The Week That Perished

The Week’s Schmooziest, Booziest, and Ooziest Headlines

SPEAK THE TRUTH, BLAME THE BEDEVILED
Poor Sandy Sellers. The adjunct professor of mediation and negotiation at Georgetown University Law Center found herself in a jam that even she wasn’t able to negotiate her way out of.

Momentarily forgetting that she’s a white person in 2021 America, Sellers told the truth. Specifically, she told the truth about the poor academic performance of her black students.

She might as well have waved a Confederate flag while attending an antebellum-themed cotillion.

“You know what? I hate to say this, I end up having this angst every semester, that a lot of my lower ones are blacks,” Sellers said in a Zoom chat with her Georgetown colleague Professor David Batson. “It happens almost every semester, and it’s like, oh, come on. You know, we get some really good ones, but there are also usually some of them that are just plain at the bottom. It drives me crazy.”

Sellers wasn’t saying she was pleased that a lot of her lowest-scoring students are black. In fact, she made it clear that the situation distresses her. She was merely copping to the truth of it.

Well, you can’t do that anymore. Where did she think she was, Nazi Germany?

When news of the Zoom call got out, Sellers was immediately terminated. In a series of press releases (because one is not nearly enough to address this genocidal atrocity), the university condemned her words as “reprehensible,” “hurtful,” “harmful,” and “racist.”

Not “wrong,” though. For some odd reason the university didn’t say the statements were wrong. Or inaccurate. Or any other synonym for wrong.

The “law school” also suspended Professor Batson indefinitely for the crime of hearing the statements. Yes, it’s now a fireable offense to merely hear someone speak the truth about black academic performance. The university failed to say whether it thinks Batson should’ve stabbed his eardrums after hearing Sellers’ remarks, or whether he should’ve socked the webcam Popeye-style hoping the punch would travel through the ether and knock the racist vermin out cold.

The Georgetown Black Law Students Association called on the university to retroactively change the grades of all of Sellers’ previous black students, declaring that “These racist statements reveal not only Sellers’ beliefs about Black students in her classes, but also how her racist thoughts have translated to racist actions. Professor Sellers’ bias has impacted the grades of Black students in her classes historically, in her own words.”

So Sellers’ stated disappointment that many of her black students score low is what caused her black students to score low, even though they had already scored low before she expressed her disappointment at their low scores.

Georgetown Law: proudly producing the next generation of scat-singing jury-bamboozling Johnnie Cochran BS artists.

Tiffany Wright, a black Georgetown Law graduate who now teaches Whining and Shirking 101 at Howard, told the WaPo that she’s used to people “doubting her abilities and seeing Black people held to different standards than their White peers.”

Indeed. Sellers had expected her black students to grasp the material as the white ones did. An unfair standard, apparently.

“It also has an effect over time on our mental health,” Wright said. “You start to absorb and believe those lies.”

Yes, the black students’ test scores were “lies,” because there’s no way the descendants of traffic light inventors could possibly score low on a test. So therefore the low test scores were caused by the mental health issues of black students who absorbed the lie that they did poorly on a test and that lie is what retroactively caused them to produce the low test scores that prompted the lie that traveled back in time to before the test was taken, depressing their mental state and making them score low.

Even Johnnie Cochran never had the audacity to try a time travel infinite loop defense. Right now the bastard’s looking up from Hell saying, “I’ve never been prouder of my people.”

Watch for an upcoming remake of Stand and Deliver in which the plucky inner-city teacher gives his low-scoring kids automatic A’s and goes out for empanadas. The feel-good hit of 2021.

STIMULUS CHECK YO’SELF BEFORE YOU STIMULUS WRECK YO’SELF
Joe Biden’s $1,400 Covid relief stimulus checks are intended to get America moving again.

And when it comes to motivating inveterate criminals to get back on the horse of inveterate criminality, mission accomplished!

Jeanettrius Moore, an Indianapolis welfare mom and occasional beauty supply store worker who surely could’ve gone to Georgetown Law School if not for the racist thoughts of the professors, was really looking forward to her check. With two different babies by two different daddies, Jeanettrius needed all the help she could get.

Unfortunately, one of the baby daddies had his eyes on those checks as well. Proud black man (and daddy to Jeanettrius’ youngest child) Malik Halfacre was already plenty pissed that he got cheated out of the other 39.5 acres and the mule. So if Uncle Sam was handing out Covid reparations, Halfacre wanted in. Last week, the 25-year-old father of the year busted into his baby mama’s home demanding half of her stimulus check.

As reported by local news station Fox59,

“He wanted some of Jeanettrius’ tax money, stimulus money,” said Wendy Johnson, a cousin. “She had just got her money, and he wanted half of her money. She said, ‘No, you don’t deserve any of this. I work. I take care of our child. You don’t do anything.’ He said, ‘I really want half.’ She said, ‘I’ll give you $450. Take it or leave it.’ He said, ‘I’m gonna get that money.’”

Jeanettrius should’ve heeded the words of Craig from South Park: “Just give him half. Consider yourself lucky he’s only asking for half.” Because Halfacre doesn’t believe in half measures when it comes to lawbreaking. In 2017 he was convicted of shooting a man five times. But he was given a light sentence because Ryan Mears, the county’s “progressive” Soros-backed DA, has a “six bullet holes and you’re out policy” (shoot a man five times, you get a pass. But six? Okay, buster, now you’re lookin’ at three months!).

Over the past year, Halfacre had assaulted Jeanettrius on multiple occasions and slashed the tires of her car. He also shot the car eight times (he got another pass, because the “six holes and you’re out” policy only applies to humans). As of last week, there was a restraining order against him mandating that he not have any direct contact with Jeanettrius.

Implicit in the order, though not expressly stated, was that he also mustn’t burst into her apartment to shoot every sucker in the place. Yet for some odd reason the restraining order failed to prevent that exact outcome. After his demand for half of the Biden check was rejected, Halfacre gunned down Jeanettrius and everyone else in the room, shooting five and killing four (ironically, only Jeanettrius survived, albeit with a bullet in her back).

Soros minion Mears is still counting the collective bullets to determine if this time Halfacre will have to spend more than three months behind bars.

“Even Johnnie Cochran never had the audacity to try a time travel infinite loop defense.”

Jeanettrius’ brother Lorenzo, who discovered the bodies, lamented the fact that “they let a monster out of prison”…“they” apparently being the progressive prosecutors who always automatically win big among black voters.

Behold the Biden/Harris magic! $1,400 checks + “progressive prosecutors” + violent felons roving the streets = lots of misery and death. And Biden hasn’t even started his push for slavery reparations yet. By the time those checks go out, Malik Halfacre will likely be free with a dozen new kids and more baby mamas to plug in the back when they don’t give him half.

The greatest irony of the Biden Covid checks is that, at least among the under-30 set, they may end up causing more casualties than the disease itself.

THE CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO RAUS!
Don’t you just hate it when a law you advocate in the name of “stopping Nazis” stops you instead?

In George Romero’s Day of the Dead, the villainous Private Steel calls a zombie a “puss-brained scumbag.” Good thing he uttered that slander on U.S. soil, because had he done it in Germany, he’d be in the dock.

See, in Deutschland, zombies have rights. The dead can sue for defamation. Or at least someone associated with the deceased can sue on their behalf…and a good thing, too, as zombies are notoriously bad at assembling their own legal briefs. Plus, they always end up trying to eat the judge, which is an almost certain way to lose a court case (except in Fiji, where courtroom cannibalism results in a default win for the flesh-eater).

German Criminal Code Section 189—“Defiling the Memory of Dead”—states that “Whoever defiles the memory of a deceased person incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine.” The law was passed decades ago to fight the scourge of Holocaust revisionists who question the official 6 million death toll. Essentially, the legal theory is that if you say only 5,999,999 Jews were killed, you’re “defaming” the one Jew you didn’t count.

If claiming that someone thought dead isn’t actually dead constitutes “criminal defamation,” one hopes the German courts never get around to realizing what Easter’s all about.

Of course, since the day that Hitler said, “I think I’ll declare war on the U.S. What’s the worst that could happen?” Germans have been fighting a losing battle against the law of unintended consequences. And last week those unintended consequences were eatin’ away at Sunday Times Berlin correspondent Oliver Moody. Moody, a self-described “Arabist” who used to have a fake ID under the name McLovin, moaned in a March 14 essay that fear of violating §189 was inhibiting his ability to produce a tell-all podcast about Hans Globke, “an official in the Reich interior ministry who became one of the most powerful figures in postwar West Germany and died in 1973.”

Moody fears that the defamation of the dead statute might be used against him, as his podcast paints Globke as the worst of the worst Nazi ever (to be fair, has there ever been a profile of any Nazi that didn’t paint him as the “worst of the worst”? Weren’t there any mediocre Nazis?). On the podcast, Moody describes Globke, a lawyer and civil servant in Nazi Germany, as the man who damn near did the Holocaust single-handedly (again, these days there’s no such thing as a Nazi who wasn’t “the true architect of the Final Solution”), escaping justice after the war only to single-handedly forge the nation of West Germany while simultaneously organizing a domestic anti-communist spy ring and helping Israel develop atomic weapons in his spare time. It’s even subtly insinuated that Globke might’ve killed JFK!

Why Moody thinks any descendant of Globke’s would sue for posthumous defamation is baffling; dude’s made out to sound like the most type A overachiever of the 20th century. It’s only surprising that Moody doesn’t place Globke on the moon with Armstrong and Aldrin. Perhaps the podcast, which was released last week with no known legal objections from Globke’s kin, contains other negative stuff that Moody kept out of his Times piece. After all, no “Arabist” is gonna let the guy who gave Israel the bomb off the hook that easy!

And while Moody bemoans the defamation of the dead law as it applies to himself, he seems perfectly okay with it as it applies to anyone who diminishes the number of Holocaust victims.

After all, the larger in scope the Holocaust, the more opportunity for media hacks to continually crank out newly christened “architects” and “masterminds” behind it.

SPORTS(TRANS)MAN OF THE YEAR
If an American voter frozen in ice in 1986 were defrosted today to find out that Joe Biden is president, he’d likely say, “Good enough; he’s a pragmatic moderate.”

And upon seeing the creature that Biden’s become, he’d likely say, “Put me back in the friggin’ ice.”

Whether or not it’s a good idea for Biden to launch his presidency by ramrodding his two poorest-polling policies—open borders and tranny athletes—is anyone’s guess. Including his, because it’s unlikely that this stale breadstick with a deteriorated hippocampus has any idea what he’s actually doing. But the people telling him what to do, well, they have a hard-on for “women” with hard-ons. As the Biden Administration has made it a top priority to ensure that female athletes are forced to compete against gargantuan dudes in dresses whose footprints while running track would make Bigfoot feel dainty, various states have been taking matters into their own hands to stem the destruction of the very concept of “women’s sports.”

Last week Mississippi governor Tate Reeves signed a bill to prevent men in lipstick from competing against women in school sports. Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota is about to sign a comparable bill, and legislatures in twenty other states are advancing similar laws.

These are dark days for starkers who like wiping the floor with female athletes. These are also dark days for SCOTUS Chief Jellyfish John Roberts, who may no longer have a divided enough court to serve as the pro-tranny swing vote when this matter comes before the bench, as it undoubtedly will soon enough.

Worse still for Biden, his masters, and the left in general is that “trannies in women’s sports” polls even lower than those animal-crushing videos John Roberts gave all Americans the right to view. A recent Politico/Morning Consult poll shows that men support a transathlete ban 59% to 29%, women 46% to 34%, and independents 49% to 33%. Startlingly, millennials and boomers are (for the first time ever) united, 50% to 32% (boomers) and 56% to 28% (millennials) in favor of the transathlete ban.

How the hell did that happen? Perhaps it’s because boomers don’t know enough trannies and millennials know too many to be fooled by the notion that trannyism is anything but a pathology aimed at the young and confused. Or maybe it’s because millennials are of the last generation born into a world with only two genders (Gen Zs are evenly split on the matter).

Faced with such large-scale opposition, the translobby recently trotted out what we can assume is its best response to the naysayers, a response likely drafted by the finest trans-minds sitting around a conference table, their willies lopped off, their breasts bound with Saran Wrap, their Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs suits fresh from the dry cleaners. Here, now, is the killer response from these Alberta Einsteins:

Putting men in women’s sports doesn’t mean they’ll always win. Occasionally, girls might still prevail.

That’s the big comeback. Men aren’t entering women’s sports to win all the time. Just most of it.

Noblesse oblige from the female impersonators!

“Cisgender girls can win,” argues Stanford “mental health” “expert” Jack Turban. They just won’t win as much. But take heart, Turban Decay reassuringly explains. Since “the vast majority of female athletes are cisgender,” they will continue to comprise “the vast majority of winners.”

That’s great news for everyone except the “minority” of young women who’ll have to compete against Lulu Ferrigno.

Upworthy’s Parker Molloy counsels female athletes to find solace in the fact that men who are “fairly mediocre” athletes when playing against men will remain “fairly mediocre” when playing against women. Well, that settles it, then! Women need only be concerned about the good male transathletes!

So don’t get so hysterical, ladies. You’ll still be able to beat the men in drag who are nerds and spazzes and dweebs! Just worry about the ones with actual athletic skill. Those guys, everyone pretty much agrees, will make you roadkill.

Biden should use this angle in a PR campaign to sell sportswomen on the transathlete agenda: “Don’t worry, sweeties—you’ll still beat Woody Allen.”

Maybe the president could even get Woody to make in-person appearances promoting that message in the locker rooms of female high school teams across the country.

It’s a fairly sure bet that Woody wouldn’t say no to that. If only all of Biden’s plans met with such little resistance.

DRAWING BLOODS
The year was 1970, a turbulent time for the United States. Antiwar protests, Kent State, the Chicano Moratorium riot in L.A., the black Augusta riot in Georgia. Only one man could bring this nation together in the spirit of brotherhood—Hank Ketcham, the Dennis the Menace cartoonist. Ketcham realized that his overall-wearing neighbor-tormenting scamp had the power to usher in a new age of racial harmony. So he decided to add the strip’s first-ever black character—Jackson!

The interracial friendship between Dennis and Jackson would serve as an example to all mankind.

There was only one problem: Ketcham couldn’t draw a black kid to save his life, so he just copied a turn-of-the-century Sambo caricature, creating an image so offensive, even George Wallace was like, “Aw, hell no.”

In the end, Ketcham did bring the nation together…in unified opposition to Jackson. The strip literally caused a riot, and Jackson was swiftly retired from service.

In the years since, blacks have become ever more touchy about how they’re drawn. In 2017, an Illinois libertarian policy institute was denounced by black and Democrat politicians and advocacy groups for publishing a political cartoon in which a black character had fuller lips than the white ones (truth is never a defense in the cartoon race wars). The previous year the Red Cross was forced to issue a public apology after its poster promoting swimming safety made unwanted headlines. In the poster, a cartoon whale says, “Be cool, follow the rules,” as various cartoon children cavorting around a public pool are labeled either “cool” or “not cool” based on their behavior.

A drowning black child is labeled “not cool,” which might seem baffling at first until you realize that in fact the official Red Cross lifeguard rulebook specifically states that if a child who can’t swim wanders into the deep end and begins to drown, the appropriate response is to point at the child and announce with a stern inflection, “Not cool, kid. Not. Cool.” The child will die with full awareness that his ineptitude lowered his standing in the eyes of his peers.

The drowning-black-boy poster garnered international outrage, and a bunch of satirical memes.

At this point, you’d think that well-meaning nonblack cartoonists would get the message: Just don’t draw black people; you can’t win.

But no. Last month—for Valentine’s Day—the United Nations Women Twitter account posted a celebratory cartoon depicting women in love. White and Asian women were shown happily embracing their significant other…while a black woman was shown off to the side, alone, no mate, hugging herself.

Leave it to the most incompetent, oblivious, and useless organization on earth to not foresee that this would be a problem, that the most prickly, hypersensitive, and easily offended group in America—black women—would find this ode to Whitney Houston’s “greatest love” a genocidal offense.

“Black women have self love, are loved and are worthy of love. Do better and delete this,” tweeted one-woman Somali terror cell Ilhan Omar. And soon enough, the ’net was on fire with sassy and furious black mamas looking to kick Secretary-General Guterres in his principal organ. Of course, the U.N. withdrew the cartoon and apologized.

Now do you think cartoonists learned their lesson? Nope. Last week Chase Bank unveiled a cartoon window display in Burlington, Vt. The wall-size mural depicted white folks shopping, enjoying public parks, and walking with loved ones and children. And then off to the side is a black dude in a wheelchair, drawn as if begging for money from a white man.

The underlying message is “Please entrust your banking needs to people too stupid to foresee that this drawing would cause a ruckus.”

And a ruckus it caused. Chase’s vice president of corporate communications for the Northeast apologized and promised that the display would be removed from all branches.

With so many artists, corporations, and NGOs forgetting the first rule of drawing black people (don’t draw black people), it’s probably only a matter of time before some oblivious doodler realizes that the estate of Hank Ketcham isn’t enforcing the copyright on Franklin and thinks, “This will be a great new mascot for a fried chicken chain!”



Columnists

Sign Up to Receive Our Latest Updates!

SIGN UP

Daily updates with TM’s latest