Archive for May, 2010
Andrew Klavan comments on the cancellation of NBC’s long-standing powerhouse Law and Order, and credits a trend in the flavor in the show toward increasingly far-left ideology in the story lines.
O’Sullivan’s Law states that any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. The law is named after British journalist John O’Sullivan, who cites as proof the ACLU, the Ford Foundation and the Episcopal Church.
He could have cited Law & Order too, NBC’s long running arrest-and-trial television show that has just been canceled after 21 years on the air. Many may not remember, but when the show began, it was not only excellent, it was also, if not conservative, at least complex in its worldview.
Why does that happen? Why did the same process overtake 24 as it is now undermining House and as it ultimately seems to destroy any show with half an ounce of conservative realism to it? Why does TV specifically seem a veritable laboratory of O’Sullivan’s Law in action?
Klavan presents some interesting ideas for why left-wing ideology tends to permeate television, and how this eventually causes the shows themselves to decline. Read the whole thing here.
A little bit ago, I mentioned (via Hot Air) the curious case of how the SEIU bussed in a bunch of “protesters” to the home of an executive for Bank of America. A few interesting points were relevant here, including 1) the thinly veiled threat of violence that such a mob represents, 2) the intimidation factor of singling out a person’s private residence, and 3) the extortion factor, for the SEIU owes Bank of America around 90 million dollars.
Needless to say, I cannot think of any case in which showing up at someone’s private residence to protest the company that person works for is a valid political expression, especially when you bus in a few hundred people for it. That is nothing more that intimidation and the threat of mob violence, which unfortunately is par for the course for the political tactics of the Left. Read the rest of this entry »
Much of the ado about the Arizona Immigration Law seems to be coming from people who 1) haven’t read the bill, and 2) are willing to lie about what’s in it anyway. I’ve encountered numerous examples of people screaming across the internets about how the new law establishes a gestapo-state in which the police may demand your “papers” on sight, especially if you’re Hispanic. The US Attorney General, the US Secretary of Homeland Security, and even the President of the United States seem to fall into both categories, with the first two admitting to not having read the law, the third showing gross ignorance of what is in the law, and all three willing to claim that the law does things that it doesn’t.
So, Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker brings us this lovely commercial by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer slamming critics of the Arizona law:
The ad is far more than merely clever. It hits the Obama administration critics where they live – in their inflated image of their own intelligence.
It is clear that the Obama administration strategy is to sell a false narrative of the Arizona law as encouraging racial profiling. They seem to believe that most people will take their word for it because laws are supposed to be long, obscure, and impenetrable — like ObamaCare. However, Arizona’s law was not drafted by Nancy Pelosi’s minions, but by state aurhorities. It is short, and to the point in its forbidding of racial profiling.
Kelly: “And my legal opinion is, it is a little bit like the federal law, but if anything, it’s less problematic. Did you know that the Supreme Court already ruled a few years ago that under federal law, cops can pull you over for no reason and demand to see your immigration papers? For no reason. They don’t have to have reasonable suspicion.”
Brendan Goldman at American Thinker describes the inclusion of blatant anti-Semitism at a conference held by Columbia University, apparently defended as a legitimate academic perspective:
The population of Jews in the US is three percent … but [their ‘genius’] leads to their controlling so much power that even presidents are scared [of them]. Whether [President Barack] Obama will be able to escape the notion that three percent of the country is so powerful that the top gentile in the land cannot criticize Israel is not clear.
The above statement was made not by a Hamas or KKK leader, but by Ali al-Amin Mazrui, director of the Institute of Global Cultural Studies at SUNY Binghamton. He was addressing the Ifriqiyya Colloquium Conference, held on the top floor of Columbia University’s International Affairs Building, on Thursday, May 6. Mazrui is a darling of the far left, appearing prominently in venues such as Democracy Now, as well as at Islamist forums like the Muslim Public Affairs Council.Columbia Professor Mahmood Mamdani and Barnard College Professor Nadia Abu El-Haj also sat on the panel, the former serving as moderator. Mamdani introduced the speaker, telling the audience that the Ifriqiyya Colloquium was about “gain[ing] some depth to the study of Africa.” It may require a Ph.D. to appreciate how Mazrui’s anti-Semitic diatribe relates to that mission statement.
Hot Air has this charming story of unions and left-wing intimidation tactics, as a mob of SEIU “protesters” gather on the front lawn of the private residence of a Bank of America executive, terrifying his son. An account of the mob by Fox News contributor Nina Easton, who lives next door, is included:
Waving signs denouncing bank “greed,” hordes of invaders poured out of 14 school buses, up Baer’s steps, and onto his front porch. As bullhorns rattled with stories of debtor calls and foreclosed homes, Baer’s teenage son Jack — alone in the house — locked himself in the bathroom. “When are they going to leave?” Jack pleaded when I called to check on him…
Now this event would accurately be called a “protest” if it were taking place at, say, a bank or the U.S. Capitol. But when hundreds of loud and angry strangers are descending on your family, your children, and your home, a more apt description of this assemblage would be “mob.” Intimidation was the whole point of this exercise, and it worked-even on the police. A trio of officers who belatedly answered our calls confessed a fear that arrests might “incite” these trespassers.
Par for the course of leftist politics. Violence and intimidation are standard tactics employed by the left, which can’t seem to gather popular support for its policies through reason and open discussion. So it relies upon terrorizing the teenage son of a bank exec to get its message across.
Of course, the story is much more interesting that that: it appears that the SEIU is specifically targeting Bank of America because the SEIU owes BoA some 90 million dollars. So not only is this a model of political intimidation, but a financial one as well.
Left Coast Rebel has the full video of the attack on Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks. The irony? Vilks was speaking at a conference on free speech (actually, he was showing a movie on homosexuality and Islam) when he was shouted down and attacked by a group of Islamic “protestors.”