Week after week, something bizarre comes out of Hollyweird. Unsatisfied with merely making questionably bad entertainment and earning millions of dollars for doing so, the people who frequent the place seem to be adept at making ludicrous and self-serving comments or statements that strain credulity to the point of breaking. These are the same people who seek to lecture the rest of us on things like global warming, wars, politics and other social issues as if they're experts on the subjects. Let's examine a few of the perpetrators' comments.
First up is Tom Cruise, who infamously said that his job was as hard as fighting in Afghanistan. Luckily, Mark Wahlberg came out and, without mentioning Mr. Cruise, slammed the statement for what it was: A narcissistic, fatuous and warped celebrity who's been far too coddled for his own good. Mr. Cruise kept a somewhat low profile after Mr. Wahlberg criticized him anonymously, which was probably the best public relations move he's made in quite a long while.
Next up is the irrepressible Gwyneth Paltrow. She's a veritable cornucopia of mind-boggling comments which many would have thought had crested with her joint announcement with her estranged husband about their separation that they labeled as a conscious uncoupling. She's managed to alienate working moms, single women, American men and who-knows-what-other groups with her boneheaded statements dressed up as sophistication. Her pretentious announcement, however, caused a backlash in the ether where, apparently, she's been called some unflattering names. Undaunted and clearly demonstrating a complete lack of understanding or learning from her past mistakes, Ms. Paltrow has now likened what she's endured to being through a war. Not surprisingly, this has generated even more negative commentary, this time from veterans. For someone allegedly so sophisticated, Ms. Paltrow evidences a complete lack of awareness of the problems her mouth causes her.
Kanye West, no stranger to imitating a lightening rod, compared what he does for a living to those who actually put their lives at risk in their jobs, like police officers or military personnel. Much like Ms. Paltrow, Mr. West was unaware that his comments might draw some fire from people like cops...which it did. Oftentimes, as already seen in the cases of Mr. Cruise and Ms. Paltrow, the retorts are pithier and sharper than anything the celebrity was complaining about.
What amazes me is that these celebrities actually pay publicists whose jobs is to make sure that publicity about them is favorable and then they sabotage the work they pay very well for and complain about the results. To suggest that these people have god-complexes isn't much of a stretch.
Even when celebrities aren't dodging imaginary ordnance they manage to utter silliness dressed up as wisdom and sophistication. Jim Parsons, the actor who capably portrays Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory, once said that some role (I forget which it was), nurtured his soul. Perhaps it did, but I tend to believe Mr. Parsons was unintentionally engaging in hyperbole. Waxing poetic about acting, to me, is simply silly. I'm sure Mr. Parsons enjoys his profession. But to elevate what he does to nourishment is -- and I can only use the same word over and over -- silly.
Part of this stems from The Actor's Studio, a show that takes itself more seriously than anything or anyone other than its host, James Lipton, who acts like he's the Wizard with the audience getting a peek behind the curtain. The amount of talk about their craft -- it's a job, people, and not a terribly challenging one at that -- and how much they have to get into the role, how much they have to understand the character's motiviation and how much of a character is themselves, is positively foolish. And the audience, comprised largely if not entirely of people anxious to join the celebrity on stage to talk about themselves in the same tones, sits breathlessly hanging on the celebrity's every word. Very little substance is discussed. A whole lot of pablum is passed off as knowledge. The only worthwhile thing about the show is the occasional backstory the celebrity shares with the audience.
I'm not envious. I wouldn't and couldn't act or perform in any way for entertainment purposes, at least not intentionally. I can't act. I can't sing. I can't dance. I'm under no illusions that somehow I'm better than the celebrities at what they do. That's not the point. What I excel at compared to them is having a firm underpinning of reality, a perspective that doesn't look into a mirror and the certainty that there are better and more important things and people in this world than myself.
(c) The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Friday, May 30, 2014
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Abortion Non Sequiturs
In the last couple of weeks, a couple of women have publicly thrust the abortion issue front and center with their non-sensical and completely moronic approaches to abortion. Mind you, I'm well aware that abortion is legal in this country and although I'm against it unless the woman's life is in jeopardy, I'm not advocating a return to the pre-Roe days, much as I'd prefer them.
First up is some wannabe actress and full time abortion counselor Emily Letts. Ms. Letts thought it would be a good idea to film herself having her own abortion which, when one considers that she's a former actress, is only natural. For those who missed it, here's her fifteen minutes of fame:
Aside from the imbecilic stupidity of not using contraception despite working as an abortion counselor, Ms. Letts decides that she's going to film her own abortion because there are no positive films about abortion available for public consumption. Apparently, she feels that her own video is positive. She's more caught up in the aura of her video than the implications of her actions, aside from those that cast her as some sort of champion of abortion rights. At one point, she even says that she was awed by the fact that she can create life. She gave an interview wherein she said that her sonogram would be the first thing she'd retrieve were there a fire in her dwelling. By implication, despite the fact that she refers to her baby as potential life, she implicitly admits that it was a life she was terminating.
The other breathlessly callous comment came from the irrepressible Sarah Silverman. It's so stultifying I'm just going to provide the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHyV7D-jXKA
Ms. Silverman bravely, as Bill Maher chided her, admitted that she'd never had an abortion and wasn't sure she ever would, but still stood by women and their right to have an abortion. She went on to explain her vegetarianism and referred to fetuses as nothing more than goo.
Again, I could argue the abortion debate all day long, never be persuaded to change my opinion and at the same time never raise my voice. If any dissenters out there want to throw the usual arguments at me about rape and imperfect babies, know this: One of our sisters became pregnant by virtue of a date rape and the other sister had a baby born with osteogenesis imperfecta. Both the nephew and the niece have enriched our lives, and we came together as a family to help our sisters raise their children. It wasn't always easy, and it was a challenge beyond our imagining, but it got done. So don't lob those arguments at me because they'll fall on deaf ears.
Instead, I return to my bottom line argument: What do these women think is growing inside them? A penny? A tree? A car part? It can be one thing and one thing only: A human life. To callously and cavalierly view the termination of a human life similarly to the removal of a bunion or as some annoying outpatient procedure is galling. For a woman to refer to her potential baby as goo or the pregnant woman to refer to her fetus as a potential life is appalling. Have women -- feminists, really -- become so desensitized and misinformed that they believe this line of reasoning? It's beyond sickening.
One other argument is never answered by the pro-death side: If a woman should have the right to make choices about her own body, shouldn't that child have a similar right? Given the fact that the woman and the child have somewhat competing interests, it would seem that a guardian ad litem might be in order. And what of the father's input? Since he had a share of creating that life, and will most certainly be responsible financially for the life should it be born, why does he not have any say in that child's existence?
I'm saddened that this issue continues to confuse some people. They'd do well to listen to the former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who, in her dissent in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., suggested that the viability argument clung to by abortionists was on a collision course with technology. It is not inconceivable that with technological advances, the point of viability may well be conception itself. At that point, the arguments that it is only potential life or goo would no longer be viable themselves.
And then, much like blacks weren't regarded as whole persons earlier in this country's history, we'd have a line of demarcation between fetuses that weren't considered human lives and those that are now considered human lives.
If that were to happen, I wonder if we'd look back at history and mourn all those babies who were denied life by selfishness and sophistry.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
First up is some wannabe actress and full time abortion counselor Emily Letts. Ms. Letts thought it would be a good idea to film herself having her own abortion which, when one considers that she's a former actress, is only natural. For those who missed it, here's her fifteen minutes of fame:
Aside from the imbecilic stupidity of not using contraception despite working as an abortion counselor, Ms. Letts decides that she's going to film her own abortion because there are no positive films about abortion available for public consumption. Apparently, she feels that her own video is positive. She's more caught up in the aura of her video than the implications of her actions, aside from those that cast her as some sort of champion of abortion rights. At one point, she even says that she was awed by the fact that she can create life. She gave an interview wherein she said that her sonogram would be the first thing she'd retrieve were there a fire in her dwelling. By implication, despite the fact that she refers to her baby as potential life, she implicitly admits that it was a life she was terminating.
The other breathlessly callous comment came from the irrepressible Sarah Silverman. It's so stultifying I'm just going to provide the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHyV7D-jXKA
Ms. Silverman bravely, as Bill Maher chided her, admitted that she'd never had an abortion and wasn't sure she ever would, but still stood by women and their right to have an abortion. She went on to explain her vegetarianism and referred to fetuses as nothing more than goo.
Again, I could argue the abortion debate all day long, never be persuaded to change my opinion and at the same time never raise my voice. If any dissenters out there want to throw the usual arguments at me about rape and imperfect babies, know this: One of our sisters became pregnant by virtue of a date rape and the other sister had a baby born with osteogenesis imperfecta. Both the nephew and the niece have enriched our lives, and we came together as a family to help our sisters raise their children. It wasn't always easy, and it was a challenge beyond our imagining, but it got done. So don't lob those arguments at me because they'll fall on deaf ears.
Instead, I return to my bottom line argument: What do these women think is growing inside them? A penny? A tree? A car part? It can be one thing and one thing only: A human life. To callously and cavalierly view the termination of a human life similarly to the removal of a bunion or as some annoying outpatient procedure is galling. For a woman to refer to her potential baby as goo or the pregnant woman to refer to her fetus as a potential life is appalling. Have women -- feminists, really -- become so desensitized and misinformed that they believe this line of reasoning? It's beyond sickening.
One other argument is never answered by the pro-death side: If a woman should have the right to make choices about her own body, shouldn't that child have a similar right? Given the fact that the woman and the child have somewhat competing interests, it would seem that a guardian ad litem might be in order. And what of the father's input? Since he had a share of creating that life, and will most certainly be responsible financially for the life should it be born, why does he not have any say in that child's existence?
I'm saddened that this issue continues to confuse some people. They'd do well to listen to the former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who, in her dissent in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., suggested that the viability argument clung to by abortionists was on a collision course with technology. It is not inconceivable that with technological advances, the point of viability may well be conception itself. At that point, the arguments that it is only potential life or goo would no longer be viable themselves.
And then, much like blacks weren't regarded as whole persons earlier in this country's history, we'd have a line of demarcation between fetuses that weren't considered human lives and those that are now considered human lives.
If that were to happen, I wonder if we'd look back at history and mourn all those babies who were denied life by selfishness and sophistry.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Gun Control and Craven Politicians
With the Santa Barbara shootings over the Memorial Day weekend, the issue of gun control and the NRA's role in opposition has resurfaced.
Some deranged young man with grievances against the world and women in particular went on a rampage, stabbing his three Asian roommates and shooting three other people, randomly, shortly after he posted a manifesto detailing his pain at society and the motivation for his attacks. In short, women didn't want to date him, so they had to die. Sadly and ironically, four of his six victims were men. His own parents were trying very hard to locate him at the time of the attacks, fearful that he was going to do what he ultimately did. Even more sadly, the police had approached him a few months ago about some of his postings and he conned them into believing that it was all a misunderstanding.
Speaking largely from grief, the father of one of the victims, Chris Martínez, gave a statement to the press wherein he blamed craven politicians and the NRA for his son's death:
Given that his son was gunned down in such a random, senseless and tragic way, I completely understand his grief. Yet his complaint rings a little hollow.
First of all, three of the dead were killed with a knife. If Mr. Martínez were approaching this in a balanced way, he should be indicting Wusthoff, Henckel and Chicago Cutlery for producing knives. Apparently, the killer also ran people over with his BMW, so imports from Germany should stop forthwith.
Second, the guns were all legally bought and legally registered. The guns didn't drive themselves around and shoot innocent people, a deranged and seriously mentally ill person used them to commit the crimes. How the NRA has any culpability for the crimes committed escapes reason.
Mr. Martínez may have a point, however. When he mentions craven politicians he's getting closer to the truth. Craven politicians who are gutless and spineless refuse to address the real reason behind this and other shootings.
I very brief review of the more notable mass shootings in recent history reveals that in several of the shootings, mental health played a key role in the incidents. In the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007, the Tucson shootings in 2011, the Aurora, Colorado shootings and the Newport, Connecticut shootings in 2012, and this past weekend's shootings all involved mentally disturbed people who obtained weapons, legally, or stole them from people who owned them legally (in the case of Adam Lanza, the Newport shooter). Other shootings involved people who became unhinged because of job loss, lack of promotion, car repossession or marital discord. The underlying problem is that of mental health.
Where craven politicians enter the argument is that politicians are the ones who refuse to draft legislation that would allow municipal, state and federal governments to exchange information about mentally disturbed people who should in no way be allowed to purchase or possess guns. The argument usually trotted out is the amorphous privacy rights issue. Thanks to the late Justice William O. Douglas, the concept of a penumbra of privacy rights -- found nowhere in the Constitution, by the by -- pertains to every U.S. citizen. That being the case, how can the government violate that right by sharing mental health records? This is the same set of people who see no problem with sharing registration information between governments for people who are law abiding citizens merely exercising their rights under the Second Amendment.
I could hash out the syllogism as to why society's right must trump individual's rights to privacy and give countless examples of how and why this has already been done countless times, but instead I'll ask a question: If we don't share mental health records, discreetly, with gun sellers and government agencies charged with monitoring gun sales and ownership, are we not putting at risk innocent people whose lives, and therefore penumbras of privacy, could be threatened by mentally disturbed gunmen? Put another way, is not society's interest in safety superior to a sick individual's right to own a gun?
Before anyone tries to claim the moral high ground, consider this: We already deny licenses to blind people, to infirm people, to people who cannot safely operate vehicles. Why is this any different? Because we're denying rights based on mental health? Is anyone seriously trying to argue that there are some mentally disturbed individuals who should be cleared to own firearms? What's more, if a person is denied the right to drive a car or own a gun, is there any real discredit or defamation by virtue of the fact that a mentally disturbed person is denied a license? It's not like they'd be branded with a scarlet letter.
The silliness has to stop now. If this act had been committed with weapons illegally obtained or illegally owned, and the NRA had supported unfettered access to weapons, it'd be one thing. But that's not what happened here. Mr. Martínez may be speaking simply out of grief, or he may be trying to further an agenda. Yet part of what he said rings true: Politicians have to engage their testicular fortitude and ensure that mentally disturbed individuals don't gain access to firearms. Their privacy rights are not superior to society's right to be safe. Enough is enough already.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Some deranged young man with grievances against the world and women in particular went on a rampage, stabbing his three Asian roommates and shooting three other people, randomly, shortly after he posted a manifesto detailing his pain at society and the motivation for his attacks. In short, women didn't want to date him, so they had to die. Sadly and ironically, four of his six victims were men. His own parents were trying very hard to locate him at the time of the attacks, fearful that he was going to do what he ultimately did. Even more sadly, the police had approached him a few months ago about some of his postings and he conned them into believing that it was all a misunderstanding.
Speaking largely from grief, the father of one of the victims, Chris Martínez, gave a statement to the press wherein he blamed craven politicians and the NRA for his son's death:
Given that his son was gunned down in such a random, senseless and tragic way, I completely understand his grief. Yet his complaint rings a little hollow.
First of all, three of the dead were killed with a knife. If Mr. Martínez were approaching this in a balanced way, he should be indicting Wusthoff, Henckel and Chicago Cutlery for producing knives. Apparently, the killer also ran people over with his BMW, so imports from Germany should stop forthwith.
Second, the guns were all legally bought and legally registered. The guns didn't drive themselves around and shoot innocent people, a deranged and seriously mentally ill person used them to commit the crimes. How the NRA has any culpability for the crimes committed escapes reason.
Mr. Martínez may have a point, however. When he mentions craven politicians he's getting closer to the truth. Craven politicians who are gutless and spineless refuse to address the real reason behind this and other shootings.
I very brief review of the more notable mass shootings in recent history reveals that in several of the shootings, mental health played a key role in the incidents. In the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007, the Tucson shootings in 2011, the Aurora, Colorado shootings and the Newport, Connecticut shootings in 2012, and this past weekend's shootings all involved mentally disturbed people who obtained weapons, legally, or stole them from people who owned them legally (in the case of Adam Lanza, the Newport shooter). Other shootings involved people who became unhinged because of job loss, lack of promotion, car repossession or marital discord. The underlying problem is that of mental health.
Where craven politicians enter the argument is that politicians are the ones who refuse to draft legislation that would allow municipal, state and federal governments to exchange information about mentally disturbed people who should in no way be allowed to purchase or possess guns. The argument usually trotted out is the amorphous privacy rights issue. Thanks to the late Justice William O. Douglas, the concept of a penumbra of privacy rights -- found nowhere in the Constitution, by the by -- pertains to every U.S. citizen. That being the case, how can the government violate that right by sharing mental health records? This is the same set of people who see no problem with sharing registration information between governments for people who are law abiding citizens merely exercising their rights under the Second Amendment.
I could hash out the syllogism as to why society's right must trump individual's rights to privacy and give countless examples of how and why this has already been done countless times, but instead I'll ask a question: If we don't share mental health records, discreetly, with gun sellers and government agencies charged with monitoring gun sales and ownership, are we not putting at risk innocent people whose lives, and therefore penumbras of privacy, could be threatened by mentally disturbed gunmen? Put another way, is not society's interest in safety superior to a sick individual's right to own a gun?
Before anyone tries to claim the moral high ground, consider this: We already deny licenses to blind people, to infirm people, to people who cannot safely operate vehicles. Why is this any different? Because we're denying rights based on mental health? Is anyone seriously trying to argue that there are some mentally disturbed individuals who should be cleared to own firearms? What's more, if a person is denied the right to drive a car or own a gun, is there any real discredit or defamation by virtue of the fact that a mentally disturbed person is denied a license? It's not like they'd be branded with a scarlet letter.
The silliness has to stop now. If this act had been committed with weapons illegally obtained or illegally owned, and the NRA had supported unfettered access to weapons, it'd be one thing. But that's not what happened here. Mr. Martínez may be speaking simply out of grief, or he may be trying to further an agenda. Yet part of what he said rings true: Politicians have to engage their testicular fortitude and ensure that mentally disturbed individuals don't gain access to firearms. Their privacy rights are not superior to society's right to be safe. Enough is enough already.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Friday, May 23, 2014
Mark Cuban and Charles Barkley
Mark Cuban and Charles Barkley are famous people. Mr. Cuban owns the Dallas Mavericks NBA franchise and Charles Barkley is a Hall of Fame basketball player who now provides commentary for NBA games on the TNT network. Mr. Cuban is also on the show Shark Tank, earning his way there after selling his company for $40M. Both are known for speaking their minds with a refreshing candor.
A couple of weeks ago Charles Barkley angered people in San Antonio when he commented that women in that city tend to be large. After the predictable outcry, Mr. Barkley said he wasn't going to apologize, that his humor is what it is and if people didn't like it, they could choose to change the channel and not listen to him. When given another opportunity to walk back the comment, Mr. Barkley refused, saying his opinion wasn't going to change.
Mr. Cuban has been opining on race and racism lately in the wake of the Donald Sterling controversy. At the same time he rejected Mr. Sterling's comments, he worried about the slippery slope of the methods being taken by the NBA against Mr. Sterling and their later application to other scandals. Frankly, Mr. Cuban's concerns are insightful and not tacit support for Mr. Sterling's racism, but those comments aren't what worry people now.
In the last couple of days, Mr. Cuban said, in essence, that he, like all of us, has his own prejudices, such as if he saw a young black kid in a hoodie late at night, which would cause him to cross the street, as would seeking a white skinhead covered in tattoos. Again, Mr. Cuban's candor should be applauded, but instead it's drawing fire.
Questions are flying around asking whether Mr. Cuban is racist. To me, this is ridiculous. Mr. Cuban has long been on record against racism, has uttered no racist comments whatsoever and loudly objected to Mr. Sterling's comments. What he did was admit that, given a certain situation, he would react in a way that most people, if they were honest, would do themselves. Instead, critics are invoking the memory of Trayvon Martin and suggesting that Mr. Cuban is a closet racist.
Neither Mr. Barkley nor Mr. Cuban deserve any criticism. People can disagree with their statements all they want, but to censure them for speaking their minds is ridiculous. Furthermore, it's hypocritical, because the same people would do nothing to suppress rap lyrics that are racist, homophobic and sexist. Cloaking hate speech as art doesn't make the hate any less real. Inasmuch as I condemn such rap lyrics, I believe the artists have the right to speak them. The same should hold for Mr. Barkley and Mr. Cuban. But people are more concerned about their righteous indignation than allowing a fellow citizen to exercise his right to free speech and are ready to infringe on that right.
Mr. Barkley's comments may not have been nice, but he's entitled to his opinion. Mr. Cuban's opinions are shared by many people who won't admit them. There was nothing racist about them but rather express what many people feel. What's more, there is at least an element of truth to them.
The hyper-sensitivity that exists in this country is troubling. The double standards are concerning. Instead of condemning Mr. Barkley and Mr. Cuban, I applaud them for having the guts to express what they believe without resorting to political correctness.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
A couple of weeks ago Charles Barkley angered people in San Antonio when he commented that women in that city tend to be large. After the predictable outcry, Mr. Barkley said he wasn't going to apologize, that his humor is what it is and if people didn't like it, they could choose to change the channel and not listen to him. When given another opportunity to walk back the comment, Mr. Barkley refused, saying his opinion wasn't going to change.
Mr. Cuban has been opining on race and racism lately in the wake of the Donald Sterling controversy. At the same time he rejected Mr. Sterling's comments, he worried about the slippery slope of the methods being taken by the NBA against Mr. Sterling and their later application to other scandals. Frankly, Mr. Cuban's concerns are insightful and not tacit support for Mr. Sterling's racism, but those comments aren't what worry people now.
In the last couple of days, Mr. Cuban said, in essence, that he, like all of us, has his own prejudices, such as if he saw a young black kid in a hoodie late at night, which would cause him to cross the street, as would seeking a white skinhead covered in tattoos. Again, Mr. Cuban's candor should be applauded, but instead it's drawing fire.
Questions are flying around asking whether Mr. Cuban is racist. To me, this is ridiculous. Mr. Cuban has long been on record against racism, has uttered no racist comments whatsoever and loudly objected to Mr. Sterling's comments. What he did was admit that, given a certain situation, he would react in a way that most people, if they were honest, would do themselves. Instead, critics are invoking the memory of Trayvon Martin and suggesting that Mr. Cuban is a closet racist.
Neither Mr. Barkley nor Mr. Cuban deserve any criticism. People can disagree with their statements all they want, but to censure them for speaking their minds is ridiculous. Furthermore, it's hypocritical, because the same people would do nothing to suppress rap lyrics that are racist, homophobic and sexist. Cloaking hate speech as art doesn't make the hate any less real. Inasmuch as I condemn such rap lyrics, I believe the artists have the right to speak them. The same should hold for Mr. Barkley and Mr. Cuban. But people are more concerned about their righteous indignation than allowing a fellow citizen to exercise his right to free speech and are ready to infringe on that right.
Mr. Barkley's comments may not have been nice, but he's entitled to his opinion. Mr. Cuban's opinions are shared by many people who won't admit them. There was nothing racist about them but rather express what many people feel. What's more, there is at least an element of truth to them.
The hyper-sensitivity that exists in this country is troubling. The double standards are concerning. Instead of condemning Mr. Barkley and Mr. Cuban, I applaud them for having the guts to express what they believe without resorting to political correctness.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Thursday, May 22, 2014
ImpIausible Presidential Deniability
During Watergate, the question What did the President know and when did he know it? was first asked by then Senator Howard Baker, given to him, coincidentally, by Fred Thompson. The phrase has been used repeatedly in the decades since then whenever a scandal is brewing. Nevermore has it been appropriate than over the last six years.
President Obama has seen several scandals during his tenure: Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, the Secret Service embarrassments, the NSA scandal, the IRS scandal, Obamacare, the VA mess, the AP scandal, the James Rosen affair, Benghazi and other incidents too many to recount here. The problem with virtually all of these scandals is that the President has claimed in several of them that the first he heard about them was from the media.
Seriously?
Really?
Mr. Obama possesses perhaps the greatest intelligence apparatus in the history of mankind. He has hundreds if not thousands of people working for him who are accountable to him. Ultimately, as he himself has quoted former President Truman, the buck stops with him. How, then, can it be that he's so woefully uninformed?
First and foremost, the MSM is enabling him by not calling him out on this. It's one thing not to ask the president questions at news conferences, but it's quite another to refuse investigations to see whether the president or his keepers are telling the truth. The Fourth Estate has basically taken to cheerleading over reporting, encouraging the administration in times of distress just as a cheerleader would try to buck up a player who had made a boneheaded play instead of reaming him for his mistake.
The next reason Mr. Obama's been given a pass is his race. The MSM, which is comprised largely of white liberals, is scared to death of being labeled racist, so it bends over backwards not to take him to task for matters that any white candidate would face. Ed Asner said as much when he answered why Hollywood failed to criticize its champion. That the MSM would be equally reticent isn't surprising.
The third reason is party affiliation. The MSM accepts whatever pablum he offers and excuse. It doesn't question him and shows no signs of indignation or outrage. Accordingly, he trots out the same lame excuse everytime something happens and there's no follow-up because the MSM is afraid of being labeled racist.
In short, there's no way the President of the United States is this uninformed. The MSM is allowing him to play that card for the reasons enumerated above. It's worked for him during his first term and will apparently be allowed in his second term.
The trouble with this craven favoritism is that eventually, a female president will be elected. If she's a conservative, there's less of a chance of this hands-off approach. But if as expected Cankles wins the presidency, will the MSM mete out the same treatment using gender as its motivation? Will it fear being viewed as sexist by holding her to the same standards it held white male presidents? Or will it soft-pedal any investigations holding her to a lesser standard?
The problem is that the MSM is supposed to be the people's watchdog for government malfeasance. Instead, it's turned into an informational remora that eats the scraps that it's left instead of digging for its own information. That is a disservice to the people.
Meanwhile, the President has cleverly latched onto this and continues to coopt the MSM, feeding it what he wants and reaping the benefits. Ironically, by treating the President this way, the MSM is engaging in a form of discrimination, because it's not treating him the same as if he were white.
There are no winners with this methodology.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
President Obama has seen several scandals during his tenure: Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, the Secret Service embarrassments, the NSA scandal, the IRS scandal, Obamacare, the VA mess, the AP scandal, the James Rosen affair, Benghazi and other incidents too many to recount here. The problem with virtually all of these scandals is that the President has claimed in several of them that the first he heard about them was from the media.
Seriously?
Really?
Mr. Obama possesses perhaps the greatest intelligence apparatus in the history of mankind. He has hundreds if not thousands of people working for him who are accountable to him. Ultimately, as he himself has quoted former President Truman, the buck stops with him. How, then, can it be that he's so woefully uninformed?
First and foremost, the MSM is enabling him by not calling him out on this. It's one thing not to ask the president questions at news conferences, but it's quite another to refuse investigations to see whether the president or his keepers are telling the truth. The Fourth Estate has basically taken to cheerleading over reporting, encouraging the administration in times of distress just as a cheerleader would try to buck up a player who had made a boneheaded play instead of reaming him for his mistake.
The next reason Mr. Obama's been given a pass is his race. The MSM, which is comprised largely of white liberals, is scared to death of being labeled racist, so it bends over backwards not to take him to task for matters that any white candidate would face. Ed Asner said as much when he answered why Hollywood failed to criticize its champion. That the MSM would be equally reticent isn't surprising.
The third reason is party affiliation. The MSM accepts whatever pablum he offers and excuse. It doesn't question him and shows no signs of indignation or outrage. Accordingly, he trots out the same lame excuse everytime something happens and there's no follow-up because the MSM is afraid of being labeled racist.
In short, there's no way the President of the United States is this uninformed. The MSM is allowing him to play that card for the reasons enumerated above. It's worked for him during his first term and will apparently be allowed in his second term.
The trouble with this craven favoritism is that eventually, a female president will be elected. If she's a conservative, there's less of a chance of this hands-off approach. But if as expected Cankles wins the presidency, will the MSM mete out the same treatment using gender as its motivation? Will it fear being viewed as sexist by holding her to the same standards it held white male presidents? Or will it soft-pedal any investigations holding her to a lesser standard?
The problem is that the MSM is supposed to be the people's watchdog for government malfeasance. Instead, it's turned into an informational remora that eats the scraps that it's left instead of digging for its own information. That is a disservice to the people.
Meanwhile, the President has cleverly latched onto this and continues to coopt the MSM, feeding it what he wants and reaping the benefits. Ironically, by treating the President this way, the MSM is engaging in a form of discrimination, because it's not treating him the same as if he were white.
There are no winners with this methodology.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Talent Shows on Television
Years ago in a former life I watched the first season of American Idol under duress. I didn't like it then and have no use for it now, although some of the initial episodes where people think they're the second coming of Josh Groban or Celine Dion are pretty amusing. At root of my problem is that, in my opinion, it's absolutely impossible to determine which singer is the best among a bunch of talented singers, especially since personal preference factors into it. Short of having a field full of tone-deaf singers -- hello William Hung -- with one Jennifer Hudson in their midst, I find it incomprehensible how it can be determined that Carrie Underwood is better than Chris Daughtry, or Clay Aiken is better than Kelly Clarkson. Each in his or her own way is talented.
Karen had an interest in two other shows (notice the past tense used, please): The Voice and Dancing With the Stars. Even she's soured a little on them, one more than the other, but she retains an interest because, well, she's gifted and creative where I'm not. It's really that simple. Frankly, I think they were obsolete the minute they aired, but I'm a cynic.
The Voice has as its hook four judges who sit with their backs to contestants who sing for all their worth hoping one of them, at least, will turn around and offer to be their voice coach to mentor them to stardom. That part of the show is about as pure as it gets. The idea is that without being able to see the person, no superficial reasons for choosing a singer will enter into a judge's determination for picking that singer. In theory, that's fine. The problem is the theory only lasts for the weeding out process, because after the initial rounds, the judges all view the singers as they go through a battery of tests to determine who advances and ultimately wins the contest. Moreover, once the judges have chosen their teams, the judges choose who win sing-offs (is that like one-on-one in basketball?) and then the audience at home and in the studio choose who stays and who goes home. The wholesome premise that it's the voice that determines the winner is now out the window, since everyone including the judges is watching the singers.
On top of that, I return to my original premise: How does one pick a winner? Over the last couple of weeks, Karen's been championing a couple of singers who, I have to admit, have the chops to record music and be successful. These people can sing. But the genre of the music they record as much as anything will determine their success. And in some celebrated instances arising from Idol -- notably the aforementioned Jennifer Hudson and Chris Daughtry -- not winning was no impediment to a successful career. In fact, only two Idol winners have the kind of success anticipated of winners.
So from that perspective, I think the show has a very narrow utility.
Dancing With the Stars is even worse, or sillier, from where I sit. Long criticized for bringing on C-List celebrities, the show deviates far from what is supposed to be its essence. Sure, the contestants have to master ballroom dances like the foxtrot, waltz, cha cha cha, rumba, tango and what not, but then they've injected fusion and freestyle which, from what I remember from my ballroom class many moons ago in my last semester of undergrad, weren't part of the list. Then there's the costuming: Women wear as little as possible, men go shirtless whenever they can. And the props, the props! Nothing says ballroom dancing better than putting in silly props more appropriate on a Broadway stage.
Some of the contestants are so bad that it's arguable they weren't even born with two left feet. Some, like last night's winner, are ringers, pure and simple. Whatever the merits of the dancing, the show's a joke when viewed through the prism of competition.
Then there's the product placement. This Dancing shares with Voice: Given the fervent and loyal following among people with too much time on their hands and unlimited texting packages, recording artists are flocking to these shows for what amounts to a free commercial for their albums. Coldplay, Ariana Grande, Cher -- I can't remember all of the singers who have appeared. While they're singing, more scantily-clad dancers twirl around in front of them dancing as if they were at the Copacabana and not in a ballroom. What was supposed to be a showcase of ballroom dancing has devolved into an orgy of music and dancing that has very little to do with ballrooom dancing and everything to do with marketing products and people. The Voice is guilty of this as well, although not as outlandishly, making these shows -- and their errant progenitor Idol -- perverse mutations of what is being advertised.
Every once in awhile, something surprising and worthwhile arises from these shows: A beautiful performance of dancing, a tremendous vocalist catching fire. By and large, however, these shows have gone down the path of Friends. The first season of Friends was a revelation. It was fresh, unique, fun. Then, once it became aware of its popularity, it got caught up in its own cuteness and resorted to anything that would augment its popularity, knowing that it had a captive audience whose powers of discrimination were woefully lacking. The same thing has happened to Dancing and Voice.
The Voice has as its moderator the friendly but wooden Carson Daly. I'm not sure what his claim to fame is, but he's a likeable but stiff host. He'd be great to have as a friend, I suspect, but his forte is not hosting a show.
Tom Bergeron, on the other hand, is a hoot. Were Dancing filled with more scenes of him hosting, it might be on to something. Frankly, Mr. Bergeron should have a talk show. He's incredibly quick-witted and very observant. He knows how to host and is beyond capable at his job. Would that Dancing took its cue from him.
Karen's very thoughtful about watching these shows.
She lets me catch up on my reading.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Karen had an interest in two other shows (notice the past tense used, please): The Voice and Dancing With the Stars. Even she's soured a little on them, one more than the other, but she retains an interest because, well, she's gifted and creative where I'm not. It's really that simple. Frankly, I think they were obsolete the minute they aired, but I'm a cynic.
The Voice has as its hook four judges who sit with their backs to contestants who sing for all their worth hoping one of them, at least, will turn around and offer to be their voice coach to mentor them to stardom. That part of the show is about as pure as it gets. The idea is that without being able to see the person, no superficial reasons for choosing a singer will enter into a judge's determination for picking that singer. In theory, that's fine. The problem is the theory only lasts for the weeding out process, because after the initial rounds, the judges all view the singers as they go through a battery of tests to determine who advances and ultimately wins the contest. Moreover, once the judges have chosen their teams, the judges choose who win sing-offs (is that like one-on-one in basketball?) and then the audience at home and in the studio choose who stays and who goes home. The wholesome premise that it's the voice that determines the winner is now out the window, since everyone including the judges is watching the singers.
On top of that, I return to my original premise: How does one pick a winner? Over the last couple of weeks, Karen's been championing a couple of singers who, I have to admit, have the chops to record music and be successful. These people can sing. But the genre of the music they record as much as anything will determine their success. And in some celebrated instances arising from Idol -- notably the aforementioned Jennifer Hudson and Chris Daughtry -- not winning was no impediment to a successful career. In fact, only two Idol winners have the kind of success anticipated of winners.
So from that perspective, I think the show has a very narrow utility.
Dancing With the Stars is even worse, or sillier, from where I sit. Long criticized for bringing on C-List celebrities, the show deviates far from what is supposed to be its essence. Sure, the contestants have to master ballroom dances like the foxtrot, waltz, cha cha cha, rumba, tango and what not, but then they've injected fusion and freestyle which, from what I remember from my ballroom class many moons ago in my last semester of undergrad, weren't part of the list. Then there's the costuming: Women wear as little as possible, men go shirtless whenever they can. And the props, the props! Nothing says ballroom dancing better than putting in silly props more appropriate on a Broadway stage.
Some of the contestants are so bad that it's arguable they weren't even born with two left feet. Some, like last night's winner, are ringers, pure and simple. Whatever the merits of the dancing, the show's a joke when viewed through the prism of competition.
Then there's the product placement. This Dancing shares with Voice: Given the fervent and loyal following among people with too much time on their hands and unlimited texting packages, recording artists are flocking to these shows for what amounts to a free commercial for their albums. Coldplay, Ariana Grande, Cher -- I can't remember all of the singers who have appeared. While they're singing, more scantily-clad dancers twirl around in front of them dancing as if they were at the Copacabana and not in a ballroom. What was supposed to be a showcase of ballroom dancing has devolved into an orgy of music and dancing that has very little to do with ballrooom dancing and everything to do with marketing products and people. The Voice is guilty of this as well, although not as outlandishly, making these shows -- and their errant progenitor Idol -- perverse mutations of what is being advertised.
Every once in awhile, something surprising and worthwhile arises from these shows: A beautiful performance of dancing, a tremendous vocalist catching fire. By and large, however, these shows have gone down the path of Friends. The first season of Friends was a revelation. It was fresh, unique, fun. Then, once it became aware of its popularity, it got caught up in its own cuteness and resorted to anything that would augment its popularity, knowing that it had a captive audience whose powers of discrimination were woefully lacking. The same thing has happened to Dancing and Voice.
The Voice has as its moderator the friendly but wooden Carson Daly. I'm not sure what his claim to fame is, but he's a likeable but stiff host. He'd be great to have as a friend, I suspect, but his forte is not hosting a show.
Tom Bergeron, on the other hand, is a hoot. Were Dancing filled with more scenes of him hosting, it might be on to something. Frankly, Mr. Bergeron should have a talk show. He's incredibly quick-witted and very observant. He knows how to host and is beyond capable at his job. Would that Dancing took its cue from him.
Karen's very thoughtful about watching these shows.
She lets me catch up on my reading.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, May 19, 2014
Free Enterprise and Politics
A new entrant into the political correctness circus is a little surprising. We've seen gays take photographers and bakers to court for failure to handle their business, in both cases being successful to force the merchants to provide the services against their religious beliefs or pay heavy fines. And going back some years, recording artists put pressure on Sun City, a resort in South Africa, to stop abiding by apartheid practices. Legally, there's nothing wrong with this. Private enterprise can do whatever it likes with its money so long as it's not funding terrorist activities, laundering money for drug cartels or violating currency laws or campaign funding laws. Now there's a new entrant in this merry-go-round of political correctness.
First, I should point out that the jury's still out on the gays' efforts to force people to provide services against their religious convictions. I think this is going to the SCOTUS and it's anyone's guess how the Court will rule, especially in view of the recent ruling on affirmative action that upheld Michigan's laws tearing down affirmative action. But that ruling is simply grounded in states' rights issues, which could be said to be central to the gay v. merchant debate, although I think that contrary to affirmative action, which is over forty years old, gay rights issues are just beginning to be examined. But I digress.
News came out that Bank of America has told porn stars that their bank accounts will be closed, no matter how solidly the accounts have been maintained by the holders. Behind this decision, allegedly, may be something called Operation Choke Point, in which the federal government pressures lending institutions to close the accounts of businesses and individuals engaged in industries deemed by the government to be unsavory or undesirable. Allegedly, industries so far targeted have included payday lenders, ammunition sellers, dating services, purveyors of drug paraphernalia and online gambling sites.
To be fair, I'm not sure how much of that last information is true. I've gleaned that from other online sources. At the same time, I located information regarding the same approach applied to gun manufacturers that turned out to be false.
What's particularly frightening is how Operation Choke Point has been manipulated by the government. Originally intended -- or so it was said -- as a safeguard against fraudsters, a year after its initiation, the DOJ began applying pressure on banks to target specific industries with which it had a moral disagreement. Unable to defeat gun owners by curtailing their rights under the Second Amendment, the government is engaging in collateral attacks by going after magazine sizes, rates of fire, consumption and manufacture of lead (a key component in bullets) and the finances of gun manufacture and sales. This end-run would appear, at first blush, to be perfectly legal, until it's understood that by doing this, the government is infringing on enumerated rights as set forth in the Bill of Rights. It's devious and ultimately totalitarian.
If porn stars aren't able to bank properly, they become ripe for audits by the IRS. Indirectly, this attacks the porn stars First Amendment rights, because the ultimate goal isn't to prevent them from banking, but from plying their craft, such as it is. What's the problem? one might ask. Well, what if the government extended it to other industries with which it differed? What about certain artists, authors or commentators? In a sense, this is what Congress, which has the power of the purse, could do to the Supreme Court, were it to disagree with a ruling made by the SCOTUS: It could pull funding for the Court, crippling it and rendering it impotent. Congress has had many disagreements with the SCOTUS over the years, but it has never acted accordingly. Sadly, the admininstration has no such compunctions.
In researching this story I came across a site called Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership that posted an article entitled It's Even Worse: Operation Choke Point Threatens Both Guns and Common Decency. It's an excellent article and well worth the read. You can find it here:
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd04/wolfe-operation-choke-point.htm
If anyone should fear government infringement of personal rights, it's Jews.
The thing that their article reminded me of was a poem by Martin Niemoller. Niemoller was a German anti-Nazi and Lutheran theologian. Niemoller wrote the very well-known poem as a criticism of German intellectuals who failed to stand up to Nazis who imprisoned and ultimately killed Jews, communists, gypsies and others viewed as dissenters or enemies of the state. His poem reads (in one version):
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
I'm not a porn star. Were I in porn I'd be hungry and homeless. But what's being done to people in the porn industry -- and the gun manufacturing industry, or the payday loan industry, or the gambling industry -- is wrong. I don't engage in certain of those activities, but I believe they have a fundamental right to do whatever they want so long as they are within the bounds of the law. The law does not criminalize the porn industry. It does not outlaw payday loans. It does not provide for penalties for selling guns within the codified laws. But the government is hellbent on destroying these industries by cutting off their life's blood -- money.
Pastor Niemoller was both perceptive and prescient. We need to be the same.
EDIT: Just as I was finishing this post I came across yet another article about the same tactic being used by this administration:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/18/targeted-gun-sellers-say-high-risk-label-from-feds/
People, this is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
First, I should point out that the jury's still out on the gays' efforts to force people to provide services against their religious convictions. I think this is going to the SCOTUS and it's anyone's guess how the Court will rule, especially in view of the recent ruling on affirmative action that upheld Michigan's laws tearing down affirmative action. But that ruling is simply grounded in states' rights issues, which could be said to be central to the gay v. merchant debate, although I think that contrary to affirmative action, which is over forty years old, gay rights issues are just beginning to be examined. But I digress.
News came out that Bank of America has told porn stars that their bank accounts will be closed, no matter how solidly the accounts have been maintained by the holders. Behind this decision, allegedly, may be something called Operation Choke Point, in which the federal government pressures lending institutions to close the accounts of businesses and individuals engaged in industries deemed by the government to be unsavory or undesirable. Allegedly, industries so far targeted have included payday lenders, ammunition sellers, dating services, purveyors of drug paraphernalia and online gambling sites.
To be fair, I'm not sure how much of that last information is true. I've gleaned that from other online sources. At the same time, I located information regarding the same approach applied to gun manufacturers that turned out to be false.
What's particularly frightening is how Operation Choke Point has been manipulated by the government. Originally intended -- or so it was said -- as a safeguard against fraudsters, a year after its initiation, the DOJ began applying pressure on banks to target specific industries with which it had a moral disagreement. Unable to defeat gun owners by curtailing their rights under the Second Amendment, the government is engaging in collateral attacks by going after magazine sizes, rates of fire, consumption and manufacture of lead (a key component in bullets) and the finances of gun manufacture and sales. This end-run would appear, at first blush, to be perfectly legal, until it's understood that by doing this, the government is infringing on enumerated rights as set forth in the Bill of Rights. It's devious and ultimately totalitarian.
If porn stars aren't able to bank properly, they become ripe for audits by the IRS. Indirectly, this attacks the porn stars First Amendment rights, because the ultimate goal isn't to prevent them from banking, but from plying their craft, such as it is. What's the problem? one might ask. Well, what if the government extended it to other industries with which it differed? What about certain artists, authors or commentators? In a sense, this is what Congress, which has the power of the purse, could do to the Supreme Court, were it to disagree with a ruling made by the SCOTUS: It could pull funding for the Court, crippling it and rendering it impotent. Congress has had many disagreements with the SCOTUS over the years, but it has never acted accordingly. Sadly, the admininstration has no such compunctions.
In researching this story I came across a site called Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership that posted an article entitled It's Even Worse: Operation Choke Point Threatens Both Guns and Common Decency. It's an excellent article and well worth the read. You can find it here:
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd04/wolfe-operation-choke-point.htm
If anyone should fear government infringement of personal rights, it's Jews.
The thing that their article reminded me of was a poem by Martin Niemoller. Niemoller was a German anti-Nazi and Lutheran theologian. Niemoller wrote the very well-known poem as a criticism of German intellectuals who failed to stand up to Nazis who imprisoned and ultimately killed Jews, communists, gypsies and others viewed as dissenters or enemies of the state. His poem reads (in one version):
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me.
I'm not a porn star. Were I in porn I'd be hungry and homeless. But what's being done to people in the porn industry -- and the gun manufacturing industry, or the payday loan industry, or the gambling industry -- is wrong. I don't engage in certain of those activities, but I believe they have a fundamental right to do whatever they want so long as they are within the bounds of the law. The law does not criminalize the porn industry. It does not outlaw payday loans. It does not provide for penalties for selling guns within the codified laws. But the government is hellbent on destroying these industries by cutting off their life's blood -- money.
Pastor Niemoller was both perceptive and prescient. We need to be the same.
EDIT: Just as I was finishing this post I came across yet another article about the same tactic being used by this administration:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/18/targeted-gun-sellers-say-high-risk-label-from-feds/
People, this is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
(c) 2014 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)