Friday, April 28, 2017

Goings On In Omaha

by tryanmax

So, it appears that the Omaha mayoral race is really important to the Democrats, for some reason, but it has also turned into a giant cluster-fudge for them.

Monday last week, DNC chairman Tom Perez named Omaha in a list of races where the Democrat Party is investing in hopes of flipping the House in 2018. Thursday last, Bernie Sanders was seen in Omaha stumping for Democrat Heath Mello with a 45-min ramble about soaking the rich. But now Bernie and the DNC are under fire from their base because, it seems, Mello's progressive bona fides are insufficient.

Mello's crime? He's apparently not pro-abortion enough! Back in 2009, he co-sponsored a bill in the Nebraska Unicameral that would allow a woman seeking an abortion to see an ultrasound if she wanted to. See, freedom to choose doesn't include the choice to actually lay eyes on the "clump of cells" she's evicting from her body. We wouldn't want women to be informed or *gasp* make up their own minds about something as sacrosanct to progressives as abortion, would we?

This set off a debate among Democrats and progressives about whether there is even room for pro-life opinions in their tent. (spoiler: there isn't) Daily Kos, an early endorser, immediately withdrew their backing while also misstating the legislation they opposed. Outlets like WSJ and WaPo ran criticisms under the same erroneous characterization. NARAL labeled Mello’s candidacy “troubling” and a “betrayal. Perez issued a statement saying he “fundamentally disagree[s]” with Mello on what his party euphemistically calls women’s reproductive health. In his statement, Perez also affirmed that every Democrat candidate should toe the pro-choice line. All of which led to Mello promptly selling out his pro-life supporters in an interview with HuffPo. So there you go.

But the backbiting didn’t end there. Dozens of outlets on the left immediately took to calling Mello “anti-abortion” despite his 100% rating from Planned Parenthood. New Republic cited Mello as evidence of the party being “willing to go squishy on abortion to win elections.” That sentiment—along with a fair amount of anti-Catholic suspicion—was echoed in piece after piece, along with sound rejections of compromise or pragmatism on the issue. Astonishingly, it was Rolling Stone that offered the most flexible position: it’s fine for there to be pro-life Democrats, so long as they don’t do or say anything that might suggest they are pro-life.

I don’t know what this portends for the Democrats, only that it furthers their trend toward ideological purity. It reminds me of the Tea Party’s demands for purity, except more narrowly focused. At present, the Democrats seem to only have three issues: 1) resist Trump, 2) pussy-hat rights, and 3) girls who are boys, who like boys to be girls, who do boys like they're girls, who do girls like they're boys. (Bonus if you name the title and artist.) That probably helps explain why a little mayor’s race in a solidly red state seems like a big deal to them.
[+] Read More...

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Cute Animal Break...

I don't know about the rest of you, but I need a cute animal break. It is just getting too ugly out there in the Twit-verse and I need a "safe room". So for today, please feel free to freely express your feelings or thoughts or movie reviews. While we wait for all of these free thoughts to form, here's some photos to keep your calm and focused:



Who can be sad with that face?










Don't you wish you could sleep like this?







And come on, it's a tiny pig!







And in honor of National Penguin Appreciation Day:



Ready to comment? The Floor is Open...
[+] Read More...

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Threats to Free Speech

Perhaps you haven't been following along lately, but if you have you may have notice that the Lefties are having an issue with the 1st Amendment. UC-Berkeley once the hotbed of demanding free speech has now taken an ironic turn to demanding that no one should be allowed to speek if what they might say might challenge them in any way. Even going so far as to stage violent protests to make their point. The "heckler's veto" has taken on ominous turn causing the administrators to demand the cancellation of too many speakers almost all deemed "conservative". Many college campuses are following in their footsteps.

When Ann Coulter was hired to speak at Berkeley by some Republican student organization, the threats of violence were so widespread, the administration cancelled her appearance. Now I don't really like Coulter, but seriously, this has gotten way out of hand.

Howard Dean the Scream joined the fray by announcing this weekend in a tweet that "hate speech is not protected by the first amendment".

Of course many disagreed, but disturbingly just too many people in this country think he is right. But as many times as this one question has been asked -
"Define "hate speech" and who gets to decide?"
- no one has ever answered.

I am a 1st Amendment absolutist. I believe that the Nazis, BLM, KKK, Louis Farrakhan, Westboro Baptists, whatever et al. should all be allowed to speak freely and do it in the full view of all without masks or hoods. They need and we should demand that they be allowed to show exactly who they are. To do otherwise diminishes our Constitutional rights. And I have the right to disagree loudly, but I don't have the right to stop them from speaking.

And apparently, Bernie Sanders agrees with me - Bernie Sanders RIPS Millennials Trying To Shut Up Ann Coulter

As one person tweeted:

If the anti-"hate speech" crowd really wanted to serve a purpose for the greater good, try demanding civility from all sides, not forced silence for those with whom they disagree. Vigorous debate and discussion should be encouraged, not denied.

It's truly just depressing.
[+] Read More...

Sunday, April 23, 2017

We Scored An Interview With Chelsea Clinton!

We have big news today. Chelsea Clinton has been big in the news lately as the left continues their search for their next savior and the Clintons pimp her to continue their obsession with power. Well, we scored an interview... sort of. Avante!

Question: Now, you're a child of privilege who's never achieved anything that didn't come from your father's fame and you failed at every softball job that was handed to you on a silver platter. How did you become such a strong woman?

Answer: Well, aren't all women strong women, really? I mean, except for actual strong women and Republican women. But every worthless, useless liberal woman out there is a strong woman. Am I right? It's so hard to be a woman.

Question: Hard? Are you suggesting women are biologically defective?

Answer: Um... I don't understand.

Question: Of course you don't. Let's go through your work history to see if you're qualified for anything except graft, shall we?

Answer: What's graft?

Question: A way of life for your family. Now, you apparently worked for McKinsey & Company from 2003 to 2006 before switching to Avenue Capital Group, right? No one seems to know what you did. Did you actually do anything? Clinton Associate Daniel Halper said, “She’s never had a [real] job. She’s been in college for 12 years.”

Answer: I'm sure I did something. I had a Masters in International Relations and degrees like that prepare you to do so much.

Question: I'll do the comedy. Now, lest anyone think you got those jobs on merit, allow me to point out that you were also a co-chair for the fundraising arm of the Clinton Foundation, correct?

Answer: I'm sure they hired me for merrick. The problem was: “I was curious if I could care about money on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t.”

Question: But it was other people's money you were caring for... retirements... life savings, things people needed to live. You couldn't care about that?

Answer: I don't care about money.

Question: Or your clients apparently. Anyways, even though you started at Avenue Capital at the end of 2006, did you not spend 2007 and 2008 campaigning for your mom Hillary on college campuses? So you only "worked" a month or two. Couldn't hack it?

Answer: I hacked it. But it was more important that I reach those kids. We changed hearts and minds.

Question: And yet, your mom got her ass handed to her by a newbie, right? In fact, didn't Obama win record support among the very people you were supposed to win for her? You must really suck as a campaigner.

Answer: You're not Matt Lauer, are you?

Question: Do I look like Matt Lauer? Longtime Clinton Associate Doug Band said of your campaigning, “She is acting like a spoiled brat kid who has nothing else to do but create issues because she, as she has said, hasn’t found her way and has a lack of focus in her life.” That's harsh.

Answer: People aren't allowed to say mean things to me. “I wish that I had had one galvanizing ambition that I could reverse engineer my life toward.”

Question: But you do. It's called Clinton Inc. In fact, since 2007 you've basically become a tool of the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative, haven't you?

Answer: What kind of tool?

Question: I was thinking a ho. They even changed the name to include your name, didn't they? That is on the part they didn't need to shut down over questionable (read: illegal) practices.

Answer: I want to help people.

Question: Just not protect their savings. Anyways, you were always my favorite prop in your dad's campaigns. I love how the Clintons used the "attacks" on you to demand sympathy and declare you off-limits from all those meanies only to turn around and let the New York Times run 87 puff pieces on you. In fact, you have been described as having "gotten the most coverage of any presidential child ever."

Answer: You're not allowed to say anything bad.

Question: I'll take that under advisement. When you campaigned for your mom, I find it interesting that you refused to give interviews to the media or respond to questions from the press.

Answer: They ask mean things.

Question: How did you feel when MSNBC report David Shuster characterized your participation in your mom's campaign as "sort of being pimped out"?

Answer: He was a meanie.

Question: Now you give speeches for money, right? You get paid $66,000 a pop... not bad for someone who doesn't care about money. Isn't that more than you need?

Answer: People like to pay me to give speeches.

Question: Oh, I see. What kind of speeches?

Answer: Speeches on improving global and prosperity for health and women. I give them for the Clinton Foundation. Like we told the New York Times, my speeches "are on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, and 100 percent of the fees are remitted directly to the foundation."

Question: And yet, you are growing rich? Gee, that doesn't smell like graft. Have you no shame?

Answer: What is shame?

Question: Pretty much every act your family has ever undertaken. See, I'm told you're worth $15 million, but I see no job or opportunity that would have legitimately let you earn that money. How did you make that money?

Answer: Iduno.

Question: Here's a clue. Didn't NBC hire you at some point too?

Answer: No.

Question: Yes, they did. I remember you. They gave you the most fluffy of softball assignments and you sucked donkey d*ck. You blew rhinos. You were horrrrrrrible.

Answer: I lasted three years! How bad could I be?

Question: Oh yeah, you lasted three years all right. You made your debut in November 2011 as a special correspondent. You did a couple interviews. You sucked. Even liberals said you sucked. One network executive said you “acted like we should be grateful that she was in the room.” An NBC producer said, “This is my challenge with her... people in television constantly interrupt each other, but when you are with Chelsea, you really need to allow her to finish. She is not used to being interrupted that way." And your interviews were paaaaaainful. So NBC yanked you after a couple weeks, told everyone how amazing you were, and then claimed the relationship was always meant to be a three month contract only. You never appeared for them again. Yet, they paid you until you quit three years later... $600,000 a year. Was that bribe money?

Answer: Why would anyone bribe me?

Question: Gee, I have no idea Mrs. CLINTON. In 2015, someone paid you to write a book aimed at middle school students, didn't they? This turd dealt with a full range of social issues, likely not including graft, and was roundly criticized for being crap. So you couldn't be a reporter, the easiest job ever outside of actor, and you couldn't write a children's book. You're not very talented, are you?

Answer: My mom says I am. I'm married. Let's talk about that.

Question: All right, let's talk about your unsavory husband. His name is Mezvinsky and his parents were Democratic House of Representative members, which makes this feel like an arranged marriage. His father embezzled more than $10 million in a Ponzi-scheme and was found guilty in 2001. His mother divorced him after the conviction and filed bankruptcy. Junior founded a hedge fund called Eaglevale Partners and lost 90% of the firm's assets.

Answer: I love him so much.

Question: The Wikileaks release of Podesta's emails indicated that your hubby used your contacts with the Clinton Foundation to find investors. Is that true?

Answer: Oh, look at the time. I need to go. I'm not running for office, unless I am... byyyye! //giggle giggle

//Races out door

That struck me as informative. You? By the way, you really need to read this article: LINK. It's an amazing take down of Chelsea. This one is good too: LINK.
[+] Read More...

Thursday, April 20, 2017

New York Heavy Metal Issues

So just a few things from NYC 'cause nothing says forehead-slapping fun like heavy metal issues of all sorts except the musical kind. Here are two - one bronze and the other lead:

"Charging Bull" v. "Fearless Girl" Controversy:
So you all should know this iconic bronze scupture - "The Charging Bull". It was financed by artist by Arturo Di Mondica and placed in lower Manhattan in 1989 as a gift to NYC. Di Modica spent some $360,000 to create, cast, and install the sculpture following the 1987 stock market crash as a symbol of the "strength and power of the American people"

Then this happened.

On March 7, 2017, the night before International Women's Day, another bronze sculpture, "Fearless Girl", was placed directly in front of "The Charging Bull". The statue was designed by Kristen Visbal and commissioned by State Street Global Advisers (SSgA) as part of a marketing campaign for their gender-diverse index fund. "Fearless Girl" was placed facing the bull, and seems to be staring it down. The new little scupture only had a permit to remain for 8 days, but wait, there's more.

At first it offended those inclined to march because it infantalized women as a little girl. It was a cynical, marketing campaign for a reviled Wall Street...well, Wall Street!!! But then, once these same marchers realized that it could coopted the little girl as a strong symbol of their anti-patriarchy-as-large-bronze-bull marketing campaign of their own, then well, it became symbol of bronze womanhood! And never to miss an opportunity to not do the work of the real issues in the city, Mayor Deblasio decided to extend the permit for 11 months.

Well, that set off the bull artist Di Modica who owns and fully funded the original "Charging Bull". He is claiming that his artistic vision is being ruined. He has a point. His sculpture has been an icon since it was placed in 1989. that I can say is surrounded 24/7/365 with tourists taking photos. And there are many other places in the city and even nearby.

But then...

Remember when Sen. Liz Warren hated Wall Street? Well, not anymore now that our little girl has moved in...


And then there's this:

I saw this PSA advert from NYC Environmental Protection Department on the subway today. Now, the irony is that it was just reported that, much like Detroit, the water in the water fountains in some of our public schools is teeming with...lead. Maybe that's why our children's test scores are so bad.

I don't mean make light of this issue. It is really a very serious problem that may also be in pipes in other places like the pipes in my own 1920's apartment building. Lead in paint that was in our public schools was litigated for years. But the real issue is that it seems that the water testing reports may have been a little bit manipulated just a bit so that it appeared there was no problem. Our Mayor who is up for reelection this year is unmoved.

So the water that comes into the city is the best (it really is!), but the stuff that comes out of the water fountains may not be.

So here we are...
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Pathetic...

So there's a vote in Georgia tonight for the House seat vacated by the dude Trump picked to become the Health and Human Services Secretary. How the race ends isn't all that interesting. What's interesting is how pathetic the left looks because of this race. Observe.

At the outset, realize that special elections like this are often random. The incumbent's party is often complacent. The opposition is trying to string some wins together. Turnout is key, not popularity, and turnout tends to be low and somewhat random. So barring some major shock that goes crushingly against the history of the district, it's best not to read too many tea leaves from these election.

Yet, the left is making a huge deal of the fact that the Democrat might do well and might even "win" tonight. They are trying to call this evidence of their momentum. Here's the ridiculous part though: there are 18 people running and the two best will do a runoff unless someone gets about 50%. Being the tallest dwarf in an 18 person race does not a giant make. And the fact the Democrats would claim momentum from their guy getting to the second round where he is projected to get crushed is ludicrous -- it's as ludicrous as their prior attempts to claim momentum from losing "not as badly as expected" in a couple obscure local districts.

Even if he crosses the 50% line, and it doesn't look like he will, Trump only carried this district by 2%, so it's not like this is deep red territory miraculously flipping over. This is one of those districts where little changes in turnout swing the election. Elections like this cannot be used to read general trends, and the left is pathetic to try.

Just as pathetic, once Hollywood found out about this race, they dove in hoping to hand Trump a loss. They've all pulled behind the Democrat with money and commercials and nasty interviews. They are smearing Trump, Republicans, and Americans in the process. Didn't they learn how the public responded to them imposing their views during the general election? Apparently not.

What's more, these idiots are whining about this being part of the "resistance." Talk about delusionally self-aggrandizing BS. A resistance implies some sort of danger, some sort of risk... people who stand up to power to make a change. That is not this. This is just privileged assholes whining that their girl lost in a country where such whining is totally legal. Pathetic.

It's funny to me that this is what the left has become. I would be ashamed if this is what I counted for success.

BTW, knowing what you know now, read this quote from the Democrat and tell me if it doesn't make you shake your head:
“We may not know the outcome for some time. But let me tell you this, there is no doubt that this is already a victory for the ages. We have defied the odds, we have shattered expectations.”
Uh, no. You're doing exactly what one would expect. That is, you're meeting expectations if you didn't believe Trump had pissed off at least 2% of his voters or energized at least 2% more Democrats. If you believed that, then you massively under-performed. Victory for the ages indeed... loser.

Thoughts?
[+] Read More...

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Even Sports Are Political Now!

When did we get to the point where every single sporting events are now fraught with politics? Sports has always been the one area where we could sing the National Anthem, spread giant American flags across the field or court, and cheer on your local team against our neighboring rivals. We could get a much-needed respite from the everyday grind and watch our favorite players swat/kick/throw some kind of ball while we're drinking beer, eating hotdogs, and high-fiving our seat-mates. Why it has always been as "American as apple pie" and displaying the flag has always been a part of that and no one seemed to mind.

Well, not anymore. Ever since Colin Kaepernik took that knee during the National Anthem in protest, it's just gone down hill from there. Now every time you turn on any of the major sports channels just to watch a game, there's a bunch of sports analysts spouting statistics and play-by-play political analysis instead.



NBC Sports analyst Craig Calcaterra posted the above tweet requesting that we "keep politics out of sports" by ironically declaring that we should ban the overt displays of patriotism from the field 'cause it's xenophobic and downright Orwellian. Mr. Calcaterra set off a tweet-storm and he just can't understand why many are upset. I suggested that we just ban sports and sportswriter/analysts, then the problem would go away.

By the way, sporting events are really one of the few places where we actually play our National Anthem and openly display our flag. Next up I am sure someone will probably declare Independence Day an embarrassing national disgrace, but they'll still want the day off...
[+] Read More...

Sunday, April 16, 2017

North Korea Explained In Pictures

We have a treat today. I've broken down the issue with North Korea, because I know it's so hard to understand, and I'm going to explain it using actual pictures from North Korea. You can click to enlarge any image. This will be very explicative-ish.

Once upon a time, there was a sad kingdom filled with dwarves.

It was a lonely foggy kingdom full of people suffering tremendous punishments for misbehavior.

What kind of misbehavior? Nobody knew for sure, but they knew something was going on. Wink wink.

Yep, no idea at all...

Ouch! My colon!

Whatever this mystery cancer was, it was causing Korean society to fall apart. They couldn't dance.

The people were angry.

The people were scared.

They were confused.

Nothing made them happy.

Their lethargy and anger made them lazy and they built only one bathroom in the whole country!

Finally, the wise king made the decision to hand things over to his son.

At first, his son seemed like a fat pervert moron, but he turned out not to be all bad.

He taught the army to dance.

He gave the generals brand new rides!

He even introduced throwback Thursdays.

Suddenly, everyone was happy. The bakers were happy.

The cleaners were happy.

The wizards were happy.

The cleaners were happy.

And the people danced.

Now everything is going great. Everyone is happy.

No one is confused.

No one worries anymore about their leaders.

And next week, they're moving into a brand new Death Star... once their scientists figure out how to build it.

Yes, it is indeed a good time to live in North Korea. The only problem is that the evil Donald Trump wants to destroy their country and they don't have any pussy hats to stop him! Of course, they also tried to launch that missile and then couldn't get it up. That was a tad embarrassing. But hey, Korea is still a wonderful place.

Understand now? Any questions?
[+] Read More...

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Some Thoughts

Some interesting things in the news. Let's discuss.

World War III(A) Cancelled: The media is selling the narrative that we are headed toward World War III with Putin. The narrative is that Putin is a sly monster who wants to dominate the world and is intent on doing so no matter the cost, and Trump is a bumbler with a small dick who doesn't know how dangerous Putin in. This is wrong.

I could have believed a war at the end of Obama's term simply because of the actions Putin took -- calling back Russians from abroad (including diplomat's kids), sending troops to several hot spots, testing US ship defenses, cancelling communications with US military commanders, sending bombers into British air space, rounding up political opponents, and seemingly hugging our enemies (Iran, Venezuela, China). But not now.

After Trump bombed Syria, Putin placed a cruiser between us and Assad and screamed that he would stop Trump even if it meant war. Trump called his bluff and Putin promptly announced he would not shoot down our missiles. He's also been suspiciously quiet in the Baltic region and Eastern Europe, even as US troops moved into the region. And he's withdrawn naval forces. To me, this confirms that Putin is unwilling to even come close to risking a war. I think he's afraid of Trump, honestly, because he thinks Trump doesn't bluff.

World War III(B) Delayed: Interesting stuff in Korea. The Chinese have become increasingly worried there will be a war between North Korea and pretty much everyone else. They've even gone so far now as to (1) send 150,000 troops to the Korean border to "manage refugees," which I think translates into "move in and seize the country when things start", (2) warn very vocally that US threats are not bluffs, and (3) stop criticizing efforts to finally muzzle North Korea. I think they are worried that North Korea is particularly unstable at the moment and they reached the same conclusion as Putin on Trump: he means it. So they have decided to become our friends. To his credit, Trump is asking for their help too.

For its part, North Korea seems to be responding with whining. Like a child, they are basically saying it's not fair that we are preparing to take them down. I suspect they are planning to backtrack fast.

Gays Move Right... oui oui: I told you all after the election that gays would leave the left because they got what they wanted and they have no reason to remain loyal to an ideology that doesn't truly fit their lifestyles. I said that some would move right, some would drop out of politics, and some would stay on the left. There's been lots of suggestive evidence of this too. Anyways, it's happening quite openly in France now and the reason is Islam. Apparently, gays have become some of the biggest supporters of Marine Le Pen, and the reason is that they don't like the kind of anti-gay world Islamists are bringing and which the left is turning a blind eye toward. The left is shocked and horrified because they have always pushed the idea that the right is anti-gay, but apparently, gays are smart enough to see through that to the real danger.

Not Gay Enough: As an aside, I think the effort to find a transsexual issue to use to keep gays unified on the left is doomed. There just aren't very many transsexuals (estimates range between 200,000 and one million), and their issues are not as unified as "gay marriage" was for gays. Transsexual issues are complex and nuanced with different people having different ideas of what is important and what they want -- one size does not fit all. That makes this almost impossible to use as a tool for unifying a broad group. Moreover, I've never seen any evidence that gays are sympathetic to transsexuals. So while all this screaming about bathroom laws may play on the straight left, it doesn't really work to hold the gays in the coalition.

Sexy: Anybody remember when Trump got elected how all the leftist designers raced out to tell us they would no dress Melania? The left then attacked her for how much her clothes costs and re-cutting one dress and whatever else they could think of. They wailed that she's no fashion icon like Michelle Obama! Harrumph! Well, now it turns out that the European royals are starting to copy her style because it's super glamorous. That's something no one did with Michelle... who dressed like she got her clothes at KMart. Huge win for Melania.

Smell My Pointy Finger: Hillary keeps laying the blame on everyone but herself for her loss. She has now blamed (1) the FBI and Director Comey, (2) Wikileaks (multiple incidents -- the DNC, John Podesta), (3) Humma-Weiner, (4) Obama's lack of effort, (5) Bernie Sander's opposition, (6) sexism, (7) Bill's wangdoodle/Bill's ego, (8) the media for covering her with less than absolute pro-Clinton bias, (9) the media for not destroying Trump hard enough, (10) Breitbart, (11) Russia/Putin, (12) the Koch Brothers, (14) whoever was responsible on her campaign for polling white Hillbillies, (15) the Electoral College, (16) etc. Between this and the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that worked to sabotage Hillarycare and hook Bill on interns, Hillary seems just a tad paranoid... or is she simply incapable of accepting responsibility? You decide.
[+] Read More...

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Holy Week Open Thread

Because I do not really want to ponder our present political situation, I am revisiting some old thoughts. Sunday was Palm Sunday which, depending on how you celebrate, is the beginning of the holiest week of the year for Christians. And this Monday at sundown started the first night of the eight days of Passover for the Jews where we give up all 'leavened bread' in commemoration of Moses leading the Hebrews out of Egyptian bondage. There is also a pagan element where we await the arrival of a large invisible bunny rabbit, the symbol of fertility and Spring renewal, to deliver chocolate eggs to good little boys and girls.

The Passover season always brings me back to a conversation I overheard on the bus a few years ago. Yes, I admit, I love to listen in on random conversations. It is like that line from Shakespeare "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players..." I credit my years in the theatre for my love of listening. And sometimes you can hear the most amazing and absurd things. Things that can cause you to ponder questions that you never thought you would ever want to ponder.

So, this beautiful spring day, I was staring into space lost in my own thoughts when I heard a woman exclaim "...and that's how they save gefilte fish!" My ears perked up! My first reaction was "Why? Why would someone need to do that? We could have been saved so many other things, but someone had to save gefilte fish?!" For those of you who have been to a traditional Passover Seder, you may understand. For those of you who have not, let's just say that the gefilte fish course of a traditional Passover seder is truly something to be missed. [Sorry, God, but haven't Jews suffered enough?] After my initial thought, I couldn't stop laughing. Frankly, I have been laughing ever since I heard that. I haven't been able to get it out of my head and I really wish that I could have heard the rest of that conversation.

So let's open up the floor and feel free to share how you celebrate. Do you do anything special? What do you think of Cadbury removing the word "Easter" from their traditional chocolate eggs?

If you can't think of anything, there's always the United Airlines bouhaha...
[+] Read More...

Sunday, April 9, 2017

For The Deranged

As you may have heard, Trump dropped some bombs on Syria for using poison gas on its citizens. This brought howls of anger from the anti-Trumps. Why? Here are some of their most entertaining reasons.

We begin with hypocritical and entirely illogical reasons. This is leftist gotcha at its worst. If you don't act, you don't care. If you do act, you make the situation worse. And if they get called on their hypocrisy, they switch to attacking your motives:
● Trump dropped bombs and people died! That makes him a murderer! Funny, Obama wasn't. And, uh, if you can't drop bombs on soldiers who use poison gas on children, then who can you kill?

● Trump has no plan! Obama didn't either. You praised him for that.

● Trump did this without a Congressional declaration! Something that never mattered when Obama did it in several countries.

● Trump might start a war with Russia! Strange, last week he was Russian's puppet. Now the left wants to give Putin a veto over our policies. Who's the puppet here?

● Do you know how much those cruise missiles cost? Doesn't the left usually argue that saving a single life is worth some priceless expense? Why do we care now about the cost of some missiles?

● This lets North Korea argue that it's legitimate for them to own nuclear weapons. Uh, how?

● We're doing the dirty work of al Qaeda by bombing ISIS! Really? Using that logic, we can't fight either until we are ready to destroy them both completely and simultaneously. That's nonsense.

● Trump is listening to the Generals and they want war! It's Vietnam all over again! Huh. Last week, Trump was an idiot who needed to let his experts make policy because he couldn't be trusted.
They're also obsessed with this affecting his popularity:
● Trump is only doing this to make himself popular. Waaaah.

● This doesn't change who he is! Don't let a few missiles make you support him!

● Cable Networks are benefiting from missile footage so Trump is to blame! What? Don't you get it? Do I need to connect the dots? Isn't it obvious how that works? Come on people!
Then there's John McCain, who is in traitor zone all to himself these days. He says Trump is to blame for the chemical attack because his missile attack is only a one-time thing, which therefor encouraged the attack... somehow... after the fact.

Then you have the Alt-Right who are upset that Trump killed some A-rabs who was working with the Ruskies to kill other A-rabs. He dun killed the wrong A-rabs. You gots to kill the right A-rabs if you wanna be part of our Klan.

These groups really are a wretched hive of scum, villainy and extreme idiocy. Too bad they're the most vocal.


[+] Read More...

Friday, April 7, 2017

Some Unhappy Thoughts

I was going to write about the current up-and-coming generation, whom I find rather interesting. But instead, I've been reading about this 11 year old kid who killed himself when his 13 year old "girlfriend" played a prank on him and convinced him that she has killed herself, and I have some thoughts.

● First, this is truly heartbreaking. Suicide is tragic and I can't imagine what brings people to that point, but I can understand how dark it must be. I also can't imagine what the parents are going through.

● I can say that I find it deeply sick that someone would even think to play a trick like this. There is something sub-humanly cruel in that little girl and others like her.

● I read the comments in some of the articles and I see the rotten side of humanity creeping out. The cynicism. The smug superiority. The knee-jerk smears of the innocent. This kid was eleven. He was probably dealing with his first crush. He had no idea how to handle the complete inversion of all that euphoria into a ripping sense of loss. How can anyone say he was stupid or should have known better? Fuck you. I doubt you're as competent as you think you are, trolls.

Some are blaming the parents because "how could the boy not feel he could go to them." I hate to break this to you, ignorants, but most suicides hide their sorrow. Their friends and family would love to help them, but they don't give anyone the chance. How can you cure what you don't even know is there? Moreover, as the father of an 11 year old who is hell bent on living her life without parental oversight, let me tell you that some kids are great at hiding what is going on with them. It's a puzzle, not a photograph with these kids because they are exploring the world and they want freedom to do it. I can tell you that my skills as a lawyer have helped immensely and I know a lot more about my daughter's friends than their parents do because I am a suspicious bastard. That's not to say they are bad parents, it's just how it is with kids. No matter how much they trust you or love you, many still want a private life and you have no control over what they choose to hide there.

● That said, I do blame the parents of the girl. One of the first things I learned about kids was that they are cruel little amoral monsters out of the box. You need to teach that out of them. You need to teach them to be selfless, to be kind, not to hurt others. At times, I've seen our kids do things that were shocking to me as a well-adjusted adult. Each time, I took them aside and explained how they could have injured XXX for the rest of their lives or ruined someone's life or destroyed a trust or a friendship, and I asked them how they would feel about that. And do you know what? It never happened again because they understood what they had done was wrong.

But other kids I see with sh*tty parents don't get those lessons. They grow up thinking cruelty is funny. They think hurting others makes them cool. This little girl lacks human decency. She thought nothing of trying to impose about as painful an emotional harm as you can on someone who cared about her -- the law calls that a fiduciary relationship because you have a heightened responsibility for such a person. She saw that as a weapon for a little fun rather than a trust. That's sick. And her parents are to blame for not teaching her enough right and wrong that she could understand just how f*cked up that was. Her friends are just as bad too for helping out. Not one of them thought this was cruel and tried to stop it? Really? Those parents really need to look at their little creatures and ask just what the hell kind of monster they've created.

● I think our culture encourages this kind of cruelty too. I look around and I see so much rage. The "mic drop" and the insulting exit has replaced the fond goodbye. You don't break up anymore, you "ghost" or you get even for whatever you didn't like. Ghetto culture (for all races) is about being tougher than everyone and making others feel weak. Movies and television shows glorify "pranks" that should be crimes. There is no sense of perspective in terms of the effects on the victims. Heck, you aren't cool on film if you don't hurt someone. Look at our politics, with the left trying desperately to destroy friends and family who voted the wrong way. Look at sports arenas where people cheer for opposing players to be injured. All of this, I think, makes our culture remarkably difficult for people in trouble. And I'm not talking about the narcissistic snowflakes, I mean people who don't know how to handle their problems and really need the support systems that we've systematically destroyed... church, families, friends, right and wrong, decency, good manners...

● Finally, I need to say that after several decades of feminism, I am shocked at what I see in young women these days. We are told how wonderful girls are: they aren't violent and cruel like icky boys, they are inherently good. Well, that's bull. I can tell you that I am routinely dealing with the fallout from acts of my daughter's friends and frenemies that are ruthless, cruel, cold-hearted and sadistic. Seemingly sweet girls when they talk to you, spend their time trying to destroy each other, even their friends, the moment backs are turned. Why? What in the past decade of liberal social engineering has caused this? What makes these modern girls think it's acceptable to try to break each other?

I don't get it. I never saw behavior like this growing up and, if I did, it was one person everyone knew to avoid. Today... today, this is herd behavior.

Sorry for the depressing post, but this bugs me.
[+] Read More...

Thursday, April 6, 2017

"Hamilton" the Musical and other stuff...

Unless you live under a rock, you probably have heard of the hip-hop/rap musical "Hamilton" by Lin-Manuel Miranda and the oft-forgotten Jeremy Carter that open on Broadway a few years ago. It was an instant hit and rightfully so. The show is based on the biography of Alexander Hamilton by historian Ron Chernow and a very detailed, dense read. The show has been so popular that tickets in NY were not only hard to come by, but have become so outrageously expensive that only the very wealthy can afford to see it. To the credit of the producers who jacked the price up to over $800 in January, they assuage their guilt by offering free tickets to public school students and teachers. Frankly, anything that gets anyone interested in our national history is okay by me.And they did manage to help pressure the Treasury Department to keep Hamilton on the $10 bill. Treasury changed their minds and decided that slave-owner Andrew Jackson should be replaced by Harriet Tubman.

I finally had the opportunity to see "Hamilton" this weekend in Chicago. I won't bore you with a review, but it was worth going to Chicago to see it. I would never have paid NYC ticket prices to see it, partly because I could never afford it and partly because I am always skeptical of over-the-top popularity of any show. It was entertaining. Let's just leave it at that.

Now on to other stuff.

The big question is will the Senate vote to approve Neil Gorsuch as our next Supreme Court Justice with 60 votes? Will the Democrats filibuster as promised because it shoulda' been Obama's nominee Merrick Garland? Will the Republican execute Harry Reid's "nuclear option", and then vote to approve Gorsuch with 51 votes? We all wait breathlessly for the outcome! I am not really understanding why the Dems are choosing this as their "Waterloo". As always, Dems are short-sighted in that if they manage to force McConnell into the nuclear option, they will not only lose the filibuster, but get Gorsuch anyway. And then next time, they risk having Trump nominate someone they really won't like who will be approved without the ability to challenge. Justice Kennedy is 80 years old and Justice Ginsburg is 84 yrs old. The Dems only hope is impeachment, but then they forget that VP Pence takes over, not Clinton.

Any comments or other issues?
[+] Read More...

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Not Ready For A Real Media

There was a rather revealing interview given by Hillary Clinton's former press secretary, Brian Fallon. Fallon admitted that Clinton was "blindsided" by the "Breitbart effect." What does this mean?

According to Fallon, the "Breitbart effect" was the existence of "pro-Donald Trump counter-narratives that seemed to dominate the news cycle" and kept Team Clinton on the defensive. He said that the Breitbart group "cultivated a standalone ecosystem in conservative media that very aggressively and successfully promoted certain stories and narratives we had a blind spot for during the campaign." Essentially, because of the Brietbart group, Clinton needed to address "unflattering headlines" about the Clinton Foundation, her corporate speeches, her health, her record as Secretary of State and the e-mail server scandal rather than attacking Trump for his missteps.

Wow.

Think about this. So Clinton was running for President and never expected to need to address the scandals that surrounded her, her record of failure as Secretary of State, or her fitness for the job. Can you imagine? What does this say not only about the media itself, but about Clinton's relationship to them. Keep in mind, this is the same media that digs and digs and digs and will raise anything it thinks it can turn into a scandal against a Republican. Their health, their political record and any known scandals involving them are automatic media fodder. Yet Clinton apparently wasn't expecting to need to deal with those things.

What this says is that Clinton knew the MSM was going to cover for her. They weren't going to cover basic things that any journalist should cover even against people they like. In other words, the media is THAT in the tank for her!

This also tells us how inept the Democrats are. Hillary should have been ready to address those things before she ever began campaigning. Those things are part of her known baggage. A competent politician plans a response to things like that. Yet, she and her team apparently didn't even think they would come up.

What's more, think about this: Breitbart is a fringe organization that probably reaches less than 1% of voters. So Hilary's campaign press secretary is dumping their failure on the fact that in a media sea of pro-Clinton groupthink, there was 1% opposition? Is he really suggesting that they weren't prepared for their to be even token opposition? Wow.

This is pretty shocking actually.

Thoughts?
[+] Read More...

Sunday, April 2, 2017

Plenty of Beast... No Beauty

I saw Beauty and the Beast last night. I'll do a review soon, but for now I want to talk about the leftism within this film. The film was fine. It was good. It was ok. If it had come before the cartoon, there would be no phenomena... no little girls excited to meet Belle. It didn't suck though. But the film was packed with rather interesting stupidity.

Racism: The left loves racism. It loves to think it's being anti-racist, but it isn't. Get this. The opening of the film begins with Hermoine in the village. The village is about 30% black. Keep in mind that this is ancient France, so the presence of these people is odd. And being in such numbers is so obviously a statement that it screams "We are trying to make blacks seem relevant!" How insulting. And why are there no Indians, no other Indians, no Asians, no Hispanics? Is Disney really singling out blacks for being the only race that needs their hands held?

Then it gets worse. When the villagers turn into a mob, all the blacks mysteriously disappear. Either they were raptured or Disney is saying, "blacks are too overly sensitive to be included in this scene... we don't want them whining about being portrayed poorly on screen." Again, how insulting.

There are two interracial romances in the film too. Both involve white men and black women. As I pointed out before, that's by far the statistically least likely paring. What's wrong with black men and white women anyways, Disney? Are Asian women beneath being put into Disney films? Does Disney not believe anyone will accept someone loving an Indian?

Feminism? Ha!: So the whole film has a wicked anti-princess vibe. You stupid little girls need to learn that you don't need no stinking man to save you. Yep. Rip off your princess dresses, get down to your underwear and go fight little girl... hmmm, yeah. Sounds creepy, huh? Well, feminist (and womyn who posed with her shirt off) Emma Watson rips off her dress as she races back to the final battle. Why? Who knows? It has no meaning to the plot. So what does she wear into "battle" then? Her underwear. Yep. This is the period piece version of every "strong woman" role Hollywood has put out in decades -- hot chicks stripped to their underwear blasting away at bad guys. The only thing missing was the five-inch heels and the leather whip. So much for dignity.

Oh, and I must say that Watson's version of Belle sucked. She came across as an unpleasant elitist rather than a charming dreamer. She was nasty about the simps in town, telling us "I am not simple!" (Uh, Emma, "simple folk" means people who live good lives without drama and machinations, not people who are stupid and uneducated.) She insulted the Beast to the point I would have ripped her face off. She was a royal bitch to Gaston to the point that it made no sense he would keep chasing her. So feminism means you're a bitch... and you fight in your underwear. How noble.

Oh, and her acting sucked. She didn't get this role for her skill, I'll tell you that. I'd say she traded on her looks. Surprise!

Don't Blink, Gay Boy: If you weren't told that Gaston's buddy was gay, you might have missed it. It was clear that while Disney wanted credit for including a gay character, they didn't want it being apparent on screen. Out... but not so proud.

And then they did something kind of lousy. The wardrobe dressed three of the attackers in drag and one liked it. Oh my, he's a cross-dresser! Big whoop. Only, Disney then made him gay at the end of the film. Hmm. Having taken psychology courses, I can tell you that few gays cross-dress and cross-dressers as a group are rarely gay. But apparently, if you aren't straight and narrow, Disney thinks you're gay. Way to label people, Mouse House.

Damn Christians: Throughout the movie, Disney slammed small-minded Islam. They made us hate them when they tried to stop a young Belle from teaching another girl to read. They locked up Belle for witchcraft (which happened to be true this time). They screamed "Infidel!" as they did. They denounced science and disassembled Bella's washing machine, which was clearly the product of Satan. Yep. Islam sucks. The only problem... they pinned all of this on Christians. There was no suggestion of Islam in the film. Infidel? Really?

So if we can just shift the sins of anyone onto someone else for convenience, then I think tomorrow I shall start blaming homosexuals for the crimes of poachers... why not?

Gun Control: Gaston used a gun to try to kill the beast rather than an arrow, but Emma broke Gaston's arrows. Talk about a mixed political statement. But at the same time, the piano fired keys at the mob as if it were a machine gun. So are guns good or bad, Disney?

Psychological Problems: Finally, the film was packed with bizarre little changes that seemed to make no sense. They did make sense though when you understood that the left can't process subtlety. In the cartoon, Gaston is a jerk and a blow hard. He dies when he engages in an act of malicious cowardice - he wants to show off to Belle so he decides to kill the Beast. He tries to do so cowardly and he dies. Very Greek tragic. That's not enough for the left though because they don't accept that evil can be small. So this time, he tried to kill Belle's dad first so we know to hate him. The left simply cannot accept the idea that evil is anything less that total and obvious. No wonder they can't spot it.

Like I said above, the film was ok. But the politics of this film were noxious. Disney really should be ashamed.

Thoughts?
[+] Read More...