Archive | July, 2012

Aaron Sorkin’s Disingenuous Newsroom

27 Jul

Aaron Sorkin is an Academy and Emmy award winning American screenwriter, producer and playwright, whose works include A Few Good Men, The American President, The West Wing, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, The Social Network, and, his newest, The Newsroom. He was also a cocaine addict for many years but after a highly publicized arrest in 2001 and receiving treatment in a drug diversion program is reported to have recovered. Aaron Sorkin is also a limousine liberal who uses his productions to further liberal agendas and bash conservative ones.

Sorkin is like David E. Kelly, American TV writer and producer, creator of The Practice, Ally McBeal, Boston Legal and Harry’s Law, who uses his productions to push liberal ideas, or American filmmaker and director Oliver Stone, who never lets historical facts get in the way of his telling a good, liberally biased story.

The Newsroom, appearing on HBO, features cable news anchorman Will McAvoy, played by Jeff Daniels and described as a “moderate Republican” (or what real conservatives call a RINO), whose news savvy brilliance is equally matched by his crusty exterior, his deep down heart of gold and his aggressive pursuit of real, true, professional journalism. Uh-huh. And Emily Mortimer plays Will’s ex-girlfriend and new executive producer (EP) MacKenzie McHale, who, like Will, is equally and deeply dedicated to getting the real news and getting it right. Uh-huh, again. Daniels does a good job playing an arrogant TV news anchor (a little this side of Keith Olbermann, a little the other side of Brian Williams) and Mortimer does a good job, too, except when she becomes what I call “British female screechy,” which I guess she can’t help because (a) she is British, (b) she is female and (c) some scenes require her to be upset, which comes across, to me at least, as screechy. In other words, fingernails on a chalkboard.

I watch Newsroom because the writing is good, the acting is good, the characters’ repartee is good and it’s entertaining, especially when Sorkin doesn’t intend it to be and his liberal bias is on full display. Sorkin could easily be the real-world head of one of the alphabet networks’ “news” rooms. He would fit right in. Or one of those cable news giants, like CNN or MSNBC. No, wait, cable news giant, that would be Fox News. But speaking of CNN reminds me of its founder Ted “Mouth of the South” Turner, which reminds me of his former wife Hanoi Jane Fonda, who (amazingly) has a recurring role on Newsroom as Leona Lansing, CEO of Atlantis World Media (ACM), parent company of Atlantis Cable News (ACN), which is where Will and the others of Newsroom work. And, of course, she too, like Will and his new, sometimes screechy EP, is all about bringing the public only the real news and getting it right. In fantasyland all these people are dedicated, thoroughly professional “news” people. In real life, it’s easy to see that liberal looney birds really do flock together. But I digress.

This week’s episode was set in February 2011, which gives Sorkin the benefit of 20-20 hindsight because he already knows how the episode’s “breaking news stories” turned out in real life, and is centered around the Arab Spring demonstrations in Egypt’s Tahir Square, with the side-story of the public union protests against Wisconsin governor Scott Walker’s efforts to save his state’s economy.

The liberal bleeding heart part of the storyline is ACN needing an on-the-ground “stringer” to report what’s actually happening during the demonstrations in Tahir Square. The ACN “brown member” of the team (diversity, you know, although I don’t recall seeing any Asians yet) knows how to contact an Egyptian youth who agrees to work as a stringer for ACN and gets them coverage nobody else has. Woo-hoo for fantastic journalism! Unfortunately, he is then captured and a ransom is demanded but corporate’s mean, old, legal office won’t authorize it (you know how cold and impersonal corporations are, even the “good’ ones who support gay marriage, etc.), so Will, the only millionaire at ACN because of his anchorman’s salary and perks, quietly pays it himself. Oddly, by episode’s end, everybody in The Newsroom‘s news room seems to have found out what Will did and, to prove their own dedication to good journalism in their own, smaller way, they each come into Will’s office and lay their small, individual, we-can’t-really-afford-this checks on Will’s desk. There wouldn’t have been a dry eye in the house if it hadn’t been so sophomorically sappy.

Meanwhile, the side-story of the demonstrations in Wisconsin highlights Sorkin straining to draw parallels between the Egyptian and Wisconsin demonstrations, while getting in a shot at the conservative, billionaire Koch brothers, first by Will asking for someone to find the connection between them and the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, with separate digs at Justices Scalia and Thomas, then Will talking about them pouring money into the supporters of Governor Walker, and a video clip which Will has replayed no less than three times of one of the Koch brothers saying something about something.

First, there was no parallel to be drawn between the two demonstrations. The one in Egypt was about hundreds of thousands of people overthrowing a dictator and wanting freedom. The one in Wisconsin was about a governor, who ran and was elected by the people on a platform of fiscal conservatism, having the state Capitol Building occupied by protesting, public union teachers who said they cared about their students but who used some of their students as protest props, who spent weeks out of the classroom in protesting to protect their own bloated entitlements, instead of teaching their students, and who occupied the Capitol Building for weeks. (Yes, the first of the modern day, American “occupiers,” well before the Occupy Wall Street crowd, which devolved into the Occupy Anywhere and Everywhere crowd, which devolved into the pee and defecate anywhere crowd, all with no specific message, except raging and staging against “the Man.”) But no mention of OFA (Obama for America — Obama’s election campaign) also pouring money into the state, to support the protestors, or billionaire George Soros’ liberal “news” outlets fanning the flames of protest, or the use of David Axelrod’s Astroturf tactic of bussing in additional protestors from out of state.

Second, after tossing in the rhetorical question of what governor needs to call in his National Guard to deal with peaceful protestors, Will then went on a rant about average wages of different types across the country being in the mid-$40,000 range, predictably ending with the average wage of teachers being about the same, which of course was supposed to make us all feel sympathy for the poor, hardworking, underpaid teachers who were just being bullied by the mean, old governor of their state. However, the teachers’ salaries was never the point of the Wisconsin governor’s measures to get his state’s economy back on track in the first place. It was not teachers’ wages but their inflated retirement and health entitlements which were the problem and which were bankrupting the state. Governor Walker instituted changes which broke those public union contracts, so they could be renegotiated, and he simply asked the public union teachers to “pay their fair share” (you’ve heard that somewhere else, haven’t you?) toward their own retirement and health benefits. In the process, he probably saved many teachers’ jobs, because he could avoid the drastic layoffs which were the only other alternative to bringing costs in line. And the Wisconsin National Guard was only called in after weeks of protestors occupying the Capitol Building, causing damage to public property and disrupting the conduct of the state’s business, and being finally told they had to leave and refusing to do so.

But then, all that would have been “context” to more fairly telling the “news” story, the “real news” and “getting it right,” wouldn’t it, Mr. Anchorman Will? Wouldn’t it, Mr. Writer and Storyteller Sorkin? And as much as liberals talk about it, even preach about it, they just can’t seem to really do it — either at the fictitious ACN, or the real ABC, or CBS, or NBC, or CNN, or MSNBC. Funny — and sad — how that is.


Aurora “Assault” Rifle? Not So Fast!

24 Jul

According to ABC News (I know, ABC and News, oxymoronic, right?), Jason Alexander, George of Seinfeld fame, recently joined the fray over what should be done about the tragic Aurora movie theater shooting by tweeting on July 21: “I cannot understand support for legality of the kind of weapon in this massacre. It’s a military weapon, why should it be in non- mil hands?”

The initial tweet received a flurry of responses, leading Alexander on Sunday to expand on his views via TwitLonger (which kind of negates the whole purpose and alleged coolness of Twitter’s 140-word limit, does it not?). In an extensive argument, Alexander lashed out at gun activists who claim that gun regulation violates their Second Amendment rights.

Alexander argued that the Second Amendment lays out the right to bear arms for those in regulated militias alone, not for private citizens, writing, “The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment – are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority – the answer is no.”

He finished his comments by saying that there is “no excuse” for the lack of regulation surrounding assault rifles, and that while stricter laws “will not prevent any tragedy,” that “we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.”

Oh, where to start? Another ill-informed liberal, spouting off about something he knows little, if anything, about. So, I guess I’ll start with, what the hell does Jason Alexander know about guns, gun control or assault rifles anyway? He’s a Broadway and TV actor who’s probably never even seen a real gun in his life, unless he was being mugged in Noo Yawk by a criminal who couldn’t care less about gun laws.

Let’s first take Alexander’s (mis)understanding about the Second Amendment. The Supreme Curt has recently ruled, in multiple cases, that you don’t have to be in a militia to have the right to bear arms in America, that it is an INDIVIDUAL right. Perhaps Jason should keep up more with current events, to include Supreme Court rulings. Those of us who support Second Amendment rights tend to do that, you know, but I’m not surprised that liberals, like Alexander, don’t, because it doesn’t fit their view of the world.

Next, the AR-15 type rifle used by the Aurora movie theater shooter was NOT an assault rifle. It was a SEMI-AUTOMATIC, whereas a true ASSAULT RIFLE of the type used by the military has a select fire switch and can be changed from SEMI-AUTOMATIC to FULL AUTOMATIC fire. So, Alexander saying that the shooter used a military weapon and that it was an assault rifle, again, belies his ignorance of what he’s talking about. Had he said the shooter used a military-STYLE weapon, that would have been correct.

Even a quick check with a source such as Wikipedia reveals: A firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:
1. It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e., a buttstock);
2. It must be capable of selective fire (emphasis added);
3. It must have an intermediate-power cartridge:, i.e., more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
4. Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt;
5. And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet).

So much for claiming that what the Aurora shooter used was an assault rifle and so much for Jason Alexander and other gun-fearing, gun-ignorant, gun-hating liberals who don’t let actual facts get in the way of their misplaced, incorrect, bleeding heart comments on subjects about which they know next-to-nothing at all.

Alexander’s comment that “we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone” shows the extent of his ignorance. SEMI-AUTOMATIC, military-STYLE rifles cost a lot and you have to fill out federal forms and pass a background check to buy them.

True assault rifles, with a select fire switch to fire either semi-automiatic or full automatic, cost even more and can only be legally obtained from a Class III arms dealer in accordance with the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1968 (the majority of gun dealers are not Class III’s because of how much it costs them for the federal license and all the regulations they have to comply with) and involves even more federal paperwork and background checks (to include your name, address, fingerprints and photo, description and serial number of the weapon, and countersigned by a CLEO, or chief law enforcement officer, in your area). If Alexander had just Googled or Binged “assault weapons,” he would know more than his ill-informed comments have revealed.

As usual, Alexander, in typical liberal fashion and without knowing what he’s talking about, paints with too broad a brush, suggesting that assault rifles can be acquired by just about anyone. What an idiot! It’s like Morgan Freeman first saying he voted for Obama because he’s black and more recently saying Obama’s not really our first black president, uh, because he’s not black enough. Were you for him, Morgan, because he’s black, until he showed how inept he is, and so now he’s not black enough?

Hey, Jason, Morgan, Sean, Danny, George, Tim, Sarah Jessica, James Earl, Joy, Barbra and all you other liberal, Hollyweird or Noo Yawk elites who don’t know what you’re talking about when you stray into politics, gun rights versus gun control, or other weighty issues, stick to what you know — acting, narrating and singing. At least then you’re usually using words somebody else wrote for you and not overtaxing your own, limited, intellectual capacities.

ABC steps in it — again

20 Jul

Regarding today’s tragic story about a mass shooting in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater, ABC’s George Stepha-what’s-his-name and Brian Ross rushed to judgement on the alleged shooter and his possible ties to — wait for it — the TEA Party. They later had to walk that bit of unvetted and false “news” back and apologize.

Good old ABC, when they’re not editing a video of Zimmermann, the Hispanic who was actually first identified as WHITE (you know, to make it a white on black story), to make him look more guilty, or they’re not editing a Romney comment to make him look out of touch, they just can’t wait to find ANY connection between the TEA Party and ANYTHING bad which has happened.

Where was your “coverage” on all the Occupy Wherever-for-Whatever protests, destruction of public and private property, public urination and defecation, drugs and rapes, hundreds of arrests, etc., etc.?

Hey, ABC, Journalism 101, properly vet your story BEFORE you go On Air with it and you probably won’t have to walk it back — and look like idiots — later.

Most of the Lamesteam Media, in their rush to be first and in keeping with their liberal agenda, often get it more wrong than they do right. Remember when Congresswoman Giffords first got shot? That was supposed to have been done by some — you guessed it — RIGHT-wing domestic terrorist. Turns out to have been just some addled, crazy guy.

Being “firstest with the mostest” isn’t nearly as good as being “firstest with the bestest,” i.e, THE TRUTH.

Correction: It was NBC, not ABC, which edited Zimmermann’s 9-1-1 call and Romney’s comments. With this story, ABC is simply following suit in also letting their liberal bias lead them into  inaccurately reporting the news.

IRS’s Questionable Enforcement of ObamaCare

17 Jul
     I just read an article making the point that there is nothing in the Affordable Care Act, AKA ObamaCare, which gives the IRS authority to actually enforce the individual mandate provision. Yet, Obama is creating even more jobs (more GOVERNMENT jobs, of course) by hiring thousands of new IRS agents in preparation for enforcing the individual mandate as a TAX.
     However, under ObamaCare, the IRS apparently lacks the authority to freeze bank accounts, garnish wages, charge penalties for not paying the tax, etc. Why? Probably because the too-smart-by-half Democrats didn’t pass it as a TAX; they passed it as a PENALTY.
     According to the article, the only thing they can do is withhold someone’s tax refund for those entitled to one and who it can be shown hasn’t bought health insurance, as required by the individual mandate. Aside from that, all the IRS can do is send taxpayers threatening letters demanding that they pay the tax if they don’t have health insurance as required by ObamaCare. Of course, many people, receiving threatening letters from the IRS, our modern day equivalent of the Gestapo, will go ahead and pay the “tax” anyway, just because they’re afraid of the IRS.
     But this article got me thinking, what about the “other” reason the IRS has no authority to collect the ObamaCare individual mandate tax?
     Our Constitution, yes, that historic document which is reinvented by liberal judges (and some conservative ones, too, it seems, Justice Roberts) and routinely ignored by the Obama Administration, clearly states that all TAXES must originate in the House of Representatives. Sections 7 and 8, Article I, US Constitution, spell out the Congress’ taxing powers.
     Since it would seem that a tax must be debated and passed as a tax and since the then-Democratically controlled House passed the ObamaCare provision as a PENALTY and not a TAX, and the Democratically controlled Senate passed it that way, too, and Obama signed it into law that same way, it’s now being determined to actually be a TAX by Chief Justice Roberts and the Supremes means that it is a TAX which was never passed as such in the House of Representatives, and is, therefore, legally unenforceable by the IRS or anybody else.
     I know that last part may sound like some lawyer-ese (otherwise known as convoluted thinking) and for that, I apologize, but I tried to make my point in plain English. So, thoughts anyone?

Who’s out of touch?

16 Jul

President Obama, in a recent campaign speech, made the point that if you’re a small business owner, your success is not really yours alone because the “Gubmint” did so many things for you to help you succeed, like building roads and bridges and things, oh my.

I guess lost in his rhetoric was the fact that ALL of us use that type of government-provided infrastructure, not just small business owners. People on his expanded, extended food stamp program also at least walk, if not also sleep, on sidewalks, for example, and they’re not contributing — they’re just taking.

Also not acknowledged in all of his blah, blah, blah was the fact that that’s why we have, and fund, local, state or federal governments, to do those things on a large scale which we, as individuals or small communities, cannot do for ourselves. Actually, that’s the main reason to even HAVE government at all.

Yet, Team Obama, with repeatedly discredited claims, outright lies, shock-value false accusations and typical, liberal ad hominem attacks, is trying to make Romney appear out of touch.

Well, here you go, Mr. President, with a perfect example of sounding really out of touch yourself.

Regardless of Obama’s intent in this speech, what he actually said should be offensive and insulting to every hard working and struggling small business owner, entrepreneur and innovator in this country.

Many small businesses most often succeed DESPITE the federal government’s burdensome regulations and requirements, not because of any real encouragement from it. They succeed because of their dream, persistence, perseverance and long hours of hard work.

The tenor of this speech was a slap in the face to small business owners everywhere, basically denigrating their efforts by telling them that their success is not their own.

Talk about out of touch, as well as arrogant, narcissistic and a lot of other unflattering adjectives which apply to Obama, he has once again insulted the same small business owners who it’s universally agreed create 70% of this country’s jobs.

It seems when Obama is not blaming or insulting the “fat cats” on Wall Street (whose contributions he still hypocritically curries and accepts), he’s insulting the little store owner on Main Street.

At least in that way, and probably only in that way, Obama is the persnickety, pernicious and prickly poseur president to ALL of us. He is, wittingly or unwittingly, an arrogantly and out-of-touch equal opportunity offender.

Top 12 reasons to vote Democrat

15 Jul

From Ipatriot — pretty good.

1. I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I’ve decided to marry my German Shepherd.

2. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t.

3. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.

4. I voted Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.

5. I voted Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.

6. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.

7. I voted Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive.

8. I voted Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away the Social Security from those who paid into it.

9. I voted Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrats see fit.

10. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

11. I voted Democrat because I think that it’s better to pay billions for their oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher or fish.

12. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted in the sand, it’s unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.

Be careful what you ask for, Team Obama (first published on Patriot Action Network)

14 Jul

It seems both ironic and stupid for Team Obama to ask for more of Romney’s tax info, to accuse Romney of possibly being a felon, to continue to dispute what impartial fact checkers, plural (to include the not-so-conservative Washington Post), have repeatedly said are false claims by Team Obama about Romney’s Bain Capital involvement, to pursue when Romney left Bain and what control he did or did not have afterward over Bain outsourcing jobs overseas, or not, etc., etc.

Yes, it does seem desperate on Team Obama’s part. It’s as if they’re just throwing whatever Jello they can find or fabricate against the wall, just hoping enough of it will stick to detract from Romney’s laser like focus on the economy and Obama’s abysmal record thereon.

It’s not smart to ask someone else to show more records of any kind, when you’ve spent millions to seal and hide all of yours, from K-1 through allegedly being the editor of the Harvard Law Review, from allegedly having several Social Security cards you’ve used to which kind of passports you’ve used in the past, from an allegedly fake Selective Service card to an arguably forensically proven, Adobe photoshopped birth certificate.

It’s not smart to claim, as your chief campaign advisor David “Astroturf” Axelrod recently did, that Romney is the most secretive candidate since Nixon, when the American public knows more about our fist president George Washington, from over 200 years ago, than we do about you and your real background, in this modern age of computers and almost instant information. See last paragraph above, plus your multiple, broken promises about a “transparent” administration. Now, THAT’s what’s preposterous!

It’s not smart to accuse someone of being a felon with no proof, period, but especially when it’s you who consorts with the likes of former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, his bomb-making wife Bernadine Dohrn, and convicted felons Tony Rezko and Rod “Bloggo” Blogojavich.

It’s not smart to make an issue of when Romney left Bain Capital and what control, if any, he had afterward, much less that Bain “pioneered” outsourcing, (a) when so much is in question about your own Attorney General Eric “Withholding” Holder and when and what he knew about the Fast and Furious fiasco which resulted in the murder of a federal agent, or (b) when your own so-called “jobs advisor,” GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt, has shipped whole corporate divisions of GE to China, or, to touch on your “fair share” mantra, (c) when GE made record profits and didn’t pay ANY taxes in the same year, or (d) when you used taxpayer money to create jobs in Finland, China and elsewhere, or (e) given that you not only “outsourced” but actually used $2 BILLION dollars of taxpayer money to PAY for offshore oil drilling jobs in BRAZIL, while continuing to restrict federal offshore drilling licenses and the XL Pipeline, and therefore American jobs, here at home.

It’s not smart to try and make such a big deal about Romney’s wealth, when you yourself are a multi-milliionaire, or when you (and especially your gaffe-prone VP) do and say things which show not only how out–of-touch you are but also when you both tell outright lies, as if the American people were stupid. To roughly quote one of your alleged icons, Lincoln, about fooling the American people — you can fool most of the people some of the time, some of the people most of the time, but you cannot fool most of the people all of the time. So, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, try and fool me a third time and it’s time to vote you out of office.

It’s not smart to try and engender class envy about Romney having bank accounts in Switzerland or the Caymans and trying to “hide” his wealth and “avoid” taxes, when (a) there’s no proof he’s done anything illegal in doing that, (b) when several, if not many, of your high profile, fellow Democrats are doing the same thing, to include Debbie Wassermann-Shultz, the big-mouthed, say-anything-to-make-a-point DNC chair, or (c) when many of the limousine liberals of Hollyweird and Noo Yawk, with whom you prefer to hang out and who stage fundraisers for you, do the same thing.

I know I started this with “Be careful what you ask for…,” but maybe I should have titled it, “it’s not smart,” in keeping with an increasingly desperate White House, a supposedly “brilliant” but failed president who cannot run on his record, and the nickname I’ve often given Team Obama in the past — the Obama Amateur Hour Administration.

%d bloggers like this: