State Street Hypocrites

The Wall Street Journal recently reported in one of those typical feel-good-right-side-of-history stories, written almost always by its female reporters, that financial firm State Street, based in, where else, Boston, is insisting that companies it does business with put more women on those company’s boards and that it would vote against board members who were insufficiently enthusiastic with such causes.

It’s giving companies a year to comply. Or else, I guess.

The CEO of State Street Global Advisors, one Ronald O’Hanley, not a woman, said, oddly,“If someone could convince us that the absence of diversity or gender diversity is not a problem, we’re leaving that open. Will they? I doubt it.”

So, Ronnie, would that little bit of business philosophy include State Street Global Advisors own “Leadership Team”? It’s a regular Boys Club — 23 men to 5 women. It’s parent company, State Street, features 62 men and 18 women in its “Leadership Team.”

Perhaps some of those chaps will be leaving and be replaced by someone with her sex organs on the inside? (An odd way to measure qualifications for employment in a financial company.)

No?

Hhhhmmmmm, the classic liberal behavior, do as I say not as I do; AKA hypocrisy.

What’s changing, increasingly, is that the liberals that have take over so much of American business are willing to employ those businesses as weapons against other Americans. They are also abandoning their fiduciary duties in service of liberalism, fascism and socialism.

But back to that March 7 story. It deploys the usual weepy statistics about the lack of women on boards and how those companies with women do so much better than the small handful that don’t have any; or at least they did several years ago when the “study” conducted by State Street (surprise!) said so.

The story has one last kiss — a picture of a Dega-esque statue that State Street planned to place in front of the famous Wall Street bulls statue. I gather she’s supposed to face them like that lone Chinese man faced the tanks in Tiananmen Square. Subtlety isn’t exactly a liberal specialty.

Historical accuracy isn’t one either. But then history doesn’t serve as history for history’s sake or to be learned from in the eyes of the liberal but rather slaved to the propaganda mission and if it has to be plasticized and recast into different forms as if it were Play-Doh, then so be it; it served its purpose.

Thornton Nails Liberal Hypocrisy

Bruce Thornton has written “Trump, Politics, and Our Sexual Schizophrenia,” a perfect crystallization of the recent (and latest) L’Affair Trump.

This is a great piece. Read it. I can’t do it justice it with my words. Thornton perfectly recounts the decades-long degradation of sexual values, mores and intercourse (not the act but the conversation) by Democrats and liberals and their utter hypocrisy by blushing at Trump’s language. It’s as if a lifelong prostitute complained that she was outraged that women were being treated like sex objects to be bought.

The gall is astounding, yet they get away with it.

So read it.

This leads me to the Washington Post’s Sally Jenkins. She had a Tuesday column, “No Leader Says Things Like That in [the] Locker Room,” wherein she claimed, vis a vis Donald Trump’s claim that he was just engaging in “locker room talk,” that “there is no such thing as ‘locker room talk.’”

Saying something like this reveals an obtuseness that should get her removed from the job she is supposedly paid to do.

She then lapses into accidentally acknowledging that such talk does exist while denigrating anyone that talks that way. Along the way she tut-tuts like a Victorian finishing school marm.

She gets around to labeling such talk as more like “sauna chatter between a couple of junior brokers.” While Jenkins has been in professional sports locker rooms as part of her job, I seriously doubt she’s ever been in a men’s sauna, especially when junior brokers were conversing.

She then gathers a handful of pro players in a painfully politically correct lecture. Professional gay Scott Fujita chimes in that he heard a lot of course talk in locker rooms but nothing about “casually boasting about a criminal sexual act…” Clearly Scottie wasn’t catching any of the rap tunes pounding around the room nor paying attention to any of the talk about the cheerleaders… But Scott’s gay so he probably tuned out all that het-sex stuff. Great choice of sources, Jenkins.

She also uses a couple of other players who deny they’ve ever heard any naughty talk at all, ever, honest… and to prove it she lapses into cataloguing the charity one of them is involved in. Wow, a guy involved in charity would never say such things… Case closed, Trump is guilty!

One might not like such talk but it’s a tradition from the pros to college to minor leagues and amateur sports; especially when dealing with males that have been idolized, patronized and socially coddled all of their lives.

Yes, there are clucks trying to ban such talk, feminize sports, instill political correctness but such talk happens amongst men. I’d bet that Fujita talks that way among his gay buddies when a hunk of beef goes by. Gays are notoriously fixated on sex and scoring since… uh… that’s their whole definition of existence.

But let’s take her claim on its merits, stipulating that she herself has never heard such talk in a locker room. This leads to several possible conclusions.

One, perhaps she’s never been in a locker room. No, she’s had to be there and has been one of those female reporters demanding access to naked players.

Two, she is deaf or has a lot of wax in her ears.

Three, players and coaches are on their best behavior when she’s around.

Four, she’s a lying politically-oriented hack.

The answer is three and four.

Though female sports reporters claimed that they didn’t want to be treated any different than men and that they are just as tough as the men, they pressured sports teams to have the players and coaches curtail their salty language because the girls found it offensive/harassing/uncomfortable. Surprise! Hypocrisy from liberals… They were aided by beta male journalists.

When the girls aren’t around the talk can revert back to other topics that they would find offensive (and they find most male things ‘offensive’).

Sally Jenkins a terrible sports reporter/writer. She’s an affirmative action hire (aided tremendously by being famed sports writer Dan Jenkins’ daughter) and proves it with nearly every column. She showed time and time again when covering the Redskins that she new little about football and after being given a second chance to cover the beat proved to have learned nothing. Rather than focusing on actual football, strategy, performance, stats, etc. she preferred to emphasize personalities.

A sports fanatic, wanting to learn something about the game or the players, will not read Jenkins. If you want the personality buzz, the scuttlebutt about who’s in or out, the sizzle behind the steak, then Sal’s your gal.

Jenkins, like the revolving selection of talentless female sports writers the WaPo sports section seems required to retain, tends to write less about sports as competition and a day-to-day event than just another politically-oriented venue where she can ultimately rant about injustice, lack of “fairness” and demand “equality.” That the female athletes she often writes about usually wouldn’t make a men’s high school team never enters her mind as she demands increased pay, prizes and facilities for female athletes. That few watch or care about so many female sports is not important to her or, obviously, her bosses.

Jenkins, like so many liberals prefers to live in a fantasy world. She wants the world to be as she wants it and demands that everyone else occupy that world rather than the world they inhabit.

And, finally, oh, yeah, please get your hack politics out of the sports section.

Boycotting General Mills

Following up on my piece on corporate insanity at General Mills, “The Children Are in Charge,”here’s the list of boycott targets.

Besides well-known cereals such as Cheerios, Chex, Cocoa Puffs, Frankenberry, Golden Grahams, Kix, Lucky Charms, Total, Trix, Wheaties, et al:

Betty Crocker/Bisquick (my main dumpling ingredient)

Bugles (Dang!)

Gold Medal Flour

Green Giant (Oy!)

Hamburger Helper

Jenos

Nature Valley

Old El Paso

Pillsbury

Progresso (Ouch!)

Totinos (I actually like their frozen pizzas and they are cheap)

Yoplait

and the organic fave, Annie’s

Here’s the master list at the company website.

Several of these are regularly on my shopping list but we have to make sacrifices in this cultural war and make our feelings felt.

Why Does the NCAA Have an Office of Inclusion?

If you want a gander at where liberals are steering us, check out the NCAA’s “Office of Inclusion.” Here’s a world where people are measured exclusively on skin color, gender (especially deviation from the norm) and sexual preferences (definitely deviation from the norm).

This is an effort with the same mindset as the old German SS’s office of racial purity.

The home page is enough to make one shake one’s head for the future of our country, at least on the college sports front. The banner of “Inclusion” seems to cover a very narrow group of people.

Ironically, the office itself is very uninclusive — with a staff of six (and two ‘interns’) made up of exclusively blacks and white women, with one “Asian” male, who handles “International Student Athletes.”

You can bet the head guy, Bernard Franklin draws a nice six figure salary. I wouldn’t be surprised if the two “Director(s) of Inclusion” — one for “Gender Equity and LGBTQ” and the other “Race/Ethnicity and Student Athletes With Disabilities,” — were also six-figure deadweights. One has a doctoral in “health and sport studies” while the other sports a doctoral in “sport administration.” Reading the bio descriptions is both laughable and frightening in the academic gobbledygook that describes the enormous Academic Grievance Industry that is dragging academia into the pit of Hell.

Do I even have to say that both are very versed in Title IX????

Sadly, things get no better down the staff directory with one young woman whose “responsibilities include promoting inclusion initiatives in the areas of gender equity and LGBTQ support and programming. She also serves to support the Committee on Women’s Athletics and the Gender Equity Task Force.” Her bona fides include: “She wrote her master’s thesis on the FAIR Education Act, a California law that mandated LGBT curriculum in schools, and how it both supported and negated Queer Theory.”

It could easily be concluded that everyone in the office is way overeducated and an extreme liberal of the politically correct flavor.

Other than the “Asian” male, all the paid staffers are female — not very “inclusive,” huh?

There are two “interns.” One seems to be female though she looks more like a young Kel Mitchell in “Mystery Men.” The other is a black male who, in a politically correct faux pas, seems to have been involved in a Cinco de Mayo planning committee. But he makes up for it in his other PC activities.

The “News” section is typical PC gibberish though amusingly it has one story about how the NCAA now demands that cities interested in hosting championship events must answer a questionnaire about how that city is going to stop discrimination against attendees of such events.

You mean like discrimination against conservative white males that your own office clearly practices?

I once again reiterate my boycott of the NCAA and all its events.

The Children Are in Charge

Power Line noted this bit of corporate insanity at General Mills. I can’t add much beyond a couple of small points.

One, it’s a private company so it can do whatever it wants — of course answering to the shareholders. Hopefully they are making shareholders aware of their idiocy.

Two, let’s examine this concept of contractors and suppliers by “consumer” composition. I think they have erred focusing only on sexist and racist solutions since probably a majority of their consumers are actually children. So the contractors and suppliers, along with the boardroom, should probably be half children. It also should include some criminals since criminals eat breakfast cereal. Probably a couple of morons too for the board. Oh, wait, sounds like “moron” is already taken care of.

Maybe they should also stack the board and determine contractors and suppliers by states and locales where they sell the most product.

I’m thinking that General Mills didn’t think their progressive bona fides all the way through. No matter how they cut it they will still be evil, discriminating bastards. They have yet to figure out that life itself is one discrimination after another.

Oh, and they make the point that I continually beat on here, liberals are politicizing everything. Now they are into the cereal.

My final note is that I will not be buying General Mills products any longer…

Maybe Ann Should Put a Steak on that Eye*

Maybe she liked the attention, maybe she didn’t, but no matter, the recent behavior at a “roast” of actor Rob Lowe taped by the misnamed network Comedy Central turned amazingly ugly when her fellow roasters made Ann Coulter the main target of their barbs. And while roasts can often have a few stray barbs go awry, often they are funny. At this roast the “jokes” were essentially, “Die, Ann Coulter, die, die, die in a horribly painful way.”

Sample joke from someone named Jimmy Carr: “Ann is one of the most repugnant, hateful, hatchet-face bitches alive. It’s not too late to change, Ann. You could kill yourself.”

Just hilarious. We’ll edit the laughs in during post.

Not exactly Richard Pryor or even Don Rickles, much less Jack Benny or Bob Hope.

I remind you that this was a roast of Rob Lowe.

You have to wonder whether the producers set this up or it just got out of hand in the hyperliberal Hollywood community? (Despite looking spontaneous, these things are somewhat choreographed.)

Google something along the line of “Ann Coulter” and “roast” or “Rob Lowe” to see how the mainstream media mob (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party) approvingly covered it.

Ignoring the obvious question, why Coulter would ever subject herself to such a gauntlet, why, in our apology-oriented world of political correctness, did so many feel so free to tear after a woman without fear of being dragged through a social media purgatory of endless apologizing and grovelling?

Clearly they feared no retaliation. No demands that they attend sensitivity training sessions. It was basically an Orwellian one-hour of hate directed at Goldstein/Coulter.

Imagine the same treatment if a single less-than-shining thing were said about, say, Amy Schumer, Lena Dunham, Leslie Jones or Joy Behar. There’d be a thermonuclear explosion demanding the head of the offender but a verbal public gang rape of Coulter is applauded by our media and liberal culture betters.

Something is seriously wrong in our liberal-dominated culture.

Make no mistake, we are in a culture war. It’s the equivalent of the Vietnam War. While we conservatives are the Americans, acting civilly, following “Romeo”s and trying to minimize damage and death, our socialist enemies are throwing everything they can at us. We have the power to destroy them but yet we let them win. We’ve seen this movie before, it doesn’t end well for us or society.

The liberals will purge us if they can and they’ll certainly have us in reeducation camps.

Boycott Comedy Central and “comedians” Nikki Glaser, Jimmy Carr, Rob Riggle along with singer Jewel. I’m also very disappointed in Peyton Manning for participating (even if it was lamely).

If you want to see how a roast is done right check out one of the old Dean Martin roasts from the 1960s and 1970s. Pointed and hilarious. How I miss Foster Brooks.

*As we’ve learned with the Clintons, rape or attempted rape is okay as long as liberals are doing it.

Our Lord of the Flies

When I was a kid and a young adult in the 1960s and 1970s (even into the 1980s), my grandparents in rural northern Texas loved Roosevelt, FDR, that is. Heck, everyone of that generation did. They praised him because he took care of them and saved them from the clutches of those awful Republican businessmen (who were out to steal their land — often to sell it to the railroad or some mysterious bogeyman — and take their money). The Republicans had  who had started the Depression after all. Or so they thought. Those small towns and counties and others like them throughout the South and rural West voted Democrat as sure as the sun was going to come up, decade after decade. If Satan had run as a Democrat, it’d be Mayor Satan.

Then they’d sit around the table and wonder why Washington couldn’t (magically) solve their problems. Yet, strangely, often they’d sound Republican, complaining about high taxes, big government, stupid policies, regulations and powerful bureaucrats controlling their lives… “Those ‘fellers’ in Washington,” simply didn’t understand, they’d complain. If only Roosevelt were back, he’d fix things right.

That Roosevelt had fixed nothing (arguably made things worse) was a proposition that could not enter their minds. They simply recalled things like getting electricity or telephone service “out to the farm” during his administration (technically it was probably late Hoover but…), a highway finally got paved (though most of the farm roads were still dirt roads) or often-unemployed Uncle Harry had joined the Civilian Conservation Corps and wrote them about it from Idaho. At least he wasn’t bumming around any longer… And even if not everything had been fixed, well, at least Roosevelt put the businessmen in their place and made them poor too. And there wasn’t a Republican in sight.

Then World War II came along and everything changed for those communities. All the kids and younger men “went off to war.” Most didn’t come back but resettled in a city somewhere. But the important thing was that Roosevelt won the war (and died for it) and prosperity came. See, his plan had worked, despite Republican machinations.They were pro-Nazi, in case you hadn’t heard.

For the most part, however, these people simply wanted to be left alone to get on with their lives and dealings. Roosevelt had done that too. It was the Republicans who were for the regulations or rigging the market that would “cheat” a farmer out of his profit or take money from a “widow woman and her children.”

There was an immutability about this world view.

I remember one time, in the early 1980s, when I had graduated from the kiddies’ area to floating on the periphery of the grown-ups table, pointing out that some bugaboo they were on about was actually a “Democrat” proposal. Needless to say, I never made that point again (and beat a retreat to the outdoors to play with my cousins). One grandmother was completely convinced for years that Reagan was going to raise “the taxes.” That’s what Republicans did to the little man. Then they were going to give that money to the rich people, bankers and their businessmen cronies. That’s how those folks got rich. She had seen it “on Dan Rather.” They religiously followed the TV news, Cronkite, then Rather. It was Gospel.

Roosevelt, and therefore Democrats, were always good and Republicans were always bad — that could never change no matter how much my elders and their neighbors actually sounded like Republicans in their day to day conversations. It was my first real collision with political reality.

It should be noted that as they passed on, bless their well-meaning hearts, those areas have turned and are now solidly Republican.

I bring this up because for many, perception is reality. Most voters really don’t dig into issues, no matter how much they think they are “informed.” Their knowledge comes from their “education” (controlled by Democrats — education unions and the hard left college professoriate), reinforced by the pop culture they read about in newspapers and books, see on TV or in movies (again, controlled by Democrats). They are marinated in this, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year: Republicans and anyone who follows them, e.g. “Big Business,” are bad, mean, stupid, evil, selfish, greedy, uncaring… You don’t want to be any of those things, do you? While Democrats and their supporters, on the other hand, are good and they care about you.

That’s all you need to know.

So it should be no surprise now that someone like Obama can get elected and reelected. He cares about you and works hard for you. He said so himself and so did the paper, CNN, Charlie Rose, Katie Couric, etc.

It should be no surprise that someone like Hillary Clinton (or most any other Democrat) manages to survive, even thrive and get rich despite manifest crimes and shocking incompetence. They aren’t Republicans and she says that she cares. That’s all you need to know.

No one should be surprised that so many, especially younger people, have become accustomed to being taken care of, for their whole lives. They are used to “free” things (Mom and Dad paid for it) like Obamacare, soon-to-be-expunged student loans and easy-term “federally-guaranteed” loans and mortgages. They think that big government will make everything right and even tuck them in at night and look under the bed for monsters. And someone else will pay for it, too!

As of late we seem to have entered a new round of this “Roosevelting” of the populace. We have a generation or more of youth entering adulthood and young adults who are bat-poo crazy, if the campus turmoil is any indication.

These people have grown up in the lap of luxury: fed a plentiful diet while living in quarters unseen for 99.9999% of mankind’s history; entertained as if they were Roman emperors; required to do nothing to support themselves; had no expectations expected of them; doted upon incessantly and indulged on most every (childish) whim; basically treated as minor deities all of their young lives. And, yet, somehow, they have convinced themselves that they are “victims;” put upon by vast, dark and unseen racist, sexist, classist forces; afflicted with horrific conditions (physical and mental); or forced to buy defective or dangerous products; eat poisoned food; breathe poisoned air; live in poisoned environments; etc. Every living moment presents dangerous, existential threats to them they are taught to believe.

How is this so?

Look at how they were educated from their first moments of sentience. They are bathed every second of their waking lives in an unending agitprop from newspapers, magazines, books, TV and movies (many songs too), community leaders, politicians and teachers at all levels telling them how awful things are; how so many people are trying to ruin them; how awful and illegitimate the past is; and how life itself is an omnipresent threat to their well-being. Few dare tell them otherwise (not that they would ever see such counters or understand them). They are told how special and smart they are and no one dares tell them otherwise lest they hurt their feelings. Every adult they encounter (like college administrators) bows to them as if they were potentates.

They are encouraged to express themselves, often in dramatic (even histrionic), emotional terms because emotions are considered to be more legitimate and “real” than anything else. They are told that everything they think and know is right and good while anyone who disagrees with them or has a different opinion is wrong, bad, bigoted and possibly dangerous to them. Such people might need to be avoided, exiled, reeducated or destroyed they, not surprisingly, reason.

They are told that most all businesses are bad, act illegally, cheat people, foul the environment, steal from others (including the government), endanger and underpay workers, sell dangerous products or services and are a threat to all that is good. They are told that people who are successful have succeeded by ill means and on the backs of others (including you!). There has never been a good business of any size above a few employees. These people and their businesses must be regulated, taxed, run out of business and have everything taken from them and given to others, allegedly more deserving. The only hope for businesses is to succumb to liberal governance, make little or no profit, hire only liberals and give money to, devote resources to and support only liberal causes. Then they can be part of an economic public-private partnership — and be guaranteed approved business while competitors justly feel the wrath of public and government disapproval and regulatory constriction.

They have grown up in a world where increasingly everything is to be politicized — either changed, banned or redeployed as a weapon to propagandize and remake society from its abominable past and flawed present into a perfect future society. A world where everything and every moment of life needs to be regulated or monitored for deviations from liberal orthodoxy (AKA all that is good).

They are told that all who came before them were flawed and imperfect, if not downright evil. Prime example — the United States. There are few lessons to be learned from the past. They were all racists, sexists, genderists, classists and are against so many things now seen as good by the important people of today. The past needs to be rewritten or disposed of.

They are never encouraged to sacrifice or act modestly, humbly. Those are ideas and behaviors, with a hint of religion around them, from the past (and the past is bad). The past can never be innocent, it must be tried and convicted. If it feels good it must be right is the new motto.

And there are many of those racists, sexists, genderists, classists still around and they need to be defeated, exiled, reeducated or simply destroyed. Their mere existence is an affront to all that is good and wonderful and hinders the coming of the utopian future that can only be inhabited by the young ones — because they are the only pure ones. There is no room for intellectual or personal miscegenation in the future.

This is their world view. It has become their religion (existent religions being one of those bad things from the past that must be disposed of). Is it any wonder that they turned out the way the did. Give a small, ignorant child a loaded gun and guaranteed that someone is going to get hurt.

So now we find ourselves entering some sort of “Lord of the Flies”-style world with liberals occupying the capricious leadership, constantly “saving” us from “The Beast” while eliminating those who do not subscribe to the prevailing groupthink, and all the rest of us are Piggy, Simon, Sam, Eric and the littluns. Of course that story had a happy ending. I’m not so sure ours will.

Gender Studies. What’s It Good For?

If you’ve been following the harrowing plight of the special snowflakes that now dominate our college campuses, you might have heard about a field of study called “Gender Studies.” Yes, you can get a degree in this “discipline.” It’s often combined with its grandmother, one of the pioneers in ludicrous studies, Women’s Studies.

So, what does one study in Gender Studies? It doesn’t seem to have much to do with biology or medicine. Until just recently there wasn’t much in the way of thought about it all. There were no great discoveries that changed anything. Had everyone before missed something?

It really seems to be about anger. Frustration. Confusion (the student’s) and confusing others (‘Hey, mom and dad, guess what? I’m not a boy and I’m not a girl… By the way, I need more tuition money.’) Viewing oneself as a victim is encouraged as is grievance-mongering. Lots of grievance-mongering and making alliances with other grievance-mongers. And lots of self-affirmation, self-esteem-building.

All of that is leavened with a sense of entitlement and energized with an arrogance that is astounding. Yet, they consider themselves victims of oppressive powers.

The reality is that there isn’t much to learn but there is a lot of navel gazing, attitude adjustment, group hugging, etc.

There are no “Yes or no” questions on the tests. I doubt there are any tests since those are probably considered a false construct of the heteronormative oppressive patriarchy.

All Gender Studies really is is very expensive four-year (or more if you go for the grad degree) therapy.

And amazingly a lot of schools are involved in this academic fraud. It’s another of the multiplying the easy-peasy indulgent “studies” courses to peddle to the precious snowflakes and continue to expand the Education-Industrial Complex.

So, what does it prepare you for (besides being a lifetime basket case)? Not much. Certainly nothing productive. The likely destinations? Academia, government and the burgeoning grievance and diversity industry. In many ways all it does is prepare the person to promote and create more people just like them while destroying the healthy parts of society. Kind of like a virus in the body.

North Carolina On My Mind or Tranny Tyranny

Here are some random(ish) thoughts on the North Carolina situation (AKA the bathroom protection edict).

The misnamed Human Rights Campaign, a week ago, was sending out email press releases chortling how they had 70, then 80, then 90, then 100 companies demanding that North Carolina rescind the law in question. (The Washington, D.C. radio news station WTOP practically read these press releases as their news reports, actually saying the North Carolina law ‘removed important protections for the LGBT community’ rather than it was simply clarifying what has been policy throughout history, which is what it does.)

Five years ago you couldn’t have gotten those companies, a large number of them household names, to agree to something as natural, inconsequential and inoffensive as acknowledging that holding a cuddly, purring kitten is a pleasant experience.

“Eh, we don’t want offend the fish and the bird people,” one would have squawked while another might have grumbled, “Dog people won’t like it and we do a million dollars a year in business with dog people.” “Cats shed and many people are allergic to them,” another might have protested while someone would have tossed out, “Certain religions are suspicious of cats and, frankly, cats can’t be trusted.” And so on it would have went with the motion finally tabled.

So why have these companies gone so far out on a limb with a highly contentious issue that is guaranteed to infuriate a large number (if not a majority) of their customers or prospective customers? Why are they openly equating those who disagree with them as bigots, bad people and possibly criminals? Why are they politicizing something that has little to nothing to do with their businesses? Why do they blatantly misrepresent the situation to make it sound like a long-held basic Constitutional right is being taken from everyone? Why are they actively and effectively declaring war on whole states? These states, if pushed too far, could start moving against these companies via regulatory and legal routes. The only people who win then are lawyers.

Where’s the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on this?

Despite their endless antibusiness rhetoric, liberals have slowly insinuated themselves into the highest echelons of corporate America. Just like education, the media and Hollywood, liberals have taken over the reins of power in many corporations and they have no compunction about wielding that corporation not as a business entity but as a weapon for liberal political goals. They don’t care about the business. Shareholders and investors, make no mistake, these liberals will run a company into the ground in pursuit of their goals. They don’t share your goals.

Liberals have complained for decades about the bad influence and power of corporations yet they haven’t the slightest hesitancy about using that power for their own ends. Yet another case of liberal hypocrisy and projection.

These liberals do not understand (or perhaps don’t care) that in the case of publicly-held companies they are caretakers and are to act in the shareholders’ (AKA owners) best interests. These companies are not the personal property of these social justice warriors nor are they an arm of the Democratic National Committee nor the disingenuous Human Rights Campaign. But as education, the media and entertainment have become stalking horses for the DNC and other socialists, so does “corporate” America.

It should be noted that many of these corporations have significant and growing “Diversity” offices and spend millions on “diversity” efforts. In many cases these companies have cooked their own gooses. The removal of these of these “diversity” offices need to be part of a movement that includes their exorcism from college campuses. They are racist, sexist, discriminatory and destructive entities.

Do these companies really have large numbers of people (confused men) who want to use the ladies room? Seriously, is there some enormous heretofore unseen group of people (mentally unstable men) who have to use the ladies room? Or is this just catering to a handful of disturbed people at the expense of a lot of other perfectly normal people? There certainly is no business goal involved here — it is merely SJWs using business resources to shove something else down the throats of people who disagree with them.

I wouldn’t be the first to note that liberals like to use the exception to build social and legal policy around while telling the majority to shove it.

Many warned that if the gay marriage issue was ceded that it wouldn’t end there. I TOLD YOU SO!

But no, moderate Republicans — with your big hearts, moaned that it wasn’t such a big deal and maybe if we gave in (‘compromised’) on that issue they’d be satisfied and we’d show how nice we really are and get invited to cool parties… EAT IT! OWN IT! YOU WERE WRONG! NOW SHUT UP AND HAVE THE DECENCY TO RETIRE FROM LEADERSHIP! (Okay, I’ll take the Caps Lock off now.)

If you think that letting the wolfpack gnaw off your foot will satisfy them you are a fool.

NFL: Fight “Discrimination” by Actually Discriminating

ESPN has a nauseating story, “Roger Goodell: Women Will Interview for Open Executive Jobs.” This is an extension of the NFL’s repellent and racist “Rooney Rule,” now turned sexist as well.

I don’t have anything against women interviewing for the jobs. The NFL likely hires from outside for executive suite jobs all the time so it should consider interviewing all sorts of qualified candidates. Not every job in the NFL executive office would require football experience. But one gets the suspicious feeling that there is something else going on here.

The NFL already has plenty of women at the HQ — a number of them in do-nothing or mischief-making jobs. An example is Anna Isaacson, a liberal who has the no doubt well-paying job of Vice President for Social Responsibility. VP of “Social Responsibility”? Talk about a mischief-making job designed to funnel money to a liberal activist.

Then there’s a whole gaggle of women involved in the NFL’s “domestic violence” campaign. Isaacson seemed to be driving the bus in the whole Greg Hardy episode. They also have women at the top of Marketing and Public Policy, along with the CIO.

NFL Commissioner, the hapless Roger Goodell said, “Last but not least, it’s management, and when I say that, it’s about diversity in our management. We believe in diversity… We believe we’re better as an organization when we have good people at the table. We have great people at the table. We’re also seeing it on the field.”

So, Rog, we really gonna be seein’ “diversity” on the field as well? Yeah, I didn’t think so, you flaming hypocrite.

But then they are pushing teams to hire female coaches for jobs that they could in no-way have any experience in. We’re not talking here about nutrition jobs or something not involved in actual football; where a non-football background and experience can be very important. How many women played high school, college or pro football? That’s kind of valuable experience for these jobs. A person would really have to be superqualified in other things to be hired over people who have actual experience in the job. This is all just more politically correct waste. America wastes so many resources in this type pretend nonsense; much of it forced by government edict.

And the fun continues. The ESPN article says, “Michelle McKenna-Doyle, a senior VP and CIO for the league, said this week the NFL launched a website where interested candidates can create profiles for jobs. That way, even if a position isn’t currently available, the NFL will have a list of women and minority candidates when jobs do become available. McKenna said the league’s internal women’s affinity group conceived of the idea to build the number of women in the pipeline.”

The NFL has an “internal women’s affinity group.” Isn’t that precious. Isn’t that a bit discriminatory?

A website that collects resumes only from select people of a certain sex or skin color? Isn’t that illegal?

How much did you, Mr. (and Ms.) Football Fan, pay for that ticket again?

Apparently all this was announced at the NFL’s “Women’s Summit.” Yeah, they have one. Why? I have no rational idea. Every industry has them; usually many of them. My industry, broadcast, has dozens of them. My company gives them free ads in all our publications and on our websites. We also have at least two of them ourselves. We don’t have a “Men’s Summit” or anything like it. Nobody does. You’d be sued out of existence if you did.

Billie Jean King was brought in to speak at the “Women’s Summit.” Why? Oh, yeah, she played tight end for the Packers, remember? Oh, wait, she has nothing to do with the NFL, her game was tennis. But she still makes most every stop on this battle of the sexes circuit.

Condi Rice made an appearance too. I like Condi but she’s the “bipartisan” face at way too many of these events and she’s often shown ingratitude to the very people who didn’t judge her by the color of her skin but rather by the content of her character. “Most of the mentors in my field were white men. They were mostly old white men,” she complained (or sucked up). Condi, honey, you’re a smart girl. Didn’t you notice that a lot of your mentors were Eastern European and Soviet Russian immigrants and defectors; the verty people who lived the life? There’s just not going to be a lot of “brothers” or “sisters” in a group focusing on the old Soviet Union and its satellites. I guess that’s part of the grand racial conspiracy to keep minorities down… Man, that is some conspiracy.

According to Power Line’s Paul Mirengoff the league is legally obligated to not discriminate, which I gather means that it has to fill its positions with 52% women. Does that include the on-field positions?

Does it strike anyone as a little odd that to reach the utopic perfect “nondiscriminatory” gender balance in all jobs we have to empower a regime of pure discrimination?

Oddly, the ESPN article says, “According to the NFL, 30 percent of the employees in the league’s front office are women.” So that’s a problem? That’s considered not enough?

Well, it’s all just another reason why I no longer watch the NFL. Now if I could only stop writing about it!