... and your opinion about it is in no way worth anymore than anyone else's:
I'd like to apologize for not wanting to live in a Post-Trumpocalypse Hellscape. That was very selfish of me. Sorry. pic.twitter.com/B1Ukrd8Jbg— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) August 8, 2016
Or, at least tries to. Love how the target will have none of it:
In advance of San Diego Comic-Con 2016, Valiant is proud to announce that Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee for President of the United States, will join forces with Faith “Zephyr” Herbert on November 2nd in FAITH #5 – a history-making, 48-page election special teaming the leading female hero in comics today with the first female nominee from a major political party for a special tale written by comics legend Louise Simonson with art by FAITH‘s own Pere Perez!
On November 2nd, just days before Election Day 2016, legendary writer Louise Simonson and Harvey Award-nominated artist Pere Perez present history in the making with a presidential milestone like no other!
GIVE. ME. A. F***ING. BREAK.
Hey, will Faith ask Hill why she trashed the reputations of the women who accused her husband of sexual assault and rape?
Will she ask her why she blamed a silly video for the attacks in Benghazi?
Will she ask her why she repeatedly lied about sending classified material on unsecured emails?
This is why I have ceased giving my $$ to Marvel and DC for years now. Valiant is now added to the list.
It's bad enough that Marvel has a writer on one of its marquee books who was active in Democratic politics and who routinely trashes Republicans as "evil," but it also employs David Walker who writes (the poor-selling) Nighthawk.
Walker believes the biggest threats to black Americans are "racism and the criminal justice system that is infected by the disease or racism," and he's showing just that in his book.
The Nighthawk in this title is not, if you're an older Marvel reader, the hero from the old Defenders team book. He's the dimension-displaced vigilante from the J. Michael Straczynski Supreme Power/Squadron Supreme books, now in the Marvel Universe proper. The ... "hero" is stationed in Chicago, of all places, and in the preview of issue #3 we read this:
"The city of Chicago explodes in racial violence, but the nightmare is just beginning. NIGHTHAWK goes to war against a group of white supremacists, but with the cops also hunting him, he may have finally bitten off more than he can chew. And then there’s that serial killer on the loose…"
Also, someone has been "smuggling illegal arms into the city" -- which Nighthawk suspects involves the police. 'Hawk is "determined to keep the guns from making it onto the streets" ... he's "had enough of this @!#$", you see. (Those are the actual words.)
Indeed -- the greatest problems facing urban Chicago are white supremacists and cops smuggling illegal weapons into the city.
Here's what issue #3 looks like:
If conservative white people are upset by NIGHTHAWK thus far, wait until they see #3, in store next week. pic.twitter.com/Qgdi8ko2mX— David F Walker (@DavidWalker1201) July 12, 2016
And if you have an issue with what Walker's writing?
Remember what I said about loving everyone? I changed my mind. Some of y'all can go eat a bag of dicks.— David F Walker (@DavidWalker1201) July 12, 2016
But these figures apparently are immaterial to Marvel. Walker's got a new gig called Occupy Avengers which "is hoping to be rather political."
Occupy? How 2011. And you may remember how the detestable Gail Simone's now-cancelled The Movement did in sales.
Consider what Douglas Ernst asks: "Imagine you are a writer on a Marvel comic book that can’t even sell 17,000 copies in its second month of release. Now imagine what would happen if you logged onto your social media account and mocked 'liberal black people' while flippantly telling them to 'eat a bag of d***s' if they were offended by your work."
Well, Marvel writer Nick Spencer is at it again, this time going after law enforcement in Captain America: Sam Wilson #10:
Even ... "better" -- there's also the character Rage telling a group of young (black) men that it's "time we started hitting back":
Isn't that wonderful?
Interestingly, Spencer retweeted the following back on July 8:
... Spencer, on the other hand, bases his latest story on a different fiction: That police overwhelmingly, and unfairly, target blacks in the course of doing their jobs.
And there's more:
It is exactly this- white are seen as individuals, anyone else is seen within large blocs. It's about dehumanizing. https://t.co/Ghk48Tviz8— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) July 9, 2016
But media do backflips to isolate white shooters while portraying anyone else as part of a larger movement, almost without exception.— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) July 9, 2016
It never fucking fails. Dylan Roof? Mentally disturbed lone gunman. Micah Johnson? Speaking for millions.— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) July 9, 2016
Remember, whether a shooter speaks for everyone of their race/religion depends entirely on whether or not they're white.— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) July 8, 2016
Whites are never portrayed as a "monolithic" movement? Tell that to white police officers across the country. It's never a bad apple or two, but a "culture of white supremacy" (or something) infecting whole police departments.
Tell that American college students who are routinely subjected to "white privilege" and "diversity" workshops (sometimes mandatory), let alone actual courses, which demonize all whites for the ills facing minorities and the world in general.
Tell that to Marvel itself, which routinely lectures its readers (and potential readers) of the need for more non-white characters, and anyone who disagrees is a racist. All the while the vast majority of its creators remain white (and male).
This is what Marvel thinks of you, America. Nick Spencer, writer of one of its marquee books, who uses sources like the Daily Kos and the Democratic Underground and has little compunction about trashing anyone with a contrary point of view (and, God forbid you be a member of the Republican Party) uses the company's published product to promulgate his personal point of view ... and give you the colossal middle finger.
(Image h/t: Doug Ernst)
They've now turned the swollen-headed MODOK into a Donald Trump analogue:
The being is called M.O.D.A.A.K. -- Mental Organism Designed As America’s King.
This was the ... "brain-child" of Spider-Gwen Annual #1 writer Jason Latour. (Yes, Spider-Gwen. Somehow, somewhen, Gwen Stacy acquired spider-powers. Modern Marvel Comics, people.) Maybe Latour is establishing his "progressive" bona-fides in order to ingratiate himself into the political "club" of the likes of Dan Slott, Tom Brevoort, and Nick Spencer. Maybe he really feels that way. Whatever the case, there's only one type of politics evident at Marvel's comics division: Far left.
Whatever the case, here's the deal: 1) If you're a Republican/conservative, Marvel Comics doesn't want your business. Period. And 2) Marvel Comics couldn't come up with an engaging, original idea if their collective lives depended on it.
So Trump wants to be "king" of the United States? Where the f*** has Latour, et. al. been the last goddamn eight years?? Too busy working on panels like this.
Meanwhile, we'll await something like M.O.B.A.M.A. -- Moronic Organism Built for Absurdity and Muslim Appeasement.
See also: Doug Ernst's post on MODAAK. (h/t to Doug, too, for the first image above.)
... the ethnic roles and affiliations were reversed?
Philadelphia police are looking for five men in connection with an assault outside Geno's Steaks on June 11.
Patrick Kane, a victim of the attack, provided this account.
He said he and his wife, Brooke Kane, had spent the night at a friend's wedding and then at an after hours club with another couple, when they all decided to grab a bite to eat at Geno's.
They were just finishing up their cheese steaks when Brooke Kane's girlfriend asked another group of patrons if she could bum a cigarette, Patrick Kane said.
"That is when the guys just lost their minds," said Patrick Kane, 31 and a maintenance supervisor at an apartment building.
In seconds one man stood up, put his hand over the face of the woman and pushed her across the sidewalk, said Patrick Kane.
"'Don't mess with us, we belong to ISIS,'" Kane said the man shouted at them.
Brooke Kane, a daycare teacher, stepped in to help her friend. The ISIS comment was not a joke she told them before she too was struck, Patrick Kane said.
Police said video of the attack was "too graphic" to release.
Sounds an awful lot like the now-backtracked edited audio recordings of the Orlando shooting 911 calls.
... just check out the Twitter feeds of Dan Slott, Mark Waid, Ron Marz, Kurt Busiek, Nick Spencer, and Gail Simone today -- among others.
Then ask yourself why the f*** you would spend even one damn cent on their offerings.
We all know Captain America writer Nick Spencer is a raging social justice warrior "progressive" who thinks Republicans are evil, and just when you thought it -- he -- couldn't get any more crazy, we read this:
This week's Captain America: Steve Rogers #1 contained a huge twist that revealed that Steve Rogers, the recently returning Captain America, is an agent of Hydra, and seemingly may have been since his childhood.
Marvel Executive Editor Tom Brevoort shed some light on the reveal, with USA Today citing him as telling them that this is "the real Steve Rogers," and not "some clone, shapeshifting Skrull, Life Model Decoy or a Cap from an alternate universe."
Speaking to Entertainment Weekly, writer Nick Spencer added to Brevoort’s statements that this is the real Steve, saying, “Issue 2 will lay a lot of our cards on the table in terms of what the new status quo is, but the one thing we can say unequivocally is: This is not a clone, not an imposter, not mind control, not someone else acting through Steve. This really is Steve Rogers, Captain America himself.”
“His mission is to further the goals and beliefs of Hydra," explained Brevoort.
This is the comicbook version of "clickbait," and it's beyond stupid. Almost as stupid as making Cap gay.
Brevoort even has the cojones to compare this drivel to the "Hitchcock tradition," and Spencer makes comparisons to Philip K. Dick's Man in the High Castle.
Puh-lease. You guys aren't even within a light-year of Hitchcock's and Dick's genius.
Anyone recall the mid-90s and something called "The Crossing"? This was when Tony Stark/Iron Man was supposed to have been an agent of Kang the Conqueror since the latter's first appearance way back in Avengers #8. That's right -- 30+ of continuity and all of sudden Iron Man is a murderous villain.
Oh, and when the Tony Stark we all know was killed, Marvel replaced him with a younger version of Stark. A college kid.
It is regarded today as one of Marvel's most ridiculous ideas of all time. I think it's safe to say this Cap nonsense will be too, in the years to come.
But hey -- it sure gives Spencer an avenue to trash patriotism, America, and everything else that victim-culture SJWs do.
Marvel's new Nighthawk is not the one older fans might think of -- the Batman analogue who was a member of the classic super-team The Defenders -- but an alternate reality version brought into the Marvel Universe "proper" (due to yet another silly "big -- crossover -- event").
This 'Hawk is, and was, a member of the Squadron Supreme. No, not the version Mark Gruenwald made famous with his mid-1980s limited series, but the one J. Michael Straczynski created in Supreme Power and later a new Squadron Supreme. His parents were killed by (white) racists, and this has made him one angry vigilante.
New series writer David Walker explains his take on the character:
Nighthawk is driven by rage. He is angry with everyone and everything, and he has trouble containing that anger, so he focuses it and turns it loose on what he feels is the most obvious responsible party. Of course, it is far more complicated than that, which is part of what makes this character interesting. Here you have a black man, whose parents were murdered by racists, and he blames the racist ideologies that inform our society for their deaths.
Traditionally, superheroes act as extensions of law and order. They may act outside the boundaries of the law, but when all is said and done, they are at service to law and order, which makes them part of the status quo of the criminal justice system. The problem with this system is that it often falls short of adequately serving black people in America. We have seen this time and time again, when police officers kill unarmed blacks, and the court system fails to convict the killer. The two biggest threats to black people in this country are racism and the criminal justice system that is infected by the disease or racism. At some point, if you are a black superhero, fighting to protect black people, you are going to reach a crossroads where you will realize that you must protect them from the forces of law and order—from the status quo.
Indeed. Get this: The series is set in ... Chicago. And Walker seriously claims racism is the deadliest threat to blacks?? "Time and time again" we have seen men in blue shoot and kill blacks?
Yet again, Marvel's comics division business model is one big head-scratcher.
I've a better title for this book, Mr. Walker: Nighthawk: The Mistaken Narrative.
If it wasn't bad enough that Captain America scribe Nick Spencer used one of Marvel's most despicably racist villain groups to chide Americans who are against illegal immigration, now he is utilizing Cap's deadliest enemy to castigate those who have issues with Middle Eastern immigration into Europe and how it's changing its societies.
Below is the Red Skull pontificating on the refugee crisis:
Perhaps the best response to this comes from Killer Moth, a regular commenter at FCMM (to whom the hat tip goes for this post):
"Hey, Spencer, I know you're trying to make Red Skull cartoonishly evil and racist, but when his rant -- or, really, the rant you put in his mouth -- actually sounds less insane than your regular words on Twitter and regular output, you're doing something wrong. "
I wonder how many Middle Eastern refugees Spencer has invited into his home? And if he has, has he had the "audacity" to establish any ground rules -- like "Hey, this is my house so here's how we do things"?
From comics scribe Nick Spencer:
Her biggest weakness is being stuck with a media like this https://t.co/KkptCeTgAD— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) May 16, 2016
Even Clinton’s allies say her weaknesses as a candidate may hurt her chances against Trump https://t.co/CwbkTgFKri— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) May 16, 2016
ON. WHAT. F***ING. PLANET. DOES. HE. LIVE???
Brought to you from the company whose former chief once claimed the majority of the US military is black, and that "extensive" atomic bomb tests were conducted during World War II.
Thanks to my buddy Doug Ernst, this article by Wired offers up what it thinks are Marvel Comics "greatest" political swipes. As you might imagine, there's nary a jab taken at a political liberal, and we're going back a ways here.
Coming in at #10 is a conversation featuring Hank Pym in The Ultimates. It was only 2002, but already writer Mark Millar was bashing George W. Bush for his administration's post-9/11 reaction.
#9 is this picture of mutant children for the Mutant Registration Act. But as we've noted several times here at Colossus, making analogies using mutants as a stand-in for, say, homosexuals or other minorities is pretty dumb. Gays, blacks or the handicapped don't have the ability to destroy an entire city with, y'know, a wave of their hand.
#8 is one of the non-partisan choices from Howard the Duck (1977) showing how superficial presidential politics are.
At #7 we see the president of the United States as Satan. Of course, it's Counter-Earth, not Earth proper, but considering the publication year was 1974, well, you know who was in office then (at least through August).
#6, like #9, attempts to use mutants as a stand-in for a lecture on civil rights. In an issue of 2009's Uncanny X-Men the public gets a chance to vote on "Proposition X" -- whether mutants should have to undergo mandatory treatment for their "X" gene. Again, sexual orientation, etc. does not equal the ability to kill thousands/millions with a wave of the hand.
#5 is directly related to the upcoming film Captain America: Civil War and deals with restrictions on superheroes due to their immense power (similar to mutant registration). Of course, our modern creators are overwhelmingly for gun control in the US, yet they'd have you believe wanting to register 1000-times-more-powerful-than-guns super-beings is a legitimate civil rights violation.
#4 is surely one both sides can agree on -- that is, that Marvel heroes should have obliterated: The Sons of the Serpent. Patterned more or less after the KKK, modern creators have used the group to send out anti-Donald Trump border wall messages. As if illegal immigration isn't, y'know, a legitimate political matter.
Ronald Reagan literally turns into a snake for the #3 moment. Writer Mark Gruenwald had the then-president, like many others in Washington DC, transform into a lizard after the Serpent Squad (no relation to the Sons) puts a toxin in the city's water supply.
#2 is probably the most famous (or infamous) set of political comics panels of the Bronze Age: Captain America unmasking the Secret Empire's Number One -- who turns out to be Richard Nixon. Well, we don't actually see that it's Nixon, but writer Steve Englehart's implication couldn't be any less subtle.
And the big #1 is from a mere six years back -- when Capt. America and the Falcon infiltrated that "dastardly" Tea Party. Writer Ed Brubaker really overstretched with this ridiculous nonsense, which included the all-too- typical blurb that a "black guy couldn't fit in with a bunch of angry white people."
WHAT WIRED MISSED:
The Ultimates volume 2: The aforementioned Mark Millar lectures the US (well, the G.W. Bush administration) about its foreign endeavors by having a coalition of outlaw states' "super"heroes invade the US.
What about Truth: Red, White, and Black which posits that the US government began testing a version of the lost formula that turned Steve Rogers into Capt. America on black subjects? It's pretty damn political when you compare our government's actions to that of something akin to Nazi Germany.
J. Michael Straczynski's Supreme Power and Squadron Supreme, like The Ultimates a reaction to the G.W. Bush presidency, features a new take on the Justice League analogues -- one which, yes, lectures the US on foreign entanglements.
Keep in mind, too, that right-leaning individuals in Captain America have been shown to be mentally unstable.
In Steve Englehart's original run, he explained the Cap of the 1950s -- a fan of the original Cap who then used an imperfect version of the super-soldier serum. This turned him (and his "Bucky") into lunatics who, it just so happens, also became bigots.
Mark Gruenwald did the same thing with John Walker, who replaced Steve Rogers for a time as Cap in the 1980s. After Walker's parents are killed by a fanatical right-wing terror group, Walker's sanity slowly ebbs away. Walker, a very pro-US individual, formerly played the role of Super Patriot.
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton and New York City mayor Bill de Blasio make a racially insensitive joke? "Some" are "cringing," according to the New York Times.
Just imagine if Donald Trump and/or Ted Cruz had done that ... what would the Times' headline(s) be then??
From Newsarama: Cyborg's greatest danger comes from "being a black man living in Detroit."
Writer John Semper elaborates (somewhat):
He faces his greatest danger, which is being a black man living in Detroit. Justice League was once set in Detroit, he’s working out of S.T.A.R. Labs in Detroit, but no one has ever made the city a part of the saga. Detroit is a very unique city; it’s got a wonderful history, it’s got music, it’s got all kind of great things. It’s got a large black population, and here we’re telling the story of a black man in Detroit.
It’s also a city that’s in a great deal of distress, so there will be a lot of stories that will emanate from that. And in a way, Detroit will be a part of Cyborg’s identity, like Batman in Gotham, and Superman in Metropolis. We’re gonna Cyborg a big part of Detroit.
Now, Semper's comment doesn't go into all that much detail, but given what we've seen in modern comics these days one can take an educated guess as to what that "greatest danger" means. Let's see ... police brutality? Alleged "conservative" policies which led to situations like that in Flint? Opposition to gun control? Gentrification?
Perhaps this comment says it best in response:
Maybe they could do something intelligent and brave, like explore how heavy regulations, high taxes, gun control, and suppression of individualism and individual rights (all the things voting for Democrats gets you) have turned Detroit and Chicago, once cities America was proud of, into poverty-filled war zones. Nah. They'll go with the puerile, tribalistic, undergraduate social 'sciences' identity politics getting shoved in everyone's faces from every angle and remind me why I stopped buying comics, watching new television shows, and won't be watching the NFL this year either.
"Daily Show" host Trevor Noah thinks there were just four Founding Fathers -- and they're all on Mt. Rushmore (fast forward to 2:05):
Sure, the dude is from South Africa, but if you're gonna take a position like this, at least know the basics, huh?
What do you think the reaction would be from the media if Donald Trump (or Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio) supporters actively sought out Hillary Clinton/Bernie Sanders rallies and loudly protested them?
Here's a sample: Just recall the coverage of protests over ObumbleCare from 2010.
Among other things, despite ZERO evidence that racial epithets were hurled at members of the Congressional Black Caucus, the MSM dutifully repeated the accusations every chance it got.
Remember folks, no matter how bad a candidate Trump is, the mainstream media will make him (seem) far worse.
Comics moonbats Kurt Busiek and Erik Larsen really like Barack Obama:
@ErikJLarsen When I was born, Ike was still in the White House. There's some competition, but I'd say Obama's the best of my lifetime.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) February 28, 2016
ObumbleCare? You mean the preposterously flawed "overhaul" of which only 15% of the public say they're satisfied??
Did Obama have anything to do with marriage equality? Remarkably, somehow, Mr. Obama believed marriage was only between a man and woman when running for president.
It's true the White House filed briefs before the Supreme Court when it heard the case on the issue; nevertheless, it was the high court, not Obama, which made marriage equality a reality. Does anyone really think just because Obama outed himself with his real stance on gay marriage and filed briefs in favor of such that it would significantly sway what the justices thought? If anyone deserves "credit," it's the usually conservative-leaning justice (Anthony Kennedy) who ended up voting with the (liberal) majority.
As for "hauling us out of a recession," um, yeah, ok.
Remember, these creators think they're really smart. And if you disagree with them, you'll be blocked or worse -- like told to "f*** off."
I mean, whoa -- who can legitimately argue with such a profound statement like "Only a seven-year old can legitimately claim that Barack Obama is the worst president of their lifetime"?
A new Kickstarter campaign is soliciting funds for the comicbook Black -- "In A World That Already Fears And Hates Them -- What If Only Blacks Had Superpowers?"
The "hook": “After miraculously surviving being gunned down by police, a young man learns that he is part of the biggest lie in history. Now he must decide whether it’s safer to keep it a secret or if the truth will set him free.”
From Bleeding Cool (my emphasis):
BLACK follows the story of a young man, Kareem Jenkins, who, having miraculously survived being shot by police, learns that he is part of the biggest lie in history. Kareem must decide whether it’s safer to keep history’s secret, or if the truth will set him free. Rounding out BLACK’s creative team are DC Comics illustrator Khary Randolph, who will contribute covers and additional artwork, and editor Sarah Litt, formerly of Vertigo and DC Comics.
“With BLACK, we’re looking to tell a great story, but we’re also purposefully challenging the pop culture status quo, which is dominated by a White male aesthetic,” says BLACK co-creator Kwanza Osajyefo. “BLACK tackles the very real and palpable issue of race, which is at the forefront in America and around the world. We are trying to confront the issue of race head-on by creating a world in which only Black people are superheroes — and the BLACK superhero trope isn’t subtly cast under a label of mutant, inhuman, or meta-whatever. It is also both thrilling and liberating to create the superheroes we’ve always wanted to see — and, frankly, be — outside of the entrenched publishing system.”
Race is at the forefront of world cultural and social concern? Really?
The introductory image features the iconic -- yet mistaken -- image of "hands up, don't shoot":
Somehow I doubt that that's the "biggest lie in history" mentioned above.
Our 'ol pal, the gnomish one Dan Slott, tweets yesterday:
In 2016, you see someone using— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 7, 2016
"SJW" in an argument you know 2 things:
They're on the wrong side of history
and they're not worth your time.
Well, they're trying to take over the culture. The fact that Slott is getting push-back is a sign people aren't just rolling over and taking it. The rise of The Donald (sadly, in this case) is another example.
We need to get from some to enough. And really, we’ll know we’ve achieved success when Captain America can have a boyfriend, and Wonder Woman can have a girlfriend. For queer representation in superhero comics, that’s what success looks like.
You see? You can't just create new characters who happen to be gay. Apparently, that's too difficult for the modern cadre of comicsfolk. You can't even just retcon secondary characters with nebulous backgrounds into gay characters.
You have to make the biggest cultural icons that are out there gay.
Only then will the SJWs consider that a success. Only. And if you object, you're a hateful homophobic bigot. (Adjectives are subject to change, natch, depending on the "aggrieved minority class" being discussed at the time.)
As The Federalist's John Trent writes, "The push for diversity in comics is a vision of the anointed that is unsatisfied with representation that reflects reality."
Social Justice Warriors don't want just acceptance, you see. They demand that you agree with everything they believe and say -- else you're evil incarnate. If you say "Hey Captain America can't have a boyfriend -- that goes against his entire history!" you'd best be ready for an onslaught of ultra-PC verbal violence which you've never before experienced.
Like anything else SJWs have touched (and remember -- there's a big difference between a standard liberal and a SJW), comics in their current form will wither away to nothingness. They're already a pale imitation of what has come before, and with the pandering to the SJWs, coupled with the ridiculous creative laziness of those in charge, it'd be little surprise if comics as we know them cease to exist in the next decade.
Ms. Marvel writer G. Willow Wilson (who happens to be Muslim) not only fails to grasp the irony of her words regarding Marvel chief Ike Perlmutter and his donations to Donald Trump, but engages in that which is the very reason The Donald has been the GOP frontrunner for so long.
... a lot of people have been left wondering: was this really a donation to benefit veterans? Or was it a donation to benefit Donald Trump? And if it was the latter, what does that mean for fans of Marvel comics? Did the money come out of Perlmutter’s private fortune, or did some portion of what you spent on your Marvel pull list support a political candidate who wants to deport millions of immigrants, build a wall along the Mexican border and require religious minorities to carry ID badges?
Fact check: That would be deport illegal immigrants, and precisely when did Trump say he would require religious minorities to wear ID badges? Or, is that over-the-top hyperbole which totally twists what he had said (which was still wrong, IMO)?
Wilson goes on to complain about fans spending money where someone will benefit who has supported a candidate whose election will lead to "the real possibility of ... a dystopian autocracy."
Hey Willow -- where've you been the last seven years, huh?
The irony is delicious. "Progressive" creators have crapped on conservatives/Republicans for years with impunity, then complain and make wise-ass comments when comics fans who share that ideology react. And now, all of a sudden, because someone they hold in contempt is being supported by a person in their business, well, it's a CRISIS.
Wilson says "being a Republican isn't a crime," but "this is not an ordinary election cycle." Well, you can bet if she had her way, being a Republican would be a crime. And 2008 wasn't an ordinary election cycle, either. Then, you had a completely compliant press corps which refused to dig even an inch into Boss Obama's background. If they did, there's a good chance Hillary Clinton would be president now.
So excuse me, Ms. Wilson, while I laugh my a** off at you, Mark Waid, and all the other conceited, arrogant comics folk. Turnabout, as they say, is fair play.
The only thing which would please more is if Perlmutter told Waid and anyone else who is bitching about his donation to "please leave (the company), and don't come back." Just like Waid tells fans with whom he disagrees.
UPDATE: Check out Doug Ernst's take.
I know, I know ... just when you think you've seen it ALL, along comes something else.
PBS(!!) recently gave Muslim activist and author Haroon Moghul a forum by which to lobby for a Muslim character in, of all places, STAR WARS.
Indeed. For, we all know that everybody immediately associates "Ben" and "Luke" with their religious origins. Mm-hmm.
Star Trek would make more sense for this activists's desires; of course, however, there's been very little discussion of Earthly religions on the many Trek shows over the universe's 50 years.
And hey -- wasn't the captain of the Kelvin in JJ Abrams' 2009 Trek reboot a Muslim? We actually never knew, just as we don't know much about any Trek character's religion, but he sure looked like he could have been (especially since the same actor played a Muslim in Iron Man and, not to mention, has a Pakistani background.)
Back to Star Wars: couldn't it be argued that the famous Admiral Ackbar from Return of the Jedi is based on the Arabic word "great"?
Oh, and lookee here -- someone agrees with me from six years ago:
…the Arabic word for "great," akbar, has been adapted into George Lucas's Star Wars franchise, in the form of Admiral Ackbar, a heroic character and military commander whose success in space helps Luke Skywalker and the Rebel Alliance repel Darth Vader's Galactic Empire. Featured in Return of the Jedi, Ackbar is just one of many characters and settings in the Star Wars universe that have an Arabic background. Luke Skywalker's home planet, Tatooine, takes its name from the Tunisian city of Tataouine (al-Tataouine in Arabic). Darth Vader's home planet is Mustafar, a slight variation of Mustafa, an Arabic name that means "the chosen one" (and is one of 99 names for the Muslim prophet Muhammad). Attack of the Clones showcases Queen Jamilla, whose name is a slight variation of jamilla, an Arabic word for "beautiful." And Revenge of the Sith features Senator Meena Tills, whose first name means "heaven" in Arabic.
So, give us a break already, Mr. Moghul. Islamophobia, such that it is, still lags well behind anti-Semitism as a social/cultural problem, and it's really not even close.
Maybe we actually need more overtly Jewish symbols in our science fiction.
Remember the classic Genesis song/video "Land of Confusion"? With the following tweet, our 'ol pal Ron Marz shows he lives in the Land of Delusion:
When President Obama speaks, it makes me proud to be an America. When Trump or Cruz speak, it makes me ashamed. #SOTU— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 13, 2016
But that's beside the point. First, it seems Marz is proud to be an entire country when Boss Obama speaks. (The guy is a writer!) Second, anyone who actually believes anything that comes out of the president's mouth anymore really is suffering from spells of delusion.
Does anyone think a mainstream media outlet like the Washington Post would run a cartoon like this about Boss Obama and his daughters??
I now await all the self-righteous media talking heads discussing the racist stereotypes of Hispanic people, including that dolt Jorge Ramos at Univision.
If it isn't Keith Olbermann going on a rant about the "stolen" 2004 election, or Mike Lupica ripping on the GOP for something, there's always someone else in the sports realm to pick up the slack.
In this case, it's Doug Gottlieb who wants -- well, wanted -- everyone to know that the Second Amendment is NOT part of the US Constitution:
Naturally, like any swarmy dope who finally realized he made an ass of himself, Dougie deleted this tweet with no accompanying explanation. Because, you see, he's better than you, dammit!
Speaking of comics moonbats, Avi reports that writers Kurt Busiek and Gail Simone are a bit befuddled at being Twitter blocked by artist Greg Capullo:
Apparently, Greg Capullo has blocked me for disagreeing on writing being crucial to comics. Ah well. He's still an amazing talent.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) December 8, 2015
Busiek blocked me some time back, and I had never tweeted anything to/about him up to that point. (He probably saw some of the back-and-forths between Ron Marz, Dan Slott, Mark Waid, et. al. and decided to be ... "proactive.")
Simone, on the other hand, blocked Doug Ernst and I after we pressed her on the question of whether only white people can be racist. She was, at the time, busily retweeting messages from a radical feminist whose position was just that. (Simone never answered the question, natch.)
"Smart" Spider-Man write Dan Slott on GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson at last night's debate:
During the RNC debate, when Ben Carson answers a question, it feels like a kid in school who's reviewing a book you KNOW they haven't read.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) December 16, 2015
1) Great grammar there, Dan: "a kid" and then the pronoun "they." Your editor sure must work overtime. Marvel's sure getting their money's worth.
2) Carson's a brain surgeon. You write comicbooks. In other words, you're an intellectual gnat compared to him.
3) You're a racist.
RELATED: Fellow comics moonbat Ron Marz engaging in cognitive dissonance:
Please fill in "private server" on your #GOPDebate bingo card.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 16, 2015
"Adolf Hitler comparison fits Donald Trump" writes idiot Harry Themal at the News Journal.
They must really need the click bait. Yet another laughable effort by a joke of a news daily.
The poor elite Left -- they just can't figure out what the f*** they want.
Headline in the Philly Inquirer today: "Paris terror fuels fear of American Muslims." It features the tale of a guy who's been here for 15 years, an immigrant from the West Bank, who was detained for a whole two minutes after passengers heard him speaking Arabic.
"They gave us that look - like we were terrorists," he says.
Naturally, the Inquirer wants this story to pull at your heartstrings. They even quote the laughable CAIR -- Council on American-Islamic Relations -- as saying after the Paris terror attacks there has been "an 'unprecedented backlash' against Muslims to an extent not seen since the days after Sept. 11, 2001."
Meanwhile, Jews remain overwhelmingly the target of anti-religious hate, not Muslims, and it's not even close:
So, we're supposed to get all irate about a dude getting questioned at an airport for a few minutes after speaking Arabic, but we should just nod and say "thank you" to stuff like this:
As Glenn Reynolds says, "Now let me take your guns away based on a secret list that only I control."
After the IRS debacle and people like Fox News contributor Steve Hayes being placed on the "no-fly" list, not to mention the innumerable lies and obfuscations the administration has promulgated over these seven years -- with emphasis on its opinions regarding firearm ownership (or lack thereof) -- is there any ... ANY ... wonder about conservative skepticism?
Quite related: Our buddy Ron Marz:
No Fly List: Never have so many, been so concerned, about the rights of so very few, to buy as many guns as they can possibly have.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 7, 2015
The appropriately named Linda Stasi of the New York Daily News writes that one of the victims in the San Bernardino shootings had it coming.
Next, later today, ABC's George Stephanopoulis will interview his former boss's wife, and the person to whom he donated over $70K.
I've shaken my head so often of late it's about to fall off ... and this certainly doesn't help:
Tying into today's previous post and the new Captain America: Civil War trailer, how is it that "progressives" are so in favor of taking away law abiding folks' means to protect and defend themselves, yet are loath to even register super-powered mutants with the government?
Former X-Men writer Chris Claremont was the first to raise the spectre of a "mutant registration act" back in the classic X-Men #141-142, "Days of Future Past." The dystopian "future" of 2013 came about as a result of Senator Kelly's assassination by the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants. But the resulting passage of the "Mutant Control Act" was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, so the government (presumably the legislative and executive branches working together) brought back the Sentinel program.
Kitty Pryde, who traveled back to 1980 to prevent Kelly's assassination (in the comics; in the film version it was Wolverine), said "bless 'em" regarding the Supreme Court's ruling while recounting to the X-Men how the future comes about. Moira MacTaggert says about the Act "Registration today, gas chambers tomorrow."
Senator Kelly pops back up in X-Men #158:
After Friday's mass shooting at a shopping center in Colorado Springs, President Obama issued his usual vague call for more gun control.
We have to do something, the president says. But what exactly? It is not surprising that Obama did not bother to address that question, because there is no good answer to it.
According to people who knew him, John Dear, the man arrested for killing three people and injuring nine in last week's attack, was an eccentric, off-putting loner with anger issues. But he apparently did not have the sort of criminal or psychiatric record that would have prevented him from legally buying a gun.
NBC News adds "there would have been nothing apparent in Dear's background—including a felony conviction or previous mental health issue—that would have disqualified him from buying firearms."
The usual suspects like Dan Slott and Ron Marz have their Twitter feeds chock full of snarky comments about guns and the right-wing, but like with Boss Obama you never actually see real solutions proposed.
Obama has mentioned that Australia is a model the US could look to; however, Australia confiscated firearms from private ownership. I've no doubt that that is ultimately what the president would like here, but he sure ain't gonna get that with an executive order. As I noted, the only real "short-term solution" is getting a liberal Supreme Court justice who will provide the needed balance tip to "reinterpret" the 2nd Amendment.
So what is it, "progressives?" Why not just come out and say it -- you want to ban private ownership of guns? If you want more restrictions, like what, for instance?
Take Marz's comment:
Seems like just the sort of fellow who should be able to buy a gun with no questions asked. https://t.co/SrkW9EYB2i— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) November 29, 2015
Continue to challenge the 2nd Amendment clueless. Because the mainstream media sure won't.
You knew it was gonna happen -- the usual comicbook 'bats have chimed in with their "superior" intellects about the terror attacks in France last Friday ... because, after all, they're soooo smart. Because they write comics. And have thousands of Twitter followers.
Here's Captain America scribe Nick Spencer saying that the LAST thing we need to do is ... stop allowing mid-east refugees into our countries:
The GOAL for ISIS is that we stop accepting these refugees. People pretending to 'get tough' are actually caving in to enemy's demands.— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) November 14, 2015
The world helping these refugees has been a real PR problem for ISIS. The world turning on them now would be their best recruiting tool.— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) November 14, 2015
Folks, it doesn't get much more progressive-elitist bullshittery than that.
Here's our 'ol pal Ron Marz:
The last time there was an attack this horrific, our foolish response gave the terrorists exactly what they wanted. Let's not do that again.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) November 14, 2015
Then there was this retweet by Marz, Mark Waid and Kurt Busiek:
Before I log off, I leave you with this. It's maybe the most important thing to know about the Paris attack. pic.twitter.com/x57bXmpOYP— Hend Amry (@LibyaLiberty) November 14, 2015
The sad fact of the matter is that ISIS knows it can count on touchy-feelie types like these dopes to disseminate memes like the above. Face it: there was NO massive anti-Muslim backlash after 9/11, no matter what "progressives" tell you. The Left fears the "dreaded" right-wing -- and groups like the NRA -- more than they fear radical Islamist groups. Remember, Hillary Clinton referred to the GOP as her "enemy," not ISIS or al Qaeda, or anyone like that.
President Lemon immediately went after the NRA and believers in the 2nd Amendment after shootings in Roseburg, Oregon. But Friday after the France attacks? "I don't want to speculate." Absolutely unbelievable.
Speaking of Bernie Sanders (and not France related), here's Marz again:
#DemDebate is a conversation between intelligent adults, It's refreshing. (Small number of participants helps.)— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) November 15, 2015
Real "high bar" 'ya have there, Ronnie.
Lastly, this may be the most sensible tweet of all:
I feel like everyone is suddenly an expert on everything related to terrorism, and I feel like I know nothing at all.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) November 16, 2015
I mean, why else would they tweet stuff like this?
Ben Carson seems like a pleasant man who is crazy. https://t.co/4KOr28WHLA— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) November 6, 2015
Really, though, I must insist that we all begin referring to him as "televangelist Ben Carson." That's all he is.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) November 6, 2015
I don't know why the media are obsessed with this Carson grain pyramid thing when he definitely thinks a man lived inside a whale.— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) November 6, 2015
Geez Ben Carson is lying about everything pic.twitter.com/fKVM4PhCfc— Matthew A. Cherry (@MatthewACherry) November 8, 2015
Hey Ben Carson, at this point in your craziness? Just say you're Iron Man. What could it hurt?— Patton Oswalt (@pattonoswalt) November 6, 2015
Need I remind you what these hypocritical dolts would be tweeting if such was being said about candidate Barack Obama?
Let's take a little gander at a comparison of the two African-Americans -- the president and the would-be president:
Early years and academics:
Ben Carson has admitted to being a punk in school. Born in Detroit and raised by a single mother, Carson lived through what many would call the “black experience.” But his mother wouldn’t let Ben become a statistic. She forced him to read and not watch TV. When Ben was 14, he made a turnaround which he has credited to his faith and good decisions. He cleaned up his act, got great grades and “had the highest S.A.T. in 20 years Detroit had seen.” His stellar academic record is what prompted the West Point’s informal “offer” which he didn’t accept. Yeah, that’s the “controversy.” No, really. That’s the entire controversy. Ben Carson applied to and was accepted at Yale. The only school to which he applied, by the way.
Barack Obama was raised by his white mother in Hawaii. He moved around, including some time spent in Indonesia. He was accepted to Occidental College after high school. His grades are unknown, his SAT score is unknown but from all relevant accounts, was likely below average. So for most information, we just have to take Obama’s word for it. Lucky for us, Obama admits to being a “loafer” who “abused drugs” which isn’t exactly how premier students at either Columbia and Harvard describe themselves…
Obama’s academic records from Columbia and Harvard are still sealed. The media has not investigated at all, because they don’t want to know, and they don’t want the rest of us to know.
Actually, Obama's academic records are not "sealed" by any legal order ... just at relevant folks' request. No essential difference, really.
Ben Carson spent a great deal of time learning medicine, and therefore likely spent the majority of his time with neurosurgeons. Call it a hunch. He also served on the boards of many businesses.
Barack Obama has associated with marxists and terrorists: Frank Marshall Davis a communist poet, Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dorn, David Axelrod and many other “questionable” people. Don’t worry. Whenever anyone found out about them, he immediately threw them under the bus.
- Received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008
- Named one of “America’s Best Leaders” by US News & World Reports in 2008
- Received the Jefferson Award in 2000 for “Greatest Public Service Benefiting the Disadvantaged”
- Awarded the Healthcare Humanitarian Award in 2004 because he has “enhanced the quality of human lives and has influenced the course of history through ongoing contributions to healthcare and medicine.”
- Named by CNN and TIME Magazine as one of the nation’s 20 foremost physicians and scientists in 2001
- Recipient of the 2006 Spingarn Medal which is the highest honor bestowed by the NAACP.
- Awarded 60 honorary doctorate degrees and dozens of national merit citations.
- Authored over 100 neurosurgical publications
- Author of 6 books
- Freedom of the City of Cape Town (jointly with Michelle Obama)
- 2009 Nobel Peace Prize
- Best Spoken Word Album Grammy Awards for abridged audiobook versions of Dreams from My Father in February 2006 and for The Audacity of Hope in February 2008
- 2011 Transparency Award jointly offered by OMB Watch, the National Security Archive, the Project on Government Oversight, the Reporters’ Committee for Freedom of the Press and OpenTheGovernment.org
Even the mainstream press admitted they didn't know much about candidate Obama:
It's their own fault ultimately, of course.
As for stupid statements, the media has been on Carson's case for utterances about the Egyptian pyramids, the Founders, and his faith. But what about Boss Obama?
Look, anyone with half a brain knows that Carson is getting this frenzied treatment because he's a Republican. The media shrugged (and shrugs) at Obama's whoppers with a "Wellll, he embellished a little, yeah ... maybe misremembered some details ... so what?"
It's just like how Dan Quayle's boneheaded gaffes meant he was as dumb as a slice of bread, but Joe Biden? "Just Joe being Joe." Nothing to see here.
In conclusion, the media and "progressives" in general have themselves to blame for the complete skepticism of many folks when it comes to scrutiny of Ben Carson and other GOP pols. Which is a shame because if/when one of these folks do utter a legitimately huge whopper (which Carson's West Point saga was not), a sizable segment of the population simply won't believe it.
As for Marz, Waid and the rest of the moonbat comics creators -- you reap what you sow. Racists.
Check out this tweet:
My mind is still blown by the idea that CNBC is liberal media now tho— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) October 30, 2015
And this is who Marvel is hiring these days.
New Captain America scribe Nick Spencer tweeted out the following yesterday:
But the article's author, Brett White, like Spencer is missing the point. (And they're doing it on purpose, too.) I won't bore you again with the reasons why -- you know why by now.
Lastly, the article notes that yeah, the writer has a left-wing point of view. Gee, thanks. Now, show me the last Cap story with a distinctly right-wing bent.
Just look at this montage from last night's debate. Does ANYONE in their right minds think the Democrats would be subjected to such nonsense?
Nick Spencer also ran unsuccessfully for Cincinnati City Council (twice). In addition, he was accused of "not upholding his end of the bargain" regarding a dispute over ownership of his (now-former) bar, including "paying his rent and mismanaging the bar’s finances."
Just so you know the mind-set of the guy who is now having the pages of Capt. America denounce those who are against illegal immigration.
Oh, and here's still more from just the other day:
It is really a testament to the echo chamber that the GOP actually thought giving Clinton this stage would be a good idea.— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) October 23, 2015
Republicans now looking at HRC like school kids realizing the teacher they just got to retire was 'the nice one.'— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) October 23, 2015
... just remember the following:
Yeah, that's Marvel bigwig Tom Brevoort saying they "probably" wouldn't allow Frank Miller to do a Captain America tale a la his Holy Terror story.
Cap can, however, go after the Tea Party and put forth messages that being against illegal immigration is racist/hateful/xenophobic/outoftouch ... but battle radical Islamic terrorists? INSENSITIVE! INTOLERANT!
And this from Grant Morrison on the Miller work:
Batman vs. Al Qaeda! It might as well be Bin Laden vs. King Kong! Or how about the sinister Al Qaeda mastermind up against a hungry Hannibal Lecter! For all the good it's likely to do. Cheering on a fictional character as he beats up fictionalized terrorists seems like a decadent indulgence when real terrorists are killing real people in the real world. I'd be so much more impressed if Frank Miller gave up all this graphic novel nonsense, joined the Army and, with a howl of undying hate, rushed headlong onto the front lines with the young soldiers who are actually risking life and limb 'vs.' Al Qaeda.
I'd be impressed if Morrison bought a pricey mansion along the US-Mexico border with no fences or other means of security. Or spoke out against the government so that he'd become targeted by the IRS (or whatever state enforcement arm). Or had his healthcare premiums skyrocket after being outright lied to by the chief exec. Or ...
But comics creators at large didn't have to be that vocal about Miller's anti-al Qaeda work, because the innumerable media voices did it for them:
Newsarama: “[Holy Terror] doesn't look at the villains in any way or explore the differences between Muslims and terrorists "a mean and ugly book.”
Robot 6: “ ... the work of someone who was profoundly affected by the events of September 11th, to the point where fear took over from whatever artistic drive used to push [his] work."
Wired: "Fodder for the anti-Islam set."
Comics Alliance: "The slurs against Islam continue as the book goes on ..."
USA Today: "winds up buried under its one-dimensional barrage of patriotism ... the rah-rah enthusiasm for wasting terrorists so nastily would seem more fitting or even a cathartic experience for some."
ComicBookMovie.com: "probably the most ridiculous, shallow, offensive piece of propaganda I think I’ve ever read."
Think Progress: "noxious politics ... viciously Islamophobic sentiments ... twisted thinking."
Las Vegas Weekly: "... in service of an ugly story and uglier politics."
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "a nasty, though visually arresting expression of xenophobic rage against Muslims ... conflates all Muslims with terrorists with a racist gusto."
So, comics have always involved politics, the contemporary creators say? Sure, but now and for many years, the tales have had to be of the "right kind." That trashing radical Islamists is "racist," "noxious," and "ugly," while going after the Tea Party and utilizing a long-time racist group as the voice for a very legitimate and popular political point of view, shows just how far "progressives" and the Democrat Party has fallen.
Idiot Dan Slott wants to play a game:
Cap's fought the Sons of the Serpent for years. Yes, it's 'cause this is Sam. Another big factor in this "outrage": Now we have social media— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) October 20, 2015
I can play a game too:
1) If it was just Sam (as in Wilson, as in the former Falcon, as in a black guy) then why the f*** were conservatives upset when Bucky Barnes-as-Cap went after the Tea Party? (Bucky's white.)
2) Using that "logic," then Slott's pal Ron Marz said the following ... just because it's Ben Carson:
What's funnier here -- Trump still leading, or absolute lunatic Carson only a point behind him? https://t.co/WBwL8YhKFv— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 13, 2015
Part of this is down to the bristling idea that superhero comics shouldn’t—and, bizarrely enough, can’t—feature commentary on current social issues. That, to some people, superhero comics are meant to be for young kids, and because they deal with people in spandex punching people in spandex, they should be sequestered off in a land of magic pixie dust, not rooted in our own world.
Is it political? Of course it is. It’s what Captain America as a character has been like since his creation. Like I mentioned, in his first appearance, he punched a goddamn fascist in the face.
But the other part of it is an alleged shock that a dude running around calling himself Captain America and fighting for the little guy might have some left-leaning ideals. The main furor that burst forth this weekend over Sam Wilson: Captain America #1 has been very much from sites that Spencer and Acuña lampoon in the issue itself: That somehow, by choosing to not be a mouthpiece of the Government or SHIELD and stand solely for the American people, Sam is now “Anti-American.”
"Fighting for the little guy?" What about the little guys who are miffed about the politicos who could care less about unabated immigration, especially those along the southern border who bear the brunt of it, with all that entails? Why doesn't Wilson stand up for them?
Whitbrook and innumerable commenters at the article scream about how Cap is "political" because his first cover had him punching Hitler in the face. As if a genocidal fascist and lawful immigration concerns of millions of Americans are on the same level?? Seriously? Is that where we're at now?
Conservatives aren't upset that Cap is "suddenly political" as Whitbrook and others would have you believe -- it's the continuation of the politics that superheroes champion ... as we've detailed here quite often.
The author mentions Cap's "Secret Empire" tale; as I wrote over two years ago, "I wonder if any comics writers out there would be brave enough to have Capt. America fight the Secret Empire again ... but this time with Barack Obama as Number One?" The crimes for which Richard Nixon would have been impeached arguably pale in comparison to some of the things we see today; however, because the media, in its myriad forms, likes and approves of Barack Obama -- while it hated Nixon -- don't hold your breath waiting to see Boss Obama as the new Number One.
Also as we've written here at Colossus, conservatives and the very concept of patriotism are routinely lampooned in comics' panels. In Captain America itself, the Cap of the 1950s was shown to be a mentally unstable loose cannon -- so much so that his virulent 1950s anti-Communism led to unveiled racism in the 1970s.
In the 1980s one of Cap's replacements was John Walker, formerly the Super Patriot. He too was portrayed as a psychotic, with even a panel in an issue of West Coast Avengers showing him mumbling to himself ... and the Avengers who are listening in are freaked out about it.
l love, also, how Whitbrook ponders conservatives being upset that Cap wouldn't represent the federal government. Why would conservatives be miffed that Cap doesn't want to be the "mouthpiece" for the feds ... or SHIELD? Are not conservatives inherently distrustful of government?
Perhaps the most laughable aspect of this whole thing is how "progressives" are pooh-poohing the very notion of why wouldn't Cap get political and go after people who are breaking the law (who, ironically, are trying to stop people from breaking the law) ... because these are the very same folks who were upset that Batman was going to go after Islamic terrorists! That's right -- as the LA Times reported, DC insiders were wary of the political concept behind what eventually would become Holy Terror ... sans the Caped Crusader.
Cap can punch Hitler in the nose, but Batman can't off radical Islamic killers. This is the politics of contemporary comics ... and this what pisses off conservatives.
Actually, it's the Sons of the Serpent, a long mainstay baddie organization in Marvel Comics lore. But this time, being it's 2015, and that Marvel, among other comic companies, has been co-opted by elitist I-know-better-than-you "progressives," the Sons of the Serpent supposedly fill in for ... Donald Trump.
As Chuck Ross reports, Captain America: Sam Wilson #1 has the villains around the US-Mexico border hassling illegals attempting to make their way into the US.
So what does Cap do? Flies in and busts some Serpent heads. (Cap is now Sam Wilson, the former Falcon, the original Cap's longtime partner.)
Which, in the whole scheme of things, makes perfect sense. Again, the SotS has a loooooong history of making trouble in the Marvel Universe, and this is no exception. Historically, they're white supremacist nasties with whom the Avengers, to name one, have dealt several times.
But writer Nick Spencer -- like way too many other creators these days -- doesn't even try to be subtle. He's trying to link -- make -- The Donald (to) these thugs, and in the process totally invalidate arguments against illegal immigration.
Don't believe me? Check it:
Apparently hate speech is just fine so long as it brings in the ratings. Let's all be entertained by Trump!— Nick Spencer (@nickspencer) October 13, 2015
(Quick aside -- jump to present day: Trump blasts illegals from Mexico as criminals; on the other hand, Democratic candidates get chided and protested for daring to say "all lives matter" instead of "black lives matter" ... the Serpents' Dunn and Hale would indeed be proud to see their work continued. The difference being, of course, that only the former gets grief from the popular media.)
But hey, that was back when Marvel actually attempted to be even-handed politically, or when dealing with issues of civil rights (which the pages of The Avengers and Captain America did quite often in the 1960s-70s), it was pretty straightforward stuff with which any decent American couldn't argue. Basic human and civil rights for blacks and other minority Americans? Women? The writers back then handled the delicate political topics expertly.
The problem with Spencer and his contemporary peers is that they take their far-left politics and inject them into the characters we all know and love, and in the process belittle the very legitimate political concerns of a huge number of Americans. Anyone remember when Cap and the Falcon went after the Tea Party?
Illegal immigration is a hot political topic, and a quite legitimate one. But Spencer would reduce the discussion to one that is completely black and white (no pun intended): Wanting to prevent illegal immigration, and/or enacting common sense methods to reduce it are xenophobic and racist. Period. You're no better than the Sons of the Serpent, for cryin' out loud ... and neither is the current Republican front-runner.
I'd say it's insulting and beyond boring, but it's way past that point now. With the current crop of creators that infest the industry today, I'll continue to wait for printed comics' slow, agonizing death.
"Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe?"
That'd be the gun-free society that the Washington Post's Fred Hiatt desires.
Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed ...?
Indeed. After Black Lives Matter protests about police brutality, a federal government that sics the IRS on people/groups it doesn't like, a Secret Service who divulges private information on a political opponent ... yes, by all means, let's only allow the government to possess guns.
There has to be a cultural shift. Only then will Congress and the Supreme Court follow.
The Supreme Court, which has misread the Second Amendment in its recent decisions, would have to revisit the issue. The court has corrected itself before, and if public opinion shifts it could correct itself again.
No, the SCOTUS got it exactly right. But those who want to ignore history and intent will always do so for political gain.
But Hiatt is correct in that it will take the SCOTUS to enable gun confiscation. At least in the short term. We're only one justice away from it. Repealing the 2nd Amendment is a cumbersome process and it will be quite some time, if ever, for the political will to allow it.
If the SCOTUS does dare to overturn its fairly recent decisions affirming an individual's right to own a gun, you may see civil disobedience unlike that since the Revolution.
As in "the usual moonbat comicbook suspects":
Remember, there's no gun problem here in America. Everything's just FINE. https://t.co/iCfsbSnB25— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 1, 2015
Don't let anyone try to stifle your voice and say that this is not the time to talk about sensible gun control. https://t.co/c0PVX8jLzl— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) October 1, 2015
Would you vote for a member of Congress who accepted bribes from terrorists? Ask yours tomorrow: "Do you take blood money from the NRA?"— Ron Charles (@RonCharles) October 2, 2015
Do you ever see these dopes constantly tweeting about guns/gun violence in, say, Chicago after a typical weekend?
Of course not. And if you were like them, you'd call that racism.
The company is "celebrating" the 50th anniversary of SHIELD with a ... "special" issue.
(Before we continue, bonus points for anyone who knows what the acronym SHIELD means -- there's three versions, actually.*)
Fury #1 features both Nick Furys -- the original (white) guy, and the former "Ultimate" (black) version modeled after Samuel L. Jackson. Apparently some crazed individual plans to travel back in time to ... assassinate a young Barack Obama in 1965. (The prez was born in 1961.)
Now, you may ask "Why? What could possibly be gained by doing that?"
All you need do is scope out these panels. There it is -- (black) Nick Fury examining scenes of 1965 America and 2015 America. In the former, we witness a black youth being beaten by police. In 2015 we see -- wait for it! -- the 'ol "Hands Up, Don't Shoot," a black youth standing with his hands raised in front of police decked out in riot gear and pointing rifles at the kid:
Of course, that expression and the whole movement based on it was a fraud, but what does writer David Walker care? He's a got a narrative to push, and in a nutshell that narrative says "Nothing has changed at all in 50 years for African-Americans."
But back to the president. Check out this panel:
Well, duh -- temporal mechanics says killing anyone in the past will "change the world as it's supposed to be." But really -- other than being the first black president, which certainly is a symbolic event -- what has Obama done that has been so "world changing"??
Have race relations improved since his election? Not according to this recent NY Times/CBS News poll:
... nearly six in 10 Americans, including heavy majorities of both whites and blacks, think race relations are generally bad, and that nearly four in 10 think the situation is getting worse.
By comparison, two-thirds of Americans surveyed shortly after President Obama took office said they believed that race relations were generally good.
Anyone remember Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention?
Maybe that's why people had such a positive view of race relations prior to him being elected. Then his actual actions spoke for him, and, well, see those current poll numbers again.
I'm sure writer Walker could care less about those numbers, and would probably blame it all on "racism," as asinine as that would be, natch. It shouldn't be the least bit surprising, though, for, after all, he adheres to the fictitious story surrounding Michael Brown. So hell, why not create a story where we're supposed to believe that, other than pure symbolism, Barack Obama is some mythical, larger-than-life figure whose presence in history needs to be preserved at all costs?
Martin Luther King Jr., who truly is a monumental historical civil rights figure, and whose actions truly effected great (racial) change, would have been a much more logical focus of such a story.
* Original: Supreme Headquarters, International Espionage, Law-Enforcement Division.
1991 meaning: Strategic Hazard Intervention Espionage Logistics Directorate.
Movie/TV show meaning: Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement and Logistics Division.
Meanwhile, it was Hillary Clinton who started the whisper campaign that Boss Obama is a Muslim.
Dr. Ben Carson is dealing with more than Trump in that arena, currently, after he said he "would not advocate for a Muslim" to be president.
Personally, I think it was a stupid answer not just politically, but personally. If a (Muslim) candidate for president puts the Constitution before his faith, wants lower taxes, less government, etc, ... anything that any good conservative believes ... I'd have no issue voting for the guy.
In any other election, Carson would be toast by now. But this isn't any other election. The three leading GOPers at this stage are all non-politicians -- and two of them, Trump and Carson, have said some (politically) suspect things.
But is hasn't mattered.
Despite his inarticulate statement, people are willing to give Carson the benefit of the doubt on his statement. He did say personally that he would not advocate for a Muslim to be the commander-in-chief. That's his opinion. As Bill O'Reilly said on his show last night, the US was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and if Dr. Carson sees that as an impediment for a Muslim to hold the presidency -- especially in this current time where radical Islam is running rampant in various areas of the planet -- so be it. People may not agree with him, but they can see where he is coming from.
Oh, and people quoting the Constitution's Article VI (like Whoopi Goldberg, Josh Earnest, et. al.) can stop -- Carson did not say Muslims cannot serve as president. See above.
Poor Ron Marz. Always looking for something with which to rip that "other" political party. Here, he's jumped on a comment by Jeb Bush (made at the most recent GOP debate) regarding his brother Dubya:
Except for that collapsed building he's standing on. https://t.co/hZKBg3XJZZ— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) September 17, 2015
Indeed. Not even eight months on the job after his predecessor, Bill Clinton, turned down an offer to have Osama bin Laden handed over to the US ... because supposedly the legality was dubious.
How many were cheering Clinton on for that?
Well, he's apparently very sleepy. That's something. https://t.co/SxUgUof8eu— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) September 17, 2015
This is in response to fellow comics guy Fabian Nicieza tweeting that Ben Carson "was probably a great neurosurgeon, but can someone please tell me based on WHAT QUALIFICATIONS should he be President?"
Hmm, as opposed to what -- a community organizer, say?
Oh, and Marz and Nicieza must be RACISTS for mocking Dr. Carson.
Son's teacher said "whole entire" today. Son raised his hand and told her that was redundant. #GoodBoy— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) September 17, 2015
Isn't that special. Apple, tree and all that. (Note: I've deleted the previous "offspring" reference as, after consideration, it's out of bounds. Even though Marz brought it up for his own silly purposes, I should have left it alone. Bigger fish and all that ....)
And, as "good" "progressives" always do -- jumping on the SJW bandwagon for ridiculous causes -- here's the gnomish Dan Slott on the Texas clock-making kid:
.@CNNPolitics Good job deleting the offensive tweet. But you're still getting it wrong. The term you're looking for is "falsely accused".— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) September 16, 2015
Oh gosh -- CNN's tweet was "offensive." You know why you've never seen Slott tweet about the many other students younger than Ahmed who were ridiculously disciplined for antics supposedly involving "guns?"
1) Because like all SJWs only "certain" people matter;
2) Slott hates guns and as such probably secretly agrees with what happened to those kids, and
3) Slott is a douche.
Of course, many other creators jumped on the Ahmed bandwagon. We all know why, too.
Yesterday, a 9th grader at a school in Texas brought a homemade clock to school. According to reports, Ahmed Mohamed, a supposed technology aficionado, wanted to show it off to his engineering teacher.
But apparently it began beeping in English class, and when Ahmed showed it to that teacher, she said "It looks like a bomb."
Here's a pic of Ahmed's device.
The English teacher held on to the clock, and, it seems, notified the principal. A little while later, the principal and a cop pulled Ahmed out of class. And that's when things got a little ... silly.
They led Ahmed into a room where four other police officers waited. He said an officer he’d never seen before leaned back in his chair and remarked: “Yup. That’s who I thought it was.”
Ahmed felt suddenly conscious of his brown skin and his name — one of the most common in the Muslim religion. But the police kept him busy with questions.
The bell rang at least twice, he said, while the officers searched his belongings and questioned his intentions. The principal threatened to expel him if he didn’t make a written statement, he said.
“They were like, ‘So you tried to make a bomb?’” Ahmed said.
“I told them no, I was trying to make a clock.”
“He said, ‘It looks like a movie bomb to me.’”
The police believed Ahmed was being evasive. Nevertheless, they ended up not pressing charges after they were convinced everything was kosher.
It's seems highly unreasonable that Ahmed had to be cuffed and fingerprinted.
The police ended up not charging him with anything after everything settled down.
But the social justice warriors were aghast. Automatically, as if on cue, social media lit up blaming the fact that Ahmed is Muslim for his treatment. That (like the quote above says) because his skin is brown.
A popular former Delaware blogger took to social media yesterday too, emphatically stating that "His name is Ahmed -- that's all you need to know."
To all of which I say, "Bullsh**."
Ian Tuttle at The Corner shows exactly why:
And the list keeps going.
As Tuttle says, the story isn't about “Islamophobia” and “white privilege”— "it’s about a few people in positions of authority who overreacted to the possibility of a weapon. Which, as it happens, is a too-frequent occurrence all over the country, regardless of the color of your skin."
The real difference between Ahmed and all those above is that the former got invited to the White House and numerous other places as a result of his school's actions.
You can probably figure out why, in part. That bullet list (no pun intended) features discipline related to guns. All Ahmed did was make a clock that just happened, at a glance, to look like an explosive device. (/sarcasm)
If race/ethnicity played any part in this whole fiasco, in the long run it was to Ahmed's overwhelming benefit. What did all those (younger) kids get for their even more obvious innocent actions?
I dunno. Do you?
John Nolte has still more.
"[T]he book holds 'white readers accountable for their complicity in the real-world situations that the comic analogizes,'" says comicbook critic Emma Houxbois.
But of course.
Read more about the storyline from my pal Douglas Ernst.
It's bad enough he pretends to be a journalist (I'm no Donald Trump fan, but The Donald was 100% in the right when he booted Ramos from his press conference last week), but now he makes me wonder if he's a complete imbecile:
On CNN this weekend, Ramos responded to O'Reilly's questions about Kate's Law, condemning it as "completely unfair" because it promoted a "stereotype" of the Hispanic community.
"I think it is unfair that because one undocumented immigrant killed a wonderful human being that all immigrants are being blamed for that killing," said Ramos. "It is so unfair. It's as unfair as if we were to criticize all white men in the United States for what happened in that theater in Aurora, Colorado."
Let's see ... Kate's Law would impose a mandatory five-year prison term for illegal immigrants who have previously been deported ... but who illegally enters the US again (and is caught).
Ramos, as many immigration radicals do (on purpose), fails to distinguish between illegal and legal ... and being deported already vs. being a first time offender.
That's what you do to people who rely on your cash for their living ... but for some reason feel the need to piss all over you if you have different opinions.
You may have read about the nonsense at this year's Hugo Awards. Check out Larry Correia's take on it all if you want to get caught up. Basically, science fiction has been hijacked by those of similar mind to college campus nuts who go out of their way to label anyone who disagrees with them as "racist, sexist, homophobic, etc." All in the name of "diversity," you see.
Scifi author John Scalzi is one of these nuts, unfortunately. Scalzi jumped onto the scifi map with the awesome Old Man's War a decade ago, and while his tale borrows heavily from greats Robert Heinlein (Starship Troopers) and Joe Haldeman (The Forever War), he makes his own mark.
Unfortunately, his subsequent stories went downhill from there. As did Scalzi's relationship with approximately half of his audience due to his smug, I-know-better-than-you elitist style of "progressivism."
One article to which Scalzi links is sadly funny. Seriously, who freakin' cares about the gender/race/sexual orientation of a writer ... as long as the story is damn good?? Not to mention, what has stopped women, minorities and/or gays from entering the field ... if their tales are good ones?
Oh, but guys like Scalzi care. There are now, it seems, gender/race/sexual orientation quotas for science fiction quality. And if you disagree, "[fill in '-ist' epithet]."
John has his latest book out set in the Old Man's War universe, titled The End of All Things. But y'know what? Despite having read (bought) all the previous entries in the series, I'll be skipping this one. Because why should I give my money to a person who openly sh**s on people for (honest) political and cultural disagreements? He's the same as comicbooks guys Dan Slott, Ron Marz, Mark Waid, Gail Simone, and Kurt Busiek.
Look no further than CNN idiot Chris Cuomo lecturing Florida Senator Marco Rubio:
So much to say ... but why do so when the inimitable Doug Ernst does it so perfectly?
"We’re going to beat the hell out of you. And you’re going to crack. You’re going to fight back. And then we’re going to roll over every other moron on this street,” says Sergeant Binghamton to Superman.
So "edgy." So "relevant." So ... predictable. The only thing missing is Superman holding his hands up in a "hands up, don't shoot" gesture.
You want to be really "edgy," comic creators? Try something like Steve Englehart's Capt. America "Secret Empire" story from the early 1970s -- but replace Richard Nixon/Number One with Barack Obama.
Our 'ol good "progressive" pal Ron Marz:
Killing animals for trophies is not a "hobby" or a "passion," it's a defect that we as a species should've outgrown by now.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) July 29, 2015
Alas, REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE!!!
Nobody lobbed a brick through the front window of Walter Palmer's dentistry office overnight? Come on, Minnesota!— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) July 29, 2015
And the politically correct "progressive" insanity rocks on ...
MSM journalist David Ignatius yesterday:
The new lone-wolf era will test America’s ability to balance security and civil liberties, hopefully more wisely than was the case in the overreaction after Sept. 11, 2001. It’s a delicate task. More attacks will drive new calls to crack down through surveillance and more aggressive policing – creating more jihadists.
To which Jim Geraghty asks in his e-mailed "Morning Jolt":
Really? Surveillance and aggressive policing create jihadists? Why does this sort of “don’t look into their lives too hard or intervene too quickly, you’ll only provoke more aggression” philosophy never apply to, say, IRS audits?
Indeed. When have you ever seen a MSM type excuse an anti-government militia dude's murderous actions due to "aggressive" government policies?
Tweet by BuzzFeed's news editor:
... Senator Al Franken said exactly what Donald Trump said about John McCain and the Vietnam War -- and you barely heard about it:
I doubt I could cross the line and vote Republican. I have tremendous respect for McCain but I don’t buy the war hero thing. Anybody can be captured. I thought the idea was to capture them. As far as I’m concerned he sat out the war.
Franken expressed that sentiment twice -- in 2000 and 2004.
And you didn't hear much about it 'cuz ... why?
The same reason President Moron gets away with saying shit like this. And the result of our ridiculous MSM is that a guy like this -- who, despite his babyish blowhardness, isn't afraid to speak his mind -- gets nods of approval.
Watch NBC's Andrea Mitchell actually roll her eyes (and exhibit a general snooty attitude) when mentioning Benjamin Netanyahu's name to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif:
h/t to Truth Revolt.
Megyn Kelly on Boss Obama's "priorities":
Kate [Steinle]’s murder has since exploded into a national debate on illegal immigrants, sanctuary cities, and crime. With the White House ducking the issue of its own acquiescence in these cities’ decision to flout the federal immigration laws which were duly enacted. When asked repeatedly this week to speak to this case, White House spokesman Josh Earnest declined to weigh in other than to refer folks to the Department of Homeland Security.
A stark contrast to what we saw after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson. A man we know was attacking a police officer at the time of his death. His funeral saw three Obama officials in attendance, his death drew comments from President Obama personally and his administration also sent in the DOJ and 40 FBI agents dispatched to Missouri after Michael Brown was killed. Where is the swarm of agents in San Francisco?
Then there was Freddie Gray in Baltimore, a repeat drug offender who was killed in police custody. Here again his funeral was attended by three Obama administration officials and again the President spoke personally to Freddie Gray’s death. And again sent the DOJ in to investigate. When Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida, the president spoke to his death which was later ruled to be in self-defense. But Katie Steinle, nothing. No comments, no swarm of FBI agents, no DOJ investigation, nothing. Why?
Obama has a bit over a year left in office. If the answer isn't obvious by now, you're a moron.
Jim Geraghty from his e-mailed Morning Jolt adds:
The message from the White House was pretty clear after the Trayvon Martin shooting, Ferguson, and Baltimore: This is a legitimate reason for outrage, and we’re as outraged as you are. The silence from the White House indicates Katie Steinle’s murder is not a cause for outrage. And while Donald Trump made his comments about crimes committed by illegal immigrants from Mexico before Steinle’s murder, the gang-tackling denunciation indicates that quite a few media voices believe that just bringing up the issue of crimes committed by illegal immigrants is somehow illegitimate or morally wrong.
But of course. It's just like anyone who wants a secure border, better immigration enforcement, and no assorted perks for illegals (like drivers licenses, in-state college tuition) is "anti-immigrant." It's a pathetic, sad joke, put forth by "progressives" like Boss Obama and perpetuated by the dopes in the mainstream media.
Donald Trump is an opportunistic blowhard, but his I-don't-care honesty has struck a chord with the anti-PC segment of the population.
The "sanctuary city" bullsh** has to end. As WPHT radio's Rich Zeoli was tweeting last week, why don't people begin thumbing their collective noses at other laws ... and declare a "sanctuary city" against those laws?
Our pal Ron Marz is at it again, blindly taking the NY Times (among other MSM advocates, not reporters) at face value:
Background Check Flaw Let Dylann Roof Buy Gun, F.B.I. Says http://t.co/q3ytxCtuUN Well, gosh, let's not fix that loophole!— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) July 11, 2015
Except that it wasn't a loophole. The MSM, though, like the "progressive" administration, has a need to portray Roof's acquisition of a gun as such.
What actually happened is that someone at the FBI didn't do her job:
Two days after Mr. Roof tried to buy the weapon (which would be the FIRST business day after Roof's Saturday, April 11 attempt to purchase — Ed.), an examiner at the F.B.I.’s national background check center in Clarksburg, W.Va., began investigating his criminal history. The examiner found that Mr. Roof had been arrested this year on a felony drug charge, but not convicted. The charge alone would not have prevented him from buying the gun under federal law. But evidence that Mr. Roof had been convicted of a felony or was a drug addict would have resulted in a denial, so she continued to investigate his background.
Because Mr. Roof had been arrested in a small part of Columbia that is in Lexington County and not in Richland County, where most of the city is, the examiner was confused about which police department to call. She ultimately did not find the right department and failed to obtain the police report. Had the examiner gained access to the police report, she would have seen that Mr. Roof had admitted to having been in possession of a controlled substance and she would have issued a denial.
The examiner, however, did send a request to the Lexington County prosecutor’s office, which had charged him, inquiring about the case. The prosecutor’s office, however, did not respond.
Around that time the three-day waiting period expired, and Mr. Roof returned to the store and purchased the gun.
Be sure to continue reading, because that's not the end of it. The FBI can still keep investigating after the 3-day waiting period. But it didn't, despite the confusion in Roof's case.
Bottom line is the laws and procedures should have worked here, but the employee(s) charged with carrying them out did not do so.
Turns out it was a complete fabrication. Y'know, to get some popular will for the law.
Then there was this:
Then he "evolved" on the issue. So much so that we got this the other day:
So, remember this:
But there was always stuff like this prior to 2008, too. And, just like the above, we were treated to "palatable" answers necessary for election. The press didn't seem concerned about it (why would they? Stealth gun control fits their agenda), and just like the situation with Reverend Wright, in whose church Obama sat for twenty years, words speak louder than actions.
So get ready, America. The Second Amendment is next. If anything happens to a member of the conservative bloc of the SCOTUS, or even Anthony Kennedy, and Obama or Hillary get to nominate a new justice, watch out. McDonald v. Chicago will be revisited and overturned.
Or perhaps, the way things are going, Obama or Hillary won't even try to wait for that. There is a GOP-majority Senate, after all, which still has to approve a president's nominee. There still is that form of checks and balances. For now.
Would it really surprise anybody today if Obama (or Hillary) tried something like this? Sure, Kennedy (and Roberts, in one instance) gave 'em what they wanted this week.
But their palates have only been whetted.
ADDENDUM: Just to be clear, of these three items, I believe the (rightful) gay marriage conclusion was inevitable, either via the SCOTUS or the states. Obama's (and Hillary's) supposed "evolution" on the issue, while obviously brazenly politically calculating, no doubt hastened the settlement of the issue.
Every time a crazy person shoots up a place, the press demands Republicans -- who had nothing to do with it -- answer for the crime.— jon gabriel (@exjon) June 20, 2015
What the press won't ask (as in Hillary Clinton) is this: As Governor, Bill Clinton Honored Confederacy On Arkansas Flag.
In contrast, Jeb Bush had the stars and bars taken down in Florida when he was governor. Haven't heard much about that, either. No surprise.
Mr. Gabriel nails it closed on the media with this:
It's been this way for years. A Soviet-loving Oswald murdered JFK. The press asks, "But what about the climate of hate in Dallas?"— jon gabriel (@exjon) June 20, 2015
Just like Memory Lane from Colossus two years ago.
Check out this screencap from a CNN show today:
Now, look at the liberties the network took with the actual data. Since when do "non-jihadists" equal "right-wing extremists"?
Answer: When the mainstream media wants to further the NARRATIVETM.
(h/t: Mark Hemingway)
Comedy Central's Larry Wilmore had a fit yesterday due to some of Fox News's talking heads not immediately diving in with the "racist" label to describe the horrific church shootings in South Carolina.
Saying the network's coverage “makes my fucking head explode,” Wilmore was miffed at
Elisabeth Hasselbeck suggest[ing] the violence was an “attack on faith,” her co-host Steve Doocy also suggest[ing] it had something to do with religion, guest E.W. Jackson outright disput[ing] race-based suggestions about the crime, and anchor Jenna Lee later sa[ying] that despite the “hate crime” designation it’s too early to know what happened.
Since it was pretty clear early on that the killer's motivation was racial hatred, I get Wilmore's angst.
HOWEVER -- how many times have we seen the mainstream media equivocate over other instances of such violence?
Answer: Many. Here's but one (very good) example.
If the MSM -- and the Obama administration -- were consistent, here's how they'd have played out the coverage of the S. Carolina shootings:
In addition, despite the now-silly sounding comments by some at FNC, at least they weren't immediately sucked into a narrative like, say, "Hands up, don't shoot" which still persists among some MSM types despite it's (proven) falsehood.
There were two films of that era that in retrospect are particularly of note: 1997's Air Force One, which starred Harrison Ford as a 50-something American president who knew his way around the cockpit of a jet aircraft, refused to take any guff from terrorists, and had a woman as a vice president to boot. And 1999's Three Kings, which starred George Clooney, and denigrated George H.W. Bush for not toppling Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
No wonder Hollywood has been so miserable after 9/11; they got everything they had previously wished for in a president and as a result, thoroughly hated his guts.
Lead -- lead!! -- story yesterday at Delaware Online.com: Racial diversity down in Delaware state government.
Reaction of typical "progressives": "My God!! We gotta do something!"
Reaction of normal people: "OK. So? Isn't competence more important than skin tone?"
Nuttiest and completely-devoid-of-reality comment of the article: "Racism exists in epidemic proportions in state government," said Silvester Beaman, president of the Interdenominational Ministers Action Council.
Y'know, over the weekend I watch the ESPN "30 for 30" about Richard Jewell -- y'know, the guy falsely accused of being the Atlanta Olympics bomber. The mainstream media f***ed this guy's life up royally.
And that was in the dawning day's of the Internet. News outlets are in a 100 times bigger rush to get the "scoop" these days. And the "racist cop enacting vengeance on hapless black people" is terrific "progressive" mainstream media cause célèbre, without a doubt.
Facts. Be. Damned.
No, not really, but just consider ...
Writer Eli Keel says "And fans who grew up with a certain version of a character have a hard time letting go of the past. (Also, unfortunately, a bunch of fans are way racist.)"
Of course. So why isn't Keel an anti-Semite -- or, why can't we call him such -- based on his article's headline, hmm? Or, why does he want a black guy to become a popular Marvel villain? Why not a hero?
Of course, social justice warriors are anything, if not inconsistent, natch.
You gotta read his ideas for a rebooted X-Men. Is it any wonder why comics are failing? Who the f*** wants to read about Professor X and Magneto embroiled in the real civil rights movement, them following Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. respectively?
Maybe Keel doesn't get that we're dealing with SUPERHEROES. The whole premise of mutants is to write fiction with a civil rights allegory -- super-powered beings with abilities far above those of normal man.
His solution for "erasing" the Jewishness of Magneto? "... make the many other Marvel Jewish characters interact with and respect their heritage and culture more openly."
Yeah, that'll work. After all, the new Muslim Ms. Marvel's pontificating on things Islamic has resulted in a "whopping" less-than-thirty thousand books sold per month. (If you want to see how these sales figures stack up historically, just Google it. Hint: They suck.) So now we should demand characters like Kitty Pryde ramble on about the significance of the seder plate.
In a superhero comic.
Yet another reason I haven't bought a new comicbook in almost ten years. I'll stick with Essentials and assorted trade paperbacks of great stories of the past.
The NY Times goes after Marco Rubio. Actually, his wife. Because she has like 13 traffic violations or something. Marco himself has four.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton refuses to deal with the press, deletes all her emails, operates her own server while head of the State Department, etc. etc. etc. ...
... and the NY Times puts out a piece on traffic violations.
Hey, look at it this way: At least Rubio didn't drive his car into a lake and leave a lady friend in the car to drown. Then he'd be a progressive hero.
It's a slow news day and Cruz is a Republican, after all
That's all it was -- poorly timed. It was a typical Biden-is-goofy style quip, and there was no reference to Beau at all.
What liberal media??
Check out this example of contemporary "biting journalism":
Yes, that is "journalist" Mark Halperin grilling GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz on how "authentically Cuban" he really is.
Now imagine -- just imagine -- Halperin asking President Obama what his favorite soul food is ... and who his favorite rapper is. Not to mention, asking him to welcome a colleague in a "black dialect."
(FWIW, Cruz's pronunciation [and accent] of "picadillo" was pretty darn good.)
Comicbook dolt Ron Marz says it's "hard not to think" that Pam Geller and the crew in Garland, TX were hoping for a (radical) Islamist attack:
Hard not to think that an attack is exactly what the organizers of the Garland, TX event were hoping for. http://t.co/aesuxhnhrv— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) May 5, 2015
Wonder what folks like him would say if someone tweeted those words after a comicon at which he was in attendance was attacked -- for some far-left quackery he inserted into one of his comics?
Not to mention, is good "progressive" Marz actually implying that Muslims had a right to be so angry that they should have shot up Geller's event? Is this the bigotry of low expectations -- that Muslims "just can't control themselves?"
Here's Marvel's Fabian Nicieza on the X-Men's Iceman coming out as gay:
How u can call yourself an #XMen fan and bitch about a story exploring exclusion and uncertainty through sexuality is absolutely beyond me.— Fabian Nicieza (@FabianNicieza) April 22, 2015
Yeah, a mutant who's been an outcast his entire life and has dealt with the hate and suspicion that comes with it has been hesitant to admit ... his sexuality??
Gee, let's see, which is more socially unacceptable -- being a mutant with powers vastly more powerful than that of a normal person, or being a guy who likes other guys?
Gimme a royal break.
And here's Joe Quesada, former Marvel EiC:
And how does Bobby’s being gay change him? @CD_Murray Does it make him less of a hero, less of a person, less of a man?— JoeQuesada (@JoeQuesada) April 23, 2015
Not at all. What it does do, though, is make so-called creators lazy, politically correct, and stupid.
Comicbook idiot Ron Marz is at it again:
Such a coincidence that so many of the people who hate the idea of a black President are pre-hating the idea of a woman President. #Hillary— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 13, 2015
I'll assume #AntMan will trend ahead of Marco Rubio all day. Which tells you all you need to know about Rubio's chances.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 13, 2015
Just remember the "progressive" maxim: Only conservatives are racists if they differ with an "oppressed minority."
Here's a perfect (local) example of what I mean from the not-too-distant past.
PolitiFact deems it worthy to determine if Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's claim about buying a sweater for one dollar at Kohl's is accurate.
Natch, no such diligence occurred in 2008 with Boss Obama's college grades.
"Nothing says 'let kill some cops' and refers to women as 'bitches' and 'hos' like rap music."
People at the usual networks/papers would be screaming you-know-what. Even though ... it's often an accurate statement.
On one of the usual networks, we heard this from the editor of Ebony magazine: "Nothing says 'let's go kill some Muslims' like country music."
Has anyone ever heard a country tune advocate, even in a subtle manner, the killing of Muslims? Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue" is about the closest to the meaning, but it's hardly referring exclusively to (radical) Muslims.
The show's host eventually apologized for the idiotic assessment.
Marvel's Joe Quesada:
It has never ceased to amaze me how some people, in defense of their favorite fictional characters or stories, treat creators and each other, flesh and blood people living actual lives with actual feelings and families, with such disrespect and cruelty as though they were two-dimensional, fictional villains who merely exist on a page or the imagination.
And it never has ceased to amaze me how some creators, in defense of their own creative product, treat long-time fans, flesh and blood people living actual lives with actual feelings and families, with such disrespect and cruelty, due only to honest disagreements over (story) direction, politics, and/or culture, as though they were two-dimensional, fictional villains who merely exist on a page or the imagination.
And by whom were Quesada's words retweeted? Yep, Dan Slott.
You just can't make this sh** up.
How dare members of Congress write a letter to Iran's leadership telling them that any deal reached must be approved by them (the Senate, specifically).
Naturally, because the below are WRITERS of popular funnybooks, and have legions of followers on social media, this somehow "translates" into them "being smarter than you."
Our old pal Dan Slott asks the following:
Can you imagine what #FoxNews would be saying if 47 Democrats in the Senate had written a letter like that to Iran during Bush's term?— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) March 10, 2015
Regarding the former, the Democrats actually passed the Boland Amendment which forbade US assistance to the Nicaraguan Contras in the early-mid 1980s. This amendment did a lot more to interfere with the president's foreign policy-making than a single letter ever did.
Next, the bloated Gail Simone weighs in (pun intended), mocking Senator Tom Cotton in the process:
Dear @SenTomCotton, do you deny being a walnut-brained, homeothermic brachiosaurus? Also, could you explain the Constitution to my cat?— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) March 10, 2015
Oh, and by the way? Sen. Cotton is a veteran.
The only Simone has served is herself -- a giant milkshake.
The New York Times crops former President George W. Bush and his wife out of the picture of marchers at Selma:
... ah, hell, you know by now!!
-- Boss Obama considering raising taxes through executive action. Technically it'd be closing tax "loopholes," but the constitutionality is certainly dubious. But when has that ever mattered to the Boss?
-- The Justice Department closed down search for IRS' Lois Lerner's emails. Isn't this the sort of sh** that got Dick Nixon into so much trouble? Oh, right, he was a Republican.
-- What's that? Hillary Clinton never used a government email address while she was Secretary of State? 'Ya gotta be jackin' me! A clear violation of the law, this, but when has that ever been a concern for this administration?
Douglas Ernst has the latest insanity via one of Marvel's "progressive" bigwigs, Spider-Man writer Dan Slott.
You see, if you have an issue with Peter Parker being anything but a white guy, you're a racist. In fact, when describing Peter Parker, the word "white," Slott says, shouldn't be included in the first one thousand words of any description.
He also believes, because Peter Parker -- Spider-Man -- is white, non-Caucasians cannot "relate" to him.
Perhaps most ridiculously, when a commenter noted that Parker's identity as white is "cultural saturation," and that his "grandma knew him [Parker]," Slott responded by saying "My grandma knew Jim Crow laws. Din't make 'em right."
What. The. Hell.
Maybe the heat got too much for the thuggish gnome, for earlier today he tweeted the following:
Saying "Anybody could be Spidey regardless of race" isn't saying he "should be non-white". I'm pretty sure "ANYBODY" includes white people.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 24, 2015
This is typical Slott -- go off on some ridiculous rant where you infer people are "racist," then backtrack. Which, of course, makes him look like even more of a snobbish a**hole.
And notice how he obfuscates "Peter Parker" with "Spider-Man." This is typical goal-post moving. *Yawn*
We then see this most recent tweet from the gnome:
"I'm not a racist, but..." Is a line I've seen way 2 much in the past 3 days. On that note, shutting off my internet & getting back to work.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 24, 2015
Let's be clear: There is absolutely nothing wrong with stating "I'm not racist, but I think Peter Parker/Spider-Man should be white." None. Especially since the character was conceived as just that, and has been that, for over fifty years. It's ridiculous to even include that preface, for what it's worth.
I seriously doubt Slott would take issue with someone saying "I'm not racist, but I think T'Challa/Black Panther should be black." Because it's a perfectly legitimate sentiment. In fact, T'Challa has to be black, Slott says, because that's how Stan Lee and Jack Kirby envisioned him -- a king of an African nation.
Yet, somehow Peter Parker/Spider-Man being white because that's how Stan, Jack, and Steve Ditko envisioned him is ... stupid. And racist.
(By the way, Dan, you do know there are white Africans? That the whole continent isn't a single entity?)
On a related note (and you just knew this was coming!), here's Slott when someone points out that Luke Cage would never be turned into a white guy:
False argument. RT @*** @DanSlott Luke Cage would never be cast as white, and rightfully so. The outrage would be palpable.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
Luke Cage's race is built into who he is and why he does what he does. There is nothing inherently "white" about Peter Parker.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 21, 2015
So, again, Peter Parker being raised in a white New York City suburb by two white relatives, attending predominately white schools, dating white women, hanging out with mostly white friends ... means there's "nothing inherently white" about him.
And why is Luke Cage/Power Man's origin specific to an African-American? Explain to me how that couldn't easily be modified to suit a Caucasian?
Confused? Trying to figure this all out?
Good luck. Slott is a master at making little-to-no sense. As noted, he's already trying to backpedal. I don't blame him, but how/why Marvel lets this dope spew his nonsense as he does on social media I'll never know.
Hell, even ESPN draws the line when one of its employees goes haywire on social media. I'm not advocating that Slott be suspended or anything; however, it would serve Marvel Comics well if it were to tell him, "Act like a damn grown-up and a professional for once, huh?"
Comicbook moron Ron Marz is at it again, this time with regards to the shooting of three Muslim students near the University of North Carolina:
Y'know what else the killer had?
A review of the Facebook page of the man charged in these murders, Craig Hicks, shows a consistent theme of anti-religion and progressive causes. Included in his many Facebook “likes” are the Huffington Post, Rachel Maddow, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Freedom from Religion Foundation, Bill Nye “The Science Guy,” Neil deGrasse Tyson, gay marriage groups, and a host of anti-conservative/Tea Party pages.
Gee -- why did Ron leave that info out, hmm?
As for the other 'bat writers? Pretty much silence. Perhaps because they were smart enough to realize this killing didn't fit their NarrativeTM.
No more trying to fool the masses, it seems, from Boss Obama. He's got a little under two years left, and the gloves -- and mask -- are off.
First, no more interviews by "tough" news outlets like Fox. Only "I'll rub your leg" venues like MSNBC and Vox.com.
Speaking of the latter, President Lemon gave just such an interview to them the other day. In it, he fell back to the absolutely lame tactic of blaming Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for "making things seems worse than they are."
Awwww, poor baby. Just imagine how a Republican president feels when he has to deal with every other media outlet criticizing him.
He said that the media is "overstating" the threat of terrorism because of "if it bleeds, it leads."
"Overblown?" Wait -- you mean like how state voter ID laws are "surpressing" black votes? How police are "looking to kill black people?" Like that?
Also make note of how Obama described the shooting at that kosher deli in Paris -- how Islamic zealots (minus the "Islamic," natch) "randomly shot a bunch of folks in a deli."
Except that it wasn't randomly. They specifically targeted the deli because it was kosher. As in Jewish. Y'know, the folks radical Islamists hate.
But President Lemon continues to refuse to even acknowledge such.
Despite the utter insanity of all this, part of me hopes he continues since it'll make it that much better for the GOP presidential candidates come next November.
Via Jim Geraghty's Campaign Spot:
Here’s the thing: NBC News employed Chelsea Clinton under that ridiculous contract, and MSNBC keeps Al Sharpton around (allegedly to keep him happy with corporate parent ComCast), has a correspondent that accused “American Sniper” Chris Kyle of going on “killing sprees,” has guest commentator claim Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal is “trying to wash that brown off his skin,” has a host wearing tampon earrings, and gave a weekend show to Hillary Clinton’s former deputy press secretary.
Tribute to NBC's Brian Williams:
Weirdly, the same "fibs" that Dubya and Cheney offered up were the same ones that all these Democrats did.
Weirdly, the people who are really mad about the Brian Williams Iraq fib don't seem very mad about Dubya and Cheney's Iraq fibs.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) February 6, 2015
Ron Marz = complete idiot.
President Lemon to supposed YouTube star on what he does "if he has any free time":
"You know, I'm really big on sports. The truth of the matter is, I'm mostly watching SportsCenter."
Not reading or even exercising. Just watching the boob tube.
Our 'ol pal Ron Marz keeps, well, a lie alive and ticking:
People are more angry at criticism of "American Sniper" than they were at being led to war on a pack of lies.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 21, 2015
Yes, the 'ol "Bush lied us into war" canard. *Sigh*
Once again, if Bush lied, so did all of these people. Bill Clinton. Nancy Pelosi. John Kerry. Madeline Albright. Al Gore. Ted Kennedy. And so on.
Further (again) WTF sense would it make for Bush and co. to knowingly lie about WMD being in Iraq ... only for that very lie to easily be exposed?? Bush et. al. may not be the brightest bulbs around, but they certainly ain't that dumb.
OK, now see if you can follow this one from (Muslim) writer of the (Muslim) Ms. Marvel:
If we were really serious about stamping out extremism in the Middle East, we would all buy electric cars.— G. Willow Wilson (@GWillowWilson) January 22, 2015
So, by making middle eastern countries poorer via buying less and less of their main product (oil), this will "stamp out" (Islamic -- she, like President Lemon, can't bring herself to say it) extremism. Got it.
Mark Waid retweets:
If you follow the link to the story in question, here's what you'll find:
... an investigation of public records by the Washington D.C.-based District Sentinel online news site showed that between 1995 and 2009, Ernst’s family received nearly a half-million dollars in government handouts, payments targeted toward subsidizing farms with taxpayer funds.
BUT: "... Ernst’s own father, Richard Culver, received $38,395 in taxpayer handouts, almost all of which went to corn subsidies."
That means Ernst's pappy got a whopping $2742 per year (in corn subsidies) in the time period noted. Say it with me now: "Oooooooooohhhhhh ....!"
The article goes on to note that Ernst "failed to mention her own family’s reliance on government assistance ..." Right. If her family "relied" on $2700 per year, this gives a whole new meaning to American poverty.
FWIW, I'm against government farm subsidies of virtually any kind. But, as usual, SJWs like Waid typically go after ridiculous "targets" when there a lot bigger fish to fry.
Here's our 'ol pal Ron Marz showing how he dialogues with folks who hold an opposing viewpoint:
Delightful to see the people complaining about #FreeCommunityCollege are those most sorely in need of an education.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 9, 2015
Gail Simone on the attacks in France:
Urgh, just heard about the attacks. Terrible.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) January 7, 2015
And that's her only tweet about it at present. Good thing it wasn't some right-leaning anti-government type who did it, or worse -- a cop who shot an unarmed African-American. Then, her feed would be flooded with tweets!
Lastly, Tom Brevoort retweets this laugher:
Talk about your ever-lovin' straw man to take down oh-so easily! First, who the hell ever blames the entire black race for the actions of a black shooter? And who but the most outlandish extremists (on the other side) blame all Muslims for radical Islamist attacks?
But here's what Tom and his buddies do: For the actions of a lunatic who shoots up something related to government, they hurry to blame the most remote of ancillary evidence on 1) conservatives, 2) Republicans, 3) the Tea Party, 4) Rush Limbaugh, and 5) the Tea Party (again).
Speaking of which, here's some from a fairly recent post, courtesy of Kurt Busiek:
Notice it's not "Hey, c'mon, all politicians use such imagery so let's stop the nonsense," it's an immediate (and stupid) repetition of what the MSM was yammering about at the time.
If Palin was a Muslim, she'd be inviolate to folks like Busiek.
And so it goes ...
... talk about "standing with Charlie," etc.
Q: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?
A: Oh, well, I'm afraid of what the…that's where I'm really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I'm afraid for my life if I do.
Q: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they'll just send you a strudel.
A: They'll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I'm not going to say a word about them.
That is MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell responding to radio host Hugh Hewitt back in 2007.
My pal Douglas Ernst also noted that Muslim Marvel Comics scribe G. Willow Wilson (who writes the new -- Muslim -- Ms. Marvel) tweeted this yesterday:
The usual suspects will say "where are the Muslims condemning this?" All major Muslim inst. already have. Your media doesn't cover it.— G. Willow Wilson (@GWillowWilson) January 7, 2015
While I am the last to trust our media implicitly, and while Ms. Wilson probably does have a point to some degree, what she and others who're quick to jump on the "it's only a small minority of Muslims" etc. bandwagon tend to forget are uncomfortable facts like these.
Here's a sampling:
Source links are available for each cite at the link above.
Here's another tweet for 'yas to chew on:
Remember when Ben Affleck called Bill Maher 'racist' for saying Muslims will kill you if you 'draw the wrong picture'?— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) January 7, 2015
“Associated Press censors Muhammad cartoons, sells 'Piss Christ' prints” http://t.co/OWd5zjhMnt— Mark Hemingway (@Heminator) January 7, 2015
Lastly, here's Marvel bigwig and resident moron Tom Brevoort offering up a supposed "lie" that no one has actually said or even implied to my knowledge:
The greatest and most harmful lie of the 21st century is that to combat terrorists, we must become terrorists, to combat hate we must hate.— Tom Brevoort (@TomBrevoort) January 8, 2015
Nevertheless, I'll help Tom out: How is "harmful" to hate terrorist barbarians like those who killed the cartoonists in France and folks like ISIS? WTF should we do, Tom -- invite 'em over for dinner, for cripe's sake?
I've a feeling that Brevoort's "become terrorists ourselves" idiocy is a not-so veiled reference to the waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation methods utilized post-9/11. If so, simply spare us -- because any such moral equivalency is insane.
Indeed, a much greater and harmful lie in this 21st century is the notion that "outreach" and "being understanding" to ... "people" who could give less of a sh** about either and would still murder us without a second thought is a sensible policy.
Another great and harmful lie is what is noted above -- the "tiny minority" aspect along with the notion that Islam "has nothing to do" with folks like the France killers.
Who knew that Jerry Falwell suing Hustler magazine for libel back in the 1980s is religious extremism ... just like the massacre in France that occurred today?
I sure didn't; then again, I'm actually sane.
At Philly.com, that is, early this morning:
Second sentence of the article:
"While New Jersey's rules allow the governor, a longtime Cowboys fan, to accept gifts from friends, two legal experts questioned whether the gifts gave the appearance of improper conduct."
Hey, if you got a beef with the law, the change the damn thing. But just as the mainstream media obsessed with "Bridgegate" for weeks on end, pardon me if I care more about actual law breakers than those who give the "appearance" of law breaking.
This was back in 2002 and the rep, Steve Scalise of Louisiana, said that he "was unaware at the time of the group's ideology and its association with racists and neo-Nazi activists."
Yeah, whatever. Maybe I'd be more concerned about this if the mainstream press was grilling our president on why he associates with a racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic race hustling punk like Al Sharpton.
UPDATE: Aaaaand, guess who didn't wait a second to jump on this?
Let he who hasn't given a speech to a conference of white supremacists and neo-Nazis, led by former KKK grand wizard, cast the first stone.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 29, 2014
Still waiting on your tweets about the number of times Sharpton has been to the White House, Ronnie.
The Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers' Delaware Douche:
And it is the only thing I can think of to explain the outrageous overreaction of a few on the right to the horrible and evil murder of two police officers in Brooklyn this weekend. NYPD Union President Pat Lynch and Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani went out of their way to directly blame President Obama and Mayor de Blasio for the murder of Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.
Indeed. This, from the guy/crew who constantly go out of their way to blame any right-leaning outfit the actions of some barely-associated lunatic. The Tea Party. The GOP Congress. Anti-abortion protesters. Anti-tax groups.
Hell, Delaware Douche once blamed the entire GOP for the poor economy and wanted them all shot.
And their buddies in the mainstream media do, too. And even presidents. Bill Clinton blaming the Oklahoma City bombing on talk radio, anyone?
If there was one person carrying, say, a "Go Back to Kenya, Obama!" placard at some Tea Party rally, well, then, the entire organization is suddenly the lunatic fringe.
If some guy who shot up a tax preparer's office had a Tea Party website in his Internet browser's cache, well, then, the TP is partly (mostly?) culpable for the dude's actions.
However, in the case of the cop killings of this past Saturday, some of the recent anti-cop protests actually had people shouting for the death of police officers: "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want them? Now!"
But don't you dare implicate in any way President Lemon or Comandante De Blasio! Or even Al Sharpton.
These LGOMB ... "specimens" are so full of hypocritical arrogance that to even begin to take them seriously should make one question his very sanity.
Hey, remember how these dolts' Twitter feeds were all a-flutter after Michael Brown's and Trayvon Martin's shootings? And how self-righteous they all were about how incorrigibly racist and hateful society (still) is? And how anyone who disagreed with them was racist, stupid, hateful, extreme, etc.?
But now that several cops have been executed, we hear mostly ... crickets.
For example, here's Kurt Busiek back on the 19th parroting a John Scalzi tweet about supposed Ferguson grand jury shenanigans:
What's even more pathetic about Busiek is that he was one of those who "wondered" if Sarah Palin's "target" language was partly responsible for the shooting of Gabby Giffords:
That, of course, disregards the fact the practically every politician uses such imagery. Nevertheless, there's been nary a word from Kurt about actual language of calling for the death of police. But, of course!
As for Gail Simone, look -- here's a retweet by her about Dick Cheney and torture!
Tom Brevoort was similarly still concerned about that "torture" report with this retweet.
Nothing about the cops, though. But, of course.
Ultra-bat Gerry Conway offered nothing about the police over the weekend, yet retweeted this ridiculous nonsense:
Things HAVE to change in this country. We cannot keep condoning the murder of black persons like their lives are ours to take at will.— Matt SantoriGriffith (@FotoCub) December 21, 2014
The exceptions to all this were Dan Slott and Ron Marz:
Didn't see the news today until now. A horrible tragedy. Thoughts and prayers to the families of the two officers.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) December 20, 2014
The deaths of police officers, a man in a choke hold, or a teenager gunned down in the street are all tragedies. No one should be rejoicing.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 21, 2014
Gotta be fair -- good for them.
... due to their inept University of Virginia "gang rape" story, they actually go and publish this radical left-wing fantasy.
CNN hosts look ridiculous and adopt the "Hands up, don't shoot" pose:
Y'know, even though the evidence shows Michael Brown did not -- repeat, did not -- have his hands up.
Guess they forgot to follow "The Rules":
... the "torture" of which most Americans could give a sh** about since 1) the "torture" involved some "harsh" interrogation tactics against barely-human radical Islamist fundies who only want to off Westerners, 2) happened around a decade ago, 3) sorta makes killing terrorists via drone -- along with "collateral" women and children -- seem tame in comparison, and 4) serves to distract from things like Jonathan Gruber continuing to lie (on Capitol Hill this time), and this:
Sadly, the 18 month investigation into the IRS targeting of conservative groups isn’t over, and it may be worse than anyone thought. A federal judge has broken loose more emails that the DOJ had surely hoped would never surface. The picture it reveals isn’t pretty. The documents prove that Lois Lerner met with DOJ’s Election Crimes Division a month before the 2010 elections.
It has to be embarrassing to the DOJ, which may not be the most impartial one to be investigating the IRS. In fact, the DOJ withheld over 800 pages of Lerner documents citing “taxpayer privacy” and “deliberative privilege.” Yet these internal DOJ documents show Ms. Lerner was talking to DOJ officials about prosecuting tax-exempt entities (yes, criminally!) two years before the IRS conceded there was inappropriate targeting.
Remember, Richard Nixon would have been impeached for much less than this. Look at Article 2, part 1 of his never-used impeachment:
1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
Not to mention, the other parts seem pretty fitting, too.
Comicbook scribe Gail Simone:
I still think comics readers are great. They just want good stories. I have always felt supported by readers, always.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) December 7, 2014
Unfortunately, Gail, in the last decade (give or take a few years), readers haven't gotten many good comicbook stories.
And you state they "just" want good stories. Then why do you and so many of your ilk rant and rave about (leftist) politics on social media? It's bad enough that in these rants your knowledge of actual history and facts is often wanting, but you also demean and demonize those with different views and opinions.
Yes -- you are correct, Gail. Comicbook readers just want good stories. I guess acknowledgement of that is the first step in your "recovery," so to speak.
And, I might add, why Fox News is perpetually the ratings winner by a landslide.
Just check out how many times the Washington Post covered Elizabeth Lauten's personal Facebook posts criticizing the Obama daughters:
Links to all the articles are at the link above.
Lauten is -- re: was -- communications director for a Tennessee representative. That's right -- the C.D. for one representative out of the 435 that inhabit Capitol Hill. Who made, again, the supposed disparaging comments on her personal Facebook page.
Now, certainly, the rep. has every right to fire her for what she did. That's beside the point. Look at how many times the nation's capital's newspaper of note covered this "story."
And the WaPo certainly wasn't the only one.
If I didn't know better, I'd say Woodward and Bernstein only went after Nixon because he was a Republican.
Oh my: a black cop shoots an unarmed white teen. Grand jury doesn't indict the officer.
No outcry. No riots. No 24-7 media coverage. That last one is key, of course. The media is, and always has been, the driver of stories like Ferguson and last year's Trayvon Martin debacle.
And remember the "reverse" Martin case?
Remember folks -- they want your money for their product, but if you disagree with them you're an instant pariah. And if you keep buying their product, they're laughing at you all the way to the bank. Hard.
Courtesy of the FCMM, here are some more creator tweets about Ferguson:
Fear, hate, bigotry, slander, and police corruption won Justice did not. #FergusonDecision— Daniel Kalban (@DanielKalban) November 25, 2014
And perhaps best of all, this:
Get it? Capullo knows Officer Wilson was guilty. He can feeeeeeel it, dammit!
But you gotta give props to Capullo for one thing:
I don't run away from people that have different opinions. I'm simply not that weak.— Greg Capullo (@GregCapullo) November 25, 2014
Good for him, as that makes him quite unlike most in his field.
Nevertheless, FCMM's Avi Green nails it after this Capullo tweet:
I will stand my ground regarding my opinion that there should have been a trial.— Greg Capullo (@GregCapullo) November 25, 2014
Avi: "And if there was he'd come to the same conclusion he did when the jury decided not to approve an official indictment."
It will come as no surprise, but the usual suspects, of course, feel the need to "chime in" because, y'know, they're so "smart" and "up on things."
It's been a while since we've checked in on Gail Simone; but she sure didn't let us down:
Why are the protesters and families of the victims always the ones under the microscope? Why not the perpetrators?— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) November 25, 2014
We are failing.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) November 25, 2014
I don't see how any parent could ever be okay with this. The inhumanity displayed from the event to this moment is shattering.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) November 25, 2014
And then there was this lovely retweet from her:
My 7 year old son just said: "Don't worry mom. If we want to live, we just have to stay home". I'm turning off my tv. My heart just broke— Petty LaBelle (@d_Sassy1ne) November 25, 2014
The sad thing about all this is that "progressives" routinely claim to be those who believe in science -- y'know, deriding
global warming climate change skeptics as lunatics, laughing at disbelievers of evolution (rightly, of course), and right-wing historians who only want to emphasize the good America has done and ignore its sordid side (also rightly).
Yet, people like Simone will ignore all the evidence that grand jury saw, re-saw, heard, re-heard, debated, and re-debated ... all the science. Like, if the person whose tweet Simone retweeted really is worried about her son's life, she shouldn't worry about folks like Darren Wilson, but about residing in a predominately black inner-city community. The chances of being a victim of violence with the latter are magnitudes greater.
Remember, too: this grand jury included three African-Americans. Will these three now be referred to as "Uncle Toms?"
Maybe Simone is doing all this so that she can maintain her "progressive" cred. Maybe she feels guilty because she lives in a state with a black population of around two percent.
Either way, it's ridiculous and irresponsible.
Here are a few examples of some of our other "pals":
Disgusted by grand jury decision in #Ferguson. And not at all surprised.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) November 25, 2014
A Mark Waid retweet:
The #Ferguson Prosecutor McCulloch said that the grand jurors gave up their lives during this process. No, they didn't. But Mike Brown did.— BrianKeene (@BrianKeene) November 25, 2014
A Dan Slott retweet:
I am terrified for everything that will stem from this. This is a full on war now #Ferguson— Salena Johnson (@SalenaMahina) November 25, 2014
Remember, these are the folks that believe in SCIENCE! Except when it conflicts with THEIR political dogma.
And hilariously, many of these folks are criticizing the prosecutor (who's a progressive Democrat, by the way) for lambasting social media's role in the whole Mike Brown saga ... all while posting frivolous social media commentary like "I worked in a prosecutor's office once and I can tell you this is a travesty!"
Meanwhile, here's a "surprise" locally.
The Washington Post fact checks the Saturday Night Live skit from this past Saturday which mocked Boss Obama's executive order on immigration.
Our 'ol pal Ron Marz just never can seem to grasp what's known as "irony":
I would also like to point out that comics as a whole needs to do a much better job of policing our own when they behave abominably.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) November 21, 2014
So much to say to that ... but it's just way too easy.
Next, "brave" Marz goes after a dead guy:
Not lost on me: hardcore @NRA dude Charlton Heston is the one who destroys the world.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) November 22, 2014
Yeah, not lost on me: How the saving of a "progressive" pacifist prior to World War II ended up allowing the Nazis to win the conflict -- and eventually rule the planet ... and galaxy.
Except that ... actress Joan Collins, who played pacifist Edith Keeler, is actually right-leaning in her politics.
Sort of the reverse situation of Chuck Heston's Taylor in Planet of the Apes, who was a pretty liberal guy:
"Time bends. Space is...boundless. It squashes a man's ego. I feel lonely. That's about it. Tell me, though, does man, that marvel of the universe, that glorious paradox who sent me to the stars, still make war against his brother...keep his neighbor's children starving?"
"I'm a seeker, too. But my dreams aren't like yours. I can't help thinking that somewhere in the universe there has to be something better than man. Has to be."
"Imagine me needing someone. Back on Earth I never did. Oh, there were women. Lots of women. Lots of love-making but no love. You see, that was the kind of world we'd made. So I left, because there was no one to hold me there."
So, essentially, what we have is Ron Marz making not much sense as usual -- only trying to score more "progressive" cred, and further alienate any right-leaning audience he may have left.
Here's what "comedian, educator and comic book editor at large" Tom Brennan tweeted the other day:
Just to be clear - when it comes to the environment, today we learned the government of China is more reasonable than the GOP. CHINA.— Tom Brennan (@Brennanator) November 12, 2014
Indeed, the very same China where one cannot see across the street because of the ridiculous amount of pollution it belches out, not to mention where people have to wear surgical masks to avoid the equivalent of several packs of cigarettes ... just from walking down the street.
"Oh," but Brennan says, "the scenes where we saw all that was like six years ago!" (Meaning, the 2008 Beijing Olympics.)
Locally, 'ya gotta love this story: the hubby of State Senator Bethany Hall-Long was nabbed stealing GOP campaign signs from a roadside ... at 3:00 in the morning.
When asked for comment, Ms. Hall-Long said,
Sadly, this race has become tough and personal. My husband is my high school sweetheart and he loves me very much. I was not aware that he had allowed his frustration over the campaign attacks to get the better of him. Of course I'm disappointed and wish that it had not happened.
In Wisconsin, how did "journalists" not discover this little nugget about Democratic gubernatorial challenger Mary Burke ... until just now? Yeah, gee, I wonder ...
New York State Democrats who haven't voted in recent elections got "menacing" letters from the New York State Democratic Committee: “we will be reviewing voting records . . . to determine whether you joined your neighbors who voted in 2014. . . . If you do not vote this year, we will be interested to hear why not.”
Not too creepy ...
In Massachusetts, you'd think a Dem gubernatorial candidate would be a shoo-in ... except here it's Martha Coakley:
Down in Texas, wanna know why Dem gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis ain't gonna win? Redistricting, says co-founder of the Daily Show, Lizz Winstead, on MSNBC. Chee-yeah, OK ...
Evidence supports officer's account in Michael Brown (Ferguson, MO, natch) shooting.
But don't think this will stop the idiots and the zealots.
.. but to be fair, it usually suppresses any mention of race -- black, white, whatever.
From Eric Raymond at Armed and Dangerous:
There is an effective taboo against truthfully reporting incidents in which black criminals yell racial epithets and threats at white victims during the commission of street crimes. If not for webbed security-camera footage we’d have no idea how depressingly common this seems to be – the press certainly won’t cop to it in their print stories.
No conspiracy theory is required to explain the silence here. Reporters and editors are nervous about being thought racist, or (worse) having “anti-racist” pressure groups demonstrating on their doorsteps. The easy route to avoiding this is a bit of suppressio veri – not lying, exactly, but not uttering facts that might be thought racially inflammatory.
The pattern of suppression is neatly explained by the following premises: Any association of black people with criminality is inflammatory. Any suggestion that black criminals are motivated by racism to prey on white victims is super-inflammatory. And above all, we must not inflame. Better to be silent.
What the press is teaching Americans to assume, story after story, is that if “youths” commit public violence and they are not specified to be white, or hispanic, or asian — then it’s yet another black street gang on a wilding.
And look -- I understand that feeling among the press. This country has a long history of denigrating African-Americans. But this is 2014. I know that a color-blind perspective is fairly passé these days, especially among the Left but as Raymond notes,
It’s not clear to me that this kind of indulgence is any better – even for blacks themselves – than the old racist arrangement in which blacks “knew their place” and were systematically cowed into submission to the law. After all – if it needs pointing out again – the victims of black crime and trash culture are mainly other blacks. Press silence is empowering thugs.
And of course, the same press acts in the completely opposite manner when the races/ethnicities are reversed. George Zimmerman, an Hispanic, was labeled a "white Hispanic" by the press which clearly served to inflame white-black tensions.
In Ferguson, MO, the press couldn't get enough cameras and reporters there fast enough, and the line "unarmed black teenager" (Michael Brown) couldn't be said enough times -- as if the fact that he was unarmed means the officer was absolutely and without question in the wrong.
Alas, the mainstream media may actually think it's doing some sort of public service by suppressing race indicators in some cases, but on the other hand going beyond reason to find racial backgrounds in others. But like way too many other instances of good intentions, the results end up in the toilet.
And this is if you think the media actually has good intentions ...
No, not really. But that's what his mother says (of course):
A St. Louis police officer working off duty for a private security company shot and killed a black man yesterday. Protestors gathered quickly, raising concerns of more rioting, looting, and arson threats similar to those that erupted following the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson, MO.
Fox news reports that while working private security the officer approached three men, who ran away. The officer chased one of them, and a physical struggle ensued. Police officials report that the chased man then presented a pistol and fired three rounds at the officer before his handgun failed. There are no reports that any of the shots struck the officer.
The officer’s handgun was made of more reliable stuff, and he fired 17 rounds at his attacker, mortally wounding him.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that people claiming to be relatives of the victim identified him as 18-year-old Vonderrit Myers, Jr. The teenager’s mother, Syreeta Myers, told The Associated Press by phone Thursday that her son was holding a sandwich when the officer killed him Wednesday night.
A "sandwich." Must'a been a really good one for him to hold on to it while running from a cop. Not to mention, the salami held a clip, too!
You guessed it: MSNBC.
Let's go to the Melissa Harris-Perry Show:
GARRETT: "I was on Capitol Hill yesterday. I spoke to lot of the political leadership of the United States and I have to say I was stunned by how many felt the solution was to completely cut off Africa. no visas. no travel. Keep them out. And this is completely missing the point. The hysteria should not be about one person in Dallas. What the world should be hysterical about is that Africa is facing its greatest catastrophic crisis arguably since the days of slavery. This could turn into carnage across a whole region if the world does not assist immediately."
EDOZIEN: "That would never work. Keeping them out would not work. And the idea that you can keep out a whole group of people who are America's partners, whether we like it our not, West African nations are partners with this country ..."
GARRETT: And trying to do that racist. Let's us be frank about it.
EDOZIEN: Exactly. It's borderline racism and fear.
That'd be Laurie Garrett of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Frankie Edozien, New York Times columnist and editor of The AFRican Magazine.
NBC's "point man" in the Muslim Middle East, Ayman Mohyeldin, couldn't say which extremism—Christian, Jewish or Muslim—poses the greatest current threat to civilization":
That's right, this idiot actually invoked the Crusades. And then was "rescued" by a NY Times reporter who jumped in to say that global warming is civilization's greatest contemporary threat.
Elsewhere, ultra-moonbat Rosie O'Donnell amazingly has her "The View" gig back -- despite her 9/11 Trutherism (actually, that's a plus in Hollywood, apparently) -- and went out of her way to praise Ben Affleck for "taking on" (if you can call it that) fellow lib Bill Maher on the subject of radical Islam.
Geez, the one time Maher makes a rational point and his fellow "progressives" are all over his sh**. Par for the course, natch.
As an aside, can anyone imagine an ultra-right wing Birther with the popularity of a Rosie O'Donnell not only being on a mainstream like "The View," but having been invited back to it?
... to the god of Climate Change.
Philly Daily News editorial: Climate change more of a threat than terrorism.
Even worse: the usual dolts at MSNBC forward the idea that -- wait for it! -- the NRA is exacerbating the Ebola situation. That's right, the National Rifle Association.
So, to wit: We can't stop flights from Ebola infected areas because slavery, so let's blame it on ... gun rights activists!
"Logic" in the Age of Obama.
Check out the pic accompanying this Politico story.
Titled "Race and the Modern GOP," it features notorious Gov. George Wallace -- a Democrat -- confronting folks in front of a schoolhouse.
As Insty notes, "Even more amusingly, it’s labeled 'History Dept.'”
"In a bizarre coincidence, a fired Oklahoma City nursing home employee was arrested Friday after a co-worker reported he threatened to cut her head off."
"The arrest came on the same day police in Moore revealed fired Vaughan Foods worker Alton Alexander Nolen beheaded a co-worker after he was fired Thursday. Nolen is a Muslim convert."
And Boss Obama and the lapdog media will cross their fingers and "wonder" about the motive ...
Back on the 19th I wrote a post ridiculing Philly.com for, among other things, offering up a sympathetic look at one of the alleged attackers of a gay couple. It appears I may have been hasty in voicing my frustration with the inconsistency of so-called "hate crime" laws, and about the nature of that apparent "hate" attack in particular.
While I still feel that any hate crimes legislation is laughable if it doesn't include provisions for gay Americans, it seems there was (a lot) more to the story of the gay couple's beating than previously told. For instance:
According to court records, the couple, ages 28 and 27, were walking around 10:30 p.m. when they encountered a group of friends out celebrating a birthday.
The couple and the group exchanged words, leading to an argument that resulted in an altercation, during which members of the group used antigay slurs, according to the records. One man suffered a broken jaw, broken orbital bones, and a cut that required 24 stitches; the other, facial fractures.
Attorneys for Williams and Knott have characterized the incident as a mutual fight and not motivated by the victims' sexual orientation.
OK, so it wasn't just the group berating the couple for merely being gay. Both parties apparently tossed around some epithets and then things got out of control.
This doesn't justify the beating; however, how often have we read, say, about a black-on-white attack where racial epithets were used against the victims ... but no hate crimes charges were filed (because the motive ascribed was "robbery/economic")? If the gay couple in this case uttered some nasty words themselves, then why isn't their attackers' motivation then, just "retributive?"
If hate crimes laws are to be used in addition to other charges, then -- again -- they need to be utilized consistently. (But don't hold your breath.)
RELATED: The LGBT community's hypocrisy.
Worker who was terminated for, among other things, hassling co-workers about converting to Islam, attacks -- and beheads -- a co-worker.
Motive unknown to the mainstream media.
Well hell, why not? Makes about as much sense as the rest of the garbage they put out.
The Huffington Post's Washington bureau has hired professional football player and 9/11 truther Donte Stallworth as a fellow, covering national security.
Stallworth, a wide receiver in the NFL since 2002, is currently an unsigned free agent and has not played in any games since 2012. He is also a 9/11 truther, and has publicly stated that Osama bin Laden was not responsible for the attacks and that the Pentagon was not hit by a plane.
"NO WAY 9/11 was carried out by 'dying' Bin Laden, 19 men who couldn't fly a damn kite. STILL have NO EVIDENCE Osama was connected, like Iraq," Stallworth tweeted in 2009. Stallworth also doubted tweeted, "Gggrrrrrrrrrrrrr @ ppl who actually believe a plane hit the pentagon on 9/11... hole woulda been ASTRONOMICALLY bigger, God bless lost lives." (Source)
Hilariously, HuffPo Washington bureau chief Ryan Grim said that Stallworth's Truther statements "doesn’t represent how he thinks today," and that he said them five years ago. Except that, Stallworth's last Truther statement took place in November of 2013.
Possibly even more hilarious is how the HuffPo thinks Stallworth is actually qualified to cover national security issues in the first place: "[Stallworth] has a quick mind, an insatiable curiosity and a passion for politics -- the necessary qualities of a great journalist."
Yeah, man. Whatever you say.
According to the LA TImes' Tiffany Hsu, it's "informal worker."
And what do they do? They "labor unofficially" in a "gray economy."
Naomi Shihab Nye in today's News Journal, like way too many other anti-Israel zealots, omits tons of key facts regarding the current plight of Palestinians/Gazans.
Oppression makes people do desperate things. I am frankly surprised the entire Palestinian population hasn’t gone crazy. If the U.S. can’t see that Palestinians have been mightily oppressed since 1948, they really are not interested in looking, are they?
*Sigh* If I've documented once, I've documented it a million times. You have only your Arab neighbors to blame for any oppression you suffer, Ms. Nye. If "the entire Palestinian population hasn’t gone crazy," it sure isn't because of lack of effort by the likes of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, et. al.
For they gobbled up the land allocated for the Palestinians in 1948, and then they, along with the Palestinians, attacked the nascent Israel. They lost. And they kept losing every other time they tried.
You casually mention the Six Day War without reference or context. This is not, sadly, surprising in the least.
It's really just boring already, Ms. Nye. Sympathy and needed change begin with taking responsibility. Try taking a page from the late Anwar Sadat and see if things don't begin to look different.
It's been a while, and I see there was a recent "controversy" over a variant Spider-Woman cover, so let's get right to it ...
... the cover in question can be seen here, and was asked for by Marvel. Now, for the NON fun-extinguishers among us (i.e. the non-politically correct), this cover is no big deal. But for the 'bat creators this should be -- after all, how in the hell can Marvel commission such a flagrantly sexist and objectifying piece of art?
Dan Slott, who has no shortage of the "right" beliefs, amazingly defends the cover, calling the matter a "false controversy." And that's just for starters. Be sure to check out his Twitter feed, if you can stomach the hilarious hypocrisy.
Then there's our 'ol pal Ron Marz, who's miffed -- MIFFED, I tell you -- about some of the "abject and unapologetic racism" seen in Ferguson, MO. Of course, by that we know he means only white racism, but that aside, Marz is "concerned" about that, yet mocks comics blogger Avi Green thusly:
Listening to Roger Waters again. It's enough to drive that nutty blogger guy who follows me crazy ... if he wasn't already crazy.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) August 22, 2014
Not only has Avi brought up what a raving hypocrite Marz is for continuing to back a raging anti-Semite like (Pink Floyd's) Waters, yours truly has, too. Ya'd think that someone concerned with racism, bigotry, sexism, etc. 24-7 (like Marz) would take a stand ... shun Waters for his Jew hatred. But, nah -- the music's good! Funny how that didn't matter with regards to Orson Scott Card and Ender's Game, eh?
In addition, as Avi notes, unlike Dan Slott, Marz is upset at the Spider-Woman cover:
Nobody cares about your explanations or justifications. Own that you did something stupid, say you're very sorry, and then SHUT UP.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) August 21, 2014
Except that ... "If only he'd admit he went overboard with Green Lantern's fridge scene ..."
Lastly, there's good 'ol Mark Waid, who back on the 19th tweeted the following (see if you can spot the irony):
"Non-hyperbolic," yet ... "hands-in-the-air," "in the back" ... Uh huh.
And so it goes ...
Heck, no. In fact, the paper sent nine reporters to dig into the officer who shot Michael Brown's past:
The family later moved to the suburban Missouri town of St. Peters, where Wilson's mother again got divorced ( translation: broken family = unstable individual) and married a man named Dan Durso, records indicate.
Wilson attended St. Charles West High School, in a predominantly white, middle-class community(translation: he doesn't know how to deal with black people) west of the Missouri River. He played junior varsity hockey for the West Warriors but wasn't a standout (translation: not being a standout as a teen made him overzealous as a cop).
There were problems at home (see above re: divorce). In 2001, when Wilson was a freshman in high school, his mother pleaded guilty to forgery and stealing (translation: this somehow rubbed off on Darren. Somehow.) She was sentenced to five years in prison, although records suggest the court agreed to let her serve her sentence on probation (translation: did Wilson somehow have police "connections" even then) .
Remember what a no-no it was to release that surveillance video showing Brown robbing that convenience store?
And, as Ace of Spades notes, in the WaPo article "at no point is any mention made of Michael Brown's family nor how it may have lead to his criminal behavior."
Unless you're a real believer in the mainstream media, this should surprise you not at all.
From Reason: Ferguson Cop Who Killed Michael Brown Was "Beaten Very Severely" Before Shooting.
Darren Wilson, the Ferguson, Mo., police officer whose fatal shooting of Michael Brown touched off more than a week of demonstrations, suffered severe facial injuries, including an orbital (eye socket) fracture, and was nearly beaten unconscious by Brown moments before firing his gun, a source close to the department's top brass told FoxNews.com.
“The Assistant (Police) Chief took him to the hospital, his face all swollen on one side,” said the insider. “He was beaten very severely.”
Reason, which has been critical of the police response in the aftermath of Brown's death, wonders why authorities waited so long to reveal this information.
The only source we've seen with this new info -- up until today -- was Gateway Pundit, which, as Reason notes in their article, relies on a single source for this claim about Wilson.
The media is writing their reports like Children's Stories because they conceive of their audience as essentially children, whom you must protect from jarring facts which might teach "the wrong lessons."
There's also been some audio evidence pop up of late which contradicts the "[Brown] was running away"/"He had his hands up" narrative. YouTube has numerous vids and transcriptions of what this witness said.
None of this, however, automatically vindicates cop Darren Wilson. What it does is further eviscerate the mainstream media. Just imagine if this was 1990 and there was no Internet, no Fox News, and very little talk radio.
There's been another shooting of an unarmed black teenager, and what played out last summer is sort of repeating itself. To wit:
Today the name of the cop involved in the shooting was revealed: Darren Wilson. His race, at this point, still remains a mystery, however. Also revealed was the situation which led to the confrontation between Wilson and Brown: It seems Brown was a suspect in a robbery.
Here is the Missouri statute pertaining to the use of deadly force to effect a felony arrest. Based on the police's initial statements, these (at least one, certainly) appear to apply to this case.
To be sure, the Ferguson police didn't do themselves a lot of favors with the delay in issuing Wilson's name and the account of the incident (which, I understand, still isn't 100% complete). Nor was, as noted above, the overly "military" nature of the post-shooting response to protests.
But also not doing anyone favors are responses like that of WDEL's Al Mascitti who today went on a rant about "white people" (especially Tea Party types, of course) being the only ones who support police in this case, and even made a comparison of the "hopelessness" of black communities across the country to that of ... Palestinians in Gaza. (He even said that people "know" Hamas rockets launched into Israel "don't hurt anyone," but they provoke an unreasonable response.)
The details will keep coming out, and the inter-political philosophy squabble of various viewpoints about the incident will make for interesting discussion.
But there's certainly one thing you can count on: The mainstream media has its NarrativeTM, and it will stick to it ... no matter the facts.
UPDATE (by Hube): The latest reports indicate that Wilson was unaware of Brown's robbery activity when he stopped him. Brown and a friend were stopped for walking in the middle of the street and blocking traffic.
UPDATE 2 (by Hube): This site notes that, although Wilson stopped Brown and friend for walking in the street, once he saw cigars in Brown's hand he thought he might be the robbery suspect.
Pro-Palestinian demonstrators chant "Heil Hitler" in Canada:
But remember: "The Tea Party doesn't do this, and gets called 'Nazis' anyway. Arabs do this, and the media covers it up.
... isn't it, that the News Journal hasn't reported on the 117 illegal immigrant children placed in Delaware since the initial story?
After all, said initial story only had the most comments I'd ever seen on a Delaware Online article.
"Let me be clear: An attack on Rick’s integrity is an attack on Marvel’s integrity."
Is that so. Gosh.
As was the point of this post last week, many of the creators at both Marvel and DC have helped create the very atmosphere which led to the silly Remender situation. Anything anybody says/does that (seemingly) goes against the prevailing "progressive" wisdom is immediately pounced upon by these creators ... unless it's (seemingly) done by one of their own. And then the self-righteous indignation begins in earnest.
It's quite obvious Alonso doesn't really believe what he said about Marvel, above. If he did, he'd tell guys like Dan Slott, Ron Marz, Mark Waid, and Gail Simone to curb their condescending, hostile, rude, and factually challenged social media behavior towards those who differ politically from them.
And just in case, spare me the free speech "argument." No one is saying those named above cannot say what they want. It's merely a matter of manners but most especially business sense. One wonders why Alonso hasn't said something like "When you behave like that on social media, it reflects poorly on Marvel."
I'm currently in DC for a conference later today. So, because I slept like crap last evening and I've already seen all the DC sights several times in the last twenty years or so, here are a few musings (as usual, because no one demanded it):
-- Getting to DC reminded me of how much I absolutely DETEST driving in big cities.
-- The valet/bellboy and gal at the hotel front desk were incredibly friendly and helpful. Thus, I tipped very well. Good, cheerful service is hard to come by, these days.
-- I spent a good deal of time this morning with CNN on the tube. I wonder why I chose to torture myself so. But it's certainly no wonder why the network's ratings are in the crapper. Virtually the entire three-plus hours featured the hosts parroting Boss Obama/White House talking points and pressing GOP/conservative guests with them.
In addition, their coverage of the current border crisis was abysmal. They featured a story implying the town of Murrieta is racist for their protests against the arrival of illegal immigrant-filled buses: A graphic was shown detailing the town's demographics (70% white, below 10% poverty level) and then compared it to a town closer to the border which is 80% Latino and over 25% poverty level. An interview with the latter's mayor (whose town was more "accepting" of the illegals) showed he believed Murrieta had a racial angle to their protests. The CNN reporter then relayed that to the mayor of Murrieta, asking along the lines of "But can you understand the compassion concern?"
I wonder how quickly the CNN reporters would be willing to accept these buses into their communities.
Shortly thereafter, another talking head pounded Texas Governor Rick Perry about the border situation ... again, with Boss Obama talking points. Make no mistake -- there's certainly nothing wrong with tough questions. But when they all come from one side, not to mention when liberal/Democrat guests just sit there on the split screen nodding their heads in agreement with the host ...
Just now, the two 11am hosts featured a detailed story about the "harrowing" journey these immigrants have to make from a small hamlet in Guatemala. They note how they have to travel the entire length of Mexico to get to the US. Not included: Why Mexico does little-to-nothing about it. Cut back to the hosts who tell us Guatemalans "are great people," and they're "just looking for a better life." I've no doubt about either. But there's a process by which this should occur. And, again, I doubt anyone of these CNN pundits would gleefully welcome these new arrivals into their town, let alone their homes. (CNN is interviewing a foster mom right now who's hosting some "undocumented" kids.)
Does anyone still wonder why Fox News dominates cable news? It's not that they're fairer in their coverage (they are), it's simply that they give the other side (usually the conservative/Republican) a hearing ... and a fair shake.
-- Spider-Man writer Dan Slott responded to this tweet of mine yesterday. Which is funny since he blocked me long ago for daring to challenge some of his more ridiculous tweets. The dude actually actively searches out hashtag mentions??
Well, the Supreme Court is on the contemporary comicbook crews' collective moonbat minds after yesterday's rulings, in particular with regards to the Hobby Lobby case. And they ain't happy. First up, our good pal Dan Slott compares the high court's conservative bloc (and contemporary Christians) to ... 16th century Spanish conquistadors:
You know who imposed their religious beliefs on others? The Conquistadors. And you know what they were? Assholes.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) July 1, 2014
I'd ask the gnomish one to explain how the SCOTUS (or modern Christians) "imposed" religious belief upon society (well, women, really in this case), but that would require an IQ over 90 and I don't think Dan qualifies. Not to mention, someone responded to Slott's tweet (supposedly humorously) "ask the Aztecs." Yes, indeed -- also ask what would have worse: The Spanish imposing Christianity upon the natives, or the Aztecs imposing their religion ... which routinely (and barbarically) included human sacrifice.
If Hobby Lobby were a Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish owned company, we would not be having this discussion. Is that a fair assessment?— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) July 1, 2014
Then, there's this retweet by the gnome:
A message to SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby from WW pic.twitter.com/4kuW6jVZ57— Pia Guerra (@PiaGuerra) June 30, 2014
Classy, eh? All because Wonder Woman can't have her employer (who knew she worked at Hobby Lobby?) pay for certain forms of birth control. Talk about your cognitive dissonance. Like this, too (retweeted by comics 'bat Gail Simone):
Indeed -- the company that pays your salary should just STFU and give you whatever benefits you desire. The hell with what their beliefs (or wants) are. They just give you a living, after all.
Along those same lines, here's Tom Brevoort, another political/legal mental midget, chiming in:
@DanSlott Yes, it's an absurd argument. You don't get to decide what taxes you get to pay. Corporations aren't people, aren't human.— Tom Brevoort (@TomBrevoort) July 1, 2014
Earth to Tom: Certain contraceptive benefits paid for by your employer are NOT taxes. And corporations ARE people in many (most?) legal realms, including this one. The predilection among modern "progressives" to bring up this corporation stuff ignores over 200 years of legal precedent.
Lastly, here's 'ol Ron Marz who obviously didn't feel like putting as much "effort" into the whole pile-on as Slott, et. al. did:
Actually, if the US soccer team does as well as the SCOTUS did yesterday, we'll be moving on to the quarter finals, thank you very much.
Be sure to check out, too, Douglas Ernst's reaction to these geniuses.
UPDATE: Also check out Truthwillwin1's reaction to the tweets in question.
UPDATE 2: The gnomish one is having a fit because "right-wing bloggers" took him too "literally." Funny, if a "right-wing blogger" had used "Muslims" without the requisite "some" or "radical" inserted in there, guys like Slott would be screaming bloody "Islamophobia" on social media for days.
The economy is collapsing, the Mid-East is aflame, our veterans are getting f***ed over, the president has turned the IRS into his own personal mafia ... but our contemporary comics creators (in this case, Marvel's Dan Slott) go after ... Fox News.
UPDATE: Doug Ernst noticed the Fox News link today as well.
... and have thousands of followers on Twitter, they're SO "smart!" Here's the gnomish Dan Slott attempting to make yet another gun control point:
So was slavery. RT @macattack50 The right to bear arms has been in our culture since the days of the Founders. You won't get rid of guns.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) June 18, 2014
Uh, Dan? Slavery, while an institution at the time of the Founding, was ended shortly after the Civil War with the 13th Amendment. But even before that, the Founders recognized the eventual demise of the vile institution, and at least set up legal means to outlaw the trade.
Can you show us a similar exercise with regards to firearms, Danny?
That's what I thought. But remember, everybody -- Slott just writes comicbooks. He ain't no historian, that's fer sher. Nor a legal scholar:
It's hard to argue about gun rights and keep passions in check. The stakes are simple & heartfelt: Potential Lives Lost vs Perceived Rights.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) June 18, 2014
"Perceived rights." The 2nd Amendment protects an individual's "perceived right," according to Slott, to bear arms. Even though the Supreme Court has affirmed the right (not "perceived"), at least twice, within the last fifteen years.
You're not a very smart man, Dan. Despite the comfy little Bubble you live in, and despite your legion of [mostly] mindless minions. After all, you just write comics.
Over at io9 there's a discussion about how the noted scifi author made the transformation from socialist to "right-wing" libertarian. That in itself is worthy of the read (it's based on a recent New Republic piece); however, since arguably Starship Troopers is Heinlein's most popular work, I see some of the same, tired objections to the story have arisen. Take NR author Jeet Heer from the start:
Heinlein was equally beloved in military circles, especially for his book Starship Troopers (1959), a gung-ho shout-out for organized belligerence as the key to human survival. A thoroughly authoritarian book, it included an ode to flogging (a practice the American Navy banned in 1861) and the execution of mentally disturbed criminals, yet Heinlein became a hero to libertarians ...
"Organized belligerence as the key ...?" Yeesh. It never ceases to amaze me the utter myopia exhibited by leftists when critiquing this book. This statement makes it seem as though the Terran Federation was actively seeking out conflicts with [alien] races to make humanity "safe." Poppycock. The novel clearly notes that the Federation has allies (the "Skinnies" who needed a bit of "persuading," courtesy of the Mobile Infantry, to turn away from a head-scratching alliance with the Bugs), and that the Bug War exists because 1) each side wants the same thing, and 2) absolutely no communication and discussion with each other has been thus far possible.
And "thoroughly authoritarian" is also complete nonsense. Statements like this make it seem like either Heer has either never read the book, and/or is solely relying on the film and correlated print stories. Through the numerous political discussions in the story, humanity enjoys every right currently afforded (in the US): freedom of speech, religion, press, etc.
But what about the franchise? A commenter ridiculously writes "Starship Troopers is not in favour of democracy since it advocates restricting voting rights to the 'worthy.'" But Heinlein addresses that very "concern" in the book, noting the franchise has always been restricted in some manner. In the US, you have to be at least 18 years old and a citizen to cast a vote, to which Heinlein had the iconic Colonel DuBois point out: What sense does it make to allow an adult moron to vote, but not a teenage genius? The only restriction to voting in ST is that one must have served a term of (mostly military) service. This commenter summarizes it quite adequately.
Just about every anti-Troopers narrative I've seen is that way because its author is simply anti-military. That being the case, examine why the system in ST was established in the first place. (Veterans Administration scandal, anyone?)
Much more from yours truly regarding Troopers here, from eight and a half years ago.
The writer of Spider-Man (Superior, Amazing, or whatever) once again meanders into the realm of philosophy. Because, y'know, since he's a "hotshot" comicbook writer at the moment, he's "smart":
"Traditional Values" is a cowardly term for "Anti-Gay Marriage." Slavery, antisemitism, & sexism could be called "traditional values" too.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) May 12, 2014
With lefties, it's funny how "progressive" viewpoints and ideas always are permitted to "evolve," whereas conservative ones are to be perpetually stuck in the Dark Ages. But using Slottian "logic," "progressive" could be a cowardly term for eugenics. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was not only pro-eugenics, but a racist, straight up. And let's not bother to bring up the sordid history of the Democrat Party ... !
In addition, "traditional values" still has valid meaning in many ways: Hard work, [actually] raising a family, not screwing your fellow man, manners, altruism ... wonder why Slott overlooked these?
Because he resides in The Bubble, that's why.
Two days in a row! Yesterday it was the Philly Daily News's Jenice Armstrong. Today, we're treated to yet another picture of St. Louis Rams draft pick Michael Sam smooching his boyfriend, this time with the Inquirer's Fashion Columnist Elizabeth Wellington informing us that "A kiss is just a kiss -- except for this one."
That's just what we need -- a fashion writer telling us what's "great" about a football player kissing his boyfriend. Please.
Wellington points out that Sam's jersey (#10, but he's, y'know, gotta make the team first!) outsold that of every other draft pick save Johnny Manziel, even beating out that of #1 overall pick Jadeveon Clowney. I hope she's aware that this certainly isn't due to Sam's overwhelming football presence. The guy was one of the last picks in the entire draft. She also notes that "negative reactions" to Sam's draft "overflowed on Twitter," but points to only one example -- that of Miami Dolphins defensive back Don Jones, who seems to be the only one cited by the media as having a negative response to Sam['s kiss]. Wellington fails to note the Maoist reaction by the Dolphins and the NFL: Jones is to undergo "educational training" for his Twitter outburst. Wouldn't "Quit being a jerk" and "Keep your yap shut" be sufficient? Apparently not in PC-ville.
And this may be the best part: Wellington quotes an associate professor in "culture, gender and race studies" on the "kiss" offering up "enlightening" tidbits like "Emotions are at the core of humanity." She also notes an associate director of "Africana Studies" who says "It was as if people didn't see the interracial aspect of [Sam's] relationship anymore and they zoned right into the gay aspect of it." Man, these guys earn their pay, eh? (Hopefully, no one is majoring in their subjects.)
Contrary to what Wellington reports, I've seen virtually nothing negative about Sam being picked by the Rams. As noted yesterday and many other times here at Colossus, I have been a life-long Rams fan so I follow them regularly on social media. The response to Sam was easily 98% positive. Of course, these are Rams fans, so their opinion is probably biased in favor of the team even if they do have some misgivings about Sam. However, if what Wellington says here --
Through that kiss, Sam also declared, Don't be surprised when I show up at functions with my boyfriend and I thank him after an amazing play to win a crucial game
-- is accurate, then you're likely to see another Chris Kluwe situation, where off-the-field antics and advocacy become a distraction to the team. I mean, what player thanks their significant other after a play -- at the game DURING the game? No one should care if he shows up at functions with his BF, but Sam going out of his way to "thank him" (and why would Sam thank him anyway? What did he do to help win the game?) during a game would be akin to any other over-the-top antic by a player following a significant play.
Bottom line: Sam is a so-so draft pick who may or may not make the Rams' roster. The brouhaha over him is largely a media creation, but that doesn't mean Sam isn't brave guy by coming out when he did. That certainly took guts, as professional sports (and even sports in general) may be the last bastion of such acceptance. I wish him the best, especially so since he may be part of my beloved team.
RELATED: Ben Domenech has a terrific article up on the whole Sam situation, and raises a point I was concerned about: What happens if the Rams end up cutting Sam? Will the team be dubbed "homophobic?" You can bet your bottom dollar that they will, at least from some of the usual suspects.
ALSO RELATED: Always make sure to be offended by the "right" things. Offended by Michael Sam's kiss? Off to re-education. Offended by profane music lyrics played in a victorious locker room? How dare you seek to censor us!
It's bad enough that our ever-increasingly infantile administration has guys like former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor talking like Moon Zappa and addressing a reporter as "dude," but check out the video below from Oregon. It shows staffers of the newspaper Willamette Week meeting with Oregon GOP US Senate candidates who were seeking endorsements. Candidate Mark Callahan chastises reporter Nigel Jaquiss for what he had written down while another candidate was giving her answer to a question: "Blah Blah Blah."
Stupefyingly, when the moderator asks to "move on" and asks Callahan whether climate change is a fact or myth, and he answers "myth," Jaquiss interjects and asks “Where are you on the Easter bunny?” When Callahan gets angry at the continued nonsense, the moderator gets upset with him, stating that Callahan will be asked to leave if he doesn't allow them to move on. Condescendingly, he informs Callahan "That's two strikes." Strike three occurs when Callahan asks “Who do you think you are?” And that was that.
The "fun" begins at around the 1:06 mark:
Matthew Balan at Newsbusters features how Salon.com yet again is obsessed with pure nonsense regarding the usual race and gender paradigm, this time regarding mainstream superhero films.
...Marvel movies are often praised for being more progressive than your average summer blockbuster...but they're still decades behind the comics....none of those movies have starred anyone other than a straight, white man in the lead role. The Avengers franchise has managed a handful of female characters in non-romantic roles, plus Falcon and Nick Fury in the supporting cast, but the mere concept of an openly LGBT character still feels like a pie-in-the-sky dream. Meanwhile in Marvel comics, Northstar came out in 1992, opening the floodgates for a whole host of other LGBT heroes....
...[T]he chances of Peter Parker coming out in Amazing Spider-Man 3 are more or less nil. Hollywood is (sic) yet to produce a big-budget blockbuster with any kind of LGBT character in the lead role, never mind having an established hero come out after decades of heterosexuality....Considering the fact that white male geeks already have Tony Stark, Bruce Banner, Peter Parker, Reed Richards and Charles Xavier to heroize their nerd cred on the big screen, it's difficult to argue that they still represent some kind of oppressed minority. It's probably time to give someone else a chance.
OK, here goes:
1) The films are "still decades behind the comics" because ... they're decades behind the comics. But that's only because the technology that allows such films to be made (and made well) is a recent development. You couldn't make Spider-Man in 1985. Well, you could, but the result would be like this. Or like the 1990 Captain America flick -- so bad it went straight to video even after being promoted in cinemas. Obviously not big money-makers. Speaking of which ...
2) Does this Salon writer (Gavia Baker-Whitelaw) seriously believe that studio execs would make a move like turning Peter Parker gay? Or any other [of Marvel's] major character(s)? Only if they want to lose a ton of dough. Which they obviously do not. This isn't because they're "homophobic" or cultural dinosaurs; it's because they simply want to make money. And Hollywood makes the vast majority of its cash with safe, don't-have-to-think-too-hard films like Spider-Man and The Avengers.
3) No Marvel movies have featured anything but a straight, white man in the lead role? Wrong. In 1998, Blade came out and was a surprise hit (especially since it was rated "R"). Its star, in case you didn't know, is Wesley Snipes. He's black:
4) Comicbooks (and their movies) don't actually represent real life. Or, they aren't supposed to for the most part. After all, hadn't you noticed that people don't actually acquire the powers of a spider after being bitten by one (radioactive and/or genetically modified)? Or, that we didn't actually have the means in the 1940s to transform a 98-lb. weakling into a superhuman powerhouse? The X-Men, of all superheroes, "represent" societal outcasts and/or oppressed groups. You can decide who that applies to ... and that's precisely the point. Marvel's mutants can relate to virtually anyone -- gays, racial minorities, bullied geeks/nerds, bookworm types, you name it.
Lastly, comicbooks are a much easier medium by which to introduce and/or promote traditionally underserved groups. I understand Baker-Whitelaw's point(s); however, you're not really going to "score any points" by pressuring film studios to make Spider-Man gay, or putting Tony Stark in polygamous relationship. Even altering something like the family of a staple character so as to "improve diversity" gets silly, as with Fantastic Four's rebooted Human Torch.
Unlike people like Baker-Whitelaw (by the way, that last name sounds "racist"), folks could really care less about racial bean counting. They're not "Hey! Johnny Storm needs to be black!" nor do they give a hoot that Blade is a black guy. (And the latter makes the point the best: A very fringe Marvel character with a minority protagonist in an "R" rated film which made a ton of dough.) They just want to be entertained.
The Philly Inquirer's Laura McCrystal wonders why the PPL Stadium, where the (soccer team) Philadelphia Union plays, hasn't led to "an economic renaissance for the struggling city of Chester."
As is often the case, one needs to refer to the comments (if they're actually available; they aren't always) to get an injection of some common sense.
Check out how the geographical geniuses at the network spell the First State:
I can see the frequently botched Delaware resort of "Rehobeth" (actually "Rehoboth"), but really? "Deleware"???
Cliven Bundy, the Nevada anti-government rancher who has garnered a lot of news the last couple weeks (and sympathy from the Right), let it all hang out on racial matters recently. And it ain't good:
“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” he said. Mr. Bundy recalled driving past a public-housing project in North Las Vegas, “and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids — and there is always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch — they didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
“And because they were basically on government subsidy, so now what do they do?” he asked. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
At least the usual "progressives" actually have a REAL instance of racism to go after. And rightly so. Just beware of the typical ridiculous extrapolations to the Nth degree, natch. Because they will happen. Y'know, something like this:
Whereas, back in 2008 when the Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers stories came to light:
Let the MSM swarm-fest commence!
Two thoughts: One, don't expect to hear much, if anything, from the MSM on this. Y'know, like how abortion butcher Kermit Gosnell was a "local story." Two, try bringing this story up (among others) the next time a "progressive" laments capital punishment and/or harsh treatment of al Qaeda terrorists. See what happens.
These days there is virtually nothing that "progressives" won't dub the R-word. Because, after all, 1) "progressives" aren't particularly bright, and 2) one thing they do know is that R-word is the modern day Scarlet Letter and an effective negative campaign tool.
But the ever-increasing problem for them is overuse. We all know this, but that doesn't stop them. Not at all. So, the first instance we see today as the latest in neo-racism is ... distrust of government. Yep. New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait (with a straight face) states that "America’s unique brand of ideological anti-statism is historically inseparable...from the legacy of slavery..." Chait claims this even as he denounces other [specious] claims of racism against the GOP by the likes of MSNBC. He says that the GOP is disintegrating before our very eyes:
It exposed a sense in which their entire party is being written out of the American civic religion. The inscription of the civil-rights story into the fabric of American history—the elevation of Rosa Parks to a new Paul Revere, Martin Luther King to the pantheon of the Founding Fathers—has, by implication, cast Barack Obama as the contemporary protagonist and Republicans as the villains.
Except that, y'know, "intellectuals" like Chait are largely responsible for this incorrect perception. I mean, really -- Republicans are the party of slavery abolition and of the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s.
Chait claims that the dissolution of the GOP will be akin to -- wait for it! -- that of white rule in apartheid South Africa. Of course. All this, based on one study of "political habits and history in counties of the Old South."
Elsewhere via Douglas Ernst, Salon.com is at it again. Writer Reihan Salam says that if you're attracted to someone who looks like you, you're ... yep. Salam was "struck" by the considerable number of people who indicated on OkCupid's dating site (yes, the very same site which strongly objected to Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich and his "intolerable" view on gay "marriage") that they'd prefer to date someone of the same race.
Well, my. God.
I had to chuckle at this Kurt Busiek retweeted response to politically correct scifi writer John Scalzi:
@scalzi And the point isn't "ALL men are menaces to women." The point is "ALL women have been menaced by men."— Molly Lewis (@Molly23) April 17, 2014
Now, while the "ALL" part of her second point is certainly debatable, I would certainly buy it if she said "A LOT." But this is beside the point. A tweet like this tweet is permissible among the Scalzis and Busieks of the [entertainment] world because it impugns a politically incorrect group -- men -- and "protects" a politically correct group -- women.
I wonder: Does anyone think Scalzi or Busiek would tweet (or retweet) something like "So again, let's say we don't pretend that terrorism isn't a issue MOSTLY about Muslims. Not ALL Muslims, but certainly too many of them"? Or, "And the point isn't "MOST Muslims are terrorists." The point is "MOST terrorists are Muslims"?
Nah. Neither do I. That subject ain't "incorrect" enough for them.
That would be CNN's "National Security Analyst" Peter Bergen's contention that “U.S. right wing extremists [are] more deadly than jihadists.” To wit:
White supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda’s ideology.
OK, now let that sink in for a moment.
Ready? First, that "contention" is based on [supposed] figures from 9/12/2001 to the present. Pretty convenient that, wouldn't'cha say? Second, Bergen is a director for the George Soros-funded "progressive" New America Foundation which conducted the study from his "facts" are gathered. Also quite convenient. Third, the "political reasons" used for the "right-wing extremist" attacks are dubious. The study included "hate crimes" as "political" in its tally, and some of the killings are clearly questionable as to their "political" nature:
For example, they included a 2009 shootout in a Pittsburgh home where Robert Poplawski killed three police officers after his mother called the police during an argument. Later it was revealed that Poplawski had anti-Semitic views and was an alleged skinhead.
Yet the disparity in media coverage between even failed jihadist terrorist attacks and this latest incident in Kansas is emblematic of a flawed division in the public’s mind between killing that is purportedly committed in the name of Allah and killing that is committed for other political ends, such as neo-Nazi beliefs about the need to kill Jews.
What a riot. Bergen actually believes there's a paucity of media inclination to cover incidents like that in Kansas City the other day as opposed to jihadist-inspired violence. What freakin' planet do guys like Bergen live on?? Because it's certainly not the same planet on which its American mainstream media immediately pounces on any smidgen of evidence to link conservative/right-wing/Republican-based/Tea Partyesque groups to a terror-style attack. Just ask ABC's Brian Ross, for cripe's sake. This, not to mention, the reflexive MSM screaming of "Islamophobia" whenever [radical] Islam is questioned or implicated in a matter as if it's endemic, when in fact anti-Jewish hate crimes far outnumber those that are anti-Muslim. Not surprisingly, Bergen doesn't see fit to mention Muslim anti-Jewish hate, which is just as virulent -- and overall much more common -- than that of neo-Nazis.
The NARRATIVETM, natch.
The former KKK nutjob who killed three Jewish folks the other day in Kansas City had some, well, "uncomfortable" (uncomfortable for the mainstream media, that is) influences -- notably that of Max Blumenthal, former writer for The Daily Beast, Al Akhbar, and Media Matters, and son of former President Clinton advisor Sid Blumenthal. The killer, Glenn Miller, quoted Blumenthal:
Jew journalist Max Blumenthal exposes and explains this attempt by a foreign government Israel, to buy the presidential election for the neo-con, war-mongering republican establishment.
Like I’ve been saying, the k***s simply do not trust a lame-duck black president with the name Hussein. Jews fear his re-election, thus this jewish Super PAC to defeat him.
What's more, the "progressive" Nation's own publisher, Nation Books, put out Blumenthal's book to which Miller refers.
Do I think this really somehow "implicates" Blumenthal as a legitimate fellow purveyor of hate like Miller? Certainly not. Though I find Max's views preposterous, any clear-thinking person realizes that virtually any nutjob can find a quote from virtually anybody to suit his/her twisted purposes. But if Miller had quoted, say, Rush Limbaugh, you can bet your bottom dollar that this "connection" would be frontline news among the big three networks and CNN, and get 24-7 coverage on MSNBC.
Chris Hayes comes out and says what we all knew one helluva long time ago: That the network (and, increasingly, "progressives" in general) see everything through the "prism of race":
The racial prism I use to analyze American politics has grown sharper and I think in some ways more pessimistic in the Obama era. I will cop to that, unquestionably. Like, I do think, see things more thoroughly through the prism of race.
*Sigh* Who are the racists, again??
What's the notable difference? Anyone?
Here we go again: The mainstream media is hyping a "new warning" about the "extreme consequences" of ... global war, er, uh, climate change. Here's ABC News's Jim Avila: "And while global warming is easiest to see at the poles, this new report by a United Nations science panel says there is no more debate. Global warming is real, here now, wreaking havoc worldwide and is caused by humans." And that's just for starters.
Need I remind you what all these "debate is over" folks have screamed about previously: Snow a "thing of the past." The polar ice caps would be gone by now. Etc. We're told you can't look at cold weather instances as proof that global war, er, climate change isn't happening, yet hot weather instances are utilized constantly to make the climate change case.
You know what? Shut up. The climate may indeed be changing and man may indeed be [even largely] responsible. But the constant chicken-littleling has grown beyond tiresome. As some of the newscasts indicated, the United States's greenhouse gas emissions have declined over the years, but those of countries like China and India have gone up. So, WTF are we supposed to do about that? Tell them they can't industrialize after we have already done so? And isn't that what Boss Obama is about, after all -- letting other countries know that the United States isn't special, that we're just another country among all the rest in the world and that we have no right to demand anything of a country we wouldn't demand of ourselves? Further, aren't Boss Obama and "progressives" also all about science? They constantly tell us this, especially regarding the topic at hand. Yet, what happens when a State Dept. study concludes that the Keystone Pipeline will have virtually no effect on global war, er, climate change? Boss Obama sits on his hands. Same for so-called fracking. And why isn't the US going all-out on natural gas development?
Yeah, we can also continue to develop even cleaner options, but it makes zero sense not to develop resources that we have plenty of (which will benefit us greatly in the piss-poor economy) and are less GHG-intensive than oil and coal. But, alas, recall the Victor Davis Hanson maxim.
Thanks once again to the incomparable Nate Winchester, I was alerted to this latest Cracked.com offering. I'm a big fan of the site (hence its listing in Colossus's "Favorite Reads"), with contributor "Seanbaby" being my fave. However, especially within the last year, there seems to be too many of their writers who display a copious degree of cluelessness about that which they are opining. Case in point is Henrik Magnusson with his article about what this post's title says. It all begins with #5 in which, by any objective person's view, Superman makes a compromise decision which placates both sides of a situation. But since Supes doesn't side with the environmentalists, well, he's such a dick!!! Magnusson would have the Man of Steel give the middle finger to average workers who plead with him not to put the kibosh on their only source of income. These workers know the plant has been an environmental clusterf*** for years, but with Supes' help, an agreement is forged by which the company will do what's right. (A little Superman threat doesn't hurt, either!). Magnusson also thinks that Lois Lane's 1st Amendment rights supercede all this -- she should have the right, dammit, to out this plant and expose them! Maybe Magnusson could put some of this fire behind our real lapdog mainstream media so they'd do some actual reporting on President Lemon.
Also included -- predictably -- is Frank Miller's Holy Terror. Shunned by DC because of its ... "sensitive" nature, Miller took what was originally a Batman tale and turned it into one starring the generic hero The Fixer. Magnusson's title for this section is "Not-Batman Stars in Islamophobic Propaganda." Because the Fixer goes after al Qaeda. Got it? It's Islamophobic to have a good guy go after murderous terrorists just because they happen to be Muslim. Consider: It's really hard to imagine someone screaming "Germanophobia" over the cover of Captain America #1, isn't it?
Yep, that's Cap socking 'ol Uncle Adolf in the kisser. How is this different, again, from what the Fixer does to al Qaeda? Someone explain this to me. Because all I can come up with is that today, contemporary political correctness doesn't like the latter ... because Muslims are supposedly a "protected class." Or something. I know, we hear that "not all Muslims are terrorists" and all, and this is true -- just like not all Germans were Nazis, either.
Furthermore, if Holy Terror is so reprehensible, then why not include Truth: Red, White and Black on the list? One could easily label Truth "anti-white" and/or "anti-American," after all. The 2003 tale deals with "never-before-seen" issues surrounding the origin of Captain America, specifically how the US government attempted to recreate Professor Erksine's super soldier formula -- how the government tested imperfect copies only on African-American soldiers. This is supposed to be an analogy to the infamous Tuskegee experiment where hundreds of black farmers, most of whom were already infected with syphillis, were monitored for several decades, never being told they were ill. But the US government certainly didn't single out specific races in its various questionably unethical experiments over the years. The TV film Nightbreaker starring Martin Sheen and his son Emilio Estevez, for example, details what soldiers (of all colors) were exposed to in the early nuclear, post-WW II age. Not to mention, the Tuskegee experiment has often morphed into the legend that US operatives gave those hundreds of black men syphillis. This isn't too surprising with Joe Quesada-era Marvel as their knowledge of actual history has been found wanting. Quesada, when once discussing Truth, for example, ridiculously stated that "most of the US military" is black. He also wrote in an Iron Man tale from the early 2000s about the "extensive US nuclear testing during WW II." I'll let you figure that one out because I know you're not dumb.
There's also the question of moral equivalence with Truth, something with which the Left has an almost biological need to do when it comes to comparing the United States to other nations. Truth would put us in pretty much the same category as the above-mentioned Nazis, which, as with just about every other such comparison the Left makes, is smirk-inducing.
Magnusson's #1 entry is really a head scratcher as it's the Captain America "Secret Empire" storyline which I've written about previously. While "Empire" can be a bit hokey, it is a clear sign of its times, and is hardly a worthy example of a "disastrous" attempt of politicking. But Magnusson's #4 entry is his best: the ridiculous Marvel 9/11 tributes that featured its most murderous villains weeping over the infamous terror attacks. That's right -- Dr. Doom, Magneto, Dr. Octopus, the Kingpin ... you name 'em. As Magnusson writes, "they went with three guys who have a bigger body count individually than all of al-Qaida combined." Marvel claims the panels in question are "symbolic." I call 'em "idiotic."
Conspiculously missing from Magnusson's article are the numerous examples regarding The Authority, J. Michael Strazynski's Supreme Power, Image's The Big Lie, Captain America vs. the Tea Party, and the myriad other instances we've noted throughout our almost nine years of blogging here at Colossus. But should we really be surprised??
Today it has discovered a state rep. in Louisiana who wants to make The Bible the state book:
House Bill 503 was filed in Louisiana this session by state Representative Thomas Carmody (R-La.), reports KTBS. The bill proposes making La.'s oldest state-owned Bible the official state book.
Randy Dill of Shreveport, La., came up with the idea in 1988, but had failed to find a lawmaker willing to back his proposal until now.
"The Bible was their main inspiration along with our forefathers--Washington and all of them," Dill told KTBS. "They looked to it for their inspiration for our country. They called upon God to help us."
Ah, that 'ol insulated "progressive" bubble: David Brooks: Obama Would Have to 'Ride With Miley Cyrus On The Wrecking Ball' to Seem Unpresidential
Indeed. Filling out NCAA brackets on several TV shows and lobbying for ObumbleCare with cheesy "comedy" bits while Russia takes Crimea and threatens Ukraine is as "presidential" as it gets!
Hey, remember back on the 19th when we showed you how outfits like the Huffington Post will continue to highlight nutjob-yet-inconsequential Republicans throughout the year ... to hopefully negate somewhat the obvious GOP advantage heading into November? Well, here's their latest:
A Republican candidate who believes that God dictates weather patterns and that tornadoes, autism and dementia are God's punishments for marriage equality and abortion access won the GOP nomination to challenge Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) in the Chicago-area 9th Congressional District.
Susanne Atanus, of Niles, Ill., garnered 54 percent of the vote in her Tuesday win over David Earl Williams III.
"I am not in favor of abortions, I am not in favor of gay rights," Atanus told the Daily Herald, a suburban Chicago newspaper, in January.
She blamed natural disasters and mental disorders on recent advances in LGBT equality and legal abortions.
"God is angry. We are provoking him with abortions and same-sex marriage and civil unions," she said. "Same-sex activity is going to increase AIDS. If it's in our military, it will weaken our military. We need to respect God."
Why is Atanus (nice name) inconsequential? Because the partisan breakdown in her district is overwhelmingly Democratic -- about 2/3 Democrat to 1/3 GOP. In other words, she has no chance. Naturally, the HuffPo highlights the story despite this, and despite the fact that the state and Chicago GOP chairs condemned her lunacy.
Unbelievably, this was the absolutely first story at Philly.com around mid-day today:
... expect to see more and more stories of incredibly obscure -- and moronic -- state and local GOP lawmakers who do really ridiculous stuff. Why? Because the Democrat-allied MSM has to somehow "even up the score," eh?
But as a rule, if you see the phrase "GOP lawmaker" in a headline, your click will usher you into a world of back-benchers from Bismarck and Jackson and Dover and Sacramento, not the people currently threatening to take the Senate back from Democrats. The Lawmakers are anonymous until they screw up, and when they do, they are often easier to grab hold of then, say, front-running South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate Mike Rounds. If the lawmaker were famous, his name might make it into the hed. But he's not famous, so the story is about right-wing insanity that happens to come from a politician who may or may not represent you—click to find out.
Article author Dave Weigel notes just a few examples, all taken from the HuffPo, to make his point, including the number of votes the dude actually to demonstrate just how freakin' obscure he really is in the whole scheme of things:
That Feb. 28 story -- just a tad under 2,200 votes, huh? The guy's a real influence! Yet, that story got 30,000 shares/likes on Facebook. Look at the other vote-to-like/share ratios.
Hey, we ourselves certainly highlight instances of "progressive" state/local lawmaker idiocy from time to time. But we certainly ain't the HuffPo now, are we?
Expect to see a LOT more of this in the months to come.
(h/t to Jim Geraghty's e-mailed "Morning Jolt")
Will "Panties In A" Bunch at the Philly Daily News notes with predictable glee that the "Fast-food-worker movement [is] coming to Philly." The poster child of the story this time is one Sean Caldwell, who, at 35 years of age, is working at McDonald's for eight bucks an hour:
Caldwell, 35, started a neighborhood lawn-mowing business and takes other odd jobs, such as cleaning out garages, but when he did his 2013 taxes he still saw that he'd made only $9,000. To bridge the gap, Caldwell, like many workers in the fast-food industry, received food stamps and other taxpayer-funded benefits, such as Medicaid.
This December, Caldwell saw a cable-TV news report about workers from McDonald's and other fast-food restaurants in New York City staging a one-day strike. "I was excited - I wanted to see where this thing could go, if it could gain traction," he said. "I said, 'I sure hope it comes to my city!' "
He saw it on cable-TV, eh? And he makes only $9K per year. Seems like a common refrain. Now, look what Bunch waits to the very end to deliver, too:
Not surprisingly, there are complicating factors. Caldwell, a graduate of Bishop McDevitt High School, in Montgomery County, who's worked a variety of jobs while seeking a Harcum College associate degree, has fathered eight children, two of whom live with him. He concedes to some "immature decisions, but I don't regret any of my children." He said he sees all of them every week, while he decides whether to pay for a son's football trip or instead for bunk beds for three girls who now must sleep together.
I mean, really? REALLY?? These are the best examples guys like Bunch can discover to make the public sympathetic to these folks? And Sean, I got news for you, brah: $15/hour still ain't gonna be enough to support eight kids. Cripes, what was I thinking, twenty years ago, when I meticulously planned out how I could be the sole breadwinner for five years so my wife could stay home with our [one] newborn, eh? Doing the complete opposite would have garnered me the sympathies of guys like Will Bunch! And maybe a "heart-wrenching" news article! (Cheeyeah, right -- I'd be beyond mortified to have such an article written about me given that most-probably-purposely-left-'till-the-end revelation.)
The best thing about this is, the article comments, thankfully, reflect reality, not Bunch's limousine "progressive" theoretical utopian vision. Kudos to Philly.com for allowing such.
'Ya gotta [sadly] laugh at how the AP frames this story (my emphasis):
WASHINGTON (AP) — Calling their opponents Satan worshippers and savages, anti-abortion lawmakers on Wednesday insisted that Republican contenders keep an intense focus on social issues in the upcoming midterm elections and the 2016 presidential race.
Wow. That's harsh, huh? But then later on in the article we read this:
Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican who is a favorite of the tea party, said supporters of abortion rights chant “Hail, Satan” to silence their enemies. …
“Arm-in-arm, chanting ‘Hail, Satan,’ embracing the right to take the life of a late-term child,” Cruz said of supporters of abortion rights.
He was referencing protests in Austin, Texas, last year over an abortion bill. While anti-abortion activists were giving speeches and singing “Amazing Grace,” others tried to drown them out with chants.
The Washington Free Beacon (link above) notes that the AP didn't even bother to find out if Cruz's claims were true (they were), which a simple Google search would have shown in a matter of seconds. There were also "great parenting examples" like this:
Yep, the little girl on the left is holding a placard that reads ”If I Wanted the Government In My Womb I Would F*** A Senator!”
The AP later amended their story, but it was possibly even more ridiculous than the original.
So says writer Geoff Johns. Johns is the guy whose "Forever Evil" story arc in DC Comics features ... Superman arch-nemesis Lex Luthor joining the Justice League. This is the Lex Luthor who in contemporary comics does this sort of stuff:
But "evil is very relative."
Does anyone recall DC's (or Marvel's) "old fashioned" real heroes ever doing anything like that? I don't. Hell, if anything, the heroes were constantly grappling over the morality of actually following through and executing heinous villains -- villains that clearly deserved it. Just look at the classic DC Kingdom Come, for example, where Superman has taken the homicidal Joker into custody after a murder spree. Suddenly, one of the "new breed" of heroes, Magog, shows up and blasts the Joker to ashes for his crimes, right in front of the Man of Steel (see below). Magog's popularity skyrockets as a result of what he did, while Superman's approval rating plummets. Much of Kingdom tussles with the "appropriate measures" taken by the costumed vigilantes known as superheroes.
In the pages of the X-Men for the longest time the same debate took place. Storm, for one, refused to kill anything, even the savagely brutal Alien-esque Brood. Not to mention, the team perpetually struggled to keep the killing instincts of Wolverine in check. But this premise has long since gone out of date.
But, the above is what's actually a legitimate debate about the nature of "evil" and what to do about it, not declaring that "evil is very relative" and then showing one of your most vicious villains casually murdering people, followed by ... turning him into a "hero." It's also laughable how creators like Johns view evil as being "very relative," yet before Barack Obama's reign as president the nature of "evil" seemed quite clear to them:
Indeed. Evil wasn't "very relative" between 2000 and 2008. It was quite clear. Hell, Batman couldn't even go after al Qaeda -- AL QAEDA!! -- without there being a politically correct controversy, and when the creator of the tale, Frank Miller, morphed the story into one featuring a generic hero, he still got a ton of flak for it from "progressives."
Evil is "very relative." Unless a Republican sits in the White House.
Evil is "very relative." So relative so that one of the most popular superheroes ever cannot even go after the world's premiere terror organization, the one responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans.
Evil is "very relative." So much so that the current president gets comicbook "fist bumps," superhero endorsements, and numerous comicbook covers ... even though his lawlessness while in office equals and even surpasses that of his predecessor. That which these same creators didn't think were "very relative."
Guys like Geoff Johns are beyond boring already. The only thing "relative" to him and his comicbook cadre is how their stories will portray the political philosophy and party you agree/disagree with.
(Thanks to Nate for the tip to the original article.)
Just saw this advertised on the tube. Produced by Robert Redford and narrated by Susan Sarandon? Gee, what ever would the political bent be??
Unsurprisingly, a search of their site did not produce any results of how they opined about Miguel Estrada, who I asked about yesterday.
The NJ's anti-Coons article is here.
MOST RELATED: The Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers ain't very happy at Mr. Coons, either. Here's Delaware Douche, that wisher of death upon all Republicans: "Yeah, you can go fuck yourself, Senator Coons."
Lovely, eh? Here's more:
I am ashamed to have voted for you. I regret ever shaking your hand. We Delawareans desperately need to replace you in the Senate, for you do not possess the skill, principle or fortitude for the job.
cassandra says, "I’m done with the guy. If anything because he completely refuses to represent me — At All." Awww, I'm sure he's all broken up, sweetheart.
El Somnambulo, in his rage, laughingly states "He now has a constituency of one. Maureen Faulkner." Except for the other 75% of the public, I guess. El Som is a lot like Pauline Kael. No surprise there, really; "progressives" are typically like that.
stan merriman adds "So much for me celebrating that I was finally a voter in a Blue state. What dark place did this guy crawl out of?" Cheeyeah -- except for the fact that both senators, representative, governor, and both state chambers being controlled by Democrats, Delaware is a red state.
Geezer chimes in with "The only thing to do here is to direct the anger of the black community at Chris Coons, and hope we can find a non-white-male Democrat to challenge him." Yeah, like I'm sure he advocated "channeling Hispanic anger" at the Democrats who shot down the aforementioned Miguel Estrada.
Missing from the analysis: The constant race (and gender)-based attacks on 'em. Funny how this wasn't thought of.
Via Jim Geraghty's e-mailed "Morning Jolt":
Meanwhile, Charles Krauthammer says Boss Obama is "living in a fantasy world," and John McCain says President Lemon's foreign policy is "feckless." But George Will grants that there's little Obama could have done about Ukraine.
Here's the ever-smug douchebag Chris Matthews chiding Mitt Romney on calling Russia "our number one geopolitical foe" during the 2012 campaign:
That aside, I wonder how Mitt would handle the "uncontested arrival" of Russian troops in Ukraine.
Via Chicks on the Right: Liam Neeson's new flick Non-Stop features villains all-too typical by contemporary "progressive" standards ...
SPOILER ALERT!! See spoilers "below the fold" ...
...the villain is not a hijacker but a terrorist -- someone who wants to murder everyone on the plane to further a political goal.
The terrorist is a 9/11 family member. Yes, you read that right; the terrorist is a 9/11 family-member who lost a loved-one in the World Trade Center on that terrible September morning.
It gets worse…
After 9/11, this 9/11 family member-turned-terrorist then joined the military but found himself disillusioned by the pointless wars.
The 9/11 family member-turned-terrorist is upset because America hasn’t done enough to ensure there will never be another 9/11. And so he figures that if he can get an air marshal blamed for a terrorist attack, America will wake up and anally probe us before we're allowed on a plane, or something.
It gets worse…
The villain's sidekick is a member of the American military willing to murder 150 innocent people for a payday.
It gets worse…
The one passenger on the plane who is forever helpful, kind, reasonable, noble, and never under suspicion is a Muslim doctor dressed in traditional Muslim garb including a full beard.
Of course! But I especially like how the villain was disillusioned by the "pointless wars," but at the same time is pissed off that the US "hasn't done enough" to thwart another 9/11. That's some logic gold, there, eh?
Great job, robin brown (yes, that's how she spells her name, in lower case; she must think she's the next e.e. cummings). You really did some terrific reporting on Harry Belafonte's appearance at the University of Delaware and didn't write a single word about how ridiculously radical this guy has become:
"If you believe in freedom, if you believe in justice, if you believe in democracy," Belafonte once said, "you have no choice but to support Fidel Castro!"
Also in the eighties, Belafonte praised Soviet “peace efforts” around the world. Speaking in October 1983 at a "World Peace Concert" run by East Germany's official Communist youth organization, Belafonte gave his blessings to the Soviet-sponsored "peace" campaign pushing unilateral Western disarmament -- at a time when the USSR was deploying SS-20 missiles in East Germany.
In June 2000 Belafonte was a featured speaker at a rally in Castro's Cuba, honoring the American Soviet spies Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. He lauded Cuba's efforts to "kee[p] the principles the Rosenbergs fought and died for alive."
Belafonte is also now known for his denigration of other African-Americans if they have the gall to be Republicans and/or work for GOP administrations, using the most offensive terminology possible. And the attacks of September 11, 2001? America's fault, natch.
Maybe Robin (oops, excuse me, robin) can ask Mr. Belafonte the next time he's in town how black Americans would fare under a system like Casto's Cuba.
On second thought ...
So let's see -- two of the most prominent GOP candidates for the presidency in 2016, New Jersey's Chris Christie and Wisconsin's Scott Walker, just happened to have scandals erupt ... even as Boss Obama's poll numbers continue to plummet. As you know, Christie is dealing with "Bridgegate," whereas Walker is now dealing with a campaign finance matter. Naturally, the mainstream media is (and was, in Christie's case) is frothing at the mouth. As if this is really a surprise, right?
Now, just compare Christie and the whole bridge imbroglio to Boss Obama and the IRS scandal. Which do you think is a more important matter? Then compare Walker's investigation to that (if there even was one) of Boss Obama's 2008 presidential campaign's failure to enact proper security measures for online contributions, which included being able to verify the identities of donors. The MSM's response then? One big collective yawn.
The right-leaning (and many independent) American public is really growing quite weary of this media nonsense. Christie's favorability among conservatives has risen in the wake of Bridgegate, largely as a result of MSM overkill. If the Walker matter proceeds as Bridgegate did, expect same from the GOP and conservatives there, too. Anyone recall how Newt Gingrich rocketed up the standings in 2012's GOP primary?
AAAAAAND, in the wake of all the above, Boss Obama's FCC wants to have a "representative" "monitor" newsrooms and radio stations for "appropriate content":
Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.
The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”
If this doesn't chill you to the bone, then you're a complete moron. (The FCC has said they'll "re-evaluate" the program after its existence was leaked. Right.) I'd be saying the same exact thing if George W. Bush was in office right now. The difference with that, however, is that the mainstream press would be screaming about it ad nauseam too. But since liberal Democrat Barack Obama is doing it, again, there's a big collective MSM yawn and only the right-leaning press is covering it. At least as long as they're able to continue covering it if these Obama "monitors" begin showing up in newsrooms!
The U.S. currently ranks 46th in press freedom. It has dropped thirteen places in the latest rankings. Does anyone recall the media fracas when Robert Novak printed the name of Valerie Plame in 2003? "How dare a member of the GW Bush administration commit such a leak which could have repercussions to our intelligence community!" we were lectured. The coverage and punditry on the case was endless. Fast forward to today: The feds seize phone records and snoop on the emails of Fox News reporter James Rosen. CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson's computer is mysteriously hacked. The feds also spy on Associated Press phone records. Where is the continuing coverage of this?? Why does the mainstream press appear to give less than two hoots??
The president of Venezuela has threatened to boot CNN from his country for doing some actual reporting on the current goings-on there; how is what Boss Obama is planning all that different with regards to his FCC move, not to mention his and his acolytes' continual war on Fox News and talk radio as "all lies" and "not real news?" The reason the US isn't worse than #46 on press freedom (when there's a liberal Democrat in the White House) is because of Fox News and talk radio. And more and more, right-leaning Internet media.
This is another perfect example of what I meant when I wrote that "progressives" view their domestic political opponents as worse than actual threats like al Qaeda.
CBS News's John Dickerson says "Let's all agree to not talk about Monica Lewinsky for at least two years." He notes, too, that bringing Lewinsky up "diminishes you in the process." As Insty says, "Hmm. Nobody minded talking about Mitt Romney’s much more distant past."
Insty also notes that Lewinsky is most relevant in the age of "progressives" screaming about conservatives' so-called "War on Women." If these hypocrites are really concerned about this "war," then Bill Clinton's treatment of not only Lewinsky, but Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones -- and Hillary's own campaign against these women -- are more than fair game. In addition, based on the media's past actions, anything in Hillary's past is up for scrutiny: Whitewater, the travel office firings, and her conduct during the Watergate investigations/hearings. Again, if Mitt Romney's past from high school and his 1980's business dealings were legitimate, as were George W. Bush's National Guard Service, anything related to Sarah Palin, and, to be complete, John Kerry's military background, then any protestations by [liberal] media members (like Dickerson above) should be laughed at.
Idiot WaPo sports writer: Sochi "is whiter than an episode of 'Downton Abbey.'”
Over at Bleeding Cool, Brad Faye wants you to contribute to his effort to publish One Nation: Out of Darkness. Here's his tale of the story's origins:
It was around the time that I began to shape this character that I also began to learn more and more about the Islamic religion, and how much the truth conflicted with the ideas I’d conceived following the events of 9/11. As a New York native who was living in Arizona the day of the attacks, I can vividly recall the scare my family went through while making sure our loved ones were safe, and I remember how that fear was quickly replaced by anger. Instead of asking what would lead somebody to do something so heinous, or rather than researching Islam myself, I took the easy road and demanded revenge against those who had the gall to attack us on American soil. And since the terrorists who had physically conducted the attacks were already dead, all I could do was root for vengeance against those who were still among the living. Not helping matters much was that the very first thing I remember seeing after turning on my television that morning was footage of people in Palestine celebrating the attacks. This footage – which came to me courtesy of FOX News – gave me the embodiment to which I could channel my anger and aggression – the Middle East and its dominant religion of Islam. In a very short time, I was drinking the USA Kool-Aid and felt anger towards anyone who wasn’t.
He goes on to say that, years later, he can only "shake his head" at his "ignorance," and is "thankful" for the "enlightenment" that he eventually discovered. Got it.
Let's consider Faye's statement above. Did his enlightenment lead to him to understand that there is no "understanding" people like Osama bin Laden? If we gave in to "what led" bin Laden's purported reasons were for his attacks, then we'd all be living under Sharia law, and Israel wouldn't exist. Next, what is wrong about seeking vengeance among the living? Faye's nebulousness can lead to believe he (and other Americans) desired to kill any Muslims following 9/11; that is just plain silly, of course, and there is (was) absolutely nothing wrong with counter-attacking al Qaeda and Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan ... which is precisely what we did.
In addition, Faye shows himself to be the usual "progressive" blowhard by intimating that those Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9/11 was a fiction created by that dastardly Fox News. This is patently ridiculous and utterly false (as someone thankfully pointed out in the comments section). Did Faye's "research" about Muslim reaction to the attacks include anything like these? Or how about this poll which shows that a majority of Muslim nations do not believe Muslims were responsible for 9/11? And did Faye know that it isn't Muslims who face the greatest threat of violence due to their religion/beliefs in the US, it is Jews? It appears Faye is still drinking the Kool-Aid; he's just switched flavors.
Lastly, this yarn is about a female Muslim teenager? Hasn't Faye checked out one of Marvel's latest??
MSNBC resident microcephalic Chris Matthews yesterday: "Let me finish tonight with something that's been bothering me. Why do people hate this president so much?"
*Sigh* Of course, it's not hate. It is, as with anything else political, a disagreement and if anything else, a dislike. Ignore Matthews' absolutely false narrative as to why people (mostly GOPers and conservatives) "hate" Boss Obama; here's the real scoop (as if any loyal Colossus readers really need this, eh?) including many recent occurrences/revelations:
Make no mistake -- this is a "f*** you" appointment by Boss Obama. And if confirmed, you can bet Adegbile will try to do still more about Abu-Jamal. Is a Boss Obama pardon for the cop killer in the works? Why not? It'd just be one more middle finger he's given the American people.
The list could go on and on, natch. Benghazi. Fast and Furious. Unilaterally altering laws. And Matthews knows -- KNOWS -- if Obama was a Republican he's be in grave danger of impeachment about now.
Boss Obama lashes out at Fox News during O'Reilly interview. He blamed the network for promoting the notion that he didn't call the Benghazi attacks "terrorism," and for clamoring about the IRS scandal: "These kinds of things keep on surfacing in part because you and your TV station will promote them," President Lemon said.
Correction, Mr. President: Fox News mentions them because they're doing the job the rest of your lapdog media won't do.
Tighten your colon, folks, 'cuz this one's gonna make you physically ill:
Obama's ending on Remsburg wasn't just a story about America -- it also was a story about Obama. Nothing has ever come easy— Mark Murray (@mmurraypolitics) January 29, 2014
Murray is NBC's political director. Remsburg is the ten-times deployed soldier who Boss Obama highlighted near the end of his State of the Union address the other night.
Check it: Murray is actually comparing Remsburg's struggles -- he was left for dead in a ditch in Afghanistan and has had numerous operations to give him back some semblance of a normal life -- to Obama's. HE IS COMPARING REMSBURG'S STRUGGLES ... TO OBAMA'S. The political director of NBC News, folks.
God help us all.
ABC's Brian Ross reportedly scouring said journal for anything remotely Tea Party related.
... if you're on the other side, the MSM will cover it (negatively, natch):
A billionaire and Silicon Valley pioneer, Tom Perkins, warned of a "dangerous drift" in American thinking from the left in a letter to the Wall Street Journal.
Perkins writes, "I would call attention to the parallels of fascist Nazi Germany, to its war on its one percent, namely its Jews, to the progressive war on the American one percent, namely the rich."
CBS News contributor and analyst Mellody Hobson told the “CBS This Morning” co-hosts that this is not the first time something like this has happened and it is “completely inappropriate.”
Well sure it is, Ms. Hobson; however, where the hell are you and your fellow MSM contributors/analysts when "progressives" make similar inane comparisons, hmm??
Cry me a river.
Even while acknowledging that the IDs are generally issued by states for free, Sharpton cited Attorney General Eric Holder and Georgia Democratic Rep. John Lewis in complaining that simply having to travel to obtain the free ID amounts to a tax.
We've been through this sort of bullsh** before. WTF is next -- a stamp on an envelope to get a voter registration form is a "poll tax?" Why yes, as a matter of fact according to Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings. Unfortunately for both Hastings and Sharpton, even the left-leaning PolitiFact (see last link) rates as "mostly false" that voter ID laws amount to a poll tax.
Elsewhere, race-obsessed Attorney General Eric Holder spoke out (again) against voter ID laws. “They’ve come up with a remedy in search of a problem,” Holder told MSNBC on Friday. “I think it is being used in too many instances to depress the vote of particular groups of people ..." He also said that in a "vacuum" he would support such laws ... Cheeyeah, sort of like he would support school disciplinary measures "in a vacuum," eh? Puh-lease.
-- New York City's new [communist] mayor, Bill De Blasio, agrees with the recent "F*** you, Righties" sentiments of New York Governor Andy Cuomo. Is that surprising??
-- Did I mention Eric Holder already? Well, he is sticking by his "nation of cowards when it comes to race" comment from 2009. “Certain subjects are off-limits and that to explore them risks at best embarrassment, and at worst, the questioning of one’s character,” he said. He's certainly right about that -- but not in the way he thinks.
-- The MSM keeps George Zimmerman in the news, this time because George -- gasp!! -- did a painting based on an AP photograph. The photog is threatening to sue Zimmerman. This is big news, folks.
-- Lastly, io9 has a list of Marvel comics the company probably wish they'd never had published. Included are "winners" we've covered previously like U.S. 1 and NFL Superpro.
Via CBS News.com:
Does anyone actually believe this is just a coincidence? Anyone? I'm sure these are, too:
Dare I ask if all this occurred to "progressives"/"progressive" groups during a Republican administration?
UPDATE: Regarding D'Souza, anyone recall what the Boss Obama campaign did in 2008? Namely, accepting untraceable credit card donations where the donor's ID could not be determined, and choosing not to utilize basic Internet security measures to prevent "potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts"?
I do. I also recall no one being indicted or arrested for it, too.
I would ask "Is it me?" but I know it's not. Becoming ever-more commonplace is "progressives'" predilection for outright invoking pure fantasy in place of actual fact. Months ago (and perhaps still) the most egregious example was Boss Obama's oft-repeated LIE that "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." You all (meaning, rational, clear-thinking folk) then saw how quickly the "progressive" minions took to media to defend -- defend -- this complete falsehood. It was hysterical ... and pathetically sad.
More recently, now-Texas gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis (most "famous" for last year standing up against that state's proposed more restrictive abortion law) has been caught red-handedly LYING about her past, and her supposed "hardships." Among these are how she was a "struggling" single mom who picked herself up by her bra-straps and made it to Harvard Law School. Except ... the FACTS say otherwise. She essentially married a "sugar daddy" who paid for her schooling, and whom she promptly divorced as soon as she got her degree. And this ex got custody of their (and Davis' from a previous marriage)
children child (the other child was already an adult).
But does Davis acknowledge any of this? Aside from a very lame "my language could have been 'tighter,'" absolutely not. In fact, she's doubling down against people bringing this up, calling it a "personal attack" and bringing up the ridiculously tiresome "war on women." But worst of all, she blamed her opponent for much of the attacks, and stated that challenger Greg Abbott "hasn’t walked a day in my shoes." Aside from the FACT that this implies that FALSE hardship Davis "experienced," it's insanely insulting since ... Abbott has been in a wheelchair for 30 years.
Good luck, sweetie.
Elsewhere in the Empire State, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is pulling a Davis-esque maneuver in blaming everyone else for his own stupidity. But mainly that dastardly New York Post because it called the gov out on his ridiculous lingo when he said that "extreme" conservatives (what conservative isn't, really, to a "progressive?") "have no place in the state of New York." To him personally, "extreme" apparently means "right-to-life (against abortion), pro-assault-weapon (believe in 2nd Amendment), [and] anti-gay (believe in traditional marriage)." I can give Andy some leeway on that last one as there surely are "extreme" rightists who detest gay Americans, and maybe that is indeed what he meant. But I doubt it, given the other two on his list. I mean, really -- "pro-assault weapon" is just silly. "Progressives" believe any gun is an "assault weapon." There are so many examples of these idiots getting the definition wrong you can't keep count. But worst of all -- being pro-life is "extreme??" So much so that you shouldn't step one foot in Andy's state?
Cuomo said this. Instead of issuing a statement saying something like "he didn't mean it as it came out," his office hits back with FALSEHOODS: that original NY Post article author "Fred Dicker is an extreme conservative." That "Fred Dicker(!!) has angered many with what has been reported as 'hateful' comments." That the gov meant "New York is a politically moderate state and an extremist agenda is not politically viable statewide." And most hilariously of all, a plea to "Let's discuss relevant issues rationally."
(Democrats and other "progressives" would like to remind you, also, at this time: "CHRIS CHRISTIE!!!")
I sure hope the GOP (and others) are taking notes and paying close attention. In fact, if I were running for office I'd openly mock these two lemons and others -- and the liberal press -- by making a statement, and then immediately claiming I didn't say what I said. And then I'd get angry at any reporter for claiming I did say what I said. And then I'd issue a press release clamoring for "civility" and "rational discussion."
"Rescuers have freed a man who had been stuck for hours in a pipe at a water treatment plant in New Jersey." The dude's name is Asef Mohamed. So, naturally, the report adds this: "United Water officials said they have no idea why Mohamed did it."
No. Idea. Not one clue. Not even a guess.
But of course. I mean, we can't upset that idiot Eric Holder now, can we?
... there's this:
When MSNBC boasts that it is the "progressive" network, it's really more like the "radical deconstructivist" network. I mean, this sh** is out there, people. As The Right Scoop notes,
So Wagner thinks that our laws should create gender parity in Congress. I wonder what those laws would be. Would she have men barred from running for Senate in a state that already has a male Senator? What about in congressional districts? What about people who run unopposed?
Or perhaps she’d rather have the laws create parity after the election. Once we see who got elected we just, what, have a committee pick gender appropriate replacements for the "incorrectly" elected?
Congress, MSNBC, isn’t about parity. It’s about representation. And that representation isn’t determined by demographic percentages, much as you would prefer it. It’s determined by the represented. That’s kind of a founding principle of our entire system of government so, you know, sort of a big deal.
Truly amazing this even had to be said.
This should come as little surprise, nor should the paper's lies:
For example, African-American students represent only 15 percent of public school students, but they make of 35 percent of students suspended once, 44 percent of those suspended more than once and 36 percent of those expelled. Statistical information does not in itself prove discrimination. But research has shown that black students do not engage in more serious or more frequent misbehavior than other students.
Just don't ask they Times about that research. Because it's nonsense. As a former Education Dept. lawyer rebuts:
The Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Armstrong (1996) that there is no legal “presumption that people of all races commit all types of crimes” at the same rate, since that is “contradicted by” real world data. For example, blacks, who are only 13% of America’s population, commit nearly half of all murders — four times the general rate.
[As] Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute has noted, black teenagers are 25 times as likely to get arrested in Chicago as whites, and the black homicide rate for teenagers is 10 times higher nationally than for whites.
Yet, incredibly, the Education Departments treats that false presumption as fact, and insists that there is no evidence of “more frequent” misbehavior by some groups, and that ”research suggests that the substantial racial disparities of the kind reflected in the CRDC data are not explained by more frequent or more serious misbehavior by students of color.”
And check out where the Times says that there are "two kinds of discrimination": "... and cases where policies — like mandatory suspension, expulsion or ticketing — are administered in a race-neutral manner but have a disproportionate and unjustified effect on students of a particular race." This is pure Orwellian nonsense at its finest. How is it "discrimination" when the policies are administered in a RACE-NEUTRAL MANNER?? How, and on what basis, is this "unjustified?"
As previously noted, two US Supreme Courts cases -- United States v. Armstrong and People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education -- have established that what the Dept. of Education plans on doing in our schools is clearly unconstitutional.
There's a lot more here.
RELATED: The Wilmington (DE) News Journal agrees with the Times ("The statistics are on [the Obama administration's] side. Minority students and students with disabilities suffer more and greater discipline for transgressions than white students do. It is happening across the country, but a handful of states standout. Unfortunately, Delaware is one of them."); however, they offer this common sense caveat:
The trouble with the Holder-Duncan order is that the federal data is incomplete and the policy offers schools little help in fixing the problem. We are afraid it will merely create another federal mandate to fill out more paperwork merely for the sake of filling an in-basket in Washington.
In addition, as we noted in our last post, the Journal recognizes the Catch-22 schools are in:
Only a few years ago, after the shootings at Columbine and again at Newtown, Conn., the public – and elected officials – demanded armed guards in schools and zero tolerance policies for transgressions. Now the complaint is that the guards are leading to more arrests and zero tolerance policies are mindless bureaucratic traps. The schools will be criticized no matter which way they turn.
Indeed. What this is, folks, is an edict for outright denial of reality. The feds are mandating that teachers and administrators live in the Land of Make Believe.
ALSO RELATED: Linda Chavez tears apart this nonsense.
Meet the Press's David Gregory tweets about NJ Gov. Chris Christie:
Wow, not only is this silly because of having to prove the proverbial negative, even more telling is ... where the f*** was Gregory with this sort of question with Boss Obama and, say, the freakin' IRS scandal??
The Boss Obama administration, which "won't tell Congress what resources it is devoting to the IRS probe" ... and "has also doubled down by expanding the political vetting of 501(c)(4) groups seeking tax-exempt status," wasted not a second in "leak[ing] to the media that the U.S. Attorney is investigating the [New Jersey] lane closures as a criminal matter." That's the scandal currently enveloping NJ Gov. Chris Christie.
The mainstream media has the sort of scandal it always desires -- one involving a high profile Republican. There's already been a ton more MSM coverage of Christie's issues than the last six months of the IRS matter. Yet, as the Wall Street Journal notes, "compared to using the IRS against political opponents during an election campaign, closing traffic lanes for four days is jaywalking." (For good measure, take a gander: There's CNN idiot Piers Morgan comparing "Trafficgate" to ... Richard Nixon and the original "gate" -- Watergate.)
The media -- which for seven years made George W. Bush's "transgressions" against the Constitution (Gitmo, "enhanced interrogation," NSA spying, black sites, etc.) appear to be evil incarnate, has said nary a word in the last five years about Boss Obama's continuation -- and expansion -- of same. That, along with the other abuses of power like the IRS targeting, changing ObumbleCare unilaterally, and lying for several years about it. Keep all this in mind the next time a Republican is in the White House: The current Chris Christie scandal is what we're in for. Boss Obama and his acolytes are so brazen these days (thanks to the complicit MSM) that instances like these -- where the Democrat Party chairperson says with a straight face that Christie's political scandal is worse than Boss Obama's scandals -- aren't guffawed at as they should be.
Remember: To the media and the Boss Obama LIV crowd, when a "progressive" like President Lemon is in charge, it matters NOT what they do. He MEANS well. Anything he does, no matter how outrageous, illegal, or scandalous, comes without consequences. Because, again, he's "GOOD." Republicans are, as noted previously, evil incarnate. Anything they do has malevolent intent.
By now you've probably heard about the [potential] scandal surrounding New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. If you haven't, you really haven't been paying attention:
From CBS News.com's main page this morning:
From ABC News.com's main page this morning:
From NBC News.com's main page this morning:
From CNN.com's main page this morning:
You can add to this mix MSNBC's (surprise, that) "Morning Joe," ("This Could ‘Kill’ Him Being GOP Nominee") and the Washington Post ("Bridge Scandal Engulfing Christie"). And check it -- There's already 17 times more coverage on Christie scandal than in last six months of the IRS scandal. SEVENTEEN TIMES!
Now, we're not saying that this matter should not be covered. Not by any means. What we are saying is ... the guy in the White House didn't get these sort of headlines (or nightly news lead-offs like NBC's last evening) when the Benghazi situation exploded, or especially when the IRS scandal and bungled ObumbleCare rollout unfolded. If he did, they were often defensive and included phrases like "the GOP alleges ..." To make the point, just take a gander at what the LA Times' Doyle McManus wrote about Boss Obama, for instance:
For many presidents — Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton — this was the point when the scandals took over. President Obama has run into his share of controversies, but none that quite reached scandalhood. (Does anyone even remember the IRS flap?)
If not, Doyle, we have only people like yourself to blame, idiot.
I'm not a very big fan of Chris Christie; I happen to think this whole "traffic study" nonsense is just that: hooey. However, unlike President Lemon, the dude held a two hour press conference and answered every question put his way. And -- he actually fired some people. And sorry, this state matter is small peanuts compared to using the country's own secret police -- the IRS -- to intimidate and punish people, not to mention constantly lying about your major policy initiative which alters one-sixth of the economy and screws people out of their health insurance.
... and the LA Times never once uses the term "illegal." In fact, its headline merely says “California court grants law license to Mexican immigrant.” Like, so what if that's all there is to it?
Hey, it's certainly a debatable matter about this guy's case, being that he was brought to the US as a year and a half-old boy. But the Times doesn't want you to debate the matter. It's wants you to accept its point of view, which, natch, is all in favor of this guy getting his law license.
Via Douglas Ernst: Filmmaker Kevin Smith is going to demonstrate how ... "brave" of a guy he is with his next endeavor: A movie titled Helena Handbag, about "mankind teaming up with Hell to fight a rapturing giant Jesus."
Gee, how "edgy!" How "courageous!" How "daring!"
As Doug says,
If Kevin Smith wants a movie that no one else would make, perhaps he could write a film that pits Giant Muhammed against Mothra. Giant Muhammed could also have a harem of topless women the size of The Sacred Mosque Al-Masjid Al-Haram. But Smith won’t go there because it’s easier to needle Christians with “Christzilla” than it is to make a film that lands on the radar of the world’s nuttiest Islamic clerics. Just ask Mark Basseley Youssef (formerly Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the director of “Innocence of Muslims.” He’s the guy the Obama administration couldn’t act fast enough to pull out of his home for a perp walk. Crime? Daring to criticize Islam.
Not to mention, there's the little tidbit about being scared shitless. Just ask MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell about that: In a rare moment of complete honesty, Crazy Larry admitted that "I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I'm afraid for my life if I do." When asked about, say, Mormons, O'D responded, "They'll never take a shot at me. Those other people (Muslims), I'm not going to say a word about them."
The ever-indignant Furious D has more. Which certainly makes sense since his Offend-Bore Matrix comes into play here. The OBM says
The use of insulting portrayals of politically correct targets to give a project more appeal to critics and within Hollywood, but fails to sell tickets because it offends a large swathe of the audience while boring the rest.
So he makes films like Red State, a horror film about Hollywood's irrational fear of "psycho American Christians" inspired by America's craziest pseudo-Christian religious cult the Westboro Baptist Church which consists of 1 large family and approximately 5 other people, who haven't actually done any physical violence. In fact, all the Westboro dicks seem good at is attracting attention for being obnoxious.
It got him some attention, but the film wasn't the noble disaster he needed to bow out. So why not ... follow that up with an apocalyptic comedy about battling Jesus.
Indeed. And that's precisely the Offend-Bore Matrix -- it'll give more "cred" to Smith in the comfy bubble of Hollywood, but he won't make squat at the box office. And, Smith won't have a damn thing to worry about safety-wise, despite the "message" of flicks like Red State.
Surprise: 98% of Reports on the Ice-Bound Antarctic Expedition Fail to Mention They Were Researching "Global Warming"
"Comedienne" Natasha Leggero, appearing with Carson Daly during part of NBC's New Year's celebration, made a "joke" about Pearl Harbor survivors "gumming" their food now: "... it sucks that the only survivors of Pearl Harbor are being mocked by the only food they can still chew. It's just sad."
Wow. This, coupled with sister station MSNBC's mocking of Mitt Romney's adopted black grandchild, and the network is starting off the new year as the epitome of class. But to those living in the comfortable bubble of everyone-agrees-with-me "progressivism," such brazen insensitivity and offensiveness is to be completely overlooked and/or ignored. For example, here's what Superior Spider-Man writer Dan "Setting the Record Straight" Slott "humorously" tweeted last night:
Sorry. Just got a memo from Fox News. It's "Merry New Year." Or you're declaring a war on New Year's Eve.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) January 1, 2014
Yeah, because, while using a hyperbolic term like "war" is a little over the top, highlighting inane instances that happen every year across the country where (typically) a few local school officials ridiculously overreact to the federal holiday of Christmas (usually in the name of the "progressive" religion of "diversity/tolerance") is, well, stupid.
If Slott somehow sees/hear about this post, he'll most likely stick to form as he did here and clamor that he is balanced, has conservative friends, yada yada yada. But he's already on record stating that Fox "has no equal when it comes to sleaze." Let's see: Using the term "War" on Christmas vs. mocking an adopted black grandchild, and Pearl Harbor veterans having to gum their food now. In Slott-world, the former has "no equal" in the sleaze dept.
It seems the new year certainly won't change the stupidity and knee-slapping hypocrisy of many contemporary comicbook folk and NBC talking heads.
Well, not really. Remember two things: 1) It's perfectly OK for "progressives" to laugh, mock and giggle at stuff like this, and 2) Republicans/conservatives no matter what will never "win" on racial matters. Anyone remember Mitt Romney's protested sojourn to downtown Philly in 2012? To coin a cliché, "Damned if you, damned if you don't." Mitt was welcome in Philly -- as long as he agreed with "progressive" Democrats there. Yeesh, if there ever was a pattern ...
Giggling all the way, we heard
“Any captions for this one?” Harris-Perry asked her panel.
“One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn’t the same,” sang panelist Pia Glenn, adding, “And that little baby, front and center, would be the one.”
Comedian Dean Obeidallah told Harris-Perry that he thought the photo was “great” and that “it really sums up the diversity of the Republican party, the RNC. At the convention, they find the one black person.”
Hilariously, at vid's end, Harris-Perry tells us to stay tuned for the segment "Hey! Was that Racist?" ... apparently never grasping the irony.
UPDATE: "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn’t the same": Here's a pic of Harris-Perry with her parents. She says, “I’ve never thought of myself as biracial. I’m black.” Of course.
Appearing on Morning Joe, Dr. Nancy Snyderman, NBC's chief medical editor, declared that there should be "a single-payer system" of health care. That is the left's preferred solution, but brings with it a host of problems, as the Heritage Foundation has detailed. For good measure, Snyderman said that she "made" her young-adult children sign up for Obamacare as their "patriotic duty."
Ah hell, at this point, why the f*** not, right?
... from the left:
Returning from an early morning gym visit at nearby Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Obama's motorcade passed a few dozen protesters holding signs with slogans including "Drones: Unethical and Illegal," "U.S. Bases Out" and "Close Guantanamo Now." Others expressed their opposition to genetically modified foods.
Others protested the "Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact being negotiated between the United States and several Asian and South American countries," and as you can see in the picture atop the article, there were pickets saying "Help Gaza" and "Stop Israeli Holocaust in Palestine."
Interestingly, not a chirp about ObumbleCare. Maybe it's 'cause those folks are busy working their asses off in anticipation of the dropped coverage and/or skyrocketing costs.
Phil Robertson should look African American and gay people in the eyes and hear about the hurtful impact of praising Jim Crow laws and comparing gay people to terrorists. If dialogue with Phil is not part of next steps then A&E has chosen profits over African American and gay people – especially its employees and viewers.
You can read the entire GQ interview with Robertson here. His supposed "praising" of Jim Crow laws is on page one, and the "comparison" of gays to terrorists is on page two.
As I've said in the past, I've never seen this show (and don't plan on watching it) but I do believe the network had every right to do what it wanted regarding Robertson. They axed him ... and then they brought him back. I totally understand how certain groups would get offended by some of his remarks; of course, the issue beyond the remarks is the media interpretation -- and coverage -- of such. As we well know, only remarks made (or actions taken) by certain people/groups are socially/culturally impermissible. This is why Robertson was so quick to be dismissed in the first place, while Capital One could have cared less about Alec Baldwin's noxious behavior (and hey -- where was GLAAD then?), not to mention MSNBC regarding myriad instances. Just to note two institutions, natch.
MSNBC's Chris Hayes is miffed -- miffed, I tell you -- that Fox News is supposedly "playing up" incidents of the so-callled "knockout game" because, well, you know: "racism."
OK, done giggling yet? I know, I know ... MSNBC complaining about "racism" is like Hitler complaining about violence. (Yes, I invoked Godwin's Law ... sorta.) Remember, this is the network where one its talking heads somehow thought -- or wanted you to think -- that a Republican lawmaker who once associated Boss Obama with the PGA Tour (because of the amount of time the president plays golf) was actually referencing Tiger Woods and the dreaded "violent, sexually promiscuous black man" stereotype.
Interestingly, back to the knockout game, the feds have brought forth hate crimes charges against ... a white suspect in a "knockout"-style attack. Now, keep in mind that in this case it was a pretty easy decision since the accused, Conrad Barrett, had gone on [video] record saying that he wanted to attempt a "knockout"-style attack “to see if I were to hit a black person, would this be nationally televised?” But, natch, there's only been one other such charge brought against a person in all the other assaults (the victim was a Jewish man), even though in just about every other case the assailants were black and the victims white. The NARRATIVETM, after all!
UPDATE: Mediaite's Tommy Christopher, clearly as mentally defective as the MSNBC dolts, blames -- wait for it! -- Fox News for the "hate crime" knockout attack noted above:
@tommyxtopher too bad all the liberal hate-mongering over Zimmerman caused all those knockouts of white guys, huh? Dick.— MJB Wolf (@mjbwolf) December 27, 2013
The NarrativeTM, after all:
Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.
Hey, I've never watched Duck Dynasty but from what I've seen most people on both sides of the aisle actually agree on the main point: That A&E had every right to ditch Robertson for what they felt was insensitive lingo. There's no First Amendment issue at play here. Many libs have brought up the Dixie Chicks affair -- when they spoke ill (while overseas) of then-President Bush, and subsequently people (and radio stations) were boycotting their concerts and music. It's a very fair point: Conservatives then were saying what "progressives" now are saying regarding Robertson.
Of course, the latter have much more power in the MSM. Whereas the Chicks were portrayed sympathetically after the imbroglio, with Phil Robertson the MSM is doing its level best to keep up the impression that the guy's evil incarnate. Else, why the omission of his words above, right? In addition, it's always fun to consider the moral twists that "progressives" get themselves into over such matters.
UPDATE: It seems the quote in question actually belongs to Pastor Rick Warren, not Robertson. Robertson said something akin to Warren about "not judging, but loving." See the comment section below. Thanks to commenters dan (whom I inadvertently earlier ignored -- sorry, bro) and Tearfang for bringing this to our attention.
Writer Justin Jordan doesn't mince any words:
Yep. I mean, the Exuras thing is a not-particularly-veiled metaphor for the U.S. using up such a disproportionate amount of the world’s resources while much of the world’s population struggles to survive. And honestly, that idea, of the few living in extreme luxury while the rest struggle, is kind of fractal – you can apply the same criticism to the 1% versus the 99% in the U.S.
In a word: YAWN. What an "original" premise: The use of the Green Lantern Corps' rings has been -- wait for it! -- depleting the universe of energy.
First (and it's amazing that this has to be said), using resources is not a zero sum game. Because the US uses a lot doesn't mean others are getting screwed. Second (and it's amazing that this has to be said), I'm in the 99% and I'm not "struggling" so don't presume to speak for me, Mr. Jordan.
Third, this entire idea is a complete retread. Immediately, two examples popped into my head: One, Isaac Asimov's classic The Gods Themselves, and also Star Trek: TNG's episode "Force of Nature." In the former, Earth makes use of an "Electron Pump," a miraculous new source of unlimited energy. The problem is that its use is altering physical laws in our universe, and could cause our sun to go nova. Many in the scientific and political realm do not believe this. Who would, after all? More recently, the TNG seventh (last) season offering seemed to be searching for "relevance," much like Jordan is doing with Lantern. The use of warp drive has been damaging the very fabric of space, and all Federation vessels are ordered not to exceed the speed of warp 5 unless it's an emergency. I'm sure there are quite a few other tales of similar scope.
I know it's futile, but I'm still waiting for the brave comics writer to take on Barack Obama and his scandals and ridiculous abuses of power.
'Ya gotta love the ever-predictable NY Times. They have an article up today about the supposedly new "game" dubbed "Knockout" where solitary victims are cold-cocked into unconsciousness by an individual (who's usually part of a larger group). The uncomfortable fact (for the NY Times and other "progressives") is that the attacks have largely been carried out by young black men.
Now, the article quotes several in law enforcement who caution that "Knockout" may not be an organized effort, nor an "epidemic." Which is certainly the prudent thing to do. However, leave it to the academic to utter the following:
Jeffrey Butts, director of the Research and Evaluation Center at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan, said much of the fear sown by the reports may have racial roots.
“There’s an element to who wants to see this through the lens of race,” he said. “The kids in Jersey probably set off racial alarms.”
In other words, since the attackers are black, only racial (i.e. white) opportunists are making a big deal out of this.
Curiously, I don't recall hearing this sentiment from the unfortunately named Butts and many others when, for example, the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin affair was in the headlines, and we were treated to "alarms" of it being "open season" on black men in America. Do you? The "alarms" are precisely what the MSM trafficked then, as they typically do when the races are in the "correct" attacker-victim position.
Just like our illustrious president whose words are, well, just that, on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy some "real" journalists at those "real" news outlets are doing same: Blathering with a lot of words, but nothing of substance. Case in point: The NY Times and San Francisco Chronicle are taking to blaming ... the Right for the killing of our 35th president. Yep, conservatives. Despite the fact that the killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a Communist.
Here's Joe Garofoli of the Chronicle:
The authors describe how the intense anti-Kennedy atmosphere in Dallas at that time created a "hothouse" where an unstable, malleable loner like assassin Lee Harvey Oswald could germinate.
But historian Michael Lind said it is "nonsense" that the atmosphere in Dallas allowed Oswald to surface.
"His communism had nothing to do with his location. He had just moved to Dallas," said Lind, the co-founder of the New America Foundation and author of "Made in Texas: George W. Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics."
That aside, Lind said, "The radical right has always been there for the last 50 years. It just never had a national presence. Now it does."
See? Oswald's communism was irrelevant. He was just "overcome" by the "radical rightist" atmosphere permeating Dallas at the time. (Lind, by the way, is fairly well known as a revisionist historian. No kidding.)
Likewise, here's the NY Times' Manny Hernandez:
In the early 1960s, a small but vocal subset of the Dallas power structure turned the political climate toxic, inciting a right-wing hysteria that led to attacks on visiting public figures.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marxist and not a product of right-wing Dallas. But because the anti-Kennedy tenor came not so much from radical outcasts but from parts of mainstream Dallas, some say the anger seemed to come with the city’s informal blessing.
Meaning, just like liberal politicians (and the MSM) have done predictably for the last 50+ years, those nasty conservatives "created" an ambiance of hate which "provoked" a guy like Oswald to do what he did. Even though he was a left-wing Marxist. Just like Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were "victims" of guys like Rush Limbaugh, according to Bill Clinton. Like how just about every killer on a rampaging mass shooting can, beyond all reason, be linked to talk radio, Fox News, the Tea Party (this may be the most classic example), and/or the Republican Party. Not to mention there's the race angle, perpetuated by dolts like Chuck Rangel who most recently said that "there’s a Confederate general in every damn [Republican] living room." Y'know, despite the fact that it was the Democratic Party that led the secessionist movement prior to the Civil War, and was the GOP which promoted the abolition of slavery.
The revisionism continues today with Democrats -- (rightfully) embarrassed by their past -- attempting to promote the idea that the two major political parties "have done a 180" on [minority] civil rights. It's ridiculous. What's the old saying? "Say a lie enough and it becomes truth?" Don't let it happen.
The one-named wonder known as Touré is back, this time with this, well, whopper:
Let's just look at members who are supporting this Landrieu bill, right. Mary Landrieu from a red state. Senator Kay Hagan from a red state. Joe Manchin from a red state. Senator Pryor from a red state. Senator Mark Begich from a red state. Do you notice anything? We see red state Democrats who are dealing with the challenge of living and governing in a gerrymandered world where sometimes they have to deal with what the folks on the right - very low support from the Republican side for this – what the folks on the right want.
Mary Landrieu and Joe Manchin are also US senators.
Did you catch the problem yet? Yep -- how in the hell can gerrymandering affect the election of senators ... when an entire f***ing state elects them?? Gerrymandering deals with the election of representatives ... y'know, to the US House of Representatives.
Noel Sheppard wonders, "Do prospective MSNBC hosts have to fail a civics test in order to be hired?" Check the vid of Touré's genius:
Why minimal coverage? Victims not the "right" religion, attackers not the "right" hue.
Then there's this from the HuffPo:
The three men who died at Al's Place on Wednesday were Elaine Williams' son, brother and nephew. But Williams hasn't been profiled by any national media outlets. Her story hasn't been widely shared yet, and it probably won't be, because the shooting happened in Detroit.
Shootings involving low-income people don't often become national media stories ... Gun crimes often occur in low-income neighborhoods with largely non-white victims, but, from the news, you’d think every shooting put the white and affluent at risk of violence ... it doesn’t reflect the reality of gun violence in the United States, where black people are far more likely to be victims of gun homicides compared to their white counterparts.
Uh, right ... but who exactly jumped on the bandwagon, say, when George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in Florida, and for weeks we were lectured about how "racism isn't dead in America," and how "brown kids aren't safe to walk the streets," etc? And when right-leaning outlets did just what the HuffPo quotes above (from the "progressive" ThinkProgress, no less), what did we hear?
Hint: It begins with an "R."
Right f***in' here. The NY Times, with a straight face, merely says that Boss Obama "misspoke" when he said if you like your doctor/insurance you can keep him/it. He didn't lie ... he "misspoke." Again and again and again.
RELATED: Be sure to read David Cutler's memo detailing his concerns about ObumbleCare implementation.
Todd Purdum in Politico today says that ObumbleCare suffered from "calculated sabotage by Republicans at every step." He follows with "That may sound like a left-wing conspiracy theory ..."
You should stop reading right there.
Purdum details GOP opposition to the bill/law from the beginning, and -- wait for it! -- makes an analogy to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Ed. decision just to "remind" you that ... Republicans are racists. All it boils down to is that Purdum is miffed that the GOP acted like an opposition party in the whole healthcare debate. Y'know, what they were supposed to be. To Purdum, once the law was passed, Republicans were supposed to just sit back and do whatever the new law -- passed without a single GOP vote -- required.
RELATED: Former DE blogger Dana Garrett (sadly) echoes the party line claiming that Boss Obama did not lie. In a word: C'mahn.
ALSO RELATED: The Boss Obama admin was also lying about not having exact numbers available for how many folks were signing up for ObumbleCare. In actuality, they were keeping daily tallies of them. And the numbers were ridiculously ridiculously small. For instance, by the end of the second day (Oct. 2), there were ... 248 sign-ups. This is nation-wide.
ALSO ALSO RELATED: Those we've heard about so far who've lost their insurance have had individual plans. What about those who have plans via their employer? Well, those plans' cancellations are coming.
Successful Del. Affordable Care Act enrollee visits White House is the headline. Article author Kelly Bothum does her best to keep the positive spin, for sure.
Baker, 59, of Selbyville, spent Monday morning in the White House Rose Garden, where she introduced President Barack Obama during a media event addressing some of the glitches that have surfaced in the first weeks of the health care exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare.
"Some of the glitches"?? The entire freakin' system is virtually completely unworkable. Baker is the ONLY person in a state of just shy of one million people to sign up for this boondoggle. ONE! But hey, Bothum points out that, despite having taken over seven hours to successfully register for ObumbleCare, Baker is tickled pink -- especially since President Lemon asked her to the White House:
“I’m just beside myself. I just had no bit of imagination that this could possibly happen,” Baker said. “I am just so thrilled.”
You're just a prop, ma'am -- a tool to make people buy into more of the snake oil that has personified this administration since day one.
Next, Bothum hits the Boss Obama talking points:
Baker was among a select group of small business owners, students and others invited to the White House for the Monday event, intended to highlight those who have had success getting health insurance as a result of the Affordable Care Act. The insurance marketplaces opened Oct. 1 to help the estimated 15 percent of Americans who don’t have health insurance, either because they can’t afford it or aren’t offered it through their employer.
"Highlight those who have had success"? "SUCCESS"??? Are you kidding me?? No mention of the hundreds of thousands of people who have been dropped from their employers' coverage due to ObumbleCare? And what about those who now can't afford health insurance because ObumbleCare has caused their premiums to skyrocket?
It’s hard to pinpoint how many people have actually enrolled in the plans offered through the marketplace.
And that's because Prez Lemon and his acolytes don't want you to know just how dismal of a failure this mess is.
During Monday’s event, Obama acknowledged his own disappointment in the enrollment snafus that have plagued the roll-out of the health care exchanges. “There’s no sugarcoating it: The website is too slow; people have been getting stuck during the application process,” he said. “And I think it is fair to say that no one is more frustrated by that than I am.”
Absolute bullsh**. If you were so concerned about it all, sir, you'd have made sure this thing was running smoothly from the start. But you didn't want the TRUTH about it to come out before the 2012 election. To keep that info secret meant that the designers had to operate with insufficient information to enable a smoothly running site. And if you're sooooo concerned, Boss, why is Kathleen Sebelius off attending a gala instead of making sure all these problems get FIXED?
Baker’s once-in-a-lifetime day began at 2 a.m. Monday. By mid-afternoon, she had done interviews with CNN, MSNBC and other media outlets. She had time for a quick cup of coffee before another interview was scheduled. It was a whirlwind for Baker, who was notified Friday about participating in the event. The next day, the White House called to confirm.
“I thought it was a joke,” she said. “I put my name out to help other people in my same situation. I never expected something like this.”
It was a joke, Ms. Baker. To use you as a prop to tout the "success" of a miserably-designed failure of clusterf*** of a SNAFU ... the joke was on you. And, sadly, the whole of the American public in the long run.
Whose fault is it that ObumbleCare's debut has been an unmitigated f*** up? Why, the GOP's, of course! Just ask MSNBC:
You just can't get more insane than this ...
... you see one dolt carrying a Soviet/Chinese flag at an Occupy or whatever "progressive" rally. Y'know, like here. Now, watch this:
Yep, that's Chris Matthews turning an entire segment of his show into a diatribe on how one protester with a Confederate flag "represents" all Republicans and conservatives.
Remember that Boss Obama, Joe "Plugs" Biden and DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Dolt (among others) all expressed support for the Occupy Movement.
But think for a moment about the term “Redskins,” and how it truly differs from all the others. Ask yourself what the equivalent would be if directed toward African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, or members of any other ethnic group.
When considered that way, Redskins can’t possibly honor a heritage or a noble character trait. Nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term. It’s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent.
It’s fair to say that for a long time now, and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended. But if you take a step back, isn’t it easy to see how offense might legitimately be taken?
Let's see, what would the equivalent be if "Fighting Irish" used, say, "Blacks" instead of "Irish?" Wonder what the result of that would be?
Ultimately, what matters is if Native Americans are offended by the DC nickname. And guess what? They're not. Not even close. Ninety percent (yes, ninety) of Native Americans said they are not offended by the name "Redskins." In fact,
Because they make up a very small proportion of the total population, the responses of 768 people who said they were Indians or Native Americans were collected over a very long period of polling, from October 7, 2003 through September 20, 2004. They included Indians from every state except Alaska and Hawaii, where the Annenberg survey does not interview. The question that was put to them was “The professional football team in Washington calls itself the Washington Redskins. As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?”
Again, 90% said "no." In addition, check out ESPN columnist Rick Reilly's article from September for further non-PC facts about the 'skins. But these won't stop the mainstream media and elitist "progressive" whites ... because they "know" better. Just as they "know" that getting a photo ID is ridiculously cumbersome for minorities despite polls showing the population in question vehemently disagreeing with them, these same anointed "know" that Redskins is a racial slur -- because shut up. And if NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is going to meet with one group of Natives (who, of course, are opposed to the Washington team name), then why doesn't he also meet with someone Adrian Jawort, a member of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, who notes that actual history doesn't exactly jibe with that of PC idiots like Bob Costas and our president: That "red skins," among other things, was used by Natives themselves, and with pride.
In conclusion, if the mainstream media and academic institutions across the land are clamoring that something is "insensitive," "racist" or "intolerant," then you'd best investigate what exactly that "something" is. Because it's a good bet it's only those noted adjectives to conceited "progressives" who perpetually purport to know better than everyone else.
Doug Ernst has further thoughts.
UPDATE: Costas this morning admitted that most Natives aren't miffed by the team name, but wants a heckler's veto anyway:
[Costas] then admitted that most Native Americans are not offended with the name, but that since other people might be, it should still be changed.
Here's what I'm offended by: Costas' mouth. STFU already.
UPDATE 2: How 'bout this? It seems the most vocal Native in favor of getting the Redskins to drop their name is not even a member of the tribe from which he claims to be. But he is a big Obama supporter and donor. “He has no ancestry in the Six Nations but he has a lot of powerful friends in D.C.,” a NY State assemblywoman said.
What a surprise.
Maybe the dude should have a chat with Elizabeth Warren. After all, she got away with it.
Thank goodness Bob Costas finally weighed in on how offensive Washington Redskins team name is in this, his 30+ year of sportscasting!— proteinwisdom (@proteinwisdom) October 14, 2013
The Philadelphia Inquirer's Angela Couloumbis acts akin to what Hube posted about recently regarding the owner of Barilla pasta. The headline of her article states "Corbett compares same-sex marriage to incest," and she writes in the article "Pennsylvania Gov. Corbett on Friday compared same-sex marriage to the marriage of brothers and sisters." (Just in case you thought she's blameless for the headline.)
But did he actually do that? Let's see:
The Republican governor, whose approval ratings have been low and who is up for reelection next year, made the comments during an interview with WHP-TV in Harrisburg, after being asked about a controversial statement his lawyers had made over the summer on gay marriage.
During the interview, Corbett called "inappropriate" his attorneys' statement in an August court filing. In the filing, the attorneys wrote that gay marriage is against Pennsylvania law, just as marriage is between children.
The governor then told the news station that he thought "a much better analogy would have been brother and sister, don't you?"
Where, exactly, did Corbett compare gay marriage to incest? The only such "comparision" made was that both are against state law currently. And hell, he was trying to atone, however clumsily, from an even clumsier statement.
Of course, Couloumbis's like-minded politicians rose to the occasion:
"Governor Corbett's remarks comparing marriage equality to marriage between siblings is hateful and demeaning," [Democrat gubernatorial challenger] Wolf said in a separate statment.
Gotta love the wording. If it's "marriage equality," then what the hell does Wolf (or anyone) care what two consenting adults do with their lives? To believe otherwise is hateful and demeaning! (See, the other side can play that childish game, too.)
"They're just directly from the president's speech!"
That's what MSNBC dolt Thomas Roberts told RNC Chair Reince Priebus when the latter accused him of spouting DNC talking points. Seriously. See for yourself (h/t Ace):
... the mainstream media continues to tell us so, natch.
John Rosenberg nails most concisely today:
Why is it only House leaders, i.e., Republicans, who are “running out of time and options”? In this telling, and it is the conventional telling reported almost everywhere, the Democrats have no “options.” Everything, in this telling, is on the shoulders of Republicans. The only question left is “whether Republicans would consider the only plan President Obama and other Democratic leaders insist they will accept: a simple bill that funds federal agencies without dismantling any part of Obama’s signature 2010 health-care law.” So, the Democrats’ position is “simple” but the Republicans’ is … what? Complex?
According to the Post and just about every organ of the major media, for some unexplained reason the Democrats simply do not have the “option” of choosing to accept the House bill that funds the entire federal government while repealing a tax on medical devices and delaying the implementation of Obamacare for one year. They would rather close down the government, while blaming the Republicans, rather than do that. But according to conventional press wisdom, the Republicans’ willingness to fund everything except the start of Obamacare bears the entire responsibility. Go, as I’ve argued before on this issue, figure.
Go figure, indeed. After all, it's not as if Boss Obama hasn't unilaterally altered provisions in the healthcare law now, right? The power to do so being quite, well, dubious? And all the GOP wants to do is delay it all by 365 days? So as maybe to avoid stuff like this:
The MSM is the LIV's greatest buddy. Because it's a lot easier than, y'know, thinking.
UPDATE: What a surprise -- the buck still never stops at President Lemon's desk:
Yep, that's an image from the White House website today. Three and a half years to have this stuff up and ready, but in a few hours the GOP is at fault for these [easily predicted] snafus?? This is absolutely guffaw-inducing, but, again, sadly, a nation of LIVs will buy it hook, line and sinker.
UPDATE 2: An MSNBC anchor tried to sign up for Boss ObamaCare and was stymied. After the website refused help, she tried calling ... and was put on hold for 35 minutes. “If I were signing up for myself, this is where my patience would be exhausted,” she said. But didn't she get the memo? It's the GOP's fault! (See above, natch)
... remember what these folks -- who want you to buy their product -- think of you:
The rest of the civilized health-care-is-a-basic-human-right world is like, "You shut down your government over WHAT?"— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 1, 2013
Remember these people when the next elections come along. Remember how little they cared about their own constituents.— GailSimone (@GailSimone) October 1, 2013
Remember when Congress didn't approve Obamacare, the Supreme Court struck it down, and we didn't re-elect the President? #MeNeither— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 1, 2013
I want a "conscience exemption" for paying Congress.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 1, 2013
People get confused when they claim we had a revolution over taxation. They forget that the "…without representation" part was key.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) October 1, 2013
I want a return to the "reasonable" GOP who impeached a President for lying about getting a blowjob.— Ed Brubaker (@brubaker) September 30, 2013
"No health care for you, or we stop paying our soldiers" is apparently a successful political slogan in some districts.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) September 30, 2013
And complete "WTF?" statements:
Let's not forget that the entire Obamacare/Affordable Care Act law that passed was a HUGE compromise to the GOP. Dems wanted single payer.— Ed Brubaker (@brubaker) September 30, 2013
Then there's these retweeted by our old pal Mark "Go F*** Yourself" Waid:
All this to stop poorer Americans from getting health insurance funded by Medicare cuts and taxing rich people. http://t.co/HydO3bftUM— Ezra Klein (@ezraklein) October 1, 2013
If only there were procedures for US to enact new laws and determine if they met standards of Constitution instead of piecemeal extortion— Christopher Kubasik (@MakerCK) October 1, 2013
Never underestimate Speaker Boehner's willingness to risk your job to save his. http://t.co/KI95KbIQQd— LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) October 1, 2013
They actually did it. A group of Republicans in the House just forced a government shutdown over Obamacare instead of passing a real budget.— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) October 1, 2013
If you don't care about a creator's personal/political views, good for you. If you want to shell out four dollars per issue for what they put out, even better. But for me -- and many others -- I have a problem with giving my hard-earned cash to someone who pisses on things I believe in, and/or ridiculously distorts same, so much like our pathetic MSM.
I know you've heard it all here before. It just really remains a mystery to me why these guys (and gals) utilize such "business acumen." Maybe they realize their medium is dying so they don't care? That they've already made their cash when times were good, so big deal? Or, hell, maybe it really is a matter of principle -- that these folk put beliefs over money. I don't believe that (there's ample evidence across the "progressive" spectrum of such hypocrisy), but it is a possibility, I have to admit. But even if true, my cash will remain in my well-worn wallet. I don't need to give affirmation to someone who thinks I'm a Neanderthal-browed miscreant.
Yeah, I didn't hear about this either. If the hues were reversed, natch, plastersville for weeks on the MSM: Greenville Wal-Mart Shooter Picked Victims By Race.
Y'know, the lame "What Would You Do?" segments. As you'd expect from an arm of the MSM, the show focuses on perturbations of what's politically correct, not stuff that actually happens. Their latest nugget that caught attention was a cheesy 20-something in a "patriotic" T-shirt who was berating customers for patronizing a café run by Muslims. An American soldier happened to be waiting in line, and upon hearing the twit's bigoted rant, soldier guy reamed the twit out. Apparently this was so surprising, so unexpected ... that outfits like the HuffPo used headlines like American Soldier Responds To Anti-Muslim Comments In An Incredible Way on 'What Would You Do?' (My emphasis.)
But why doesn't John Quiñones and co. set up shop, say, in a situation like when General David Petraeus was screamed at by radical students in New York? Or, when right-leaning speakers are routinely shouted down during talks/lectures at various campuses across the country? Ha. We know why ABC won't. The show that is concerned about feelings, mores and attitudes -- especially towards minorities -- couldn't care a whit about viewpoint diversity. Which brings me to this item from Ace today: A gay rights group in Italy called Equality Italia is calling for a boycott of Barilla Pasta because its owner, Guido Barilla, said in an interview that he "would never do (a commercial) with a homosexual family."
Oh, but he added "... not for lack of respect but because we don’t agree with them. Ours is a classic family where the woman plays a fundamental role.” Equality Italia called this ... an "offensive provocation." Barilla, like pretty much anyone attacked by PC Orthodoxy crowd, went on to explain his comments a lot further, saying he "simply wished to underline the central role the woman plays within the family," that he has "the utmost respect for gay people," and "respect[s] gay marriages."
It won't suffice. Twitter was already off an running blasting Barilla's "homophobia" with the #boicottbarilla hashtag.
Now, as Ace notes, "homophobia" now means you must "affirmatively campaign for their political agenda." We've also seen this with other PC darlings like "racism" -- being against affirmative action, for instance. And hell, during these last five years we've seen that mere opposition to President Lemon's policies is "racist." Just because he's black. Here's just one of the latest examples.
UPDATE: As if on cue, insulated northeast big city white "progressive" John Featherman of Philly.com invokes Godwin's Law and quotes Martin Niemöller, Protestant pastor and public foe of Adolf Hitler, about all those "they came for." And, Barilla is "homophobic." And, Featherman won't eat Barilla anymore. Even though Barilla agrees with gay marriage but has the audacity to believe in smart marketing that makes his company money.
The answer is: When an idiot member of the MSM says so.
Check out Neanderthal former Obama car czar Steve Rattner referring to Republicans as "terrorists" because no one (supposedly) can negotiate with them over a debt ceiling hike. When show co-host Joe Scarborough asked him if Boss Obama was a "terrorist" because he opposed said hike in 2006, Rattner begged show co-host Mika Brzezinski to "help me out here," and then lamely offered "it's complicated."
Yeah, it's about as "complicated" as turning on a freakin' faucet, you tool. View the hilarity:
Can anyone imagine what the mainstream media -- and complete tools like these -- would be saying if a Republican was about to implement the complete and utter disaster that is ObamaCare? Let's face the facts: This plan makes what Hurricane Katrina did to the Big Easy look like a gentle rain. Even the WaPo knows this. Anyone who bought what President Lemon was selling you about this debacle should take a basic skills test now. You know you just failed.
Don't take it from me. Take it from Boss Obama's traditional allies. Union leaders: "The unintended consequences of the ACA [Affordable Care Act] are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating nightmare scenarios.” And then there's
-- Far from “bending the cost curve down,” consumers in many states will find coverage offered through the ObamaCare insurance exchanges stick them with average premium prices next year that are 30% or 40% higher than what they would have paid last year.
-- The federal government’s new “data hub” that the state insurance exchanges will use to screen applicants won’t be fully functional in time. Thus, the exchanges won’t be able to verify some applicant’s incomes when determining how big a subsidy they get. They also won’t be able to verify if the applicant has employer coverage, and thus is ineligible for subsidies.
-- The federal government may also be unprepared to protect ObamaCare’s information technology system from hackers and identity thieves. Security testing is months behind schedule, Reuters reports. Writing in The Weekly Standard, former HHS General Counsel Michael Astrue warned that unless delayed and fixed the ObamaCare exchanges will inflict on the public the most widespread violation of the Privacy Act in our history.
Of course, there's a lot more. But you won't hear about this insanity from the MSM. Or, very little. And then, it'll usually be speckled with excuses or "it's not all that bad, actually" kind of stuff.
If this was a Republican rolling out such a boondoggle, the MSM would be relentless, and we'd see protests (all covered prodigiously by the MSM) all across the country -- all with loving commentary. With the actual situation,there are protests, but since they're from folks like Tea Partiers, they're dubbed "extreme," "far right-wing," and, of course, "crazy." Just look at what Texas Senator Ted Cruz is dealing with. (Remember, 'tho, what happened when another person from Texas pulled a filibuster defending her position. Yeah, quite the opposite of what Cruz gets.)
But we deserve every bit of this crap. The original bill passed the Senate by one [filibuster-proof] vote (which later led to Massachusetts' Scott Brown's election to the Senate), and complete twits like Nancy Pelosi said stuff that-would-be-headlines-for-weeks-had-a-GOPer-said-it like "We have to pass the bill see what's in it." And then we re-elected President Lemon last year. So, again, we deserve what we get.
Carl sends me word of the latest issue of Daredevil whose writer, Mark "Go F*** Yourself" Waid, has included a brief Trayvon Martin allegory. But first, just so you know Waid's mindset on that whole deal, let's go back to the time of the George Zimmerman verdict:
Zimmerman initiated the conflict. That is the bottom line. Had he done what 911 TOLD him to do, that kid would be alive today. Full stop.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
Remember, it's Racism Savings Time tonight. Don't forget to set your clock back 60 years before you go to bed.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
@AcidAttack89 Agreed system is flawed, but if races were reversed in this case, defendant would be on death row right now.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
And, of course, there were the typical "come backs" by Waid to those who dared to question his tweets on the issue, such as:
It's times like these that you get to see just how many of your followers are racists.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) July 14, 2013
And there's plenty more where they came from. *Sigh*
So now we have Daredevil #31 where DD is fighting against ... the Sons of the Serpent?? This shows you how pitifully desperate Waid is to keep his ridiculous NarrativeTM alive. The SoS have been around since Marvel's earliest days. They're a -- wait for it! -- white supremacist group! But, y'see, Marvel's earliest days weren't exactly great days for American blacks. The Civil Rights movement was still in its infancy, after all. (One of the SoS's earliest appearances was in the pages of The Avengers where they went after Giant Man's [black] assistant, Bill Foster, who later assumed the role of Goliath himself using Pym's growth-changing formula.) But that doesn't matter one iota. They're a perfect way for Waid to make his "point" about Trayvon Martin in 2013! After all, we know how widespread and numerous white supremacist organizations are these days, right? I mean, other comicbook writers have told us so, too. There was Ed Brubaker in Captain America, and even Rob Liefeld in the same title.
Here's the panels from the issue of Daredevil in question. Now granted, when Carl tipped me to this, I was expecting a bit more. The whole Sons of Serpent stuff is just one of a few plots that Waid is juggling around here. But in these two panels, look at what Waid says. The "suspicious-looking Black teenager" line is patently obvious (and notice he adopts the PC capitalization of the word "black"), but notice the others -- the defendant is an "entitled society harpy" with a "long and recorded history" of racism, and the black teenager who was shot was an honor student who happened to be tutoring another kid. Of course, the only real connection to the Zimmerman/Martin matter is the line "suspicious-looking Black teenager." To me, it's a good bet Waid is counting on people making that obvious link, and then hopefully buying the rest of the "connections," which actually happen to be total bullsh**. George Zimmerman certainly ain't "entitled," nor is he a member of the hoi polloi. (And, he's not even white.) And Trayvon Martin wasn't an honor student who tutored other kids. (Ironically, it was Zimmerman who did that.)
Oliver Sava at AV Club says the above
... is a great way for Waid to explore a major theme of the series in a different context. Fear is an essential part of Daredevil’s character, and Waid’s plot looks at fear on a broader scale as New York City citizens rebel against a justice system that has betrayed them. This anger is bred out of fear that the system in place is no longer serving the best interests of the public, and all it takes is the smallest spark to turn that fear into a raging fire.
Which makes sense. Waid didn't necessarily have to get all the facts about the Zimmerman case right to make the [supposed] larger point that Sava notes above. The problem is, in the Zimmerman case, the justice system (and the mainstream media, natch) had a bias against Zimmerman from the very beginning. From constantly referring to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic" to completely ignoring cases that mirrored his (with the races reversed), the verdict then led to preposterous yammerings like "Keep your black/boys inside, now!" as if white-on-black racist killings and a crooked justice system are today akin to those of 1950s Mississippi. The sad fact is that young men like Trayvon Martin have much more to fear from other teenagers ... who look like him. But just don't bring that up to Waid, though. Besides referring to you as a "racist," he may shout something like this.
Alas, this is all totally predictable. Waid, like other comicbook "geniuses" Erik Larsen, Ron Marz, Dan Slott, and, regrettably, Kurt Busiek, lives in an insulated bubble, a product of northeast urban liberalism which essentially deifies certain narratives. And, again, the comicook fan has to ask him/herself: "If this guy feels the way he does about my cultural and political beliefs, then why the f*** should I turn my hard-earned money over to him?" The answer is you shouldn't. But it is your choice, of course. I chose long ago not to part with any cash to purchase something by someone who vociferously trashes my political (and other) beliefs. It's perfectly natural, after all. Waid and other "progressives" do it all the time. Just ask Orson Scott Card, among many others.
Avi over at FCMM has more.
Via the Daily Caller by way of Insty:
“First we learned that Alexis didn’t use an evil AR-15 to kill all those people. Instead, he used a nice, friendly, Biden-approved shotgun . . . Now we learn that Alexis was a Prius-driving, African-American liberal who liked Obama. Facts aren’t much fun, eh, libs? So now the MSM narrative will magically transform this mass murder from ‘yet another damning indictment of gun-toting, right-wing racist America’ to ‘the completely isolated actions of a misunderstood victim of society.’ Just watch. It happens every time. And every time, they think we won’t notice. Meanwhile, their ratings and their circulation numbers continue to plummet, and they blame everybody but themselves.”
We've said this for years. The perfect example is why Fox News crushes its competition, and why right-wing talk radio has no [political] talk radio peer. "Progressives" will offer every inane excuse they can think of as to why this is ... except the actual one. And that actual reason is because liberals already dominate every other network, Hollywood, and the universities. Conservatives and myriad independents had been craving news outlets which would give their views a fair shake (let alone cover them at all), and talk radio followed by Fox News did just that. So, of course their ratings are huge.
Why would someone want to listen to the now-bankrupt Air America when all you got was pretty much what every other MSM outlet was saying? Does MSNBC really think they're "setting a trend" by highlighting moonbat commentators all the time -- who just delve into "progressive" issues to the Nth degree moreso than CNN, ABC, and CBS?
Gov. John Hickenlooper claimed today that the recall election defeats of two anti-gun Democrat state lawmakers "shouldn’t be seen as a litmus test for the rest of the nation — or even the rest of the state."
Uh huh. This, along with one of the defeated lawmaker's claims that her loss was due to "voter suppression," are real knee-slappers to be sure. And naturally, there was little MSM coverage of these losses, yet, of course, plenty of excuses and ridiculous spinning.
I mean, really -- does anyone doubt that if these two bozos won their recall elections that the MSM wouldn't be hailing it as "major victory" for gun control and "vindication" of President Lemon's anti-gun efforts?
Hey, remember this post from August 29? In it, we heard from Shaniqua Davis, age 20, who "lives in the Bronx with her boyfriend, who is unemployed, and their 1-year-old daughter." She complained about not having enough cash, due to her minimum wage job, to pay for "food, diapers, subway, taxi fares and ... cable TV."
Cable TV, eh? Well, the AP did up a sympathetic story about Ms. Davis, and not only does she have cable TV, just check out her TV:
And that's not all. Did you spot the laptop computer at the very beginning of the vid? And why did she work only a bit over ten hours ... in a two-week period? Making a $15/hour minimum wage while only working ten-plus hours in two weeks certainly ain't gonna improve anyone's financial situation much.
... let's jump on rapper A$AP Rocky who committed the sin of standing an "awkward distance" from gay NBA player Jason Collins when the duo introduced the next act at the MTV Video Music Awards, and appeared to make "mocking facial expressions" toward him. Philly.com's Gabrielle Bonghi writes that A$AP's actions "sparked outrage of all kinds on the internet."
But of course. But the PC Police and radical multicultis are once again in a bind. They're outraged at the rapper's supposed homophobia; however, he is a minority, so they cannot show too much outrage at him.
Also, here's a good question for 'ya: what's more shocking: A rapper being homophobic, or being charged with assault?
Run of the mill fraud/embezzlement story, right?
Defendant: Jeri L. Wright, daughter of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright
Filed: April 10, 2013
Charges: Money laundering and making a false statement before a grand jury
Details: Wright, described as a “close associate and friend” of Regina and Ronald Evans, is accused of aiding the Evanses in their money-laundering scheme.
Not so fast. Who is Jeri Wright? Just the daughter of Jerimiah "God Damn America" Wright. Spiritual mentor to Barack Obama. See this one on the news did you? Me neither. Odd thing that.
Let's not forget this guy is Chelsea Clinton's father in law. I don't believe people should be responsible for the crimes committed by their family members but I do think this would be wall to wall national news if this were, oh I don't know, Jenna Bush.
LA Times op-ed by Nelson Lichtenstein, who teaches history at UC Santa Barbara, and directs the Center for the Study of Work, Labor and Democracy: Obamacare: New fight, old tactics. Opponents of the healthcare law are following in the footsteps of Southern segregationists half a century ago.
Yeah, it's totally about what you'd expect from someone who teaches history at UC Santa Barbara, and directs the Center for the Study of Work, Labor and Democracy. *Yawn*
Of course, where else but Philly.com would you find [yet another] article lamenting the so-called gender "wage gap?" They even use the term "unthinkable" (gasp!!) in the headline!! Let's see what article author Juilette Fairley actually has to say:
Women have the worst earnings compared to men in nearly 114 of the most common jobs with female insurance sales agents facing the largest wage gap, according to a new study.
"Year after year, it is occupations with high commission payments that do worse for women," said Ariane Hegewisch, the study director from the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR). "Given lack of pay transparency, we have to rely on lawsuit evidence showing that women are not less likely to work hard in these jobs but are less likely to be given the higher earning accounts or work in the big buck sales departments."
The IWPR study found women insurance sales agents earn $641 weekly compared to $1,026 for men.
Reality check: The wage gap shrinks dramatically when multiple factors are considered. Women with similar levels of education and experience earn as much as their male counterparts. You never, ever seem to read anything like this in articles like these screaming about the "unfair" wage discrepancy.
What is the main cause of that oft-cited "77 cents to the dollar" stat?
Further, occupations dominated by women pay lower wages and women are twice as likely as men to work in occupations with poverty wages.
Common occupations for women include waitress, cashier, housekeeper, maid, psychiatric nursing and home health aide.
But this is Fairley complaining about such, not pointing out this is the main "gap" producer overall. What does she suggest? Raising the wage of a maid to that of a surgeon??
*Sigh* Predictably, Fairley cites "bias" as the main culprit. Well, actually, it's the above-noted Institute for Women's Policy Research. But of course such an institute would blame such. For, how else would such continue to exist?
'Ya just gotta hand it to NBC News. No matter what, they'll always have President Lemon's back. Case in point:
President Barack Obama was intent on getting the upper hand as he greeted Russia's Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit on Thursday, according to body language experts who watched the frosty exchange.
From a jacket-buttoning pause to a hard-pumping handshake, Obama displayed tell-tale signs of dominance after he alit from a limo in front of St. Petersburg's Konstantin Palace, where Putin waited to meet him, communication experts said.
"It looks like Putin's basically a hotel greeter at a five-star establishment and Obama is coming out of the limo as the important invited guest he's not particularly thrilled to see."
"This is a show of power," she (body language expert Tonya Reiman) said. "In addition, he leans in toward Putin with his upper body, placing himself slightly into Putin's personal zone. Notice Putin pulls back ever so slightly, which indicates that Obama has the upper hand."
"Putin is intimidated by Obama, Obama is not intimidated by Putin," [psychology professor and body-language scholar at Boston College Joseph] Tecce said.
Anyone who seriously believes this crap raise your hand.
Yeah, that's what I thought. I mean, really -- as Jim Geraghty says today in his e-mailed Morning Jolt: "Right. The lifelong KGB officer is quaking in his boots at the sight of the community organizer."
Looks like ABC News thinks so circa 8pm:
Not to sound like a broken record, but can anyone see ABC in 2002 posting a pic of GW Bush with the headline stating Al Gore thinks no action in Iraq/Afghanistan would be "catastrophic"?
Via Insty: Walter Shapiro's ridiculously pathetic (and perfect illustration of the current MSM) headline today at Yahoo! News: Obama's history-defying decision to seek Congressional approval on Syria.
Except that, y'know, George W. Bush went to Congress for action in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Somehow I don't recall the MSM ever calling that "history-defying."
Moonbat cartoonist Rob Tornoe, a contributor to the LGOMB (that's the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers), displays all the hypocritical Left's pastiche for "civility" and "sensitivity" as you'd expect in today's Philly.com:
Unfortunately, there's no sign Tebow is set to give up trying to be a quarterback in the NFL. He tweeted on Saturday, "I will remain in relentless pursuit of continuing my lifelong dream of being an NFL quarterback."
That's the problem with faith... sometimes it can overcome logic. The only team that I could see possibly taking a flyer on Tebow would be Buffalo. Due to injuries, they may be forced to start undrafted free agent Jeff Tuel at quarterback in week 1 against the Patriots, so maybe Tebow can give him some inside information the way Lawyer Milloy did when he signed with the Bills back in 2003.
You can view Tornoe's "sensitive" cartoon here, which hypothesizes that Tebow may have a concussion for being adamant he can still play in the NFL.
Now, I actually have little issue with the concept that Tebow probably doesn't have what it takes to play in the NFL anymore. But that's not what guys like Tornoe really care about anyway. For them, it's an opportunity to mock those with faith. Plain and simple. As it always has for much of the MSM. I mean, hell -- if someone had the gall to point out in any number of News Journal "tug at your heart strings" articles about a 28-year old single mom with three kids by three different fathers who harbors dreams of becoming a physician that she, in any sense of the term "reality," has no chance of seeing that coming true, well, to the 'bats you're a heartless (and possibly racist) SOB who is deserving of the utmost scorn.
But what would expect from a contributor to Media Matters, and an associate of one who wishes death upon all Republicans, eh?
“Awwwwwwwww. I bet this makes the Baby Jesus weep. Tim should have prayed more.”
“Hey Tim, are you getting the message now? Nothing fails like prayer.”
“If Tim Tebow spend as much time concentrating on playing football as he did worrying about promoting his religion, he might not be getting cut.”
“We’re all going to hell and we’re excited about it. Don’t be jealous.”
“It would have been different for him had he kept his religion home and just been a regular ball player.”
“Where’s your god now, Tebow?”
Classy, eh? And what has this guy done to deserve such? He didn't get arrested. He didn't have multiple kids out of wedlock. He didn't get drunk and use racial slurs. He didn't get caught using drugs.
None of that. He's a Christian. That's all. "Great job," Tornoe and co.
Today's News Journal: Park visitors down after rapes
Amazingly, yesterday, the Journal printed a race description of the attackers (which I think must have been added after the fact as I, and as a few commenters noted, didn't see one originally). Yet in an instance of cognitive dissonance, today the Journal writes "Detailed descriptions of the boys were not available Saturday."
Yeah, I guess breaking their editorial policy once was [way] too much for them.
Front page of Philly.com circa 5pm today:
Yep -- Boss Obama is "courageous" regarding Syria, and it's front page news that Bill O'Reilly admitted a mistake. Admitted!
Would that the dolts behind this site do the same when the cretins at MSNBC and elsewhere lie with impunity on a daily basis. Yeesh.
In today's News Journal, there's a story about some Burger King workers who are striking for higher wages. There's certainly decent arguments on both sides of the minimum wage debate, but it's stuff like this that causes the sympathy meter to take a big dip downward:
KFC worker Jose Blas, 27, is concerned his wages will not be enough to make ends meet with a baby due in January.
Blas, a cook at the KFC Newport Gap Pike location, joined the strikers at Burger King to be supportive and help send a message to management at fast food chains.
"I'm fighting for more money so I can have enough to change my lifestyle and for my baby to go to school. Day care doesn't come cheap these days," he said.
Of course, one wonders what José was thinking before he decided to get a girl pregnant while working at minimum wage job. Similar situation here:
Shaniqua Davis, 20, lives in the Bronx with her boyfriend, who is unemployed, and their 1-year-old daughter. Davis has worked at a McDonald's a few blocks from her apartment for the past three months, earning $7.25 an hour. Her schedule varies, but she never gets close to 40 hours a week.
Again, what mindset led these two to have a child when one makes minimum wage, and the other is unemployed?? Oh, and
She pays the rent with public assistance but struggles to afford food, diapers, subway and taxi fares, cable TV and other expenses with her paycheck.
Again, it's not that I'm completely unsympathetic, but c'mon -- these are the best examples you can use to make the case for a higher minimum wage? Not to mention, let's get real -- why would anyone expect to make a living flipping burgers? These jobs aren't meant to be careers, they're meant for those looking to make some extra cash. Unless you're planning on moving up to management, you shouldn't plan on making a living at a fast food corporation. And if you do, this probably means you're lacking the education and/or skills to do much else. In which case, maybe the shi**y wages at places like Burger King will finally light a fire under your arse to do what you were supposed to do back in middle and high school.
Every time I see @MileyCyrus slap that black woman's butt, I think about the way that enslaved blacks were whipped for white entertainment.— Aura Bogado (@aurabogado) August 26, 2013
As if we needed more proof that those who constantly clamor about others' racism are the real racists.
*Siiiiigh* What's next, folks? Is race and/or racism lurking behind everything these days? Here, I made a few tweets myself so I could be like the HuffPo, Macklemore, and Ms. Bogado:
But in all seriousness, folks -- this is where we are today. "Racism" is everywhere to an alarmingly increasing number of people. Such is the fallout from inanities of like comparing Trayvon Martin to Emmett Till, claiming that requiring an ID to vote is like Jim Crow laws, and stating that comparisons of Boss Obama to Tiger Woods aren't due to golf, but due to the worst stereotypes of black men.
It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. And ultimately, dangerous.
Sorry, I had a Bloomberg News moment.
The WaPo's Dana Milbank pontificates.
A Washington Post critic: Christians Threaten the Lives of Authors Casting Jesus 'In a Bad Light.'
Really? REALLY?? And people wonder why the dinosaur media is fading away? This alternate-reality mentality is staggeringly stupefying at times.
Salon.com: "The right’s black crime obsession" and "Conservative media’s total fixation on black-on-black and black-on-white crime isn’t going to end. Here’s why."
Gotta have those "real" convos on race, after all.
(h/t Da Tech Guy)
There he was the other night:
On Tuesday, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews claimed that conservatives and Republicans are attempting to “delegitimize” President Obama by calling him “Obama” or “a liberal leader,” Matthews said.
“It seems there’s a very interesting compelling continuing effort to delegitimize this president,” he told “Bush’s Brain” author Wayne Slater.
“People on the right say he’s a disaster, which he’s not. Look at what he’s already accomplished,” he added, apparently oblivious to Obama’s record deficits, failed foreign policy and the overall state of the economy.
“But they first of all referred to him, not as the ‘President of the United States’ but as a ‘liberal leader.’ They refer to the health care act of 2010 as ‘a bill.’ They refer to him as ‘Obama.’ They don’t say the ‘the president.’ They don’t say the ‘a law.’ They don’t even speak the language we normally speak in civilized political debate,” he added, as though he would know anything about “civilized political debate.”
“They’ve changed it so much that he’s actually not really supposed to be there,” he continued.
Did'ja catch it? Yep, he ranted about all that ... to the guy who wrote the book Bush's Brain. Not President Bush's Brain.
Thanks, as always, for the giggles, Chris.
Or, The NARRATIVETM, if you will.
(Just keep silent about such, though, during "honest conversations about race," you racist.)
Noah Berlatsky at The Atlantic takes issue with Todd MacFarlane's (and others') statement that "political messages don't make good comics." These creators did so at a forum, where we noted writer Gerry Conway got grief from his "progressive" cohorts for his comments.
Berlatsky has a beef with the "politics" statement. He writes,
There are various problems with this statement. The main one is that "historically," it is complete and utter hogwash. It simply is not true that superhero narratives with political messages have been unsuccessful. On the contrary, the most lauded, and really most popular, superhero stories of recent times have embraced explicit political content and controversy. With its fake Mandarin, Iron Man 3 is explicitly about Orientalism and prejudice. The Dark Knight Rises exploited the Occupy movement and class tensions. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, perhaps the most successful new superhero of the last 20 years, was a feminist model and dealt with feminist themes throughout its run.
As a fairly quick aside, Iron Man 3 was nothing about "Orientalism" and prejudice. I cannot imagine how anyone could claim that the film was "explicitly" about such; indeed, if anything, the tongue-in-cheek Mandarin (played by Ben Kingsley) was sort of a "this former Iron Man arch-nemesis has to go because he's a product of a geopolitical situation that doesn't exist anymore" character. Only people with way too much time on their hands (like, obviously, Berlatsky) could state the film's concentration was on something it clearly wasn't.
Of course, IM3 and DKR etc. are movies. What about comicbooks? The best Berlatsky comes up with are Sailor Moon and Wonder Woman because of their "feminist" themes. But the definition of "feminism" is so wide-ranging, and encompasses so many ideas, that calling these two books "political" is very debatable. Berlatsky even says that fighting the Nazis and Japanese was "political." If this is the case, then hell -- even Superman battling a clearly evil alien monster is "political." But even allowing Berlatsky's point here, he attempts to bolster it -- wrongly -- by saying that "Back in the 1940s, these issues moved hundreds of thousands of copies each -- dwarfing sales of all those present-day non-ideological superhero comics that Todd McFarlane draws." Well, actually, that may technically be true depending on how you look at "present-day." But MacFarlane at his peak (the 1990s) sold over a million copies of [usually non-ideological] comicbook. That is a lot more than "hundreds of thousands." Not to mention, Berlatsky is making an unfair comparison. Paper publishing is going the way of the dinosaur with the Internet and digital publishing, so comparing 2013 with the 1940s is, in many ways, just silly.
But let's use Berlatsky's formula for a second: How many overtly ideological comics are being sold these days? The top sellers -- ideological or otherwise -- usually number between 100-200 thousand. But, aside from the top two or three, the figures are below 100K. How do these fare to those 1940s figures, Mr. Berlatsky?
Lastly, as we've noted many times here and elsewhere, the big difference between "political" comics now vs. then is that contemporary ones have veered hard left in orientation. Many have taken viewpoints shared by a minority of the country and glorified them, all the while demonizing the other side. Even with issues that have more or less a 50-50 split among the populace, you wouldn't know that by reading the work of certain creators. It was difficult to find a sizable portion of the public which would have had a problem with Captain America socking Hitler in the kisser; modern Captain America, on the other hand, goes after a popular political movement (the Tea Party) because it's radical and racist ... while DC comics glorifies an opposing entity which actually is/was radical, not to mention destructive and violent (the Occupy Movement) ... by giving it its very own title.
(Thanks to Nate Winchester for the tip!)
Via Taranto we see that Reuters is hyping President Lemon's call for some "soul searching" on race here in America because -- gasp! -- "many Americans have no friends of another race" (the actual headline) according to a poll it cites. Of course, based on the first paragraph alone, Reuters could have easily written a headline that says "Most Americans have friends of another race":
About 40 percent of white Americans and about 25 percent of non-white Americans are surrounded exclusively by friends of their own race, according to an ongoing Reuters/Ipsos poll.
So, about 60% of whites and 75% of non-whites have friends of another race. Yet, Reuters writes a headline from a negative POV. Because, y'know, it wouldn't fit in with Boss Obama's [faux] request for that "soul searching," after all. Or, if you will, The NARRATIVETM.
And the inconsistent race reporting rolls on:
There are regions and groups where mixing with people of other races is more common, especially in the Hispanic community where only a tenth do not have friends of a different race. About half of Hispanics who have a spouse or partner are in a relationship with non-Hispanics, compared to one tenth of whites and blacks in relationships.
Y'see, here the MSM is back to merely using the term "Hispanic" as essentially a separate race. When the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin affair was in full swing, it was then important to note the former's race as "white" -- separate from Hispanic. Of course, Hispanics can be of several races as the classification "Hispanic" (or "Latino") is mainly due to language/cultural difference. Just see any official government/state/educational form if you don't believe me. But the MSM -- as Reuters does here -- rarely, if ever, acknowledges such. If acknowledging the difference can further The NarrativeTM -- that is, that America remains an incorrigibly racist nation that hasn't changed much since the Civil War (as was the case with George Zimmerman) -- it will do so without hesitation. In this article, however, merely utilizing "Hispanic" as a separate racial category paints the group in a positive light -- they're more "racially enlightened" as they have more friends and marriages outside of their "race."
The A.P. helps out President Lemon:
[T]he AP is still hoping to keep the ugly truth under wraps, and in his write-up of Obama’s “Tonight Show” appearance, he shamelessly demonstrated why the AP has become a trusted member of the president’s Lapdog Media Corpse.
Here’s how Obama is quoted in reporter Russ Bynum’s story:
"If we don't deepen our ports all along the Gulf — (and in) places like Charleston, S.C., or Savannah, Ga., or Jacksonville, Fla. — if we don't do that, these ships are going to go someplace else and we'll lose jobs," Obama said.
Yep -- Bynum corrected Boss Obama's idiot geography gaffe by adding the words in bold: "(and in)." In the original, President Lemon mentioned those ports as being Gulf ports.
It amazes me that Old Media dinosaurs still think they can get away with this sh**. With outfits like Newsbusters and Twitchy (which caught Bynum's lapdoggery) around, you're just asking for trouble. Bynum had to add a "correction" later: "Charleston, Savannah and Jacksonville are not Gulf ports. It wasn't known if the president was suggesting they were. The AP should not have added the phrase in an effort to clarify his statement."
Gee, 'ya think?
The Chattanooga Times Free Press editorial page editor was later ousted. The newspaper released a statement Thursday saying Johnson had been fired for "placing a headline on an editorial outside of normal editing procedures."
But in an interview with Fox News, Johnson said that policy -- requiring that last-minute changes to headlines be approved -- was only implemented after they published his piece.
Sounds exactly our current Administration, doesn't it? Making rules/laws on the fly, ignoring laws when it's convenient ... makes perfect sense, now.
Yeah, no sh**. Now tell us something we don't know.
... and why the New Media is so important. Check out this screed from Media Matters from May 2011:
Proving once again that there's no standard by which many mainstream media outlets are willing to hold sloppy propagandist Andrew Breitbart, CNN this afternoon invited the discredited blogger on the air to discuss the Rep. Anthony Weiner (NY- D) Twitter story.
Conveniently setting aside the fact that virtually every attack campaign that Breitbart has launched in recent years has collapsed under the weight of modest scrutiny, CNN presented the fatuous blogger as some sort of expert who could walk people through the Weiner story, which he's been hyping for days. (The whole right-wing blogosphere launched itself into a creepy tizzy over the holiday weekend regarding the story.)
Courtesy of the Philly Inquirer: Zimmerman case hurt media's image.
... and because you're obsessed with race:
Yep, that's the nitwit, Touré, a man whose obsession with race is only surpassed by Michael Eric Dyson. He indeed said "that Republicans are 'talking about black-on-black crime to block the conversation around a Peruvian-American, not a Hispanic, a Peruvian-American shooting a black man.'"
Got that? George Zimmerman, because of his Peruvian ancestry, now isn't "Hispanic." Except that, of course, he most certainly is:
Hispanic (Spanish: hispano, hispánico; Portuguese: hispânico, hispano, Catalan: hispà, hispànic) is an ethnonym that denotes a relationship to Spain or, in some definitions, to ancient Hispania, which comprised the Iberian Peninsula including the modern states of Andorra, Portugal, and Spain and the British Crown Dependency of Gibraltar. Today, organizations in the United States use the term as a broad catch all to refer to persons with a historical and cultural relationship either with Spain and Portugal or only with Spain, regardless of race. However, in the eyes of the US Census Bureau, Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, any ancestry, any ethnicity, or any country of origin.
Cripes, first this idiot network selectively edits the 911 call Zimmerman made which was the real catalyst in turning this whole tragic affair into a national "racist" incident, then ABC does the same with an interview with the one minority juror in the murder case. Now, we've descended to denying that Zimmerman even qualifies as the ethnic background that he actually is.
What should we expect next? A member of the Peruvian-American Society on MSNBC claiming that, since Zimmerman has never visited Machu Picchu, he cannot claim Peruvian ancestry? That Zimmerman's genealogy shows him to be a descendant of Francisco Pizarro, and this proves his inherent hatred of "dark" people?
Don't laugh. I wouldn't be surprised to see something exactly like those ridiculous hypotheticals above appear on the usual channels in the near future.
Ah, the WaPo: What motivates a lawyer to defend a Tsarnaev, a Castro or a Zimmerman?
WTF? As a reader at Insty wrote, "Tsarnaez = Castro = Zimmerman? Why not just throw in a Hitler? That’s usually how the question is posed at cocktail parties.”
Regarding the ridiculous (and pathetic) Anthony Weiner/Carlos Danger mess, he writes (in his e-mailed "Morning Jolt"):
Yes, you can find plenty of folks on the Right who fail to live up to their own ideals or general standards of acceptable behavior. But thankfully, for all of our flaws, you don't see a lot of conservatives arguing that certain creepy behavior has to be accepted out of party loyalty. And that represents a key philosophical difference with the Left, at least in practice.
Whether you come from a more socially conservative perspective or a more libertarian one, your philosophy gives you some strong arguments about why this sort of behavior is unacceptable.
If you're socially conservative, your values are likely shaped by a Judeo-Christian teaching that every person is created by God and thus deserving of respect, etc. So besides the usual Biblical/Torah-based teachings -- don't commit adultery, etc. -- sexually harassing your underlings, using an employee as a sexual plaything, or using your wife as a human shield during an embarrassing press conference is to objectify them and is pretty obviously not in line with God's teachings.
If you're libertarian, one of your core tenets is the value of the individual and the need to protect the rights of the individual -- and sexual harassment undoubtedly represents an infringement upon the rights of an individual. You may have less of an issue with adultery between consenting adults or even with prostitution (freely agreed contracts!) but ultimately whatever happens must be agreed upon by both/all parties. Cheating on one's wife and humiliating her in a public scandal isn't usually part of an agreed contract. (Someday we may have a political power couple in an open marriage, and it will be interesting to see what the public reaction will be.)
Geraghty goes on to say that, since modern liberals place the needs of the group ahead of the individual, it's therefore important to have the "correct" individuals in place to manage and effect their preferred policies. What these individuals do is relatively immaterial so long as they continue to do their job for the philosophy ... and party. Think "Ted Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Bob Filner, Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards and Al Gore" as examples. Not to mention Bill Clinton. And naturally, since the mainsream media always favors liberals/Democrats, the trangressions of folks like these are overlooked, while those of the opposition are never. I mean, it took the National Inquirer to investigate John Edwards, for cripe's sake, mainly because the MSM didn't give a sh**.
And take a gander what we see currently: Lib pundit Tamara Holder said about Carlos, er, Anthony Weiner: "Public service has nothing to do with bedroom service. 98.4367% of men cheat. I do know a few good men who don't. Leave Weiner alone." Out west, former Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña said regarding San Diego mayor Bob Filner "I blew the whistle on this two years ago to the Democratic Party leadership." Party leaders, she said, "made it clear that if people didn't support Filner they wouldn't receive their support again."
And what conservative/Republican would get this sort of MSM coverage after admitting -- after vehemently denying and angrily denigrating opposing voices -- to sexting young women??
But back to the post title: Is Geraghty right in this assessment?
This is a must-see vid detailing what an absolute farce we have for a media these days:
RELATED: Family rescued by George Zimmerman from car accident cancels press conference in fear of “blowback.”
CNN's Don Lemon Thinks Non-Blacks Cannot Fairly Report on Blacks ... So Why Can All-Liberal Media Report on Conservatives?
NBC's (the network largely responsible for the racial shenanigans in the Zimmerman/Martin trial) Andrea Mitchell earlier this morning claimed Boss Obama was a "moral leader" in his Friday remarks on the case, stating he "taught white people in America — those who were unaware — what it is like to be a black male."
Indeed. And Mitchell's network, especially its white "progressive" anchors, loves to lecture us all on just that. Perhaps it's to assuage their very own racial guilt:
On a warm weekday evening in 2003, a group that can fairly be described as representative of the media elite gathered at one if its favored venues: the garden behind the Manhattan apartment of journalists Tina Brown and Harold Evans.
The occasion was the publication of "The Clinton Wars," by Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton. Editors from the New Yorker and the New York Times were in attendance along with media figures like Steven Brill and Rolling Stone co-founder Jann Wenner. The guests mingled and sipped wine. Even Clinton showed up, instantly becoming the epicenter of attention.
I had not been invited but attended the event as the "plus one" of political columnist Eric Alterman, who wrote about the party in The Guardian on Thursday. At the time, I was a freelance journalist not yet employed by The Wall Street Journal. Eager for an opportunity to find a good story or meet an editor who might give me work, I accepted Alterman's invitation to join him at an event littered with literati.
Standing by myself I noticed, on the periphery of the party, a man looking as awkward and out-of-place as I felt. I approached him and introduced myself. He was an Illinois state senator who was running for the U.S. Senate. He was African American, one of a few black people in attendance.
We spoke at length about his campaign. He was charismatic in a quiet, solemn way. I told him I wanted to pitch a profile of him to a national magazine. (The magazine later rejected my proposal.)
The following year I watched as he gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention, and then won his Senate seat that fall. On Tuesday, Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States.
But what I will always remember is as I was leaving that party in 2003, I was approached by another guest, an established author. He asked about the man I had been talking to. Sheepishly he told me he didn't know that Obama was a guest at the party, and had asked him to fetch him a drink. In less than six years, Obama has gone from being mistaken for a waiter among the New York media elite, to the president-elect.
Whaaa ... how can this be? Look at who was in attendance at this gig: Tina Brown and Harold Evans, Sidney Blumenthal, Steven Brill, Jann Wenner and Eric Alterman. As Jim Geraghty notes in his Morning Jolt today:
Liberals all, and I'm sure that all of those folks would consider themselves not only not racist, but particularly enlightened to the plight of minorities in modern America.
One of the reasons that discussions about race relations in the United States are so tiresome is that the tone is often, "I'm not racist, but you people are racist, and you people are the problem." Yet here we have a gathering of some of our most prominent and influential media voices, a crowd that undoubtedly would claim to be our society's smartest, most progressive, most enlightened, most open-minded, and most free from prejudice. And a future president of the United States gets mistaken for a waiter.
This is a perfect illustration of why you should turn around and walk away if/when you're being lectured to about race by a self-proclaimed "progressive." That is, after you laugh in their face and point out how condescending and paternalistic he/she is ... not to mention possibly racist as well.
SEMI-RELATED: Boss Obama voted to strengthen Illinois's "Stand Your Ground" law in 2004.
Unsurprisingly, our own News Journal joins the typical bandwagon with Sweltering will become new normal. Because, y'know, we just had a heat wave.
Saw this via a comment at Patterico: Dry asparagus prompts questions about racial discrimination. And even despite this from the complainer --
[David] Olander admitted to being in an “ornery mood” the day he visited the store. “I just felt like stirring it up a little bit, letting them know that somebody cares,” he said ...
-- such nonsense gets printed as a story worthy of coverage.
MSNBC's self-described* Caucasian Chuck Todd said -- with a straight face, mind you -- that his network has been more "mature" about covering race issues than its rivals. He actually stated “Some portions of cable news try to use an incident like this in the wrong ways.”
A person could spend a day, writing straight through, about the numerous times MSNBC has used racial incidents "in the wrong ways." Sheesh.
Via the Washington Examiner:
h/t to Jim Geraghty's e-mailed "Morning Jolt":
Scott says he acted in self defense when he confronted Cervini and two others saying they were stealing from neighbors cars. He told them he had a gun and ordered them to freeze and wait for police.
Scott says he shot Cervini twice when the victim charged toward him yelling he was going to get Scott.
But check it: Scott is a (self-identified*) black man. [Christopher] Cervini was (self-identified*) white.
Be sure to read through the entire [four year-old] article. It sounds amazingly like the whole Zimmerman-Martin affair. It didn't get any national coverage 1) because it doesn't fit the NarrativeTM, and 2) won't get coverage now for the same reason -- namely that, in Zimmerman's case, if he was black, he'd have been found guilty.
... post Zimmerman verdict post. And that would be not much. Even many "progressives" believed the state overreacted and the murder 2 prosecution was nuts. The usual suspects are screaming about "how nothing has changed" in American society, etc. and this is all nuts, too. Regardless of what you think about the whole thing, face it -- the mainstream media is the biggest a**hole in this whole deal. It created a complete monster and NarrativeTM that once again divided us all and will now lead to further violence.
@instapundit So a Hispanic shoots a black and is acquitted by women, but it's still white men's fault.— Robert Wargas (@RobertWargas) July 14, 2013
Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans.
Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way.
After looking at the beliefs based on race and political ideology, Taranto concludes:
... the results for blacks are a big surprise. Blacks are more likely (by 7 percentage points) to think most blacks are racist than to think most whites are. Moreover, they are 11 points likelier than liberals (regardless of race) to think most blacks are racist, and 9 points likelier than Democrats. And blacks are 3 points less likely than liberals to think most whites are racist.
All of which suggests that the people likeliest to believe most whites are racist and most blacks are not are those who are both liberal and white. Which reinforces a point we've made often in this column: that a lot of what drives the futile debate over race in America is white liberals' psychological need to feel morally superior to other whites.
Indeed. And look no further than the MSM coverage of the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case down in Florida, especially the [mostly] white and [totally] liberal network MSNBC. Remember how they doctored Zimmerman's phone call to 911 to make it seem he was an anti-black racist. Or them constantly referring to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic." And perhaps most telling, MSNBC pundit Chris Matthews admitting that everyone who "surrounds" him believes Zimmerman is guilty (all white liberals, natch).
*Sigh* Largely as a result of this usual NarrativeTM, anything less than a guilty verdict of 2nd degree murder (which is what the state is prosecuting) is likely to produce social unrest. And watch out if Zimmerman is acquitted.
Meanwhile, the overwhelming number of black Americans who are killed through purposeful violence is committed by ... other black Americans. And guys like Chris Matthews could care less.
From Reason's Facebook page:
New media allows the audience to express its thoughts. No wonder celebrities, politicians, and others with power are apoplectic.
You've seen what we've posted many times here, especially with regards to comicbook creators: how they get in hizzy fits when someone dares to challenge/question them when they post a political comment on Twitter, Facebook, or wherever. As Reason continues (regarding Alec Baldwin, in this case):
Baldwin's real issue with new media - he slags Tumblr, Vine, MySpace, Facebook, and more - is that they level kings and queens and even celebrities into a mosh pit of direct, unmediated exchange that is hard as hell to control. It turns out that there's really no red carpet or champagne room when it comes to the way that stars (read: world leaders, sitcom heroes, famous authors, former child actors, you name it) are treated.
What's more, his followers have minds of their own. They may enjoy his turns in Glenngarry Glenn Ross and 30 Rock and guest-hosting on Turner Classic Movies but not really find his views on fracking to be worth a damn. It's a real kick in the pants for a celebrity to be reduced to asking, "Do you think I'm really changing anybody's mind?"
Amen. I think Kurt Busiek is one of the greatest comicbook writers ever to grace the industry. As I've noted previously, he even once -- back before social media ... indeed, even before the explosion of the World Wide Web -- said he doesn't like economic boycotts, preferring to challenge speech with more speech. But his view conveniently changed in the Age of Social Media. I had argued to Kurt (back then) that guys like me had no other real recourse other than our wallets; now, we have precisely what Busiek had advocated: a means to challenge speech with more speech.
And guys like Kurt don't like it. It's bad enough, I suppose, that they have to defend in real time what they do in their stories; now, if they choose to be political, they have to defend that, too. And it surprised the hell out of them that, lo and behold, there are plenty of people out there who enjoy their stories ... but not necessarily their politics. Their solution? Block dissenters. Belittle them. In other words, nothing much different than what your typical radical "progressive" does.
This phenomenon is not unlike what we've seen with the ascension of Fox News. Conservatives wanted -- craved -- a news outlet that would at the very least cover their point of view on issues, and do it fairly. Fox News filled that niche and violá -- instant, incredible ratings success. "Progressives," our supposed paragons of tolerance and understanding, saw what was coming and attacked. And their most telling response to conservatives' "just covering other points of view" claim is ... "one doesn't have to be tolerant of intolerance." (See here for a perfect, and recent, example.) Which is, of course, the easiest way to avoid a discussion and/or debate.
Raucous crowd keeps Texas abortion bill from passing is a headline at Philly.com today. From the article:
Despite barely beating a midnight deadline, hundreds of jeering protesters helped stop Texas lawmakers from passing one of the toughest abortion measures in the country.
The noise never stopped and despite barely beating the midnight end-of-session deadline with a vote to pass the bill, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst said the chaos in the chamber prevented him from formally signing it before the deadline passed, effectively killing it. Dewhurst denounced the protesters as an "unruly mob." Democrats who urged them on called the outburst democracy in action.
"Democracy in action," huh? Like they called the Tea Party protesters at various town halls back in 2010? And, as the title says, just imagine how it would be covered by the MSM if this was, say, the New York State legislature and Second Amendment supporters were jeering to prevent passage of a strict gun control measure.
... and that is that she's a Democrat who gave $$ to Boss Obama in 2008, and invited Michelle Obama to cook with her on her TV show.
Today at Philly.com:
Just imagine what they'd read if, y'know, a certain guy named Bush was still in the White House ...
First, you guessed it -- an MSNBC panel labeled pro-lifers as white supremacists: Panel Suggests Racist Motivation by Pro-lifers, Goal of 'Reproducing Whiteness'
So I think that there's a kind of moral panic, a fear of the end of whiteness that we've been seeing a long time in that I think, you know, Obama's ascension as President kind of symbolizes to a certain degree. And so I think this is one response to that sense that there's a decreasing white majority in the country and that women's bodies and white women's bodies in particular are obviously a crucial way of reproducing whiteness, white supremacy, white privilege. And so I think it's just a kind of clamping down on women's bodies, in particular white women's bodies, even though women of color are really caught in the fray.
Of course, what this dolt (University of Pennsylvania Assistant Professor Salamisha Tillet) fails to realize is that pro-lifers don't just care about white babies. And, since black women are approximately five times more likely to have an abortion than white women, how is lobbying to eliminate that statistic ... an example of wanting to preserve the white race??? Unbelievable.
Elsewhere, I was alerted to a recent (and past) post by one of my favorite scifi authors, John Scalzi, on the subject of white privilege. Scalzi has written the superb Old Man's War series, the most recent book of which is The Human Division. Unfortunately, Scalzi, like many other a successful liberal, feels the need to assuage his guilt over his having "made it" by giving a rhetorical hat tip to his fellow "progressive" academic types (like the above Professor Salamisha Tillet). But Michael Z. Williamson takes Scalzi to task:
Predictably, when invited to discuss the issue further with the above people, in a polite email, Scalzi completely ignored the issue. I can't presume his motives, but someone did suggest that the purpose of his posts is more to promote his books in the guilt-ridden, white, racist, liberal sellout market than to actually accomplish debate.
I have no doubt from his scribblings that Scalzi played life on the easy setting. Now that he's gotten rich, he needs to properly excoriate his success to avoid being a bad liberal.
An actual racist (I've met a few) would say, "Well, yes, I've done well, because I'm genetically and intellectually better than those lesser races." They would have no reason to get upset with his post, because it would tell them exactly what they wanted to hear: That they're at the top of the heap, awesome.
I had lengthy discussions with black writers and editors about Scalzi's post, and their concurrence seemed to be that it was shallow. I'll go a step further: It was an elitist white male passively-aggressively talking down to others about how awesome he is, but he feels guilty about it, so don't judge him too harshly.
How about going even further? If Scalzi is so guilty about having made it, partly (mainly?) because of the "leg up" he initially started with, why doesn't he abrogate the rights to his published properties to a minority writer and let him/her continue the stories? The same premise applies to the imbecilic Chris Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell, Ed Schultz, et. al.: Really put you money where your mouth is. Resign your position and hand it over to a member of a minority group. Otherwise, you're a bloviating hypocrite like way too many a vocal "progressive."
UPDATE: Nate notes in the comments a blogger who has dissected Scalzi's "progressivism" quite thoroughly.
UPDATE: Scalzi digs in deeper, claiming he doesn't feel guilty about being a straight white male, and delves further into the usual I-know-better-than-you condescension. In spades.
... so what does NBC's website do? Trot out "experts" to show how the peons in the poll are clueless:
Weldon Latham, a Washington DC attorney, advises that "just below the surface" things aren't that positive because "things that are very important, like jobs -- African-American jobs and female jobs are still some percentage below what white males are.” Latham "advises corporations on diversity issues." What do you think he would say?
Kevin Brown is the next person consulted, a law professor at Indiana University. Though he acknowledges that the election of Barack Obama was a great positive -- wait for it! -- he "stressed the ongoing need for programs to assist minorities." One of Brown's beefs is that too many "international" blacks are snagging spots at elite colleges instead of "traditional" African-Americans. Brown has written articles critical of Clarence Thomas, critical of "disproportionate" school discipline, and in support of affirmative action.
Princeton sociology prof Thomas J. Espenshade is up next, co-author of “No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal.” Gee, what do you think his opinion is? Just take a gander at this NY Times op-ed of his, in which he writes "We also found that self-segregation dilutes the educational benefits of diversity that proponents of affirmative action rightly prize." In other words, he's a fan of that "critical mass" made famous (or infamous) by the noted Michigan affirmative action cases which stressed (among other things) the educational "benefits" of a [racially] diverse student population. ("Benefits" which are highly questionable.)
Then there's Richard Kahlenberg, the only semi-critic of [race-based] AA, who argues that class-based AA -- based on income -- would make more sense. But he was critical of a study which argued that busing (moving poor children to more affluent schools) had little educational benefits. Nevertheless, he's quickly shot down in the NBC article by the aforementioned Brown, who says that Kahlenberg "misses the point" ... that "it's really both (socioeconomic status and race)."
Who's quoted in the article who supports the polls findings? No one.
Hey, how 'bout that? From Bleeding Cool:
The United States vs. PFC Bradley Manning: A Graphic Account From Inside the Courtroom is an upcoming graphic novel by Wikileaks supporter, writer and artist Clark Stoeckley, who has been attending the trial daily and making drawings of all he sees. And interprets.
Although you won’t have to wait till the official September publishing date. Those who preorder copies directly from the publisher OR Books, will receive weekly updates on the trial from Clark’s perspective and pen, some of it exclusive to the update.
Anyone fancy doing a sequel for Edward Snowden?
*Yawn* Just as we noted here, contemporary comics creators are quite selective in their outrage. There's Manning and now Snowden; however, where's the upcoming comic(s) about the victims of IRS abuse? Of EPA abuse? They don't count because remember -- to differ with a "progressive" isn't just a difference of opinion. It means you're an evil person ... and therefore must be crushed.
... we're talking about a conservative. Case in point: comics guy Kurt Busiek. He tweets yesterday about the recent NSA/spying flap:
David Simon of THE WIRE on the NSA scandal. Or "scandal," perhaps: davidsimon.com/we-are-shocked…— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) June 7, 2013
Kurt goes on to say "I mean, we can suddenly flip out that the government is made up of werewolves, but shouldn't there be some evidence first?" and complains about "overreaching without any evidence for it is imagination, not reportage."
But let's go back a bit in time, shall we? When Arizona Rep. Gabby Giffords was shot by a lunatic, Busiek wasn't exactly in "wait and see" mode. Well, he said he was, but then contemplated what we all heard ad nauseum throughout the MSM:
I wrote in the comments at the time:
I've absolutely NO hassle with anyone pontificating on matters political, whatever your field of endeavor. However, if you're in Kurt's field, it is ridiculous to expect NO criticism in response to your outspokenness. In regards to the Giffords shooting, Kurt immediately took the Reflexive Left's penchant for invoking conservative "hate" rhetoric as a "cause" for a killer's/terrorist's actions. Yes, he did say "we need to wait and see," but then again, Kurt did not exactly wait, did he? Moreover, by exclusively focusing on Palin, the Right, and moronic a-holes like that hateful comics vendor, Busiek effectively alienates approximately half of his fan base. And then people complain when those alienated point to his comments?
Of course, there was no word from Busiek (at least none that I saw at the time, or since) about the Left's "irresponsible" use of imagery like crosshairs, etc. They use such all the time, too.
And we're still waiting on some enlightened commentary by these creators regarding some of the other Obama scandals. Or, will they, like Busiek above, put that plural of the term in quotes, too?
RELATED: Oh-so-smart Ron Marz, who also has ignored the IRS, press spying, and Benghazi scandals, has the balls to tweet this:
Six people dead in a shooting in Santa Monica, and it's not even a trending topic. Doubly depressing.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) June 8, 2013
The Washington scandals have been trending for weeks now, Ron. With nary a word from you and your ilk. Triply depressing.
... which is fine, of course, but again we see their utter hypocrisy, not to mention selectivity. First, there's Mark "Go F*** Yourself" Waid:
An amazing (and dead-on) piece about Bradley Manning (who, IMO, is being GROSSLY overcriminalized by the govt): rollingstone.com/politics/blogs…— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) June 7, 2013
And Rick Remender:
"The debate we should be having is over whether as a people we approve of the acts he uncovered..." rol.st/123mSln— Rick Remender (@Remender) June 7, 2013
Again, the "rightness" of Manning's actions are certainly debatable; what cracks me up is that there has been nary a word from these guys about the one-scandal-after-another Boss Obama administration: Benghazi, the DOJ snooping on the AP and other reporters, the IRS, and now the NSA data-collecting matter. When they do, we get the usual muddle, like with Ed Brubaker here:
washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog… Seems like the real scandal is that any of these groups get tax exempt status in the first place.— Ed Brubaker (@brubaker) May 14, 2013
In subsequent posts, Brubaker claimed that he's "not a fan of either side, even slightly," and that "none of them (503 [c] groups) should be granted tax exempt status when they're clearly not 'non-political.'" But again, to Brubaker, this is the REAL scandal -- not that the IRS is abusing its power. Hell, perhaps even scarier is Ed saying "I think every group from any side of the political spectrum that raises money for political reason should be investigated."
Yeah, great -- to hell with free speech. Let's give the feds even more investigatory power, whether through the IRS, FBI or whoever. Because you're raising money for a political candidate you like. Wonderful.
Need I say it? Just imagine if these scandals were occurring under George W. Bush's watch. Think there'd be a paucity of tweets about the scandals then? HA. Indeed, aside from the innumerable tweets, there'd be stuff like this aplenty.
Via The Corner: MSNBC's Martin Bashir claims that saying "IRS" is akin to saying -- wait for it! -- "ni**er."
Yes, I'm serious.
But remember -- it's Fox News that is the "shoddy" journalism, making a "big deal" about stuff like the IRS scandal, Benghazi, and the AP/Fox News spying stuff.
"Six Facts Lost in the IRS Scandal" by -- wait for it! -- ProPublica.
Considered one the classic Silver Age/Bronze Age stories in Marvel history, "The Secret Empire" from the early 1970s in the pages of Captain America had the star-spangled hero on the trail of a "high government official," and led to Cap resigning his role for a time. Writer Steve Englehart used Watergate as the basis for his tale (in 1973, mind you, at least six months before Richard Nixon resigned), and the connections were less than subtle in most cases. For example, there was the Committee to Regain America's Principles (C.R.A.P.) (instead of C.R.E.E.P. -- the Committee to Re-Elect the President), and the devious Quentin Harderman (instead of H.R. Haldeman).
As I noted here, Englehart said about his story "I could not see any way that a character named Captain America could not react to something like Watergate." About which I tweeted this morning: "I wonder if any comics writers out there would be brave enough to have Capt. America fight the Secret Empire again ... but this time with Barack Obama as Number One?" Y'know, because of a little thing like the IRS under his watch is going after political enemies? Because Obama's Justice Dept. is snooping at reporters' phone records ... and even the Capitol? Because the administration concocted a totally phony story to blame for an attack on one of our embassies?
Think there'll be any takers? Who wants to be the one creator to really go out on a limb? Y'know, instead of taking the easy, PC and let's-pat-ourselves-on-the-back route like this. Or this. Or this. Or this. Etc.
I won't hold my breath.
OK, again, here's what I don't get: Comics creators take to social media to decry gun violence, the NRA, Republicans and conservatives in general, yet -- while deflecting/ignoring queries about their own business -- we see defenses of actions such as this:
A Nebraska public library has rejected a request to either remove Alan Moore and Brian Bolland’s Batman: The Killing Joke from shelves or move the 1988 DC Comics one-shot out of the young-adult area.
“I don’t find it worthy of being removed from the shelf,” the Columbus Telegram quotes Columbus Public Library board member Carol Keller as saying at last week’s meeting.
A patron had objected to the comic, saying it was “very adult” and “advocates rape and violence.” However, in a 3-0 vote (two members were absent), the board disagreed, contending that many prose books and comics depict violence, and that the patron’s interpretation of rape was “misconstrued.”
While I certainly agree that a public library should not remove [just about] any book, including The Killing Joke, I certainly believe that this patron's concern over it being in the "young adult" section could be justified. If you've read the book you'd have to at least consider it, even if you do not agree. While the book actually doesn't "promote" violence, it is quite violent, especially the point-blank range shooting of Barbara Gordon (Commissioner Gordon's daughter and former Batgirl):
An outlet like CBR's Robot 6, which goes out of its way to promote politically correct stories (like this one, also from today) would be hard-pressed to complain about the removal of, say, an graphic novel that promoted traditional marriage because it was "homophobic," let alone report on it at all. And again, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre when comicbook types took to social media and screamed about guns and violence, why can't we be just a little more vigilant about violence in terms of age appropriateness?