Bill O’Reilly, the other day, ranted on how not a single Republican was invited to the memorial commemorating Dr Martin Luther King Jr’s “I have a Dream” speech. He reprimanded Democrats for apparently excluding Republicans, who would have, according to Mr O’Reilly, dropped everything for the opportunity to address a crowd honoring Martin Luther King. He assumed that those heartfelt speeches given in front of a statue of Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) excluded, by design, any Republicans.
The following day, he, after actually studying current events before commenting on them, admitted that he was wrong. His exact words were, “I simply assumed that since all the speakers were liberal Democrats, Republicans were excluded. So, here’s the “Tip of the Day” — always check out the facts before you make a definitive statement.” Bill O’Reilly, a self-described journalist, gives us advice on checking the facts before making a statement? Thanks for that lesson Billy, but the dearth of ethical rigor appears to reside in your grey matter, not ours.
OK, so I’m accustomed to O’Reilly and his knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing Sarah-Palin-for-President club minions jumping on any opportunity, real or imagined, to bloviate about how Democrats are even remotely as petty as Republicans. But there was one glaring omission from his broadcast that evening: That omission was to ask why those who were in fact invited decided, en mass, not to show up! Why didn’t O’Reilly get nearly as upset that the reason no Republicans were at the event was that they all declined to come!
Stay with me on this folks. When he thought that the Republicans had purposely not been invited, it was somehow quite insulting and worthy of extreme criticism that Republicans should be excluded from this ostensibly historic event. Yet when he found out that they had not been excluded, the event was apparently not nearly as important as his ersatz sanctimony would have lead us to believe just the evening before! If it were, he would have immediately shifted to admonishing the Republicans for not having attended!
Somehow, he forgot about that part. Apparently to Mr. O’Reilly and his Republican co-conspirators, not to be invited is the height of insult to him and his tribe, but to be duly invited and nonetheless snub a memorial to one of the most important civil rights leaders in a generation, well, that’s OK. They were busy…
Here’s how busy they were:
Speaker of the House, John Boehner, claimed he had honored Dr King at an event in July. He said, in effect, “I gave at the office”.
Eric Cantor, House Majority leader, was visiting with some oil industry constituents. Former Florida representative Allen West, a black man who likely would never have been elected to the house were it not for King, was attending another rally at the Republican National Committee. Just down the street.
George HW Bush (89 years old and in ill health) declined due to health reasons. George W Bush (67 years old) declined because of, ahem, “health” reasons, (although he attended a football game the day before),Jeb Bush just declined. (FYI, Bill Clinton is also 67 years old and has had major heart surgery, but somehow made it up the steps). And finally, Tim Scott, the sole black man in the United States Senate declined as well.
There were over 25 currently and recently serving members of the Republican party who were invited to this historic event who either declined or just no-showed.
This comports quite interestingly with Reince Priebus’ (RNC chairman) suggestion the other day that the Republican Party must “change its message” and become the “party of inclusion” in 2014 and 2016.
Yeah, (chuckling to the point of choking), good luck with that, Reince. I’m sure no black people were watching any of that stuff at the Lincoln Memorial the other day. None of them noticed the absolute absence of Republicans speaking on those historic steps. Just keep telling yourself that Barack Obama only got elected because he’s black. Twice. Yeah, other than that, Black Americans would have just flocked to the Republican Party-you know, the “party of inclusion”.
Yeah, (snort, choke, holding my sides) I’m sure that’s true…
Take the $25,000,000 in cash and real estate holdings that you inherited from your father, then…
This is a commentary on Marissa Mayer’s Vogue spread…
As someone who truly dislikes sexism, I can’t help but imagine the shocked look on Marissa Mayer’s face if, at the next Yahoo board meeting, someone responds to her dry, businesslike approach to whatever matter is at hand, (stock price, personnel layoffs, funding for Yahoo’s next big project, or resisting an unfriendly corporate takeover attempt) by saying, “Hey, that was a really cute spread you did for Vogue. It looks like you got your figure back quickly after the baby. Hey, what do you use on your skin?…oh sorry, you were saying..?”
When I see an intelligent woman using her intelligence to advance her career, I tend to acknowledge her intelligence. When I see a hot young babe showing off her figure, hair and cute face, I tend to acknowledge those.
And to answer your assumed question, NO, you shouldn’t be able to do both. Magazine glamour shots do not show off your substance and intelligence. The premise that you can “show both sides” is bull. You don’t get the power to dictate how I see you, only I have that power.
After Miley Cyrus’s performance on the VMA, I’m really not interested in hearing whether or not she’s also a good businesswoman. Her ability to twerk does not lend itself to my having any interest in her IQ. That’s not what she appears to want me to see. Ms Mayer, although certainly not as obvious as Ms Cyrus, is, in effect, doing the same thing. Both acts are for the simple purpose of showing me how hot these women are. The difference is simply a matter of degree. One had more clothes on than the other. One is static, the other was twerking.
I’m simply reacting to what I’m being shown without having asked for it. They both get to decide what I will see on my TV or on a magazine cover at the supermarket-and they both know it. They have each made their choice, so neither has the right to complain if I react to it in a way that they did not intend.
Although Yahoo’s stock price has improved during Ms Mayer’s tenure there, the jury is still out on her performance as CEO. I’m not a Yahoo stockholder, but if I were, I’d be damned angry that her focus is not where I expected it to be when my company hired her.
Here are some facts about NYC’s Stop and Frisk law. All facts come directly from New York City’s own database found at:
From 1990 to 2012, New York’s murder rate dropped from 2,605 to 724. The murder rate diminished in each of the years between 1990 and 2012 at a steady pace, other than in 1993 and 1994 when the murder rate dropped 20% and 25% respectively. The point here is that I’m not picking 1990 as a starting date for any statistical slight-of-hand. That was the year that it peaked and has diminished every single year since..
Likewise violent crime. In 1990 violent crime in New York City peaked at 212,458 and diminished every single year until reaching 7749 in 2012. I’m giving you these statistics to illustrate that New York City’s crime rate has been dropping dramatically for over 20 years.
NYC’s Stop and Frisk law was passed in 2002. The year before it passed, (2001) there were 960 murders in NYC. In 2012 there were 774. A drop of 19% over 11 years or an average drop of .578% each year that the law has been in effect. In the 11 years prior to stop and frisk, the murder rate dropped a total of 63%, or an average of 5.72% per year. The murder rate in NYC has dropped at a lower percentage after Stop and Frisk than before. One more time: NYC murders were dropping 10 times faster before Stop and Frisk than since!
Now, if I were to use the reductive reasoning of many on the right, with their flawed ability to determine the difference between causation and correlation, I would be justified in saying that Stop and Frisk has caused the murder rate to slow its downward slide. I could even opine that Stop and Frisk may actually be responsible for some murders! But we on the left don’t usually pander to those for whom logic is a second language. We try to be accurate and let the facts speak for themselves. I hope that I have done so.
Well, for those of you who believe that it is acceptable to intrude upon someone’s personal freedom to walk down the street, (shades of Trevon Martin) I propose we go even further and start a program called Invade and Toss. We should allow the police to enter any house that they consider “suspicious” and go through the entire place, looking for illegal drugs, weapons, undocumented immigrants, child porn or any number of other illegal things that might be found in a home. Just think…we could check car registrations to make sure that they’re current, we could confirm that the homeowners aren’t stealing cable TV, we could check their computers to confirm that they’ve paid for all their music. Hell, while we’re there, we could even audit their tax returns!
For those of you who think I’ve gone too far, I ask you: What the hell is the difference?
If the thought of the above scenario offends you, we’re on the right track. Now all you have to do, especially those of my readers who are white, is imagine walking down the street on a nice sunny day, maybe with your spouse and child on your way to the latest Disney feature, only to have four cops stop you, throw you against the wall, and grab the body parts that you thought were reserved for your use alone, reach into your pockets and check to see if there is something about you that warrants handcuffs. Imagine looking at your family (if they let you turn your head while it’s against the wall) and them looking at you in terror. Then, imagine explaining it to your child. And then imagine that the terribly humiliating thing that just happened to you cannot be proven to have any positive effect on crime. NONE! The cops just thought you looked suspicious.
Go ahead and think about it, I’ll wait…
The other day I was having an otherwise uneventful conversation with one of my favorite people when he mentioned, in very general terms, that a particular opinion he held was most certainly The Truth. Curious, I asked him exactly what he meant by The Truth. Viewing me with suspicion, he asked what I was talking about, since everyone knew what The Truth means.
Taunting him, I asked him if, for example, gravity is The Truth. In other words, is it The Truth that gravity exists? His response was yes, certainly, gravity quite plainly exists. When I told him that gravity was not Truth, but theoretical, he proceeded to attempt to prove the existence of gravity to me, by lifting a fork from the table and releasing it, thereby allowing it fall back to the table. With the smug expression of a child showing off his clean hands after having been asked if he’d washed for dinner, he folded his arms as if to say, Case Closed. I picked up the fork and dropped it myself, then retorted that I had not proven gravity’s existence. I had only proven that things not held up go in a downward direction. That is simply a behavior, not an explanation for the behavior. He was not happy.
Newtonian gravitational theory suggests that bodies of mass attract each other. Newton used what is referred to as inductive reasoning (as compared to deductive reasoning). This method uses probability as Truth. For example, since every human I’ve ever met breathes air, it is probable that the next human I meet will do so as well. This is not proof that every human breathes air, but it is a quite powerful argument for it. This is why the Newtonian theory of gravity was considered The Truth for quite some time. Using inductive reasoning, since masses have electrical charges that tend to attract one another, it was quite probably, in Newton’s mind, that this is what holds houses, apples and farm animals to the ground, rather than allow them to float in the sky.
Then that pain in the ass Einstein came along…
Einstein suggested that bodies are attracted to each other due to the fact that space and time are curved by the masses within them. Imagine a bowling ball on a bed. The weight of the bowling ball causes a depression in the mattress. Anything in the area of that depression will roll toward the bowling ball, since the top of the mattress is now sloped toward the bowling ball. Well, according to Albert, that is exactly what happens in space. The mass of the earth causes a depression, or curve, in space, causing us, as well as cars, buildings and dinner forks, to fall toward it. We spend our entire lives taking advantage of this thing called gravity. From girls jumping rope to an Olympian leaping off a diving board, we all rely on something that has never been proven-by anyone. This is not to suggest that gravity is a lie, but it is certainly not The Truth.
The point I made with my good friend is that those of us who take a side in an argument, be it political, social or scientific, should remember that when our greatest scientists can’t decide why a released fork doesn’t float into space, we should not be so sure that our favorite news pundit knows what he is talking about either.
I’d like to announce the publishing of my book through Amazon.com. It is a book for small business people who want to learn about the latest techniques in business, financial, marketing and employee management. It is the compilation of my 35 years of business experience as well as my continuing post-graduate education.
It’s called Small Business Success For…Smart People
It’s currently available only as an ebook, with the printed version expected within a few months. You can buy it HERE
You currently need a Kindle (or Kindle reader for PC) HERE. Later on this year it will also be available in iTunes and Nook.
Thanks and I hope you enjoy it. (It’s only 5 bucks for a very short time)
When I hear the oft-repeated myth about the humility of the religious, I can’t help but get angry at the institutionalized arrogance of those who believe that they are, simultaneously humble AND singularly worthy of everlasting life.
No other element, no other life-form, no other chemical, is assured of life beyond their normal expiration date. There are more planets and stars than people on earth. There are more atoms and molecules than people on earth. There are more bugs, animals, cells, bacteria and other life-forms than people on earth. There is considerably more of everything than there are people on earth. Yet, according to the Stairway to Heaven sect, it is only we relatively few upon whom are bestowed this gift of everlasting brain-wave function that is commonly referred to as life. And this belief in our absolute and inarguable right to a place above the clouds, surrounded by various (in some religions) virgins or (in others) all of our family and friends along with everlasting happiness and unlimited ice cream sundaes in ALL FLAVORS makes us, err, ahh, humble? We believe that all that aforementioned stuff dies, leaving us in charge of FROM NOW ON, and this somehow makes us simple, unpretentious and unassuming. Tu te fous de moi?
Everything else just dies. Mighty planets and stars explode, atoms deteriorate, molecules break apart, amoebas….do something or other, butterflies get eaten by other bugs, birds crash into windows and fish are yanked from the deep and videotaped, suffocating, while held aloft by the heavily inked arm of someone who believes that having tricked one into biting a hook proves his transcendence. Yet of these poor secondary and tertiary life-forms, these apparently unremarkable, historically disposable bits of astronomical effluent, we are, by some stroke of ecumenical good fortune, exempt?
These people believe that they are singularly worthy of ascent to the Cosmic Rainbow Room by simple virtue of the fact that they can imagine it. Yet, they call themselves humble. Because they bow to the Cosmological Cap’n Crunch, we should see them as unassuming, modest and demure, even though they think only they have All-Access passes to the God show?
Blessed are those who make up self-serving shit, for they will die having never known their irrelevance.
Help me Jesus…