Category: News

Why This Stupid Confederate Flag Debate is Stupid

The Confederate flag should not be praised by the government and it should not be banned by it either. There’s nothing inherently wrong about the flag but it has been used for bad causes, giving the symbol a negative connotation. Thus the answer is the first sentence of this paragraph: Government is right to not endorse its use and hippies are wrong to blanketly demonize its use.

There. I solved your stupid non-problem.

How did I accomplish such a marvel? Behold, the rudimentary use of facts + situational reality. Tada!
The truth is that the flag is used as mind-numbingly ignorant symbol of un-american attitude of separation, segregation, hate, ignorance, and bad ideas in general, but also — none of that… Because the other truth is that it’s used as a legitimate symbol of history and heritage without any racial connotations whatsoever.


Dukes of Hazzard stuff is now banned due to history revisionism about the Confederate flag in the past week.

I think “pride” in the flag, or any other exclusively regional symbols, is dumb. But who cares? You’re dumb for caring. Or more likely, just ignorant. I’ve been interrogating Confederate flag supporters for over a decade trying to understand why any toolbag dummy would embrace it and while I disagree with the rationale I always receive, it’s not fair to lump the common arguments in with bigots, haters and truly evil people that include murderers and violently wicked humans.
Most often I hear displayers of the Confederate flag talk about pride in history. Which would be fine, except that history is about a war that caused an obscene amount of death that was largely over a dispute regarding the allowability of the ownership of human beings as property. and it lost. So… you’re telling me you’re proudly representing a period of historical bloodshed in the name of legal enslavement of humans that caused immense suffering and negative historical repercussions despite being an ultimate failure because….your family tree at certain points in history lived in the geographical area in which this horrible event took place? Are you THAT friggin tribal and stupid?

That’s *my* reaction at least. even though I know some of it is fairly dubious, such as the more ambiguous role that slavery played in the Civil War. My position on that has always been that yes, the war was about slavery, but yes, it is factually accurate to note the real-life conflicts of the issue and reason there was a separation attempt and ensuing war.  But despite acknowledging the nuances of the historical record – the fact remains that slavery was AN issue if not THE issue and since it’s immoral – why would you want to fly a flag that went to war to defend against encroachments into that immoral institution?

It shows you the heart of anti-americanism in the Hippie mind when they call Confederate Flag wavers racists but defended the fighters in Iraq with the emotional relation appeal trope, saying “what would YOU do if Iraq invaded YOUR city?”. So to some dummies, it’s only okay to fight and murder encroachers into your immoral bondage of innocents if you’re not American. To everyone else – we think that regardless of the prudence of resuming the Iraq war of the 90s again in the 2000s, that like the south in the Civil War – the people defending their state were resisting forces that are there to make things better for everyone. So yes we get why they feel put upon – they’re jerks. What jerk loves to be corrected or told they have to follow the same rules of decency as everyone else? Why would you lionize a losing team that fought in protection of a thing you recognize is bad?

It seems painfully obvious to me but the response I get to this reaction raises some points, not all of which are illegitimate. Bearers of the flag always tell me that no, they are not celebrating the causes of the war or it’s goal, but yes they are representing their geographical location and that that area of the globe and heritage, losing side or not – regardless of the immoral reason behind it – was the center of a lot of death and horror that people suffered through, not all of which because they were adamant supporters of slavery. I think geographical representation is dopey, but no one else does, so if you don’t think it’s horrible to feel a sports-team style kinship with your state, then there’s no reason to do so in a collection of states.

And that’s all the confederate flag is. The problem is not what it *is*, it’s what it *can be*. And it *can be* a symbol of racism, “white pride”, pro-slavery, and any other number of subsets having to do with unjust separation of races. This is why there is a conservative and liberal divide over the issue: Liberals see things in black and white (despite liking to think of themselves as doing otherwise) and thus anything that they view as possibly racist IS racist and unless it is exterminated it is contributing to “racist culture” which a large government must remedy by force. Conservatives, being less collective and more individualistic, see things more individually and draw generalizations from patterns instead of starting with a blanket rule with which to retroactively apply to everyone in all time periods. It’s how Hillary Clintons and Barack Obama can get away with being firmly against re-defining “marriage” to include same sex unions just 3 years ago but now act like only Hitler would ever say such a thing. Likewise with the flag, people selectively choose at what time a trending buzz about the meaning of a symbol dominated and retroactively apply it to all time. Only when it’s politically expedient to try to marginalize it’s opponents as bigots in order to gain power does the Left suddenly realize a position or symbol is unjust. Many people go along with it because following the herd on an issue is most natural when there are emotional appeals involved that don’t motivate resistance or opposition research. Everyone else points out the group think of the herd and is perplexed that people are actually just going along with the history revision that the flag unequivocally means horrible things. Never mind that that unequivication is brand-new (causing awkward blind-eyes to have to be turned about that time Governor Bill Clinton commemorated the Confederacy Star in the Arkansas flag or that campaign supporters for both Bill in 1992 and Hillary in 2008 distributed completely non-controversial Confederate Flag promotional items).


Source 


Source

In the reality of cold-hard-facts, there isn’t anything actually wrong with the flag. It’s not a synonymous symbol with racism or hate or the KKK – it’s a symbol of region of the country during an event that happened that was a massively big deal, forever affecting the country and what it is and what it stands for and thereby affecting world history in a major way. Remembering that with visual representation is not a bad thing. Yes, one has to deal with the fact that haters, racists, and the official organization of the KKK cult do in fact use that flag in all of those bad ways. They fly it not because they give a fig about remembering an event or because they’re such southern-state pride-ists that they want to display a symbol of their home – they see that flag as a symbol of a glorious event in where brave men gave their lives for the noble cause of keeping the negro in chains where they belong. Since that association isn’t a direct parallel, the problem becomes “what do we do when a symbol is co-opted?”.

As with every case where a symbol is used by a group, the rest of us have to decide how to respond. The Republican party is represented by an elephant. That doesn’t mean Democrats can’t enjoy a nice National Geographic special on pachyderms. Gay pride is represented by a rainbow. That doesn’t mean we forever have to associate rainbows and rainbow colors exclusively with homosexuality. The reason is because the factual reality is that groups don’t own symbols that pre-existed them. The sociological reality is that people associate things with what is familiar to them.

There are dumb reasons that are no more dumb than reasons of history and pride that aren’t objected to, and no we shouldn’t give in to any one group claiming exclusive representation to an image or symbol (and especially not if it’s a co-opt to a bad idea like Racism), but who cares?

The whole non-issue and it’s debate is stupid. The people acting like it’s a big deal whose repealing will have any affect over anything positive whatsoever are being dumb and the people who act like the importance of proud display over it is a big deal whose act is accomplishing literally anything positive whatsoever are being dumb.

My diagnosis: Stop being dumb.

Repeat after me:
The Confederate flag should not be praised by the government and it should not be banned by it either. There’s nothing inherently wrong about the flag but it has been used for bad causes, giving the symbol a negative connotation. Thus the answer is the first sentence of this paragraph: Government is right to not endorse its use and hippies are wrong to blanketly demonize its use.

It’s painfully obvious: More, not less guns, are the solution to gun murders

It’s getting hard to respect people who don’t realize that more, not less guns, are the solution to gun murders in America.

In other smaller, less free nations without equivalents to the 2nd amendment there may be different and better ways of going about pursuit of solution. The stats would appear to disagree with that, considering the gun deaths in other nations seem to rise in response to more gun restrictions, but no one seems to want to explore that very much. In England for example, gun deaths went up after more stringent gun laws were put in place, but that stat is ignored by the popular consensus to instead just focus on the fact that England has lower gun deaths than the United States. This is a comparison I’ve never understood the relevancy of when applied to America ever since Michael Moore used it in 2002’s Bowling For Columbine, but it remains appealing to people for whatever reason.

The answer to bad things people do in a free country is more freedom for civilians to police the bad things, not less freedom in attempts to stop bad things.

Did you hippies learn nothing from Star Wars? Lea tells Governor Tarkin that the more he tightens his grip, “the more star systems will slip through your fingers“. Where there is abhorrent speech in a country without government restriction on free speech, the Right answer (coincidentally both the “right” answer as in “correct” but also “right-wing”) is more speech to correct, shame, and ultimately overwhelm it. The Wrong answer is the Left’s answer, which is to remove speech they deem abhorrent, or potentially abhorrent, or just not 100% Leftist (thereby allegedly eliminating the path to potentially abhorrent thought or speech). It’s crazy totalitarianism when it comes to thoughts and speech but it’s downright dangerous when it comes to deadly weapons and self protection.

If your country has a right to firearms, then similarly like a country with a right to free expression – the answer to the bad parts is more good parts. More guns don’t automatically, mathematically equal Less Crime, but in the context of a free firearm owning nation the formula is solid.

Yet consistently, whenever there is a highly covered murder where guns are used, the emotional/politically-Leftist side of the country calls for more restriction on gun rights. The emotional appeal is obvious, but logically bananas (nonsensical).

At the time of this writing, the latest issue to spark this debate is a racially motivated murder of 9 people at a church in Charleston South Carolina. How would more gun laws have stopped this murder?
-By banning “assault rifles”? Nope; An assault rifle was not used in the murder.
-By instituting more strict gun registration laws? Nope; The gun used in the murder was not registered in accordance with the law.
-By outlawing the right to carry a gun? Nope; South Carolina doesn’t have concealed-carry laws or any carrying of a firearm without a permit.
-By banning guns inside churches (where the murder took place)? Nope; guns are already not allowed in churches in South Carolina.

I don’t know why this is shocking to you hippies, but: Murderers break laws. It’s unfortunate, but true. The bumper sticker “if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns” is undeniably accurate since laws only affect the people who abide by them. When people break those laws, the knee-jerk reaction to make more laws to break is not intelligent. The proper response is to make breaking laws a horrible risk for lawbreakers in proportion to the crime. When the crime is murder, the risk of your attempt being thwarted by your injury or death should be raised, not lowered. The only way to raise the risk of injury or death to someone using a projectile weapon is to have other projectile weapons ready to be used against that rogue A-hole.


(Sign that appears at an Arkansas Christian Academy with armed teachers)

There is only one answer: Restricting the right to firearm ownership all together. This obvious point of mine was even echoed by none other than Karl Rove sparking a whole new debate but the base of it is true: you can’t have a country with an engrained right to firearms and no firearm deaths.

You have to repeal the right or reduce the deaths with safety and a balance of powers from armed law abiding citizens to balance the armed criminals. Those are the only options. Since repeal isn’t in the cards – more, not less guns are the answer to rampage shootings.

5 Things That Didn’t Cause the Charlseton Shooting

For some reason, crazy people with unstopped pathways towards violence finally committing that violence isn’t a satisfying enough explanation for why crazy people with unstopped pathways towards violence finally commit acts of violence. So they look for scapegoats. Here are 5 bad ones. The 21 year old murderer who killed 9 people at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church made a series of conscious decisions stemming from a mix of ignorance, hate, feelings of victomhood, and chemical imbalance.

Here are 5 things not responsible for the massacre:

 

1- BLACK PEOPLE / ANY BLACK INDIVIDUAL

This is a different dynamic than the previous deaths of black individuals that were falsely attributed by race-hustlers and well meaning but brainwashed and ignorant hippies as being murders. The massacre in Charleston was an unprovoked, unjustifiable, unnecessary, murder of completely and totally innocent human beings. It’s an important note for contemporary and long-term history, especially given the misreporting and continued ignorance of previous high-profile deaths of black individuals amidst criminal activity.

This was not Treyvon Martin attacking a neighborhood watchman who was following him and then getting a single fatal shot fired through him at close range amidst bloodying the shooters skull into the sidewalk only to be misreported as a case of a peaceful boy getting gunned down just for being black.
This was not Michael Brown being approached by a police officer for walking in the middle of the street after he had assaulted a clerk in a store he stole cigars from and then amidst trying to grab the officers gun, was fatally shot in the scuffle, only to be misreported as a peaceful black man being hassled for no reason and getting gunned down despite putting his hands in the air and saying “don’t shoot” (the most persistent lie of these cases that was most widely believed even after being debunked).

This was nothing like those previous high-profile cases. This was a group of religious Americans exercising their rights and tradition of congregating peacefully, welcoming in a newcomer with open hearts and minds, and then having their loved ones senselessly targeted and slaughtered by him for no reason outside of the killers deranged hateful blood lust.

Yes, there have been previous high-profile instances where people did regrettable things that caused them to get killed and yes a bunch of people became falsely convinced that they were murdered because of racism. This isn’t one of those cases. 9 Americans in Charleston are in the ground for no reason other than one evil sicko premeditated a day of murder fueled by his racism. No one in that church had any culpability in the unjustifiable bloodshed that befell it and no retaliation violence, protests, or hate came in the wave of response (as opposed to the previous 3 dubious examples). Instead, the church members forgave the murderer and asked God to have mercy on him for stealing their loved ones – an act I don’t agree with, but recognize as amazing.

 

2- A’MURKAN RACISM & GUN CULTURE

The Charleston murderer was a racist – therefore racism is an epidemic problem that requires social upheaval to correct? Some people wish that was the case, but thankfully it isn’t.

Ideology can convince people to commit acts of violence who otherwise wouldn’t and people with a propensity to commit acts of violence can be drawn to or invent ideologies as vehicles to do so. I’m specifically avoiding showing images or using the name of the piece of human debris who pulled the trigger that ended those innocent lives, but if you look at him – the dude looks not-sane. He looks a lot more like the Batman theater murderer than he does a competent sane person driven to kill. But fine, sure, I admit that having a stupid haircut and looking a little bananas isn’t exactly forensic evidence that would stand up in court, proving that a person has lost touch with reality. What I *do* know is that this fruitcake douche was going against the grain of America, not with it.

There are groups in America that make a good living out of making certain classes of people victims and so in order to justify their profit model, they need to perpetuate myths about alleged behemoths you need them to turn the tides against. The truth is that the popular sentiment in white America is that race is unimportant, not that it’s so important that dark skinned individuals need murderinz. Everyone hates this guy. He has no support. The lunatic rantings of the killers hate rants are supported by less than one half of 1% of the population of this country. Fringe freaks exist, its true. They congregate and share propaganda. It’s not an epidemic. American racism against blacks was not the reason 9 people are dead in Charleston.

It’s also not unique to America. Despite President Obama’s claim that “At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries” – doubling down to repeat “It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency.” – it does. Unless of course he meant “this kind of [low] frequency”. Then he was right… Finland, Slovakia, Israel, Switzerland, and of course Norway (which suffered a massacre of 77 in 2011) all have a higher per capita rate of rampage shootings than the United States, which itself is closely followed by other “advanced countries” like Belgium, Germany, the UK, Canada, and France.

But what is more important than the Presidents slander of his own country vs others is that even without the comparison to others – rampage shootings are not common in America. That’s why they’re such big news items when they occur.  Every one is one too many and it’s frustrating that most of the recent high-profile ones could have been prevented with the right actions from those around the killers but it’s still factually false to cite a pandemic or support to these universally condemned shootings. It’s doubly false to blame a culture of anti-black hate.

 

3- THE CONFEDERATE FLAG

The church murderer had posted a picture of himself with the confederate flag, another picture of him burning the American flag and others still. While this sparked a return to the legitimate debate over the prudence of the possible implications South Carolina’s flying of the Confederate Flag over the State House, it also re-ignited an illegitimate debate over the voodoo powers of the Stars and Bars, which had no culpability in this church murder.

A renewal of focus on South Carolina’s flying of the Confederate flag makes sense but it’s legitimacy of display or lack thereof was not a catalyst for the murder of these 9 people. Whether or not the symbol that represented the region of the country involved in the American Civil War who lost the most lives (over 600,000 vs the Norths 100,000+ deaths) is good to display by individual or government is a debate that has nothing to do with this act of violence which was not inspired by, facilitated by, boosted, or in any way aided by the design on that particular piece of Civil War memorabilia. It’s a symbol that’s been used by racists, not an ideology that influences racists to BE racist and/or commit acts of hate, violence, and murder.

Even if the murderer had written manifesto’s on how awesome the Confederate flag is and the history of what it means and why he’s killing in it’s glorious name (he didn’t) and/or how it specifically drove him to kill (it didn’t) – we don’t typically take a crazy murderers motives seriously when they spawn from totems or other objects. Trying to ban a historical symbol because it was co-opted by murderers is only a fraction of a degree crazier than banning dogs because David Berkowitz (aka the “Son of Sam” killer) said he was driven to murder because his neighbor Sam had a demon possessed dog that demanded it from him.

 

4- LACK OF GUN RESTRICTION LAWS

If you don’t like guns, as I don’t, then it seems too good to pass up to not use mass killings with a gun as examples of why there need to be more restrictive gun laws. Hoever… Nothing about the murders is attributable to gun laws that allowed any of it’s components to happen.

The murderer had a felony (making it illegal for him to poses a firearm), the murder weapon used was a gift – given to the murderer illegally (so improper registration laws can’t be to blame), South Carolina does not have concealed-carry or unconcealed firearm carrying rights without a permit (which the murderer obviously didn’t have with his illegally gifted gun), and you can’t bring a gun legally into a Church in South Carolina anyway.

Lack of gun laws did not facilitate this evil person to get ahold of a gun he could and did use to murder innocent people. They existed and were broken. Creating more laws to be blithely ignored by criminals ignoring the arguably more important law of “don’t murder people” is not the barrier required to stop such acts from happening.

 

5- FOX NEWS OR SOCIAL COMMENTARY

Just when you thought the goofiest scapegoats had already been pinned, Democratic State Rep Todd Rutherford told CNN that the murderer committed his crime “because he watches things like FOX News” and hears “coded language” that is actually “hate speech”. This is just stupididy that actually is on the level of my previous half-joking example of blaming the dog for the Son of Sam murders. At least the Confederate Flag has actually been used as a symbol of racism by racists, but claiming a cable news channel is secretly broadcasting “coded” advocation of racial murder is fruitcakery that shouldn’t be whispered by dummies in a bar, let alone broadcasted by elected representatives on national television.

Rutherford claimed that the broadcasts on FOX “talk about the president as if he’s not the president. They talk about church-goers as if they are really not church-goers. And that’s what this young man acted on. That’s why he could walk into a church and treat people like animals when they are really human beings.” Somehow the right-wing watchdogs failed to pick up all those reports by FOX about “some guy at the Whitehouse” who isn’t really the president and/or how people don’t go to church and thus it’s totally cool to murder people who go to church. Or something. Wtf? The reality is just the opposite – commentators on FOX are more likely to give President Obama more, not less, power in their analysis of his allegedly criticism worthy actions, and they put too much emphasis on religion in America, not less. In fact the Daily Kos attacked FOX for allowing the commentary of the shooting being an attack on religion (because the Daily Kos wants to keep the discussion focused exclusively on blaming a culture of racism).

When asked by FOX News host Bill O’Reilly about the comments, Rutherfords defense was… not so good. He said that the “not really the president” comments were about the Birth Certificate conspiracy (which FOX News debunked, not endorsed), admitting that he had no evidence that the murderer ever watched FOX News (reiterating that he said “things *like* FOX News”, whatever that means) and continued to claim without example that unnamed outlets *like* FOX (but not specifically FOX I guess?) report on non-news in order to smear black Americans as inherently violent rapists, tacitly condoning murder of anyone with dark skin. I wish I were exaggerating…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEXZZ1w_sHA

 

These dubious scapegoats are a problem. When people murder for ideological reasons (as opposed to situational motivations such as personal gain or targeted animosity like in mobs and gangs), the ideologies are never to blame unless they were force fed cult-style to the murderer without access to the reality that debunks the hate-propaganda. So unless a murderer is doing their killing spree because of their life teachings in a hate-sect of a Mormon desert (doesn’t happen) compound or one of the Al Quaeda branches or partners (happens), the inspection of the symbols, culture they associated with, and literature they wrote or endorsed are all not causes of the murder (if one is to think of it as a virus we’re discussing in order to stamp out) – they’re symptoms of the murder disease.

These are distractions and damagingly foolish ones at that but have you noticed the pattern? These 5 scapegoats are scapegoating from what?… The individual.

Post Transgender Revolution: What else can people re-assign about themselves?

Transgenderism isn’t new but the backlash against anyone who doesn’t fully applaud it as a totally normal celebratory stage of human evolution is.

This is odd because as society shifts towards the newly accepted norm that a person is whatever gender they identify as (and you’re a hateful bigot if you say anything otherwise), science remains the same. So if surface surgical procedures that don’t change your biological reality is now an acceptable identity…What other scientific realities can people change?

It’s not a “slippery slope” argument – it’s a real question?

If i’ve always felt I was black. Can I undergo racial reassignment surgery? Under this new Transphobic doctrine I can, but would I receive the same support as a transracial person as I would if I were a transgender person? Why applaud a man turning their hotdog into a donut in order to live a life as a woman but condemn a person getting a permanent tan and hair crimping in order to identify as an African American?

I’ve always felt I was 17. Can I undergo age reassignment surgery to young-up my face and then be accepted by society as a 17 year old? Then, just how it’s bigoted and obscenely hateful to note that a man who undergoes surgery to look like a woman, it will likewise be such for anyone who doesn’t accept my I’m actually twice that age

It’s time to Edward Cullen this bitch up.

UPDATE: This post was written just 1 week before the story of Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who was exposed for posing to be black and stuck by her identification as a personal identity, broke in June 2015. I’m not psychic – I was just going off the logical extension of the premise of societies view of gender reassignments.

Malkin goes overboard attacking Jimmy Fallon for having guests she doesn’t like

Conservative author/pundit/blogger Michelle Malkin says that Jimmy Fallon is “a celebrity frauds best friend” in a syndicated column that really is nothing more than just an indictment of the Tonight Show host for having NBC News anchor Brian Williams and this Dunham woman whom I keep getting told in blogs and news items is a celebrity. The entire column has a “geez. take it easy, man” vibe to it for me in it’s tone but the larger reason i’m highlighting it is that it’s an example of how conservative pundits will often go overboard in their expectations of the media to hold Leftists and Democrats accountable – especially in entertainment settings.

I would understand her beef and curt tone if Fallon had a history of mixing it up politically (he doesn’t) or if he was guilty of a John Stewart style duplicity in where he

In this case, Fallons only crime is merely having guests on his show… Chill out, girl.

I’ve heard a lot of the same criticisms about Dunhams false rape claims and other allegedly distasteful actions and while she doesn’t sound like someone I would necessarily want to hang out with, Jimmy Freakin fallon is a bizarre tool to use with which to club her.

From Malkins column on the “Fallon-ization” of celebrity honesty…

If you’re lucky enough to sit by his late-night throne and join his cool-kid games, all your troubles will melt away. Funnyman Jimmy is not just a bread-and-circuses buffoon. He’s the keeper of the pop culture immunity necklace.
A few weeks ago, “The Tonight Show” host bestowed his boob-tube shield upon grotesque actress Lena Dunham — a favorite repeat guest who famously declared an “obsessive crush” on Fallon. This time, they played “perverted Pictionary.” The main gag involved foot-long hot dogs.

Entertainment reporters and women’s magazines dutifully gushed about Dunham’s “fierce” doodling skills and “perfectly blended smoky eyes,” but not a peep from any of them about Dunham’s real-world lying game.

Behind the canned laughter and caked-on makeup lies the ugly truth: Dunham is a freaky-deaky fabulist and Hollywood deviant. After signing a hefty $3.5 million book deal with Random House, the hipster creator of HBO’s “Girls” and her publisher were forced late last year to walk back bogus allegations about a “rape” attack by an “Oberlin College Republican” that she neglected to disclose for nearly a decade … until she needed to generate book publicity.

Random House is now paying the falsely accused non-rapist college Republican’s legal fees. Instead of making amends, Dunham continues to make a martyr of herself, publishing a self-pitying diatribe on Buzzfeed and posting a prominent Twitter selfie with runny mascara mimicking two black eyes.

How twisted is she? Her bestselling memoir also contained disturbing accounts of Dunham forcing her younger sister to kiss her, masturbating in bed next to her, joking about acting like a “sexual predator,” and examining her genitals. When bona fide sexual abuse victims started expressing their disgust with Dunham’s cavalier attitude, she naturally blamed “conservative white men.” Dunham also bitterly attacked conservatives after critics questioned her soft-porn photo shoot with skeevy fashion photographer and accused serial sexual harasser Terry Richardson.

Whatevah. Dunham’s smoky eyes were “A+!” And did you see her Saint Laurent polka-dot dress?

Also – what the hell does “freaky deaky” mean? I’ve heard it and used it before but I thought it just meant “weird”. Malkin seems to be using it as a synonym for things like “sexually depraved” and “abhorrently dishonest”.

This whole thing is weird and conservatives should avoid a Malkin-ization in their media commentary.

Republicans Remind Everyone How Stupid They Are by shunning a 2016 Romney Run

In 2012, Republicans had an opportunity to gain a Nixon landslide without the possibility of Nixon corruption or scandal by running a near-perfect man for the job of president and shunned it for petty stupid reasons. That man eventually became their nominee anyway but even his expert handling of the hand he was dealt was no match for an incumbent president who had 4 more years to organize as well as enjoy the comfort of positive press as his opposition party did his job of weakening theirs. The Obama Administrations mobilized base achieved a decisive victory to reelection.

Republicans could rectify this error and re-nominate their still-best-candidate again who has already been vetted and tried and come up clean and instead, powerful voices in the party are destroying their best chance at 2016 yet again.

Instead, the party of idiots will go through a year and a half of bloodying their bodies and creating more ill-will amongst the various factions that comprise it in another completely stupid Primary that will hurt far more than it helps. The reason it won’t help is that the differences between the ideology of the contenders that have an actual shot at the nomination is miniscule. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Jeb Bush administrations would differ little in policy. The question here is electability and marketing. But Republicans are too stupid and petty to see that.

The reason running the guy who lost the last go-around remains their best strategy is simply due to the fact that Mitt Romney remains their best figure in the 3 key categories that matter:

Electability: Might sound odd to say about the guy who lost last time around, but the fact remains that his balance of ideology, background, and approach to issues is the most electable option for the 2nd straight national election cycle.

Purity: The dude is so scandal-free that it is almost inhuman. Which ironically serves as a downside because then he is resented for how impossibly perfect he is and demonized by the other side for exactly that reason.

Representation: If Republicans could make a perfect candidate they would all vote to Frankenstein together a sterling family man with successful business experience who has served in a legislative position but didn’t engrain himself in Washington bureaucracy or corruption.The Republican Party stands for individual liberty outweighing government power, the reduction of government power over individuals lives from laws to regulations to taxes, core founding document principal preservation, American cultural conservation, and a strong national defense. Maybe the party will get a better figure to represent these values in the future, but as of now, there is no more perfect individual for the GOP than the family man who spent a life in the private sector both enriching himself and others as well as charitably improving the lives of his neighbors yet became interested in the direction of the country’s leadership enough to serve in an executive position and remain involved in the national dialog.

Ideological Sensibility: He follows the 3 legs of the Reagan-Conservatism stool while remaining sensible and adaptable. He doesn’t have any extreme positions or baggage to make him legitimately unpalatable, so when the inevitable attacks claiming as such happen, they are much easily dispatched than with less moderate candidates.

 

Republicans are tools.

 

The Protestors Who Brought Down Boston Interstate Are Predictably, Hippie Losers

Earlier this month a bunch of dumb hippies who have been both ingesting and perpetuating the brainwash that pushes victimhood mentality on dark skinned racial minorities decided that it was about time they did something about race relations between white police officers and people with dark skin so of course they chained themselves to barrels to block traffic on the interstate.

The sarcasm in the “of course” part in that sentence speaks both to the illogic bizarreness of the act and the completely routine and cliche predictableness of hippie protest, which is not so much to argue a point or raise awareness in any kind of constructive manner but rather is to throw a tantrum for attention so the participants feel good about themselves. Tools.

Protesters who said they were trying to call attention to racial oppression blocked traffic on Interstate 93 north and south of Boston Thursday morning. The actions surprised police, snarled the commute for thousands, and forced the diversion of an ambulance rushing a car crash victim to a Boston hospital, State Police said.

The narcissistic tantrum accomplished nothing but the addition of more negativity to people in the areas days but as is the case with all stunts like this, could have gone much worse as it blocked the path of not only innocent civilians commuting and generally trying to just go about their day but also an ambulance trying to save a mans life.

An ambulance carrying a car crash victim with life-threatening injuries had to be diverted Thursday morning because of protests that shut down parts of Interstate 93, officials said.

Self absorbed, non-productive, annoying, destructive, and accomplishes nothing. 

Could these people be any more cliche? Turns out the answer is yes… They could be dirty looking dreaded white dudes who still live with their enabler parents…

To cleanse the palate, via Joel Pollak, nothing says “blocking ambulances for social justice” like white-guy dreads. This makes twice in the span of four days that our worst stereotypes about liberals were magically vindicated, the other being John Kerry rolling out his favorite hippie troubadour to serenade France with an apology on Friday. As with celebrity deaths, these things tend to happen in threes, which makes me wonder what sort of show Obama might be preparing to put on for us tomorrow night during the SOTU. Maybe he’ll use the speech to dump on “American Sniper”? That’s the bleeding edge of left-wing hot takes at this particular moment.