Social Justice Warriors Take on the Sombrero


What, you think I’m kidding?

Nah, folks. Luckily this isn’t taking place in the United States, but rather at the University of East Anglia in the (formerly) Great Britain. Although if you think that America’s SJWs won’t be looking to this example to end cultural appropriation, white privilege, cisnormativegender… something… I have no idea, let me disabuse you of that notion at once. Just think about the current discussion here in the United States about whether or not braids represent “cultural appropriation.”

But back to the University of East Anglia, where the student union has banned students from getting free sombreros from a local Tex Mex joint.

The University of East Anglia student union officials even took the big floppy hats from students at the Freshers’ Fair, because non-Mexicans wearing the traditional item of headwear could be seen as offensive, according to a new initiative.

The Union has stated that the handing out of sombreros breached a key advertising policy which was sent to all stallholders before the event, prohibiting any use of stereotypical imagery in advertising.

Because sombreros are considered not only racist, but “cultural appropriation.”

It’s OK. I’ll wait until you pick your jaw up off the floor. Here’s a comedic interlude while you do so.


Done? Good.

Next up, we will have DNA tests to prove you’re really German before we allow you to wear the lederhosen, mein freund. There’s a reason why now has that mouth swab thingy you can send in to find out what your DNA says about you! We wouldn’t want you to be culturally insensitive, now would be?

Screw diversity. Screw getting acquainted with and celebrating other cultures. Screw joy. You’re not allowed, you white, privileged racist.

Oh, and by the way the British Mexican Society backed the Tex-Mex eatery for giving away the free hats. The Mexican group dedicated to promoting the Latin American country’s cultural heritage praised Pedros for giving out the free sombreros. “We are delighted to learn that there is a Mexican restaurant in Norwich and hope that they would like to join us to become members of the British Mexican Society,” they said.

The douche pickle trying to whitesplain the contrived outrage is Campaigns and Democracy officer Chris Jarvis, who is quite obviously not Mexican, but is offended on their behalf anyway.

Chris Jarvis BANNER

“We know that when it comes to cultural appropriation the issues can sometimes be difficult to understand and many don’t realise that they may be about to cause offence or break a policy.”

Well thanks for the palesplanation, ass goblin. We’re so glad we have you to explain the outrage on those poor, uneducated Mexicans’ behalf!

Drooling, Cross-Eyed Retard Issues non-apology


So apparently, Newsweek and Perlstein have been experiencing an avalanche of roiling shit ever since they saw it fit to publish the tripe about the “racist” POW/MIA flag. The comments I have seen were mostly negative, even from diehard leftists, and only the most dedicatedly ignorant of the bunch saw it fit to defend this dreck.

Looks like both Perlstein and Newsweek had to do a little mea culpa verbal dance after getting hammered by anyone with half a brain.

A Writer’s Apology

I sincerely regret the use of the word “racist” to describe how the POW/MIA flag distorts the history of the Vietnam War. The word was over the top and not called for.

I’m deeply sorry it hurt people—especially people who’ve selflessly served their country. Most of all, I’m sorry because many of the people offended by the word “racist” are the same people who were hurt when the experiences and feelings of common soldiers and veterans were manipulated to serve the powerful interests and individuals who blithely and perennially send men and women to war, then don’t take care of them when they return home. And, of course, I regret the pain caused to the families of those who gave the last full measure of devotion to their country in Southeast Asia.

I would ask the people I angered to consider carefully reading the article, which explains, for example, that the Chinese Communists cynically leaked lies about the existence of live POWs in the years after the war in order to harm their rival Vietnam.

Most of all, I wish to express my regrets. Other than that, I stand by my article. —Rick Perlstein

The Editor’s Response

We published Rick Perlstein’s article on the POW/MIA flag, because it insightfully examines the cynical manipulation of public opinion at the expense of the downed pilots and foot soldiers the creators of the MIA movement claimed to represent. Perlstein is an accomplished historian who has spent years researching the Nixon and Reagan years. He knows this material. Our prolonged national discussion of the tragic Southeast Asian war that extended beyond Vietnam is often framed in what can be reasonably described as racist terms. The defenders of an Asian country that was invaded, bombed, defoliated and savaged (see: Kill Anything that Moves by Nick Turse) are vilified, while the invaders are beatified. Neither position is correct or fair. It was a persistent yet perhaps understandable disregard for the “other” victims of a war, beyond our own nation’s tragic losses, that informed the piece.

Nowhere is it suggested, nor do we imply, that individuals who remain devoted to the POW/MIA flag are racist. And it was neither Mr. Perlstein’s intent, nor ours, to dishonor those who served in Vietnam, although based on comments of readers, many were offended. A more careful editor would have moved the term “racist” lower in the body of the story and kept it out of the headline, where it was an unintended red flag that provoked the understandable ire of many readers. —Lou Dubose

First, Perlstein should learn the difference between “I’m sorry I said it,” and “I’m sorry it hurt people.” It’s a coward’s cop out, and had people not expressed their indignation at his spew, he would have happily continued to use the “racist” epithet to the delight of every screeching, perpetually offended, CHORF (click the link for definition).

Second, the piece “insightfully” does nothing. Perlstein has no concept of what cynical manipulation of public opinion really is, and he distorts history to fit his myopic view of it. You want cynical manipulation of public opinion? Try burning tons of “banned” food to make a point that sanctions aren’t affecting you, even as your people starve, and you do nothing to actually feed the poor in your country, and THEN see your approval ratings at 87 percent, because you’re fighting for Mother Russia!

That’s cynical manipulation of public opinion!

And yes, you don’t just imply that “individuals who remain devoted to the POW/MIA flag are racist,” you outright SAY it! With every dripping, disgusting sentence, you imply that the flag vilifies them poor Vietnamese, because RACISM! That was the point of your entire screed, you lying piece of detritus, and frankly, your removal of the word from the article does nothing to mitigate the very reason you wrote and published it.

It was a persistent yet perhaps understandable disregard for the “other” victims of a war, beyond our own nation’s tragic losses, that informed the piece.” And that disregard was due to, of course, RACISM, as explained in the very first paragraph. “You know that racist flag? The one that supposedly honors history but actually spreads a pernicious myth? And is useful only to venal right-wing politicians who wish to exploit hatred by calling it heritage? It’s past time to pull it down.”

As for your “accomplished historian,” certainly allegations of sloppy scholarship and possible plagiarism certainly don’t serve to support your contention.

Try some honor, Perlstein. It should be a new experience for you.

h/t: TSO

Newsflash: We’re stupid!


I’m probably going to piss off a whole lot of you with this post, but you know what? I don’t care. I’m in a mood, so I’ll tell you right now – you’re free to disagree. If I see one post telling me how you’re offended by what I’ve said, and you will no longer read my blog, I’ll tell you to go eat a very large, fat bag of dicks. That’s how much I give a shit.



A few days ago, there was a report about a high school that was holding “Foreign Language Week.” As part of that educational curriculum, the school decided to read the Pledge of Allegiance in foreign languages, including Arabic.

Well, you can imagine the clutching of the pearls, and the shitting of the pants that resulted!

One parent claims the New York State Department of Education has regs that specifically state the Pledge of Allegiance should be read in English.

People who lost loved ones in Afghanistan (where they don’t speak Arabic, but whatever) got upset, as did Jews.

Students Tweeted. Parents screeched.

The result? The entire idea was scrubbed. That means students wouldn’t hear the pledge in Italian, French, Russian, or any other language.

So much for education.

What the hell is the matter with this country? Have we become such a nation of pansies that we can’t even allow learning and education to interfere with our delicate sensibilities? Dog forbid something offends us!

We can’t learn Arabic, because ihaverelativeswhodiedinafghanistan / imjewish / imchristian / thisisamericalearnenglishdammit!

We can’t learn about Islam, because imoffended / imchristian / imjewish / theyattackedourcountry / sendthembackiftheyrefusetointegrateintoourculture.

We certainly can’t learn about the history of Pagans or have anything resembling a pentagram on a school bus, because SATAN!

And in order to ensure that no precious Snowflake feels slighted, we have begun demanding the infantilization of our adult populations… “safe spaces,” so no one’s experiences are invalidated – even if those experiences involve Twitter Trauma and imaginary slights stemming from society’s lack of sensitivity toward treasured punkins who are just not capable of adapting to the cruel world that won’t give them the pony they’re entitled to!

Oh ferfuckssake!

Believe it or not, Islam is part of this world’s history, and Arabic is actually a language spoken by millions of people.

Banning the knowledge of its existence or exposure to it from American classrooms makes your kids sub-educated and ignorant. Is it any wonder most high school students can’t point out Sudan on a map?

Reciting the pledge in a different language, doesn’t mean you eschew English in America’s classrooms. It’s a way to expose your precious snowflakes to other languages and cultures. No matter what language you use to recite the pledge, you’re still pledging allegiance to America – to that nation that you all purport to love, but insist on keeping in the bowels of ignorance.

And by the way… the pledge – that bunch of words you all claim to hold so dear – you probably don’t know this, but it was composed by Francis Bellamy, a Christian socialist *GASP*!

The original pledge read as follows, until 1954 when Congress added the words “under God” to it: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Why don’t you boneheads focus on learning about the world around you? Explore various languages and religions. Learn history – because believe it or not, religion is a huge part of history. Education is not indoctrination, and if you fear exposing your child to new ideas, because they might *GASP!* change their faith or become curious about other cultures, generally means your own faith in both your religion and your child isn’t too strong.

Frankly, I don’t give a damn what language you recite the Pledge in – as long as you mean it. As long as your love and your allegiance to the ideals of this country are real. No, that doesn’t mean I think you should recite a pledge of allegiance to your government, or to the idiot politicians sitting around slowly grinding the gears of this nation to a halt. You should recite it as a commitment to the ideals on which this nation was built: courage, self sufficiency, individual freedoms, limited government, limitless opportunities, and the ability to achieve and succeed by your own efforts, intellect, and commitment.

Everything else… get real!

You haven’t stopped any indoctrination by getting the idea tossed out of your high school. You’ve simply prevented them from learning.


Your list of demands is under advisement… in the circular file


The latest absurdity in this whole race relations debacle fomented by Eric Holder and his politicized Justice Department is the list of demands the Black Student Union at none other than UC Berkeley has presented to the university. This is so stupid it cannot possibly be taken seriously, but it’s Berkeley, so the Chancellor has taken the list “under advisement.”

William La Jeunesse reported on “America’s Newsroom” that the black student union wants a building renamed after Shakur, a former Black Panther and the first woman on the FBI’s list of Most Wanted Terrorists.

Shakur, who was convicted of killing New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster, escaped from prison in the 1970s and has been hiding out in Cuba ever since. In 2013, the FBI designated her a terrorist and is offering a $2 million reward for information that would lead to her capture.  

But the black student union at UC Berkeley calls her an “icon of resistance within oppressed communities,”  La Jeunesse reported.

“We want the renaming of it to someone, Assata Shakur, who we feel like represents us as black students,” Cori McGowens, a junior at UC Berkeley said.

In addition to demanding the building be renamed, the students also demanded that the university hire two black admissions officers, two black psychologists experienced in racial discrimination, two black advisers to recruit and mentor black students and create an African American student resource center, La Jeunesse said.

You ever see a dog when it’s really confused, so it sort of cocks its head to one side and looks at you like you’ve just presented it with a Bitcoin algorithm to solve?

That was me when I read this retardery.

Apparently black students at Berkeley feel all marginalized, excluded, and ignored. Interesting that this is ostensibly going on in a liberal utopia intent on instilling in its students a sense of social justice that’s so profound, its social justice symposiums include gems such as a workshop that “…will present a herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter move­ment and will highlight the organizing being done at UC Berkeley’s cam­pus, across the bay area, and nationwide. We will focus on the framework and hxstory of #BlackLivesMatter, the context of Ferguson, as well as the national surge in organizing around the non-indictments of the officers that murdered Mike Brown and Eric Garner. Additionally we will explore how movement leaders are centering the work on queer and trans* narratives, experiences, and leadership. Lastly, we aim to address horizontal allyship and how that has played out in organizing spaces within the movement.” — Presented by a male scholar by the name of David Turner (who probably is feeling all sorts of guilt about being the owner of a penis, and if he had the guts, would likely snip that puppy off with a pair of rusty pliers just to punish himself with pain for being a privileged oppressor).

But I digress…

Black students in this socially tolerant utopia are apparently feeling marginalized, and their response is to demand that a building be named after a…


A terrorist who escaped prison after committing an act of murder. Joanne Chesimard, (aka Assata Shakur) a member of the radical Black Liberation Army, shot and killed New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster execution-style in 1973, after she and two others were pulled over for a routine traffic stop. She just pulled out her pistol and shot the officer, and then finished the job with his own pistol by administering two rounds to the officer’s head.

Nice lady.

And apparently, this is what black students at Berkeley identify with. This violent terrorist is what represents the black student population at Berkeley, by their own admission.

Now, if you’re feeling marginalized and ignored, one would think you would want to do something positive to bring attention to your perceived plight. If you are feeling like you’re isolated, one would think you would want to integrate into the community in a positive manner.

And yet, these students aren’t just demanding that a building be named after a murderous terrorist, but I would submit their demands will actually further segregate and isolate them from the general community at Berkeley! Black advisors. Black psychologists. A resource center for African Americans. Instead of integrating, it seems they want to create a whole separate black Berkeley!

Segregation is so last century!

I would hope that the chancellor simply deposited that pile of excrement where it belongs, but again… it’s Berkley.

“Health Professional” bloviates about guns, paints himself to be a doofus


I apologize – I should have blogged about this earlier, but between my business trips and jetlag, I have dropped the ball. A week ago, a fellow Johns Hopkins alum and public heath professional Vik Khanna penned an essay that gave some doctors and other health professionals a bit of heartburn, because unlike many health professionals, Vik actually understands and appreciates firearms and the right to keep and bear arms.

In his essay, Vik addressed the so-called “gun problem” from a health care perspective, advocating for public education, training, and giving gun owners the benefit of the doubt that they are, for the most part, responsible, peaceable citizens. He was respectful, and he linked to credible studies and statistics to bolster his view.

Interestingly, and perhaps unintentionally, Vik also predicted pretty accurately what the response from the medical community would be to his essay.

Ironically, public health academics happily assert that there is a clear Constitutional right to privacy, even as they vilify a right that is actually expressed in the document, and they merrily condescend to its adherents, whom they regard as pathetic rubes.

Enter this arrogant, fat fuck.


Meet Art Caplan, MD. Art heads the bioethics program at the University of Pennsylvania, but judging from his snide, sarcastic, arrogant writing, he doesn’t know a whole lot about actual ethics, human interaction, or effective, respectful communication.

Instead of refuting any actual facts in Vik’s essay, Art simply proceeded to sneer out a “you’re a paranoid gun nut” reply, and in the process showed his absolute ignorance not just about firearms, but about current technologies, training opportunities, and laws.

Vik, buddy, no one and especially the roughly 28 folks in public health not completely distracted by their lack of funding and inability to secure tenure is capable of doing anything that will pry your gun from your warm-blooded grip. There is no political movement to take away anyone’s guns. The NRA is the mightiest lobbying outfit in these United States and the best Mike Bloomberg or Bill Gates are going to be able to do is to get the anti-gun lobby a few more op-eds and soundbites.

See that? No one wants to take your guns away. You’re paranoid. And by the way, GIVE US MORE MONEY!

My reply to Art’s patronizing gibberish is below. I also posted it in the comments section. The bolded text is my additional comments added in this blog post. I wonder how long it will last before it’s deleted…

Wow… condescending jerk much?

Someone offers an alternative view to your “kale crunching, fitbit wearing hordes of public health types” who cannot help but hysterically ascribe human traits to an inanimate object, and you have to come back with snide derision?

To be sure, Art, “buddy,” no you are not capable of prying anyone’s guns from their warm blooded grip. But make no mistake – when you “public health types” parade your medical authority as credibility on the gun issue, people who genuflect at the altar of your so-called “eruditeness,” will cite you as authorities on the issue.

So, to refute some of your histrionics…

1) Carnage is not CAUSED by guns. We analysts understand that using the passive voice in this manner serves those with an agenda well to obfuscate the problem. If you can’t determine the culprit, you will focus on the tool. The carnage is caused by criminals, and those who are ignorant and irresponsible on the proper handling of firearms.

2) “There is no political movement to take away anyone’s guns.” – Actually, you’re wrong there. There was a federal assault weapons BAN, which, even by the New York Times’ own admission, served merely to ban cosmetic features that had nothing to do with actual fatality rates. Until very recently guns were BANNED in certain cities such as Washington DC, and in many other locales, you have to ask permission from sometimes unwilling government authorities to exercise your basic right to keep and bear arms.

3) “Do public health folks have anything to offer that might reduce the mayhem while letting you hunt deer or shoot partridge or blast targets or whatever it is you and your son like to do with your guns?” — The Second Amendment is not about hunting, Art, “Buddy.” If you have any doubt about this, you should read the documents written by the men who founded this nation. (I would refer Art to Federalist 28, and this passage in particular: If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.)

4) “How about encouraging doctors, ministers, sporting goods salespeople and other community leaders to learn about and then talk about gun safety?” — The key here is LEARN about gun safety. Most doctors and other public health professionals with whom I have spoken don’t know which way the business end of a rifle points. When you learn the intricacies of using these tools, I might give some credibility to you when you discuss them. Otherwise, it’s much like turning to your plumber for a vasectomy. It might be cheaper, but I don’t recommend it.

5) “How about greater efforts to get gun owners to lock up their guns and ammo properly.” — Do tell me about proper storage for a tool of self defense, Art “Buddy.” Tell me how long it takes to unlock your pistol and load it during a home invasion. Have you ever experienced such an event in your safe, lily-white community? Didn’t think so.

6) “How’s about getting hunters to wear the right high-visibility gear.” — I’m all for it, but much like with seat belts, there are some folks who just don’t wear it, and won’t. You going to fine them? Throw them in jail for violation of safety rules?

7) “Is there any merit to making guns safer including ‘smart’ guns?” — The fact that you even ask that question shows your ignorance on the issue. There has been plenty of discussion on the topic, and there are some serious safety concerns with your “smart guns.” Until you get properly educated and informed on the topic, you have no credibility to speak on the matter, and yet here you are, hiding behind your “medical professional” shield and bloviating about things you obviously know nothing about. (There’s a good article in Forbes magazine on smart gun technology you should probably read, if you haven’t already)

8) “Can we teach people to call the cops when they know there is a gun in the house of someone who is mentally ill or under a restraining order?” Oh, so everyone is now a mental health professional? Everyone knows who is under an RO, or are we relying on ESP to tell us when is a good time to report your neighbor? 

9) “A little training for kids about what to do if they find a gun?” – It’s called Eddie the Eagle. Look it up, “buddy.”

In other words, Art. You obviously have no credibility on this issue, and your little sneering note toward Mr. Khanna shows you to be a supercilious, arrogant wad.

Have a nice day.

Hey, I didn’t even curse. Are you proud of me?

The jokes write themselves


U.S. Naval War College professor pulls Weiner.

A text message conversation with a photo of a penis from May and with the Newport, Rhode Island, college’s professor John Schindler’s name atop it was circulated on Twitter early Monday. It’s unclear who posted it.

A blogger sent a complaint to the War College’s administration. The college’s president has ordered an investigation.

The guy was also a former NSA analyst.

Seriously. Anthony Weiner, a/k/a Carlos Danger, would be proud.

One has to wonder if there’s some freaky compulsion that forces these guys to whip out their puds and wave them around on Twitter for all to see.

I can see Weiner… he’s a politician. Skinny, big nosed, awkward, and narcissistic – an incongruent combination of ego and insecurity that compels him to self destruction. After all, this douchebag was a Congressman. He had this power… this fame… but at the end of the day, he had to stare at his gawky, awkward frame in the mirror every night, probably wondering how a woman as hot as his wife could possibly want him.

But this guy?

John Schindler was ostensibly intelligent, educated, erudite, and most of all… he had to be discreet! He had to know how to keep a low profile! You don’t work at the Fort as an analyst without knowing how to keep secrets and how to use discretion.

And yet…

You have this guy’s wiggleworm wagging all over social media.

What. The. Hell.

Dude! Get help!


Zero Tolerance Stupidity, Part…. oh I don’t even know!


In this edition of zero tolerance sense dumbassery, a little boy gets punished for doing what ostensibly is “the right thing.”

A 7-year-old boy western Pennsylvania boy who turned himself in after accidentally bringing a toy gun to school has been suspended for two days but will not be expelled.

The kid apparently forgot his bookbag at a friend’s house, so mom gave him another bag, which contained what was clearly a toy gun.

The little guy knew that he could get in trouble for bringing the toy to school, given the academic asshattery surrounding anything that could be used as a weapon on school property (can’t wait to see what happens the first time some kid stabs another with a pencil! Oh, wait…), so he brought the toy to the teacher and turned it in just like he was indoctrinated into doing.

The result?

A suspension.

At what point do we admit that this idiocy does nothing but land good kids in hot water and ruin lives? At what point do we boot the idiot teachers and administrators who destroy these children for no reason out and not allow them near kids again until they learn some common sense?

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: