Archive for the ‘Polically Incorrect’ category

Aaron Sorkin’s Comments on Palin

December 10, 2010

The following is my response to Aaron Sorkin’s comments on Sarah Palin’s show about Alaska.   I am writing this post because I feel enough is enough, when it comes to blatant, mean and vindictive remarks about the Palins.  No, I would not vote for her (at least as of now, for President).  I am just really tired of seeing so many people willing to deliberately hurt someone just to get their name in print.  I wrote my comments first, Sorkin’s article is posted after mine.

Aaron Sorkin is a fabulous writer.  West Wing was a hit, but I think his comments about Sarah Palin were not only uncalled for, but also showed just what kind of a hypocrite he is.  He rips Palin apart for showing her hunting prowess on her TV show about Alaska.  I would imagine that there are a lot of women in Alaska that know how to hunt.  Sorkin even mentioned the fact that during a close up of Palin’s hands he noticed that she had had a manicure.  Evidently he doesn’t know that she has been out on book tour.  I think his criticism of her is not only immature but is certainly beneath a man of his stature.  The fact that Ms. Palin evidently has a different Political point-of-view than Sorkin was the real basis for his condescending remarks.

As far as trying to criticize her for showing joy at killing a Caribou (which she and her family do eat) I have not yet seen a man who after hunting down his prey, and killing it, has not jumped up and down for joy.  In fact, most men will recount their hunt minute by minute to anyone who will listen and the story of his hunting prowess will be repeated for years to come.  It will start with how he spotted that elk, deer, or bear as he sat there in the bush, and how he held his breath, as he slid across the snow and approached the animal so as not to scare the animal off.   Then he will continue on how he brought his rifle up to his shoulder, ever so slowly and took aim, trying not to touch the branch on the tree he was leaning against, so it wouldn’t break, and make a cracking noise which would certainly scare his prey into running off.  

He will continue on how it only took one shot to the animal’s head and how it gracefully dropped to the ground.  It was a 9-point antelope and none of his  hunting buddies caught anything that weekend, but him.  Then it was a night of celebration as he and his hunting buddies all went into the small one bar town where he and other hunters repeatedly traded stories, with great embellishment, on how they shot their prey.  Of course he traded names and phone numbers of the closet taxidermist so he could hang the stuffed antelope head with all it’s antlers, on his den wall when he got home. 

Of course this story will be repeated for years to come as all visitors to his home will be subjected to the tale of how he shot that deer, yes, that one, as he points to the deer head on the wall.  He continues his tale about how he over took this wild animal in the woods as it ran straight for him, ready to attack, how it was him or this wild deer and that he had no choice, but to  save himself by shooting the deer. 

So, just what the hell is Sorkins point?    There isn’t one.

Here is Sorkins remark on Huffington Post.

I eat meat, chicken and fish, have shoes and furniture made of leather, and PETA is not ever going to put me on the cover of their brochure and for these reasons Palin thinks it’s hypocritical of me to find what she did heart-stoppingly disgusting. I don’t think it is, and here’s why.

Like 95% of the people I know, I don’t have a visceral (look it up) problem eating meat or wearing a belt. But like absolutely everybody I know, I don’t relish the idea of torturing animals. I don’t enjoy the fact that they’re dead and I certainly don’t want to volunteer to be the one to kill them and if I were picked to be the one to kill them in some kind of Lottery-from-Hell, I wouldn’t do a little dance of joy while I was slicing the animal apart.

I’m able to make a distinction between you and me without feeling the least bit hypocritical. I don’t watch snuff films and you make them. You weren’t killing that animal for food or shelter or even fashion, you were killing it for fun. You enjoy killing animals. I can make the distinction between the two of us but I’ve tried and tried and for the life of me, I can’t make a distinction between what you get paid to do and what Michael Vick went to prison for doing. I’m able to make the distinction with no pangs of hypocrisy even though I get happy every time one of you faux-macho shitheads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face.

So I don’t think I will save my condemnation, you phony pioneer girl. (I’m in film and television, Cruella, and there was an insert close-up of your manicure while you were roughing it in God’s country. I know exactly how many feet off camera your hair and make-up trailer was.)

And you didn’t just do it for fun and you didn’t just do it for money. That was the first moose ever murdered for political gain. You knew there’d be a protest from PETA and you knew that would be an opportunity to hate on some people, you witless bully. What a uniter you’d be — bringing the right together with the far right.

(Let me be the first to say that I abused cocaine and was arrested for it in April 2001. I want to be the first to say it so that when Palin’s Army of Arrogant Assholes, bereft of any reasonable rebuttal, write it all over the internet tomorrow they will at best be the second.)

I eat meat, there are leather chairs in my office, Sarah Palin is deranged and The Learning Channel should be ashamed of itself.

Advertisements

Juan Williams and America Have a Great Day!

October 21, 2010

Wow!  What a fantastic day for Juan Williams.  Today Juan Williams should have been out Celebrating the fact that he was fired by a company (NPR)  whose agenda is to take down our Constitutional right to “Freedom of Speech”.   

How unbelievable it is that just a few words, said at the right time and in the right place, can change one’s entire life almost immediately.  In Juan’s case, I’ll bet my last dollar that he never imagined that returning a phone call, would be the one time that his whole world would come tumbling down and that there was nothing he could do about it. 

Yet, within 24 hours of the news going public about his being fired from his job, he went most probably from being shocked, sick to his stomach because he was unemployed suddenly, without any inkling of what he would or could do next, to being the biggest story on TV.  

What a rush it would be to find out that what happens to you is so important to so many strangers and well wishers.  Damn, how lucky can one man be?

Juan should feel ecstatic that Americans;  White, Black, Republican and Democrat alike, have, in mass, whether they agree with his Political views or not, taken his side, and in a Big Way, I might add, to defend his right to express his own opinion. 

This is the first time since Obama has taken office that  there has been so many people  from both sides of the isle who have agreed on anything without being threatened, bribed or worried about taking a stand on something,  for fear that they would not be re-elected.  

America has its good days and it’s bad days.  Today was a really good day, not just for Juan, but for America also.   Finally, Americans  found something  all  could agree on;  they still believe in  “Freedom of Speech”.    ss

Mosque at Ground Zero, Just Say “NO”

July 29, 2010

I recently ran a post with the title “Politically Correct, According to who?”  And a reader responded with this comment:

Is it possible that this is the “blowback” for the US construction of the biggest embassy in the world in a Muslim country (Iraq)? Remember, US embassies built in foreign countries are deemed “American Territories”. If you consider this situation honestly, you can figure out why this issue is being buried under layers of “freedom of religion” and “politically correct” arguments. Americans are going to have to accept that there are consequences for our interventionist foreign policy, and act accordingly.

My Response to his, is as follows:

CJ:  I see your point. All Embassies around the world are considered that particular Embassy’s, country’s Territory.   I think the idea of the US Embassy, in Iraq, which is the largest Embassy in the world, could enter a little into the decision to build a Mosque at Ground Zero, but it would be more of an after thought, if anything.   I don’t think it is the primary reason.  By the way, why is it that we need an Embassy that is 102 acres large?   Normal Embassies around the world have what, maybe 30 employees, if that and are located in one building.  Why is it we need to build a compound with 1500 employees in our Embassy in Iraq?  Something is very fishy here.  I thought we were leaving Iraq?  But I bet no news media network has asked about this. 

As for the reason the ASMA wants to build at Ground Zero, well it’s really not about building bridges between Americans and Muslims.  Like I said in my post, if that was their intention, they had 8 years to build that bridge and did not. 

No, I’m sorry, though your statement has merit, I can’t agree that it’s the reason.  I think if you look back at the Muslim terrorist thinking and the basis of Islamic philosophy, it is hard for Americans to understand the reasoning behind their thinking on just about any subject.   They do not calculate or analyze situations, events, or political actions based on the same line of thought or facts, that we do.  We really don’t understand where they are coming from, which is a very big problem, when trying to deal with them, or respond to anything they say or do.  They on the other hand don’t care where we are coming from because their true belief is that we are “Infidels” (non-believers), and as such we need to change our thinking and religious belief and become believers in Islam or be destroyed.  Bottom-line that’s all it is.    

So, for them to say they want to build bridges within the American community, I say, “Right!”  Because if this were true then why did they wait so long?  Why now?  And why here?   According to our way of thinking, this is not the time or place (Ground Zero) to start building that bridge.  Building a Mosque at Ground Zero is considered a slap in the face to most Americans, and does the opposite of building any bridges.  So, for as much as they think they understand us, they don’t.  Or, my guess is, is that they understand us better than we understand them.

The Muslim community had their chance after 911; and they said nothing.  There was no outcry of outrage against the Islamic terrorists, for what they did.  No, they said nothing and did nothing.  There was no bridge building then.

They want to build a Mosque at Ground Zero to remind American’s, the Infidels, that they can get to us at any time, and anywhere.  That this is an example of how far and how much farther they will go to destroy the Infidels.  The intention is not to build bridges but to always have a visible presence at Ground Zero, so Americans will never forget what they are capable of doing.   They put little messages out there for you to catch on to, but you have not, when the story first showed up, it said that the Mosque would be 13 floors high (considered an unlucky number in America.  And what was unluckier that 911)?   How about the plan to start construction on September 11, 2011 (911), are you getting this yet?  They know what buttons to push.

I’m sorry, CJ, I just look at it in a different way.  I connect the dots, which most Americans are afraid to do.  ss

McChrystal’s “Walk of Shame”

June 23, 2010

 General Stanley McChrystal, the top guy, the U.S. Commander and Strategist for the Afghan War, after being summoned to DC, by the White House with his resignation in hand,  awaits his one on one meeting with President Obama.   The controversy is over an article that appeared in  Rolling Stone magazine, where  McChrystal and his aides mocked the National security team and critisized Obama over their stance (or lack thereof) concerning the Afghan War.

McChrsytal is expected to endure the “Walk of Shame” by first having  an initial meeting with the Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the Pentagon, then head over to the White House and have a sit down with Obama, and then meet with the administration officials in the Situation Room.  His future is uncertain. 

It is my opinion that he will be replaced and that this appearance at the White House is more of a “Walk of Shame”  before he is relieved of duty.   It is a well known fact that Obama cannot tolerate ANY critisism (as Jack Nicholson put it in the movie A Few Good Men when he said “You can’t handle the Truth” of his performance, by anyone, so this man’s fate is definitely already decided.

UPDATE:

It was just announced that McChrystal has been relieved of duty ( the media keeps repeating “relieved”) not that he resigned, because the White House (who is in bed with the media) wants to give the impression, even if not true, that McChrystal was “fired” and didn’t resign. Obama must always have the upper hand publically.

It is a sad day for this country when the reputation of a man of  McChrystal’s long, heroic and patriotic  service to this country is wiped out by a man who never served in the military, was never vetted and was not qualified to be President in the first place.

 The news media will not remind the public about the fact that McChrystal requested soldiers last year in order to carry out his mission successfully and that Obama (as usual) waited and waited to respond to the General even though McChrystal at the time said he needed these soldiers ASAP if we were to win the war.  Instead Obama took, I believe 2 months before ever responding to the General’s request, and then he gave him 30,000 troops instead of the 40,000 he requested, and it took another 4 months for them to get there.

McChrystal as the top General of the military forces in Afghanistan, certainly earned the right to be upset, having to wait for a response, while trying to do the impossible, for a group of unqualified administrative officials, and President Obama, most of whom, never served their country in the military, to make up their minds,  about his increase in troops request.

 Obama and his group of administration officials set dead lines for progress and ending the war and bringing the troops home, yet Obama took his good old time giving McChrystal the tools (troops) he needed to perform the job.

 It is too bad that the message in Rolling Stone magazine was overlooked, just because it’s Politically incorrect  for a military man to point out the Presidents incompetance, when in fact, that is all he has displayed since taking in office.

As I write this the President is giving another speech on TV.  It seems that is the only thing he is good at: reading the teleprompter.  This is just one more opportunity for  Obama  to be Presidential and keep the man who came up with the plan to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan,  in charge of the Afghan War.  But, his groupies, the Dems in the House wanted this man out, claiming it would show weakness if the President did not relieve him of duty.   His weakness is that he can’t make a decision on his own.

I believe it would have shown strength if he had kept McChrystal on the job, after having a one on one meeting with him and disgussing their differences.  Sadly, Obama can not see his own biggest weakness, which is his “High Regard” for “Himself”.

As I listen to his speech I hear him say that “He” just can’t tolerate division in the ranks”. Obama said he welcomes debate but won’t tolerate division.  Is he kidding?  He has done nothing but divide every aspect of our country, and every group of Americans (The Tea Party people), including “blacks and whites” (when he called Boston’s,  White Police officer’s actions stupid,when he detained Obama’s  Harvard friend, Gates) and how about the hatred he has promoted between American citizens and Mexican citizens and illegal Mexicans. 

I believe Obama will go down in history as the “Divider”.  As for the fact that he welcomes “Debate”  I don’t think so.  He and the Democrats in the House have done nothing but relentlessly and publically “slice and dice” anyone (Gov. Brewer, Sen. Barton, BP CEO Tony Hayward, and even Sarah Palin and the Tea Partiers) who has disagreed with them. 

This is truly a sad day in America, because after repeated incompetance by the White House, and Congress,  many Americans still don’t see it.  ss

“Politically Correct”, According to Who?

May 24, 2010

Just who are the “Political Correct” Police?  How did they get that job and what are their qualifications?  I want to know, who I have to look out for when I give an opinion. 

I want to know just when do the words “Politically Correct” apply to how Americans feel about a subject?  I made a comment on a friends blog a few days ago, and decided to run the post on my blog.  I feel that strongly about the subject,  so here it is.  

I’m so tired of the words “Politically Correct” that I actually wonder what moron first came up with this phrase. That being said, when does “Politically Correct” apply to what is right or wrong for the normal everyday American or just America in general?

Anyone with, oh, let’s say, the IQ of a 5th grader would tell us that building a Mosque, and one this grand in size, near Ground Zero, is not “Politically Correct” for Americans.

Well, I decided to look up the words “Politically Correct” to see if it actually applies to this situation. A couple of definitions I really liked. In reality, there seems to be many definitions for the phrase, and the words “Politically Correct” go way back in history, but they seemed to have popped up again, back in the 80’s in our country and have been used more and more, as a tool to discredit or fight back against anything and everything one person or group doesn’t like about those in another group.

When arguing, it seem’s once someone accuses another of being “Politically Incorrect” the argument sort of comes to a halt or at least “slows up” somewhat, so everyone can concentrate on whether or not something is “Politically Correct”. What a waist of words and time this phrase really is.

Someone wrote their personal version of this fable on the internet.   I chose to use the original version from Aesop’s Fables as an example of the definition of the words “Politically Correct”.

A Man and his son were once going with their Donkey to market. As they were walking along by its side a countryman passed them and said: “You fools, what is a Donkey for but to ride upon?”

So the Man put the son on the Donkey and they went on their way. But soon they passed a group of men, one of whom said: “See that lazy youngster, he lets his father walk while he rides.”

So the Man ordered his son to get off, and got on himself. But they hadn’t gone far when they passed two women, one of whom said to the other: “Shame on that lazy lout to let his poor little son trudge along.”

Well, the Man didn’t know what to do, but at last he took his son up before him on the Donkey. By this time they had come to the town, and the passers-by began to jeer and point at them. The Man stopped and asked what they were scoffing at. The men said: “Aren’t you ashamed of yourself for overloading that poor donkey of yours with you and your hulking son?”

The Man and his son got off and tried to think of what to do. They thought and they thought, till at last they cut down a pole, tied the donkey’s feet to it, and raised the pole and the donkey to their shoulders.

They went along amid the laughter of all who met them till they came to Market Bridge, when the Donkey, getting one of his feet loose, kicked out and caused the Boy to drop his end of the pole. In the struggle the Donkey fell over the bridge, and his forefeet being tied together he was drowned.

“That will teach you,” said an old man who had followed them:

“Please all, and you will please none.”

I think this says it all!     ss