Rebuttal: Bedtime Story Privilege

Link to the article.

The notion that reading to one's children constitutes an unfair advantage over others defies common sense and undermines the fundamental role of parenting in nurturing the next generation. Here's a refutation based on logical reasoning and the broader implications of such an idea.

It's a fundamental parental duty to care for and educate their children. Reading to children is not about creating inequality; it's about fulfilling parental responsibility and sharing moments of joy and bonding. To suggest that this act is unfair is as absurd as arguing that feeding them nutritious meals gives them an unfair advantage over those who eat poorly.

The argument suggests leveling down rather than raising. Instead of advocating for policies or initiatives that help less fortunate children gain access to books and reading time with adults, it hints at reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator. This approach fosters mediocrity rather than excellence.

Reading to children has universally acknowledged benefits, including cognitive development, improved language skills, and better academic performance. To suggest these benefits should be curtailed for the sake of 'fairness' is to ignore the immense potential for societal improvement through education. It's akin to suggesting we stop parents from teaching their children to walk early because some children take their first steps later.

The premise rests on the flawed idea that all outcomes must be equal for life to be fair. However, equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcome. Efforts should focus on equal access to resources like books and education, not on handicapping those with them. If taken to its logical extreme, this argument would lead to a society where any parental involvement could be seen as giving children an unfair advantage. This could extend from education to emotional support, potentially leading to a dystopian scenario where parental love and care are measured and regulated. Education systems and societal structures should aim to lift everyone, not pull down those ahead. The solution to educational disparities isn't stopping parents from reading to their kids but encouraging and facilitating a culture of reading across all socio-economic groups, thereby empowering parents with their crucial role in education.

The original argument ignores that life's playing field is never level due to a myriad of factors like genetics, socio-economic status, geography, etc. Reading to children is one of the most accessible tools for leveling this field, not exacerbating inequality. In conclusion, the idea that reading to your children unfairly disadvantages others is not only counterintuitive but also detrimental to the progress of society. Instead of debating the 'fairness' of reading, efforts should be concentrated on how to spread the love for reading, ensuring every child has the opportunity to benefit from it. This polemic isn't about defending privilege; it's about advocating for a world where the simple, profound act of reading to a child is universally accessible, not universally condemned.

Rebuttal: Vengeance is Trump's Only True Campaign Proposal?

The article from Salon titled "Vengeance is the only true campaign proposal" paints a picture of Donald Trump's campaign as primarily driven by a desire for revenge. Here's a rebuttal based on broader context and alternative perspectives:

Campaign Complexity: Reducing Trump's campaign to a singular theme of vengeance oversimplifies the political landscape. Campaigns are multifaceted, addressing economic policies, foreign relations, and social issues. While Trump's rhetoric might often focus on grievances and past injustices against him, this does not preclude the existence of detailed policy proposals on various fronts, frequently discussed in rallies, interviews, and policy documents.

Public Sentiment and Media Bias: The media plays a significant role in shaping public perception of political campaigns. Critics argue that media bias might influence the portrayal of Trump's campaign as vengeful. The media often amplifies Trump's more controversial statements while downplaying or ignoring substantive policy discussions. For instance, Trump's campaign has also highlighted issues like immigration reform, economic nationalism, and law and order, which resonate with many voters beyond the theme of vengeance.

Political Strategy: Vengeance or the perception thereof could be a strategic narrative. In politics, framing oneself as the victim can mobilize a base by reinforcing a sense of injustice and the need for change. This doesn't necessarily mean that vengeance is the only or even primary motivation but rather a tactic to engage supporters emotionally.

Policy Over Rhetoric: While Trump's rhetoric might lean heavily on personal grievances, his policy proposals tell a different story. For example, discussions around trade deals, tax cuts, infrastructure spending, and deregulation suggest a campaign focused on governance beyond personal vendettas. Critics might argue that these policies are mere vehicles for revenge, but this perspective often ignores the genuine policy debates within his voter base.

Historical Context of Political Campaigns: It's important to consider the historical context of political campaigns. Throughout history, campaigns have often used themes of retribution or correction against perceived wrongs by previous administrations. This isn't unique to Trump. For instance, campaigns against corruption or for justice have been central themes for many leaders, suggesting that what's labeled as vengeance might also be interpreted as a call for accountability or change.

Voter Motivation: It's important to acknowledge that voters support candidates for a myriad of reasons, not just vengeance. Economic policies, cultural identity, and dissatisfaction with the status quo play significant roles. While some supporters might be motivated by Trump's combative stance against his political enemies, many are likely more concerned with policy outcomes that benefit them directly. This diversity of voter motivations is a key aspect of the political landscape that should not be overlooked.

The Role of Opposition: It's crucial to understand that the narrative of vengeance might also be fueled by the opposition's strategy to paint Trump negatively, focusing on his personality rather than engaging with his policy proposals. This tactic aims to discredit rather than debate, which might not reflect the full spectrum of why voters support him. By understanding these broader political tactics, readers can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics at play in Trump's campaign.

In conclusion, it's important to reiterate that while Trump's campaign might leverage themes of vengeance, suggesting it's the 'only true campaign proposal' overlooks the complexity of political motivations, voter concerns, and the broader policy discussions within his campaign. By understanding this complexity, readers can deepen their understanding of the political landscape and the various factors that influence a campaign's appeal. Political campaigns are often about narrative control, and while vengeance might be a part of Trump's narrative, it's not the entirety of his campaign's substance or appeal.

Rebuttal: Vox's Vibes Article

The article from Vox discussing Kamala Harris's campaign energy and its implications for the 2024 presidential race touches on several points that could be seen as both strengths and weaknesses of her candidacy. Here's a rebuttal or a different perspective based on the information available up to September 1, 2024:

Vibes Over Substance: The article suggests that Harris's campaign has been characterized more by "vibes" than substantive policy discussions. Critics might argue that this approach, while potentially energizing the base, does little to address the substantive policy needs of the electorate. However, this could also be interpreted as a strategic move to shift the narrative from policy failures or controversies associated with the Biden administration to a more emotional, identity-based appeal. This strategy might effectively mobilize voters who are more influenced by cultural and identity politics rather than detailed policy proposals.

Youth Engagement: The mention of young voters being energized by Harris's candidacy could be seen as a significant shift in Democratic voter turnout strategy. While the article implies skepticism about whether this "vibe" can translate into votes, the engagement of younger voters through social media, memes, and cultural references might be a modern form of political engagement. This could be more effective than traditional campaign methods if it taps into the digital native's way of consuming and interacting with political content.

Campaign Funding: Harris's campaign raising $310 million in July is highlighted, which is a significant financial advantage. However, this could also be seen as a double-edged sword. Critics might argue that such high fundraising figures reflect more on the influence of big donors and less on grassroots support, potentially alienating voters wary of big money in politics. On the other hand, this substantial funding could enable Harris's campaign to reach a wider audience and implement more effective campaign strategies, potentially increasing her chances of success.

Electoral Strategy: The article points out the strategic choice of not picking a swing state governor as a running mate, focusing instead on energizing the base. This could be critiqued as risky, potentially narrowing the ticket's appeal. However, from a strategic standpoint, ensuring a high turnout from the base might be more crucial than appealing to the middle in a highly polarized electorate. If the base is sufficiently energized, this could lead to higher turnout in critical states, potentially offsetting losses in more centrist areas.

Media and Public Perception: The discussion around Harris's portrayal in media and public sentiment shows a divide. While some see her as a unifying figure or a historic candidate, others view her as a product of Democratic Party machinations rather than genuine voter choice. This dichotomy might reflect less on Harris herself and more on the broader polarization in media consumption, where different narratives are pushed depending on the outlet's leanings. However, this perception divide could affect Harris's ability to connect with specific segments of the electorate, highlighting the importance of managing public image in modern political campaigns.

Historical Parallels: Given the different political climates, some might see comparisons to Obama's campaign as overly optimistic or even misleading. However, it also underscores a psychological aspect of campaigning: the power of hope and change narratives. If Harris's campaign can effectively tap into this sentiment, it might not matter as much how closely the comparison holds up historically.

In conclusion, while the Vox article frames Harris's campaign regarding energy and vibes, which some might dismiss as superficial, it could also be seen as a deliberate strategy tailored to the current political landscape. This approach might resonate with a segment of the electorate that values identity, cultural representation, and emotional connection over policy minutiae, potentially reshaping how campaigns are run in the future. However, whether this translates into electoral success in the 2024 presidential race remains to be seen, highlighting the unpredictable nature of voter behavior in modern American politics and the potential for a shift in campaign strategies.

Fireside Chat: Academics Are Poisonous

Academics have zero accountability, at least, within their institution. Egyptologist Kara Cooney is under the microscope from the liberal establishment for her false claims about Kyle Rittenhouse. In her book, Good Kings, Cooney asks readers to "consider 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse, who used his semi-automatic weapon to kill two Black men in Kenosha, Wisconsin, while waging a glorious race war on behalf of his inherited White power."[1] In actuality, the men shot by Rittenhouse were white, a convicted pedophile named Joseph Rosenbaum, who was charged by a grand jury with 11 counts of child molestation and inappropriate sexual activity with children. This included anal rape, masturbation, oral sex, and showing minors pornography. The victims were five boys ranging in age from nine to 11 years old.[2] Anthony Huber was a serial abuser, also convicted of reckless endangerment using a dangerous weapon.[3] Gaige Paul Grosskreutz held a lengthy criminal record, which included the utilization of a firearm while intoxicated and disrespecting officers.[4] Notice that all three men are white, and footage shows that these men approached Rittenhouse, who did not fire until threatened.[5]

Now, I am not an academic. I am not expected to compose "scholarly" articles to maintain my job or publish books to appear more sophisticated than I am. I am not likely to edit and read books to ensure that they are factual. That being said, National Geographic is. This mala fide action taken by National Geographic points to a bigger problem in the academic world: no one is held accountable in the halls of academia. Books are mirrors of the soul, and Cooney's blatant lie in her book demonstrates that she did not fear accountability. Readers must continue to hold such professors up to what they write and EXPECT their musings to be backed up with facts. With any luck, this perversion of truth will begin the death by a thousand cuts that will topple scholastic elitists.

[1] Kara Cooney, The Good Kings: Absolute Power in Ancient Egypt and the Modern World (National Geographic, 2021), 341.

[2] Jim Piwowarczyk, “Joseph Rosenbaum: Sex Offender 2002 Arizona Criminal Complaint,” Wisconsin Right Now, accessed January 7, 2022, https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/03/11/joseph-rosenbaum-sex-offender/

[3] Jim Piwowarczyk, “Why We’ve Decided to Tell You the Criminal Records of the Men Shot in Kenosha,” Wisconsin Right Now, accessed January 7, 2022, https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/03/12/kenosha-shooting/

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

Rebuttal: The Smithsonian's Whiteness Poster

These Rebuttals are my responses to current events which i disagree with. They will come with at least twice the sources which the opposing side has utilized

Okay, have we gone completely insane here? This is the Klansman’s wet dream for what African Americans are supposed to believe, and the ironic thing is that this was on display by an organization created to show all of the most important merits of African American accomplishments! I was trying to think of the proper way to rebut this amazingly racist poster, but i believe that the best way to do so would be to ask some of the leaders of the past for assistance. So:

Rugged Individualism:

• “If there is no struggle, there is no progress.” — Frederick Douglass

• “It’s not the load that breaks you down, it’s the way you carry it.” — Lena Horne“

• “Success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome while trying to succeed.” — Booker T. Washington

• “I believe in destiny. But I also believe that you can’t just sit back and let destiny happen. A lot of times, an opportunity might fall into your lap, but you have to be ready for that opportunity. You can’t sit there waiting on it. A lot of times you are going to have to get out there and make it happen.” Spike Lee

• “If you don’t like something, change it. If you can’t change it, change your attitude. Don't complain.” — Maya Angelou

• ‘The harder you work, the luckier you get’’ — Mike Adenuga

• “I hated every minute of training, but I said, ‘Don’t quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.’” — Muhammad Ali

• “I built a conglomerate and emerged the richest black man in the world in 2008 but it didn’t happen overnight. It took me 30 years to get to where I am today. Youths of today aspire to be like me but they want to achieve it overnight. It’s not going to work. To build a successful business, you must start small and dream big. In the journey of entrepreneurship, tenacity of purpose is supreme.” — Aliko Dangote

• “Dedicate yourself to a core set of values. Without them, you will never be able to find personal fulfillment, and you will never be able to lead effectively.” — Kenneth Chenault

• “Trust yourself. Think for yourself. Act for yourself. Speak for yourself. Be yourself. Imitation is suicide.” — Marva Collins

Family Structure:

• “The group consisting of mother, father and child is the main educational agency of mankind.” - Martin Luther King Jr.

• “Every father bears a fundamental obligation to do right by their children,” - Barrack Obama

• “Fathers and sons arrive at that relationship only by claiming that relationship; that is by paying for it. If the relationship of father to son could really be reduced to biology, the whole Earth would blaze with the glory of fathers and sons.” - James Baldwin

Scientific Method:

Inventions Made by African Americans include, but are CERTAINLY not limited to:

• AEROPLANE PROPELLING

• BISCUIT CUTTER

• FOLDING BED

• COIN CHANGER

• ROTARY ENGINE

• CAR COUPLER

• LETTER BOX

• STAINLESS STEEL PADS

• TORPEDO DISCHARGER

• DISPOSABLE SYRINGE

• HOME SECURITY SYSTEM

• CORN PLANTER

• COTTON PLANTER

• IRONING BOARD

• STREET SWEEPERS

• HORSE BRIDLE BIT

• HORSESHOE LAWN MOWER

• TYPEWRITER

• TRAIN-ALARM

• RADIATION DETECTOR

• PEANUT BUTTER

• PAINTS AND STAINS

• LOTIONS AND SOAPS

• AUTOMATIC FISHING REEL

• ICE CREAM MOLD

• ENVELOPE SEAL

• PRESSURE COOKER

• WINDOW CLEANER

• PENCIL SHARPENER

• FIRE EXTINGUISHER

• MACHINE LUBRICATORS

Keep in mind that none of these inventions could have been created without the “evil” rational thinking skills used by those who use the Scientific method.

History:

Despite the fact that there is an entire month devoted to Black History Month and entire Historically Black Universities in America, here are nine books written by African American authors which are read across college campuses today:

• Harriet A. Jacobs, Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl, Written By Herself

• Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in an Age of Colorblindness

• James Weldon Johnson, Along This Way: The Autobiography of James Weldon Johnson

• W.E. B. Du Bois, Black Reconstruction in America: An Essay Toward a History of the Part Which Black Folk Played in the Attempt to Reconstruct Democracy in America, 1860-1880

• Deborah Gray White, Ar’n’t I a Woman?: Female Slaves in the Plantation South

• Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man (my personal favorite in the list!)

• Robin D. G. Kelley, Freedom Dreams: The Black Radical Imagination

• Stephanie Camp, Closer to Freedom: Enslaved Women and Everyday Resistance in the Plantation South

• Julius S. Scott, The Common Wind: Currents of Afro-American Communication in the Era of the Haitian Revolution

Of these nine authors, none of them gave a heavy emphasis on the British empire and focused more on the history of those around them. Five were self-taught, and four of those five were fluent in both Latin and Greek. All of these books had heavy emphasis on Judeo-Christian values.

Work Ethic:

• “The future belongs to those who prepare for it today.” - Malcolm X

• “If everything was perfect, you would never learn and you would never grow.” — Beyoncé

• "Never ever chase money. You should chase success, because with success money follows." — Wilfred Emmanuel-Jones

• “Five days a week, I read my goals before I go to sleep and when I wake up. There are 10 goals around health, family and business with expiration dates, and I update them every six months.” — Daymond John

Conclusion:

Now these may be chocked up to my whiteness showing, their regressed whiteness showing, and the systematic whiteness of this white society oppressing the blackness of the - okay, pause! If i finished that sentence, even though most would be able to understand that it was CLEARLY PARODY, i would still worry about someone burning my house down! My point in all of this is a simple one: this poster and the Smithsonian of African American History has permanently ruined it’s reputation with this stance, and even though it has removed the poster, the article for which the poster was based is still on the website, which you can read here. In addition, should they take it down, you can find a pdf copy here. My personal opinion is that, as long as they are publicly funded, the Smithsonian should not be allowed to display such polarized, ignorant, and simply untrue opinions. Now, if their funding was cut, I’d be totally fine with them saying whatever they please.

Rebuttal: Shaun King on Cancelling White Jesus

These Rebuttals are my responses to current events which i disagree with. They will come with at least twice the sources which the opposing side has utilized.

Since everyone has been what I’ve been referring to as “Statue Happy” lately, working strenuously to remove every piece of marble which they deem offensive, BLM advocate Shaun King tweeted quite the interesting comment on the 22nd of June:

This comment has sparked quite an interesting response throughout social media, and I was rather interested to hear what all Shaun had to say to defend his claim that a white Jesus is a symbol of white supremacy. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find a single comment or elaboration on this message from Shaun King. However, in the spirit of following my own rules, I will make the attempt to refute this tweet, point-by-point, and pay no attention to the fact that if i only provided two sources, i would have doubled Mr. King here!

Yes, I think the statues of the White European they claim is Jesus should also come down.

I do find it interesting that only the white ones were mentioned here, but the Korean Mary and Infant Jesus, the Black Jesus of Ethiopia, and the Japanese Mary and Infant Jesus is perfectly okay. When Christianity moved across Europe, missionaries were self-aware enough to understand that Germans wouldn’t pay attention to a Jewish man coming back to save their souls. The same goes for the examples below, and that’s not racism, it’s just good marketing. The fact of the matter is, it’s hard for some people to believe that a savior who looks nothing like them will come back and save them. It just seems to me that every color of the rainbow is perfectly fine for Jesus to Shaun except for White. That’s not good marketing, that’s racism.

They are a form of White Supremacy. Always have been.

So, what you are saying here is that the pretty much agreed upon image of the savior of 31% of the world’s population is a symbol of hate? Does this mean that anyone who calls upon the name of Jesus is secretly wishing for the death of all brown people, even the brown people who call on the name of Jesus? And according to you, these symbols have always been a symbol of white supremacy, even when Jesus was depicted in the Catacombs of Rome from the third-century Catacomb of Callixtus:

I don’t know if Shaun was being serious when he said this, or he was just trying to win brownie woke points. Whatever the reason, I believe that Shaun is a self-loathing racist. For those who don’t know who he is all that well, he was caught up in some drama when it was found out that his father is white, making him a fully white man culturally appropriating black culture. I’ll give him more leeway than most people and believe him when he threw his mother under the bus and said that she was unfaithful with another man, who he vehemently claims is his father and points out every chance he gets is black, but I will still openly mock him for culturally appropriating and identifying with a culture he is not LEGALLY part of. Canceling White Jesus is just another insane way for Shaun to attempt to stay relevant, and as usual, he has nothing to back it up. White Jesus isn’t racist; people change the look of their savior to look more like themselves to better relate.

Tear them down.

I recommend you begin your attempt in Alabama. Good Luck!