Actual 100% real headline not from the Onion.

Catholic school reportedly removes Harry Potter books from library because they 'risk conjuring evil spirits'

 Megan Johnson,Yahoo Lifestyle Sun, Sep 1 3:35 PM EDT 

The Rev. Dan Reehil, a pastor at the St. Edward School, a pre-K through 8th grade Roman Catholic school in Nashville, explained to parents in an email why the extremely popular seven-book series by J.K. Rowling about a young wizard and his friends was taken out of the school’s collection.
"These books present magic as both good and evil, which is not true, but in fact a clever deception. . ."

Wow, you're really jumping on this one right on time! The first Harry Potter book was published in 1997. And just now, 21 years later, you're noticing that that they're about spooky witches and magick and whatnot?

And in those 21 years, have you seen any sort of an uptick in wizardry-related casualties?
Seems like 21 years is a good enough sample size to determine that these books are pretty benign.

"These books present magic as both good and evil, which is not true, but in fact a clever deception. . .

Well, I'm not sure how clever that deception is, seeing as how the "deception" here is that being a wizard and casting spells is made up? And maybe some kids might be naive enough to think that they could actually somehow find a wizard school to teach them how to do magic? And then they would be disappointed when they eventually figure out that nonr of this is real?

"These books present magic as both good and evil, which is not true, but in fact a clever deception. The curses and spells used in the books are actual curses and spells; which when read by a human being risk conjuring evil spirits into the presence of the person reading the text," 

What????
The spells are real?
You, a grown man, think that magic spells are real. Seriously, this is a thing that you think. You think that there are actual, literal, magical spells that can actually be used to conjure up actual, literal evil spirits?





So you know how many people have read the Harry Potter books? Over half a BILLION of these books have been sold. And God knows how many people have checked them out from libraries. So, hundreds of millions of people have read these books and I promise you - I PROMISE you - none of these people have inadvertently or intentionally summoned any demons into our realm.  Zero evil spirits have been conjured up by the readers of the Harry Potter books. Zero. Which is, coincidentally, the number of evil demon spirits that actually exist.

I mean, you know J.K. Rowling just made these spells and incantations up, right? She didn't copy them from ancient scrolls she unearthed in a repository of forbidden knowledge. She made them up. Honestly, she didn't even put a lot of effort into them. She just used some high-school Latin words that approximate the description of the desired result. Like this:

Aqua Eructo  (Aqua Eructo Charm)

Type: Charm

Pronunciation: A-kwa ee-RUCK-toh

Description: This spell is used to create, and control, a jet of clear water from the tip of the wand.

Etymology: Aqua means, in Latin, water. Eructo is a verb meaning "I raise"; roughly translated, it means "I raise water".

The email also reportedly shared that Reehil had consulted with several exorcists who also advocated for removing the books from the school’s library.

Okay, this is a joke, right? This article is from the Onion, right?
Right?

No, this was actually reported in the Tennesseean, a part of the USA Today network, which isn't exactly LeMonde or Der Spiegel, but is a legitimate newspaper not known for playing pranks.

Why on Earth would you consult with exorcists? I didn't think the Catholic Church even did exorcisms anymore. Where would you even find exorcists with which to consult? Haiti? New Orleans? maybe some hidden pocket of Appalachia? What century is this? How long was I asleep?

Rebecca Hammel, the superintendent of schools for the Catholic Diocese of Nashville, confirmed to the Tennesseean that Reehil removed the books. 
As for whether students should be allowed to read the Harry Potter series on their own time, Hammel told the Tennesseean that it’s up to each child’s parents to make that decision.

"Should parents deem that this or any other media to be appropriate we would hope that they would just guide their sons and daughters to understand the content through the lens of our faith," Hammel said. "We really don't get into censorship in such selections other than making sure that what we put in our school libraries is age-appropriate materials for our classrooms."

Wait, what?

Age appropriate?
I'm sorry, what is the appropriate age for conjuring evil spirits?
Is that the objection? That these children are too young to be conjuring evil spirits? Like, in Catholic high schools, sure. Summon all the demons you want, you're old enough to handle them. But in elementery school it's just irresponsible to have these kids  communing with the underworld. That's just child psychology 101.

Age appropriate!

What is going on in this country?

Joe Walsh is Not Your Friend

Okay, I can't believe that this needs to be said, but from some things I've seen on Twitter, apparently it does: just because Joe Walsh is critical of Trump, that does not - in any way - make Joe Walsh a good or decent person.

On November 8th, I'm voting for Trump.

On November 9th, if Trump loses, I'm grabbing my musket.

You in?

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) October 26, 2016

One of the most wrong-headed aphorisms is " the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I'm not saying that it is never true, but if the enemy of your enemy is also a vile disgusting excuse for a human being, you can enjoy watching the two enemies fight each other, but neither of them is your friend.

Sometimes, there's just not a "good guy" in the fight.

Which brings us to today's headline.

Joe Walsh Apologizes for ‘Creating’ Trump, Calling Obama Muslim During 2020 Announcement

Wow. "Sorry I fucked everything up, please vote for me for President" is a pretty ballsy approach!

After making his case for why Trump is “completely unfit to be president” and he could be the “alternative” more traditional Republican voters have been craving, 

Ah, yes. the "traditional Republicans." The grand tradition stretching all the way back to 2008 when Republicans first discovered that they didn't like having a black President! Of course, back in those days, their party was known as the "Tea Party," for those of you who are too young to remember back to those halcyon days.

Ah, sweet tradition!

Pity the poor "traditional Republican" voter. Disgusted by the boorish, bumptious Donald Trump, they went into the 2016 primary with no one else for whom to cast their vote except for Ted Cruz. And Marco Rubio. And Rand Paul. And Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and John Kasich. Oh,and Bobby Jindal, Lindsey Graham, Scott Walker and Rick Santorum. So, even though they craved - CRAVED! - an alternative to the despicable dim-witted Donald Trump, they somehow must have had no option but to nominate him. Apparently, no "alternative" like Joe "deadbeat Dad" Walsh had yet presented itself.

“I helped create Trump,” the right-wing radio host replied. “And George, that's not an easy thing to say.” As part of the “Tea Party class” in Congress, Walsh said he “wanted to shake Washington up” and sometimes “went beyond the policy and the idea differences, and I got personal, and I got hateful.” 

I got personal and I got hateful. You know, I'm pretty much the anti-Trump!

For much of the Obama administration, Walsh repeatedly pushed the same “birther” conspiracies that Trump did and, as the host pointed out, was calling Obama a Muslim as recently as December 2016. “Did you really believe he's a Muslim?” Stephanopoulos asked.
“God no. And I have apologized for that,” Walsh answered.

Haha, no! I'm not dumb enough to actually believe that, George! I'm just a shameless race-baiting liar! Vote for me for President!

“But think about the contrast, George,” Walsh added. “Again, I'm baring my soul with you right now on national TV. We have a guy in the White House who's never apologized for anything he's done or said. I think it's a weakness not to apologize. I helped create Trump. There's no doubt about that, the personal, ugly politics. I regret that. And I'm sorry for that.” 

Look, George, Trump will say racist, homophobic misogynist shit and never apologize. I, on the other hand will say racist homophobic and sexist shit and then I WILL apologize. And I'll even feel bad about it! Vote for me for President!

Need any more reason to vote Walsh? Check out thgis other interview he did on MSNBC:

"I wouldn’t call myself a racist, but I would say, John, I’ve said racist things on Twitter. There's no doubt about it. And an apology is not enough," Walsh, who represented Illinois's 8th Congressional District between 2011 and 2013, said on MSNBC. 

Found out if I said Redskins or Cracker or Redneck Bible Thumper, I could stay on. But if I said Nigger or Spick, they cut me off.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) June 20, 2014

An apology is not enough to make up for the horrible things I have said. I feel like I should not only apologize but also be the President of the United States. That's really the only way to heal this nation.

"When I said Barack Obama was a Muslim, that was a horrible thing to say, and I said it because I was so disgusted with Obama’s policy toward Israel that I went a bad, ugly step," he said. 

So. . . unlike Trump, I just try to slander my political opponents when I find their policies disagreeable. And, unlike Trump, I think that it si a gravce insult to refer to someone as a "Muslim."
I'm pretty much the Bizzarro-Trump!

Walsh, who has been openly critical of Trump's presidency, on Sunday announced that he was launching a primary challenge against the president.
"I'm running because he's unfit. Somebody needs to step up, and there needs to be an alternative," Walsh said on ABC's "This Week." 

Yes, an "alternative." If only there were an "alternative" to Trump. Some. . . other candidate voters could choose, maybe someone from, oh, I don't know, maybe a different political party, or something? Maybe someone who presents a different platform and different policy approach. . .

Oh, if only there was someone - anyone - willing to step up and say to the American electorate "You needn't stick with Trump for another term, I volunteer as tribute! You can vote for me instead, and I will serve as your president!"

Why oh why can this nation of three hundred million people not come up with a single alternative to Donald Trump? If only some brave soul would come forward! But wait. . . there on the horizon. . . drawing ever closer, in a cloud of unpaid child support bills. . . Who is this dashing figure on a white stallion? Why, it's Joe Walsh! Riding in to save the day. Having had a taste of power, he now bravely attempts to leverage his newfound never-trump credentials into a quixotic White House run! Will this end with Walsh in the White House? Will our hero find himself with a book deal? Will our intrepid champion be given a shoe on FOX? Only time will tell what the end result of this act of selfless bravery will be!
Only one thing we know for sure. Joe Walsh is every bit as evil, racist, and dangerous as Donald Trump, he's just somewhat more professional about it. And he is not someone to root for.

The KKK, neo-Nazis, Black Lives Matter, Antifa:

Do you have the courage to condemn ALL of these hate groups?

I didn't think so.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) August 14, 2017

To say that it's "racist" to call Haiti a shithole is like saying it's "racist" to say Chicago has a violence problem.

Haiti is a shithole and it's run by blacks. The violence in Chicago is all black on black.

Those aren't racist statements. They're just facts.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) January 12, 2018

Outstanding work, USA Today Entertainment!

• USA TODAY Entertainment
• 
  

'SNL' standout Leslie Jones won't be returning for Season . . .

Yeah. . . that's not Leslie Jones.

This is Leslie Jones.




What you got there is a Kate McKinnon.


Easy mistake to make. I get the cast of Ghostbusters mixed up all the time. Like I can't tell the difference between Bill Murray and Ernie Hudson.

Here We Go Again

Another conservative has taken to the op-ed page to explain why it's not his fault that he's going to vote for Trump, we're leaving him no choice!



U.S.

No one votes to be despised. If Democrats don't change their pitch, I may switch to Trump.

 Michael Smith, Opinion contributor,USA TODAY Opinio 

God, is there really this much of a market for this genre of literature? The "I know Trump is an incompetent, senile, racist megalomaniac whose presidency threatens life on Earth, but the Democrats hurt my wittle feewings so I may be forced to vote for him" article seems to be the surest way to get published these days.

I am not a President Trump supporter. But if the alternative to him in next year’s election is open borders and the Green New Deal, I may become a Trump voter.

Okay, first of all, none of the Democratic Presidential candidates is advocating for open borders. Not a one of them. You have to know this. There is no way that someone who gets paid to write about politics doesn't know this. So you're already off on the wrong foot - we know you're a disingenuous weasel.
Secondly, are you seriously taking the position that a plan to address the climate crisis that threatens to make the planet unlivable is somehow more horrifying than 4 more years of Cheeto Mussolini?

The president has earned a lot of the heat that comes his way. His reluctance to condemn the white nationalists at Charlottesville in 2017 was inexcusable. He questioned Barack Obama’s citizenship even after the man produced a birth certificate. His feuds with kneeling NFL players and other black celebrities serve no purpose except to stir the pot.

That's it? That's what you think is the problem with Orange Julius Caesar? You know he's putting children in concentration camps, right? Him being a racist dick kinda pales in comparison with taking children away from their parents and locking them in concentration camps.

The full list is long and ugly. It would speak for itself if Trump’s opponents would let it.

Yeah. . . no one is stopping the list from speaking for itself. We would add to your list his disastrous trade wars, his frequent suggestions that he can rule by executive fiat, his cozying up to murderous dictators and PUTTING CHILDREN INTO CONCENTRATION CAMPS, but we certainly aren't stopping his malfeasance from speaking for itself.


The full list is long and ugly. It would speak for itself if Trump’s opponents would let it.
They haven’t. Instead they’ve trafficked in hysteria and hyperbole, particularly in their response to the El Paso, Texas, shooting. Democrats fell over themselves to implicate the president’s rhetoric and policies. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pronounced Trump “directly responsible” for the massacre because of his rhetoric.
Imagine. Having never met the gunman, the freshman congresswoman looked into his heart and determined that he wouldn’t have killed if not for Trump.


Gee, I wonder where she could have gotten such a wild idea? Why in the world would she place any responsibility for this mass shooting on Trump?
Hmmm. . . well, maybe it could be because of . . .

El Paso Shooting Suspect’s Manifesto Echoes Trump’s Language

At campaign rallies before last year’s midterm elections, President Trump repeatedly warned that America was under attack by immigrants heading for the border. “You look at what is marching up, that is an invasion!” he declared at one rally. “That is an invasion!”
Nine months later, a 21-year-old white man is accused of opening fire in a Walmart in El Paso, killing 20 people and injuring dozens more after writing a manifesto railing against immigration and announcing that “this attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

Nah, that couldn't be it.
Probably she's just crazy!

Its current trajectory gives the Democratic Party two problems in 2020. First, the agenda: a spending spree like no country has ever attempted, supposedly financed by a handful of wealthy taxpayers. What could go wrong?

You're right! We should totally stick with the plan of spending obscene, unimaginable amounts of money on maintaining a global military empire while constantly reducing the amount of tax dollars that flow into the treasury. That's just sound economic policy! Not some crazy pie-in-the-sky like having the people with the most money actually pay for the most necessary task our government has ever faced.It obviously makes more sense to give the people with the most money tax breaks, and just continue to finance everything with borrowing until a Democrat takes office. At which time, deficits magically become unsustainable once again.

Second, the message to voters. Progressives have long denounced America as hopelessly retrograde and racist. Naturally, they’re talking about everyone except themselves

See, now that's not rue either.
America is retrograde and racist, but not hopelessly so.
Hope springs eternal!
And certainly no Democratic candidate for President or any other office has ever claimed that she was. So, I don't know which voters are supposedly getting this "message," but it ain't coming from any of these folks.

The insult-them-until-they-join-our-side strategy has gained devotees since the mass shootings. While at least seven presidential candidates have called Trump a white supremacist, the president's supporters don't want to be called the same simply for voting for Republicans.

Oh, that seems reasonable. Just because you voted for a blatant racist, continue to support that blatant racist, and intend to vote to re-elect that blatant racist doesn't mean that anyone should think you a racist!
Look, just because I wear a Giants cap and a 49ers hoodie doesn't mean you should assume that I'm a San Francisco sports fan!

The contempt descended into incoherence even before the shootings. Candidate Andrew Yang matter-of-factly predicts the disappearance of millions of low-skill jobs. Yet he and his party argue for essentially allowing millions of low-skill workers to enter the country without consequences.

Yeah, the problem of jobs being automated out of existence is a good reason we ahould send refugees back to the countries from which they fled in terror.

If you work in an industry likely to absorb some of that labor, you might wonder if this is how the Democrats plan to revive their brand as champion of the little guy. Are you the little guy they have in mind, or have you slipped a bit on their list?

And there it is.
The obligatory "democrats love brown people and not us whites" line. Or maybe it's more "Democrats love foreigners more than us real Americans," but either way, it's essentially the same appeal. It boils down to "Democrats care more about some 'other' than they do about us regular folks."  And you could make that point about many if not most Dems if the "other" you're referring to is the donor class of Wall Street and Silicon Valley, but you could definitely say that about 100% of Republicans.

Partisans who can’t imagine anything worse than losing history’s quintessential hold-your-nose election should picture coming to the rematch with a perfectly pleasant candidate, finding the opponent as nasty as ever, and losing again anyway.

Now that is actually a good point. We can NOT afford to repeat the mistakes of 2016. We can not put up another bland, inoffensive centrist, hoping that Trump's inherent detestability will will force voters to choose the only other viable option. That never works.

The swing voters who will decide the next election won’t care whether Democrats rate Donald Trump a racist or a white nationalist or a white supremacist. With the left’s favorite epithet flying around the political sphere more freely than ever, and the definition of racism facing possible expansion, they’ll want to know what Democrats think of them.

Oh, the swing voters! Yes, let's all grovel for the approval of the swing voters! Both of them.
here's the thing about the elusive swing voters. We don't need them. To the extent that they exist, we don't need them. If Democrats turn out their  base, they win. They did it in 2008 and 2012. The difference between 08/12 and 2016 wasn't that these supposed swing voters went for Trump. Trump got fewer votes than McCain or Romney got when they lost to Barack Obama. The problem was that Hillary Clinton got fewer votes than Obama did in either of those years.

The problem was that too many people didn't vote at all. And obviously, a lot of that was due to Republicans' various voter-suppression techniques. Of course that had a lot to do with it. But HRC just didn't excite the electorate the way that Obama did. It's not her fault, she just doesn't have that charisma. Well, it was partly her fault for saying that the things Democrats want, like single-payer healthcare and a $15/hr minimum wage were pipe dreams. That's just bad campaign strategy. And also ignoring the Rust Belt because your stupid fucking algorhithms say you don't need to isn't very smart electioneering either. But we're getting way off track here.

Also, you say that the "swing voters" won't care if Democrats call Trump a racist?
Great. Trump's a racist.

And I'm not sure what you mean by the definition of racism "facing possible expansion." Actually, I think I do know. You mean the definition of racism shouldn't include any views that you personally hold. You want the word racism to be defined as "cross-burning," or "waving the swastika flag" or whatever, so you can feel like you're not a racist when you support putting children into concentration camps.
So, you know what? You want to vote for Trump? Go right ahead. We don't need you. You don't matter. But don't try to blame us for your support of this racist bastard.

Confusing headline of the day

The ‘1619 Project’ Isn’t Anti-American — It’s Anti-White Identity Politics

By Eric Levitz@EricLevitz

It's honestly hard to tell what the headline-writer is trying to say here.
Is he saying that the 1619 Project is engaging in identity politics that are anti-white?
Or is he saying that the 1619 project is against "white identity politics?'

Is it  (anti-white) identity politics?
Or Anti- (white identity politics?)

Skimming the article, I'm pretty sure it's the latter, but come on New York Magazine Intelligencier. Surely you can do better than this.