Welcome to the weekend edition of The Mark Steyn Show, with more from Mark on the bonfire of our civilization, plus the Club of the Canceled, the jurisprudential wind comes sweeping down the plain, Blake goes black, Miss Egypt meets the Muscles from Brussels, and much more.
Click above to listen.
Mark Steyn Club members interested in using their personal podcast players to listen to our new Mark Steyn Shows or our series of audio adventures Tales for our Time can find instructions here - and the RSS page itself here.
If you prefer to read your radio shows, Steyn Club members can peruse the transcripts here. For the full archive of our new shows in a handy Netflix-style tile format, please see here.
The Mark Steyn Show is made with the support of members of The Mark Steyn Club. As Mark always says, Club membership isn't for everyone, but it if you're interested you can find more information here.
Comment on this item (members only)
Submission of reader comments is restricted to Mark Steyn Club members only. If you are not yet a member, please click here to join. If you are already a member, please log in here:
Member Login
77 Member Comments
All the decision means is that McGurk should have been prosecuted under Federal statues with much greater jeopardy. Careful what you ask for.
Wow: a no-holds-barred excoriation of the Swinging Supremes and the Triggerati™!
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar wants to dismantle all systems of oppression in America and make the USA more like her native Somalia, so it won't be too surprising when Neil Gorsuch and Co pretend the 18th century piece of parchment made implicit provision for Sharia law.
And - unlike the "but-covering" old lefties with their free speech relativism - Congresswoman Alexandria Orcasio-Cortez insists there are no ifs or buts when it comes to the Woke mob destroying livelihoods and lives: "The term 'cancel culture' comes from entitlement – as though the person complaining has the right to a large, captive audience, & one is a victim if people choose to tune them out."
PS. The magnificent poem and "Last Call" were especially moving.
Well said, K.
"Saunter for your life!" Even funnier the second time around...
A lot of people have referred to antifa and BLM as Marxists movements. It certainly has some validity. I'm not sure how much pointing that out is rhetorically effect. You could just as easily call it a Black Supremacy movement.
Anyway, last night I caught a Youtube show with an historian named Vladimir Brovkin, an expert on the Russian Civil War and the many peasant uprisings against the Bolsheviks.
Our current Year Zero crowd does remind him of the Bolsheviks, and he made some interesting points.
First, the peasant resistance against them failed because it was local. They just wanted their grain untouched and to live unmolested with their families. They had no vision for actually occupying enemy territory and completely defeating the Bolsheviks. Their only real success was forcing the Bolsheviks to stop requisitioning their crops and many peasants wound up "liquidated". (A curious word that -- people as assets of the state.)
Second, the Bolsheviks were, at most, 10% of the population. There were several points they could have been defeated politically and militarily. Their success was not inevitable. Agitprop was the Bolsheviks strongest tool, softening the enemy up to not resist their "provisional" government. The Bolsheviks themselves were surprised at how little resistance they encountered at key points.
Third, the Bolsheviks were not as self-confident as they appeared. At some points, they had their passports ready for a quick exit and money stored in Swiss accounts.
While I don't have much of a clue as to strategically use this historical analogy, I think it might be worth keeping in mind.
Mark, all of the audio shows have been wonderful and much-needed respite from the storms around us. But this one was one of the best. I can't think of anyone who is a more effective and impassioned spokesman for free speech and you have shouldered this role for the better of twenty years. The cover of A Wonderful World sung by Nick Cordero brought tears to my eyes. A pox on the murderous Chinese communists. Damn them for robbing us of so many loved ones.
Agree, Laura - this was one of the best shows yet.
PS. Your recent Links are outstanding too; still working through them.
"Zip-a-dee-do-done!" Now, there's a timely parody!
Oh, dear. I just found out that not only am I a deplorable racist, but also "Illiberal"!
Mark:
The Supreme Court must be the poets Shelley described as the" unacknowledged legislators of the world" because the Court certainly was unacknowledged by the Founders as a legislature and it certainly takes a poetic sensibility to find in abortion a' penumbra of privacy' to be the only unrestricted act in all of a citizen's actions. We can hardly move without some restriction placed upon us, and too many Black babies and the 'population bomb' did call for a 'penumbra in the 'shadow of her smile.'
Well-versed in history and human nature, the Founders knew that every election created a loser and that majority-rule democracy without provision for the loser leads to a tyranny of the majority and thus destroys government by the people. Since the states wanted a high degree of independence, both a pure democracy and a parliamentary system were rejected in favor of democratic republic based on a Constitution that would give the losers freedom of speech, assembly, and petition, and an Electoral College based on separate state elections that gave the loser in each state election, the opportunity to present their case locally and where voter fraud and large population areas would be localized. State legislatures would elect the Senators, thus, assuring a degree of state sovereignty, but still subject to Federal law.
The Democrats have an absolute lock on the national popular vote. As I read it, John Roberts is favorable to the idea of electing the president by national popular vote, which would cement what is already becoming a one-party tyranny.
The Electoral College is the Final Protective Line if we are ever going to be able to find our way back. Unfortunately, our side is collapsing. So, hang on to one last magazine, fix bayonets, and plan for some vicious hand-to-hand combat.
YOURS IN AGAIN TEACHING THE AMAZING NARRATIVES OF THE American experience. Remember: every statue glorifies a narrative. The answer to a narrative we disagree with or find abhorrent can only be countered by the true narrative based on evidence and logic and compassionate reason. D. H. Stefanson You are a major part of the narrative of my life and have been for twenty years.
I'm not sure if you're serious about fixing bayonets, but I have to wonder at what point does this violence from the far left force a response in kind from the far more heavily armed far right? And if the police are "defunded" just exactly how does the far left expect to be able to win this type of battle? I suppose they envision being able to transform the FBI, ATF, etc. into a national police force before the chaos gets to far out of hand.
I have a difficult time wrapping my head around that type of future for the United States because it seems so preposterous. But of this were just some "what if" parlor game we were playing, I would almost certainly conclude that such a breakdown was on the verge of inevitability.
I've vastly enjoyed the falsetto parodies.
That was a beautiful poem. Brought tears to my eyes.
Do you wonder how President Trump and his team of advisors in selecting a justice could have arrived at the conclusion that former clerks of Justice Kennedy could be originalists? Was originalism even a consideration?
But Jeff, they are good men. We were told!
I don't know who first used the term "woke," but when I heard it and understood what it was about, it reminded me of the old banners with "Deutschland Erwache" back in the thirties. The message there was essentially, "wake up and believe what we believe, or die." From everything I've seen, "woke" has the same message.
The heroic anti-cancel culture liberals who signed the letter appearing in Harper's Magazine included the following sentence near the beginning:
"The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy."
This means they are not just pulling their punches, but are making it clear they believe that cancel culture is OK as long as it results in punishing those who represent the "forces of illiberalism" — say half of the voters in the US in the last presidential election.
This is really the supreme and most highly disturbing thing about America: we have the highest court in the land supposedly making decisions on Justice for all of us and this is what they come up with? Maybe the whole thing does need to be blown up if we couldn't get our act together by now. And there are known cures elsewhere around the work to the Covid-19 and they still can't save lives after six months going on seven?
Disgusting!
Paraphrasing : they have made their decision ; now let them try and enforce it.
I certainly share your initial response, F. I take it we're talking about the outcome of the McGirt appeal.
I am however aware as I do so that I know little of the law involved in this case. You may be able to help me out. I'll try to confine myself to the essentials, knowing that cutting corners is a dangerous business.
I'll begin with the assumption that the state or federal government at some point in the past pledged that the reservations in question would belong to the Indian peoples then on them in perpetuity. So my first question is, what is the common law standing of treaties and/or promises of this sort? Is there any substantial precedent for unilaterally breaching such treaties and/or promises, and under what circumstances were the precedent breaches effected? (I'm presuming that there is something binding on record and that Tulsa is in fact a part of the territory to which it applies.)
Secondly, what is the statutory standing of treaties and/or promises of this sort? In particular, I would have thought that the federal government would have eliminated the status of obligations of this sort when Oklahoma became a state. In this crazy world, the opposite might have happened. Is it possible that they acquired force of law over-ruling all other pertinent legislation?
Thirdly, is there no obligation whatever for legislation and adjudication governing the reservations to reflect or conform with state and/or federal legislation? In other words, are Indian citizens resident in reservation territory free to legislate entirely as they please? (That seems extremely unlikely, on the face of it, but what do I know?) Do no provisions and/or precedents exist for Mr McGirt to be re-tried by the appropriate court and to have his sentence reinstated?
Finally, my understanding is that at present all that is in place to establish a discrete Indian judiciary in Oklahoma is a declaration to the effect that some joint body representing the Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw and Seminole people in Oklahoma has made progress toward an agreement on shared jurisdiction, but that no final proposal has been tabled, let alone acted upon. How would the case then have been properly tried?
You see, I don't know enough to be able to say with confidence that the supreme court judges were not in fact ruling within the letter and spirit of the law. Perhaps the root of the problem lies beyond their mandate. I don't know, but I do know that this outcome appears insufferable.
Those are all good questions, S. Frankly I reached a melting point with the news the last week and not only were my nerves shot from all the upheavals by the BLM rioting and looting, shootings that followed, BLM kneeling by corporations, topped with talk of police hating and PD defunding, belated halts to the mayhem including building and public street defacings, attempt at a private home being assaulted by a mob, statue demolition, city, state authorities caving to irrational mob demands, fake media, continued confusion about the virus, schools never reopening, and now $500 fines for not wearing masks (indoors and out of doors)announced just as we here along the border hit the hottest heat wave in recent memory, Trump hating and you name it, to have wanted much to do with the twenty-four hour news cycle. I'm trying to turn inward towards my family and the people close to me who need attention. This renewed shutdown is affecting people psychologically, and not in a good way, not at all.
This is the first I heard about the McGirt decision and based on Mark's critique I was apoplectic.
I have not yet read the remarks by the judges but you can go to the SCOTUSblog and about the eighth box down you can read all about it. I will do this after I soak all of my plants and trees and tend to the animals. Also, FOX had a piece on it earlier but I missed it and perhaps I can dig it out of their files. I'll let you know and we can extend the discussion once I know a bit more. McGirt has already served time and maybe now he will get out. That's bad news. The implications for certain criminals of a tribe line to get free rides in large geographical areas is real. That does not mean that they can't be tried either within their tribes or at a state level. I just don't know that much about the overlap, or distinctions, of jurisdictions for prosecution of crimes that are violent in nature. That would be for a law person to answer. The outrage on this decision probably doesn't have as much to with geographical boundaries as much as the horrific nature of the crime. That's probably what caused the uproar as you can plainly see just how I reacted.
In a way, I'm glad it came out the way it did because I was just entertaining buying a large piece of property East of here adjacent to the Mescalero Apache reservation so now I know something I didn't know before and will do much more research on this treaty business than I ever would've before even contemplated.
Thanks, F. Certainly a bizarre decision on the face of it, but it may - might maybe just - be a valid decision giving effect to bizarre prior dispositions. One would want the right problem to be fixed, of course. Something has become cancerous here. Not only is there a possibility of a dreadful person actually being compensated for time served in consequence of an absolutely heinous crime, but, as I understand it, the state of Oklahoma has in passing been stripped of sovereign governance of almost half of its territory. This is a matter of no small note, not least because it will have the effect of making nationalism profitable - very, very, very profitable - within consolidated Indian peoples, and I simply cannot persuade myself that this bodes well. I'm grateful therefore for your help in understanding it better.
Since the conversation has turned to things which cannot work out well and will surely go to the court's obiter dicta, I offer one of my own. I have never had any confidence in the signing of treaties by states with segments of their own citizenry. I find that bizarre, and bizarre arrangements in governance result in bizarre governance. It doesn't surprise me that the serious problems first emerge in the operation of the judicial system. To me, this looks a lot like the chickens coming home to roost. However, as I have said, I know too little and have much reading to do. Thanks for the guidance: sourcing the case reports is a time-consuming business at this remove. Guess that's why folk rely on the journalists.
I don't like to do that. Need I explain? Surely not. Look anywhere. According to the BBC today, President Trump is mistaken about Somalia and Representative Omar. Somalia is a wonderful, law-abiding democracy redolent of lawned playgrounds and happy children, and Representative Omar is pictured looking visionary with a watermark American flag emblazoned behind her.
And my name is Mary Poppins.
S, to aid your quest for information on the topic, in the 19th Century Indians were not citizens of the United States but instead members of their sovereign tribes. Before Oklahoma was admitted as a State it was known as Indian Territory and compromised of several separate and independent Indian Reservations. The only law in the Territory was Federal U.S. Marshals and they were few and far between. Outlaws fled to the Territory as a refuge. The transition to Statehood in the 20th Century was not all that smooth and twisted and turned with political influence. As I mentioned in my other comment, the American Indian Citizenship Act in 1924 should have ended much of this chaos as the provisions of the 14th Amendment should have come into effect and Indians be treated as every other citizen was treated under the law. Unfortunately lawyers were involved so the plain language and logic was treated as a suggestion in the way the law worked.
Thanks, W.: useful context. It's a bit of a botch, isn't it?
Hi S.. So just from a first glance at that SCOTUS blog, it looks as if the dissent was more like what I would side with, and as Mark says, culture trumps all, but there's something about allotments of tribal land that had me puzzled. (For me plowing through legal speak is not easy and I guess lawyers wrote these blogs. I see Walt mentioned this, too).
Show me an Irish knit sweater and If you held a gun to my head I can probably figure out how to write out the instructions but it's not productive to ask me to explain what transpires in these court decisions. I will say, if you hadn't asked I might not have dug into the case at all. So, thanks for lighting the match.
About allotments: tribes were allowed to sell land to buyers outside the tribe so it sounds as if little by little they appeared to be giving up their lands. Gorsuch seems to be saying that while that happened, it did not mean that the sovereignty of the tribal nation was lost. That was just one issue that I had to mull over. The dissent seemed to indicate that over time the tribe members became participants in the state's civic affairs: members became citizens, they voted for elected officials, etc. This is where things get blurry for me. I was unclear about who would be able to settle disputes going forward: criminal cases, property issues and tax collections. It appears to me that the state will have no jurisdiction over the tribes and only tribal courts or Federal courts will be involved.
Justice Thomas, I think, wrote that the SC had no business hearing this case in the first place. I'll look at it again and see if there's something I'm missing. It sounds as if Gorsuch thought that if the reservation's sovereignty needs to be abolished for good then it would fall to a congressional decision to make it happen. But I'm not a lawyer so this is just my best answer. I read a Wall Street Journal piece about it from Friday and even the lawyers in tribal law are split as to what ramifications will follow for those involved in future disputes. Anything that gets a five/four decision on the SC probably means it's going to generate controversy and confusion.
Thanks millions, F. Lots of good stuff there.
Sovereign tribal courts today, sovereign sharia courts tomorrow: this stuff isn't a good idea. Never was. I like the argument made by Justice Roberts, but that is an argument which should have been made in formally rescinding reservation status and dispositions. Unfortunately, as Justice Gorsuch pointed out, there was no such rescission. I think that is going to be the bottom line. And now, politicians being politicians, there won't be a rush to shut the stable door by rescinding reservation status: far easier to let the collective reservations have their own judicial system. Trendy stuff, that: downright sexy. What is going to happen when cases arise which qualify to be heard under both the Indian system and the state or federal system, or when circumstances arise which make it possible to object to trial under both?
I could devote a long tract to railing against politicians, but I'm too bone-weary. Thanks again to you and W. for shedding light.
I hear you, S., but still I'm glad Mark brought this to the front of the show. I really need to wake up to what the SC is doing. I often get caught up in the blockbuster news cycle and take my eye off what happens with this court.
Right with you, F.
What should we do about arrogant judges who overturn existing law and make up new law as they go along?
I can only suggest a star chamber composed of elected politicians who can dismiss judges and overturn perverse court rulings.
To me, judicial overreach is a symptom of an unduly weak legislature, one which for years it seems has been tacitly side-stepping its responsibility to make the nation's laws, particularly on the most contentious issues, safe in the knowledge that the judiciary will eventually ride in to fill the void. As such, I think the responsibility falls upon the people to hold their representatives to greater account rather than place all their hopes in the executive to appoint judges whose opinions on these issues they share.
Of course, this is easy for me to say as a Canadian because in the Westminster system, the people instinctively understand that the composition of the legislature is of paramount importance in every election because the legislature is all powerful and the executive is largely a byproduct of its composition. Judicial overreach is a problem here to, but whereas every sentient Canadian knows who Ruth Bader Ginsburg is, I imagine very few would be able to name a single justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. The elected Commons is also a much more transient affair: you just don't often see people sitting in there for decades on end. Our unelected Senate is another matter.
Gareth, Ken: Article I of the US Constitution gives Congress numerous means to check the power of the Judiciary. In fact, with the exception of SCOTUS, the federal judiciary was created by Congress. What they create, they can also revise and eliminate. The penalty for a rogue judge is impeachment. I agree that one could conclude that the problem of judicial overreach is indeed a weak legislature.
Decided to look it up: Do you know how many Federal Judges have been impeached and removed from office in the past 83 years? Five (most recent was in 2010). Given the frequency of Federal Judges putting the Constitution they took an oath to uphold into a paper shredder that number ought to be much higher.
And yet, Trudeau...
The legislature has intentionally ceded power to the judiciary because the legislature is now liberal by its very nature, and it knows liberal/leftist objectives are more easily achieved via the courts than the law. The population has been dumbed down to the point of no longer having the collective capacity to recognize this, or to even care on the off chance that they do understand, and the ability to self govern will soon be lost as a result.
At least one supreme has openly stated that using international law as precedent is acceptable (Ginsberg), and another may have done this. in what world is this compatible with swearing to uphold the Constitution? She's even stated something to the effect that the document isn't suitable or appropriate for "modern" society. Yet it just doesn't matter.
I'm a bit worried about Mark: he's sounding slightly breathless, particularly at the beginning of recent shows. I hope this is simply because he's timetabled his Marathon training immediately before the recording...
I noticed it, Sue. I pray for Mark and his behind the scene team every night since this virus started. I really feel this club has helped me separate out what is really happening around the world out from the lies we're told and even the ones stuck in my own head.
In fact, since all of the chaos began last month, I go to sleep praying for everyone I know starting with all of my family, friends, pets that I have and lost and I include all of my club members I've been chatting with and reading. I name the names that seem to show up often enough and even say the names that I no longer see here, since they are etched now in my brain and I hope they will all stay healthy and their families, too. I try to remember the son of a friend who is approaching the marker for his last third decade of time in Federal prison. There but for the Grace of G-.... A lot of people need prayers.
I'll confess that I've not been much of a prayerful person until very recently. It's a
good exercise for my memory skills and as I watch old friends incrementally lose their sharpness at recollecting, it has become a bit of a concern for me. It also helps reciting the litany of names because I realize when I say a name that I may not have said lately, say, my niece or nephew, then I can think to reach out a little more than I do.
I put it down to sheer workload. I'm out of breath trying to keep up! I log in once or twice a day and I'm still a page or two behind most of the time. I can't imagine what it takes to create all this stuff and still have time to sit in for Rush and show up on Tucker and, you know, eat. It would be fascinating to get a peek behind the scenes because the volume and quality of Mark's output is like Santa Claus, except here it's Christmas every day.
So true. I don't see how he does it. A while back I asked him how he was able to get so bloody well educated while avoiding the burden of acquiring an academic credential. His answer was to credit is boundless curiosity, which he no doubt has. But I was thinking more in terms of the logistics and time management aspects of the process. How on Earth can you know what to study or where to procure the best information sources without some sort of guidance or road map for the process?
How do you manage not to waste time while becoming so informed when you are apparently self taught? I have no idea how he does it.
Me neither. Just keeping up to speed with each day's headlines is a full time job. Then he needs to somehow sift through all the noise and collate what's left into some kind of coherent thesis. That takes even more time and at that point he still hasn't typed out or recorded a single word, let alone anything that would qualify as original and funny.
I have no clue how people like Mark and Tucker can be so productive day in and day out and not burn out after a week or two. I am curious how Mark in particular manages his time because, unlike Tucker, I don't think he even wears a watch.
More ignorance from professional sports athletes with antisemitic tweets and then the non-apology apology telling we need to remember why we're here. I don't like being told that if I don't view this issue through the same prism that they do that I don't understand. When you have a side that searches for a reason to call you a racist then you will never achieve unity. What you have is instead is a side that wants you to not only say what they believe but to believe in what they believe otherwise, you have failed their test and are the problem.
I am a huge sports fan (as you could tell from my name) and I can't even watch sports anymore. In MLS they had a prematch ceremony for BLM that looked like some insane pagan ritual with brainwashed cult members while the announcers drone on about how "powerful" it was. In England every match begins with everyone kneeling to show support for BLM (and don't DARE ask if any of them have actually seen what BLM actually stands for, much less if the notion of blacks being hunted down by racist police for sport in the US is actually true). And then of course you have the fake phoney human rights activists in the NBA who are toadies for the ChiComs who lacked the integrity and basic human decency to stand up for victims of genocide. But thankfully I have found a sporting competition where I don't have to deal with this nonsense: The Russian Premier League. Say what you will about Putin but if people tried to destroy his country tearing down statues he'd actually take action to stop it. A bad cop who can crack some skulls is certainly better than a cop who just does nothing.
And speaking of cops: last night they raided the house of that St Louis couple who had the nerve to defend themselves and confiscated their guns. They were nice enough to let the media and the public know this so as to tell the mob to return and take out the now unarmed prey. Nice that now they show up as opposed to the night of the incident when the couple called the police for help and were ignored, forcing them to take action to defend themselves. So going back to Vlad: What's the difference between the law and how it's applied in Russia or America? There is none.
In 50 to 100 years, might Russia be more "democratic" than the west? I doubt it will be any less democratic. At least in Russia it's still okay to be a Russian.
The Gorsuch Tulsa ruling is in a long line of court rulings ignoring the principles of equal justice under the law when it comes to Indians. The American Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 essentially abrogated all the old treaties but the act was not explicit and special interests cling to the fiction of sovereignty to gain or maintain subsidies, welfare, health care and political power. During the Clinton Administration in the 90's, environmentalists grabbed hold of Indian Rights that had never been recognized under State water right law, of tribes that had been disbanded for decades, to seize power over rivers to protect endangered salmon. The even bigger abuse was by various tribes and especially their big money gambling associates to build casinos without competition in States where it was forbidden.
I have to admit one of my ancestors was one of the well meaning fools who put on dress uniforms, gold buttons and epaulettes to sign treaties that the Indians couldn't understand but used flowery language like 'as long as the river flows to the sea,' etc. That language has been used to extort billions from the rest of us citizens and now to let criminals go free.
If it's any comfort, the United States is not unique in this, W. We have let much the same idiocy off the leash here in the Antipodes too. Not even a recent thing, and it has not even discernably abated the local BLM vogue.
S, Chairman Xi says Australia is a giant kangaroo that serves as a dog to the U.S. Always keep in mind the Chinese eat dog in their mixed metaphor grill.
Woke, the past tense of wake. A metaphor for opening your eyes and seeing a new world, not through your lens of privilege.
JK Rowling has always been a reliable supporter of liberal causes, and a generous donor to the Labour Party, but it was only a matter of time before she was cancelled given how conservative her most famous creation, the Harry Potter books, now look 23 years after they were first published. The story centres around a cisgender white male who attends a private boarding school, along with many other cis white students all of whom are there solely due to selection based on magical ability. The school is run by an old white guy (Rowling later declared him to be gay) and is organised essentially as Eton for Wizards. The wider magical world thinks it is important to possess the correct, wizarding bloodlines, a belief that the core characters reject, as they all agree that it is wrong to judge people based on their ancestry (!!!) Harry and chums all later settle down, marry each other and produce little witches and wizards of their own. It isn't hard to see why the 'Potterverse' is now deeply problematic for the Left. I'm sure Rowling never intended to write anything even remotely conservative in her life, but over time that is what has happened, and now she's got to go, along with the Potter books too. The actors who made fortunes off her work were very quick to denounce her, supposedly for her views on 'transgenderism', but really because the revolution has declared her to be insufficiently woke. It is hard to see where the madness will end, or if it ever will.
When Margaret Thatcher said the facts of life are conservative, she wasn't referring only to muggles. How well does the state respond to the threats of Vol...He Who Must Not Be Named and his Death Eaters? Piss-poorly. Indeed, it falls to a band of individuals--including a Mudblood!--to act in defiance of the state to stand up to the forces of evil and win. Don't overlook that last point. Rowling writes with the quaint faith in good and evil, right and wrong, (sotto voce) male and female. The women of Harry Potter are a diverse bunch, from the nurturing Mrs. Weasley to the officious Dolores Umbridge, to the vile Bellatrix Lestrange; from the spacey, charming Luna Lovegood (after whom our beloved pooch is named), to the brilliant, neurotic Hermione Granger. That they are all women may be a lapse in judgement by Ms. Rowling, but not one meant to offend. (Though who would be better positioned to change his/her/their sex than a witch or wizard--especially one at the impressionable age of a student at Hogwarts?) The Left has somehow split identity into more categories than Heinz has ketchups, while commanding only one way of thought, one mode of belief. That's a trick even Vol...The Dark Lord with his horcruxes never even tried.
PS: My kids were of the right age at the right time, what can I tell you?
What I found amusing in your beautiful post was Rowling belatedly assigning the old headmaster's sexual orientation apparently to bank some 'woke bona fides' to keep the mob at bay. It didn't work. Her unforgivable crime against humanity was simply stating biological fact. "A man cannot become an actual female by self-identifying as such". Grounds for ex-communication now. Even the two great dystopian novels of the 20th century couldn't take satire to this extreme, no one would buy it even in fiction. Too ludicrous. Yet here we are in 2020.
Excellent point Josh, the books do place great emphasis upon the power and importance of the individual and portray the forces of the State, i.e. the Ministry of Magic, as pretty useless. One of the goals of the current revolution is to crush all individualism, not to mention objectivity and the married family, so yet more reasons for Potter and his creator to be cancelled. Incidentally, would Hermione be categorised now as the ultimate 'Karen'?
Thank you for the compliment RAC. Rowling has tried to rewrite aspects of Potter over the years, firstly by making Dumbledore gay, and then by announcing her regret that she chose to marry Hermione off to the deeply ordinary Ron Weasley and not to the star of the show, Harry Potter himself. If she wants to avoid cancellation altogether, she may have to rewrite the entire series.
In another thread, I wrote that Black Lives Matter (the organization, not the sentiment) was a "triggering" expression, a Niagara Falls detonator that led to PTSD episodes of rage and frustration. Don't get me started on "Karen". (Slowly I turned, step by step, inch by inch...)
I find it relaxing to know that I can come to a place to read about the decline of exact rhyming in popular culture (I believe your last criticism being to object that "suicide is painless" rhymes inappropriatedly with "changes".
But here, does racist rhymes with basis . For shame.
Mark replies:
Well, as I've said, Steven, if you listen, I actually sing "racis'" - so it skates by in the same way as "New York, New York, a helluva town/The people ride in a hole in the groun'". But I take your point...
Woke - I kinda assumed being "woke" today just meant being aware. Conscious of "Social Justice" issues. An awakening to the most important issues of the day ie: Race, Religion, Gender, etc. Identity Groups, Intersectionality, these are the overriding factors of the human condition. Wake Up! Economy, work, family, self-sufficiency, individualism are so blasé. You become woke when you view everything through the very narrow prism of identity politics. You woke up to the fact that every failure in your life can be blamed on somebody else. You woke up to the fact you don't have to take personal responsibility for anything. You woke up to the fact that you can preen and lecture and attack and destroy all based on words posted on the internet without actually having to do a damn thing in real life all the while feeling good about yourself, your morality, as you blindly applaud every ludicrous, nonsensical, damaging accusation the Pied Piper throws out there. Just my opinion
This belongs in the dictionary because that's precisely what it means.
Culture trumps politics... well said. I caught the tail end of the underrated Trace Gallagher interviewing Victor Davis Hanson this evening and VDH said something to the effect of: the BLM movement is the new Jim Crow, and the more people call out the inherent racism and evil of BLM, the sooner this cultural revolution will die out, as all eventually do. I thought it was a brilliant analysis and right on your point. As long as people are afraid to point out the truth, for fear of being called a racist, Hitler, etc., i.e. for cultural reasons, then the madness that we're seeing can persist. But once people feel confident enough to say, well actually this is all complete b.s., then the cultural battle having been won, BLM will go the way of Code Pink, Occupy Wall Street, and a host of other failed leftist movements.
So I'll do my part. A SteynOnline reader came up with what I think is a brilliant name for the BLM movement; Khemer Noir. But the new Jim Crow gives it a real run for the money, and may get a slight nod, given the American roots of the comparison.
Black Lives Matter is racist violent organization. Trump said it. Scott Adams repeated it. And now anybody can say it. Is it true? Racist, absolutely, de-facto in the name and proudly proclaimed by any leaders. Violent, yes they have repeatedly stated violent means are justified to change the status quo. An organization? Who is receiving all these millions of dollars idiot corporations and virtue-signalling politicians/celebrities/crowd-funding twits are donating? As Tucker stated #BLM is now a political organization.
The movements may end but the symbols might remain because the leftists will protect them and removing them would be viewed as a "hate" crime. They paint BLM in front of Trump Towers and removing it is a hate crime. Meanwhile, if we paint MAGA on the street anywhere in America or "Jesus Saves", they would be removed instantly and would be demonized as being like painting a Swastika, burning cross, or a nose.
Noses are just as bad a nooses. The Jewish nose has been demonized throughout the ages including most recently in the Belgian anti-Semitic parade.
On the other hand, the founders are said to be lesbian witches (Yoruba variety apparently) so it's not all bad.
That Oklahoma ruling has bizarre implications, if rather complicated ones. If that ruling were applied more widely, would the Welsh or the Italians now rule England? How much of Scotland would the Irish rule and how much the Norwegians? Or must we find a DNA test to isolate those with Pictish ancestry? I'm pretty sure the Greeks will want Anatolia back, although that didn't work out all that well, a century ago.
I find it hard to believe (hard, but, sadly, not impossible) that a bunch of activist judges can come up with such a crazy ruling. I assume Gorsuch kidded himself that he was being the authentic Originalist, analysing the law with the purest motives, while the Leftists on the court, as always, acted a from nakedly political standpoint.
In its general consequences, the decision is stupid. In specific terms, it is downright evil.
The title of today's show gave me a momentary fight!
Of course, I meant fright. (Haven't even tipped a glass yet this evening!)
Kudos to historian Margaret MacMillan who resigned from Massey College's Quadrangle Club when journalist Margaret Wente was pressured to resign. My mother who at the age of 60 went to Trinity College at U. of T. to get a history degree loved her lectures and became a friend of MacMillan's. Here are her credentials:
Margaret MacMillan is a Professor of History at the University of Toronto and emeritus Professor of International History and the former Warden of St. Antony's College at the University of Oxford. Her books include Women of the Raj (1988, 2007); Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World (2001) (Peacemakers in the UK) for which she was the first woman to win the Samuel Johnson Prize; Nixon in China: Six Days that Changed the World (Seize the Hour: When Nixon Met Mao in the UK); The Uses and Abuses of History (2008); Extraordinary Canadians: Stephen Leacock (2009); The War that Ended Peace (2014). Her most recent book is History's People (2015). She is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature, Honorary Fellow of Trinity College, University of Toronto, Honorary Fellow of Lady Margaret Hall, St Hilda's College and St Antony's College at the University of Oxford. Margaret is also a Trustee of the Central European University in Budapest and the Imperial War Museum and sits on the editorial boards of International History and First World War Studies.
Margaret MacMillan is both a lady of great integrity and an estimable historian. Incidentally, though, I tend to be baffled as to why non-fiction books have different titles, on opposite sides of the Atlantic. I know that happens with movies all the time, but did Margaret MacMillan's account of the Versailles Conference really need two titles? I think it's just a ploy for Jeff Bezos to try to sell the same book to people twice over.
Although I know that there is no critical thinking to be found in the useful "triggerati" idiots of the Godless BLM/Khmer Noir and their co-conspirators, I am bemused by the reality that given slavery was common culture in all four corners of this planet for just about all of human history it seems entirely plausible that every US citizen - not just white but also black, brown, red, yellow, and every other hue - likely has descended from ancestors who somewhere in history were slave owners of one sort or another.
Unlike those who demand I confess the sin of white privilege and, on my knees, petition them for mercy, I am not unaware of my human failings or the failings of my ancestors. The source of all mercy and salvation comes from outside this world, so unless they enslave and shackle me they will never find me on my knees before them.
However, given today's trending insanity and the fact that the liberty we enjoy in this nation is an aberration in human history, I do not discount that I could experience such tyranny in my lifetime.
Well put, D.C.
I especially liked "triggerati" and "Khmer Noir."
"Triggerati" is from the genius of Mark Steyn. He uses it in this show. As we who follow Mark know, he has introduced some of the greatest coinages to the lexicon. Khmer Noir is my own coinage for reasons that have obviously resonated with you, and should resonate with anyone who knows the who, what, why, and how of Cambodia's Khmer Rouge, so thank you!
The court case does sound a bit like Mabo in Australia, doesn't it? The British annexation of Australia by Terra Nullius was made retrospectively illegal (even though at the time it was perfectly legal). Somehow the unlawful annexation gave rise to a perfectly lawful acquisition of title by the Crown (this being required to give the High Court any jurisdiction at all. Undoing TWO centuries of reality by judicial fiat - as well as the entire legitimacy of a nation. I often wonder whether the Privy Council would have tossed it out - these days, definitely not. Our first year lecturer explained it to a sea of nodding undergrad heads. Some years later a former Crown solicitor gently posited that the Mabo case might be better politics than law... crickets chirping.
Hey, I quite like being a Rightwing nutter!
Or as I like to call myself, a right wing gun owning nut. Although nutter is good
Thank you, Mark, for another gem. I hope this isn't considered a "commercial or other promotion," but do you think we might hope to see those "Feline Groovy" T-shirts and mugs before the end of all things?
A particularly poignant Last Call this time. Haunting. I was so moved, I had to pinch myself to remember that these honored dead passed not from an unavoidable plague, but from an engineered contagion developed--and then lied about repeatedly--by the Chinese Communist State. Everyone dies; Nick Cordero would have died eventually. But he and 557,240 others (at last count) are dead today because China lied, because the World Health Organization covered for them (is still covering for them), and a blood-dimmed tide was loosed. It figures it would be red.
Did you catch that "triggerati", Club members? A newly minted coinage, I believe.
Genius!
Typical of the Club's host -- I've come to expect no less. If the SCOTUS can make rulings out of thin air, he can make up a word to describe the anti-American behavior dominating the news.