9/11 Memorial

We recently visited the 9/11 Memorial in New York City.  I didn’t really expect much.  I expected it to be impactful, but simple.

I was wrong.  Way, way, wrong.  It goes on and on and on.  Entire fire trucks and ambulances and twisted metal and tributes to every single victim.  It is quite frankly, overwhelming.  Everyone needs to visit this at least once in their life.  Everyone.  It will make you uncomfortable.  And you should be.  This is barbarism.  This is what happens when people can only think one way.

I watched the second plane hit the second Tower.  I watched the buildings collapse.  I experienced the total helplessness of watching thousands of people die.  Children, women, innocent people just living their lives killed in business buildings for no other reason than they were not the right kind of Muslim to suit their attackers.

Before the toxic dust had even settled, a group of musicians started putting together a show to give tribute to the city, and especially its heroes, that had given them so much.  One of which was my personal idol, David Bowie.  Now at this time he wasn’t really doing stuff I cared a whole lot for.  He was however, David Bowie, so doing different things I expected.  I was just sitting out this period for the most part.  I was going to watch the show.  But to say my expectations were subtle is an overstatement.

In the most usual way, he proved me way, way, way, wrong.  To this day, this is still either my favorite, or second favorite Bowie performance.  For whatever reason it keeps getting banned on Youtube.  I think it’s actually owned by the 9/11 Foundation at this point.  But, I’ve always felt pushing something to obscurity does nothing to enhance it’s value.  So, here it is from Dailymotion.  For whatever reason they seem to have no problem with it.  If you want to contribute to the Memorial, purchase the video or donate directly.


Sarah Palin vs The New York Times

Sarah Palin just filed a lawsuit against The New York Times.  That in itself isn’t much of a story.  Where it gets good is the WHY.  The New York Times ran this editorial in response to the Congressman Steve Scalise shooting:

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl. At the time, we and others were sharply critical of the heated political rhetoric on the right. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map that showed the targeted electoral districts of Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairsBut in that case no connection to the shooting was ever established.

Now, to be sure, this is the EDITED version of the Times editorial.  It’s watered down to appease the anticipated lawsuit I’m sure.

For starters, there was never any connection made between Sarah Palin and the Gifford’s shooting.  Ever.  They say there is.

Secondly, there was never a map targeting “Mrs. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs”.  Ever.  Here it is:

Not exactly what The New York Times is depicting.  I don’t see a single Democrat “in the cross hairs”.  Toss in the fact that Loughner was targeting Giffords over a year BEFORE the poster came out kinda makes The New York Times claim look silly.  And finish with the fact that no clear motive by Loughner was ever established.  So, basically everything about the Loughner story The New York Times got wrong.

So, given there was actually absolutely nothing connecting Palin to the attack, they ran with it anyway, knowing the shooter was a far-left radical, they were spinning it on the right.

Bad plan.

Palin filed suit today for defamation.

I’ll be watching this one for chucks and giggles and will most definitely follow up on this.

Now, the bigger picture to me is the why behind The New York Times running an endorsed editorial with actual fact contradicting the opinion of the editorial that The New York Times had actually printed.  They didn’t have to look far to get the stories behind it, they had printed it.  Now, the damage here is simple to understand.  When national media run something, anything, it takes on a life of it’s own.  It’s linked to, it’s screen capped, it’s quoted, it becomes it’s own “fact”.  Whether right or wrong, it will be used to justify other statements.  It becomes a real thing regardless of the accuracy or intent.  That’s what happened here.  There is now something on the internet that will justify “some” people’s argument that Sarah Palin contributed to Gabrielle Gifford’s shooting.  It was in The New York Times, in black and white no less.

Then, they changed it.  Partially obscuring the fact that the original claims were completely erroneous.  Not somewhat, no debatably, but COMPLETELY unfounded by any evidence whatsoever.  Loughner was targeting Giffords a long time before the crosshairs map was ever printed.  There was nothing to support this editorial.  Ever.  That doesn’t change the fact that the opinion The New York Times wanted relayed was.  Their intent was successful.  That opinion is now supported others as fact.

That, is slander.  To be clear:

a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report:

And the beauty of all this is that Sarah Palin will use those millions to promote the political opinions The New York Times hates so much it was willing to compromise the integrity, and possible sustainability, of the paper itself.

Until society demands ethical reporting, expect this garbage to continue.  And as Thomas Jefferson noted, most would go bankrupt if they did.  The New York Times knows its audience.

Kathy Dettwyler

George Takei found karma in a guy getting shot, while he was on an emergency room cot.  I’m sure he’ll find all kinds of karma in this series of events:

More love from the left.

OK, this is where Takei’s karma comes in to play.  Ms. Dettwyler was, unbelievably, fired from the University of Delaware:

As of Sunday, June 25 at approximately 5 p.m., the university has announced that Kathy Dettwyler will not be rehired to teach classes at the school in upcoming semesters. Dettwyler was an adjunct faculty member in the school’s department of anthropology. Her firing comes after widespread national coverage on regarding her Wednesday morning Facebook post in which she said that “Otto Warmbier got what he deserved.”

She very obviously got what she deserved.

I’m sure George will have a real chuckle over this.

 

Don’t trust the newspapers

To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted so as to be most useful, I should answer ‘by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only.’ yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers … nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers live & die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time.

—  Thomas Jefferson, 1807

George Takei takes on unconscious Scalise


George Takei seriously took on Representative Steve Scalise, while he was unconscious, in critical condition, in a hospital.

Takei doesn’t mention the fact that the nameless black lesbian was basically employed BY Scalise ( How many black lesbians does Takei employ? ).

What

An

Asshole

Takei seriously has become a parody of everything he represented on Star Trek.  He is the poster boy of the latest stupid social division, heterophobia.  Kicking someone when they’re down HAS to have some more meaningful label than just “asshole”.

Sad Clown doing Space Oddity

When my favorite seven foot clown vocalist does my favorite musician:

Representative Val Demings on fluctuating Constitutional Rights

Ever wonder how things get so screwed up?  Try this one:

“My First amendment rights is DIFFERENT from yours.”

OK, so, in her mind, we have different social classes?

OK.

Now, where this gets kinda scary is the fact she used to be the Orlando Police Chief.  Luckily it wasn’t her job to interpret the law, just enforce it.  However, now she’s in a position to affect the law.  And, she thinks civil rights are different for different people for apparently whatever reason she sees fit.

That folks, truly is dangerous.

Now, I’m going to give Orlando a pass for right now as Demings is newly elected.  And, I’ll give her a pass this one single time in deference to her probably not having a clue what she was trying to say.

However, I will say this, and I say it often here.  People of the Florida 10th, you know how she’s thinking.  Let’s see how well she does in 2018, knowing what you know now.

My bet, 90% of the people who go to vote never have a clue that she’s just condoned selective discrimination in complete violation of the United States Constitution.  Just call that a hunch.  In 2016 she got 65% of the general election.  Let’s see what happens in 2018.  If I’m wrong and the people of the FL-10th treat with the respect she’s earned, I’ll apologize.  Right now, I’m not worrying about having to.

 

Todd Rundgren

“If I had the power, I’d say: If you’re a Trump supporter, don’t come to my show, because you won’t have a good time. And also, I don’t understand your frickin’ values. Because I’m not singing about that. If you don’t understand that basic thing, you’re just fooling yourself.”

It never ceases to amaze me how people who devote their entire careers to saying whatever the hell pleases them, have no problem being completely intolerant to other people’s opinions.  While cashing in on claiming a higher set of values, they practice fascism and intolerance.

I had several Rundgren tunes on my cell, I don’t now, per his recommendation.  I prefer artists who do it for the art, not so they can claim some moral high road.  And for what it’s worth, I’m not necessarily a “Trump supporter”.  I just know an asshole when I hear one.

Anyone else catch that Schumer flip-flop on Comey?

I doubt it.  So, here it is again:

“I do not have confidence in him any longer,”

Not to be outdone, Nancy Pelosi chimed in as well:

“Maybe he’s not in the right job,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told CNN’s Jamie Gangel. “I think that we have to just get through this election and just see what the casualties are along the way.”

Even Obama took a shot at Comey:

“Setting aside the particulars of this case, I know that [Hillary Clinton] is somebody who has always looked out for the interests of America and the American people first, and I do think that there is a norm that when there are investigations, we don’t operate on innuendo, we don’t operate on incomplete information, we don’t operate on leaks, we operate based on concrete decisions that are made,” Obama told NowThis on Wednesday.

OK, so Schumer stated outright he had no faith in Comey.  Pelosi suggested that after the election, he might be a casualty.  Does it get any clearer than that?  Apparently not.

Fast forward to last night:

So even though Schumer had no trust or faith in Comey at all, it was the TIMING of it that makes it bad. Right? At least Pelosi has enough sense to keep her mouth shut for the time being. I doubt that lasts through the day tho.

So, why the timing?  This, is why:

Apparently Schumer didn’t bother to read it.  I’m sure he got it, just doubt he cared enough to read it.   Now, to put this in perspective, Rosenstein is effectively Comey’s supervisor.  Rosenstein was nominated and passed the Senate with a 94-6 vote.  That is called “bi-partisan” support.  Chuck Schumer voted to confirm Rod Rosenstein.  So, as of April 25, 2017, that’s this year, about three weeks ago, Chuck Schumer very publicly supported Rod Rosenstein, and very publicly did not support James Comey.  Rosenstein effectively fires Comey, Schumer IMMEDIATELY cries foul and claims coverups and the like.  What’s the difference between wanting to fire Comey in November and Comey getting fired in May?  The “timing” as Schumer calls it?  Back to a little blurb in the first article I cited:

Schumer ― who is on track to serve as Senate minority leader for the next Congress, or perhaps majority leader based on Senate projections for next week’s elections ― is the latest in Democratic leadership to criticize Comey.

When Schumer wanted Comey fired, he fully expected to be the person making the call.  Now that he’s not, he’s going to whine about it and spin it anyway he can.  I expect Pelosi to expect everyone forgets all the criticism she’s fired at Comey and chime in on the Watergate angle as well before the day is over.

Anyone who’s followed Comey to any degree at all knows this firing had to happen.  The man was violating FBI code all over the place, pandering to whoever he was answering to at any given moment.  The way he handled Clinton’s email investigation was criminal.  I should be thankful he gutted her campaign, but I’m not.  He needs to be prosecuted for ethics violations, as well as Susan Rice.

And the ultimate irony of this is the fact that Schumer claims the firing is a cover-up for the Russian conspiracy theory that the man he’s protesting being fired just finished claiming didn’t exist.  Repeat that three times real fast.  And yeah, that feature image is intentional.  It’s OK when Schumer meets with Russians, not OK when Republicans even speak to them.