Monday, January 28, 2013

Crap "Science", Conspiracy Theorists And Homosexuality. . .What Can Go Wrong?!

This post is a departure for I do use some bad and very un-politically correct language to make a point on why people like the following are very dangerous in their rants.

Yesterday I was perusing the internets and came across this rather interesting and unbelievable post at The Spectacle blog at The American Spectator website.
I mean the title of the post, "Do Juice Boxes Make You Gay?" made me laugh.
At first.
But once you read the post, the writer Matthew Walther, links to one of the most loathsome people on God's Green Earth.
That would be Alex Jones.
The kindest thing that I can say about Mr. Jones is that he is a conspiracy theorist who has a radio show, a couple of web sites and a disturbingly large following.
And the worst I can say about Mr. Jones? I refer you to the above.
Normally I would never link to the Crazy Man, but it is important to read what he has to say and what he links to on his web sites.
So, The Puffington Post found this little gem from Mr. Jones:

It is so unfreakingbelievable.
It is absolutely a rant that is way all over the place. Kind of like taking a dump. Yeah, it can get all over the place.
So, I linked the AmSpec link on my Facebook page and commented thus:

"Well, I suppose that this is as good as any reason why people turn gay. Juice boxes?! Really people, if you EVEN listen to this Alex Jones nut, there is something just as wrong with you!"

A Lib Facebook friend then added his two cents:

"Mark....do you believe people "turn" gay...like its the sexual "dark side"?"

One bad thing about Facebook is that sometimes the thoughts on a subject I link don't come out the way I wanted it to.
I meant that what Mr. Jones was saying is that he knows that there is a government conspiracy about turning our youts gay.
If you watch Mr. Jones' rant, he offers no actual evidence except to say that he has documentation to prove it.
Sigh!
So understand what Mr. Jones is saying.
That he knows juice-box makers and the companies that produce the drinks are conspiring together to put some magic potion in said product and it will turn kids, youts and I presume adults into raging homosexuals.
That is crap and leads to crap science.
Look, I am no more an expert or anything on the subject of homosexuality. Are people actually born gay? Again, why not. There has always been and always will be homosexuality. Do people think that they may be gay and or lesbian? Again, of course. People do what is called experimenting. Are come people gay and or lesbian due to a situation or something else in their life? Again, why not? It could very be that victims of sexual abuse as children at the hands of someone of the same sex may  have a lasting effect on people.
I do not know and science has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that everyone who comes to terms with their sexuality is born that way. Until then, one must recognize that there are other possibilities.
Oh, I forgot that there is bisexuality. That may fall under the experimenting mentioned above.
Both sides in the never ending homosexuality debate throw out "science" to prove their point. Pro-gay people will try to use some science to prove that there are many more homosexuals out there than the oft-quoted 10%. Of course, no one knows now where that number came from.
On the other side anti-homosexual activists will produce some "science" to justify their position that homosexuality is a condition and maybe curable.

Folks, nothing tops a crazy man like Alex Jones on a platform suggesting that there is a conspiracy to turn people homosexual by way of juice-in-a-box.
Imagine a couple of say typical, not too swift, high school guys who may come across this dreck on the internets:

"Hey dude! Check this out! This Alex Jones dude says that we could turn homo if we drink this juice-in-a-box!"

"WHOA!" screams the other kid, "Sheet! I ain't drinking this crap! I mean, I don't wanna be homo or anything like that! Maybe we should just get some suds from your mom's fridge."
And first dude says, "Yeah, dude, I'd rather get high smoking out and drinking beer. At least I won't turn homo!"

Think of these youts as kind of from Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure.
So, the point is that when people like Alex Jones have such a following, it behooves them to be a little more than discreet when discussing certain conspiracy theories.
I linked this to my Facebook page because I think that yes, Alex Jones is a huge boil on the underbelly of modern political thought. Or lack thereof.
It is why I think that it is way out there, no matter what anyone believes about how or why of homosexuality, this can not go without comment.
And that is what I did. I believe that one must have some evidence before saying such things. Provable evidence. Just like the 10% plus crowd needs provable evidence. Just as the we can cure homosexuality crowd needs provable evidence. And just as important is that people need to read the whole link before commenting without knowing.
Yeah, I guess this is just one of the dangers of the internets, right?!


Saturday, January 26, 2013

What About That Electoral College?

Ahh, the Electoral College, the real way that our president's are elected.
It has been a source of angst since, well since the founding of the republic.
Many people on both sides look at the Electoral College and think, may it is time to just get rid of it. It is of a bygone era. We should just elect our president by popular vote.
After all, senators used to be appointed by state legislatures per the constitution. Now they are directly elected by the people in every state.
Why not presidents?
Well, firstly the Electoral College is in place primarily to keep a check and balance. The check is on the larger populated states. The balance is that no state no matter how small or large is at a disadvantage when voting for president. In other words, Wyoming counts as much as California. In theory.
The election in 2000 was the first time since 1888 that the Electoral College truly decided a presidential election.
In 2000, Republican George W. Bush received less of the popular vote than Democrat Albert Arnold Gore. But, Mr. Bush won the Electoral College by the barest of majorities, 271-266 and 270 is the magic number. It is why when the Florida presidential vote became agonizingly close the whole Electoral College concept was being debated itself. Once that election was settled, the trend became clear that both the Republican and Democrat parties started with a certain amount of states that were going to be in their corner and those that neither party wasted much time or resources in. That left basically a handful of states determining the winner of their state and thus the electoral college.
So, how does it work?
Well, on presidential election day, we are not really voting for the candidate of our choice directly. We are voting for a candidate to win the most votes and thus win that state's electoral votes.
So let me use my state of California as an example.
California has 55 electoral votes. They are distributed as follows: 53 votes based on the 53 congressional districts in the state. The remaining two votes equaling the number of senators. And there are 55 electoral votes. Who ever wins the most votes in this state gets all the electoral votes.
Since 1992, California has voted for Democrat candidates and thus the 55 electoral votes have gone to the Democrat candidate, win or lose the majority of electoral votes nationwide. So in 2000 and 2004, while a Democrat won the most votes in California, it did not matter because the Republican won more in other parts of the United States. When the Electoral College meets later in the election year, California's votes go to the Democrat candidate because the Democrat won the most votes in the state.
It is primarily the way it works in 48 of the 50 states. Unless one wants to count the seven add-ons courtesy of then presidential candidate Sen. Messiah Barack.
Yes, I jest. But it is fun to watch our constitutional scholar prez not know quite how many states there are in this union!

Two states, Maine and Nebraska, apportion their electors not state-wide but by congressional district. Thus, and few people know this, very Republican Nebraska actually was able to award an electoral delegate to Barack Obama. Because he won the most votes in the congressional district in and around Omaha, the state's largest city. And the last three elections saw Republican candidates try to win the Maine 2nd congressional district as it is more Republican friendly in an equally Democrat state as Nebraska is Republican.
And both states made the change by initiative asking the state voters to decide the question.
Now, some states in which the Republican candidate in 2012, Mitt Romney, lost are trying to come up with similar electoral vote distribution as do Maine and Nebraska.
Now, the rich claim of the Democrats is that, why by golly, the Republicans are trying to steal elections. Because in Virginia, where the Dear Leader, President Obama won the 13 electoral votes, that would not have happened in the last election. If Mr. Romney won the majority in the 11 congressional districts, he could have won the state based on the distribution of the electoral vote. Instead of all 13 votes going to Team Obama, maybe only five of the 11 would have gone their way. Team Romney could have won six electoral votes and thus the state.
So, do the Democrats have a point?
Not really.
Because each state can distribute the electoral votes as they want to.
And if one thinks that they don't have a trick up their sleeve to totally undermine the whole concept of the Electoral College, there is the so-called National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
And it is doozy.
So, remember how in 2000 and 2004 California voters voted for the Democrat for president and the Republican won?
Under this scheme, if enough states were to follow suit, California's electoral votes could have been given to one Republican George W. Bush.
That truly undermines the intent of the Electoral College. Not whether or not a state chooses to distribute the vote by congressional district or not. And that is the intent. And yes, this is an idea passed in Democrat-controlled states.
So, if one wants to be truly cynical, both political parties want something that they  believe will give them a perpetual advantage.
And the whole concept of the Electoral College is to not have that happen.
At least the Republicans want to keep the Electoral College. The Democrats see that as I noted something old and not suitable to the times.
But the fact is that if more states went to the congressional district distribution of electoral votes, it would make both political parties expand the map. Right now, they both seem to like that the presidential race boils down to less than 10 states and they can micro-target and all that in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Florida.
To regain a competitive two-party system in California, right now there are 15 Republican congressional districts. And the Democrats have the remaining 38. More than a two-to-one advantage. But in a close race, California Republicans could actually see their candidate at rallies and the like. Now, all they do is come in for a fundraiser and leave. It would give the state party a needed boost. And the Democrats do the same thing.
And one can use that same scenario for a Republican state like Utah. Yes, now with four congressional districts, there is one that is held by a Democrat. Why it would have been possible for the Dear Leader, President Obama, to have actually campaigned in Utah to try to win that electoral vote.
Under this system, the electoral map is expanded and a presidential campaign can really be a national one.
And we should let the constitution be the guide. Let the state determine how to distribute the electoral votes.
And no, the sky has not fallen because two states already have such a plan in place.
The Electoral College is needed more than ever today. For a nation that values the role of state government as being the best way to govern, it avoids the potential tyranny of a majority either way. It is a safeguard that not one state will be more powerful than another in the most important duty of the citizen. The way we elect a president.


Friday, January 25, 2013

Is The GOP FINALLY Getting It?

Well, nothing makes a political party think more than losing a winnable presidential election than, well losing.
Sure, the Republican party did gain ground in governor races in 2012.
And expanded on their majority of state legislatures.
But, as mentioned, they lost the presidential race. They lost winnable senate seats and thus are in the minority. And they did lose eight seats in the House of Representatives.
So this week, the Republican National Committee is meeting and judging by what the leadership of the party is suggesting, it is time not just to come up with a new playbook, but a new way of reaching beyond the reliable Republican voter.
While the party reelected the chair, Reince Priebus (what sick parents would actually name their child REINCE?!), some conservatives will grumble that under his leadership, the party did not take back the White House as many expected in 2012.
I will defend Mr. Priebus in this respect.
Once Mitt Romney won the nomination, he pretty much assimilated his team with the RNC. In reality, Mr. Priebus was but a face and more figurehead while Team Romney ended up on a crash and burn.
Now let us see if he can actually lead the party on his own.
It appears that he is on the right track.
Michael Walsh over at National Review Online highlights this from the RNC chair:

"It’s time to stop looking at elections through the lens of “battleground states.” We have four years till the next presidential election, and being a “blue state” is NOT a permanent diagnosis.
Simple “outreach” a few months before an election will not suffice. In fact, let’s stop talking about “reaching out”—and start working on welcoming in. Political support is cultivated over time—not collected on Election Day."

BANG!
Mr. P is totally spot on!
And Mr. Walsh goes on to state the obvious.
That the RNC basically writes off states and whole regions now before an national election even begins.
The Great Litany of states the Republicans did not even bother with:

California
Oregon
Washington
The three above states make up the Pacific Coast.

Illinois
That is one Midwest state the GOP seems to give a big fat "Meh" to in every election since Reagan.

Connecticut
Massachusetts
Maine
Rhode Island
Vermont
And there is most of New England save for New Hampshire which is becoming hard to figure out.

New York
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
The mid-Atlantic region. The GOP only plays for Pennsylvania and Virginia is not totally Blue just yet.

And my friends, the Republican party starts off a presidential election about 204 electoral seats that they simply give to the Democrats because they have decided most of these states are lost for the foreseeable future.
Why?
Mr. Walsh blames the permanent consultant class that many in the GOP think are Gods. And his big bugaboo is one Karl Rove.
And I do think that he is on to something there.
Yes, there are some states that maybe the GOP can't win now. But if the party stays at least competitive and builds up from the areas of a said state kind of out of the GOP orbit. Really, there is no reason for the Republican party to not be more competitive in California. Look at the map from the just concluded 2012 presidential death march, er election. There is a lot of Red in there. Imagine if the Cali GOP had the money and or resources to compete in San Bernardino county? San Diego county? And yes, even in my dreaded county, Los Angeles? Maybe Mr. Romney would have racked up better numbers here in Los Angeles county. Maybe he could have got as much as 40%. And maybe he would have won San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Had larger margins in Orange and Riverside counties.
It is doable.
But, here is a reality.
We know that the only time Republicans come to California, they leave with a boatload of cash and that is all. And many, many Republicans that I know personally shrug their shoulders and say that their vote does not matter because the Democrat will win. It is a self-suppression of voting. And I am certain that is how Republicans feel in many of the aforementioned states above.
That has to stop.
That is why we must hold Mr. P accountable that he is going to go balls-to-the-wall to fight in every single state, every single possible race and fight using the same successful tools that the Democrats used to win. And even the liberal daily Holy Bible, The New York Times, is noticing what the GOP is about to embark on.
And Ace over at the Ace Of Spades explains it right here. That yes, there are Republicans behind enemy lines. It is just that they have to be courted and looong before presidential election day if there is to be any chance of building up and getting said voters motivated and voting.
And this does dove tail nicely to this very interesting and worthwhile article by Aaron Renn for New Geography. Mr. Renn makes a good case why Republicans need to begin to look at, and yes, retake the cities. I think there are some good ideas, but Mr. Renn is setting up the conversation, not saying it is his way or the highway.
Remember that it was not a lifetime ago but the mid 1990s when Republicans mayors were leading in Los Angeles (Richard Riordan) and New York City (Rudy Giuliani). Now they are as Mr Renn wrote, Democrat cesspools with no end to the corruption in sight.
And the best is for last as Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal, makes the case that it is time to stop worrying so much about Washington D. C., political cesspool central, and worry about getting the conservative, Republican message to the masses.
Here are some remarks from Gov. Jindal made to the RNC meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina:

“We do not need to change what we believe as conservatives – our principles are timeless. But we do need to re-orient our focus to the place where conservatism thrives: in the real world beyond the Washington Beltway.
“Today’s conservatism is completely wrapped up in solving the hideous mess that is the federal budget, the burgeoning deficits, the mammoth federal debt, the shortfall in our entitlement programs. We seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping. This is a rigged game, and it is the wrong game for us to play."
“The Republican Party must become the party of growth, the party of a prosperous future that is based in our economic growth and opportunity that is based in every community in this great country and that is not based in Washington, D.C.."

I could not agree more with Gov. Jindal.
It will be up to people like Gov. Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, the new governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory, people like that to take common sense conservatism to the people. They have to go over the heads of the Obamawhore media. They have to show Blue America why common sense conservatism works.
I think that finally, the Republican party is waking up and realizing that shrinking the field is not a way to win elections and thus not a way to govern this nation.
Hope is on the way.



Wednesday, January 23, 2013

There Is Actually GOOD News For GOP

Now that the inaugural hoopla is over and we know we are stuck with our Dear Leader, President Obama, for the next four years (1,458 days, but who's counting?!), there is much gnashing of teeth over the fate of the loyal opposition, the Republican party.
The angst is palpable on both the left and the right.
The left is smelling blood that somehow, they will be able to vanquish the Republican party to some super minority status.
The right is thinking that the party is not fighting the Democrats hard enough and maybe fullfilling the Democrat wet dream.
I am here to throw some cold water on, believe it or not, the left and the right.
The reality is that the Republican party is stronger today than it was in 2009. It is a fact.
Let's look at congress.
At this point in 2009,  the Republicans had 40 members in the senate and in the House of Representatives a total of 192 members. The Republicans had 22 state governorships. And to make matters worse they only had control of 13 state legislatures.
In other words, thing really sucked for the Grand Old Party.
Many people were writing their obituary. And they may have been right but for the confluence of the Tea Party movement and the public's general dislike of the passage of Obamacare.
Fast forward to now, 2013.
Yes, the Dear Leader, President Obama, did win reelection, but with less of the vote than 2008. The Dear Leader, President Obama, won only 51.02% of the popular vote and 332 electoral votes. In 2008, the Dear Leader, President Obama won nearly 53% of the popular vote and 365 electoral votes. In fact, the Dear Leader, President Obama, lost two states from his 2008 total, Indiana and North Carolina.
And in congress, the Republicans continue to control the House of Representatives with 234 seats. That is thanks to the huge 2010 midterm elections in which the Republicans won control of the House. In the senate, the Republicans now have 45 seats. And at the state level, the Republicans now have 29 governorships and the majority of state legislatures with 26.
So yeah, the Republicans are stronger now than in 2008. In Washington, all legislation has to get through the House. At the state level, Republicans can put their ideas in legislation and practical application.
Yet, yet one would think that the Dear Leader, President Obama, had a Ronald Reagan like landslide election in 1984. Mr. Reagan had 59% of the popular vote and took 49 states. The Dear Leader only took 26 states this time around. And yes, the Democrats gained 2 seats in the senate taking them to 55 seats. Five less than 2009. And yes, the Republicans lost eight seats in the House. Short coat tails to be sure for the Democrats. In fact most if not all of the eight seats gained were in the very Blue states of California and New York.
The good news is that the Republicans are really stronger now than at the beginning of the Dear Leader, President Obama's first term.
The bad news is that they act like they have no room to lead. They are abdicating their position of strength for some inexplicable reason.
Again, the Republicans have the ability to set the agenda as much if not more than the Dear Leader, President Obama.
The Republicans need to act like what they are.
The majority party in the United States.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

I don't Understand Conservative Love For Richard Nixon

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of the 37th president of the United States, Richard Milhous Nixon, a man that for better or worse had a huge impact on mid-20th century America and the world.
Mr. Nixon began his political life in his native California by running for congress in 1948 from his hometown of Whittier, California. In that election, Mr. Nixon ran as a strong, anti-communist Republican.
By the time Mr. Nixon left the presidency in disgrace in 1974, he began a policy known as detente and that essentially acceded to the ascendancy of the then communist Soviet Union and to live with them and not defeat them.
With political stops in the aforementioned House of Representatives, the senate, the vice-presidency and eventually the presidency, Mr. Nixon was always hard-nosed and perceived to be some sinister, right-winger when in fact and indeed, Mr. Nixon was nothing of a sort.
As John Fund over at National Review put it in this article, Mr. Nixon was a liberal. A liberal, not a conservative Republican at all.
Mr. Nixon did nothing to roll back the excesses of the so-called Great Society programs of Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact as Mr. Fund notes Mr. Nixon added to these programs.
Here are just three government agencies that Mr. Nixon implemented in his five plus years as president:
The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
And trust me, all three are behemoths that will never, ever go away. And between the three agencies, there are nearly 20,000 employees that are setting forth national environmental policy. Never mind that this probably is best left to the states, but it is the inclination of Mr. Nixon to put the federal government involved.
And, sadly, it did not stop there.
Again, let Mr. Fund explain one horrible day in 1971 for context of just how liberal, domestically, Mr. Nixon was:

In a single day in 1971, Nixon famously imposed wage and price controls in a na├»ve attempt to curb inflation, ended the U.S.’s last ties to the gold standard, effectively devalued the dollar, and imposed a 10 percent import surcharge.

Good lord, FDR, Harry Truman, JFK and Lyndon Johnson must have been stunned to see the turn of events in which a supposed conservative Republican, Nixon, implemented policies that they just could fantasize about.
Now Mr. Nixon did conceded that he did set bad precedents that successive presidents tried to follow.
Thanks a lot Tricky Dick!
And even on foreign policy, Mr. Nixon went from strident cold warrior to one that made a fateful decision in implementing detente with the Soviet Union.
As I noted, it meant that the United States, and thus the West, accepted the Soviet Union and its communist form of government.
There was no more talk of defeating the expansionist communist regime but accommodation.
And of course there is Mr. Nixon opening the door to beginning relations with Red China. Eventually, the United States ended formal recognition of the Republic of China on Taiwan. We recognized that there is only one China and we sided with the communists.
So again, my fellow conservatives, what is it exactly do you like and think Mr. Nixon was a good conservative president?
To be fair, also at National Review, James Rosen does give this counter balance here.
But I find Mr. Rosen's defense of Nixon the conservative to be very weak at best.
Where Mr. Rosen bases much of his praise of the conservative Nixon, it is almost strictly on so-called social issues. Here is a telling aside sentence in building the case for the conservative Nixon:

After all, they championed law and order, and stood against amnesty, abortion, and acid, as well as media bias, when it was least fashionable to do so — the age of Radical Chic — and carried 49 states.

Yes, that maybe true.
However, if one cannot govern as a fiscal and small government conservative, then what is the point of the above? It has to be taken in its totality. And in reality, because of the paranoia that was one Richard Nixon, Watergate did occur and while I find it a minor tale in the grand scheme of things, it was the cover-up and sustaining that what drove Mr. Nixon to resign office.
For all the tough-talk that was Mr. Nixon, he did not fight when in fact today a Democrat would do so with gusto.
Mr. Fund makes the righteous case that the Watergate affair did some very serious damage to the Republican party in general and conservatism in particular. Mr. Rosen pretty much dismisses that.
Again, I am with Mr. Fund.
I have long believed that the Watergate affair has ushered in an age of corruption that has afflicted both political parties.
But Republicans are almost always more hurt by corruption because they run against it. And when a said Republican is caught, it continues the sorry precedent of one Richard Milhous Nixon.
Now Mr. Nixon did not do all wrong.
Mr. Nixon ended the armed services draft and that has been a great thing for the United States. The all-volunteer armed forces has done a spectacular job in all military actions that have been taken since the end of the Vietnam war.
Speaking of which, Mr. Nixon did end the war that he was inherited with by Democrat President Johnson.
Mr,. Nixon did support the armed forces and always wanted to maintain higher spending than many believed he should.
And yes, many believe that today Mr. Nixon's law and order stand considering his own dalliances on the borders of legality was kind of a fraud. But it was not. Mr. Nixon believed in an imperial presidency, no doubt about that. But he saw the overall breakdown of society that the 1960s hath wrought as a direct result of the breakdown of law and order.
At best, Mr. Nixon was a conflicted politician.
He sought approval from the very people he ran against, the Establishment. Yet as Mr. Rosen notes, he wanted to set the stage for a conservative counterweight against the Establishment and their liberal allies.
Mr. Nixon went from anti-communist hawk to defender of the status-quo in regards to Soviet communist expansion.
Mr. Nixon went from anti-New Deal conservative to without a doubt a pretty damned liberal president.
In short, I do not get the conservative love for Richard Milhous Nixon.



Friday, January 11, 2013

Piers Morgan vs. Ben Shapiro On The 2nd Amendment

Yes, the 2nd amendment to the United States constitution has been in the news a lot lately, hasn't it?
Much of why there is such a conversation on the subject stems from the Massacre at Sandy Hook, Connecticut.
Let's stipulate most know what happened, but if not I will link my thoughts here and one can link to some background.
Needless to say, the left sees this as a moment to bring back the so-called assault-weapons ban that was hailed as a major legislative victory in the 1990s.
And of course there are some on the left that sees this as a moment to extend that so far as actual gun confiscation as this Iowa legislator would like to see happen.
So enter CNN low-rated talk show host Piers O'Meara Morgan.
In a recent interview, Mr. O'Meara Morgan had as a guest Alex Jones. Alex Jones, in a word, is N U T S! Besides being a 9/11 truther he is also a birther and all around conspiracy nut. And his website, which I choose not to link, is called Prison Planet. In case you missed that rather heated exchange, here it is:
 
 
OK, I think that you get I am not a big fan of Mr. Jones and this rant is one reason. He plays right into the hands of gun control advocates like Mr. Morgan. It is is embarrassing to say the least.
Enter conservative wunderkid Ben Shapiro.
BTW, you really should buy his new book, Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans for it is a primer on such bullies as, well Mr. O'Meara Morgan.
Now, if you want to see how to handle such douchbrains as Mr. O'Meara Morgan, then take a look at this from last night:

 
 
First, let me give Mr. Shapiro props for wearing a yarmulke for he is letting you know that he is an observant Jew and an Orthodox Jew at that.
But it is how he shows Mr. O'Meara Morgan what it is liked to be bullied and he does it with a smile. Or a smirk as Mr. O'Meara Morgan tells him.
But watch, watch how uncomfortable ol' Piers is when Mr. Shapiro turns the table on him when he asks why does the left only seem to want to ban so-called assault weapons? Why not handguns? Then here is the zinger:
 
SHAPIRO: This is what I wanted to ask you, Piers, because I have seen you talk about assault weapons a lot, and I have seen Mark Kelly talk about assault weapons. The vast majority of murders in this country that are committed with guns are committed with handguns, they are not committed assault weapons. Are you willing to ban handguns in this country, across this country?
MORGAN: No, that’s not what I’m asking for.
SHAPIRO: Why not? Don’t you care about the kids who are being killed in Chicago as much as the kids in Sandy Hook?
 
Ouch! And do watch the video link to see how pompously Mr. O'Meara Morgan mocks indignation while quickly trying to dismiss Mr. Shapiro's point.
Oh yeah, and Mr. O'Meara Morgan accuses Mr. Shapiro of being the bully. And once again, Mr. Shapiro takes a page right out of the Saul Alinsky handbook and cites the most famous acolyte of Mr. Alinsky, why our Dear Leader, President Obama, of course. Mr. Shapiro says yes and hit back twice as hard. And he does.
Oh yeah, a trick that Mr. O'Meara Morgan uses is to cite Ronald Reagan and the fact that he supported the so-called assault weapons ban in 1994. And Mr. Shapiro says "So?!" Again, faux indignation from Mr. O'Meara Morgan and he asks Mr. Shapiro if he liked Mr. Reagan and he says yes, but that he would not always agree with Mr. Reagan.
Uh, memo to Mr. O'Meara Morgan, but Mr. Shaprio was born in 1984. So I don't think that he can be one to ask about the Reagan era as if he lived through it. And Mr. Shapiro answered such a trap question correctly. And another memo to Mr. O'Meara Morgan. I did not always agree with Mr. Reagan and I lived through the era.
See, the fact is that people like Mr. O'Meara mistake Republican for being conservative. Many conservatives such as myself are Republicans. But I have written many times on this blog that one of the worst, no check that two, of my most regrettable votes were for Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor of California. By the time that charlatan left office, I would have opened the door and slammed it on his rear end to get out.
But what Mr. Shaprio did in 15 minutes is show how conservatives, whether they are politicians, private citizens, artists, whatever, how to take on people like Mr. O'Meara Morgan. Have the facts to back up the argument. Don't ever let them get the upper hand, evah. Never lose your cool. Give them a little point but make sure to be able to make the larger point. And most important. Have a smile on your face. Or a smirk.
This is required watching for conservatives, conservative activists and Republicans for if you want to beat the left at their little bullying game, especially in regards to the 2nd amendment, you need to be like Ben Shapiro.


Thursday, January 03, 2013

Samuel L. Jackson Schools Lily White "Reporter"

OK, I have to come clean and admit that the actor Samuel L. Jackson annoyed the devil out of me when I wrote about this horrible web ad that he did for the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his reelection campaign.
But give that devil his due on this because the same Mr. Jackson schools this lily-White SWLPL* "reporter", aka film critic when he can not come to say the N-word.
That's right.
The mother of all racist words never to be uttered in the company of Black people, evah. Especially if you are a White person.
That word, in case you are not aware, is nigger.
In the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, here is the multi-definition of nigger:

Definition of NIGGER
1
usually offensive; see usage paragraph below: a black person
2
usually offensive; see usage paragraph below: a member of any dark-skinned race
3
: a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons
 
Well, using a quote from the former congressman and Oakland, California mayor, Mr Dellums, is lowering a terrible word even more.
But seriously, it is not meant to be a nice word. It is harsh and it is a harsh way to denigrate overwhelmingly Black Americans.
Now back to the cowardly "reporter".
This film critic, Jake Hamilton, is interviewing Mr. Jackson about the latest movie from Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained, in which Mr. Jackson is a star.
It is, in typical Tarantino fashion, an over-the-top movie that is set in the Antebellum South and involves slavery.
And involves gratuitous use of the word nigger. Roughly well over 100 times in a two hour and forty-five minute movie.
Again, this is set in the South and involves slavery.So yeah, I think that the word nigger was in fact used very gratuitously. Like it or not.
Enter Mr. Hamilton, aka Mr. SWLPL. Here is a video of the part where Mr. Hamilton sheepishly asks Mr. Jackson about the over-the-top use of the word nigger:
 
 
 
As Mr. Hamilton asks, Mr. Jackson interjects, “No? Nobody? None? The word would be?” and Mr. Hamilton will not say the word. Mr. Jackson rightfully persists and Mr. Hamilton tries to deflect. But Mr. Jackson still persists in trying to get Mr. Hamilton to ask the question in a direct, forceful manner, “Try it … try it. We’re not going to have this conversation unless you say it.” And eventually, Mr. Hamilton backs down and they move on.
Here is where Mr. Jackson schools Mr. SWLPL guy.
It is people like him that now are utterly horrified to say the word at all. They are so horrified that one can not even utter the full word in a question about the context it is used in a movie. But, I am certain Mr. Hamilton/SWLPL guy would have not trouble dropping an f-bomb or two or three.
And here is a real difference.
The f-bomb is a word that the Federal Communications Commission has deemed one that can not be said on over-the-air television and or over-the-air radio. The fateful racial slur, offensive as it may be, can be said in full.
Unless it is by a coward and cowering "reporter" like Mr. Hamilton trying to show he is empathetic with Mr. Jackson and his peeps.
More like pathetic.
Here is a clue Mr. Hamilton.
If someone like Mr. Jackson is in a movie like Django Unchained, then he gets the context and is saying the racial slur the way that it is intended in the movie.
So, if you want to ask a question about what you think is gratuitous use of such a word, say it!
That is what Mr. Jackson mocked you, Mr. SWLPL, about. Your inability to say the word that you are asking about.
What would have impressed me is if Mr. Hamilton had the nerve to ask about the I am certain gratuitous use of the word fuck. Which I am certain is used at least the same amount as nigger.
It is amazing that in today's society, a profanity about a sex act that used to be taboo is said with little or no thought by the hip crowd. Yet a non-Black says the word nigger and all hell breaks loose.
Hey, I think that BOTH are offensive and should be used as little as possible. But if there is context, I am not a total prude about it.
But the prudity today is saying in full racial slurs. And that is where Samuel L. Jackson schooled one Jake Hamilton in an interview. And good for Mr. Jackson!
 
*-SWLPL-Stuff White Liberal People Like. A derivative of Stuff White People Like.