We Need You!

This was the very first paragraph on a sports blog calling for writers.

"We're looking for new people to join our editorial staff here at _______ and we are especially interested in bringing aboard writers who will broaden our worldview. Women.People from other parts of the world. People with disabilities. Basically: we’re looking to encourage diversity on our site."

You only got it because you're a woman and have a disability, not because you have a unique point of view and/or your writing material is of merit. 

Cultural Appropriation, sorta.

This post is just a side-thought of a bigger issue that I'll try to address later.

The basic idea behind cultural appropriation is that another culture, mainly whites, are misusing X culture to their own amusement, whether intentionally or not. By doing this it mocks X culture and therefore it is innately racist. What if we extend this misuse to the social institution of marriage?

In the earliest days, the concept of marriage was between a man and a woman, whether for procreative and/or real estate purposes. This distinct characteristic, a man and a woman, that forms what is widely known as marriage has been slowly changed to mean "between  X party and X party" in order to make room for same-sex pairings. Would this count as a form of cultural appropriation? Defenders of real marriage argue that same-sex "marriage" mocks the original constitutes of marriage that has been upheld for hundreds of years. But here's the catch. Arguments for supporting same-sex "marriage" say that marriage that does not allow two people of the same sex to get hitched to one another is not inclusive, while, say, the banning of a collegiate mascot or symbol that is deemed offensive is the "right thing to do." Statements by school representatives say that they want to be "inclusive", hence the banning of a school symbol or the taking down of a statue.

It can get confusing but that's the hilly reasoning. I'm still figuring out the definition of "inclusive" in both cases. One case is using to allow a certain form to exist; the other is generating feelings of non-offensiveness. The first case seems to be using the word correctly while the second shows up no where in the dictionaries I've referenced.

It's 9/11 to CNN and the MSM

There was a protest agains taking down of the Robert E. Lee statue in the state of Virginia. Supposedly the man who organized the protest was a white nationalist. Anti-protestors, mostly black, showed up and tensions rose. Violence broke out but no news source is sure who threw the first punch. A car backed up into a crowd of anti-protestors where one was fatally injured.

For the past, I don't know, five hours it's been the main story on CNN. The commentary was the usual  - take some moderate and/or sympathetic Republicans, grill them with ridiculous questions, while having self-indignant leftists, usually black, act as if their safe space was violated. The "moderate" Republicans also threw the right under the bus: an ex-CIA who grew up in a household of Republicans said that there is indeed a racist segment inside the GOP. He didn't names of course.

Another tactic was expressing the disappointment on how Trump reacted, where one commentator said he was diminishing the reality of the situation, saying that Trump's "we must condemn hate" was not enough. And the kicker? Before CNN took a commercial break the host quickly confirmed that she received news that the person who was driving the car that backed up into the crowd of anti-protesters was white. "And I received confirmation that the driver was white." MSM is rather determined to stamp this as a "white on black" crime. Too bad they wouldn't eager to know the San Bernardino terrorist's ethnicity. Alongside this was, again the host, doing something that was seen a mile away. Remember how the right criticized Obama and Hilary for not saying the word Islamic extremists after numerous domestic attacks, and even international attacks? Well the host asked a moderate Republican why Trump couldn't say (read: admit that the even was due to) white supremacy. When I heard this I had to chuckle and shake my head. Really? After one violent gathering where there are no official recordings of who started the fight CNN thinks they have a "gotcha" card on this. You got to be kidding me. Then she, the host, tries to idiotically tie in the KKK's backing of Reagan - "Your idol Reagan was supported by racists! What do you have to say to that!" Haven't they learned a lesson? They pulled this same nonsense when Piers Morgan tried to put Ben Shapiro in a corner asking him about Reagan's stance on gun control to which Shapiro said so what.

It's "breaking news" on youtube and it's going to receive front page news for Sunday's paper. It will most likely be the talk of the town for the entire week, focusing on how racist America is and how Trump's presidency is responsible for this. There will be "highlighted" youtube vids on this event by angry blacks saying "I told ya so!" You told nothin', brother. Same old same old.

And the MSM still hasn't a clue about what is the alt-right. Their idea of it is so shallow that it's almost embarrassing. To them alt-right mainly equals white supremacy. Because Richard Spencer and Bannon and Breitbart.  That's basically it.

Tradition? What's that?

Person A: I think it's crap that the NCAA removed that university's mascot on the grounds of "racism." It'll only be time before other sports traditions are scrapped.

Person B: Look, I understand the bitterness of some fans. The traditions that are still there have no connections to the mascot, so I think they'll stay. What you're doing is an appeal to emotions and has a smell of NCAA conspiracy theory. It's silly.

Person A: How does a slippery slope equates to a conspiracy theory?

Person B: It's over. I've moved on, and IMO the rest of our fanbase ought to do the same.

Person A: So what you're saying that an image, once an integral part of this university's public image, scrapped, and the future students should just not give a damn? What if, one day, the songs used by the marching band that have taken some heat due to its loose connection to the now band mascot are banned? Now what?

Person B: Like the mascot, they should get over it.

Person A: I get it. You're the type that really doesn't give a damn about tradition. How's the shitty block letter of the university in replace of the mascot's face? It's looks like crap. You're the kind that will be totally fine with corporate take over and when new "traditions" are started, you'll be there saying it's 'just as good' as the old ones.

Person B: It's just a silly tradition.

Person A: No, it's not a "silly" tradition. Tradition gives character. It gives life. 

The indignant pro-LGBT strikes again.

Professional sports is a business (don't forget that MLS and socialist fans). Associations like the NBA, MLS and the NHL have agreements with "watchdogs" to suspend and crack down on supposedly anti-LGBT words and statements. By doing this they at least can't be deemed a bigot or hateful, free from the grasps of the Stonewall activists.

Chicago Blackhawks forward, Andrew Shaw, is the latest victim of this "watchdog." Shaw, according to a clip, says, "Fuck you, you fucking faggot." It's not audible but you can make out the words pretty clearly.

CHICAGO -- Chicago Blackhawks forward Andrew Shaw has been suspended one game and ordered to undergo sensitivity training after uttering an anti-gay slur from the penalty box to someone on the ice in Chicago's Game 4 loss at home to the St. Louis Blues.
Shaw was also fined $5,000 for "directing an inappropriate gesture" at the on-ice officials. He will miss Game 5 in St. Louis on Thursday when the Blues, who are up 3-1 in the series, will try to knock the defending Stanley Cup champions out of the playoffs.

"While Mr. Shaw was apologetic and remorseful for both the offensive comments and the inappropriate gesture directed at the on-ice officials, he must be held accountable for his actions," NHL senior executive vice president of hockey operations Colin Campbell said in a statement. "The emotion of the moment cannot and will not be a mitigating factor for the conduct that is expected of an NHL player."

"He must be held accountable for his actions." Wow. Apparently issuing a public apology and being find $5, 000 is a little much.  All of a sudden the PC moral police are out in full force in professional sports.

Shaw was sent off for interference at 17 minutes, 56 seconds of the third period, hurting Chicago's chance for a comeback in what ended up being a 4-3 loss. While sitting in the box, Shaw pounded on the glass with his stick and then yelled at someone on the ice. As video of the incident spread online, the You Can Play project, a group supporting inclusiveness in athletics, swiftly tweeted that it was planning to contact the NHL.

After the game, Shaw was asked twice about what happened and said he didn't remember.

"Being like I just said -- I'll repeat myself for you -- emotions are high,'' he said. "I don't know what was said. Obviously I was upset with the call. I wasn't happy with the call."
A day later, Shaw said he saw the video after he returned home from the arena and said he was "sincerely sorry for the insensitive remarks that I made."

Anyone who has played sports in a halfway decent league knows that there's tension and players get pissed at one another and at the referee. The players, and coaches, say things out of anger. It's clear that Shaw's outburst was out of frustration and not geared towards the LGBT community. It wasn't even geared to a player with the suspicion of him not being straight.

"I apologize to many people, including the gay and lesbian community, the Chicago Blackhawks organization, Blackhawks fans and anyone else I may have offended," he said. "I know my words were hurtful, and I will learn from my mistake."

The team said it was "extremely disappointed" by the incident. Shaw scored a goal in the second period and had two assists in the loss, which left the defending Stanley Cup champions on the brink of elimination.

Extremely disappointed. Huh. Interesting. What's more interesting is what follows.

The team recently highlighted its partnership with You Can Play, which lobbies for equal and respectful treatment of all athletes without regard to sexual orientation. Defenseman Niklas Hjalmarsson and goaltender Scott Darling participated in a video supporting the group's mission.

"Our team pledges to support all our coaches, teammates and fans," Darling says in the video. "We believe that athletes should be judged by their character, work ethic and talent, not their sexual orientation or gender identity."

True about being judged by work ethic, character and talent, but it's a rather insidious move on You Can Play's part. It's a play on one's psyche to begin with. By making sexuality trivial on the field, as it should be, it also greatly helps in being non-thinking when it comes to supposed "rights."

You Can Play issued a statement after the suspension was announced.

"All of us at You Can Play were saddened and offended to see Andrew Shaw's use of homophobic slurs during an NHL game. We wholeheartedly support the NHL's decision to discipline Mr. Shaw," it read. "After four years of working with You Can Play, NHL players can no longer use ignorance as an excuse for not understanding the power of their words and the effect they have on their teammates, fans, and the LGBT community.

We look forward to continuing our partnership with the NHL, the Blackhawks, and Mr. Shaw as we work to finally eradicate homophobia in hockey culture."

So here's the watchdog: You Can Play. It's not just a watchdog but it has dictated the rhetoric of players on and off the ice. 

A national television audience heard former NBA star Kobe Bryant shout the same slur in 2011 at a referee he thought had made a bad call during a basketball game. Chicago Bulls center Joakim Noah yelled it at a Miami Heat basketball fan who had been antagonizing him during a game a month later. Both quickly apologized, and the NBA hit them with large fines: Bryant was fined $100,000, and Noah was fined $50,000.

Also in the NBA, Sacramento Kings point guard Rajon Rondo was suspended one game in December for using the slur as he berated official Bill Kennedy, who subsequently came out as gay. Major League Baseball in 2014 suspended Yunel Escobar, then a shortstop with the Toronto Blue Jays, for stenciling the word, in Spanish, onto his eye black.

The LGBT has become the beloved protected class, competing against blacks for the "Biggest Victim" winner.

Like MLB, the NHL has never had an openly gay player on an active roster. The founder of You Can Play, Patrick Burke, works in the NHL's player safety office. He has championed the LGBT cause and said earlier this year that he has met gay players through the years who have been on active NHL rosters.

Unless there has been noted violence and blackballing towards non-straight professional athletes Burke's motivation to police and fine speech that is deemed anti-LGBT is highly ironic. Then again The Left is highly contradictory and non-thinking. Here's Burke's bio -

Patrick currently attends law school at New England Law of Boston while residing in the city.  The 2010 Co-Sportsperson of the Year for Outsports.com, Patrick’s advocacy is done as an on-going tribute to his late brother Brendan, who was one of the first people associated with the National Hockey League to come out as openly gay.  Brendan also served as the student manager for the Miami University ice hockey team, and the love and acceptance shown by his teammates and family is an on-going inspiration for the sports world.

 So he's doing this for his late brother. How touching. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The site that hosts his bio, Changing the Game (let's not make it so obvious now), is a pro-LGBT sports site dedicated to sensitizing players that being part of the LGBT community is A-OKAY. Now, as I said, if there were constant reported incidents where LGBT athletes have been met with violence and blackballing then I can see where they're coming from, but this is just an indignant movement. The founder of the site, Pat Griffin, is a lesbian who was a collegiate athlete who later competed in the Gay Games IV & V. The fact that Griffin goes around the country to speak on behalf of her sexuality isn't proof of the bigotry of professional sports, let alone sports, but of her own insecurity.

In a game where grown men are allowed to repeatedly punch each other in which the game is temporarily suspended, it's amusing that players can't express frustration - at least frustration that was never intended to malign.

The comments were rather refreshing for a change, but there were people who have bought into the "those are bad words and bad thoughts" mentality. Take for instance Peter Nygaard said -

 I just wonder how many of the people commenting about the NHL going soft would be saying the same things if he'd been suspended for using the N-word.

Doug Roberts who responded to another saying that gay/faggot, though slurs, aren't on the same level of the n_gger -

Nah, I doubt it was as well. But the point of the whole thing is to understand that the word is similarly offensive and that we ought to try to get it out of our day-to-day vocabulary.

Are any of these people religious? Such a puritan lot. So clean and proper. Victorian, even.

Davor Danvenski writes -

I am absolutely for LGBT rights. We still have a long ways to go until the LGBT community get treated fairly, as everyone else, but if Shaw gets one game for a slur, then Bellemare should get more than one game for his intentional hit on Orlov. That hit could have easily ended Orlov's career. It could have easily ended with Orlov being paralyzed. Just my view.

Given that LGBT "rights" aren't the focus of the ESPN article it's safe to say that this is the knee-jerk reaction to anyone that supports LGBT "rights." It's purely an emotional thing, a of course I'm for LGBT rights, I mean, they're just like you and me! He then goes on, like every good Ally, that there is a "long ways to go" until true equality and diversity is achieved. The scary thing is is that it's not just in policy that the Danvenskis of the world want. It's thought as well. It's the changing of social norms. It's the changing of institutions. It's the implementation that "LGBT is good" on every societal level and in every mind in America. It's a purge. It's a quiet revolution.

Davenski didn't articulate what he meant by "long ways to go until the LGBT community get treated fairly," but since he expressed such thoughts I will put it against him and his kind that they are Cultural Marxists. Obergefell v Hodges wasn't enough. It didn't satiate his hunger. It's as if Hitler has risen and has a goal to achieve.

University of San Francisco's Intercultural Center goes full-retard.

You cannot make this stuff up.

Are any of the staff practicing Christians? As a Catholic I never asked for a day off nor did my parents or their friends who are also Catholic. I never needed one for religious reasons. I don't know how they came up with this Christian privilege.

The other sad part is other universities thought it was a good idea and implemented it on their campus as well, reports the San Francisco Foghorn campus newspaper.

 “The posters were shared thousands of times on social media sites, especially Tumblr and Facebook, and published in feminist online publications Jezebel and Bitch Media. As a result, there have been numerous requests from colleges across the nation to use the materials on their campuses.” 

This is something straight out of tumblr's Loserville section. If you check the Intercultural Center's staff bios you can get some idea of how this became about.

If we just look at the staff group picture there are a few white females who are no doubt feminists. There's one white guy who I will presume is a White Knight. There's a couple of fat chicks, a black guy trying to act cool, a bunch of Asian girls, an Indian girl, couple of black chicks and a fat Hispanic. No Asian guy. No Middle Eastern or Indian guy. Heck, there's not one person who is physically handicapped in one way or another. Are any of these people veterans?

We have a bunch of indignant assholes whose "awareness" is making naive college & high school students believe that "Check Your Privilege" is some legit movement worth investing in.

The stupidity of The Right (or non-progs) concerning "equality."

 Rated PG-13 for crude language.

This is about conscription of women.

There is a faction within The Right that are cheering on the drafting of women. Why?

"Let the feminists get what they deserve!"

Well, by that reasoning you should also support women in combat roles under "equal opportunity." You should also acknowledge that there are no major differences between a man and woman. You should also burrow away any tenderness you have towards a woman because they are just human beings - nothing special. Feed 'em to the wolves. In fact, you should stop caring about almost everything.

I know there are some who have been in the military and see this as a good thing. It's equal opportunity in their eyes and they are all for women wanting to serve their country. Of course there's the story of a mother and daughter who wanted to sign up for the selective service. First, this mother and daughter are egotistical assholes. If the daughter truly wanted to serve she should've joined the military straight out of high school or join ROTC in college. Second, who the fuck is pissed that they can't join the selective service? Is this for real? And to those who have served or are currently serving who support such a thing: you're dabbling in the moronic corner. The dunce hat is a few feet away from you. It's white and shaped like a cone. It says "DUNCE" on it.

There are those that act like women are being held back from serving their country; they aren't. They can serve in any branch and in any component. Before December 2015, all of the jobs were open to women save for infantry and SFs. There was no long petition from women wanting to tryout for the Rangers, SEALs, PJs or the Green Berets. As always, there will be those in active duty who support women in combat roles saying things like "It's not about ones sex or gender. It's about their willingness to serve and their character." You're right. And I bet you also support the laughable reality that is same-sex "marriage." There are idiot servicemen, so beware of them when asking about "equality" since they too are not immune to stupidity. They will then tell a story of a some rare female unicorn that can take on a 6'3 11B. Sure. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

What we have are people who The Left crave for: idiots. They need people who don't think things through to in order prevail. 

Personally, the thought of knowing that women are going to be conscripted is sickening. It's true, I view women differently than men. Men fought in the lines of WWII and the survivors of that war said they would never want others to experience what they did. Yet if WWIII breaks out, or if a woman in the combat role is deployed, such a wish is shattered. It's one thing to let men go off to war and fight in the front-lines, getting ripped about by shrapnel and bullets. It's another thing to out women in that exact same position.

Fools who support drafting women will say, "What if there's a Red Dawn?" So now you treat that prospect with respect? People mocked those who stood up for the 2nd Amendment. "Look there's not gonna be a Red Dawn you fools ... You don't all those guns." Now, when met with "woman power" the Red Dawn scenario is taken seriously. Fuck you. Even if there was a Red Dawn that's what our volunteer military is far. 1% of the population, those of age, are in the military, be it active or part-time. Now all of a sudden serving in the military is real fucking important. (Sorta like how marriage was all of a sudden important when same-sex "marriage" was being pushed.) That's what the National Guard is for. That's what the 2nd Amendment is far (but the leftists wants that taken away).

This isn't me thinking women are helpless, fragile beings.  This is me thinking women are innately different than men, both emotionally, mentally and physically, and that seeing a woman ripped apart by an RPG is a rather sickening reality. War is already sickening, why make it more so? Some will say, "Are boys lives less valuable to the nation?" Yes and no. Males were meant for war, if need be. Conscription was mainly to fill combat roles. You will have the idiots who try to say, "Well they can make a clause saying that women can be exemplified from combat roles." Bullshit. That's you wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

Infantry is special - that's where most of the Medal of Honor are given, mainly for the direct reality facing the opposition. Infantry is "the classic" MOS branch. Without it the military wouldn't be "the military." That's where Dick Winters gained his legendary status alongside E Company. That's where Captain William Swenson showed his compassion for his fellow wounded soldier. I sense that the hard-line feminists and the fools want in on this as well. They want to see the a female infantry Medal of Honor recipient.

Women, as the late General Robert H. Barrow said, give life, not take it (unless you count abortion). I am not willing to dismiss tradition and the status quo for this type of "progress." It's not progress. It's devolution. A nation who conscripts there females is a nation who has lost their moral compass, the true north, for "equality." Equality, like diversity, is utter bullshit when practiced the modern way.

I can go all conspiracy and say that it was all planned, that shrinking the military and slowly eroding the 2nd Amendment was to allow women into combat roles and to justify the drafting of women. If the citizens of the US don't have guns and are helpless to defend themselves then send in Wonder Woman! See, the allowing of women into combat roles works! See, conscripting women works - now we have enough military personnel AND these women are "being all they can be"!

Back to reality.

As Jude Eden points out there are military careerists who want the promotion, who want to be known as "that person who helped usher in 'progress.'" There are generals who deny that it's about quotas and political correctness, but about access - to build a future that was once denied (sound familiar? See: Chief Justice Anthony's Obergefell v Hodges approval), forgetting that their bases of "access" is political correctness.

When foolish men run the country (Obama, Chief Justice Anthony) you get a shitty society. When you have foolish men who are in charge of the military (Carter, Mabus, Neller) you help destroy the greatest military force on the planet. And all under the guise of "progress" and (not "equality") but "equal opportunity." There's a slight change in words, but the shift is important because it frames a demographic that's propped up as a victim and if we allowed such changes we'd be a better nation for it. Or they say.

Ashton Carter's order to allow women in combat roles under "equal opportunity" will be a decision that will be bemoaned (silently by those with a sane mind) in future decades. General Neller's call to open the draft to women will be looked upon as a careerist move. It has nothing to do with making the nation's military force stronger or more efficient. If WWII did not need women on the front-lines let alone conscripted why now? There is no need. There are only needs that are fabricated.

Equality, the usage of it in the modern sense, must be relegated to dustbins of history, only to be acknowledged of what not to do.

Priorities are a strange thing.

When there is an active agenda to make the US military smaller, there is an active agenda to push women into combat roles and into selective service aka the draft/conscription.

You would think that such a vital institution with such a vital cause would be the last place to have social experiments or to pathetically use the line "equal opportunity," and if major changes were to be made it would come slowly with much debate, discussion and small vetted experiments to assure honest conclusions.

These changes have come to the marriage & family as well.

Yet there is no active change for "equality," to combine differences, in say professional sports like the NFL, NHL or the NBA. There are no serious discussions in the near future to combine Best Actor and Best Actress as one category - Best Performance in a Film - for the Oscars and other industry awards. None. There is no serious push to combine women's MMA division with men. These institutions and mediums of entertainment are untouched and yet they are the least important to what makes society function. Shouldn't they be the ones to be subject of unfettered social experimentation? They aren't. Why is that?

Changes have occurred in occupations that deal with life and death. Firemen. Police force. The military. The have come to institutions that deal with child rearing. Any backlash is deemed sexist or in the name of bigotry. Proponents hide under the ever feel-good, so-called enlightened concept of equal opportunity.

Something is up and all of it is being done in the name of "progress."

Why change one of the most lethal institution? Why subject women, as late General Robert H. Barrow once said, to death?

This past January, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus ordered that the Marine Corps to do away with separate training grounds for women and men Marines, both in boot camp and Officer Training School, in order make them co-ed. But sleeping and shower quarters are to remain single sex. Hmmm.

Mabus served two years in the Navy in the 1970s. He is also a graduate of Harvard Law.

US Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, is a Yale graduate and received his doctorate from Oxford University in the sciences. He has never served in the military.

Between these two, there is a total of 128 years being on this planet (Mabus, 67; Carter 61). There is only two years total of military experience between each. Both have been appointed by Obama. Both are Democrats.

Disney creates first Latina princess.

Meet Princess Elena.

'Positive messages'

The series will feature "a universal story" with themes that "authentically reflect the hopes and dreams of our diverse audience", according to Nancy Kanter, the executive vice president of Disney Junior Worldwide.

"What excites us most is the chance to use distinctive animation and visual design to tell wonderful stories influenced by culture and traditions that are familiar to the worldwide population of Hispanic and Latino families and reflect the interests and aspirations of all children as told through a classic fairy tale," said Kanter.

While the show will centre around the "confident and compassionate teenager" Elena, it is being targeted at children aged two to seven.

Disney said the series, which will be presented in 25 languages around the world, will communicate "positive messages and life lessons" for young children about things like "leadership, resilience, diversity, compassion and the importance of family and family traditions".

Princess Elena's story starts when she is trapped inside an amulet while trying to protect her sister and grandparents from evil sorceress Shuriki, who took her parents and kingdom away.

It turns out to be the same amulet worn by Princess Sofia, who will set out to restore Elena to her human form and help her return to the kingdom of Avalor.

The newest princess won't be getting an animated film, but instead will be given her own television series on the Disney Junior channel.

Princess Elena will make her debut in a 2016 episode of Sofia the First before getting her own spin-off series.

I'm fine with this, but it does it beg question when will the first biracial princess be debuted. I remember hearing a lot of buzz when the first black princess, Princess Tiana, was announced and saying, along the lines of "It's about time!" It's inevitable. Do you hear that? That's the sound of  liberal white women saying "How about the kids who grew up in households with two parents of the different races? What about them? They, too, exist. Their experiences matter."

After the first biracial princess is featured, after all races are exhausted? The building pressure (I'd bet it'll come from lesbians and maybe a handful of bisexuals) for Disney to move to a new direction besides racial diversity: sexuality.