• Gun Rights and Pot Shops Equals Strange Bedfellows

    Gun Rights and Pot Shops Equals Strange Bedfellows

  • Easy License and ID for Illegals in Washington State Means Residents, Other States, Pay the Price

  • ‘All Women Have a Right to Be Believed’ Isn’t Feminist

  • Trans-Actions: Is It Self-Identification, or Is It Cultural Appropriation?

    Image result for question mark

    If you latch yourself to leftist ideology, sooner or later its contradictions will force you to become your own enemy.

    You’ve probably read about the stunning findings in a recent Pew Research poll, regarding how various politically affiliated Americans view human gender assignment. If not, you need to hear this, and, no, it’s not fake news (I wish it were). According to Pew’s report, a whopping 77 percent of Democrats with a bachelor’s degree or higher, “say a person’s gender can be different from the sex they were assigned at birth.” Okay, I’m an English major and not a scientist, but I hope to God none of these people are teaching—any—science to our children.

    I understand psychology may play a role in how some humans feel about what gender they consider themselves. But does that change the biology of what gender they are scientifically? I’m not saying people who feel they are the different gender from from that which nature assigned them at birth are bad people. They feel what they feel; how can that be someone’s fault? However, does how a person feels, no matter how sincerely, change DNA or gender chromosomes?

    This issue also brings up a glaring leftist contradiction—I know… no surprise. The far-left seems to argue that, aside from an individual choosing his or her gender, they also argue a person can change/choose his or her ethnicity or race to one that suits them. The strange thing is, leftists also simultaneously argue that individuals may not engage in “cultural appropriation.”

    You recall cultural appropriation, right? Remember the clamor about colleges warning non-Mexican students not to wear sombreros and non-Indians not to wear feather headdresses on Halloween? You may also remember the Oregonian women who were harassed for selling Mexican food from their food cart—specifically because they are (non-Hispanic) white. The left says people must not appropriate cultures that are not theirs. But do they really mean it?

    A few days back, on Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson Tonight, Carlson interviewed left-wing commentator and Catalina magazine publisher, Cathy Areu. She seems like a nice person, and she wore a sardonic smirk throughout the interview, so I couldn’t tell for sure if she was being serious about the issue being discussed: a blending of cultural appropriation and self-identification. Uh-oh!

    Well, this nice far-lefty expressed to Carlson that she has no problem with a white Florida man, known as “Adam,” claiming he is not only transgender, now a female, but also transracial, an Asian. And, reportedly, he has culturally appropriated the identity of a Filipino woman. “Adam” now goes by the name Ja Du, loves Filipino music and food, and drives a purple Tuk-Tuk (motorized rickshaw used for transit in the Philippines).

    Now, like Ms. Areu, I don’t have a problem with anyone who wishes to adopt some peaceful fantasy life for themselves, even if they choose to share it in public. There are many stories about individuals of one culture being adopted into another. Movies like A Man Called Horse and The Last Samurai come to mind. However, Ja Du’s case is a bit different.

    Rarer, as in Ja Du’s case, are people who reverse the cultural adoption phenomena and, instead, proactively “adopt” another culture into their lives. And, even rarer still, again, in Ja Du’s case, are the trans-trifecta: transsexual, transcultural, and transracial. One person sexually, culturally, and racially appropriating a gender, ethnicity, and race not one’s own. So, is this cultural appropriation or self-identification? I’m confused.

    Apparently, Ja Du says she knows a very nice, kind Filipino woman and wants to emulate her. That’s a great thing about America, you should be able to do whatever you want, live your life and lifestyle as you choose—pursue your happiness, as long as you don’t hurt others, take their stuff, violate their rights, or expect them to accept rather than tolerate your choices.

    The problem comes when leftists attempt to elevate delusions—or we can call them eccentricities, even peaceful ones, and ascribe to them some quasi-scientific validation. I have no doubt Ja Du feels a genuine connection to Filipino culture, perhaps even truly feels Filipino. Many people feel a “connection” to cultures with which they share no biological, historical, or cultural ties. Since I was a kid, I’ve had an affinity for Japanese culture, but I’m not about to become a Geisha.

    An affinity for a foreign culture can be a beautiful thing. What a sublime compliment it is for a human being to adopt an admired or even revered culture into his or her own life or lifestyle. However, while the far-left might agree with me about cross-cultural affinity being a good thing, they also accuse me of, at best, committing microaggressions and at worst, cultural appropriation, if I express my chosen affinity by donning traditional garb associated with a culture not my own. Which is it, self-identification or misappropriation of another culture?

    So, lefties, is a person who expresses admiration of another gender, culture, ethnicity, or race, by emulating it, a virtue or an affront? Is it a matter of what the left believes is a person’s motivation by divining what’s on a person’s mind or in a person’s heart? Is that why it’s okay when liberal, transsexual, transcultural, and transracial Ja Du does it, but if a couple of white gals in Oregon do it, they’re cultural appropriating bigots?

    And, now that we’re into the weeds on this subject, what if I’m half Mexican? Can I wear half a sombrero, poncho, or eat only half a burrito? Can I wear just one feather in my hair if I’m 10 percent Lakota or five if I’m 50 percent? Am I allowed to wear a full Cheyenne war bonnet if I’m of Sioux, Apache, or Wampanoag extraction? And don’t even get me started on who’s allowed to drink green beer on St. Patrick’s Day. 


  • False ‘Hate Crime” Reporting Fuels Media Frenzy

    False ‘Hate Crime’ Reporting Fuels Media Frenzy

  • A Microaggression Over a Microbrew.

    A Microaggression Over a Microbrew

  • Should Americans Have Faith in the Federal Justice System?

  • Judge Rules Citizens Have No Right to a Vote to Ban Heroin Sanctuaries.

  • Charlottesville and Durham and Hate… Against Cops!

    Two recent news stories bring up some observations regarding the public’s view of law enforcement. First, the repulsive white supremacists—Nazis and KKK in Charlottesville, VA. and second, the nearly as repugnant radical, leftist agitators in Durham, N.C., including, the radical leftists Workers World Party, Democratic Socialists of America, and ANTIFA (anti-First Amendment… oh, I mean anti-fascists—yeah, right!).


    Much derision has been heaped on the cops’ handling (or not handling) of the riots in Charlottesville, which resulted in the tragic death of a young woman at the hands of a mob of despicable white nationalists.


    Even some conservative commentators are critical of the cops for not intervening in the violence. People need to remember something: it’s not the cops on the riot lines who decide when to act. Those officers were no doubt fighting with every molecule of their beings to tamp down the instinct to act. Police officers at potentially violent scenes like this, planned controversial events, are most often given orders for conduct and rules of engagement before being deployed. If officers are not acting to stop rioters, it’s because politically-driven superiors have ordered them not to act. I know it happens in Seattle, too—a lot. 


    In Durham, the cops also “failed” to act when protesters took it upon themselves to destroy public property and tear down a Confederate monument. Now, I have no love lost for the Confederacy that fought to preserve the vile institution of slavery. Think about it. I’m a libertarian! I believe in the sovereignty of every individual human being. In America, just because some piece of property offends you, you don’t get to destroy it.


    For example, in Baltimore, authorities removed Confederate statues, but they are being reinstalled at nearby Civil War battlefields. This form of display is in a much better context, anyway. Rather than being publicly displayed in a town common or in front of a public building, which is an implicit act of honoring something or someone, the statues now serve a legitimate historical purpose: to remind us of what can happen when some Americans ignore the rule of law and a nation splits apart.


    The Durham incident is also a reminder, once again, of who comprises the left: While watching the coverage of the radicals toppling the statue, I saw signs reading and heard the crowd chanting, “No cops! No KKK! No fascists USA!”


    President Trump has suffered from asserting there were good and bad on both sides. Frankly, I’d like to hear more about what he meant by the “good” on the white nationalist side. But President Trump is infamous for words coming out differently than from what he’d intended. However, that anti-cop sign and chant, and the groups’ commitment to ending America as it exists, verifies the “bad” on each side comment. Equating the KKK and fascists with America’s cops is absurd, but some, even in the mainstream left, tolerate or accept, or, even further, endorse this notion. 


    There seems to be a noteworthy difference between right and the left. The left attempts to conflate white nationalists with all Republicans, conservatives, and Trump supporters. The problem is all of these right-wing groups routinely condemn Nazis, the KKK, and other white nationalist groups. To the contrary, the left, including the Democratic Party and a Democratic President, respectively, invited the mother of a robbery suspect who assaulted and then tried to take a police officer’s gun to their national convention and radical minority groups like BLM to our White House.    


  • A Lucid Lesson in Law Enforcement for the Left, from Chief Kathleen O’Toole.

    Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole wrote a refreshingly candid email yesterday to the Seattle City Council’s reckless socialist, Kshama Sawant. The missive was in response to Sawant’s demands O’Toole answer questions publicly about the Charleena Lyles shooting (Two white Seattle police officers were forced to shoot Lyles, a pregnant, black woman, after she reportedly attacked them with two butcher knives). 

    Well, Kshama, you asked for it: 

    “I write in short response to your [Sawant] earlier email, which reflects a disappointing level of ignorance of SPD policies and clear disdain for the investigatory process and review that SPD is court-mandated to follow,” O’Toole wrote. “Facts matter and pre-judgment of this incident by any of us would be completely irresponsible.” [emphasis mine] 

    O’Toole, a law enforcement hero of the left (until this email, anyway), delivers to Sawant a blunt and necessary lesson in Police Investigations 101. O’Toole explained, “As we are barely over a week into an investigation that typically takes upwards of 90 days, I see absolutely no benefit to airing those private, difficult, and heartfelt conversations in a public, or worse, political forum.”

    How hard is this to understand? Any critically thinking human being should appreciate that investigations with such significant, potential consequences must be done in a sober and objective manner. Sadly, political ideologues avoid critical thinking. Without amped up raw emotions feeding the far left’s narrative, their foolish assertions dissolve.

    They remind me of people who don’t want to hear the truth. They stick their fingers in their ears and jump up and down, yelling, “Woo, woo, woo!” so they can’t hear it.

    Chief O’Toole finished boldly, “I will not, however, join in any process that threatens to exploit this terrible tragedy for another’s personal or political gain.”