Archive for the ‘Blitherings’ Category

Well, it looks like the Royal Order of the Perpetually Aggrieved has gots itself all in a froth that Bill Maher, caustic TV blatherskite and cantankerous busybody, went and used the “N-Word” on his show recently. {{Cue gasping, frantic dismay and generalized vaporishness}}

He had the temerity to refer to himself as a “house nigga” in a self-deprecating manner. And heaven KNOWS that using such a term is deeply racist and offensive. Right?

Nigga, please.  (go ahead. click it. I dare you.)

Now, let me say right up front, I personally find the use of The N-Word and all its derivations deeply distasteful and offensive. Regardless of who says it.  It deeply saddens me that a term which should be met with universal loathing and avoided by anyone with half a clue, has instead been allowed to infuse our culture to the point where it is used openly by a cross-section of society. Well, a certain cross-section. Okay for me, but not for thee, and all that.

And Bill Maher should rightfully be chastised for it.

Using such racially charged words is clearly reprehensible and TOTALLY outrageous. Well, except when, you know, it isn’t. The outrage here does seem fairly selective.

If I recall, it wasn’t all that long ago that Ben Carson was called a “house negro” (see also, above) and an “Uncle Tom”, and before that it was Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice; and this was BY OTHER BLACK PEOPLE and many of their self-appointed surrogates on the Left. For which many on the Right were justifiably outraged. So, it would appear to me that what Mr. Maher is most guilty of is not racism, per se, but instead, that most fashionable of Social Justice jihads: “cultural appropriation.”

Or, as it’s also known: “It’s Only Wrong When White People Do It.” Maybe he should have said, “house cracka” instead?

To me, The N-Word is offensive, radioactive, and should rightly be shunned and purged from our collective national vocabulary; but the current outrage seems to be not that “someone” said The N-Word, but rather, that the wrong color someone said The N-Word.

Which is pretty sad.

I have to be honest, I’m having a real hard time sympathizing with any hurt feelings about this one. There is a definite double-standard at play here. Our country seems to have developed a strange schizophrenia when it comes to racial equality. The Un-Civil Rights movement has come full circle, and “separate but equal” is now all the rage again. Only this time it’s minority students who are clamoring FOR it, not fighting AGAINST it, demanding things like “Blacks Only” dorms on campus.  Yes, really.

For months and months and months now, I’ve watched as terms like “white supremacy” and “white privilege” and “patriarchy” have become household words. I’ve listened as these nefarious white folk are blamed for all manner of societal ills and moral failings.  We’ve been treated to such forward-thinking ideas as, “A Day Without Whites.” I’ve watched in dismay as crowds of pre-dominantly black minority students descend on classrooms and verbally berate and intimidate white students and professors for everything from rape culture to global warming. And MTV helpfully published a public service announcement entitled, “Dear White Guys: 2017  New Years Resolutions” to helpfully highlight some of the areas where white dudes really need to get it together. But that’s not racism. How dare you suggest it. It’s…uh…uhm, a…justified outpouring of collective social outrage over the continuing climate of oppression towards minorities and a seeking of redress for the legacy of slavery and, uh, other stuff.

Which is apparently supposed to justify all manner of thuggish, belligerent and violent actions which, if carried out by gangs of white students, would promptly be branded a hate crime and declared a national crisis.

So which is it? It seems to me like the average white guy must be hyper-vigilant about everything he says, constantly on guard against any accidental microaggressions or cultural appropriation, while the aggrieved minority activist has nearly carte blanche to say anything and everything and still get a pass.

So when a talk-show host lets slip an ill-considered and yet culturally ubiquitous term as a humorous quip, and suddenly everyone is aflame at the GALL of such a thing,!!!!!1!!!!11!11! {{choke, gasp, gurgle, swoon}}…

…while I find it obviously distasteful, I fear that I am also less than compelled to outrage.  Sorry, but I’ve watched too many black comedians on YouTube use that same word like punctuation.  Bill Maher is a profane, irreverent Lefty shock-jock who, to his limited credit, seems willing to take pot-shots across both sides of the aisle. But if he is to be censured and vilified for using “that word,” then there are a whole lot of other people out there who need to be in the unemployment line as well.

I am to believe that there are certain words what are only offensive if white people say them? Are there now multiple cultural vocabularies that only certain ethnicities are “allowed” to use? Is there a guidebook somewhere?

And why, oh WHY on EARTH did it EVER become okay for one black person to call another that word? I simply don’t understand.

There shouldn’t be “white” wrong vs. “black” wrong, or “liberal” wrong vs. “conservative” wrong. If something is wrong, it’s wrong for everybody. And if you’re going to get upset about it, get upset EVERY TIME. Regardless of who says it.

Equality should mean that everyone is treated with the same level of respect, compassion, courtesy, and opportunity.  But this growing schism between “white” culture and “black culture” is leading to an increasingly fractured society in which, I fear, true equality may not be achievable. This nation was once proudly proclaimed as a “melting pot” where people from a wide variety of cultures and background come come together, find common ground and be bound together by a common set of ideals which transcended race or color or creed. Any more, however, it seems we are breaking apart into increasingly divided camps, the us vs. them mindset is becoming uppermost, and it is getting harder and harder to see a bright future for this country if we can’t drop the barricades.

And maybe one way to start moving in the right direction is by getting rid of “that” word altogether.

Yes, folks, there’s blood in the water, the sharks are circling, and there’s talk of IMPEACHMENT! Don’t ya know. High crimes and misdemeanors. All manner of gross malfeasance and treasonous machinations. A threat to our very Republic he is. So. Let’s take a look at: The Case Against Trump.

1) Trump Said Mean Things About Obama

According to PoliticsUSA, Pres. Trump may have committed an impeachable offense by claiming that Obama wire-tapped him. Apparently this violates some legal precept not actually named in the article, but clearly, making a “false” claim about a previous President is the next best thing to selling secrets to Wikileaks. Except…

As it turns out, Pres Obama didn’t have to order the surveillance of Donald Trump and his election team, because he knew it was already ongoing. So, as President, all the honorable Mr. Obama had to do was request the intercepts of illegal NSA spying on American citizens, and get anything that had “Trump” meta-tagged on it. So, yes, while technically correct that then Pres. Obama did not “order the wire-tapping” of the Trump transition team, it’s a simple, demonstrable fact that he acquired surveillance information on them. So, yes, please, let’s talk about the impeachability of impugning the reputation of a former President, while completely ignoring the fact that the NSA, operating under the Obama administration, conducted illegal surveillance on US citizens, and then “unmasked” said citizens names in violation of both precedent and federal law. NONE of which, but the way, was related to Russia.

Impeachment Score: Weeeeak.

2) Chinese Trademark Keffuffle

And again, our friends from across the pond, with their keen and insightful grasp of US Constitutional law, insist that, after a 10-year legal battle, the Chinese finally granting a contentious trademark decision to Trump, Inc. within days of Trump becoming President is impeachable. Like, totally, dude. As a side note, this same article suggests that being mean to the media is an impeachable offense because it violates the 1st Amendment. Or something. You know what, I’m not even going to talk about this ridiculous smear of yellow journalism anymore. Ptooie.

A slightly more credible source (no, seriously, read this article, it’s incredibly informative and well-balanced) highlights the fact that the this potential conflict of interest could potentially violate the Emoluments Clause which, “prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress.(Wikipedia)”  HOWEVER!

This arguably deals with the practice of naming an US government official as an officer, noble, or other binding title to a foreign nation, thus engendering a conflicting loyalty or claim to a foreign power. The question then becomes, is the granting of a trademark equivalent to the awarding of a Duchy? Or perhaps more germane, was the granting of this trademark intended as a “gift” to the President? Was it intended as a bribe to curry favor? In order to make this an impeachable offense, one would, I suggest, have to provide compelling evidence of both the former and the latter. Neither of which has, to date, been presented.

The other question I would propose, in my role as a woefully uneducated layman, is what would Pres. Trump’s detractors have him do in this situation? Trump Enterprises is an ongoing concern. Management of this enterprise has been transferred to his son. Is it the expectation that if a business man becomes President for four years, he must divest himself of all business-related holdings acquired over a lifetime? Should Pres. Trump have rejected the Chinese government’s approval of the trademark after a ten year legal fight? How do you “not accept” a trademark decision like this in your favor? The simple reality is that while there may be a suggestion of impropriety here, it may also be completely circumstantial. If there was a compelling case to be made, would it not have already BEEN made? More importantly, can it be proven that Donald J. Trump used the influence of his Office to influence the Chinese in order to secure these trademarks? If so, such evidence has yet to surface. The fact that Trump turned right around and played nice with Taiwan thereby stretching and bending China’s long-standing “One China” policy suggests otherwise.

Impeachment Score: Really Weak.

3) President Trump’s “Travel Ban” Was Unconstitutional. Or something.

So, to state the painfully obvious, let’s at least get the terms and conditions straight here. It was not a Muslim ban. It was not a travel ban. It was 120-day moratorium on travel (Click it. No, really. Have you actually read the thing? Didn’t think so.) from seven specific countries that bleed jihadists like a hemophiliac Imam. So, to review: Ban = permanent, i.e. – a revocation. Moratorium = temporary, i.e. – a suspension. Any questions? No? Good.

Just a taste:

“In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles.  The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.  In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including ‘honor’ killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.”(emphasis mine)

But wait. TRUMP MYSOGONIST RACIST HOMOPHOBE GURGLE CHOKE FROTH!! Right?!  Ooooops.

The chest beaters on this one imply that it was either, a) a violation of the First Amendment, to whit, the free exercise of religion (yes, it hurts my brain, too), or b) Pres. Trump “exceeded his Constitutional Authority (yes, it’s those UK Constitutional scholars again).  Well, for starters, the travel moratorium did not identify a specific religion. Because the restriction dealt with predominantly Muslim countries, it was heralded as a “Muslim Ban!11!!11!” Except that, there are upwards of 50 Muslim-majority countries, and this travel restriction deals with only…seven.

Immigration and travel restrictions are nothing new. And while it can certain be argued that Pres. Trump blocking existing green card holders was both ill-considered and incredibly poorly implemented, is it really outside the power of the President? Is it really a violation of the President’s Constitutional authority? No. While potentially distasteful, it is not illegal.

Newsflash folks: As a sovereign nation, we get to decide who can come in.

Impeachment Score: I can’t even.

4) Comey Over.

And, of course, mean ol’ D.J. fired FBI Director Comey right before he was ready to drop the hammer on the Trump administration with a full-blown investigation into collusion with Russian meddling in the election. So, let ring forth the calls for a Special Prosecutor to…uh…uh…find out some stuff!

The move to fire the sitting FBI Director during a contentious period where investigations into the Trump-Russia connection were actually underway, but had revealed no actual evidence of collusion, is seen as a “Constitutional crisis.” Except, (insert money quote):

But neither thinks that the Comey firing counts, since there’s absolutely no dispute over Trump’s legal authority to remove Comey from his position. “This is not (yet) a constitutional crisis, since there’s no doubt about his authority to fire Comey,” Levinson told Politico.

Oops. Would appear not to be impeachable. Damnit.

But wait! That paragon of objective journalism (trigger warning) Think Progress, lets us know that it can be both legal AND impeachable! Somehow.

“Constitutional law experts say that while President Donald Trump’s decision to fire Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey was legal, it appears to be an abuse of power that could constitute an impeachable offense.”

The problem I have with this approach is two-fold. One, Pres. Trump did not disband the FBI. He did not place a gag-order or any other restrictions on agents within the FBI from conducting or continuing any investigation into any potential “Russian Connection©.” Moreover, less than a year ago the same Democrats who are now calling for Trump’s head over Comey’s firing, were calling for Comey’s head over his release of Hillary Clinton emails just prior to election day. So, Director Comey effectively outed himself as both partisan and politicized. Despite his arguable competence, he had lost the confidence of those both within and without his organization as to his objectivity. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a Very Bad Thing when it comes to the top law enforcement official in the land.

And, oh by the way, President William Jefferson Clinton fired FBI Director William Sessions in 1993 for what he felt to be “ethical lapses” in his conduct. So this is not “unprecedented.” Strangely, there were no cries for impeachment then.

All that said, the FBI Director is a political appointee, and serves, “at the pleasure of the President.” So, despite the long-standing precedent that the Director serves his 10-year terms, the President, legally, doesn’t need a reason at all to fire him.

Impeachment Score: Close, but no cigar.

In Conclusion:

Every bit of research  I made into this post was rife with hypotheticals and technicalities. A lot of “mights” and “coulds” and “feasiblies.” I searched news sites, blogs, academic analyses, wikis and archives. The simple fact is this: as much as you may want it to be true, as much as you NEED it to be true, President Donald J. Trump, however morally corrupt or bankrupt you find him, however distasteful you find his policies and politics, however much you long to see him strung up from the yardarm or boiled in oil, simply hasn’t done anything (yet) that’s truly impeachable. He’s walking a fine line, and we can only wonder what tomorrow will bring, but from what I can so, so far it’s a lot of reaching and innuendo without any prosecutable evidence.

Buy hey, keep trying. Never know, you might get lucky yet.

Holy Mother of Pearl!

Posted: May 9, 2017 in Blitherings

Great green gobs of greasy grimy gopher guts! Hard to believe it’s been three, count ’em THREE years since I posted anything on this here blog!

Yes, I’m sure everyone assumed I moved on to bigger and better things, like, you know, having a life, and alas, it twas true.

Until now.

Now, I no longer have a life. Or perhaps, it twouldst be more accurate to say that I’ve started a new life. Sans wife, sans kids (geographically speaking), and with naught but a codependent cat with daddy issues to keep me company, I’ve decided to rejoin that august company of souls, that elite company of backyard bloggers and self-appointed, self-righteous “journalists” who will bravely and with utter abandon create blog posts for the teeming hordes of roughly three to five readers on a good day.

It is a challenge, for, as I ponder the question, I realize that the blogs I most enjoy, and frequent most often, have one most compelling trait in common. They post. Every. freakin’ day. And so I visit. Almost every. freakin’. day.

And with that, I feel as though I must bravely forgo one or more nightly Netflix episodes of Supernatural or Van Helsing in order to bring my clamoring fans that sweet nectar they crave. Let my vague and opinionated ramblings spew forth upon an unsuspecting Internet, and let the few tattered bits of brain I have left rattling around in this increasingly grey-cased skull of mine entertain you with a quaint turn of phrase, or, more likely, some caustic diatribe about some compelling social issue about which I have just enough information to be laughably wrong.

So, hail! What few denizens of the interwebs such as stumble across my musings. I welcome you. Come, let us reason together!

I’ve found that there is so much going on in the world today, about which my own loud-mouth self will simply not shut up, and spamming my Facebook friends and relatives with partisan hooey may not always be the best course of action.

So.

While I cannot guarantee how often I will be able to post anything, given the hurricane of activity my life is, and the festering pile of steaming excrement it may become shortly, I am going to fire this thing back up.

Hopefully I can regain a few of the readers I have so callously shunned over the last however the hell long it’s been; but regardless, there’s just too much angsty froth boiling up within me, and I’ve just gots to gives it some release.

So, there ya go. For what it’s worth.

Life is kicking me in the scrotum.  Wearing track cleats.  So…yeah.

This year I resolved not to make resolutions.  I resolved not to resolve, but rather, to DO.  So, one of my not-resolutions is to get back into the blog business, and start posting more regularly.  Maybe even try to build this site traffic back up from more than just you seven hard-core fanatics who still seem to swing by semi-regularly.

So.  I’ve culled through my blogroll and purged quite a few of the links.  Basically if the blog was a dead link, just plain dead, or hadn’t posted anything in a year or so, it went by-by.  I also dropped a few that I had just because, but never actually read, or if I did read at one time, have so changed their focus or format that I don’t any more.   Generally, if you link to me, I’ll probably link ya back, unless you blog exclusively about cats or unicorns or something; in which case, the likelihood of you actually linking me in the first place is pretty slim, so it’s probably not an issue.

If you want a link  just post a comment saying so, and I’ll check out yer site.

My goal is to lighten things up a bit, but still keep my hand in with the politcal commentary and general social whinging and gritching.   If you’re willing to stop by, I want to give you something worthwhile to read while you’re here. 

So. with that blathering aside, perhaps I’ll get on with it!

Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat.

Posted: January 5, 2012 in Blitherings

You know, for all the froth and high dudgeon we had to endure for the better part of eight years as the Left carried on about Bush/Cheney and Haliburton, cronyism, etc., I have to wonder what we’re going to here out of Media Matters and Code Pink about Obama’s unconstitutional “recess” appointments of three of his Big Labor cronies to the NLRB?

What would Michael Moore and Jeneanne Garafalo have had to say if Bush had said that Congress was essentially irrlevant, and if they got in his way, he’d just do what he wanted anyway via Presidential Executive Orders, and like it, bitches?

Or, you know, had Bush taken a $4 million Hawaii vacation for the whole family while the rest of us struggled with upwards of 15% unemployment?

Hmm. I guess we’ll never know, will we?

How Obama’s ‘Other Half’ Lives

Census data shows 48 percent of Americans are either “poor” or “near poor,” the Associated Press reported yesterday, perplexing everyday people and delighting the nation’s harshest critics here and abroad.

The AP story implied this staggering news was the result of deteriorating economic conditions. In fact, though, the number of “near poor” Americans increased dramatically because the Obama administration dramatically (but quietly) changed the official definition of poverty.

Traditionally, a U.S. household was considered “low income” or “near poor” if it had income below 200 percent of the official poverty income thresholds. The Obama administration has raised those income thresholds and thereby transformed the way the government measures poverty and near poverty.

Under President Obama’s new definitions, a family of four in Oakland is “near poor” if their annual pre-tax income is less than $89,700 plus medical insurance. In metropolitan Washington, D.C., the near-poverty line became $80,500. In New York, it’s now $78,500; in Boston, $68,900; and Chicago, $68,600.

Now, one would think that, after three years in office, a President would take pains to minimize the reported numbers of poor in his country, as this unfortunate statistic could be laid firmly at his feet.  Ah, yes but.  IF it is a fundamental component of your social agenda to highlight how many distressed, poor, disenfranchised, needy, hurting people there are in the country who are desperately in need of your federally-funded social programs, well then perhaps you’d want to spin the numbers a different way.

People dependent on a government for their subsistence are, in fact, dependent on the government.  They are beholden to the people who control their income. And as such, are that much more susceptible to influence, coercion and control.

Obama is pushing with everything he has to implement more and more “social controls” on our society.  Re-branding the middle-class as “near poor” greatly widens the pool of proles to whom he can refer when justifiying both his war on “the rich”, and progressive and onerous taxation to fund all these programs for the poor.

Tea Party vs OWS

Posted: December 9, 2011 in Blitherings

Yeah, what HE said.

Via Retired Geezer

 

Do Crosses at Catholic University Violate “Human Rights” of Muslims?

“The complaint was filed by John Banzhaf, an attorney and professor at George Washington University Law School. Banzhaf has been involved in previous litigation against the school involving the same-sex residence halls. He also alleged in his complaint involving Muslim students that women at the university were being discriminated against. You can read more on those allegations by clicking here.

Banzhaf said some Muslim students were particularly offended because they had to meditate in the school’s chapels “and at the cathedral that looms over the entire campus – the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.”

Don’t think for one minute that this isn’t part of a long-running agenda to impose Muslim influence in all areas of American life.  When Muslims talk about religious freedom, they mean freedom to worship Allah unimpeded by the distracting influences of other faiths.  Their religion CAN NOT BE ecumenical.  It’s an all or nothing game for them, and if we play by their rules, we lose.

“It may not be illegal, but it suggests they are acting improperly and probably with malice,” he said. “They do have to pray five times a day, they have to look around for empty classrooms and to be sitting there trying to do Muslim prayers with a big cross looking down or a picture of Jesus or a picture of the Pope  is not very conductive to their religion.”

Here’s a thought my Muslim friends  – If you are a bothered by Catholic “imagery” and don’t want to “have” to pray in a Catholic chapel….DON’T GO TO A CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY!

That’s what we, in this country, call freedom.  You can go to whatever school you want.  So go find one that doesn’t get your burqa  in a bunch, mkay?