21 thoughts on “News/Politics 1-22-19

  1. First up….

    Identity Politics, and the Divisible Nation for Which It Stands


    “I was halfway through the preparation for this essay on identity politics when Procter & Gamble handed me my free promotional gift — an online ad for Gillette razors that showed men and boys being bad and that asked, “Is this the best a man can get?”

    Well, no — it’s not. It should be obvious that bullying and street-fighting are not the “best a man can get,” whatever that means. It is bad behavior — plain and simple. To show pictures of boys fighting and suggesting that this represents anyone’s ideal for male behavior is not only flagrantly dishonest; it is stupid as well. To show an example of online bullying and suggest that this is the sole domain of boys and men is not only stupid; it is flagrantly dishonest — girls are at least as ruthless as boys when it comes to online bullying.

    This ad illustrates, probably better than anything I can think of, both the allure and the danger of “identity politics.” It must have seemed like a great idea to the advertising geniuses at Procter & Gamble to capture the angst of the modern man in this era of “Me Too” and “Toxic Masculinity,” but instead of celebrating the positive aspects of maleness, they decided to shame men into changing their hormonal spots. (Wait a minute, isn’t “shaming” just another form of “bullying”?)

    Sooner or later, it should become clear that “identity politics” is really just Tribalism 2.0, and has the same strengths and weaknesses as the old version. By encouraging blocs of people to band together, you magnify the power of the individual as a representative of a group, but by segregating people into discrete groups, you isolate them from those who are unlike them. That has never worked well — whether in Rwanda, where the Hutus tried to wipe out the Tutsis, or in India, where a nationwide partition was required between Hindus and Muslims in order to prevent them from killing each other.

    We won’t see genocidal war between men and women, for obvious reasons, but turning the sexes against each other won’t work out well either, especially not if one of the genders is seen as superior and oppressed and the other is seen as inferior and oppressive. As a historic fact, most cultures of the world have been patriarchies and thus men have wielded power more readily than women, but that doesn’t mean women are necessarily going to do better at it when they wrest power away from men. Yet that is the implicit — and often explicit — assumption of political analysts when they study the increasing political power of women. David Gergen, for instance, in an article for CNN co-written with researcher James Piltch, said that “a large increase in female leaders could be a saving grace for the country’s hyperpolarized, venomous politics. They may just be better at leading than men.”

    What? Really? On what basis?

    Gergen and Piltch have this to say to back up their outrageous claim:

    “When it comes to the respective leadership strengths of different genders, it’s hard to be sure what is absolutely, verifiably true. But research suggests women possess two leadership qualities that our country needs right now.”

    “Research suggests…”? Really? That’s it?

    Here’s what my research suggests: Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Mazie Hirono, Sheila Jackson Lee, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Rashida (“Impeach the m—–f—er”) Tlaib are not a “saving grace for the country’s hyperpolarized, venomous politics.” They are instead the poster girls for venomous politics.”

    Liked by 2 people

  2. An interesting perspective.


    “Why Ben Shapiro Is Dead Wrong To Endorse Surrogacy

    Through surrogacy, at the moment of birth, the child loses a relationship with the only parent he or she has ever known. It’s a deep and enduring wound.”

    “Ben Shapiro has been a fixture in my family’s life since his stint on KTTH here in Seattle, and we never miss his podcast. I have learned to count on his moral clarity on current events and thus was overjoyed when I learned he was speaking at the March for Life. As a children’s rights activist, I’m grateful that someone with such a large platform is loudly defending the rights of the most vulnerable.

    But my heart sank when he talked about surrogacy. I don’t blame him for not fully grasping how surrogacy violates the rights of children. Regarding reproductive technologies, moral clarity is scarce even among conservatives. Unfortunately, that moral ambiguity is turning babies into designer—and disposable—products.

    Shapiro said, “Surrogacy is a privilege of rich Hollywood leftists.” That’s true. Kim Kardashian won’t be carrying a baby for a poor Guatemalan woman, ever. In surrogacy, the rich buy and the poor sell. Last year the list of wealthy celebrities creating children via surrogacy grew to include Kim Kardashian and Kanye West, Tom Daly and Dustin Lance Black, Robbie Williams and Ayda Fields, Gabrielle Union and Dwayne Wade, Andy Cohen, Ricky Martin and Jwan Yosef.

    Some celebrities choose surrogacy to keep their bodies (and careers) in shape. Others for medical reasons, others because there is no womb between or in them. But “why” people choose surrogacy is irrelevant to “how” it affects children.

    Shapiro said “surrogacy can be useful and wonderful in some cases.” If by “useful and wonderful” he meant that it “makes adults happy,” then he is correct. If he meant “useful and wonderful” for children, then he is mistaken. Surrogacy may feel like a nice way for infertile couples to have babies, but the facts reveal that wherever surrogacy goes, the commodification of children follows.

    Buying and Selling Babies

    One glaring illustration of this marketplace of children is here in Washington state. The Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) that Democrats passed last year legalized commercial surrogacy. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision, same-sex couples must enjoy the same “constellation of benefits” as heterosexual couples, which means parenthood laws must now accomplish what biology cannot—namely, making two same-sex adults the parents of a child. Therefore, as many of us predicted, redefining marriage redefined parenthood, and now legalizing commercial surrogacy is part and parcel of achieving “equality” for adults.”


  3. I hope no one here thinks this can’t happen to their family. It can. Sadly I know this to be true, personally.


    “The Opiate Epidemic Is Coming To A Suburb Near You

    Beth Macy’s book ‘Dopesick: Dealers, Doctors, and the Drug Company that Addicted America’ is a warning to everyone in America who thinks that the opiate epidemic won’t arrive at their doorstep.”

    “One recent summer morning, I awoke to discover that the house across from ours had been surrounded by a SWAT team in the middle of the night. That’s unusual stuff here in my sleepy southern neighborhood of two-car garages and young couples pushing baby strollers.

    The guy who lived there had escaped our notice—by design, I’m sure. Right under our noses, hidden in plain sight, he managed to operate a thriving mail order business selling fentanyl and Xanax. The police hauled him, and the $700,000 in cash he kept on hand, away at 4 a.m.

    The opioid epidemic is carefully reaching its tentacles into the very places we search out to protect our children—middle- and upper-class suburbs with good schools. America is losing almost as many young adults each year to opioid overdoses as the total number of deaths from the entire Vietnam War. One doctor wryly noted that if this were a communicable disease with red blotches we’d be flying in helicopters.

    One reason this scourge has flown under the radar so long is that for the past 20 years its victims were mostly rural white guys hit hard by the loss of coal-mining and manufacturing jobs. They hail from places that never make the news—places like St. Charles, Virginia and Bristol, Tennessee. In years to come, as the epidemic makes its way into suburbs like my own, these backwoods hamlets may be regarded as the first signs of a crisis in the making, much like San Francisco and New York were the sentinels of an emerging HIV outbreak.

    Crying for Help

    In her new groundbreaking book, Dopesick: Dealers, Doctors, and the Drug Company that Addicted America, Beth Macy chronicles the in-depth story of lives lost and communities impacted in a pills-to-needles progression that begins with a pain-killer called OxyContin. The evidence is damning. What used to be a rural problem few people recognized has become a crisis that is unfolding in well-heeled suburban locations previously considered more immune. Perhaps now the cry for help will be heard.”

    Liked by 1 person

  4. What the right should learn from Covington Catholic flap…. but probably won’t.


    “The first question any conservative should have asked himself about a picture of a high school kid supposedly harassing an old Indian guy beating a drum was, “Why is this image newsworthy?”

    The image was newsworthy because the left shapes the news. High school kids harass their elders on a daily basis. Even if the Covington kid was guilty as accused, other kids throughout America were doing worse things to old people during this same news cycle; mugging them, punching them, maybe even killing them. Even if caught on video, the media would not show these incidents unless the left found them politically useful. They almost never are, and so they almost never do.

    This framing of the news has gone on for more than fifty years. So please tell me why — Rich Lowry, Charlie Kirk, David Brooks, Meghan McCain, Scott Adams, S.E. Cupp, and Nick Frankovich among others — you needed to comment in the first place. Your apologies do not disguise the fact that, despite your leadership positions, you have less understanding of the left and the war they are waging than the kids at Covington Catholic.

    “I deleted my original tweet and we also took down a strongly worded post by my colleague Nick Frankovich that relied on the incomplete video,” wrote National Review editor Rich Lowry. “It’s another reminder — even for an old hand like me — that it’s best not to make snap judgments and to wait for all sides of a controversy to have a chance to be heard.”

    Sorry, Rich, you have pulled the wrong lesson from this incident. What you should have pointed out to your readers immediately is that the Washington Post, CNN, and the rest were prepared to ruin the lives of some adolescents, who had come to Washington to march for life, to score a cheap political point.”

    Liked by 1 person

  5. The call-out conservatives join the left’s lynch mob.


    “When I first started writing for National Review in 2015, Nick Frankovich was my editor. He always was kind and professional, offering advice on how I could develop my nascent writing style. Although we never met in person, he appeared to be cautious and reserved. I know he is a man of deep faith and very devoted to the magazine William F. Buckley, Jr. founded in 1955.

    So it seemed way out of character for Frankovich to author an angry post about the Covington Catholic High School incident just as the details were emerging. His article—”The Covington Students Might As Well Have Just Spit on the Cross”—went online in the middle of the night on National Review’s portal for short posts by contributors. Frankovich harshly condemned the students, referred to their actions as evil and sadistic, and questioned their Christianity.

    “They mock a serious, frail-looking older man and gloat in their momentary role as Roman soldiers to his Christ. Bullying is a worn-out word and doesn’t convey the full extent of the evil on display here,” the deputy online editor wrote. He included accusations that had not yet been confirmed.

    On Sunday afternoon, as the media’s narrative fell apart and the reality of the situation came into view, National Review quietly removed Frankovich’s article from its website. Rich Lowry, the outlet’s editor, explained in a very brief post that he and Frankovich had been duped by a “hoax” and that Frankovich’s “strongly worded post” had been taken down. Lowry also deleted a few of his own tweets that inaccurately portrayed the incident.

    That was it. Rather than acknowledge that the editor and deputy editor for a once reliable and thoughtful conservative magazine were complicit in mob-shaming teenage boys attending a pro-life rally, they quickly excused their behavior as nothing more than gullibility. There was no apology, save for this quasi mea culpa. There was no “calling out” other conservatives who also had participated in the viral assault on innocent young boys.

    Two NRO articles addressed the the media’s malfeasance in the matter. In particular, “Nathan Phillips Lied, The Media Bought It,” wrote Kyle Smith.

    But the fact that editors for National Review also bought into the various lies escaped mention. This also included senior editor Jay Nordlinger, who deleted a January 19 tweet that read, “the images of those red-hat kids surrounding and mocking that old Indian are unbearable. Absolutely unbearable. An American disgrace.” Jonah Goldberg hand-waved away Frankovich’s vicious post as just “different people reaching different conclusions or having different opinions.”

    So, what motivated a seemingly measured man like Frankovich to pen a midnight hit piece on teenagers? What compelled Lowry and Nordlinger to join the outrage mob, and Goldberg to defend their choice? Why do NeverTrump (or even SometimesTrump) “conservatives” like Lowry more often than not side with the Left’s mercenaries in the media who are hellbent on destroying this presidency and the people who support it? After all, these are the same folks who warn us on a daily basis that the president cannot be trusted, that he’s a dishonest purveyor of the truth, and that his cult-like followers have no ability to distinguish fact from fiction.”


    But, but…. Trump. 🙄

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Sue everyone. Examples must be made. It’s the only way they’ll learn.


    “Not all liberals are evil, but it is becoming increasingly clear that 21st-century liberalism is an evil ideology. It incites race hatred for political advantage. It tries to keep disadvantaged people down, so they will stay on the Democratic Party plantation. It lies about pretty much everything–for example, “police violence.” And liberals almost never debate public policy issues in time-honored fashion; rather, they try to destroy anyone who disagrees with them.

    The Covington Catholic media scandal has brought these issues into sharp focus. Liberals, mostly but not exclusively–i.e., the Associated Press–on Twitter, have lied about the trivial encounter between a group of aggressive left-wing activists and some kids from Covington Catholic high school who attended the March For Life. The misrepresentation was one of the more egregious incidents of media lies that we have seen in recent years, as I wrote here.

    So, what has happened since? The Associated Press has refused to correct its lies. Liberals have threatened the families of the kids from Covington Catholic with death. Liberals have written to colleges, urging them to reject any applications from Covington Catholic students. Liberals have explicitly urged that the lives of the kids who innocently attended the March For Life be destroyed. Twitter has had no problem with tweets calling for violence, as long as the violence is directed against conservative teenagers.

    Where do you go when the whole world seems to be against you? You hire a lawyer. Which is what some of the Covington kids’ families reportedly have done. For whatever reason, intolerant liberals on Twitter are frantically deleting tweets denouncing the innocent Covington kids, and in some cases calling for violence against them. Maybe they are just embarrassed at being caught red-handed, lying and purveying hate. But when has that ever embarrassed a liberal?

    There is some evidence that the scrambling is due to the threat of litigation:

    The Covington kids have a good pro bono lawyer and a lot of people gathering evidence on the threats, etc., though this is a good chance to make some examples.”

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Linda, the ideal is to make it look favorable to everyone.
    In that light, I don’t understand lots of the ads I see on TBV.

    Aj. the point is, they need to keep the pot boiling. Whatever it is, keep stirring jit up.
    I just saw on TV that Covington Catholic School is closed.


  8. But Linda,

    Isn’t the point of advertising to grow your brand, not hurt it?


    “Gillette brand takes a hit as ‘#metoo’ ad backfires

    The P&G-owned brand has seen consumer perceptions in the UK plummet in the wake of the ad, which has been both criticised and applauded for its attempt to tackle toxic masculinity.”

    “Gillette has seen consumer perceptions, including the key sales metric consideration, tumble in the UK in the wake of its ‘#metoo’ ad, despite the film not actually being aimed at the UK market.

    The ad, which launched earlier this week, plays on Gillette’s famous slogan ‘The best a man can get’, replacing it with ‘The best men can be’. Aiming to “celebrate the stories of men making a positive impact and to inspire others in the process”, it shows a compilation of actions often associated with “toxic masculinity” and examples of how men can take action to create meaningful change.

    However, the ad has split opinion. While some have praised the brand for tackling an important issue, others have criticised it for its approach and questioned why the razor brand is inserting itself into the debate.

    The controversy has seen Gillette make headlines around the world and prompted almost 20 million people to watch the two-minute film on YouTube.

    Despite the ad being aimed at a US audience it has had an impact on consumer perceptions of the brand in the UK. And the shift has not been positive.

    According to YouGov BrandIndex, Gillette’s buzz score – which is a balance of the positive and negative things people have heard about a brand – has fallen by 5.8 points over the past week to -3.4. That shows more people have been hearing negative things about the brand than positive and takes it from seventh in a list of 45 health and beauty brands to bottom.

    Of even more concern for the brand should be that purchase metrics have started to shift downwards. Consideration has fallen by a statistically significant 12 points over the past week to a score of 16.4. However, it is still top of the pile in terms of consideration among razor brands, ahead of Wilkinson Sword, Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club.”


  9. More.

    Ads are supposed to improve sales and provide value to the company. They’re going the wrong way.


    “Gillette’s likeliness-to-buy among consumers drops 4 points after ‘toxic masculinity’ ad”

    “Gillette and its politically correct enablers have been trying to spin that godawful ad the company ran, hectoring its own customers about ‘toxic masculinity,’ as a success, but buried in the details, there’s one little problem:

    Likeliness to buy has dropped in the wake of the fiasco. That means ‘buying’ which is the whole purpose of advertising. According to a post-ad survey by Morning Consult, a left-leaning consulting group that says it’s ‘trusted’ by Politico and the New York Times:

    In the two weeks before the campaign launch, 69 percent of Americans said they would consider purchasing products from Gillette. In the two days following the ad, that moved to 65 percent.

    Morning Consult dismisses this number as insignificant in the context of the positive polling responses it says customers gave, but four points seems like a lot in just two days in the wake of such a controversy. When you hear about a tsunami or a wildfire leaving four dead in the first hour of its occurence, you know that’s a figure that’s going to go up. What it sounds like from this side is people lying to pollsters, saying they are all in for social justice to seem like good people – and then voting with their feet.”


  10. A win for sanity!


    “Supreme Court allows transgender military ban to go into effect
    In 5-4 Orders, with the liberal Justices voting against, the Court issued stays of District Court preliminary injunctions against the Trump administration plan.”

    “The Supreme Court issued Orders in two cases involving the Trump administration decision not to permit transgender persons to serve in the military.

    The Orders stayed District Court preliminary injunctions that had prevented the ban from going into effect. The votes split along ideological lines, with the four liberal Justices voting to deny the stay (i.e., allow the injunctions to continue).


    The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted, and the District Court’s December 11, 2017 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the petition, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.

    Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the application.


    The application for stay presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is granted, and the District Court’s December 22, 2017 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the petition, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.

    Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the application.

    It is particularly important that SOTUS stayed District Court Orders pending appeals in the 9th Circuit. This mirrors what happened in the travel order cases, where SCOTUS did not wait for the more typical appeals process to conclude before issuing stays.”

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Taking advantage of Gillette’s misery. I already posted their video over the weekend. Here’s the rest of the story.


    “Egard Watch Company video counters Gillette’s “Toxic Masculinity” ad

    Due to overwhelmingly positive response, Egard must now back-order stock & is donating to charity for veterans.”

    “The Eguard Watch ad does so much more than show images of men on the job or with their families. The scenes are superimposed with statistics that show masculinity can be quite toxic…to males. For example, the viewer is informed that men account for 93% of workplace deaths and 97% of war fatalities.

    If you were unfortunate enough to view the Gillette ad (the things I do for Legal Insurrection), then the Egard Watch Company video is a must-see palate cleanser.”


  12. AJ – Last night you mentioned about that 3-points hand signal being something the alt-right sometimes uses. A while back, I read an article that said that they will purposely take a benign hand gesture/signal and put out the word that it really means something racist or sexist, to punk the folks on the left. Kinda funny (except when innocent people are then accused of being racist or sexist).

    As for Nathan Phillips, was he actually lying or merely mistaken? I haven’t read every single thing written about the incident, but I have read a lot, and my impression so far is that he came upon the situation and misread what was going on.

    On a side note: Some liberals and some conservatives are quick to label people as liars when often the situation is of someone being mistaken, or just plain wrong.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Bury ’em. It’s the only way this nonsense stops.



    “In a tweet that’s made headlines, Robert Barnes, a trial lawyer based in Los Angeles, issued an unequivocal warning to the New York Times’ Maggie Haberman about her report on the Covington kids: “I will represent the kids for free if they want to sue @maggieNYT for obvious libel.”

    “PJ Media’s Debra Heine reports that Barnes went on to explain that “anyone who doesn’t correct and retract” the false claims could expect a libel lawsuit — and just writing that “a more complex picture has emerged” might not protect them.

    Barnes has since called out multiple media outlets and personalities, issuing similar libel threats and underscoring that attempts to simpily soften or back away from their original reports isn’t enough. A few examples, including Barnes’ tweets directed at an Esquire editor, Elizabeth Warren and Kathy Griffin:”

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Kizzie, people can deceive themselves, see what they want (expect) to see, and remember things wrongly. So it’s theoretically possible he isn’t lying. But definitely he is portraying things falsely on numerous levels, enough so that I would think a libel lawsuit might have a good chance. I never heard about this until today, but have seen several videos and read several reports today. And of all of this would seem to be untrue:

    (1) He presents the boys as being on the verge of “attacking” the black men (the men who gave an unrelenting spew of racism and hatred mixed with Bible verses taken way out of context).

    (2) He refers to the boys as “beasts” and the black men as their intended “prey.” This shows his own prejudice when he entered the situation.

    (3) He says that the boys’ “anger” scared him, and also says the boys were “scared” of the black men (which might well have been the case) and that scared people are dangerous (suggesting that the boys were a danger when in fact it was the men who were spouting hatred and anger).

    (4) He (and he alone) said that the boys were chanting about tearing down the wall; there is no video evidence that I have seen, nor any other witnesses saying such a thing.

    (4) He presents the idea that the boys surrounded him and blocked his path, when video evidence shows he waded into where they were standing. This is not a defensive foul, but an offensive foul. Suggesting that a boy should “respect” you enough to move out of your way when you beat a drum in his face and confuse him is simply weird.

    (5) He says that he was trying to defuse the situation between the boys and the men by coming along and beating the drum. That is patently false. Beating a drum in someone’s face while you chant in an unknown language is not peacemaking. Further, if peacemaking had been his intent, (a) he would have approached the true aggressors, the virulently hateful men, and not the boys, who clearly were doing nothing belligerent OR he would have approached the boys in a friendly manner and not a threatening one and (b) he would have stopped those in his own party from berating the boys and chastising them for having the gall to live in America. The fact that he tolerated rudeness from his own group (apparently his grandson) toward the boys shows his assertion of “peacemaking” to be a lie.

    (6) Some have challenged various actions of the boys, from the fact that they danced along to the music at first, to some “tomahawk chops” and even the boy whose space he invaded being said to be “smirking.” Honestly I think that all of this can be explained in a situation that was unexpected and awkward and the fact these were teenage boys. They seemed to be playing along with the drumming man at first, until they realized he was not playing. And then it became awkward and, yes, aggressive. But my point here in focusing specifically on the drummer’s dishonesty is that none of this happened until he invaded the boys’ space, so he cannot call them out on it as the “reason” he felt the need to defuse tension. It’s like trespassing in someone’s yard and making a lot of noise during the middle of the night, and then showing that when they come out to tell you to leave that they proved themselves unstable. You’d better have something from before you invaded their turf to show why you did so.

    (7) He said that more and more teenagers arrived until there were about 100, suggesting that the appearance of more teens backed up his assessment of them being a mob. In fact they were gathering to get on their bus and had a perfectly legitimate reason for being here. A woman near the boys refers to them as a “mob” and tries to shame them, but mobs do aggressive things; they don’t simply stand around awkwardly, or dance a bit to your moving in on them with a drum.

    Some of the boys’ actions might indeed have had some mockery in them. So what? When an adult comes along doing something stupid and rude and insulting (and the drummer and the others with him did all of those things) teenage boys just might be goofy, too. An adult might well nudge them and say, “No, respect him, and put up with it. He won’t be here long, and the bus will be coming soon.” But if the worst thing they did is show by some of their actions that they thought the whole encounter was weird, well–it was. And they were also being heckled (and worse) from the other group of men. Even the drummer admitted seeing the men spit at the boys, and he said nothing about the boys doing anything to the men, just his feeling that they would soon “attack.” Some of the reports refer to the high school boy as “smirking.” Well, really there is no good expression to have on your face when someone is aggressively in your face. And playing a loud drum in someone’s face IS aggression. I don’t think he was smirking; I think he was just awkward and he was trying to look friendly by keeping a fake smile on his face.

    Liked by 5 people

  15. Cheryl – Thank you for the further information. I’ve read a few articles, but none of them included as much detail about the man as you mentioned.

    The boy explained that he was trying to keep a smile on his face, to make it plain that he had no intention of starting anything, so of course, it was an awkward one.


  16. Did anyone else see the clip that ABC had on their evening news where the school kids are cheering on the bleachers dressed all in black, They had some black on their faces and the commentator said the racism seemed to be a pattern and the black looked like blackface. It looked like the black smudges football players to me, not that I am any expert. I could not tell what they were saying in the cheer. It was a strange report.


  17. Kathaleena,

    Yet another attempt to smear the boys. It was on a “blackout” night that incident happened.


    “Number two: It’s called a “blackout” game, you dummies. This has been going on at school games since at least 2008, according to this New York Times report:

    No team has pulled off the blackout with as much aplomb as baseball’s White Sox last Tuesday night — the same night that Middle Tennessee State’s football team celebrated an appearance on ESPN2 with a blackout of its own. Fans flipping channels might have thought the color had gone out on their flat screens.

    With a day’s notice, a crowd of 40,354 arrived in black at U.S. Cellular Field for a tie-breaker game with the Twins. The team handed out 40,000 black towels.

    It cast a fresh, eerie and somewhat intimidating backdrop to Chicago’s 1-0 victory.
    “When you had all the fans in black, waving their towels, it almost looked like a stadium full of bats,” said Brooks Boyer, the team’s vice president and chief marketing officer.

    The fans loved it, and hope that a tradition has been born.

    It was a fun new tradition until the Trumpy Covington Catholic High School kids did it, apparently. Then it became a deplorable minstrel show proving once and for all that the high school is full of irredeemable racists.”


    Liked by 1 person

  18. And can we dispense with the “elder” nonsense too? Unless you’re just referring to his age….

    The guy’s an activist, and rabble-rouser, nothing more. And he seems to have a thing with Catholics.


    “Nathan Phillips rally attempted to disrupt Mass at DC’s National Shrine”

    “While chanting and playing ceremonial drums, a group of Native American rights activists reportedly led by Nathan Phillips attempted Jan. 19 to enter Washington, D.C.’s Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception during a Saturday evening Mass.

    The group of 20 demonstrators was stopped by shrine security as it tried to enter the church during its 5:15 pm Vigil Mass, according to a shrine security guard on duty during the Mass.

    “It was really upsetting,” the guard told CNA.

    “There were about twenty people trying to get in, we had to lock the doors and everything.”

    The guard said the incident was a disappointment during a busy and joyful weekend for the shrine.”

    “We had hundreds and hundreds of people from all over the country come here to celebrate life, to celebrate each other together. That a protest tried to come inside during Mass was really the worst.””


  19. Thanks, AJ, my children explained that to me. Some of their schools have sponsored those or white outs etc. Good to know.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.