use of the word “moderate” threw me. My bad.
You got the ‘should have read the comments before you made a comment’ part right, Christopher. Saying this is ‘just another gathering of right wing parrots’ is the kind of ill informed crap an ignoramus Flat Earth adherent who hadn’t read or didn’t understand the science they read would make.
You do know the world is round I hope.