... Marvel Comics is investing time and energy on yet another "Avengers" title.
Hawkeye, or in this case, Clint Barton, and some non-powered heroes will be traveling across the country to help average joes with their problems. Like Flint, Michigan's water crisis, Walker says.
"Or, for lack of a better term," he says, "that 99 percentile that is sort of synonymous with the Occupy movement; the people who are often trod upon, can't protect themselves, and don't feel like they're being protected because of things like corporate interests or political corruption."
Like the Democratic Party-controlled city of Flint? (Shhhh! Don't tell Walker that!) Or, politicians like Hillary Clinton who get off scot-free while if you or I -- or anyone from the so-called 99% -- did what she did we'd be in the clink?
Don't count on it.
And don't expect this book to go anywhere sales-wise, even if artist extraordinaire Carlos Pacheco is doing the first quartet of issues. Walker's Nighthawk has proven to be a sales disaster after only a few issues, and disgusting Gail Simone's similarly-themed book The Movement barely made it to a dozen editions before cancellation.
... 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
Long-time comics creator Chuck Dixon says what many of us have known for some time -- that "the rise of 'social justice' in comics and how DC and Marvel seem to be wanting to change genders or ethnicities of long-established characters just for political correctness’ sake" is helping with comicbooks' downfall.
Why aren't things getting better?
"Because they’ve chased so much of the readership away. People simply stopped reading comics when they voluntarily pulled comics off the newsstands in the 1990s and became a boutique industry exclusive to comic shops."
"Why don’t the comics sell more? Because they’re crap. That’s why they don’t sell more.”
Indeed. I really can't fathom why anyone, let alone conservatives, would shell out $4.00 for the stuff that's put out these days. When I occasionally get a current issue from a buddy it's incredible how creatively stunted the stories are -- especially compared to 15-20 years ago. Everyone talks the same, the characters are all seemingly really stupid as they're ultra-quick to start needless fights, and, of course, the forced political correctness is head-shakingly laughable. (Here's but the latest example.)
One thing Chuck forgot is what we, Doug Ernst, Avi Green, and others have documented for years -- the nasty, disdainful, and dismissive way modern creators treat fans (especially those who in any way question them) on social media.
Comics veterans Chuck Dixon and Brett R. Smith have teamed up to do the graphic novel version of Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash.
"The graphic novel says that it will help to tell the story of 'the most corrupt candidate ever,' tracing Hillary Clinton’s involvement with shady characters back to when she and Bill left the White House in the late 1990s."
At least some creators out there are providing a smidgen of balance ...
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.)
Oh, Chris Evans:
I'm proud of this sit-in. We need common sense gun reform. And to be clear, NO ONE IS TAKING AWAY GUNS! Just looking for COMMON SENSE reform— Chris Evans (@ChrisEvans) June 22, 2016
In wake or Orlando massacre, NRA sycophant Marco Rubio voted against background checks. Now he wants Florida voters to return him to office.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) June 22, 2016
Something doesn't add up. I've been thinking about this shooting in Orlando and I can't make sense of the math.
So far, we have at least 50 dead. There were an estimated 350 people in the club at the time. He was using an AR-15. The AR-15 can hold a maximum of 30 rounds. I suspect that the "suicide vest" he was wearing was a tactical vest designed to hold more ammunition. Let's further assume he was carrying six more magazines of 30 rounds each. Let's also assume a 9mm pistol and four additional magazines. Fifteen for each magazine for the pistol. That's a total of 285 rounds.
That means he killed 1 person per 5 rounds. That's even before he got into a shootout with SWAT. Let's assume he took 100 shots at the SWAT team. That's down to 185 and 50 killed. That is some very impressive shooting in a panicked crowd. Moving targets, questionable lighting and really total chaos.
I am no tin foil hat brigade and am not suggesting anything other than this: I think there may be an accomplice. If he had help, this guy stays behind to keep the police occupied and the other assailant drops his gear and follows the panicked crowd into the street and he's gone.
Some Googling and I find this:
"There is an investigation of other persons. We are working as diligently as we can on that," Bentley said at a news conference. "If anyone else was involved in this crime, they will be prosecuted."
Stay tuned, this isn't over. This is fourth generation warfare and it's here to stay.
... 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.
The California State Senate votes to exempt itself from its own strict gun control laws. The vote was 28-8.
Y'see, they're more important than YOU. They deserve protection. Not YOU.
Cali legislators also average approximately $140,000 in annual compensation. They get a free car and gasoline. Among other things.
And you thought things were wacky here in the one-party state of Delaware.
HuffPost op-ed: Anti-Trump violence justified
"In the face of media, politicians, and GOP primary voters normalizing Trump as a presidential candidate — whatever your personal beliefs regarding violent resistance — there's an inherent value in forestalling Trump's normalization.
"Violent resistance accomplishes this."
Is that so.
(Via the Washington Examiner.)
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.
I don't think I'm going out on a limb here and saying that Hillary is the presumptive nominee for the Democrats. (This is assuming she isn't indicted or drops out for health reasons.)
I've been thinking about her VP choice. Julian Castro is the name I hear most often as the front runner. This makes a certain amount of sense. He's young, he's from Texas and he's Latino.
But does she really need the Latino vote as much as other segments?
She has very high negatives and those aren't really moveable. She's been around for 30 years and people have pretty much made up their mind about her for good or for ill. I think she has the most chance of swaying women but they don't like her. Especially young women.
Suppose the answer to that is to pick a woman for VP? I think that's a strong possibility. The obvious choice there is Warren but those two are known for not liking each other. Can they figure something out that would be a deal? Clinton may offer a single term and backing for Warren's run in 2020. I suspect Hillary's health is a problem that is much more serious than she lets on.
For the record I don't see how she gets indicted for either her influence peddling nor for her mishandling of classified material. She's too politically powerful and has too much money and influence. I wish that didn't matter and I wish I could honestly say that we are a nation of laws but that just isn't true anymore. There are too many examples to list but people, especially in government, are immune to prosecution irrespective of their crimes.
My prediction: Julian Castro (yeah, I know, brave prediction Duffy).
The why is simply that she's a creature of The Establishment and they follow the long laid down rules and that's the likely pick.
Outside chances: Tim Kaine, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Christie Todd Whitman (this would be the desperation pick)
"Right to privacy" = right kill an unborn child in the womb.
"Right to privacy" does NOT = right to avoid a grown, biological man watching you pee.
In fact, any laws contrary to the latter are like Jim Crow laws, according to our illustrious Attorney General.
That's right, if you don't want your young daughter going to a restroom with a grown person with a penis, you're just like the segregationist, racist bigots of the 1950s-60s South.
Here's what states like North Carolina ought to do: Establish "sanctuary bathrooms" which are (biologically) gender specific. Merely play the "progressives'" own game. And stick to it.
Tow truck pulls up and sees a Bernie Sanders bumper sticker on disabled vehicle; refuses to tow car and tells owner "Call the government."
From our 'ol pal Ron Marz:
Me: "Trump can't win a general election."— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) May 4, 2016
H.L Mencken: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
Retweeted by the gnomish Dan Slott:
Free speech & parody are critical pillars of our culture. This kind of attack isn't just unAmerican, it's inhuman. https://t.co/n6MGhOcLtb— Seth Green (@SethGreen) April 30, 2016
What a hoot.
Here's the ultra-PC (when it suits him) Ron Marz:
Seems apparent some dudes need to grow up. A LOT. https://t.co/0Up55ixTEY— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) April 29, 2016
Lastly, Kurt Busiek on being a citizen:
I think it is a fine and healthy thing to distrust one's leaders. To be skeptical and wary, a constituent rather than a cheerleader.— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) May 1, 2016
Yours truly, from August of last year: "Trump as the national Christine O'Donnell"
Tweet from today, by an editor of RedState:
Donald Trump is Christine O'Donnell on a Presidential scale. His supporters, like hers, will be bewildered after he's trounced— Jay Caruso (@JayCaruso) April 24, 2016
It's a little easier when you're from the First State, I suppose. ;-)
"Bread lines are a GOOD thing," says Bernie Sanders:
Fast forward to 3:11 in the clip.
And this guy is this close to the Democratic nomination.
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.
According to this post from the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers, it seems so.
Which is a shame. I rarely agreed with Al, but between him and afternoon guy Rick Jensen, it gave the station a good "yin vs. yang" feel. Not to mention, Al was always willing to bring on those with opposing views and give 'em a fair hearing. He was always friendly and respectful to me in email and phone correspondence, at public meetings when I bumped into him, and at an occasional sighting out and about somewhere in the First State.
Best wishes to you, Al. Best of luck in your future endeavors.
Socialist Bernie Sanders at last night's debate:
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"?
This shouldn't come as a surprise at all:
It's not in my nature to celebrate someone's death. But I'm delighted that homophobic racist is off the Supreme Court.— GAIL SIMONE (@GailSimone) February 15, 2016
Obama was elected Precedent. Twice. https://t.co/zEludRfzIk— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) February 14, 2016
But, according to Marz, because Obama was elected (twice), this means he should get whatever he wants. Never mind that the decisions he made after being elected (twice) led to losing the House of Representatives and, more importantly, the Senate.
Y'know, the Senate which has the constitutional power to approve or reject the president's Supreme Court nominees.
Proof conservatives only like the Constitution when it serves them. Obama has the right and duty to appoint. https://t.co/9rZ4YcsOgE— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) February 13, 2016
Read above, too, Dan Slott:
THIS! THIS! THIS! https://t.co/xdGXxmzCk8— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) February 14, 2016
And be sure to check out Mark Waid's timeline -- all chock full of selected quotes and instances of GOP SCOTUS politicization, but nary a word on those Democratic. Like Chuck Schumer calling for blocking all of George W. Bush's appointees. Or when, in 1960, when Democrats wanted to nix any election year SCOTUS appointments (remember, Eisenhower was prez that year).
Not to mention, here's then-Senator Obama himself on the "president won the election so he should get what he wants" line:
“There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee…that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view.”
Always remember, those of you on the right side of the political spectrum (or even in the center) -- this is what contemporary comicbook folk think of you and your beliefs.
A friend of mine recently lent me the first two trades of the "critically acclaimed" series which began over two years ago. It chronicles Superman and assorted super-pals assuming control of the planet.
It's based on the hit video game of the same name.
The story takes place on an alternate Earth, and the Joker has apparently grown tired of dealing with Batman. As such, he travels to Metropolis where he kidnaps Lois Lane, and then surgically attaches a device to her heart. If Lane's heart ceases to beat, a nuclear device will explode, obliterating Metropolis.
Joker uses a Kryptonite-laden form of Scarecrow's hallucinogenic gas on Supes, and as a result believes Lois to be a bad-guy. He skyrockets Lois into space, killing her. Joker's nuke explodes, leveling Metropolis. Superman promptly kills the Joker.
From there we see little that we haven't read already in Mark Gruenwald's Squadron Supreme, Mark Waid's Kingdom Come, and numerous issues of The Authority. Not to mention, Mark Millar's superb Superman: Red Son.
Writer Tom Taylor is an amateur compared to those who've come before. Superman comes across like an angry middle schooler ... you can never quite grasp the protagonist, nor feel his grief at the loss of Lois.
Taylor injects the typical stuff we've all seen elsewhere in contemporary fare: Catwoman lecturing the president (and Batman) about "doing better" and giving him (them) a hard time with the usual litany of liberal gripes, including gun control. (Y'know, an issue way down on the list of voters' concerns.)
Perhaps the most laughable scene regarding this issue is Superman playing chess with the Flash and out of the blue saying "I want to ban guns."
Flash counters with "Do you think people will let you?" (as if they could do anything about it) and to be sure, the issue is debated, along with other matters. It's just done rather clumsily.
A la Squadron Supreme, two teams of heroes form -- Superman, Wonder Woman and Shazam lead those who want to exercise their (super)power to alleviate the ills of the world; Batman leads those in opposition. (In Gruenwald's SS, ironically it was the Batman analogue Nighthawk who formed the opposition team against Superman/Wonder Woman analogues Hyperion/Power Princess and co.)
Superman, once the notion of killing is out of his system, proceeds to off Martian Manhunter and Green Arrow in the process of establishing his "better world." And both deaths don't seem to mean much. Superman and Wonder Woman's attitudes were like "Meh, had to be done." The Soviet Superman in Red Son had a higher moral plane.
The second trade features essentially worthless battles with Apokolips acolytes and Lobo, and furthers the battles between the two superhero armies. I started to get bored. But I guess I'll continue reading ... since I ain't paying for it.
It's insanity like this:
Police were responding to a report of a stolen car when they ran Pedro Figueroa-Zarceno and found he was facing a deportation order, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. He would later be turned over to federal immigration agents.
Figueroa-Zarceno was subject to deportation for failure to appear at an immigration hearing in 2015 and from a 2012 conviction for drunken driving, the Chronicle reported.
The San Francisco Police Department has since launched an investigation to determine if any officers involved are subject to discipline for a possible breach of local sanctuary-city laws.
“We want to make sure that the police officers who committed this offense and obviously violated the law themselves are held accountable,” Jeff Adachi, a public defender, told KGO.
Taking the absurdity a step further, the department celebrated the illegal immigrant’s release back into the community — Figueroa-Zarceno, who has lawyered up, was released on bail Wednesday after being held for two months.
“We are happy and relieved that Mr. Figueroa-Zarceno has been restored to his family,” SFPD spokesman Sgt. Michael Andraychak said, according to the Chronicle. (Source)
"Rule of law" applies only to little people. And non-"progressives."
Robert Reich fears Ted Cruz. He wrote an article called
Because I like you people, I read it so you don't have to. Herewith are the five points he makes along with my insightful commentary:
1. He’s more fanatical.
2. Cruz is a true believer.
Simply translated, he believes what he says. He doesn't just parrot whatever the Old Guard of his party says (that's me avoiding the use of the term "Establishment). He genuinely believes that government is overfunded, over-reaching, overweaning, and overlarge. He really does believe that the Federal government has far too much power and it acts as a drag on the economy and inhibits personal liberty. Trump, on the other hand, is presented as a reasonable guy who is a dealmaker. Someone the Democrats can work with. What he fails to realize is that is precisely what Cruz voters have objected to the last two elections and what Trump voters think he is not. They do think he can get deals done but they don't think Trump is a compromiser. He is.
3. He’s Smarter.
This is undoubtedly true and even his harshest critics cannot reasonably paint him as dumb or even anything less than brilliant. Alan Dershowitz called him "off the charts brilliant". Given that Dershowitz is legenarily fearsome in terms of his legal mind that is seriously impressive.
4. He’s more disciplined and strategic.
Where Trump is all sparks, Cruz is the fire. Trump castigates and derides his opponents. Cruz dismantles them or disarms them. Cruz is a very methodical thinker and a master of marshaling an argument and can speak passionately and with conviction because he really does believe what he says. Part of that brilliance is the fact that he doesn't have to reach into his bag of preplanned speeches to cover a topic. This is what separates him from Rubio on the stump.
5. Cruz is a loner who’s willing to destroy institutions.
Yes and this is why I love him. When he says he wants to destroy the IRS he means it. Not as a talking point, not as a stemwinder or a way to "energize the base". He really does believe we can do without it. Whether this is achievable is another matter but if presented with a bill to eliminate the IRS in favor of a tax plan even similar to his own, he'd sign it.
All of the things that make Cruz so scary for Reich is exactly why his supporters love him. Whip smart, methodical, disciplined, strategic and a true believer who is not beholden to the party apparatus.
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.
Marvel CEO Isaac Perlmutter recently donated a YUGE $1 million to The Donald's personal nonprofit, and the SJWs are, needless to say, losing their minds:
Marvel's CEO has given $1 million to Trump and Trump spoke about how great he was at a recent event.— Ryan Brown (@Toadsanime) January 29, 2016
*throws away Spider-Man figures*
You should not not give a cent to anything @Marvel until their racist, Trump-supporting CEO steps down.— Peter Nu-Male Coffin (@petercoffin) January 29, 2016
I guess the Marvel CEO donated $1 mil to Trump because he likes supervillains— HamletMachine (@Hamlet_Machine) January 29, 2016
The CEO of Marvel just gave Trump a million dollars.— Calvin (@aurosan) January 29, 2016
Excuse me while I go burn everything I own of theirs.
You wonder why @Marvel is bad with representation? Their CEO donated a million to Trump.— Peter Nu-Male Coffin (@petercoffin) January 29, 2016
End of story. Resign.
@ronmarz Not sure I agree. We boycott Chic-Fil-A & other companies whose CEOs support detestable people/policies. Why give Marvel a pass?— Rick Marshall (@rickmarshall) January 29, 2016
In a matter of speaking, "Welcome to the party, people."
Thanks to the hateful, bigoted, hypocritical, insulting, and just plain stupid language of the likes of Ron Marz, Dan Slott, Tom Brevoort, Nick Spencer, Mark Waid, Gerry Conway and numerous others -- whose remarks have all been chronicled here and by fellow travelers Douglas Ernst, Avi Green, and Nate Winchester -- there are many right-leaning people who have dropped reading (modern) comics altogether.
After all, to paraphrase Colossus' sub-banner, why would any individual want to give money to those who spit in your face?
Hell, writer Mark Waid even told a fan not to buy his stuff because he didn't like how he was spoken to regarding a Twitter spat about ObamaCare:
@juddemerson Seriously, fuck off. Please never read my comics again. I don't need money from someone who attacks me out of nowhere.— Mark Waid (@MarkWaid) March 12, 2014
"There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail." —Hillary #DemDebate— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) January 18, 2016
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.
So Vice President Biden nearly lost his house because his son got sick.
Biden told the president that, to make sure he could take care of Beau's family, he and wife Jill might have to sell their house. But Obama wouldn't stand for that.
So either ACA is such a dismal failure that it cannot even keep a man with terminal brain cancer from having medical bills that bankrupt his family or...Joe Biden has no problem making up wild stories to prove a political point about his friendship with the President.
Neither of these is particularly comforting.
Kudos to CNN's Anderson Cooper for challenging Herr Leader on whether it's fair to call skepticism of Obama and guns a "conspiracy."
Once again, despite the Boss's typical snide condescension, it's not. He's brought up the example of Australia numerous times, a country that confiscated guns after a mass shooting there. In his recent crybaby speech about guns, he even referenced China. CHINA.
Keep in mind, too, that before becoming a senator Obama said he did not believe in the right of personal possession of firearms.
But yeah -- it's a "conspiracy." Just like "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
New Philly mayor Jim Kenney restores his town to "sanctuary city" status.
And look at the chick's raised fist of approval. Isn't that sweet?
Meanwhile, the Left is all aghast at the Oregon "standoff" by some militia types.
Regarding this, and the ridiculous contradictions and hypocrisy, National Review's Kevin D. Williamson sums it up perfectly:
"But it's illegal!" So was Obama's war in Libya and Mrs. Clinton's email scheme. So are 20 million illegal immigrants. Sounds of silence.— Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) January 3, 2016
"But it's illegal!" So was the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki. Who is up for indicting President Obama?— Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) January 4, 2016
You can screech "It's illegal!" when Lois Lerner is in federal prison and Melissa Click is the county jail.— Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) January 4, 2016
When the law is enforced against citizens but not against those in government, you don't have the rule of law.— Kevin D. Williamson (@KevinNR) January 4, 2016
Anyone think there'll be "firearm sanctuary cities" following Boss Obama's upcoming executive orders on gun control? If so, what's the big deal, "progressives"? You pick and choose which laws should be followed, and those in government are rarely, if ever, prosecuted for breaking 'em, so ...?
It's not that he's so smart on policy, or even a terrific politician. It's because the Boss Obama administration engages in ridiculously dangerous politically correct bullsh** like this:
Fearing a civil liberties backlash and “bad public relations” for the Obama administration, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused in early 2014 to end a secret U.S. policy that prohibited immigration officials from reviewing the social media messages of all foreign citizens applying for U.S. visas, a former senior department official said.
“During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process,” John Cohen, a former acting under-secretary at DHS for intelligence and analysis. Cohen is now a national security consultant for ABC News. (Source)
People have WAY beyond had it with this simple-minded insanity, and Trump has tapped into that anger. I don't like it, but Obama and idiot "progressives" have no one to blame but themselves.
Does anyone want to hear from pampered celebrities -- many of whom have armed bodyguards to protect them -- about "ending gun violence?"
Give me a freakin' break, already.
Two years ago, I gave you this bit of predictive wisdom:
How much of a nudge does France need to make FN a major player? What happens if they gain a majority in the assembly? I'm afraid we may find out before too long.
And now this:
One is a pragmatist: a 47-year-old lawyer by training who has steered France's far-right National Front (FN) from pariah status to mainstream.
In the Nord-Pas-de-Calais, a rustbelt bastion of the Socialists who rule at national level, opinion-poll estimates gave Le Pen more than 40 percent of the first-round vote.
This is absolutely astonishing. This is akin to Donald Trump winning in Illinois. If she does steamroll to victory as predicted France may see the biggest whipsaw to the right since Rene Coty in the '50's.
Back to the article...
Victory in the second round on December 13 would give her a springboard for her bid to be president in 2017.
Therein lies the parallel with the Tea Party again. The GOP was out in the wilderness for a while and they now have a young (and arguably) deep bench where as the ossified incumbent party is frozen in old platitudes. This could get interesting.
The first find was nothing less than staggering—a fax from Jody Powell, President Jimmy Carter’s press secretary, to George Stephanopoulos, Bill Clinton’s new press secretary, warning Clinton to back off from gun control because … it just doesn’t work.
“If there is an area that needs ‘new thinking,’ ‘rethinking,’ ‘a different kind of Democrat’ and all that, crime/gun control is it. From the outside this does not appear to be happening. What I hear and read sounds like the same old ideas being presented with the same worn-out rhetoric.
“Much as I hate to say it, the NRA is effective primarily because it is largely right when it claims that most gun control measures inconvenience and threaten the law-abiding while having little or no impact on violent crime and criminals.”
Powell goes to note that, even though he supports gun registration "in principle," one has to ask: "Are the people causing the problem going to comply voluntarily? If not, do you have a way to effectively enforce compliance?"
Of all people, Bill Clinton's then-press secretary George Stephanopoulos wrote on Powell's fax sheet "This makes a lot sense."
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.
"Lois Lerner is free. Kim Davis was imprisoned. Hillary is free. Filmmaker is in prison." -- John Nolte
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.
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.
From her adventures in cattle trading to chairing a policymaking committee in her husband’s White House to running for Senate in a state she’d never lived in to her effort to use superdelegates to overturn 2008 primary results to her email servers, [Hillary] Clinton is clearly more comfortable than the average person with violating norms and operating in legal gray areas.
Committed Democrats and liberal-leaning interest groups are facing a reality in which any policy gains they achieve are going to come through the profligate use of executive authority, and Clinton is almost uniquely suited to deliver the goods. More than almost anyone else around, she knows where the levers of power lie, and she is comfortable pulling them, procedural niceties be damned.
She truly is the perfect leader for America’s moment of permanent constitutional crisis: a person who cares more about results than process, who cares more about winning the battle than being well-liked, and a person who believes in asking what she can get away with rather than what would look best.
In other words, f*** the Constitution and how things are supposed to work. If she doesn't get what she wants, she just do it anyway.
Such is banana republic politics.
Via The Corner.
And now ... back to writing things you don't know about yet, and listening to @rogerwaters.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) June 5, 2014
... Israel is a “racist apartheid regime” that practices “ethnic cleansing.” A great artist such as himself will not play in a country equivalent to “Vichy government in occupied France.” Likening Jews to Nazi collaborators was not enough. Waters then went further, comparing Israel to the Nazis themselves. “I would not have played in Berlin either … during the Second World War.” Waters believes that Israel is guilty of genocide, only “this time it’s the Palestinian people being murdered.”
Marz is a guy who wastes no time lecturing us about why buying something from Orson Scott Card is beyond heinous, or how he'll have nothing to do with Dragon Con -- "Because I think what you choose to support matters," he says.
And yet ... there's Roger Waters. Let that sink in.
... we hear of this accusation of nigh traitorous activity:
On Monday afternoon, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who has served as the President of Argentina for nearly eight years, spoke for forty minutes during the 70th session of the General Assembly. While discussing the nuclear arms agreement involving several world superpowers in relation to Iran, Kirchner dropped what seems like a bombshell claiming that Gary Samore — the former White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction under Obama — tried to convince the Argentinians to provide the Iranians with nuclear fuel in 2010.
Thankfully, there's a real leader in the world who's willing to do something like this:
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.
Great read via The Claremont Institute titled "The Politics of Star Trek."
It's a topic I've covered numerous times before; however, I thought this nugget was particularly interesting:
This clear-headedness had evaporated by December 1991, when the movie sequel Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country appeared, only months after Roddenberry’s death. The previous films had focused on questions of loyalty, friendship, and Spock’s need for feeling to leaven his logic, but this one, written in part by Nimoy, would be the first devoted expressly to political subjects. It comments on the waning of the Cold War by portraying the first steps toward peace with the Klingons. Yet the price of peace, it turns out, is not merely to forgive past crimes, but for the innocent peoples of the galaxy to take the guilt upon themselves.
Star Trek VI opens with a shocking betrayal: without informing his captain, Spock has volunteered the crew for a peace mission to the Klingons. Kirk rightly calls this “arrogant presumption,” yet the Vulcan is never expected to apologize. On the contrary, the film summarily silences Kirk’s objections. At a banquet aboard the Enterprise, he is asked whether he would be willing to surrender his career in exchange for an end to hostilities, and Spock swiftly intervenes. “I believe the captain feels that Starfleet’s mission has always been one of peace,” he says. Kirk tries to disagree, but is again interrupted. Later, he decides that “Spock was right.” His original skepticism toward the peace mission was only prejudice: “I was used to hating Klingons.”
This represented an almost complete inversion of Star Trek’s original liberalism, and indeed of any rational scale of moral principles at all. At no point in the show’s history had Kirk or his colleagues treated the Klingons unjustly, whereas audiences for decades have watched the Klingons torment and subjugate the galaxy’s peaceful races. In “Errand of Mercy,” they attempt genocide to enslave the Organians. In “The Trouble with Tribbles,” they try to poison a planet’s entire food supply. The dungeon in which Kirk is imprisoned in this film is on a par with Stalin’s jails. Yet never does the Klingon leader, Gorkon, or any of his people, acknowledge—let alone apologize for—such injustices. Quite the contrary; his daughter tells a galactic conference, “We are a proud race. We are here because we want to go on being proud.” Within the context of the original Star Trek, such pride is morally insane.
Roddenberry was so bothered by the film’s script that he angrily confronted director Nicholas Meyer at a meeting, futilely demanding changes. He and those who helped him create Star Trek knew that without a coherent moral code—ideas they considered universal, but which the film calls “racist”—one can never have genuine peace. Star Trek VI seemed to nod contentedly at the haunting thought Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn voiced in The Gulag Archipelago: “No, no one would have to answer.”
The above is truncated a bit, so for the full meaning by all means click the link.
I had no idea Roddenberry despised the script for Undiscovered Country, and after this piece it makes quite a bit of sense.
However, despite my siding with Kirk's feelings about the Klingons, I've always considered ST VI along the lines of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty from the late 70s. Then, the leaders of both countries (Begin, Sadat) had to get beyond their own -- and their constituents' -- misgivings in order to make a lasting peace.
Granted, the analogy is far from perfect, but, overall, if any sort of peace is to be achieved leaders must go above and beyond grievances (past and present) in order to obtain it.
Certainly, in ST VI's case, the Federation easily could have made certain demands before entering into a peace agreement. Keep in mind that at the time it was stated that the Klingon Empire "had 50 years of life left." What were the Federation's demands? I don't recall them making any. Why not? Were they afraid of the Empire making a last-ditch "kamikaze" effort against them for their "insolence?" If so, that shows how (politically) weak the Federation had become even back then ... which is probably, partly, what the Great Bird (Roddenberry) was so cheesed at. After all, when the US had two of our greatest enemies beaten (Germany and Japan), we did indeed assist them in rebuilding themselves, but we didn't just send them cash and material assistance and have no say in the whole deal. We kept garrisons of military troops within their borders, and overtly guided the countries' transition to representative democracy.
Star Trek VI would have us believe that the Klingons had to give nothing, other than the promise of no further hostilities, for the goodwill of the Federation.
There is much ado about Pope Frank giving priests the OK to forgive women who have had an abortion. This is not news. JPII did exactly this in 1995
I am completely unbothered by Obama changing Mt. McKinley to Denali. Seriously. We live in places with names like Wissihicken, Hockessin, Ho-Ho-Kus, Lake Hopatcong, Conowingo etc. What the hell difference does it make what we call the mountain? Personally, I think Denali sounds nicer anyway.
This is interesting.
The author paints a picture of a very grim future for oil reliant economies. The long and the short of it is that fracking and shale are the doom of the Saudis and likely a few others.
The Saudis have no price floor from an extraction standpoint but they do have a domestic funding problem with prices below a certain value. (That value seems to be in dispute.)
If Mr. Maudlin is correct, there isn't even anything the Saudis can do to stave this off. Looking at the list presented shows more than a few nations that would crumble into anarchy but for oil funding. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela (already well on their way), Russia, Iran, Nigeria, Algeria. I think their demise would be dependent on how much of their GDP is on oil. I don't know much about most of them and how tied into oil they are but I can tell you the Saudis and the Iranians are in big big trouble if he's right.
Moreover, I'm afraid of what comes after. What happens to Saudi Arabia when the petrodollars dry up? Mass riots, topple the government and ISIS takes over. Frankly the laws the Saudis live under aren't too far off of what ISIS has in mind.
If he's right, we're about to get on a very very rough rollercoaster for the next few decades and I don't think its going to be fun. Let's hope he's wrong and I am too.
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.
Remember, Delaware conservatives, when in
2008 2010 many of you actually thought that Christine O'Donnell could beat out Chris Coons in the general US Senate election -- even though every poll showed her getting beat, most by double digits?
And remember how every poll showed that O'Donnell's primary opponent, Mike Castle, beat Chris Coons? Remember??
You voted for O'Donnell anyway.
Now look -- I get digging Donald Trump. I really do. He gives it right back to people, most especially the mainstream media, and that is incredibly appealing.
But he won't win the general election. The only chance he would have is if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee, and he won't be. Even Hillary "What, Wipe It Clean With A Cloth?" Clinton still beats Trump head-to-head despite her criminal behavior. If things get too tough for Hill, the Dems will pull the plug, and someone like Joe Biden will jump in.
I remember O'Donnell beating Castle very well. I knew it would be a disaster. Thus, I worry about the Trump craze. I wanna grab people by the shoulders like Cahill (Oliver Platt) did to Grant (Kurt Russell) in Executive Decision and yell "LISTEN TO ME! LISTEN TO ME!!"
Maybe another time I'll address some of his head scratchers, like repealing the 14th Amendment and making Mexico pay for building a border wall.
Two predictions today, one near term and one far term.
First, Hillary will not be criminally charged with anything regarding the classified emails. She will pin it on either the company that set up the system or one of her underlings that was to blame. The key here is that she used the following words again and again:
Marked. That's the key. The emails with classified materials were not marked as such. That's her out. She's going to plead ignorance that she didn't know the material therein was classified. Sadly, this excuse will fly with everyone and sure as hell Obama is not going to let Justice go after her even if they wanted to. (Spoiler: they don't)
This will turn on who took the classified stuff out of JWICS and moved it to a lower environment. That is the origin of the crime. (Yes, it's a crime)
Having worked in classified environments I can tell you that even the lowest PII data is very closely guarded. When I worked at TLA I had two laptops. One was Secured. It would not print. It had no USB or external storage capabilities. It was audited regularly and I could not pass information from the unclassified network to the classified one. (NB: development and testing occurs in non-classified networks but prod environments are classified, housed in hardened data centers) When I had to do software updates I had to physically drive to the secured data center that was protected by armed guards and I was searched and even had to leave my cellphone in a locker before entering the facility. I was escorted the entire time and wasn't allowed to use the phones there because I didn't have a STE phone back in my office that I could call. So if I had a problem, I had to sign out of the facility and make a call from the parking lot. All this for PII data that was just for SECRET level. I cannot imagine how much more stringent they are for TOP SECRET or TS/SCI.
Beyond near term:
If the GOP manages to win the election next time around and starts undoing the damage Obama has done with, well, everything, there will be a turnaround in the economy that his supporters will give him credit for. That's right, it took a mere 9-10 years for his policies to bear fruit.
The author believes, and makes a good case that Saudi Arabia is toast. Not in the long term, in the medium term. They are up against the wall because tar sands and moreover fracking, have changed the game forever. The US is now the largest oil producing country in the world and it is not going to stop. The Saudis are very quickly burning through their cash reserve and while they have no practical price floor, they do have a political one. They are funding the spread of Sunni mosques around the world and those are expensive proposals. If they do hit a cash crunch, they'll have to reduce their funding of those efforts in order to keep the locals happy and keep the neighborhood quiet. With the pressure on them from Houthi rebels in the south and the high likelihood of ISIS growing in the near to medium term that spells disaster for them. ISIS has considerable support among the average Saudi citizens. If they are unable to diversify their economy (unlikely) or somehow change the oil markets to put themselves on top (similarly unlikely) they are going to consume their reserves even more rapidly. The hole in this theory is that no one really knows how much the Saudis have in reserve. It is certain that the royal family has billions and billions around the world not just in liquid assets but in real estate and other holdings and ongoing concerns.
The key question: What happens in the worst case scenario? What happens if they forgo maintenance on their infrastructure in favor of the price war and they burn through their reserves. I'd predict the royal family bugs out to France or Switzerland, ISIS rolls in and they go head to head with the Saudi Military who has taken over once the King and his ilk fled.
The darker alternative is that the Saudis use terrorist groups as proxies to wreak havoc on the fracking efforts around the US so as to slow or halt the yield. That is a very dangerous game and would be a measure of absolute desperation and would end very very badly for all involved.
Granted all of this is conjecture but I for one, would be very happy to see the end of Saudi rule both in their country and the oil markets. The upside of the US producing oil is that we would no longer be funding terrorists who are literally plotting to kill us.
... but such measures may actually be ineffective in preventing illegal voting.
How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.
If they mean 6.4 percent of 11 million illegal immigrants … we’re talking about roughly 700,000 votes being cast by non-citizens in 2008. Stunning.
We also find that one of the favorite policies advocated by conservatives to prevent voter fraud appears strikingly ineffective. Nearly three quarters of the non-citizens who indicated they were asked to provide photo identification at the polls claimed to have subsequently voted.
So, not only is the "progressive" claim that voter fraud not being a problem false, the main effort to combat is actually not very effective.
Just imagine if someone comes up with a better method to combat the fraud.
“It turns out Jon Stewart isn’t our Edward R. Murrow or our Mark Twain. He’s more like our . . . Jay Carney. Don’t count on future generations knowing Stewart’s name any more than they will know Carney’s. Remember when, under a Republican president, it was the duty of all comedians to be the loyal opposition, to speak truth to power? Stewart does the opposite. He’s more like a referee who sneaks into the Patriots’ locker room to ask Tom Brady how much he wants his footballs deflated.”
Donald Trump is not a serious candidate for President. He knows it. You know it. I know it. He is in for the lights, cameras and free brand advertisement. He is some sort of egomaniacal populist. Every single time he talks to the press about anything, he always comes back to how smart he is and how much money he made. That's all well and good but it does not a President make.
That said, I have an idea for Mr. Trump. If he really, truly wants to turn it up a notch, organize gay pride parades across the country. Make sure the route goes through the largest Muslim neighborhoods and past the local mosques. First stop, Dearborn Michigan. There are cracks in the Blue Coalition and they're inherent. Leftists have decided to organize not along ideological lines but class and race and gender and identity. Exploit that.
It's beyond hilarious when so-called "progressives" can't keep track of the politically correct hierarchy and f*** up. Such was the case this weekend at the annual Nutroots Nation lunatic fringe conference in Phoenix.
MSNBC reported that Martin O’Malley and Sen. Bernie Sanders both failed to appease the angry protesters chanting “Black lives matter,” who forcefully approached the stage partway through O’Malley’s conversation with journalist Jose Antonio Vargas.
“It’s not like we like shutting s**t down, but we have to,” Black Lives Matter founder Patrisse Cullors said. “We are tired of being interrupted,” she asserted with no apparent sense of the irony.
“Every single day folks are dying. Not being able to take another breath," she explained to any listeners who might be unclear on the concept of dying. "We are in a state of emergency. If you don’t feel that emergency, you are not human.”
Translation: if you don't side with us unequivocally, you're not worthy of consideration or conversation.
O'Malley made the fatal mistake of saying "Black lives matter, white lives matter, all lives matter.”
He should have stopped right before that first comma.
"Proudly undocumented" MC José Antonio Vargas couldn't regain control of the conference after O'Malley's "gaffe," and then Bernie Sanders' attempt at placating the crowd. And he really didn't try:
Not to mention why blowhard Donald Trump is doing so well in the polls: Rules for Delaware immigrant driving card debated.
Gotta love how this local story focuses (in part) on an illegal immigrant who's "fearful" about the fingerprint requirement, and who complains that taking the bus is "very slow to get to work or to go to other places."
Yeah, she's so "fearful" that she allowed the News Journal to take her picture, and she even pointed out that she works at a McDonald's.
That's probably because, unfortunately, the reality here in ultra-blue Delaware is that unless someone engages in a Kathryn Steinle-style murder, (illegal) immigrants have little to be worried about.
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.
This week we saw the Supreme Court, on at least in two major instances, outright ignore plain language and substitute what they thought the "intent" was.
Regarding ObumbleCare, the word "states" doesn't mean, well, "states."
Regarding the Arizona state legislature's right to draw legislative districts, the word "legislature" doesn't mean "legislature."
The latter is even worse, arguably, because the words are not in a mere law, but in the Constitution itself.
As I recently opined, how long will it be before we're told that "the right to bear arms" doesn't mean "the right to bear arms"?
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.
If this were the 1950s it might be a story: FBI Files Reveal Valerie Jarrett’s Father, Grandfather, Father-In-Law Communists, Connection To Soviet Agent
Remember, to the Left in the 50s, to denigrate someone, cost him his career, ostracize him ... just for his political beliefs was negatively referred to as "McCarthyism."
To the Left in the 2010s, to denigrate someone, cost him his career, ostracize him ... just for his political beliefs is positively referred to as "racism."
But you can bet that if this teacher was a "progressive" (and make no mistake, most teachers fall into that category) and said something like this about George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan, well, then, you can bet the tweets would be lauding the guy.
My son's 6th grade Social Studies class today was apparently about how Obama is freedom-hating tyrant, just like Mao. #SmallTownSmallMinds— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) May 26, 2015
I've let slide some other incidents of right-wing delusion being spewed in that classroom. Think this one might be the last straw, though.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) May 26, 2015
Oh oh! It's the LAST STRAW for big 'ol RON MARZ, folks!
A few thoughts here:
-- As a trained social studies teacher myself, IF what Marz's 6th grade son told him is accurate, then the teacher was way out of line. A social studies/history teacher's job, when covering politics and/or controversial topics, is to be as fair as possible, covering -- and allowing -- multiple perspectives to be voiced.
-- Marz's son is in 6th grade. What are the chances he might -- just might -- be exaggerating? Especially if he knows dad's politics pretty well? Middle schoolers never lie or pump up a story, right? Is it possible the teacher examined ways in which some people view Obama's actions as "tyrannical?" Y'know, like how guys like Marz viewed (many of) G.W. Bush's actions?
-- At least Marz didn't name the teacher or the school publicly. Anonymous complaining via Twitter is fine, and if he decides to go in and discuss the matter with the teacher as a first step, that's the right course of action.
-- As noted, you can bet your bottom dollar Marz would have NO problem with a left-wing instructor involved in a similar situation.
Be sure to read the comments at the tweets above to get a good laugh. It's a perfect example of the "progressive" "It's OK when I do it, but don't dare you do it!" mindset.
Letterman was at his best in the mid-late 80s (thankfully, my college years) when he was following Carson at 12:30. His bits were so stupid, so outlandish, and so silly that they were gut-bustingly funny.
Who else would have a camera follow a line of people for over a minute, moving towards the front of the line ... only to discover that folks were waiting to pay $5 to have their picture taken with Will Lee, the bass player in Paul Shaffer's band??
And remember the Late Night Bookmobile? How to Play Guitar in Your Bare Feet by then-band guitarist Hiram Bullock and You Too Can Do Haiku by Lee Majors (complete with Six Million Dollar Man glamor photo) had me laughing so hard I almost lost consciousness.
But once Dave got the CBS 11:30 gig, he got boring and let his politics show (liberal, natch). Rival Jay Leno's "Headlines" and "Jay Walking" were much funnier, and Leno was middle-of-the-road with his politics.
The WaPo is reporting that a prisoner in the same van as Freddie Gray claims the now-deceased Gray was attempting to injure himself in the police van that was transporting him.
Given the police-community situation in Baltimore, how plausible is it that the cops offered some sort of deal to that prisoner to say what he said about Gray?
Meanwhile, one of the biggest idiots in the Delaware blogosphere offers this up about Baltimore and the riots that followed:
The very same tea party “patriots” who have been decrying government and authority for 7 years now are telling anyone who listen that you can never question police authority.
Attention Delaware Douche: What party has been in control of Baltimore for over 40 years? What party has controlled its police department? And haven't African-Americans been running the show there ... including the PD?
But let's make this about the Tea Party.
Attention Delaware Douche part 2: You're a complete and utter blathering Neanderthal.
Attention Delaware Douche part 3: Maybe you can round up those Tea Partiers and have 'em shot, huh?
Two main points in conclusion:
1) There has to be NO excuse for police brutality. None.
2) It's not society's fault for the bleak situation in many of our inner cities. It's the breakdown of the family. Period. A 70+ percent illegitimacy rate is a catastrophe that cannot -- cannot -- be rectified by government ... or, if you wish, "society."
Once again, "Obeying the law starts at the top: If politicians don’t treat the law as worthy of respect, don’t expect citizens to either."
... but this is just ridiculous, not to mention yet another example of how deranged our administration is:
Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder expressing deep concerns over Veterans Affairs evaluations classifying veterans as "mentally defective" and banning them in the federal background check system from purchasing or owning a firearm.
According to Grassley's office, the VA "reports individuals to the gun ban list if an individual merely needs financial assistance managing VA benefits," keeping them from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
"The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is effectively a national gun ban list and placement on the list precludes the ownership and possession of firearms. According to the Congressional Research Service, as of June 1, 2012, 99.3% of all names reported to the NICS list’s "mental defective” category were provided by the Veterans Administration (VA) even though reporting requirements apply to all federal agencies. And that percentage remained virtually unchanged as of April 2013. Given the numbers, it is essential to ensure that the process by which the VA reports names to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for placement on the NICS list recognizes and protects the fundamental nature of veterans’ rights under the Second Amendment," Grassley wrote in the letter. "Specifically, once the VA determines that a veteran requires a fiduciary to administer benefit payments, the VA reports that veteran to the gun ban list, consequently denying his or her right to possess and own firearms.
We know how President Lemon feels about guns; this is just yet another swarmy end run around the Constitution by this cadre of elitists.
Remember -- obeying the law starts at the top. Pretty soon there's going to be a helluva lot of "F*** yous" said to those at the top if this garbage doesn't cease.
And if you want to be freaked out further, be sure to read this.
"Obeying the law starts at the top: If politicians don’t treat the law as worthy of respect, don’t expect citizens to either."
There's nothing like a genuine listening tour, randomly meeting everyday folks. pic.twitter.com/vK9b1vEtGl— WH PRESS SECRETARY (@weknowwhatsbest) April 16, 2015
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.
Pelo-Tox on Bibi Netanyahu's speech yesterday:
I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech -- saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation. (Source)
Awwww, is that right?
Pelo-Tox back in 2007 (y'know, when George W. Bush was president):
I'm saddened at the insult to the intelligence of the American people that lunkheads like Nance, Boss Obama, Hair-Plugs Biden, and Harry Reid exhibit each and every day.
Oh, and Nance? Using your own playbook, you're an anti-Semite.
... 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?
Tweet from the White House yesterday:
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.
Boss Obama wasn't happy with Mitt Romney's 2012 concession call, according to David Axelrod's new book:
President Obama was shocked and irritated by Mitt Romney's concession call in the 2012 presidential election—and claimed Romney insinuated that Obama won only by getting out the black vote, according to a new book by presidential campaign strategist David Axelrod.
Obama was "unsmiling during the call, and slightly irritated when it was over," Axelrod writes.
The president hung up and said Romney admitted he was surprised at his own loss, Axelrod wrote.
"'You really did a great job of getting the vote out in places like Cleveland and Milwaukee,' in other words, black people,'" Obama said, paraphrasing Romney. "That's what he thinks this was all about."
Right. But if the situation was reversed and Obama had remarked that Mitt "had done a great job of getting out the vote in Kansas and Texas," think Mitt would have thought "in other words, black people"?
After the ISIS barbarians set a Jordanian pilot aflame in a cage, Jordan's King Abdullah promptly struck back at the group, including executing several ISIS prisoners held by his country.
Boss Obama? He reacts to ISIS's depravity by comparing their actions to those of Christians one thousand years ago, and by claiming that "the name of Christ" was used to justify (American) slavery and Jim Crow.
And then he has lackey Susan Rice give a speech outlining the administration's new tactic of "strategic patience" while touting the further release of Gitmo prisoners and lecturing us that Obama critics "lack perspective" and are "too reactive" regarding ISIS et. al.
Basically, what we have is this: King Abdullah is Bill Pullman from Independence Day ...
... while President Lemon is Harvey Fierstein:
Kurt Busiek doesn't think fellow comics guy Mark Waid is close-minded:
When you usually agree with someone, you'd probably think that.
Maybe Waid isn't close-minded. But he is an a**hole. No doubt about that.
... Boss Obama is going to cut his India trip short so he can pay his respects to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, but he (and every other administration official) skipped out on Paris following the Charlie Hebdo attack.
Even worse, President Lemon is ditching the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
can believe in slap your knees at.
So says the actor to play Mary Mapes' boss in Robert Redford's upcoming film about the sordid affair, Bruce Greenwood. (Greenwood has played, among other things, Capt. Pike in the Star Trek reboot films, and Ashley Judd's scumbag husband in Double Jeopardy.)
The incident "reflected poorly, ultimately, on CBS and Viacom who were unwilling to pursue the truth because there was legislation forthcoming that if they didn’t play ball with the [Bush] administration the legislation would have cost them millions and millions and millions of dollars," Greenwood says. "Rather than allow Mary Mapes and Dan Rather to support their story, they allowed this avalanche of right-wing resistance to swamp the real story."
Greenwood's take on Rathergate's fallout? Modern journalists are "under the thumb" of the powers that be, not the news cycle....
He complains that even Wikipedia has it wrong when it comes to Rathergate, according to his viewpoint.
"It's a reminder that if bull-expletive is repeated often enough it becomes perceived truth, conventional wisdom," he says.
Right. The powers-that-be just said "Hey, let's not make an issue of this. We know these documents about George Bush are true, but what the f***. Let's dump Mapes and Rather. That's an even better story!"
HHS secretary: Al Sharpton 'has spent his life fighting for what's right' http://t.co/GdYyzXQrNs— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) January 19, 2015
Though I certainly don't think this was his intention, I had a little rethink on the administration's lack of presence at this past weekend's Paris march attended by numerous world leaders.
You can thank, of all people, Fox's Juan Williams for bringing it up last night: WTF have European countries really done to thwart Islamic extremism ... let alone stand for free speech?
Boss Obama has tried to get them on board for numerous anti-terror efforts, only to be met with a middle finger. Maybe ditching the Paris march was his way of reciprocating. Of course, he couldn't say that, but I'd certainly buy that reason.
We can, however, laugh hard at Obama's "face saving" measure -- the February 18 "Summit on Countering Violent Extremism." You can bet that the term "[Radical] Islamic" will be hardly mentioned, if at all, by members of the administration.
ObumbleCare architect Jonathan Gruber in 2009: ObumbleCare will NOT be affordable; NO cost controls.
This, despite (or course) what President Lemon kept telling us.
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.
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.
Watch as NYPD officers turn their backs to Mayor Bill De Blasio as he heads to a press conference following the murder of two NYPD officers yesterday:
And apparently that wasn't all that faced the mayor:
deBlasio: "We're all in this together." NYPD Cop: "No we're not!"— John Cardillo (@johncardillo) December 21, 2014
(via FrontPage Mag)
... 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.
Ah, the Local Gaggle of Moonbat Bloggers. They couldn't WAIT for this day. Something -- anything -- to get the subject of the biggest joke of a chief exec ever off the front pages ... even for just a bit.
MARVEL at their hilarious pomposity that "Republicans are for torture," knowing all the while that rendition began under Bill Clinton, and that President Lemon has droned the living f*** out of terrorists -- including known American citizens -- which has had the side effect of offing quite a few women and kiddies.
PONDER how waterboarding and preventing regular sleep of heinous terrorists is somehow "worse" than killing same without the coveted "rights" and "due process" we heard from "progressives" throughout the 2000s.
PUZZLE over why this had to be made public today, when Jonathan Gruber was testifying on the Hill about ObumbleCare and all the associated the lies about that train wreck. Not to mention that barbarians like al Qaeda and ISIS will use this for propaganda gold.
MULL over how Democrats, including the White House, can (laughably) claim some "moral high ground" by releasing this ... saying stuff like "We can do better," while the IRS has systematically targeted right-leaning groups and individuals for years now (something Richard Nixon never did), how we were lied to repeatedly about ObumbleCare which affects one-sixth of our economy, and ....
REALIZE, however, that next month is the beginning of the END for the inept charlatans who've been running our government.
Hey, does anyone think that tomorrow's release of that Senate report on CIA "torture" is anything but coincidental? Not to mention one big middle finger by the outgoing Democrat Senate to George W. Bush?
"There are some indications that the release of the report could lead to a greater risk that is posed to U.S. facilities and individuals all around the world," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday. "So the administration has taken the prudent steps to ensure that the proper security precautions are in place at U.S. facilities around the globe."
Hey idiots -- then don't release it. If you're so f***ing concerned, then the solution is quite simple.
If you're actually willing to put more American lives in danger because a few hardcore, barbaric Neanderthals who are only dedicated to offing as many Westerners as possible were waterboarded for vital intel, yet you continually refuse to release vital emails about how the country's own quasi-secret police targeted conservative-leaning groups for audits and squelched their free speech rights ... well, that shows you plenty of how your modern Democrat Party -- and current chief exec -- operate.
"The president believes that, on principle, it's important to release that report, so that people around the world and people here at home understand exactly what transpired," Earnest said. He added that "something like this should never happen again."
Spare me. See my paragraph above. The president has no principles, other than to screw over anyone who doesn't agree with him.
And it doesn't matter one f***ing iota if American lives may be put in danger as a result.
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.
We saw a few days ago how one blogging Delawarean thinks about disagreeing with President Lemon; now, our old pal Perry has finally chimed in -- not only about the mid-term election results, but offers up a similar sentiment to "Progressive Populist" of the LGOMB.
Let's take the latter from Perry first, regarding ObumbleCare:
Sometimes the ends justify the means, and this is the perfect case for it. As a result, there are millions of people relieved who now have coverage which they could not have had before this law.
There you have it -- because Perry is a fervent believer in ObumbleCare, it should be implemented by any means necessary. Just imagine if George W. Bush and the GOP ... well hell, you know.
Next, here's some of Perry's nonsense about November 4th (my comments are in italics):
Republicans won without much of an agenda, but with lots of negative campaigning and racism in the South. (What about the racism of the Left/Democrats of which there was MUCH more?)
Republicans won without a mandate, with only a plurality of less than 50%, reminiscent of GWB. (And Bill Clinton in 1992.)
Democrats must retake the Senate and retain the White House to curb Republican extremism. (Uh, that's why the GOP won two weeks ago -- to curb Democratic extermism.)
Republicans, starting with Reagan and continuing with GWB, cut taxes, increased spending, therefore increased the deficit. GWB doubled it. (Selective amnesia, natch. Obama skyrocketed both the deficit and the debt. In fact, he increased the latter more than all presidents combined before him!)
Democrats under Clinton and Obama enabled the country to recover, prosper, while still slowing the deficit. (Nonsense. Clinton did so because he worked with the GOP landslide Congress of 1994; Boss Obama's policies have done nothing to initiate a "recovery;" indeed, the unemployment figures are largely smoke and mirrors as we've seen record numbers of people leave the workforce, and most of the new jobs aren't good-paying full-time jobs anyway.)
Yeah, 'ol Per sure is an easy target, but it sure is fun -- and scary -- to check in once in a while on how these not-so-closeted authoritarians think.
So we can hear how stupid we all are while he's -- Jonathan Gruber -- under oath.
The following is a guest post by Nate Winchester:
Well, wasn't that a fun and exciting election night! Of everything to come out of it, this is my favorite cartoonic take.
But you know what's the funny part. I've been looking at some reactions around the web and this:
"Don't do something stupid like pandering to the small minority of ___"
Is a sentiment you can find EVERYWHERE on conservative enclaves on the web, with each site filling in the blank with someone different. Social conservatives, libertarians, neo-cons, business oriented, etc etc. I'm tempted to make it a game: "See if there's anybody you can mentioned as somebody the republicans shouldn't listen to!"
The worst part? Everybody's right! Time for a thought exercise!
Say there's 3 groups of people: A, B and C (exact identities don't matter). Now imagine there are 3 political issues: 1, 2, and 3. Group A favors issues 1 and 3, but hates 2. Group B favors issues 1 and 2, but hates 3. And C favores issues 2 and 3, but hate issue 1.
Now, how do you govern? Better yet, if you were one of 3 representatives from one of the groups, how would you weigh the issues? Would you join with B for issue 1, even though that will anger C and make it less likely that they'll work with you on issue 3? And notice that I never explained who was what group or what issue because the exact details don't matter, look at the issue logically and dispassionately. How could you solve the issue?
And this is just a thought exercise, deliberately simplified so as make it easier for our brains to grasp and unpack the issue. Imagine how it is in the real world with dozens and dozens of sub groups with each having competing priorities and deal breakers.
What's the answer? I honestly don't know. Maybe it's time we conservatives look not to our representatives, but to each other. Maybe we need to figure out compromises between our groups and realize that we can't all have everything we want. In a democracy, we're ALL minorities. And republicans...
Don't do something stupid like pandering to the small minority that doesn't want unity. ;-)
Line of the Day by Jason "Trust Fund" Scott: "What a fucking idiot I turned out to be."
Just figuring that out now, eh?
Line of the Day 2 by pandora: "I expect impeachment proceedings to begin sooner rather than later. It’s what Republicans do – it’s one of the only things they do. "
Uh huh. Don't count on it. Why get rid of the biggest vote getter the GOP has ever had? Recall what I posted back on Oct. 25.
But then again, never discount the GOP ability to act against its own interests ...
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 ...
... with the pathetically tired "progressive" lines.
Case in point: At a debate for New York's 23rd district, check out the reaction to Democratic challenger Martha Robertson's ridiculously overused talking points line "War on Women":
Even better is her reaction!
(h/t to Legal Insurrection)
Hillary Clinton may have outdone her former boss with this insane comment:
Yes, she actually said “Don’t let anybody tell you that corporations and businesses create jobs.”
Don't be surprised, though -- like Boss Obama, WTF would you expect from someone who never held a job in the private sector??
The WaPo asks: Could non-citizens decide the November election?
How many non-citizens participate in U.S. elections? More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.
Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.
But, as we all know from yammering "progressives," voter fraud is a "myth" and certain groups -- minorities and old people -- are just too damn dumb to get a photo ID.
What will be most interesting is how President Lemon reacts to having not just one legislative chamber in GOP hands, but both. All indications at this time point to a GOP takeover of the Senate.
As before, Boss Obama has promised to do what he can unilaterally; from what we’ve seen, many of those actions already implemented are of dubious legality.
Will Obama goad a GOP Senate into impeaching him? I certainly wouldn’t put it past him. But the GOP needs to be smart (unlike with Bill Clinton’s silly impeachment). They should let the president do as much extra-legal/constitutional stuff as possible … until outcry comes from other than the GOP and conservatives, however small.
The president, though incompetent, is not stupid. He knows any such movement or even talk about the “I” word will cause not only a political rift, but a racial one as well. His acolytes in the mainstream press will play up the race angle more than they already do routinely: “How will it look to world that we may impeach the first African-American president?” “How can the GOP hope to ever attract minorities after this?”
Probably the smartest strategy, though, no matter what Boss Obama does in the last two years of his term, is to do nothing. Absolutely nothing. Let Obama’s approval ratings continue to plummet right through 2016 so that a GOP president is virtually assured. He (or she) can then run on a “returning sanity and legality to the federal government” platform.
The Pentagon on Monday released a report asserting decisively that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages. It also predicted rising demand for military disaster responses as extreme weather creates more global humanitarian crises.
Be sure to read the whole thing, and then ponder our pathetic reaction to Ebola and ISIS. This is "progressivism" in a nutshell, folks: It's all about political dogma. National security and the general welfare be damned. Liberal power is priority NUMBER ONE. No exceptions.
Here's how the American public feels about
global warming climate change in general:
And check out your Democrat Party, people:
That's right, contemporary Democrats believe that climate change is a bigger threat to us currently than ISIS, other non-ISIS Islamist groups, Iran's nuke program, Ebola and other diseases, and issues between Russia and its neighbors.
Hopefully, at least, this November can help restore a bit of sanity ... or at least prevent some of the damage from Democrat insanity.
BREAKING: White House official says Attorney General Eric Holder is resigning.— The Associated Press (@AP) September 25, 2014
This is interesting. It's an interactive map of the players in the Middle East and who is aligned with whom.
Some of this I knew, some of it, not so much.
"He was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings.”
Who is this statement referring to?
A) Barack Obama
B) Hillary Clinton
C) John Kerry
D) Joe Biden
If you guessed "A," you win!
From March of 2010:
The highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law spoke out on Barack Obama saying, “Professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings.”
I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.
The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).
Either this guy is RACIST, or he's aptly describing the commander-in-chief we all know so well today. I say "well" because the very attributes noted above are precisely what we see today.
But hey, eventually the truth will emerge ... most likely when President Lemon is long out of office: How America -- encouragingly -- wanted to show how far it had evolved by electing a black president ... but as such overlooked each and every defect that demonstrated the man was way over his head.
(h/t to Ace.)
He's run for just about anything you can think of in Delaware and lost; this time he primaried Janet Kilpatrick for a New County Council seat and ... lost. Again.
A politician is someone who will say anything to get elected. In days gone by, this was not a problem. They could talk out of both sides of their mouth all day long and it never really registered because it was in print and there was always some doubt as to what was really said. Until now.
We should offer them $5301 to attack Hamas/ISIS/PLO
They would either, take the new bounty and help destroy our enemies or complain the Americans pay more and force a price war with them against us. We can continue to up the bidding until suicide bombing becomes too expensive to continue.
As we noted here and here, Texas Governor Rick Perry was indicted for "abuse of power" because -- wait for it! -- he had the audacity to demand the resignation of Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg after her arrest for drunk driving. Check it:
In April 2013, Lehmberg was arrested after a witness called 911, describing her as driving erratically, swerving back and forth into the bike lane, and into oncoming traffic. Officers at the scene reportedly found an open bottle of vodka in her car, and a blood sample obtained later that evening purportedly showed a blood alcohol level of 0.239—almost three times the legal limit—even that many hours later.
If you already haven't seen it, be sure to view this video of Lehmberg's police booking.
But to the point regarding this insane lawsuit against Perry, here's Insty's Glenn Reynolds:
If the GOP doesn’t like it, it needs to ruin lives and careers just like the Democrats do. If it’s not willing to do that, then it can expect more of the same. The GOP would do better to respond like Dems, going after the attackers mercilessly and standing shoulder-to-shoulder regardless of the issue.
However, Professor Jacobson notes that the Dems may have overreached in this instance, as the indictment is "uniting unlikely allies" against Lehmberg and co.
One of these is Boss Obama strategist David Axelrod.
... that three of the major possible GOP presidential contenders -- Christie, Walker and now Perry -- have been the targets of prosecutors?
Texas Governor Rick Perry gets indicted ("abuse of power") for vetoing some appropriations -- the veto being a specifically enumerated power for his office -- but Boss Obama and his acolytes in the media mockingly scoffed at a mere lawsuit that sought redress for his real abuses of power.
I love this hypothetical by Yuval Levin today over at The Corner. The premise is that we elect a GOP president in 2016, but the House and Senate remain as they are now, party-wise. The new president wants to cut income tax rates by ten percent. The House passes such a bill; the Senate blocks it.
And let’s imagine that the president then proceeds to announce that, given how helpful he believes his preferred course of action would be to the economy, he will just implement the rate cut himself: His administration will not enforce any legal penalties against people in the 35 percent bracket who only pay a 25 percent tax on their incomes, people in the 25 percent bracket who only pay 15 percent, and so on.
What, Levin, asks, would be the Democrat reaction to such a move? How could they, without making everyone laugh hysterically, make a case that the president was acting unlawfully ... given all the unilateral (legal) moves made by Boss Obama?
It's bad enough (for the Boss Obama administration) that a recent court ruling said ObumbleCare subsidies are only available via states that have established health exchanges (as per the language in the actual law); it's worse that one of the law's architects said exactly that in the past.
Even though the administration, et. al. are arguing that the law "infers" that the federal government can offer subsidies.
Still worse are this architect's -- Jonathan Gruber -- pathetic excuses for his statements ... and the ObumbleCare law's actual language:
"It is unambiguous this is a typo. Literally every single person involved in the crafting of this law has said that it's a typo, that they had no intention of excluding the federal states."
Un-freakin'-real. The law has a TYPO, for cripe's sake. That NO ONE caught.
Then again, Nancy Pelosi did say that the bill had to be passed so that we could know what's in it, right?
"I honestly don’t remember why I said that. I was speaking off-the-cuff. It was just a mistake," he (Gruber) said.
He continued: "There was never any intention to literally withhold money, to withhold tax credits, from the states that didn’t take that step" [of creating their own exchanges]. That’s clear in the intent of the law and if you talk to anybody who worked on the law. My subsequent statement was just a speak-o—you know, like a typo."
Got that? Even though this Obamanaut has more than once stated what the recent court ruling said -- that, again, only states with exchanges can offer healthcare subsidies -- he "misspoke" ... just like the "typo" in the healthcare law.
Anyone who still buys anything that comes out of this administration really is living in an alternate reality.
The First State's governor sure has learned well from our president -- when it comes to lying, that is. Despite stating that Delaware had nowhere to place any illegal immigrant children that have been flooding our southern border, Jack Markell recently announced that 117 of these children have been placed with families in the state.
[Markell] urged lawmakers to "remain mindful that we are called upon to provide for the least of our brothers and sisters."
He called the U.S. a "nation of immigrants," saying "the humanitarian crisis of unaccompanied minors fleeing dangerous situations at home does not just affect our border states; it impacts all of us as Americans. Whatever one's politics, we are a nation of immigrants."
*Sigh* The 'ol "nation of immigrants" schtick, eh? Conveniently forgetting the term "illegal," eh Jack? Spare me. Not to mention, the whole "fleeing dangerous situations" is mostly bunk. Interviews have shown that the vast majority of those arriving at our borders currently have fled not because of "dangerous situations at home," but because they think they can stay in the United States.
Markell also noted that "the presence of child migrants in Delaware may come at a cost for state taxpayers." Perfect. Just perfect.
He also pulled the racism card, saying "Unfortunately, the debate around immigration has been marked too often by scare-mongering and xenophobia." Again, perfect. *Yawn*
Markell, like Boss Obama, has become a laughing stock; however, unlike Obama and the Democrat Party nationally, Markell and his party will easily maintain power here in the First State. This fact shows how utterly moribund the GOP is here in DE.
Texas Governor Rick Perry is sending 1,000 National Guard troops to the Mexican border. But the Boss Obama administration suddenly is worried about the law and procedure:
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the White House has not yet received the formal communication required for Perry to deploy guard troops.
If I were Perry, I'd simply sit back and let out a huge guffaw at that.
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.
Former stand-in Delaware senator Ted Kaufman falls into line with radical environmentalists with the usual apocalyptic swill. Most laughable part of the article:
An ICF International study commissioned by the NRDC concludes "the first-ever limits on carbon pollution from power plants can save American households and business customers $37.4 billion on their electric bills in 2020 while creating more than 274,000 jobs. … The federal carbon pollution standard could fuel a surge in energy efficiency investments, creating new jobs filled by electricians, roofers, carpenters, insulation workers, heating/air conditioning installers and heavy equipment operators, among others."
Does anyone with a modicum of sanity actually believe this -- especially after all the other eco-nonsense from our administration since early 2009??
As I've said ad nauseam here, it is very hard to worry about appeals (like Ted's) to "my children and yours" when the same scientists Ted and other
global warming climate change climate disruption alarmists cite have told us there is nothing we can do about the quantity of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere ... for at least a millennium.
Couple that with this bit of Kaufman limousine elitism: "Who is right about the costs? It seems to me the question isn't very important if you are not in a state of denial about the NASA study." Uh huh. Easy for you to say, Teddy. Guys like you who're monetarily comfortable may not think costs are "very important," but ye gad, c'mon.
Here's an idea: How about you and yours do something about our sputtering economy and then offer up the worrisome platitudes about our nigh annihilation, huh?
Want a $15/hr. "living" wage? Then be prepared to pay for it:
Got issues with the IRS? Give them the same excuses they're giving us. Douchebags.
LOL Alert: The LGOMB's "Trust Fund" Scott offered up an "update" to his possible challenge to Rep. John Carney. Judging by the number of comments, it seems there's just a bunch of eye rolling regarding this ... "challenge."
The SCOTUS has ruled that the Boss Obama administration's EPA lacks authority in some cases to bully companies regarding greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Hey, it's a start.
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley has come up with the latest euphemism for "[illegal] immigrant" -- "New American." *Yawn* I like, too, how O'Malley, like other state and local execs, thumbed his nose at federal law to provide safe harbors for illegal immigrants. That is somehow OK, but when states/localities on the front lines in the border situation attempt to do the same but in reverse -- enact measures to stop illegals -- they're met with lawsuits from President Lemon. America: Gotta love it.
Like Obama, he has his grip on the pulse of America: John Kerry deals with yet another "crisis" facing the US -- he's "working hard to ensure that by the end of [his] tenure, we will have lesbian, bisexual, and transgender ambassadors ..." I wonder how this ranks on the list of concerns facing the American public.
Lastly, who else caught that crushing last second goal by Portugal to tie the US soccer team 2-2 last night? If the US had held on, we'd already be on our way to the next round. But protective play and sloppiness at mid-field did us in. Speaking of the World Cup, FIFA, one of the most corrupt organizations on the planet, is pulling a John Kerry -- concentrating on ridiculous matters instead, in this case, of just having good natured fun. Sheesh.
Marvel dopey minion Tom Brevoort (who, I'm sorry to say, is a Delaware native) claims there is no blacklist at Marvel, and that Chuck Dixon -- who recently co-authored an article in the Wall Street Journal about comicbooks' liberal bias -- isn't banned from the company:
No, he isn’t.
Though, after this latest campaign, I don’t know that it would be easy to find an editor up here who’d want to risk working with him.
Nobody is refusing to look at Chuck’s work because of his beliefs. They might be refusing to look at his work because of his behavior. Different thing.
Given the way he’s comported himself, the things he’s said and how he’s said them, I would be reluctant to work with Chuck. I don’t work with people I cannot trust.
Chuck is a long-established, facile writer. He’s got proven skills. What seems to be short-circuiting his career at this point isn’t his politics, it’s his professionalism.
Are. You. Kidding. Me???
This hypocritical brazenness is without limit. First of all, what sort of "unprofessional" behavior is Dixon guilty of, Tom? Second, even a cursory examination of many creators' social media behavior -- especially that of Mark Waid, Ron Marz, and Gail Simone as we, Douglas Ernst and Avi Green have all documented scrupulously -- reveals unprofessionalism to the Nth degree. Where's your concern there, Tom??
I know, I know, but don't even bother. Hell, your very own Facebook thread on the Dixon issue proves our point perfectly. Just look at the aforementioned Mark Waid's childish antics (yet again) in the comments. The fact is, you don't CARE about behavior like THAT, Mr. Brevoort. Because it aligns with your own personal world view.
It's really that simple.
So, f***ing SPARE US your pathetically useless screeds about "behavior" and "professionalism." Standards only work in one direction in Bubble Land.
Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas has a bill up in the House which will let taxpayers use the same excuses the IRS has used in its dealings with Congress:
“The United States was founded on the belief government is subservient and accountable to the people. Taxpayers shouldn’t be expected to follow laws the Obama administration refuses to follow themselves,” said Stockman. “Taxpayers should be allowed to offer the same flimsy, obviously made-up excuses the Obama administration uses.”
Under Stockman’s bill, “The Dog Ate My Tax Receipts Act,” taxpayers who do not provide documents requested by the IRS can claim one of the following reasons:
1. The dog ate my tax receipts
2. Convenient, unexplained, miscellaneous computer malfunction
3. Traded documents for five terrorists
4. Burned for warmth while lost in the Yukon
5. Left on table in Hillary’s Book Room
6. Received water damage in the trunk of Ted Kennedy’s car
7. Forgot in gun case sold to Mexican drug lords
8. Forced to recycle by municipal Green Czar
9. Was short on toilet paper while camping
10. At this point, what difference does it make?
And it's only gonna get worse -- worse for the administration, that is -- if it keeps up with its pathetic nonsense.
Can someone please explain this to me?
Washington—Sunni extremists in Iraq have occupied what was once Saddam Hussein's premier chemical-weapons production facility, a complex that still contains a stockpile of old weapons, State Department and other U.S. government officials said.
U.S. officials don't believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated...
Is this the same stockpile and facilities that did not exist? Do I have this right? The most left wing administration ever to occupy the Executive branch is now confirming that there are stockpiles of chemical weapons in Iraq now? How many years later?
I literally don't know what to say.
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.
I know the left are always going on about how mutants are being discriminated against and questioning them at all makes us basically evil racists, but the left’s position on this issue makes absolutely no sense. Right now, if a kid in school so much as draws a picture of a gun, the cops get called. But if there is a kid in class with mutant exploding powers who could easily kill everyone in the classroom — either maliciously or accidentally — then we’re all Nazis for saying, “Hey, maybe we should reevaluate whether that kid should be in the same class as everyone else.” Not only that, we’re bigots for wanting to even know about that kid. How does this make any sense? I guess dead school children is better than “discrimination.”
And it’s not like these mutant powers are the same as someone walking around with a concealed gun like millions of Americans do and not necessarily harming anyone; no, they’re actively using them. Many of the mutants are in this paramilitary organization — the X-Men — and flying around in military-grade hardware to “fight evil.” Some of us think that maybe — just maybe — the government should watch these people. And of course we get called racists for this basic common sense.
I know I've written similar sentiments in the past here (our search function is still an active victim of our outage a couple weeks back), but I'll reiterate my sympathies with the author of the above. The Left seeks to make hay out of every gun tragedy (the latest being a psycho pampered college kid who killed a half dozen people because he couldn't get laid ... or something) with "progressive" comicbook creators some of the most vocal. And some of these same creators, who seek "real life relevancy" in many of their stories, suddenly take the "Oh, but I only write comicbooks!" excuse when called on their hypocrisy. Take Amazing Spider-Man scribe Dan Slott:
Just so we're clear here: I write comic books. I don't endorse real life guns. Or people really swinging off buildings. Or real giant apes.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) May 25, 2014
Please. How many times have we heard that the X-Men are a comicbook parable for just about any historically marginalized group? Blacks. Jews. Gays? Which goes directly to the quote above's point: What if these (or any other) groups had the ability to manipulate the weather to their will? Blast holes through armor plate with their optic blasts? Detach the Golden Gate Bridge and levitate it across a sound?? Would average folk be reluctant to call for the government to do something about this ... for fear of being called a "bigot?" Would the Left be hesitant?
If they would be, then they'd be immensely hypocritical given their stance on gun control.
In the mid-2000s Marvel devoted an "event" to a similar topic -- "Civil War." It was clearly sympathetic to the non-registration side (how could it not be with Captain America as its leader?); once again, can anyone imagine a contemporary creator at Marvel doing up a story about the ineffectiveness of gun control? Or even a yarn about the debate, and being even slightly even-handed about it?
Cheeyeah, right. Remember -- they "only write comicbooks." That is, until they want to make a "statement." Then they're cultural commentators. Unless too many people disagree. Then they're "just comicbook writers."
What further evidence does one need that we've come full circle. Ages ago, righties would tell hippies "America: Love it or leave it!" and chide their lack of patriotism. Now, it's mainstream Democrat politicians who engage in that sort of stuff ... against Republicans:
Yes indeed, that is former DNC Chairman and presidential frontrunner Howard Dean saying about the GOP "They are not American," and that "They would be more comfortable in the Ukraine, or Russia, but stay away from our country."
Dean also chimed with the ludicrous yawner that Republicans "are taking away the right to vote through voter ID laws." Now, just imagine for one second Mitt Romney telling a crowd that Obama and Democrats "are not American," and that they'd be more comfortable in Castro's Cuba or the Chávez-made Venezuela." And that Democrats "want to give the right to vote to illegal immigrants and their families back home."
You know what would happen.
Jesse Jackson Jr, serving a two and half year prison sentence for misusing campaign funds, will collect -- wait for it -- $8,700 per month in government disability pay, "as well as a partial federal pension of $45,000." All that, for a "mood disorder" which he had never before manifested.
A panel on the execrable Al Sharpton's "Politics Nation" argued the usual swill about the GOP the other day, but this nugget upped the ante to the Nth degree: They (Republicans) want to make voting illegal.
RYAN GRIM, HUFFINGTON POST: I think it actually goes back to that old cynical bumper sticker that a lot of people have seen which says, it says something like, "If voting could change anything, they'd make it illegal." Well, voting can change things, and so they actually are trying to make it illegal.
You can give that insanity all the credence it deserves (aka zero), but more interesting regarding the voting issue is what I heard on the Dick Morris Show on Philly's WPHT 1210 yesterday while driving home. There's a movement out there which has garnered next to no mainstream media attention called the National Popular Vote. It's not what you may think at first glance; it's not a movement to abolish the Electoral College and elect the prez on a purely popular vote. What it is is a push to get states to agree to allocate all their electoral votes to the national winner of the popular vote -- not to the popular vote winner of an individual state. The mainstream media, natch, is more concerned about electoral college touch-ups such as this, where electoral votes would be cast on a proportional basis related to congressional districts. This, as the NY Times frets, has the potential to harm Democrats. Or so they argue.
But although the National Popular Vote website includes positive testimonials from Democrats and Republicans alike, what Morris pointed out on his radio show indicates a BIG worry for the GOP if NPV gets passed -- and NPV is very close to doing just that. Keep in mind, first, that no Constitutional Amendment would be necessary for the NPV to take effect as it does not constitutionally alter the nature of the Electoral College. But just as no amendment is necessary for the NPV, there is also no specific constitutional requirement that one be a citizen in order to vote. The 14th, 26th and 19th Amendments clearly mention citizenship and voting; however, there is actually no absolute constitutional requirement that one be a citizen in order to cast a vote. And, in fact, there is NO explicit right to vote for anybody enshrined in the US's founding document. Inherent right? Yes. Explicit? No.
And this is what Morris pounces on.
The Center for Immigration Studies offers up plenty of evidence on how individual states could allow non-citizens to vote. Most of the states that are "pro" non-citizen voting are blue states (surprise), and some of these states already allow non-citizen voting at the local level. Morris argues that if the National Popular Vote measure takes effect, blue states will be much more inclined to vote (via their respective state legislatures) to allow non-citizens to cast ballots beyond localities, i.e. for president. The reason for this is simple: Again, since the NPV would give all of a state's electoral votes to the national winner of the popular vote (not an individual state's), and that non-citizens are much more likely to vote Democratic, it's all a pure numbers game. The GOP would never again see the White House, Morris argues.
While some scholars note that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment "clearly" grants states the right to impose a citizenship qualification (chee-yeah, tell that to Eric Holder), again, the numbers for the GOP just wouldn't cut it. Red state legislatures could impose such a requirement to vote, but it wouldn't be enough to overcome blue states that "opened up" voting to virtually every resident within their borders.
Naturally, one may wonder if blue states, even those dominated by Democrats in the governorship and state legislature (like my own Delaware), could get away with passing such voting allowances. They may be successful initially, but it's a good bet many independents and other moderates would subsequently object. The ensuing statewide races would have Democrats having to defend why they voted to allow non-citizens to vote. I think that would be quite a tough sell to anyone but a committed "progressive." In addition, even some advocates of non-citizen voting believe liberal states would be hesitant to allow what Morris fears:
To my knowledge no state has seriously considered extending the franchise to aliens during the past half century, and I very much doubt that any state would now make the move except at the insistence of the Supreme Court, says legal scholar Gerald Rosberg.
I tend to agree. However, this doesn't mean "progressives" won't be up to their usual electoral tricks while denigrating common sense measures like voter ID (supported by approximately three-quarters of the American public) as "voter suppression."
So, Boss Obama and his acolyte Democrats are planning to make "equal pay" an issue this year ... even though the White House itself pays its women employees less than men, and LIVs like comics guy Ron Marz fall for the oft-cited myth.
Not only would yesterday's mumble-mouthed Jay Carney presser be campaign ad gold, but so would these little nuggets:
(h/t to Insty for the last five examples.)
Boss Obama and co need LIVs to fall for this crap, but they'd better get their own talking points straight if they plan on going full force with the likewise mythical GOP "War on Women."
Andrew Johnson at The Corner reports on the latest -- Iowa Democratic Senate candidate Bruce Braley diss of Chuck Grassley, suggesting the GOP senator "isn't qualified" because he doesn't have a law degree. Braley later apologized, but Charles Cooke notes a "progressive" website that refers to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker as "College Dropout Scott Walker." Cooke notes,
I don’t care whether you love or loathe Scott Walker and his politics, the use of “college dropout” as a pejorative is absurd. The increasing fetishization of education is leading us all to some pretty bizarre places, not the least of which is to the conflation of one’s educational achievement and one’s intellect or worth.
Indeed. Maybe Boss Obama could lead the way by releasing his college transcripts so we could see Just how "smart" he really is. Another example of what Cooke is talking about is Sheila Jackson-Lee, whose education includes UVA law school. This cretin thinks the US Constitution is 400-some years old, and can't even put a coherent English sentence together. (And that's just for starters.) And what about Rep. Hank Johnson, another law school graduate, who once hilariously worried about the island of Guam tipping over if too many Marines were stationed on it?
How can one forget Delaware's own Joe Biden? Here's yet another law school graduate whose list of microcephalic utterances may know no equal. One of my favorites is this, regarding AZ Rep. Gabby Giffords: "Gabby Giffords, my good friend, was shot and mortally wounded.” Except she's, y'know, still alive. And doing quite well.
Just as Hillary Clinton plans to make climate change a big part of her 2016 campaign, I sure do hope Democrats attempt to portray Republicans as stupid. It'll make folks look like the entire Boss Obama administration -- "progressive" elitists who think they know it all, yet in practice are complete idiots. (Um, just look at the last six years.) It's like those who like to point out that those who watch Fox News rank lowest in terms of overall education -- what these buffoons omit is that, unlike the vast majority of the LIV American public (a majority of whom voted for Obama), at least the FNC-watching folks are interested in the news, and don't rely exclusively on quick sound-bites (if on anything at all) like Boss Obama's Lie of the Year, or tweets / Facebook posts which frequently carry nary a nugget of truth.
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??
Big Hollywood is reporting what I already suspected about the upcoming Cap 2: Winter Soldier flick: That SHIELD's secrets will reveal a government conspiracy of some sort (hell, we already wondered that from watching The Avengers; recall Nick Fury yapping with that mysterious quartet on video, seeking approval for various actions ... who were they?), and with far-lefty Robert Redford starring in a villainous role, this virtually confirms such. This doesn't concern me as much as what I read about the second Cap sequel:
“We’ve definitely set out on a more realistic road in the Cap movies, you know,” [screenwriter Christopher] Markus told Den of Geek. “Even more grounded than in the other MCU movies. And so it kind of rules out Cap fighting the Dinosaur Man or something like that. There are some that aren’t gonna start and other ones that — I mean there’s a couple we’re playing with right now that we really want to take elements from. Which we’ll not reveal. … All I’m saying is psychotic 1950s Cap.”
Spinoff in the link above offers an in-depth analysis of just who the 1950s Captain America is (was); his initial introduction into the Marvel mythos, despite its politics, is one of the more well-done 1970s offerings by noted creator Steve Englehart. It began in issue #153 when "a" Captain America and, then, of all people, "a" Bucky, were raging through Harlem beating the snot out of people. Cap's partner, the Falcon, stumbled upon them, and virtually immediately knew they were imposters. The ersatz duo then proceed to hatch a plot to capture whom they believe to be the fake Cap (our own Steve Rogers, the real Cap), and in the process we learn just who this Capt. America and Bucky are ...
The 1950s Cap is really William Burnside, a fanatical devotee of the real Captain America. He was such a fanatic that he wrote his college thesis about Cap, and in the process discovered files regarding Project: Rebirth (that which created the real Cap) as well as details about the super soldier serum used to turn Steve Rogers into that super soldier. Later (get this), he underwent the 'ol plastic surgery to turn himself into a copy of Steve Rogers, and became a government agent as a new Cap during the Korean War. But the war quickly ended, and the gov. ended Burnside's new career. (All this was told in Capt. America #155, see above left.)
Burnside subsequently became a teacher, but when the Red Skull attacked the UN building, he and his new pal, Jack Monroe, took a chance and injected themselves with that serum Burnside had discovered years prior. They took on the Skull as the new Cap and Bucky, and won. But by taking just the [super soldier] serum and not being exposed to other parts of the process (like "vita rays"), Burnside and Monroe experienced psychotic episodes. The government quickly put the kibosh on their fledgling careers, and placed them into suspended animation.
Here's where the "worrisome" (so for those right-of-center, of course) comes in: Years later, an anti-Communist zealot freed Burnside and Monroe, hopefully to assist against the commies in the continuing Cold War. This Cap and Bucky saw Communists everywhere, including among historically oppressed African-Americans. (This is where the Falcon first notices them, as noted above.) Englehart's story is a masterwork of Marvel continuity; however, as he did with the also-masterful "Secret Empire" story some twenty issues later, his villains are fanatical, power hungry rightists who are beyond devoted to snuffing out any who oppose them. In retrospect, what Richard Nixon did during Watergate (the analogy for "Secret Empire") pales in comparison to what we see today, currently. And Englehart's message via the 1950s Cap is that anti-communism equates to Joe McCarthy-style witch hunts ... not to mention that you're nuts.
Englehart's stories are a product of their times, to be sure. Which means translating the 1950s Cap to 2016 or 2017 whenever Cap 3 comes out has the extreme potential to be just another Hollywood "blast conservatives" slug fest. Which, in these times won't be received very well. Consider: Englehart made the Capt. America who fought Communists in the 1950s a psychotic nutjob. Aside from the Silver Age 1960s (Marvel Comics' own "rebirth," so to speak), fighting Communists was mostly anathema for superheroes. Fascists? Not so much. (If you've taken a poli sci course you know that far-left=communism, far-right=fascism ... but in a circular political spectrum model the extremes are essentially the same and meet.) Captain America continued his battle against fascists into the next decades, including, but not limited to, the Grand Director (who was actually Burnside himself, natch), The Watchdogs, Crossbones, Dr. Faustus, Karl Stryker, and the Super-Patriot. Another version of that last one, named John Walker, ironically eventually assumed the role of Capt. America after the US government used its "muscle" (including, ahem, the IRS) to demand Steve Rogers serve it. Rogers resigned the role of Cap and Walker took over. But writer Mark Gruenwald portrayed Walker as -- wait for it! -- mentally unstable. Walker became more bloodthirsty, killing his enemies, something Steve Rogers would never do if it could be helped.
See the message? "Patriotic"="unstable" and "visceral." This was during the 1980s, natch, and we all know who was president then! The writer even showed Steve Rogers, when contemplating resigning as Cap so as not to be a government lackey, thinking of possible missions he could be sent on -- with a panel detailing a hypothetical replacement fighting (gasp!) Communists in Nicaragua. In recent years, we've seen Captain America investigate the Tea Party, for cripe's sake.
And hey, maybe that's precisely who the villain, if the 1950s Cap is revived in the present day for Captain America 3, will be -- an "anti-government Tea Party type." Knowing Hollywood (and contemporary comicbook creators), this would make perfect sense. To them. Because the insulated "progressive" bubble in which they live tells them so.
Kevin D. Williamson at The Corner:
The fundamental fact, I think, is that when a white American sees a black American, he sees history, and that history looms far more significantly over black Americans than it does over Hispanics or Asian immigrants or other minority groups. Conservatives see that history and generally don’t want to think about it; progressives see that history and want to use it for their own political ends.
Generally speaking, as Williamson notes, I think this accurate. But for those more intimately involved in history and politics, it boils down to fundamental -- and honest -- disagreements over how to best deal with that history. Even in that regard, conservatives have to walk on eggs for fear of "progressive" use of the modern Scarlet Letter, the "R" word. Just ask Paul Ryan, for the most recent example.
Nate Winchester, that is: If guys like Angry Mark Waid don't want our business because we disagree with them politically, we gotta support those who not only share our values and beliefs, but want our business:
Please check out their blogs and give them your support!
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.)
The Hill has the story. The vote was 52-47 and of course couldn't have happened without Democrat support for defeating the nomination. Congrats to Delaware's own Chris Coons for joining in opposition to this far-left radical train-wreck.
So committee chairman Darrell Issa proceeded to halt the hearing. But Dem. Rep. Elijah Cummings said he had questions for Lois Lerner, the IRS official who had already previously pleaded the Fifth. Why she would answer him after pleading the Fifth I don't know, but Cummings had no questions; instead he went on a tirade about "one-sided investigations," showed how self-important he is by yelling "I am a member of the Congress of the United States of America," and resorted to the McCarthyite "un-American" charge.
Issa cut Cummings off, saying the hearing was over. I'm sure Cummings will call Issa a racist for doing so.
In related news, Ms. Lerner said she felt "pressured" by the IRS to "fix the problem" in response to the Citizens United decision: "They want the IRS to fix the problem … Everybody is screaming at us right now: ‘Fix it now before the election. Can’t you see how much these people are spending?’"
Who's "they," Ms. Lerner? I'm willing to bet it all that it certainly wasn't the GOP who wanted you to "fix the problem."
David French has lots more:
Not only did the IRS target conservative tax-exempt applications for delays and excessive, unconstitutional scrutiny, it also flagged already-approved conservative groups for excessive surveillance, exclusively audited conservative nonprofits, leaked conservatives’ confidential documents to a liberal media outlet, and engaged in potentially improper coordination and communication with the Federal Election Commission. Taken together, this level of corruption may have had a material influenceon the outcome of the 2012 election.
With a partisan Democratic IRS represented by a partisan union, it’s hardly surprising that the IRS has taken it upon itself to respond to specifically Democratic complaints and work to effectively reject the First Amendment and do all it can to overturn the Supreme Court of the United States’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – even to the point of going “off-plan” to draft draconian new speech-restrictive regulations. Is it the IRS’s role to restrict free speech?
Missing from the analysis: The constant race (and gender)-based attacks on 'em. Funny how this wasn't thought of.
Mike Dickinson, the Democratic challenger to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor is really a piece of work. He seems to revel in tweeting how the FCC should get in there and regulate dastardly Fox News for "telling nothing but lies":
Wow haha. We stirred the pot by saying Fox News needed regulation for telling nothing but lies. Many Foxheads came out the woodwork. Good.— DickinsonForCongress (@VoteMike2014) February 18, 2014
Dickinson is the real deal true believer, folks. He goes further:
Fox News does nothing but tell lies and mistruths. They have unqualified political analysts. We need FCC to monitor and regulate them.— DickinsonForCongress (@VoteMike2014) February 18, 2014
Cheeyeah. Somebody tell Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, and Catherine Herridge, among others.
Lastly, the coup de grâce:
Fully support first amendment. News is news, entertainment is entertainment. Fox News is in the later category.— DickinsonForCongress (@VoteMike2014) February 18, 2014
But he fully supports the First Amendment!!
Be sure to click the link above to see the rest of the douchebag's tweets. Moonbat entertainment at its finest.
The dude won over a vastly more qualified attorney general candidate in 2006 because of his name. Give the state of the Delaware GOP, I'm sure he'll do it again. Sadly.
Real Clear Politics has the story. He was there when I was a student. Who knew? Nevertheless, the article paints a pretty good picture of the NJ governor, much to the dismay, I'm sure, of "progressives."
The Massachusetts NAACP is supporting a convicted woman-beater, who just happens to be a member of the State House who was recently booted from the body. Why?
Well, first, his case is being appealed. He was already convicted, mind you, but to the NAACP we should leave him alone until all appeals have been exhausted. Second, there's "there is currently no rule for expulsion that applies to misdemeanor convictions."
Yep, these are the arguments one of the oldest civil rights organization in the country is using to back the woman-beater, Carlos Henriquez. The real reason, of course, is because he's a black liberal Democrat. Sit tight for the accusations of racism. But keep this in mind when the mythical "War on Women" raises its silly head again.
Biden: ‘No Obvious Reason’ Not to Run in 2016.
What we do or don’t do shouldn’t be an indicator of gender, or race or sexual identity. I mean, we can make guesses, but that doesn’t tell you who you are inside, and it’s the inside that really counts, or so years of cartoon morality lessons have taught me. There’s no such thing as “not black enough” or “you act too gay to be straight,” because that says more about the person making those statements than the person they’re defining. The United States started out as just some humble little colonies trying to forge their own identity, coming to America to be themselves.
Let that sink in for a moment.
OK, ready? IT IS "PROGRESSIVES," MS. HOFFMAN, WHO DEFINE PEOPLE BY THEIR SKIN COLOR, GENDER AND SEXUAL IDENTITY. That is what. They. Do. This is what Marvel and DC do, via their writers, artists and editors. It's what "progressive" politicians do, too: If you're black or Hispanic (but especially black) and conservative, you're "not authentically black." If you're a woman and staunchly pro-life, you're not "authentically female."
I wonder if Ms. Hoffman is "pro-diversity." If she says "yes," why, exactly? The only diversity truly worthy of the term is diversity of opinion and experience. And Hoffman has already noted that skin color/gender/sexual ID has nothing to do with that. Thus, the supposed need for set numbers -- the so-called "critical mass" argued for by racial bean counters in academia -- is moot.
Our pal Gail Simone retweets the following:
Short, sweet, and illegal: A one-sentence bill by South Dakota lawmakers to set the clock back 500 years. http://t.co/YlWwQMH7Yr— Phil Plait (@BadAstronomer) January 31, 2014
However, if you take the time to check the link, here's what it actually says:
No school board or school administrator may prohibit a teacher in public or nonpublic school from providing instruction on intelligent design or other related topics.
Now while I agree that public schools shouldn't be teaching this stuff, this bill, however, also states that non-public schools shouldn't be hindered from teaching such. Although I'd be curious why such a bill would be needed to ensure that non-public schools can teach I.D. Is some state law prohibiting such?
Elsewhere, Ron Marz is still obsessing over acquitted [WHITE HISPANIC] George Zimmerman:
If George Zimmerman actually knew how to box, he wouldn't have had to shoot an unarmed teenager.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 31, 2014
Can we send George Zimmerman to Italy to be tried again?— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 31, 2014
That second one being snark about Amanda Knox. Why does Marz obsess so about [WHITE HISPANIC] Zimmerman? He's tweeted "gotcha" tweets every time he supposedly had threatened his girlfriend (the girlfriend, who seems to have a screw loose, has backed off from her complaints/charges each time), tweeted when [WHITE HISPANIC] Zimmerman might get in trouble for copying someone's photo, and now ...? Because Amanda Knox made the news?
We're not here to defend [WHITE HISPANIC] Zimmerman by any means. The guy certainly appears to have some issues, to be sure. But the "progressive" obsession with the guy is bizarre. Guys like Marz keep it alive ... why? To [re]establish their bona fides as "one of the ["progressive"] team? To keep alive the idea that "racism is just as bad now as it was in, say, 1954?" I mean, if [WHITE HISPANIC] Zimmerman's case is such an "example" of never-dying racism, what explains Roderick Scott?
And, sadly again there's Kurt Busiek, who seemingly has no problem at all with the Lie of the Year from our president, yet is so miffed at the GOP for apparently hyping up a not-quite accurate anecdote that he's compelled to retweet it:
Shock: GOP SOTU Obamacare victim story turns out to be bogus http://t.co/sed6xIG1K6— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) January 31, 2014
Earth to Busiek: Try counting the number of whoppers President Lemon told you in the SOTU. That is, if you can manage to get past your dogma.
... we'll let comicbook moonbat Ron Marz fill you in:
Rush Limbaugh really IS a job creator, because @SandraFluke is gonna wind up in Congress.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 31, 2014
Yep, walking epitome of the modern "progressive" female (one who cannot bear to shell out ten bucks for the Pill, even with a law degree) may seek retiring gargoyle Henry Waxman's House seat this fall. And considering the moonbattery of Waxman's district (the dude was in office for 40 years), unfortunately, Marz may be right.
Bleeding Cool details writer Mark Millar's foray into the political realm. The first paragraph states "Describing himself as a lifelong socialist ..." Well, duh! Just take a gander here, here and here.
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."
Steve Newton, candidate for 22nd District Delaware State Representative, on the issues:
Education: Give resources to teachers and students, not high-stakes tests or punitive assessments; set up an elected State Board of Education that appoints a State Superintendent of Education to replace the now-very partisan Secretary of Education; school districts themselves should become the primary grantors of charters; DOE should be converted into a service and support organization rather than a supervisory one; the feds pay only about 6-7% of the cost of Delaware public education, and that’s about how much influence they should have.
Budget: It's time to end corporate welfare, risky investments and bail-outs; we should use those tens of millions for education and infrastructure improvements instead, and let those attract new business; we should reduce the bloated budget of the Department of Public Safety and Homeland Security (see below); the state should take care of state employees before you pay off CEOs; we need to prove that the General Assembly can manage the money it already has before there is a press for new revenue.
Homeland Security: We need a citizens’ oversight board and fiscal accountability for the Delaware Information Analysis Center [DIAC—fusion center]; we need to scale back the rapidly ballooning budget of Public Safety and Homeland Security, to include repurposing some of the savings into fixing Wilmington; and, why does the DSP have a navy?
Government transparency; End the practice of secret AG opinions to run organizations like DNREC or DPH; end the practice of illegal task forces (charter school task force); or the stacking of membership on boards like the hospital approval board;
Campaign reform: Let’s require real-time identification of donors and work toward only allowing individual donors; despite Citizens United there are ways to get PACs and 504s out of our state races, or at least hobble their anonymity; let’s require any debate or forum sponsored by an organization that accepts State funding to invite ALL ballot qualified candidates; let’s restore fusion candidacies and allow more voices (Green, Libertarian, etc.) to be heard in the political process.
Marijuana: Decriminalize it immediately; we should move expeditiously toward legalization; this will to reductions in violent crime and prison costs; the state should treat real substance addiction as a medical not criminal problem; legalization will lead to potential new revenues (a la Colorado).
Personal Liberty; Fix the absurd laws that prevent Certified Professional Midwives from attending home births; allow the sale of raw milk and other products of small farms under a “cottage industry” statute; relax or eliminate many small business licensing requirements and taxes to encourage “micro-businesses,” especially in Wilmington; stop the blanket collection of license plate images and other intrusive, unsupervised surveillance of law-abiding citizens by Delaware law enforcement
Gun Control: We should revisit previously passed legislation to remove sections that exempt current and retired police officers; if you have only one issue and it is gun control, then I’m probably not your guy.
Citing an atmosphere of “politics as usual rather than public service” afflicting the Delaware General Assembly, Dr. Steve Newton today announced his candidacy for 22nd District (Pike Creek) State Representative. “Over the past few years our legislature has spent tens of millions on corporate welfare and casino bail-outs, while cutting State funding for transporting homeless students to school,” Newton said. “The priorities are clearly wrong.”
Newton, a Professor of History and Political Science at Delaware State University, believes he will bring critical public service experience to the General Assembly. “I’ve spent twenty years in the military, six years as a union president, and more than two decades working to improve public and higher education. I’ve served on task forces and commissions, and I’m tired of seeing that hard work watered down or ignored by State government.”
Fighting for a return to local control and pulling back from high-stakes testing in Delaware schools will be a priority, Newton explained. “We need to support students, parents, and teachers with resources, not new tests or punitive assessment models.” He also cited increased transparency and campaign spending reform as essential steps toward a better functioning government. “We’ve had an illegal charter school task force, secret Attorney General’s Office opinions, and a bipartisan atmosphere of ‘pay to play’ accepted as the status quo,” Newton asserted. “That’s got to change.”
Newton has lived in Limestone Hills in Pike Creek since 1997; his wife Faith is also a DSU Professor. They have three children and one grandchild. He is running as a Libertarian: “I won’t waste your money, I won’t try to run your private life, and I’ll be answering to voters, not party bosses.”
Contributions to Steve can be sent to:
Friends of Steve Newton, 189 Fairhill Drive, Wilmington DE 19808.
(Make checks out to Friends of Steve Newton.) I'll be contributing! Yours truly is a big fan of Steve and his writings; I hope you'll join me in supporting his run.
There will certainly be more forthcoming! Stay tuned.
Insty notes how Republicans should get behind silly federal mandates such as those like the 21 year-old drinking age:
Republicans are supposed to stand for limited government, freedom and federalism, but it was under a Republican administration—and a Republican transportation secretary, Elizabeth Dole—that states were forced to raise their age limits or face financial penalties. That was before the tea party, though. Perhaps today, when Republican leaders across the board are singing the praises of limited government, it is time for them to put their money where their mouths are and support an end to the federal drinking-age mandate.
The "financial penalties" noted were basically denial of federal highway funds. The feds typically do stuff like this to force states to comply with their wishes. Look at education, for example, with No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. Regarding the 21 year-old drinking age, frankly, it's stupid. I hear kids in school year after year (when they're doing the Constitution unit in History) say, "Hey, how is it that you only have to be 18 to vote and even die for your country in the military ... but you gotta wait three more years to buy a beer??
Comicbook writer Ed Brubaker ironically tweets:
Here's a real question: Can you still enjoy an artist's work if you find out they're an asshole later?— Ed Brubaker (@brubaker) January 2, 2014
Some responses by some of our "buddies":
@brubaker I think it's hard to enjoy it if they're contemporary, and still working. Easier to look past someone being a jerk 100 years ago.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) January 2, 2014
@brubaker I have a whole bunch of people whose work I can't enjoy any more because of racist or homophobic statements.— Gail Oakenpants (@GailSimone) January 2, 2014
After many answers, Brubaker subsequently tweeted
So the answers seem to be: Yes, no, it depends on the art/depends on how big an asshole/depends on the time they lived.— Ed Brubaker (@brubaker) January 2, 2014
To be fair, at least Marz (and Dan Slott) have stated that they are aware of the [business] chance they take by being outspoken on certain matters (usually political). But, once again, it's one thing to spout off on matters political, and another to be, as Brubaker pondered, a jerk about it. It would matter much less to me (and I'd be a lot more inclined to buy their stuff) if people like Marz, Slott and Simone tweeted left-wing politics ... but were a lot more gracious/respectful towards dffering opinions. Not to sound like a broken a record, but, y'know, Michael Jordan's 1990 comment about Republicans buying shoes, too, and all ...
Via Jim Geraghty's e-mailed "Morning Jolt":
OUT: MSNBC's prime-time lineup insisting every GOP position is driven by racial discrimination.
IN: MSNBC's prime-time lineup insisting every GOP position is driven by gender discrimination.
Richard Cooper at Salon.com says superheroes are just that -- "a bunch of fascists."
The main problem is force: sheer physical force, which lies at the heart of the superhero myth, something Steven T. Seagle observed nicely in “It’s a Bird…”, his poignant autobiographical graphic novel about his reluctance to write for a Superman comic, in which he points out that Superman triumphs by being able to move faster and hit harder than everyone else: essentially a fascist concept.
Chris Yogerst in The Atlantic has a very good rebuttal to Cooper. For example, in retort to Superman only being able to triumph because he's massively strong, he writes
We want to see good triumph over evil, and “good” in this case means more than just defeating the bad guy—it means handling power responsibly.
The “fascism” metaphor breaks down pretty quickly when you think about it. Most superheroes defeat an evil power but do not retain any power for themselves. They ensure others’ freedom. They rarely deal with the government, and when they do it is with wariness, as in the Iron Man films, where Tony Stark refuses to hand over control of his inventions.
Indeed, superhero tales are full of subplots about how heroes limit their own power: hibernating once the big bad guy has been defeated, wearing disguises to live ordinary lives, choosing not to give into the temptation to ally with the villain or use their powers for profit or even civilizational progress.
What can I add? I agree wholeheartedly.
If Cooper really wants to investigate how superheroes become fascist, he should read Mark Gruenwald's superb Squadron Supreme series and various trade paperbacks of The Authority. In the former (taking place in Marvel's alternate "Earth-S"), the obvious Justice League analogue team decides to take control of the planet after chaos ensues following the defeat of an alien super-intellect (which had, as it were, taken over the minds of the Squadron). Of course their intentions are "good;" however, they soon begin to dabble in very controversial areas like "modifying" the minds of convicted criminals so that they'll be "cured" of their criminality. Further, founding member Nighthawk (who had previously retired from the team and was actually president of the US when the alien had attacked) quits the Squadron precisely because he believes the Squadron will become like unto fascist overlords. Nighthawk eventually founds his own team (called the "Redeemers") to fight the Squadron. In the climactic battle, some members of both teams are killed, and the Squadron agrees to stand down and rulers.
The pinnacle of a left-wing wet dream comic, The Authority sounds right up Cooper's alley. The entire team is comprised of hardcore "progressives" who have no qualms about exerting their power over the planet for they perceive to be "the good of all," and ultimately end up executing a coup d'etat of the United States. Ironically, the TPB Coup D'Etat was co-created by Micah Wright, an outspoken anti-[Iraq] war activist who had claimed he was an ex-Army Ranger. He got ink in the Washington Post and air time on Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now!" show before real Army Rangers contacted relevant media to reveal Wright was an imposter. Caught, Wright had to come clean.
In The Authority Revolution trades, team arch-nemesis Henry Bendix unleashes a plan to oust the team from world power. The Authority ultimately defeat Bendix, but they give up day-to-day command of the US (and the world). They do warn the planet, however: "We'll be watching." Has Superman ever made such a warning? Batman? The Avengers?
For another lefty-gasm, Cooper might also want to check out Gail Simone's The Movement which is based on the Occupy Movement. It doesn't seem to be selling particularly well (gee, wonder why?), opening at the #74 spot in sales with its debut issue.
Did the Washington Post interview Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who infamously said of Obamacare that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it”? If there are officials in Washington, D.C. who seem to think their job is to pass laws for the sake of passing laws, they should be outed immediately.
The Congressional Research Service has admitted that there are so many federal regulations that it can’t even tally them up. Its best guess? “Tens of thousands.” And yet, in the minds of the officials who run to the Washington Post to complain about the 113th Congress, it isn’t enough. There are always more people to control, new activity to monitor and behavior to tax. It never ends.
Indeed. Hell, I'd give the 113th Congress kudos if they repealed some laws, beginning with ObumbleCare. And any one recall "Plugs" Biden saying how we need new gun laws ... because we can't even enforce the gun laws already on the books??
Today we remember Rosa Parks’ bold stand and her role in ending racism. pic.twitter.com/uxIj1QmtkU— RNC (@GOP) December 1, 2013
OK, so it's a bit inartfully worded. No, racism isn't ended yet. But didn't you know what it meant, average person with half a brain? Says Althouse:
First, you have to be enough of a douchebag to act like you don't see that "ending racism" is a process and that a person might have a role in that process even though that role didn't go so far as to entirely complete the process.
And then you have to think, here on the Sunday after Thanksgiving, that it's worth exploiting Rosa Parks for one more opportunity to bray at Republicans. Over nothing!
Speaking of douchebaggery, lo and behold there was our 'ol pal Dan Slott, writer of Superior Spider-Man, jumping right in:
Quick. Guess the skin color of the person who tweeted this. RT @GOP Today we remember Rosa Parks’ bold stand and her role in ending racism.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) December 1, 2013
Surprise, surprise, those. For the record, Slott did "thank" the GOP account for eventually amending the wording of their original tweet; however, there's certainly no doubt where Slott stands politically. He once got miffed (at yours truly) for pointing out this anti-Fox News tweet of his ... because I failed to mention he also retweeted similar posts critical of NPR and some other MSM outlets. (To him, I was supposed to monitor his tweets 24-7.) As if that was supposed to make him somehow politically "balanced." Right. Balanced like this? Or, like this? Or, like this?
Danny continues to live in his insulated "progressive" bubble, blissfully unaware that there are conservative/libertarian/Republican comicbook readers out there ... whom he continues to alienate with his LIV boilerplate. *Sigh*
UPDATE: [Lefty] comics legend Gerry Conway tweets:
Amazing this became an "issue": The Woman in the Breast Cancer Photo Responds to Times Readers http://t.co/Crm6Cvduu8— Gerry Conway (@gerryconway) December 2, 2013
You oughta talk to your colleague Dan Slott about "making issues" where there aren't any, Ger.
Recall what I wrote yesterday: "We know we're not some misanthropomorphic miscreants; in fact, a majority of Americans share our values on any number of topics today." Esquire magazine had a poll recently, what it called "The New American Center." In it (via Jim Geraghty), the mag found
As I noted above, people like Perry (yeah, I know, I know ... I shouldn't have linked to his sorry-ass blog ... just call me a "compassionate conservative," OK?) will always insist -- with perpetual assistance from the mainstream media, natch -- that no matter what, they are right. Three-quarters of the American public (in this case) be damned, not to mention myriad court decisions, including those by the US Supreme Court. "Progressives" like Perry just know better than you and me -- they can feel it deep within themselves, and they'll do virtually anything to make you "get it." Which, in the Internet's case, means trolling and off-topic comments, and when you still refuse to accept what they say, that's when the epithets start flying: "racist," "hater," "bigot," "un-American," "heartless," blah blah blah.
What they constantly fail to grasp is how their "Great White Hope" paternalism is what's really "racist," "bigoted," etc.
Back on Oct. 30 yours truly wrote Mistake vs. Lie comparing George W. Bush's claims about WMD in Iraq to Boss Obama's claims about keeping your health insurance/doctor. Today, the DC's Jamie Weinstein, who must read Colossus (I jest) writes "Obama Lied, Bush Was Mystified" and lays out pretty much what I did last week (albeit more meticulously).
I highly recommend the article.
"The Republican National Committee spent three times as much in 2009 on the same race as they did this year. The Chamber of Commerce spent one million dollars in the last Governor’s race, and not one dime on Cuccinelli. While its often claimed that Tea Party candidates do poorly among independents, Cuccinelli actually won independents by 9 points, 47 percent to 38 percent. “McAuliffe outraised Cuccinelli by almost $15 million,” and in the last weeks of the campaign, this left Cuccinelli with nearly no media exposure. Even Politico wonders if Cuccinelli was beginning to turn the tide against the “War on Women” narrative, as he drove down McAuliffe’s lead among women from 24% in polling to 9%."
If the Republican establishment had thought it important enough to carry Virginia into the “R” column instead of using the loss as a cudgel to beat the grassroots Tea Party insurgent movement, perhaps it would have devoted more resources towards winning this crucial election.
This is exactly the problem. The GOP has been split into the Establishment GOP and The Tea Party/Regular people.
The Establishment seeks only to remain insiders who don't make waves. They don't stand on principles, they make speeches about togetherness and conviviality and "go along to get along" is their mantra. They are careerists who don't want to be seen as judgmental or intolerant of "hateful" or in any way disliked by their peers across the aisle or reporters. These are the very same people who gave Chris Wallace oppo research on Ted Cruz. Think about that. One of two senators with a backbone who stood on principle on issues they fully expected to lose. Rand Paul and Cruz are not interested in being popular in DC. They are interested in doing what they believe is right. The Establishment (c.f. McCain) only believe in getting re-elected and showing up on talk shows.
The GOP is at war with itself. If the Establishment GOP wins they will continue to be a minority party who manages to lose to idiots like Nancy Pelosi. Frankly, they'll deserve it but the damage that they do to country will continue.
I want you to view this video again. And again, if need be. It's since been revealed that the administration knew this clearly wasn't the case. Your typical average American would call this a "lie."
Rewind back to 2002: Then-President G.W. Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein's Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and this was the major -- but not the only -- reason his administration used to justify a US invasion. Despite echoing exactly what numerous Democrats had said not very long prior, Bush was accused by Democrats of "lying" when US forces turned up no (or outdated) WMD in Iraq. I think Scott Monje pretty much encapsulates my view about the whole Iraq mess during Bush's two terms. It wasn't that Pres. Bush lied about WMD; it's that after Sept. 11, 2001, he and his administration were going to use any and every excuse to once and for all stop Saddam from f***ing around with us and the UN. Questionable intel was overlooked or ignored. Do I exonerate Mr. Bush for the invasion? Absolutely not. But besides him selectively choosing the best intel to "make his case," again I ask: Why would Bush "lie" knowing American forces would find zilch WMD? This makes no sense. It's as if W had a presidential suicide wish.
Or, to put it more succinctly, Bush made a [big] mistake.
But nothing will ever convince hardcore moonbats of this. Yet, they'll make every excuse in the book for Pres. I-Don't-Knowbama's outright falsehood about keeping your health insurance if you want to ... among [many?] other things. I wonder if the LGOMB's "El Somnambulo," for instance, will ever change his avatar from a pic of Pres. Bush holding up a prison number, to one of Boss Obama doing same.
Cheeyeah, right. How silly of me. That'd be racist.
The News Journal is on Delaware State Treasurer Chip Flowers' case because of alleged misspent funds while on a trip to Alaska.
I say that's racist.
I've read a lot of gloating the last couple days at MSM websites and "progressive" blogs over Boss Obama and the Democrats' seeming "victory" in the whole government shutdown affair. Included in a lot of that boasting is the claim that next year's mid-term elections will be disastrous for the GOP.
The American public's collective memory lasts about one week, maybe two. Conveniently forgotten by all the 'bats is that the GOP won back the House in 2010 (and kept it in 2012) -- a lopsided victory rivaled only by the 1994 GOP House takeover -- precisely because of the clusterf*** that is ObumbleCare. The 1994 victory was in large part for the same reason. So, yeah, sure, the GOP came out the bigger loser after the "deal" made the other day, but is the public gonna give a hoot come November 2014? Or, more likely, will the Hurricane Katrina-like disaster that is ObumbleCare drive people to the polls ... to vote against it?
It's true that all the technical glitches that have plagued the ACA rollout may be resolved by next summer. But, will the drastic increases in healthcare costs that way too many Americans will face be rectified? And, even if the tech problems are resolved, will it be in time? Unlikely. Thus, it's highly likely is that Boss Obama will sometime in the near future anoint himself "savior," and "after much reflection and consideration" propose -- just like the GOP wanted during the recent gov. shutdown -- a delay in the individual mandate. Which, basically, is a delay in the whole of ObumbleCare. This will lessen the anger directed at the administration (and Democrats) before the mid-terms, thereby lessening Republican gains in the House and Senate. The problem with this, however, is it presents problems in 2016 for Hillary Clinton, or whomever becomes President Lemon's Democrat successor.
Also consider the political ads the GOP could air if Obama unilaterally delays ObumbleCare for a year (no, I don't know how he'd be legally able to do that either, but it hasn't stopped him before):
"October 2013: The main request of GOP members of the House and Senate was for a one year delay in ObamaCare. But the president and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate stood firm and said 'no.' The impasse resulted in a two week shutdown of the federal government. And, despite having discretion on the use of funds during the shutdown, the president put more guards at open-air memorials and parks than around the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya. World War II veterans were prevented from visiting their memorial, but a march for illegal immigrants was permitted.
But then, shortly after the shutdown ended, President Obama claimed that after much consideration, he would delay his healthcare plan ... for one year."
Of course, they never seriously were that label, but "progressives" couldn't allow The NarrativeTM to slip away. Yale Professor's Surprising Discovery: Tea Party Supporters More Scientifically Literate.
The prof who did the study offered up the following:
“I’ve got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I’d be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension,” Kahan wrote. “But then again, I don’t know a single person who identifies with the Tea Party,” he continued. “All my impressions come from watching cable tv — & I don’t watch Fox News very often — and reading the ‘paper’ (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused internet sites like Huffington Post & Politico). I’m a little embarrassed, but mainly I’m just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view.”
To which Ace retorts:
I'm glad he admitted his cognitive bias, but is he actually aware of his deep cognitive bias?
Will he now do a study to document the cognitive biases of the left, their tendency to demean as nearly subhuman all those who disagree with them?
I doubt it. This is, for any behavioral scientist, obviously an interesting line of inquiry, and certainly one that has very little inquiry into it.
But having found that he himself has been Cocooned by a steady diet of bias-confirming self-selected sources which engage in a nonstop demonization of The Other, he will simply move on to his next hypothesis about the degenerated brains of Tea Partiers and attempt to confirm his own biases.
Perfect. And, if I may add, it's precisely akin to all those contemporary comicbook creators who all tweet the same anti-GOP/anti-conservative flotsam day after day after day. Because they all know each other -- they all live in the same Bubble (or Cocoon, as Ace says) and know virtually no one with sharply divergent political opinions. For them, it's an astonishingly stupid business model ... but come to think of it, their tweets kind of explain that.
I suppose I'll have to make this a regular feature since they show no sign of letting up on their disdain for half of the country.
First up is ultra-moonbat Erik Larsen who writes
1) As if such a sentiment is unique to the GOP. Only total moonbats limit such to one party.
2) I'm sure the Democrats were "fighting hard" to have America succeed during 2001-2008 instead of "fighting hard" to have George W. Bush fail, right?
3) Regarding #2, Larsen probably considers it moot since he believes the previous president "stole" his two elections.
Next there's genius Dan Slott who "shows off" his elementary civics knowledge:
It's a different story if you replace "limits on Obamacare" w/ "limits on a passed law that was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court."— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) October 5, 2013
*Sigh* How many such comparisons should we make that are just like the above ... but which Slott would hate? It's like something I read on Twitter yesterday: "Progressives" and the mainstream media call it "obstruction," "extremism," etc. when a Democrat president doesn't get his way with another branch of gov. dominated by the GOP; however, when there's a Republican president who faces a similar situation, then divided government and checks and balances to "diminish" an "imperial" executive are of paramount importance.
And if Slott is implying that just because the SCOTUS deemed the ACA constitutional that it must be passed, then he's a bigger idiot than he's already proven himself to be many times.
Remember, right-leaning comicbook fans: Contemporary comicbook creators piss on your views routinely.
UPDATE: I found where I had seen what I referenced above. It was from Jonah Goldberg:
When the president is a Democrat he needs to rule unimpaired. When he’s a Republican, his dictatorial tendencies must be held in check. When liberals want to reinterpret the Constitution by judicial whim or fiat, it’s proof that the Constitution is living up to its nature as a “living, breathing, document.” When conservatives actually want to amend the Constitution — the only legitimate and constitutional means to change the meaning of the Constitution, I might add – it is a horrible affront to the vision of the Founders!
The lunacy of "progressive" comicbook creators who really must want to limit their audience. Here's Ron "STFU" Marz yesterday, trying to be "cute":
You know, those veterans who went to WW2 Memorial fought against lunatic ideologues who wanted to force their beliefs on rest of the world.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) October 2, 2013
You know what Ron is implying here, right? Of course, not even considered for a second by his pointy little head is this: Who, again, got a "health" care plan passed on a purely partisan vote that, for the first time demands a person purchase a private product ... or face a penalty enforced by our very own IRS? The very same IRS which this same person who got "health" care passed has been using as his very own political Gestapo?
Knee-slappingly, Marz also tweeted yesterday "I'm not stupid." Yes, Ron, you most definitely are.
The Dems have seen a jump in the "generic ballot" immediately following new of the government shutdown; however, in their zeal (as they always do) to make the GOP look "extreme," "childish," "petty," etc, they may be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (h/t to Insty): Sending more personnel to the World War II Memorial than Benghazi, Libya. Closing parks the [federal] Park Service doesn't even run. The Boss Obama administration paying union thugs to protest WWII vets (see also here) who showed up at said memorial. Grocery stores on army bases are closed ... but the golf course at Andrews AFB (where Boss Obama plays) is open.
But perhaps most vile of all is Harry Reid stating "Why would we want to do that?" in response to a reporter's question about allowing funding for child cancer patients.
But hey, if you're into all this crap, then you actually believed President Lemon's preposterous promises about ObamaCare (among many other things) in the first place. You're beyond help now.
RELATED: Ace reports on a poll that includes the following distressing info:
A Harris Poll for the American Bar Association in 2005 found that 22% of respondents thought the three branches of government were "Republican, Democrat and Independent." Two-thirds of Americans couldn't name a single sitting Supreme Court justice in 2003, and fewer than 1% could name all nine. In 1987, about half of Americans thought Karl Marx's dictum "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" was in the U.S. Constitution. In 1964, only 38% of the American people were certain the Soviet Union wasn't in NATO.
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."
I like it. If you like too, feel free to sign the petition at the link above.
... 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.
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.
H/t: American Digest
Larry Correia rips apart a moron who claims to "know" about guns. Well worth your time.
In this article, entitled JPMorgan Hit With Puny $920M Fine Over ‘London Whale’ Debacle. The writer shows a staggering lack of knowledge about capital markets, banking, finance, economics etc.
For lying to multiple governments and its own investors about losses of $6 billion, however, the bank will have to pay just $920 million, or 0.03 percent of its current holdings. With total assets of $2.35 trillion, JPMorgan could pay the same fine every hour for three months, or every day for seven years, before their coffers would run dry.
Where to start. Well, one of the first commenters takes him to the woodshed:
Secondly, however, you need to get your basic financial knowledge straight. This is especially difficult for banks because what is an "asset" and a "liability" for a bank is somewhat counterintuitive. Let's start with the basics: Yes, JPM has a total of 2.36T in assets. It also has 2.15T in liabilities. The company's total market cap is only ~200 billion, not 2.3 trillion (2,300 billion). Big difference. Secondly, most of those "assets" are unavailable for use in paying this fine. The vast majority of JPM's assets are "long-term assets" which for a bank means (basically) "loans". JPM has loaned out 1.65T to individuals (mortgages primarily, I would think; also personal loans, car loans, what have you) and to corporations. These are liabilities on the balance sheets of the borrower but assets on the bank's balance sheet (I take out a $500,000 mortgage means I have a $500K liability but the bank has a $500K ASSET).
The bank's cash on hand is approx $471 billion, which means the $920M fine is approximately 0.2% of what it has available to pay, not 0.03%. Sounds minor but that's an approx 7-fold difference.
Indeed understanding what those "holdings" and "assets" are and to whom they belong is critical. Leftist types seem to forget that the bank's assets aren't really theirs. They belong to the investors and the banks are either the custodians or managers (or both).
Down further another commenter expands on this point:
Dimon should step down because of a 6B turn in a book that is over 1 trillion dollars large?
Even if the entire amount of the loss was attributable to poor risk management (which it wasn't), you fire one of the best CEOs in the world, a guy watching over a systemically important firm, for a 3% oversight?
Your comment regarding punitive value would be right on point..if you were penalizing the people who have some control over the process. We have laws to punish people who commit financial crimes, and massive regulations that banks need to operate under.
Anyway - couldn't disagree more and thankfully the regulators, even in their over-zealousness, don't steal money from pensioners out of spite that often.
None of this matters of course. A 3% variance on a balance sheet is enough to make them scream for lynchings. A brief glance at the balance sheet of the US Government somehow doesn't merit so much as a frown. I'll wager if you took all the economic horror and pitched it to them as the doings of a nefarious Big Corporation they would wail and rend their garments.
Well, they did catch her eventually ...
Embattled Syria analyst Elizabeth O'Bagy now admits she was never enrolled in a Ph.D. program despite claims to the contrary as she rose -- and quickly fell -- as a prominent scholar whose writings were used to make the case for military intervention in Syria.
O'Bagy initially stated she had already defended her doctoral dissertation and was "simply waiting" for her degree, but later admitted she was never enrolled in the [doctoral] program at Georgetown. Nice.
It's inevitable. They just can't help it. It's in the Alinsky playbook, after all: Y'know, "Never let a crisis go to waste." Even when there isn't really a crisis. Such now is the case in the aftermath of the Washington Navy Yard shooting. After all, here's what the 80-page "Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging produced by three Democratic consulting firms says:
The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak. The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.
We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence. Compelling facts should be used to back up that emotional narrative, not as a substitute for it.
Next up, there's the idiot from Salon.com Joan Walsh, a frequent yes-man on MSNBC:
Please stop with the "violent video games." Sadly, a lot of folks play them. A handful kill. It's not a motive.— Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh) September 17, 2013
Of course, it never occurred to this 'bat that this very same argument applies to gun control: A lot of folks own guns, but only a handful actually kill with them.
Locally, the wisher of death upon all Republicans thanks the NRA for the shooting. Then, "Trust Fund" Scott apparently doesn't let having had everything handed to him in life get in the way of getting angry. Here he lets loose with the predictable profanity against the proprietor of the First Street Journal blog, Dana. Oh, here, too. Then he bans the guy for 48 hours. Just because Dana made him look foolish. (Not that difficult, I know.)
CNN 'bat Piers Morgan ranted about the AR-15 supposedly used by the shooter; however, the FBI says now that there was no AR-15 used -- only a shotgun and two pistols. NARRATIVETM busted again. A**hole.
Not necessarily related directly but certainly indirectly is AMSCO's textbook United States History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Examination. Keep in mind that last part: Advanced Placement. Now check out how it "writes" the Second Amendment: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia." Authors John J. Newman and John M. Schmalbach should be incredibly ashamed of themselves. I mean ... ADVANCED PLACEMENT, for cripe's sake!!! And the Second Amendment ain't all. These dolts also use the phrase "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment. Y'know, even though it ain't actually there. Bryan Preston has contacted the publisher (again, AMSCO) for comment. Stay tuned.
Guest post from Nate Winchester:
The following is a true story*.
Where I grew up is on the border of rural and suburban (subural? rurban?). A little less than a mile from that house is a neighbor, we'll call 'Ed.' He's an older fellow, the spitting image of what pops into your head when you picture "old farm boy." Yeah, a walking cliché of "rough around the edges."
This road I grew up on is one surrounded by farm lands behind and around all the houses lining it. Some of the farms hold crops, others livestock. One day, a bull owned by another neighbor escaped from his field and attacked Ed who was working outside in his yard. Now, if you're pretty citified, the most exposure you've had to bulls is probably the Spanish fighting ring and rodeos. You might even believe the clowns of the latter are more of a threat than a walking steak. So let me explain how a bull attacks someone: the one ton plus animal likes to body slam its target, which will knock said target to the ground nine times out of ten. Once the target is on the ground, the bull proceeds to continue to ram its head, body and front hooves into the target over and over and over until the target has no more bones. Needless to say, it takes awhile and is fatal.
Luckily for Ed (well, as much luck as he could have after somehow getting a bull mad at him**) a bull attack isn't exactly silent and several neighbors heard what was happening and came running to help. From what I understand, they started shooting the bull. It wouldn't stop. Neighbors had to keep escalating firepower before they were finally able to stop the beast. If I heard correctly, they started with a pistol, then tried a shotgun, finally someone had to use a high-powered rifle and even that took more than one shot.
Now this story does have a happy ending. Although it was iffy for awhile, Ed ended up recovering and after a long stay in the hospital, is now back home (it helps that decades of hard work have made the guy too tough to die). So what was the point of this story? Only as an answer to those who want to ask "what do you need ___ for?" when it comes to the gun control debate. What do you need "assault weapons" for? Because less firepower only makes the bull mad. Why do you need a greater than 10 bullet magazine? Because those first shots may not slow the bull down.
I will be honest here. Had gun legislation gone through and kept weapons out of the hands of Ed's family & neighbors, do I think the supporters of such legislation would have wanted Ed to die? Of course not! That's why such things are called unintended consequences. Because nobody intends them. Heck, during the entire gun legislation debate, I never even considered such a scenario as an argument for the gun rights side. In a country of millions, none of us have any hope to realize every possible scenario on how a law will affect one of those millions.
Thus we should all approach law with humility and the realization that there will be unseen costs to our actions. If we are not willing to pay them, then we should reconsider.
*I hate to make a claim without some evidence (especially with all the hoaxes that happen on the internet) but after a lot of searching, I never could find a local news article covering the incident. I also know how some people can be outright assholes when it comes to people challenging their notions so I'm not giving any more details to allow jerks a chance to harass Ed. (Though do you really want to mess with a guy who survived a bull?) If you're with a legitimate news organization and would like to verify the story, talk to Hube.
**To this day, nobody knows why the bull hated him so much. Sometimes you just get a nemesis.
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?
Remember what this day was really like. It's not about pictures of flags or eagles or buildings and monuments. It's about the victims:
Let Delaware Libertarian's Steve Newton tell you why:
While I rarely agree with Senator Chris Coons' politics, I always thought he was a pretty smart guy.
Here's his quote today as he is one of the few Obama loyalists still stooging for a US strike in Syria:
“I do think we know what the consequences of inaction will be,” Coons said on CNN’s “State of the Union” program. Coons said Assad “will continue to use cluster bombs and scud missiles and chemical weapons to massacre thousands of his own civilians.”
Go read the whole take-down. Please.
Samantha Power, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, hoped that a team of UN investigators — many of whom, presumably, have a longstanding relationship with Iranian leaders -- could write a report that would convince Iran to abandon its ally at the behest of the United States.
We are a nation run by idiots. They honestly believe they can convince the Iranians to abandon Syria for them. They cannot even muster support from their fellow countrymen on much smaller matters and they're going to convince the Iranians to support military action against their own ally in their own backyard?
However, there's this:
And in an unprecedented statement, a former Iranian official has warned of mass abductions and brutal killings of American citizens around the world and the rape and killing of one of Obama’s daughters should the United States attack Syria.
As our reader well knows, I am no fan of Obama or his administration or policies or pretty much anything else he's done.
Threatening to rape and murder the man's daughter? It is motherfucking on. Now. This goddamn minute. I want the President to use every tool in the toolbox to go after this motherfucker personally and make an example out of him.
It's not entirely clear from the article but it appears this piece of shit is named Alireza Forghani. If so, you've just put your name in the black book.
And yes, I'd call in a marker from the Israelis for this one. They have been doing very good work in wiping out the Iranian nuclear team and I have little doubt they could ice this guy in very short order.
How dare an elected representative of the people question an administration official about possibly getting into another war!! I mean, c'mon -- Kerry served, Mr. Paul, and you didn't:
I keep forgetting, is it Rand Paul or John Kerry who has a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts?— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) September 3, 2013
Maybe the dope Marz forgot that Kerry "gave back" those medals in protest? And I wonder if Marz was as vocal about service when it came to anything John McCain said/advocated, especially in 2008?
Cheeyeah, right. Once again, Marz is just another "progressive" hypocrite of the highest order. But hey -- at least he didn't tell Rand Paul to just "STFU."
How bad is the US policy in the Middle East? This guy nails it:
Being nicer to countries like Russia will not make them nicer to you. The United Nations is not an effective tool for resolving crises. Some foreign leaders are beyond persuasion and diplomacy. There is no “international community” ready to work together to solve problems, and there probably never will be.
Countries do not have friends. They only have interests. Russia's interests and our do not overlap very often. They, along with China, want to be hedgemon. They are doing their best under Putin to do so and while China has several problems bubbling under the surface they still have designs on Pacific Rim dominance at minimum and if they can expand their navy, become a major player globally.
This merits a much longer entry than I have time for at the moment but the wonder of this administration has been just how completely the liberal/progressive narrative has suffered at the hands of reality. Keynesian economics has proved an abject failure and now "smart power" is shown to be anything but. "Dangerous naivete" is a more fitting name. I'm amazed (though I shouldn't be) that Obama is doing everything that the Left has been screeching about for the last ten years. Domestic surveillance? Check. Shutting down political enemies with the power of state? Check. Go it alone cowboy interventionism? Check. Arrogance combined with ignorance? Check.
Can you hear the foundation cracking?
From Jim Geraghty's e-mailed "Morning Jolt" -- it so perfectly describes President Lemon's administration to a tee:
As we await Congress's decision on authorizing the use of U.S. military force in Syria, Democrats are suddenly realizing that their foreign-policy brain-trust completely misjudged the world.
Being nicer to countries like Russia will not make them nicer to you. The United Nations is not an effective tool for resolving crises. Some foreign leaders are beyond persuasion and diplomacy. There is no "international community" ready to work together to solve problems, and there probably never will be.
You can pin this on Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Susan Rice, but most of all, the buck stops with the president. Those of us who scoffed a bit at a state senator ascending to the presidency within four years on a wave of media hype and adoration are not quite so shocked by this current mess. We never bought into this notion that getting greater cooperation from our allies, and less hostility from our enemies, was just a matter of giving this crew the wheel and letting them practice, as Hillary Clinton arrogantly declared it, "smart power." (These people can't even label a foreign-policy approach without reminding us of how highly they think of themselves.) They looked out at the world at the end of the Bush years, and didn't see tough decisions, unsolvable problems, unstable institutions, restless populations, technology enabling the impulse to destabilize existing institutions, evil men hungry for more power, and difficult trade-offs. No, our problems and challengers were just a matter of the previous hands running U.S. foreign policy not being smart enough.
Read the rest of this spot-on gem here.
RELATED: Predictable -- Delaware's trio of US lawmakers all support President Lemon in taking military action against Syria.
Well, what else would you expect from the wisher of death upon Republicans? In this ... predictable post, Delaware Dunce blames George W. Bush for the current administration's inability to intervene in Syria, and notes that if Al Gore had been allowed to serve as president (since he "really" won the 2000 election), Bush/Iraq fatigue wouldn't even be manifested now, and attacking Syria would be much more palatable. And DD would be for intervening now.
Just a refresher: Here's what candidate [Boss] Obama said in 2008: “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
Does Syria's use of chemical weapons qualify?
As always, it's amazing how quickly positions change depending on the power a political party wields. Boss Obama is contemplating unilateral action (that is, without Congress's approval) against Syria, and he has loyal columnists to back him up. This, despite popular approval for such action of less than 10%.
Steve Newton makes the much more eloquent case about all this (sans the bit about atomic weapons, FWIW).
You gotta check out WPHT's Chris Stigall's debate/conversation/argument with Will "Panties In A" Bunch of the Philly Inquirer. Bunch, of course, accused Stigall of promoting -- wait for it -- racism on his morning radio show in a tweet last weekend, so Stigall had him on and called him out. Bunch used as "evidence" the usual canards: Voter ID measures, the Supreme Court decision to rescind a section of the Voting Rights Act, etc. Stigall shreds him.
At least Bunch had the cojones to actually go on.
SEMI-RELATED: Bloomberg News headline: “House Republicans Set to Defy Obama Are Mostly White Men.”
But so what? (Warning: Rambling rant to follow):
Despite what the film's director and star Matt Damon claim, the movie is very political. But, much of it's just stupid political if you ask me. As you may have heard by now, "Elysium" is the name of the huge space station orbiting Earth and home to the very richest of the planet's [former] citizens. These folks essentially can live forever thanks to the pinnacle of modern medical technology. Just don't ask how this tech works, however. I had to guffaw when bad guy Sharlto Copley's disintegrated lower skull was instantly rematerialized in one of these medical pods. C'mahn.
You're sure to ask just how this tech is so miraculous ... when even those on Elysium are still using alpha-numeric keyboards and large screen LC monitors or their computers, for one thing. It's supposed to be 2154, after all. That's over 130 years from now, dammit. Consider where we were 130 years ago and then tell me we'll still be using such tech for computers. Not to mention, given the year, why the hell were there 1970s model automobiles on the streets of the dilapidated Los Angeles? 1970s!! I mean, really? The poor residents of LA couldn't use makeshift 2110 model cars? Even 2080 models?? I know that director Neill Blomkamp wanted to give the city a sort of "Cuba" feel -- like how cubanos have to make do with revamping old 1950s-era American automobiles among other tech -- but this just goes too far.
But, after all, those are just scifi nits. The big question is, how the hell did the world situation come about that gave us this ritzy space station, and the ridiculously poverty-stricken planet below? All of LA looks like Rio de Janeiro's favelas, even once-modern downtown with its skyscrapers and all. Blomkamp wants us to analogize the situation to the US-Mexico relationship, or even the Western world to the Third World in general. We see "illegals" taking off from LA in a desperate attempt to reach Elysium to make use of a medical pod. The pod won't work, however, unless you have a tattoo of an Elysium citizen. (Get it? Green card, Social Security card, etc.) For some reason, the citizens of Elysium refuse to share the miraculous medical tech with Earth. At all. Really. I mean, one damn medical pod can instantly heal anything and any number of people, yet Elysium refuses to even loan one out. (I guess this is supposed to be analogous to the dastardly pharmaceutical cos. not giving free drugs to poor nations.)
Poor Matt Damon, who's accidentally irradiated at work and hence has but five days to live, is merely given a few pain pills to ease his agony. Such sets in motion the main plot: Damon will somehow get to the space station and heal himself. I won't offer up any spoilers from here on out, but my question remains: How could such a situation come about? Elysium ruled Earth with an authoritarian fist, via their robotic police force. It would have taken many years -- decades, at least -- to construct such a station; did the "evil" one percent manage to build it all ... by deception? Perhaps with a promise that anyone could venture to live there sometime?
Blomkamp certainly isn't the first to relay such a message. In the 1970s we saw the likes of Soylent Green (starring Chuck Heston) and Rollerball (starring James Caan) where wealthy corporate types have control of the world and care not much about anything but themselves. In the former, the Soylent corporation begins making food out of people after it, and many other corporations, have essentially trashed the planet's ecology. In Rollerball, nations' borders are defined by which major corporation is HQ'd there, and the public is kept placated by ultra-violent "sports" like the film's title.
"Progressives" will champion Blomkamp's vision; however, the important thing to consider is just how and why certain countries are successful ... and others aren't. The same "progressives" will clamor that the US (like other developed nations) has basically "robbed its way to prosperity" from the very beginning, starting with the Native Americans. Certainly, a chunk of this has merit, but not nearly to the degree "progressives" would have us all believe. This isn't the post to now delve into all such reasons; just consider what I noted above, and then ask yourself to what degree countries like ours obligated to help others less developed. And how.
By way of the inimitable Nate Winchester comes word of a new ... novel that purports to be something of a "case study" of what would happen if the Religious Right ever got its way. It's called Christian Nation and, well, you can just guess at the usual "progressive" clichés:
Christian Nation is a work of speculative political fiction, arising from the counterfactual of a McCain/Palin victory in 2008 followed soon after by McCain’s sudden death and Sarah Palin’s ascension to the presidency.
When the book opens, eight years have passed since the Holy War ended in victory for the fundamentalist Christian forces. Americans live in bondage to a comprehensive authoritarian law called The Blessing, enforced by a totally integrated digital world known as the Purity Web.
Yeesh. As a big fan of alternate history, I believe the single biggest factor involved in establishing an alternate reality is the plausibility. So, how exactly did Palin manage to pull all this off?
Struggling with perspective and memory, the memoirist recounts the country’s long slow descent to religious authoritarianism, propelled by economic distress, a second major terrorist attack, and the fanatical ambitions of an extremist evangelical minority.
Oh, I see. So after another radical Muslim terror attack (which kills substantially more than 9/11, FWIW), we traded what those fundies wanted ... for what other fundies wanted. Got it.
Interestingly, Nate mentioned to me that this whole premise makes an interesting addendum to our post about Orson Scott Card, which soooo irritated the [comicbook] Left with its fantasies about Boss Obama creating a national police of disaffected "urban youth" ... even though Obama actually stated a desire to create a civilian "security" force some years earlier. Can someone point to me where Sarah Palin has indicated where she wanted to create a fundamentalist Christian government here in the United States?
Hilariously, the irony of some of the reviews put up at the book's website seems to have escaped the author/publisher. For instance,
Though McCain did not win the 2008 election, in recent years controversial actions like drone strikes, invasions of privacy and unlawful detainment have been condoned in part due to greater worries over terrorism. So it’s not for us to say, “It can’t happen here.” This disturbing book argues that much of it already has.
Uh, helLO?? And just which administration has done that?? The irony that is completely missed by the author via his HAL-9000esque (thanks, Ace) dialogue is beyond head-scratching. He has his protagonists pondering how the Right would completely overlook "their self-proclaimed values and their own interests" in order to get power ... and that if Obama had won in 2008 this same Right would be "screaming bloody murder" if he took the same measures that President Palin did. Apparently author Fred Rich must exist in the reality in which his novel is set. After all, in our reality it's the Left which was screaming bloody murder about George W. Bush's methods of fighting the War on Terror -- for seven long years -- but now that "their own" inhabits the White House, these very same measures, and much, much more, are EMBRACED by the Left. Or, at least, their complaints are kept very mute. And why is that? Yep: They're overlooking "their self-proclaimed values and their own interests" in order to get (and maintain) power.
At least the Kirkus Reviews blurb knows precisely what the book's intended purpose is: "Dystopian, wonkish fun for the Maddow set.”
Even more gut-busting hilarity ensues at Ace's, where he dissects the stodgy -- and ridiculous -- dialogue (or, as Ace calls it, "Compelling and Realistic Simulacrum of Human Speech") of the book. Be sure to read this one all the way through. It'll make your day for sure. But before all that, Ace has the money quote: "When Alex Jones prattles on about this, the right goofs on him; when 'Frederic Rich,' leftist fantasist extraordinaire does, W.W. Norton books says 'Let's publish that.'"
Oh, Ace also bets that the terror attacks in the novel actually were not enacted by Muslim fundies, but by some Christian militiamen framing Muslim fundies. Because that's how the fringe "progressive" Left rolls, after all. It's the same 35-some percent that believes G.W. Bush orchestrated/knew about 9/11, y'know.
Here's USA Today's review of the book. And here's a [very cheesy] video summarizing the story:
The vid includes a blurb comparing Nation to Philip Roth's The Plot Against America. Uh huh. Aside from the fact both are alternate history, that's where any and all similarities end. Remember what I said about "plausibility." I liked this comment about the video (at YouTube): "I'm an atheist and I found this ridiculous and idiotic."
I'm always fascinated by those who "warn" about a Far-Right Christian takeover of America. I really -- and I've tried! -- cannot fathom how such could realistically (key word) come about. Lefty scifi author Joe Haldeman's novel The Accidental Time Machine (which I liked a lot, by the way) unfortunately spent a lot of time on a future America ruled by a similar regime found in Nation. I had to laugh at the premise. Tom Kratman's Caliphate approaches the same American society from a bit of a different angle: radical Muslim attacks against the US leads to Islam basically becoming illegal in the country, and the world geopolitical breakdown includes a US "empire" which encompasses all the Americas, and Muslim caliphate presiding over Europe and much of Asia. Though seemingly more plausible than Haldeman's scenario, I still couldn't buy many of the actions taken by the future US and especially the Muslim domination of Europe as if those countries' majorities would just sit still and meekly accept their new overlords.
At any rate, expect to see Christian Nation proferred about by many of the usual suspects as "insightful," "prophetic," and "realistically frightening." Which, of course, it's anything but.
Don't expect this to deter the usual suspects, however:
Obama had announced at the beginning of the year his push for three major gun control initiatives — universal background checks, a ban on “assault weapons,” and a ban on “high-capacity” magazines — to prevent future mass shootings, no doubt hoping that the CDC study would oblige him by providing evidence that additional gun control measures were justified to reduce gun violence. On the contrary, that study refuted nearly all the standard anti-gun narrative and instead supported many of the positions taken by gun ownership supporters.
For example, the majority of gun-related deaths between 2000 and 2010 were due to suicide and not criminal violence.
In addition, defensive use of guns “is a common occurrence,” according to the study.
The current report from the CDC echoed findings the CDC published back in 2003 that showed that suicides were responsible for 58 percent of all firearms-related deaths in 2000. Also noted is that back in 2003 Americans owned an estimated 192 million firearms, while today that number is estimated to be closer to 300 million, an increase of more than 55 percent.
Said the CDC back in 2003, “Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws" (Emphasis added.):
Bans on specified firearms or ammunition,
Restrictions on firearm acquisition,
Waiting periods for firearm acquisition,
Firearm registration and licensing of owners, and
Zero tolerance for firearms in schools.
As noted above, this won't change one iota the dogma of those supposedly interested in "science" and "facts." Just recall the condescending "brain child" comics creator Ron Marz shortly after Newtown:
Please,don't bother tweeting at me about your right to bear arms and how it's "people, not guns." Dead children. Again. Just STFU.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) December 14, 2012
Yep. "STFU" about facts and let me spout off like an overly emotional five year-old, dammit!!
That's about the size of it.
He's (at left) been in the news in recent months first because he was slated to write a Superman tale (which was delayed due to the outcry), and lately because his classic scifi novel Ender's Game will soon be out as a major film. These instances had to deal with the controversy of Card being vehemently anti-gay.
Despite my (and other comics bloggers') posts either defending Card from boycotts or (more in my own case) pointing out the hypocrisy of the boycotters, I believe it safely can be stated that Card is pretty much a nut. A big nut. If calling for a revolution if gay rights continue to expand in the US wasn't enough for you, maybe this is:
Where will he (Obama) get his "national police"? The NaPo will be recruited from "young out-of-work urban men" and it will be hailed as a cure for the economic malaise of the inner cities.
In other words, Obama will put a thin veneer of training and military structure on urban gangs, and send them out to channel their violence against Obama's enemies.
Instead of doing drive-by shootings in their own neighborhoods, these young thugs will do beatings and murders of people "trying to escape" -- people who all seem to be leaders and members of groups that oppose Obama.
Really? Really? Card thinks Boss Obama will actually be able to cull a "national police force" out of disaffected urban youth" to act as his personal ... gang? Even [ridiculously] allowing for the fact that if Obama wanted to do such -- how would he manage to do it?
This is 9/11 Truther territory, folks. But the problem with the contemporary comics world, though, is that they put out comics about the "truth" regarding 9/11, whereas views like Card's are in desperate need of Maoist re-education. Thus, I don't give much more than a shrug to the screaming and yelling from comics creators (and fans) about Card's nuttery.
UPDATE: As Nate notes in the comments, Card, in his original article, states that his is just a "silly thought experiment" and that he wasn't serious about it. But -- he also then writes
It isn't my work as a writer of science fiction and fantasy that prepares me to write about unlikely events. My job in writing sci-fi is to make impossible events seem not just possible but likely. Inevitable.
I admit this is one of the rare instances I didn't go to check out the original source material (which was linked to in critical article I linked to originally); however, while I agree that Card's "disclaimer" lessens the impact of his lengthy treatise, as noted he qualifies such enough throughout to get a reader wondering.
Former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. was sentenced to two and a half years in prison today after pleading guilty to scheming to spend $750,000 in campaign funds on personal items.
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!)
That'd be one Mike Matthews on the local cable access "Community Crossfire" always on Sundays on Comcast. Since I no longer have Comcast, I had to beg Mike to alert me when the show was uploaded to YouTube. And, here it is:
Via Twitchy, check out the ENTHUSIASM! The SHEER NUMBERS!! The DEMAND!!!
This lone attendee is so enthused, he's probably busy texting his dog:
And this, er, uh, duo "aren't backing down!"
Perhaps, just perhaps, the hype is so subdued due to sh** like this:
The White House has approved a deal that will exempt members of Congress and their staff from some of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, Politico reported late Thursday. Under the law, popularly referred to as Obamacare, lawmakers and their aides were required to source health insurance “created” by the law or offered through one of its exchanges, and without the subsidies they currently enjoy, the members of Congress would have faced thousands of dollars in additional premium payments each year, the report said. However, the Office of Personnel Management now plans to rule that the government can continue to make a contribution to the health-care premiums of the lawmakers and their staff, it said, citing unnamed congressional sources and a White House official.
ObamaCare: For us peons only.
The former, whose highly regarded Ender's Game will shortly be released as a major motion picture starring Harrison Ford, is anathema to Hollywood types and is the subject of a rather large boycott effort. Why? As we've noted here several times, Card is a Mormon and outspoken opponent of homosexuality. Polanski is a highly regarded film director and producer who just happened to have brutally raped a 13 year-old girl in 1977. He subsequently fled the country and hasn't returned since. He was rewarded for this with myriad awards, including Academy Awards.
Angie Hartley pretty much nails it:
In 1977, Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to raping then 13-year-old Samantha Geimer inside the home of Jack Nicholson. Before his sentencing, he fled the country and has not returned to this day.
Geimer, who is releasing a memoir in September about the attack, has expressed forgiveness of Polanski. In 2003, when her attacker was nominated for an Academy Award, she wrote in the L.A. Times:
I believe that Mr. Polanski and his film should be honored according to the quality of the work. What he does for a living and how good he is at it have nothing to do with me or what he did to me. I don't think it would be fair to take past events into consideration. I think that the academy members should vote for the movies they feel deserve it. Not for people they feel are popular.
If people including Samantha Geimer can look past the wrongs of Roman Polanski, why can't we also ignore the crazy bantering of Orson Scott Card? For gay rights activists, the crime Orson Scott Card committed isn't really a legal offense, but the wound is very fresh. It's wise to do whatever they can to bring attention to their cause, but it might be a bit of a stretch to reject a film with so many well-intentioned contributors for just one crazy, old sci-fi writer. Still, for a group like Geeks OUT, it means a lot to have so many science-fiction fans standing against something they might otherwise hold sacred.
I'm sure Hartley knows that the issue is a fundamental difference between "progressives" and classical liberals (modern conservatives). The former want to eradicate the latter, not just debate/argue with it. To the former, there are certain issues which, if violated, are much worse than actual crimes like Polanski's. Orson Scott Card's "violation" is one such example: Being an outspoken advocate against the gay agenda. But anally raping a minor? Yeah, it may have been rape, "but it wasn't 'rape-rape,'" in the words of Whoopi Goldberg. Hell, we see this with our current administration and, of course, the mainstream media, too. Boss Obama and company tiptoe around [accurate] terminology like "War on Terror," "Radical Islamists" and the like, but there's never any vacillation when it comes to using harsh language against domestic political and cultural opponents. Never. (Here's a recent example. Here's another.)
To be sure, I abhor Card's past screeds against gays and find his recommendations quite dangerous if there were actually any way to implement them. And, I've no problem with any group or individual who wishes to nix seeing Ender's Game because of this. Or, any group or individual who wishes to boycott anything out of some strong conviction. But DON'T pretend that you modern "progressives" and Hollywood types occupy some moral high ground. Because you don't. Not at all. Even on iota. You make excuses for people like Roman Polanski, praise him, and bestow awards upon him. He RAPED a 13 year-old girl!
I'll never forget the one Academy Awards show (it was 1999 -- I just checked) when the Academy [remarkably] gave Elia Kazan a Lifetime Achievement Award. Why do I say "remarkably?" Because in one non-hypocritical moment, Hollywood bestowed an honor on a guy who was/is a cultural enemy. Kazan had named names back in the day -- Communists in Hollywood during the so-called "Red Scare" of the early 1950s. During the 1999 presentation, many of those in attendance remained seated and silently mouthed opposition. Among those I remember were Nick Nolte and Ed Harris. (One who bucked the trend and even gave a standing O to Kazan was Warren Beatty.) Yep. Those two, and many others, perfectly exemplified the above mentioned "political/cultural" hatred of [fellow American] enemies to a tee. They were still livid at what Kazan did half a century prior, and to which Kazan had stated was "only the more tolerable of two alternatives that were either way painful and wrong." But that doesn't matter to "progressives" in the poli-culture wars.
Always keep this post in the back of your mind the next time a Hollywood type/modern "progressive" lectures us all about some "moral" issue.
If you were to rewrite the GOP platform what changes would you make that you think would ensure they win the next election?
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?
They must be -- the city council took the time to pass a resolution calling for the feds to investigate George Zimmerman.
It'd be hilarious if it weren't so damn pathetic.
People who are not left of center frequently argue that the unions (and esp. public sector unions) create a feedback loop for Democrats. They write closed shop laws that force people to join unions which forcibly collects dues from members which is uses to fund Democrat campaigns. Democrats are elected and beholden to unions so they expand union influence and control which means more money etc.
They fought very very hard against Scott Walker in Wisconsin because they knew the outcome if they lost. They knew that they cannot convince people that joining a union is a net benefit for them.
What has happened in Wisconsin since the law was changed?: In 2010 — the year that Walker was elected governor — the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees District Council 48 was thriving, having enrolled more than 9,000 workers and reporting income exceeding $7 million.
By the end of 2012, District Council 48 was down to just under 3,500 dues-paying members — a loss of nearly two-thirds of its represented workers.
The local also reported its net worth had plummeted, so it is now more than $650,000 in the red. This was the case even after AFSCME's international headquarters pumped $250,000 into the Milwaukee's union's coffers last year.
Rich Abelson, the longtime head of District 48 who recently left for an AFSCME job in Washington, D.C., did not return calls.
Other public employee unions are faring only marginally better. Most have lost between 30% and 60% of their members in the past two years.
Think of that. Workers are fleeing the unions in droves. They know they have no value for them and they don't need them. Unions cannot make their case with logic and reason. They have to force people to join them to survive.
I believe unions were, at one point, necessary for workers. They kept them from dangerous working conditions and predatory practices (company towns). The courts have addressed most of these problems and the regular joe has more options today and it is much easier to either move or seek redress through the courts. Unions, IMNHO, have failed to change with the times. They still act like it's 1962. I also believe people should have the right to form unions and use collective bargaining to their advantage. They should not, however, be able to force anyone to join them in order to work. Unions are a private entity. Imagine if you told a liberal that you were going to turn control over a school district to a private entity. They'd go bananas. Somehow this logic flies out the window when you tell them the entity is a union. They have this weird notion that not for profit entities are run by angels. Unless it's a church 'cause those guys are charlatans and crooks. Doubly so if they're Catholic.
As you probably well know, I'm no fan of COD, but this is absolute bullsh**, man:
On March 9, 2010, the day she revealed her plan to run for the Senate in a press release, a tax lien was placed on a house purported to be hers and publicized. The problem was she no longer owned the house. The IRS eventually blamed the lien on a computer glitch and withdrew it.
Now Mr. Martel, a criminal investigator for the Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration, was telling her that an official in Delaware state government had improperly accessed her records on that very same day.
Beyond that, Ms. O’Donnell and Senate investigators who have tried to help her have run into a wall of silence, leaving more questions than answers about whether abuses of the IRS system extend to private individuals and not just the tax-exempt groups already identified as victims.
Cripes. I remember that lien story and many [local] bloggers and commenters made issue of it. I can't recall if I did, but if so I and everyone else should have blamed the freakin' Boss Obama IRS. COD's vociferous objections to this story were spot-on.
I still think O'Donnell is a deeply flawed candidate with many other problems; however, this IRS abuse garbage is incredibly frightening. Everyone should be worried about it for, once the GOP regains the White House, would you want to face "payback?" Be honest.
UPDATE: Rep. Darrell Issa Has Information That Will Link IRS Scandal Up Into the White House.
UPDATE 2: Go figure -- Delaware's largest news source has zippo on this story.
UPDATE 3: Commenter "anon" wrote in the comments:
The Tax Lien on O'Donnell dated back to 2006, you can pull up the documents and verify that fact. The Lien was never on her house, she posted a transcript of a conversation she had with the IRS in March of 2010 and the agent on the phone repeatedly tells her the lien wasn't on the house. The Lien was never called a "glitch" or a "mistake" by anyone but O'Donnell, again, the letters between her and the IRS prove that, and the Lien was never "withdrawn" she was claiming deductions with no documentations, and she did, in fact, end up paying the IRS some amount that was never disclosed.
Wow. Interesting information that is at odds with the article. Much more information regarding this is available here.
UPDATE 4: The News Journal covers the story today.
The 'net, newspapers and magazines are now awash with "progressives" making crazy statements like "Young black men cannot walk the streets anymore" due to the [self-described Hispanic*] George Zimmerman verdict. We've already seen what several contemporary comics creators ("progressives" all) think; predictable libs are following suit. Some Facebook friends have even posted stuff like "Don't let your kids grow up to be brown boys ... keep them inside if you do." It's certainly predictable, whether the writer identifies himself* as African-American or white; however, especially with the latter, much of the heated post-verdict rhetoric is about ... "maintaining their liberal cred" ... letting their ["progressive"] peers know they're "hip to the theme" for lack of a better saying.
Just consider the sheer stupidity of statements like "Keep your [black] boys inside" -- because the law in Florida allowed a self-identified* Hispanic to protect himself in a scuffle against a black teenager, whom he ultimately ended up killing. The sad fact of the matter (sad for "progressives," that is) aside for the tragic death of a young boy, is that this instance is actually a rarity in contemporary society. For decades now, young black men have had lots more to fear from "going outside" and "walking down the street" ... from other black men. Fact. And, sadly, some "progressives" even play down this fact in an effort to further the silly NarrativeTM that America hasn't changed one iota in terms of racial progress since the Civil War.
For "progressive" self-identified* whites, they retain their "progressive" credentials by focusing on the modern -- and rare -- instances like the Zimmerman/Martin matter and claiming that racial progress is really a façade. They ignore the wildly disproportionate crime statistics among black men, again most of which are focused within their own community. (There were 2,447 murders of blacks by other blacks in 2011, which is almost the same figure as white-on-white murders; however, the former group is just one-sixth the size of the latter.) Why do they do this? If they are so concerned about the value of young black lives in America, why is this fact so anathema to them?
As Patrick Brennan writes,
And that’s exactly what many are saying about the Trayvon Martin trial — that racially motivated murders in America aren’t common, but murders of black men are. But those ("progressives") highlighting Martin’s death and downplaying the phenomenon of black-on-black crime would like you to think the former is a common-enough but neglected type of event that Zimmerman had to be charged, despite the weak case against him.
It's all mind-boggling, really, to a clear-thinking person. But, again, it doesn't fit the NarrativeTM. To modern self-identified* white "progressives," it's unfair to bring up the vast amount of black-on-black crime ... because African-Americans cannot be held accountable for it. The inherent racist political, cultural and legal system here in American has, and continues, to keep black Americans down. That, and there must be a lot of unspoken and purposely ignored guilt among these self-identified* whites, since it is their social programs which have been largely responsible for the disintegration of the black family.
One last thing for any potential "progressives" who may be obliged to comment: As noted yesterday, just because someone may agree with the verdict doesn't necessarily mean he/she thinks Zimmerman is a great guy and/or are "pro" Zimmerman. Nor does agreement with the verdict indicate a belief that there is no more (white) racism, or that there are no further social and legal injustices that need to be rectified in our country. Calling such folks "racists," "white hegemonists," or any other such nonsense certainly isn't going to help/solve anything.
Newly released papers from Osama Bin Laden's hideout reveal a frustrated al-Qaeda leader struggling to control an unruly network, the US military says.
The documents seized during the raid on the Abbottabad compound were posted online by the research wing of the US military academy, West Point.
The papers show he was unhappy with affiliates' attacks on fellow Muslims, urging them to target the US instead.
Seventeen documents were released from a cache of more than 6,000.
Other papers suggest Bin Laden ordered his militants to look out for opportunities to assassinate President Obama or David Petraeus during any of their visits to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Mr Petraeus, now CIA director, formerly commanded international forces in Afghanistan.
But Bin Laden warned them not to bother targeting Vice-President Joe Biden because "Biden is totally unprepared for that post [of president], which will lead the US into a crisis."
Which makes me wonder if bin Laden and some of his al Qaeda henchmen spent a significant amount of time here in the First State! Not that they'd actually need to to come to the conclusion OBL did ... !
Who knew? I've written about this -- sort of -- in passing before, but an author who was allowed to "play" in sci-fi legend Isaac Asimov's Foundation/Robot/Empire Universe has expounded upon the theme to a much larger degree. But first, a quick synopsis:
In Asimov's interconnected stories and novels, humans developed positronic robots in the early 21st century. (The film I, Robot pretty much highlights this, and Star Trek: TNG's Data's positronic brain was a big hat tip to Asimov.) As more and more robots took over the work of humans, resentment against the mechanical men grew widespread. On Earth, robots became delegated to doing work well away from humans (usually outside of the huge, domed underground cities -- see The Caves of Steel) while the first wave of interstellar travelers, the so-called "Spacers," made optimum use of them.
Over the course of a few thousand years, the Spacers ended up settling some fifty new worlds, and their societies became heavily dependent upon robot labor. Back on Earth, robots remained despised. Spacer society came to despise the home planet as backward, and Earthlings as even "sub-human." Ironically, it took two of the most advanced Spacer robots ever created to drastically alter this dynamic. For, the Spacer worlds' societies were slowly dying out: Their dependence on robots for just about every aspect of their lives was destroying basic human initiative. Indeed, the typical Spacer had innumerable robots to tend to every conceivable chore: cooking, waiting meals ... even dressing and bathing their masters!
These two robots -- R. Daneel Olivaw and R. Giskard Reventlov (the "R" standing for "Robot") -- devised a plan by which to circumvent the embargo placed upon Earth by the Spacer planets: the "Zeroth Law" of Robotics. This law supercedes the legendary Three Laws of Robotics created by Asimov, and which were deeply embedded into each and every robot ever created. (Well, not exactly every one, but that's a post for another time ...) This law permitted robots to consider the greater good of humanity over that of individual human beings. Olivaw and Reventlov concluded that, if the status quo were allowed to continue, humanity would eventually perish as the Spacer worlds dissolved, and Earth continued its one-planet stagnation. What was needed, they argued, was for Earth to generate a second wave of interstellar settlement -- one without robots. And, one that would depend solely on human drive and initiative.
And this plan was put into effect. But it came at the cost of Earth. After all, as humans always do, people needed an incentive to leave their planet. A mad Spacer had devised a means to eradicate the hated Earthers, and even though the robot Reventlov had discovered the plot, he allowed it to proceed. That "Zeroth Law," after all. This plan would make Earth's crust permanently radioactive, a poision which would only continue to increase, slowly killing out Earth's teeming billions. Except that, with the aid of Daneel and Giskard, Earth's second wave of settlement -- the "Settlers" -- would vacate the planet and spread forth into the Milky Way.
And this they did. Over the course of some twenty thousand years, the Settlers established a Galactic Empire and eventually the Foundation, as depicted in Asimov's Empire and Foundation books. And all without robots. (Except one notable one, of course, as noted here.) Because the fifty Spacer worlds showed what would happen if humans were dependent.
Author Roger MacBride Allen, in his Caliban, probably described in the most intricate detail the effect robot slave labor would have on human society. Allen is the aforementioned author allowed to "play" in Asimov's universe, and his first novel takes place as those "second wave" Settlers are busily spreading through the stars, while the Spacers continue to just hang out on their fifty worlds. One of the Spacer planets, Inferno, is facing ecological ruin, and its inhabitants have to swallow their pride and call in Settler expertise and assistance to literally save their world. The planet's society eventually becomes an uneasy hybrid of Settler and Spacer cultures, with the Settlers constantly attempting to demonstrate that robots are a detriment to human development.
And no person in the novel does that better than Dr. Fredda Leving. Allen uses an academic presentation by her -- to a group of Settlers and Spacers both -- to show just how robots have disintegrated virtually all human drive and initiative. As Caliban's Wiki entry states, "It is her thesis that the superabundance of robotic labor has caused humans to become indolent and nearly incompetent at accomplishing even trivial tasks." Allen does a good job at illustrating this at a personal level, too: though there is a Spacer protest group interrupting Leving's speech and which eventually leads to a riot, these Spacers are shocked at the pain inflicted upon them by rival Settlers during the scuffle ... even the most trivial of injuries are barely withstood by the Spacers -- because they have been completely coddled all their lives by their robot servants.
Does this sound familiar in contemporary society? I believe so. "Progressives" have been successful in cultivating a similar culture of dependency among some of the poorest of our society. No one I know seriously argues that this segment of the population is "well off" or even "very comfortable" like the Spacers in Asimov's books; however, the problem is that too often they are "comfortable enough." They are given (yes, given) just enough have all their needs provided -- food, shelter, and even communication and transportation -- so that the incentive to "go beyond," if you will, decreases or evaporates altogether. And then the so-called "cycle of dependency" slowly becomes entrenched. There's no more "What can I do to better my situation;" instead, it's merely "What can you do for me?" Gone is even the most remote sense of shame about getting any sort of governmental/state assistance; now it's "I'm entitled to it." And people (especially politicians) who attempt to limit such aid, or who may ask for something like, say, means testing, let alone cut off aid, are derided as the devil incarnate. "How dare you?" "Don't you have a heart??" "You're so callous!!" And it's not just individuals. Corporate welfare has a similar effect. With politicians of all stripes in their back pocket(s), and guaranteed markets and/or prices for their products (every wonder why milk and sugar, for example, are so damn expensive?) businesses lose their motivations too.
Human incentive may be the most misunderstood (purposely or otherwise) aspect of our nature, especially by "progressive" academic theorists. Communism, for example, posited that the New Man would be "altruist in spirit, communal in outlook, sacrificial in his labour for the common good." But as economist Bryan Caplan notes,
The classic argument against socialism is that it gives people bad incentives. What’s the point of working, conserving, saving, quality control, and/or taking out the garbage if they don’t pay? The classic socialist reply is that capitalism creates the selfishness it purports to benevolently channel. Socialism will give birth to a “New Socialist Man” who loves his neighbor as himself....
I’ve always considered the New Socialist Man position to be not just weak, but absurd. Ever heard of Darwin? People are selfish because of billions of years of evolution, not capitalism. End of story...
I take hindsight bias seriously. Many mistakes really are hard to see until you actually make them. But socialism wasn’t one of them.
Indeed. Asimov's and Allen's tales are only [science] fiction, but they rightly understand human nature. One of the more guffaw-inducing lack of such understanding occurs in a different sci-fi universe, Star Trek: The Next Generation. Does anyone recall Capt. Picard's lecture to the rescued 20th century capitalist in the episode "The Neutral Zone"? "We're no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things," he tells him. 24th century humans may no longer be obsessed with such, but you can bet your bottom dollar they'll still be important to them. But even more absurd is the notion that, with things like replicators and holodecks available to anyone, that folks in their right mind would freely volunteer for an organization like Starfleet and put their lives in jeopardy against races like the Klingons and Romulans. Face it, the vast majority of humanity would gladly hang out all day inside their holodecks and only come out to eat the food and drink the beverages provided by their replicators. "End of story," as economist Caplan said above.
Alas, as with anything else, the only way we'll change is when a tragedy or emergency hits us. With communism it was the lack of freedom, the grinding poverty, the secret police, and the millions killed. In Asimov's Robot societies it was ecological and planetary decay. With our own society it will be the crushing debt and economic collapse. Would that we rectify the situation before it's too late.
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.
(Thanks to RwR, as always!)
Re: The recent Supreme Court decisions on the Voting Rights Act and Defense of Marriage Act:
How is it that we can't expect certain people/areas/regions to evolve when it comes to race, but we expect same to evolve when it comes to sexual orientation?
The US Supreme Court has just struck down a section of the
40 50 year-old Voting Rights Act, and as could be predicted, the usual suspects are being irrational. Like MSNBC's Melissa Harry-Perry:
Damn, that citizenship thing was so great for awhile.— Melissa Harris-Perry (@MHarrisPerry) June 25, 2013
And the same network's Chris Hayes:
I am slightly surprised by how physically enraged I find myself.— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) June 25, 2013
Thankfully, there's Breitbart's Ben Shapiro for some rational common sense:
Voter turnout gap between whites and blacks in AL in 1965 was almost 50 percent. 2004: 0.9 percent. Leftists: But nothing has changed!— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) June 25, 2013
UPDATE: Hey look! It's Ron Marz again, offering still more evidence of his prodigious intellect!
Just don't ask Ron how today's SCOTUS decision would do just that. He'll ignore you. Because, to coin a cliché, ignorance is bliss. Meanwhile, enjoy a non-emotional, 21st century rational examination of today's high court decision.
UPDATE 2: The Corner has compiled a Top Ten list of the best ["progressive"] overreactions to today's SCOTUS Voting Rights Act decision.
Because -- you guessed it! -- nobody demanded it, it's time for yet another Hube culture-oriented list, this time a subject which gets the hackles up on "progressives" (ex. 9/11 Truthers) and conservatives (ex. Birthers) alike: Conspiracies. In no particular order:
ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (1976). So good it keeps me watching every time it's on, stars Dustin Hoffman and (ultra-lib) Robert Redford play Washington Post reporters Bernstein and Woodward who slowly uncover what happened during Watergate.
CAPRICORN ONE (1978). There's still a whole cottage industry on the 'net dedicated to moon landing conspiracies; this flick plays on that as government entities nab three astronauts from their rocket moments before the first manned launch to Mars, and convince them they need to stage the whole deal. (Budget cuts play a big role, go figure.) The trio realize, after acting out their parts, that the gov. can't afford to let them live, so they steal a jet to escape. Unfortunately, it's almost out of gas; sas such, they crash land in the desert, separate, and the chase is on! OJ Simpson is one of the astronauts, and Elliot Gould is the reporter who pieces together the truth. Many other stars abound in this flick including James Brolin, Sam Waterston, Telly Savalas and Hal Holbrook.
NO WAY OUT (1987). Guaranteed to elicit big "WTF???"s when the "secret" is revealed, Kevin Costner, Gene Hackman and Sean Young star in this political thriller. Hackman is the Secretary of Defense who accidentally kills a lady friend ... who Costner has also been seeing. To help cover his tracks, Hackman invents the story that a Russian mole killed her. Major "WTF"s ensue. Will Patton (Falling Skies) is great as Hackman's loyal aide.
J.F.K. (1991). Star Kevin Costner plays Jim Garrison, the Big Easy district attorney who takes it upon himself to prove that the Warren Commission conclusions about President Kennedy's death were so much bullsh**. I actually include this on the list because if you manage to stay awake for all the three-plus hours of the film, you deserve kudos. I managed to make it on my third viewing, the first complete one.
SEVEN DAYS IN MAY (1964). Ever wonder if our military guys planned a coup right here in the U.S. of A.? This flim will scare the beejeebees out of you, then. Burt Lancaster plays the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who plans to oust the president (Fredric March). Kirk Douglas plays a Lancaster underling who blows the whistle. The scene where Lancaster and March confront each other is classic.
MINORITY REPORT (2002). In 2054 a trio a psychics called "precogs" (for "precognition") are the basis for a new police unit: "Precrime." In other words, they'll stop the crime before it's ever committed. The unit's chief, Tom Cruise, unearths a frightening truth about the unit's origins, and is then framed. Great evilly deviousness by Max Von Sydow.
VALKYRIE (2008). Speaking of Tom Cruise, one of his better roles is in this flick where he plays a disillusioned Nazi officer during WWII who joins the [very true] conspiracy to kill Adolf Hitler. Unfortunately, it didn't work out.
BLUE THUNDER (1983). Helicopter pilot Roy Scheider discovers a plot by -- who else? -- the government to use a highly sophisticated new chopper for "the quelling" of domestic disturbances. Malcolm McDowell is the gov. agent who tries to stop him. Great urban aerial battle scenes.
SOYLENT GREEN (1973). One outta two predictions ain't bad. Global warming leads to food shortages (that's the "one") and overpopulation (the "missed one") exascerbates it. Police guy Chuck Heston stumbles upon a conspiracy that the Soylent Corp. is making its new "Soylent Green" outta ... people. Yummy.
THEY LIVE (1988). "First World" aliens have been using Earth as their "Third World" for decades. Roddy Piper discovers the secret via a special set of sunglasses. Still wondering how the aliens could whisk someone away at faster-than-light but couldn't safely protect their cloaking transmission.
... to quote my boy Duffy as seen elsewhere, that is. Lien Placed On Mayor Nutter’s Home For Failure To Pay PGW Bill is a headline at CBS Philly. It seems PGW had to place that lien on Nutjob's home, but which was settled about a month ago, according to the article.
The mayor's spokesmouth said that "Nutter’s PGW account is now 'current' and that his failure to pay previously was 'a private matter' and refused to discuss how it came about that Nutter owed so much." When asked what sort of message the mayor's tardiness sends to the public, the spokesmouth said “I don’t think it sends a message of one sort or another. The mayor tries to stay current on his bills like everyone else.”
Uh huh. As Duffy said, "Philadelphia explained."
Via, of all people, Matthew Dowd at ABCNews.com:
I am sorry that, as a United States senator and presidential candidate, I was critical of you about so many things I now, myself, am doing.
I am sorry about saying Guantanamo would be closed immediately and it was a blight on America. It is still wide open for business.
I am sorry for criticizing you and your administration for intrusions on American's privacy and invasions into personal liberties. My NSA took what you did and put it on steroids.
I am sorry for criticizing the way you waged the war on terror. I have personally approved a number of drone strikes and actually have said it is OK to kill an American on foreign soil without due process. I know you are probably saying, "Aren't you the expert on the Constitution?" but, as you know, being president is hard work.
And, by the way, between you and me, I know your vice president was probably upset my administration got Osama Bin Laden (I get the sense he might have some anger issues and I sure wish he would have kept quiet like you have), but it was really thanks to you and my continuation of your national security policies.
I am sorry for all my overheated rhetoric about your administration not being transparent and saying my administration would be the most transparent in history and most open to the media. Boy, was I off on that one, and certain reporters at the Associated Press and Fox News don't seem to understand why we might put them under secret scrutiny.
As they say, read the whole thing.
... 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.
From the National Review writer in his e-mailed Morning Jolt this morning:
And as Jonah mentioned a few Goldberg Files ago (my link -- Hube), our evil Starfleet admiral — hey, we haven't seen one of those since Star Trek: Insurrection! — is evil because he's trying to "militarize" Starfleet (you know, that big armada of torpedo-armed starships with crews organized by naval ranks) to prepare for a war with the Klingon Empire he thinks is inevitable. What Abrams & Co. have decided is the plot's "evil plan" is actually absolute common sense, and our heroes' brief interaction with the Klingons only confirms the admiral's analysis that the Klingons are relentlessly hostile and aggressive.
I wrote about this as well, natch.
Maybe the whole thing is meant as a very, very subtle parody of the pacifist nature of future humanity, and how our "progess" into a nonaggressive, conflict-avoiding culture will slowly but surely quietly doom us when we encounter an alien culture like the Klingons or Romulans.
Which some may argue that's just what the Boss Obama administration is doing to the country now ...
So says journalist Jeremy Scahill who has a new film out titled Dirty Wars. It's about the US's covert operations overseas during the GWoT (General War on Terror). On Boss Obama he says,
He’s expanded an air war in Yemen; Bush bombed Yemen once that we know of. Obama shut down the black sites, but he’s using a sort of back door way of continuing it but saying, ‘It’s other nations’ security forces that are doing the snatch and grab; we’re just asking the questions. … I think that a lot of liberals sort of checked their conscience at the coatroom for the two terms of Obama and are silent in the face of things that they’d be crying impeachment over if a Republican had done them.
You really think so? They didn't do it to George W. Bush from 2003 to 2008 when he supposedly "lied" about WMDs in Iraq, among other things. On the other hand, the GOP impeached Bill Clinton for what -- lying under oath to hide an affair? So, I think this is a bit unfair to liberals/Democrats.
(Many thanks to Nate Winchester for this terrific guest post!)
There is a vital, core technique that entertainers must use when engaging their audiences. With magicians, it is called "misdirection" or "sleight of hand". With writers it is called most often "suspension of disbelief." The principle remains the same. As the audience, you are to look here, not "over there" where the "trick" is being worked. When it's done badly, the magician "flops" while writers end up with what SF Debris coined, "the Voodoo Shark."
What does this have to do with comics? The more fantastical a story, the more disbelief a suspension system must support. How Superman flies, how the Flash runs, how Wolverine kicks ass, all of these are questions that, when we pick up a book (or watch the movie/show based on the book) we make an agreement with the media producers not to think about. A quick, half-answer to soothe the rational mind is all we need: he's an alien, the speed force, he's a mutant.
However this goes beyond "how do the characters work", this also goes to "how does the world work." For ease of writers and readers the world of DC, Marvel et al is usually assumed to be very similar to that of the present real world of the writers and readers, even though logically, if just a tiny fraction of what happened there, happened here, things would change to probably be near unrecognizable. One example: gun control. If you have a state in the world where random people pack more potential power and destruction than any hand gun, would gun ownership be that much of a political debate? Think about it. Once upon a time, sword ownership in Japan (to pick an example) was under many restrictions. Yet we don't have "sword & knife control" in many political debates. Why? Because the power level of guns has raised the bar to the point that owning a blade doesn't have the "impact" it might have once had (to pick one reason). Thus, likewise in a world of superheroes, everyday gun ownership would be the equivalent of everyday sword ownership today - not too much of a concern.
This all leads into one of the biggest traps that comics can fall into and why DC's The Movement will fail: politics. Now good comics can result from bringing up these normally repressed world questions and dealing with them. Watchmen is a pretty decent example of at least an attempt to untangle this otherworldly Gordian knot. How about some bad examples (pulling just from my own blog) ...
In the Nu52 Green Lantern Corps (you'll have to scroll down), someone has put their views into John Stewart's mouth a time or two. Like having him fight "greedy developers." Why are these developers "so greedy" that they don't bother taking steps to make them more profit in the long run? How in the world did they get that rich being so shortsighted? In the DCU, why isn't "superhuman battle-proof" building design as common as the compensations for earthquakes in buildings of California?
One of the worst examples of all time: JLA #83. How often has the JLA violated "international law" in just a random issue? Private property? How can the world's greatest detective not figure this shit out? There's a reason this issue was left out of trade paper backs of this volume of JLA and it's for so many good reasons.
And lest someone think it has to do WITH politics, here's a bit where Superman renounced his citizenship.
According to a commentator, this was actually written by a conservative frustrated with some of Obama's policies. That doesn't matter nor change the complaint. The question of "how does Superman's citizenship work" is not one readers need to be asking. It collapses the whole story.
So, let's go back to what started this all, The Movement. Why will this fail? Because it's trying to put politics into a hole it can't fit, which means even if people AGREE with its point, their suspension of disbelief is going to crack from the strain. Without even reading it (unless Hube is going to buy me a copy for me to review/spork on his site here):
This is why you avoid trying put modern day issues into comics without care, skill and consideration for their implications. If you can't write well, then don't bother writing it at all.
... titled "I Am A Conservative 503(c)(3) Applicant"? After all, these ridiculous peons have made an "I Am Bradley Manning" video in support of the notorious leaker.
Some of the lines from the vid (with possible ones for my hypothetical one):
“When you join the military, are you asked to keep any war crimes you might see secret?” ("When you apply for a 503(c)(3), are you asked intimate questions about your personal life ... even that of your friends?")
“You see something that is so wrong," claimed [Oliver] Stone, "it’s very hard for a lower-level soldier to turn on his officers and say, ‘There was a war crime here.’” ("You see something that is so wrong ... it's very hard for low-level IRS employees to turn to their superiors and say 'This is illegal.'")
"The whole concept of whistleblower laws are you cannot get into for reporting about illegal or improper activities," added [Matt] Taibbi. (Repeat verbatim!)
"I think we have to be clear that the cables were not top secret documents," asserted [Chris] Hedges. ("I think we have to be clear that 'progressive' groups applying for tax-exempt status were sailed through, whereas conservative groups were subjected to incredibly invasive -- and possibly illegal -- scrutiny.")
"It’s an absurd charge - 'giving aid and comfort to the enemy,'" stated another unknown man. ("It's an absurd statement -- Obama and others saying 'I had no idea about any of this.'")
*Sigh* I think my pal Chris says its best on Twitter.
That's "Low Information Voters," natch. Conservative guy Caleb Bonham journeyed to Colorado University and "asked several people to sign a 'thank you' card to thank the IRS for unfairly targeting conservative groups." Here's what happened:
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.
*Sigh* Via Big Hollywood:
In the film there’s a debate among Starfleet personnel over how best to extract an enemy in a distant part of the galaxy — and whether that enemy should be subjected to due process.
The British actor (the film's villain, Benedict Cumberbatch) says: “It’s no spoiler I think to say that there’s a huge backbone in this film that’s a comment on recent U.S. interventionist overseas policy from the Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld era.”
Hmm. Given that I recall reading somewhere that the Federation's own "secret police," Section 31*, is mentioned in this sequel, you can probably bet there will be connections made to the CIA, Gitmo, and anything else from 2001-2008. Which is fine, of course; however, you can bet virtually none of that will be displayed positively.
This comment nails it regarding such "brave" commentary:
How does it take a backbone to criticize Bush and Cheney? Hollywood's been doing that for ten years. If everyone around you is doing that, it requires no backbone to join in, especially ten years after the fact.
Standing up for Bush and Cheney's interventionist policies would show actual backbone.
Not that I agree that Bush's foreign policy was right-headed, but this guy's point is spot-on. Hollywood ain't brave in regurgitating this stuff; it'd have a lot more cojones if it did something like make a direct connection between the Klingons and radical Muslims.
Who knows -- maybe we'll be lucky and Into Darkness WILL explore the notion that a constitution is not a suicide pact. Ultimate survival will always take precedence over playing by the rules, whether we like it or not. And let no one fool you -- anyone who says differently is blowing smoke.
*Section 31 debuted in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Inquisition." According to its Wikipedia entry, it "exists outside Starfleet Intelligence's influence," and its "authority stems from a provision of the Starfleet charter—Article 14, Section 31, from which its name is derived—that makes allowances for 'bending the rules' during times of extraordinary threats."
NAACP President Emeritus Julian Bond defended -- DEFENDED!! -- the IRS for targeting groups like the Tea Party because such groups are “admittedly racist.”
“I think it’s entirely legitimate to look at the tea party,” said Bond, whose group was audited by the IRS during the Bush administration. “I mean, here are a group of people who are admittedly racist, who are overtly political, who’ve tried as best they can to harm President Obama in every way they can. I don’t think there are correct parallels between these incidents. It was wrong for the IRS to behave in this heavy-handed manner. They didn’t explain it well before or now what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. But there are no parallels between these two.”
"No parallels ...?" Wait -- did we hear about the IRS selectively targeting liberal groups during President Bush's terms? Does anyone seriously doubt we wouldn't have heard knowing our MSM as we do? As such, Bond is totally full of sh**. Even moreso when he says garbage like the T.P. being "admittedly racist" and that the Tea Party is the "Taliban wing of American politics."
That schtick is beyond old, dude. We have guys like you to "thank" for making the term "racist" virtually meaningless now.
Click on this link to see the photo. I got one and that was only after looking closely.
Superior Spider-Man writer offers up some more profound thoughts:
Couldn't you also say "The only thing that can stop a good guy with a gun is a bad guy with a gun"? Less guns would be better for good guys.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) May 11, 2013
Do dolts like Slott ever stop for a second and wonder why NRA types are so wary of [further] gun "control" measures, sensible or otherwise? Gee, I don't know. And then there's our lunkhead vice-president opening his 100x worse-than-Dan Quayle mouth. And, of course, the scattered legislators across the land who say stuff like this.
But just remember to never ask guys like Slott how they contribute to the "culture of violence" via their careers ...
Comics writer Ron Marz tweets:
Won't be seeing "Ender's Game." Won't have anything to do with @dragoncon. Because I think what you choose to support matters.— Ron Marz (@ronmarz) May 8, 2013
He won't see Ender's Game because Orson Scott Card wrote it and we saw what his now-aborted writing gig on Superman led to. Marz won't have anything to do with DragonCon because an accused pedophile still collects money from it.
And I have no problem with either. But as I replied to Marz on Twitter, his reasoning is the main factor in MY not having purchased a new comic in about seven years. That is, I detest the less-than-subtle [leftist] politicking in comics' pages, not to mention the [leftist] outspoken-ness of contemporary creators (and corresponding nasty responses to criticism) on social media.
'Ol Dan Rather offered up a beefy defense of Boss Obama the other day on -- you guessed it -- The Chris Matthews Show:
All of these things we’ve said about what the president could do, should do, might have, could have, but the central thing to keep in mind is his opponents - you talk about taking them out to dinner, making nice with them - these people politically want to cut his heart out and throw his liver to the dogs. That does make it very, very difficult to come on nice to them.
If the current press corps showed even a fraction of the resolve you showed in the above instances (sans, of course, the fraud in the last example) towards Boss Obama, we might finally get some straight answers about things like Benghazi. Ironically, the only MSM outlet doing any real reporting on that issue (aside from Fox News) is CBS.
So say some folks in this Philly.com article. Ironically, the two major political parties have sort of "switched" when it comes to this issue -- at least socially/culturally. The GOP has always been the one spearheading the privatization efforts in the state, whereas the Democrats have traditionally shot the idea down. Those against privatization list a litany of social ills that will befall the state should liquor stores become private -- more underage drinking, child abuse, higher divorce rates, out of wedlock births, etc.
Here's what I say: *YAWN* Grow up, people. Pennsylvania is only one of TWO states in the whole freakin' Union to so regulate the sale of alcohol. The other is ... Utah. That's right, Mormon-dominated Utah. Pennsylvania wants to be like that state. Or, so it has for decades now. And make no mistake -- Democrats do not oppose privatization because of all the supposed social ills that will overwhelm the state; they oppose it because they're in the pocket of the powerful union that has run state stores for like ever. And the GOP, which typically supposedly cares about such social ills, is too focused on the economics and free market aspect of privatization.
A few days ago, the Philly Inquirer -- surprise! -- featured an article highlighting why privatization is bad. Who'da thought, right? Unions, Democrats ... which side you think the Inky will come down on, eh? At any rate, said article points to a 2011 study by a group called the Community Preventive Services Task Force which concluded "privatization results in increased per-capita alcohol consumption." Yet, somehow, 48 other states have all said "no way" to state control. Why is that? Maybe it's because, as the article thankfully points out, what Antony Davies, an associate professor of economics at Duquesne University, says:
... the evidence is not strong enough to support the task force's conclusion. Pennsylvania, for example, has a high rate of binge drinking relative to other states.
Davies compared states that have government sales against those with privatized systems and found that state control does not correlate with lower rates of alcohol-related problems.
"The question we really want to ask is, 'Does state control lead to better outcomes?' " Davies said. "That research shows no significant relationship."
So, hopefully we'll soon say "Welcome to the 21st century, Pennsylvania" quite soon.
Robot 6 has word about "Cartoonists gang[ing] up on illegal guns."
Cartoonist Ruben Bolling, creator of Tom the Dancing Bug, rounded up 23 cartoonists to contribute their work to an animated ad for Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition of mayors, led by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, that is advocating for “common-sense measures that will close deadly gaps in our gun laws.”
Well, let's see: For one, the recently defeated gun background check expansion in the US Senate may or may not have affected "illegal" guns. Plenty of legal guns certainly could have been (and are) exchanged without this aborted bill/law.
Second, this is the same industry (with the exceptions being the outright political cartoonists) that lectures to us about "equal rights" and "civil rights" for mutants and others with super-powers ... even though many of these folks have the capability to inflict incredible destruction with the mere flick of a hand. Marvel's "Civil War" was the biggest culprit in this regard; as we've mentioned numerous times, author Mark Millar used the company's greatest moral icon, Captain America, to "educate" us all on the "evil" of requiring super-powered humans (and mutants) to register their powers with the government -- something these creative nimrods demand of average people with their guns ... guns which have significantly less destructive power.
Go figure that one out.
Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said.
There is concern in some quarters that the provision requiring lawmakers and staffers to join the exchanges, if it isn’t revised, could lead to a “brain drain” on Capitol Hill, as several sources close to the talks put it.
The problem stems from whether members and aides set to enter the exchanges would have their health insurance premiums subsidized by their employer — in this case, the federal government. If not, aides and lawmakers in both parties fear that staffers — especially low-paid junior aides — could be hit with thousands of dollars in new health care costs, prompting them to seek jobs elsewhere. Older, more senior staffers could also retire or jump to the private sector rather than face a big financial penalty.
Of course, any other employers facing such a hassle -- well, you're sh** out of luck, especially with Democrats (who voted this shi**y bill into law in the first place).
Thursday, legislation here in Delaware made it through the state senate which will expand background checks for gun purchases. I cannot find anything that objectionable about its provisions; there are exemptions if the transactions "are between immediate family members, law enforcement officers, or if they involve antique firearms or the return of a gun by a pawnbroker." What's more worrisome is coming proposed legislation by DE Attorney General Beau "I've Tried Tens of Cases" Biden that will expand the definition of who is mentally ill:
“But the other piece that we’re going to be introducing next week is another part of our package. And that is expanding and broadening the category of folks who have a mental health issue that we believe should prohibit them from possessing a firearm,” he added.
The mental health definition has been fuzzy in gun bills introduced on the federal level, but usually has boiled down to whether a person is adjudicated mentally ill. Much of the debate on the Hill has been about whether a doctor can violate patient confidentiality in reporting a person to be listed in the gun-check database, and whether that would discourage those afflicted by mental illness from seeking treatment.
Biden called adjudication “a very high standard, basically being involuntarily committed to a mental institution.”
Michael Walsh says,
Good idea — let’s adjudicate more folks as mentally ill, because obviously we don’t have enough of them. But what about that civil-liberty-threatening, “health care professional would have an obligation to report” bit? Shouldn’t that make us just a tiny bit nervous — especially in light of the president’s series of executive orders about guns in January, two of which helpfully stated:
Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
Walsh adds "The flagrant abuse of psychiatry as a tool to control or eliminate political opposition could never happen here, right?" and then links to this little nugget.
Superior Spider-Man writer Dan "Set the Record Straight" Slott is pissed -- PISSED I tell you! (Dan likes to use CAPS a lot on Twitter) -- that the US Senate failed to achieve the needed 60 votes to pass increased background checks for gun purchases:
Rubio, you voted against this. I'll do EVERYTHING in my power 2C you NEVER become POTUS. I'll be the most politically active SOB in America.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) April 17, 2013
You tell 'em, Dan! Meanwhile, the economy still sucks ass, unemployment is ridiculously high, the debt and deficit -- the latter of which Boss Obama said he would halve by the end of his first term in office -- are astronomical, Gitmo remains open, Obama has increased the assault on civil liberties that the Left constantly bitched about for almost eight years under GW Bush ... but Slott will become the "most politically active SOB" around because one [GOP] Senator voted against what he wanted. And how dare Rubio? Doesn't he know who Slott is?? He writes Spider-Man, dammit!!
And let's throw in Slott with the anti-GOP Election Truthers like fellow comicbook moonbat Erik Larsen:
.@killinginist Yes. A very vocal minority. His name was Antonin Scalia. Welcome to America. Land of the Free.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) April 17, 2013
Got that? Somehow, being the writer of a major comicbook character automatically makes you a legal and historical genius! Who knew that one US Supreme Court justice made George W. Bush president in 2000? I'd ask Slott to explain that one -- like I asked for evidence that Fox News is "unequaled" when it comes to political sleaze -- but he's blocked me.
And here's another Slott "fact":
.@killinginist We do NOT have universal background checks in America. Only in around 60% of gun sales. This is NOT what 92% of us want.— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) April 17, 2013
Only Obamanauts continually cite this fiction. The "Bubble," after all.
Slott has stated before he doesn't really care what consequences may come his way for being politically outspoken, I'll give him that, at least. But as has become quite evident, unfortunately he's just another far-left moonbat who exists in the "progressive" bubble where everyone agrees with one another, and pats each other on the back for believing in the "right" things. On the current issue, I happen to think expanding background checks is a good idea; however, the polls have consistently shown that gun control ranks low on the list of concerns the American people have these days. The aforementioned economy, unemployment and deficit/debt rank considerably higher. Hell, even "Ethical/Moral/Family Decline" ranks higher than gun control. And if Slott rants about the Senate doing "what the people want," then why doesn't it then ditch ObamaCare? Or, at least, make a major modification of it?
Ah, Dan ... keep on enjoying that comfy womb-like Bubble, amigo.
Gotta love this vid of "protesters" who haven't the slightest clue who Marco Rubio is. But that's not the best part by far:
“No, my social worker gave it to us.”
“There were no guards during the break-in,” the ministry said on April 7. The ministry said the target was a warehouse of the Interior Ministry in Subiya. The statement said thieves broke three doors and removed the entire contents of the warehouse.
When I was a whelp I thought I was going to be a Cold Warrior. I was intensely interested in all things Russian and espionage related. I read every non-fiction book I could get my hands on. If you've read a few of these, you start to see patterns emerge. The one thing that always comes up time and again is "plausible deniability". That is, can you lie without lying if there's a Congressional investigation. The story above has all the earmarks of a thinly veiled black bag job. The "Special Activities Group" (CIA) needs to get weapons to Syrian Rebels but the President won't go out on a limb to support it as it's too politically risky. Instead, they load up a warehouse in a relatively friendly country like Kuwait who then is nice enough to pull the guards off duty on a given night. SAG rolls up with trucks and men and move the stuff to an airport to load the guns onto an Air America flight bound for Jordan or Lebanon and drive them across the border to Syria.
I'm sure the FBI will coordinate with local authorities and find nothing and then go home. Look for a report in six months showing that the SAA found a number of these M16s were found in a FSA weapons cache. They will then complain loudly about CIA interference and we just say they were stolen from Kuwait and golly gee we have no idea how they ended up in Syria.
An 8th grader at Northeast Middle School in Bristol, CT, apparently was given a worksheet about the Second Amendment to the US Constitution which stated:
Um, where to start?? Instructional Fair, the publisher of the worksheet, hasn't heard of a "little" thing called District of Columbia v. Heller? And McDonald v. Chicago? Really?? Let's see what occurred in these US Supreme Court cases ...
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.
A-HA! Only federal enclaves, eh? Not so fast, Jasper:
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
Now, given that I'm familiar with the field (teaching), it may be that the publication date of the worksheet is out of date. As you can see, Heller and McDonald are fairly recent cases. Dated materials are used in schools all the time. However, in a field like social studies where history and civics are covered, the instructor has to be on his/her toes to make sure materials are current. And this is a perfect example.
On the other hand, it may be that these materials are current and the author(s) have no idea what they hell they're talking about. I certainly hope it's the former.
The thin skin of contemporary comics creators seemingly knows no bounds. Over at Doug Ernst's blog, Doug wrote a series of posts explaining why, in his view, Dan Slott's (at left) Superior Spider-Man is, well, anything but "superior." Slott became rather defensive on Twitter, especially about the argument over sales figures. Slott aggressively points out that Superior is one of the best selling titles in the biz today; Doug argues that was never his [main] point. You can read through the threads yourself (which I highly recommend). But an argument over sales figures isn't my point today.
The point today is ... why are modern comics creators so freakin' close-minded and defensive about any "negative" critique of the work (or views)? Do they honestly expect people to whisper sweet nothings in their ears and kiss their asses all the time? In the above case, why couldn't Slott just point out where he thought Doug was wrong, and do it in a civilized manner? And then be done with it? It's certainly not as if Doug's post wasn't well thought out, after all. What does screaming "IDIOT" multiple times at Doug do for Slott?
The debate caught the attention of Newsarama's Graeme McMillan, who wrote his own blog post about the back-and-forth. And for some reason, Mr. Ernst has been blocked from commenting there -- on a post dedicated to him. Read the comments. Tell me where Doug violated any sort of standard. Yeesh.
All this takes me back roughly fourteen years, to an e-mail convo I had with comics legend Kurt Busiek. Kurt advocated voicing one's displeasure over something by using more speech instead of an economic boycott (ie. not buying a writer's/artist's comics. My point at the time was that the average joe -- fan -- really had no medium by which to express his views. And they didn't. There were no blogs then, no social media ... only e-mail. Fast forward to the present day: Blogs. Facebook. Twitter. Innumerable ways for fans to express their opinions. But now, with these, that "fight speech with more speech" mantra seems to have been tossed aside. Creators like Busiek block people from merely following them on Twitter (and elsewhere). And, again, it's not because of profanity, slurs, or anything similar. It's only because they don't like what we have to say.
Back to Slott: I respect and appreciate what he said here, about knowing that taking a particular political stance may alienate a lot of readers, because doing the opposite "would be selling myself out." I guess Dan isn't similarly concerned about how he interacts with fans ... especially those who simply disagree with him.
If he bothers to interact with them at all, that is.
Don't be fooled by writer Gail Simone's fence-sitting interview about her new comicbook about the so-called "Occupy" movement. If you've followed her Twitter feed or other social media, you'll know she's bullshi**ing you. Here's what I mean:
Simone: I don't think the book is about liberal vs. conservative. It's about values that comics have always been about, the struggle against injustice on behalf of the little guy, the powerless and innocent. That's pretty bi-partisan.
What a laugh. What is an "injustice" to Simone probably won't be seen as an "injustice" to someone else. After all, Simone voiced her displeasure over Orson Scott Card getting a Superman writing gig (with no mention of any concern about someone getting axed for his personal political views), made snarky comments about former VP candidate Paul Ryan, and is vehemently anti-NRA. But that's the way "progressives" think. They truly feel that their beliefs are sacrosanct and beyond reproach, and if you differ then you are inherently bad ... even evil.
Simone also bitched about "rabid political sites" attacking her for doing The Movement, stating it's a "weird reflex action at this point," and people are upset at "the very idea of someone who might have a conflicting viewpoint." You can be sure those "rabid" sites were mostly conservative, but it's hilarious that Simone mentions that "conflicting viewpoints" line. Um, helLO?? Orson Scott Card, you idiot. And do you really believe, Gail, that you're somehow "going out on a limb" by doing a book on such a topic/subject like "Occupy?" Spare us. You and the vast majority of your comicbook contemporaries all think alike. That is, you're all liberals. You're sooooo brave, for doing this comicbook ... LOL.
You know why people who don't share your politics may be miffed at this project, Gail? Not for its politics per se, but that the subject of your book was covered ridiculously sympathetically by the media, despite the myriad instances of violence, rape, drug use, vandalism, and general disturbance of the peace. On the other hand, another social movement, the Tea Party, was constantly portrayed as being composed of complete ogres -- and they were labeled as racists by all the major media simply because a few [liberal] pols said so ... despite there being not one scintilla of video/audio evidence in a crowd where practically everyone had cell phones equipped with such recording abilities. Even your own medium did just this, if you recall.
My predicition is that this book will go nowhere, simply because we've seen it all before and we're tired of being lectured to by people who all share the same politics.
The Chinese economy explained.
Seriously this anecdotal but important. My belief is that the Chinese economy is in far worse shape than our own. Their books are closed so we don't know what level of spending and debt they've incurred. The boom China has been experiencing is a bubble. Specifically, you have an economy that started to grow due to a huge increase in manufacturing. That lifted many people out of poverty which, in turn, made those workers more expensive. That led to the manufacturers moving further west in China where labor was cheaper. Lather, rinse and repeat. The other bubble is the real estate bubble. Allowing citizens to buy property was the only way they could alleviate capital flight. The Yuan is non-convertible for individuals. Only banks can convert their money so the people had no place to put their money (other than the bank). So they let people buy real estate. Sounds good. But it created an insane boom of builders trying to do things on the the cheap to get it done fast which ironically led to a glut of housing stock. There are entire developments and office blocks that are vacant and will probably never be occupied. Combine that with public sector spending on construction projects and the bubble gets bigger. Once the construction stops it's going to be like hitting the ground after your parachute didn't open.
China does have a few things in its favor. It has a huge population and significant natural resources. They have mined something like 400 tons of gold in the last decade which, if true, is impressive. They have huge FX holdings which could stave off the crisis. Lastly they hold a huge amount of US debt which gives them leverage but not the wildcard many think it is. They cannot call paper as they know it would collapse our economy (or at least destroy our currency which is effectively the same thing) and then they'd be SOL on that ever getting repaid.
Working against them is their long term demographics. They have too many bare branches on their family tree. They have introduced instability by having a serial family line that makes brain drain easier.
In sum, our fates are intertwined so closely that nobody wants to pull the trigger on a trade war, currency war or actual shooting war. Rather we're going to be more like the US/Soviet relations in the Cold War which means angling for leadership and dominance and probably getting into bed with people we ought not to.
The early word on the US Supreme Court taking up the issue of gay "marriage" is that it is "wary" of making a "broad ruling" on the matter.
... during the argument, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is considered a swing vote, raised concerns about the court entering "uncharted waters" on an issue that divides the states.
Kennedy even raised the prospect of the court dismissing the case, a relatively unusual move that would leave intact a federal appeals court ruling that had earlier struck down the California law, known as Proposition 8.
In a similar vein, Justice Samuel Alito also urged caution, noting that gay marriage, as a concept, is "newer than cellphones and the Internet."
None of the justices indicated support for the Obama administration's favored solution, which would strike down Proposition 8 and require the eight states that already recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships to allow gays and lesbians to marry.
Interesting in this debate are the fairly recent comments by left bloc SCOTUS Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who "has long harbored doubts about the ruling."
"It’s not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far, too fast,” she said last year at Columbia Law School.
Ginsburg has suggested that the Supreme Court in 1973 should have struck down only the restrictive Texas abortion law before it and left broader questions for another day. The analogous approach four decades later would be to strike down California’s ban on same-sex marriage but leave in place prohibitions in about 40 other states.
As I've argued here and elsewhere numerous times, I don't understand why gay Americans do not argue from a 14th Amendment equal protection angle -- that is, don't be hung up on the term "marriage;" argue that gays are entitled to the same governmental benefits as straight couples whether a state has defined the union as "marriage" or a "civil union." Overlawyered's Walter Olson makes much the same point today here.
Discussion-hindering comments like these aside, I think in 20-30 years not many people will care much about the issue. But if, like the author of the linked comments feels, gay "marriage" becomes defined as a "civil right," then automatically the religious beliefs of Catholics, many Protestants, Conservative and Orthodox Jews, and Muslims become "bigoted." And "bigoted" beliefs beget "discriminatory" actions. And this is then where the federal government could step in.
Don't think so? Well, we've already seen how our current administration wanted religious-based institutions to violate certain principles with regards to implementation of ObamaCare. And then consider something which I heard a caller to a pundit show mention -- an act of Congress which stood for almost 100 years: The Edmunds–Tucker Act. This was passed in response to the Mormon Church's stance on polygamy. Just check out the punitive federal actions against the LDS Church at the link.
Which brings me to an issue which I really have yet to get a decent response to from outspoken supporters of gay "marriage." That is, if the Supreme Court orders that two homosexuals are permitted to "marry," then why not other sorts of unions ... like the aforementioned polygamy, for instance? Less than two years ago a family planned to file a lawsuit challenging the [state] law against polygamy on -- wait for it -- 14th Amendment equal protection grounds. And consider what one of the judges who voted to overturn California's Proposition 8 said: “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.” To which I asked,
... what is to prevent some judge from claiming "The number involved in a relationship no longer forms an essential part of marriage"? Or some other manifestation thereof?
Indeed. What would? And why not, supporters of gay "marriage?" Would you have an issue with such unions (like polygamy) being legal? Under equal protection grounds?
Or, how 'bout this: Should the government get out of the "business" of marriage altogether ... and leave it to churches or whatever?
If it isn't nutty mayor Mike Nutter wanting to go after a magazine for possible criminal charges because of an article on race, it's city district attorney Seth Williams following porn sites via his Twitter account.
FOR AT LEAST two recent weeks, the Twitter account of District Attorney Seth Williams was following two accounts that regularly dished out nude and seminude photos of women.
The accounts, @RateMyLatin and @RateMyEbony, were suspended between March 9 and March 11 by Twitter and disappeared from the D.A.'s account. They resumed posting on March 12 but were not restored to Williams' feed.
The hilarious thing, as I heard WPHT radio's Chris Stigall mention this morning, is that Williams' spokeswoman, Tasha Jamerson, claims "If the lewd accounts 'tweet or retweet something that you write and you check to see who retweeted you or mentioned you in a tweet, you are automatically added to their followers.'" Which anyone familiar with Twitter knows is absolutely false. One must click an account's "Follow" button to actively follow another Twitter account.
I had to laugh at one of the comments at the Philly.com article which said that perhaps Williams should be investigated by the city Human Relations Commission because he didn't follow @RateMyCaucasian.
Williams apparently likes Twitter for silly purposes. He also recently offered to investigate the 76ers Andrew Bynum for possible fraud via the social media site.
Bleeding Cool notes that DC Comics has Boss Obama explicitly written into the continuity of their new universe. We're also "treated" to this panel:
Uh, "putting truth and justice back into the American Way?" I know you detect the ridiculous irony in that. Maybe that explains the grimace on the woman's face, uh?
First, something which virtually no one cares about, yet get major comics site article space: Fantagraphics To Release Book Of Guantanamo Courtroom Sketches.
When the military trials at Guantanamo began in 2006, no cameras were permitted in the courtroom, and only one sketch artist -- Janet Hamlin -- was allowed inside to document the events, creating sketches of the prisoners which grant them a measure of dignity they'd otherwise not been afforded, while giving all of us a glimpse at this significant moment in our nation's history.
Four words: Cry me a river. I'm certain these socially and culturally regressed barbarians care about your dignity, right? Not to mention your life.
Next, Robot 6 is miffed that the graphic novel Persepolis has been removed from a high school's library. Now, even the article notes that the book won "the American Library Association’s Alex Award for adult books that have special appeal to teenage readers." Thinking that the term "adult" actually means something, perhaps that was the reason for what the school did?
I haven't read the book myself, so I did some checking. This review site states that the recommended age group for the book be 21. It goes on to note that there's profanity "on almost every page," and that the second of the tale has quite a bit of sexual content. I am about as pro-free speech as one can possibly be; however, as I noted on this post, age appropriateness is probably the only thing I have a real issue with when it comes to free expression. If the review above is accurate, then technically (and even legally), only 18 year-olds at the high school in question should be allowed to check out the book. If the librarian held the book in a special area that said just this, then fine. Otherwise, I fail to see why people would be up in arms about a school removing the GN.
If this was a public library that was available to the entire public, that's a diferent story. But this is a school library. There are better battles to pick than this.
Avi discovers that a "progressive" comics writer whom I actually admire felt the need to back up a colleague, despite said colleague being hypocritical ... and childish. Yep, Kurt Busiek tweeted, in apparent response to the conversation between Ron Marz, myself and Doug Ernst,
Our lesson for today seems to be that expressing conservative opinions is free speech but expressing liberal opinions is bad.
To say this is a ridiculous response does a disservice to the term "ridiculous." Not to mention, it's not even logical -- "free speech" and "bad" have nothing to do with one another. And, it's hypocritical in that it's been Orson Scott Card's speech that has been deemed "bad" among the liberal comics guys, enough to want him dismissed from writing for DC.
Look, I am, and always will be, a big fan of Busiek's comics work. Although a "progressive," he rarely, if ever, pushes an agenda in his stories. And when he is political, he's pretty fair about seeing both sides. (Consider his volume 3 Avengers work beginning in the late 1990s and the controversy surrounding the addition of Triathlon to Earth's Mightiest, as an example.) But in social media, like here, he can be just plain silly. Why is it OK for Marz to scream "STFU" on Twitter about gun rights, but not OK for me to tongue-in-cheekly write "Shut up and write" in a blog post comment? Not to mention, as we've pointed out here many times, when a conservative theme may be utilized in a comics story, it's "controversial."
So ... Kurt -- it seems that lesson is "that expressing conservative opinions is bad but expressing liberal opinions is perfectly A-OK."
As creator Mark Waid was fond of saying recently (regarding the Orson Scott Card matter), free speech doesn't come without consequences. Indeed it does not. Which is a point I relayed to Busiek a long time ago in an e-mail conversation. Kurt's response was that he didn't like so-called "economic boycotts;" he preferred to battle words with words -- for example, precisely what I, Avi Green, Doug Ernst, Carl and others have been doing. Of course, when Kurt and I had that past convo, social media was virtually non-existent, and blogs were in their infancy. But now that regular joes like me have [a lot more of a] voice, he doesn't like it much, it seems.
Nevertheless, let's get back to focusing on the actual matter at hand: Again, Waid's point about free speech and consequences is 100% correct. Waid (and many others) exercised these "consequences" with Card because of his [controversial] views on homosexuals and gay marriage. The hypocrisy part comes in in that why, if Card can be shoved aside for his views, cannot Waid, Marz, Busiek, or whoever else be ostracized for theirs? Many people demanded Card be axed by DC for his views. (Waid says it's about Card's actions because he sits on the board of the National Organization for Marriage; I already argued that there is little substantive difference between this "action" and someone in a lofty position like Waid using social media or whatever to espouse his opinions.) I, and every other person I know on the other side of the aisle, would never demand a liberal creator be fired for his opinions (or "actions" like Card's ... unless it was criminal, of course). We'd merely not support such a creator with our wallets.
Which, again, is the point I made to Busiek that long time ago ... and most recently to Marz. If you want to spout off on personal political views on social media, then don't be surprised if you piss a lot of people off. And Kurt's desire for "battling words with words" apparently was either phony or short-lived, for he blocked me on Twitter for reasons I presume have something to do with opining about his personal politics in the past, as have Waid and conspiratorial nut-case Erik Larsen.
Some "battle," eh? At least Marz has kept an open Twitter feed, and others like Dan Slott are at least very honest about why they'll share political opinions regardless of any economic consequences. Even ultra-liberal Mark Millar said Card shouldn't be dismissed because, basically, who says Busiek, Waid or whoever won't be next for their opinions?