Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category

Liberal Privilege

Posted: June 18, 2014 by ShortTimer in Culture, Progressives and Left

From Professor Melvyn Fein:

One of the current liberal cliches tells us “whites” are privileged. The color of their skin evidently bestows benefits others do not receive. They are therefore supposed to be grateful and defer to those who are less fortunate.

But in what does this “privilege” consist? Yes, whites have not been discriminated against the way African-Americans have. They have not been denied jobs or forced to drink from separate fountains because of the pigmentation of their epidermis. This is surely an advantage — but how big an advantage?

Charges of white privilege make it sound as if every Caucasian is automatically successful. The fact is most are not. Few are born with silver spoons in their mouths. The vast majority needs to work hard to achieve the objectives they desire.

Far more pervasive is “liberal privilege.” The very people who accuse others of not being sufficiently grateful for their status are guilty of taking their own advantages for granted. Liberals do not seem to recognize the special treatment they receive. They actually believe they are nicer and smarter than others as a result of having been allowed to get away with this conceit.

Liberals can destroy the economy, but hey, no one could have done better. They can undermine the national security, but at least they were showing the appropriate humility. They can drive their country into bankruptcy, but this only confirms their compassion.

If one is a liberal, any nasty thing one might say about an opponent is passed over in silence. The cruelest invective is regarded as appropriate, given the sins of the target. Even vulgarity is excused because it emphasizes the understandable passion of the speaker.

If one is a liberal, lies are accepted as essential to promoting benevolent causes. The rabble does not appreciate the benefits heaped upon them; hence, it is OK to manipulate them into submission. Whatever the falsehood, the worst criticism will be that one “misspoke.” Or maybe one was quoted “out of context.”

Is this not privilege? Is it not a form of protection others do not obtain? Yet liberals consider it their due. They become huffy if their motives are questioned. Then they drive up truckloads of excuses they expect to be accepted without dissent. If this still doesn’t work, they attack their critics as playing politics (which, of course, they do not).

Read the whole thing here.

TV’s Andy Levy’s Apology To Chris Brown

Posted: May 14, 2014 by ShortTimer in Culture, Humor
Tags:

The discussion of tweeting and how violence against is conveniently dismissed in modern media and culture reminded me of this:

If you haven’t seen it before, enjoy.

Don Jones and Isaiah Washington

Posted: May 14, 2014 by ShortTimer in Culture

This week at the end of the NFL draft, a Miami player Don Jones sent a couple of tweets about the NFL drafting an openly gay player.  It went about as expected.  The openly gay player had pictures of himself and boyfriend celebrating tweeted and reposted by reporters on the not-really-a-story story (the kind of picture that would prompt “get a room” if he were straight).  And a Don Jones, presumably offended, tweeted “OMG” and “Horrible.”  So of course he’s being fined and sent to tolerance camp.

tolerance campBye, Don!

There’s plenty more backstory at HotAir.

I was immediately reminded of the story of Isaiah Washington, who made a similar mistake a few years ago.  Isaiah Washington was a TV actor on the show “Grey’s Anatomy” who made the mistake of offending a gay cast member.  Despite being considered a great addition to the cast and winning Image and SAG awards as well as making TV Guide and People’s lists for attractiveness, he found out that there is a hierarchy in modern culture and media of whose identity group is more powerful, and how merely using one word can get you erased.

Isaiah Washington in an argument where many words were exchanged was sufficient for him to be culturally removed.  But all it takes is a magic word to go away.

KING: So why does that lead to this word?

WASHINGTON: He got un — became unhinged, face-to-face, spittle to spittle, in my face — first. I did not start it. And I’m asking him why is he screaming at me, why are we doing this? Get out of my face. Several times. Several times. And he just becomes irate. But I’m not understanding why am I being berated to this point in front of our crew, particularly after what we experienced in Seattle. You know, I mean, I think you owe me on apology and I’m being berated.

And by that time I pushed him out of my face and it just took off from there and I began to say a lot of — a lot of things that I’m not really proud of — but all referring to myself and how I felt I was being treated.

KING: But how did the bad word come out of that?

WASHINGTON: Well, I said several bad words, as well as he did.

KING: To him?

WASHINGTON: To him about how I was feeling. I said there’s no way you’re going to treat me like a “B” word or a “P” word or the “F” word. You can’t treat me this way in front of our crew.

Miami player Don Jones didn’t even call the gay NFL player any names.  He got in no arguments, there was no getting in anyone’s grill, no spittle flying.

Jones just expressed disapproval, yet he’s being fined and ordered to tolerance camp because his opinions are not in line with those that are allowed.

What is allowed?  Why, violence against women, of course!

Ed Morrissey at HotAir notes that the NFL is highly inconsistent, as it’s willing to crack down on people who disagree with gayness, but won’t crack down on players who beat women.

Fox Sports’ Clay Travis noted that the league is strangely inconsistent when it comes to off-field behavior, too. In February of this year, Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice was charged with beating his fiancée into unconsciousness in an Atlantic City casino. A grand jury handed down an indictment for third-degree aggravated assault, perhaps convinced by video footage of Rice dragging her out of an elevator, with no one else in sight. Rice has since asked for a pretrial “intervention” to avoid a conviction and a potential three-year sentence, expressing through his attorney that “he’s ashamed of his conduct and he’s sorry for what he did.”

And yet, as Travis notes, the Ravens and the NFL have yet to do anything to Rice — even though the league has spent the last few years marketing heavily to increase its audience among women. “You get in more trouble for a tweet about men kissing on a sports television show,” Travis writes, “than you do for allegedly knocking out your girlfriend and being charged with domestic assault? The message is clear: Words matter more than actions.”

Apparently women are pretty low on the identity group ladder when it comes to mainstream-lefty culture.

-

As far as I know, the gay player didn’t give a crap about Jones’ tweets, as he was busy enjoying getting a nice fat business contract and publicity enough that’s made his jersey the second most purchased since the draft.  If he’s actually played football, and it seems he has, I’d bet he has thick enough skin not to care.  I have yet to hear of him responding to it, probably because it woudn’t make his radar and he wouldn’t care, or might just talk some trash back and think nothing more of it.  I guess if he surfaces with an indignant PC response or a “whatever, man, don’t care” response I’ll update, but as of this writing, he’s not even really part of the story – I haven’t heard of him asking for sanctions against Jones, and suspect he doesn’t really care.

Opie & Anthony On Obamacare

Posted: April 5, 2014 by ShortTimer in Culture, Health care, Media, Obamacare

Via HotAir:

Opie & Anthony’s radio show isn’t really my cup of tea, but they’ve got a decent market share doing some shock-jock type radio, and a lot of folks have loved their show for quite a while.  They’re really sharp guys, and when they’re hit with Obamacare’s mandates, it’s something that resonates with the average guy in their audience.

Talk radio is a fairly personal mode of communication, where someone listening is inviting the talk show host/presenter into their car/workplace/home to discuss things with them and for them.  So when folks like Opie & Anthony are telling their personal stories, they’re telling an audience who is composed of listeners who are also invited into their lives.  With this type of show, it’s like having one of your drinking buddies who you bs with suddenly telling you political stuff and how it’s impacting him.  It’s no longer a distant thing on the news, it’s in the culture; and it’s impacting someone who’s a media figure that you support, talk to on the call-in show, meet at local events, and identify with.

-

And if you listen to it through the whole thing, they also slam NY’s new anti-gun NY SAFE ACT that tells them they have to register and surrender firearms as well.

-

Drudge also carried this story about Opie & Anthony’s encounter with Obamacare yesterday, but not the audio.

Ukrainian Protests and The Orthodox Priests

Posted: January 23, 2014 by ShortTimer in Culture, Religion
Tags:

Saw this last night:

orthodox priest in kiev jan 22 2014

Orthodox priests were putting themselves in between rioting protesters and police forces.  And just to give some idea how bad it is, beyond the protesters’ trebuchets and homemade rioting gear… when the police are throwing molotov cocktails, it’s bad.

kiev protest cops with molotovs jan 22 2014

There were reports yesterday of government forces moving tanks in to deal with the protesters and rioters, and video and pictures of tanks on railcars moving in.

And then today, it looks like things started to cool down – halted in no small part by Orthodox priests who stood between the two clashing sides.  Not taking sides, just standing amidst them and putting an end to the violence through faith.

kiev priests jan 23 2014

Contrast that resolution with the actions of religious leaders in the Middle East during the so-called “arab spring”.

In a dispassionate, purely economic view, she has an economic incentive to not work.  Her behavior is reprehensible to those who work, but in an amoral view, her behavior is quite logical.

Parasitism is rewarded, and if it provides all she desires, why not be a parasite?

Margaret Thatcher gave conservatives/libertarians/classic liberals the answer in a simple sentence years ago:

margaret-thatcher other peoples money

To the individual riding the socialist gravy train, however, that’s not a concious concern.  The welfare recipient isn’t concerned about where the next handout is going to come from as long as they keep coming, and if the handouts stop, there’s always someone to blame and some politician willing to buy votes.  The career welfare recipient is almost always someone who isn’t concerned about their long-term well-being, otherwise they’d be actively working to improve their lot in life.  Those rare few that are concerned are those who demand more from others simply because they exist.

At the point that the handouts stop completely, they’ll either starve or work.  Whether that’s because of welfare reform that stops giving people disincentives to work or whether the system collapses and no longer can give handouts, either way, the practically Randian caricature of the moocher exemplified by that caller will simply cease to exist.

If that career welfare recipient is forced to starve or work because welfare goes away by reasoned economic decision-making in government, there’s going to be gnashing of teeth, bleeding hearts bleeding, and knee-jerkers jerking knees.  There will also be private charities for those who truly need, rather than the taxation at gunpoint that leads leftists who “care about the poor” to ignore the poor since they have government to care for them.

If that career welfare recipient is forced to starve or work because welfare has gone away because of collapsing government

mad-max2

That’ll make things interesting.

Die Hard isn’t just a Christmas movie.  Die Hard is the Christmas movie.

Die Hard is quintessentially a libertarian-conservative American Christmas movie, and that’s what makes it The Christmas movie.  Despite what some people say.

Just to get this out of the way first – what’s often said about it is that it wasn’t released at Christmas, so it’s not a Christmas movie.  Release date doesn’t mean it’s not a Christmas movie, either.  “The Christmas Song” was written in the middle of summer, and no one complains that it’s not a Christmas song.  Anyhow, on to the story…

Starting with its hero, John McClane – the story throws an everyman cop out of his element into a situation he doesn’t expect and he, the individual, through his own resilience, perseveres.  It’s a celebration of individualism and independence, where one man can and does make a difference.  That one man isn’t alone in the world, but his individual actions make the difference.  Without him, everyone at the Nakatomi Christmas party would be fodder for murderous thieves.

die hard merry christmas

In contrast to other Christmas movies, John McClane doesn’t need Clarence to take him out of the world and show him what life would be like without him.  When John McClane is at his lowest, his friend – a friend whose face he’s never even seen – talks to him and reassures him that his actions matter.  John McClane doesn’t have an angel to come save him, but he has his friends who help him.

That friend whose face he’s never seen is important doubly so for that reason.  John McClane doesn’t know Sgt. Al Powell of the LA police department.  He knows nothing about him to begin with save that Al was a street cop based on his driving.  He doesn’t know Al’s race, his religion, or whether his ancestors and McClane’s fought each other in the old country.  They don’t judge each other based on some preconditions or some prejudice, there’s no room in their world for that, and there’s no reason in their world for that.

When government gets involved in the situation above the individual level, we see a very libertarian small-government criticism.  The 911 operators are blase and uncaring, dismissive of a citizen’s call for help.  Even when finally driven to action, they choose to dispatch a lone squad car on his way home – because they are blase and uncaring.

By the time Deputy Police Chief Dwayne T. Robinson arrives, we really begin to see government involvement and its consequences.  Robinson starts by ignoring that Al was the man on the ground, had experience, and was as hands-on as the situation would allow.  Al has a grasp, but Robinson dismisses him and has some ham-fisted responses by sending in his teams in “standard two-by-two formation” – decisions that ultimately get good men injured and killed.  The further he goes from the individual, the more foolish he gets.  When he has men injured or dead at the door and in the car who are protected by John’s quick actions, he’s more concerned about the glass that the individual John McClane blasted all over the grounds.

Local government is shown as foolish, even moreso when it defers to the federal government.  When that same local goverment listens to the individual or starts to think about its role, it becomes more responsive and effective.

The federal government response is one you’d expect from Washington, DC.  It’s a one-size fits-all approach for an A7 scenario, running the universal playbook step-by-step, and it’s an even more ham-fisted and foolish one than the local government uses.

But Agent Johnson does add that “We’ll try to let you know when we commandeer your men,” in perfect parody of the uncaring fedgov taking over.

agents johnson and johnson die hard

In defense of the realism of Agents Johnson and Johnson, Die Hard was made prior to the siege in Waco, where the fedgov proved itself more incompetent, not less.

Over objections of local government in the form of Deputy Chief Dwayne T. Robinson – who sucks up to the FBI heavily at first, but begins to question the wisdom of it later (as he realizes he could be held accountable, and thinks he should call the mayor) – and private citizens who object, the feds kill power to an entire grid.  Federal, local, and business authorities spend the whole argument ignoring Walt the technician who could cut power locally.

dwayne robinson johnson power guy 1

Walt is the individual, showcased again as the only competent one there, ignored by his company boss, the local authorities and the federal authorities.  Over his own objections and explaining that he can get the same result with no harm, he is threatened by Agent Johnson, and ends up being forced to shut down a power grid that inconveniences and harms local families on Christmas Eve, and plays right into the hands of the terrorist thieves.

walt die hard

Further from the consequences, as the FBI prepares its doublecross, Agent Johnson (no, the other one) comments that they’ll lose 20-25% of the hostages tops, and the other says he can live with that.  American lives he and his partner (no relation) are sworn to protect are ultimately expendible to him in his mission.  When Agent Johnson is rolling in with helicopter gunships, he whoops “Just like Saigon, eh, Slick?” – he’s become the embodiment of reckless militarization of police forces and the consequence-free actions the federal government would take against its own citizens while remaining assured of its own unaccountability.

While John McClane is on the roof and trying to move a terrified group of citizens back down and away from the bomb-laden roof of the building, it’s Johnson who’s gleefully commanding shooting and sniping at McClane, without having analyzed what the situation was.

-

Hans Gruber and his gang as the bad guys are “the world”.  They are mostly Europeans and vaguely foreign characters, and Theo, of course, who is an amoral professional with a charming personality.

Hans and his crew, when silent, aren’t fully understood by anyone but John and Al.  John and Al understand in a direct, visceral way – the terrorist thieves are bad guys.  They show a traditionalist conservative or libertarian response to a direct threat – handle the threat.  They don’t need to pontificate about it – they know the bad guys are what they are, and somebody’s got to stop them.  There’s no introspection or “are we really the terrorists who brought this on ourselves?”  There’s not a thought to “Helsinki Syndrome” – which is mocked by the film itself.

“The world” is recognized for what it is – they aren’t ideologues – they’re thieves willing to use any tactics – “the world” has its own motivations, self-interested motivations, while naiive American govt. policies believe in the babble (Deputy Wayne Robinson) or ignore it completely and don’t even try to understand the motivations (FBI guys) that ultimately lead to failures by government at varying levels.

Hans, when he communicates their “demands”, play the slow-thinking local authorities for suckers, to such a degree that even his right hand man is thrown for a loop.

karl die hard asian dawn 2Asian Dawn?

hans die hard asian dawnI read about them in Time magazine.

John and Al see through it as a ruse.

Dwayne is duped, but baffled – again because he doesn’t listen to his own people on the ground.

The FBI simply ignores it, and fits it into their own plans.  They don’t even bother to wonder why such bizarre requests would be made.  Their sledgehammer-instead-of-a-flyswatter approach doesn’t even factor in that the “terrorists” are stalling, or why they were stalling.  It’s just an A7 scenario, and “we’ll take it from here”.

-

On a whole host of topics, the movie subltly demonstrates a varying host of both libertarian and conservative beliefs.

On social issues of race or class, none are important – individual character is what matters.  Even just stripping away the action and drama of the story and looking at the characters shows people who are success stories due to their own hard work.

Joseph Yoshinobu Takagi, better known as Joe, is the man at Nakatomi, but he’s no rich robber baron or parody of zaibatsu business.  He’s an immigrant who worked his way up from humble beginnings, including spending young childhood years in the Manzanar internment camp, and he’s become a wealthy and powerful businessman, respected and loved by his employees.

On the other side of the spectrum is Argyle, who’s worked his way up from taxi driver to limo driver, and who’s personable and engaging with people he works with and ultimately for.  He helps John out with a plan to get back together with his wife, and agrees to help John find someplace to stay if things don’t work out.  He’s good people, showing character and initiative that doubtless was part of what got him moved up the socioeconomic and status ladder from taxi driver to limo driver.

-

On gun control, the movie recognizes the bad guys will always be armed.  The terrorist thieves have rocket launchers – things that are already banned.  How did they get them?  Irrelevant – they’re criminals and criminals break laws.

On right to life, even Hans recognizes that a pregnant woman should be treated kindly.  He’s already calculated to kill everyone there as part of his scheme, yet he neither dismisses her nor her unborn child and their value to the Nakatomi community.  He does value them both less than the $640 million in negotiable bearer bonds in the vault.  But he recognizes the woman and unborn child as being respected by the community and responds to it for the value that Holly and the Nakatomi crowd place on her and her baby.

On smoking, characters smoke because they choose to – and they state they are aware of the dangers.  “These are very bad for you.”  It’s an individual decision, totally aware of the risks.

Abuse of hard drugs is shown to be something that’s ultimately self-destructive as it’s detrimental to the individual and the individual’s judgement.  There’s not a legal or moralizing argument against it, but more observation of the results of drug abuse and the poor decision making and foolish behaviors that drug abuse leads to.  Like the douchey thinking that just because you’re a corporate hot-shot, you can go and negotiate your way out of a situation with men who use guns, not fountain pens.

ellis die hard

The hubris that comes with trying to sleaze and bullshit one’s way through real-world threats is shown very vividly.  While Joe Takagi tried to negotiate as a civilized man with an enemy that feigned civilized manners and ultimately lost his life for it, Ellis douchily walks into a situation already knowing what the stakes are.  Ellis is the mush-brained slow-learner egocentric who thinks there’s a way to talk through problems that can only be solved by force.  He is the embodiment of negotiations with hostile international powers who will act to their own ends and don’t care what anyone talks at them.  He is as effective as the UN – a force only dangerous to those who are allied with it – because it empowers hostile forces by its own simultaneously naiive approach and arrogant sense of self-importance.

-

The sensationalist, short-attention-span media, in the character of Richard “Dick” Thornburg, is shown to be irresponsible and reckless, as well as dangerous.  He endangers McClane’s children for nothing more than a scoop, but does also briefly touch on the hypocrisy and foolishness of hiring illegal aliens when he threatens Paulina with the INS.  We not only see Thornburg as the kind of newsman the NYT would hire when they want to show weaknesses in US armor to enemy forces in combat, but also as the kind of self-absorbed ass we expect to see from the news, where the story is always about him.  The rest of the media and their wholly wrong assessment the Nakatomi situation has already been covered above.

Die Hard 2, would of course give us the contrast of the moral journalist in Samantha Coleman with WNTW news.  But I’ll save any further analysis on Die Hard 2 for next year.

-

An a much deeper level, one could discuss how John McClane running through the glass and emerging with bloodied feet could signify the stigmata, or running on glass the miracles of walking on water, but those would all be a stretch, to say the least.  There are plenty of religious connections that could be made in subtle fashion, and really most would be more valid than celebrations of Christmas involving a fat guy in a red suit, flying big game animals, and toymakers from Lothlorien who live in the extreme arctic.

You could have another conversation as to the relative values and virtues of other Christmas movies, and the traditions they have (they aren’t bad movies, after all… but they aren’t Die Hard).

While some people are adamant that Die Hard isn’t a Christmas movie… it really doesn’t matter.  Like Crow T. Robot famously said during the initial singing of Patrick Swayze Christmas – “you keep Christmas in your way and let me keep it in mine.”

-

As an addendum, there’s also a criticism about Nakatomi having a Christmas party on Christmas Eve saying that they’re a horrible company for it.

This is nonsense.  Joe Takagi and the Nakatomi corporation recognize the dedication of their employees and treat them like family.  They know the amount of work that has been put in to their projects, and they offer a Christmas party for those working long distances from home – like Holly, who had to leave New York to work in LA.  Unlike others in the Nakatomi family, she has her own family that she moved – but she’s there at the party because she wants to support her fellow workers.  She’s not going to be there all night – as she’s already planned to take her husband home to see their children, and Argyle was expecting to be spending Christmas driving John home… and maybe head to Vegas at some point.

Lame Duck vs Duck Dynasty

Posted: December 20, 2013 by ShortTimer in Barack Obama, Culture, First Amendment, Media

bo vs pr duck

I think the most important thing about what Phil Robertson said is what he said at the end:

I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.

And what he didn’t say:

He asked for no new laws, he asked for nothing to be taken from one group and given to another, he asked for no force to be applied against people whose choices he disagreed with.  He didn’t ask that the DSM V be dialed back to the DSM II or something, he just voiced an unpopular belief to the media in a direct, folksy way.

Folks who are legimately of very solid faith are often the type who can hate the sin, but love the sinner, regardless of what it might be.  They pray for people they disagree with to see what they view as right, but they don’t try to force other people to live their way, either – forced piety would defeat the purpose and would mean someone doesn’t choose their path.  That older traditionalist mindset, but still respectful of the individual way of living per classic enlightenment views, is an attitude towards life that is part of the appeal of the show – for many it’s alien, for others it’s comforting.  From the few episodes I’ve seen, they are live and let live folks.

For the most part, I consider the entire ruffling of feathers over this to be something that should just be water off a duck’s back.  No one should care.  It neither breaks anyone’s leg nor picks their pocket.

It’d make a lot more sense for A&E to simply take advantage of the comments and ask the Duck Dynasty folks to interact with some normal gay people (not activists).  The discussion would probably be a lot more of a “teachable moment” or something anyway, or allow for an understanding of two different cultures – those mad at Duck Dynasty (who don’t watch it anyway), and those who have harsher views than Robertson’s upsetting but ultimately benign religious disagreement.

Objectively, one could also ask how many gay people are benefiting from the merchandising and financial success of the show through employment or investment in A&E or some other way – and how that prosperity is apathetic on sexual orientation.  A&E may be killing the goose that’s laying the golden egg here, since the Duck Dynasty family doesn’t need them, and without recognizing that all it would take is discussion if they wanted to counter Robertson’s opinions with their own – and it would make good TV.  They could go shooting with some folks from the Pink Pistols… and they’d probably all get along fine.

But instead A&E is choosing to can him, and gay activists are going apoplectic.  Just like didn’t happen with employers and gay activists when Alec Baldwin was actually using anti-gay slurs and threatening people with physical violence.

The contrast is even greater when you consider the difference in societal anger between what’s directed at Robertson and what’s directed at the lame duck, who is our employee and has lied about the murders of US citizens at home and abroad, including leaving our ambassador to Libya – who was gay – to die.  The lame duck is destroying our health care, is targeting us with revenue agents, and is spying on us.  We have an employee who is out to harm us and mass media make excuses for him and ignore actions and force; while they get angry at Robertson.

It’s a damn shame people are getting infuriated about a man’s opinion they disagree with, but who ultimately uses no force and advocates none, while they ignore a man targeting us all who uses force and advocates more.

-

Update: At least one gay writer has questioned the stance of taking offense and demanding silence.

Why is our go-to political strategy for beating our opponents to silence them? Why do we dismiss, rather than engage them? One of the biggest pop-culture icons of today just took center stage to “educate” us about sexuality. I see this as an opportunity to further the discussion, to challenge his limited understanding of human desire, to engage with him and his rather sizable audience — most of whom, by the way, probably share his views — and to rise above the endless sea of tweet-hate to help move our LGBT conversations to where they need to go.

G.K. Chesterton said that bigotry is “an incapacity to conceive seriously the alternative to a proposition.” If he is right — and he usually is — then I wonder if the Duck Dynasty fiasco says more about our bigotry than Phil’s.

He does spend almost the entirety of the piece saying Robertson is wrong, wrong, wrong, and he can’t see that moral authority he claims is why the gay community’s go-to political strategy is to silence people.  Except for Alec Baldwin, of course.  And anyone else who’s on the political left and supports the correct causes.

The most important point he brings up might be this:

But I also think that if I were to spend a day calling ducks with Phil, I’d probably end up liking him — even in spite of his position on gay men.

You don’t have to agree with the guy on everything to get along.  And Robertson isn’t advocating any harm to anyone or government or other coercive force be used against them.

-

And some gay dudes from the umpteenth spinoff of Storage Wars found a much less destructive, much more hilarious way to disagree:

An openly gay couple on A&E’s “Storage Wars: New York” is NOT offended by the homophobic comments made by fellow A&E’er and “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson — telling TMZ, they just feel bad for him … because man ass beats vagina any day of the week.

It’s crude, offensive to some folks in probably the same way Robertson’s were offensive to others, but it’s also funny.

Chris and Tad aren’t fazed, telling us, “You can’t go through life worrying what other people think. That’s their values and that’s what they think … as long as they’re not nasty to people … We’re not offended at all.”

Tolerance means you don’t have to agree, but if somebody isn’t harming you or advocating harm, it’s probably not that important, either.  You don’t have to send people to the Death Camp of Tolerance.

Folk Musicians Suck

Posted: November 2, 2013 by ShortTimer in Crime, Culture, Music

From FOX:

Federal officials have launched an investigation after a set of names were found carved into a national monument in Montana where explorer William Clark signed his moniker more than 200 years ago.

The new marking on Pompeys Pillar National Monument is about 3 feet from the signature of Clark, a member of the Corps of Discovery expedition that opened a land route to the West. It reads: “Cole + Shpresa 10/10/2013″ and includes a heart.

Bureau of Land Management personnel noticed the carving on the sandstone formation during a walkthrough Oct. 17. Someone had to climb over a railing to make it.

Officials told KRTV.com that Cole Randall and Shpresa Lieshiaj, both of Minnesota, were questioned by park officials after a silent alarm was triggered. Authorities have not identified either Randall or Lieshiaj as suspects.

Not suspects?

folk musician vandals suck

Seriously, they carved their names IN STONE.  Cole may not be the most uncommon name, but Cole + Shpresa?  And authorities found it the same day a silent alarm was triggered… and they encountered two people named Cole and Shpresa there… and they still couldn’t connect the dots?

blm officer barbrady

Or is the BLM cop who handles defacing of historical sites still on furlough?

KXLF in Montana identifies these warbling snots for what they are:

On Thursday, officials confirmed that Cole Randall and Shpresa Lieshiaj were the couple that was stopped at the historic monument after a silent alarm was triggered.

Randall and Kieshiaj are a singing duo in Minnesota that perform as “Flora Cash.”

Their website states that they were on a tour of the “heartland” from July 20 through October 17.

Modern folk musicians suck.  Their music sucks, and they suck.  And their vandalism sucks in its own special ways beyond just run-of-the-mill sucking.

It looks like it was scribbled by some half-literate cretins who sing folk music… just another hint for the BLM cops.

For comparison, Clark scribed his signature in an era with no graphic designers:

clark signature pompey pillar

Those folk-vomiting troglodytes aren’t out with Arlo Guthrie and riding the rails like 1930s hobos and experiencing some fictionalized America as it was, they’re not Bob Dylans or musical Jack Kerouacs or Hunter S. Thompsons, they’re not on the edge of rediscovering American music, they’re just filthy rubber tramp vandals who need to be flogged.

-

And just because folk musicians suck and folk music sucks and needs to be reminded it sucks, I’m going to post some Frederic Fucking Chopin:

Yesterday we brought up KU professor David “Death to Your Kids” Guth, but that’s not the only leftist wishing death to children.

California Democrat party communications chair Allan Brauer wished death to Ted Cruz’s staff and their children:

california dem wishes death to ted cruz

He and other Cali Dems apologized by saying that his kind of rhetoric distracts from the discussion of how evil Ted Cruz and Ted Cruz-like people are, so he’s sorry that people missed sight of hating Ted Cruz.

But in a tweet collected here, it’s easy to see what the problem is:

california dem wishes death to ted cruz 2

He’s doing the same thing that Alinksyites always do.  They polarize the problem and then stalwartly refuse to accept that there is any other side but theirs.  They are the angels, the other side are demons, and they must act, and act now against the demons.  They dehumanize and hate their opponents, and they will do anything to win and destroy and kill their political opponents.

Allan “Death to Your Children Tapeworms That Slithered Out of Your Asshole” Brauer is not only is he a violent cretin, he’s a ignoramus.

The Republican party doesn’t take bread from the mouths of starving children and medicine from the sick.  It asks: Why should someone who’s worked hard to provide food for their children and medicine for their own sick have government’s gun shoved in their face and be forced to provide food and medicine for those who don’t prepare?  Why is the ant being robbed by the government to provide for the grasshopper?

The ant has a natural right to the property earned by his labor, yet the emotional Democrat maniac sees Person A need, often whose life choices have undoubtedly taken some part in getting them to their crappy situation (or whose parents life choices have) and decides that Person B, who lives three states away and is working to take care of his own family, children, and friends, should have IRS Agent Z take money from Person B’s pocket, food from his table, and create a health-care system that penalizes Person B in order to provide for Person A.  Person B has been declared to owe Person A, while Person A has done nothing but exist and fail at life, and the Democrat solution is to subsidize failure rather than allow Person A to learn from mistakes.

IRS Agent Z and Democrat Candidate Y can claim moral superiority for feeding the poor and providing for the sick, but they do so by robbing from Person B (and of course buying Person A’s vote with handouts).  When Person B objects and elects Candidate C to represent him, IRS Agent Z and Democrat Y go after them for being “pubic lice whose asshole-slithering tapeworms need to die” because they want to keep more of the products of their own labor, and want to know where this debt to Person A came from.

There is no rational response.  There is either some gibbering about nebulous “social contracts” which are non-existent and then a whole lot of rage and hate from the would-be masters against the questioning workers.

Brauer’s rage is based on a completely false premise, but one that cannot be corrected because he has chosen his targets, he has polarized them, he has frozen them, and he is on the side of the angels and they the demons.  So of course their children must die.