The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Philip Giraldi ArchiveBlogview
Social Justice Lunacy
We are all victims
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Gretchen Carlson
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Many years ago I went through the usual evolution for a young American of my age and class, discovering that there was a great deal of injustice and warmongering in the world and pledging myself to do something about it. That lasted through senior year of high school and for about six months of college. At university the professional liberals were a powerful clique run, ironically enough, by a group of dilettantes who were always talking about class and race even though they were all white and came from wealthy families. If any of them had ever had to work for a living like the people they were pretending to help they would have quit the first time they got their hands dirty. They were also profoundly humorless and sanctimonious to a degree that was very sixty-ish and is sometimes hard to imagine these days, radiating a sense of preening self-satisfaction that would astonish the Cheshire cat.

So I decided early on in college that I had to do something different. Influenced by friends who were going through a similar transition, I began to call myself a conservative even though I didn’t know what the word meant and I found Barry Goldwater indigestible. I did, however, admire William F. Buckley’s vocabulary. By the time I was a senior and the liberal intelligentsia had occupied the school administration building fourth floor to protest Vietnam I was pretty hard core Republican. I joined with a fraternity brother down below. Every time a window would be opened and a head would pop out we would yell in unison “Jump! Jump! We’ll catch you!” Alas, they didn’t trust us to do so.

But then came my time in the Army followed by many years with CIA. My belief that either those who called themselves conservatives or Republicans were any more sensible than liberals evaporated though I did note that Republicans dressed better, drove nicer cars and were in general more hygienic. More recently, frequently arguing against Israel’s role in U.S. foreign policy, I have tended to cooperate with multiple variations on progressives and self-styled conservatives, generally without much friction, but occasionally something out of the past really rings my bell.

I have to confess that I cringe when I hear the word Ferguson and I have assiduously tried to ignore immigration amnesty advocates, Black Lives Matter and the whole LGBT bathroom controversy coming from the left as well as the Second Amendment crowd, Truthers and global warming deniers coming from the right but this past week proved to be a bit too much. I was reading about the Gretchen Carlson sexual harassment lawsuit against the revolting Roger Ailes of Fox news, concerning claims inter alia that the rotund and unpalatable Ailes had demeaned and sexually propositioned ex-Miss America Carlson and then fired her when she refused to be cooperative. It was an oft-repeated tale which I have witnessed in numerous television dramas so I skimmed through the story until I discovered something astonishing. Carlson, it seems, was “objectified” while working at Fox.

My normal bullshit in the media sensors were clearly not fully operational, possibly having burned out during the previous week when I had suffered through a lengthy article describing how someone was not hired for a job because of “ageism,” but this “objectification” was clearly something new and exciting. I went back to the beginning of the article and read it more carefully to see if I could find out what it was. Yes, it turns out that being objectified is a new grievance that can be exploited against Caucasian male domination. The article elaborates: “At one point in the video…[Fox & Friends co-host Steve] Doocy asks Carlson if she learned a certain journalism skill at another ‘Broad-casting’ gig. Not to be outdone, Brian Kilmeade calls Carlson a ‘skirt’ from the other side of the couch, and admits he should probably re-read Human Resource’s sexual harassment policies. Even guests have gotten in on the action by complimenting her appearance, or commenting on her clothing. Colleagues also used words like ‘cute’ and ‘hot’ to describe her physical appearance.”

Admittedly the crude comments are pretty revolting but they reveal that being objectified is to be turned into an object, in this case a sex object. One might note, however, that Carlson, whose road to fame included her posing in a swimsuit, could possibly owe her prominent position at Fox to her undeniable attractiveness. She also may have moved quickly up the corporate ladder due to her appearance, success that can in part be due to to her having been objectified.

Wondering if objectification is a recognized social phenomenon, I consulted a reliable source. Merriam-Webster has a definition for “objectify” which is “to treat (someone) as an object rather than as a person.” It did not add that objectification is apparently grounds for a lawsuit in today’s America. I wondered if I could find other examples of the consequences of people being objectified but could not and have to wonder if it can also be applied to ethnic or racial minorities or believers in different religions. Is the frequently heard and to my mind highly offensive “raghead” when referring to an Arab objectification? Or did it apply when I was growing up Catholic and was referred to as a “mackerel snapper” because we ate fish on Fridays? I don’t know and will leave that to the experts.

I might have survived the objectified controversy but was soon subjected to another bit of social justice lunacy. There is apparently a powerful movement afoot among the no-gender-in-anything crowd to replace the venerable gender specific singular pronouns “he” and “she” with sexually neutral but normally plural “they.” The debate over the pronouns was recently discussed in a Huffington Post piece entitled “It’s Time to Embrace the Singular ‘They:’ A Humanistic Pronoun,” written by the appropriately named Maddie Crum, the “Cultural Editor” for Huffpost (honest, I am not making this up!)

Corporate America and many in academia have long embraced using a form of “they” in grammatically challenged sentences like “Everyone is entitled to their opinion” but Crum goes much farther than that, providing as an example of her preferred usage “My friend ate a bagel. They beamed with perfect joy.” She never quite explains why “they” singular is “humanistic” but she describes the proposed ascendancy of “they” as the linguistic equivalent of “tearing down gendered bathroom signs” and eliminating other “dividers and stand between men, women and people who identify as non-binary.” One commenter on her piece refers to the emergence of an “identity-sensitive lexicon.” And for those who still doubt, Crum notes that the “verbally gracious” singular “they” was awarded the “Word of the Year” prize by the world renowned American Dialect Society! Crum also observes sagaciously that using “they” instead of the sexist pronouns provides anonymity on the internet.

I usually write about foreign policy and boring stuff like that but for the moment I cannot think of anything more empowering to the human race than changing a singular pronoun to a plural pronoun and then pretending that the plural pronoun is actually singular. Unless it’s being objectified and going to court seeking damages for sexual harassment.

Seriously folks, is there any end to this nonsensical victimhood culture where everyone has a grievance that can be pursued? In the old days you could flee north to the Yukon territory and build a cabin to hide in but today Canadians probably have an excess of this sort of thing too, possibly even worse than here as they suffer from the social justice bug even more than we Americans do. I feel like I am back in high school in New Jersey with all the smart people embracing causes that they neither understood nor really believed in just to be relevant and feel good about themselves. But today if I were a teacher and a student used “they” as a singular pronoun it would merit an “F.” If someone were to complain to me about being “objectified” I would tell them to “Get the hell out of here.”

 
• Category: Humor, Ideology, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: American Media, Roger Ailes 
103 Comments to "Social Justice Lunacy"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Actually, I think “they” is a good compromise.

    “If a person wants to complain, they have a right to.” Is that really such a horrible construction?

    Is the grammatically correct alternative “…., he has a right to” really in any way superior? Does it impart any more useful information? Not that I can see.

    I hate SJWs (and leftists in general) as much as anyone ever has. And I’m assuredly way more of a “racist” than the timid Giraldi. So this has nothing to do with my political leanings. It just seems like a good idea on its own terms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bolteric
    Why should we, non-SJWs, non-non-binary, adjust our language to make THEM ("you people" - where appropriate) more comfortable?

    HE or she needs to just get over it, along with the black radical activists who just spread mayhem and lawlessness (Shaun King, et. al.)
    , @Bill

    “If a person wants to complain, they have a right to.” Is that really such a horrible construction?
     
    "If one wants to complain, one has a right to" is already available and is superior. You're just being a pinhead. SJW's are not asking permission to use "they" or "one," they are demanding that anyone who uses "he" be fired. Plus, they are not thinking about your example, they want it to be mandatory to say: "When Donald Trump ordered lunch, they got a taco bowl." "They" referring to Donald Trump.
    , @Anonymous

    “If a person wants to complain, they have a right to.” Is that really such a horrible construction?
     
    How about, "If people want to complain, they have a right to"?
    , @jb
    I despise the whole SJW thing, but when writing I have often felt the need for a gender neutral third person singular. Plenty of other languages don't have separate words for "he" and "she", so it's not like it's some kind of linguistic requirement. English has already lost most of its original Indo-European gender distinctions, and its pronouns have also undergone significant change in the fairly recent past (e.g., the loss of "thee" and "thou"). Using "they" and "them" in place of "he/she" and "him/her" wouldn't be that different from losing the second person singular/plural distinction -- i.e., not really that big a deal. So I guess I'm OK with it. If it catches on it will always sound kind of strange to me, but at least "they" is a real English word, not some invented monstrosity like "ze."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pgiraldi/social-justice-lunacy/#comment-1487708
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Even though the absence of a singular they is a mild deficiency of the English language, we must pause and ask ourselves why it is there. Could it be that there were (and are) real and immutable differences between the sexes? And are we ready to whitewash history (and reality) in the attempt to promote the most facile notion of equality?

    For the record, I am willing to refer to Caitlyn Jenner (who gave a speech at my junior high school in 1976) as it, but only if he has the surgery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    English has a singular "they." It's called "he."
    , @mtn cur
    What about "IT."
    , @Jim
    The Indo-European gender system has almost completely disappeared in Modern English. "He/she" is one of the few remaining vestiges. In many other Indo-European languages like German, Icelandic, Modern Greek, etc. it is still very much present. Reforming languages like these to get rid of gender would be such a difficult task that it probably would be a lot simpler to just forbid the use of such languages. The people in Iceland should be required to speak Chinese and give up Icelandic.

    The Eskimo-Aleut languages are interesting in this regard in that some aspects of the grammar differ according as to the sex of the speaker and listener. That is if a woman is talking to a woman in some situations a different morphological form is used than when a man is talking to a man.

    The evidence that behavior is influenced to any significant extent by the grammatical structure of
    the language spoken is essentially non-existent despite repeated speculation along these lines.
  3. But today if I were a teacher… I would tell them to “Get the hell out of here.”

    You’d eventually get fired. The best you can do is roll your eyes and make a caustic comment. Hopefully it goes over the kid’s head.

    That’s why we all come to Unz–to exercise what’s left of our free speech.

    Read More
  4. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I was shocked to hear Gretchen Carlson use the white male priveledge card when she herself is an attractive blond white lady who obviously used her looks to her advantage.

    Kudos to Philip to call her out.

    On another note, who here thinks Megyn Kelly had to have sex with Roger Ailes to get her show? Don’t tell me she got it on talent alone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "On another note, who here thinks Megyn Kelly had to have sex with Roger Ailes to get her show?"
     
    Which begs the question, who got the short end of the stick. Seriously, Megyn's total pay package is reputedly $9m per annum ... I might do Ailes for that action.
  5. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I pass as a dear old lady but think you guys are wonderful. Keep it up!

    Read More
  6. JackOH says:

    I’m conflicted here. Carlson obviously owes some of her success to her striking good looks. Ailes, working from the Van Gordon Sauter “infotainment” playbook, is known for hiring eye candy. If the allegations against Ailes are true, the man’s a slob. It’s not clear to me if his alleged propositions were a way of forcing her out. Did he not know she was married?

    I’ve worked with two workplace womanizers. Both severely damaged workplace trust. One manager resorted to embezzlement to hold on to his workplace honey.

    When working with a beautiful woman, I try to find a good moment to ask lightly: “You taking any compliments today?” followed by something like, “You’re a very good-looking woman. Let’s make this project work.” It seems to put them at ease.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Your type of carefully worded approach should be encouraged - I would say taught but fear that it takes a few spare IQ points to achieve felicity - and i proffer my own long used formula for male to almost any woman. It is "and what keeps you busy?"

    It avoids all presumptions about career or other possibly sensitive subject and can produce some amusing responses from relaxed and/or confident - or indeed resentful - women. Variations to taste and consider using it on possibly retired men as in "and what keeps you busy when you are not doing important things here [at the tennis club]?"
    , @artichoke
    She was quite old, was getting fat and had other issues makeup could no longer cover, was looking worse than the new eye candy. Ratings down, out she goes.

    How does this make Ailes a bad guy? Maybe he shouldn't have hired her in the first place ... If Carlson doesn't go out, another woman doesn't get a chance during her good looking years.
  7. @Anonymous
    I was shocked to hear Gretchen Carlson use the white male priveledge card when she herself is an attractive blond white lady who obviously used her looks to her advantage.

    Kudos to Philip to call her out.

    On another note, who here thinks Megyn Kelly had to have sex with Roger Ailes to get her show? Don't tell me she got it on talent alone.

    “On another note, who here thinks Megyn Kelly had to have sex with Roger Ailes to get her show?”

    Which begs the question, who got the short end of the stick. Seriously, Megyn’s total pay package is reputedly $9m per annum … I might do Ailes for that action.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    [Which begs the question, who got the short end of the stick]

    It only has one free end, and the girl with the silly name got that, for sure.
  8. Collateral damage is an example of objectification.

    Roger Ailes is the inspiration for Jabba the Hutt. Fox news is an abomination. Rupert Murdoch is in the service of evil. The Fox News bimbos are at least decorative. There. I objectified them.

    Read More
  9. Kirt says:

    So what do you do about all those languages in which the word for “they” is also gender specific? Every western Indo-European language I’m familiar with is gender saturated. Only English is relatively neutral and hence more subject to PC manipulation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vladimir
    I'm sure the left's Muslim allies will have no problem altering their various languages for the cause of gender identity justice.
    , @Ganderson
    The SJWs in Sweden are working to get rid of "han and hon" (he and she). Can't remember what the replacement is. 'De' is the gender neutral term for they. Dunno if that' on the way out, too.
  10. 5371 says:
    @The Alarmist

    "On another note, who here thinks Megyn Kelly had to have sex with Roger Ailes to get her show?"
     
    Which begs the question, who got the short end of the stick. Seriously, Megyn's total pay package is reputedly $9m per annum ... I might do Ailes for that action.

    [Which begs the question, who got the short end of the stick]

    It only has one free end, and the girl with the silly name got that, for sure.

    Read More
  11. I usually write about foreign policy and boring stuff like that but for the moment I cannot think of anything more empowering to the human race than changing a singular pronoun to a plural pronoun and then pretending that the plural pronoun is actually singular.”

    Pretending things is the trend now, more than ever.

    Read More
  12. Seriously folks, is there any end to this nonsensical victimhood culture where everyone has a grievance that can be pursued?

    Everyone? Who is an everyone? Men don’t get to do this, White feminist women get to claim endless, bullshit grievance and all of it involves cash and prizes. I don’t see Black women doing this much of this. Hispanics? Nope. Homo-men? Not so far. This is the tried-and-true method of cashing out for aging, has-been White Feminist women in media. The unmitigated gall of a woman suing for being gazed at who made her fortune solely because she was a good looking object (we all saw those short-short skirts you voluntarily donned, Gretchen) is an breathtaking. She sucked up attention, money and esteem based on her looks, period. She was a potted plant, a ventriloquist’s dummy in dirty bleach.

    She was never a serious writer or journalist or beat reporter. She was a good looking broad a long time ago who was in the right time and place when news outfits had to have women. And that’s it. Media is loaded with them, they’ve wormed their way into news, entertainment and they’ve infested even my beloved football and golf like a persistent rash and they’re morons and why? Feminism, and they’re all White Feminists with a media “degree”. Meanwhile, Gretchen and the rest of her ilk are well past their stale dates now and they’re trying to shake a little nuisance money from the tree and the label and complaint is “objectification”. Justice would be to tell her and all the other spoiled White women to be happy that they once were objectified. Jesus H. Christ in a hand basket, when does this end?

    Read More
  13. Seriously folks, is there any end to this nonsensical victimhood culture where everyone has a grievance that can be pursued?

    No. And the reason is that it pays well. Even the rulers of the world can pose as victims, form cliques, and succeed like you wouldn’t believe.

    “There’s no business like the victim business.”

    BTW, your first three paragraph are exceptional gems.

    Read More
  14. Bolteric says:
    @silviosilver
    Actually, I think "they" is a good compromise.

    "If a person wants to complain, they have a right to." Is that really such a horrible construction?

    Is the grammatically correct alternative "...., he has a right to" really in any way superior? Does it impart any more useful information? Not that I can see.

    I hate SJWs (and leftists in general) as much as anyone ever has. And I'm assuredly way more of a "racist" than the timid Giraldi. So this has nothing to do with my political leanings. It just seems like a good idea on its own terms.

    Why should we, non-SJWs, non-non-binary, adjust our language to make THEM (“you people” – where appropriate) more comfortable?

    HE or she needs to just get over it, along with the black radical activists who just spread mayhem and lawlessness (Shaun King, et. al.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    I didn't suggest doing it to make them more comfortable; I called it a good idea in its own right. I've felt uncomfortable having to use a generic "his" or "he" in those contexts ever since grade school. It's always struck me as grammatically - not morally - wrong. Of course, it isn't actually grammatically wrong at all, but so what? Grammars evolve, and at least in this restricted sense, I believe it's high time English grammar did.
  15. Vladimir says:
    @Kirt
    So what do you do about all those languages in which the word for "they" is also gender specific? Every western Indo-European language I'm familiar with is gender saturated. Only English is relatively neutral and hence more subject to PC manipulation.

    I’m sure the left’s Muslim allies will have no problem altering their various languages for the cause of gender identity justice.

    Read More
  16. iffen says:

    Why do conservative types feel compelled to defend sexual harassment?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    Why do you hate America?
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Why do conservative types feel compelled to defend sexual harassment?
     
    Fighting harrassment is not the job of the state, but of the male relatives.
  17. woodNfish says:

    the crude comments are pretty revolting

    Geez, what a flaming pussy you are, Giraldi, you limp-wristed whiner! Get over yourself! Carlson has ALWAYS made it on her looks. She even ran for Miss amerika what the hell do you think she won that on, her IQ? And leftists aren’t “progressive”, they are regressive! Just look at the women on FOX (which I no longer watch) – almost every one of them is a bottle blond if they aren’t a real blond. They know they are there as eye-candy as much as to try and add something to the conversation. Carlson’s lawsuit is BS like her talent. All she has are her looks and everyone who worked with her knew it.

    Read More
  18. Ganderson says:
    @Kirt
    So what do you do about all those languages in which the word for "they" is also gender specific? Every western Indo-European language I'm familiar with is gender saturated. Only English is relatively neutral and hence more subject to PC manipulation.

    The SJWs in Sweden are working to get rid of “han and hon” (he and she). Can’t remember what the replacement is. ‘De’ is the gender neutral term for they. Dunno if that’ on the way out, too.

    Read More
  19. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “My friend ate a bagel. They beamed with perfect joy.” Both of them??

    Read More
  20. @Bolteric
    Why should we, non-SJWs, non-non-binary, adjust our language to make THEM ("you people" - where appropriate) more comfortable?

    HE or she needs to just get over it, along with the black radical activists who just spread mayhem and lawlessness (Shaun King, et. al.)

    I didn’t suggest doing it to make them more comfortable; I called it a good idea in its own right. I’ve felt uncomfortable having to use a generic “his” or “he” in those contexts ever since grade school. It’s always struck me as grammatically – not morally – wrong. Of course, it isn’t actually grammatically wrong at all, but so what? Grammars evolve, and at least in this restricted sense, I believe it’s high time English grammar did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @guest
    Why do you think "they" is a good idea in its own right? That word is, or used to be, reserved for referring to two or more people. How is it helpful to have a word that refers both to two or more people and one person of indeterminate gender? That's confusing.

    Some people are willing to go to any length to solve the nonexistent problem of using the male pronoun when you don't know whether the person in question is male or female. And "they" is marginally better than "he or she." But if it ain't broke don't fix it. "He" is perfectly fine on its own, and "they" confuses me.

    This isn't evolution, by the way. Maybe it will be eventually, after people forget. But for now it's being pushed deliberately, for reasons other than convenience, or whatever you think it is. It's more like eugenics.
  21. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Ganderson
    The SJWs in Sweden are working to get rid of "han and hon" (he and she). Can't remember what the replacement is. 'De' is the gender neutral term for they. Dunno if that' on the way out, too.

    Hen.

    Read More
  22. Rehmat says:

    Getting social justice in America is like finding a needle in a garbage dump facility. America “social justice” like its “democratic values” is also for export only – or a tool to bring regime change in a non-friendly country.

    In April 2016, a group of Palestinians affected by Zionist regime’s ‘land grab’ activities filed a $34.5 billion lawsuit against US Jewish Oligarchs, Jewish charities, and pro-Israel Christian groups supporting West Bank illegal Jewish settlements. The lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court of Columbia in the United States. The lawsuit was filed by Washington-based law firm Martin McMahon and Associates.

    The plaintiffs include Susan Abulhawa, a prominent American Palestinian writer, author, human rights activist, and blogger, and Bassim Tamimi, who has been incarcerated and tortured numerous times by the Israeli security thugs for staging peaceful weekly protests.

    According to a statement issued by the law firm, the lawsuit is against construction companies, security firms, real estate agencies and private banks involved in supporting the growth of Israeli settlements in the Jewish occupied West Bank.

    The case will also include Palestinians subjected to Israeli attacks which resulted in the loss of life, property and agricultural land in Palestinian Authority controlled areas.

    The defendants include prominent pro-settlement Jewish oligarchs such as casino tycoon and political donor Sheldon Adelson, bingo tycoon Irving Moskowitz, and evangelic pastor John Hagee, and the US tax exempt charities like Christian Friends of Israeli Communities and Friends of the Israeli Army…..

    https://rehmat1.com/page/26/?archives-list&archives-type=months

    Read More
    • Replies: @FLgeezer
    Lawfare at its most virulent; did you see where the Israelis are suing Facebook (founded by gazillionaire Marc Zuckerberg) for allegedly providing a forum for Hamas. Give the izzies credit for knowing where the money is. And just imagine the lawyer jobs that will result. Absolutely hilarious!
    , @RobinG
    Thanks for the link to the case, Rehmat.

    Susan Abulhawa was at Sunday's DC screening of the film "Occupation of the American Mind: Israel’s Public Relations War in the United States"
    See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/the-occupation-of-the-american-mind-documented/#sthash.kyydRx6c.dpuf

    http://www.occupationmovie.com/
  23. guest says:
    @silviosilver
    I didn't suggest doing it to make them more comfortable; I called it a good idea in its own right. I've felt uncomfortable having to use a generic "his" or "he" in those contexts ever since grade school. It's always struck me as grammatically - not morally - wrong. Of course, it isn't actually grammatically wrong at all, but so what? Grammars evolve, and at least in this restricted sense, I believe it's high time English grammar did.

    Why do you think “they” is a good idea in its own right? That word is, or used to be, reserved for referring to two or more people. How is it helpful to have a word that refers both to two or more people and one person of indeterminate gender? That’s confusing.

    Some people are willing to go to any length to solve the nonexistent problem of using the male pronoun when you don’t know whether the person in question is male or female. And “they” is marginally better than “he or she.” But if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. “He” is perfectly fine on its own, and “they” confuses me.

    This isn’t evolution, by the way. Maybe it will be eventually, after people forget. But for now it’s being pushed deliberately, for reasons other than convenience, or whatever you think it is. It’s more like eugenics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    And “they” is marginally better than “he or she.” But if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. “He” is perfectly fine on its own, and “they” confuses me.
     
    On the other hand, if it is broke, do. And that's what I'm trying to do: fix it.

    It's happening independently of what I think anyway. If this usage of "they" is adopted, you'll simply be shit out of luck, so I recommend you get to work if you want stop being so confused.

    The French vous addressed to an individual initially confused me too. It didn't take long for it to start sounding natural, though. That's the beauty of human languages: they're designed so that even the dumbest among us can understand them.
  24. guest says:
    @landlubber
    Even though the absence of a singular they is a mild deficiency of the English language, we must pause and ask ourselves why it is there. Could it be that there were (and are) real and immutable differences between the sexes? And are we ready to whitewash history (and reality) in the attempt to promote the most facile notion of equality?

    For the record, I am willing to refer to Caitlyn Jenner (who gave a speech at my junior high school in 1976) as it, but only if he has the surgery.

    English has a singular “they.” It’s called “he.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Churchill said it best: "The masculine embraces the feminine."

    He was speaking off the cuff, too, during a Suez debate, of all things. Yet is there anything in the entire feminist or "social justice" corpus half as pithy, or even half as human?

    The women writers I respect all seem to use the old way without a problem.

    But then, every dog has their day…
  25. Bill says:
    @silviosilver
    Actually, I think "they" is a good compromise.

    "If a person wants to complain, they have a right to." Is that really such a horrible construction?

    Is the grammatically correct alternative "...., he has a right to" really in any way superior? Does it impart any more useful information? Not that I can see.

    I hate SJWs (and leftists in general) as much as anyone ever has. And I'm assuredly way more of a "racist" than the timid Giraldi. So this has nothing to do with my political leanings. It just seems like a good idea on its own terms.

    “If a person wants to complain, they have a right to.” Is that really such a horrible construction?

    “If one wants to complain, one has a right to” is already available and is superior. You’re just being a pinhead. SJW’s are not asking permission to use “they” or “one,” they are demanding that anyone who uses “he” be fired. Plus, they are not thinking about your example, they want it to be mandatory to say: “When Donald Trump ordered lunch, they got a taco bowl.” “They” referring to Donald Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    You’re just being a pinhead. SJW’s are not asking permission to use “they” or “one,” they are demanding that anyone who uses “he” be fired.
     
    Calm down.

    I'm not acceding to SJW demands. The idea is worthwhile regardless of what SJW scum think of it.
  26. Bill says:
    @iffen
    Why do conservative types feel compelled to defend sexual harassment?

    Why do you hate America?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Why do you hate America?

    Did you stop beating your wife?
  27. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @silviosilver
    Actually, I think "they" is a good compromise.

    "If a person wants to complain, they have a right to." Is that really such a horrible construction?

    Is the grammatically correct alternative "...., he has a right to" really in any way superior? Does it impart any more useful information? Not that I can see.

    I hate SJWs (and leftists in general) as much as anyone ever has. And I'm assuredly way more of a "racist" than the timid Giraldi. So this has nothing to do with my political leanings. It just seems like a good idea on its own terms.

    “If a person wants to complain, they have a right to.” Is that really such a horrible construction?

    How about, “If people want to complain, they have a right to”?

    Read More
  28. iffen says:
    @Bill
    Why do you hate America?

    Why do you hate America?

    Did you stop beating your wife?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    Yeah, I would have used that in a pre-Colbert, pre-Hannity world. Congrats on getting the joke.
  29. FLgeezer says:
    @Rehmat
    Getting social justice in America is like finding a needle in a garbage dump facility. America "social justice" like its "democratic values" is also for export only - or a tool to bring regime change in a non-friendly country.

    In April 2016, a group of Palestinians affected by Zionist regime’s 'land grab' activities filed a $34.5 billion lawsuit against US Jewish Oligarchs, Jewish charities, and pro-Israel Christian groups supporting West Bank illegal Jewish settlements. The lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court of Columbia in the United States. The lawsuit was filed by Washington-based law firm Martin McMahon and Associates.

    The plaintiffs include Susan Abulhawa, a prominent American Palestinian writer, author, human rights activist, and blogger, and Bassim Tamimi, who has been incarcerated and tortured numerous times by the Israeli security thugs for staging peaceful weekly protests.

    According to a statement issued by the law firm, the lawsuit is against construction companies, security firms, real estate agencies and private banks involved in supporting the growth of Israeli settlements in the Jewish occupied West Bank.

    The case will also include Palestinians subjected to Israeli attacks which resulted in the loss of life, property and agricultural land in Palestinian Authority controlled areas.

    The defendants include prominent pro-settlement Jewish oligarchs such as casino tycoon and political donor Sheldon Adelson, bingo tycoon Irving Moskowitz, and evangelic pastor John Hagee, and the US tax exempt charities like Christian Friends of Israeli Communities and Friends of the Israeli Army.....

    https://rehmat1.com/page/26/?archives-list&archives-type=months

    Lawfare at its most virulent; did you see where the Israelis are suing Facebook (founded by gazillionaire Marc Zuckerberg) for allegedly providing a forum for Hamas. Give the izzies credit for knowing where the money is. And just imagine the lawyer jobs that will result. Absolutely hilarious!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Have not you read Shakespeare's 'Merchant of Venice'? Marc Zuckerberg is one thousands of Jew Shylocks who would sell their mothers for money.

    How lunatic, American Jews are suing Facebook for $I billion for allowing Hamas that has killed 100-times less Jews than Israeli Jews have killed Palestinians on whose land they're living forcefully.
    , @RobinG
    Seems it's actually Americans (Jews) who are suing FB.

    Israeli-Americans Sue Facebook for $1 Billion over West Bank Violence
    BY: Nisreen Eadeh/Staff Writer

    On Monday, the relatives of four Israeli-Americans killed by Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem between 2014 and 2016 filed a lawsuit against Facebook, suing for $1 billion. The families are accusing the social media company of facilitating the attacks carried out by Hamas militants.

    The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, despite the fact that the attacks took place in occupied Palestinian territories, not the U.S. They argued that Facebook “knowingly provided material support and resources to Hamas… to communicate, recruit members, plan and carry out attacks, and strike fear in its enemies.”

    The Lawsuit

    The plaintiffs were able to file the case under the 1992 Anti-Terrorism Act, which prohibits American businesses from providing any material support to groups defined as terrorists by the U.S. State Department. Hamas was designated a terrorist organization in 1997 by the U.S., and claimed responsibility for one of the four attacks brought forth in the case. The plaintiff’s Israeli lawyer claims that there are “expert assessments” connecting Hamas to the other three attacks.

    Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, responded to the lawsuit, calling it an attempt to blackmail Facebook and use the social networking website to spy on Palestinians. Abu Zuhri argued that Israeli politicians and citizens use Facebook to express pride and advocacy in the killing of Palestinians, constituting a double standard in how censorship laws are applied to people in the region.

    [The Facebook group “The People of Israel demand revenge” took off at the start of the 2014 Gaza war, with over 35,000 people joining in 2 days. Members in the group called for the revenge and murder of Palestinians.]

    Facebook indirectly responded to the latest lawsuit, saying, “We work regularly with safety organizations and policymakers around the world, including Israel, to ensure that people know how to make safe use of Facebook. There is no room for content that promotes violence, direct threats, terrorist or hate speeches on our platform.”

    Israel’s Public Security Minister, Gilad Erdan, called Facebook and its owner, Mark Zuckerburg, a “monster” that hinders security.

    Although some Israelis and Israeli-Americans are looking for anyone but themselves to blame for Palestinian anger and violence, this case is perhaps too far-stretched.

    http://www.arabamerica.com/israeli-americans-sue-facebook-for-1-billion-over-west-bank-violence/?utm_source=July+13%2C+2016&utm_campaign=Arab+America+12%2F3%2F14&utm_medium=email
  30. mtn cur says:
    @landlubber
    Even though the absence of a singular they is a mild deficiency of the English language, we must pause and ask ourselves why it is there. Could it be that there were (and are) real and immutable differences between the sexes? And are we ready to whitewash history (and reality) in the attempt to promote the most facile notion of equality?

    For the record, I am willing to refer to Caitlyn Jenner (who gave a speech at my junior high school in 1976) as it, but only if he has the surgery.

    What about “IT.”

    Read More
  31. dahoit says:
    @Anonymous
    “My friend ate a bagel. They beamed with perfect joy.” Both of them??

    The bagel agreed.

    Read More
  32. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Giraldi touches on two different issues here. Carlson’s complaint is that the work environment encouraged the men at FOX to act like teenage boys deriding her with blatant remarks and sexual innuendo. Their behavior diminished her value as a broadcaster and an employee. Since the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings that kind of environment has been discouraged by responsible employers. Obviously, FOX isn’t a responsible. And that could be due to management/Ailes’ attitude toward Carlson. If she has proof that Ailes propositioned her, he’s toast. Let the lawyers and the courts sort that out.

    As to the other issue, I have encountered the “gender neutral” culture at my church. Suddenly, asking if a baby or toddler is a boy or a girl is no longer politically correct. These folks try to foist the myth that there’s no difference between the genders. That’s BS. Two years ago, my daughter gave birth to fraternal twins – a boy and a girl. Same womb, two minutes apart. While very much alike, they have different interests. Already he’s into trucks and cars, but wants his blue dynasaur when he goes to bed. She prefers other toys like dolls and stuffed animals and wants her pink dynasaur when she goes to bed.

    The politically correct crowd wants to impose “sexual neutrality” on the majority for the benefit of a minority transgender demographic, forgetting that children and adults identify their sexuality at various ages. Let’s not create a politically correct “neutral culture” regarding sexual identity. After all, some people don’t discover their sexual identity until their 20′s , 30′s, 40′s or even older. Also, men and women in same sex relationships are still men and women. Their sex hasn’t changed. They aren’t neutral, neither are straight men and women.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Since the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings that kind of environment has been discouraged by responsible employers
     
    No, that kind of environment has always been discouraged by responsible employers. There was a time when many companies wouldn't let their workers even date while botg were employed.

    This idea that underlings are fair game dates from the sexual revolution, not traditional mores.
    , @artichoke
    It's not politically correct to ask the sex (not gender which could be any of 57 things theoretically) of the baby? We had ours 15-20 years ago, but it was certainly fine and expected then. I found that 100% of the PC baloney I had been taught evaporated starting in Lamaze class and while raising little kids. We all could see that boys and girls tended to sex typical toys. Pre-K teachers even pointed it out. When raising actual kids, and the teacher has her own kids too, we get simple and biological.
  33. jtgw says: • Website

    The use of “singular they” in sentences like “every student completed their homework” actually has a venerable heritage. You can find its use in Shakespeare. It was schoolmarms in the 19th century who decided “every student” had to be singular and thus be followed by a singular pronoun. Semantically, however, “every student” isn’t really singular, i.e. it does not refer to a specific individual. Instead, it refers to a non-specified member of a set, i.e. the set of all students, which is plural. So there is an implied plurality in the phrase “every student”, which justifies the use of the plural pronoun “they”.

    Your second example, however, does show a truly innovative use of “they”. In sentences like “my friend ate a bagel; they beamed with perfect joy,” the pronoun does refer to a specific individual. My own intuition is that this is ungrammatical. It remains to be seen whether people will adopt “they” to refer to a specific individual of unspecified gender, but I do think it’s more likely to be adopted than coinages like “ze” and “zer”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Orlando Gibbons
    "Every student" is singular because it agrees with singular verbs: "every student is," not "every student are." In quantitative expressions the quantified noun determines the number of the entire expression. "Every student," "each student," "one student," "no student," "any student," etc. are singular; "all students," "two students," "no students," "any students," etc. are plural.
  34. Outwest says:

    I read recently that a group of young women objected to being referred to a “guys” by a waitress. They were however at a loss as to what an appropriate term might be. In fact “gals” is the traditional feminine of “guys” but was banished maybe forty years ago by women who preferred to think of themselves as men.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    In fact “gals” is the traditional feminine of “guys” but was banished maybe forty years ago by women who preferred to think of themselves as men
     
    Funny, I grew up thinking "gals" was rather crude, almost street, and even "woman" was less preferable than "lady". So I was shocked to move to the Upper Midwest thirty years ago and hear everybody use "gal" pretty generically.
  35. Dr. X says:

    The Romans didn’t put up with such bullshit. Latin, and the languages derived from it, have gendered nouns. “Educated” people should know that a female graduate is an alumna, a male graduate an alumnus.

    Why don’t the little college SJWs get their panties into knots over that?

    Read More
  36. “The Romans didn’t put up with such bullshit. Latin, and the languages derived from it, have gendered nouns. “

    Yeah, but look what happened to the Romans … wait a minute, the Germanic languages also have gendered nouns.

    Read More
  37. @guest
    English has a singular "they." It's called "he."

    Churchill said it best: “The masculine embraces the feminine.”

    He was speaking off the cuff, too, during a Suez debate, of all things. Yet is there anything in the entire feminist or “social justice” corpus half as pithy, or even half as human?

    The women writers I respect all seem to use the old way without a problem.

    But then, every dog has their day…

    Read More
  38. @Outwest
    I read recently that a group of young women objected to being referred to a “guys” by a waitress. They were however at a loss as to what an appropriate term might be. In fact “gals” is the traditional feminine of “guys” but was banished maybe forty years ago by women who preferred to think of themselves as men.

    In fact “gals” is the traditional feminine of “guys” but was banished maybe forty years ago by women who preferred to think of themselves as men

    Funny, I grew up thinking “gals” was rather crude, almost street, and even “woman” was less preferable than “lady”. So I was shocked to move to the Upper Midwest thirty years ago and hear everybody use “gal” pretty generically.

    Read More
  39. @jtgw
    The use of "singular they" in sentences like "every student completed their homework" actually has a venerable heritage. You can find its use in Shakespeare. It was schoolmarms in the 19th century who decided "every student" had to be singular and thus be followed by a singular pronoun. Semantically, however, "every student" isn't really singular, i.e. it does not refer to a specific individual. Instead, it refers to a non-specified member of a set, i.e. the set of all students, which is plural. So there is an implied plurality in the phrase "every student", which justifies the use of the plural pronoun "they".

    Your second example, however, does show a truly innovative use of "they". In sentences like "my friend ate a bagel; they beamed with perfect joy," the pronoun does refer to a specific individual. My own intuition is that this is ungrammatical. It remains to be seen whether people will adopt "they" to refer to a specific individual of unspecified gender, but I do think it's more likely to be adopted than coinages like "ze" and "zer".

    “Every student” is singular because it agrees with singular verbs: “every student is,” not “every student are.” In quantitative expressions the quantified noun determines the number of the entire expression. “Every student,” “each student,” “one student,” “no student,” “any student,” etc. are singular; “all students,” “two students,” “no students,” “any students,” etc. are plural.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    So why did Shakespeare write things like this?

    "'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech."

    Will you argue that Shakespeare did not understand the grammar of his own language?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    As Latin, if not Greek, was basic to serious education 150 and more years ago - and for quite a while longer in many schools - it was natural that grammatical agreement of each part of speech with every other which was inflected should infect English teaching.

    Consider, incidentally, the use of lei - third person - instead of the second person pronoun in Italian as the polite mode of address. How long would it take to establish that in an egalitarian society? Or even vous for tu? Or sie for du and dich? Well, test case: how long did it take for thou to be eliminated (together with the plural "ye")? As "you" took the place of both maybe the earnest reformers should be looking for some new word that will capture the field. If y'all can be indeterminate as to number what about "hy[e]-all". Could it be accusative too as in "hy-all xxxxxd hy-all"?

  40. Rehmat says:
    @FLgeezer
    Lawfare at its most virulent; did you see where the Israelis are suing Facebook (founded by gazillionaire Marc Zuckerberg) for allegedly providing a forum for Hamas. Give the izzies credit for knowing where the money is. And just imagine the lawyer jobs that will result. Absolutely hilarious!

    Have not you read Shakespeare’s ‘Merchant of Venice’? Marc Zuckerberg is one thousands of Jew Shylocks who would sell their mothers for money.

    How lunatic, American Jews are suing Facebook for $I billion for allowing Hamas that has killed 100-times less Jews than Israeli Jews have killed Palestinians on whose land they’re living forcefully.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    Have not you read Shakespeare’s ‘Merchant of Venice’?...How lunatic, American Jews are suing Facebook for $I billion for allowing Hamas that has killed 100-times less Jews than Israeli Jews have killed Palestinians on whose land they’re living forcefully.
     
    Some how I doubt you have read anything in english. Your last sentence was clearly google translated from urdu.
  41. jtgw says: • Website
    @Orlando Gibbons
    "Every student" is singular because it agrees with singular verbs: "every student is," not "every student are." In quantitative expressions the quantified noun determines the number of the entire expression. "Every student," "each student," "one student," "no student," "any student," etc. are singular; "all students," "two students," "no students," "any students," etc. are plural.

    So why did Shakespeare write things like this?

    “‘Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o’erhear the speech.”

    Will you argue that Shakespeare did not understand the grammar of his own language?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Orlando Gibbons
    In this case them refers to a different, implied noun (mothers). You're right that generic expressions like "a mother" and "every student" can imply the existence of a group, but that doesn't mean you can treat the expressions themselves as grammatically plural. No one would write, "A mother are partial to their son."
  42. @jtgw
    So why did Shakespeare write things like this?

    "'Tis meet that some more audience than a mother, since nature makes them partial, should o'erhear the speech."

    Will you argue that Shakespeare did not understand the grammar of his own language?

    In this case them refers to a different, implied noun (mothers). You’re right that generic expressions like “a mother” and “every student” can imply the existence of a group, but that doesn’t mean you can treat the expressions themselves as grammatically plural. No one would write, “A mother are partial to their son.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I agree that "a mother are partial to their son" sounds wrong. But "every mother is partial to their son" sounds right, or at least acceptable to me. Some theoretical linguists argue that, in the second example, the pronoun "their" is not really a referential pronoun at all, but what's called a "bound variable". I.e. we have to construe the sentence as the following statement in logic: "for every mother X, X is partial to X's son." The word "their" is simply standing in for X.

    The real point is that rules of grammar are not the same as rules of logic. E.g. does the fact that classical Greek, the language of Aristotle, requires a negative sentence to negate both the verb and object mean that classical Greek is "illogical"? Hardly. Classical Greek simply has different rules of grammar from formal English. When a Greek says "oudeis ouk egno ouden" (lit. "nobody does not know nothing") and means "nobody knows anything", he is not being illogical, but simply following a different set of rules for mapping logical statements onto spoken form.
  43. @Anonymous
    Giraldi touches on two different issues here. Carlson's complaint is that the work environment encouraged the men at FOX to act like teenage boys deriding her with blatant remarks and sexual innuendo. Their behavior diminished her value as a broadcaster and an employee. Since the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings that kind of environment has been discouraged by responsible employers. Obviously, FOX isn't a responsible. And that could be due to management/Ailes' attitude toward Carlson. If she has proof that Ailes propositioned her, he's toast. Let the lawyers and the courts sort that out.

    As to the other issue, I have encountered the "gender neutral" culture at my church. Suddenly, asking if a baby or toddler is a boy or a girl is no longer politically correct. These folks try to foist the myth that there's no difference between the genders. That's BS. Two years ago, my daughter gave birth to fraternal twins - a boy and a girl. Same womb, two minutes apart. While very much alike, they have different interests. Already he's into trucks and cars, but wants his blue dynasaur when he goes to bed. She prefers other toys like dolls and stuffed animals and wants her pink dynasaur when she goes to bed.

    The politically correct crowd wants to impose "sexual neutrality" on the majority for the benefit of a minority transgender demographic, forgetting that children and adults identify their sexuality at various ages. Let's not create a politically correct "neutral culture" regarding sexual identity. After all, some people don't discover their sexual identity until their 20's , 30's, 40's or even older. Also, men and women in same sex relationships are still men and women. Their sex hasn't changed. They aren't neutral, neither are straight men and women.

    Since the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings that kind of environment has been discouraged by responsible employers

    No, that kind of environment has always been discouraged by responsible employers. There was a time when many companies wouldn’t let their workers even date while botg were employed.

    This idea that underlings are fair game dates from the sexual revolution, not traditional mores.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill

    This idea that underlings are fair game dates from the sexual revolution, not traditional mores.
     
    The idea that women ought to be underlings of anyone other than their father or their husband dates from about the 19th C. Kind of like most bad ideas that way.
  44. @iffen
    Why do conservative types feel compelled to defend sexual harassment?

    Why do conservative types feel compelled to defend sexual harassment?

    Fighting harrassment is not the job of the state, but of the male relatives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Fighting harrassment is not the job of the state, but of the male relatives.

    This solution might work under certain circumstances of time and place and likely did at times in the past. It would be difficult to implement in a complex, mobile society where most women are in the workforce. So thanks, I can see the connection to conservatism now.
  45. jtgw says: • Website
    @Orlando Gibbons
    In this case them refers to a different, implied noun (mothers). You're right that generic expressions like "a mother" and "every student" can imply the existence of a group, but that doesn't mean you can treat the expressions themselves as grammatically plural. No one would write, "A mother are partial to their son."

    I agree that “a mother are partial to their son” sounds wrong. But “every mother is partial to their son” sounds right, or at least acceptable to me. Some theoretical linguists argue that, in the second example, the pronoun “their” is not really a referential pronoun at all, but what’s called a “bound variable”. I.e. we have to construe the sentence as the following statement in logic: “for every mother X, X is partial to X’s son.” The word “their” is simply standing in for X.

    The real point is that rules of grammar are not the same as rules of logic. E.g. does the fact that classical Greek, the language of Aristotle, requires a negative sentence to negate both the verb and object mean that classical Greek is “illogical”? Hardly. Classical Greek simply has different rules of grammar from formal English. When a Greek says “oudeis ouk egno ouden” (lit. “nobody does not know nothing”) and means “nobody knows anything”, he is not being illogical, but simply following a different set of rules for mapping logical statements onto spoken form.

    Read More
  46. iffen says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Why do conservative types feel compelled to defend sexual harassment?
     
    Fighting harrassment is not the job of the state, but of the male relatives.

    Fighting harrassment is not the job of the state, but of the male relatives.

    This solution might work under certain circumstances of time and place and likely did at times in the past. It would be difficult to implement in a complex, mobile society where most women are in the workforce. So thanks, I can see the connection to conservatism now.

    Read More
  47. Actually, “they” has a singular form that’s gender neutral, “it.” So, the gender neutral, grammatically correct form ought to be, ““My friend ate a bagel. It beamed with perfect joy.” Of course, upon hearing this, it might feel a bit objectified, unless it is the bagel. But then, bagels don’t beam do they? It may take the gender neutrals a while to get used to it, but I’m sure that once they do, they’ll no longer feel objectified.

    Read More
  48. Jim says:
    @landlubber
    Even though the absence of a singular they is a mild deficiency of the English language, we must pause and ask ourselves why it is there. Could it be that there were (and are) real and immutable differences between the sexes? And are we ready to whitewash history (and reality) in the attempt to promote the most facile notion of equality?

    For the record, I am willing to refer to Caitlyn Jenner (who gave a speech at my junior high school in 1976) as it, but only if he has the surgery.

    The Indo-European gender system has almost completely disappeared in Modern English. “He/she” is one of the few remaining vestiges. In many other Indo-European languages like German, Icelandic, Modern Greek, etc. it is still very much present. Reforming languages like these to get rid of gender would be such a difficult task that it probably would be a lot simpler to just forbid the use of such languages. The people in Iceland should be required to speak Chinese and give up Icelandic.

    The Eskimo-Aleut languages are interesting in this regard in that some aspects of the grammar differ according as to the sex of the speaker and listener. That is if a woman is talking to a woman in some situations a different morphological form is used than when a man is talking to a man.

    The evidence that behavior is influenced to any significant extent by the grammatical structure of
    the language spoken is essentially non-existent despite repeated speculation along these lines.

    Read More
  49. ” global warming deniers ”
    This assumes that anthropogenic major climate warming is an unassailable fact and only a small number of scientifically illiterate people dissent.
    This is completely untrue. I am an environmental scientist myself and can assure you that large numbers – probably a majority worldwide – dissent from this view.
    Philip Giraldi is a languages graduate who became a CIA operative.
    Mr Giraldi, speak about what you know best.

    Read More
  50. Bill says:
    @iffen
    Why do you hate America?

    Did you stop beating your wife?

    Yeah, I would have used that in a pre-Colbert, pre-Hannity world. Congrats on getting the joke.

    Read More
  51. Bill says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Since the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings that kind of environment has been discouraged by responsible employers
     
    No, that kind of environment has always been discouraged by responsible employers. There was a time when many companies wouldn't let their workers even date while botg were employed.

    This idea that underlings are fair game dates from the sexual revolution, not traditional mores.

    This idea that underlings are fair game dates from the sexual revolution, not traditional mores.

    The idea that women ought to be underlings of anyone other than their father or their husband dates from about the 19th C. Kind of like most bad ideas that way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Aren't you confused? Subordination of women to husband or father was very much 19th century.
  52. @JackOH
    I'm conflicted here. Carlson obviously owes some of her success to her striking good looks. Ailes, working from the Van Gordon Sauter "infotainment" playbook, is known for hiring eye candy. If the allegations against Ailes are true, the man's a slob. It's not clear to me if his alleged propositions were a way of forcing her out. Did he not know she was married?

    I've worked with two workplace womanizers. Both severely damaged workplace trust. One manager resorted to embezzlement to hold on to his workplace honey.

    When working with a beautiful woman, I try to find a good moment to ask lightly: "You taking any compliments today?" followed by something like, "You're a very good-looking woman. Let's make this project work." It seems to put them at ease.

    Your type of carefully worded approach should be encouraged – I would say taught but fear that it takes a few spare IQ points to achieve felicity – and i proffer my own long used formula for male to almost any woman. It is “and what keeps you busy?”

    It avoids all presumptions about career or other possibly sensitive subject and can produce some amusing responses from relaxed and/or confident – or indeed resentful – women. Variations to taste and consider using it on possibly retired men as in “and what keeps you busy when you are not doing important things here [at the tennis club]?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    It is “and what keeps you busy?”

    Let's hope Joe Webb doesn't take this up and put it to use. He spends too much of his time hitting on young girls as it is.
    , @JackOH
    You recognize a beautiful co-worker with a respectful, honest compliment on her looks, then quickly move to work talk. My formula's worked for me so far. Anyone can adapt it to his personal style.
  53. @Bill

    This idea that underlings are fair game dates from the sexual revolution, not traditional mores.
     
    The idea that women ought to be underlings of anyone other than their father or their husband dates from about the 19th C. Kind of like most bad ideas that way.

    Aren’t you confused? Subordination of women to husband or father was very much 19th century.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    It's good that you can identify that confusion exists. Now, you just need to work on detecting its source.

    Hint: Lots of people during the sexual revolution thought that underlings were not fair game for dates.

    Hint, part deux: You have either serious reading comprehension problems or an unpleasant tendency to pretend to have serious reading comprehension problems when it suits you.
  54. Bill says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Aren't you confused? Subordination of women to husband or father was very much 19th century.

    It’s good that you can identify that confusion exists. Now, you just need to work on detecting its source.

    Hint: Lots of people during the sexual revolution thought that underlings were not fair game for dates.

    Hint, part deux: You have either serious reading comprehension problems or an unpleasant tendency to pretend to have serious reading comprehension problems when it suits you.

    Read More
  55. iffen says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Your type of carefully worded approach should be encouraged - I would say taught but fear that it takes a few spare IQ points to achieve felicity - and i proffer my own long used formula for male to almost any woman. It is "and what keeps you busy?"

    It avoids all presumptions about career or other possibly sensitive subject and can produce some amusing responses from relaxed and/or confident - or indeed resentful - women. Variations to taste and consider using it on possibly retired men as in "and what keeps you busy when you are not doing important things here [at the tennis club]?"

    It is “and what keeps you busy?”

    Let’s hope Joe Webb doesn’t take this up and put it to use. He spends too much of his time hitting on young girls as it is.

    Read More
  56. @Orlando Gibbons
    "Every student" is singular because it agrees with singular verbs: "every student is," not "every student are." In quantitative expressions the quantified noun determines the number of the entire expression. "Every student," "each student," "one student," "no student," "any student," etc. are singular; "all students," "two students," "no students," "any students," etc. are plural.

    As Latin, if not Greek, was basic to serious education 150 and more years ago – and for quite a while longer in many schools – it was natural that grammatical agreement of each part of speech with every other which was inflected should infect English teaching.

    Consider, incidentally, the use of lei – third person – instead of the second person pronoun in Italian as the polite mode of address. How long would it take to establish that in an egalitarian society? Or even vous for tu? Or sie for du and dich? Well, test case: how long did it take for thou to be eliminated (together with the plural “ye”)? As “you” took the place of both maybe the earnest reformers should be looking for some new word that will capture the field. If y’all can be indeterminate as to number what about “hy[e]-all”. Could it be accusative too as in “hy-all xxxxxd hy-all”?

    Read More
  57. kiismerh says:

    Ugly and stoopid looking bitch.
    Step into my office. You are fired!

    Read More
  58. JackOH says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Your type of carefully worded approach should be encouraged - I would say taught but fear that it takes a few spare IQ points to achieve felicity - and i proffer my own long used formula for male to almost any woman. It is "and what keeps you busy?"

    It avoids all presumptions about career or other possibly sensitive subject and can produce some amusing responses from relaxed and/or confident - or indeed resentful - women. Variations to taste and consider using it on possibly retired men as in "and what keeps you busy when you are not doing important things here [at the tennis club]?"

    You recognize a beautiful co-worker with a respectful, honest compliment on her looks, then quickly move to work talk. My formula’s worked for me so far. Anyone can adapt it to his personal style.

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    If I am expected to compliment but only like that and with so much respect ... well maybe I just skip that and go straight to work. If it seems abrupt, maybe when women become a bit less dangerous to men in the workplace setting, I would dare to lighten up, which they would probably prefer. But I am not going to give only the comment on their looks they approve of. If it's that rigorous, I refuse to play.
  59. Jefferson says:

    Gretchen Carlson is 50 years old. She should be flattered that a lot of guys still find her physically attractive at that age. A lot of 50 year old women no longer get complimented on their looks by men. What an ungrateful bitch.

    Read More
  60. KenH says:

    ……as well as the Second Amendment crowd, Truthers and global warming deniers coming from the right but this past week proved to be a bit too much.

    Wow, I’d say Giraldi’s imtelligence and credibility took a hit with that statement. What’s wrong the the “second amendment crowd” and “global warming deniers”?

    We only have a second amendment crowd because smarmy leftists have been working to gut the second amendment for decades. The global warming crazies have failed to prove their case and don’t seem to understand the earth goes through cooling and warming trends and that solar activity (sun spots, flares, etc) play a pivotal role in earth’s temperature changes. The die hards seem to forget that global warming is only a theory and not a fact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    Read what I wrote Ken - I never said I disagree with all of the above in every detail but am merely turned off by the way the advocates tend to be shrill and uncompromising so I tune them out
  61. artichoke says:

    Carlson was indeed hired in part because of her looks. It’s industry practice, it’s perfectly legal in that job. She was getting fat, her ratings went down, out the door she went.

    The charge of “objectification” is dangerous to women, because that is their automatic way of perceiving other women. I am sure Carlson was objectified and maybe hated by other female hosts on that network. And she returned the favor. At least Ailes didn’t hate her, until now.

    Read More
  62. artichoke says:
    @JackOH
    I'm conflicted here. Carlson obviously owes some of her success to her striking good looks. Ailes, working from the Van Gordon Sauter "infotainment" playbook, is known for hiring eye candy. If the allegations against Ailes are true, the man's a slob. It's not clear to me if his alleged propositions were a way of forcing her out. Did he not know she was married?

    I've worked with two workplace womanizers. Both severely damaged workplace trust. One manager resorted to embezzlement to hold on to his workplace honey.

    When working with a beautiful woman, I try to find a good moment to ask lightly: "You taking any compliments today?" followed by something like, "You're a very good-looking woman. Let's make this project work." It seems to put them at ease.

    She was quite old, was getting fat and had other issues makeup could no longer cover, was looking worse than the new eye candy. Ratings down, out she goes.

    How does this make Ailes a bad guy? Maybe he shouldn’t have hired her in the first place … If Carlson doesn’t go out, another woman doesn’t get a chance during her good looking years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    I didn't say Ailes was a bad guy, or that Carlson was an innocent here. I have a headline-only view of this story, so there are plenty of facts I don't know.
  63. @KenH

    ......as well as the Second Amendment crowd, Truthers and global warming deniers coming from the right but this past week proved to be a bit too much.
     
    Wow, I'd say Giraldi's imtelligence and credibility took a hit with that statement. What's wrong the the "second amendment crowd" and "global warming deniers"?

    We only have a second amendment crowd because smarmy leftists have been working to gut the second amendment for decades. The global warming crazies have failed to prove their case and don't seem to understand the earth goes through cooling and warming trends and that solar activity (sun spots, flares, etc) play a pivotal role in earth's temperature changes. The die hards seem to forget that global warming is only a theory and not a fact.

    Read what I wrote Ken – I never said I disagree with all of the above in every detail but am merely turned off by the way the advocates tend to be shrill and uncompromising so I tune them out

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Tricky, ain't it.
    , @KenH
    You didn't go into any specifics about the "second amendment crowd" or the "global warming deniers", so based on the broad brush and snark I was left to assume you have a low opinion of most who profess these beliefs even though you're obviously no liberal. The NRA and GOA members I've seen argue their case in the court of public opinion have done so with erudition and aplomb while weathering insults, hostility and ad hominem from the left wing hosts. Same with those who attempt to contradict the claims of the global warming fundamentalists.

    Nevertheless, you are obviously entitled to your opinions, but it was very surprising based on some of your previous articles.
  64. artichoke says:
    @Anonymous
    Giraldi touches on two different issues here. Carlson's complaint is that the work environment encouraged the men at FOX to act like teenage boys deriding her with blatant remarks and sexual innuendo. Their behavior diminished her value as a broadcaster and an employee. Since the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings that kind of environment has been discouraged by responsible employers. Obviously, FOX isn't a responsible. And that could be due to management/Ailes' attitude toward Carlson. If she has proof that Ailes propositioned her, he's toast. Let the lawyers and the courts sort that out.

    As to the other issue, I have encountered the "gender neutral" culture at my church. Suddenly, asking if a baby or toddler is a boy or a girl is no longer politically correct. These folks try to foist the myth that there's no difference between the genders. That's BS. Two years ago, my daughter gave birth to fraternal twins - a boy and a girl. Same womb, two minutes apart. While very much alike, they have different interests. Already he's into trucks and cars, but wants his blue dynasaur when he goes to bed. She prefers other toys like dolls and stuffed animals and wants her pink dynasaur when she goes to bed.

    The politically correct crowd wants to impose "sexual neutrality" on the majority for the benefit of a minority transgender demographic, forgetting that children and adults identify their sexuality at various ages. Let's not create a politically correct "neutral culture" regarding sexual identity. After all, some people don't discover their sexual identity until their 20's , 30's, 40's or even older. Also, men and women in same sex relationships are still men and women. Their sex hasn't changed. They aren't neutral, neither are straight men and women.

    It’s not politically correct to ask the sex (not gender which could be any of 57 things theoretically) of the baby? We had ours 15-20 years ago, but it was certainly fine and expected then. I found that 100% of the PC baloney I had been taught evaporated starting in Lamaze class and while raising little kids. We all could see that boys and girls tended to sex typical toys. Pre-K teachers even pointed it out. When raising actual kids, and the teacher has her own kids too, we get simple and biological.

    Read More
  65. iffen says:
    @Philip Giraldi
    Read what I wrote Ken - I never said I disagree with all of the above in every detail but am merely turned off by the way the advocates tend to be shrill and uncompromising so I tune them out

    Tricky, ain’t it.

    Read More
  66. artichoke says:
    @JackOH
    You recognize a beautiful co-worker with a respectful, honest compliment on her looks, then quickly move to work talk. My formula's worked for me so far. Anyone can adapt it to his personal style.

    If I am expected to compliment but only like that and with so much respect … well maybe I just skip that and go straight to work. If it seems abrupt, maybe when women become a bit less dangerous to men in the workplace setting, I would dare to lighten up, which they would probably prefer. But I am not going to give only the comment on their looks they approve of. If it’s that rigorous, I refuse to play.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JackOH
    My experience is that a beautiful woman in the workplace can be skittish, insecure, induce serious cat-fighting among women, distract men. Solely because of her looks. My way of handling that worked for me, and, I think it kept me from being sandbagged by bogus harassment complaints. I suppose if there were two-headed people in the workplace I'd have to find some unobjectionable way of recognizing the obvious before getting back to work.
  67. “Or did it apply when I was growing up Catholic and was referred to as a “mackerel snapper” because we ate fish on Fridays? I don’t know and will leave that to the experts.”

    As a fellow Catholic raised in NJ I found this locution puzzling. The only time I ever heard it was in reference to the Japanese. And that was in a movie.

    Read More
  68. El Dato says:

    I remember that Greg Egan used “ve” to denote a he/she/transgender in his SciFi novel “Distress”

    Checking Jimbo Wales’ Entropic Grabbag of Trivia at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distress_(novel) we indeed find:

    “Egan uses his hypothetical future to postulate the existence of not just one but five new genders, and introduces a set of new pronouns for gender neutral people. One of the central characters of the novel, Akili Kuwale, provides a demonstration of this change and its implications. As an asexual human, Akili has had all reproductive organs removed entirely. Within the scope of the novel, Egan uses the pronouns ‘ve’, ‘ver’, and ‘vis’ to represent Akili’s definitive gender neutrality.”

    Radical!

    Read More
  69. JackOH says:
    @artichoke
    She was quite old, was getting fat and had other issues makeup could no longer cover, was looking worse than the new eye candy. Ratings down, out she goes.

    How does this make Ailes a bad guy? Maybe he shouldn't have hired her in the first place ... If Carlson doesn't go out, another woman doesn't get a chance during her good looking years.

    I didn’t say Ailes was a bad guy, or that Carlson was an innocent here. I have a headline-only view of this story, so there are plenty of facts I don’t know.

    Read More
  70. JackOH says:
    @artichoke
    If I am expected to compliment but only like that and with so much respect ... well maybe I just skip that and go straight to work. If it seems abrupt, maybe when women become a bit less dangerous to men in the workplace setting, I would dare to lighten up, which they would probably prefer. But I am not going to give only the comment on their looks they approve of. If it's that rigorous, I refuse to play.

    My experience is that a beautiful woman in the workplace can be skittish, insecure, induce serious cat-fighting among women, distract men. Solely because of her looks. My way of handling that worked for me, and, I think it kept me from being sandbagged by bogus harassment complaints. I suppose if there were two-headed people in the workplace I’d have to find some unobjectionable way of recognizing the obvious before getting back to work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    In this environment, I can't get drawn into a lot of those problems between women. If they're going to harass each other, it's their issue. Men can be distracted. I am normal at least in this way and can be distracted too. Beyond that, it's whatever you like. I may not be very nice but I've also never been in danger of any harassment complaints. A woman has to earn any acknowledgment I give, same as a man would, but if anything I am more formal with women. It's definitely not about being a gentleman any more, unless they're people you trust.
  71. She has what Heartiste called the “I’d like to speak to the manager please” hairstyle.

    Read More
  72. KenH says:
    @Philip Giraldi
    Read what I wrote Ken - I never said I disagree with all of the above in every detail but am merely turned off by the way the advocates tend to be shrill and uncompromising so I tune them out

    You didn’t go into any specifics about the “second amendment crowd” or the “global warming deniers”, so based on the broad brush and snark I was left to assume you have a low opinion of most who profess these beliefs even though you’re obviously no liberal. The NRA and GOA members I’ve seen argue their case in the court of public opinion have done so with erudition and aplomb while weathering insults, hostility and ad hominem from the left wing hosts. Same with those who attempt to contradict the claims of the global warming fundamentalists.

    Nevertheless, you are obviously entitled to your opinions, but it was very surprising based on some of your previous articles.

    Read More
  73. Erelis says:

    I once saw a cartoon which every man should read/see. A woman in a short skirt in an office environment says to another woman who is sitting at a desk “its not harassment if he is date-able.” Ailes should have realized he is not date-able and cut out any sex talk end-of-discussion to avoid this type of result when she was fired. Given her age letting her go was in the proverbial cards.

    What is ironic is how “PC feminist talk” has made Fox and Ailes miserable this year. The very first question asked at the gop debates was by Megyan Kelly taking on the persona of an agrieved left feminist essentially denouncing Trump for his sexism. After Trump slapped back the question, the crowd roared with approval. Foxnews created the gop’s anti-hero anti-establishment figure head by taking on a phony feminist outrage to undermine Trump. Fox forgot who watches their programming.

    And now Carlson is using the feminist language of the left to sue him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    Or Roger Ailes was a powerful man and eminently date-able. But after rejection, and especially if they did hook up, she wants revenge.

    I've seen too many comments that seem to think she should get a little bit, or there's blame on both sides, etc. No I think there is zero blame on Ailes' side even if there's some truth to the rather mild allegations Carlson accumulated over years of working at Fox -- all without complaint at the time.

    And nobody should ever hire Carlson again. This nonsense has to be shut down. She's a walking litigation risk. Furthermore I wouldn't watch her show and try not to buy from advertisers on it.
  74. artichoke says:
    @JackOH
    My experience is that a beautiful woman in the workplace can be skittish, insecure, induce serious cat-fighting among women, distract men. Solely because of her looks. My way of handling that worked for me, and, I think it kept me from being sandbagged by bogus harassment complaints. I suppose if there were two-headed people in the workplace I'd have to find some unobjectionable way of recognizing the obvious before getting back to work.

    In this environment, I can’t get drawn into a lot of those problems between women. If they’re going to harass each other, it’s their issue. Men can be distracted. I am normal at least in this way and can be distracted too. Beyond that, it’s whatever you like. I may not be very nice but I’ve also never been in danger of any harassment complaints. A woman has to earn any acknowledgment I give, same as a man would, but if anything I am more formal with women. It’s definitely not about being a gentleman any more, unless they’re people you trust.

    Read More
  75. artichoke says:
    @Erelis
    I once saw a cartoon which every man should read/see. A woman in a short skirt in an office environment says to another woman who is sitting at a desk "its not harassment if he is date-able." Ailes should have realized he is not date-able and cut out any sex talk end-of-discussion to avoid this type of result when she was fired. Given her age letting her go was in the proverbial cards.

    What is ironic is how "PC feminist talk" has made Fox and Ailes miserable this year. The very first question asked at the gop debates was by Megyan Kelly taking on the persona of an agrieved left feminist essentially denouncing Trump for his sexism. After Trump slapped back the question, the crowd roared with approval. Foxnews created the gop's anti-hero anti-establishment figure head by taking on a phony feminist outrage to undermine Trump. Fox forgot who watches their programming.

    And now Carlson is using the feminist language of the left to sue him.

    Or Roger Ailes was a powerful man and eminently date-able. But after rejection, and especially if they did hook up, she wants revenge.

    I’ve seen too many comments that seem to think she should get a little bit, or there’s blame on both sides, etc. No I think there is zero blame on Ailes’ side even if there’s some truth to the rather mild allegations Carlson accumulated over years of working at Fox — all without complaint at the time.

    And nobody should ever hire Carlson again. This nonsense has to be shut down. She’s a walking litigation risk. Furthermore I wouldn’t watch her show and try not to buy from advertisers on it.

    Read More
  76. Jason Liu says:

    The thing is, even if all those things had happened, these cases would still be irrelevant. “Sexual harassment” is a catch-all phrase for derailing society to suit the whims of a few women. It is a tool used by egalitarian swine to delegitimize people through victimhood, regardless of their accomplishments.

    I could not care less if a man chases skirt or grabs women’s asses as long as he understands the importance of hierarchy and nationalism. Roger Ailes is not such a person, but some guy’s horniness is hardly worthy of national discussion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    I could not care less if a man chases skirt or grabs women’s asses as long as he understands the importance of hierarchy and nationalism.
     
    That's ridiculous. I wouldn't want my sister or daughter or girlfriend or wife to feel that she has to put up with that kind of behavior (in the workplace or in school; a bar is another matter).

    Your damnable obstinacy is inadvertently making SJW's case for them.

  77. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    It is OK for men to comment on women’s appearance. The proof of this is the lengths/$$$ women go to in order to induce or outright provoke such commentary. Also true that all women avidly want harassment from certain top-status men, except that the approved list is constanty shifting and the women are unreasonable to think they can choose their harassers ahead of time. Life is unfair, as some are challenged to realize. Carlson’s not a knockout– she certainly isn’t ugly, but her facial symmetry is a little blecch (Fox News has a standard look or quasi-Barbi template, much like the requirements of Hugh Hefner or the Gibson Girls; not all men are into it equally but it’s part of the brand). Anyway her face reminds me of one of those tiny show dogs at Westminster Kennel Club. It’s not my type, but at the same time I don’t doubt that hundreds of millions of women would literally kill & maraud in order to look more like Carlson– and she knows it. So her ego is like the Goodyear blimp at this point which is closer to rather than farther from the end of her TV career. Ailes just might be sleazy (and deluded) enough to have blurted the unprofessional remarks, but the timing makes me think Carlson was happy to have harassment on her way up and is now profit-taking before it dries up completely.

    Read More
  78. @guest
    Why do you think "they" is a good idea in its own right? That word is, or used to be, reserved for referring to two or more people. How is it helpful to have a word that refers both to two or more people and one person of indeterminate gender? That's confusing.

    Some people are willing to go to any length to solve the nonexistent problem of using the male pronoun when you don't know whether the person in question is male or female. And "they" is marginally better than "he or she." But if it ain't broke don't fix it. "He" is perfectly fine on its own, and "they" confuses me.

    This isn't evolution, by the way. Maybe it will be eventually, after people forget. But for now it's being pushed deliberately, for reasons other than convenience, or whatever you think it is. It's more like eugenics.

    And “they” is marginally better than “he or she.” But if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. “He” is perfectly fine on its own, and “they” confuses me.

    On the other hand, if it is broke, do. And that’s what I’m trying to do: fix it.

    It’s happening independently of what I think anyway. If this usage of “they” is adopted, you’ll simply be shit out of luck, so I recommend you get to work if you want stop being so confused.

    The French vous addressed to an individual initially confused me too. It didn’t take long for it to start sounding natural, though. That’s the beauty of human languages: they’re designed so that even the dumbest among us can understand them.

    Read More
  79. @Bill

    “If a person wants to complain, they have a right to.” Is that really such a horrible construction?
     
    "If one wants to complain, one has a right to" is already available and is superior. You're just being a pinhead. SJW's are not asking permission to use "they" or "one," they are demanding that anyone who uses "he" be fired. Plus, they are not thinking about your example, they want it to be mandatory to say: "When Donald Trump ordered lunch, they got a taco bowl." "They" referring to Donald Trump.

    You’re just being a pinhead. SJW’s are not asking permission to use “they” or “one,” they are demanding that anyone who uses “he” be fired.

    Calm down.

    I’m not acceding to SJW demands. The idea is worthwhile regardless of what SJW scum think of it.

    Read More
  80. @Jason Liu
    The thing is, even if all those things had happened, these cases would still be irrelevant. "Sexual harassment" is a catch-all phrase for derailing society to suit the whims of a few women. It is a tool used by egalitarian swine to delegitimize people through victimhood, regardless of their accomplishments.

    I could not care less if a man chases skirt or grabs women's asses as long as he understands the importance of hierarchy and nationalism. Roger Ailes is not such a person, but some guy's horniness is hardly worthy of national discussion.

    I could not care less if a man chases skirt or grabs women’s asses as long as he understands the importance of hierarchy and nationalism.

    That’s ridiculous. I wouldn’t want my sister or daughter or girlfriend or wife to feel that she has to put up with that kind of behavior (in the workplace or in school; a bar is another matter).

    Your damnable obstinacy is inadvertently making SJW’s case for them.

    Read More
  81. i wonder if mr. giraldi was aware of the horrors the cia engaged in when he worked there? the assassinations, disappearances, tortures, drug dealing, experimenting on unsuspecting americans, and so many more extra-constitutional depravities.
    the cia ought to be closed forthwith. or, at least, return to its singularly analytical roots.
    the president(dictator?)should not have a clandestine army unaccountable to any but itself.
    like east germany with its stasi, america maintains a secret police.
    i wonder if mr. geraldi cares?

    Read More
  82. bunga says:

    Roger Ailes should seek authorization of the Chief Rabbi. Roger has been under a lot of pressure late;y – it is a war zone for him and FOX

    ” Israeli military appoints rabbi who appeared to permit rape

    July 12, 2016
    JERUSALEM (AP) — The Israeli military came under criticism Tuesday for appointing a new chief rabbi who in the past has disparaged female soldiers and once appeared to justify the rape of non-Jewish enemies.
    The military said it summoned Rabbi Col. Eyal Karim over his past remarks after an outcry from lawmakers. Israel’s military rabbinate provides religious services to its soldiers and makes rulings on religious issues that affect the military.
    In a 2002 post on a Jewish website, Karim responded to a user asking whether, in light of certain biblical passages, Israeli soldiers were allowed to rape enemy women. Karim wrote that the Torah allowed soldiers to satisfy “evil inclinations” during wartime because fulfilling such urges could assist soldiers and thus serve the greater good. In 2012, following an uproar over the post, Karim sought to clarify his words, saying rape is prohibited in every instance.
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/israeli-military-appoints-rabbi-appeared-permit-rape-174537358.html?nhp=1″

    Read More
  83. Seriously folks, is there any end to this nonsensical victimhood culture where everyone has a grievance that can be pursued?

    I just listened to a few seconds of Theresa May’s speech. It sure as hell isn’t about to end in the UK.

    England is sooo screwed!

    /Yeah, I know we are too.

    Read More
  84. RobinG says:
    @FLgeezer
    Lawfare at its most virulent; did you see where the Israelis are suing Facebook (founded by gazillionaire Marc Zuckerberg) for allegedly providing a forum for Hamas. Give the izzies credit for knowing where the money is. And just imagine the lawyer jobs that will result. Absolutely hilarious!

    Seems it’s actually Americans (Jews) who are suing FB.

    Israeli-Americans Sue Facebook for $1 Billion over West Bank Violence
    BY: Nisreen Eadeh/Staff Writer

    On Monday, the relatives of four Israeli-Americans killed by Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem between 2014 and 2016 filed a lawsuit against Facebook, suing for $1 billion. The families are accusing the social media company of facilitating the attacks carried out by Hamas militants.

    The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, despite the fact that the attacks took place in occupied Palestinian territories, not the U.S. They argued that Facebook “knowingly provided material support and resources to Hamas… to communicate, recruit members, plan and carry out attacks, and strike fear in its enemies.”

    The Lawsuit

    The plaintiffs were able to file the case under the 1992 Anti-Terrorism Act, which prohibits American businesses from providing any material support to groups defined as terrorists by the U.S. State Department. Hamas was designated a terrorist organization in 1997 by the U.S., and claimed responsibility for one of the four attacks brought forth in the case. The plaintiff’s Israeli lawyer claims that there are “expert assessments” connecting Hamas to the other three attacks.

    Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, responded to the lawsuit, calling it an attempt to blackmail Facebook and use the social networking website to spy on Palestinians. Abu Zuhri argued that Israeli politicians and citizens use Facebook to express pride and advocacy in the killing of Palestinians, constituting a double standard in how censorship laws are applied to people in the region.

    [The Facebook group “The People of Israel demand revenge” took off at the start of the 2014 Gaza war, with over 35,000 people joining in 2 days. Members in the group called for the revenge and murder of Palestinians.]

    Facebook indirectly responded to the latest lawsuit, saying, “We work regularly with safety organizations and policymakers around the world, including Israel, to ensure that people know how to make safe use of Facebook. There is no room for content that promotes violence, direct threats, terrorist or hate speeches on our platform.”

    Israel’s Public Security Minister, Gilad Erdan, called Facebook and its owner, Mark Zuckerburg, a “monster” that hinders security.

    Although some Israelis and Israeli-Americans are looking for anyone but themselves to blame for Palestinian anger and violence, this case is perhaps too far-stretched.

    http://www.arabamerica.com/israeli-americans-sue-facebook-for-1-billion-over-west-bank-violence/?utm_source=July+13%2C+2016&utm_campaign=Arab+America+12%2F3%2F14&utm_medium=email

    Read More
    • Replies: @FLgeezer
    Thanks for the clarification RobinG. Two things are certain, 1) these superfluous law suits will clog the American court system for years on end, and 2) jayish lawyers will become wealthy for having done so. America is no longer sovereign.
  85. JS says:

    Singular “they” has been gaining traction for a while and most editors and style guides now recognize its use, partly due to the need for a “gender-neutral” singular pronoun and partly due to historical use of “they” in this way. There are examples in the literature dating back centuries and among famous writers. The main thing that’s changed is its recognition as an acceptable usage.

    See John McIntyre’s article about it in the Baltimore Sun: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/language-blog/bal-singular-they-the-editors-decision-20150410-story.html

    Read More
  86. RobinG says:
    @Rehmat
    Getting social justice in America is like finding a needle in a garbage dump facility. America "social justice" like its "democratic values" is also for export only - or a tool to bring regime change in a non-friendly country.

    In April 2016, a group of Palestinians affected by Zionist regime’s 'land grab' activities filed a $34.5 billion lawsuit against US Jewish Oligarchs, Jewish charities, and pro-Israel Christian groups supporting West Bank illegal Jewish settlements. The lawsuit was filed in the Federal District Court of Columbia in the United States. The lawsuit was filed by Washington-based law firm Martin McMahon and Associates.

    The plaintiffs include Susan Abulhawa, a prominent American Palestinian writer, author, human rights activist, and blogger, and Bassim Tamimi, who has been incarcerated and tortured numerous times by the Israeli security thugs for staging peaceful weekly protests.

    According to a statement issued by the law firm, the lawsuit is against construction companies, security firms, real estate agencies and private banks involved in supporting the growth of Israeli settlements in the Jewish occupied West Bank.

    The case will also include Palestinians subjected to Israeli attacks which resulted in the loss of life, property and agricultural land in Palestinian Authority controlled areas.

    The defendants include prominent pro-settlement Jewish oligarchs such as casino tycoon and political donor Sheldon Adelson, bingo tycoon Irving Moskowitz, and evangelic pastor John Hagee, and the US tax exempt charities like Christian Friends of Israeli Communities and Friends of the Israeli Army.....

    https://rehmat1.com/page/26/?archives-list&archives-type=months

    Thanks for the link to the case, Rehmat.

    Susan Abulhawa was at Sunday’s DC screening of the film “Occupation of the American Mind: Israel’s Public Relations War in the United States”
    See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/the-occupation-of-the-american-mind-documented/#sthash.kyydRx6c.dpuf

    http://www.occupationmovie.com/

    Read More
  87. You write with the charm of a novel argument Mr. Giraldi, impressed, I must add, with the stamp of a damn good thinker. I attempt to examine whatever you write with an open but critical mind, and, to a great extent, usually agree. Although you offer here an interpretation of “social justice lunacy” with a penetration that exceeds most commentators, I must bluntly reject the idea that it is something exploited against only “Caucasian male domination”, “Caucasian” being the questionable qualifier. Bill Cosby has been publicly overwhelmed by the “social justice lunacy” mob, and, in objective respect, he ain’t no Caucasian. “Male is their key qualifier, at least at this point. The male animal is their object, and, as such, he, I mean, “they”, has got to be eliminated

    According to a recent report by a research group at John Hopkins School of Medicine, 250,000 Americans die each year from medical blunders and safety lapses. Let me emphasize that horrifying, hard-to believe statistic: 25o,000, each year! – – – – 250,000! – – – – each year!

    Talk about human objectification! Now that is certainly something to scream about!

    Read More
  88. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Today Canadians probably have an excess of this sort of thing too, possibly even worse than here as they suffer from the social justice bug even more than we Americans do

    I wonder what’s the agenda of Powercorporation and friends is for Georgia, Ukraine, and the Balkans (oh, and IRAN!! soon), as we Canadians are now asked to work for the European Union and ”defend the rights” of people there??? Powerconcentration (its politicians) have done drastic cuts to education, health care budgets, daycare and elders budgets, while preaching rights for almost every possible minority. Powercorp systematically gags ordinary people and inundate them with propaganda, lies and manipulation to justify useless interventions in the countries mentioned above… and not a word on Libya. We were supposed to be there to defend human rights.

    Read More
  89. FLgeezer says:
    @RobinG
    Seems it's actually Americans (Jews) who are suing FB.

    Israeli-Americans Sue Facebook for $1 Billion over West Bank Violence
    BY: Nisreen Eadeh/Staff Writer

    On Monday, the relatives of four Israeli-Americans killed by Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem between 2014 and 2016 filed a lawsuit against Facebook, suing for $1 billion. The families are accusing the social media company of facilitating the attacks carried out by Hamas militants.

    The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, despite the fact that the attacks took place in occupied Palestinian territories, not the U.S. They argued that Facebook “knowingly provided material support and resources to Hamas… to communicate, recruit members, plan and carry out attacks, and strike fear in its enemies.”

    The Lawsuit

    The plaintiffs were able to file the case under the 1992 Anti-Terrorism Act, which prohibits American businesses from providing any material support to groups defined as terrorists by the U.S. State Department. Hamas was designated a terrorist organization in 1997 by the U.S., and claimed responsibility for one of the four attacks brought forth in the case. The plaintiff’s Israeli lawyer claims that there are “expert assessments” connecting Hamas to the other three attacks.

    Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, responded to the lawsuit, calling it an attempt to blackmail Facebook and use the social networking website to spy on Palestinians. Abu Zuhri argued that Israeli politicians and citizens use Facebook to express pride and advocacy in the killing of Palestinians, constituting a double standard in how censorship laws are applied to people in the region.

    [The Facebook group “The People of Israel demand revenge” took off at the start of the 2014 Gaza war, with over 35,000 people joining in 2 days. Members in the group called for the revenge and murder of Palestinians.]

    Facebook indirectly responded to the latest lawsuit, saying, “We work regularly with safety organizations and policymakers around the world, including Israel, to ensure that people know how to make safe use of Facebook. There is no room for content that promotes violence, direct threats, terrorist or hate speeches on our platform.”

    Israel’s Public Security Minister, Gilad Erdan, called Facebook and its owner, Mark Zuckerburg, a “monster” that hinders security.

    Although some Israelis and Israeli-Americans are looking for anyone but themselves to blame for Palestinian anger and violence, this case is perhaps too far-stretched.

    http://www.arabamerica.com/israeli-americans-sue-facebook-for-1-billion-over-west-bank-violence/?utm_source=July+13%2C+2016&utm_campaign=Arab+America+12%2F3%2F14&utm_medium=email

    Thanks for the clarification RobinG. Two things are certain, 1) these superfluous law suits will clog the American court system for years on end, and 2) jayish lawyers will become wealthy for having done so. America is no longer sovereign.

    Read More
  90. Barbara says:

    An older lady at the grocery store the other day called me “honey”. I thought that was sweet.

    cia = close it already

    Read More
  91. “My friend ate a bagel. They beamed with perfect joy.”

    Phil, “We” are not amused.

    What a royal pain.

    Read More
  92. tsotha says:

    …but this “objectification” was clearly something new and exciting.

    Eh? Have you been living in a 6′ cabin in Montana? You can’t even tangentially interact with the political left without hearing this radfem jargon.

    Read More
  93. Its bread and circuses for the masses in order to keep them from the important things like the levers of power.

    I came to see if Philip Giraldi is talking Turkey since there is a coup underway. I’m curious to hear his opinion and analysis on the situation. It looks like the Turkey deep state has had enough of Erdogan. Why now?

    Read More
  94. We have a perfectly acceptable compound pronoun which is already in the English language and cannot help but satisfy everybody and lead to a Monad objectification therefore making it vanish into lean air. It is…

    She He It thereby encompassing all possible states, utterly non-objective. Again

    Sheeeeeee Heeeeeeeee Ittttt and of course has a familiar Southern inflection:

    Shee- eeeee – it Love it

    We can use it to signify Mr. Ailes and we can use it to signify Mz. Carlson. We can use it to
    signify you, and to signify me. And it is completely nonobjective, as it also signifies Nothing!

    Read More
  95. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Rehmat
    Have not you read Shakespeare's 'Merchant of Venice'? Marc Zuckerberg is one thousands of Jew Shylocks who would sell their mothers for money.

    How lunatic, American Jews are suing Facebook for $I billion for allowing Hamas that has killed 100-times less Jews than Israeli Jews have killed Palestinians on whose land they're living forcefully.

    Have not you read Shakespeare’s ‘Merchant of Venice’?…How lunatic, American Jews are suing Facebook for $I billion for allowing Hamas that has killed 100-times less Jews than Israeli Jews have killed Palestinians on whose land they’re living forcefully.

    Some how I doubt you have read anything in english. Your last sentence was clearly google translated from urdu.

    Read More
  96. jb says:
    @silviosilver
    Actually, I think "they" is a good compromise.

    "If a person wants to complain, they have a right to." Is that really such a horrible construction?

    Is the grammatically correct alternative "...., he has a right to" really in any way superior? Does it impart any more useful information? Not that I can see.

    I hate SJWs (and leftists in general) as much as anyone ever has. And I'm assuredly way more of a "racist" than the timid Giraldi. So this has nothing to do with my political leanings. It just seems like a good idea on its own terms.

    I despise the whole SJW thing, but when writing I have often felt the need for a gender neutral third person singular. Plenty of other languages don’t have separate words for “he” and “she”, so it’s not like it’s some kind of linguistic requirement. English has already lost most of its original Indo-European gender distinctions, and its pronouns have also undergone significant change in the fairly recent past (e.g., the loss of “thee” and “thou”). Using “they” and “them” in place of “he/she” and “him/her” wouldn’t be that different from losing the second person singular/plural distinction — i.e., not really that big a deal. So I guess I’m OK with it. If it catches on it will always sound kind of strange to me, but at least “they” is a real English word, not some invented monstrosity like “ze.”

    Read More
  97. Art says:

    The Jew Murdock is apparently dumping Roger Ailes over some NY Jew political correctness about sexual harassment.

    Ailes has made that Jew billions of dollars and a few days after the accusations he is gone. NO defense – no standing by your guy – after all he is not a Jew – screw him.

    What ingratitude —- never ever ever trust a Jew.

    Read More
  98. Some Dude says:

    Singular they is useful, language changes and it’s hilarious that you have a problem with it.

    As for the rest of your screed. If I were a billionaire, I would hire men and women to treat certain outspoken white men the way that minorities and women are treated. It seems some people lack imagination, empathy and compassion.

    On Monday an innocent black man lying on the ground with his hands in the air was shot, hand cuffed, and left to bleed for 20 minutes before the ambulance arrived. But God forbid anyone get upset by that though. Right?

    Read More
  99. imbroglio says:

    I’m sure it’s been said many comments ago but “My friend ate a bagel. They beamed with perfect joy” means that both the friend and the bagel beamed with perfect joy.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Philip Giraldi Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
A Modern Guernica Enabled by Washington
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
But is it even a friend?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
Today’s CIA serves contractors and bureaucrats—not the nation.
Pay no mind to the Mossad agent on the line.