Lack of Agency

If one were to go by the way news stories are presented, over [let us say] the last 50 years, one could be forgiven for thinking that we already live in a "Skynet" world. It is amazing how many "things" do things. "Cars" run into buildings. "Guns" go off. knives cut people. All sorts of inanimate objects just up and decide to do stupid and/or harmful things.

Where is the individual human agency in all of this? In order to find responsible and/or culpable individuals, these arbitrators of truth need only find a way to be able to shift the blame to a conservative and/or Republican [or group there of] who in many cases take the blame for things that they were not even directly involved in.

Take for example the NRA. According to liberal/Democrat pundits and news media, the NRA is responsible for all mass shootings. In the case of the recent school shooting in Florida, apparently everyone from the FBI on down to the local school resource officer, all knew of this individual. Had been repeatedly warned by citizens of this individual and of his ill intent. Yet they all did NOTHING. The shooter committed his ugly act of violence and then every news person, liberal, and Democrat, quickly blamed the NRA and those evil gun owners for the disgusting acts of this individual.

Never mind that every level of Government knew of this "troubled" youth. Never mind that some [like the school resource officer] worked to shield this individual from accountability for prior bad acts. Never mind that those that have taken an oath to uphold the law and protect the populous [and are given arms with which to do so] chose to hid outside the building while unarmed adults and children attempted to protect and save the lives of others by acting as human shields and/or trying to stop the gunman. Nope. None of that matters. It is all the fault of those evil gun nuts and the NRA.

It is unimportant to these folks that the NRA is the oldest and [one of if not the] largest civil rights organization in the country. It is unimportant that the NRA worked/works to enable people of color to posses arms for self defense while the Democrats were working and continue to work to ensure they stay unarmed. Nor that as a group, members of the NRA are far more law abiding then the population at large (and CCW holders even more so). None of that matters.

We are told by these very same folks that only the police should have guns. That the average citizen can not be trusted with guns. Though if you listen to BLM, liberals, and Democrats, your average policeman is simply biding his time until he can gun down innocent person of color (but I digress).

So, where are the individual "people" and their agency in all of this?

On a related note, England (that once great country) has been held up by the American left as a model for America. A country that has seen the light on guns and [for all intent] has disarmed the population. Recently a retired couple was asleep in their home. The husband (of 78 years) heard a disturbance down stairs and went to investigate. He encountered two intruders burgling his home. He was accosted by one and taken into the kitchen where he continued to be threatened with a screw-driver, while his wife continued to sleep up stairs. When the other thief continued to ransack the home, the man got into a scuffle with the other [38 year old] thief. The elder managed to defend him self and stab the thief once with a kitchen knife. The two thieves fled. The injured man collapsed in the street, was taken to the hospital, and later died of his injury. The 78 year old was taken into custody and charged with murder. He may likely get off but he may not. THAT is what liberals want for America. They want you to cower in your home while thieves ransack the place and take what they will. They DON'T care if lose your property, your virtue (if you get raped), or your life. They want you defenseless and helpless. Do you?

Bike lock boy busted!

A nice bit of news, the antifa coward that hit a few folks on the head with a bike lock, has been caught and is currently in jail awaiting arraignment.

It turns out that the "thug" is Eric Clanton an occasional Diablo Valley College professor that taught “introduction to philosophy with a background in teaching ethics, critical thinking, and comparative philosophy East/West” with “primary research interests” of ethics and politics. In addition, he earned a bachelor’s degree at California State University, Bakersfield. He also earned a master’s degree at San Francisco State in philosophy.

Just a nice guy "fighting the good fight" against those evil Nazis! Sure, he is fighting this good fight from the safety of a crowd, using a bike lock on the end of a chain, hitting unsuspecting folks on the head and then ducking / running into the crowed but he is BRAVE! He is standing up for the little guy against these evil Nazi protesters that are not actually Nazis nor evil. They just have a different political opinion than Eric. Eric knows better though cause he is educated and has a degree in philosophy and as such is such a deep thinker and all. Well here is hoping he gets more time to think deeply about philosophy and ethics, like 20 to life for 3 counts of assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder.

Is milk Racist?

Environmental protesters leave catastrophe in their wake

Wait, what?

A total of two dogs and six puppies were found abandoned at the site and rescued by local nonprofit Furry Friends Rockin’ Rescue, local news reported on Saturday.

The two dogs the group rescued reportedly show signs of exposure to the brutal North Dakotan cold, with frost-bitten ears and mangy fur.

But, but they CARE so much!

The reports of the cast-aside canines follow news of the grave environmental threat to the Missouri River posed by the almost unfathomable amount of waste left at the site by protesters, a threat so grave it compelled North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum to sign an emergency evacuation order.


Authorities estimated that protesters left enough garbage and human waste to fill 2,500 pickup trucks.

It sure "feels" good to make a difference, right?

Between these sorts of protesters and the Obama Admin EPA polluting that river with toxic waste, I don't know how much more help mother Earth can stand!

Glory days

These last few weeks, it has been all the rage for different groups to pen their own "open letter" to President-Elect Trump. These letters either warn him that they will work to resist his efforts or to "ask" that he not do such-n-such, or as in this case to warn that "they are watching" and are going to hold him to account. "This case" is an open letter from a member of the press. That is right. The press. You can read it (if you wish) here. I will warn you though, don't read it while you have any beverages in your hand. I nearly ruined a perfectly good iPad.

It is, after all, our airtime and column inches that you are seeking to influence. We, not you, decide how best to serve our readers, listeners, and viewers.

Well, it is not clear yet whether Trump seeks to influence you or simply chooses to ignore you. He may just be posturing but from my vantage point it looks to be a lot more of the latter than the former. Oh, and apparently he understands and knows how to use Twitter and is fairly comfortable doing so. The press has not been the information gatekeepers that they used to be for some time now. Trump appears to understand that better than most politicians.

As to deciding how to best server your readers, you really should have had that internal discussion some [oh] 8 years ago, not just over the last couple of months.

Access is preferable, but not critical. You may decide that giving reporters access to your administration has no upside. We think that would be a mistake on your part, [ed. I am sure you do] but again, it’s your choice. We are very good at finding alternative ways to get information; indeed, some of the best reporting during the campaign came from news organizations that were banned from your rallies. Telling reporters that they won’t get access to something isn’t what we’d prefer, but it’s a challenge we relish.

"a challenge we relish", really? Based on recent history that does not match reality. You (as an industry) clearly prefer NOT working for your stories as you have amply demonstrated over the last 8 years. During the current administration you have shown that you are all too happy [as a group] to accept administration and DNC memos and releases as "news" and publish them unquestioned. You (as a group) prefer coordinating your stories and crowd-sourcing your stories (journolist anyone?) than actually doing your own investigations and following the truth no matter where it leads. When it suits your purpose or your narrative, you are more than happy to just "make shit up", "white Hispanic" anyone?

We will strive to get your point of view across, even if you seek to shut us out...

LOL! Sorry there is just nothing else I could possibly say about this statement. It stands on its own.

We believe there is an objective truth, and we will hold you to that. When you or your surrogates say or tweet something that is demonstrably wrong, we will say so, repeatedly. Facts are what we do, and we have no obligation to repeat false assertions; the fact that you or someone on your team said them is newsworthy, but so is the fact that they don’t stand up to scrutiny. Both aspects should receive equal weight.

This one is another side-splitter! Sorry but this sort of blatant lying screams to be called out. At one time, the "press" may have believed that but the MSM long ago sold their souls to "the greater truth" and to "the narrative". Remember the Bush memos? How about your failure to properly cover the ACORN scandal? Your reporting over the last 8 years of the real unemployment rate or the economy? Planned Parenthood and baby parts? Your "stellar" [snark] coverage of the Clinton email scandal? Benghazi? Fast n Furious? The IRS scandal? The Tea Party? Need I go on? The modern MSM would not know a "FACT" if it walked up, introduced its self, and bought you all a round of drinks!

We’ll obsess over the details of government. You and your staff sit in the White House, but the American government is a sprawling thing. We will fan reporters out across the government, embed them in your agencies, source up those bureaucrats. The result will be that while you may seek to control what comes out of the West Wing, we’ll have the upper hand in covering how your policies are carried out.

So NOW you want to do that? Where were you when "Obamacare" or the drone strikes or EPA or oh never mind, I think you get the point...

We will set higher standards for ourselves than ever before. We credit you with highlighting serious and widespread distrust in the media across the political spectrum. Your campaign tapped into that, and it was a bracing wake-up call for us. We have to regain that trust. And we’ll do it through accurate, fearless reporting, by acknowledging our errors and abiding by the most stringent ethical standards we set for ourselves.

Wait, are you saying that you plan to fire every existing reporter and editor that currently works in MSM and start over? If not than nothing has or will change. With your current "membership" it will be at least a generation before you have any credibility with the majority of the people. Is it any wonder that the most despised professions in the country are (worst first) reporters, politicians, and lawyers? You have spent much more than 8 years (more like at least 20) working to destroy your reputations, publications, viewership, and industry. Well congratulations, you succeeded. All the moral posturing and preening will not undo over 20 years of effort. You just don't matter that much any more.

We’re going to work together. You have tried to divide us and use reporters’ deep competitive streaks to cause family fights. Those days are ending. We now recognize that the challenge of covering you requires that we cooperate and help one another whenever possible.

Sorry but we have already seen that in action; journolist anyone?

The modern press is like a pride of old, tired lions plotting against those "shinny things that go by real fast" on the highway they can see from their cage in the zoo. The cars don't even know they are there.

This is a truly sad state of affairs. The country needs and the people deserve a strong independent press. We don't and haven't had that in a very long time. What we do have is a clique of Democratic operatives with by-lines that when they are not directly taking their orders from a Democrat administration or the DNC, are colluding on what stories should be ignored, which ones should be covered and how to cover them. That is not "news". That is Pravda.

You want respect? You want to be taken seriously again? Stop trying to "change the world". Stop trying "to make a difference" and start actually covering the news, all of it, in an honest, open, factual, bias-free way. Then, just maybe you will start to matter again but I really don't believe you can do it.

Star Warz Rogue hu?

What in the friggen world is Hollywood thinking? Must they go out of their way to be "edgy", to "interweave a larger narrative into the prevailing context", to take a dump on anything that is considered traditional?

Apparently Hollywood did not learn their lesson with the flop that was the Ghost Busters remake. Nope. They want to try again with a new slant on Star Wars.

In Rogue One, there is no dark or light side

What? Like isn't that the entire point of Star Wars? You have the good guys (the light side of the Force) and the bad guys (the dark side of the force). Heck, the bad guys even call it "the dark side"! They blow up entire planets to make a point. You literally CAN'T get any more clear cut than that.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is different. The first film of the Star Wars Anthology Series, hitting theaters Dec. 16, sidesteps this Jedi Manichaeism almost entirely.

Um, isn't like the main point of the entire Star Wars franchise that you have this "stuff" called "the Force" and some use it for good and some use it for bad and that those that use it for good are called Jedi? So you have created a Star Wars movie that does not focus on those at the center of the Star Wars franchise? Isn't that like having a zombie movie but making it all about cats and not have any actual zombies in it?

But I think a more modern, realistic viewpoint is that no one's good, no one's evil, and the only real way we're going to stop wars is to understand each other better, come together and empathize with them.

That quote is from the film's director, Gareth Edwards. WOW. That is some nuclear grade stupid right there. Sorry to burst your lefty safe-space but there really is actual "good" and actual "evil" in this world. There is gray too but the fact that gray exists does not mean white and black don't also exist. As an example, it is never OK to strap a explosive vest on a kid and send him into a crowd to blow everyone up. It is never OK to stone a rape victim to death. It is never OK to toss a gay man off of a roof. It is never OK to fly a plane full of innocent people into tall buildings. There is NO possibility of mutual understanding in those cases unless the folks doing those things truly come to fully understand how very wrong they are AND stop. You don't compromise with evil. The best you can do is show it the error of its ways in whatever way it takes.

Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and men's rights activists plan to boycott Rogue One on the grounds that the Empire is another casualty of the "liberal media."

I am sure that all 12 remaining Neo-Nazis and all 8 of the official white supremacists (I believe that figure includes David Duke) left in America  plan to boycott the film. I am also sure that a whole lot of "normal" Star Wars fans will also boycott this film because they might be a little tired of their "stuff" being messed with by some self-important, new-age, preachy liberal director that thinks he "has an important" message to share with the world versus telling a good story within the existing franchise framework that has been supported by the fans all these many years.

The reviewer (Lili Loofbourow) is also one very "special ray of sunshine, open-mindedness, and tolerance". You can tell when she gives us this little peek behind her mental curtain:

One can certainly see why: White supremacists — or the "alt-right," as it prefers to call itself these days — would prefer a return to the status quo.

So, conservatives, those that want a smaller Federal government ARE not only the "storm troopers" in the latest Star Wars film but are also white supremacists! Also, the "alt-right", who might be more accurately defined as a slightly more militant version of the older Tea Party movement are JUST LIKE white supremacists! Just like. No difference! So they must be Nazis too since we learned earlier that White supremacists and Nazis are the same so if the alt-right is the same, they must be Nazis too.

Not happy calling half the country white supremacists (a.k.a. Nazis), she goes on to completely get her main premise wrong by claiming:

"darkest, most nuanced Star Wars movie — the one that expressly aims to humanize the Empire even more radically than The Force Awakens, which makes John Boyega's character Finn, a former stormtrooper, a sympathetic figure - is being boycotted for not catering enough to neo-Nazis."

So this Mensa member thinks "white supremacists" don't want to see the new "darkest, most nuanced Star Wars movie" because the Neo-Nazis think the film goes too soft on the Nazi stand-in figures (the Empire) by making them too empathetic?

Interesting...

So who is Lili? Let us check her bio...

Lili Loofbourow is the culture critic at TheWeek.com. She's also a special correspondent for the Los Angeles Review of Books and an editor for Beyond Criticism, a Bloomsbury Academic series dedicated to formally experimental criticism. Her writing has appeared in a variety of venues including The Guardian, Salon, The New York Times Magazine, The New Republic, and Slate.

A special correspondent for the Los Angeles Review of Books. What does that even mean? What is a "special correspondent" for book reviews? She is also editor for a series dedicated to formally experimental criticism. Do these people just string words together? What does that even mean? I tried googling that as I am not familiar with that phraseology. The only thing I could turn up is its use in an interview that hints that it has something to do with nonfiction. I gave up searching after reviewing three pages of results. Lili apparently writes for such literary greats as The Guardian, Salon, NYT, and Slate.

If her condescending article is in anyway representative of the attitude of the movie, I fully expect another critically acclaimed box office flop. Folks are getting fed up with being preached at by the ignorant elite. People are starting to push back. You are paid to entertain us, not preach or shove your politics down our throats. Not sorry if that means you get your feelz hurt.

Dual realities

It seems that more and more we are living in a twilight zone episode where half of the country lives in one reality and the other half lives in another, all the while being able to see and interact with each other.

Exhibit A: Make no mistake, Trump’s cabinet appointees embody the most rabid possible opposition to policies and positions of President Obama and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. A unifier Mr. Trump is not.

In this reality, President Obama was and is the savior of the country (and the planet) and Hillary was his expected proper and correct successor to carry on that great legacy. In this reality Obamacare is not a disaster. ISIS is a JV team on the run, the Government did not attack the producer of a video and throw him in jail to help cover up the Government's culpability in the deaths of four Americans at a US embassy by terrorists. The DOE did not throw higher education into complete disarray over a bogus statistic that 1 in 4 women in college get raped. The EPA did not pollute the drinking water of dozens of communities by releasing mine toxic run-off into a river. Nor did the Government attack and alienate half of the population of the United States by calling them racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and Islamophobic.

Nope. In this reality (dare I say a community based reality) all is good. The unemployment rate is under 4% and not the 10+% that the rest of us see. The economy is BOOMING and is not the stagflation that the rest of us see. Needless black lives are lost at the hands of a racist police versus police related fatalities being not only at their lowest levels in dozens of years but that (in actuality) more whites are shot by police than blacks as is shown by actual FBI and Government crime statistics.

In this community based reality, Trump is a homophobic racist and all of his supporters are a "bag of deplorable". They also cling to their guns and religion, or so I was told by the worlds greatest orator. In this view of reality, Obama was NEVER a divider, the Democrats in Congress never rammed through the largest overhaul of healthcare using procedural shenanigans and on a pure party line vote. When half the country supports the Democrats and they win, the Republicans are the dividers. When half the country supports the Republicans and they win, the Republicans are the dividers. See how that works?. The left is all about protecting everyone from hate speech and they never use divisive rhetoric, all is unicorns and cupcakes.

Exhibit B: 6 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Is The Best Presidential Candidate Ever

There are actually a LOT of people that see this as reality. That Hillary Clinton was not only eminently qualified to be President but was the absolutely BEST qualified EVER! Mandatory CAPS and exclamation point. To disagree is to prove one's self a misogynist of the highest order. In this alternate reality the 30+ years of scandals just does not exist. Hillary did not webonize the IRS to go after her opponents. She never covered for Bill's various bimbo eruptions, because there were none. The White House was not looted of US treasure by Hillary and Bill. Hillary never used the FBI to investigate her enemies. She never firing everyone in the White House travel office as political payback to donors. Hillary absolutely never ever kept a private, unsecured email server on which she conducted Government business for the proposes of soliciting and collecting bribes for her foundation from foreign governments and individual.

Exhibit C: Man made global warming is not only very real but is also a very imminent threat to the world

Let us ignore for a moment that the entire global warming "issue" has been completely called into question by the release of the Mann emails that show there was a concerted and deliberate effort to silence and discredit dissenters as well as "massage" the data to get the outcome they wanted. Let us ignore for a moment that the climate models used to "show" how bad things will be in a dozen years can't even accurately and reliably predict what the weather will be in 60 or even 30 days. Let us simply look at those that are pushing man made global warming the most, say Al Gore. Does this "champion" of AGW live a pious life or does he instead live in a massive and energy hungry McMansion? If you answered B, you would be right! Though he has made some changes to improve the home's efficiency, he also recently purchased another home, a $8.875 million ocean view villa in Montecito, Calif. with a less than stellar energy record of its own. If the "greatest living protector of the planet" does not care enough about global warming to live in a energy efficient, 1600 square foot home, give up flying private jets all over the world, and get a Prius, why should anyone take it seriously?

I could go on but I think you can see where I am going with this. It indeed seems at times that we as a country are living in two distinct but overlapping realities, one of which looks to be drifting away from actual reality at a faster and faster pace. This will not end well...

At least one liberal gets it...

Trigger Warning: This video contains a LOT of truth and profanity...

More revelations about Hillary "what ever it takes" Clinton

Here are some "interesting" tidbits. These come from a meeting Hillary had back in 2006 when she was running for re-election in New York, audio at the link.

“I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake,” said Sen. Clinton. “And if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win.”

This certainly adds weight to the opinion [or fact] (reveled earlier though the Podesta email leaks) that Hillary, the DNC, and liberals have no qualms about "fixing" elections for the last 40 or so years, here or abroad.

Hillary is also all about the "moral equivalence" in that Hamas is just like Israel via this gem:

“And then, when, you know, Hamas, you know, sent the terrorists, you know, through the tunnel into Israel that killed and captured, you know, kidnapped the young Israeli soldier, you know, there’s a sense of like, one-upsmanship, and in these cultures of, you know, well, if they captured a soldier, we’ve got to capture a soldier.”

Yep. No difference between these two "cultures". One that is the most free and democratic in the entire ME and the other that sees nothing wrong with strapping bomb-vests onto women and children to kill innocent civilians, shows cartoons about killing Jews to their kids, and encourages kids to attack Jews with knives and rocks. They are exactly equivalent!

This woman should be in jail, not on the campaign trail.

P.S. Don't you think she looks tired?

MacGyver reboot

So the "media" has decided that they are all out of decent original show ideas, all out of crappy original show ideas, all out of reasonable relaunches/reboots of old successful shows and have started picking at the corpses of old, bad show ideas.

In this case, they are planning a relaunch of MacGyver. I will admit that I used to watch MacGyver in the late 80s and found it enjoyable, until it wasn't. It was [generally] about a fellow that used his imagination and innovative skills to "make do" with whatever was laying round, to fix stuff, break stuff, solve problems, save lives, etc.

Maybe I was naive about the show's under-currents either due to my youth or my "innocence". At the time it never struck me as overly political. I stopped watching the series before it ended and I stopped watching rather abruptly. I still remember "the" episode that caused me to stop. As was typical for each episode in that MacGyver found himself and a couple of others "in harms way" and having to protect themselves from "bad guys".

One of the key elements of that show, for me, at the time was how he used the "stuff" he found in efficient ways to accomplish goals. Use the best tools you have to do the best you can and think outside of the box.

Well in this particular episode, MacGyver, some man and [I believe] a woman were being chased by bad guys with guns. The three or four "bad guys" had automatic weapons. They were in an industrial area. MacGyver confronts one of the "thugs" and manages to subdue him. The other two or three are "right around the corner" and closing fast. So what does the savvy and skilled MacGyer do? He picks up the unconscious thug's fully functional and loaded automatic weapon which is good and expected. Does MaGyver then take up a defensive position with his associates in order to engage the on-coming attackers? No. Does he try to make a controlled escape using suppressive fire? No. MacGyver, the MacGyver of "make efficient use of your tools" fame takes a perfectly fine, perfectly functional self-defense weapon and uses it as a fire-hydrant wench in order to pressurize a fire hose with which to attach two or three heavily armed assailants.

Are you FRIGGEN KIDDING ME! I actually yelled something similar to that at the television when he did that.

Pause for a moment...

Let us explore the feasibility of this action, shall we? I do not recall the make/model of the weapons that the thugs were using but they were smallish automatic weapons. AK-47s or Uzis or some such. Typical Hollywood automatic-weapons. With all the general knowledge that MacGyver demonstrated in every episode, he should have been familiar with the operation and characteristics [in general] of automatic weapons, even if only from a theoretical perspective. He should have known that the receiver of an automatic weapon is not so much of a high strength area such that the receiver could actually be used as a hydrant wrench. The main purpose of the receiver is to serve as control surfaces for and containment of the carrier/bolt group. The pressure from firing bullets is absorbed by the bolt face and the breach of the barrel. The bolt face has some number of "lugs" that lock into the breach face creating a high pressure container with only one [forward] exit. As a round is fired, hot gases propel the bullet down the barrel where some of the gas is vented rearward through a gas tube, providing thrust used to push the bolt rearward, causing the bolt-face to unlock from the breach, travel rearward, pull out the empty brass shell, and eject it, pick up a new round [if available], load it into the breach, and lock-up the bolt face into the breach so that the next round can be fired. Truth be told not all automatic weapons work this exact way but the general process is the same. The bolt face takes the brunt of the rearward pressure of fired rounds and the receiver helps hold it all together. Point being the receiver is a hollow metal box with at least one opening on the side (for spent shells to exit). It is generally not very thick or heavy. Not made of the "best" materials and it is laughable that an AK-47 or Usi or any other generally available automatic weapon receiver could be used as a hydrant wrench. To even suggest doing such a thing to anyone that is at all familiar with these items would result in ridicule. Typical wrenches are solid metal claws that securely fit the nuts they are sized for. Hydrant nuts are big, solid items that snugly fit on top of hydrants and are used to control valves for releasing high pressure water.

For a moment, let us ignore all of that and assume that these are "special" automatic weapons with especially strong and hard receivers that could, in a pinch be used as a hydrant wrench. To do that to a fully functional weapon as the first option, no hesitation, is simply ludicrous. As a fall-back option, after all of the bullets have been used, maybe. As your initial go to? Insane.

As expected, the misuse of the automatic weapon worked out for MacGyver and the fire hose subdued the remaining thugs. He "saved the day" and lost another viewer permanently due to his blatant political pandering.

I suspect that the reboot will be even more anti-gun with a great big extra helping of global warming clap-trap thrown in for good measure. I make this assessment based on the evolution of Hollywood since the late 80s to today. Thank you but no. I think I will pass...

P.S. As one of the commentators here at this actual (sort of) review of one of the initial episodes, mentions another show called Burn Notice, I really, really liked that show. For an industry that can produce Burn Notice or Elementary or even FireFly, why or why do you end those shows and produce crap like this?

Its all about ME!!!!!!!

This is absolutely ridiculous! At Mizzou, (yes the Mizzou that was in the news for the "Click" incident) during a "vigil" for the people murdered in the Orlando club, some BLM folks "take over" the event and wind up making it all about "THEM" cause it is always about THEM.

Disgusting. Watch:



Oh, and don't you love her "inclusive" opening comments about being nervous to be on the stage due to all of the "white people" in attendance. I suppose if I went on stage at a multi-ethnic gathering and planned to "hijack" the event for my own politics, I might be nervous too.

The Pajama Boy White House in a Pajama Boy World

The Pajama Boy in Chief surrounded by his Pajama Boy minions...

What exactly has birthed the Pajama Boy aristocracy — our overclass of pretentious, inexperienced, and smug 30-something masters of the universe?

Who hires and promotes Pajama Boys? Why, of course, Barack Obama, the Pajama Boy in Chief.

For the Pajama Boys, rhetoric is everything, reality nothing. Fooling the lower middle classes is the stuff of sarcastic comedy...

Read the whole thing, it is worth it...

More of the tolerant left [we keep hearing about], this time going after a Trump supporter

Here is some raw footage of a Trump supporter trying to get to a Trump rally.

This is the left's idea of a peaceful protest against those that have differing opinion. This is how they allow democracy to play out in society. This is what we can expect more and more of as they are rewarded for this type of behavior by not being punished for it. Notice how the police do not help the man until after he makes it all the way through the crowd. After having been pushed, hit, tripped, etc. Instead of pushing back the crowd and helping him, they make him climb over a hedge.

More of the tolerant left we keep hearing so much about.

Do they ever show any of this on the nightly news? I am not a "Trump" man but these sorts of actions could turn me into one...

UPDATE: More can be read/seen here.

You are more likely to be raped in college than in prison, says government...

White House states that 8.5 percent of female inmates and 3.7 percent of male inmates experience sexual assault while in prison.

The White House also states that women have a 1 in 4 chance of being raped in college (rape culture and all).

This would mean that men are twice as likely and women nearly three times as likely to be raped on a college campus as they are in prison.

Based on this information:

a) Why would any parent send their children to college? Would this not be considered child abuse in any rational society?

b) Why are colleges still permitted to NOT involve police in every single allegation of rape? If this many rapes are taking place on our colleges, this is a massive crisis that should be addressed NOW by police.

The reality is no one actually believes these college rape stats. Everyone knows they are extremely overblown but they make it sound like there is a problem all the while the folks involved do their nod/nod/wink/wink while they profess what a "crisis" this is. Hire more administrators, setup more kangaroo courts, step on more individual rights, and hold more "education" events. All the while spending less time, money, and energy actually educating students in topics and subjects that they will need after they get out of school.

The country is SO screwed...

If this is the new "standard" college student, this country is SO screwed. Expatriation looks better and better every day...

More info at the link.

The incredible case of Bruce Jenner

The case of Bruce Jenner is indeed incredible and I believe deserves some discussion. Bruce has opined in public that though he was born a male, he "feels" that he is really a female trapped in a male body. To address this disconnect between his feelings and his reality, Bruce has decided that despite all appearances to the contrary and despite what genetics might say, Bruce "knows" he is female and from now on, will be female. To this end, Bruce will take on all physical trappings of being female (or at least his vision of what a true female is - because as we all have been repeatedly told [and for which there is much truth] there is no true female standard, that women come in all shapes, sizes, and behaviors and the one and only metric that you can (could have) use to categorize someone as male or female is genetics - until now that is).

So what we really have here is a person that though they have male genes and plumbing, has decided to appear as female. If this was the extent of it, OK, fine. As an adult in America, you [at least as far as I am concerned and as far as I believe] should be free to do as you please as long as it does not infringe upon my rights to do the same. If you want to dress as a woman and act as a woman, have at it. Where this migrates from simple tolerance and possibly indulgence into infringement is when Bruce and many in society say that it is not enough that I accept that Bruce wants to be treated as a woman and that Bruce wants to appear as a woman. I must now accept a lie, i.e. that Bruce IS a woman. I must now incorporate this new truth into my being and treat this falseness as actual reality. If I chose instead of acceptance, to point out that a) Bruce was born a man, b) Bruce married a woman, c) Bruce procreated (the guy way), and d) Bruce has indicated (subject to change) that even though he is going to dress as women generally dresses and act as women generally acts, he will NOT exchange his natural, original male plumbing for a surgical construction of female plumbing. It is not as if Bruce lacks the resources to take this step of physical alteration, it is instead that he lacks the desire. That final point should be enough to lay waste to his claims.

To take this in another but related direction, let us say instead of Bruce announcing that he is now a woman, let us pose a hypothetical and Bruce announces that he has always been a Pitbull. Bruce FEELS that he has been a Pitbull for his entire life and will now live as a Pitbull. Bruce will stop wearing cloth and will be naked all the time. Bruce will get around on all fours. Bruce will eat and drink out of bowls on the floor. Bruce will relieve himself on the front lawn as a Pitbull does and will urinate on fire hydrants. Bruce will wear a collar, get walked, and demands to be issues a valid dog license from the city. As a dog, Bruce will mostly stop communicating in human speech and will mostly bark and growl. From now on Bruce will be known as Fido.

If this were to come to pass, would the media and society be lining up to celebrate the wonder that is Bruce [now Fido]? Or instead would there be a call for society to get this individual the help he is "owed"? Would we be admonished to play into his fantasy or to rally to his aid? Why is the response to this situation not appropriate to the reality that is Bruce?

Again, the issue is not that Bruce is now a transvestite. There are many, many people that like to dress and act as the opposite sex. As adults, they are free to indulge themselves in any way that they wish as long is it does not impact me and my rights. The issue here is that what we are being told to do is way beyond mere live and let live. This is into the realm of "all must accept my personal worldview as FACT and any dissension is heresy!" territory.

A somewhat similar case was in the news just this week. A boy that is now a high school senior has been dressing and acting as a girl for some time. The school (for the most part) has been accepting of this situation and the staff even arranged for this student to use their [faculty] unisex facilities in order to accommodate the student's situation. This year, this same student announced that this is no longer enough! This boy now demands that he be able to use the girl's locker room in order to get ready for and clean up after gym class. Everyone else be damned and any girls that find this situation concerning and objectionable are just bigots and should shut up and suck it up. The fact that many of these 16 and 17 year old girls are uncomfortable with a boy changing and showering in their locker room is of no consequence in this "brave new world". All must accept this boy's personal truth [that he is a she] as a natural fact and must act accordingly despite the penis between his legs.

Should this sort of situation simply be accepted as a new truth, a new fact or are we still grounded enough in actual reality to say no. No, your personal world view is NOT my fact. No, calling yourself a woman, or a dog, or a chair does not make it so. Not all reality is subjective and we will continue to indulge you but ONLY so far as indulging your whim doesn't impact my rights, my reality, and my safety.

Awful places to work...

I found this story via Instapundit and all I can say is it constantly astounds me how the NYT can stay in business if this is the quality of their "journalism".

I have since seen some "snippets" on the TV news as well. All of these stories seem to be going on and on about how AWFUL it is to work at Amazon.

What NONE of these stories seems to be discussing is that in America, you are actually free to leave a job if you don't like it. Yes! You can leave! Really! You are NOT physically chained to your desk! If the conditions at the place you currently work are so horrible and awful and degrading, you can actually quit!

The people that CHOOSE to work at Amazon do so for a combination of reasons, such as:

1. The pay may be REALLY, REALLY good compared to what they could get somewhere else.
2. The prestige associated with being able to say that yes, you work for Amazon.
3. The job may be closer to their home than other options.
4. The benefits may be better than what they could get elsewhere.
5. The experience they are gaining may be more valuable in the future and better for their career.
6. Lots more stuff that no one knows except for each individual person working there.

The point is, these people have CHOSEN to work there, They are not KEPT there. You know, free will and all that.

The other thing conspicuously missing from any of this coverage is (and let us say for arguments sake that they are "trapped" in these awful jobs) why? Why are they "stuck" there if it is so bad? Could it be that the economy [for the last 6 years] has been in the crapper? That more people have just dropped out of the work force due to an inability to locate a job than people have found jobs? That is the super big, super secret mystery! Why oh why are people taking jobs and keeping jobs they don't like? Maybe it could possibly be because the Obama economy has done just about anything and everything it can to crush job creation and drive up the cost of each job to the point that far fewer are being made available than could be?

Nah, that can't possibly be it cause if it was, the crack "journalists" in the MSM would be all over it just like they could not get enough of how awful the economy was, awful gas prices were, awful savings interest was, how stagnant wages were, when a Republican was in the White House (even when it wasn't so)...

City of Huntington Park, CA adds two illegal immigrants to its city commissions

Doing jobs that Americans won't do?

In addition to allowing illegal immigrants access to driver’s licenses and the state’s Obamacare exchange, now Huntington Park has given them an opportunity to actually govern legal American citizens.

These appointments, made by Councilman Jhonny Pineda, were achieved by getting around federal requirements for citizenship, as the young men are serving voluntarily and are not receiving any pay. However, not all Huntington Park residents are embracing the appointments.

Wow, just wow...

What an amazing group of IDIOTS!

What an immense amount of ignorance and naivety! These people have no idea what is in the Iranian agreement because much of it is secret! The latest public facts make it clear that inspectors will have no ability to inspect. If the inspectors can't inspect, how is Iran prevented from developing an atomic bomb? Hint, they aren't!

Typical lefty crap from Hollywood lefties!

If you want to see how big the idiocy in Hollywood has become (well actually always was), watch as much of this as you can stand:

I don't know which would be worst; if everyone involved in this video actually believes it or if they actually don't but would prefer Iran with a bomb than America doing what it takes to prevent it. Neither answer is good.

P.S. Oh and that crap at the end about "love their children too". It was crap when Sting did it about Russia and it is crap now about Iran. It is actually worst about Iran. The Russian people did and do love their children but the folks in charge of Russia at that time thought that they had a real chance to best America and as long as they and their own children survived, all is good. In the case of Iran, they actually believe that dying in the service of killing infidels (us) is a "very good thing" and it would actually make them martyrs so using that line in connection with Iran is extra, double stupid and shows how little of the world these clowns actually know.

The Current Higher Ed "War on Women" or "How to protect your daughters"

If you follow the news at all lately, you must have heard about the epidemic of "campus sexual assaults" and that various groups [to include the White House] have been throwing around the figure / phrase that "one in 5 women will be sexually assaulted while in collage".

This number is based on some very shoddy statistical analysis of some very shoddy polling data that includes questions like "have you ever had a physical encounter that you later regretted". Answering yes to that question counts as a "sexual assault".

No one actually believes this figure because if people did believe it, it would be a crime to send your daughter to collage. If it became known that sending your daughter to dance class meant that over a 4 year period, she had a 20% change of being sexually assaulted, Does anyone doubt that DCF would be at the door of every parent that sent their daughter to dance class investigating them for neglect and for placing a child in a dangerous situation? No but that does not happen when you send your child to collage because NO ONE takes this figure seriously but it is a great talking point for ideological reasons.

This nonsense is wrong for at least three reasons.

First when you redefine something to be so broad that nearly anything qualifies, you have cheapened it for when it really matters. If anything is sexual assault and you have to take every incident seriously, many victims of actual sexual assault (i.e. rape) do not get the attention they deserve because you can't devote as much attention to each case. They get lost in the deluge.

The second major issue is that it allows groups to enact ever more ridiculous and restricting rules so that they can say that they take the problem seriously and "are doing something". For the most part, the rules don't actually address the core problem but since you have expanded the definition to include many more trivial incidents, you get to make your rules to address those, which is far easier.

Thirdly, when you do fail to solve the underlying problem and prevent sexual assaults, you get to claim that the problem is just too big to solve. You get "How can we be expected to solve a problem that affects 1 in 5? We reduced it by 15%! It is a start but we can and will need to do more!" Which will result in ever more ridiculous rules that will actually solve nothing.

I think that the way to put a stop to this nonsense is to go "full Alinsky" on collages and make them act like this problem is as prevalent and they claim.

I propose that the following actions be taken:

• If you enrolled your daughter in collage and you were not informed that she has a 1 in 5 chance of being sexually assaulted, sue them for failure to disclose a dangerous situation before accepting your money.

• If you have been sexually assaulted (male or female), sue them for failure to protect you from a dangerous situation that they were aware of.

• If you have been sexually assaulted, are of age and you have a CCW (concealed carry), and are not permitted to carry on campus, sue them for failure to protect you from a dangerous situation that they were aware of AND denying you the right to protect yourself.

• If you have not been sexually assaulted (male or female), sue them for emotional distress due to the fear you feel whenever you are on campus.

• Sue them to force them to create:
• Women only dorms (not floors but entire dorms) that forbid men entry.
• Men only dorms (not floors but entire dorms) that forbid female entry.
• Lesbian only dorms (not floors but entire dorms) that forbid non-lesbians entry.
• Homosexual only dorms (not floors but entire dorms) that forbid non-homosexual entry.
• Transgender only dorms (not floors but entire dorms) that forbid entry to non-transgenders.

This is because everyone has the right to feel safe and secure in their quarters and this would be the only way to ensure that.

• Require that all faculty and staff are barred from having any non-professional contact with students. Inappropriate contact (non-professional) is grounds for immediate dismissal. Same burden of proof as that used in student to student abdication.

• Require the installation and monitoring of all common areas by 24 / 7 surveillance cameras, campus wide with a 4 year retention policy.

• Require a level of security staffing commensurate with the problem. A 4 to 5 times increase in security staffing should do for a start.

• Require that any and all underage drinking result in immediate expulsion for all parties involved (as alcohol is a major contributing factor to sexual assault on campus). If they don't have these rules in place and/or don't uniformly apply them, sue them.

• Why not also sue to require all faculty and staff be required to wear body cameras whenever they are on campus?

• Sue them, sue them and finally, sue them. Hit them in the endowment. Imagine the impact on the economy if a large number of collage age women were to come into a few million each. That would be a stimulus!

It appears that something like this, to actually hit them hard in the wallet (hard enough to make them squeal) is the only way to stop this insanity. If this is done to a few of the larger collages (with their big, sweet endowments) others will take notice. Others will start to denounce those figures and their silly kangaroo courts and ridiculous rules OR they will go out of business.

This "joke" ad is actually more on target then they think. If I were an online collage, I would seriously think about making a serious and more subtle version of this ad.

There have to be a few lawyers out there that can see what a solid business opportunity this is! Collages, by their own admission, see a problem, have not informed their clients of this problem, have failed to take reasonable and appropriate measures to address this problem AND have boat loads of cash!

Go get them!