Two years after Obama revokes trademark protection for Washington Redskins, 90% of Native Americans say they are not offended by the term
In June 2014, the Obama administration revoked trademark protection for the Washington Redskins’ name because some people thought it was offensive.
This sets a horrible precedent.
Just about every R-rated movie includes content that someone would consider offensive, whether that content be violence, sex, profanity, etc. The same can be said for the content of many books, the lyrics of many songs, the content of many paintings, etc. If any copyright, patent, trademark, etc., can be revoked because someone finds it offensive, then I can’t even begin to imagine how much damage this would cause to the concept of intellectual property, as well as to the arts, sciences, music, literature, movies, etc.
There is no such thing as a right to not be offended. The whole point of protecting free speech in the first place is to protect speech that some people might find offensive. If we only protected speech that was dull, bland, and non-controversial, there wouldn’t be much point to having such protection in the first place.
And now, two years later, we get a new reason for why Obama was not justified to do what he did: a poll by the Washington Post shows that 90% of Native Americans are not offended by the Washington Redskins name.
Way to go Daryl!
From an interview with Daryl Hall from Salon:
Daryl Hall has a message for critics crying cultural appropriation: “Shut the f*ck up”
May 12, 2016
Salon: One of the current debates is over “cultural appropriation” – The idea that white people should not appropriate the culture of ethnic and racial minorities. I know that you don’t like the term “blue eyed soul.” Have you followed this conversation?
Daryl: Are you trying to say that I don’t own the style of music that I grew up with and sing? I grew up with this music. It is not about being black or white. That is the most naïve attitude I’ve ever heard in my life. That is so far in the past, I hope, for everyone’s sake. It isn’t even an issue to discuss. The music that you listened to when you grew up is your music. It has nothing to do with “cultural appropriation.”
Salon: I agree with you entirely, because…
Daryl: I’m glad that you do, because anyone who says that should shut the fuck up.
Salon: Well, this entire critique is coming back…
Daryl: I’m sorry to hear it. Who is making these critiques? Who do they write for? What are their credentials to give an opinion like that? Who are they?
Salon: Much of it is academic.
Daryl: Well, then they should go back to school. Academia? Now, there’s a hotbed of idiocy.
Salon: Anyone who knows about music, about culture in general, understands that everything is much more natural. Everything is a mixture.
Daryl: We live in America. That’s our entire culture. Our culture is a blend. It isn’t split up into groups. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool – worse than a fool – a dangerous fool.
Salon: I also know that you don’t like the term “blue eyed soul”…
Daryl: No, and it is for this very reason. There is no color to soul. Soul music comes from the heart. It was generated out of the church, and it became secular gospel.
Salon: Ray Charles made that same point. He said the only difference between gospel and soul is that in one genre he sings to God, and in another, he sings to a woman.
Daryl: That’s right. That’s exactly it.
This three minute audio segment from NPR is called “Blind hiring, while well meaning, may create unintended consequences.”
It says that “blind hiring” is a process where job applicants are interviewed by computer instead of in person, so there is no bias regarding gender or race. Applicants are given online tests such as doing a math problem, or writing computer code.
I think this is a great idea.
In the NPR audio segment, the “unintended consequence” of “blind hiring” is explained by a black female college student, who complains that under “blind hiring,” she would not get special treatment.
In the comment section, someone wrote:
“The response of the black female student to blind hiring shows that in today’s job market male whites are not the privileged group.”
I think that commentor makes a great point.
It appears as if NPR has unintentionally revealed the existence of “black privilege.”
You can hear the three minute NPR audio at http://www.npr.org/2016/04/12/473912220/blind-hiring-while-well-meaning-may-create-unintended-consequences
Dashcam video proves that journalism professor was lying when she said police stopped her for “walking while black”
I’d like to think that a journalism professor would be very much interested in telling the truth, and very much against lying.
However, that’s not always the case.
In October 2015, professor Dorothy Bland, the dean of the Frank W. and Sue Mayborn School of Journalism and the director for the Frank W. Mayborn Graduate Institute of Journalism at the University of North Texas, wrote this column for the Dallas Morning News, where she claimed that the police had stopped her for “walking while black.”
However, a dashcam recording (shown below) proved that the police stopped her because she had been walking in the street, in the same direction of traffic, and blocking traffic, all while wearing earbuds, even though there were sidewalks on both sides of the street.
The police expressed concern for her safety.
Since blocking traffic is a misdemeanor, they asked for her ID.
Since she was wearing a hoodie, long sleeves, and long pants, and the police approached her from behind, the police could not have known her race before they stopped her.
Corinth Police Chief Debra Walthall said the police in the video handled the situation so well that she would start using the video to train police about the importance of using their dashcams.
Please keep in mind that professor Bland is a journalism professor. She teaches journalism students, who then go on to become journalists, news writers, and news reporters. How many hundreds, or even thousands, of these journalists, news writers, and news reporters have been brainwashed by professor Bland’s insistence on seeing racism in situations where there actually is no racism? And then, how many thousands, or even millions, of readers and viewers of these journalists, news writers, and news reporters will go on to unknowingly and falsely believe that racism exists in situations where it actually does not exist?
This is from yesterday at San Francisco State University.
A black female employee grabs a white male student, tries to stop him from walking, and criticizes him for wearing dreadlocks. Then she falsely accuses him of grabbing her (even though it was the other way around), and asks why everything is being filmed.
A Mailman Handcuffed in Brooklyn, Caught on Video
March 25, 2016
Glen Grays, a 27-year-old African-American mail carrier, was making his rounds in Crown Heights, in Brooklyn…
Mr. Grays was descending the steps of his mail truck backward, as postal workers often do to minimize wear and tear on the knees, when out of the corner of his eye he noticed a car making a sharp right turn onto President from Franklin Avenue. Mr. Grays shouted at the driver, climbing back up the steps to avoid getting sideswiped. The black car, in Mr. Grays’s telling, came tearing back his way in reverse. The driver said to him, Mr. Grays recounted, “I have the right of way because I’m law enforcement.” The unmarked car held four plainclothes police officers, according to the Brooklyn borough president’s office, which has taken an interest in the case.
By the time Mr. Grays arrived at the front door of 999 President Street, the police were approaching him. A video of the incident, taken by an observer on the street, begins at this point and shows Mr. Grays, in his postal uniform, as he is handcuffed, frisked and taken to the unmarked car. The officers tell him to stop resisting, even though there is no evidence in the video of resistance. What the video does not show, Mr. Grays said, is what happened next, after he was placed in the back seat of the unmarked car, with his hands cuffed and without a seatbelt, compelling him to leave the mail truck unattended. The driver, who had turned around to taunt him, hit the vehicle in front of them, Mr. Grays said, causing him to bang his shoulder against the front seat. Mr. Grays was then taken to the 71st Precinct station, where he was issued a summons for disorderly conduct that will require him to appear in court. He was then released.
NYC politician introduces bill which allows black people to urinate in public so they can “fulfill their potential”
A New York City politician has introduced a bill which allows black people to urinate in public so they can “fulfill their potential.”
Personally, I think this politicians’ expectations of black people are too low. But they did choose to vote her into office, and I have no right to tell them what their goals in life should or shouldn’t be.
The New York Times reports:
New York City is poised to reshape how it treats many so-called quality-of-life offenses, softening its stance toward low-level infractions like public urination…
Under the legislation, New Yorkers given tickets by the police… would in many cases be steered to a civil process rather than criminal court…
“We know that the system has been really rigged against communities of color in particular,” said Ms. Mark-Viverito, who has promoted such reforms and is the main sponsor of the bills. “So the question has always been, what can we do in this job to minimize unnecessary interaction with the criminal justice system, so that these young people can really fulfill their potential?”
Health officials, for example, agreed to repeal a section of the department’s rules that forbids public urination…
The issue of public urination became a subject of intense public debate last summer…
Check out this video of “Black Lives Matter” protesters at Dartmouth College, harassing students who are trying to study in the school’s library. And keep in mind that this in an Ivy League school – a supposed pinnacle of academia, intellectualism, and maturity:
Victor Davis Hanson recently raised an excellent point when he wrote:
One common denominator characterizes almost all unrest on college campuses: the demands to create more “-studies” courses (black, Latino, feminist, gay, etc.) and thus to hire more -studies professors.
So far there are few demands to make the physics department more diverse or to hire more engineering professors.
Here’s my take on this:
1) The black students who major in STEM subjects are too busy studying in the library, and don’t have the time, or the desire, to harass the other students who are studying in the library.
2) The students of all races who harass the students who are studying in the library, are themselves too lazy and incompetent to major in STEM subjects.
This recent New York Times article talks about a black student at Amherst College whom the New York Times claims is “unprepared academically” for the particular college that she is attending.
So I’m trying to think of all the reasons why someone who is “unprepared academically” for this particular college would get admitted to this particular college. Here are the reasons that I can think of:
1) Their parents made a big donation to the college.
2) They were admitted for their athletic ability.
3) They were admitted as a result of affirmative action.
If anyone here can think of any other reason, please post it in the comment section.
Anyway, it’s that third reason that I’m interested in for this discussion.
Without specifically mentioning affirmative action, the New York Times article makes a good case against affirmative action.
The student in question even says “I always feel like I need to prove to other people that I do belong here.”
I would respond to that by saying that anyone who is “unprepared academically” for this particular college does in fact not “belong” at this particular college.
Please note that no one said this student was “unprepared academically” for college in general. Instead, this student is “unprepared academically” for this particular college.
But there are thousands of other colleges in the U.S.
If affirmative action did not exist, then instead of getting admitted to this particular college, this student would have been admitted to a different college – one for which she was “prepared academically” instead of one for which she was “unprepared academically.”
Attending a college that is too difficult, is far worse than attending a college that matches your abilities. Affirmative action is causing terrible harm to these students. Colleges should get rid of affirmative action, so that each student will be matched up with a college that matches his or her own abilities.
Here is the relevant text from the New York Times article:
One young woman said she went to sleep at night wishing she would not wake up. Imani Marshall, a senior pre-med student from Chicago, who is black, felt a shudder of recognition and started to cry.
Ms. Marshall, who went to a selective public school in Chicago and came to Amherst on full financial aid, said she had felt unprepared academically and socially for Amherst. Yet she felt that by asking for help, she would undermine not just her own standing but that of her entire race.
“I feel like an impostor,” Ms. Marshall said the other day over lunch at the central dining hall. “I close myself off a lot of times from help. I always feel like I need to prove to other people that I do belong here.”
As far as I can tell, “Black Lives Matter” has shown zero anger or protest toward black student who posted “I’m going to shoot every black person I can on campus. Starting tomorrow morning.”
Over at Saginaw Valley State University, a 21 year old black student named Emmanuel D. Bowden posted the following message online:
“I’m going to shoot every black person I can on campus. Starting tomorrow morning.”
He could receive 20 years in prison for this.
It’s been six days since this information has been reported by the media, and yet, as far as I have been able to tell, the “Black Lives Matter” movement has not expressed any anger toward Bowden, or carried out any protests against him. Which verifies a post that I wrote a year ago, called “Black lives matter – except for the 93% of black murder victims who are killed by other blacks.”
If anyone finds a story of “Black Lives Matter” members being angry toward Bowden, or protesting against him, please post a link in the comment section. Thank you.
The principal of this school was born in the wrong country. Perhaps in her next life (if such a thing exists) she’ll be born in one of those dictatorships where political leaders can cancel elections if they don’t like the results.
After many days of protests, she finally did announce the results, but she said of those results, “It’s not okay for a school that is really, really diverse to have the student representatives majority white.”
In other words, she thinks it’s not OK for people of color to make their own decisions when it comes to voting. According to her, people of color should only be allowed to vote for people of color, and should not be allowed to vote for white people.
The Washington Post reports:
S.F. middle school delays election results because winners not diverse enough
When Everett held its election three days later, its principal promptly refused to release the results, saying she was concerned that the winners were not diverse enough.
Critics compared her to a dictator who scraps elections when results don’t go her way.
Everett’s 36-year-old principal, Lena Van Haren, was disturbed by the lack of diversity among the winners…
Only 20 percent of students are white…
… nearly a week after the election, Van Haren sent out an e-mail to parents explaining her decision to withhold the election results.
“This is complex, but as a parent and a principal, I truly believe it behooves us to be thoughtful about our next steps here so that we can have a diverse student council that is truly representative of all voices at Everett,” she wrote
In the comments section of local media, critics demanded Van Haren’s resignation. Some ominously quoted George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984.” Others compared her to a slew of strongmen.
“I’m sure Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Napoleon did the same in the name of some bulls— excuse,” another wrote.
Van Haren ultimately gave in, going from class to class and announcing the election results.
“While there was some diversity among the 10 winners, no English learners were elected, even though they make up about a third of enrollment,” the Chronicle reported. “African American and Latino students were underrepresented, while white, Asian and mixed-race students, who are in the minority at the school, took the top four spots.”
Van Haren declined to comment to The Post when reached by phone on Monday night. But she hasn’t backed down from her belief that a diverse population should translate to equally diverse representatives.
“It’s not okay for a school that is really, really diverse to have the student representatives majority white,” she told the Chronicle.
Councilwoman wants police department to hire black police officers who can’t read well enough to do their job
A city councilwoman in Oakland, California, wants the police to lower their standards on their written test so more blacks can become police officers. The exam measures reading comprehension and other things that are necessary for the police to properly to their job.
You know what? I’m sick of fighting against this kind of nonsense. And I don’t live in that city anyway. So let them adopt her proposal. Let’s see what happens when a city hires police officers who don’t know how to read at the level that their job requires. It would make a great experiment.
The San Francisco Chronicle reports:
An Oakland City Council member who wants the Police Department to hire more African American officers has focused her attention on the written exam for new applicants — which is the point where many candidates get eliminated.
Councilwoman Desley Brooks suggested the department could consider lowering the passing score on the written test or getting rid of the exam altogether.
The exam… measures reading comprehension, and knowledge of certain vocabulary words — such as “corroborate.”
… the written exam is a critical indicator of whether an officer can fill out police reports, gather testimony from witnesses and comprehend the laws he or she has to enforce.
I think this sign is a great idea, because it tells the truth. It seems to me the only people who would be upset by it are the people who don’t want people to know that Brown was a criminal. For example, Obama tried to block the release of the security video which showed Brown committing theft and assault, despite the fact that there had been multiple Freedom of Information requests for the video. I like this sign because it is a victory for the truth.
The News-Gazette reports:
Business’ sign causes a stir
August 13, 2015
FARMER CITY — A local business owner with a penchant for controversy set his sights on Ferguson, Mo., this week.
“Congrats Michael Brown one year with no criminal behavior,” the sign outside Schmidt’s Welding and Machine Shop in Farmer City read Tuesday and early Wednesday, days after the one-year anniversary of a Ferguson police officer shooting and killing unarmed black teenager Michael Brown.
Phil Schmidt, who owns the sign and the business, was unapologetic…
“It is what it is — all these people in Ferguson going crazy over a guy that broke the law three times that day, tried to kill a cop, tried to get his gun, it’s crazy,” Schmidt said Wednesday morning when contacted by The News-Gazette.
He added: “What they’re doing to cops makes me sick.”
Here’s a picture of the sign from the article:
Here’s the video of Michael Brown committing theft and assault:
In South Carolina, law abiding citizens with a concealed carry permit are allowed to carry their legal, concealed handguns in public.
However, South Carolina Code Ann.§ 23-31-215 prohibits them from carrying their guns in “churches or other religious sanctuaries.”
This “gun-free” zone did not prevent Dylann Storm Roof from murdering nine innocent people, but it did prevent those innocent people from being allowed to defend themselves.
One of the survivors claims that Roof stopped shooting to reload five different times. If just one other person in that church had had a gun, they could have stopped him. But self defense is illegal in churches in South Carolina, so there was no one with a gun to stop him.
The presence or absence of an armed, law abiding citizen can be the difference between the Charlie Hebdo massaacre in France, where 12 people were murdered, and the Curtis Culwell Center attack in Texas, where zero people were murdered. Both incidents happened earlier this year, and both involved armed Msulim terrorists who tried to murder people for drawing pictures of Muhammad. Those two incidents were pretty much identical, except in the first incident, 12 people were murdered, and in the second incident, zero people were murdered, because an armed, law abiding citizen prevented such a massacre. (Although one of the people who was murdered in the French incident was a police officer, he was actually unarmed.)
If any supporters of more gun control think I am wrong about this comparison – if you have some other explanation for why 12 people were murdered in the first incident while zero people were murdered in the second incident – please explain it, because I would like to hear it.
Even the biggest supporters of gun control admit that guns can be used for self defense. For example, I know that Barack Obama is a huge supporter of gun control, because when he was a state Senator in Illinois, he voted against allowing people in their own homes to use guns to protect themselves and their families from rapists and murderers. However, I also know that Obama admits that guns can be used for self defense, because as U.S. President, he signed a bill that provides armed guards to himself and his wife for the rest of the lives. Also, after a petition at whitehouse.gov called for turning the White House into a “gun-free” zone, Obama rejected the proposal.
Likewise, other gun control hypocrites who are protected by armed guards include Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell.
Since even the biggest supporters of “gun-free” zones make exceptions for certain “important” people, I don’t see why people who are “less important” don’t deserve to be allowed to have the same kind of protection.
Kalief Browder, an innocent black male teenager who spent three years in prison without a trial, during which time he was repeatedly beaten and tortured, has committed suicide.
This is a very, very sad article.
As is this earlier article about him.
Requiring photo ID is “racist,” except when it’s done by Obama, the NAACP, unions, or any other liberals
Former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee recently announced that he wants to be the Democrats’ 2016 presidential candidate.
Why does the liberal, tolerant, and enlightened city of San Francisco arrest black women at 13 times the rate of women of other races?
Black women in San Francisco arrested way more often than white women, report shows
May 27, 2015
Black women represent 5.8% of the city’s female population, but accounted for 45.5% of all female arrests in 2013… For arrests related to weapons and narcotics—both felonies—black women made up 77% and 68% of all female arrests, respectively.
Black women were arrested “at a per capita rate 13.4 times higher than women of other races,” says the report.
Considering that San Francisco is said to be one of the most liberal, tolerant, and enlightened cities in the U.S., I wonder how this happened.
It is extremely easy to pass the New York Fire Department’s written test.
Although I don’t agree with this woman’s use of profanity and racial slurs, I do agree with her general point, especially the part about blaming the parents for not properly raising their children.
Click here to see her video:
How embarrassing for the political left – the Baltimore police officer charged with murdering Freddie Gray is black
The Washington Post has just reported that the Baltimore police officer charged with murdering Freddie Gray is black.
Why is the political left blaming Gray’s death on racism?
And if this black police officer gets convicted and ends up in jail, will the political left then complain about yet another black man being sent to prison?