Why Politically Correct Racism and Sexism is Evil

Presented to an enthusiastic audience at The Villages Philosophy Club on 22 November 2019.

Martin Luther King "I Have a Dream …"

In his famous 1963 speech, Martin Luther King said:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” 

The 1964 Civil Rights Act, passed by a strong bi-partisan majority, 61% of Democrats (152-96) and 80% of Republicans (138-34) states: 

“all persons must be treated equally without regard to their race, color, or national origin.” 

In recent times, these noble American ideals (judge by character not skin color, and without regard  to race, color, or national origin) have been perverted by excessive regard for race, sex, nationality, gender, and other characteristics that have absolutely no bearing on the ability of any person to do any job. (An I have a DNA test that indicates I’m (hashtag) #NativeAmericanToo).

The Google Software Engineer Who WROTE "not Wisely but Too Well"

James Damore, a Google software engineer, was fired on August 7, 2017 for writing an internal email memo that went viral. It has been characterized as an "Anti-Diversity Screed" and an "anti-diversity manifesto". Read the memo here: Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber. If you have not personally read it through, you are, IMHO, not entitled to an opinion on this issue.

Having read it, along with comments and arguments from all sides, including Google management, I think it was unwise for Damore to have written the memo in these "politically correct" times. Although you and I may disagree with some of the points he makes, his memo is, if anything, too well-written!

Damore wrote "not wisely but too well" (paraphrasing Shakespeare).

Othello Act 5, scene 2, 340–346

Damore, along with my wife and myself, are members of a group that is way-over-represented in High-Tech and Science (as well as virtually all professions requiring high levels of intelligence and creativity), namely Jewish-Americans!

Though constituting only a small percentage of the US population, Jewish-Americans make up an order of magnitude higher proportion of the student body at the best universities. Naturally, this carries over into employment in High-Tech jobs, like those at Google. (We have this in common with Asian-Americans.)

[Sarcasm ON] In the name of "diversity" should we institute an "affirmative action" program for non-Jewish Caucasians? [Sarcasm OFF]

(Do a Google on "over representation of Jews" and you will see such suggestions, and worse, from self-described "White Identity" racists.)

My wife and I had long, successful careers in High Tech, she as a Lead Software Engineer and I as a Senior System Engineer, both for IBM (and Lockheed-Martin) in Owego, NY. At that time, the imbalance between male and female employees in High Tech was greater than it is now. My wife and I have worked with highly qualified women in High Tech jobs, women who were at least as good as our male colleagues. My wife was well-recognized as one of the very best Lead Software Engineers by her fellow engineers, management, and customers!

Despite a strong "diversity" commitment by Google leaders over an extended period of time, male employees in Google High Tech jobs outnumber females about 80% to 20%. That is an over-representation factor of two compared to their percentage of the population. In non-High-Tech jobs at Google, the percentages of males and females are about equal.

As I read Damore's memo, he clearly has had a positive impression of his female colleagues. As far as has been reported, over the five years he has been employed at Google, he has not been charged with any sort of "sexism" or other bad conduct on the job.

His main point is that females, on average, have different strengths and weaknesses compared to their male colleagues, and that much of that difference has to do with basic biology. The Wikipedia account is here: Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.

Damore writes, in part:

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech. 

​At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

• They’re universal across human cultures
• They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
• Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify  and act like males
• The underlying traits are highly heritable
• They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

To take a non-controversial example (not mentioned by Damore) males are about two standard deviations taller than females (on the "Normal" Curve). Thus, the average American male (5'9") is about 5" taller than the average American female (5'4"), which is less than 8% of the height of the average person (5'6.5"). A woman in the top 12% of all women would be taller than most men, and a man in the bottom 12% of all men would be shorter than most women. So the overlap is quite substantial.

However, if you were to set a minimum height of six feet (say for competitive basketball), fifty times as many men would qualify.  On the other hand,  if you were to set a maximum height of five feet four inches (say for competitive gymnastics), twice as many women would qualify. A mere 8% difference on average, could cause an over-representation factor several times greater.

*****************************************************
[Added  17 Aug 2017] The inimitable Walter Williams has an amazing, deliciously dry and witty take on this issue, https://https://www.creators.com/read/walter-williams.

Some excerpts here:

Google fired software engineer James Damore for writing a 10-page memo critical of the company's diversity policy. The memo violated the company's code of conduct by "advancing harmful gender stereotypes" by suggesting that biological factors were part of the cause for the male/female gap in the tech industry.  

I shall make the case that Google's actions were totally justified.  

Other than differences in certain physical attributes such as genitalia, capacity to give birth and the presence of functional mammary glands, males and females are identical in every other respect. Any remaining male/female differences are a direct result of oppression, discrimination and victimization by the larger society. To examine just one aspect of female victimization, let's examine the majors of female college students compared to their male counterparts.  

According to a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, there are significant sex differences in college majors. For example, though women and men are equally represented in the population at large, women make up only 17 percent of engineering degrees conferred compared to 83 percent conferred to men. How can such a gross disparity be explained? I recommend an investigation to discover whether colleges are steering women away from higher-paying fields such as engineering and into lower-paying fields such as education and social sciences. Seventy-seven percent of education majors are women and so are 64 percent of social sciences majors. 

One wonders how such a disparity among equals can exist. I have personally visited George Mason Univeristy's Volgenau School of Engineering. There are no signs forbidding women from becoming an engineering major. But just because there are no visible prohibitions doesn't mean there is no evil plot against women. A number of years ago, I took a tour of UC Berkeley College of Engineering. Not only did I observe a paucity of women but also, because of the racial appearances of the students in some of the classes, I could have easily been in Asia. 

Colleges have the power to ensure that there are just as many female as male engineering majors. They can mandate that fewer female freshmen major in social sciences and education and instead major in engineering. To balance this all out they can disallow large numbers of men from majoring in engineering and instead force them to major in education or the social sciences. 

Although Damore's memo was seen by Google as "advancing harmful gender stereotypes," at least he didn't make any suggestion of male/female IQ differences. Doing so would have led not only to his firing but being ordered to leave the state of California. ...  

You say, "Are you serious, Williams? Or are you making light of the Google firing of James Damore?" My vision is that Damore has the right to say whatever he wishes about the company's racist and sexist diversity policy, and Google has the right to fire him for saying it. [Emphasis mine]

********************************************************
Please use the Comment feature to share your views. advTHANKSance!

Ira Glickstein

Why I Can No Longer Mark my Ballot for Trump

"Love trumps hate" and "Love Trump's hats" differ in only a few letters. Analogously, it might be said that there are only relatively minor differences between the two leading candidates. Not enough to allow their more extreme proponents to tear the US Apart.

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have favorability ratings below 50%. Therefore, most Americans will be voting against, rather than for our next President.

When I created the above animated image, I thought I was going to vote against Clinton by "holding my nose" and darkening the oval next to Trump's name on my Presidential ballot.

I can no longer mark my ballot for Trump or anyone else currently running for President.

MY THOUGHT PROCESS

Both Clinton and Trump are intelligent, well-educated, live in New York, and are patriots who truly believe their election would be best for our country:

• Donald was born in New York. Bachelor of Science from Wharton School of Finance and Commerce (University of Pennsylvania).
• Hillary was born in Illinois. Bachelor of Arts from Wellesley College and J.D. from Yale Law School. She lived in Arkansas from 1974-1992, in Washington, DC from 1993-2000, moved to New York in 1999, and was elected Senator from New York in 2000.

Both are rich, having benefited from the give and take of US politics

• Donald, mostly on the give, contributed to politicians of both parties in return for government permits, zoning, tax policies, and other assistance to the real estate projects, products, and services his corporations provide to consumers.
• Hillary, mostly on the take, accepted support for her Senatorial and Presidential campaigns, as well as high-priced speeches by her and husband Bill at private corporate meetings, and contributions to the Clinton Foundation. 
• Both Hillary and Donald "prove" the cynical point that, here in the USA, 

• We enjoy the very best government money can buy. ©

Both have misrepresented themselves to the extreme wings of their parties to win their Presidential primaries, and to activate their "base" to come out and vote in the general election:

• By most accounts, Hillary is far more centrist on social policy and more hawkish on military and foreign policies than President Obama or the Bernie Sanders Socialist, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter far-left wings of the Democratic Party. Quoting from How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk - The New York Times (2016/04/24/):

[Secretary Clinton] had backed Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s recommendation to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan, before endorsing a fallback proposal of 30,000. She supported the Pentagon’s plan to leave behind a residual force of 10,000 to 20,000 American troops in Iraq (Obama balked at this, largely because of his inability to win legal protections from the Iraqis, a failure that was to haunt him when the Islamic State overran much of the country). And she pressed for the United States to funnel arms to the rebels in Syria’s civil war (an idea Obama initially rebuffed before later, halfheartedly, coming around to it).

• Although less is known about Donald's views prior to becoming a politician, it appears he has been far more centrist on social policy and less hawkish than the Tea Party, Religious Right, and Conservative Establishment far-right wings of  the Republican Party. He registered for the Reform Party from 1999-2001, Democrat from 2001-2009, and Independent from 2011-2012. (He registered as a Republican from 1987-1999, 2009-2011, and 2012-present.)  Last year I wrote the following, quoting from my Blog (2015/04/10):

Donald Trump, [is] a Crony Capitalist Democrat pretending to be a Republican. As recently as 2004, he told CNN's Wolf Blitizer "In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat" and in 2007, also with Blitzer, he praised Hillary Clinton's ability to negotiate with Iran. Trump gave more to Democrats than Republicans between 1989 and 2009 according to NPR. ... Until recently, his views on military action in the mid-east, abortion, drug legalization, and health care have been more in line with leftist Democrats than with independents and Republicans.

IS "HE SAID, BUT SHE DID" A VALID EXCUSE?

Donald has said some stupid things that got him into unnecessary battles. He refused to back off, which only increased the damage to his campaign

• Early in his Presidential Primary campaign, Donald said that Senator John McCain is "not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured." That dumb remark did not hurt McCain, because everyone knows he was a hero the moment he put on a US Naval Aviator uniform and flew dangerous missions over enemy territory. The fact he was shot down and served honorably as a POW is only icing on the cake of his heroic status.
• Trump also went way overboard criticizing undocumented Mexican immigrants. He even questioned the fairness of a judge of Mexican ancestry who was born in the US.
• Donald made an idiotic pledge to ban all Muslim immigration. Then he criticized Muslim Gold Star parents, a lawyer and his wife, who appeared at the Democratic convention to point out that a flat religious ban would be unconstitutional. Trump suggested the wife remained silent because Muslims do not value women.
• Trump, not a professional politician, has been making extreme, sexist, and otherwise intolerable "politically incorrect" comments all his life. Instead of admitting that fact, he continues to fight decades-old battles, such as the one about a Miss Universe who gained some weight after she won the competition.
• The most recent Access Hollywood video and tape is a particularly lewd example of Donald's taste for beautiful women. His comments are absolutely unforgivable.
• Summary: Donald Trump is an amazingly athletic speaker. He can verbally kick himself in the head and step on his own dong without missing a beat.

Hillary has done some stupid things, such as being "extremely careless" in handling US National Security Secrets, and lying to the public about it. She lied even when unnecessary (as when she had pneumonia), and thus damaged her campaign.

• The use of a private email server for both private and State Department emails while Hillary was Secretary of State, is not, per se, a legal violation. The problem that earned her a "PANTS ON FIRE" rating from Politifact was lying about the matter.
• She and her close staff placed highly classified information on that private server and on insecure cell phones and iPads, and transmitted US National Security Secret and Top Secret information over unsecured networks that were (all but) certainly hacked by hostile governments and terrorist organizations.
• FBI Director James Comey concluded that her private server and email system was less secure than Gmail:

• And I’m not looking to pick on Gmail. Their security is actually pretty good, the weakness is individual users. But, yes, Gmail has full-time security staff and thinks about patching, and logging, and protecting their systems in a way that was not the case [with Clinton's private server]. 

• More direct quotes from FBI Director Comey [emphasis mine]:

• From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was top secret at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained secret information at the time; and eight contained confidential information at the time.

• Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

• There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

• Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account.

• During my employment as a System Engineer working on Department of Defense projects, I had access to classified information, mostly at the Confidential and Secret level, but including a bit of Top Secret material. Each project has Security Guidelines, so we all knew what types of material was classified and at what level. Each paragraph, table, figure and drawing was marked with a (U) for Unclassified, (C) for Confidential, (S) for Secret and (TS) for Top Secret, often with additional markings for NO FORN (no foreign access) and so on. If I had seen information that was not properly marked, I would have considered that a critical failure of security and would have reported it to be sure it was corrected. That she and her personal staff failed to so so rules her out as a person I would vote into the highest office in the land.
• As a government employee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a legal duty to turn over all work-related email to the State Department. As we all know, her staff destroyed around 33,000 emails on the basis that they were not work-related. (She claimed they were about such things as her daughter's wedding, family vacations, etc. That seems like quite a lot!). Well, using forensic technology and emails provided by government recipients, the FBI found that thousands of her work-related emails had been deleted. Of course, we don't know how many work-related emails were not recovered by these forensic techniques, and what juicy materials they might have contained. We do know they were deleted after a subpoena had been issued for them.
• Did even the most rabid Nixon supporter really believe that his secretary had "accidentally" erased 18 minutes of taped Oval Office conversations, or that those 18 minutes contained only innocent Nixon family matters or sports discussions? Of course not! Yet, some of you, reading this blog item, believe that Hillary's staff was justified in deleting work-related emails, or that former President Bill Clinton had an unplanned meeting on an airport tarmac with the Attorney General, shortly before she was to rule on whether Hillary's "extremely careless" handling of classified information should be prosecuted? Or that all they discussed was their grandchildren? 
• By the way, I support Comey's recommendation NOT to prosecute Hillary Clinton, on the basis that her "extremely careless" handling of classified information did not rise to the "gross negligence" level required by the applicable law. Apparently there is no clear precedent for prosecuting anyone on that part of the law.

SO, WHY CAN I NO LONGER  MARK MY BALLOT FOR TRUMP?

Up till about 24 hours ago, I thought I would "hold my nose" and vote against Hillary Clinton by darkening the oval next to Donald Trump's name.

What changed my intention?

• Well, it was Trump's appearance on the O'Reilly Factor,on October 11th. I record and watch Bill O'Reilly almost every evening. Trump trashed Senator John McCain and House Majority Leader Paul Ryan and said he would go it alone! That was what put me over the top!
• I've seen both McCain and Ryan in person when they came to The Villages (in Central Florida) for their 2008 and 2012 campaigns. In 2008, I stood for almost an hour, twenty feet from McCain as he (and Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman) spoke and answered questions. In 2012 I watched Ryan's VP campaign appearance at an outdoor rally, where he introduced his mother, who happened to be a Florida resident. They are politicians, but also honorable men (as is Mitt Romney, whose hand I shook when he came here during the Republican primary).
• So, for the first time in my life, in 2016 at the age of 77, I will not vote for the Republican nominee for President of the US. Of course, I will vote for down-ballot Republicans and hope we can retain control of the Congress. Perhaps I will write-in the name of Paul Ryan or some other Republican I admire. It is a long-shot, but, perhaps Donald Trump will withdraw his name and allow the Republican National Committee to substitute someone else, Who knows?

Ira Glickstein

PS: Earlier this year, during the Republican primary, I wrote some perhaps prophetic words on my Blog:

I am an old Goldwater/Reagan Republican, and a Proud Conservative in the modern sense (i.e., Classical Liberal). ...  

... Trump is a Crony Capitalist DEMOCRAT who is wrecking the Republican Party I know and love, with the inadvertent assistance of the ratings-hungry media, including Fox News, and the feckless response of the dozen other candidates competing in the Republican Presidential Primary, several of whom are excellent in my opinion. 

Raising Cain

[from billlifka - images added by Ira. (Neither Ira nor billlifka specifically endorse any candidate in this posting)]

At the moment, many of the national polls rank Herman Cain highest among those campaigning to become the Republican candidate for the presidency. It’s still two months before the earliest presidential primaries so the polls have questionable value. Nevertheless, Cain is so unusual, in comparison to the others, that his current popularity is amazing. He is different mainly in his not being a career politician and this may be a major reason for his appeal. There are other reasons.

Both of Cain’s parents are African-American. They were poor and worked hard to raise a family. The mother was a cleaning woman and the father was a janitor, barber and, eventually, chauffeur to the president of Coca Cola. Herman was educated in segregated schools. He received a B.S. from Morehouse College in Mathematics with a minor in physics. His Masters is in Computer Science from Purdue University. He holds eight honorary degrees from various universities.

Cain was a (civilian) ballistics analyst for the U.S. Navy. At Coca Cola, he worked his way up to become its top IT executive. Recruited by Pillsbury, he managed a 400 store Burger King region near Philadelphia from least to most profitable. Assigned CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, Pillsbury’s subsidiary, he improved its performance and led a leveraged buyout, continuing as its CEO. He was CEO of the National Restaurant Association. On behalf of that organization, he debated Bill Clinton on his Universal Healthcare Bill in a Kansas City town hall meeting; it was judged to be a Cain win. He served on the board of directors (and, later, its chairman) of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. He has served on the boards of eight corporations and one bank. This is the man who Hillary Clinton demeaned as a pizza man. She remembers who spiked her health plan.

Cain has lived all over the country, because of his career. He’s been married for 43 years and has two children and three grandchildren. He was diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer, metastases in his liver. With a 30% survival prognosis, he underwent surgery and chemotherapy. After five years, he has remained cancer-free. He’s assistant pastor at his Baptist Church. He’s been a talk radio host and a syndicated columnist. Most people would admit this guy is pretty impressive.

The problem with Cain is he came late to the campaign party without an organization for fund raising and campaign operations. Without massive funding, a modern political campaign is at a huge disadvantage, perhaps hopelessly so. On the other hand, the Tea Party really likes him. The good news is the Tea Party has great influence. The bad news is it’s very loosely organized, also. Unless Cain shows up well in the early state primaries, he’s toast. That would be unfortunate; he is a good comparison to the other Republicans and would be an effective opponent to Obama.

As the currently leading Republican prospect, Cain is the target of most criticism. His 9-9-9 tax plan is torn apart by many in both political parties. No doubt some valid criticisms will emerge, eventually, but not so far. Arthur B. Laffer, a credible, well known economist, gives the plan high marks. Newt Gingrich, another prospective Republican Presidential Candidate praises Cain for his boldness in coming forth with a useful idea while others just carp about the situation. The other main criticism of Cain is lack of international experience. Cain believes America should name its friends and its enemies and treat its friends like friends. That’s refreshingly original.

billlifka

Independence Day for Sarah Palin

Happy July 4th! Of course the photo to the left is photo-shopped. It appeared during the 2008 presidential campaign and mocks Gov. Sarah Palin as a gun-toting, barefoot and pregnant "trailer-trash" woman with a cigarette-smoking son.

Even now, with the campaign over for months, Palin and even her children continue to be the butt of disgusting "humor".

• Just last month Palin and her 14-year old daughter attended a Yankee's baseball game. A major talk-show host joked that the girl has been "knocked up" by one of the players.
• A crude hit piece in the current Vanity Fair, headlined "It Came from Wasilla" caricatures her (or "It" as the headline calls her) as "casual about the truth and totally unfit for the vice-presidency".
• The photo to the right is of Palin with her husband Todd and their "special needs" child Trig. This innocent baby was mocked by photo-shopping an ugly adult's face over a similar photo of him being carried by his mother. (I've included that photo at the end of this posting with an appropriate warning so don't scroll down there if you don't want to see it.)

Alaska has a law that allows any resident to inexpensively file an ethics complaint in writing against any government official. However frivolous, such accusations must be investigated by state authorities and defended by the accused government official.

So far, about a dozen and a half such ethics complaints have been filed and all have been rejected, at a reported cost of about $2M to the taxpayers of Alaska and $500K by Palin and her supporters. It appears these ethics complaints have no merit and have been filed for the purpose of generating negative publicity and harrassing the accused officials. Perhaps we need a law that requires anyone who files such a complaint to share the legal expenses of the state and the accused if and when the complaint fails to pan out.

PALIN DECLARES HER INDEPENDENCE

Palin's July 4th weekend decision not to seek re-election, and hand her office over to her Lt. Governor, has generated howls of phony anguish from opponents who hypocritically term her resignation a "betrayal to Alaska" and "leaving the people of Alaska high and dry". These are the same people who call for Governor Mark Sanford to resign because of his stimulus package visit to Argentina to bone up on foreign affairs :^) Where's the worry about the people of South Carolina being left leaderless if Sanford resigns? (For the record, I and a majority of members of his own party want him to resign immediately.)

There is speculation Palin resigned ahead of some coming revelation of a political scandal. Perhaps she has been to Argentina lately? Her college degree is in journalism and Sanford's love interest in Argentina is a journalist! :^) A scandal of some sort is certainly possible - the major media would love that, and are scrambling over each other searching for something that would take her out of the picture for good.

For now, I take her at her word that, having decided not to run again, she did not want to draw a paycheck while travelling the country and the world and giving speeches as so many 'lame duck' politicos have done before her. That is so refreshing that virtually none of the political 'talking heads' on cable news could imagine it could be true.


POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION

It is perfectly fine to criticize her views on important issues. For example, I do not share her religious beliefs and I disagree with some of her views on abortion. If one of my loved ones learned she was carrying a seriously handicapped baby and chose to terminate the pregnancy in the first or second trimester for that reason, I would fully support her decision. The key point, as the pro-abortion woman's "choice" side correctly points out, is that it is the WOMAN's decision to make.

But, Palin's opponents don't stop at criticizing her opinions, they practiced "politics of personal destruction" during the campaign, and well afterwards. They lampoon her upbringing in the wilds of Alaska and her social and religious beliefs. Worst of all, they belittle her children, even her youngest and most innocent, Trig. Well, some of them say, she invited that criticism by dragging her children throughout the campaign. Had she left them behind, they would have criticized her for abandoning her young children. (A male candidate with young children generally leaves his wife at home to care for the children during a political campaign, and features them only at a few political events. Palin campaigned with her husband, and, as a female candidate she naturally wanted her young children to be with her as much as possible. That, again, is a WOMAN's choice.)

FEMINIST HYPOCRACY

"Sometimes the 'best man' for the job is a WOMAN" is what the self-proclaimed feminists tell us (and they are correct). Palin has shown herself to be capable of doing a 'man's job' in commercial fishing, in hunting moose for her family's larder, and as a hard-charging "barracuda" in sports. In politics she aggressively 'skinned' more than one man who got in her way, working her way up from the PTA to local government to the highest position in state government.

Unlike most other women who inherit their political offices from their prominent husbands or politically-connected families, or who buy their way in with support from their rich families, she did it all on her own. She is the very model of a modern woman: strong-willed yet feminine and fertile, smart yet not effete or elite, and capable of combining her family with her career. She can both shoot and butcher a moose and prepare moose stew and serve it with home-baked cookies.

So, why does the feminist establishment hate her so much? Well, truth be told, a woman is free to choose her opinions so long as they are the politically correct opinions! "All animals are equal" is the rule adopted in George Orwell's Animal Farm, - it is later changed by the ruling pigs to "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others".

Yes, indeed, EVERYONE IS EQUAL! When standardized tests show some identifiable group is not equal to some other identifiable group, we need to throw out the test results! But, some are "more equal" than others. That is, those who have graduated from an Ivy League college and who are part of the New York and east coast, Hollywood and west coast and Chicago midwest elite are more equal than the common people who cling to their guns and religion. You can tell who these "more equal" people are. They have politically correct opinions and read and write for the politically correct newspapers and watch and appear on the politically correct talk shows. All others are fodder for rude humor.

PALIN'S FUTURE

Unlike many other politicians, Palin doesn't need an official position, or a great deal of income, to live a satisfying life. Her husband earns good money in the oil fields of Alaska, and that, plus a few moose in the freezer, could support her lifestyle adequately.

Her legal expenses defending frivolous lawsuits will most likely be paid off by contribution from her many supporters. She reportedly has a seven-figure book deal and could earn tens of thousands of dollars for public appearances. She could probably host a talk show on any of the cable news networks (her college degree is in journalism, after all :^)

I do not think she plans to run for President (or even VP) in the 2012 election. If the economy recovers, as I predicted it will, President Obama will be secure to win a second term. She could run for Senator from Alaska to build up her national knowledge and reputation. She has six years to build up her political and international knowledge and reputation if she wants to run for President (or VP) in 2016. At her age, she has the time to wait. I hope we have not seen the last of her in public affairs.

Ira Glickstein

WARNING - DISTURBING PHOTO BELOW

The photo below originated on a fringe Blog and I would not normally run it on this Blog. However, I am showing part of the detail on this Blog only because the photo-shopped photo was posted on a major online site last month.

The base photo appears to be genuine, but the photo-shopper has superimposed the face of a talk show host over Trig's face, making him look ugly.

The Goode Family - Worth Watching!

Have a look at a new prime-time animated series that lampoons the politically correct, totally green "Goode Family"! (ABC, Fridays, 8:30PM)

Click to view free clips online. (The clips start automatically after the obligatory commercial.)

From the ABC website:

"... Gerald and Helen Goode ... live by the motto WWAGD ('What Would Al Gore Do?'). Gerald, a college administrator, and Helen, a community activist, are determined to obliterate their carbon footprint on the planet: They're zealous vegans, they drive a hybrid, and they recycle everything possible. ...

"But despite their best efforts, something always goes haywire with their politically correct plans. Like adopted son Ubuntu - Gerald and Helen thought they were doing the right thing by adopting a baby from Africa, only to learn that Ubuntu was South African . . . and white. Now a teenager, he eagerly tries to embrace the Goodes' love of things like crafts and organic gardening, even though deep in his gene pool is a drive towards more blue collar pursuits ...

"Teenage daughter Bliss is constantly mortified by her parents (especially her mom's efforts to talk openly, girlfriend-to-girlfriend, about sex). ... Helen's SUV-driving, meat eating dad, Charlie, thinks her efforts to save the planet are just a waste of time. Neighbor Ray Johnson is bemused at the Goodes' attempts to refer to him by the right ethnic catch phrase ('African American'? 'Person of color'?) ..."

Please have a look and post your comments!

Ira Glickstein

PS: You can watch the hilarious Series Premier - Pilot of "The Goode Family" and other full episodes online - click here then click on "Watch free episodes". Select "Series Premier" for a good introduction to the characters and premise.