Blog Archive

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

ABC, The Absurd Bull Crap Network, Brings You The Sinister, "Make America Great Again" Terror Cry

ABC has a fictional program called "Quantico."

In a recently aired episode, apparently, in order to INSURE that WATCHERS knew the program was FICTION, they reported that terrorists had shouted, "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

You can see the clip here.

In every real terror incident in this country in recent memory, terrorists have shouted something, but it wasn't a DONALD TRUMP slogan. No. 

God forbid that ABC should confuse its low intelligence viewers by having terrorists on the program shout what our REAL LIFE TERRORISTS shout.

What is it that they shout?

C'mon, you know.

That's right, REAL TERRORISTS, they shout, "Allahu Akbar!"

Now ABC knows that 
  • the Ft. Hood terrorist did this
  • the Chattanooga terrorist did this
  • the San Bernardino terrorists did this
  • the Charlie Hebdo terrorists did this
  • the Paris attack terrorists did this
  • the Belgian attack terrorists did this
  • the Nigerian attack terrorists did this
  • the Cameroon attack terrorists did this
  • etc., etc., etc.

Given that ABC isn't stupid, what explanation possibly explains this production choice but does not assume the worst about those that made it?

Well, to my thinking, if ABC assumed (or rightly suspected) that its viewers may be stupid, they might have taken this approach as an appropriate steps to insure that their fictional entertainment program is readily distinguishable from their news programming.

To do this, then, they have obviously decided to have FAKE TERRORISTS in FAKE, FICTIONAL ENTERTAINMENT programming shout Donald Trump's "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN." Doing so insures that viewers will immediately recognize that the program IS DISCONNECTED FROM REALITY.

This, I think, is the only reasonable explanation for their decision that does not depend on sinister motives by the producers.

Of course, the likely reality is that the executive producers of "Quantico" are PROGRESSIVE, LIBERAL BASTARDS who seek to inflame passions on a mound of slanderous bastardy. 

But, really, what are the chances of that?


Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Bozell Goes Bozo on Schlafly, Carson, Palin, and Huckabee

L. Brent Bozell, of the Media Research Center, and a scion of the Buckley brand, has published an "open letter" to conservative leaders that have endorsed Trump. I say "published" because Bozell, like many leaders in the modern conservative movement, has a reputation of riding on the writing skills of a ghost writer. Nonetheless, let us suppose that Bozell wrote his open letter.

If you would like to read that letter in full, you can find it here.

The essence of Bozell's appeal to his conservative friends is that Trump has flipped and flopped, from quite progressive and liberal positions to conservative ones, and has only done so in the context of his campaign, and that, as to many issues, he still holds quite liberal views. So far nothing new there.

But Bozell fairly pleads for Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, and Phyllis Schlafly to "Do the most courageous thing [they]’ve ever done, in a lifetime of bravery. Retract [their] endorsement."

I wonder how Bozell can claim to be the friend of these folk.

I am not calling him a liar ... and I assume we are not talking about "ghost-friending" through some convenient and socially skilled other. But how can retracting an endorsement that, based on Bozell's view of things is so ill, so wrong-headed, and so poor a judgment be difficult? Is there any thing more refreshing than turning over a new leaf, turning a corner, starting a new venture?

But more to the point, how can Bozell, knowing the personal stories of these four conservative leaders, suggest that flip-flopping on their endorsement of Trump would be a courageous act, let alone the most courageous acts of their lives?

Pompous buffoonery!

"Do the most courageous thing you've ever done in your life, retract your endorsement of Donald Trump."

Nah.

Palin gave birth to a child at high risk of profound medical problems when most women these days would murder such a child in the womb (some would after too).

Schlafly stood against the Equal Rights Amendment to the tune of being a "traitor to her gender."

Carson turned from the path so many black sons of single mothers take in America, made himself a student and a scholar and a surgeon and a leader.

Huckabee fought the battle most Americans surrendered on Big Mac hill, changed his life permanently, and for the better.

No. The most courageous decisions are behind these folks.

Moreover, their evident profiles in courage warrant Bozell's reconsideration, and his repentance of joining in the ugliness of the National Review's attack on Trump earlier this year.

Oregon Appeals Court: Sweet Cakes at Bat(ter)

First Liberty Institute has filed its appeal brief on behalf of Sweet Cakes in the case that imposed a $135,000.00 judgment against that small business when its owners declined to use their creative and expressive skills to prepare a cake celebrating a same sex civil commitment ceremony in Oregon. Oh, yeah, I know that there are issues that you think are important, and you may not think this is one. Having spent over a quarter century defending First Amendment rights, I disagree. If you disagree, it is likely either that you (a) hold special sympathies for those seeking recognition of same sex unions/marriages, (b) hold special antipathies toward claims in the Xian community about the "war on Christians," and/or (c) hold the view that baking a specially designed cake does not constitute a form of expression worthy of protection under the First Amendment. I would like to propose that you should welcome the bakers' appeal. First, without regard to your views on same sex marriage or civil unions, the Sweet Cakes decision not to provide their creative and expressive services here DOES NOT resolve the separate STATE LAW issues of whether same sex marriages or civil unions are legal and/or constitutionally required. The extreme examples are often toughest, but they do help to illuminate your logical fallacy. For example, the refusal of a Jewish bakery to design and make a cake celebrating Hitler's Birthday seems to attack the right of individuals to hold political views (neo Nazis, for example), but the bakery holds no sway over such political rights (those rights exist against GOVERNMENT suppression, not popular disapproval). Or the refusal of an African American owned bakery to create a cake celebrating the upcoming centenary of the birth of Klansman, Democrat, and Senator, Robert Byrd likewise seems to attack the right of individuals to hold a political opinion (klansman or other Democrats), but, again, that right is against government suppression, it is not a right to be free from the sensible disapprobation of the public. In fact, if you support the impressed labor and slavery of others against their consciences and agree that expressive and creative acts can be made the stuff of judicially imposed orders, you might check your tyranny privilege. Yes, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, you likely believe that WHAT YOU BELIEVE is so important that others can be made to suffer economically and in essential liberties in services of your beliefs ... while you never suffer for theirs. That is the essence of tyranny. Second, I too, from time to time, have found the automatic invocation of persecution and the annual cry "War on Christmas" wearying. But I have explained here and elsewhere before, much that is described in terms suggestive of "persecution," is just the product of the pluralism that this Nation has come to prize so highly. If Walmart holds a "Holiday" Sale rather than a "Christmas" one, no one forces me to shop at Walmart if I think that an odious attack on Christianity. Walmart's decision might be the overt outworkings of anti-religious bigotry by its board ... or it might be a kind of inclusivity that makes sense for a business that exists to, well, make a profit. Real persecution exists, including in America, although "persecution" in America is nothing like what is inflicted on Xians BY LAW in many ISLAMIC COUNTRIES, and what is inflicted outside of law, for example, by Hindu extremists in India (where, just a few years back, such extremists burnt an evangelist to death in his car). But the story of the Boy Crying Wolf exists for a reason, and I suppose the drumbeat strains of the wolf cry remain in your ears and serve to dismiss the significant difference between a judicial prosecution for failing to apply one's creative and expressive talents in service of a celebration that offends one's religious sensibilities and, for example, the harm of being told "Season's Greetings" rather than "Merry Christmas" at your local Walmart. Still, you should consider setting aside your tedium with the "Christian persecution" industry in America to consider the likely harm to something you DO CONSIDER IMPORTANT: your own rights of conscience, your own liberties. John Donne wrote that no man is an island separate and entire to himself. You may not find it possible to drum up concern for the bakers at Sweet Cakes, but can you drum up sympathy for the lesbian owned printing company that is forced to print gospel tracts stating that homosexuals are deviant sinners and will suffer eternal damnation? If you can do that, if you can fear for their liberties, their conscience, their freedom, then simply transfer your concern to this matter so that you can grasp the danger. Third, perhaps you doubt that baking a cake constitutes a form of expression entitled to consideration under the First Amendment and State Constitutions. If Sweet Cakes sold "stock" cakes, off the shelf, so to speak (the way one can go to the bakery section of their local grocer and find all occasion cakes packaged and ready to be carried away) but refused to sell their ready made cakes to the lesbian couple, that would, under Oregon law, likely evidence a denial of public accommodations on a ground not protected by law. Those aren't the facts here. Sweet Cakes conducts consultations with its clients before creating their custom wedding cakes. That provides the bakers necessary inspirational ideas from which to engage their creative, design, and expressive talents. The execution of those talents produces a unique cake, evocative (when successful) of hopes, aspirations, emotions, ideas. Even if not terribly successful (sort of the Lord Bulwer Lytton of confections), that would not detract from the obvious creative and expressive aspects of cake design. Now, while you might dispute that such designs -- whether complex such as the wedding cake created for the wedding of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip nearly 70 years ago or more simple ones -- involve expressive elements sufficient to give rise to First Amendment considerations. On the other hand, perhaps you wondered how luddite conservatives missed the obvious expressive value of performance artists sprinkling bean sprouts on their chocolate glazed, nude bodies? It would be a self-inflicted wound to mistake your discounting of the value of a particular message or form of expression with the absence of one. We all depend on the broadest, unfettered right of expression to keep government in check. Here, perhaps, your ox is not gored by doubting the expressivity of wedding cakes, but with foresight, you should consider how your ox CAN BE GORED if you tolerate the government's ability to disregard the expressive components of the arts and artisanal work of others. How the Oregon appellate courts will treat this appeal remains to be seen. Why you should care, I think, is obvious. If you value freedom of speech, if you value rights of conscience, then, like me, you wish Sweet Cakes success in their appeal

Monday, April 25, 2016

Honest Letter from the Candidate?

Well, that's hardly to be expected. Honesty about the chances of winning the nomination through the primary and caucus process would have driven our Canadian contender, Ted Cruz, and our Buckeye battler, John Kasich, out of the race no later than the conclusion of the New York primary race (though the Buckeye wilted months ago).

Now our own slice of Canadian bacon and our favorite postal scion appear to be in the process of trying to deny to Donald Trump the necessary delegates to do what -- at this stage in the contest -- only he has any prospect of doing:  reaching the magical delegate count of 1237. 1237 delegates voting for Trump in the first round of the balloting at the Republican Convention this summer would result in his nomination.

So Cruz and Kasich have connived to frustrate that march to success. In States where Cruz is running far behind, he appears to have agreed to expend no additional resources in the primary campaign; Kasich has agreed to do likewise. [The nature of this agreement does appear to be tenuous; Kasich has already clarified that, while he will not make devote further resources in certain States, he is not asking his supporters in those States to give their vote to Cruz.]

So, there really is only one explanation for the continuation of active campaigning by Cruz or Kasich. If they were honest, here's the letter their campaigns would release:
My Fellow Americans, 
I come to you today to explain my decision to put my name in for consideration for nomination by the Republican Party for the 2016 Presidential Election.
Now, I am a practical man. 
As a practical man, I recognize that I have FAILED to convince the majority of you to support my candidacy. In fact, I have failed to convince a majority of the members of my own party to support my candidacy. That FAILURE is reflected in my accumulated delegate count and in the abysmal victory record I have thus far accumulated. 
As a practical man, I know that I cannot win the Republican nomination on the first ballot at the Convention this summer. 
At this point, some of you may wonder, "why does he remain in the race?" 
I can tell you this much. 
My continued presence in the race is not at all impractical. I am practical man. So, my practical reason for remaining in the race is to insure that the only candidate for the Republican nomination that has a mathematical possibility of gaining the nomination on the first round of convention balloting is denied that show of unity and support.  
As a practical man, I take this step because I believe the nation would be better off with either an outright communist, Bernie Sanders, or a lying socialist, Hillary Clinton, as our President, than a successful businessman.  
In the same vein, I have joined forces with my other primary opponent to attempt to prevent Donald Trump from winning such States as New Mexico and Indiana. We have agreed to withdraw our resources from States where the other has the best chance of denying delegates to Trump.  
Warm Regards,  
Ted Cruz/John Kasich"
Even the possibility of a Clinton presidency is obscene

Clinton is that kind of liar whose trustworthiness lead folks to know that she is lying because her lips are moving. On matters small -- how close incoming fire may have come to her and Chelsea during their Bosnia visit years ago -- and on matters large -- whether the Benghazi rampage was believed by her or the administration she represented to be a spontaneous demonstration gone awry -- Clinton's demonstrated dishonesty is pathological. 

Yet, the best possible explanation for the conduct of Cruz and Kasich is pride. That is, really, the best explanation. These are the losers that refuse to go home. 

Imagine the Jamaican bobsled team mounting the gold medal stand at the Winter Olympics in Calgary so many years ago. True, that team won its way into the hearts of millions ... but it never won its way on the four man winner's stand. Insisting on the right to be awarded what you have not won is not merely gauche, it is a defect of character. 

Here, that defect of character puts me in mind of the after-revealed fact that Mitt Romney sought the Republican nomination in 2012 because he believed himself to be the only qualified person to seek the office. Oh? Really? And now we realize that Cruz, whose high school boast was to one day rule the world, and Kasich honestly believe we cannot possibly understand that only they, and certainly not Trump, are qualified to be president.

Perhaps the coming further humiliations will tame their pridefulness. Perhaps repentance will come while a Republican general election victory is still possible. Perhaps, like the Ghost of Christmas Present, Ronald Reagan will appear to these two dim souls and take them walkabout in a Nation that is weary of insider dealing and insider trading.

I will not hold my breath.