bookmark_borderMaren Morris is a scumbag human (continued)

The mean, nasty, and bullying behavior of country singer Maren Morris continues to reach new lows. As I wrote about earlier, Morris decided to call Brittany Aldean, country singer Jason Aldean’s wife, a “scumbag human” and told her to “sell your clip-ins and zip it, Insurrection Barbie” in response to Brittany’s opinion that parents shouldn’t allow their kids to have sex change surgeries.

Morris’s husband, Ryan Hurd, joined in the nasty and bullying behavior by tweeting: “Scoring quick points by picking on trans kids isn’t something that is brave at all. And I’m proud of Maren for sticking up for them. Badge of honor to have CO engage in completely normal discourse, too. Shut up and sing only applies to those who you disagree with.”

These comments are wrong for several reasons. First of all, Brittany’s comments actually were brave, because they went against the prevailing attitudes of our society. Additionally, Brittany was neither “scoring quick points” nor “picking on” anyone, and Maren was not “sticking up for” anyone. In fact, by using the term “insurrection” as an insult, Maren was picking on not only Brittany, but every person in the world who believes in thinking for oneself and standing up to authority. And finally, “shut up and sing”? Really? I’m not sure what Hurd is talking about here, because the only person telling others to shut up is his wife. It is Maren who literally wrote “sell your clip-ins and zip it” in response to a person voicing an opinion that she disagreed with. Telling someone to “zip it” is synonymous with telling someone to “shut up.” Therefore, if Hurd has a problem with people telling others to shut up, his wife is the person that he should be criticizing, because she is the person who is doing this.

Making this situation even more ridiculous is the fact that Morris recently complained that she does not feel comfortable attending the CMA Awards because Brittany and Jason Aldean are going to be there. This is bizarre and makes no sense whatsoever. Maren is the one who created the situation that she is complaining makes her uncomfortable. She chose to viciously criticize both Brittany and every person in the world who believes in thinking for oneself and standing up to authority. No one forced her to write the disgusting things that she wrote; she went out of her way to write them. And now she, the one who created the entire situation, is complaining that she is uncomfortable. In other words, a bully is complaining about having to be at the same event as her victims.

Maren Morris needs to look in the mirror and think about her role in this situation. She is the aggressor, she is the one who did something wrong, and she is the one who went out of her way to insult and harm other people. By using the concept of resistance to authority as an insult, Maren Morris has acted reprehensibly. She does not hold the moral high ground. In fact, Morris shouldn’t be allowed to attend the CMA Awards at all, given that she decided to attack and bully other members of the country music community. Morgan Wallen was suspended by his record label, ruled ineligible for major awards, and had all major radio stations stop playing his music, all for far less objectionable behavior than Morris’s. Morris deserves to be treated the way that Wallen was, because she has truly acted in a bigoted and intolerant manner.

bookmark_borderMaren Morris is a scumbag human

Recently, country singer Maren Morris decided to viciously insult Brittany Aldean, the wife of country singer Jason Aldean. Brittany Aldean had made comments on social media criticizing the idea of performing sex change surgeries on children, and in response, Morris wrote the following:

“It’s so easy to, like, not be a scumbag human? Sell your clip-ins and zip it, Insurrection Barbie.”

These comments are truly appalling, and the moral bankruptcy that Morris has demonstrated is breathtaking. It is, indeed, easy to not be a scumbag human. In order to do so, one needs merely to refrain from insulting innocent people who have done nothing wrong. Yet it is Morris, not Aldean, who has utterly failed to accomplish this. For some reason, Morris, completely without provocation, decided to viciously insult not only Brittany Aldean, but every person in the world who thinks independently and holds beliefs that differ from the establishment view.

According to Dictionary.com, the word “insurrection” is defined as “an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.” As you can see from this definition, there is nothing inherently bad about an insurrection. Insurrection means to revolt, rebel, or resist. It means being opposed to authority and the establishment. There is nothing inherently bad about revolting against, rebelling against, or resisting authority or the establishment. In fact, when the established government violates people’s fundamental rights and takes away everything that makes live worth living, as the current administration is doing, then insurrection is very much a good thing, which should be praised and encouraged. Yet Morris chose to use the very idea of resistance to authority as an insult. Apparently, to her, obedience and conformity are synonymous with goodness, while rebellion and nonconformity are synonymous with badness. By using the term “Insurrection Barbie” as an insult, Morris demonstrates not only egregious cruelty and nastiness, but also mindless conformity and authoritarianism. 

Morris’s demand that Aldean “sell your clip-ins and zip it” is similarly appalling. With these words, Morris expresses complete and utter contempt for anyone who thinks differently than her. She orders all people with non-establishment views to just shut up, as if our feelings, thoughts, and perspectives don’t matter. As if it is an obvious fact that her own views are the only ones allowed to be expressed, and that any dissenting opinions must automatically be dismissed as illegitimate. It is impossible to overstate the sheer bigotry and intolerance demonstrated by these comments.

As if the above comments somehow weren’t bad enough, Morris continued to badmouth Aldean in a back and forth exchange with fellow country singer Cassadee Pope on Instagram:

“You know, I’m glad she didn’t become a boy either because we really don’t need another a–hole dude in the world. Sucks when Karens try to hide their homophobia/transphobia behind their ‘protectiveness of the children.’ Weren’t they putting their kids in ‘Biden-is-a-pedo’ shirts on social media? Sounds like a real safe way to protect them from millions of eyes! F— all the way off to Insurrection Barbie and the fellow IB’s trolling this comment section with their hypocritical, hateful a–es.”

So not only has Morris demonstrated an appalling level of nastiness, authoritarianism, and intolerance, but now she has decided to add sexism to the mix as well. It is Morris, not Aldean or any of the “fellow IB’s,” who is truly hypocritical and hateful. It is Morris’s actions that truly suck. And it is Morris who truly needs to f*** all the way off.

In conclusion, Maren Morris has proven herself to be a bully and a bigot with no sense of kindness, tolerance, or decency and no ability to engage in critical thinking. To use some of her own words, she is a scumbag human who needs to zip it and actually respect people who are different than her instead of viciously attacking them. It is beyond classless and beyond unprofessional for a public figure to ridicule, insult, and then gossip back and forth about another public figure, as Morris has done. You simply cannot call someone an “Insurrection Barbie.” It is unacceptable. Not only is this behavior incredibly mean and nasty towards Brittany Aldean, it is also incredibly mean and nasty towards all people who identify as rebels and all people who believe in resisting authority or standing up to the establishment. Morris is a talented singer and songwriter, but unfortunately an absolutely terrible person. I have really enjoyed her music over the years, but I will never be able to listen to it again without thinking of these disgusting comments.

It’s also worth mentioning that the biased media coverage of this situation is almost as despicable as Morris’s comments themselves.

For example, an article from Billboard characterized Aldean’s words as a “transphobic joke” and “transphobic comments.” The article also included a detailed explanation, including quotes by experts, of transgenderism and how it presents for children. Plus, the publication even went so far as to ask Mattel for their comments on the font that Aldean used in an Instagram post, which resembles the font that is used in the logo for Barbie dolls. The article places all this scrutiny on Aldean’s comments and the subject matter thereof, while placing no scrutiny whatsoever on Morris’s comments, other than merely quoting them. The article calls Aldean’s comments “transphobic” as if this is an established fact, without mentioning even the possibility that anything about Morris’s comments might be considered offensive of problematic in any way.

Additionally, an article from The Hill mentions that Fox News host Tucker Carlson “insulted” Morris by calling her a “lunatic country music person.” Similarly to the article described above, this article characterizes Carlson’s comments as an “insult” as if this is an established fact, without even mentioning the possibility that Morris’s comments might be insulting. And in a sad commentary on our society, the article also mentions that Morris decided to create and sell t-shirts with Carlson’s quote in order to raise money for transgender organizations. News flash: “Insurrection Barbie” is a far worse insult than “lunatic.” In fact, Carlson’s words were relatively kind. Morris is far worse than a lunatic; she is a bigot and a bully.

The bottom line is that regardless of what one thinks about transgender rights or the appropriateness of children being able to make their own gender decisions, Morris’s comments are far more offensive, problematic, insulting, harmful, and just plain mean than either Aldean’s or Carlson’s. It is beyond disturbing that the media, along with much of society as a whole, fails to see this obvious truth. For having the audacity to state her opinion that children should not be able to change their gender, Aldean has been insulted, condemned, and mercilessly scrutinized. Plus, her husband Jason Aldean has been dropped by his PR agency. Meanwhile, Morris, who flippantly attacked the very idea of resistance to authority by using the word “insurrection” as an insult, faces no negative consequences whatsoever. She gets to spew vicious and bigoted insults and then continue on her merry way, gloating about how much money she raised and basking in her mindless and hypocritical self-righteousness. This situation, in which people who did nothing wrong are shamed and punished while cruel bullies are rewarded and praised, is emblematic of our society’s warped sense of values.

bookmark_borderThere is nothing deplorable about calling out wrongdoing

In the latest example of our society treating protests against injustice as the problem as opposed to the injustice itself, FBI Director Christopher Wray recently called criticism of his agency “deplorable and dangerous” after FBI agents ransacked the home of former president Trump. “Violence against law enforcement is not the answer, no matter who you’re upset with,” Wray added.

Actually, Wray has things completely backward with these comments. The actions of the FBI – which involved a group of approximately 30 agents ransacking Trump’s private residence because of concerns that he took home documents that should have been given to the National Archives – were truly deplorable. Therefore, it is 100% correct for people to be angry about these actions and call them out as wrong. Yet Wray opts to completely ignore the wrongness of his own agency’s actions and instead to condemn the people who are (correctly) objecting to these actions! Contrary to what Wray seems to believe, pointing out that someone has done something wrong is not deplorable; doing something wrong is. If someone has done something wrong, as the FBI has in this case, they deserve to be criticized and called out. Neither criticizing, nor calling out, not being angry about wrongdoing is a problem. The wrongdoing itself is the problem, and that is what needs to be condemned, not the people voicing their opposition and anger.

And while I agree that committing and/or threatening violence against anyone is not an ideal way to express one’s anger, Wray in his comment about violence similarly ignores the wrongdoing of his own agency in his haste to condemn his agency’s critics. Instead of scrutinizing and condemning the ways in which people voice their upset, Wray should be scrutinizing and condemning what his agency did to cause people to be upset in the first place. But as usual in our society, the people who actually did something wrong are given a free pass. The FBI is painted as the victim instead of being held accountable for its role in causing the angry and hostile situation.

Making matters worse, the LA Times’s coverage of the FBI raid and the reaction to it demonstrates the same mindless and morally bankrupt belief that expressing anger in response to an injustice is the problem, as opposed to the injustice itself. The article focuses, using a blatantly critical and condescending tone, on the people who have expressed criticism of, and anger with, the FBI raid, while letting the perpetrators of the raid completely off the hook. The article bemoans the “threats and calls to arms in those corners of the internet favored by right-wing extremists” and quotes several alleged examples found on the social media app Gab, which the article describes as “popular with white supremacists and antisemites.” As is the norm among the media establishment, 100% of the scrutiny and criticism falls upon those protesting against injustice, angered by mistreatment, and speaking out against wrongdoing, as opposed to the actual perpetrators of the injustice, mistreatment, and wrongdoing.

Shame on the political and media establishment for treating protesting against wrongdoing as the problem, as opposed to the wrongdoing itself. 

bookmark_borderThe intolerant reaction to Wallen’s Grand Ole Opry performance

Earlier this month, country star Morgan Wallen performed at the Grand Ole Opry. You may remember that Wallen was attacked and “canceled” by the politically correct mob last year because he used the n-word while joking around with a friend in his yard, and his neighbor recorded the conversation and shared it with TMZ.

Predictably, that same politically correct mob erupted in outrage that the Opry dared to give Wallen the opportunity to perform on its stage. For example, Holly G, the founder of the Black Opry, called Wallen’s performance “a slap in the face.” She bashed the Grand Ole Opry for “pull[ing] this stunt” and called it “one of the many Nashville stages on which we know we are not respected.” Singer Jason Isbell accused the Opry of “break[ing] the hearts of a legion of aspiring Black country artists.” Singer-songwriter Joy Oladokun called Wallen’s recent renaissance “thoughtless” and “the nail in the coffin of me realizing these systems, and this town is really not for us.” And someone on Twitter named Laura Chapin characterized the decision as “telling Black country artists they still don’t matter.”

The politically correct mob demanded that Wallen be completely exiled from society and his career completely destroyed for the crime of using a bad word in a private conversation. (No matter that over the same time period, people who have done far worse actions, such as violently destroying irreplaceable works of art, have faced no negative consequences whatsoever.) For a while, they got what they demanded. But now that Wallen’s extrajudicial punishment is, at least to some extent, coming to an end, his critics are reacting as if this is somehow a personal assault on them. This outrage is unreasonable and epitomizes the intolerance of the politically correct mob. Giving a musician an opportunity to perform is not a “stunt.” It is not a “slap in the face.” It is not “thoughtless.” It does not mean that the venue disrespects black people; it does not mean that Nashville is not for black people; it does not mean that black country artists don’t matter; nor is there any reason for black musicians to feel that their hearts are broken.

Essentially, the politically correct mob believes that anything short of having all of their demands granted and getting their way on every single issue is unacceptable. In the eyes of the politically correct mob, respecting them means respecting only them and no one else. For a town or institution to be considered “for them,” that town or institution must be for only them, and no one else. For them to feel that they matter requires that they be treated as if only they matter. The politically correct mob demands that anyone who is not like them be excluded. In their eyes, the rights and perspectives of others do not matter. For everyone to be included, and for everyone to be treated equally, is viewed as discrimination.

Now that is truly thoughtless.

bookmark_borderOpposing vaccine mandates is not “anti-vax”

It shouldn’t even need to be stated that being against forcing people to do something is not the same as being against the thing itself. Specifically, opposing forcing people to get vaccines against their will is not the same thing as opposing vaccines themselves. This is a basic and obvious concept that anyone with an IQ over 80 should be able to easily understand. However, far too many members of the media are, infuriatingly, incapable of grasping this basic concept.

For example, when actress Evangeline Lilly revealed that she attended last weekend’s anti-vaccine mandate rally in Washington, D.C., much of the media coverage was neutral, appropriate, and professional.

However, as can be seen above, the Daily Beast decided to characterize the rally as an “anti-vax protest.” This is factually incorrect and unacceptable, because being anti-vaccine mandates is not the same as being anti-vax.

Rolling Stone did an even worse job, describing the rally as not only “anti-vax” but “insane,” and adopting a shocked and outraged tone at the fact that Lilly would “brag” about having attended the event. This is beyond unacceptable. Not only is it factually incorrect to describe the rally as anti-vax, but it is morally abhorrent that someone would consider it insane to oppose forcing people to undergo medical procedures against their will. In reality, it is insane not to oppose such a thing. As for Lilly “bragging” about attending the rally, she is 100% correct in doing so, as attending a rally for medical freedom is courageous, honorable, and exactly the type of thing a person is justified in bragging about. There is no reason for Rolling Stone to find this strange or bad in any way. Rolling Stone’s actions become even more abhorrent when one considers the fact that neither news articles nor their headlines are appropriate places in which to express opinions at all.

Another example of a factually incorrect and unprofessional headline is that of The Independent, in which the Washington, D.C. rally is again described as “anti-vaxx.” The Independent’s coverage is also an example of a disturbing trend, in which the media focuses its scrutiny and negative attention on those speaking out against authoritarian policies, as opposed to the authoritarian policies themselves. It is appalling that members of the media would consider Robert J. Kennedy Jr.’s comments at an anti-mandate rally to be more worthy of “outrage” than the fact that mandates exist in the first place. The targets of outrage, scrutiny, and criticism should be policies forcing people to undergo medical procedures against their will, not the brave people speaking out against such policies.

In conclusion, any headline that uses the term “anti-vax” (or worse, “anti-vaxx” with two X’s) to describe opposition to vaccine mandates is factually incorrect, unprofessional, and inappropriate. Anyone who chooses to publish such a headline is choosing to take the side of authoritarianism and to defame heroes who are bravely fighting for freedom. Therefore, anyone responsible for such a headline deserves, at the very least, to be fired immediately.

bookmark_borderJoy Reid’s despicable attack on Aaron Rodgers

Racist and authoritarian MSNBC commentator (perhaps that’s redundant) Joy Reid continues to spew vicious, hurtful, and hateful comments. Her latest target is Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers.

I didn’t even have the energy to read the article, because seeing this Facebook post was enough to make me upset and angry. First of all, how exactly are a person’s medical decisions “selfish”? And how exactly is Rodgers’ voicing of his political views “arrogant”? Why would one say that Rodgers has a “victim mentality,” and how could that be “exhausting”? How was Rodgers’ season “humiliating”?

Apparently, Reid is so bigoted, intolerant, and mean that she cannot permit the existence of anyone who thinks differently than her. Anyone who makes different decisions with regard to health precautions is condemned as “selfish,” and anyone who holds different political views is branded as “arrogant.” I’m not sure if I would characterize Rodgers as having a “victim mentality,” but he would be justified in having one, given that he has indeed been treated unjustly by our society. It boggles the mind that Reid would describe Rodgers’ completely accurate comments about political correctness, media, and Covid protocols as “exhausting,” when she is the one going out of her way to attack people (like Rodgers) who have done nothing wrong. Living in a world where Reid and her ideological allies are free to constantly spew vicious insults at innocent people with impunity is truly exhausting.

Ironically, Reid embodies all of the negative qualities that she accuses Rodgers of having. Reid, not Rodgers, is the one who should feel humiliated, because she is the one acting despicably. Unfortunately, she seems to be blind to the hypocrisy and shamefulness of her behavior. The only humiliating thing here is the fact that Reid, who has no talents and no accomplishments other than sitting on her butt and spewing racist insults day after day, decided to attack Rodgers, a talented, hardworking, and accomplished athlete with the courage to speak truth to power on issues of medical freedom. 

bookmark_borderThe protesters are not the problem

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu’s decision to require covid vaccination as a condition of entering restaurants, gyms, concerts, and sporting events is truly despicable. What is equally despicable is the fact that many in the media treat the people with the audacity to protest against this totalitarian policy as the problem, as opposed to the policy itself.

For example, the Boston Globe put out an article entitled, “Racist, misogynist vitriol continues against Wu after vaccination policy announcement.” The fact that the Globe would choose to do an article dissecting and scrutinizing opponents of the mandate, as opposed to dissecting and scrutinizing the mandate itself, is disturbing. The article, by Danny McDonald, details the allegedly racist and/or sexist content of protesters’ signs, calls to the city’s 311 system, and online comments. The article criticizes the fact that non-racist and non-sexist people who oppose the mandate have not spoken out against their allegedly racist and sexist compatriots. And the article provides examples of other female politicians of color who have allegedly received racist and/or sexist comments, including U.S. Attorney Rachael Rollins, who calls criticism of both herself and Wu “exhausting” and “distressing.” You know what is exhausting and distressing? Being subjected to a government policy that requires you to undergo a medical procedure in order to exist in public, and then being treated as if you are the problem for expressing your dissent. Opponents of the vaccine mandate are not perfect. There may indeed be some racist and sexist people among our ranks. But that is true of people on every side of every issue. By focusing so much negative attention on the opponents of the mandate, and the fact that some of them have expressed their opposition in non-ideal ways, the Globe completely ignores the entirely legitimate underlying grievance: the fact that the mandate is morally wrong. It is twisted and backwards that the Globe considers a few discriminatory comments (and the failure to actively condemn these comments) to be a bigger problem than a policy barring people from public life because of their personal medical decisions.

Continuing with the theme of criticizing mandate opponents for not actively condemning alleged prejudice in their ranks, WGBH also did an article about the alleged racist and sexist comments that Wu has received. Wu made some truly objectionable comments in the article, which I will discuss in detail in another blog post, but it is also notable that the article condemns “abusive” anti-Wu comments containing “slurs and threats” that people made on gubernatorial candidate Geoff Diehl’s facebook page. WGBH reporter Adam Reilly apparently interrogated Diehl about these comments despite the fact that the people who made them are private citizens who have nothing to do with the Diehl campaign. “The standard that a politician should denounce public commentary on social media by people not connected to his campaign is not a standard that you, or most in the media, would apply to any other politician, and, as such, we are expecting that it not be applied to the Diehl campaign either,” his campaign manager correctly pointed out. Like the Globe, WGBH fails to acknowledge that the vaccine mandate itself is the bigger issue here, not the manner in which its opponents express their views. Forcing people to undergo a medical procedure in order to participate in public life is far more abusive than a few politically incorrect social media comments. 

Another example of treating mandate opponents as the problem is the article and accompanying tweets by Boston news website Universal Hub about the press conference at which Wu announced the authoritarian vaccine requirement. 

As you can see, Adam Gaffin, the author of Universal Hub, refers to protesters against Wu’s policy as “yahoos” and “screamers.” It is unprofessional for what is supposed to be an objective news website to refer to anyone in such blatantly derogatory and insulting terms, particularly protesters speaking out against a totalitarian and immoral policy. 

In both the article and the tweets, Gaffin comes across as annoyed, irritated, and perturbed at the fact that anyone would protest against a policy that violates people’s rights. The possibility of being annoyed, irritated, and perturbed at the actual policy itself, which would make a lot more sense, apparently does not occur to him. Gaffin tweets about his desire to visit the humorous website zombo.com to take a break from his stressful day, as if the existence of people with dissenting views is something to be exasperated about. This is infuriating and demonstrates a lack of empathy. The mayor of Boston enacted an unjust and immoral policy that Gaffin obviously supports, and he is stressed and exasperated that people had the audacity to express dissent? How about the people who are being harmed by Wu’s authoritarian policy? How about the people whose rights are being violated? How does he think we feel? How does he think the protesters feel about the fact that the mayor enacted a policy that violates their rights, and the media are personally insulting them and treating them as the problem? We are the ones who have a right to be upset, not those who support the policy that was just enacted.

This tweet is, frankly, beyond the pale. An immoral policy that violates people’s rights was just enacted, and Gaffin again decides that the best thing to do in this situation is to personally insult and ridicule those who are protesting against said policy. God forbid that he actually, you know, criticize the immoral policy. That would be too right and make too much sense. Instead, he insults and ridicules those who are (correctly) opposed to the policy and also makes completely unsupported and bizarre generalizations about their gender, family status, and living arrangements. 

He does the same thing in this article at Universal Hub in which he refers to opponents of Wu’s policy as “dregs of the suburban earth” and accuses them of having “stubby little fingers” and “spittle-flecked keyboards.”

This brings me to my next point, which is that many in the media seem to hold the belief that, somehow, living in a suburb of Boston disqualifies one from having an opinion about the fact that the mayor of Boston decided to violate people’s fundamental rights. I wasn’t aware of any rule requiring one to live in the city of Boston in order to be allowed to have an opinion about what is happening there. Why is it relevant that Geoff Diehl and Tony Federico, whom Gaffin names as being among the protesters at City Hall, live in the suburbs as opposed to the city itself? Why does Adam Balsam, another alleged journalist, mention that people who called/emailed the city’s 311 number to criticize the mandate are not residents of Boston? People who live in suburbs near Boston and who work there, eat at restaurants there, visit museums there, attend Bruins, Celtics, or Sox games, or go into the city for any reason, are directly and substantively harmed by the mandate. More importantly, if something is unjust, then criticizing it is always the correct thing to do, regardless of whether or not one is personally affected by the injustice.

Also lost on Balsam is the fact that a policy specifically intended to keep people out of a city because of their personal medical decisions is cruel, discriminatory, reprehensible, and despicable. He is so busy criticizing those who intend to stop visiting Boston because of the mandate that he apparently doesn’t think to criticize the policy that is “SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO KEEP THEM OUT” in the first place.

In conclusion, it is infuriating that the media reacts to a totalitarian, unjust, and immoral decision not by criticizing the decision itself but by criticizing those who oppose it. When a policy is implemented that requires people to undergo a medical procedure in order to exist in public spaces, everyone on earth should join forces in doing whatever they possibly can to fight against the policy and get it repealed. Yet many “journalists” not only openly support such a policy but also ridicule and personally insult the few brave people who voice dissent. It says a lot about today’s society that protests against a totalitarian policy are seen as the problem, as opposed to the policy itself.

bookmark_borderNY Times criticized for not being biased enough against Rittenhouse

This article by the Daily Dot details the ridiculous reactions by people on the internet to a New York Times article profiling Kyle Rittenhouse. Essentially, people are outraged that the article is only slightly biased against Rittenhouse, as opposed to extremely biased against Rittenhouse. “Its tweet and the article have been resoundingly panned,” the Daily Dot article gloats, while falsely characterizing the riots during which Rittenhouse was attacked as “civil rights protests.” 

The reactions detailed in the article range from people canceling their NY Times subscriptions to calling the article “BS” to derisively putting the words “news” and “journalists” in quotation marks to suggesting that the paper change its name to the “New York Enquirer” to accusing the paper of “lionizing a predator.” 

“Kyle Rittenhouse was just a little boy playing cops & robbers when a whoopsie happened,” read one tweet.

“Kyle Rittenhouse breaks down his most iconic racist murders with the New York Times,” read another.

All of these sentiments are false, logically unsound, and offensive. The article about Rittenhouse is actually a news article by journalists; there is no reason to put those words in derisive quotation marks. It is not “BS” and does not “lionize a predator,” as it is not even biased towards Rittenhouse, let alone lionizing him, plus Rittenhouse is not a predator. 

To refer to Rittenhouse as “a little boy playing cops & robbers when a whoopsie happened” is moronic.

Additionally, Rittenhouse’s actions were neither murders, as he acted in self-defense, nor racist, as it was the people who attacked him who were rioting in support of a racist ideology.

What makes the reactions to the Rittenhouse article even more inappropriate is the fact that these same people have demonstrated no outrage whatsoever in response to actual bias from the New York Times. Over the past two years, the Times has demonstrated egregious bias, more times than one could possibly count, against Donald Trump, against people who oppose totalitarian Covid restrictions, against people who value history and heritage, against people who support the Second Amendment, against people who protested at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, and generally against anyone who holds dissenting, non-conventional, anti-establishment, or right-of-center political views. The fact that people are in an uproar and are canceling their subscriptions, not because of the Times’s repeated, blatant bias, but instead because the Times had the audacity to actually not be horrendously biased in one instance, is appalling and demonstrates the ridiculous amount of prejudice, intolerance, and lack of logic present in our society today.

bookmark_border“Covid politics walloping red America”

Yesterday I was perusing the newsstand at my local supermarket, and a headline on the front page of the New York Times caught my eye.

“Covid politics walloping red America,” it read. The article was about high rates of Covid cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in conservative-leaning states.

This headline is biased for a couple of reasons:

First of all, Covid politics are not walloping anyone… Covid is. It is clear from the article that by “Covid politics,” the Times means people’s decisions to refrain from protective measures such as vaccines, mask-wearing, and social distancing, or governments’ decisions to refrain from making these measures mandatory. Such measures do, to some extent, prevent people from catching the virus and/or getting sick. But that doesn’t mean that refraining from these things causes people to catch the virus and get sick. The virus itself causes this. Failing to prevent something does not equal causing it.

Second, it makes no more sense to characterize a lack of Covid restrictions as “Covid politics” than it does to characterize the enactment of restrictions as “Covid politics.” Several different definitions of “politics” are listed on Dicionary.com, but they pretty much all have to do with the science and art of government, or beliefs and opinions about government. Debates about which actions, if any, governments should take in response to the Covid pandemic are inherently a political topic. Some people hold political beliefs that emphasize safety and the common good; these people generally support the imposition of restrictions and mandates with the aim of combatting the pandemic. Other people hold political beliefs that emphasize individual rights and liberty; these people generally oppose restrictions and mandates because they believe that respecting rights and allowing people the maximum amount of freedom is more important than combatting the pandemic. So why is the Times equating the latter type of ideology with “politics” but not the former? Refraining from getting the Covid vaccine is not “politics” any more than getting the vaccine is politics. Respecting individual rights, and refraining from forcing people to get the vaccine, is not “politics” any more than forcing people to get the vaccine is politics. If anything, it is more appropriate to characterize the decision to impose restrictions and mandates as “politics,” because this is a decision that actively interferes with people’s lives, as opposed to simply leaving people alone. 

In short, this headline is just another example of the New York Times presuming that its belief in a powerful government that controls people’s lives and tramples on individual liberty for the sake of the common good is the only possible legitimate belief. The Times does not even appear to consider the possibility that people might genuinely hold alternative views. Anyone who thinks or acts differently from them, the Times assumes, is just playing politics.

bookmark_borderRubbing salt in the wounds

As part of the senseless war against every person and thing from history that is unique or different, there has been a concerted effort to obliterate the legacy of Christopher Columbus. One of the most despicable instances of this has taken place in the city of Columbus, Ohio. Reprehensibly, the city decided to remove two beautiful statues of the Italian hero: one outside city hall and one at a community college. Making this even more disgusting is the fact that the statue at city hall was gifted by Columbus’s hometown of Genoa, Italy in 1955. Genoa and Columbus were considered sister cities until the latter decided to spit in the face of the Italian-American community by repudiating both its Italian counterpart and its namesake. 

A recent column by Theodore Decker of the Columbus Dispatch makes light of this situation in a way that I find offensive and disrespectful to those who have been hurt by the city’s actions. The column is titled, “Amid a raging storm, Columbus finds a safe harbor on Statehouse lawn.” Thinking that perhaps some entity had actually decided to think for itself and keep a Columbus statue in place, I clicked on the article. Unfortunately, the title was somewhat deceptive. Far from having announced the intention to let Columbus stay, the Ohio state government had determined that the city’s only remaining statue of its namesake, located outside the State House, will likely be obliterated along with the other two; there will just be a five-year process to make the decision official.

In the column, Decker pokes fun at Columbus and portrays the heartless and bigoted assault on him as something neutral or even positive. “Columbus the man, as you know, has taken a bit of a blow to his reputation, what with the pretty much indisputable allegations of genocide and all,” Decker writes. The allegations of genocide are actually very disputable; see this paper by the Sons of Italy, for example. Additionally, Decker points out in a flippant and almost gleeful tone that the explorer has “fallen from grace,” that the two statues of him were “swiftly vanquished,” that the city’s “love affair with Columbus the man was fading,” and that his reputation has been “tainted by, well, the complexities that accompany historical reality.” And he jokes that the statues were moved to “the city’s top-secret government base, Area 1492.”

Making matters worse, Decker seems to take delight in the fact that one of the few people with the courage to defend Columbus – State Rep. Larry Householder – happened to be arrested for money laundering. “Nobody is perfect,” Householder pointed out in defense of Columbus. Decker takes a dismissive tone towards this comment, but it is actually an important and meaningful point. The attitude of the anti-statue crowd is, indeed, that anyone who is not perfect by their standards should be destroyed. This ideology is disturbing because of its bigotry and intolerance, because of the inconsistency with which it is applied, and because it strips the world of everything meaningful, distinctive, and interesting. Householder is therefore correct to take a stand against it.

But this point is lost on Decker, who seems to care about nothing but reveling in the misfortune of others. I don’t get what the money laundering charges against Householder have to do with Columbus, and I don’t see the purpose of pointing them out, other than to further stigmatize and inflict additional pain on those who are already on the minority side of an issue. What is the point of writing a column that consists solely of kicking people who are already down and rubbing salt into the wounds of people who are already hurting? The brutal campaign of destruction against Columbus is not funny. It is a vicious assault on a brave and remarkable man who is unable to defend himself. Seeing a man who I love and admire being treated this way is heartbreaking, infuriating, and soul-crushing. To make light of these despicable actions demonstrates a complete lack of empathy for those who have been harmed. No matter what imperfections Christopher Columbus might have had, it is indisputable that he risked his life for what he believed in. Has Decker ever sailed into uncharted territory, braved sickness and starvation, interacted with people from a completely unknown civilization, and established a settlement in a foreign land? My guess would be no. Instead, it appears that he does nothing but sit on his butt writing columns that ridicule and insult people. He should consider actually fighting for something that he believes in, or attempting to contribute something positive to the world, as opposed to gleefully pointing out the flaws of others and delighting in their misfortune.