Archive for the ‘Racism’ Category
Glenn Reynolds says something so incisive about lefty movements:
“I’m beginning to think that most lefty movements are just about broken people trying to manipulate the rest of us so they can feel good about their broken selves.”
If you want to find broken selves, visit Netroots Nation, the lefty grassroots conference. I attended a couple years ago and it was depressing.
At Netroots, one of the women’s bathrooms was renamed. There was a computer printed sign on white paper that said, “UNISEX” or “All Genders” or some such taped over the “Women” sign. Basically, anyone could go in there.
So, for the couple days of the conference, every time I had to go to the bathroom, I went to the Pansexual john hoping that something exciting would happen. Would I see a man dressed as a woman? A woman dressed as a man? How would I know, if I did? Would I feel weird peeing around sexually ambiguous strangers? Would they feel weird around me, a middle aged woman dressed in traditional American garb signifying patriarchal expectations and oppression? (I wore jeans and a shirt.)
I figured the bathroom would have no shortage of visitors considering the conference attendees. There was the LGBT table. The Take-A-Picture-With-Michelle-Obama table had no line. The NOW booth gave out pink condoms. Patchouli wafted through the air. Self-unaware socialists would hazily ask you questions from behind their tables while selling campaign buttons. Incongruously, the Teamsters and the UAW and other big, burly, angry looking union members lumbered amongst the hippie riffraff. Surely, some of the above would go to the gender ambiguous (cis-and trans- gender had yet to become trendy) bathroom.
To my disappointment and delight, I had the pleasure of a pristine potty every time nature called. In fact, I’m pretty sure I was the only person to use the Gender Ambiguous bathroom the entire weekend. If you’ve attended a conference, you’ll know the joy of finding an unexpectedly spotless and empty bathroom. I had not just one empty clean stall but 20 of them to choose from. It seemed too good to be true, so I used only that bathroom every time, and every time I peed alone. Water closet nirvana at Netroots!
Netroots, the left’s radical heartbeat, was and is a collective persecution complex fighting a phantom enemy Out There (but mostly the evil Koch Brothers.) Even at Netroots, there were no sexually ambiguous people looking, like Goldilocks, for a bathroom that fit them just right. Or at least the persecuted went out of their way to find either a Men’s or Women’s bathroom. See how much self-loathing even lefties must possess?
I felt oppressed being at Netroots, but not by the bathrooms or lack thereof (although, if I had been intent on a women’s bathroom, I’d have had to go up or down stairs). The collective vibe felt, well, heavy, to borrow the 60’s term. All these miserable, yes broken, people fearful that a person might feel bad about being left out–of a bathroom. It’s pure projection. These folks feel left out, marginalized, weird, and consigned to loser status. To feel better about their sad selves, they inconvenienced the majority–who were, ironically, women. I’d blame the patriarchy but I loved having my own bathroom.
Here’s what Lefties are worried about today, in case you think that their movement is promoting very important topics most days and save their silliness for Netroots conferences:
The Burden of Home Cooked Dinners (to be followed up by the evil rich people who eat out and kill the environment)
Jennifer Lawrence’s Boobs [Scant mention of Muslim Rape Gangs]
Barack Obama’s promotional materials, as late as 2007, said he was born in Kenya. Read about it here and then, come back.
Why would he do this? It seems crazy.
Imagine you’re a hippie kid. Your dad is some Kenyan big wig. Your mom is a self-important sociologist doing such important work that you, Barack Obama, must be left home with grandma and grandpa.
You are boring.
You are a mixed race kid on Hawaii in the sixties which is not a big deal because everyone has Hawaiian blood and has mocha skin. You are relatively wealthy and end up at a prep school with other wealthy kids.
You have to justify your existence.
No mom. No dad. Rather provincial, if privileged, Hawaiian life, but lots of questions from peers.
What do you do?
Well, nothing, other than smoke dope, do cocaine (expensive – but no big deal for rich kids), and hang out acting like a badass.
And then, there’s privileged college which you navigate by being mundane and calculated.
You don’t find yourself there. You just find out how you don’t want to self-identify.
Like Elizabeth Warren, it’s really not enough to be a white, privileged kid. Or even a mixed-raced privileged kid.
It takes some resume juicing to be legit in the diversity crowd.
So, you lie.
You pretend you’re a man of the world. You tell people you were born in Kenya. You brag about your time in Indonesia.
You don’t talk about Hawaii.
You don’t talk about your white mother.
You don’t talk about your white grandparents who raised you and gave you a conventional, privileged upbringing.
You pretend you’re part of the victim class.
You pretend you’re worldly wise.
You idealize your Kenyan roots and lie about having tight ones.
You create a whole tapestry of falsehoods about yourself — not only does it make you feel better about being abandoned, it gives you credibility with those who judge not on the content of your character but the color of your skin, the exotic nature of your past, the superficialities of diversity.
Hippie lefties, it turns out, are kinda biased against people with conventional upper middle class American backgrounds.
Barack Obama wasn’t born in Kenya.
Barack Obama didn’t have some tortured, hard-scrabble youth.
Barack Obama was a materially indulged, emotionally deprived typical American child of divorce.
It’s his conventionality that embarrasses him.
And that’s why he lied.
MORE QUESTIONS. Bookworm says:
Normally, in the years since the Civil Rights movement, the answer would be “Yes, being half-black (not half-white, but half-black) should have given Obama the leg-up he needed to parlay mediocre grades and a drug habit into a shiny diploma from one of America’s best institutions of higher education.” Obama’s problem, though, was that he came of age at a very specific time in the annals of affirmative action. To appreciate this, you have to know that Obama, who graduated from high school in 1979, must have started looking at colleges in 1978.
When it comes to college admissions, 1978 isn’t just any year. It’s a very special year. It was the year that the Supreme Court decided Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) 438 U.S. 265.
Allan Bakke was a young man with an excellent academic record, who nevertheless got turned down by 12 medical schools. When he applied to the medical school at UC Davis, and was again rejected, he learned that he had almost certainly lost out on the opportunity to attend that medical school because UC had set a quota for admitting non-white people in order to meet the University’s “diversity” requirements. Bakke sued. In a deeply fragmented decision, the Supreme Court held that this race-based admission process was unconstitutional.
Bill Maher, liberal, pretend libertarian and over all, failed comic, decides, finally, that the outrage over, well, everything, has finally all become too much. From his editorial in today’s New York Times:
When did we get it in our heads that we have the right to never hear anything we don’t like? In the last year, we’ve been shocked and appalled by the unbelievable insensitivity of Nike shoes, the Fighting Sioux, Hank Williams Jr., Cee Lo Green, Ashton Kutcher, Tracy Morgan, Don Imus, Kirk Cameron, Gilbert Gottfried, the Super Bowl halftime show and the ESPN guys who used the wrong cliché for Jeremy Lin after everyone else used all the others. Who can keep up?
This week, President Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, described Mitt Romney’s constant advertising barrage in Illinois as a “Mittzkrieg,” and instantly the Republican Jewish Coalition was outraged and called out Mr. Axelrod’s “Holocaust and Nazi imagery” as “disturbing.” Because the message of “Mittzkrieg” was clear: Kill all the Jews. Then the coalition demanded not only that Mr. Axelrod apologize immediately but also that Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz “publicly rebuke” him. For a pun! For punning against humanity!
The right side of America is mad at President Obama because he hugged the late Derrick Bell, a law professor who believed we live in a racist country, 22 years ago; the left side of America is mad at Rush Limbaugh for seemingly proving him right.
If it weren’t for throwing conniption fits, we wouldn’t get any exercise at all.
Please stop apologizing, Maher implores.
Here’s how the right’s outrage machine got started Mr. Maher–just for your edification. (I will admit, I worried about this tactic for fear it would stop being ironic and become the New Right’s political correctness.)
See, for years, decades even, the Left’s number one weapon in its arsenal has been outrage over nothing. Let me make a list:
Silent Spring (Environmentalism outrage)
The new Ice Age (Environmentalism outrage)
Sensitivity training (racism, sexism, minority outrage)
Poisoned apples (Environmentalism outrage)
DDT (Environmentalism outrage)
Any kind of cultural joke…ever. (See isms above)
Words, and worse, ideas, started to be censured. Like the prohibitionist knitting circle of yore, leftists have cluck clucked their way into power by being the church ladies aggrieved at every blond joke, straying eye, proper use of word (niggardly!!!), scientific disagreement, and on and on.
In response, the right of center side decided to throw the selective outrage back at them.
There’s a lot of pent up fury. How would you feel about being hectored over every meaningless and stupid aside (MACACA!!!!).
So, conservatives through New Media, are holding the left to their own race-baiting, sexist, offensive-language standards.
Big surprise! The left turns out to be more racist, sexist, degrading, closed-minded, and ugly than the right–something that minorities who have defected from the left know all too well.
And now, when Bill Maher is finally taking some heat for being the sexist jackass that he is, he’s crying foul.
In the years before New Media, everyone just wink-winked and chortled at how edgy and clever and brave Maher was while castigating conservatives who said far less offensive things.
Restricting speech on one side was such a great tool. Everyone hated conservatives and laughed at liberals. And then they realized they were the butt of the joke.
Now, liberals are hated too.
Liberals have themselves to thank for this fine politically correct mess.
See, I’m a free speech absolutist. Do I think it’s despicable to make fun of Sarah Palin’s kid and calling him a “retard”? Yes. Do I want to be able to use the word “retard”? Yes.
As in, Bill Maher is a retard.
To have any credibility whatsoever, he should have been decrying the politically correct war on words from the left years ago, but of course, that didn’t serve his political ends.
My concern on the right is that we’re becoming as bad as the left–that is, we’re actually starting to believe the outrage we’re pouring at the left.
My concern is that rather than being outraged at the leftists phony outrage and throwing it back at them, we’re becoming as politically correct and insufferable as them.
As long as Sandra Flukes exist and screech about inequality over nothing, the right has every reason to thrown their hypocrisy back at them.
The minute, though, we buy into political correctness and start being just like the lefty church ladies we loathe, the whole battle has been lost.
Humor, art, science, technology can only thrive where new, outrageous and edgy words and ideas thrive.
Conformity of language is conformity of culture. Stasis.
Free speech. Cherish it.
It would be nice if Bill Maher could have found his outrage at outrage when the leftist outrage machine has survived on outrage fuel. But then, Bill Maher’s not a great mind or comedian. The irony is lost on him.
Bruce of The Conservatory notes what Maher really wants:
In essence, Maher wants to be able to say anything he wants and not have to apologize for it.
Please, do so. And don’t apologize. That is fine with me.
But … and you knew there had to be one … that doesn’t mean what you say is consequence free. You still get to pay the price for what you say.
That’s really what Maher wants to see go by the boards, make no mistake about it. He really wants no-penalty “free speech”.
Sorry, no such thing. Never has been, never will be.
Great piece from Dorian Davis: Get a sense of humor.
Herman Cain knows how to give a great speech. He was also a delightful man to interview. Mr. Cain sat with Tabitha Hale and me for a few minutes. We had a great conversation on Saturday afternoon of the Southern Republican Leadership Conference. He discusses God’s will for his life. He also talks about Republicans attracting people of color. He answers the question about whether racists dominate the Tea Party movement:
Herman Cain Might Run For President
Uploaded by melissaclouthier. – News videos from around the world.
RNC Chairman says the attacks he’s receiving are partly racism and that blacks have a smaller margin of error. I’d say that’s true for some few people, just as it’s true for some small segments who have disliked Obama from the beginning. Mostly though, it’s sore-loserism and establishment-ism and power-ism. You know, those “isms” that define Washington, D.C.
Here’s the video of the Chairman’s comments.
How about this for a theory?
1. Establishment Republicans see their power dwindling and they want to control the money.
2. The Crossroads business was hatched before last week when operatives from within this new money-seeking organization denounced their competition, the RNC–these people are going after the same dollars after all.
3. Republicans angry at Steele for saying the truth, that he’s not sure they’re ready to take the helm back, decided to gun for his demise.
You know, people are so sick of the Republicans. These guys demonstrated a frustrating inability to enact measures to trim the government’s power when they were in power.
I see nearly zero reason to believe that they govern much differently once back in power. For months, they fought the influence of the Tea Party movement and even now, some establishment candidates grit their teeth about this growing movement. They have a vision for Republicans in America–it’s big government, big business, big power.
Now, some have seen religion. They are terrified and want to get re-elected. But most who face primary challenges seem offended that they have to go through such lowly politicking to do the job they feel entitled to do.
In addition, those forming the Crossroads group, seem to ignore how this looks to people who now pay attention. It looks like the same old D.C. power plays. It looks like division and pettiness. It looks like the Mitch McConnell-Bush wing of the Republican party doesn’t want to let go.
Guess what: they were voted out for a reason.
Now, a person reading this might construe me as some worshipful devoté of the RNC and its leadership. I’m not. I’m just an observer who doesn’t believe, for one instant, that this Crossroads group is anything but an organization grown and built to support the Republican D.C. establishment while Chairman Steele is trying to strike the balance between an old and new Republican party.
Many Republicans don’t want a new party. They don’t want a younger, more diverse and more fiscally conservative party. It does not serve THEM.
They want power. It’s naive to think anything else.
So is it racism? Maybe a little bit. But really, it’s just Republican politics as usual.
P.S. The Republicans outside the RNC are questioning the judgment of Chairman Steele, right? Well, I question their judgment dividing the leadership during a year when Republicans are sure to win big because the Democrats are even more horrible than Republicans. What sort of wisdom do they have? How smart is it to divide the party on the eve of a big win. Yeah. Typical Republicans: shooting themselves in the feet.
Children may play cops and robbers all the time, but putting a pretend jail in a public housing playground in a historically black community struck some residents as an insult.
“We started complaining because it was like promoting kids to go to jail,” said Natasha Godley, 37, who has a 6-year-old son.
The prison look, including the offending word, was part of the original design of the playground, which was made by a company called Landscape Structures and erected in March 2004, the New York City Housing Authority said on Wednesday.
JailMonifa Bandele/Black and Brown News The jail, as it once was.
But it had not elicited complaints until this week, said Sheila Stainback, an agency spokeswoman.
Lumumba Bandele, a lecturer in black history at the City University of New York who lives nearby, said he began complaining to the housing authority and local officials about the playground this past weekend.
“The fact is that this community along with six others in New York City makes up the majority of the prison population in New York State,” he said. “And to have this here under the auspices of NYCHA is absolutely insulting.”
The jungle gym, tucked behind a building near Throop and Park Avenues, sits across from a handball court adorned with paintings of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X.
Oh yes, let’s make this a race thing. Let’s belabor the insensitivity of a playground that simulates one of the classic kids games: cops and robbers. Children are naturally inclined to see rules broken in (dare I say it) black and white. “Jail” is often a routine result. “You’re stuck in jail until you’re tagged out!”
Meanwhile, let’s ignore the underlying problems causing so many of these kids to end up in a real penitentiary. It’s too painful to examine generations of government dependence, the devaluation and absence of fatherhood, and the destruction of a moral underpinning to families with (mostly) boys ending up in prison.
Let’s pretend that playground equipment will be the psychological straw that will drive a youngin’ into a life of crime, since we’re living in fantasy land and emphasizing nonsense.
Senator Lieberman tried yet again to save D.C.’s school children and it fell on the deaf progressive ears of President Obama. Why does President Obama hate children? Why does he treat his own girls one way and act with willful indifference to needy minority kids going to the same school as them?
Right now, today, some 1,900 Washington children are sitting in calm, safe, orderly classrooms in neighborhoods other than their own, because of this program. The cost, in the scheme of things, is laughably small.
Yet congressional Democrats and Obama are killing it. This week, Lieberman’s colleagues voted down his attempt to attach a voucher-saving amendment to a larger piece of legislation.
It is a scandal. That the children already enrolled in the scheme will be able to finish 12th grade with the scholarship is small comfort; why only them? Why not their younger brothers and sisters, who will not have the same chance? Why leave these children behind?
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Only-some-children-left-behind-88189257.html#ixzz0iXHrtiBQ
When you hear liberals talk about loving the little children, keep in mind that, as usual, they only love some children–mostly their own.
That’s what happens when decisions are made for the greater good. The ruling class gets one set of health care, education, tax break, government deal, home, car, etc. and then the regular folks get what the “greater good” gets–which is usually nothing.
I was trying to think about who he was tonight. It’s interesting; he is post-racial, by all appearances. I forgot he was black tonight for an hour. He’s gone a long way to become a leader of this country and past so much history in just a year or two. I mean it’s something we don’t even think about. I was watching and I said, wait a minute, he’s an African-American guy in front of a bunch of other white people and there he is, president of the United States, and we’ve completely forgotten that tonight — completely forgotten it. I think it was in the scope of the discussion, it was so broad ranging, so in tune with so many problems and aspects and aspects of American life. That you don’t think in terms of the old tribalism and the old ethnicity. It was astounding in that regard, a very subtle fact. It’s so hard to even talk about it. Maybe I shouldn’t talk about it.
It’s pretty clear that Chris Matthews is kinda losing it these days. Still, I think I know what he’s saying. One just has to think like a liberal to get it.
Guys like Chris Matthews, identity politics guys, see everything through the lens of race. The president was the First Black President more than he was the best President for the U.S.
For hippies, Barack Obama was a racial symbol. They wanted to see tangible, physical, brown-skinned, or ovaried (but that comes second in identity politics–ladies, wait your turn and by the way, be liberal) human in charge. The skin tone mattered first.
Last night, Chris Matthews stopped being race-focused and he started actually listening to the message.
The funny thing is that nearly all those who didn’t vote for Barack Obama heard the message two years ago. They didn’t see race first. They saw a man with whom they disagreed.
Who is racist here?
That doesn’t mean that there still aren’t people who are racist or sexist or ageist or, in the case of a lot of women, painfully jealous of a woman more beautiful than she; there are “ist” people. People discriminate. It’s what they do.
For guys like Chris Matthews who exclude or include purely on skin color, finally hearing the message is revelatory.
Chris Matthews admits to a phenomenon that’s probably happening all across America: He’s finally hearing the message and not getting lost in the “light-skinned, negro” package as Harry Reid would say.
It’s about time that the identity-politics crowd start seeing Barack Obama as a fully formed human being and not the two-dimensional black card-board cut out hero.
It’s about time these people start looking at their fellow Americans not as some aggrieved minority–for surely that view diminishes the human being and strips him or her of her humanity and individuality. The aggrieved minority is not so much a person as a “black person” with all the prejudices that a white guy like Chris Matthews applies.
Maybe now, the racists on the left can start seeing what most Americans saw when they see Barack Obama: A man like any other.
I am so sick of the left’s double standards. Disgusted. So, I wrote my frustration:
If Harry Reid is forced to retire, do conservatives and Republicans actually end up the biggest losers?
This morning I read a quote from Ilya Somin of the Volokh Conspiracy and laughed out loud. Here’s what was said:
If the GOP wins this particular fight and Reid is forced to resign, there will be a new norm in public discourse under which no prominent person can openly say the same kinds of things as Reid without being labeled a racist.
We’ve been there for a long time — if you’re anything but a liberal Democrat. Republicans, conservatives … regular Americans can’t say what Harry Reid said without censure.
Noting that President Obama turns the jive on and off is no different than noting that Hillary Clinton does it. It’s no different than noting that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do it. It’s no different than noting that major sports and music celebrities (white and black) do it. That is not racist. That’s a fact. Now, whether or not this verbal nuance is a good or bad thing is another argument entirely, but I don’t think anyone can honestly argue that it doesn’t happen.
If I said these things and I was a Democrat, though, I wouldn’t be presumed racist — just a little edgy and maybe somewhat insensitive. But since I’m a conservative, that last paragraph just confirms what is self-evident to someone from the left: I’m a racist — else would I be a conservative?
Never mind that there are plenty of black people who would make the same observation. Never mind that there are black conservatives who would say the same thing. The conservative blacks, though, are illegitimate. They betray their race for refusing to do things like sliding into jive in front of certain audiences. They are trying to be “too white.” They aren’t proud of their black heritage, evidently.
Of course, the whole “black enough” argument is deeply offensive and ridiculous and actually very racist. But these notions are put forth by the very leaders who insist that they are for changing the black culture to respect education, erudition, and intelligent discourse.
So while Ilya Somin is correct in decrying the constriction of speech for all people, I’m saying it’s already happened for some people. Now, I wrote those words because I have already given up. Being labeled racist bothers me less than restricting my speech. And by virtue of being conservative, I am already labeled racist.
What makes me inherently racist is my conservatism. It’s axiomatic. So screw it. The label has lost it’s sting.
Go read the whole thing.
The Examiner’s Star Parker believes the Republicans are making a big mistake, but I find her reasoning less than compelling. She says:
Perhaps worst of all, Republicans insult blacks to think that they do not see the obvious. That alleged Republican outrage about Reid’s remarks is simply a political game.
Or that blacks do not appreciate the transparent hypocrisy when a black RNC chairman, who is in his job because of his race, expresses outrage that a white Democrat expresses the truth that we are not in post-racial America – yet.
By continuing to do business as usual, Republican hurt their party and our nation.
They need to wake up that our country is in trouble, that the conservative agenda that is supposed to define their party is the answer, but that they will never sell it by continuing with political games.
First, some Republicans feel that what Reid said was racist. And sincerely have a problem with what he said. Some liberal blacks do, too. Second, Republicans need work on their messaging, especially to minority communities, there can be no doubt. Like a black activist friend in Houston told me the “bootstrap talk” doesn’t work well. And yes, the black community needs the core conservative message and it should resonate considering their social values are in line with Republican values.
However, the black community like the Jewish community still hasn’t quite come to grips with the racist and anti-semitic nature of the Democrat party. Republicans can reach out and should reach out. They should concede nothing and go into every community and find common ground. The market also has to be ready for the message.
I have felt that after Barack Obama got elected, blacks would be able to “come out of the closet” and vote their values. The peer pressure and group think has been overwhelming to vote Democrat. A threshold has been crossed now. The first black man has been elected. Now, maybe, a new candidate can be looked at for what he stands for and not for what he or she, looks like. And until race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and as it turns out, Harry Reid and Barack Obama, move along, the only message that blacks will hear will be of victimhood and misery.
There are rays of hope, however. School vouchers and the liberals loving embrace of teachers unions strike a chord with parents who desire an education for their children. The collapse of cities like Detroit are evidence of the decay and rot inherent in liberal philosophy. The expense and exclusivity of liberal cities like San Francisco demonstrate their hypocrisy.
Democrat voters need to get fed up with the product they’re buying before they’ll even consider buying something else. The consumer is king after all. Yes, I’m fed up with Republicans mismanaging their relationships with minorities. I also hold voters themselves responsible. Like one black man on Beck said, he votes for Democrats in primaries because only Democrats get elected in his district and he wants his vote to count.
I still say that libs need to pay for their political incorrectness. Turn the rules on them. It works. Over the last year, since the egregious treatment of Sarah Palin by the press, I’ve seen feminists wake up to the misogyny against conservative women. Much of that came from pointing out the rank hypocrisy. It is not okay for liberals to be sexist and racist to achieve political ends. It’s also not okay to make politically incorrect language seem like racist language.
And to the main point: Do American people feel more comfortable about light skinned blacks? Really? I call b.s. The best character out of the latest Star Wars movies was Samuel L. Jackson. Everyone wanted more of him and he’s pretty dark. I personally feel way more comfortable with Clarence Thomas than Barack Obama. But see, it’s ideologically driven not whether I’d feel okay having a burger and fries or, heaven forbid, a beer summit with him.
Reid’s problem is that he thinks he’s better than the American people. He thinks the American people see through the racial lens like he does. Some do. In fact, many liberals do. No one is going to contend that race isn’t still an issue in modern America. What they will contend and rightly contend, is that leftist policies are not making the issue go away. Liberals still have too much to gain by calling “racist!” at ever slight. Conversely, conservatives always lose when the issue of race comes up. The left and the liberal press make sure of that.
A different section of the New York Times for Christmas presents for black people? Do the black people read that in the “special” section of the bus, too?
From Mary Katherine Hamm:
The gospel cruise is perhaps my favorite offering. Is Michael Scott now editing the New York Times? Actually, some of the gifts are nice, but they’d be nice for any number of New York Times readers, not just for their minority readers.
For instance, a Barack Obama children’s book could likely be enjoyed by white liberals as much as by black people. I know I may blow the New York Times’ mind, here, but there are also black conservatives who might not appreciate it. Imagine that! White folks could, and even would, buy nail polish created by people of color. The designs of Somali twins Ayaan and Idyl Mohallim look lovely for people of all hues.
And, so we reach the ironic pinnacle of the liberal sophisticate’s compulsive striving for “diversity.” I believe it was Martin Luther King Jr. who famously said we should buy each other presents, based not on the content of our character, but the color of our skin.
It’s a new color-conscious day in America!