The Tucker Spin

As more news of the Tucker Carlson split with FOX emerges, it is becoming apparent that corporate America has more influence on the inner workings of network news than we suspected. Big sponsorship and advertising dollars apparently hold sway over the network executives, and if their talking heads don’t come to heel and respect the leash, they’re going to be shown the door. And in this, the age of DEI, ironically, if you don’t please your master, you don’t eat. This may have been Carlson’s downfall: he became too popular, too powerful a conservative voice, and said some things unpopular with the left. Things like questioning support for the war in Ukraine, pursuing the Hunter Biden scandal, revealing the Biden family crime empire, scrutinizing the government response to Covid, and attacking big Pharma, to name a few. Tsk, tsk. Thus, one could surmise that if you want the honest truth from your news source, you can’t rely on the big media outlets. This has given rise to independent networks where the news personality actually is the network. For example, Rush Limbaugh and the EIB Network, and Glenn Beck and his Blaze Radio Network, who, as he put it himself, “saw how the growing volume of the establishment’s narrative in the media was suffocating the individual’s voice.” How can we rely on mainstream media for a news source when what we hear may be tainted by corporate sponsorship, which is, in effect, a form of censorship? And unfortunately, this seems to affect conservatives disproportionately. As corporate America succumbs to ESG, DEI, and a host of other alphabet-soup ideologies, only the progressive programming and their liberal hosts will survive scrutiny, leaving conservative voices searching for a platform. Most recently, it has been suggested by our government geniuses that AM radio should be eliminated. You know, the medium where conservative talk radio got its start, where emergency warnings are issued in times of disaster because of its longer range bandwidth. Yup, that kind of radio. And nothing serves notice like taking down the host of the most watched news show on cable. Let that be a lesson to you. At least in Orwell’s 1984 in the Two Minutes Hate, the ruling class made you watch the enemy daily and spew your vitriol. Now they just tell you what to hate and eliminate it. How convenient a manipulation. 

Pervasive Divisiveness.

As I see it, the entire Progressive agenda is built upon division and deceit, manifested in a constant stream of victims versus oppressors rhetoric. And, Black America is their favored trial horse; of late, the LGBTQ+ movement has also been saddled up. Our country is not systemically racist or homophobic; how could it be in being the most successful, prosperous, concordant, diverse society on the planet if it were? Progressive’s would like us to think otherwise Progressivism is clearly regressivism in their desire to return to the identity politics of our distant past, reconstituted in today's Woke, CRT, and DEI movements. Don't be fooled my fellow Americans there is much to be said for the divide and conquer concept when so deftly practiced by these Progressives, they are of many stripes in title and appearance but of one mind, socialism!

Farewell Tucker

I have a feeling of emptiness. And it’s worse at 8:00 PM on weekdays. Alas, poor Tucker, I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy, as Shakespeare would have waxed. Or more like a constant thorn in the side of misguided progressives' divisive political agenda. And that amused me to no end, although I did find his smugness annoying on occasion. Reluctantly his departure has forced me back into the realm of streaming, the bizarre world of series for the little screen. Which begs the question: What is going on out there?  “Ted Lasso” had been a charming story of a culture clash when a mid-western American football coach is recruited to be at the helm of a British soccer club, caught in a vendetta of sorts to ostensibly drive the club into the ground by the spurned ex-wife of the club’s original owner. Jason Sudeikis plays a corny, golly shucks, character with a big heart that is endearing. But suddenly, in season three, we veered off the rails like Norfolk-Southern with two new storylines, one featuring a gay player and his hidden sexual orientation and another with a main character rebounding from a failed heterosexual relationship who turns to her female business associate for a romantic interlude. Why go there? Did the writers figure it’s the final season anyway, so let’s get our licks in?  Ahem, so to speak. And I heard rave reviews about “The Last of Us,” another apocalyptic zombie thriller along the lines of “The Walking Dead.”  Pedro Pascale is outstanding and thoroughly engaging in his leading role, and the first episode is tragically riveting. But no, hold on there. Episode three is devoted entirely to a gay prepper who finds love in the midst of end of days chaos. And then, not content to have their day in the sun, the writers produced a backstory late in the season explaining that one of the main characters is a lesbian. Is this really reflective of society that homosexuality is that prevalent, or is it more reflective of the percentage of alphabet soup members in the writers guild?  Or perhaps the political leanings of network management. And it appears that both series followed the same script to coin a phrase. Powerful openers with engaging characters to get the audience hooked, then when viewership is at its peak and the series is trending, introduce the gay storylines. This appears to be purposeful manipulation by the networks to ram through an agenda to normalize, to desensitize, to make it a glamorous lifestyle choice. Are there really that many homosexuals out there that we, the heterosexual majority, are required to be immersed in it? And before you liberals go off on a homophobe rant, let it be known that I don’t care what the sexual proclivities are in the deep recesses of society. To each their own. What I do object to is manipulation. And all this pandering to the LGBTQIA+ community smacks of just that, manipulation. I know it's just entertainment, but enough already!

Mushrooms

It is becoming increasingly apparent that the government is censoring what they release to the public, and indeed in most cases, appear to either spin that information or alter it completely. How does that expression go about mushrooms?  Keep them in the dark and feed them…..well, you know what. A glaring example is the failure of the government to release the manifesto of the Nashville transgender shooter. Now they’re telling us that the information is so dangerous to public safety that they are going to release only excerpts. In other words, they are planning to censor the document. What is in there so dangerous for public consumption?  Is it a detailed plan to build and deploy a nuclear weapon?  I doubt it. Or is it more likely something dangerous to their narrative, something like a drug-addled transgender activist who deliberately targeted Christians?  What’s your bet?  We are entering an unusual time in American history where our freedoms and liberty are being eroded from within. The Second Amendment and now the First Amendment is under attack, and government transparency is a thing of the past. Take heed, mushrooms. 

TV Wasteland

Late-night TV has become a vast wasteland of chat shows vying to become relevant. The likes of Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, and Steven Colbert continue to try to appeal to their audience of, mostly younger urban liberals. A flash in the pan, Hobbit from Britain, James Corden, vacated his late-night post when viewers tired of his schtick. He should have stuck with carpool karaoke and stopped talking. There’s nothing quite like a foreigner haranguing Americans about their politics. And we have the recent entry Gutfeld supposedly appealing to Conservatives but, like his brethren lacking to a large extent in my estimation relevance and decorum. Steven Colbert who somehow suspects that he will appear brighter if he uses the French pronunciation of his surname.  Roi des cons. Jimmy Fallon is perhaps the most natural entertainer of the lot, but he, too, has become mired in a race to the left. He rarely misses an opportunity for cheap shots at Conservatives in his monologues while taking a pass on obvious opportunities to poke fun at Progressives despite Biden practically writing the jokes for him. But the surly Jimmy Kimmel, an abrasive native New Yorker, recently went on a rant about his favorite topic, Donald Trump. Referring to Trump’s appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight, Kimmel called it “ an embarrassing interview.” He specifically referenced Trump stating the following: “Nobody talks about nuclear, the problem we have, the biggest problem we have in the whole world, it’s not global warming, it’s nuclear warming.” Taken out of context, it appears to be a typical Trump stream of consciousness when he often ineloquently fleshes out an idea towards what best can be described as a  tendency toward the verbose. Kimmel naturally seized on it, declaring, “What is this batty old man talking about?” As Yahoo News reported it, he went in to describe how he did an internet search and found no reference to nuclear warming. “The reason nobody’s talking about nuclear warning is that’s not a thing,” he concluded. “It did make one thing clear: that Donald Trump is a profoundly stupid person.”  Nice. So let me get this straight, Jimmy: because you were unable to follow his train of thought, disagreed with his claim that “ nuclear” is a bigger threat than climate change, and rather than give it some thought, you dismissed his hypothesis because you couldn’t find a specific reference in a google search, and that makes Trump the idiot?  I beg to differ. If you bothered to pay any attention to the interview, you would have surmised that, although “nuclear warming” may not be a “thing,” Trump was making the point that Putin has been rather free and loose with suggesting that tactical nuclear weapons are not off the table in Ukraine. So whether you take that as world leaders “warming” to the idea of using nuclear weapons, and North Korea has been at it as well, or take it as a reference to the heat generated by a nuclear blast, despite the fact that a nuclear winter would most likely be the result, any thinking person would surmise that Trump was expressing concern that the world is at risk for nuclear confrontation with the result far more damaging than climate change. Not that difficult to comprehend. So might I suggest that these late-night comedians set aside their self-anointed roles as experts in international affairs and political science and return to making an attempt at entertaining us? Thus far, they are failing miserably.

.

What Would Walt Think

Preamble: Incensed, I got carried away with this rant. Bear with me. TS

I don’t think Walt would be pleased with the current state of the empire he built. What exactly has happened to the Disney brand anyway? What got me incensed was when I recently decided to introduce my grandson to a Disney movie I loved as a kid, The Jungle Book. I was met with this warning:

This program includes negative depictions and/or mistreatment of people and cultures. These stereotypes were wrong then and are wrong now. Rather than remove this content, we want to acknowledge its harmful impact, learn from it and spark a conversation to create a more inclusive future together. Disney is committed to creating stories with inspirational and aspirational themes that reflect the rich diversity of the human experience around the globe.

What? Apparently, this warning appears before a majority of classic Disney animated features. The only content I want to learn about now is this content. In particular, who is the person that came up with this nonsense, and who exactly has been harmed? I’m happy to hear that; whoever you are, you chose not to remove the content; that’s called censorship incidentally, but precisely what did you Wokers find in Disney’s Jungle Book that you found so harmful? Seriously, enlighten me.

Nearly all of Disney’s classic animated movies have come under fire using the tried and true application of the “racism under every rock” principle. If your job is to seek out racism, you’re the hammer, and everything starts to look like a nail. Classic animated features from Disney and Warner Brothers have been held up to scrutiny through a contemporary woke lens, failing to take into account the era in which the films were made and the intent of the long-dead animators. Racial stereotyping seems to be the most common accusation. But are we to deny that certain ethnic groups have distinct characteristics? How can it be in an age where color seems to be the most important redeeming feature in college

          

 admissions, hiring practices, and critical race theory that we can then claim that there are no inherent differences between us? Do ethnic enclaves all bear the same features? Right here at home, is a drive through Little Italy or Harlem in New York, Southie in Boston, or Chinatown in San Francisco going to look the same? Is the food the same, the music, the dress, the culture? If the whole world is the same, why do we travel? For just the climate and the architecture? Sure, we share similarities, hopefully morals and scruples among them, but isn’t it the diversity, those differences, that you lefties keep telling us to celebrate? On one hand, the left tells us to revel in our distinctiveness, but on the other, they tell us we are all the same, when clearly, to the naked eye, that just isn’t true. And a stereotype is usually based, at least partially, on observation, and sometimes that observation may be dated to a time when the ethnic group was new to this country. It isn’t always malicious, although it can be, but we are then walking a fine line between a comedic, satirical caricature and one with the intent to do harm. Isn’t it a cartoonist’s job to exaggerate the characteristics of his subject? And who determines harm? Take the animated feature Peter Pan for example. Apparently, the children refer to Native Americans as “Redskins” which Disney says is a “racial slur.” We already went through this in the renaming scandal for the NFL franchise Washington Redskins for years. Surveys have repeatedly revealed that the majority of Native Americans did not find the term offensive. It was not used in a derogatory manner by the football team, nor was it used as an offense in the Peter Pan film. Disney also was critical of Peter and the Lost Boys dressing in headdresses and dancing, calling it a “form of mockery and appropriation of native people’s culture and imagery.” Children playing dress-up as Indians? Please. Rarely do kids dress up as a character to mock themselves. No child stands in line to portray the village idiot. The football team chose the name “Redskins” as a representation of a proud warrior, and children playing dress-up have the same thing in mind. But we have reached a state where even the name “warrior” has been co-opted by the left as racist and is being banned as we speak from high school sports teams across the country. A little overreach, perhaps? And this “appropriation of culture” nonsense is just that. Nonsense. Where do you draw the line? White people shouldn’t play jazz music or rap? What about Nancy Pelosi leading an overwhelmingly white Congress in taking a knee while draped in African tribal scarves? Can a Black-owned restaurant serve spaghetti? Should the cellist Yo-Yo Ma be allowed to play classical European music? Can Italians celebrate St. Patrick’s Day? It’s ridiculous. Now what about the Cleveland Indians’ goofy mascot Chief Wahoo? I’ll give you that one. That depiction is a bit different than the warrior that used to adorn the Redskins helmets. Banish that one to the trash heap of marketing stupidity. But what about the Florida State Seminoles, who have their mascot Osceola ride out onto the field on horseback and plant a flaming spear in the turf? That’s not demeaning; that’s inspirational. But not for everyone. Although FSU’s use of the mascot is supported by the Tallahassee Seminole Tribe, the Oklahoma Seminoles are not entirely on board. There’s always some disgruntled crank ruining life for the rest of us.

 Common sense should naturally rule, but unfortunately, everyone has a beef. But back to Peter Pan: a song originally entitled “What Makes the Red Man Red” was edited into “What Makes the Brave Man Brave,” an odd choice considering the Atlanta Braves and their fans’ “Tomahawk Chop” have been widely criticized as well. Admittedly, the original song’s title does have an initial cringe factor, but once again, surveys show that Native Americans are not particularly sensitive to being differentiated as “red” any more than Blacks are black and Whites are white. Well, almost. Rarely these days can you escape the term “white” being hurled about with a negative context, as in “White Fragility,” “critical white studies,” and just plain “whiteness.” Why is that acceptable? Granted, the song is an Edwardian-era view of Native Americans as represented in children’s literature of the time, just as it does mermaids and pirates, and it uses a broken English cadence and terms like “Injun” and “squaw” that are deemed offensive. But intentional malice was not the goal of the writers. In fact, they proposed a mythical, fairy tale explanation in the song: “Let’s go back a million years, To the very first Injun prince, He kissed a maid and started to blush, And we’ve all been blushin’ since.” Hardly a negative storyline and obviously meant to be appealing to children. On a more intellectual level, the criticism of the Disney movie Pocahontas was leveled at the historical inaccuracy and the use of the word “savages” in one of the featured songs. The historical criticism borders on lunacy. The animated character is widely criticized as being an attractive, mature, Native American woman in a buckskin cocktail dress when in actuality, the real Pocahontas was between 9 and 11 years old when she met John Smith, likely had facial tattoos, might have had her head shaved, walked about naked, and died when she was only 21. Hardly a character that would have been well received in a children’s movie had reality been accurately represented. Rather, Disney chose to portray Pocahontas as the character in folklore, a more sanitized version of the truth. Could have been worse, could have been Elizabeth Warren in the leading role. Although “Colors of the Wind,” the title song, received accolades, it was the song “Savages” that drew the ire of the woke mob. Once again, it is more the word than the intent. The left has apparently co-opted the term savages to be a slur directed against Native Americans. The song, however, requires more thoughtful analysis. It features verses sung in alternating fashion by the white settlers, then by the Native Americans, both referring to the other as “savages.” Not that complicated, people. In other words, the white settlers thought the native people were uncultured heathens, or savages, whereas, from the Native American’s perspective, it was the white settler who by virtue of his actions, usurping land and violence towards their people, was the actual savage. Once again, hardly malicious intent and meant to stimulate thought on perspective, not to be critical of Native Americans. Just what Disney’s little warning claims they’re trying to do.

And the list goes on. Both Lady and the Tramp and The Aristocrats were criticized for “anti-Asian stereotypes.” Stereotypes, perhaps, but caricatures that were in no way Anti-Asian to the objective viewer with an IQ above 70. In both movies, Siamese cats were depicted as Asian. Okay, last time I checked, the

 Siamese cat was originally bred in the Kingdom of Siam, which is now Thailand, which, as I recall, is in Asia. So wouldn’t it be natural to anthropomorphize the cats as being Asian? In The Aristocats, the cat plays the piano with chopsticks, and in both features, the cats have heavily accented English, and the music is Asian in technique and intonation. So what. Do Asian immigrants often speak English with an accent? Don’t traditional Asians prefer chopsticks to western utensils? Isn’t traditional Asian music....well, Asian? It’s ridiculous. How else are animators supposed to portray an Asian cartoon character? Perhaps by having the character manufacture all our goods, establish ties with Putin, threaten free maritime passage in the South China Sea, and attempt to replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. And write Hunter Biden a check. Maybe call him Xi. Yeah, children would find that hilarious. And the greatest offense of all: the cat was voiced by a white actor. But didn’t Disney just cast a Black R&B singer in the role of Ariel in the live-action version of Hans Christian Anderson’s The Little Mermaid? Show me where mermaids appear in Black seafaring literature. Or Black folks in any of Mr. Anderson’s fairy tales. Why isn’t cultural appropriation a two-way street, Disney? Because the whole thing is ridiculous, that’s why. Talking cats and mermaids. Well, guess what, the cats are entertaining characters, just as Halle Berry is a talented and attractive mermaid.

But no, Disney’s self-flagellation knows no bounds. In Lady and the Tramp, in perhaps one of the most tear-jerking scenes in animation, we meet dogs in the pound howling to the strains of “No Place Like Home.” But once again, the dogs are portrayed as caricatures of the countries the breeds come from, the French poodle, the Mexican Chihuahua, and the Russian Borzoi. And that kind of racial stereotyping just won’t do. Exactly who was offended by this scene? And in one of the most famous scenes in animation, Lady and Tramp are on a date at an Italian restaurant, and their lips meet when they find themselves on either end of the same piece of spaghetti. The Italian restauranteur is naturally named Tony, is of olive complexion, speaks accented English, has black hair, a little mustache, and is full-figured. Stereotype? Sure it is. But no outrage in this case. Why is that? I wonder if the voice-over actor was actually Italian? Are Italians too white, or are they just not one of the protected classes? Once again, an illustration of the haphazard application of standards skewed almost exclusively in favor of people of color.

And in their zeal to capture racism, it is unfortunate that the net keeps getting bigger, ensnaring questionable affronts, including some that are either fabricated or don’t exist at all. Disney’s animated feature, The Jungle Book, released in 1967, is a prime example. Based on a Rudyard Kipling story, originally written in 1894, The Jungle Book tells the story of Mowgli, a young boy raised by wolves, who reluctantly must leave the jungle when he is pursued by the menacing tiger, Shere Khan. Along the way, we meet Baloo the bear, Colonel Hathi the elephant, Kha the snake, Bagheera the panther, the beatnik vultures, and most notably, King Louie the orangutan, all of whom have their own plans for the man-cub. If you are to believe Wikipedia, the story is generally considered to be about “the

 themes of abandonment,” and the triumph of underdogs over their enemies, and “animals anthropomorphized into human archetypes” teaching “respect for authority, obedience, and learning one’s place in society,” but also the “freedom to move between different worlds.” Whatever. Disney’s take on the oft-adapted story featured fantastic voiceovers and an award-winning musical score. But heed the warning: “The character of King Louie, an ape with poor linguistic skills, sings in a Dixieland jazz style and is shown as lazy. The character has been criticized for being a racist caricature of African-Americans.” Gotcha. Swing and a miss, Disney. Whoever the contemporary snowflake with the woke-colored glasses was that wrote this gibberish, totally missed the mark, showing a profound ignorance of 60s culture, and jazz music in particular. Not only that, but they are showing their own prejudice by assuming that any animated ape has to be African American. Idiots. The character King Louis is based on the actor that voices him, Louis Prima (1910-1978). Prima was a New Orleans-born singer, songwriter, bandleader, humorist, and most notably, a trumpeter who incorporated styles of New Orleans Jazz, swing, jump blues, and even Italian folk music into his compositions and performances. His musical influences came from his Sicilian roots, but most notably from being raised in an era in New Orleans when Black and Italian jazz musicians mingled in clubs that opened their doors to them when they were discriminated against in other mainstream venues. He wasn’t culturally misappropriating Dixieland jazz in the featured song “I Wanna Walk Like You”, rather he was playing the type of music that he grew up with, music that he performed and recorded. And to claim that the character had “poor linguistic skills” is offensive. Mr. Prima, although exaggerating his speech to fit the character, actually spoke that way, which was far from linguistically poor and more in keeping with a New Orleans jazz man of the time. Nor was the character anything close to “lazy.” The entire premise, as heard in the lyrics, was that King Louie had “reached the top” and was seeking to gain the power of fire so he could be more like a human. “I wanna be just like the other men, I’m tired of monkeying around.” Hardly lazy and without ambition. And equating Louie and his band of monkeys with African Americans borders on the absurd. Who is projecting racial bias here? The film was made in 1967 and, based on the haircuts on the monkeys and their choice of expressions such as “swingers,” “squares,” and “lay it on me,” it is apparent that they were meant to be representative of the groovy hippie culture of the time. To suggest otherwise is insulting to the legacy of Louis Prima, who produced hits such as “Just a Gigolo,” “Oh, Marie”’ “Buono Sera,” and with wife Keely Smith, “That Old Black Magic,” and “I’ve Got You Under My Skin.” As saxophonist and collaborator Sam Butera said: “He was one of the greatest entertainers who ever lived-he was an entertainers entertainer.”

But perhaps racism is the easiest excuse in an effort to cancel the real target: Rudyard Kipling. Often criticized in contemporary woke circles as being a “colonialist,” Kipling was born in Bombay, British India, in 1865, received the Nobel Prize in literature in 1907, and penned classic works such as “Gunga Din,” “Kim,” Captains Courageous,” “If,” and the controversial “The White Man’s

 Burden” as well as “The Jungle Book.” In his poem “The White Man’s Burden,” he, unfortunately, perpetuates the prevailing mindset of the times in which he lived, where it was the moral obligation of the British Empire to infuse civilization and Christianity into the non-white, primitive peoples of the world. In this case, he was actually encouraging the United States to colonize the Philippines.

Again, looked at through a contemporary social lens, and now that those peoples are indeed civilized on a par with their colonizers, that once great empire now seen as being in decline, such antiquated thought will surely qualify as racism. And in contemporary woke society, historical context is no excuse; the verdict is always guilty, and the sentence: is cancellation. Thus we have such absurd demonstrations of virtue signaling as when Manchester University students painted over a Rudyard Kipling mural of his poem “If,” replacing it with the Maya Angelou poem “Still I Rise.” What exactly are they teaching students in Manchester besides a total lack of cultural awareness? Whereas the poem “If” is a proud acknowledgment of traditional British traits of self-discipline, the ability to persevere, and a stalwart sense of duty, what is often derided but more often praised as the “stiff upper lip” hallmark of British demeanor, they chose an American activist poet as a replacement? How tone deaf. What, there aren’t any suitable poets of British descent who were deemed a more appropriate substitute? Of course, the activists’ retort is that the decision to paint over the mural was “a statement on the reclamation of history by those who have been oppressed by the likes of Kipling.” Really. Reclamation of history? History is history, warts and all, not something to be rewritten to your woke sensibilities or canceled altogether because it doesn’t fit your narrative.

Could it be that Disney is just preaching the woke gospel to curry favors? Are they trying to appeal to their customer base, our misguided, activist youth? Or do they actually believe this nonsense? Perhaps. They are originally from California, you know. It is, therefore, interesting to take note of the recent battle between Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the Disney empire in Orlando. Disney has long enjoyed a special status, paying reduced taxes and essentially carving out their own self-governing fiefdom separate and apart from surrounding communities. Like the Amazon deal that Representative Ocasio-Cortez shot down in New York, the original premise was to give Disney favored tax status in exchange for investment in Florida, bringing jobs and development to the mid- state region. But as Disney has grown too big for its britches and has made forays into politics and social justice, they have run headlong into the freight train that is Ron DeSantis. In his mind, if we’re going to give you favored status, you should keep your nose out of politics, especially if your lobbying runs contrary to the conservative winds that blow in the Sunshine State. And times have changed. Disney is far from a start-up company, or even a company seeking to expand into a lower tax environment, a tactical selling point to lure businesses to income tax- free states like Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming, and Florida. But shouldn’t this be an issue right out of the Democrat Playbook? A huge corporation, flush with cash, is receiving favored tax status and is not “paying its fair share.” Or to deploy a Warren Buffett misdirection: Isn’t Disney paying less taxes than my secretary?”

 Au contraire. The democrats are disingenuously drawing lines along politics and DEI, siding with the woke corporation over the conservative Governor who also happens to be a potential Republican presidential candidate. Quelle surprise. In this case, even traditionally liberal news sources such as CNN and Vox are hypocritically siding with big business. Vox, which frequently competes with The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, and Esquire as the most laughable source for unbiased reporting, led with the gloating headline “How Disney Just Beat Ron DeSantis” and HuffPo, another opportunistic bottom feeder, ran the story: “Disney CEO calls DeSantis Policies Anti-Florida” after CEO Bob Iger “addressed the Florida Governor’s bid to strip Disney of its self-governing powers, calling it anti-business and anti-Florida.” Even the conservative Wall Street Journal, no fan of Trump, reported that Disney had “outmaneuvered” DeSantis, Trump’s most likely primary adversary. So let’s get this straight, Bob. Do you want to govern yourself, lower your tax burden, and be able to criticize the politics of the state that grants you those favors so you can further your own political agenda? Recall, this all started when Disney chose to wade into the culture wars by opposing DeSantis’s so- called “Don’t Say Gay” legislation designed to protect children from explicit sex education from kindergarten through grade 3. You know, the bill that actually doesn’t say anything about gay at all. That’s kids under the age of eight, incidentally. Sure, rather than actually educating these impressionable little kids on topics that will keep China from eating our lunch, let’s confuse the hell out of them by making them question whether they have the right equipment in their trousers. Good talk. But really, Bob, having the Mouse attack your conservative governor and potentially the Republican candidate for President, then complaining that being prevented from paying lower taxes and performing an end-around of Florida governance is somehow being anti-business sounds an awful lot like you’re playing both sides of the political fence. And where is the criticism from the left? Since when do democrats condone a huge capitalist’s attempt to avoid paying their fair share? When it’s one of their own, apparently. And after hypocritically indicting former President Trump with 34 felony counts this week over a misdemeanor that is beyond the statute of limitations, let’s just move on to the next threat to Democrat rule forever, Ron DeSantis. There is no limit to the hypocrisy when the woke mob comes for you and then rationalizes their own indiscretions by pointing to their record of self-criticism and introspection. As if Disney’s sudden wokeness gives them a pass. It’s disingenuous, it’s manipulative, it’s politically motivated, and in some cases, they just got it wrong. But as in all things progressive, the end justifies the means.

Get Real GOP

I see the Republicans queuing up to shoot themselves in the foot over the abortion issue….again. How much more evidence do you need than the completely batty Gretchen Whitmer retaining her place in the governor’s mansion over a thoroughly qualified opponent who took a hard line on abortion access? Only abortion seems to be more polarizing than supporting Donald Trump, and a combination of the two is the political kiss of death. Just ask Kari Lake, who lost her race in Arizona to an incumbent who not only didn’t campaign, but seems to make Whitmer appear to be a rocket scientist by comparison. But she did have the progressive seal of approval for preaching her party’s anytime, anywhere policy. Just give it up. Apparently, democrats and a large percentage of independents are all about forgetting their irresponsible behavior by eliminating the inconvenient result of biology. So let them. Sure, maybe compromise by suggesting we allow unfettered access to abortion in the first trimester, but that, too, will turn out to be a non-starter. Yes, abortion is immoral, unethical, and uncivilized. So is looting, rioting, and burning our cities, but that doesn’t seem to phase them either. Centuries from now, mankind will look back at the carnage and wonder what we were thinking. But for now, conservatives have to take a page out of the Democrat playbook and recognize that power is the ultimate goal, and to attain it; there will have to be collateral damage. At its most cynical, rationalize it by thinking that conservatives will always be guided by their own moral and ethical code and protect the sanctity of life, whereas progressive democrats will continue to kill their offspring, future Democrat voters. Let that be their legacy. 

AI

The new ominous surge in AI technology, most recently demonstrated by the mental gymnastics performed by ChatGPT, poses an interesting philosophical question. Should we?  And if we do, how do we keep it in check?  Elon Musk pondered the question in his recent interview with Tucker Carlson. If we move forward, safeguards must be put in place, safeguards that can’t be thwarted by the AI itself. Further, we have to be able to recognize that we are being threatened. As he put it, AI won’t present itself like the Terminator, rather we will likely be more subtly manipulated by language. AI has shown itself to be adept at writing, and producing works of art, even poetry, and disturbingly has shown itself to be manipulative, partisan, and downright mean-spirited. All those traits were infused into it unknowingly, perhaps, by its creators. Will writers and artists be replaced?  College professors?  Why not politicians and judges?  Wouldn’t a doctor benefit from having the entire history of medical research at his fingertips in seconds? What job wouldn’t benefit from an omniscient non-biased machine? Would only manual labor be left to the humans, or would AI figure out how to produce a machine to do that as well? Welcome to the Matrix, my friends. And who will be the gatekeeper for this technology? The same geniuses that brought us Facebook, Tik-Tok, and video games that feature algorithms to manipulate our behavior?  Or the same scientists that unleashed Covid-19 on the world? And speaking of Wuhan, how exactly will the CCP use this technology, assuming they are in an arms race of sorts to develop their own version of AI? Will they employ the same safeguards that they used in the Wuhan virology lab? And will they use it and share it for the betterment of humankind or deploy it as a weapon to probe our military for weakness, develop new weapons of war and continue their quest to supplant the dollar as the world’s reserve currency? What could go wrong?  And as we plow headfirst into technological advances beyond our comprehension, we have a glaring example of what lies ahead, staring us right in the face: The internet and social media. We have an entire generation raised in this cyberspace jungle with disastrous results. Depression, anxiety, and suicide have spiked in our youth with a curve that mimics the advent of social media. Terrorist organizations and the cartels use online platforms to disseminate information and coordinate attacks. Chicago’s “youth” staged a night of looting and vandalism by posting online calls for a riot that demonstrated the dangers of the hive mentality.  Our military suffered its most damaging leak in history after a 21-year-old Air National Guardsman posted classified documents to an obscure online chat room that was then reposted by a former Navy officer on social media with over 65000 followers. Even Peter Parker knew that with great power comes great responsibility. And he was a comic book character. Mr. Musk understands it. Unfortunately for humankind, it appears that he is the only one who does.

Decorum And Civility Lost

Decorum and Civility is missing in today's shuffled social order. Either nobody has it at all, or nobody has a sense of it. To refresh your memory, we all know what civility means, that of being polite; decorum maybe not so much. Webster defines decorum as behavior in keeping with good taste and decency. When was the last time you saw those traits on display, especially in the political arena? Perhaps it’s a product of the rise of a number of populist causes and technology. Donald Trump may share part of the blame. I wholeheartedly support his policies; however, I find his exaggerated persona and over-the-top political theatre antics offensive, yet got to hand it to him for calling out the mainstream media and the entrenched unelected government drones that are doing us harm. Yes, he is indeed brash and uncouth, but perhaps provoked by the incessant attacks on his person, family, and agenda that have brought out the worst in him. But using the yardstick of “Am I better off now than I was four years ago,” sentiment certainly tilts in his favor. The world is currently contemplating that tilt as well. Witness Macron groveling before China’s Xi. And Brazil’s da Silva is next in that queue, both countries’ leaders demonstrating a total absence of decorum. But again, admittedly, Trump’s Twitter rants were less than presidential, and with that, one could argue that it set the tone for a new level of divisiveness and lack of decorum. But I digress. Intelligent discussion has been replaced with shouting down speakers, cancellation, and violence. Stanford law students, for example, interesting that they are learning to mount an unbiased defense of murderers and rapists yet seem unable to tolerate a speech given by a conservative federal judge. And social media has been a potent enabler. Hiding behind the keyboard has resulted in anonymity without repercussions, and that has led to unparalleled levels of vitriol spewed into cyberspace. Malcontents the world over suspect they too can become “influencers” and cash in, causing them to engage in levels of exhibitionism online that used to get you arrested. Decorum, people. Take that transgender influencer, Dylan, who received Joe Biden’s blessing and became a spokesperson for Bud Light, with his perverse lady-face on a commemorative can, just for displaying his gender-bending on the internet for all to see. Why exactly should anyone be influenced by this mocking caricature of a 1960s housewife? Women, actual women, should be offended. There is no good taste here, but rather a significant lack of it. And why should an entire stadium care about the Dodgers fan’s attempted on-field marriage proposal before he was tackled by security? Is your life so pitiful to desire internet notoriety to the extent of interrupting the lives of 56,000 people who paid to see a baseball game? Find a nice beach at sunset and take a knee, kid. Decorum, please. I’m begging you. Yet the media seems to be on the wrong side, endorsing this bad behavior. Disgruntled? Have a complaint? Bypass HR and go directly to an AR. Just shoot the place up. Come on!  And the Tennessee legislators leading what democrats used to define as an insurrection in Nashville, thoroughly disregarding their oaths of office. Bullhorns and raised fists on the state assembly floor shouting over the state’s business. Shame. And then to cry racism and claim their constituents were being robbed of representation is just disingenuous. Remember when we used to be a nation of laws? When civility and decorum were something we were taught and then practiced. Civility and a sense of decorum were associated with being well-bred, which we once admired. Now we only apply those standards when it fits the narrative of the Woke. I cringe in regret.

Embarrassing

So the perpetrator of the classified document leak is a 21-year-old loner, a “gun enthusiast” and a fascination with the military,” who grew up in Rhode Island and now resides in Massachusetts. The media is doing their best to paint him as a conservative gun nut despite hailing from the deepest of blue states. Regardless of his penchant for firearms and military gear, not so unusual for someone serving in the armed forces, why exactly is our military allowing a 21-year-old Air National Guardsman computer geek access to our most sensitive military secrets?  Is our military so desperate for talent that they let this twerp slip through the security cracks?  And exactly how protected is our trove of classified documents that seem to be popping up everywhere, from Biden’s garage to the streets of Belfast? Yes, Biden’s itinerary was reportedly found literally blowing in the wind in Ireland. Our government has become a laughingstock on the international stage. And there doesn’t seem to be any adults in the room, anybody taking charge. China and Russia are taking notice. How embarrassing. 

Scarlet Letter

My concern is that the Progressives have figured out how to end all meaningful discussions. Look at the insurrection promoted by members of the Tennessee state legislature. They clearly violated parliamentary rules and fomented a takeover of the house floor while conducting business. But their removal is considered racially based, of course. Criticize violence by a transgender and starts with suppressing rights but ultimately ends up as transphobia. The mayoral race in Chicago was marred in the final week by the black candidate accusing the white candidate of racially based attacks on his policies. It is an argument-ending tactic that changes the subject of discussion from the issue at hand to defending yourself as not being a racist or transphobic. It’s a scarlet letter that causes the conservative to immediately recoil and go on the defensive. It’s childish, anti-intellectual identity politics that works.

Depressing News Abounds

What a horribly depressing news cycle we are in. It appears that the progressive game plan can be summed up with two descriptors: sex and deriving income with as little work as possible. Simplistic, yes, but apparently appealing to the masses in an ever-growing welfare state. Sex can be broken down into multiple subcategories. There is dealing with the inconvenient by-product of having sex, namely pregnancy, and the unfettered access to abortion anytime, anywhere. Then there’s sex as it relates to gender, the left’s melding of the two as a choice, an option that can change at a whim. There’s the alphabet soup crowd, including the suddenly ubiquitous transgender person, a fraction of the population that demands accommodations from the rest of us. And the second principle, more revenue from less work, is best illustrated by the French, who continue to riot over plans to increase the retirement age from 62 to 64 despite already enjoying five weeks less work a year than their American counterparts. Unions seem to be leading the charge in this country, imposing ludicrous restrictions on employers' ability to maintain profitability, having to weigh decreasing productivity against burgeoning overhead. Who do they suspect is going to pay for all of this?  We keep feeding the bears, yet we are surprised when we find them rooting around in our trash, looking for more.