Saturday, May 20, 2017

Why My Friend is Wrong

Recently, a friend, who also reads the blog, asked why I have not been discussing the big issues of the day. Issues such as "Korea, Yates, Flynn, Sessions, Comey, Putin, Russia and the French election." Admittedly, I have not discussed much about those issues. Those are issues that do require more research and more time to prepare. I fully acknowledge that it is likely that many readers would like to see me address those issues. Recently, I have discussed Hollywood propaganda (using the TV show "Designated Survivor" as an example), and the lack of tolerance for conservative speech on college and university campuses. My friend told me that those issues were the least of our problems in light of all the other issues he referred to. I disagree.

It is not that all of those issues are not important. Of course they are. But I believe the bigger issue is the civil war which we are currently experiencing. I have described it as a mostly non-violent war. You see, this war did not start with a few college protests. We have an entire generation that has been spoon fed propaganda by the Left - from Hollywood TV and movies, from academia and from the mainstream media. Not only have they been "taught" left wing views, they have been taught that those who disagree are the basket of deplorables - haters, bigots, racists, sexists, homophobes, and so on. Once those labels are attached, it quite easy to have no respect for such people.

We now have some newspapers refusing to print opinion pieces opposing gay marriage. The rationale is that gay marriage is the law of the land. Of course, when heterosexual marriage was the law of the land they had no problem printing news stories and op-eds in favor of gay marriage. Some papers will not print opinion pieces rebutting global warming. They say that the science is settled. Once upon a time the science was settled that the earth was flat. I am reminded of the death sentence given to Socrates for "refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state." Some would like to see climate change deniers imprisoned. Shall we return to the time of Socrates, which was 2,416 years ago? Of course, we need not go back that far, as in the 20th Century, Communists in particular have meted out harsh sentences to those who dared to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies in their societies.

Today, we see young people unable to even hear an opposing viewpoint. Instead they need their safe spaces. Worse, it is not just young people. I was part of a group email with the aforementioned friend. After a while, I was kicked off of that group email by adults who could not tolerate an opposing viewpoint. And it is not simply an unwillingness to hear my views. I know very well what some on the Left think of me as an individual because of my conservative views. For proof, please go back and read my 7/29/16 post "A Personal Tale of Left-Wing Intolerance," as well as the 8/1/16 post "An Email Exchange With the Woman From the Last Post." That incident last year was not the first time I was yelled at by someone who disagreed with me.

Obviously, I am not the only conservative who feels the dislike and even hatred from the Left. We now have families where those who voted for Trump are made to feel unwelcome at family get togethers, and are even uninvited to holiday dinners. It's bad enough to see the violent protests and vandalism at colleges where conservative speakers are scheduled to speak. In a 5/10/17 piece by Michelangelo Signorile, which the Huffington Post saw fit to put online, this is what Mr. Signorile recommended: "Starting today and from here on, no elected official - certainly those in the GOP defending and supporting Trump on a variety of issues, for example - should be able to sit down for a nice, quiet lunch or dinner in a Washington, D.C. eatery or even in their own homes. They should be hounded by protestors everywhere, especially in public - in restaurants, in shopping centers, in their districts, and yes, on the public property outside their homes and apartments, in Washington and back in their home states."

Mr. Signorile continued: "The elected officials and White House staffers must be challenged going to and from their cars and at the many public speeches they give at organizations and think tanks throughout DC and elsewhere. They should be bombarded with questions and placards by groups of people as they head to media appearances at the cable networks where they spew their lies every day. And they should be challenged when they come off TV for what they just lied about."

Then there's this: "Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, should not be able to attend any function, eat in public, or enjoy dinner at home without hearing people expressing how his actions are harming their lives and their families' lives in terrible ways." Signorile goes on to state he is not calling for violent or thuggish behavior. Rather, he claims he wants to see protests the way the AIDS activist group, ACT UP, did in the 1980s and 1990s. Of course, he is dreaming if he believes this type of in-your-face harassment does not lead to people getting hurt, or worse. I do not remember any call to treat liberals/leftists with such disrespect while Obama was in office, even though many of us felt that Obama constantly lied and was a danger to this country.

The Left has been engaging in an effort to hurt the "enemy" (Republicans and conservatives) for some time. As an example, recall how they wanted to hurt Chick Fil-A because the owner said he personally believed in the traditional definition of marriage. And the hatred towards Donald Trump has been so great that we have heard talk of his impeachment from the day he took office. So, my friend is concerned about my not addressing certain "big" issues. Our country has always faced such types of issues. But, there was only one time when we were engaged in a violent civil war. Actual civility is not a value for the Left. We have seen it in the vulgar tirades from late night talk show hosts. We see it in the likes of Mr. Signorile's call for harassment and intimidation. We even see it in the mainstream media's name calling and demagoguery.

This civil war will not be north versus south. But it will, and already has, divided families - just as the first one did. Where this one will end still remains to be seen. But I fail to see how the possible failure of the United States to stay united is not the most important issue facing our country.

Sunday, May 14, 2017

More Hollywood Propaganda

In the 2/1/17 post, I showed how the TV show "Homeland" managed to weave their left-wing message into the story line. Much of television and the movies is similar. So, here is yet another example, this time from the TV show "Designated Survivor." The premise of the show is that the character played by Kiefer Sutherland (HUD Secretary) becomes President because, as the low man on the totem pole, he was chosen to stay behind during the President's State of the Union address. When the Capitol is bombed and the government is wiped out, Sutherland, as the 'designated survivor" becomes President.

This is the first season of the show. In episode 19, "Misalliance," we see in the first 20 minutes quite a few left-wing talking points. As a high school band is performing at the White House, the teacher tells the President: "This might be the end of playing music for a lot of these kids...most of their families can't afford private lessons." The President: "Mine couldn't either...I think every student in this country should have access to the arts for their education."

Shortly thereafter, the President is conversing with the Speaker of the House. POTUS: "How familiar are you with the Federal art grants that make these kinds of programs possible?" Speaker: "I remember that bill (authorizing the current funding). The sunset clause was added to get it past some of my more conservative colleagues." There you have it - every student is entitled to what, a musical instrument? At government expense?

I do give some credit to the show, as they have the House Ways and Means Committee Chairman telling POTUS: "Look, I love music as much as anyone. But a lot of folks think we should throw everything we've got into science, technology, engineering and math. We used to lead the world in those areas. Now, we're barely in the middle of the pack." The overall gist of these scenes, however, was that Democrats love music and kids, Republicans - not so much. In fact, the Speaker tells her political nemesis - the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee - that she will resign on this condition: "I want the public arts and education funding reauthorized before I go." The Speaker gives up her career to save the arts for the kids - and from the meanie Republicans.

In yet another scene, there was a discussion about clean water between POTUS and a man in a wheelchair, although I am not clear what position that man held. POTUS: "Clean water should not even be a fight." Man in wheelchair: "You know that business executives only think about bottom line costs." POTUS: "Well, if their only concern is costs you should remind them how much it costs to clean up their mess, especially after we start fining them." Message: business is bad, government is good.

In one of my "favorite" scenes, we hear that the French Ambassador would like to see a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons in the world. Said one aide to POTUS: "Liberals in France have been railing against nuclear escalation for decades, but now even the conservatives are beginning to wonder why they're spending so much damn money just to maintain weapons in Europe." Well, thankfully, there is no danger from the likes of Russia, Iran or North Korea. One aide does question what happens if the Russians fail to reciprocate and reduce their nuclear arsenal. (Is Russia really the only threat?) The President tells everyone assembled that if Russia does not reciprocate, then "we stop." But why are we starting? Just because we "hope" the Russians will respond in good faith? Is the subtle message that the Iranians and North Koreans are no threat at all?

Whether a TV show or movie is based in the world of politics or not, the writers seamlessly weave their left-wing views into the story line. Frankly, it is really not significantly different from what the left-wing mainstream media does, with their left-wing spin part of so many stories.

What the (Bleep)?

Comedians are not exactly known for their judicious use of language and gestures, especially left-wing comedians when it comes to "jokes" about Donald Trump.

Recently, Bill Maher said this: "A lot of us thought, 'Oh, Ivanka is gonna be our saving grace. When (Trump's) about to f...... nuke Finland or something, she is gonna walk into the bedroom and you know...Daddy, Daddy, don't do it, Daddy,' with Maher making an obscene gesture of a sexual nature with his hand, suggesting Ivanka would calm her father down with a particular sexual activity. Very classy.

Not to be outdone was Stephen Colbert. "You (Trump) talk like a sign language gorilla that got hit in the head. In fact, the only thing your mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin's c..k holster." Imagine if anyone spoke about Obama in that manner. They'd bring back tar and feathering.

It is not simply these comedians who speak coarsely. Democrat politicians tend to have similarly "colorful" speech when speaking of Republicans. Current Chair of the DNC, Tom Perez, said "Republicans don't give a sh.. about people." At a recent town hall, Republican Representative Paul Labrador apparently said "nobody dies because they don't have access to healthcare." He claimed the statement was taken out of context as it was replayed by the left-wing media. California's newest Senator, Kamala Harris, said in reply to Labrador: "Like this guy, this congressman, you might as well say, 'people don't starve because they don't have food.' What the f... is that?"

Democratic Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, recently said this: "...we're here to help people, and if we're not helping people, we should go the f... home."

In a 2015 report by the Daily Caller, they cited a study of language used by US Democrats and Republicans done by Queen Mary University in London. They noted that liberals were more prone than conservatives to use profanity on Twitter. Words often used by liberals were "sh.., f..., happy, like, feel and amaze." For conservatives it was "G-d, psalm, America, country and border." Liberals would frequently use "I" and "me" (as did Obama). Conservatives used "we" and "ours" (as did George W. Bush).

Just to be clear, I am not prudish. I have heard all the words, and undoubtedly used many of them. The point is that this is how liberals debate; it is how they make a point. They debate with insults, mockery and name calling. It is not simply comedians and politicians. Disagree with the left-wing mainstream media and they call you names - bigot, racist, homophobe, etc. It's Hillary's basket of deplorables. This type of language reflects the total disdain in which Democrats hold Republicans. Hence, name calling and vulgarity, insults and mockery - these are the stock in trade of the Left.