Flippin’ the Word

White liberals would pretty much be out of their jobs if it weren’t for their relentless need to make victims out of every “minority” group. It’s long been their mission to gush over blacks, women, and “the disenfranchised,” an all-purpose phrase which refers generally to all who are lazy, poor, worthless, or any combination thereof. Not satisfied acting as the uninvited watchdog for these groups, white liberals have now turned their attention to the Jews.

Halle Barry made some offhanded remark about her nose and how it could belong to her “Jewish cousin”, and now white liberals are screaming and screeching about “the rebirth of Nazism” and “pervasive antisemitism.” This is the problem with bleeding-heart liberals: They read malice into every comment, and then they regard one or two such remarks as evidence of imminent persecution and chaos.

White liberals are so busy being guilty about their whiteness that they can’t see through their shame enough to notice that a joke is sometimes actually just that. And they certainly can’t fathom that all their “protected-class minorities” are often laughing along with their “persecutors.” As a Jew’s Jew, let me declare that we make fun of ourselves more than anyone has ever teased us. Whether the subject is frugality, the nose, or the Jew-fro, we’re laughing harder than anyone. After all, it was Halle Berry’s Jewish assistant who initially made the nose joke!

A week before Berry’s comment it was Ann Coulter who had the white liberals spitting mad. Coulter asserted that Jews could improve themselves by embracing Christianity, and the white liberals, apparently unaware that the entire premise of Christianity is worldwide conversion, ranted that Coulter had “crossed the line.” Again, even as a Jew’s Jew, I’m not angered by this remark. I have clarity about the fact that Christians, while respecting us Chosen Ones, would like nothing more than to convert us. Proselytizing is, in fact, what Christianity is all about! The white liberal response to Coulter’s comment illustrated just how out of touch they are: they are oblivious to the basic tenets of Christianity.

White liberals should stick to defending blacks, women, and “the disenfranchised.” For our part, we the Jews neither need nor want to be shielded from lighthearted, good-natured references to our well-endowed sniffers.

Sit Down, Shoot Up

 

 Standard Podcast: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Notice all the pink merchandise? October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, so in addition to black and orange, pink has made its way into every store. From pink blenders to pink sweaters, there appears to plenty of awareness of the disease. Or is there?

Just in time for Awareness month, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons published an explosive study which found that abortion is the “single best predictor of breast cancer.” This research hasn’t been as publicized as one might imagine, because it pits two of the “feminist” causes against each other: Abortion is considered among feminists to be a “right,” and feminists treat breast cancer like it’s part of the vast “male establishment” agenda to oppress women. To the contrary: Breast cancer is just a form of cancer, no more sad or deadly or destructive than any of the dozens of cancers that exist. Yet there’s this feminist-led movement to treat those with breast cancer like they’re victims of something greater than the disease than is suffered by millions. Breast cancer is merely cancer of the breast; it’s no more or less unfortunate than any other cancer.

But if they insist on a Breast Cancer Awareness Week, they should have the veracity to tell the truth about the disease. The official website for this month’s activities, nbcam.com, makes no mention of the abortion findings. There’s even a page for “Breast Cancer in the News” on the site - that would be the obvious place for women to hear about the latest research on the disease, yet the study is curiously absent. I’ve emailed the site administrators to inquire why they’ve actively chosen to hide current research relevant to their cause. I’ll post an update if they respond.

As for me, I do actually care about breast cancer enough to tell the truth about it. There’s a link between abortion and breast cancer, and the apparent refusal to acknowledge it is truly anti-woman.

Unless you’re in lockstep with 100% of the policies of one political party, or unless you’re simplistic enough to “choose the lesser of two evils” or “the party which most closely expresses” your views, the U.S. political lanscape is profoundly disorienting. Americans are quite easily put into a box - in fact, they put themselves in one every time they characterize themselves as Democrat or Republican. This explains why democracy is a fantasy. Most Americans simply aren’t capable of doing anything more than dutifully assigning themselves to one of two voting blocs. There are of course those who assert that they’re “registered Independents,” but that is just a sophisticated way of saying that they are rich Democrats.

Republicans mean it about limited government. They just forget to say that the word limited applies only to topics of which they approve. “Right to life” and “international democracy” springs to mind. The celebrated “right to life” evidently doesn’t extend to prisoners, against whom “justice” is delivered via 5000 volts. Democrats, for their part, are serious about “social progression” and “equality.” To Democrats, equality is achieved by filling coveted college slots with bottom-barrel minorities while rejecting qualified applicants. (This explains why the Subway sandwich maker often appears more capable than your accountant: Colleges turn down qualified students in herds, and the Subway “sandwich artist” title provides a bit of validation to these stunned valedictorians.)

This past week has been illustrative of precisely why I can’t robotically submit to either party. If life was a multiple choice exam, the Republican party would be the “best” answer. But what’s best is always a question of relativity, an assessment of one thing only within the context of some other thing. So, then, the outcome of the comparison is dependent upon both choices, and the Republican party only looks good when it’s compared to the Democratic party. 

A few days ago, Republicans got their knickers in a twist over a couple of teachers performing “provocotive” cheers in the classroom. Nevermind that the cheerleaders themselves regularly perform much more sexualized routines - that’s an argument for another day, and one I’m wholly uninterested in anyway. Republicans predictably did their spiel about “school standards” and “role models.” This is a tired bit, and one that makes not a scintilla of sense when you consider that it takes no less than a barn animal and a fivesome to arouse kids’ interests these days. Kids haven’t thought cheerleading teachers were sexy since like kindergarten. Nevertheless, Republicans are blabbering about increased scrutiny for public schoolteachers and tighter contractual morals clauses - or, in other words, restricting the very freedoms which they claim to protect. Of course most Republicans disagree with the teacher outrage, but come voting day they’ll dutifully vote in the same people with the same policies.

The Democrats outdid themselves this week with their socialist pandering and condescension. Hillary has come up with a gaggle of new ways to spend money: $5,000 for every person born in the U.S., in-state tuition for Mexican illegals, and fully-funded retirement accounts. Her rationale for all this big spending is the tired refrain that “we’re already spending a lot on the war; let’s find other ways to spend instead.” Again, most Democrats oppose the left’s socialist agenda, but they’ll vote for it anyway.

Republicanism is not the same as conservatism. Because I’m truly conservative, I won’t say I’m a Republican just because the party pays lip service to what I care about. There are a dozen Republicans who want to be President, but Ron Paul is the only Conservative among them.

At last there’s buzz that Southernness is a political liability. The drawl has infected the Presidency for 20 years, generating disregard for the office while providing endless fodder for Saturday Night Live skits.

Dan Bartlett, former Counselor to the White House, planted a burgeoning seed when he said that Mike Huckabee has a ”hick name” that would hinder his election bid. To be fair, Barlett was Counselor for Bush (43), so it’s curious that he suddenly sees the light. But I don’t care: This is no time to be nit-picky; if people are coming to their senses, I don’t care how they get there. Hell, I woudn’t mind if Willy Nelson spoke out against country talkin’!

Notwithstanding, there’s a reason that a Southerner has been elected president for so long. People responded to the down-home speaking styles that characterize the drawl. It has gravitas; it resonates. But Americans have started to see through it: It’s affected and put-on; it’s milked and bilked the “regular Joe” act for all it’s worth; it’s been done. And now, hopefully, it’s over.

There remains a misguided segment of Americans who believe Southern speech is “dignified” (pronounced “deegnafahd,” of course), but most people have begun to appreciate Standard American English. We might have to tolerate Guiliani’s dropped r’s, but I’ll take that over being ma’amed and sirred a dozen times per speech.

Google can be a scary thing. Rather, it can reveal some disturbing opinions. I ran the Google search which prompted this post because of a comment I heard on the Gayle King radio program this morning. Ms. King said, in all seriousness, that if men had to have mammograms they would surely invent a procedure that’s more comfortable.

Incredulous that any sane person could actually believe such a thing, I Googled various combinations of Gayle’s statement. Weirdly, it’s a popular sentiment among women. Well, among a type of women: those pesky feminists. And the irony that it’s a feminist view is why I care enough to write about it.

The irony is that it’s an entirely unfeminist message: Gayle King, and evidently many more, suggest that only a man has the capacity to improve the mammogram. Recall that the claim is that men would invent a more comfortable procedure if they had to undergo mammograms. Women have mammograms - why hasn’t a woman bettered the procedure?

Buried in King’s ostensibly pro-woman proclamation is a decidedly anti-woman statement. This sad irony is not confined to King, though, and it’s not even limited to a handful of feminazis. It’s the popular, pervasive mentality among most women. Without realizing it, too many women spout what they believe to be feminist beliefs while ironically defiling the power of femaleness.

Also revealed by the mammogram statement is the fact that feminists fight hard to be the victim. If you believe that men would develop improvements in mammograms if they underwent them, then you naturally believe that men invented the mammogram as subterfuge: torture device disguised as lifesaver. Ms. King’s implication is that a man doesn’t improve the mammogram because only women experience the discomfort. According to her, men would respect their XY chromosome brethren by eliminating the discomfort of mammograms if it affected males. This insinuation is doubly damaging: Women are helpless victims falling prey to the male evil, and men are omniscient masochists.

Feminism, at least in its current form, reduces women and villifies men. That’s really ironic, considering feminism is supposed to foster appreciation for both sexes. I think “equality” is the word they use…

Email me at mwilkes@charlestonlaw.org for your Mandewilkes.com bumper sticker.

“Teach your children credit responsibility while playing the game.” Such is the uber-current pitch of the Monopoly Electronic Banking Edition. No need to consult The Street or the Fed: This decidedly millennial transactional “game” illuminates the state of the American economy with more guts and accuracy than CNBC, Bernanke, and the Wall Street Journal combined.

Monopoly has since 1935 been popular in that kid-tested, parent-approved way. It’s a fun game, of course, but on top of that it’s allowed children a glimpse at money in all its facets: investing, spending, saving, earning, risk-taking, and leveraging. Kids were receptive to these lessons in currency because they could touch the money, they could see it grow and dwindle, they felt the bittersweetness of handing it over in exchange for hotels or property.

Now, with the Electronic Banking Edition, kids will be infected with the disease that has crippled our household budgets and asphyxiated our national economy. People - kids and adults - benefit from experiencing money. When we spend, we need to access our senses. We need to hear the shuffle of paper as we count; we need to visualize the difference between having and not having - and no swipe of a card can suffice.

Money means something different today than it did a few years ago. “Affording” something is determined by whether a machine will accept a transaction; this mentality has resulted in a nation of robotic card-carriers poised for the next swipe.

The Monopoly promo says it best: The game “capitalizes on today’s trend of a cashless society.” And that’s what I call morally bankrupt.

People yearn to be offended by Bill O’Reilly, who is in reality the most even-keeled, politically correct commentator out there. Indeed, I’m not an O’Reilly fan precisely because he is obscenely open-minded. I can’t explain the vitriol against him, except that it’s maybe an instance of inertia: O’Reilly made one or two brash remarks years ago, and the gravy train keeps chugging along the rusted tracks of irrational Bill-bashing.

If blacks, liberals, and wrought-with-guilt whites would actually listen to O’Reilly’s much-maligned praise of a Harlem restaurant, they would nominate him for president of the NAACP! Supposedly egregious was his claim that diversity “is what this society is all about now here in the USA. There’s no difference. There’s no difference.”

That sounds like the exact message of the black-is-beautiful lobby. Nobody can legitimately hear racism in O’Reilly’s “we’re all the same” comment.

Most striking is that there are so many more commentators who would really offend - people are just too occupied pretending to be offended by O’Reilly. Bill’s offensiveness is child’s play compared to John Gibson, Michael Savage, Neil Boortz, and John Stossil. And, of course, me.

Our scared-silly society robotically recites a litany of kid-killers, among which are attention deficit, profanity exposure, and injected chicken. While everyone’s in a tizzy about childhood inactivity and environmental meltdown, we’re ignoring the true source of danger to kids. And that is daycare.It’s been a busy month for crappy childcare providers. In a Los Angeles facility, police found 14 kilograms of cocaine, 50 pounds of marijuana, and enough guns to arm the Laotian military. All this contraband was located in a toy chest. Among baby dolls and G.I. Joe’s were guns and drugs, and all anyone seems inclined to care about is whether the dolls’ arms were made of lead.

But that’s not all, folks:

A Tennessee nursery was condemned after a 4-month old infant was discovered with a pacifier taped into his mouth.

A Nashville daycare lost a 5-month old. Firefighters later found the baby after ransacking the building to look for him.

A childcare facility in Texas has been closed after parents found thumbtack injuries on their kids’ bodies. Apparently, this daycare took disclipine very seriously.

All of this since September 1.

Preemptively: Some parents do these things too; it’s not just daycare workers who harm kids. I want to be very clear on that point, because that is the predictable comeback I get when I talk about daycare dangers. Also: I agree that the majority of kids in daycare aren’t lost or raped or punctured with thumbtacks. Certainly most kids in daycare don’t share their toy boxes with guns and narcotics. This is usually the second comeback I get.

Admittedly, I’m not overly concerned with the above instances of physical abuse in childcare facilities. But it’s these tangibles examples I repeat because they so neatly counter and complement the apocalyptic concerns about silly things like SPF and acid rain. A child shouldn’t be raised in a daycare not so much because there’s a risk of physical harm, but because it’s just not right. While kids can certainly benefit from sunblock and toxin-free paint, they thrive when they’re raised by their parents. Whole grains make for a healthy heart; Mommy makes for a full heart.

No amount of organic blueberries or sunscreen or Baby Einstein-type reinforcements will ever reach the good we can do by simply raising our own children.