Is rural MAGA country the utopia the progressives profess to want?

If you look at the statistics the answer is yes. The article below is very hard to argue against.

According to the Department of Justice, out here where I live in rural North Carolina, throughout all of 2019, there were a total of only 20 hate crime allegations in our 13 rural counties where the population adds up to 668,000. That means that throughout 2019, there were only 2.9 hate crime allegations per 100,000 people.

Guess what the hate crime number is in some of the most progressive, left-wing cities in America? Well, you don’t have to guess, because I have those numbers for you….

Portland, OR = 5.75 reported hate crime incidents per 100,000

Boulder, CO = 7.9 incidents per 100,000

San Francisco, CA = 7.2 incidents per 100,000

Alexandria, VA = 3.1 incidents per 100,000

Arlington, VA = 4.7 incidents per 100,000

Seattle, WA = 40 (not a typo) per 100,000

Washington DC = 29 (not a typo) incidents per 100,000 (this is where the elite media live LOL)

I think you are starting to get the point, but let’s close with my personal favorite…

Berkeley, CA = 6.5 per 100,000

Golly, gee, will you look at that! It is two and three times — and even ten times safer for a minority to live in Rural MAGA Country than it is in a oh-so progressive city populated and governed by Democrats.

How is that possible when we’re told that we are the racists? How is it possible that where all of America’s so-called racists live, where we all congregate, gather, own guns, and govern ourselves, there is less racism — and in most cases — MUCH less racism, than there is in cities filled with Democrats?
Image by David Mark from Pixabay

Segregated graduation celebrations called multicultural at Columbia University

In the rational world a multicultural graduation ceremony has multiple cultures in attendance. In the world of academia a multicultural graduation ceremony has only a monoculture in attendance. Talk about some 1984 doublethink language. This is just too nuts. Pull your children from Columbia University today.

I would like to know what “lavender” and “FLI” refer to. The only thing I found regarding lavender is in Harry Potter. I found almost nothing for the acronym FLI other than “fatty liver index” and “front line infantry”. I’m sure none of those are applicable.

What does someone like me do? I’m half white and half Asian. Will I be accepted anywhere? I need a half-breed celebration event.

Image by Daniel Munson from Pixabay

“Cancel-Adjacent” When progressives eat their own

I’m read this New York Times article about a podcast series surrounding the disintegration, due to progressive woke-ism, of Bon Appetit called “The Test Kitchen” and how itself got canceled due to progressive woke-ism. The mental machinations these people go through in the name of trying to please everyone is psychotic and not productive. It’s a wonder progressives can get out of bed every morning.

First the host and editor of the podcast wonder if they should be telling this story because of their history with another company called Gimlet Media. The two were critical of employee efforts to unionize Gimlet prior to its acquisition by Spotify. That story is nuts and honestly has nothing to do with what happened at Bon Appetit.

In a Twitter thread a few days after the release of that second episode, Eric Eddings, a former colleague of the podcast’s creators, accused the project of hypocrisy. Ms. Pinnamaneni and Mr. Vogt had contributed to a “toxic dynamic” at Gimlet Media, the podcast’s parent company, themselves.

New York Times

Because of this chatter “The Test Kitchen” series got canceled. It was two episodes into a 4 part series. What’s the point?

Mr. Eddings, who was a host of “The Nod,” a Gimlet podcast about Black culture, wrote in his thread that his intention was not to get people to stop listening to the show. But online, many railed against “The Test Kitchen.”

Days later, “Reply All” canceled the series, declining to run the two remaining episodes.

New York Times

It devolved to blame one of Gimlet’s founders, Alex Blumberg, for creating the situation at Gimlet that made the host and editor of “The Test Kitchen” take a position on unionization of Gimlet.

“I think it is important for P.J. and Sruthi to be held accountable for their actions,” Mr. Eddings said in a recent interview, “but we are in this situation because of a failure of leadership. This all stems from choices made by Alex Blumberg and Matt Lieber.”

New York Times

The series “The Test Kitchen” was going to start out with the phony premise of cultural appropriation in the food industry. The NYT article brings up a controversy I never heard about.

Alison Roman, a cookbook author (and former columnist for The New York Times), was facing criticism for her popular turmeric-infused chickpea stew recipe, which hadn’t initially acknowledged the influence of South Asian curry dishes. 

New York Times

At least they provide a link to the recipe. Kind of funny when you think about that. I first ran across this “cultural appropriation” in food with this story about a Chicago chef that got shamed online for calling her recipe “bi bim bop”, which is a Korean rice bowl. Some asshole Korean chef from Chicago demanded that she label it as fusion because it was not traditional bi bim bop (some spell it bi bim bap but to me bop is a closer approximation to how it sounds). This is a side rant but let me tell you that bi bim bop can be anything with rice. It’s a dish that’s meant to use your leftovers. Hell, my father, who is OG Korean (he came to the US in the late 1950’s from Chinju South Korea) used to take his spaghetti and salad at Olive Garden, put them together on his plate, and call that bi bim bap. If he can do that then bi bim bop can be anything. But… I digress.

The NYT story then gets high into the weeds on Gimlet and how they were not diverse. How 24 out of 27 employees where white. How a “POC” they hired to develop into a podcaster got left behind and eventually fired because he wasn’t getting the attention he thought he deserved.

Shortly after, Mr. Mputubwele was fired. His superiors said he had shown insufficient growth, a critique he felt was disingenuous.

“You promised to develop me, that’s why you said you brought me here,” said Mr. Mputubwele, who now works for “The New Yorker Radio Hour.” “It’s like they thought that they could do diversity without actually doing the work that diversity requires.”

New York Times

It talks about how podcasts at Gimlet were launched and then jettisoned if they didn’t get traction. Duh, why would you continue a podcast with no listeners if the business is advertising based? But this was important because it had a supposed greater impact on POC.

Podcasts were released and, if they didn’t find an audience, discarded, leaving staff members to attach themselves to other projects. The uncertainty was greater for contract workers, many of whom were people of color. Long-term freelancers received no paid time off or equity.

New York Times

The article goes on and on about Gimlet, it’s fight with unionization, and the actions of the host and editor of “The Test Kitchen” during that time. None of which was related to what happened at Bon Appetit.

The best part of the entire article is being introduced to a brand new nonsense term. “Cancel-Adjacent”. This is fantastic. The woman who caused the meltdown at Bon Appetit by sharing a photo of the magazine’s editor was going to be on “The Test Kitchen” series to tell her story. But she became “collateral damage” as she put it because the episode she was in didn’t get released. And then comes to this realization:

“Being ‘cancel-adjacent’ is exhausting,” Ms. Teclemariam said. It’s especially enervating, she said, when you’re adjacent to people being canceled for their coverage of other people who have been canceled. “There is a word for this, but I’m not sure what it is. ‘Irony’ is insufficient.”

“If we cancel everyone,” she said, “who will be left?”

New York Times

The entire article is exhausting. The twists, turns, backbends, and gymnastics it requires to think like a progressive. How can they be so woke when it’s so damn tiring. Who can run a business with these people?

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

It’s Pat! Oh how times have changed

Frankly I’m surprised this clip still exists on SNL’s YouTube channel. Cancel them!!


“Equity” is inherently less than “Equal”

What ever happened to the old saying, “Two wrongs don’t make a right”? That’s what the Biden Administration and Progressive Democrats are bringing you. They’ve found a word to replace the phrase, “social justice” and that is “Equity”. The problem is they’ve altered its meaning to fit their agenda.

There is a subtle difference between equity and equal. For equity to exist you sometimes have to discriminate against one to favor another. For example, let’s say you’re involved in a project. The idea is yours but your partner provided most of the labor. The project can’t be sold without the both of you but the amount of work not equal. Let’s say the idea was genius and the labor to get it done was not unique or highly specialized. Or the idea is not all that unique but the labor is unique and highly specialized. What is the equitable split of the proceeds? An equal split is 50/50. But equitable? Equity could be 70/30 for one or the other depending on the value they brought to the project.

It is therefore the policy of my Administration that the Federal Government should pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.  Affirmatively advancing equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity is the responsibility of the whole of our Government.  Because advancing equity requires a systematic approach to embedding fairness in decision-making processes, executive departments and agencies (agencies) must recognize and work to redress inequities in their policies and programs that serve as barriers to equal opportunity.

President Biden Executive Order January 20, 2021

How about opportunity. Should we have equitable opportunities or equality of opportunity? Equitable opportunities will create preferences of one over another based on some criteria people compile. Equality of opportunity means the opportunity is open to all regardless of criteria. Two people compete for a job. How do you make it equitable for the company hiring if they must choose one over the other even if that person is less qualified. If the company had the freedom to choose they would have chosen another. What if because of the lack of qualification the employee suffers frustration and lack of growth because they don’t know what they’re doing? What if the company suffers losses because now they are paying for labor that doesn’t fit.

Equity as it’s being used today is a weapon. It’s being used to hold some people down because they may have some real or perceived advantage over others. That might be great in a utopian society where human nature is removed. But it is unworkable in real life and only results in the subjugation of all in the end.

We used to live by the concept of equal under the law. The law was meant to be blind. Does it always work? Obviously not because the law is administered by flawed human beings. But it is more fair than equity under the law. Equity under the law will be administered by the same flawed humans except they will now be empowered to discriminate and favor the groups they believe deserve special treatment.

Instead of making their case openly and honestly, advocates of equity twist and turn to avoid revealing their radical goal of re-engineering society through coercion. If the results fall short, as they inevitably would, the remedy is obvious: more money, more rules and more indoctrination. Why not tell us who will receive these special benefits and for how long? At whose expense? Who will administer these programs? Who will judge whether the outcomes are fair enough? When will it all end?

Since the ultimate goal is achieving equal outcomes, these evasions raise the hardest question of all. Isn’t equity just a new brand name for the oldest program of achieving equal outcomes? Its name is socialism.

Wall Street Journal

The concept of equal under the law is far superior to any application of equity by flawed humans.


Women are cancelled, replaced by Womxn

We’ve made the transition. Women are no longer women. Welcome the Womxn.

Forget the etymology of the word woman. It means nothing now. Definitions are whatever we want them to be. Words no longer really have any meaning.

The push away from anything associated with “men” or “man”. Let’s forget that the word “man” really means person or human.

Man took on its additional masculine meaning in the Late Middle English period, replacing the now-obsolete word wer.


Yes, it also refers to the male of our species but that has only been the case for the last 600 years or so.

Are women going to let themselves get erased? Cancelled? Removed?

Maybe the answer is categorizing as female rather than women or girls. Surely the definition of female can’t change!

The word female comes from the Latin femella, the diminutive form of femina, meaning “woman”


Rats! It means woman. Not only that I forgot that it includes the word male. How about chicks? Broads? Dames?

Something has to stick.


The “N-word” is so toxic you get fired for just debating its use

We’ve reached the point in American society where a single word (we’re talking about the dreaded and oh so powerful “N-word”) is so toxic that not only can you not use it in any context you can’t even debate the IDEA of a legitimate use by non-black people (aka also known as white people).

The online publication Slate has suspended a well-known podcast host after he debated with colleagues over whether people who are not Black should be able to quote a racial slur in some contexts.

Mike Pesca, the host of “The Gist,” a podcast on news and culture, said in an interview that he was suspended indefinitely on Monday after defending the use of the slur in certain contexts. He made his argument during a conversation last week with colleagues on the interoffice messaging platform Slack.

New York Times

To elevate a slur to such heights only serves to give that word more power. It’s just a word. It can’t do anything to anyone. Yes, the word has the nastiest of legacies. But, in 2021, if you have a negative response to its use by people, other than black people, that is really in your control more than anyone else’s.

Mr. Pesca, who has worked at Slate for seven years, said he was “heartsick” over hurting his colleagues but added, “I hate the idea of things that are beyond debate and things that cannot be said.”

New York Times

What’s next? Looking at someone and firing them because they look like they’re thinking it?

Image by 95C from Pixabay