Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economics, Economy, Free Markets, Freedom, Humor, Progressivism, Statism
From Economist Daniel Mitchell, government bureaucracies everywhere. A young woman seeks a permit from a government bureaucracy.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Entertainment, Humor, Media Bias, Movies, Progressivism, Television
Meryl Streep was honored at the Golden Globes award ceremony with some sort of lifetime award from the movie industry to which she responded with a lengthy but somewhat incoherent rant against Donald Trump. She seemed to believe that any celebrity who was not born in this country would be subject to deportation under the Trump administration. Nobody, including Mr. Trump, objects to people born in other countries, even Canada and/or Israel. Where did she get that silly idea? There are objections to illegal aliens—that is people who have evaded our laws by entering the country illegally. An alien is someone who’s a citizen of another country and owes allegiance to that country, or people who have illegally overstayed their visas. It’s one of those matters of law.
In his anxiety to create a larger share of Democrat voters in U.S. elections, Mr. Obama has overridden our immigration laws with executive orders, because he assumes that illegals who vote will vote Democratic because they got into this country with his help.
Ms Streep seemed to include reporters, or the press, in her rant, but as far as I know no one has ever suggested deporting reporters. However Ms. Streep gave a plug for the Committee to Protect Journalists. The advocacy director at CPJ said their mission was defending the right of journalists to report the news. (If they would actually do that, they would please everybody). As of yesterday afternoon, the Committee had received about 1.000 donations totaling more than $80,000. How they protect Journalists remains a mystery.
There is no other industry in the entire world that so celebrates itself with award shows, and festivals, and a whole season dedicated to awards they give themselves—from October through February— and each has its own little statuette. The awards for movies are • the Academy Awards • The Golden Globe Awards • the Screen Actor’s Guild Awards (S.A.G.) • the Emmys • the People’s Choice • Hollywood Film Awards • MTV Music Awards • Academy of Cinema and Television Arts Awards. There are as many or more music awards. There are other awards for each of the categories of film workers, like makeup artists. Then there are the film festivals which number in the thousands, from Cannes and Sundance across almost every country in the world. Even Turkey has about ten. It’s a wonder they have any time to actually make movies.
Ms Streep’s rant concerned movie actors, reporters, and celebrities in general. Celebrities are people who are famous for being well known. It helps a lot if they are young and pretty, but the young isn’t important if they are well-known. Apparently a lot of actors appear at the awards shows to be seen in the Red Carpet photos which show a lot of often unbecoming gowns in various states of undress. If you show enough boobs in an unusual display, you may eventually become “well known.” Here are 148 shots from the Red Carpet at the Golden Globes. Way more interesting than the awards, or aging actresses rants.
ADDENDUM: The Hollywood Reporter reports that the California Legislature has passed a law requiring reporters to omit or remove age or birth date of actors’ profiles on request. They added that it is probably unconstitutional anyway.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, History, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, Russia, The United States | Tags: Lies and Condesension, Obama's Temper Tantrum, Russian Hacking
It’s quite clear that President Obama is having a temper tantrum in his final days as president. He seems to be doing absolutely everything he can think of to cause problems for the incoming administration and the American people. Talk about a graceless exit!
Most importantly, Obama wants the American people to believe that Hillary lost the election and the opportunity to retain all of his policies, because of Russian hacking. Not just that, Trump, you see, said he wants to try to get along with President Putin, and Trump even said that Putin is a “strong leader.” And Trump has named as his Secretary of State, one Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil. Besides being head of a world renowned evil OIL company, Mr. Tillerson actually knows Vladimir Putin, and has a friendly relation with him. Obviously Mr Trump is planning to turn America over to the Russians, or something like that.
The reason why it is so important that you blame Hillary’s loss on the Russians, is because she was going to extend Obama’s wonderful policies, otherwise people might think that the Democrats’ loss of the election was somehow a rejection of the Obama administration. And the American people could not possibly have meant that. Obama said that if he could run for a third term, the American people would vote for him.
It is clear that if there was any Russian hacking, it had no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the election, unless millions of citizens read that the Russians had possibly hacked the Democratic National Committee, and John Podesta’s email, and suddenly decided that because of that they had to change their vote and vote for Trump. Sound likely? Didn’t think so. There was no hacking that affected the electoral vote whatsoever. Didn’t happen.
Here’s Investor Business Daily’s take on the Russian Election Hacking case.
Here’s fearless reporter Sharyl Attkisson with Eight Facts on the”Russian Hacks.”
Here’s John Hinderaker at Powerline “Today’s Intelligence Report Proves Nothing (Updated)
David Harsanyi at The Federalist: “Russia Isn’t our Friend, But That Doesn’t Make the Left’s Conspiracy Theories True.”
Here’s Victor Davis Hanson, who sums up the whole flap in “Obama’s Legacy of Deceit”
Why does the Obama administration contort reality and mask the consequences of its initiatives?
Two reasons come to mind. One, Obama advanced an agenda to the left of that shared by most past presidents. Obamacare, the Benghazi catastrophe, the Iran deal, his strange stance toward radical Islam, and the Bergdahl swap were unpopular measures that required politically-driven recalibrations to escape American scrutiny.
Second, Obama’s team believes that the goals of fairness and egalitarianism more than justify the means of dissimulation by more sophisticated elites. Thus Gruber (“the stupidity of the American voter”) and Rhodes (“They literally know nothing”) employ deception on our behalf. Central to this worldview is that the American people are naive and easily manipulated, and thus need to be brought up to speed by a paternal administration that knows what is best for its vulnerable and clueless citizenry.
Such condescension is also why the administration never believes it has done anything wrong by hiding the facts of these controversies. Its players believe that because they did it all for us, the ensuing distasteful means will be forgotten once we finally progress enough to appreciate their enlightened ends.