Who Makes The Rules?

I did the workout from hell last night, and today I feel like I’ve been beaten with a baseball bat (actually, not too far off…it was a tractor tire and a couple of lines of retired fire hose). So I was bored out of my mind this morning reading through pop culture news and came across something I had considered posting last night. Now that I can hardly move it seems like a fantastic idea.

Alec Baldwin, the perpetual two-year-old of Hollywood lore, pitched another fit. This time it was scathingly homophobic. In fact, it was so bad that his Twitter account was suspended. That takes some serious try.

Apparently, gay British journalist George Stark wrote a story in the Daily Mail (it has since been removed) accusing the eldest Baldwin brother’s wife of Tweeting smoothie recipes during the funeral for actor James Gandolfini. Now…I’m sure it’s no major surprise that he has no class. He left a horrid voicemail calling his own daughter a “rude, thoughtless little pig” after she failed to show for a weekend visit a few years back. He’s had several public meltdowns since, but this one took it.

He started off coolly enough, flatly saying that the story wasn’t true. He couldn’t just leave it there, though. Oh, no. This is Alec Baldwin we’re talking about. He has a reputation to uphold! He promptly fired off a series of Tweets calling Stark a “toxic little queen” then, after threatening to “f**k…you…up” he seethed, “I’d put my foot up your f**king a**, George Stark, but I’m sure you’d dig it too much” and then called on all of his followers to “straighten out this f**king little b**ch.”

The fact that he has any followers left speaks ill of the intelligence of Americans in the modern age.

Of course, we are also talking about the same society that gave a Grammy award to a vicious fraction of a man who beat his girlfriend nearly senseless before dumping her out of his car and leaving her there.

The rest of Hollywood has either learned to live with his crap or they actually like it. I’m not sure which I believe, and an honest case could be made for both. Mel Gibson was rightly put in his place after his drunken “Jews are responsible for all of the wars in the world” rant. He’s hardly seen a decent film set (or theater turnout) since. Paula Deen admitted to using a racial slur once nearly three decades ago and she’s being dropped like a plague-infected locust.

Alec Baldwin goes on a rant where he openly threatens a gay man, mocks his sexual orientation, and he somehow gets a free pass. The press practically yawns. He gets off the next day by calling himself “someone who fights against homophobia” in an apology after he deletes his entire Twitter account. Never mind the fact that after years in Hollywood, the man knows how tabloid-y British press can be and how they’ll latch onto something like this and he STILL loses his mind over it.

Matt Damon, Jeneane Garofalo, Sean Penn…Alec Baldwin. All of these people have displayed such arrogant, childish, and ignorant behavior that I can’t stomach seeing them on film anymore. I just can’t take them seriously.

Well, Blow Me Over…

Madonna just made me fall out of my chair.

Following the news that has-been Jim Carrey made the very public decision to stop backing his latest film, Kick-Ass 2, superstar Madonna managed something I didn’t think she could: she shocked the hell out of every conservative in America.

She has gone public with her belief that it’s PEOPLE that kill people – not guns.

Carrey Tweeted, “I did Kickass a month b4 Sandy Hook and now in all good conscience I cannot support that level of violence…I’m not ashamed of it but recent events have caused a change in my heart.” So, the shootings at Paducah, Jonesboro, Columbine, Red Lake, Amish Country, Virginia Tech, and Tucson didn’t change your heart before Sandy Hook? It took multiple mass shootings (nearly all in gun-free zones, something you’d think would indicate a trend) before you opened your eyes? That smacks of either willful ignorance or blatant opportunism, I can’t decide which. Besides being openly insulting with his “Cold Dead Hands” schtick (again, I point out the trend that this supposedly brilliant man can’t find right under his nose), now he expects that we’re gullible enough to buy his mea culpa routine? Please.

Don’t count on him giving his salary back to the production studio that made Kick-Ass 2. He won’t do any pressers to promote the film, but you can bet your sweet bippie he got paid for his time.

Carrey’s self-righteous grandstanding doesn’t really surprise me anymore. Madonna, on the other hand, was completely unexpected in her support of Second Amendment rights and the logic behind what we believe. She’s right. A gun isn’t going to sprout legs, walk down the street and kill someone. It doesn’t tell the person who picks it up to drive to the local school and start shooting people. A person – a human being with full control of their own choices and movement – has to make the decision to get the gun, load it, transport it, find their victims and kill them. That takes time, thought, and effort. Often they have to consider whether they’re willing to be taken into custody or if they’d rather kill themselves. A lot goes into these mass events that most liberals don’t stop to think about.

Madonna apparently has a better head on her shoulders than I first thought. I still don’t like her music, but I can certainly give her more credit for being able to think independently and not move with the Hollywood herd.

She is sure to catch flak for this. Carrey is taking some from one of the film’s producers, but that will be where it ends. His career has hit the skids; his most recent roles have been reduced to support (whereas he was once a commanding presence as a leading actor), and the slam-dunk of a sequel to one of his biggest hits, “Dumb and Dumber”, has been cancelled. He has several other films in the works but he is no longer the box office draw that he was.

The hysterical thing about this whole situation? The character he plays, Colonel Stars and Stripes, is a Christian who refuses to fire a gun.

I think I’m gonna go see it on opening day.

Liar, Liar

Jim Carrey released a video on Funny or Die in which he made his political views known, at least as far as guns go. He lampooned Charlton Heston’s “Cold Dead Hands” speech in a crass, sophomoric manner that is well-known to his fans. He now joins the ranks of George Clooney in being remarkably disrespectful to a man who was a Hollywood hero long before the role existed.

I’m not going to link the video here because I’m not interested in directing traffic to it. I have seen it, and it’s incredibly infantile. His roles in movies like Me, Myself and Irene were worth more than this garbage. His entire excuse for his boorish behavior? He’s against “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines”, of course.

Naturally, that makes it perfectly okay to make fun of a man who far out-classes you, Mr. Carrey.

Charlton Heston was marching for civil rights long before anyone else in Hollywood took it up as a cause. He took a hell of a lot of flak for it, too. Later, after he became one of the biggest box office draws, Heston helped push the Gun Control Act of 1968. Among the provisions of that bill were bans on felons and illegal aliens possessing or purchasing guns and the establishment of Federal Firearms Licensing, requiring all gun dealers to be licensed.

Even Heston, however, knew there had to be limits to progressivism. Sometime in the 1980’s he left the progressive bandwagon. He believed there were enough restrictions on owning guns. Civil rights had already been secured. He saw progressives making targets out of conservative white citizens who believed in their First and Second Amendment rights and he believed that the pendulum was about to swing too far. He became the president of the NRA after seeing the seemingly never-ending assault on Second Amendment rights in America.

That, however, is the only thing today’s Hollywood remembers of him. They have developed selective amnesia and forgotten that he picketed against a theater that was playing the movie El Cid – one of his best – because the theater was segregated. Allied Artists, the film company that made the movie, was mad at him for the move but he refused to back down. He marched with Dr. King and Sydney Poitier. Yet all they want to recall is that he held a rifle aloft and told the world that the government of his country would have to pry his guns from his cold, dead hands.

Some of my friends have reminded me to “consider the source” before getting angry with Jim Carrey. Unfortunately, he’s not the only source, and he’s only serving to further popularize a ridiculous notion that certain weapons with purely cosmetic features and large-capacity clips are the real cause of gun violence. That he chose to attack Mr. Heston long after his passing may show how tasteless he is but it makes him no less dangerous to our freedom to defend ourselves.

What’s more, when the outrage against his immature little snit was reported widely on Fox News, Carrey took it a step further and released an equally ludicrous “press release” attacking “Fux News” and claiming that he’d sue if he felt they were worth his time. Sorry, kiddo – you’re not suing because you know full well that you’d lose and everyone knows it. Liar, liar, pants on fire.

It’s not Fox that’s attacking you, it is us – the Americans who have watched your movies and put millions of dollars in your pockets because we thought you were a talented comedian. You have insulted us by acting as though you know better than we do. You’ve never served your country (hell, you’ve never served your community) and you have no idea what kind of evil lurks in the world. You have no clue what it takes to defend the people you love because you have never had to do it the way we have. Why would you? You have enough money to hire armed bodyguards. I wonder, Jim, do you count the number of rounds in their weapons before they’re allowed to work for you? Or do you want them to have more rounds in the event some nutjob attacks you?

At the end of the day, we all realize one simple truth: Charlton Heston had more class in his little finger than you will realize in your entire life. You are the court jester, and we do not like the entertainment preaching to us about how we should believe. This is not an attack orchestrated by Fox, it is a backlash from us being reported by Fox. That you fail to understand that only proves how childish you really are.

Please, Make It Stop!

Many of my friends have been posting a video clip of Alex Jones on Piers Morgan telling the British liberal elitist that “1776 will commence again” if the government tries to take our guns. They all think it’s great, but they forget who he is.

Jones is a 9/11 truther, a bona fide member of the tin-foil hat brigade who was interviewed along with several other truthers for a History Channel special on 9/11 conspiracy theories – toward the end of the special, he compared himself to Galileo, saying, “I’m saying the world is round, I’m saying that 9/11 is an inside job, I’m showing the official story is a fraud, a flat Earth theory, and I know I’m going to be vindicated.” Later, outside the Denver Mint (near the 2008 Democratic Convention was taking place), Jones went on a screaming rant during which he chased Michelle Malkin around the crowd, calling her “evil” and “a monster”. In an interview after that incident he claimed that he was set up, that his voice was normal, he was being polite and just asking a question – but that Malkin’s “people” created the video as disinformation.

In short, Alex Jones is a couple of french fries short of a Happy Meal.

I can’t stand the guy. He’s an embarrassment to the conservative cause. Completely aside from fudging the fact that 1776 actually wasn’t the start of the American Revolution (it had been cooking for years prior to the outbreak of the actual war, with the Tea Party occurring in 1773 – yes, I really am that cheeky), Jones did exactly what Piers invited him on the show to do: have a complete meltdown.

Jones fudges a few points in his long-winded growling and howling session. He states that out of 11,000 supposed gun deaths in America in 2012 (a figure that can’t be backed up since statistics won’t be available until next year), 74% were gang-related – that is false, and he never says where he gets his ridiculous statistics. The most recent statistics available from the FBI show that in 2011, 12,664 homicides occurred. Of that number, right around 68% were committed with firearms – 8,583 exactly. About 53% of all homicides occurred during the commission of another crime (burglary, robbery, auto theft, rape, etc.). According to the statistics, only about 673 homicides in 2011 were inter-gang in nature – that’s about .5% of all homicides. Oops.

Rather than calmly countering Piers’ questions about gun murders in the US as opposed to the UK (something that’s easy to do if you simply compare violent crime rates as a whole), Jones just calls him “a Hatchet Man of the New World Order” and then tells him to set up a boxing ring. Jones is a one-man wrecking crew; Piers knew what he was doing when he invited him, and Jones played right into it. He beautifully made the Limey’s point that those of us who support the Second Amendment are all drooling mouth-breathers who don’t know how to have an intelligent conversation.

He is the pathetic caricature that President Obama paints all conservatives as. Sadly, the media is only to happy to give him airtime because of it.

Not quite two years ago, however, Ted Nugent went on Piers Morgan’s show and very articulately took him out to the woodshed on gun control. It’s so beautiful it almost brought a tear to my eye. You aren’t going to see Nuge or John Lott on Piers right now…he’s too busy building the aforementioned narrative.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=50vUx0DfGtE]

The Great Planned Parenthood Lie

I’m sick to death of big names in American culture trying to have me believe that, as a woman, I should be a pro-abortion liberal who screams for forced coverage for contraceptives. Scarlett Johansson is a beautiful and talented young woman. So is Eva Longoria. But the fact that they are lined up with other starlets to push their “vote with your ladyparts” campaign is disgusting and extremely off-putting.

In the newest ad, Hollywood is climbing all over Romney and Ryan for promising to de-fund Planned Parenthood. Their choice of words comes across as being dishonest, though – the Obama campaign is accusing Ryan of backing laws that would “allow employers to deny women access to cancer screenings and contraceptives.” In the Hollywood ad, Johansson makes an absolutely deplorable statement: she claims that “we have the GOP trying to re-define rape!”

Oh, yes…she did. She, like Cameron Diaz before her, is trying to accuse conservatives of wanting to undo laws that make rape – particularly marital rape – a crime. There is no evidence of this at all. No meetings or hearings, no drafts of bills being considered in committee, not even the slightest hint that Republicans are actually trying to do such a thing. She is accusing me, my family and most of my friends of trying to decriminalize one of the most outrageous personal crimes that can be committed. As a fire/rescue/EMS worker who has helped rape victims, I am furiously insulted.

As for the meat of the argument, I’m always the kind of person who wants both sides of a story, so I went looking. Michelle Malkin recently quoted a report by Live Action that showed 30 Planned Parenthood offices in 27 states had no direct programs for mammograms. One staffer openly admitted that they don’t provide those services at all. The Alliance Defense Fund asked the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for information on how many PP centers are certified to perform mammograms. HHS said they had no such documentation for PP.

When I wanted to read investigative pieces from the other side of the argument, I couldn’t find any. I found plenty of op-eds, for sure, but none of them offered any tangible evidence to back their argument. Stephanie Todd, writing for The Examiner, quoted PP president Cecile Richards in claiming that 97% of all services provided by PP are “preventive care” medical services. What she didn’t do was ask for proof to back up Richards’ claim – and since she got the quote from a Joy Behar interview, we all know why no probing questions were asked. A Huffington Post article claimed in its headline that “women rely on PP for critical breast health care – period.” That article turned out to be written by Rachel B. Fleischer, who happens to be the Managing Director of Communications for the PP Action Fund. She comes out and admits that PP’s staff OB-GYNs and nurses do not perform mammograms, though she never addresses cervical cancer screenings. She says that PP gives referrals, which she says you need to get a mammogram (this is untrue, as family history can dictate that a mammogram before age 40 is important, as it is in my case). She, like President Obama, claims that PP is vital to women who are underinsured or uninsured.

What none of the PP cheerleaders have mentioned is the CDC’s National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). This program “provides access to breast and cervical cancer screening services to underserved women in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 5 U.S. territories, and 12 tribes” (that’s straight from the website). There’s no information immediately available for how much money is spent on the program, but the website boasts that in 2011, 333,302 women were screened for breast cancer, with 5,655 diagnosed. 253,312 women were screened for cervical cancer, with 4,695 diagnosed. With those numbers it’s not hard to believe that between the tests themselves (which run anywhere from $75-$120 apiece) and funding for staff, equipment and facilities, funding likely runs into the $300M range.

With PP, the numbers have to be read carefully. If you’re looking directly at their numbers, they they don’t add up. Cecile Richards claims that only 3% of PP’s business comes from abortions. Here’s how their pie chart breaks it down: 35% of services were for testing and treatment of STD’s, 35% for contraception, 16% for “cancer screening and prevention” (which, we’ll talk about shortly, takes place largely through referrals outside the organization), 10% “other” women’s health (which is undefined by the report), 3% for abortions and 1% for “other” (also undefined). Even those figures are doctored, as other notes in the same report show that out of three million people who walked through their doors in 2009 (the latest year I could find expense reports for), 332,278 went for abortions. That would, in reality, be one out of every nine people, or 11%. Also, their revenue shows that 37% comes from actual income from their “health centers” (read: abortions). They recorded a total revenue of $737M (aside from government funding) and recorded net assets of $994.7M.

We the taxpayers gave them $363.2M that year.

Everything that I found showed that PP doctors and nurses give referrals when someone comes in for a mammogram. Who do they refer these women to? Well, bless me – they refer them right back to NBCCEDP! That’s the government program that funds cancer screenings, pelvic exams, biopsies and referrals for treatment. Rachel Fleischer also says that PP works in conjunction with other organizations to provide mobile mammography sites. Considering what’s likely spent on the CDC’s current program, the government could transfer all of the money they’re giving PP to the CDC and expand it so those poor women who are going to PP right now can go to another participating doctor.

And we’re supposed to believe that electing Mitt Romney to the presidency is going to put PP out of business and deprive women of affordable cancer screenings?

It frightens me that those who stand on society’s pedestals are so willing to lie just to support their chosen political candidate. I would never have lied for Bush, nor would I lie for Romney or Governor Palin. I would hope that none of them would ever ask me to – and if they found me doing it, would insist that I stop. I would hope that Obama would have some shred of honesty, at least enough to ask his high-powered followers not to go so far as to claim that the opposition is attempting to de-criminalize rape. That is reprehensible.

If you’re not willing to actually research all of the facts, don’t throw your hat in the ring. Just because you have an emotional reaction to something you’ve heard or read does not mean you’re right.

Welcome to Hollywood

I love a good story. I always have. I read voraciously when I was a kid and only read less now because I have to work for a living. I love to write (I know, shocker!) and currently have three different novels in the works. I love movies, too. GOOD movies. If a movie is too political or preachy, so much so that I notice that before I even notice what the story is supposed to be, I won’t finish it. I can rattle off a list of actors/actresses that I love because they absorb their characters so completely that you almost forget who you’re watching (Kate Beckinsale, Cuba Gooding, Jr., Michael Caine, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Edward Norton, Donnie Wahlberg, Robert Duvall, Joaquin Phoenix, Robert Downey, Jr., Liam Neeson, Anne Hathaway…I could go on forever).

The problem now, however, is that so few movies are worth watching anymore. I loved Transformers when I was a kid; I was so happy when I found out that Michael Bay was making a movie out of the franchise that I did a little dance. I was irritated when, barely 20 minutes into the movie, the character playing the president appeared. He was portrayed as a faceless hayseed, twang and all, reclining in his bed aboard Air Force One in his stocking feet – his single line was, “would ya rustle me up some dingdongs, darlin’?” At that point the flight attendant, an attractive woman, makes a sardonic comment to another crew member: “we’re on board Air Force One and the man asks for dingdongs!” He is never named, but it is made perfectly clear that the scene is a jab at then-president George W. Bush.

Contrast that scene with one in Transformers: Rise of the Fallen, the second film in the series. You almost miss it if you’re not paying attention. About halfway through the movie, a strand of news clips are played to add to the realism and one of the clips shows a grainy clip of Barack Obama and the anchor says, “President Obama was moved to a secure location after news of the attacks…” Then, in the beginning of the third film, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, main character Sam Witwicky receives an award from – you guessed it – President Obama.

The difference in tone and delivery are palpable. Directors and producers think the unwashed masses don’t notice these things, but we do – and it’s irritating. I don’t go to see a movie to hear a sermon; if I wanted that, I’d have gone to see Michael Moore. I want a story. I want to be kept on the edge of my seat, waiting to see what the next twist is going to be. I want to laugh with the characters. I want to be able to feel what they’re feeling. If I get the impression for even one scene that I’m being made the punchline to a bad joke because of my political views, I will immediately lose respect for the film and its creators.

I cannot watch anything with Matt Damon in it anymore. I can’t even stomach the lighthearted films because he’s been so nauseatingly arrogant about his views. It wasn’t bad enough to say that having Governor Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency “is like a really bad Disney movie” – he had to step it up after that. He has openly attacked everyone who isn’t steeped in liberalism. Cameron Diaz is another I can’t watch. When the Charlie’s Angels silhouette was changed for the movie – removing the guns and replacing them with karate hands – Diaz said that they wanted women to “feel empowered to defend themselves without guns.” Several years later, when Bush was up for re-election, she said, “if you think rape should be legal, then don’t vote!” In other words, she thinks all conservatives are knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers who want to take America back to an age when marital rape wasn’t a recognized crime and women weren’t allowed to vote. Ben Affleck? I can’t even watch Daredevil anymore, and that used to be one of my favorite Marvel character films. Cher, George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio, Janeane Garofalo, Danny Glover, Sean Penn, Lindsay Lohan (she, too, attacked Governor Palin on multiple occasions, once saying, “is our country so divided that the Republicans best hope is a narrow minded, media obsessed homophobe?”), Chris Rock…oh, and who can forget Alec Baldwin? I can’t watch any of them anymore. All I see when they appear on the screen are the video clips of hateful anti-conservative comments.

Of course, we’re talking about people who never studied political science, constitutional law or history in college. None of these airheads ever served in the military. None of them have lost a friend to war, sent a brother or sister to that same war, or written to friends who are deployed. They live in their own private bubble, oblivious to the realities of what real life is like for the rest of us. The part that disgusts me is that they expect all of us to follow them blindly and believe whatever they say because they have higher status in the social pecking order.

They’ll make a movie one minute about how evil the government is, then turn around and make another one about how the government needs more power. They make movies preaching about the evils of corporations, yet the very movies are being made by powerful corporations called movie studios and production companies. They’ll eviscerate one political candidate as lacking executive experience (a state governor with a long, storied history of incredible accomplishments) while praising the other – a senator with nary a single congressional accomplishment to his name who has never filled an actual management role. When called out on their hypocrisy, they’ll just tell you you’re uneducated and intolerant, right before appearing on an anti-bullying ad.

Welcome to Hollywood.

Roseanne Barr: American Idiot

When I was a kid we used to watch the show Roseanne. The first few seasons were absolutely hysterical. Once it got into the gay marriage mess my mother wouldn’t let us watch it anymore, but I remember some of the funniest stuff from that show. Sure, the family in the show was outrageously dysfunctional, but by the time Roseanne Barr had her own show that wasn’t anything new.

Roseanne is up to other things these days. I made such an impression on her that she blocked me on Twitter; the only way I can see her idiotic tweets now is if the Twitchy team posts them. Today, they posted one of the most outrageous things she could have possibly said. I was pissed off enough when she waded into the “hate chicken” debate.

Today, though, she told the wife of a US Naval officer that she was living “on the dole.”

Yeah. I just about spewed my nice chianti all over my computer screen.

She didn’t stop there, though. She continued, “so you are not on military retirement or socialized medicine or the government dole in any way?” THEN, she wrapped up by saying, “t party is another word 4 ppl employed by the military who want to see the social safety net dismantled so they can b assured of their gov$.”

I tend to watch my language here, but I’m gonna say it…that cock-juggling thundercunt can kiss my military family’s collective ass. I’m a Navy brat. I even remember all of the ships my father served aboard. Were the Navy to accept me now, none of the pranks would work on me because I was raised on stories of them. In real life, I tend to have a pretty foul mouth – not just because I was a corrections officer, but my dad was a tin can sailor, from the days when women weren’t on ships yet and there was no such thing as a harassment complaint. My father is extremely intelligent, but when he and I get going we could make today’s sailors faint. My brother is still in the Army and, if I can get a waiver for my missing gallbladder, eventually I’ll be joining him. Many of our friends have either died serving this country or come back with serious injuries, and not a damn one of them has complained about what their lives have turned into.

Roseanne has no spine. She has no clue what sacrifice those men and women make to serve their country. That is the main reason why she would accuse them all of being “tea partiers on the dole” and claim that they’re “trying to destroy the social safety net to protect their own money”. That she would even think that is an outrage – that she’d say it publicly is unforgivable.

So, Roseanne, block us all you want, but there is no way in hell you’d make it in showbiz now. Nobody would watch your drivel. Even the liberals in the military would turn off the TV before watching you.

Oh, and by the way…you’re welcome, you colossal bitch.

Boycott ESPN

I’m a sports fan. Specifically, My teams are the Houston Texans (who are finally producing a winning season) and the Houston Astros (who forgot how to win), as well as the University of Texas Longhorns. I do like the Arizona Diamonbacks, since I do live in Phoenix, but I’m from Houston and if given the choice I would root for a Houston team any day.

I used to watch ESPN. That just ended with a sickening THUD.

Why? Here’s why…Hank Williams, Jr. has long been the voice of Monday Night Football on ESPN. Recently, he went on “Fox and Friends” and talked about his political beliefs. Specifically, he commented on the Obama-Boehner golf summit. He said “it’d be like Hitler playing golf with Netanyahu.” He later apologized and, at the same time, defended himself, saying, “Some of us have strong opinions and are often misunderstood. My analogy was extreme — but it was to make a point. I was simply trying to explain how stupid it seemed to me — how ludicrous that pairing was. They’re polar opposites and it made no sense. They don’t see eye-to-eye and never will. I have always respected the office of the President.”

He apologized for his “extreme” analogy because ESPN yanked his famous song, “Are You Ready For Some Football” from their Monday Night Football show. An official statement read, “While Hank Williams, Jr. is not an ESPN employee, we recognize that he is closely linked to our company through the open to Monday Night Football. We are extremely disappointed with his comments, and as a result we have decided to pull the open from tonight’s telecast.”

I’d like to know what they think about Mike Tyson’s recent comments on their radio affiliate in Las Vegas. On KWWN, the hosts of the show “Gridlock” joked with and laughed hysterically at Mike Tyson while he went on a nearly nine-minute tangent about a black man raping Sarah Palin, saying at one point, “Glen Rice is a wonderful man. He’s a wonderful guy. You want her to be with somebody like [Dennis] Rodman getting up … in there. Pushing her guts up in the back of her head!” (The link to the article on the Daily Caller includes the uncut audio, and it is not safe for work or kids, so be forewarned!)

So it’s not acceptable for a singer who probably wouldn’t be recognized by about half of the sports fans who know his song from MNF to make comments about how silly it is for John Boehner to be playing golf with a liberal dweeb like Barack Obama, but it’s perfectly acceptable for a former boxer, convicted of rape, to sit there and practically re-enact his crime on the air as if he would enjoy doing exactly what he was describing to a popular conservative figure? In which universe is this alright? How in the hell do liberals get off calling Tea Party activists racists and extremists when this is the kind of thing they say?

If and when ESPN either reinstates Hank’s anthem or decides to be fair and ban Mike Tyson for his outrageous comments, I might consider watching their network again. Until then? I’ll stick with Fox Sports. I don’t care if ESPN is the only network carrying a game; they can kiss my Texan backside.

Economics Just Aren’t Sexy Enough

“If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.” -Mark Twain

Matt Damon was captured on camera defending all teachers as angels and our educational system as a modern marvel. When caught in an error and called on it, he became indignant and spit out expletives to defend himself and his mother (who, coincidentally, is a teacher). Never mind the fact that public education in America falls well below the standard in other countries. Never mind the fact that kids that I went to school with managed to graduate despite being damn near illiterate, and it’s only gotten worse since then. Never mind the fact that our public schools churn out violent thugs with an efficency only a prison could admire. And please, never mind that guy doing that horrible rap calling achievement a “crime spree”.

We now have a generation coming up that cannot bother themselves to understand the facts before deciding what they believe – and basing it entirely on their feelings – and our celebrities are defending our educational system as above reproach. It’s almost as if they want things to be this way.

So, naturally, as soon as Standard & Poor’s, the famous credit rating agency, downgraded the US credit rating, the MSM began trumpeting the Democratic Party’s view that the decision to downgrade was a “flawed”, “facts-be-damned” decision based on so-called fuzzy math. It’s easy for the Democrats to say that; they’re going to do what they must to defend their positions. The MSM is practically owned by liberals, so they are going to spit out what Democrats feed them. Then, all of these folks who don’t want to lose precious time learning actual facts will take such claims as gospel, believe them wholeheartedly, and parrot them unfailingly.

Then, when you hit them with facts, they’ll come up with some pretty outrageous stuff – arguments such as, “how come S&P didn’t downgrade the credit rating of all those subprime mortgage beasts but they’re downgrading the country’s credit rating now? They’re hypocrites!”

Here and I was hoping for a real challenge.

The role of a credit rating agency is pretty simple. They assess risk. That’s it. They look at a handful of factors and determine the risk of granting credit to a person, company or government. We all know the three major credit bureaus to be Equifax, Experian and TransUnion, and for the most part we all understand what they do. They take our income into account, look at the debt that we’re paying (including mortgages, rent, car loans, credit cards, etc.), and issue a score that companies use to decide whether or not to issue us a new line of credit falling into one of the aforementioned categories. Companies also use those bureaus to determine a job candidates’ eligibility. If the risk is too great – meaning we’re not making enough money to pay our debt or not paying the debt on time without taking out more debt – our score dwindles and most companies won’t grant any new credit. Experian doesn’t take it upon itself to examine the investments I’m making and whether or not I’m taking a risk there; if they did, my credit rating would be better than it is.

Nor is it the job of larger-scale credit rating agencies to make a determination of the risk of investment being made by a company or a government.

Take a look back at the beginning of subprime mortgage as we knew it. Alan Greenspan went on TV and essentially told the country, everybody, from peons like me to the CEO’s in mansions, that investing in real estate was a flawless move because once people buy a house and move in, they don’t want to move out – ever. It’s a pain, he said, so turn your attention to mortgages.

Banks and other lenders began to look more closely at a very convenient piece of legislation known as the Community Reinvestment Act. In 1977, then-president Jimmy Carter signed into law the act that would make it a crime for any lender of any kind to red-line risky neighborhoods and required those lenders to, in effect, accept a certain percentage of risky lending as a requirement of being in the business. In essence, the government stepped in and guaranteed that people who were not credit-worthy obtained credit anyway, facts be damned. Sound familiar?

Entire companies sprang up to take advantage of a whole new opportunity: subprime lending. It’s an infallible investment, right? Nobody wants to move out of their house. They’ll do whatever they can to keep it. So let’s lend to anyone and everyone because the government has sanctioned it. Oh, even better, once we get these mortgages out there, let’s create a whole new type of security investment based on packages of these mortgages and ignore the credit-worthiness that they’re based on! We’ll be billionaires overnight!

Everyone got on that get-rich-quick scheme just as quickly as they got on the dot-com train. They failed to recognize the exact same indicators of a pending doom that George W. Bush tried to warn Congress of as early as 2003. Bush, while I sincerely disliked his fiscal policies, had few options on what to do. People on BOTH sides of the aisle failed to see what was coming, and as long as everyone was rolling in money, it didn’t matter whether they had an R or a D behind their name – nobody was willing to ruin a good thing. As long as real estate was popular, values were driven up so high they were astronomical. Eventually they could only go one way. Something rising that rapidly will always, without fail, suddenly stop and plummet.

It’s damned easy now to look back and see what was wrong with it. I dare ask how many of these screaming liberals also bought into that scheme only to see the value of their property drop like a rock after cashing out the inflated value of their homes and ending up owing nearly twice what the property was really worth. Everybody was to blame, but not one person has acknowledged the fact that a Republican pointed out the pending doom and a Democrat (Barney Frank) shot him down by waving off the warning as baseless.

S&P, Moody’s and Fitch were not tasked with determining the risk of their investment. Their role was to examine what was on the books of those companies, how much business they were doing, and give them a rating based on the risk of issuing credit to those companies. When there was a hell of a lot of money in it, it was impossible to expect them to downgrade those companies because, at the time, there was little to no risk in issuing that credit.

The federal government, on the other hand, doesn’t have enough money to back themselves up. They are spending too much money and are refusing to cut back – in fact, they’ve only spent more than any of us could have imagined. Democrats want to crucify Bush for the bank bailout, and I disagreed with it, too; we were going to feel the pain of that crash one way or another. They are conveniently forgetting their role in the disaster and are using smoke and mirrors to deflect the blame on everyone but them. They are covering up the fact that by refusing to do something early, they left Bush with few options on how to fix the problem. And now that they are in a position of power, they are holding the economy hostage and blaming the Tea Party with accusations of terroristic hostage-taking.

Unfortunately, no liberal will come close to seeing these realities even if they do read this. Why? Because unless Hollywood can make a realistic movie about economics and make it look sexy, they just won’t be interested enough to educate themselves. So we end up with a generation being fed by Matt Damon and Sean Penn how to stop caring about their own achievement and care more about their feelings – and the rest of the world prepares to eat them alive. It’s more important to stick up for a feel-good ideal and throw money at something than it is to fix it and teach the people involved to make something of themselves that doesn’t include daydreaming of being a movie star and not needing a real education.

More Liberal Lies

I always used to like Tina Fey. Her work on SNL cracked me up, including when she lampooned Sarah Palin. After her most recent comments, however, I’m pissed.

Tina Fey won the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor last night (h/t Michelle Malkin). In her acceptance speech, she bagged on conservative women – in particular, Sarah Palin. She said that “I would be a liar and an idiot if I didn’t thank Sarah Palin for helping me get here tonight. My partial resemblance and her crazy voice are the two luckiest things that have ever happened to me…” Then, she criticized the sudden increase of conservative women politicians, saying that the surge was a positive thing for women – “unless you don’t want to pay for your own rape kit…unless you’re a lesbian who wants to get married to your partner of 20 years…[or] unless you believe in evolution.”

Really? You’re seriously going to go there? Okay…let’s go.

Sarah Palin was the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, in 2000 when then-Democratic governor Tony Knowles signed a bill into law that dumped the state’s responsibility for sexual assault forensic tests – commonly called “rape kits” – on local police departments. The bill also required that the departments themselves pay for them, apparently, and not pass the cost on to insurance companies. Wasilla police chief Charlie Fannon (whom Palin had hired for the job) said shortly thereafter, “in the past, we’ve charged the cost of exams to victim’s insurance companies when possible.” This was all twisted by multiple liberal blogs into “OMG! Sarah Palin hates rape victims, she makes them pay for their own rape kits! We can’t let her get a heart attack away from the presidency!!!”

Horsefeathers. No mayor, not even in a small town like Wasilla, controls the policies of the police department up front. That’s what she hired a chief of police for. She didn’t know what Fannon was doing about the costs, and as soon as she found out about it she put a stop to it. Later, when Palin ran for governor, Fannon ran for mayor in Wasilla – and Palin endorsed his opponent. I think that speaks volumes. Yet we still have Tina Fey propagating the myth that Palin personally made the decision to charge victims for forensic tests.

The second remark she made angered me the most: she used gay marriage as a prop. I hate to burst the liberal gay bubble (and the Hollywood liberal one), but Palin is not the only politician in America who opposes gay marriage. An outrageous number of Democrats oppose it. Anyone remember DOMA? The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by then-president Bill “I Did Not Have Sexual Relations With That Woman” Clinton (that was the most outrageous part of it, because he’s never been able to keep it in his pants – he got around more than any of my gay friends). It all began in 1993, when the Hawai’ian state Supreme Court ruled that the state must show a compelling interest in keeping same-sex marriage on ice. Worried that the ruling would make gay marriage legal in Hawai’i and that other states would be required to recognize such unions, DOMA was introduced by Bob Barr and passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress in 1996. During the debate over the bill, Senator Robert Byrd – A DEMOCRAT – said,

”the drive for same-sex marriage is, in effect, an effort to make a sneak attack on society by encoding this aberrant behavior in legal form before society itself has decided it should be legal. Let us defend the oldest institution, the institution of marriage between male and female as set forth in the Holy Bible.”

Slick Willie had announced weeks before passage of the bill that he would sign it and supported it. The bill bars the federal government from providing benefits to same-sex partners and recognizing same-sex marriages as well as giving states the option on whether or not they will recognize such unions. A few months later, he told The Advocate, “I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered.”

It’s also worth noting that a bill that would have banned employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation was defeated – by only a single vote. The only way that could have happened is if a number of Republicans supported it. All this happened just three years after Clinton’s promises to end the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military turned into Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. To date, not one gay liberal has been able to answer this for me, either…if liberals love gays so much, why is it that Democrat-registered black and Hispanic voters ensured the passage of Proposition 8 in California? Without those demographics, that bill never would have passed. Somehow, though, it was the damned churches that gay rights activists targeted. They would never have dared target their own party because they’re still hoping to get a few scraps from their table and are happy being lied to.

Mrs. Fey, don’t you dare condescend to me by telling me that my political loyalties are misplaced with conservatives. The fact remains, and it is one you cannot ignore, that there are plenty of Democrats in office now who are every bit as anti-gay and they’re not going to change their minds. You and your fellow Hollywood emotion junkies can bash people like me all you want and you can lie to yourselves about how wonderful the Democrats are, and you can call conservative women idiots, but the fact remains that you are supporting politicians who espouse the exact same ideals that you’re calling out in conservatives.

Not all conservatives think that way (obviously). Maybe, just maybe, those who DO would be willing to sit down and have a civil conversation if you would stop accusing them of being hatemongers, stop portraying them as crazy and idiotic, and actually come to the table for once in your privileged life. Truth is, you don’t know one goddamn thing about being a lesbian and you are not qualified in the least to talk about the issues we face.