AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

The Obama Standard: Letterman Assaulted Sarah & Willow Palin

Great comment by “hit and run” at this HotAir Headlines post regarding David Letterman’s tasteless, sexist jokes about Governor Sarah Palin and her 14 year-old daughter Willow.

You know, I feel sorry for Don Imus. It’s like he was used for a specific, time-limited, politically-driven purpose — and has no more value as a lesson in how ill-chosen, sexually-charged and hateful words directed at young women are intolerable in our society.

He was used this way by people like, oh, I don’t know, say, Barack Obama:

There’s also another kind of violence though that we’re gonna have to think about. It’s not necessarily physical violence but that the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways. Last week, the big news, obviously, had to do with Imus and the verbal violence that was directed at young women who were role models for all of us, role models for my daughter. I spend, along with my wife, a lot of time making sure that my two young daughters, who are gorgeous and tall and I hope will get basketball scholarships, that they feel good about who they are and that they understand they can do whatever they can dream might be possible. And for them to be degraded, or to see someone who looks like them degraded, that’s a form of violence – it may be quiet, it may not surface to the same level of the tragedy we read about today and we mourn, but it is violence nonethesame.

The verbal violence of Imus degrading the Rutgers women was enough for Obama to call for Imus’s resignation.

Oh, and yeah, Obama certainly does NOT consider Bristol to be a “role model for [his] daughters” because she decided to accept her “punishment” and carry, deliver and now raise precious little Tripp.

hit and run on June 13, 2009 at 11:00 PM

I wait with baited breath for the Left to use the same standard as their messiah and call what David Letterman said about Sarah Palin and her daughter Willow “verbal violence”, as well as call for his resignation.

June 13, 2009 , 11:10PM Posted by | Barack Obama, Censorship, Don Imus, Feminism, Hollywood, Liberalism, Sexism | 5 Comments

First They Came for the Banks…

In the spirit of the original “First They Came…” and the later versions, when a friend of mine posted this video and commented “She’s got it right… if anyone thinks this is going to stop @ auto dealerships they’ve got their head in the sand,” it inspired me to write the following:

First they came for the banks, and the people were silent, because “screw the rich!”

Then they came for executive salaries, and the people were silent, because “screw the rich!”

Then they came for the auto dealerships, and the people were silent, because “screw the auto companies!”

Then they came for me, and the people were silent, because… they came for them too.

June 13, 2009 , 6:34PM Posted by | Barack Obama, Communism, Economy, Fascism, Liberalism, Marxism | 6 Comments

When the Right Goes Left

Ugh.

I agree with the ‘morons’ over at Ace of Spades HQ probably 90% of the time, but here is a prime example of that 10% where I part ways: Going Alinsky on Letterman

Okay, “going Alinsky on Letterman” I can definitely support. It’s the way they are “going Alinsky” which I cannot support: boycotts and “Fire Letterman!” rallies.

I’m against boycotts, as I have stated previously with regards to The View, HERE and HERE. I’m one who advocates “if you don’t like something, DON’T WATCH IT”. Don’t like Limbaugh? Don’t listen to him. Don’t like Letterman, don’t watch him. Don’t like the vapid dopes on The View, don’t watch them. Don’t like Hannity (which I don’t), don’t watch him.

I left this comment on a Facebook discussion of this:

Seriously, the Left is MUCH more active at this crap. Do people like when the Leftist tools organize to complain to Facebook to have conservatives kicked off Facebook? The answer to that is not to start practicing that immature crap ourselves. Same thing applies here. I know there are a lot of Glenn Beck fans on my Friends list. Would they like the Left organizing something like this to kick him off the air, simply because they didn’t like what he said?

What happened to free market principles where a business or product succeeds or fails on its own merit? If Letterman gets an audience for his crap, more power to him. That says more about the sorry-ass state of the attitudes of Americans than it does about CBS and David Letterman.

Personally, I think American Idol — and basically any other “reality” TV show — is crap and want it off the air. But instead of being an ass and organizing against it, I simply don’t watch it and mock anyone who does. (heh) Very simple, see. 🙂

Seriously, I can’t stand this boycott crap. Boycott by changing the channel.

Ya know, someone (not the Ace of Spades HQ “someone”, but just someone in general) needs to explain to me how using mob-rule tactics to bully a business into firing someone we don’t like is any different than the tactics of the Lefty anti-Prop 8 mobs. They didn’t like how a business voted, so they advocated boycotts of their businesses. How is this any different? Don’t like a joke, so we grab our pitchforks and organize to destroy them? What happened to standing up for Americans to have the freedom to watch and listen to anything they so choose, even when it’s tasteless crap.

Also, how is this any different than what the Left did to Don Imus? He should NOT have been fired. His comments should have been exposed, he should have been condemned or defended on the merits of those comments and then left to have his career live or die based on people deciding he was worth listening to anymore. Same thing applies here.

Call out Letterman LOUDLY and OFTEN and expose him and the Left for their tasteless crap and their utter hypocrisy. But, then leave it up to the American people to determine Letterman’s future success or failure. If Letterman continues to get good ratings, then that just shows that our society now accepts tasteless sexism and hypocrisy towards Conservatives. That is depressing and despicable, but not grounds for wielding pitchforks to deny the American people the right to listen to or watch such things.

Geez, this is sad. The only one making any sense over there is the stupid liberal douche troll:

this is sad… and pathetic

I thought conservatives snubbed their noses at the liberal PC culture that infests America today…

and now, you’re advocating the tactics of those you hate?

when you don’t have principles, then you have nothing. you may get rid of letterman, but you lose the greater war (by bringing this country into a censored, PC frenzied environment).

let’s blackball anyone who says anything that offends anyone… fuck free speech and 1st amendment!

Posted by: palin steele at June 13, 2009 01:02 PM

Okay, the last part is stupid, since “free speech” does not come without consequences and the 1st Amendment does not protect anyone from boycotts. But the rest is spot-on. This crap is about using the tactics of the Left. In other words, “the end justifies the means”. That is the logic of the Left. Yet, now conservatives are advocating it. As the douche troll stated, “this is sad and pathetic”.

go ahead, go blackball a comedian for making a tasteless joke (btw, I dont give a fuck about letterman just to be clear… I’m more worried about the longterm implications for certain ideals conservatives hold)

but you don’t ever get the right to feign outrage in the future when all different groups get their panties tied up over being offended by the most harmless un-PC verbal attacks… in this fight against letterman (a mere pawn of the left), you have strengthened the actual arsenal (PC correctness) of the left

if you successfully get Letterman off, it WILL be used against you in the future.

Posted by: palin steele at June 13, 2009 01:11 PM

Exactly. If this were the Left going after a conservative media member or comedian for a joke or statement they didn’t like, my bet is there would be outrage over the bullying tactics.

And then there’s this false analogy offered by a conservative:

Seems like getting Dan Blather booted worked out ok.

Posted by: cumulonimbus at June 13, 2009 01:15 PM

So now we’re comparing rightly working to cause the firing of a media member who is supposed to be objective, but instead blatantly passes off lies as facts to the American people in the effort to undermine a Presidential Election… to working to cause the firing of a comedian telling a tasteless joke? Come on, guys. You’re much better than this.

“Free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences, you stupid f*ck.”

no it doesn’t.  but boycotting companies and such is the tactic of the PC-loving left… its always been denigrated by conservatives because it goes against their principles.  Now conservatives want to adopt the tactic because one of their own is being attacked… its hypocritical.  Stand on your principles and you will be stronger in the long-term, go for short-term gains and you will be weaker for it.

Posted by: palin steele at June 13, 2009 01:15 PM

I can’t believe the liberal troll is still making the most sense. Ugh.

And then there’s this:

That’s the point of this whole exercise. PC outrage is primarily used as a weapon against the right. Reid can say the war is lost with no consequences. Actors can kiss a maniacal dictator like Castro on the ass with no consequences. Movies can mock Christians with no consequences. But if a conservative violates the PC code, usually his career is over.

Posted by: Matt at June 13, 2009 01:22 PM

Right, and you know what the answer to that is? You do the exact same thing as them. Letterman tells a tasteless joke about the “Right” and gets away with it? Then you have one of your own go out there and loudly and proudly tell a tasteless joke about the “Left”.  (For example, to make a point, start making tasteless jokes about Letterman’s wife and their child, and see how he likes it when the shoe is on the other foot).  Then, when the “Left” cries about it, you point out that you were just taking their lead and if they don’t like tasteless crap like that, then they should shut their own f*cking mouths and live up to their own standards.

The answer to free speech we don’t like is not less free speech, but MORE free speech. Recall the Mohammad Cartoons. Our answer to Muslims taking offense to that was not to join with them in boycotting, but to tell to STFU and deal with it, that’s how free speech works. But now all of a sudden, the rules have changed for conservatives?

Sorry, but I just cannot support this and I am very disappointed in seeing this advocated by one of my favorite conservative blogs.

June 13, 2009 , 4:30PM Posted by | Censorship, Conservatism, Fascism, Hollywood, Liberalism, Saul Alinsky, Sexism | 1 Comment

Do Women Have Any Reason to be Proud of America?

I had a former female friend of mine tell me she could only now feel proud to be an American, after Obama won the Presidential nomination and then election. Considering we have never had a female President, shouldn’t all women still be ashamed to call themselves Americans? Afterall, apparently, the Left tells us, most Blacks were ashamed of America for not yet having a Black President.

Apparently then, the only groups of people who should now be proud of America are White men and Bi-Racial Black men (oh, and White and Bi-Racial Black men who are socialists, communists, Black Supremacist racists, Black Liberation Theology followers…). For everyone else — women, homosexuals, transgendereds, Indians (“Native Americans”), Chinese, Japanese, Hispanics, Latinos, etc — America SUCKS!

Also, how horrible is America… I mean, we’ve never even had a female Vice President, let alone President. My gosh, when you look at things through the twisted illogic of the Left, there is just so much about which to be ashamed in this horrible, despicable country.

That is why, in 2012, we must start the healing. Hillary Clinton must challenge Barack Obama in the Democrat Primaries and Sarah Palin must win the GOP nomination, with Governor Bobby Jindal as her running mate. Only then will be able to have more Americans able to feel proud of their country. And if we want to prove that America is not sexist, then we must elect either Mrs. Clinton or Governor Palin.

[My gosh does it hurt using stupid liberal illogic… oy]

June 13, 2009 , 3:03PM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Barack Obama, Racism, Sexism | 8 Comments

Calling “Gayness” Akin to “Blackness” is, Frankly, Lameness

Excellent comment left at Ace of Spades HQ (with which I agree 100%):

Actually, folks, seattle slough IS making coherent arguments, at least where gays are concerned. This time, I can’t say he is just trolling. So let me address them:

Sure it adds up.

I’m not the expert on gender identity, but I assume the idea that “gender” is a social construct goes hand in hand with homosexuality. People are expected to behave in certain ways. Men are supposed to act and say and like certain things, and so are women.

It’s far more realistic to say that most men DO act and say and like certain things, and most women act and say and like certain different things. The old “Free To Be You And Me” shibboleth from Marlo Thomas and Phil Donahue, that boys would nurture dolls like moms if they just had some to play with in the nursery, has simply not been proven true.

I am sure that toy makers WOULD sell dolls to boys if they could. Actually, they did. They gave them guns and called them “action figures”. Mattel GI Joes and Kenner Star Wars ones in my day.

If you have kids, than perhaps you have been to one of those party stores. You know, where you go to buy the Spiderman plates and hats and whatnot. I was in one about a year ago and was blown away by the birthday aisle. One side of the aisle was every which color. Star Wars, Bob the Builder, the Hulk, Superman, etc. A different brightly colored assortment of plates and napkins every two feet. It was the boy’s side. The other side was completely pink and purple. Every inch. It was kind of depressing. I don’t have girls but I think it is sad that they are basically forced to be preening little princesses by the time they are three. Those roles are laid out for us constantly, on TV, by our parents, by our peers and have nothing to do with sexuality.

Now do you really think the toy stores sell things that way because they are part of a social construct? Or is is more realistic to say they sell that way because that is what the overwhelming majority of boys and girls *want* to have these things. Boys, like men, ARE visual. (This is even true for adult men’s porn — gay and straight alike.) Shiny party favors that catch the eye, or toys that go BOOM, or that can be taken apart, appeal.

And I can tell you that as a uncle to several nieces and hopefully a father of a daughter to be, that just about every little girl DOES want to be a princess, at least in her family’s and especially her daddy’s eyes. Disney didn’t become a mega corporation because of socially driven gender constructs — they were filling a deep human need.

As for why you find higher prevalence of homosexuality in some places as in others, it is in direct corrolation to how acceptable it is to be a homosexual in that place. Remember when Ahmadinejad came to Columbia University and claimed that Iran didn’t have homosexuals. They laughed at him. Of course they do. They might not be allowed to be openly gay, but they have them.

Gays exist. Some cultures accept that (and thus a higher percentage of them will live as openly gay people) and some cultures do not (and thus a lower percentage will.)

But that’s just it! I know a good many women who had a period of same-sex experimentation, but can no longer be considered “gay” or “lesbian”, as they are now married or otherwise steady with the opposite sex. And that wave of experimentation did become favorable, even chic, in the last two decades.

This was not something akin to race — I know of no one who stopped being “black” or Asian. Calling “gayness” akin to “blackness” is, frankly, lameness.

What I mean by that is, no one knows what percentage of the outwardly heterosexual population is actually bisexual, and might sometimes act on the homosexual side of their desires if it were much more socially acceptable to do so. But while no one knows the exact percentage, I think that many people in both the “straight” and “gay” demographics have a definite inkling that there are substantially more bisexuals than anyone is quite comfortable admitting. And anxiety about that drives a lot of the controversy over other gay-rights issues; if there were really a stark dichotomy between hetero and homo, and it were unheard of for anyone to straddle the fence or “switch teams” (and tear apart someone’s marriage and kids in the process) then a lot of the other controversies would be relatively easy to settle.

There is also an undeniable trend to make bisexuality, among females anyway, chic. They even have Top Ten pop songs about it now. Young straight women making out with each other at parties was not happening at *any* of the parties I attended as a collegian 20 years ago. Now, it’s become so ubiquitous in the culture that in a good many campus and twenty and THIRTYsomething parties you can’t swing your arm out without knocking over two faux-lesbians kissing to the delight of their fellow party-goers. Now, is that because young women spontaneously decided to start making with each for no reason whatsoever, or has there been a culture shift in, for example, the entertainment media that gives young women the message that behaving like this is what they should do? I think you know the answer.

And if you do buy the “gayness is inherent” claim, then what about people who claim bisexuality? Are we to believe that they simply have to have sex with both men and women? If so, then I think we really are going to have legalize polygamy next. No compelling state interest in marriage between only one man and only one woman, means polygamy. Giving Muslims a boost is the last thing we need to do right now….

Now, I certainly wouldn’t want to live in Saudi Arabia (home of the bin Ladens) or that wacked out FLDS neighborhood in New Mexico, or was it Utah. But that’s exactly what’s coming. Barack Obama himself was the product of a bigamous/polygamous “marriage” between a then 24 year old married man from Kenya and a then 17 year old girl (his mother).

The current gay response to the polygamy question is “oh come on” and condescension. Funny, that was the typical response to the demand for “gay marriage” 20 years ago.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at June 12, 2009 11:10 PM

I would say that we do not have to go back 20 years, but merely 6 years — June 26, 2003 to be exact — to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v Texas, where people scoffed at his “slippery slope” arguments offered in his dissent:

That leaves, to distinguish the rock-solid, unamendable disposition of Roe from the readily overrulable Bowers, only the third factor.  “[T]here has been,” the Court says, “no individual or societal reliance on Bowers of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding … .”  Ante, at 16. It seems to me that the “societal reliance” on the principles confirmed in Bowers and discarded today has been overwhelming.  Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority’s belief that certain sexual behavior is “immoral and unacceptable” constitutes a rational basis for regulation.  See, e.g., Williams v. Pryor, 240 F.3d 944, 949 (CA11 2001) (citing Bowers in upholding Alabama’s prohibition on the sale of sex toys on the ground that “[t]he crafting and safeguarding of public morality … indisputably is a legitimate government interest under rational basis scrutiny”); Milner v. Apfel, 148 F.3d 812, 814 (CA7 1998) (citing Bowers for the proposition that “[l]egislatures are permitted to legislate with regard to morality … rather than confined to preventing demonstrable harms”); Holmes v. California Army National Guard 124 F.3d 1126, 1136 (CA9 1997) (relying on Bowers in upholding the federal statute and regulations banning from military service those who engage in homosexual conduct); Owens v. State, 352 Md. 663, 683, 724 A. 2d 43, 53 (1999) (relying on Bowers in holding that “a person has no constitutional right to engage in sexual intercourse, at least outside of marriage”); Sherman v. Henry, 928 S. W. 2d 464, 469—473 (Tex. 1996) (relying on Bowers in rejecting a claimed constitutional right to commit adultery).  We ourselves relied extensively on Bowers when we concluded, in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 569 (1991), that Indiana’s public indecency statute furthered “a substantial government interest in protecting order and morality,” ibid., (plurality opinion); see also id., at 575 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment).  State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices.   Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.

June 2003. US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia warned that this decision would lead to the movement for “gay”/homosexual/same-sex marriage. And the Left scoffed at that accusation. Here were are, a mere 6 years later, and Justice Scalia has been proven exactly correct.

June 13, 2009 , 12:02PM Posted by | Feminism, Homosexual Movement, Liberalism, Media Bias | Comments Off on Calling “Gayness” Akin to “Blackness” is, Frankly, Lameness