Sexism of the Left

It’s written all across New York City politics, explicitly so in the contest for mayor.

Andrew Yang is running for the Progressive-Democratic Party nomination for mayor. So is Eric Adams. And so is Kathryn Garcia. Both of the first two have said they’d be glad to have the third as their Deputy Mayor should one of those two win the general election for mayor.

Oh, the hue and cry from Garcia. So desperate is she to make a name for herself (she’s down in the weeds, polling at 5% as of last Friday, while Yang and Adams are at 22% and 17% respectively, and five more candidates are between 11% and 7%) during her own campaign, she has chosen to manufacture a sexist beef out of the other two’s willingness to recognize, and to let New York City benefit from, her talents. She cries,

It’s totally sexist. Totally sexist.

And

Are you not strong enough to actually do this job, without me helping you? You should be strong enough. You shouldn’t need me[.]

It’s true enough that a New York City mayor doesn’t need Garcia in particular in the Deputy’s slot. NYC does, though, need a Deputy Mayor.

Yang says through “a rep” that he

has enormous respect for Kathryn Garcia and that’s why he’s often said he’d seek her partnership at city hall if elected mayor.

It could be that Yang is blowing smoke with his complimentary remarks about Garcia. It could be, too, that he’s entirely sincere.

It’s instructive that Garcia has chosen the one interpretation of Yang’s suggestion to push and not the other. (Adams has chosen simply to ignore Garcia’s…claim.)

It’s further instructive that Garcia doesn’t even acknowledge the other interpretation, much less explain why she’s chosen her sexist beef and rejected the sincere (potential) offers.

That’s Garcia’s sexist bigotry—the manufacture of her beef out of whole cloth and without deigning explain her bald claim.

Conversations about Race

Gerald Seib had an op-ed in Monday’s Wall Street Journal that centered on the race conversation that our nation needs to finish having and how Senator Tim Scott’s (D, SC) response to President Joe Biden’s (D) speech to Congress. Seib noted that, while our race conversation badly wants resolution,

in fact, that it may be getting harder rather than easier to resolve.

It’s especially getting harder because of the racists of the Left and the Progressive-Democratic Party’s resident politician racists.

There are the Left’s White Saviors carefully and solemnly explaining that a black man doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he talks about his black experience and about the black experience generally.

There are the black racists being shocked and embarrassed that a black man spoke for himself or calling him “a stone fool,” “slow-witted,” “a token.”

Party racists include the likes of Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D, IL) who said Scott’s police reform proposal was just tokenism and the studied silence regarding the Left’s racial slurs against Scott—Uncle Tim, Oreo, worse—inflicted by Senator Cory Booker (D, NJ) and Raphael Warnock (D, GA).

Not a single black Progressive-Democrat Representative in the House has spoken in condemnation, or even mild objection, to that racist treatment of Scott.

All because a black man dared leave the Left’s cash crop vote plantation and actually think and act for himself.

Racist Spew

Many of you may recall Senator Tim Scott’s (R, SC) response to President Joe Biden’s speech to a sparsely attended joint session of Congress last Wednesday.

Many of you may recall the vitriol and outright racist spew sprayed Scott’s way in response to the Senator’s statement

Hear me clearly. America is not a racist country.

There are a couple of things that really stand out about that shameful period.

One is that Jack Dorsey let that racism trend on his Twitter for 11 hours, carefully reaching for the trending’s peak damage before deciding to…detrend…the spew. That makes Dorsey’s and his social medium’s views on race and on blacks in particular crystalline.

Even more shameful, even more despicable than that, though, is this.

Even after all this time, neither black Progressive-Democratic Party Senator—Cory Booker (D, NJ) or Raphael Warnock (D, GA)—have said a word—not a syllable—in objection to, much less in condemnation of, that disgusting response to Scott’s statement.

Not a single black Representative in the House has spoken in condemnation, or even mild objection, to that racist treatment of Scott.

Not even any of the White Saviors of the Progressive-Democratic Party members of either house of Congress have spoken against the spew or in support of its target.

It’s clear that the Progressive-Democratic Party condones this blatantly racist behavior.

That’s disgusting, and it needs to be remembered in the fall of 2022.

A Free Speech Oral Argument

(Pun not necessarily intended.)

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of a 14-year-old girl who tried out for, and didn’t make, a varsity cheerleading team and subsequently vented her frustrations in a Snapchat rife with “colorful metaphors.”

The girl’s school punished her with a year-long suspension from cheerleading, she demurred from the punishment, lower courts agreed with her, and the school continued its protest to the Supremes.

Attorney Lisa Blatt, representing the girl’s school, had this, among others, at oral argument, as paraphrased by Just the News:

Schools aren’t trying to police political, religious, or critical expression, or impose the heckler’s veto…. They want to address digital bullying, harassment, and cheating….
A student who is upset at her teacher can safely text her views to friends but not picket the teacher’s house, Blatt told Chief Justice John Roberts: the “manner” of speech is the issue, not the offensiveness of it.

And

[Blatt] rejected the suggestion that students can get in trouble for simply sharing unpopular views: wearing a Confederate flag symbol “alone” is protected, but not using it to “terrorize” a black student.

Blatt seemed unable to address those arguments in detail, however.

What about students or teachers who think a student’s positions on police, politics, or religion are themselves offensive?

What about students or teachers who think a student’s disagreement with another student’s (or teacher’s) positions on police, politics, or religion is harassment or bullying?

What about students who think another student’s wearing of a Confederate flag symbol “alone” terrorizes them?

We’re on a short, slippery, downhill road off the edge of a very high, steep cliff when we begin expanding limits on speech.

Problems, Problems

The Class of 2020 graduates are missing their graduation ceremonies or are having to suffer the ginormous indignities of delayed ceremonies. The Wall Street Journal subheadline shows the pettiness of the plaint:

…some members of the class of 2020—and their parents—still long for their own missed ceremonies; “Do you guys still care about us?”

Huh. In a nation with 573,000 deaths from the Wuhan Virus, severe family and economic destruction from the fallout from the several governments’ reaction to the virus, a year of nonstop rioting, looting, and destruction of mom-and-pop businesses, the joblessness and associated stresses associated with the economic disruptions, it’s so sad that so many of us have not had time or resources for putting on the all important rite of a graduation ceremony.

One graduate, of Barnard College, yet, put it this way—with no idea of how self-absorbed she is:

She worries her class “will never receive the ceremony we deserve.”

That we deserve.

Wow. How entitled.

What, in the end, is truly important—the knowledge gained and the credential that certifies that achievement, or the ceremony? That the question even comes up is an indication of the quality of education these 21-year-old children have received.

This sounds to me like a Precious One’s First World problem and not anything to take seriously.

I can take seriously only the impact such spoiled, self-important, obliviousness is going to have on our nation’s culture and on our nation’s viability.