Post by The PeelerUNBELIEVABLE, but our resident pedophilic cocksucking serb swine just
finished sucking off her FIRST gay neo-nazi gang, today! LOL
Listen to her trying (and failing) to talk with a FRESH big load of jizz in
Post by jew kike SHEENIE paedophile Barry Z. SHEIN's preferred jew aliash Ron JacobsonYES FOLKSH! VHILE CONTINUING to RECOVER from jew shabbosh
SHODOMY jew paedophile SHCUMBAG/PARASHITE Barry Z. Shein
FOUND TIME to EXCRETE NINETY jew SHMUT/SHPAM/FORGERY poshtsh on
theshe groupsh from the DISHEASHED jew ANUSH of STD.COM, poshting as
'sick old nazoid pedo Andrew Andrzej Baron' and DOZENSH of other jew
ALIASHESH!
It'sh ALL in the MESSHAGE IDsh, folksh! EVERY POSHT criticishing the
B'RITISH, the POLISH, CATHOLICSH, SHLUTSH, PRIESHTSH, jews,
PAEDOPHILESH(!!), and SHEX ABUSHERSH(!!) comes from jew paedophile
Baruch 'Barry' Shein's disheashed jew ANUSH: STD.COM!
And the BESHT part: the shleazy jew piece of shite tries to b'lame
SHOMEONE ELSHE for the jew SHMUT/SHPAM. Shuch a CHUTZPAH already!
It's jusht shome fucking jew, folksh. Fuggedaboudit!
If she only swallowed it BEFORE she started talking!
The mangina has no honor, decency, nor integrity.
Jeff Jacoby writes about several subjects.
http://view.email.bostonglobe.com/?qs=d4d2a1a526e1849738ea68accc187dd331531b73e397a7fc50f2bb1c645597bc0d377c0e3a0100670b3a946e9cf97da37fc44431ac5b6a2c75e870aa7c04fab6322a3fd2b9cef1314325663e03c934a80ec13ef731c0fcda
Arguable - with Jeff Jacoby
Monday, June 29, 2020
Subscribe to Arguable
'Cancel culture' grows increasingly cruel
The racial Jacobins haven’t eased up in their post-George Floyd ferocity; if
anything they are growing more indiscriminate in their determination to
enforce political conformity and to punish anything they regard as
thoughtcrime. Their targets haven’t been limited to statues of American
heroes, editors of prominent newspapers, or professors at leading
universities. The toll of those who have been defamed, fired, or otherwise
“cancelled” now includes an alarming number of people who have no power or
public platform, who are not celebrities, and who in many cases did nothing
wrong.
Take the case, for example, of Emmanuel Cafferty, a Hispanic employee of San
Diego Gas and Electric, who was fired for making a “white supremacist”
gesture while driving his company-issued truck. Except that he wasn’t making
any gesture at all, and didn’t even know that such a symbol existed.
Here’s the story, as reported by San Diego’s NBC affiliate:
It all started about two weeks ago near a Black Lives Matter rally in Poway
when Emmanuel Cafferty, a San Diego Gas and Electric employee, encountered a
stranger on the roadway. The stranger followed Cafferty and took a picture
of him as his arm hung out the window of his company truck.
The picture made the rounds on Twitter, accompanied by a claim Cafferty was
making a “white power” hand gesture made popular by white supremacist
groups.
According to the Anti-Defamation League, the gesture — made by forming a
circle with the thumb and index finger, and extending and separating the
other three fingers — has been used in recent years by white supremacists to
form the letters W and P, but has also long been used as a sign signifying
“OK” . . . . Therefore it shouldn't be assumed to be a white supremacy
symbol unless there is other evidence to support those claims, according to
the ADL. Cafferty claims he was just cracking his knuckles.
Soon after the encounter, a supervisor of Cafferty's told him he was
suspended and that further action may be taken after an investigation. A few
days later, he says he was fired.
Cafferty was astonished when his employer told him what he had been accused
and found guilty of. Not only had he been denounced and fired for a
supposedly racist act, his judge, jury, and executioner were all white, and
he isn’t. Yascha Mounk dug further into the case for The Atlantic:
[Cafferty] said he explained to the people carrying out the investigation .
. . that he had no earthly idea some racists had tried to appropriate the
“okay” sign for their sinister purposes. He told them he simply wasn’t
interested in politics; as far as he remembered, he had not voted in a
single election. Eventually, he told me, “I got so desperate, I was showing
them the color of my skin. I was saying, ‘Look at me. Look at the color of
my skin.’”
It was all to no avail. SDG&E, Cafferty told me, never presented him with
any evidence that he held racist beliefs or knew about the meaning of his
gesture. Yet he was terminated.
Meanwhile, the guy who took the picture of Cafferty’s fingers deleted his
tweet, admitted that he may have “misinterpreted” what he saw, and said he
never intended for Cafferty to lose his job. But these days, the merest
suggestion that someone is a bigot, or insufficiently antiracist, can
trigger the instantaneous destruction of his or her reputation, career, and
income.
Mounk describes the fate of a liberal statistician working for a left-wing
firm:
David Shor, for example, was until recently a data analyst at a progressive
consulting firm, Civis Analytics. . . . Shor’s job was to think about how
Democrats can win elections. When Omar Wasow, a professor at Princeton,
published a paper in the country’s most prestigious political-science
journal arguing that nonviolent civil-rights protests had, in the 1960s,
been more politically effective than violent ones, Shor tweeted a simple
summary of it to his followers.
That was all it took to wipe out Shor’s job, writes Mounk. Various agitators
on Twitter demanded that he be terminated. He had done nothing more than
flag a piece of research raising questions about the effectiveness of
violent protests. Yet within a week of posting an accurate tweet about the
findings of Wasow — a black PhD in African-American studies — Civis
Analytics fired Shor. Even Wasow’s wife was appalled by the crazed attack on
a fellow progressive who had done nothing to deserve such a fate.
Then there is the attack on a middle-aged woman named Sue Schafer who
attended a Halloween party in 2018, wearing blackface and a tag reading
“Hello, My Name is Megyn Kelly.” It was a mocking reference to the former TV
host, who ran into a buzzsaw after she suggested that wearing blackface
wasn’t always racist or in bad taste. Two young women at the party
approached Schafer — who was not famous, not running for office, not
influential — and berated her for her costume. She left the party in tears.
Which would have been the end of it, except that The Washington Post, for no
discernible reason, ran a 3,000-word article about the incident this month —
a story, wholly devoid of news value, about a clueless woman at a party two
years ago. As soon as the story appeared, Schafer was fired by her employer.
Even children are being targeted as racist, with the encouragement of adults
who explicitly call for the destruction of the kids’ future prospects.
Skai Jackson, a former Disney Channel star, urged her young social media
followers to expose their classmates or peers for posting racist comments or
videos. “If you know a racist, don’t be shy! Tweet me the receipts,” Skai
tweeted on June 4. On Instagram, she posted a similar threat, saying she
would spotlight “Caucasian teens” who say or write something inappropriate:
“Let me say this: If I see you post it, I WILL expose you!! If you think you’re
big and bad enough to say it, I will most definitely put your own words on
blast!!”
What followed, predictably enough, was a flood of submissions from informers
eager to publicly accuse young people of racism, sometimes expressed in
online remarks years ago. Jackson readily publicized the accusations, making
sure to include the targets’ full names and social-media handles. And for
going out of her way to ruin the reputation of people for being young and
foolish, she was extolled as a heroine. Entertainment Tonight hosts
applauded Jackson’s “bold move” in ensuring that “justice can be served.”
Essence magazine commended her for “using this time to reverse the blatant
racism she’s seen on social media.”
“I am so proud of you, @skaijackson,” tweeted actress Yvette Nicole Brown.
“The good work you’re doing exposing all these ‘baby’ racists will ensure
that their names, faces & deeds will be known as they enter the work force
down the line. Which will protect everyone from the havoc racists cause in
the workplace.”
This is chilling and dystopian, the perversion of a legitimate goal —
overcoming racial bigotry — into a frenzy of character assassination and
public humiliation.
Boston attorney Joseph Welch memorably confronted Senator Joseph McCarthy in
June 1954: "Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left
no sense of decency?"
“Some of the targets of these campaigns may have spoken or acted clumsily,
but apologists for cancel culture can find reasons to stigmatize or banish
anyone,” observed the Wall Street Journal in an editorial last week:
We doubt most Americans agree with this unforgiving and punitive approach to
cultural change, but the revolutionaries are now in charge with a vengeance.
They won’t stop by themselves because their campaign is essentially about
power and control, and they need new villains. But . . . they are also
laying waste to liberal values of free speech, democratic debate, and
cultural tolerance.
A backlash to the Jacobins’ brutality will come sooner or later.
It was 66 years ago this month that the tide finally began to turn against
Joseph McCarthy, the Wisconsin senator whose anticommunist crusade was
marked by a similar willingness to blow up reputations and shred careers.
The moment came during the McCarthy’s televised hearings on supposed
communist influence in the US Army, when he gratuitously singled out by name
a young Boston lawyer, implying that he was a secret communist and a
security threat to the United States.
Joseph Welch, a Boston attorney who served as chief counsel for the Army
during the hearings, seized on McCarthy’s smear to turn the tables:
“Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty
or your recklessness,” Welch said. He praised the young lawyer who had been
slandered, then rebuked McCarthy with words that still resonate:
“Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have
you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of
decency?”
Like resistance to communism, resistance to racial bigotry is a worthy and
legitimate cause. But there is nothing legitimate about demonizing the
powerless and destroying lives with reckless accusations. What has been done
to Cafferty and Shor and too many others is stomach-turning. Have those who
target such powerless people have no sense of decency? At long last, have
they left no sense of decency?
Crown thy good with brotherhood
Even in this hypersensitive, hyperpolarized moment, most Americans don’t
yearn to hurt those who see things differently than they do. The statue
vandalizers and character assassins get the lion's share of media attention.
But if you wish to see something that will lift your heart, watch as this
African American man, standing at the Capitol in Washington, DC, implores
his fellow citizens to “come together.”
‘A finger of the Almighty hand’
Each year as Independence Day approaches, John Adams’s famous letter of July
3, 1776, to his wife Abigail is recalled and widely quoted.
Adams was writing from Philadelphia, one day after the Continental Congress
voted unanimously to declare independence from Great Britain. To his wife
back home in Braintree, Mass., he overflowed with elation:
“The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epoch in the
History of America,” Adams exulted.
I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations,
as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day
of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be
solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells,
Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from
this Time forward forever more.
As it turned out, of course, the “great anniversary Festival” would be
celebrated not on July 2, the date of the vote for independence, but on July
4, the day when Congress approved the final text of the Declaration of
Independence. The earlier date was the more logical choice, but when the
declaration was engrossed on parchment for signing, the words “In CONGRESS,
July 4, 1776” appeared prominently on top.
Adams was right about the “Pomp and Parade” and “Bonfires and Illuminations”
that would be indelibly associated with Fourth of July festivities. The
tradition of setting off fireworks began with the very first organized
celebration of Independence Day on July 4, 1777. “The evening was closed
with the ringing of bells,” reported Philadelphia’s Evening Post on July 5,
“and at night there was a grand exhibition of fireworks . . . on the
Commons, and the city was beautifully illuminated.”
But what about the “solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty” that Adams
foresaw as a mainstay of the holiday? Those haven’t lasted as a July 4th
tradition — a development that would likely have distressed not only Adams,
a devout churchgoing Congregationalist, but perhaps even his less worshipful
contemporaries, such as Thomas Jefferson. For the last thing any of the
founders of the American republic wanted was a society in which religion
would be disregarded, or in which references to God would be seen as
unwelcome or out of place.
Jefferson, for example, though famously skeptical of much religious dogma,
nevertheless believed in a benevolent creator God to whom humans owed
gratitude. “The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time,” he
wrote in 1774, and the Declaration of Independence refers to God not once
but four times. Its opening sentence invokes “the Laws of Nature and of
Nature's God.” Its final paragraph begins by “appealing to the Supreme Judge
of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions.” It closes “with a firm
Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence.” And in the most quoted
passage in our history, the Declaration of Independence puts God at the very
heart of the American Idea:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
In linking religion to American liberty, Adams and Jefferson were not simply
bowing to the political correctness of their time, or verbalizing empty
sentiment that no one was expected to take seriously. They were articulating
a core principle of American nationhood: Religious faith — and the civic
virtues it gives rise to — is as indispensable to a democratic republic as
freedom of speech or the right to own property. Religion can survive in the
absence of freedom. But freedom without religion, they knew, tends to become
dangerous and unstable.
Over and over, the Founders said so. “Of all the dispositions and habits
which lead to political prosperity,” George Washington reminded the country
in his farewell address, “religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
Even Benjamin Franklin, arguably the most cosmopolitan and scientifically
minded of the Founders, argued that American independence had to be grounded
in religious faith. “I have lived, sir, a long time,” he said during the
Philadelphia Convention of 1787, “and the longer I live, the more convincing
proofs I see of this truth: that God governs in the affairs of men.” In his
autobiography, Franklin wrote that in his younger years he became a
“thorough deist” — i.e., someone who believes that God exists but plays no
active role in the universe — yet that view clearly changed over time.
Disturbed that the Philadelphia convention’s sessions weren’t being opened
with prayer, he introduced a motion to begin doing so. In a private letter
to Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale, Franklin summarized his religious
creed:
I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his
Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service
we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man
is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its
Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound
Religion.
Many of those who were at the center of America’s struggle for independence
were sure that it was being guided forward by more than their own mortal
efforts. In an influential sermon in 1776, the Rev. John Witherspoon — James
Madison's teacher at Princeton and a leading member of the Continental
Congress — argued that God's hand could be discerned in the gathering storm
and in the chain of events that had led to it. “It would be a criminal
inattention,” he said, “not to observe the singular interposition of
Providence hitherto, in behalf of the American colonies.”
An epitaph proposed by Benjamin Franklin for himself
At a very different moment 11 years later, reflecting on the remarkable
unanimity achieved by the Constitutional Convention — a body that should
have been riven by bickering factions — Madison likewise saw divine
intervention.
“It is impossible,” he wrote in Federalist No. 37, “for the man of pious
reflection not to perceive in it a finger of the Almighty hand which has
been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical
stages of the revolution.”
Liberty with faith, a secular state nourished by a religious society — that
was the formula the Founders devised. They sought to combine the
Enlightenment's emphasis on reason, learning, and pluralism with the
Judeo-Christian ethic of responsibility, justice, and goodness. What
resulted was a nation that proved to be, on the whole, more diverse, more
free, more tolerant, more successful, and more religious than any before or
since.
Religious attachment is not as strong in America as it used to be. According
to Gallup, just 72% of Americans say that religion is important in their
lives, down considerably from the 95% who said so in 1952. Might there be a
connection between that decline and the acrimony, mistrust, and unhappiness
that have grown so pervasive in American life?
The men and women of 1776 have long since gone to their reward, but there is
enduring wisdom in their conviction that while liberty is the purpose of a
just government, the survival of that liberty requires the steady
cultivation of virtue. Self-government is the most difficult method by which
human beings can organize a society, and to do so successfully depends on
recognizing that each citizen is created in the image of God, and is
entitled therefore to political autonomy and freedom of conscience. “The
rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of
God,” declared John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address. That has always
been a core American value.
Much has changed in the 244 years since John Adams wrote in jubilation to
his beloved Abigail, but it remains our responsibility to pursue today what
they and their contemporaries fought so long ago to achieve: one nation
under God, with liberty and justice for all.
Terry Teachout's gallant gal
Like countless readers, I have long been a Terry Teachout fan. I’ve never
met him in person; I know him only through his writing as the Wall Street
Journal’s theater critic and Commentary magazine’s critic-at-large. (I have
also read parts of his book on H.L. Mencken, one of several biographies he
has written.) He is a truly gifted writer; his essays, whatever the subject,
are invariably graceful, humane, thoughtful, and informed. I wish I could
write so well so consistently.
In the June issue of Commentary, Teachout eulogizes his wife Hilary , who
died on March 31 of complications from a double lung transplant. It is a
beautiful essay, affecting in its description of the Teachouts’ profound
love, suffused with Terry’s gratitude for having awakened to such an intense
devotion in middle age “after having been unlucky in love for most of my
life,” and filled with admiration for the partner with whom he was so happy,
and without whom he now aches, his wounds, as he says, “open, red and raw.”
From the very start, illness cast a shadow over their life together:
When I met Hilary, my wife-to-be, we were of mature age — we both turned 50
three months later — and she was living under sentence of premature death. I
found out within days of meeting her that she had only recently been
diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension, a rare, slow-developing disease of
the lungs and heart, and that she could expect to live for no more than two
or three years. This was all the more shocking because I had fallen in love
with her at first sight — and she, I later learned, with me as well. As if
that weren’t fraught enough, I was myself seriously ill at the time, though
I didn’t realize it, having been too willful, as so many men are, to go to a
doctor. Yet all that mattered to me was that after having been unlucky in
love for most of my life, I had met, purely by chance, a woman with whom I
found myself to be suddenly and overwhelmingly in love, but whom I could not
hope to have in my life for more than an agonizingly brief time.
I assume there are men who would approach such a dilemma by running the
romantic equivalent of a cost-benefit analysis. I am not one of them. I knew
at once that if I could get Hilary to go out with me, I would then do
everything in my power to persuade her to marry me, no matter how long she
had left. That was what happened, albeit after a certain amount of
intervening slapstick. My own as-yet-undiscovered illness landed me in the
hospital a month after our first meeting and three days before what was to
have been our first date. Instead of going to see Waiting for Godot with
me — a too-good-to-be-true detail I would never have dared to make up — she
visited me in my hospital room, bringing a fat deli sandwich for me to eat
in place of the hospital food she loathed. Two nights after that, a nurse
came into the room and caught us kissing ardently, unfazed by the oxygen
cannula in my nose.
He recovered but her sickness was incurable, and they married knowing that
they might have only a very few years together. In the end, they were
blessed with 15 years — a short marriage for a happy couple, but enough time
for Teachout to figure out what it was about his wife that so captivated and
uplifted him.
I knew myself to be in the presence of a woman who was smart, funny,
generous, and, I soon discovered, gallant. Her devastating illness
frightened her — she eventually admitted to me that she had at one point
considered suicide — but it did not stop her from finding joy in the moment.
As newly developed palliative measures slowed the inexorable course of the
disease, she leaped headfirst into every fresh experience I offered her,
some of them imprudent to the point of lunacy (we actually went on an
overnight windjammer cruise in Maine one summer weekend, even though she
could no longer swim) but all made wondrous by her enthusiasm. Unable to
work, she traveled throughout the country with me to the regional-theater
productions that I reviewed for the Wall Street Journal, refusing to let her
fragility stop her from living as intensely as she could.
Like many (most?) happily married couples, the Teachouts were entirely
“capable of exasperating each other almost without limit.” Both of them, he
writes, were stubborn and set in their ways, and she had a “sharp and clever
tongue and unhesitatingly used it to prick my pomposities.” But quarrels
never detracted from love, and the Teachouts never lacked for shared
interests — old movies, music, the art they collected.
And — above all — we talked. In the end, a happy marriage is more talk than
anything else, and Hilary and I never ran out of things to talk about. Her
joint pain forced her to take daily doses of opiates, but her mind stayed
agile and unpredictable, and I never spoke with her, no matter how brief the
conversation, without smiling at her wit.
Some people are blessed with great good fortune and are too dense or foolish
to appreciate what they have. Others suffer great pain, whether physical or
emotional, and in its shadow lose sight of the blessings they were formerly
graced with. No one can say those things about Terry Teachout, whose loss is
great, but whose thankfulness for what he had seems even greater.
It is a mystery to me how people carry on after the death of a beloved
spouse, though I know they do so. I suppose it is a mystery to everyone —
until it happens, and they force themselves, as they must, to figure it out.
On the night Hilary died, Teachout wrote a few lines on his blog, quoting
the French philosopher Raymond Aron: “There is no apprenticeship to
misfortune. When it strikes us, we still have everything to learn.” In his
Commentary article, he writes:
Now I am alone again, far more so than when Hilary and I first met. Her
final illness coincided with the arrival in New York of the coronavirus
pandemic, and when I went back to our apartment after she died, I returned
to a lockdown that has yet to be lifted as I write these words. I have not
touched a human being since I kissed Hilary for the last time.
“I will turn their sorrow into joy, and will comfort them,” said the prophet
Jeremiah. Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted. May it
be so for Terry Teachout and for all who must, after years of happiness,
face life without their cherished soulmate. And may the memory of those they
have lost be a bright and unwavering blessing to all who knew them.
Enjoy reading Arguable? Please tweet the good word to your followers!
Subscribe to BostonGlobe.com
ICYMI
In my Sunday column , I described Muhammad al-Issa, a Saudi sheikh who has
emerged as one of the Muslim world’s foremost spokesmen for interfaith
tolerance. That may come as a surprise, given Saudi Arabia’s record of
exporting Wahhabism, a harsh strain of Islamist extremism. But it’s true:
Al-Issa goes out of his way to express respect for non-Muslims, and has been
vocal in his condemnation of antisemitic hate crimes. What explains the rise
of so outspoken a moderate in Saudi Arabia? The answer may be that radical
Islamism is in retreat across much of the Middle East. Having experienced
Islamist rule firsthand, many Muslims increasingly reject it, and are
turning against religious political parties. It’s an encouraging trend; may
it strengthen and spread.
I wrote Wednesday about the national surge in gun purchases. More than 15
million Americans bought guns in the first half of 2020 — a huge increase
over the same period in 2019. First-time buyers account for 40% of gun
sales, and many of those buyers are black. The National African American Gun
Association, which began in 2015 with one chapter, now comprises more than
100 chapters and 40,000 members. The gun-control lobby doesn’t like it, but
millions of Americans, white and black alike, grasp that owning a gun makes
them safer. Between the pandemic, incidents of police brutality, and
violent mobs, this is an alarming moment — and when Americans feel
threatened, the Second Amendment protects their right to protect themselves.
I was the guest last week on Hubwonk, the podcast of the Pioneer Institute,
an eminent Boston think tank. The topic was my recent column on how police
unions are an obstacle to responsible policing. It was a lively 30-minute
conversation; you can listen to it here.
The last line
“Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they
have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of
chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others
may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” — Patrick Henry,
Address to the Second Virginia Revolutionary Convention (March 23, 1775)
________________________________________
Thank you for reading Arguable. If you liked this newsletter, please forward
it to a friend. To subscribe for free, sign up here.
I invite you to follow me on Twitter (@jeff_jacoby) and on Facebook, and
always welcome your feedback: If you have an idea, insight, or inspiration,
let me hear from you: My e-mail address is ***@globe.com (or just
reply to this newsletter). Arguable will be off next week, setting off
fireworks in honor of the 'great anniversary festival.' Look for a new
Arguable in your inbox the following Monday. Have a great fortnight, and a
happy Fourth of July!
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com