Though outraged, @AETV is happy to take “flyover folks'” money

December 20, 2013

My blog-buddy ST has already eloquently written about the intolerant, anti-Christian, anti-Southern bigotry behind A&E’s craven capitulation to liberal fascist pressure groups over “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson’s comments about sin and sinners, including homosexuality (1). Apparently, paraphrasing St. Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians is now enough to get one banned from television (2).

While ST has covered that angle admirably, I noticed something else. Last night I was watching a couple of episodes (coincidentally, I only started watching the day before this brouhaha exploded) of Duck Dynasty and stayed tuned in to catch another show called “Rodeo Girls.” As you can tell from the title, this show is not about a group of post-modern urban hipster liberals sitting around in their jammies, drinking hot chocolate and talking about healthcare. No, it’s about young, attractive women who compete in the rodeo circuit. (3) And the cultural similarities to Duck Dynasty got me wondering about the rest of A&E’s shows. (I don’t usually watch the network.) Let’s take a look at their line-up, shall we?

First, Duck Dynasty. Note that, as of today, Phil is still featured:

A&E Duck Dynasty

Next, American Hoggers. Just screams “Manhattan metrosexual,” doesn’t it?

A&E American Hoggers

Then we have “Crazy Hearts, Nashville.” A little country, a little sex:

A&E Crazy Hearts

But wait! There’s more! “Rodeo Girls!” Bikini-clad cowgirls riding stallions. (4) Yeah, I’m sure they’ll be lunching with Anna Wintour real soon.

A&E Rodeo Girls

Finally, we have “Storage Wars, Texas.” I wonder what they think of gun control and the individual mandate?

A&E Storage Wars

Notice a pattern? All these show involve people from what is disparagingly called “flyover country,” those lands beyond the pale the denizens of which the urban progressive elites like to patronize and treat like sub-normal children. And yet these are more than half the shows A&E has featured on their site. It seems pretty obvious that A&E is happy to promote shows featuring unsophisticated mouth-breathing hicks and earn money from the unsophisticated mouth-breathing hick audiences that watch, just so long as none of them express their unsophisticated mouth-breathing views.

Or maybe A&E’s honchos misread their audience:

Living in the echo chamber of the MSM’s ivory tower may well wind up costing A&E and their owners quite a bit.

Footnotes:
(1) To clarify, while I disagree with my esteemed co-blogger, Phil Robertson, and St. Paul about homosexuality being a sin, I respect their beliefs and wouldn’t want to ban them from the public square. Unlike A&E.
(2) No, I don’t think this is all that comparable to what happened to Martin Bashir. He spewed scatological, unhinged, hate-filled words at Sarah Palin. Phil just expressed his opinion in answer to a question, cited Scripture, and said it was up to God to judge. Huge difference.
(3) Watch out, Jessica! That Anthony is no good for you! (BTW, last night’s episode was set in Red Bluff, California. Not all of us are “L.A.” or “San Francisco” elitists.)
(4) Sigmund Freud, call your office.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Seattle: Do not say “brown bag” or “citizen,” for they are offensive and, yes, racist

August 4, 2013
"Even the monkey is embarrassed"

Even the monkey is embarrassed

Once again, I’m relieved to know my beloved California doesn’t hold the West Coast monopoly on moronic political correctness. In Seattle, aka “San Francisco North” (1), the city Office of Civil Rights sent a memo around to Seattle employees and… Well, read on, but try not to hit your head against the tabletop too much:

The memo went on to offer politically correct alternatives that could be used in official documents and discussions.

‘Luckily, we’ve got options,’ Elliott Bronstein wrote in the internal memo, according to Fox News. ‘For “citizens”, how about “residents”?’

Mr Bronstein defended the ban on a Seattle radio station, and said that the term ‘brown bag’ had historically been used as a way to determine skin color.

(…)

To avoid bringing up its racist connotations, city workers in Seattle must now use ‘sack lunch’ or ‘lunch-and-learn’, according to Komo News.

Oh, for Pete’s sake. The memo says some workers were offended by the use of “brown bag” because it reminded them of a test for acceptable skin color used more than 50 years ago, and so obscure that I bet 90% of the nation hasn’t even heard of it.

You know what? “Mickey” and “Mick” were mildly offensive terms for Irishmen many years ago. My ancestors were Irish, and so this offends me. I demand everyone in Seattle with those names immediately stop using them.

But wait, there’s more!

They must also replace ‘citizen’ with ‘residents’ because many people in the northwest city are not U.S. citizens.

‘They are legal residents of the United States and they are residents of Seattle. They pay taxes and if we use a term like citizens in common use, then it doesn’t include a lot of folks,’ Mr Bronstein said.

According to City Data, 94,952 – or 16 per cent – of the city’s inhabitants are foreign, with most coming originally from Asia.

Call me a reactionary racist hater, but I thought “citizen” was a term of honor, something one aspired to become. It not only meant that you lived in a place, but that you that you had a special stake there in its governance, its prosperity, and, indeed,  in its fate. It was part of your identity.

The ancient Greeks took pride in being citizens of their city-states; Roman citizenship was a mark of distinction, something non-citizens sought to earn. Tens of millions have come to America over the centuries, leaving behind their old lives and striving to become citizens here.

And yet now for Seattle’s government, a government founded by citizens, “citizen” has become a word to be shunned for fear of giving offense.

This is another expression of the vapid multiculturalism the Left finds so attractive: not only that all cultures are equal, but that to assert any special distinction on the part of one’s own culture is somehow arrogant and chauvinist, something to be condemned. In fact, it’s a denial of American culture or civilization, for how is this culture defined and set apart? Not by land or language or religion, unlike much of the rest of the world, but by a set of shared ideals, among which is the concept of citizenship, of being a “citizen.”

Something which, in Seattle, is apparently a bad thing.

RELATED: At Legal Insurrection, William Jacobson discusses brown bags, chinks in the armor, and other weapons of control wielded by the Language Police.

Footnote:
(1) Or is that title held by Portland, now?

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


#GunControl as a sign of liberal cultural superiority

March 31, 2013

I came across an article this morning by Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner in which sees the current efforts to restrict our Second Amendment rights as another front in the “culture war,” a war in which the Left sees itself as morally superior to everyone else. That is, you can’t have rational reasons for disagreeing with them on gun-rights issues, you must be morally wrong.

The spark for his essay is a new book by Dan Baum, who’s both a Jewish liberal Democrat and a gun owner, called “Gun Guys.” As someone who sits in both worlds (the liberal and the gun-fan), Baum is able to understand how both sides thinks. Carney introduce’s Baum’s book with some examples of how the left sees gun enthusiasts as not just wrong, but inferior, even evil. Here are a couple:

The Post’s Gene Weingarten in 2011 spat on the Second Amendment as “the refuge of bumpkins and yeehaws who like to think they are protecting their homes against imagined swarthy marauders desperate to steal their flea-bitten sofas from their rotting front porches.”

After Columbine, a Boston Herald op-ed described the average participant in a 1999 Boston Common pro-gun rally as a wannabe “hicksville cowboy, as in way out there, somewhere off the Mass Pike or at the far reaches of 93. From towns with something to prove and lots of Amvets posts.”

And President Obama in 2008 famously told a wealthy crowd at a San Francisco fundraiser that rural voters “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them … “

Well, the “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them” clearly is mutual.

From this, Carney segues to Baum’s discussion of the liberal-left’s loathing for the culture that guns represent and how they think they can use the law to control or destroy that culture:

Liberals, Baum writes, “recognized the gun as the sacred totem of the enemy, the embodiment of this abhorrent world view. They believed that they could weaken the enemy by smashing his idols — by banning the gun if possible … “

Many liberals hate it that some conservatives have a different set of values, morals and aesthetics — and so these liberals want to use the federal government to fix that.

(…)

“Assault rifles,” writes Baum, “were just as powerful symbolically as they were ballistically. A renewed assault-rifle ban would really smash the enemy’s idols.”

Also, when speaking about sales without background checks, gun controllers always refer to “gun shows.” Most guns used in murders aren’t bought at gun shows — they’re stolen or bought on the street. But gun shows are large gatherings of the “gun tribe” — and so they must be shut down.

Not mentioned directly, but certainly a subtext in this article and, I suspect, Baum’s book, is the idea that gun control as an assault on the so-called “gun tribe” is, as Dan Bongino put it, a form of people control. And that is the real objective of progressivism.

Makes sense, when you’re convinced you’re superior.

RELATED: And if you need another example of how the other side sees us, don’t forget, if you oppose gun control, you might be an Antisemite.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Random thoughts on SCHIP and adult children

November 29, 2012

SCHIP is, for those who don’t know, is the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Under changes enacted in 2010 by the Unicorn and Skittles Obama Administration, parents can keep their children on their insurance until the “children” are at most 26 years old.

Since we’re now defining childhood to last through age 26, shouldn’t we…

  • Raise the voting age to 27?
  • Require parental consent to marry for anyone 26 and below?
  • Require parental consigning for any contracts the “children” may undertake?
  • Prohibit alcohol purchases to anyone 26 and younger?

I  mean, if we’re going to be giving college-age and in-the-workforce adults the benefits of being children, shouldn’t we treat them as children?


Kurtz: Don’t expect the culture wars to end any time soon

August 13, 2012

Rock’em-Sock’em Politics?

National Review’s Stanley Kurtz (1) looks at the “Red/Blue map” of America that first became famous in the 2000 election, then considers the current race with its sharp ideological contrast between Obama-Biden and Romney-Ryan, and comes to the conclusion that our ideological war over the nature of the United States is only going to get sharper and louder before it ever gets better: “Two Tickets, Two Americas.”

First we need to understand that our political divisions are real and growing. They are rooted not in top-down political rhetoric but in profound and lasting social and cultural differences. For a while, analysts tended to make light of our polarization, fruitlessly predicting year after year that our culture war (still raging) was just about to end. If anything, the culture wars have expanded now to include the whole of politics. It used to be that only arguments over gay marriage or abortion were stigmatized as moral abominations. Now even differences over health care reform and the deficit are super-charged with moral accusation.

Whichever way this election goes, these divisions will only deepen. Fundamentally, this is because what President Obama and the increasingly left-leaning coalition he leads actually want is impossibly far from what red America is willing to accept. Until very recently, this gulf has been hidden by Obama’s refusal to level with the American people about his goals. What the public still doesn’t understand, despite the president’s somewhat more open left-turn of late, is just how far left his second-term agenda aims to go. I’ve laid out some of it here, and Americans are simply not prepared for what is about to hit us should Obama win. So while an Obama victory would indeed allow the president to entrench some of his most controversial policies, his restless tendency to push things ever further to the left will almost certainly generate dynamic new movements of opposition.

Kurtz goes on to point out that a Romney victory, even if a landslide as I and others believe possible, won’t end this struggle. The Left has had a taste of what it can achieve and, controlling as it does the still-dominant culture-shaping media, it will likely see a conservative win as only a temporary setback.

Hang on to your hats; this ride has only just begun.

Footnote:
(1) Kurtz is the author of, so far, two great books about Obama: “Radical in Chief,” a political biography of Obama that I reviewed here, and “Spreading the Wealth,” which looks into Obama’s plans for a second term and which I’m currently reading.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Dear Senator McCain: you’re dead wrong, it *is* the culture

July 31, 2012

And I write that with all due and genuine respect for a man who suffered much for his country and was a true leader to the men who were prisoners of war with him.

But, this is just utterly wrong:

It’s government, “not cultures” that define the difference between Israelis and Palestinians. That’s according to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who appeared to differ with presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney as he tried to defend him.

“I am sure that Gov. Romney was not talking about difference in cultures, or difference in anybody superior or inferior,” said McCain, a chief Romney foreign policy surrogate, today during a news conference after an event here with Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). “What I’m sure Gov. Romney was talking was that the Israeli economy has grown and prospered in a dramatic fashion. And unfortunately, the Palestinians have not had that same economic development.

“And that goes to the leadership of the Palestinians. Everybody knows that Yasser Arafat was corrupt. And we also know that the Palestinian people have not been blessed with the kind of government that has lower regulations, less taxes, entrepreneurship, which have caused the Israeli economy to be one of the world’s most successful. It has nothing to do with cultures. It has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. But facts of the booming Israeli economy has to do with the kind of government that the Israeli people have freely and democratically elected which has given them a very prosperous country.”

McCain noted he had not seen or heard Romney’s remarks, but that didn’t stop him from defending what Romney meant.

He has it exactly backwards: culture determines the type of society a nation has and shapes its form of government. Both are a reflection of the values of that society. Western civilization, which includes Israel, echoes the Judeo-Christian/Greco-Roman and, yes, for parts, Anglo-Saxon values that shaped it. It is a culture that values the individual and individual liberty, fosters initiative and wealth-creation, and that recognizes life is precious and not something to be taken carelessly. (1)

Arab Islamic culture on the other hand… What has it given the world lately? Dictatorship? Kleptocracy? Contempt for democracy? The near-enslavement of women? Honor killings? Suicide bombings? “We are going to win, because they love life and we love death“?

You want an example of the difference in cultures, Senator? Here’s just one from among hundreds. Israelis fight to save the life of a mother and child, even though they come from their sworn enemies. Palestinians murder Israeli children in their sleep, and the culture celebrates the killers as heroes.

Those values ripple throughout the respective cultures, and you can bet your bottom dollar they make a difference.

Natan Sharansky wrote a brilliant book called “The Case for Democracy.” In it he discusses the difference between what he calls “free societies” and “fear societies.” The Israelis are an example of the former, the Palestinians the latter, and the differences explain why, as Mitt Romney pointed out, Israel is successful, while “Palestine” is a failure.

You should read it, Senator. You might for once know what you’re talking about.

But I guess that’s a bit much to expect from a man who doesn’t even bother to check what his party’s nominee said before bloviating on it.

via Slublog

Footnote:
(1) Yeah, far from perfect, but also far better than the alternatives.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


“We’re not really people to them.”

March 3, 2012

Jim Geraghty on what the Left’s reaction to the death of Andrew Breitbart reveals about them:

I had observed, yesterday, that there were not merely a handful of folks on the left sneering about how happy they were that Breitbart had suddenly died. There were gobs and gobs of them, all over Twitter and the web at large. If you need examples, Charlie Spiering collected plenty here, though I’d urge most of sound mind to avoid putting themselves through reading that.

You can call this whatever you like — the Daily-Kos-ification of the Left, perhaps — but it confirms what many of us suspected and/or feared. I didn’t want to believe it, really. I personally know too many people I’d identify as Democrats, if not liberals, who are too decent to ever express such raw hate and cruelty. But a large chunk of the rank and file of the Left — way more than a small percentage — really don’t believe that their opponents deserve anything resembling basic human dignity or respect.

We’re not really people to them. It’s not an accident that [a] New York Times columnist referred to his critics on Twitter as “right-wing lice.” They’re not good, decent Americans who just have some different ideas about how to make the world a better place. They run on hate. It appears their entire sense of self-worth is driven by demonizing those who disagree with them and celebrating their political viewpoints as the cardinal measurements of virtue and good character. They are positively energized by the thought of lashing out at those of us who have the audacity to think differently than they. They really do project and accuse the opposition of all their worst traits: rage, closed-mindedness, cruelty, intolerance, bigotry, and an inability to empathize with others. And they completely lack self-awareness. They are blind to the irony of their actions. As someone said on Twitter today (I can’t find the comment now), “How many of the people celebrating Andrew’s death have a ‘NO H8? icon on their avatar?”

Time and again we see this violent emotional reaction whenever someone challenges left-liberals’ own (self-assumed) wisdom and moral superiority. Call it a “fascist mentality,” “immaturity,” or even a simple lack of decency, but an inability of so many in their camp to deal reasonably with those who disagree is a sign of something very wrong deep-down, something innate in the progressive philosophy that affects thought and behavior.

It’s disturbing.

via the PJ Tatler

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 13,404 other followers