A San Francisco school board decision to spend $600,000 to paint over a New Deal-era mural of George Washington as a slave owner is fueling a family feud among Democrats — with a growing chorus protesting that the controversial move may hand Donald Trump potent ammunition in his re-election bid.
First, all of-no-color people are racist by definition, especially those already dead. It has something to do with their racial characteristics, which are unchangeable and fixed and which are also social constructs. Of-no-colors can’t help themselves but be racist. That all of-no-colors are racist is something all right-thinking people accept.
Second, only people of-color, specially blacks, were slaves and have suffered. The many more of-no-colors were who thought to be slaves in such places as North Africa and in America were actually volunteers and were having a good time.
Conclusion: George Washington has to go. Who can dispute it?
The painting only takes up a small wall—it’s only 1600 square feet. Two migrants, with pronouns Juan/Juan, who broke the law crossing into the United States, both equipped with a bucket of paint, and some brushes from the dollar store, can have the job done in an hour. Should cost $100, $200 tops. (I used the handy Sherman Williams paint calculator to figure paint price.)
California will instead pay $600,000.
To the progressive, the past must become the future. Everybody knows this. The past is filled with intolerable affronts to our modern delicate sensibilities. The past must therefore be erased. No child should ever be exposed to the past, lest he turn out to be tainted by it and become (shudder) a racist, a homophobe, a et cetera, et certera, et cetera.
Everybody knows these indisputable facts. The intolerable is that which cannot be tolerated, and the indisputable is that which cannot be disputed.
The mural of that dead of-color guy standing among noble people of-color must therefore go.
But must it cost $600,000?
The new paint will have been blessed by the ADL, NAACP, and the like, including local pols, each requiring a (ahem) donation. Doubtless California will dispatch a brigade of safety inspectors, grief counselors, environmental remediation experts, toxicologists (the old paint might have had lead in it), and a retinue of grievers. Grievers are paid by California to attend newsworthy functions to weep and cry “What about the children?”
When you total it all up, it’s a miracle it’s under a million dollars.
The great sum was put to School Board Commissioner Mark Sanchez, “who appeared to dismiss the estimated $600,000 cost for the covering, and insisted the school board retains the option of covering the mural temporarily with paneling. ‘This is reparations,’ Sanchez told KQED radio.”
Reparations! There is no answer to that. Pay the man.
Berkeley has become the first city in the nation to ban the installation of natural gas lines in new homes.
The City Council on Tuesday night unanimously voted to ban gas from new low-rise residential buildings starting Jan. 1.
It’s not the first time Berkeley has passed pioneering health or environmental legislation. In 1977, Berkeley was the first in the country to ban smoking in restaurants and bars. In January the city banned single-use disposables, requiring restaurants to use to-go foodware that is compostable…
“It’s an enormous issue,” Harrison told The Chronicle. “We need to really tackle this. When we think about pollution and climate-change issues, we tend to think about factories and cars, but all buildings are producing greenhouse gas.”…
The ordinance allocates $273,341 per year for a two-year staff position in the Building and Safety Division within the city’s Department of Planning and Development. The employee will be responsible for implementing the ban.
Banning Californians from frying eggs using gas will, as is clear to every scientist, solve the global climate herpes disaster. It will also this Harrison fellow (who might even be female) to feel really really good about herself. And if that isn’t the definition of a modern Democracy, then nothing is.
But must it cost $273,341 x 2 = $546,682?
How much does wagging a stern finger cost?
A lot, apparently, including to residents of that most enlightened city. “Harrison acknowledged that electric appliances might be more expensive, but she said the use of electric equipment is cost-effective in the long term.”
If people have to pay more to make this Harrison warm in her smugness, like a drunk who couldn’t make it to the toilet on time, then it is worth it.
Of course, after two years and $546,682 is spent on her brother-in-law, or whomever gets the money for saying “No!”, that position will not fade away. By then, cost of living adjustments will have increased the annual salary to, say, $302,000, complete with full medical and retirement package.
That person will then have to find more things to wave his finger at.
In other words, California is screwed. The grifters have a death grip on the state. Move out as soon as you can.
To support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card or PayPal (in any amount) click here