August 12, 2020

Out: Kamala Harris Tough-As-Nails-Prosecutor. In: Kamala Harris Social Justice Warrior

If you are like most Planet Moron readers, you probably already know what time the liquor store opens.

Also, that Democratic nominee Joe Biden has chosen Kamala Harris to be his running mate, a politician who made her career being a tough-on-crime prosecutor in various positions in California including rising to the office of state attorney general.

You would think this might be problematic for many progressives who have worked a lifetime promoting social justice causes, specifically involving prison reform, sentencing guidelines, and prosecutorial overreach.  For example, Shaun King, a civil rights activist who has dedicated his life to social justice issues, said in late 2018:

Seeing this, you no doubt expect he will probably be conflicted, perhaps holding his nose and tepidly supporting the ticket over Trump. And yet he takes it a step or two (or hundred) beyond that, believing the ticket is less a nightmare, and more a “dream:”

"That's it for me.

I am incredibly proud to see a brilliant Black woman, and HBCU grad, chosen as a Vice Presidential nominee.

I've done political work my whole life. It's rarely things dreams are made of. Kamala

Harris is the most progressive VP nominee in American history."

People are having a lot of fun with this but what you may not realize is that she has changed quite a bit, “especially this summer:”

We don’t know about you, but that sounds pretty sincere. In fact, King goes further, and notes she hasn’t done a complete 180 degrees on her life’s work just over the summer. That would be a stretch. Her views have actually been particularly evolving over the past four months during which she has made many “remarks:”

Before you say anything, it is a total coincidence that Kamala Harris has spent the past four months actively pursuing the Vice Presidential nod from Biden and suggesting that she changed her long-held views on the subject only recently in a blatant and unprincipled pursuit of power means you are racist, misogynist, and probably are particularly resentful of people of Indian and Jamaican heritage.


We need more people like Kamala Harris, people who have the courage to take a stand as soon as it becomes personally advantageous for them to do so.

And we'll probably get them.


Share |

August 12, 2020 at 11:13 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

August 10, 2020

‘We Have Her Back’ Wait, When Did She Leave?

A new group called, “We Have Her Back,” has helpfully put together an instruction manual for the media regarding how they are to cover Joe Biden’s pick for vice president.

The group was formed by women from a number of existing groups including NARAL, Planned Parenthood,  TimesUp, and other totally nonpartisan organizations that nonpartisanly support exclusively progressive issues including the Democratic vice presidential nominee whomever that turns out to be.

“We Have Her Back” wants to ensure that the VP pick is not treated unfairly by the media, particularly black and brown women.

It should be noted before we go any farther that in nonpartisan progressive circles there is a strict hierarchy of victimhood that must be adhered to and mentioned at every opportunity. In the letter “We Have Her Back” sent to their media servants independent journalists this was on full display:

“Given how few women have reached this point, the sometimes disappointing coverage of the process to date and the double standards we’ve seen in the public and media expectations of women leaders over the years-and even more so for Black and Brown women leaders…”

“Women have been subject to stereotypes and tropes about qualifications, leadership, looks, relationships and experience. Those stereotypes are often amplified and weaponized for Black and Brown women.”

“Attempts at legitimate investigations of a candidate have repeatedly turned into misguided stories that perpetuate impressions of women as inadequate leaders, and Black and Brown women as worse.”

“Reporting on and using pictures of a woman’s, particularly black women, show of anger at injustice or any other kind of passion in communication perpetuates racist tropes…”

It’s not clear why the letter did not note that media coverage is super-duper double worse if you are a black or brown LGBTQ handicapped undocumented woman.

The group notes that:

“Reporting, even as asides in a story, on a woman’s looks, weight, tone of voice, attractiveness and hair is sexist news coverage unless the same analysis is applied to every candidate”

Of course, an analysis of  looks, weight, tone of voice, attractiveness and hair has been applied to male candidates for years.

But when you do it to a woman it’s sexist because of course it is.

You also can’t report on a woman’s relationship with her staff, whether or not she is likeable, her electability, nor can you show any pictures of women, particularly black and brown women, when they are angry.

Sure, all of these things have been reported on for years with male candidates but on the other hand shut up.

Why is it important that the media not report unflattering things about a female candidate?

Because “We Have Her Back” believes that women, even more so for black and brown women, are so strong, so independent, and so powerful, that they must be shielded from any and all criticism whatsoever.

It’s easy to see why it is necessary, now more than ever, to confront the systematic sexism and racism that is so rampant in this country.

In fact, we are so sexist and racist that not only are we seeing a record numbers of races that include only women, but a record number of races that include non-white women.

Yeah, it’s gotten that bad.

Fortunately, we have “We Have Her Back” to see to it that these record numbers of women running for office this November are not oppressed by the oppressive American oppressors who just recently voted for them to secure their respective parties' nomination.

“We are here to help you with this challenge. We would be happy to meet and continue to engage on these issues.”

They really do "have her back."

It's not clear who has yours, though.


Share |

August 10, 2020 at 07:52 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

August 05, 2020

Review of White Fragility Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism by Robin DiAngelo

 “White Fragility Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism,” is both good and bad.

The Good:

  • Competent punctuation.
  • Vast majority of words spelled correctly.
  • Clever jacket design.

The Bad:

  • Explicitly racist.
  • Dehumanizing.
  • Reductionist.
  • Condescending to both whites and blacks alike.
  • Lays bare deeply held self-hatred of author leaving reader feeling awkward and not knowing what to say.

I guess we’ll just call that a toss up.

According to author Robin DiAngelo, the problem with racial relations in this country is that apparently when white people are forced by their employer to sit in a room so that a complete stranger can call them all racists, they greet this revelation without so much as a word of thanks.

As DiAngelo put it:

“I assumed that in these circumstances, an educational workshop on racism would be appreciated.”

And yet it wasn’t.

Weird, right?

“I couldn’t understand their resentment or disinterest in learning more about such a complex social dynamic as racism.”

Why people might react poorly to being called racist could have remained a mystery for the ages, and yet DiAngelo somehow decoded this Rubik’s cube of a problem.

She recognized:

“…In light of so many expressions of resentment towards people of color I realized we see ourselves as deserving, and entitled to, more than people of color deserve.”

I don’t know why anyone would take offense at that.

“We are taught to think about racism only as discrete acts committed by individual people rather than a complex interconnected system.”

She found that if she could:

“Understand racism as a system into which I was socialized I can receive feedback on my problematic racial patterns as a helpful way to support my learning and growth.”

Which doesn’t at all sound like a reeducation camp.

So, basically, the solution is for white people to stop being so sensitive and simply admit they are horrible people and are responsible for widespread oppression and subjugation.

Ah, but here I am responding predictably with the false dichotomy of “good” and “bad.” That’s not it at all.

“I could see the power of the belief that only bad people were racist, as well as how individualism allowed white people to exempt themselves from the forces of socialization.”

Silly individual, you think have free will. How cute!

As DiAngelo noted in an NPR interview:

"In that way, we can say that nice white people who do nothing further to challenge racism are racist."

You see, it’s not that you aren’t nice. Don’t be so touchy!

It’s just that you are a racist.

Feel better?

“Individualism,” you see, is a social construct of Western thought. It blinds you to the fact that you are but a pawn of your culture, incapable of objectively (another Western social construct) recognizing your racism.

Don’t feel badly, that’s only because you aren’t an academic steeped in Marxist ideology.

“We must be willing to consider that unless we have devoted intention and ongoing study, our opinions are necessarily uninformed, even ignorant.”

Hurling insults at your audience is one of Dale Carnegie’s lesser known secrets of “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”

“How can I say that if you are white, your opinions on racism are most likely ignorant, when I don’t even know you?”

She argues that she can say so because nothing in mainstream culture gives us the information we need to have the “nuanced understanding” of arguably the “most complex and enduring social dynamic of the last several hundred years.”

She’s here to help us, an academic “white savior,” of whites, if you will.

She goes one better:

“Ideologies that obscure racism as a system of inequality are perhaps the most powerful racial forces because once we accept our positions within racial hierarchies, these positions seem natural and difficult to question, even when we are disadvantaged by them.” (Italics mine.)

That last line makes it clear that she also hopes to help “Uncle Toms,” blacks who dare stray from the opinions prescribed to them by their social construct.

That makes DiAngelo a more traditional “great white savior,” only this time rescuing black conservatives from the sin of wrongthink.

You know what you’re in for with White Fragility from the beginning with a forward by Georgetown University Sociology Professor, Michael Eric Dyson:

“Straight white men have been involved in a witness protection program that guards their identities and absolves them of their crimes while offering them a future to see past encumbrances and sins.”

It’s not clear why he thought it was important to bring sexuality up in a book that is about race, but if you’re going to start checking boxes, might as well check them all.

“In truth, suffering comes from recognizing that they are white—that their whiteness has given them a big leg up in life while crushing others’ dreams, that their whiteness is harmful to the nation,…”

It would probably be useful here to remind readers that “White Fragility” is intended to serve as an outreach to white Americans in an effort to persuade them towards a point of view.

DiAngelo picks up where Dyson leaves off:

“I am mainly writing to a white audience; when I use the terms us and we, I am referring to the white collective. This usage may be jarring to white readers because we are so rarely asked to think about ourselves or fellow whites in racial terms.”

Just so you don’t miss the point: NOT thinking about your race is what makes you racist.

Try to keep up, okay?

Before we go any further, we should point out that the functioning assumption is that only whites can be racist, so when we, and DiAngelo, talk about racists, we are both of course addressing white people only:

“When I say that only whites can be racist, I mean that in the United States, only whites have the collective social and institutional power and privilege over people of color.”

“As with prejudice and discrimination, we can remove the qualifier “reverse” from any discussion of racism. By definition, racism is a deeply embedded historical system of institutional power. It is not fluid and does not change direction simply because a few individuals of color manage to excel.”

In case you’re wondering when the definition of racism changed, it didn’t.  DiAngelo (among others) have decided it’s helpful to simply say it means something else because making genuine arguments using regular definitions is really hard.

According to DiAngelo, we are:

“Socialized into a deeply internalized sense of superiority that we either are unaware of or can never admit to ourselves, we become highly fragile in conversations about race.”

You’re “fragile,” that is, react ungratefully about being called a racist, not because it is inherently insulting, arrogant, and presumptuous, but because you just don’t know you’re a racist.

But you are.

In fact:

“This book does not… attempt to prove that [systemic] racism exists; I start from that premise.”

So, you know, shut up about it already.

How do we know that all white people are racists and such racism is systemic?

“Race will influence whether we will survive our birth, where we’re most likely to live, which schools we will attend, who our friends and partners will be, what careers we will have, how much money we will earn, how healthy we will be and even how long we can expect to live.”

Sure, all those outcomes can be explained by socioeconomic circumstances instead of race not the least of which is the high proportion of fatherless homes in the black community. And yes, that could be a fruitful conversation and lead to genuine insights that could address the issue.

But let’s just call all white people racists instead.

That will sell a lot more books.

DiAngelo uses a baseball story to drive home her point:

“The story of Jackie Robinson is a classic example of how whiteness obscures racism.”

Robinson is celebrated as having broken the race barrier, however, according to DiAngelo:

“While Robinson was certainly an amazing baseball player, this story line depicts him as racially special, a black man who broke the color line himself. The subtext is that Robinson finally had what it took to pay with whites.”

Sure, nobody believes that or was taught it. I'm white and I wasn't. But hey, she's on a roll.

“Imagine if instead, the story went something like this: ‘Jackie Robinson, the first black man whites allowed to play major-league baseball.’”

That's pretty much what we have all been taught. You do have to wonder who raised this woman.

“I am a white American raised in the United States. I have a white frame of reference and a white worldview, and I move through the world with a white experience.”

Okay, that helps. Throw a white hood on her, and you’ve got yourself the opening remarks of a Ku Klux Klan chapter meeting.

In support of her theory, DiAngelo pulls in Carol Anderson, Professor of African American Studies at Emory University and author of White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Nation's Divide:

“The trigger for white rage, inevitability, is black advancement. It is blackness that refuses to accept subjugation, to give up. The truth is, a black man was elected president of the United States: the ultimate advancement, and thus the ultimate affront. Perhaps not surprisingly voting rights were severely curtailed, the federal government was shut down, and more than once the Office of the President was shockingly, openly, and publicly disrespected by other elected officials.”

Not knowing Carol Anderson, we were not aware of the coma she must have gone into in 1992 which would explain her not knowing that turnout among non-hispanic black voters somehow increased by 11 points in 2018, that the government was shut down in the ‘90s, or that more than once, the Office of the President was shockingly, openly, and publicly disrespected by other elected officials throughout the 2000s.

We are glad to she has recovered and wish her well.

Let’s sum up:

It’s not that you are awful, it’s that you are a racist in a racist system and everything you’ve accomplished is a product of that.

Having robbed everyone of agency, that is, the ability to make your own decisions, DiAngelo dehumanizes everyone, white, black, brown, every human being, and suggests black success can only come from the acquiescence of whites, making all of us potential “great white saviors.” This works to disempower blacks and encourages a sense of victimhood and helplessness absent the intervention of white people. This is presented as progress in case you missed that part.

The notions of “individualism,” “merit,” “objectivity,” and such are not universal concepts but mere social constructs. This is the language of Marx. (Karl, not Groucho, although it is kind of comical in a  sense.)

These are not opinions subject to critique or debate. She is right and you are wrong because you are uninformed and ignorant and until you agree with her you have no basis with which to disagree with her.

Sign us up!

What would DiAngelo think of this critique?

“When I talk to white people about racism, their responses are so predictable I sometimes feel as though we are all reciting lines from a shared script.”

If I went out in the street and started randomly accusing every passerby of racism, I could probably right that script, too. And yet:

“In fact, when we try to talk openly and honestly about race, white fragility quickly emerges as we are so often met with silence, defensiveness, argumentation, certitude, and other forms of pushback. These are not natural responses…”

One can’t help but believe DiAngelo’s version of a “natural response” would be more along these lines:

If, after reading this book you feel like you need an antidote, I encourage you to follow the following people on Twitter.

Rob Smith

Larry Elder

Bryson Gray

Melissa Tate


David J. Harris Jr.

Tell them Planet Moron sent you.


Share |

August 5, 2020 at 03:18 PM in Books, Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (2)

August 03, 2020

Planet Moron on Twitter

A note to readers: Planet Moron is active on Twitter, so if you're looking for a few tidbits of sorta wisdom, or some microlaughs between posts, check out the feed on our sidebar or go directly to:



Share |

August 3, 2020 at 06:45 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 31, 2020

Virtue Signaling Yard Signs Deciphered, What Those Virtual Signaling Yard Signs Really Mean

If you live in a neighborhood made up mostly of single-family homes and populated by guilty white liberals, you very well may have witnessed a sudden sprouting of virtue-signaling yard signs. There are a number of variations on the theme and it can be difficult for the uninitiated to understand. Why are people putting these out? What do these signs really mean? "Science is real?" Why is that necessary to post in your yard?

We're here to help, of course:

Virtue Signaling Yard Signs Deciphered

Typical "We Believe" sign:

We Believe

What your neighbors are really trying to say:

Virtue Signaling Yard Sign

Typical Black Lives Matter sign:

Black Lives

What your neighbors are really trying to say:

Please Don't Hurt Us

White Supremacy is Terrorism sign

Whte Supremacy

What your neighbors are really trying to say:

Whte Supremacy

Happy to clear that up for you. If you'd like to get your own deciphered version of a "We Believe" yard sign (and other items), of course we have those available right here.

Happy virtue signaling!


Yes, it's true, you can now get your own, more understandable and clear, virtue signaling yard signs (and other items) at our Cafe Press Store. Until we get canceled of course. 

Virtue_signaling_yard_sign 0_550x550_Back_Color-White

Share |

July 31, 2020 at 10:30 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 29, 2020

Book Review How To Destroy America in Three Easy Steps by Ben Shapiro

Ben Shapiro speaks in a kind of staccato rat-a-tat-tat, like he’s machine gunning you with his ideas. Consider it a simultaneous exercise of both his first and second amendment rights.

Since he narrates this, his latest book, How To Destroy America in Three Easy Steps, this style of delivery is a consideration if you’re listening to the audio version, as I did, less so if you happen to be literate and are reading it instead.

That said, while I thought the delivery style might grow tiresome, it doesn’t. I’m a bit of a fast talker myself, and when listening to a slow talker find myself wanting to reach down his or her throat and yank the words out.

Do that with Ben Shapiro, and you lose a hand.

Most authors benefit from having a professional narrator read their book for them. It is a separate skill set after all. (Although not foolproof, I have passed on certain audiobooks because I did not like the narrator.)  But Shapiro is an accomplished speaker and so it works just fine here.

Enough about style, what about the content?

I didn’t know a ton about Shapiro before reading this book, and really still don’t much beyond the confines of its pages (okay, kilobytes), but I have been lectured to by my betters in the media that he is VERY CONTROVERSIAL, which I suppose he is, if by “very controversial” you mean, “considers America to be not a particularly terrible place.”

Great, I think I need a safe space now.  And counseling.  Counseling in a safe space would be perfect. And have all my student loans paid off.  And a pony.

But I digress.

America being something other than awful, and that we are better off moving forward together guided by the country's founding principles, is essentially his message. He does not sugarcoat the past, in fact he recites it in brutal fashion, but he rejects the notion that the country was built on racism or white supremacy or any of the other charges made by revisionist historians, but rather makes the argument that the country was founded on enduring principles of freedom and equality, and it has been those very principles that have provided the moral foundation for an enslaved people to be freed, for a civil rights movement to have been embraced by both black and white alike, indeed, for every good thing this country has produced.

He has consistently held this view for many years, however it is recast in this book pitting what he calls the “Unionists” vs. the “Disintegrationists,” the latter of which seek to tear down the country and split it along racial and other lines familiar with those who peddle in identity politics. He proceeds to outline the “three easy steps” the disintegrationists are using to accomplish their aims.

You could dismiss this as basically the publishing version of clickbait, and it is an undeniably catchy headline, but it creates a workable framework to discuss the subject and works just fine in this book.

I will note I’m not fond of the term, “disintegrationist," which I believe he coined. First, it’s really a pain to type. Second, it’s just an ugly word. It makes sense for what he’s trying to say, but it’s almost the kind of thing you use early in a draft because you can’t think of anything better and then you forget to go back and change it. (BTDT)

That’s a nit, but really, I hate the word. Do I have a better word? No. No I do not. 


Okay, no, definitely not.

My weird obsession with the word “disintegrationist” aside (gah, had to type it again!) the book is well written and well argued. Ben Shapiro has considered these matters at length and presents a cogent and documented argument.  You don’t need to agree with every point in the book (or every statement he has ever made on Twitter) to profit from reading this book.

One final note for those of you who get the audio version. Shapiro does impressions for some of the politicians he quotes. I had not expected it, so I at first thought it was just unnecessary mockery, but he’s actually pretty good and does a decent Clinton and Obama. My favorite though is his surfer dude take on Beto O’Rourke, ending every quote with “brah.”  In the end I thought it was fine and actually helps distinguish these quotes from the text of the book, not always obvious when you’re listening instead of reading.

All said and done, I recommend this book highly to any free thinker. Yes, America has problems, always did and always will, and yes, it has a blemished and at times deeply disturbing past, but it is not unique among countries in that respect. It is, after all, populated by humans. But its uniqueness is grounded in its founding principles, which animates its onward march, winding though it may be at times, towards the creation of “a more perfect union.”


You can purchase the book, in multiple formats, right here (or through the graphic above) if you like. This is an affiliate link, costs you nothing but helps us out (and thank you for that). Full explanation of affiliate links can be round in the right sidebar towards the bottom.

Share |

July 29, 2020 at 09:52 AM in Books | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 27, 2020

First They Came For The Chicken Wings And I Did Not Speak Out…

In their never-ending mission to make our lives better by helping us to navigate an increasingly complex and bewildering world, various state and municipal governments have created handy guides as to what constitutes a “meal.”

If you are like most Planet Moron readers, you’re probably saying to yourself, “That reminds me, which lunchmeat is green? I found a sandwich in my glovebox and I can’t decide whether I should put mayo or mustard on it.”

Also, “I think I’m perfectly capable of determining what is and is not a meal.”

Well, that’s where you’re clearly mistaken. Determing what is a meal needs to be left to the experts, also shut up.

The issue has arisen as states and municipalities have been setting down rules regarding which business are permitted to open during the Covid pandemic.

For example, while the CDC makes no distinction between bars and restaurants in its own guidelines on reopening, many states have decided that restaurants can open but bars cannot because, as Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell points out:

“As you have one beer, two beers, three beers, you start to get more relaxed.”

And the last thing you want in the middle of a pandemic in which millions have lost jobs, kids are out of school, and prescriptions for depression medication are skyrocketing, is to provide people a means to relax.

This has incensed bar owners, who it should be pointed out, want to kill your grandma, with Sean Conroy, co-owner of International Tap House in Columbia, Missouri having said he felt like:

“We’re being punished because we don’t serve chicken wings.”

While he has since been allowed to reopen, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo must have been paying attention as he closed the notorious “chicken wing loophole” that would otherwise allow bars to open noting in his infinite wisdom that “sandwiches were the lowest level of substantive food” to be permitted.

How does he know this you may ask?

Because experts.

Naturally, the state walked the statement back by patiently explaining that you didn’t hear what you just heard.

California however, noted for not having a city named “Buffalo” within its borders, is holding the line against chicken wings and any other food that doesn’t qualify as a “meal.”

For example, the following foods are not enough to permit you to serve alcohol:

  • Pickles
  • Chips
  • Cheese sticks
  • Pretzels
  • Dessert

Which pretty much eliminates 90% of my son’s daily calories.

You can tell they put a lot of thought into this with panels of highly paid experts spending countless hours determining the minutia of what counts and what doesn’t. For example, a flouta, which is a flour tortilla wrapped around a filling and deep fried is not a meal. A chimichanga, which is a flour tortilla wrapped around a filling and deep fried is.

Glad they could clear that up for us.

Just in case you think it is just a bunch of petty bureaucrats dictating rules without applying some leeway or common sense, rest assured, nothing could be further from the truth. The California authorities want you to know that the:

“Department does recognize that many sandwiches and salads are substantial and can constitute legitimate meals. Once again, the Department looks at the totality of circumstances…”

As an aside, they will be drawing salaries while they determine the totality of your sandwich.

“…and generally considers that pre-packaged sandwiches and salads would not typically meet this standard.”

We’re assuming packaging goes to motive.

“In evaluating this, the Department generally looks at the various menu offerings, availability during typical meal hours, and whether the food offered is served in a reasonable quantity and what a reasonable person might consider to be a meal consumed at breakfast, lunch, or dinner.”

Did we mention they will be drawing a salary while they do this?  We should have added that if you live in California you’ll be paying those salaries.

Now if you’ll excuse us, it's time for a snack. Or a meal.  Wait, where are those guidelines?…


Share |

July 27, 2020 at 03:45 PM in Covid-19/Coronavirus, Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (1)

July 24, 2020

Teachers of The World Unite! (To Defund the Police, Expand Medicare and Maybe Teach. Someday.)

Public school teachers are extremely concerned not only with your child’s education, but also their health and well-being.

And taking money from the police and giving it to themselves.

But mostly your child’s education and those other things. Well-being, that’s it. And health. Super-important.

Why take money from the police? According to the Los Angeles teacher’s union:

“Police violence is a leading cause of death and trauma for Black people and is a serious public health and moral issue.”

The numbers are indeed stark. Of the top-ten causes of death for black people, “police violence” is off the charts!

The bottom end of the charts.

Screen Shot 2020-07-24 at 8.02.04 AM

Okay, so it doesn’t rank at all.

And yes, you could point out that about 40 times more black people die of Alzheimers than by police shootings and that hundreds of times more die at the hands of people in their own neighborhoods, but it’s important to understand that, statistically speaking, you’re a racist.

Of course, being teachers, they are also very concerned about Medicare for all and a wealth tax.

LA Teachers Union Demands

Oh, and education. We keep forgetting about the education part.

You can tell how concerned they are about the education of your children by their demand that absolutely no more charter schools be opened. Sure, charter schools may provide a poor family’s only opportunity to help their children receive a quality education, but that would “drain resources” from the completely inadequate education they now receive from district schools and from which their parents are desperately trying to help them escape.

We should probably point out that spending money on people in the country illegally, also a demand of the union, does not drain resources from district schools.  Only charter schools do that.

It’s math people.

The teachers point out that:

The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States underscores the deep equity and justice challenges arising from our profoundly racist, intensely unequal society.

You can tell how very racist LA society is what with their Hispanic/Jewish mayor, a city council more than half of which is non-white, and a police department nearly three-quarters of which is non-white, (roughly two-thirds including sworn officers).

This in a city that is about half white, and yet vote non-white people into positions of power which begs the question:

What are they trying to hide?

Finally, the LA teachers’ union, which we should probably remind you is primarily interested in the education of your children, points out:

Unlike other countries that recognize protecting lives is the key to protecting livelihoods, the United States has chosen to prioritize profits over people. The Trump administration’s attempt to force people to return to work on a large scale depends on restarting physical schools so parents have childcare... Meanwhile, the rewards of economic recovery accrue largely to white and well-off communities that have largely been shielded from the worst of the pandemic’s effects.

Exactly. The teachers understand this because they don’t benefit from economic recovery either!

They get paid no matter what.

The “Black and Brown working communities, where people are more likely to have “essential” jobs,” get nothing.

Well, other than jobs and a sense of self-worth and respect.


Share |

July 24, 2020 at 04:19 PM in Covid-19/Coronavirus, Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 23, 2020

Peaceful Protester-Violent Rioter Decision Trees

These are confusing times. If you follow most mainstream media outlets it can become difficult to tell who the peaceful protesters are and who are the violent rioters, made more so when elected officials join the protester/rioters (even when they don’t want them).

The problem is, just because someone sets a building on fire doesn’t necessarily make them a violent rioter any more than a peaceful protest ending without any violence does not mean participants weren’t violent rioters.

To simplify things, we’ve created a few decision trees you can use so you, too, can know who are violent protesters and who are not.

Just like a big-time news anchor.

(Click to enlarge.)

Peaceful Protest Decision Tree 1
Peaceful Protest Decision Tree 2

Peaceful Protest Decision Tree 3


Share |

July 23, 2020 at 01:50 PM in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0)

July 21, 2020

Consensus Watch – 07/21/2020

An ongoing series dedicated to vigorously monitoring emerging threats to The Consensus that global warming is real, caused by humans, and must be addressed at all costs. Because without consensus, scientific conclusions would remain vulnerable to new data.

The Consensus on climate change continues to come under attack despite nearly unanimous agreement among eminent celebrities well-versed in in both music and theater, that it is in fact real.

For example, there’s Bill Nye, the Actor Guy, beloved by children and parents alike for his quirky yet sober take on science, like last year when he lit a globe with a blow torch on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver observing:

“What I’m saying is, the planet’s on f—ing fire,”

How can you argue with that? You can see it with your own eyes! (NSFW, but the kids will love it!)

Despite Nye trying to patiently explain that if you disagree wth him, you are “idiots,” there are still researchers out there who for some reason continue to insist on doing, get this, research.

Like that’s going to help.

The most recent study found that wildfires have actually become less extensive, not more, over the past several decades despite predictions and claims to the contrary.

What does that have to do with anything?

The planet’s on f—ing fire!  Look at it!


As you can see, The Consensus remains firmly intact.

As long as we continue to believe in it.


Support The Consensus by buying things and giving us money! Because that's how science works.

Consnsus Watch T-Shirt 1 Consnsus Watch T-Shirt 1

Share |

July 21, 2020 at 02:31 PM in Global Warming with CONSENSUS WATCH | Permalink | Comments (0)