Update: The “New Republic” pulls the article and apologizes. But really, what we’re they thinking.
The full article is archived, as least as of this writing, here. Another eye-popping passage:
Mary Pete is a neoliberal and a Jeffersonian meritocrat, which is to say he’s just another unrepentant or at least unexamined beneficiary of white male privilege…. Like Kirsten Gillibrand, he believes in “healthy capitalism,” which is a bit like saying you believe in “healthy cancer”: Yeah, you can (usually) treat it, but wouldn’t you rather be cured?
Once the [Black Hebrew] Israelites figured out the kids were Catholic, they offered this about what appeared to be a picture of the Pope: “This is a faggot child-molester.” And this about Donald Trump: “He’s a product of sodomy and he’s proud. Your president is a homosexual. … It says on the back of the dollar bill that ‘In God We Trust,’ and you give faggots rights.” At that homophobic outburst, the kids from the Catholic school spontaneously booed […]
To put it bluntly: They were 16-year-olds subjected to verbal racist assault by grown men; and then the kids were accused of being bigots. It just beggars belief that the same liberals who fret about “micro-aggressions” for 20-somethings were able to see 16-year-olds absorbing the worst racist garbage from religious bigots … and then express the desire to punch the kids in the face.
Andrew Sullivan: "[T]he same liberals who fret about “micro-aggressions” for 20-somethings were able to see 16-year-olds absorbing the worst racist garbage from religious bigots … and then express the desire to punch the _kids_ in the face." https://t.co/iV6Mowq32H— IGF CultureWatch (@IndeGayForum) January 26, 2019
The press failure on this and other “advance the narrative” stories has been monumental and driven by political bias:
"Sandmann is a teenage boy who attends high school in small-town Kentucky, but you’re never too young, never too obscure, and never too powerless, apparently, to represent the patriarchy." https://t.co/KjRJnF5S97 #Covington— City Journal (@CityJournal) January 27, 2019
In a 2015 profile for Rolling Stone, he once said one of his “biggest fears is my son growing up and being gay.”Also:
“Keep in mind, I’m not homophobic… Be happy. Do what you want to do. But me, as a heterosexual male, if I can prevent my son from being gay, I will,” he previously explained.
Another Twitter user went to the great lengths of searching every time Kevin used the words “Fag,” “homo” or “gay.” They realized the comedian “seems to have basically stopped tweeting those words after 2011 — i.e. the year his first stand-up movie became a hit.”As CNN reported, after withdrawing from the Oscars, Hart posted an Instagram video in which he said:
“Guys, I’m almost 40 years old. … If you don’t believe people change, grow, evolve as they get older, I don’t know what to tell you. If you want to hold people in a position where they always have to justify or explain their past then do you. I’m the wrong guy, man.”Hart’s statement unleashed further controversy over whether this met the demands of a ritual apology, and the consensus was that it did not. The tweets from years past were homophobic and hateful, but Hollywood seems to offer a pass for past homophobia to those who are otherwise active social justice warriors and Democrats in good standing. Also, the issue of homophobia being more acute in the African-American community, perhaps especially among black men, is one about which honest discussion is not allowed (in 2008, when the anti-gay-marriage Prop 8 passed in California, those who pointed out that African-Americans voted overwhelmingly for Obama and for Prop. 8 where denounced for their racism).
“If Kevin Hart isn’t clean enough to host the Oscars then no black comic is” https://t.co/pUrlK2ZbIF— Vulture (@vulture) December 9, 2018
More. Another day, another black guy who has to apologize: Heisman Trophy winner Kyler Murray apologizes for anti-gay tweets. Is this helping or hurting black support for lesbian and gay equality and inclusion?
Forgive @KevinHart4real for no knowing the rules. After all, @JoyAnnReid made anti gay comments on her old blog. First, she apologized, then said–wait–she’d been hacked and hadn’t written the slams!; then said, ok, she wrote them–apologized again. And she has a show on @MSNBC!— Larry Elder (@larryelder) December 9, 2018
Sen. Susan Collins has stood up to the mob and our republic will be the better for it. From her speech on the Senate floor:
Some argue that, because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest courts, public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee. Others see the public interest as abiding to our longest tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence. In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee. Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints. This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial. But certain fundamental legal principles about due process, the presumption of innocence and fairness do bear on my thinking and I cannot abandon them. In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill-served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be. We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy. The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record.
The Human Rights Campaign, which believes women (except for Juanita Broaddrick…Paula Jones…Kathleen Willey…et al) responded predictably.
And the Women’s March weighed in:
— Women's March (@womensmarch) October 5, 2018
Susan Collins just saved the women’s movement and its progress on rape prosecutions https://t.co/XGpvVo10gS
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) October 6, 2018
More, you say:
Imagine reading this headline and thinking it makes sense ? pic.twitter.com/TzEF3V0E8V
— The Safest Space (@TheSafestSpace) October 8, 2018
This is what left-wing "feminism" often looks like, folks. https://t.co/CcyYxbeQ3Y
— Brad Polumbo (@brad_polumbo) October 8, 2018
Let’s remember what’s driving the hysteria. Other than reflexive Trump hatred, it’s the demand for a Supreme Court that will oppose state restrictions on abortion, including limits on late-term abortion on demand, preferably done at taxpayer expense. (I agree with more-knowledgeable court-watchers that the likelihood of a whole-scale overturning of Roe by the conservatives on the court, especially under an incrementalist like Chief Justice Roberts, is virtually none.)
I know, I am not entitled to an opinion about terminating the lives of unborn babies.
Ok, so lately liberals at my college have been telling me that I am not allowed to have an opinion on abortion because I'm gay.
How do I even respond to that? Throw a civics book at them or something? Democracy 101?
— Brad Polumbo (@brad_polumbo) October 8, 2018
I wrote in September 2011 about Collins’ pivotal actions in overturning the military ban against openly gay service members:
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, it should be noted, never pushed for repeal or any other pro-gay equality legislation, but his role with “don’t ask, don’t tell” was particularly egregious. In late 2010, he insisted that the repeal bill be combined with an appropriations measure that the GOP was determined to block, and did with its filibuster. Reid then declared it was the GOP’s fault that the repeal failed. An incensed Sen. Collins and Sen. Lieberman demanded that a separate, stand-alone “don’t ask” repeal bill be brought forward, and the media glare [they generated] forced Sen. Reid to capitulate. The stand-alone repeal was brought up for a vote and easily passed with the support of many senators, including Sen. Brown, who had voted against the combined appropriations/repeal bill. …
…Sen. Collins shared that she simply couldn’t, at first, believe what Sen. Reid was doing (and then charged to the podium to protest the maneuver and its foregone conclusion—to no avail).
Keeping “don’t ask, don’t tell” in place as a campaign and fundraising issue while blaming the GOP for blocking repeal was the strategy all along. For the same reasons, when Democrats had a big majority in the House and a filibuster-proof Senate majority for nearly two years (2009-10), and with a “progressive” president in the White House, they choose not to pass comprehensive immigration reform (or vote on a federal LGBT anti-discrimination measure, for that matter).
Andrew Sullivan writes:
And it is the distinguishing mark of specifically totalitarian societies that this safety is eradicated altogether by design. … You are, in fact, always guilty before being proven innocent. You always have to prove a negative. …
Perhaps gay people are particularly sensitive to this danger, because our private lives have long been the target of moral absolutists, and we have learned to be vigilant about moral or sex panics. For much of history, a mere accusation could destroy a gay person’s life or career, and this power to expose private behavior for political purposes is immense.
I’m not equating an accusation of attempted rape in the distant past with sodomy. I am noting a more general accusatory dynamic that surrounded Ford’s specific allegation. This is particularly dangerous when there are no editors or gatekeepers in the media to prevent any accusation about someone’s private life being aired, when economic incentives online favor outrageous charges, and when journalists have begun to see themselves as vanguards of a cultural revolution, rather than skeptics of everything.
Walter Olson blogged:
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) took a quote in which Brett Kavanaugh summarized the positions taken by litigants in a lawsuit, snipped off his “But they said” language introducing the summary, and represented the remainder as Kavanaugh’s own position. News organizations like CNN, along with many persons in my timeline, ran with her version as a story.
I’ve been warning about Sen. Harris since back when she was California Attorney General and kept ignoring the ethical rules in high-profile cases. Among those cases: the Moonlight Fire litigation (judge, ordering state to pay $32 million to its opponent, said he could recall “no instance in experience over 47 years as an advocate and a judge, in which the conduct of the Attorney General so thoroughly departed from the high standard it represents”) and the Backpage prosecution (courts reject her theory of criminal liability over online sex ads, she orders execs raided and arrested anyway).
The NYT publishes an animated film mocking Trump and Putin for being homosexual lovers, using one disgusting gay stereotype after the next to do it. I'm sure they'll claim some LGBT person was involved. Homophobia for progressive messaging is still bigotry https://t.co/rbOwIyLHn7
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 26, 2018
Roseanne Barr’s racially tinged tweet was wretched, but she immediately deleted it an apologized profusely. No matter, to insult a member of the blessed Obama’s inner court is the highest of crimes in the view of the Hollywood progressive elite. Meanwhile, obscene slanders lobbed at the current U.S. president, his children and, well, any Republican are of no consequence.
Roseanne the show was always, and when rebooted continued to be, about a struggling working-class family with close black and LGBT friends. No matter, Roseanne the tweeter lost it and, being a Trump supporter, must not be forgiven.
While her tweet was an unfortunate and ill attempt at a pop culture inspired joke, let's not forget #Roseanne was always standing UP for the minorities and oppressed on her show, from multiple gay characters to black friends and of course that DJ kiss episode! #SaveRoseanne pic.twitter.com/l5rOzXoxbw
— Radoš (@radosko) May 29, 2018
— Martine Cantler (@martine_cantler) May 31, 2018
Actually, this makes sense:
Don’t Fire Samantha Bee, Joy Reid, Joy Behar, Keith Opperman and so many others—-JUST BE FAIR AND BRING BACK ROSEANNE.
— Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) May 31, 2018
More. Andrew Klavan writes in the Wall Street Journal:
>>Roseanne Barr and Samantha Bee seldom have anything interesting to say. But their recent controversies explain our political situation. Taken as one, the story has the precision of a parable.
Ms. Barr, a Trump supporter—in one of her many thoughtlessly grotesque moments—tweets a vulgar remark about longtime Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett. People reasonably interpret it as racist. Within hours, Ms. Barr’s No. 1 television program is canceled. Even reruns of her decades-old show are taken off the air.
Ms. Bee, a leftist who hates Mr. Trump—in one of her many well-scripted and vetted grotesque moments—makes an obscene remark about Ivanka Trump. That it is misogynistic is beyond dispute. The audience cheers. Her producer brags that the obscenity is trending on social media. After a day of outrage from the right, Ms. Bee issues a halfhearted apology. She receives an award. Her unpopular and unprofitable show stays on the air. Influential cultural voices earnestly debate whether her ugly comment was really all that bad. The conversation trails into silence.<<
There’s an awful lot of shadow-projecting by the P.C. left.