Posted by Christopher Johnson | Sunday, October 2nd, 2016 | Hypocrites Unlimited | 26 Comments

Welcome to modern times:

A Southern California woman said she is the victim of discrimination, CBS Los Angeles reports.

Mary Campos said her pre-booked ticket was given away by United Airlines. The reason? She’s a woman, and two men didn’t want to sit next to a female.

A million-mile flier, Campos, a mom who lives in Coto de Caza, said she thought she’d seen it all – until a gate agent handed her a new boarding pass just before she got on a flight to Houston last Monday.

“He said, ‘This is your new seat,’” Campos said, “and I said, ‘Excuse me?’ And he said, ‘I don’t know how to tell you this.’”

She said she continued by saying, “Yes?”

And the agent told her, “The two gentlemen seated next to you have cultural beliefs that prevent them for sitting next to, talking to or communicating with females.”

She was shocked.

“I thought I lived in a culture where females were equal to men,” she said.

Campos is a senior consultant in the oil and gas industry.

She said she had no choice but to take her new seat assignment.

Campos was told the men were Pakistani monks who were wearing long orange shirts. She said the female flight crew was not allowed to serve the men.

“We can’t discriminate against half the population,” Campos said, “for a belief from another nation.”

For any of you who want to get an official boycott going, that was


What did that.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Saturday, October 1st, 2016 | LGBT+54 | 21 Comments

Meet Laura Parson, a doctoral candidate in Food Service Industry Direct Customer Relations Education at the University of North Dakota:

Initial exploration of the STEM syllabi in this study did not reveal overt references to gender, such as through the use of gendered pronouns. However, upon deeper review, language used in the syllabi reflects institutionalized STEM teaching practices and views about knowledge that are inherently discriminatory to women and minorities by promoting a view of knowledge as static and unchanging, a view of teaching that promotes the idea of a passive student, and by promoting a chilly climate that marginalizes women.

In other words, if you have two oranges in your shopping cart and decide to add two more oranges, you may or may not end up paying for four oranges.

Instead of promoting the idea that knowledge is constructed by the student and dynamic, subject to change as it would in a more feminist view of knowledge, the syllabi reinforce the larger male-dominant view of knowledge as one that students acquire and use make the correct decision.

Kind of makes you wonder why Parson is going to the trouble of pursuing a doctorate at all.  Since “knowledge is constructed by the student and dynamic, subject to change as it would in a more feminist view of knowledge,” why not just decide that you already have the degree and save yourself the time and money?

There’s no end to the doctorates you could acquire.

But I see Parson working.  And this mindset will stand her in good stead when she graduates from UND and begins her long and distinguished career as a Starbucks barista.  All she’ll have to do for the rest of her working life is hand every customer a black coffee and tell any who complain that that is a veinte Caramel Macchiato.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, September 30th, 2016 | Presidential Election | 45 Comments

The New York Times, a month ago:

Several strategists said Mr. Trump’s fate in Ohio would turn less on the absence of Kasich operatives than on the fundamentals of the campaign. No candidate since 1960 has made it to the White House without winning Ohio. And while Mrs. Clinton could afford to lose there given her advantage in other battlegrounds like Virginia and Colorado, Ohio is a must-win for Mr. Trump.

He is doing well with white working-class voters in Democratic strongholds like Youngstown, where industrial jobs have vanished, and in rural counties along the Ohio River. President Obama won Youngstown’s Mahoning County in 2012, but Mr. Trump is expected to convert many voters to his cause.

But the populations in these counties are relatively small. Mr. Trump’s gains there would be outweighed by the significant losses he is expected to face in the suburbs of major cities, especially Columbus, strategists said.

Chaser.  The New York Times, yesterday:

After decades as one of America’s most reliable political bellwethers, an inevitable presidential battleground that closely mirrored the mood and makeup of the country, Ohio is suddenly fading in importance this year.

Hillary Clinton has not been to the state since Labor Day, and her aides said Thursday that she would not be back until next week, after a monthlong absence, effectively acknowledging how difficult they think it will be to defeat Donald J. Trump here. Ohio has not fallen into step with the demographic changes transforming the United States, growing older, whiter and less educated than the nation at large.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, September 30th, 2016 | Presidential Election | 5 Comments

Here’s another explanation for Donald Trump that will go right over your heads.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, September 29th, 2016 | Presidential Election | 12 Comments

Gary Johnson is not a plausible option.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, September 29th, 2016 | A Presidency down the drain | 18 Comments

by Percy Bysshe Shelley

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: ‘Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear —
“My name is Obamandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.’


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, September 29th, 2016 | Stupid People | 14 Comments

I had two reactions to this story.  Apparently, a lot of men are, in fact, blithering idiots.  And a disturbingly high number of these blithering idiots actually pay for this; I’d need to receive six figures just to consider the idea.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, September 28th, 2016 | Sports | 16 Comments

You have a serious problem:

NFL games in primetime are seeing a sharp audience drop through Week 3, while Sunday afternoons are a mixed bag. Fox is the only TV partner seeing an uptick compared to the same period last season. Fox is averaging 20.43 million viewers through Week 3, up 1% from last year. The net was boosted by the Giants-Cowboys game featured in Week 1’s national window, as well as Redskins-Giants featured in Week 3’s singleheader. The L.A. market has not yet delivered for Fox. The Week 3 Rams-Buccaneers matchup drew a 6.1 local rating in L.A., with the figure being half of what Fox drew for Seahawks-Rams in Week 2. However, Rams-Bucs did have to air up against Vin Scully’s final call at Dodger Stadium and SoCal fans watching the Chargers-Colts game on CBS. Meanwhile, CBS is averaging 17.4 million viewers through Week 3, which has included two national windows. That figure is down 5% from 18.26 million viewers at the same point last season. CBS’ two national windows are down 5%.

Like I said previously, I’ve basically given up on the SJWFL.  It’s pretty easy to do when you live in a town that’s been effed over by the SJWFL for as long as this one was.

Lately, while I briefly check on SJWFL games from time to time, I spend my Sunday afternoons watching anything else.  Whatever afternoon sports programming NBC broadcasts, whatever rerun of whatever sitcom from the 60’s through the 80’s that happens to strike my fancy, old Walker Texas Ranger episodes, that kind of thing.

And I’m actually amazed at how little I miss it.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, September 28th, 2016 | Politics | 22 Comments

Congratulations.  You officially have one, says Angelo Codevilla, in one of the best explanations of how and why this country got where it currently is that I’ve seen.  Here’s a taste:

Over the past half century, the Reagan years notwithstanding, our ruling class’s changing preferences and habits have transformed public and private life in America. As John Marini shows in his essay, “Donald Trump and the American Crisis,” this has resulted in citizens morphing into either this class’s “stakeholders” or its subjects. And, as Publius Decius Mus argues, “America and the West” now are so firmly “on a trajectory toward something very bad” that it is no longer reasonable to hope that “all human outcomes are still possible,” by which he means restoration of the public and private practices that made the American republic. In fact, the 2016 election is sealing the United States’s transition from that republic to some kind of empire.

Electing either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump cannot change that trajectory. Because each candidate represents constituencies hostile to republicanism, each in its own way, these individuals are not what this election is about. This election is about whether the Democratic Party, the ruling class’s enforcer, will impose its tastes more strongly and arbitrarily than ever, or whether constituencies opposed to that rule will get some ill-defined chance to strike back. Regardless of the election’s outcome, the republic established by America’s Founders is probably gone. But since the Democratic Party’s constituencies differ radically from their opponents’, and since the character of imperial governance depends inherently on the emperor, the election’s result will make a big difference in our lives.

The overriding question of 2016 has been how eager the American people are to reject the bipartisan class that has ruled this country contrary to its majority’s convictions. Turned out, eager enough to throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater. The ruling class’s united front in response to the 2008 financial crisis had ignited the Tea Party’s call for adherence to the Constitution, and led to elections that gave control of both houses of Congress to the Republican Party. But as Republicans became full partners in the ruling class’s headlong rush in what most considered disastrous directions, Americans lost faith in the Constitution’s power to restrain the wrecking of their way of life.

In fact, the United States of America was great because of a whole bunch of things that now are gone. Yes, the ruling class led the way in personal corruption, cheating on tests, lowering of professional standards, abandoning churches and synagogues for the Playboy Philosophy and lifestyle, disregarding law, basing economic life on gaming the administrative state, basing politics on conflicting identities, and much more. But much of the rest of the country followed. What would it take to make America great again—or indeed to make any of the changes that Trump’s voters demand? Replacing the current ruling class would be only the beginning.

Because it is difficult to imagine a Trump presidency even thinking about something so monumental as replacing an entire ruling elite, much less leading his constituency to accomplishing it, electing Trump is unlikely to result in a forceful turn away from the country’s current direction. Continuing pretty much on the current trajectory under the same class will further fuel revolutionary sentiments in the land all by itself. Inevitable disappointment with Trump is sure to add to them.

We have stepped over the threshold of a revolution. It is difficult to imagine how we might step back, and futile to speculate where it will end. Our ruling class’s malfeasance, combined with insult, brought it about. Donald Trump did not cause it and is by no means its ultimate manifestation. Regardless of who wins in 2016, this revolution’s sentiments will grow in volume and intensity, and are sure to empower politicians likely to make Americans nostalgic for Donald Trump’s moderation.

Needless to say, read the whole thing.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, September 27th, 2016 | LGBT+54 | 19 Comments

You know that received wisdom and Absolutely Settled ScienceTM about how homosexuality isn’t a choice, that homosexuals were born that way, nothing they can do about it, etc.?  Yeah, well, uh…never mind.  Our bad:

A top researcher with the American Psychological Association (APA) and lesbian activist has acknowledged that gays are not “born that way.”

Dr. Lisa Diamond, co-editor-in-chief of the APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology and one of the APA’s “most respected members,” says sexual orientation is “fluid” and not unchangeable.

As clinical psychologist Dr. Laura A. Haynes summarizes Diamond’s APA Handbook chapters, her book and YouTube lectures, “The battle to disprove ‘Born that way and can’t change’ is now over, and (Diamond) is telling LGBT activists to stop promoting the myth.”

Contrary to the typical argument that homosexuals are “born gay” as “who they are” and cannot change, the APA officially recognized sexual orientation change in 2011.

Diamond summarized relevant findings in a lecture at Cornell University (2013), stating that abundant research has now established that sexual orientation — including attraction, behavior, and self-identity — is fluid for both adolescents and adults and for both genders.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, September 27th, 2016 | Politics | 29 Comments

Want to feel depressed about the future of this country but don’t know how to go about it?  One obvious answer is to reflect on the fact that either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.  But a much better way is to read the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Think of it.  By today’s standards, both Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas were completely uneducated men.  Yet in 1858, during the US senatorial election, these two men crisscrossed Illinois, debating the single most important issue facing America, slavery.  Each of them spoke at great length and each exhibited an intellectual depth that would blow ALL modern US presidential candidates from both parties completely out of the water.

Let’s face it.  That…performance last night was a lot of things but a debate wasn’t one of them.  US presidential debates haven’t been actual debates in decades.  What they have been is an utterly-predictable form of theater.

Speaking in two-minute chunks, hoping to get a zinger in or get your opponent to commit some kind of “gaffe” for the press to latch on to.  All the cross-talk.  The facial expressions one candidate displays while the other is speaking.  At the conclusion, partisans of both candidates rushing to declare that their candidate obviously “won.”

Been there, done that.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  Etc.

So what do we do about it?  If we want to make these things matter again, here are two suggestions:

(1) Eliminate the role of the moderator – Since both candidates will address the same question, all questions will be known in advance.  So the only thing the moderator will do is introduce the questions and perhaps warn the candidates when their allotted time is almost finished.  When it is, the candidate’s mike is to be immediately turned off and the next question addressed.

(2) Completely uninterrupted speaking time – Each candidate will be given fifteen minutes to answer a particular question, to be used in any manner he or she prefers.  Each candidate will also be given five minutes of response to the other.

Here’s the kicker.  Whenever one candidate is talking, the microphone of the other will be shut off.  Not only that, but when one candidate is speaking, the face of the other will not appear on the TV screen, eliminating the influence of eye-rolling, arrogant smirks or similar gestures.

What are the chances of any of this actually happening?


Why?  Today’s American news media thinks in sound bites so one can’t expect that their limited intellects will be at all happy about having to listen to arguments and seriously ponder questions.  Also, a debate format like this one basically takes the media completely out of the equation.

Because the candidates won’t be talking to them.  They’ll be talking to us.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Monday, September 26th, 2016 | Presidential Election | 96 Comments

If any of you guys want to provide running commentary of tonight’s debate, do it in the comments here.  Either Bill or I will be around to tidy things up and perhaps provide a comment or two ourselves.

From Bill – PLEASE keep your comments relevant. Discuss the issues raised; answers given; posture and poise of the candidates – let’s not end up wandering off into “Bush did this” or “Obama caused that”


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Monday, September 26th, 2016 | Stupid People | 16 Comments

American higher education, ladies and gentlemen.  But you’ll have to haul it to the landfill yourself:

An RA at the University of Kansas was advised against incorporating an image of a gorilla into a jungle-themed floor decoration because the animal apparently represents “a very masculine image.”

In an email obtained by Campus Reform, a university employee with the school’s student housing department writes to a resident advisor, who wishes to remain anonymous, to explain to him that he cannot use an image of a gorilla for a routine floor decoration.

“I think it would be best if your floor chose a different theme animal to be more inclusive,” Assistant Complex Director Dale Morrow wrote in an email at the start of this academic year. “First, gorillas represent a very masculine image, and I feel that this would not be inclusive to all of our residents on that floor.”



Posted by Christopher Johnson | Sunday, September 25th, 2016 | American Legends | 10 Comments

RIP, Arnold Palmer.


Posted by Christopher Johnson | Saturday, September 24th, 2016 | Home of the Oppressed | 25 Comments

safespaceWelcome to your future:

A Young Americans for Freedom chapter meeting at the University of Kansas erupted into shouts and chaos Thursday when students from outside of the club barged in to protest a remark by the group’s president.

The disruption took place in response to a video that student Micha Cox posted on Facebook earlier this week claiming that she was harassed while walking home because she is a transgender.

Students then arranged a “Stand with ME” event to take place on September 27 to stand “in solidarity against the injustices that continue to happen in this country.”

Gabriel Lepinski, the chairman of the YAF chapter, then shared the event page with group members, saying, “this is why this group is so important. Facts don’t care about your feelings, even if you shout them as loudly as you can on wescoe beach”(a central location on campus where students come together to meet).

Following that exchange, many of the students involved with the Stand with ME event showed up at the second YAF meeting of the semester, three of whom were invited after asking how to attend, to which Lepinski responded by asking only that they “bring an open mind and respect everyone there.”

Lepinski says he welcomed these students for a discussion, but “it dissolved into them arguing with us for being white supremacists because we are white.”

“I don’t study in the library because I don’t feel comfortable with people always wondering what my gender identity is and how I express myself, and I don’t feel comfortable being in classrooms where I am supposed to speak as a transhuman and as a queer person as all queer people,” one student whined. “That shows you that there is a problem with this institution about there not being—that these students are not being taught that they are supposed to create safe spaces.”

Cox, who was also present for the conversation, declared emphatically that “safe spaces are a necessity” and making clear that she would brook no dissent on the matter.

“It’s not a question. It’s not for you to say. It’s not for anyone else to say. Safe spaces are necessary because the institution that we’re at is not a safe space in its entirety,” she claimed. “We have to carve out places and fight for places that we feel safe because not only will we get harassed, we’ll be murdered, we’ll be all this stuff and discriminated against because we have to do that. It’s not because we want to.”

Support The MCJ                        

Email the editor-in-chief                    
©2016 Christopher Johnson                                
                        Email about Website issues

Recent Comments



Annual Archive