Unabomber Chic and the Low Rent Domestic Terrorist

Unabomber then and now

Remember the Unabomber? That weird, reclusive domestic terrorist guy holed up in his cabin with nothing but a copy of Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance" and a box of crazy flakes, as he plotted which of his fellow citizens he had to kill in order to save Mother Gaia.  While he was out saving the environment through better bombing, he wore a mask. Even though he was nuttier than squirrel poop about the environment, he didn't want to get caught!

I noticed a certain fashion sense that Ted Kaczynski shared with many of the people we find in our streets today, on the avant-garde of protests, as opposed to American protesters in years past. When I started writing this, I was just going to highlight the differences between the Civil Rights marches of the sixties, with marchers in coats and ties, holding America flags (right side up), not wearing masks to hide who they were, and contrast them with the low rent domestic terrorists prowling the streets today.

When Milo Yiannopoulos was denied the opportunity to speak at UC Berkeley, it might have been dismissed as a unique occurrence,  the assaults, the vandalism, setting fires and rioting in the streets, but since then

UnAmerican Gothic

I saw a picture of the two of them together and this is what came to mind. Colbert Gothic is the better part.

A Modest Proposal Regarding Antifa*

*with apologies to Jonathan Swift

We all know that the vicious hooligans who call themselves "Antifa", aside from having virtually no fashion style, or in all truth, no discernible intellectual ability, tend to dress in all black: black hoodie, mask, sunglasses, black slacks, black hearts...which makes it somewhat difficult to identify the perpetrator when one of these mindless cattle temporarily leaves the herd and attacks someone, typically, for no valid reason.

The similarity of dress enables their cowardly retreat from taking responsibility for their actions, allowing them to hide in the crowd. I'd like to suggest that the police add another tune to their repertoire of crowd control: the paint ball gun.

Designate one or more officers to scan the crowds for signs of trouble. If they see someone acting out and have a clear shot - mark them. Maybe use that indelible dye they put in dye packs to deter bank robbers?** Send out a spotter with them to make sure the intended target alone is hit and there is no collateral damage. This will help police positively identify the lawbreaker to be taken into custody. They could even change the color of dye with each engagement, in case Antifa were to add their own paint ball splatters to try to create confusion.

From personal experience, I can tell you that getting hit with a paintball can both be painful and leave a mark. But we know from the infamous "pepper ball" incident, that Antifa is willing to make the sacrifice to take one for the team if necessary.

We should let them.

**Perhaps even some dye pack "grenades"? Toss them into an unruly crowd and see how they like getting their trendy black hoodies and Yeezys dyed to a more tranquil, peaceful, hippie tie-dye motif?

Update: A commenter over at Watcher of Weasels suggested adding microscopic tags to the paint balls, to "make it less subject to confusion, and you wouldn't run out of codes nearly as quickly as you run out of colors." Great idea!

Instead of complaining about the liberal media, let's do this

This, should scare you.
By Dean L

I ventured this morning into a web journey spurred by ESPN's inane logic that broadcaster Robert Lee, an Asian, should not broadcast the University of Virginia football game (clearly as a result of the recent violence in Charlottesville though they claim otherwise). The political correctness was galling and offensive. Imagine the reaction broadcaster Robert Lee must be having to his switch to another game, simply because his name resembles that of a historical figure from 150 years ago who is currently not in vogue on the unhinged left.

For those of you who missed it:

But that was merely the start of my web journey. I wanted to know why ESPN has become so political in recent years. ESPN is, as is ABC, owned by the Walt Disney Company. That's a $40 billion conglomerate. ABC has clearly not been overly friendly to the president. But neither has Disney, for a number of reasons.

That got me thinking.  With Fox seemingly slipping slightly leftward, what's a conservative going to have to do for news and media in the future? The problem I spoke about back in 2008 is the old saw about the media being the message.  Conservatives have precious little influence on the media narrative, and what the right does control is often establishment Republican types at the helm.

So what to do?  There are options. We could continue complaining about the media but where has that gotten us so far?  A more robust course would be to start seeing journalism, government, teaching and entertainment as viable career options as conservatives and slowly infiltrate the offending institutions the way the liberals have already so effectively done.  That's good, except that the hubris we are seeing today is the culmination of decades of tireless socialist drive toward that end that includes the inculcation of the wealthy and establishment Republicans into their cadre of villainous traitors to America.  It's not clear America has the time left any more to wait out that solution.

Other options?  Conservatives could co-opt the typical solution employed by the Left - protests, marches and boycotts. The problem with that is, as a conservative when you look at an ANTIFA march, what are you thinking to yourself?  "Idiots". "Snowflakes". "Zombies".  What do you suppose the Left thinks when there's a Tea Party march? "Rubes". "Uneducated hicks". "Racists". "Idiots".  Protests make great television maybe but not convincing arguments.

All of which brings me to my suggestion.  What is it that conservatism regards as the best economic system in the world? Capitalism.  And what does capitalism espouse? Private ownership. What does every major media player have?  SHAREHOLDERS.  If you own the company, you can dictate the direction it goes. Ownership takes the medium and therefore owns the message. Jeff Bezos had an agenda so he bought the Washington Post, and changed it.

Now someone sitting in Iowa or West Virginia can't buy out all the shares of the Walt Disney Company. But millions of conservative voters can, and should consider a coordinated effort to do just that. Well not exactly that. Instead of Disney, the target should be Comcast.  It's the largest media conglomerate in the world. It owns everything needed - major mainstream media (NBC, Telemundo, CNBC, A&E etc.) cable subscribers, digital cable subscribers, internet and even phone customers. It's also consistently ranked as the worst company in the country. It's  a starkly obvious opportunity - a left-leaning megalith that people who use, don't even like. Get rid of the progressive liberals and repair the  company's image in one fell swoop.  Plus, you get to make dividends in the process.

Of course, besides the money, there's another hiccup. Comcast is publicly traded but is still a family-owned business.  The Roberts family owns one third of voting shares.  That's a hurdle but it's not a problem that cannot be solved. I say it's worth the shot despite the fact that the how to do it part requires a lot more discussion and organization.

Liberal Hypocrisy on Display

"A few days"?? Was this guy in a coma when our Temp Agency POTUS went to a political fundraiser in Las Vegas a few hours after four Americans were killed in Benghazi?

Like their program to bring peace through lawless violence, the hypocrisy of modern liberals is limitless.

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!