Some time ago Karen started watching this show called Alaskan Bush People. It was understandable, since we're drawn to shows involving people living and working in Alaska. So I started watching with her and immediately noticed some weird differences between ABP and the other shows we watched.
For the uninitiated, ABP involves a family of nine, a couple and their seven children, who insist on living in the bush, as they call it, or the wilderness as it used to be known. The show follows their efforts building shelters, hunting and trying to carve out a town, called Browntown, based on their surname, in the wilderness. The children range in age from the low thirties to the upper teens. There are five boys and two girls. The parents are originally from the south, Billy Brown from Texas and Ami (pronounced AH mee) from Louisiana). Billy Brown worked on fishing vessels in Alaska and wrote a book called One Wave at a Time that apparently provided the basis for ABP. Someone must have read the book and decided this was a modern spin on The Swiss Family Robinson.
Initially, there were some interesting episodes. The family is, to say the least, eclectic. Some of the children go by the names of Bear, Bam, Raindrop and Birdy. They all have given names that are mostly Biblical, but one never learns that from the show. As if that weren't weird enough, several of the children speak with weird verbal ticks or inflections that aren't necessarily regional. Unless one's seen the show and heard the voices, it's hard to replicate in writing. But the speech is affectatious, overly mannered in a couple of instances.
Then there's the behavior. Bear, one of the middle children (who's thirty-years-old) absolutely loves to show off, climbing trees, running and jumping over logs, beating a freshly-caught fish in the head to kill it. Noah is the mechanically-inclined child, five years younger than Bear, who tries to play the Renaissance Man by writing poetry, engaging in jousting, wearing spurs and a top hat (?) and keeping his hair in a long-flowing ponytail. He is gifted when it comes to inventing things for Browntown, but the rest of his schtick is cringeworthy.
Were the show just this, it would be easy to ignore. Unfortunately for the Browns, reports seeped out that they weren't living so remotely on Chichagof Island as they'd have you believe. Apparently, they have neighbors barely two miles away and there are nearby towns so that the Browns are hardly living without a safety net. Online reports debunk the hardscrabble lifestyle the show presents, although the Browns and their TV network are silent about the allegations.
There have been attempts by the Brown boys to meet women, with the almost obligatory follow-up reports online that it was all staged. The purchase of a milk cow to make the family more independent was criticized as being staged. A lot of the things these folks do seem to be set-ups; skillful editing makes up for myriad ugly spots.
But now, reality has intruded. The matriarch, Ami, has been diagnosed with lung cancer. Almost unbelievably, there is a discussion as to whether they can continue to live in the bush or whether they have to abandon it for California, where Ami is being treated for her Stage 3 or 4 cancer. While we were watching this unfold, I derisively said, "Now we get to watch Ami die," which Karen almost immediately criticized. I wasn't being heartless; the network is being heartless. They are going to milk her illness and probable death for all the ratings it's worth. Throughout the show, a legend appears on the screen as they come back from commercials telling the audience that Events Continue to Unfold in Real Time; in other words, Death Watch 2017. Look, I'm no fan of the show. Whether this is a Potemkin village is beside the point: A woman's dying. Our Mother died from lung cancer. Is it too much to ask that the network let this woman live out her life in peace? Or is it going to milk this for ratings and therefore more revenue?
The show's been a crock from the beginning. It's offered up a manufactured reality for entertainment purposes, and that's fine.
Let this woman go in peace.
(c) The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Thursday, June 29, 2017
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
Susan Rice, Human Pinata
Flying underneath the radar, what with the healthcare bill and ISIS and the President's tweets and the SCOTUS teaching the Ninth Circuit another legal lesson, has been this who unmasking business involving everyone's favorite piñata, Susan Rice. The erstwhile roving ambassador for the Obama Administration who infamously appeared on five Sunday morning television shows to tout the administrations stillborn position that it was a spontaneous demonstration that spiraled out of control to result in the death of four Americans at our consulate in Benghazi is now at the center of another pesky matter.
The issue involves the unmasking of Trump associates during the 2016 presidential campaign for their ties to Russians. The records of Rice's involvement are now -- surprise! -- sealed for five years as part of the President Obama library under the Presidential Records Act. So until 2022, the public won't know what, if anything, Ms. Rice did to unmask then-candidate Trump associates. How convenient.
On that issue alone, something's rotten in Denmark. Why would those documents be hidden in a Presidential library? How are they integral to his administration? If there's nothing to hide, why not air them? That annoying delay just doesn't sit well with me.
But today Rice has come out playing the victim card. More specifically, she's playing the gender/race victim card, complaining that as an African-American woman, she's being unfairly targeted over white men. This is a preposterous, not to mention ironic. When I went to Wikipedia to look into her academic background I found this line:
Rice said that her parents taught her to "never use race as an excuse or advantage" and "He believed segregation had constrained him from being all he could be. The psychological hangover of that took him decades to overcome. His most fervent wish was that we not have that psychological baggage."
Apparently, the Stanford-educated Rhodes scholar forgot these nuggets, because she's now whining about how the slings and arrows she's receiving are motivated by race and gender. Ignore for the moment that a white man and a white woman have received subpoenae to testify before Congress on the unmasking issue. That she was included necessarily means she's been targeted because of her race and gender.
If someone goes on national television and lies, bold-facedly, about what caused an attack on a consulate that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, and then acts like Alfred E. Neuman -- what, me worry? -- followed by her equivocal statements regarding her role in unmasking Trump associates, she should expect greater scrutiny, especially when the records regarding her involvement are tucked away in a presidential library vault for five years. For someone this educated to act surprised and hurt that she's a focal point of an inquiry into actions that may or may not be illegal is ludicrous. Rice is certainly not the most corrupt member of the Obama administration, but she's part of a murderers' row of sniveling civil servants whose idea of providing service to the country meant treating the public with contempt and disdain. That the public is now tired of this act is understandable, even to people without Stanford degrees and fully-paid trips to Oxford. That Rice can't or won't understand this is mystifying.
Yet, I find it hard to believe that Rice actually believes this. Instead, I treat this as a play to her and the Democrats' base: Leftists who see every inquiry as based in malevolent motivation. The refusal to accept any responsibility for creating the conditions that spawned the inquiry is an easy move; it takes great chutzpah, however, to continually point the finger at opponents and claim that it's their fault.
I'll wait the five years. In 2022 we'll find out just what Rice did. I bet it'll be along the same lines as her involvement in the Benghazi lies.
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
The issue involves the unmasking of Trump associates during the 2016 presidential campaign for their ties to Russians. The records of Rice's involvement are now -- surprise! -- sealed for five years as part of the President Obama library under the Presidential Records Act. So until 2022, the public won't know what, if anything, Ms. Rice did to unmask then-candidate Trump associates. How convenient.
On that issue alone, something's rotten in Denmark. Why would those documents be hidden in a Presidential library? How are they integral to his administration? If there's nothing to hide, why not air them? That annoying delay just doesn't sit well with me.
But today Rice has come out playing the victim card. More specifically, she's playing the gender/race victim card, complaining that as an African-American woman, she's being unfairly targeted over white men. This is a preposterous, not to mention ironic. When I went to Wikipedia to look into her academic background I found this line:
Rice said that her parents taught her to "never use race as an excuse or advantage" and "He believed segregation had constrained him from being all he could be. The psychological hangover of that took him decades to overcome. His most fervent wish was that we not have that psychological baggage."
Apparently, the Stanford-educated Rhodes scholar forgot these nuggets, because she's now whining about how the slings and arrows she's receiving are motivated by race and gender. Ignore for the moment that a white man and a white woman have received subpoenae to testify before Congress on the unmasking issue. That she was included necessarily means she's been targeted because of her race and gender.
If someone goes on national television and lies, bold-facedly, about what caused an attack on a consulate that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, and then acts like Alfred E. Neuman -- what, me worry? -- followed by her equivocal statements regarding her role in unmasking Trump associates, she should expect greater scrutiny, especially when the records regarding her involvement are tucked away in a presidential library vault for five years. For someone this educated to act surprised and hurt that she's a focal point of an inquiry into actions that may or may not be illegal is ludicrous. Rice is certainly not the most corrupt member of the Obama administration, but she's part of a murderers' row of sniveling civil servants whose idea of providing service to the country meant treating the public with contempt and disdain. That the public is now tired of this act is understandable, even to people without Stanford degrees and fully-paid trips to Oxford. That Rice can't or won't understand this is mystifying.
Yet, I find it hard to believe that Rice actually believes this. Instead, I treat this as a play to her and the Democrats' base: Leftists who see every inquiry as based in malevolent motivation. The refusal to accept any responsibility for creating the conditions that spawned the inquiry is an easy move; it takes great chutzpah, however, to continually point the finger at opponents and claim that it's their fault.
I'll wait the five years. In 2022 we'll find out just what Rice did. I bet it'll be along the same lines as her involvement in the Benghazi lies.
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, June 26, 2017
Ninth Circuit Rebuke
Well, those of us in the industry -- the law -- are well-aware that the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned of Circuits in the country. And there's a reason for that: Activist opinions don't go over well with the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit is infamous for trying to create law out of the personal opinions of the judges on its bench.
Big mistake.
Today, the SCOTUS upheld the key provisions of the second, amended travel ban the President ordered earlier this year, overturning the Fourth and the Ninth Circuits who issued injunctions against the ban. Yes, the Fourth was also wrong, but the Fourth at least tries to issue reasoned opinions. The Ninth just...shoots from the cuff.
What's telling about this ruling is that it was a unanimous opinion. Yep, not even Justices Kagan, Ginsberg or Sotomayor dissented. As a precocious eleven-year-old likes to exclaim when he's right about something, HATAH!: How About Those Apples, Huh? Leftists all over the country must be beside themselves.
See, it's not about the Constitution, or the rule of law, or any of that stuff. No, it's about Feelgoodism, globalism and multiculturalism that has or should have supplanted law and order. Because people are moved emotionally by something, their emotions trump (no pun intended) the law and replace them with what people feel should be the rule and, more importantly, what they want.
That's not how a civilized society operates. If there's a groundswell for a particular position, the way to handle it is to bring proposed legislation to Congress and have a vote. Then the legislative process goes its normal course and either there's a law or there isn't. This notion that we can, by popular opinion, simply ignore the laws and have our own version of reality take their place is madness.
Leftists were accustomed, over the course of the last eight years of the Obama administration, of approaching laws this way. Especially since their opinions meshed with what then-President Obama believed. Now that they're confronted by someone with whom they have a disagreement -- and whom they vilify as the anti-Christ -- the rush to apoplexia is headlong.
What Leftists and others opposed to the travel ban refuse to accept is that the President is correct when he invokes his constitutional authority to issue the travel ban. Rather than gracefully accept it, they spin it and argue that it is an infringement of religious practice. Nevermind that their acolyte, then-President Obama, came up with the list that President Trump is now using. Had the former president put the ban in place, his nattering nabobs of nuttiness would have nodded at each other in agreement and blessed it as having come down from the mountaintop. Instead, since it's this president with whom they virulently disagree, there must be some nefarious reason for its implementation.
Look: There is nothing this President can do that will please half the population. The same held true for then-President Obama. There is, however, a qualitative difference between the reactions of the groups opposing the presidents. Leftists resort to any number of strategies to upend the President's actions; conservatives grumbled or took him to court. But there weren't violent protests, attacks on opponents, blocking of streets, disruptions of speakers. It was rude at times and it was adversarial, but it never sank to the level the Leftists have plumbed.
And it's only going to get worse: Apparently, Justice Kennedy is about to announce his retirement. Since the Democrats forced Republicans to use the nuclear option with Supreme Court nominees, this ensures that whomever President Trump nominates is very likely to be approved by the Senate.
Pop the popcorn and pull up a chair. The nextseven three years should be interesting.
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Big mistake.
Today, the SCOTUS upheld the key provisions of the second, amended travel ban the President ordered earlier this year, overturning the Fourth and the Ninth Circuits who issued injunctions against the ban. Yes, the Fourth was also wrong, but the Fourth at least tries to issue reasoned opinions. The Ninth just...shoots from the cuff.
What's telling about this ruling is that it was a unanimous opinion. Yep, not even Justices Kagan, Ginsberg or Sotomayor dissented. As a precocious eleven-year-old likes to exclaim when he's right about something, HATAH!: How About Those Apples, Huh? Leftists all over the country must be beside themselves.
See, it's not about the Constitution, or the rule of law, or any of that stuff. No, it's about Feelgoodism, globalism and multiculturalism that has or should have supplanted law and order. Because people are moved emotionally by something, their emotions trump (no pun intended) the law and replace them with what people feel should be the rule and, more importantly, what they want.
That's not how a civilized society operates. If there's a groundswell for a particular position, the way to handle it is to bring proposed legislation to Congress and have a vote. Then the legislative process goes its normal course and either there's a law or there isn't. This notion that we can, by popular opinion, simply ignore the laws and have our own version of reality take their place is madness.
Leftists were accustomed, over the course of the last eight years of the Obama administration, of approaching laws this way. Especially since their opinions meshed with what then-President Obama believed. Now that they're confronted by someone with whom they have a disagreement -- and whom they vilify as the anti-Christ -- the rush to apoplexia is headlong.
What Leftists and others opposed to the travel ban refuse to accept is that the President is correct when he invokes his constitutional authority to issue the travel ban. Rather than gracefully accept it, they spin it and argue that it is an infringement of religious practice. Nevermind that their acolyte, then-President Obama, came up with the list that President Trump is now using. Had the former president put the ban in place, his nattering nabobs of nuttiness would have nodded at each other in agreement and blessed it as having come down from the mountaintop. Instead, since it's this president with whom they virulently disagree, there must be some nefarious reason for its implementation.
Look: There is nothing this President can do that will please half the population. The same held true for then-President Obama. There is, however, a qualitative difference between the reactions of the groups opposing the presidents. Leftists resort to any number of strategies to upend the President's actions; conservatives grumbled or took him to court. But there weren't violent protests, attacks on opponents, blocking of streets, disruptions of speakers. It was rude at times and it was adversarial, but it never sank to the level the Leftists have plumbed.
And it's only going to get worse: Apparently, Justice Kennedy is about to announce his retirement. Since the Democrats forced Republicans to use the nuclear option with Supreme Court nominees, this ensures that whomever President Trump nominates is very likely to be approved by the Senate.
Pop the popcorn and pull up a chair. The next
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, June 6, 2017
Things I've Been Pondering
Since my recent surgery, I've had a lot of down time with nothing to do but read and watch television. With a return to work on the horizon, and therapy on top of that, things will get back to normal soon.
In the meantime, I've been doing a lot of thinking about random things and thought I'd lay out my ponderings:
-- What in the name of all that is holy is Marie Harf doing at Fox News? Was Jen Psaki unvailable or too expensive? These two were the female equivalents of Jay Carney and Josh Earnest during the Obama adminstration.
-- Is Maxine Waters the most embarrassing representative in Congress? How does her district not elect someone with functioning grey matter?
-- I love shows based in Alaska -- The Last Alaskans, Yukon Men and Mountain Men (OK, it's not only based in Alaska, but at least two of the regulars are). I'd like to think that I could live that way, but could I? Not at my advanced age, perhaps, but if I'd started out in my twenties, could I have done it?
-- What is it going to take for Leftists to realize that all this palaver about loving Islamofascists will put an end to their jihad is useless?
-- Since when did it become not only fashionable but acceptable to say or do despicable things about the President? Granted, criticizing the POTUS is always acceptable. And President Trump provides enough fodder for his opponents. But the commentary coming from the Left is downright despicable.
-- Some Euro politicians are getting full of themselves. Whether it's Mayor Khan of London or the new guy, Macron, in France, their rhetoric is unbelievable. Perhaps they're just in line with the Leftists here...
-- Does anyone listen anymore? The whole thing about the Paris Climate Treaty is crazy. If anyone took the time to read the restrictions it places on the US and the lack of restrictions it puts on the biggest polluters, he'd realize that treaty as presently constituted is no good for our country.
-- Does television in the summer get dumber, or am I forgetting what it used to be like?
-- What amazes me is that although people claim to like me, they rarely if ever reach out to me. I can count two people -- one of whom is my brother -- who regularly seek me out to check on me, although I typically do so on a biweekly basis at worst. I think it's time to give people a good lettin' alone, as our Mother used to say, and see what reactions, if any, that generates.
-- With all the attacks being made by Islamofascists with bombs, knives and cars, where are the gun control nuts?
-- Why is it that on highways, the work in the right lane leads to virtually corduroy roads where it's like driving over successive rumble strips? Why does this never happen in the other lanes?
-- When people go to work for defense contractors, do they understand that they have to leave their politics at home? They're essentially contractors working for the government. This notion that their First Amendment rights and political affiliations allow them to disclose classified materials is ludicrous.
-- Is there a more loveable dog breed than the bulldog?
-- Why is it that the movies are overrun with zombies, vampires and cartoon characters? Where are the Islamofascists that are terrorizing the globe? Why is it that Hollywood, who can claim to see a fascist in the White House, is unwilling or unable to see the real fascists who are trying to take over the world? Don't they know that if they succeed, the kinds of movies Hollywood revels in will be consigned to the dust bin of history?
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
In the meantime, I've been doing a lot of thinking about random things and thought I'd lay out my ponderings:
-- What in the name of all that is holy is Marie Harf doing at Fox News? Was Jen Psaki unvailable or too expensive? These two were the female equivalents of Jay Carney and Josh Earnest during the Obama adminstration.
-- Is Maxine Waters the most embarrassing representative in Congress? How does her district not elect someone with functioning grey matter?
-- I love shows based in Alaska -- The Last Alaskans, Yukon Men and Mountain Men (OK, it's not only based in Alaska, but at least two of the regulars are). I'd like to think that I could live that way, but could I? Not at my advanced age, perhaps, but if I'd started out in my twenties, could I have done it?
-- What is it going to take for Leftists to realize that all this palaver about loving Islamofascists will put an end to their jihad is useless?
-- Since when did it become not only fashionable but acceptable to say or do despicable things about the President? Granted, criticizing the POTUS is always acceptable. And President Trump provides enough fodder for his opponents. But the commentary coming from the Left is downright despicable.
-- Some Euro politicians are getting full of themselves. Whether it's Mayor Khan of London or the new guy, Macron, in France, their rhetoric is unbelievable. Perhaps they're just in line with the Leftists here...
-- Does anyone listen anymore? The whole thing about the Paris Climate Treaty is crazy. If anyone took the time to read the restrictions it places on the US and the lack of restrictions it puts on the biggest polluters, he'd realize that treaty as presently constituted is no good for our country.
-- Does television in the summer get dumber, or am I forgetting what it used to be like?
-- What amazes me is that although people claim to like me, they rarely if ever reach out to me. I can count two people -- one of whom is my brother -- who regularly seek me out to check on me, although I typically do so on a biweekly basis at worst. I think it's time to give people a good lettin' alone, as our Mother used to say, and see what reactions, if any, that generates.
-- With all the attacks being made by Islamofascists with bombs, knives and cars, where are the gun control nuts?
-- Why is it that on highways, the work in the right lane leads to virtually corduroy roads where it's like driving over successive rumble strips? Why does this never happen in the other lanes?
-- When people go to work for defense contractors, do they understand that they have to leave their politics at home? They're essentially contractors working for the government. This notion that their First Amendment rights and political affiliations allow them to disclose classified materials is ludicrous.
-- Is there a more loveable dog breed than the bulldog?
-- Why is it that the movies are overrun with zombies, vampires and cartoon characters? Where are the Islamofascists that are terrorizing the globe? Why is it that Hollywood, who can claim to see a fascist in the White House, is unwilling or unable to see the real fascists who are trying to take over the world? Don't they know that if they succeed, the kinds of movies Hollywood revels in will be consigned to the dust bin of history?
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)