As Kanadian konservative Gavin McInnes remarked in this article, this NY Times article provides "a fascinating look inside the mind of the far left."
Continues McInnes:
In her book Ethics Along the Color Line, Stubblefield states, "White supremacy is central to this state of affairs, and we cannot repair the world without ending it.’’
Her subsequent behavior gives us a pretty good idea of what society would be like with Social Justice Warriors like her are in control.
Science and facts take a back seat to emotion-based politics that are all about everyone feeling good about themselves, no matter how incredibly handicapped they may be.
As you may have guessed, it's a s*** show that leaves everyone worse off than they were before, especially the people we were meant to help.
From TFA:
Anna didn’t want to keep her feelings secret. As far as she knew, neither did D.J. In recent weeks, their relationship had changed, and it wasn’t clear when or how to share the news. ‘‘It’s your call,’’ she said to him in the lead-up to a meeting with his mother and older brother. ‘‘It’s your family. It’s up to you.’’
When she arrived at the house on Memorial Day in 2011, Anna didn’t know what D.J. planned to do. His brother, Wesley, was working in the garden, so she went straight inside to speak with D.J. and his mother, P. They chatted for a while at the dining table about D.J.’s plans for school and for getting his own apartment. Then there was a lull in the conversation after Wesley came back in, and Anna took hold of D.J.’s hand. ‘‘We have something to tell you,’’ they announced at last. ‘‘We’re in love.’’
‘‘What do you mean, in love?’’ P. asked, the color draining from her face.
To Wesley, she looked pale and weak, like ‘‘Caesar when he found out that Brutus betrayed him.’’ He felt sick to his stomach. What made them so uncomfortable was not that Anna was 41 and D.J. was 30, or that Anna is white and D.J. is black, or even that Anna was married with two children while D.J. had never dated anyone. What made them so upset — what led to all the arguing that followed, and the criminal trial and million-dollar civil suit — was the fact that Anna can speak and D.J. can’t; that she was a tenured professor of ethics at Rutgers University in Newark and D.J. has been declared by the state to have the mental capacity of a toddler.
More at the link, but the short version is that a respected leftist academic had sex with a severely handicapped man, and will pay a price for it.
Perhaps one of the most head-shaking stories I've read this year. It reads like the proverbial slow motion train-wreck: you can't tear your eyes away.
One more thing: the story demonstrates again the dangers and the folly of ignoring scientific skepticism. This woman, and an entire field of do-gooders, ignored all the warning signs that the "science" was in fact cock-eyed. Dr. Stubblefield is paying an extraordinary (and deserved) price for that, but the others in this field should now begin to question their beliefs. Sad thing is, they won't.
#1
What so strange about this---modern leftism is, basically, feel good pseudo-ideology. In fact their motto should be "it feels so good, it can't be wrong".
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/29/2015 9:13 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Reminds me of the World According to Garp in which the nurse mounted a invalid soldier because she wanted a kid. Some women would prefer all men just to be in coma's but they need the sperm to propagate the species so their final solution for men will have to wait until that's figured out.
[The Texas Tribune] BOULDER, Colo. -- In easily his most animated moment on the debate stage since he launched his presidential campaign, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz excoriated moderators of the third GOP presidential debate Wednesday night.
"This is not a cage match," the Texas Republican said. "And you look at the questions -- 'Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?' 'Ben Carson, can you do math?' 'John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?' 'Marco Rubio, why don't you resign?' 'Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?' How about talking about the substantive issues people care about?"
Cruz's media criticism drew loud applause at the University of Colorado Boulder, where the GOP field gathered for the CNBC-hosted event. It was an especially spirited moment compared to his first two debates, during which Cruz hit his talking points but stopped short of delivering breakout performances.
"Even without the mainstream media not wanting to get into positive economic ideas and substance, it was a terrific debate," Cruz told reporters in brief remarks afterward.
These 'debates' are just real life playing out the story of Lucy Van Pelt and Charlie Brown in the consistent taunting of 'I'll hold the ball this time Charlie Brown'. Time and time again. Stupid is as stupid does.
We'll give you a debate, but we provide the moderators, or no show. When you have a draw card like Trump, someone hungry for ratings will break the reservation and offer you the venue.
#3
It was a matter of time until Cruz, Rubio and Trump B-slapped the MSM for their bias.
Funny though, Cruz got little or no air time this morning. Must have PO'ed some big shots.
Rubio got a lot of time. He must be the current favorite of the MSM now.
#4
My question is why do the RNC keep letting their enemy chose the battlespace? Good way to keep losing.
At this point it is no longer by accident or being naive. They want the candidates they don't like taken out and they want their "enemies" on the left do it for them.
#5
I thought the debate were great. Showed up the MSM bias early in the election cycle and helped the fighters rise to the top without looking like whiners. Also being on CNBC might have encouraged more independents and liberals to tune in believing it was less biased than CNN or Fox.
I doubt that was the intent mind you, but still it was a good thing in the long run.
CNN is only slightly less biased than CNBC but they root for the donks. The NYT is their bible.
FOX tries to be "fair and balanced" but they are right of center which isn't the same as being a pub cheerleader.
Posted by: Sven the pelter ||
10/29/2015 13:19 Comments ||
Top||
#7
CNBC is considered to be financial more than political and I think most people assume that they are less liberal because of that. I"m not saying they are, that was made clear last night that they are just as liberal if not more so.
#5
LG is correct.
If the tables were turned and the media and hollywood leaned Right we would be complaining about the very same people being flag waiving, homeland loving Israel patriots.
#6
There has been no need for the Jews to embrace their heritage over their country here. Given the fact that historically Jews in western nations leaned left and for socialist views it makes sense that they not only support the left, but the left's view of Israel itself.
Time will tell with the left going full tilt for fascist ideologies if the Jewish support stays with them.
#7
I think it is more fear for their own and their family's safety. The threat of Anti-Semitism comes from the left, and aggravating it by openly supporting the right is courting danger from it. Recall that Marx was rabidly anti-Semitic; also, right and left had different meanings in Europe. The Nazi's were a socialist party and all major German Jewish organizations claimed loyalty and support for them, and denounced foreign boycotts even in the late 1930s. Their fears were absolutely correct, though their appeasement did them no good.
Doubtless the few remaining Jews in Iran and Syria proclaim their loyalty to the regimes (as do Christians there) and only that keeps them alive.
#8
This started some time after the 67 war. Jews stopped worrying about whether Israelis were going to be pushed into the sea and began wondering whether Israel was being too hard on the Poor Dears.
Al
Posted by: frozen al ||
10/29/2015 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Maybe that's just what living in New York City and Los Angeles will do to you. Think about it: you read the New York Times or the Los Angeles Times, you're always surrounded by other loonies. You learn to be dependent on the big city services and infrastructure instead of independent. It's that urban environment that affects a lot of people the same way as it does the Jews.
#11
In Germany, after the wuz, it was called PearlSchine, as pure as a pearl, the Zionist entity and its loathsome armed forces aspire to this same degree of guiltlessness.
[Dawn] THE killing of seven Frontier Corps ...a provincial paramilitary force. Total manpower is about 80,000. They are tasked to help local law enforcement in the maintenance of law and order, and to carry out border patrol and anti-smuggling operations.... personnel near the border with Afghanistan in South Wazoo is a grim reminder of the tensions in the region that, if not managed carefully, can explode.
Thus far the incident does not appear to have forced a hardening of rhetoric by either side, and the Pakistain military has not contradicted speculation that the attack was the work of Afghan-based anti-Pakistain forces of Evil as opposed to Afghan border security forces.
That suggests an unwillingness to allow the overall Pak-Afghan relationship to deteriorate once again -- something that should be welcomed cautiously.
While Afghanistan does allege that there are continuing occasional, small-scale incidents involving Pak fire into eastern Afghanistan and Pakistain does complain of problems with the Afghan border forces, the overall situation between the security forces -- at least along the border -- appears to be much more stable compared to the recent troubles.
Yet, border incidents are a manifestation of a much wider problem: Pak-Afghan ties themselves. After a tumultuous few months, the bilateral relationship appears to be stabilising once again -- but for how long and whether this time genuine and sustained breakthroughs are possible is not known.
The fighting season in Afghanistan is nearing an end; US troops are committed to remaining into 2017; Mullah Mansour seems to have established his leadership; the insurgency is wider and deadlier than it was a year ago; Pakistain insists it is still committed to bringing the Taliban to the peace table; and the Afghan unity government is yet to demonstrate it can put aside internal struggles.
These factors indicate that the possibility of an early and meaningful resumption of dialogue between the Taliban and the Afghan government seems neither worse nor necessarily better than it was earlier.
To make the unlikely possible, however, the old rule still applies: Pakistain and Afghanistan must work on bilateral ties.
Perhaps because it appears that outside powers, particularly the US and China, remain keenly interested in peace, some positive developments may be possible after all.
Dennis Ross is a former senior adviser to President Obama who served in the Clinton administration. Ross has a new book, "Doomed to Succeed: The U.S.-Israel Relationship from Truman to Obama".
[IsraelTimes] Shifting to President Obama, you say in the book is that there has always been a debate within each president's administration about whether the US needs to distance itself from Israel to gain responsiveness from the Arab world. And you make the point that Obama made a very deliberate decision to take the approach of distance.
When the president comes in, he thinks we have a major problem with Arabs and Muslims. And he sees that as a function of the Bush administration - an image, fairly or not, that Bush was at war with Islam. So one of the ways that he wants to show that he's going to have an outreach to the Muslim world is that he's going to give this speech in Cairo.
So he wants to reach out and show that the US is not so close to the Israelis, which he thinks also feeds this perception. That's why there's an impulse to do some distancing from Israel, and that's why the settlement issue is seized in a way.
Now, I had no problem with saying we should limit settlement activity. But the idea that there should be a complete settlement freeze, including natural growth, was a mistake. After 7 years on the job 0bean is still clueless. More at the link.
Posted by: Sven the pelter ||
10/29/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Publicly, Washington (of both flavors) is devoted to Constitution & friendship with Israel.
If this was true, which I doubt, Bush would have been much better served to be up front about it.
Personally I believe that a clear statement that the US esteems Israel as a democratic, industrious nation worthy of our support. The addition is that this does not mean that Arab countries are not therefore worthy. Countries need not all be addressed the same. They should be judged as per MLK on the content of their national character.
Russia did not wait long after its entrance into the Syrian conflict to bolster its position. Since its military action began, Moscow has backed it up with a frenzied slew of political moves. The standout maneuvers here are Moscow’s proposed solutions to the crisis in Syria, details of which were covered by Asharq Al-Awsat on Saturday. Moscow has been able to take advantage of Western ambivalence on the Syria issue, which has created a space for President Vladimir Putin to rise to the occasion and allows the Kremlin to assume the role of an implacable international player in the crisis—one that has, at the same time, now also become indispensable to its solution.
Bashar Al-Assad’s departure has always been at a crucial part of proposed international solutions on the Syria issue. But recently there have been a series of signs from Washington to London to Paris to Berlin, as well as other Western capitals, that they are changing tack on the issue, accepting Assad’s remaining in power perhaps for a brief period—a change that has come perhaps as a result of the influx of thousands of Syrian refugees into Europe. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and Turkey—true friends of the Syrian people—have not budged from their positions on the Assad issue, assuming the role of isolated refuseniks who must now reluctantly deal with this international change of heart—one which, of course, benefits Russia. Neither country wants Assad to remain in power, even for a brief period; but neither has also objected to the recent international U-turn on the issue, as both wish to find a viable solution to this crisis whose problems grow ever more complex as time goes on.
Whilst we cannot say that the Russian proposal is the best put forward thus far, it is certainly the “best of the worst” solutions that have been offered. The West has failed to adequately stand by the Syrian people, leaving the space open for the Russian Bear to step in and fill the vacuum. As the conflict has gone on, the world has slowly abandoned the Syrian people, until only Riyadh and Ankara are now left to swim against the current of international malaise on Syria, even after the U-turns on the Assad issue, which was, once upon a time, a red-line for the international community. The truth is that it is quite likely Assad will not leave after 18 months as has been proposed. We may well find that after three or four or even 10 years that the crisis remains ongoing, still inflamed, and Assad remains at the head of the ruling regime, even if he only controls a small part of the country’s overall territory. This is likely in light of the political and military support he continues to receive from Moscow.
The dilemma now is how Assad can be kept as far away as possible from the political process in Syria during the coming period—and whether Moscow is truly capable of offering real guarantees that the current regime will not rise once again, in new form, like a phoenix from the ashes. Unfortunately, the absence of a positive role from the US, which was previously a leader in the talks and has now become a follower, hacks away at any confidence that the Russian plans will generate a genuine solution free of booby-trapped tactical moves from Moscow. This is especially true in light of the Syrian opposition’s concerns regarding Russia’s seriousness about reaching a genuine political solution. Last week’s meetings in Vienna on the Syrian crisis showed Washington acquiescing to Russia’s vision, as well a lack of any real desire from the White House to to assume a leading position on the issue. There is now nothing left for Washington to do except go through the motions pertaining to this new role it has adopted. Hopefully it will be able to secure some internationally sanctioned balance that will temper this new, terrifying Russian drive.
The bitter reality is that Moscow is now pointing the way for everyone else to abandon Syria, while at the same time not being able guarantee there will be a Syria left at all, now that everyone has actually jumped ship.
Salman Aldosary is the editor-in-chief of Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper.
#1
What Russians are doing is smashing "international order" which rose after the fall of Soviet Union. Since the ultimate plans of that "international order" for me & mine are different from that of Nazis only in detail, put me down for three cheers & one loud urra.
#2
The bitter reality is that Moscow is now pointing the way for everyone else to abandon Syria, while at the same time not being able guarantee there will be a Syria left at all, now that everyone has actually jumped ship.
#3
"'How you come on, den? Is you deaf?' sez Brer Rabbit, sezee. 'Kaze if you is, I kin holler louder,' sezee.
"Tar-Baby stay still, en Brer Fox, he lay low.
"'You er stuck up, dat's w'at you is,' says Brer Rabbit, sezee, 'en I;m gwine ter kyore you, dat's w'at I'm a gwine ter do,' sezee.
"Brer Fox, he sorter chuckle in his stummick, he did, but Tar-Baby ain't sayin' nothin'.
"'I'm gwine ter larn you how ter talk ter 'spectubble folks ef hit's de las' ack,' sez Brer Rabbit, sezee. 'Ef you don't take off dat hat en tell me howdy, I'm gwine ter bus' you wide open,' sezee.
The joint operation by US and Kurdish Peshmerga forces to free 20 Iraqis captured by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Iraq has created much controversy, given that it is the first ground operation carried out by the Americans in Iraq since the decision to withdraw all US forces from the country. It was an operation that carried some risk, and that was clear when reports and statements confirmed that the US had lost one soldier during the raid to free the hostages from ISIS, which was intent on executing them. But the operation was also noteworthy because it was the first the US had carried out in coordination with any foreign forces on Iraqi territory since the end of the Nuri Al-Maliki era, during which the US had decided against having any permanent military presence in the country.
There has certainly been coordination between the Americans and the Kurds before. But this happened in Kobani, in Syria, where Kurdish forces reached out to the Americans after they were surrounded by ISIS forces. The US then hit the extremist group’s targets in the area with airstrikes, while the Kurdish forces on the ground assaulted ISIS positions with a ferocity that ended up inflicting heavy losses on the extremists and drove them out of the area.
By contrast, Iraqi forces fighting ISIS have not held their ground at all. We saw this most recently in the Iraqi city of Ramadi, which the extremist group captured in May using tactics combining suicide bomb attacks and booby-trapped vehicles. In Syria, meanwhile, the picture remains murky, especially after Barack Obama’s recent announcement that Washington would be reevaluating its support for the moderate Syrian opposition after many of them were captured by ISIS and ended up handing over their US weapons to the extremist group. Then came the Russian military intervention in Syria, which reveals a much more pragmatic strategy for working with forces on the ground fighting ISIS.
However, we must bear in mind that the Russian plan sees Assad’s army as its main partner against ISIS and the most likely candidate for defeating the group in Syria. This is of course a problem for those opposition fighters that both support the Syrian revolution against the Assad regime and are also fighting ISIS on the ground. They view the Assad regime as the problem and not the solution and want revolutionary forces to establish themselves on the ground in Syria and also drive out ISIS from the country so that its fighters can return to the various countries from which they came.
Until now, though, the Kurds have been the only fighting force that has proven its worth against ISIS, whether in Iraq or in Syria. But the Kurds also have political aims—and they have not been coy about them—to gain international backing for the establishment of their own autonomous state in the region. This has indeed been a sticking point for efforts seeking both to find a resolution to the Syrian conflict and drive ISIS out of Iraq.
It is a serious political problem, because anyone who would support such aims would put themselves at odds with Turkey, Iran, and other domestic factions. When it finally comes time for all to sit at the negotiating table and find political solutions to these crises, there would need to be a clear vision for solving this Kurdish dilemma. As things stand, there isn’t one, and this makes it extremely difficult to find any solutions to the current problems. We can put it like this: Turkey considers Kurdish calls for autonomy more dangerous to its national security than the threat of ISIS.
Ali Ibrahim
Ali Ibrahim is Asharq Al-Awsat's deputy editor-in-chief. He is based in London.
#2
But when churchman and layman, prince and prior, knight and priest, come knocking to Isaac's door, they borrow not his shekels with these uncivil terms. It is then, Friend Isaac, will you pleasure us in this matter, and our day shall be truly kept, so God save me? And when the day comes, and I ask my own, then what hear I but Damned Jew!
Change a few words, and you've a perfect description of the relations between "The West" and Kurds.
#3
The solution is to covertly build up the Kuds so that when they all sit down Kurdistan is a fait accompli. I agree with 3dc. I would start a CIA covert action campaign to tear down every Erdoğan campaign poster in the country.
Posted by: Sven the pelter ||
10/29/2015 13:31 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Kuds --> Kurds.
Posted by: Sven the pelter ||
10/29/2015 13:32 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[The Texas Tribune] BOULDER, Colo. -- In easily his most animated moment on the debate stage since he launched his presidential campaign, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz excoriated moderators of the third GOP presidential debate Wednesday night.
Ms. Quick gave new meaning to the term 'arrogant and spiteful.' What a shameless display. .png)
Wazoo
