Lana Del Rey is no fan of Donald Trump. In fact, the liberal pop star loathes the president so much, she has announced she will no longer be displaying the American flag at her concerts as long as he’s in office.
Del Ray, having rocketed to fame with hit singles such as “Summertime Sadness” and “Video Games,” is known for brandishing American-style themes in her videos and while performing on stage. For much of her career, touting Old Glory was a major part of her image.
Not any longer. In an interview with Pitchfork, the Grammy-nominated recording artist expressed her contempt for the Trump administration and why she isn’t as proud of the red, white and blue.
“I’m not going to have the American flag waving while I’m singing ‘Born to Die.’ It’s not going to happen. I’d rather have static. It’s a transitional period, and I’m super aware of that. I think it would be inappropriate to be in France with an American flag. It would feel weird to me now—it didn’t feel weird in 2013.”
Having been somewhat critical of feminism in the past, Del Rey explained her change in attitude under the Trump administration.
“Because things have shifted culturally. It’s more appropriate now than under the Obama administration, where at least everyone I knew felt safe. It was a good time. We were on the up-and-up. Women started to feel less safe under this administration instantly. What if they take away Planned Parenthood? What if we can’t get birth control?”
She went on to say in the interview that she feels “less safe” than she did when Obama was in office – and suggested that Trump’s behavior has increased harassment against women across the country.
It’s one thing not to be a fan of your president, but it’s something entirely different when you direct that hatred towards the country itself (and yes, the American flag is a representation of this country). No matter who comes and goes into the White House, the stars and stripes will always be here to stay – representing all that is great about America. The flag itself may change with the wind, but your opinion of it never should.
As far as liberal stars go, Del Rey didn’t used to be that bad. Parading the stars and stripes is a conservative gesture in and of itself. She had, for a time, incensed progressives by dismissing feminism as uninteresting. Unfortunately, Trump Derangement Syndrome has affected our celebrity community to a devastating degree. This isn’t even the first time Del Rey has spoken against our president.
A self-described enthusiast of the occult, the pop singer confirmed that she had, in fact, tried to perform witchcraft against Trump. In an interview earlier this month, Del Rey admitted to an attempt to place a hex on the 45th President in an effort to remove him from office.
A woman who doesn’t support eugenics isn’t worth celebrating, because “women” must accept their role as little gods who decide who lives and dies.
There’s no doubt, when liberals refer to “women” as in “women’s rights” or “standing up for women” or “code pink” for abortion, they are always talking about eugenics.
Examples abound, and they’re not even hard to find. Here are a few current cases of women who achieved success but aren’t worth celebrating because they can’t accept eugenics.
Kellyanne Conway: loves being a mother and a successful woman
When Kellyanne Conway became the first woman in history to manage a successful presidential campaign, liberals offered pretzeled arguments of Conway “using her femininity as a tool.” Catch this from Vogue:
But when she is called out for looking tired, or when she’s belittled for purportedly using her femininity as a tool, Conway wins—especially when the attacks come from her political opponents. Aside from reifying the notion that public misogyny is acceptable under any circumstances, when feminists and progressives attack Trump’s interlocutor in sexist terms, they leave themselves vulnerable to what could well be carefully plotted manipulation on Conway’s part.
What does that even mean? That Conway is somehow doing a double-secret manipulation by being a feminine, yet powerful woman, to somehow undercut arguments by feminists that she doesn’t do enough for women?
In feminist circles, merely being a woman who achieves something doesn’t make your achievement count unless you do it for a particular cause. That cause is reproductive rights, although it’s wrapped like a tamale in other “intersectional” issues like LGBTQ, support of the poor, and of course immigration and racism. But it’s really the right to birth control of all means, including abortion–even late term abortion.
Karen Handel: fought against breast cancer, pro-life
Conway, and now Rep-elect Karen Handel, are subject to withering attacks because they aren’t supporting “women.”
The Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure gave grant money to Planned Parenthood. It was a completely political arrangement, since PP doesn’t do mammograms. When Handel, who was a senior vice president with Komen, was given the task of cutting those grants, she took the fall when the political feces hit the fan.
According to Komen’s website, 252,710 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in 2017, along with 40,610 breast cancer deaths. I don’t think any sane person could argue that Handel’s work for Komen was somehow against women’s health. That is, unless you define women’s health strictly as reproductive rights.
Though Handel, a devout Catholic, denied that the decision had to do with “political beliefs or ideology,” Planned Parenthood has been part of Handel’s politics since she was on the Fulton County board of commissioners in the early 2000s and voted to grant $400,000 to Planned Parenthood. When she ran unsuccessfully for governor of Georgia in 2010, she was criticized for that vote, and accused by her opponent for not being conservative enough. By the time she was running for governor, Handel included cutting state aid to Planned Parenthood in her gubernatorial platform. At that time, though, she still thought abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest, or threat to a mother’s life. In 2017, Handel listed abortion as one of eight major issues on her campaign website, stating that she believes “life begins at conception.”
Who cares about breast cancer or mammograms? It’s all about abortion, which is itself a euphemism for eugenics.
Eugenics makes women into little gods
Eugenics means “good birth.” It was the founding principle of the American Birth Control League, which is now known as Planned Parenthood. In the early 20th century, eugenics was all the rage. Herr Hitler was a huge fan, as were many in the U.S. After all, improving the human race, and eliminating unwanted babies that were a drag on society was considered to be a virtue.
Eugenics was not only the purview of academics, and it became a popular social movement that peaked in the 1920s and 30s. During this period, the American Eugenics Society was founded, in addition to many local societies and groups around the country (PBS 1998). Members competed in “fitter family” and “better baby” competitions at fairs and exhibitions (Remsberg 2011). Movies and books promoting eugenic principles were popular.A film called The Black Stork (1917), based on a true story, depicted as heroic a doctor that allowed a syphilitic infant to die after convincing the child’s parents that it was better to spare society one more outcast.
The cold logic is simple. An unwanted baby should be spared living, and a parent who doesn’t want to be one should be spared having to care for the unwanted child. Society therefore has a responsibility to eliminate those children or be faced with the task of finding suitable care.
Couching the decision in the veil of “rights” of the mother–in rape and incest cases, in cases of chromosomal damage, or just because the mother took a “Plan B” pill–makes the euphemism more comfortable. What they’re really doing is ridding society of a burden.
For feminist liberals, a woman who doesn’t support eugenics isn’t worth celebrating for any achievement, because “women” must accept their role as the arbiters of life, little gods who decide who lives and dies based on their own womanly intuition and needs.
This is, stripped of all the “causes” and “rights” talk, what liberals are fighting for. In their view, women can only be empowered when they achieve power over life, instead of simply being nurturers of life regardless of the circumstances of its origin.
Katy Talento: fights AIDS, criticized after-conception birth control
They’ve tied this to economics (How the Pill Made the American Economy Great), and they’ve tied it to AIDS. One of the reasons six members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS quit, saying Trump “simply does not care” about the topic, is because they don’t like Katy Talento, Trump’s health policy adviser (and an HIV/AIDS expert) on the Domestic Policy Council.
The “inaccurate claims” he referred to was a piece Talento published in The Federalist about the dangers of chemical birth control. The article is chock-full of science, and even gives space to opposing views. It cites a 2012 study published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
But Schoettes claims it’s “anti-science.” Not because it’s claiming AIDS isn’t a health problem, but because it deals with birth control, especially the pills that prevent “a fertilized egg (i.e. after conception) from hunkering down in the wall of the uterus, where it can grow normally.” Talento, a high achieving women with a high-profile administration position, can’t be trusted because her views on birth control don’t line up with eugenics.
To liberals, when you get past all their deflections, it’s very clear that their first cause is making women into little gods, and that, to them, is the meaning of feminism, and of “standing up for women.” Any woman’s achievement, without the first cause, is not a cause they will celebrate.
There’s a little switch in the liberal brain that allows them to say “all religions are the same,” simultaneously calling for “diversity” and “inclusion” while deriding Christians who dare to speak out in public.
I call this the “truth blindness” switch.
They claim that religions should have no exclusive claims to truth, but that their worldview contains all the exclusive claims to truth. Yet they deny there is such as thing as exclusive, objective truth (which, in itself, is an exclusive, objective truth).
I’ll cite two recent cases in point here, although there have been examples since well before C.S. Lewis published “The Abolition of Man.”
First, Sen. Bernie Sanders doubled down on his flat-out-wrong criticism of Trump’s nominee for deputy budget director, Russ Vought.
Vought had published a defense of his alma mater, Wheaton College, here at The Resurgent, in January 2016, which Sanders took to be prejudicial since it involved specific theological differences between Islam and Christianity. Of course, the questions Vought addressed were central to the actions Wheaton took in the first place–dismissing Dr. Larycia Hawkins because she claimed Islam and Christianity had compatible concepts of God.
Specifically, Vought correctly interpreted Scripture to reject Hawkins’ flawed interpretation.
This is the fundamental problem. Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned. In John 8:19, “Jesus answered, ‘You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” In Luke 10:16, Jesus says, “The one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” And in John 3:18, Jesus says, “Whoever believes in [the Son] is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
Sanders had an issue with that passage because it claimed Muslims “do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son.” On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sanders said that Vought’s belief in Christianity were a way to “essentially say ‘Islam is a second-class religion.'” He characterized it as feeding into Islamophobia.
Ignoring the fact that Sanders’ argument about the Constitution somehow protecting one group’s private religious beliefs from a private individual’s beliefs (who happens to work for the government) is spurious and wrong, he is also missing the enormous point that he just played God in determining which truth claims in religion are valid and which are not.
For Sen. Sanders’ benefit here, let me illuminate a real truth.
Religions are supposed to have exclusive claims to truth. They are supposed to be mutually exclusive in important ways. Therefore a professor at a Christian college who “shows solidarity” with Muslims by claiming their version of theological truth is equal to Christians’ truth, is disclaiming the central exclusive truth of Christianity, that Jesus Christ is the one and only path to God.
I believe this is exactly the argument Vought presented. But Sanders, being a liberal, is blind to the fact that he believes he has a greater exclusive truth than any religion. In the liberal mind, all religions are equal because they are equally false, while secular post-modern thought is true in all instances. Liberal exclusive truth is therefore to be accepted by all religions, which in their view are all “second class.”
Second, LGBT activists believe they have exclusive claims to “diversity” and “inclusion.”
The St. Louis Cardinals have made a laudable decision to host Christian Family Day this season, which they’ve done for decades. But LGBT activists have a problem with the speaker: former Cardinals player Lance Berkman, who they say is “divisive,” and “demeaning.”
Their problem is with Berkman’s past comments about Houston’s transgender bathroom access ordinance.
“The issue is, what to do about a 15 or 16-year-old boy who thinks he’s a girl and wants to shower with the girls. Maybe he is [transgender], maybe he’s confused. But I wouldn’t want him in the shower with my daughters. We shouldn’t have the rights of 2 percent of the population trump the rights of the other 98 percent,” Berkman said, according to the Houston Chronicle.
But these same activists have no problem with the Dodgers “kiss cam” on “Pride Night” blasting man-to-man mouth kissing on the jumbotron to everyone in the crowd (including Christians). Their solution to that would be to tell Christians to avoid going to the game if it’s uncomfortable (or more likely just saying Christians are hopelessly bigoted).
LGBT activism is really a religion anyway: the worship of self and pleasure wrapped up in sexual identity. But these same activists are calling for “diversity” and “inclusion.”
“Pride St. Louis is disappointed by the decision of the St. Louis Cardinals to provide a public platform for Berkman, an individual whose words and actions towards the LGBTQ+ are divisive and demeaning. We know that the Cardinals can do better, and we want to extend an offer to help them by co-organizing their official LGBT Pride Night at Busch Stadium. Let’s work together to promote love, diversity, and inclusion,” Pride St. Louis said in a statement, according to KTVI-TV.
Diversity doesn’t include Christians to LGBT activists, who believe their truth is greater than any other religion. Certainly they believe it’s greater than Islam, which holds homosexuality to be a crime punishable (and punished today, legally, by many Muslim countries) by death. Christians believe it to be a sin, leading to eternal condemnation–mainstream Christians do not punish homosexuals (certainly not throw them off buildings).
In fact, mainstream Christians of all denominations condemn the antics of groups like the heretic Westboro Baptist Church, which is not affiliated with any mainstream Baptist (or any other evangelical) group.
But the truth here is that LGBT activists are blind–willfully in many cases–to the fact that they present an exclusive truth that excludes Christianity, but couch it in “inclusive” language.
True diversity and inclusiveness recognizes that different religions and world views have an “either or” exclusive claim to truth, and that by one of them being right on certain key points, all the others must be wrong.
In Christianity’s case, that claim includes the fact that Jesus Christ is the one true way to God (John 14:6), and that only by obedience to Christ’s commandments, which condemn homosexuality among other sexual and moral sins, can anyone avoid the wrath of God (Romans 1:18-25).
Those claims are, in fact, and are supposed to be, mutually exclusive to the claims of Islam, that God has no son, and to the claims of LGBT activists, that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic that gives full license to engage in associated behaviors.
But liberals don’t get that. They are blind to the fact that their own truth claims are mutually exclusive. And they use that blindness as an excuse not to enter into real debate and discussion about the merits of their claims. All their attacks are ad hominem and therefore without intellectual merit: bigotry, divisiveness, and phobia.
It would be refreshing to see more liberals cease from their intellectual dishonesty and willful blindness.
Sometimes the truth is so obvious that even mainstream media sources can no longer deny it. That was the case this week when CNN ran a story titled “Donald Trump is turning liberals into conspiracy theorists.”
The piece by editor-at-large Chris Cillizza cites four examples of liberal conspiracy theories that have emerged in recent weeks that Cillizza admits are patently false, misconstrued or blown out of proportion. These incidents include the alleged celebratory shipment of Bud Light to the Capitol building after the House passed the AHCA, the claim that the AHCA would make sexual assault a pre-existing condition that would cause victims to be denied health insurance coverage, the claim that the FCC was targeting Stephen Colbert and the claim that the White House chief usher was fired because she was a woman.
While I applaud the fact that Cillizza realizes that liberals are espousing conspiracy theories, a.k.a. fake news, he is off base in his assumption that liberal conspiracy theories are a recent phenomenon that was initiated by Trump Derangement Syndrome. To disprove Cillizza’s hypotheses, we only need to recall the behavior of liberals during the presidency of George W. Bush.
The granddaddy of modern conspiracy theories was the 9/11 “Truth” movement. A Public Policy poll on the eighth anniversary of the September 11 attacks asked the question, “Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?” Twenty-seven percent of liberals polled answered “yes” compared to 10 percent of conservatives and 12 percent of moderates. Liberal 9/11 conspiracy theorists were given respectability by filmmaker Michael Moore in his 2004 film, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” a purported documentary that won a bevy of awards.
Not all liberals bought in to Moore’s accusations, however. Christopher Hitchens amusingly trashed the movie in Slate. “To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability,” he wrote. “To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental.”
A separate Public Policy poll found that almost three out of four Democrats believed that President Bush “intentionally misled” the public about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction as late as 2013. Many liberals still hold this view in spite of the fact that the New York Times detailed the discovery of “roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs” after the invasion of Iraq. The Times report detailed how American and Iraqi soldiers were exposed to “nerve or mustard agents” as they secured the country.
The Bush era gave birth to several other liberal conspiracy theories as well. Among them were the claim that Dick Cheney was a “puppet master” manipulating President Bush while Bush himself was variously seen as both an incompetent boob and an evil genius. The Washington Post noted in 2014 that liberals were just as likely to believe that Bush committed voter fraud in 2004 as conservatives were to believe that Obama committed voter fraud in 2012.
The purported conservative conspiracy about Barack Obama’s background, championed for years by Donald Trump, has its roots with an apparent liberal as well. Andy Martin, a failed lawyer and self-proclaimed consumer activist, allegedly made the first claims that Obama was closet Muslim in 2004. Martin got his start in politics as an intern for US Senator Paul Douglas (D-Ill.) and first ran for public office as a Democrat. Martin ran for president in the Republican primary in 2000 where he ran ads accusing George W. Bush of using cocaine, notes the New York Times, another conspiracy picked up by liberals.
Liberal conspiracy theories don’t stop there. Two large anti-science conspiracy theories are promulgated by liberals and have been for years. Liberal anti-corporate and environmentalist attitudes come together in conspiracies about GMOs and Monsanto. In 2014, Manny Schewitz complained on Forward Progressives that many liberals were “denying science” and refusing to listen to liberal icons Neil deGrasse Tyson and Jon Stewart when they ridiculed GMO conspiracy claims.
Likewise, the Washington Post in 2014 noted that anti-vaxxers, people who reject the science that vaccines are safe and effective, are concentrated in liberal communities. Seth Mnookin, a journalist who has covered the anti-vaccination conspiracy, noted that you only had to go visit a Whole Foods to find anti-vaxxers.
No discussion of conspiracy theories would be complete without mentioning chemtrails or the Kennedy assassination. A Public Policy poll found that roughly equivalent percentages of Obama and Romney voters believed that the government spread chemicals through aircraft exhaust. Twice as many Obama voters were “not sure” and potentially open to the possibility. With respect to JFK, the common theory that the president was murdered by the CIA reflects a liberal mistrust of the national security apparatus.
So, when liberals go off the deep end with outrageous claims about Republican health care reform legislation or Donald Trump, contrary to what Chris Cillizza says, it’s nothing new. For every Jade Helm story on the right, there is an equally outrageous and opposite belief from the other side of the political spectrum. A major difference between the two is that right-wing conspiracy theories and “alternative facts” are largely confined to fringe sites like Infowars and Breitbart while liberal conspiracy theories are often given serious treatment by mainstream media outlets.
As a cautionary tale of what happens when the State becomes the arbiter (and arbitrary master) of what’s considered “religious hatred,” liberals should take note of what is happening in Russia. From the Washington Post:
Last summer, Ruslan Sokolovsky entered the imposing Church of All Saints in Yekaterinburg, a city about 1,000 miles east of Moscow. The Russian Orthodox church holds special meaning for some, because it was supposedly built on the site where the last czar of Russia, Nicholas II, was murdered along with his family.
But Sokolovsky wasn’t there to worship or pay tribute to Russian history. Instead, the blogger wandered through the gilded rooms of the church, his eyes and fingers glued to his smartphone. He was playing “Pokémon Go,” the app that allows users to “catch ’em all” using augmented reality.
Sokolovsky is an outspoken atheist, who trolled Jesus in the video he recorded of his Pokémon search. Jesus didn’t care, because God can handle critics. But Russia can’t.
After Russian officials discovered the footage, Sokolovsky was detained last fall and charged with inciting religious hatred. On Friday, the last day of the trial, prosecutors in Russia requested a sentence of 3½ years in prison for Sokolovsky.
Russia has laws on the books that simultaneously restrict church activities (many missionaries and evangelical churches have been forced to leave or shut down), and criminalize speech or activities that “insult the feelings of believers.” Since the only “believers” Russia acknowledges are the ones they’ve hand-picked, this toxic brew of legal caprice gives the government a free hand to imprison whom it pleases.
The charge against Sokolovsky, inciting religious hatred, is the same offense under which two women from the punk-rock collective Pussy Riot were imprisoned for two years, according to the Associated Press. The group had staged a protest against Russian leader Vladimir Putin at an Orthodox cathedral in Moscow in 2012. Shortly afterward, two members were arrested on charges of hooliganism.
Even American atheists need to realize that protecting the religious rights of everyone–Christians included–is paramount in keeping our country from sliding toward despotism. Shenanigans like Houston Mayor Anise Parker’s 2014 subpoena of pastors to provide their sermon notes ultimately harm everyone.
A society without complete religious freedom is headed for the scrapheap. President Trump has so far not taken any concrete steps to relax the chokehold eight years of Obama placed on religious freedom in the federal government. Liberals can’t stand Trump but love to rejoice in all the “protections” for their chosen victim classes.
Although conservatives have reason to be hopeful about Trump’s commitment to religious freedom, it would also be helpful if Trump would distance himself from Vladimir Putin’s horrible record. But that’s not really the message here. Government should properly get its nose out of people’s theology, or lack thereof, and liberals should stop their crusade to make government the thought police.
Liberals should stop fighting reasonable religious protections, lest they find themselves more aligned with Vladimir Putin than our founding fathers.
The other day, MSNBC host Chris Hayes suggested conservatism has become about victimhood and grievance. I think that is laughably not true and that grievance thrives in liberal ideology that pushes identity politics and speaks in the language of privilege. The leftwing chatter about “privilege” is founded on victimhood and grievance. Conservatives tend not to go there. The entire “social justice warrior” schtick on the left is about victimization and grievance and Hayes is engaging in projection.
One area where a lot of conservatives are tending to go, however, is overreaction to things the left is doing. Instead of considering the action on the merits, the immediately reaction is it is terrible. To be fair, in many cases that is justified. But occasionally an action started by the left winds up not being terrible, but is something people can unite behind.
A case in point is the destruction of the Liberty Monument in New Orleans. There has long been an inert, bipartisan effort to tear it down, but it gained steam in the last few years of social justice warrior nonsense. The Mayor of New Orleans has targeted a series of civil war monuments to Robert E. Lee and others that I think the city would be wise to preserve. But there is wide spread consensus in New Orleans to tear down the Liberty Monument.
As I explained here, the monument celebrates an attempted violent coup by the Democratic Party in Louisiana in the post-civil war South. An actual paramilitary unit funded by a political party tried to oust a bi-racial, lawfully elected government. They were unsuccessful, but after Reconstruction they came to power and rewrote history to claim the monument was about taking back government from usurpers. Who usurped power? Well, in their mind, black voters who they still believed should have no rights.
Thankfully, the reaction against this monument has mostly been on the fringe. But there are some prominent conservative, and not just alt-right, voices who are upset about the monument removal. The entirety of their argument is that if the left wants it, it must be bad.
Lots of what the left wants is bad, but I think conservatives should avoid overreacting or even reacting without all the facts. Otherwise, we will fall into victimhood and grievance like we are already being accused.
I think much of confederate history should be preserved. It serves as a reminder of a part of our history and many of the famous Southern generals helped stitch the nation back together after it was over. We should be willing to highlight those efforts at unity after national trauma.
But let’s not defend the Liberty Monument just to be contrarian against the left. It was erected to celebrate, not commemorate, a violent effort to overthrow democracy by a group of Democrats.
Things have gotten positively potty-mouthed in government, in the public square, and in pop culture. Used to be that dropping a cussword on network television was a shocking taboo-buster. Now it’s a cause for chuckles, if it’s even noticed at all.
But after voters rewarded Donald Trump despite – or perhaps because of – his plain, often expletive-prone rhetoric, Democrats are suddenly quite eager to adopt the language of America’s president.
From the party’s new chairman to a senator many believe will run for the White House in 2020, Democrats are letting loose four-letter words in public speeches and interviews, causing a small stir, at least in political circles, where swearing in public is usually off limits.
“Republicans don’t give a sh*t about people,” Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez said last month, drawing criticism from GOP officials not only for the sentiment but also for the words he employed to convey it.
“If we’re not helping people, we should go the f*ck home,” said Kirsten Gillibrand, a senator from New York who more than a few Democrats hope will challenge Trump for the presidency. Her uncensored declaration appeared in New York Magazine, which quoted her twice more using a curse word.
Call me a prude, but I don’t like it when politicians curse. This isn’t about me, but to be totally honest, I used to be a terrible potty-mouth. I was the northerner at Robins AFB who got pulled aside by our sweet southern division chief and told in an iron “bless your heart” drawl, “we don’t talk that way down here.” She meant using the Lord’s name in vain, probably with a seven-letter adjective sandwiched between. That was me.
The now me, if I hit my thumb with a hammer, you probably won’t hear me cuss. So I know it’s possible for people to talk without every other word being an F-bomb.
Coarse talking is for particular situations, away from young ears, and people whom we entrust to be civil to each other in government. This isn’t 1804, when bitter differences between politicians were settled by duel to the death. It doesn’t make politicians become more relevant to hear them casually toss four-letter words like a young Eddie Murphy. (Murphy now regrets his early-80’s gigs where he used the F-word more times than Tony Montana in Scarface.)
Back to liberals blaming Trump for this cursing tsunami. News flash: it’s not Trump. Oh, yeah, Trump is crude, and very handy at times with maledictions and profane locution. In private, so was Lyndon Johnson, Richard “expletive-deleted” Nixon and many other colorful politicians. But one thing has been true for a long time.
Democrats curse more than Republicans. Liberal Salon even copped to that in 2012. In a conversation with Armando Iannucci about his HBO “Veep” (bleep) show, Iannucci noted:
We did a bit of swearing research. Democrats swear more than Republicans, apart from Republicans who are on the business side of things, apart from the evangelical Tea Party right. And the State Department is less sweary than the Pentagon, which is the supreme swearer — it’s full of military. And the West Wing is very sweary.
Researchers concluded that liberals were more likely to use swear words because they tended to be more emotionally expressive than conservatives.
One can draw two different conclusions from this: (1) Donald Trump is really a liberal. But no liberal would ever, ever mistake Trump for one of them–unless it’s on health care. (2) Liberals love to curse, and Trump cursing just gives them more reasons to curse even more.
Seems to me, the latter is more probable.
“In the age of Trump, you can get away with virtually everything,” said Ed Rendell, a former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania.
And don’t forget former Vice President Joe Biden’s “big f***ing deal.” It is a big deal when the Vice President has no problem dropping an F-bomb in public (hot mic or no).
Since Trump took office, I’ve not heard him curse in public (it’s possible I missed it if he has). I realize that our culture has descended to the point where foul-mouthedness is expected, not reviled. But in government, just a little decorum and civility goes a long way. Filling Congress with people who don’t bother to see the difference between private/door-closed conversations and publicly speaking like a gangsta rapper isn’t helpful to our country or to democracy.
Our profane republic needs its mouth washed out with soap. But don’t let them fool you, the profanity didn’t begin with Trump, it began with liberals.
Every “how to interview” checklist includes a section on negotiating salary. The prospective employer asks you what you make, and you answer. Most of these guides advise you to ask for an amount irrespective of your current salary, but the amount you make now is certainly relevant to both you and your prospective employer. Except to liberals–they want the company planning to hire you to lie.
The New York City Council voted to ban the practice of employers asking employees what they currently earn. They join Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, and Philadelphia in running your life and limiting your ability to negotiate your own worth.
The measure, aimed at tackling pay inequity, prohibits employers from asking the candidate’s current or former employers about salary, as well as querying public records for it, although applicants can volunteer the information if they choose.
Prospective employers can look at your social media history. They can view your tweets and Facebook posts, get a sense of your political leanings, and they can pretty well know what you make without directly asking you. But they can’t ask you to tell them.
My advice (no charge for this) is to tell them. See, nothing prohibits them from considering what they think you make in determining if they can afford you. But that’s not the reason these busybody liberals, who never tire of running your life, have forced employers to lie to you.
The thinking behind the new law is that when employers ask about an applicant’s salary history, they can end up perpetuating any discrimination that women or people of color may have faced in the past. When employers ask about current or previous salary, they can hear a number that “anchors” them, and then offer to pay some percentage more on a figure that could already be too low. “Being underpaid once should not condemn one to a lifetime of inequity,” James said in a statement.
Some employers use that “what you’re paid now” number to construct an offer, disregarding the reasons you say you’re worth more. Here’s more free advice: don’t work for a company that does this. It doesn’t take a law to follow this advice.
Employers will be incentivized to lie to applicants, telling them that industry salary data doesn’t matter (when it most certainly does), and that not disclosing your salary won’t affect current salary negotiations (when it most certainly will). They’ll also lie telling you that your background, including race and gender and education (which many times are linked), along with your social standing and political views have zero impact on their hiring decision.
Ever heard “we just don’t think you’ll be a good fit” as a rejection reason?
Asking an applicant’s current salary does absolutely nothing to eliminate wage gaps or discrimination. In fact, it highlights and perpetuates those differences. Let’s say a woman applies for job X and refuses to disclose her current salary. And a man applies for the same job and tells them he makes $100,000. Should they assume the woman makes $100,000 also? Or should they offer her the lowball just to see if she accepts it?
Is it fair that the man has a leg up on negotiations–even if the woman is more qualified–because he told them his current salary? Not hardly. What these moral magicians have intended to help reduce wage gaps in fact ensures they continue. Unless applicants are barred from telling prospective employers their salary, and the hiring managers are barred from negotiating a salary, it’s going to result in women (and other minorities) getting shafted worse than if they simply fess up.
But liberals don’t intend to leave this alone. They’d love to just mandate salaries, preferably set by some double-blind mechanism where neither the applicant nor the employer get to decide anything. Giving people a choice on what they’re paid or employers a choice on what to pay them is far too prone to inequity. And engineering outcomes is what liberals are all about.
Remember, this comes from the same group of people who tried to limit how much “sugary drink” you could purchase in one cup. To them, you’re not an individual. You’re a statistical cog designed to fill their desired perfect-world outcome.