Bozo the Freedom Symbol

On Saturday evening a rodeo clown wearing a Barack Obama gag mask roused the Missouri State Fair rodeo crowd---and (eventually) riled the media.

Here is the Kansas City Star account of the event and the subsequent fallout.

Let's examine the article:

The Facebook writer said he had taken a Taiwanese student to the rodeo Saturday night in Sedalia.

Every story I’ve seen about this articulates how the “whistleblower” took a Taiwanese student to the event, but no story seems to elaborate why that matters.  Perhaps the publisher (of the Facebook posting that “broke” the story) was dismayed that a foreign youth had to witness this spectacle, which has been criticized by many.  After all, according to MO Senator Claire McCaskill:

“[Y]oung Missourians who witnessed this stunt learned exactly the wrong lesson about political discourse—that somehow it’s ever acceptable to, in a public event, disrespect, taunt and joke about harming the president of our great nation.”

Though not a Missourian, the young Taiwanese student witnessed something amazing about our great nation indeed: free speech.  Those from Taiwan likely have unique potential to appreciate our free speech rights, after all.  So while it may not have been in the best taste, this rodeo bit hardly seems harmful.

In a statement from Lake Ozark, Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill called it shameful and unacceptable. She noted that the fair receives taxpayer dollars and is supposed to be a place to celebrate the state.

From the article [as well as the sound byte that played all over media outlets on Monday], the audience cheered and laughed in response to the clown and the announcer’s play-by-play.  In other words, they seemed to be celebrating their tax dollars adequately.

Okay, so ALL taxpayers should have the right to enjoy the event.  I get it.  But let me take you back to 2004, regarding now-defunct (and Democratic National Committee-funded, in part) Air America.

The Randi Rhodes Show played a mock movie trailer jokingly presenting an assassination of then president George W. Bush.  Following the bit, Randi told her audience that she didn’t understand why the Bush family could not treat 43 like the Corleone family (Godfather novels/movies) treated Fredo –a reference to taking him “fishing” only to assassinate him and dump his body.

Where was the outcry?  (Don’t lose sleep looking for it.)

The bottom line is that these reactions, once again, reveal a liberal double standard.  So long as the joke goes against Barack Obama, it must be racist, hate-filled, unacceptable.  So long as it mocks George W. Bush (or conservatives), it is satire, parody, justifiable. 

(Game of Thrones, anyone?)

I hope the hosts of the aforementioned Taiwanese girl take the time to explain to her that, while perhaps in poor taste, Bozo the President was the perfect example of why the United States are the Land of the Free.

No Justice, No Peace, No Burgers and Fries!

Here are some highlights from the April 4, 2013 New York Times (NYT) story about fast-food worker protests in New York, which have made headlines again this past week:

Ms. Verges said that her $7.25 hourly wage had not increased since she began working for Burger King four years ago, and that though she had asked for a raise, "They always give me the same excuse---that they're not making enough money."

(1) Are we supposed to presume that "[t]hey" are lying? Over that same four-year span, Burger King famously fell to third among fast-food restaurants in the US.

(2) Four years ago, businesses already were aware of (at least) likely costs of Obamacare, and measures necessary to either withstand its implementation, or how to best work around it. Cutbacks, layoffs, limited hours, and lack of pay raises are all legitimate consequences.

Thursday's strike, sponsored by a labor-community coalition that calls itself Fast Food Forward, seeks to press the city's fast-food restaurants to pay their employees $15 an hour.

That is ridiculous. First, $15/hour is double the current minimum wage rate in NY; whether or not one believes the current rate is too low, assuming that automatically doubling the rate in one fell swoop is feasible---is both reckless and foolish. Perhaps it is just a bargaining ploy, but wait:

The current minimum wage in New York State is $7.25, though lawmakers agreed last month to raise it to $9 by 2016.

So that's already not good enough? The guaranteed raise hasn't even been implemented yet!

Many workers say they can barely get by on the $7.25, $8 or $9 an hour that many receive; $9 an hour translates to around $18,000 a year for a full-time worker.

(1) Clarify "many."

(2) So one reasonably could conclude that the cost of living has increased over the past few years---at least for "many" people, even those with low/middle-class incomes?

(3) Is that before or after taxes?

(4) Why is the exorbitant cost of living in the state of New York not part of this story?

"What happened in November was a very big thing in terms of seeing whether workers were ready and able to go out and strike and take risks in a way that has not happened in the fast-food industry before," said Jonathan Westin, executive director of New York Communities for Change, one of the main sponsors of the job action.

(1) That doesn't legitimize/justify the protests inherently.

(2) It isn't as big a "risk" to take when "many" prominent politicians and government officials foster a victimization/grievance culture.

"We believe that it's a continuation of a civil rights fight against low wages and for Martin Luther King's movement to win dignity and living-wage jobs," Mr. Westin said.

I cannot believe racism has been injected into this story. (That was sarcasm.)

Attaching MLK's name and ideals to this story must justify the thinking/actions behind protesters and their organizers. (That was more sarcasm.)

[O]ne big change since the November strike was that more than 100 members of the clergy had joined the push to raise wages for the city's 50,000 fast-food workers.

Wow, that will appeal to church-goers, "many" of whom are conservative, to show that even conservatives should get behind this initiative! (Silly NYT, tricks are for kids.)

The strikers' main message is that they want to be paid $15 an hour, although some workers are also saying that they are eager to unionize.

(1) I agree that such is the main message indeed (as opposed to sham civil rights analogies). Kudos to the NYT on that one (albeit buried) point.

(2) How much will be removed from each paycheck for union dues?

"I'm behind on paying my cable and Con Ed bills," said Ms. Verges, whose Burger King is at 141st Street and Broadway. "I don't think $15 an hour is asking too much. I do it all. I do three or four jobs. I take orders, I make the orders. I work the cash register. I say, "Have a good day." I do the inventory. I take out the trash. I get down and scrub the floor. I don't think $7.25 is nearly enough."

(1) I'm sure Ms. Verges is a hard worker, but it is easy to emotionally overestimate one's value to any endeavor.

(2) When Ms. Verges claims to "do three or four jobs" --- she's referring to one job that requires several different skills/tasks. By this rationale, everyone "do[es] three or four jobs" at work. For example, custodians sweep floors, clean tables, and empty trash bins; doctors listen to patients, prescribe medication, maybe perform surgery; actors sometimes eat, blink, and talk on camera (at times simultaneously). Raises for everyone!

(3) Saying, "Have a good day" is worthy of a raise?

Miguel Piedra, a Burger King spokesman, said the company's restaurants "offer compensation and benefits that are consistent with the quick-service restaurant industry."

Ahhh, so it's the entire "quick-service restaurant industry" that's racist. Get Mr. Holder on the phone.

(Note: Ignore the Burger King spokesperson's name, which sounds like it could represent a minority citizen, not that I'm profiling.)

In sum, beggars can't be choosers. Nowhere in this article does it say who's pointing a gun at any of these workers' heads, demanding them to work where they do.

And if these workers/protestors cannot live within their means, perhaps some of the blame should go to (aside from themselves) politicians/government officials who force the cost of living to be so high (in part) by punishing profitability of private industry.

Why Is Al Sharpton So Quiet?

I recently posted the following commentary on a debate web site, in response to the events seen in the video link below:

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/youtube_fight_at_russ_carnahan_town_hall_event_raw/

For those who cannot view the link, it shows the brawl outside the Russ Carnahan town hall event last week, in Missouri, where a black conservative protester was verbally and physically assaulted (and battered) by Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members on scene.

While I agree that the president shouldn't personally be blamed for this isolated attack (that would be completely unfair), there is an issue that deserves more attention here.

President Obama is part of the Democratic Party, which fosters class warfare and race-baiting in order to win elections and monopolize votes (like many leftists accuse Republicans of doing with religious voters).

How does it work? Keep people assured that you'll (DNC) help them, and that others (GOP) don't care about them, and that they (victims/voters) cannot make it in this world without your help---because, after all, they're helpless, abused victims without your aid and oversight.

I've been convinced for years now that black conservatives face the worst kind of racism in this country today: intra-racism. Not only do they have to deal with common racism from non-blacks, but they also face widespread, manufactured alienation from their own culture.

This is fostered by a peddled Democratic Party mantra declaring that only their party truly represents black culture, and that blacks are oppressed without their assistance/intervention. Worst of all, this platform implicitly persuades minority supporters to feel "betrayed" by members of the same race who oppose that notion, and who support smaller government and merit-based achievement without excuses or abuses.

All this does is create a cycle of dependency, which essentially maintains the status quo and continually gives the DNC opportunity to keep having power over people who believe in their own powerlessness.

Do I blame all Democrats for this? No.

Do I believe all Democrats are like this? No.

Do I believe that all/most minority, Democratic voters are incapable of thinking for themselves enough avoid brainwashing? No.

But do I truly believe this problem exists, and that it is almost completely overshadowed by the same, recycled stories of racism that foster an "us-against-them" culture amongst many DNC constituents? Yes.

I'll post a link to another debate site (my first debate there, back when it was somewhat decent and uncorrupted), where I spoke on this issue. I no longer participate on this site, but it sums up my analysis. (The site had word limits for debate rounds, too, keep in mind.)

http://www.elephant-donkey.com...

Again, I don't hate Democrats, or all liberals (maybe "hate" is too strong a word even against some liberals). After all, I used to be one. And that experience helped me see this problem for what it really is, and it's partly why I became a political conservative as I got older.

And lastly, where is Al Sharpton on this matter? Jesse Jackson? Henry "Skip" Gates?

Did they not see that three of the SEIU members were white, and that the assaulted man was black?

Could it be that "racial activists" like Al Sharpton are conditional---and thus, part of the real problem---when it comes to legitimate race issues?

Yes.

Martin Luther King, Jr., famously once said, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God, Almighty, we are free at last!" regarding blacks in America; yet with today's conditional racial equality when it comes to black conservatives, I'm reminded more of British author George Orwell's famous passage:

"All . . . are equal, but some . . . are more equal than others."

Robots and Racism

I'm dusting off 16 months of inactivity here, so bear with me....

Since the last blog, many news-worthy events have taken place:

Tim Russert, who is mentioned/cited many times throughout this blog, passed away in June 2008; Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) was elected president in November 2008; Sarah Palin, 2008 GOP VP nominee, just resigned as Governor of Alaska; and the country is still going through the worst economic uppercut since the Great Depression (although the NYSE is, at least, back over 9,000).

Here are two articles to read as per another recent news story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090723/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_harvard_scholar

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8168313.stm


Here is my response to the situation, particularly to the second article (BBC) posted above. I originally posted these as comments on another web site.

Some observations in response to the BBC article:

1 - It's amusing how the "calibrat[ion]" comments haven't made much news, unlike the "stupid" comments. Granted, one was during a live national audience, and one was not; that said, where is the news coverage on this?


2 - Why is it that the BBC has to be the easiest source to find about this? Why not any American press? Hmmmm....


3 - Perhaps it's because the president didn't actually say anything of value here! Here's the direct quotation, as per the BBC News article:

"Because this has been ratcheting up and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up, I wanted to make clear in my choice of words I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt Crowley specifically," Mr Obama said.

"I could have calibrated those words differently," he added.

What does that first paragraph even mean? What was "ratchet[ed]" up? Doesn't that expression usually refer to something being FIXED, and not further complicated/damaged? Maybe he was regarding his phone call to the officer? I don't know.


4 - And really --- I could have calibrated those words differently ? Is the president a cyborg? Obama Five is alive! (Fellow children of the 1980s will likely get that movie reference.) Did reporters next ask the president if John Connors was safe from harm?

All kidding aside, is that really supposed to be an apology? If I shoot someone dead, then say the next day that I probably should have used a water gun instead of a semi-automatic firearm, should the victim's family accept that as compunction/recompense?

Sorry, Mr. President, but your "apology" DOES NOT COMPUTE.


5 - "...I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sgt Crowley specifically."

Well, decide for yourself. These were Obama's exact words from Wednesday night:

"This still haunts us. Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof he was in own home. What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact."
(source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090723/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_harvard_scholar)

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, when asked if the president wished to revise those comments, said this on Thursday:

"Let me be clear. [President Obama] was not calling the officers stupid, okay? He was ensuring – I think, again, denoting that at a certain point the situation got far out of hand, and I think all sides understand that."
(source: http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/07/24/does-obama-regret-saying-the-police-acted-stupidly-nope/)

So he wasn't calling the officer stupid, just racist? Or, more like it, he wasn't apologizing at all.

Sure, the president allegedly had a conversation with the officer, and even said some kind things about the man, after the fact. But what's still missing is a public apology.

I understand it must be difficult for a president to do this publicly (when not for political gain/posturing/pandering; e.g., like "apologizing" for slavery through Congress, though not in the form of legislation). But what separates this incident is that Obama did indeed directly antagonize specific individuals (the Cambridge PD, particularly those involved with the Gates arrest) publicly—before the appropriate facts were even released.

He knowingly and willingly---and publicly---damaged the character of specific individuals without merit. This, I believe, merits a public apology.

If he felt it appropriate to slander them before the press, he should have the backbone to apologize in similar fashion. Even if he had said he "should have calibrated" his words, instead of just that he "could have"—that would have been basic acknowledgment.

To me, this sounds like another classic case of "I'm not sorry, I'm just sorry I got caught."

Obama, the humanity!

The most recent crisis facing Barack Obama centers on his longtime/former pastor of Trinity United Church in Illinois, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr.

The man who married Barry Dunham and his wife, and who baptized their children, was recently caught on tape blaming America for 9/11; condemning America for supporting Israel; and (my personal favorite) that the American government created/invented Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) just to punish "people of color."

Wright had been Obama's pastor for approximately twenty years.  Recently, the presidential candidate went on record to say that his former pastor was not overly controversial.

Just last month, Michelle Obama told a crowd of her husband's supporters that "for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country...[because] America is downright mean."  These words struck a nerve in many Americans at the time.

However, after hearing typical sermons and messages from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, one can hardly blame her for feeling disgraced by the United States.  When one is brainwashed week after week from a trusted authority, she is liable to make occasional ignorant statements.

Barack Obama today released two statements, including a Live interview with Fox News within the past hour.

Reporter Major Garrett, of Fox News Channel, asked the presidential candidate if he would have quit the controversial church had he attended any of the sermons where Pastor Wright was documented making inflamatory remarks.  After some hemming and hawing, Obama finally answered, "Had he continued to make [such statements], yes, I would have quit."

Obama's first statement from earlier today was even less direct.

"I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies," said Obama.

If that is true, how long before a reporter asks if he now denounces his wife's comments from last month?

Or even more important, how long before Hillary Clinton and John McCain are asked whether or not they support thegovernment's manufacturing of AIDS for minorities?

In all seriousness, this is a big issue for Obama because he's now balancing on thin ice with not only white voters who have so far supported his campaign in droves during primary season; Obama is also walking on thin ice with the portion of the black community that agrees wholeheartedly with Reverend Wright.

Obama cannot afford to let Hillary Clinton take some of Obama's disaffected black electorate.  And Hillary cannot afford to get too involved in this controversy, either.  She needs to play the high road--but then again, that's never been a Clintonian staple.

The juciest irony of this whole situation is that Rev. Wright's documented sermons basically validate Geraldine Ferraro's recent controversial statement that Obama is a leading candidate because he is black.  After all, Reverend Wright endorsed Obama from the pulpit by repeatedly and deliberately pointing out Barack's black experience.

He just conveniently left out the fact that Obama was raised by a white woman named "mom."

Lord, hear our prayer.

Hillary-ous!

It's 2008... do you know what your Democratic presidential candidates are doing?

First of all, watching the Clinton campaign fight tooth and nail for the nomination has been incredibly amusing.  What's even more amusing is imagining Hillary losing most states; popular votes; polls; and delegates--yet still becoming the nominee. 

That won't cause any riots!

Another fiasco is Florida and Michigan.  Leave it to the Democratic Party to find a way to pussyfoot around the rules to which they themselves agreed.  That Clinton even brags about winning the Michigan primary, a ballot on which she was the only nominee, is a joke.  (But a funny one.)

Equally hilarious is the Clinton campaign's justification for having new elections in FL and MI simply because Hillary won the battleground states like TX, OH, MI, FL, and other big electoral college states like NY and CA.

The major flaw of that thinking, of course, is that those "victories" (FL and MI aside), came against another Democrat.  Implying, as Governor (PA) Ed Rendell did this past week on "Meet the Press," that Clinton is a better candidate because she carried the big states in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES--is laughable.

Unless the Clinton camp says they're implying that McCain isn't very conservative, this strategy makes little sense.  But to say McCain isn't conservative doesn't make much sense, either; plus, it would contradict her other mantra, which is that McCain is just another George W. Bush.

How well a candidate does in a primary is not exactly indicative of how the candidate will do in that same state come general election -- especially when many voters throw their votes during primaries, as was the case in OH and TX recently, where many GOP voters voted for Hillary, just to keep the Dem candidates bloodthirsty for a few more months.

Lastly, another great irony is how Hillary Clinton said Barack Obama would make a great VP candidate -- despite all of the negative things she has to say about him not being ready to serve "on day one."

Apparently, if he'd have to take over as president, it'd at least be on day two.

Keep up the good work!  I'll get the popcorn.

 

Harry Potter and the Misplaced Political Agenda

Author J.K. Rowling recently stated that a primary character from her popular Harry Potter series, Albus Dumbledore, was gay.

Uh, no.

When I finished reading the series, Dumbledore was not gay.  When I read the series again, he will not be gay.  Homosexuality was never a central storyline, plot point, main idea, tone, or anything of the novels--let alone anything involving a central character.

It is tacky to create a groundbreaking literary series, like Rowling did, then to go back after they're finished and essentially say, "Oh, by the way, this is an important point I left out of the books...." 

If it was important, it should have been in the stories themselves.  What Rowling did was bleed her own emotional politics into her work post-facto, which was not only tasteless, but damaging to potential fans and readers across the world.

Forever.

Now there will be scores of children (and adults) who won't read the books because one of the characters is allegedly gay.  There will be many parents who won't permit their children to read the series because of its new (and ridiculous) ties to homosexuality.

Rowling and supporters may argue that this hype is good because it teaches tolerance; but they would completely miss the point: If people won't read the books now, because of its new homosexual undertones, they won't learn the alleged lessons of tolerance espoused within the pages.

DUH-UHHH!

Having read the series, I can attest to the fact that tolerance is an issue throughout--but on a reasonable, non-ideological basis.  The general concepts of tolerance, open-mindedness, and consideration for others, are decent morals and lessons promoted through various actions in the stories.

However, this newly tacked-on, forced, desperate attempt to be more tolerant (I guess) was unnecessary in order to teach the values of behaving and thinking respectfully toward others.

Perhaps Rowling's intentions were good, but her idea for expressing those intentions was horrible.

Again, it is absurd that Rowling retroactively changed a key character because it now associates the series with the issue of homosexuality, which has NOTHING to do with any of the stories in the series.  She has thus alienated a potential audience and used "tolerance" as the shield from attacks. 

Her books have enough about tolerance already.  She didn't have to desperately reach back and change characters to say, "Now I'm more tolerant."

Where will it stop?  Who's next to change?

Perhaps Harry actually had a drug addiction, and he secretly entered a rehabilitation program that cured his "illness" rather than just keeping him behind bars for years.

Maybe Hermione Granger became a prostitute to help feed her secret illegitimate children, before she adopted orphans from Africa and Asia who were dying of AIDS and SARS, respectively.  Thanks to compassion from society and tolerance for her "life choices" she was able to get back on the straight and narrow and marry Ron, have two legitimate children, and live happily ever after. 

(Then she cured her babies and, in her spare time, fixed New Orleans's levee system.)

It's possible that Ron Weasley headed the U.N. and stopped feuding in Darfur, Sudan, and ended AIDS with a magic spell.  After that, he single-handedly paid African Reparations for America's history of slavery and allowed marijuana use for all citizens because, hey man, it's the earth. 

(Then he did something that Africa actually needs, and helped limit the spread of malaria, a much larger epidemic than AIDS in that continent.)

Or maybe Draco Malfoy actually headed a rock band that led the revolution to control global warmng--by ingeniously holding concerts around the world that consumed tons of energy and required thousands of people to loiter and litter on grass fields and stadiums in support for the clean earth movement.

Finally, perhaps Professor McGonegal, the new Hogwarts Headmistress, banned organized religion and any association and reference thereof, except for Islam, because it was too often misunderstood as not being peaceful.  No more Christmas trees, references to God, Christian symbols.  No more yamicas for Jewish wizards, either.

All in the name of tolerance.

(Except tolerance for the intolerant, of course.)

Long story short, I have nothing personal against homosexuals in general; and neither tolerance nor prejudice toward homosexuality is the basis for my opinion.

I know the series was Rowling's creation, and she's allowed to say what she wants about it.  But it's not that she shouldn't be allowed to say things like "Dumbledore was gay" -- it's that she shouldn't say it.  In the best interest of her fans and potential future fans, it's desperate and alienating.  She should write another book about gay people if there's a related message she wants to deliver.

And for those who think I'm just a bigoted, closed-minded individual--first, get a clue.  Second, I promise not to change anyone else's histories or private lives either, when I again read the series.

For example, I won't pretend that the evil wizards with whom Harry, as an auror, combats are all radical Islamo-Facists.  Nor will I have Hermione grow up to run a corporate empire that benefits the economy AND employs elves.

But did I mention they'd be homosexual, migrant-worker elves from Darfur?