A Response to Samuel L. Jackson’s “Wake the F*** Up!” Video

Count me among the majority that enjoy a good movie, especially when times are tough and I’m trying to get my mind off the depressing news of the day. It helps me unwind and centers me, so I don’t get too focused and wrapped up in what’s going on in the world of current events, politics, and the other junk that tends to clutter my mind sometimes. On the other hand, I don’t particularly care for actors and actresses in those same movies who speak out on their political views. When I see a movie, listen to music, or read a book, I don’t want to associate a particular actor’s, musician’s, or author’s political views with their work. I want to enjoy it for what it is. Yes, they obviously have the right to do so but it seems like a lot of them also seem to believe they’re privileged to knowledge from on high that the rest of us don’t have access to. Case in point, Samuel L. Jackson. Consider the below video regarding his support of Obama for President and apparent disdain for Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

In the first scene, Jackson’s initial swipe at Romney is that he’s an “out-of-touch millionaire”. Hmmm…A little class warfare right off the bat there, Mr. Jackson? This little nugget seems a little disingenuous considering Jackson likely makes far in excess of what most Americans will make in their entire life. Of course, Mr. Jackson fails to mention Romney’s generosity and that he gives far more of his income away than does Obama or Biden. Romney’s charity also does not extend only as far as the spotlight reaches. Most of his charitable giving has been away from the camera lights of the press.

Jackson then goes on to claim that Romney has declared war on schools, the environment, and “fair pay”, without giving any details, of course. He then mentions that Romney’s “against safety nets and if you fall, tough luck!” All this is fine and dandy posturing but without any specifics, there’s not much to comment on here. But it certainly makes for good talking points straight out of the Democrat playbook to make the “out-of-touch millionaire” into an evil son of Satan. Demonization…Ah, yes, the tool of the ignorant.

The next scene may be the most unbelievable of all…The claim made by the little girl is that Mitt Romney is no fan of civil rights and that he’s OK with “voter suppression”. The underlying and unspoken accusation here is that Romney is a racist. Enter the proverbial throwing down of the race card, a move reserved for those incapable of stringing together more than two brain cells at a time. In typical fashion, the term “voter suppression” isn’t specifically defined but I’m certain they’re referring to voter ID laws. Unfortunately for Mr. Jackson, most polls show that a vast majority of the public, around 70%, support voter ID, a number that crosses political and racial boundaries. In at least Indiana (considered to be the most stringent voter ID law in the country) and Georgia, voter ID has actually led to an increase among minority voters, a segment of the population that alarmists claim are being suppressed by such laws.

Another claim the young girl makes in this scene is that Romney is not worried about the poor, something that Romney has just flat-out never said nor indicated. A straight up lie by Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Jackson then makes his appearance in the scene and says that Obama sent seals to Bin Laden’s place and that Romney “sent jobs overseas”. This has been thoroughly debunked already by organizations like FactCheck.org. Consider their article on “Obama’s Outsourcer Overreach“. This is coupled with the fact that, during Obama’s presidency, he’s responsible for the largest shift in wealth from America to overseas than any administration before him.

Two scenes later, Jackson claims that, if elected, Romney and Ryan will gut Medicare. Obviously, he fails to mention that the Obama administration has already proposed its own changes to Medicare, those that would be similar to what he claims Romney wants to enact, that result in approximately the same cuts. Both campaigns have pointed out that the other is wanting to cut about $700 billion from the program. Yet again, a hypocritical claim from the Obama camp.

There are a few other accusations floated here also but I think you get the point. Don’t get me wrong…I love many of Jackson’s movies but I’m not a big fan of his politics. I’d at least respect him a bit more if he put more thought into it than simply repeating the brain dead talking points from the DNC about Romney, the “out-of-touch” millionaire.

Mr. Jackson, until you get your facts straight, instead of telling us to “Wake the F*** Up!”, maybe you should just “SHUT the F*** Up!”.

Yours truly…


The Squawkers

You know the type…They’re the folks that seemingly love to draw people into an argument, feeding off the negative reactions of those around them. They’re the self-appointed guardians of intellectual superiority, with the supernatural ability to be the judge and jury of the hopeless sinners left in their proverbial wake. I like to call them “The Squawkers”.

In my experience, there are four main types of this particular species. These four types can include all spectrums, ideologies, and political parties.

Type #1 is the race baiter. The race baiter, normally a hard-left liberal, will typically turn any argument that even remotely includes someone of any particular minority into an accusation of racism against the other party. This type doesn’t care if the target is part of the imagined slandered race or not. In their rose-colored world, anyone that dares disagree with them on race-related matters is automatically stamped with the “RACIST!” label and is summarily relegated to subhuman status. It doesn’t matter if the target is interracially married, with mixed-race children, living in an integrated neighborhood, with close friends from India, Brazil, Abu Dhabi, and the South Pole. That target is the scum of the earth. They’d have to be because, well, it’s just too much effort to find more than a couple of brain cells to put together to make up any kind of intelligent argument to prove otherwise.

Type #2 is the free speech denier. This type, like the race baiter, eventually reaches an intellectual wall, at which point the “You’re denying my freedom of speech!” card is tossed on the table. No matter how many times or different ways you explain that someone has the right to say something but that they maybe should use some self-restraint in what they say, you’re automatically slapped with the free speech denier label and intellectually shipped off to Neverland.

Type #3 is the lack o’patriotism claimer. This particular type, usually a hard-right individual politically-speaking, thinks anyone against war for any reason at all must hate their country with an unbelievable passion. Why, those folks are dope-smoking, flower-in-hair wearing, pinko-commie, pansies who ought to be living in a commune somewhere in the wilderness of Canada!

Lastly, type #4 is the hater…This is probably the most widespread type and isn’t relegated to just political issues. If you think REM sucked rocks and you’re glad they broke up yesterday, then you’re a hater…OK, I’m just kidding on that one. Anyway, this label is quite frequently used when someone disagrees with something like gay marriage, abortion, and other social issues. If you’re against gay marriage, you’re an anti-gay bigot. Think abortion should be outlawed? Well, then you must hate women and want them to die in a back-alley abortion performed by an unqualified doctor with an infected coathanger. And don’t even think about opposing universal healthcare, you hating hater who hates!

Do you get the point? It’s so easy to fall into the trap of shutting down the intellectual response in favor of the emotional. Yes, emotions play a part in almost any discussion. Many people believe passionately about certain things and I believe it should always be that way. It doesn’t bother me if someone passionately disagrees with me. I respect it when someone will argue with me, defending their point when they clearly believe in what they’re saying. It shows me they care. However, it can be taken too far as described in the four types above. These are the folks who go overboard and allow emotion to override everything else. There’s room for both logic and passion in my world.

Grow Up!

I probably should never write a blog post when I’m in a pissed-off mood but here goes anyway…

The whole Arizona shooting thing and the fallout from pundits, politicians, and posers against who’s supposedly at fault…Here are a few points:

  1. Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and the Tea Party folks are NOT at fault in any way. If you think otherwise, your political ideology has blinded you and you’re incapable of putting more than two brain cells together to come up with a cogent thought. Grow up!
  2. Using a target or crosshairs in a political ad has been going on for decades. There’s nothing wrong with it.
  3. Military or “violent” terminology, in the same way, is completely acceptable. Even Jesus used such language, saying that the violent take the kingdom of heaven by force.
  4. One of the shooter’s friends described him as a liberal and others have described him as apolitical. If you think conservatism had anything to do with it, you’re as ideologically as blind as a bat. Two of his favorite books are “Mein Kampf” and “The Communist Manifesto”. Dude played both sides of the fence as far as I can tell, if he even had a side to begin with.
  5. He didn’t listen to or watch political talk radio or TV. If you think this played a part, go back and re-read the second sentence in point #1.
  6. Nancy Pelosi once again proves herself to be completely clueless. This was not an “accident”.

This notice brought to you by a supposed domestic terrorist.

Politics of Racial Division Coming to Indianapolis Permanently?

"Reverend" Al Sharpton

That collective groan you may have heard in the Indianapolis area the other day likely emanated from the city’s conservative community and hopefully every other rationally-minded citizen who cares about real racism.

In case you missed it, Reverend Al Sharpton, in town on Wednesday to protest alleged police brutality in the Brandon Johnson case, used the opportunity to announce his plans to open a headquarters for his National Action Network. This is supposedly a shot across the bow of Republican Mayor Greg Ballard, whom Sharpton has critized for his reluctance to meet with a local ministerial group on this issue of police brutality.

Admittedly, race relations in the Indianapolis area between the IMPD and the community aren’t exactly making folks feel all warm and cozy with each other. There have been several high profile incidents in the last year, including the Johnson case and a fake fight staged to bait an unknowing police officer. These and other incidents have apparently cemented the notion by some that an organization like NAN belongs here. I beg to differ.

First, why would something like this even be deemed necessary, considering the existence of groups like the Concerned Clergy of Indianapolis? Shouldn’t they be taking the lead on this instead of relying on a nationally known and controversial figure like Sharpton? Could it be because the Concerned Clergy hasn’t exactly seemed up to the task?

Secondly, NAN’s history of alleged shady financial dealings doesn’t inspire my confidence. There’ve been allegations in the past, in the style of compatriot Jesse Jackson, that Sharpton has engaged in soliciting “donations” from some of the very corporations against which he’s threatened boycotts and protests. NAN has also been investigated for tax payment irregularities, though related charges were dropped in 2008.

Lastly, why do we want the controversy that seemingly flows from Sharpton like cops coming out of a donut shop? In my opinion, the only thing that Sharpton and his National Action Network are really all that good at is generating a little bit of cheap cash for themselves. Actually, now that I think about it, they might not even be all that successful at that, either. If recent news is anywhere near accurate, this situation may take care of itself.

I asked local talk radio host, WXNT‘s own Abdul-Hakim Shabazz, about his take on Sharpton’s organization possibly coming to town and he pretty much summed up what I was thinking. “The good thing about the NAN coming to town is that they will be paying rent.”

Failure Is an Option

Remember when Rush Limbaugh said the following?

I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.”  Somebody’s gotta say it.

The mainstream media, always salivating for a chance to excoriate the king of conservative talk radio, jumped on this statement like a politician on a stack of lobbyist cash. For what seemed like weeks, you couldn’t listen to the news or late night talk shows without hearing some pointed jest at the expense of Limbaugh or those associated with his cause. Why, Limbaugh of course had now joined the ranks of the unpatriotic, hadn’t he? It was a chance for all those leftists, once again, to use a quote by a well-known conservative to show just how un-American those neocons really are. After all, we know they really don’t want the best for America anyway.

Of course, what was actually said didn’t seem to matter. Put in its proper context, here’s more of what Limbaugh said (the transcript of the entire segment on his show is available here).

Before he was inaugurated the search-and-destroy mission had begun.  I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.

Unsurprisingly, this part was mostly ignored. Limbaugh was not saying that he wanted our country to fail, suffer economic problems, experience setbacks in the war on terror, etc. What he was saying was that he hoped liberal policies, policies that he opposes and thinks are bad for the long term interests and welfare of America, to fail. This is something that all people who hold to certain political beliefs have in common. For instance, if I think drastically changing economic policy is going to be bad for us in the long run, I’m going to oppose that policy. It’s really not all that complicated a logical leap. Sure, there are some issues where there can be some middle ground and you can hope that those holding a slightly different view are correct but, on the bigger issues, there often isn’t a whole lot of wiggle room.

Now Senator Lisa Murkowski (Republican-AK) has put on her trusty pair of hip waders and put herself in the middle of the anti-context folks…

I will tell you, I am not one of those who wants Obama to fail. If he does well, that means the country’s doing well. We don’t have time as a nation to spend all of what we do blocking. We have got to figure out how we get to a point where we can be sitting around the table and talking about these difficult problems and advancing some solutions.

While I agree that we definitely need to be working with those who believe differently from us as conservatives, that doesn’t mean those of us who want liberal policies to fail want them to do so to cause harm to the country. We want the policies to fail because we strongly believe, with every fiber of our beings, that they are bad for the long term health of our great nation. On those things, we’ll fight tooth and nail for what we believe is right.

As far as “blocking” goes, since the Republicans now hold a strong majority in the House of Representatives, if something comes down the pike from the Democrats that I think is bad for the country then, yes, I want it blocked. Gridlock, as it’s often called, isn’t always bad. Divided government sometimes works out for the best of the country. We, as a people, need to be united in purpose and direction, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to oppose an ideology that you think is wrong and harmful.

Lastly, I question where some of these folks who complained about Limbaugh’s comments were when then President Bush was being raked over the coals on nearly a daily basis during much of his eight years in office? I think we already know the answer to that one.

Honor, Sanity, Fear, and the Continued Descent of CBS News

Earlier this year, after Glenn Beck held his Restoring Honor rally in Washington D.C. on 8/28, most media outlets estimated the crowd as being one of the largest gatherings in the area’s history. NBC News estimated the event drew 300,000. Others like Joe Scarborough of MSNBC and Sky News reported that the event may have been attended by as many as 500,000. The New York Post’s estimate was 300,000, while ABC News said it attracted more than 100,000. Others like NPR just said that the crowd was too large to estimate but that it was a “massive turnout”.

Jon Stewart / Stephen Colbert

On October 30th, comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert held their counter-rally called “Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear”. The estimates for this rally also proved it to be a rather large rally. Estimates ranged around 200,000 for the most part, with NPR, the New York Times, and the AP all estimating “tens of thousands” to the 200,000 figure. The AP was quoted as saying Stewart and Colbert “appeared to rival Beck’s rally in attendance.”

The photo at the top shows aerial pictures taken of both rallies, with Beck’s rally on the left and Stewart’s and Colbert’s on the right. The crowd size looks fairly close to me, though it’s possible the Stewart/Colbert rally had a slightly larger attendance. However, the number I really wanted to discuss was the CBS News estimate for both gatherings. For Beck’s rally, CBS lowballed it and claimed an analysis of the aerial photos showed only about 87,000 with a margin of error of 9,000. Out of the major news networks, theirs was by far the lowest estimate. However, their analysis of the photos taken from the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear came out to 215,000.

CBS News has a longstanding liberal bias, in my opinion, so it’s no wonder they lowballed the Beck rally numbers while inflating those for Stewart’s and Colbert’s rally. To be fair, though, I would have to say that the crowd size is close enough to warrant being considered a tie. Not that the two rallies were competing against one another. Well, Stewart’s and Colbert’s was certainly done as a counter-measure regardless of what they say but they still drew an extremely large crowd.

The descent of CBS News began, for me, during the 1988 Presidential campaign between Republican nominee George H.W. Bush and Democrat nominee Michael Dukakis. CBS News anchor Dan Rather attempted to ambush then Vice President Bush in a live interview on the CBS Evening News. Then, of course, Rather tried to subterfuge George W. Bush’s reelection bid in 2004 through the use of fake documents. Fortunately, he failed in both attempts and his career with CBS News came to a fairly abrupt end.

All this is to say, how can CBS News possibly be taken seriously with their crowd estimates from these two rallies, considering their history of bias against Republican or conservative politicians and pundits? Fortunately for all, their descent continues on a near daily basis as their evening newscast is perpetually the lowest or near lowest rated among the evening news broadcasts of the major networks. I’m thinking they should just replace Katie Couric with a talking monkey.

Note: A reader brought to my attention that the original photo at the top of this post may not have been correct, so I’ve replaced it with an updated photo.

Williams Fired for His Fox News Affiliation

Why waste space here? I figured I may as well just say it in the title. Juan Williams wasn’t fired from NPR for his comment on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News show (see video below).

Williams was fired from the left-leaning NPR simply because they hated the fact that a well-known liberal was voicing his opinions on the “enemy’s” turf. Pure and simple. The left can squawk all day long about how “Faux News” isn’t a real news outlet, is a Republican talking points network, and all that other brainless drivel that they seemingly spend all their time agonizing over. If the Obama administration and the rest of their cohorts on the left spent as much time strategizing over what to do about the economy as they do about how to subterfuge Fox News, we’d all be in a lot better fiscal shape by now.

Now obviously this opinion is not within the realm of provable theories, at least not at this point. What is provable is that NPR has employees still working for them who’ve made far worse utterances than anything Williams has said. Case in point, Nina Totenberg, NPR’s legal affairs correspondent…

Even Totenberg, however, has stated that the firing of Williams isn’t even a terribly popular move amongst NPR employees. Of course, the difference between Totenberg and the “obviously racist” Williams is that the former is not a “Faux News” contributor.

All sarcasm aside, I won’t be surprised if NPR now makes another move in an attempt to cover their tracks, such as relieving Totenberg of her duties or something to that effect. They’re under tremendous pressure to atone for Williams’ firing due to their own lack of diversity, which is now basically NO diversity. Pretty sad for a network claiming Williams’ firing was supposedly due to his “racist” remarks about Muslims. Of course, that chump change recently dumped on NPR’s lap by George Soros probably had nothing to do with it, either…Nah, couldn’t be.