No, "Cuties" is not pedophilia. However...

OK, I watched the thing on NetFlix. I have been pondering quitting NetFlix for a while now, because while they do have interesting documentaries and some interesting comedies and dramas, they also have Leftist propagandistic crap. But my fellow right-wing patriots are off in their criticisms of it, although there still is definitely something to criticize.

So, is it pedophilia? No, quite the contrary in the way it is filmed; however, the message is still disturbing, because it reflects how the trashiest elements of ghetto culture are popular and even celebrated, and not enough emphasis upon how destructive that can be.

(a few spoiler alerts ahead, but I will try to avoid giving it all away)

The film is French, with English subtitles. It is about a Senegalese-French immigrant girl who gets involved with and wants to fit in with classmates who want to enter a dance competition, classmates who also have adopted the worst aspects of ghetto culture. The setting is clearly the lower classes of France and she and one other girl of that group clearly live in a tenement or housing project.

Along the way, the protagonist experiences her first period, teasing by peers, and other grade school bordering on middle school sad experiences and traumas. And yes, that teasing involves innuendo and disturbing aspects of children trying to grow up way too fast. The director herself, Maïmouna Doucouré, is Senegalese-French, and I suspect the film was meant to be autobiographical. Anyway, my fellow Americans, *never* think America has cornered the market for ghetto problems, (multi)cultural dysfunction, and immigration issues, the French clearly have these problems too.

Is the film pornographic? No, definitely not the way it was shot. Yes, their dance contest outfits and "twerking" or "freak" moves are disturbing, but it was not in any way cinematography filmed in such a way as to make that appealing. To the director's credit, you can see LOTS frowning parental faces when the girls do their terrible dance routine at the competition, and the protagonist does have a "OMG, what the hell am I doing here?" moment, after which she quits and runs off the stage. To quote a US Supreme Court justice, Potter Stewart, in an old Court case, Jocobvellis v. Ohio, which was also about alleged pornography, "I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

However, that such trashy culture is prevalent and pervasive in society today is disgusting to be sure, and THAT is what really creeps me out about the film. I suppose the director will use the "Hey, I'm just the messenger, not the message" defense, but I don't see an ending where rejection of trashy culture is emphasized. At the end of the film, the protagonist Amy, abandons both the traditional Senegalese wedding dress (her father's bigamy a sub-plot in the movie) and her sexy dancer's outfit, and, in normal pre-teen girl jeans and a t-shirt, her hair down, she goes out to play jump rope with a group of girls. Which is better, but a rejection of trashiness is *not emphasized enough* in my mind.

So, while the film is not as bad as it has been made out to be, the message is clearly *not good*.

Lessons for the GOP From ‘Mr. Republican’

A great American Spectator piece about Robert Taft, by author Lee Edwards.

He is perhaps forgotten today, but before Donald Trump, before Ronald Reagan, before Barry Goldwater, there was Robert Taft. All of whom took on an out-of-touch "Eastern Establishment", what today we call Republican Globalists.

Indeed, the intra-party fights in the GOP truly are "deja vu all over again": Trump vs. the Bush dynasty, Reagan vs. Ford (and the beginning of the Bush dynasty), Goldwater vs. Rockefeller, Taft Vs. Dewey.

Lessons for the GOP From ‘Mr. Republican’

Bob Taft 2.0 is sorely needed, to stand up for liberty under law.

Before there was Ronald Reagan, there was Barry Goldwater, and before there was Barry Goldwater, there was Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio. From 1938 until his unexpected death in 1953, Taft led the Republican resistance to liberal Democrats and their Big Government philosophy. During the 2020 Republican National Convention, the GOP should consider the lessons of Robert Taft’s legacy.

Taft called himself a conservative, by which he meant someone “who knows and appreciates the importance of stability.” Echoing the 18th–century British parliamentarian Edmund Burke, he explained that “while I am willing and ready to consider changes, I want to be darned sure — darned sure — that they are really better than what we have.”

He was a federalist who insisted that the role of the federal government be limited to that of “a keeper of the peace, a referee of controversies, and an adjustor of abuses; not as a regulator of the people, or their business and personal activities.” The guiding principle of a legislator should be whether a policy “increases or decreases the liberty of our people.”

He looked to the Constitution as his North Star and agreed with the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. He supported an “equality of opportunity” whereby all men and women can rise from poverty and obscurity (as his grandfather Alphonso did) according to their ability and ambition. He was a consistent supporter of civil rights, supporting anti-lynching laws and desegregation of the armed forces, opposing the KKK and state poll taxes. He approved the Supreme Court’s decision requiring states to furnish equal education to citizens of all classes.

Taft insisted that any proposal for federal action must be judged by its effect on the liberty of the individual, the community, industry, and labor. “Such liberty,” he said, “cannot be sacrificed to any theoretical improvement from government control or government spending.” But he was not a radical libertarian; he accepted a limited welfare role for government. He sponsored modest federal aid to education, health, and housing with the condition that the administration of the programs be placed in the hands of state and local authorities, not the federal government.

In the political summer of 1948, every poll reported that if President Harry Truman sought reelection, he would be defeated. The polls were very wrong. In the most unexpected outcome in modern presidential politics, Truman beat New York Gov. Thomas Dewey by more than two million popular votes and by 305 to 189 in the Electoral College.

Conservatives hoped that the party had learned a crucial lesson: Do not nominate someone who waffles on the issues. Taft argued that the Republican Party could not survive unless it turned away from “the Deweys and the Eastern internationalists in general.” He was certain that “millions of his kind of Republican had not been voting for years in presidential elections” because the candidates were always Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Here was the argument for courting the Forgotten American, the Silent Majority, the Moral Majority, the Tea Party, and Midwest populists that would be advanced by Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, and Donald Trump in the decades ahead.

Going into the 1952 national convention, Taft was the almost certain nominee with over 500 delegates pledged to him, with 604 needed to nominate. But he faced an immensely popular opponent — Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had led the Allies to victory in World War II. The delegates appreciated all that Sen. Taft, “Mr. Republican,” had done for the party, but every poll showed Eisenhower easily defeating any Democrat by a wide margin. Republicans loved Bob Taft, but they loved victory more. Ike was nominated on the first ballot.

With Taft’s all-out help and a united Republican party, Ike defeated liberal Democrat Adlai Stevenson easily, gaining 55.4 percent of the popular vote and sweeping the Electoral College by 442-89. His long coattails helped produce Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. For the first time since 1930, Republicans controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government. It seemed that a moderate president and a conservative senator would forge a unique alliance for the good of their party and the country. Tragically, in just six short months, Robert Taft, the requisite link between the White House and Capitol Hill, was dead of cancer.

But his principled approach to politics lives on. It’s preserved, for example, in John F. Kennedy’s best-selling work, Profiles in Courage, his popular study of eight consequential senators in American history, which is required reading in many high school history classes. Taft and his principles are the subject of an excellent study by the conservative historians Russell Kirk and James McClellan, who discuss his most significant accomplishments.

Taft revived the GOP during the postwar period and restored an opposition when parliamentary government had fallen into decay throughout much of the world. He stood for liberty under law — “the liberties of all classes of citizens, in all circumstances.” He contended for “a humane economy,” in which the benefits of American industry would be extended to every citizen. He helped restore the balance between management and labor with the Taft–Hartley Act.

In a Senate eulogy delivered after Taft’s passing, Kennedy nominated Taft for Man of the Year, remarking that like Churchill, his character and personality were so powerful that his influence would “continue to endure after death.” In Profiles in Courage, Kennedy praised Taft for his succinct definition of liberty: “When I say liberty, I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life.”

That was the creed by which Sen. Taft lived, Kennedy said. More than that, Robert Taft sought to provide an atmosphere in America “in which others could do likewise.” Given the toxic atmosphere that now pervades our politics and our culture, the need for another Bob Taft grows more urgent with every passing day.

Unfortunately, Robert Taft still got smeared by a toxic atmosphere in politics even then. For example, a rather mild statement cautioning against "victor's justice" in the Nuremburg Trials led to accusations of anti-Semitism, even though his strong support for the foundation of Israel was well known. Others took him to task for his previous isolationism and hesitancy about the USA taking on more a global role, although after Korea he changed there too.

5 months or so to Election Day 2020 - A prophecy

What will happen between now and then?

The Democrat Party Deep State, along with the "NeverTrump" GOPee quislings, are going to:

1) Inflame civil unrest
2) Stoke racial tension and violence
3) Commit mail-in and non-citizen ballot fraud
4) Increase technological censorship of patriots 5) Extend the pandemic panic, when it is utterly unwaranted given the damage it will do to must of us 6) Hurt economy with #5 above 7) Stage fake "White Supremacist" terror events 9) Weaponize their media further than they already have.

Before you vote for "higher education" funding....

....think again. You or your children will be made dumber by going to the University of California system unless you or they pursue a strictly STEM curriculum. Exhibit number - I lost count:

Because OF COURSE there would be a "Virtual Healing Circle". Like that would do any damn good to stop ZOOM hacking, if any actually even happened.

And this is on the MERCED campus, which is the smallest and among the most rural of the UC campuses, with the lowest percentage tenured faculty, in an area heretofore not left-wing in any sense of the word. In fact, back in Cold War days, the region had Castle Air Force Base.

And yet, every other year in every other ballot initiative election there is some Proposition asking for more funding for the UC and CSU systems. If even a cent goes to nonsense "administrators" like these, vote NO.

More nonsense from The University of California

And again, this is from UC Merced ,the smallest, least radical, and least tenured of campuses. You or your children will be taught how to misspell, and how not to think critically at all:

From: Equity, Diversity and Inclusion <diversity@ucmerced.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 1:00 PM
To:
Subject: Help Us Celebrate 150 Years of Womxn in the UC

A Message from the Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion

Dear Campus Community,  The UC Regents passed a memorial resolution on Oct. 3, 1870, “that young ladies be admitted into the university on equal terms in all respects with young men.” A UC Berkeley committee has been working to coordinate a yearlong celebration of 150th anniversary of that resolution, and we have been invited to join in.  One of the central aspects of this celebration is a UC-wide history project designed to examine the history of womxn and diversity on the all the UC campuses and to disseminate this history widely as part of a permanent archive. The project will feature the contributions and lives of notable students, alumni, faculty, staff and friends of the UC campuses. I would like to invite you to submit names (photos and short bios are welcome, too) of notable womxn associated with UC Merced, which will be considered for inclusion on the 150W website. For example:  ·         womxn who have made a profound different at UC Merced; ·         institutional “firsts” (e.g. first womxn Ph.D., first tenured womxn, first womxn dean, etc.); or  ·         names of womxn (alumni or past/current employees) who have significant national or international accomplishments. We know it is not possible to submit the names of all womxn associated with our campus, and thus I encourage you to select a representative subset which illustrates the wide range of womxn who have been a part of UC Merced. Please send the above information to diversity@ucmerced.edu by 5 p.m. Tuesday, Feb. 25, for review by members of the 150W steering committee at Berkeley. Thank you for helping us ensure our celebration is inclusive. Dania Matos Associate Chancellor and Chief Diversity Officer Pronouns: She/Her/Hers I remember when the Leftist militant lesbians insisted upon calling themselves "womyn", but "womxn" is even stupider than that. And this kind of nonsense goes on in a followup email. I am sure no instructor there, let alone any student, would dare to call this nonsense out: From: Equity, Diversity and Inclusion <diversity@ucmerced.edu> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 9:00 AM Subject: Comment Period for Policy: Gender Recognition and Lived Name  A Message From the Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion  Dear Campus Community, The University of California Office of the President invites comments on a proposed Presidential Policy: Gender Recognition and Lived Name. It is proposed that the policy be fully implemented by UC campuses and locations by July 1, 2021, and it includes the following key issues: The university must provide three equally recognized gender options on university-issued documents and information systems — female, male and nonbinary. The university must provide an efficient process for students and employees to retroactively amend their gender designations and lived names on university-issued documents and in information systems. The legal name of university students, employees, alumni and affiliates, if different than the individual’s lived name, must be kept confidential and must not be published on documents or displayed in information systems that do not require a person’s legal name. The proposed policies are posted on UC Merced’s Policies website.  Employees who want to provide comments on the proposed revisions can submit them to the UC Merced Policy Office by May 14, 2020, by emailing policy@ucmerced.edu.  Best regards, Dania Matos Associate Chancellor and Chief Diversity Officer Pronouns: She/Her/Hers University of California, Merced | 5200 N. Lake Road, Merced, CA 95343