Is Fox Down on its "Heels"?



Another way to put that is, "Why does Fox suffer fools so gladly?"

According to Wikipedia:

(Spoiler alert! Pro wrestling may be...less than, shall we say, purely...random?)

Professional wrestling... is a form of performance art which combines athletics with theatrical performance...The matches have predetermined outcomes to heighten entertainment value...

Say it ain't so!!! And further, according to the Oracle of Wiki, wrestlers are divided unto two groups: The "Babyfaces" or "Faces" (the good guys) whom the audience is supposed to cheer and the "Heels" (bad guys), who are the "villains", as it were, whom the audience is supposed to boo and jeer.
Mission accomplished!

I started to notice the similarities between pro wrestling and Fox News after Fox hired Marie Harf. Marie was a State Department Spokesperson for the Obama administration, where she was, frankly, kind of an airhead and said some incredibly stupid things. In other words,  a complete joke.

But, a joke with blonde hair, a nice smile and now, a job on Fox News, to be a 'Heel' for the audience to jeer, along with fellow heels, Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Richard Fowler and others.

Why does Fox tolerate liberals who, if brains were dynamite, couldn't blow their own noses? Aside from being "Fair and balanced", I believe it's performance art. Liberal contortionists  jump through hoops of illogical rhetoric, to act as foils, and receive the occasional body slam from conservatives, primarily for the sake of ratings.

Fox's Heels are typically pleasant, friendly people who more often than not, are merely regurgitating the talking points of the Left, whose attempts at original thought more closely resemble a dumpster fire.

It's a lot easier to tolerate Fox News since I caught onto the act. The Heels don't have to be all that insightful or bright to bring in an audience.

Don't take them too seriously, and be sure to bring the popcorn!

Hillary to Campaign for Democrats in 2018

What could possibly go wrong?


I mean, they already have loser Jon Ossoff from GA-6 giving seminars on how to win in '18, why not Hillary?
("Why not Hillary?" - a question that has been asked and answered at least twice!)

Real diversity vs. social justice warrior diversity

By Dean L

Diversity. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Today, people who call themselves liberals insist that America (or the West in general) is not diverse enough.  They claim that we are not diverse enough with respect to gender (no really, there are more than two genders. Okay.) or ethnicity or sexual orientation, or religion.   The problem with their claims is actually two distinct problems: (1) that's not really diversity and (2) it goes against actual liberal principles.



Real diversity means diversity of thought.  The way liberals classify diversity by identifiable categories like race and gender is literally, superficial.  Real diversity - the diversity that makes America a great country - is diversity of thought. Making sure that society is a certain percentage gay, a set percentage female, an exact ratio Muslim and an equal proportion of African American, Hispanic, Asian, White or otherwise does absolutely zero.  The ultimate question is what does that offer?  Next to zero benefit will arise from the supposed fairness this offers. I'll save the fairness argument for another time. Instead let's look at viewpoint diversity.

Tackling a problem with viewpoints from the left and right, from a passive or aggressive viewpoint, a scientific and humanitarian perspective concurrently, allows for a greater possibility of a comprehensive and successful solution to a problem than one developed by a visibly diverse but otherwise homogeneously-thinking group.  Without ideas being challenged they do not get tested before being put in place.  That's a recipe for failure.  But that's exactly what social justice warriors want to happen.

This is where the other problem of incongruity with liberal principles comes into play.  As a reminder, here's what classical liberalism actually is:
Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.

The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.

It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property, and belief in laissez-faire economic policy.
"Securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of government".  Social Justice Warriors want the government to impose equality on everyone. And by that they mean equality of outcome, not of opportunity.  They mean equality of visibility based on visual identifiers.  That comes at the expense of ideas.  There will be no diversity of ideas under that model and that means that individual freedom of thought is superseded by these visual markers.  That represents the death of liberty and true classical liberal ideals.

The problem for the country is that leftist leadership are adept at using that social justice warrior thinking to increase the preponderance of that sort of thinking. And while they have had a lot of success at doing that, they have simultaneously tried to tamp down individual thinking within these identity groups; if you are African American you have to be a Democrat.  If you are gay and are a Republican you need to have your head examined.  If you don't use the pronouns people choose to identify themselves by, you are a racist, misogynist homophobic neanderthal. 

The synergy of progressive liberalism with the consolidation of superficial identity groups is a recipe for totalitarianism. Classical liberalism it is not.

Warped

Ain't no hangover like a Vulcan hangover!

Trump Seen Riding Flying Unicorn over White House...

...Headline: Trump seen fleeing possible Grand Jury indictment!!

Dunkirk: A Movie Review, Sort Of


In Spring, a young man's fancy turns to not getting shot, not getting blown up, not drowning and just possibly, making it home alive. Late Spring, anyway. May of 1940. The coast of France. The beaches of Dunkirk.

Director Christopher Nolan is described by IMDB as "Best known for his cerebral, often nonlinear storytelling". The movie Dunkirk is told from three points of view, and nonlinear is a good term for it. One point of view is from soldiers on the beach, another, that of a Spitfire pilot and the last, the civilian captain of one of the boats in the rescue flotilla.

The nonlinear aspect is off putting to some. In one scene you see from the cockpit of a Spitfire, pursuit of a German Messerschmidt about to attack some ships. Later in the film, from the point of view from the ship, you see a Messerschmidt about to attack, pursued by a Spitfire. Each layer adds to a fuller understanding of what is taking place, though it may not be obvious at first.

I'd known the story of Dunkirk since I was a lad, but I'd never realized its scope: four hundred thousand men, surrounded, with their backs against the sea, sitting ducks for the Luftwaffe. In a case of what may have been dueling bureaucracies, the Germans would not commit their tanks to finishing off the British army, along with their French and Belgian allies, and the British will not commit a sufficient number of Spitfires to fly cover, or destroyers to relocate the army, lest they be needed to protect the homefront.

Speaking of scope, the cinematography is tremendous and sweeping. The aerial dogfights are spectacular. The attention to historical accuracy was very good. For example the depiction of the Spitfire pilot hand pumping his landing gear was not uncommon, even in some American fighters of that era.

There have been several complaints about the movie, one from an Internet twit, who shall remain nameless, who said the movie "feels like an excuse for men to celebrate maleness". There is very little resembling machismo in this film. Just the historical account of 400,000 men trying to stay alive. Perhaps 50,000 to 70,000 of them didn't. They were bombed, strafed, torpedoed, many drowned. Those who survived, some were wounded, most watched their friends and complete strangers dying around them, wondering if any minute that fate might be theirs. Yet some extremely shallow twit person speaks of "celebrating maleness".

Still, this may not be the most stupid complaint.