Category Archives: culture

Manufactured Racism

Posted on by
Reply

A Democratic congresswoman said drawing attention to a colleague’s first job in the fast food industry is racist.

Seriously.

Congressman Joe Wilson (R, SC) was talking up the value of a fast food job as a means of gaining valuable experience and life/work lessons while on the job, and he mentioned that Senator Tim Scott (R, SC) had started out in such a starter job in a Chick-fil-A franchise, and now he was a sitting Senator.

[Franchises] provide entry level jobs for people to have first-time employment, improve themselves, and succeed.  In South Carolina we particularly recognize this. US Senator Tim Scott had his first job at a Chick-fil-A franchise.

It’s true enough that Wilson was factually wrong about Scott’s relationship with the franchise—he was mentored by a franchisee rather than having his first job at one.  However, it’s crystalline that Wilson was not being racist in referencing Scott’s employment history.

That didn’t stop Congresswoman Marcia Fudge (D, OH) from deciding to get her knickers in a twist over the reference.

I have to say this. I am trying to figure out for the life of me what Tim Scott has to do with what we are talking about today. So he worked at Chick-fil-A? So what? I mean did [Wilson] bring it up because he’s black?

No, Wilson brought it up to show the value of starter jobs of the sort a franchise can offer.

Fudge knows this.  She manufactured her beef for her own political ends.  Making up a racist beef, though, where it’s clear that no racism exists is itself racist.  She could have served her personal politics in other ways.  Unless this is her personal politics.

Discrimination

Posted on by
Reply

Now FEMA is doing it, and it’s religious discrimination.  Churches, bastions of succor in times of disaster—like Hurricanes Harvey and Irma—suffer their own damages in those disasters, as they did in Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.  However, unlike other charitable organizations in similar straits, churches are being denied FEMA assistance to recover.

Law on this is not clear because separation of church and state, New York University Law Professor Burt Neuborne is claiming.

The difficulty is that the Constitution has two provisions in it. It has a freedom of religion, but it also has kind of a freedom from religion which prevents government money from being used for religious purposes, worship purposes.

No, it doesn’t.  This is, at best, mistaken.  The two relevant 1st Amendment clauses are the Free Exercise Clause—Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion]—and the Establishment Clause—Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.  There’s nothing in there about freedom from religion; that’s just the distortionate drivel used by crowds like the Freedom From Religion Foundation, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the like.

The Federal government cannot favor one religion over another or favor religion over atheism; there’s nothing in there that prohibits the Feds from providing disaster recovery help to religious organizations along with the same sort of help for secular non-profit organizations.  In fact, refusing to do so violates the Establishment Clause by actively disfavoring religion rather than acting neutrally toward it—as the Clause requires.

Neuborne wasn’t finished.

The question is: can they get the money and rebuild their worship facilities? Because then the money would be going towards worship, not to help people from not getting skinned knees on the playground, or being able to get food at the food bank.

This is just disingenuous.  No, the money would not be going toward worship, it would be going toward restoring a building.  A building that comes in critically handy for sheltering those displaced by disasters, natural or otherwise.  Regardless of the religions (or lack) of the sheltered or the shelter.

The attacks on religion from continues.

Berkeley and Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

It seems that Steve Bannon and Milo Yiannopoulos have been invited by the The Berkeley Patriot, a student publication at the university, to speak at a four-day “Free Speech Week” later this month.

UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof is claiming that the organizers haven’t yet “submitted the information or forms required to ensure the events occur.”

“This is all about providing to them the security they want and we want to offer for their events, and it can’t happen overnight,” he added, noting that a speech given by conservative Ben Shapiro on Thursday requires the university bring in “a huge number” of police officers and “spending hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

Recall the violence with which the Left attacked those attending, or trying to attend, Shapiro’s speech.  There’s a hint in Mogulof’s remarks regarding the safety of those of whom the Left disapproves.  There’s a hint regarding Berkeley’s attitude toward the speech of which its management disapproves.

But, But….

Posted on by
Reply

Cops act out of ignorance, a famous man said.

No, they don’t.  They act out of honor and integrity, especially when the chips are down.  Or the storm is up.  Follow the link in the quoted paragraphs.

Dramatic footage shows a Florida sheriff’s deputy saving an American flag that was being battered in Hurricane Irma’s powerful winds.

The video, which was posted to the Martin County Sheriff’s Office, shows Lt. Danny Cunningham running from his car into strong winds and rain to retrieve the beaten flag from a pole.

“I couldn’t watch it get blown apart,” Cunningham reportedly said.

And this bit by an Aransas Pass cop during Harvey.

A Misconception

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal wrote an op-ed about Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’ speech at George Mason University regarding her intent to withdraw the Obama administration’s infamous Dear Colleague Letter that threatened the due process rights of students accused of sexual assault.  In it, though, the WSJ included a misconception.

The Obama Education Department’s response was to circumvent Congress and neglect normal executive-branch rule-making procedures mandated in the Administrative Procedure Act, such as soliciting public comment. Instead, it simply jammed the policy through by sending out a “Dear Colleague” letter, including an explicit threat that noncomplying schools could lose federal funding.

It takes two to tango.

The op-ed implied that the university/college recipients of the Letter were somehow bound by it.  This is not true: the Letter was not, and could not be, binding in any way shape or form exactly because the procedure for promulgating it by-passed statutory requirements: the Letter was no more than that, and certainly not a regulation implementing a statute.

The folks sitting in the management chairs at those universities and colleges knew this full well at the time, and they know it today.  The Letter gained force only from the cowardice of those folks sitting in those chairs.  They had only to push back and to refuse to comply with the urgings of the Letter.

Even the threat to withhold funds could never have effect since it was, and is, an entirely unenforceable claim, coming as it does as part of a non-binding Letter that could only urge an action.  The threat, inconvenient as it might have been to resist, had and has only the effectivity of a bully’s threat given it by a coward’s surrender to that bully.

It takes two to tango.  But it only takes one to duck and cover.