I am sure he gives a shit

There are certain characters that do not go away quietly when they lose relevance, not willing to allow their own sense of their importance to wane. Most were never really that important to many people to begin with, but they think they were and are loath to let it go.

Two such have reared their heads in recent weeks:

1.  Katie Couric:  Well, let's be honest she never was attractive or "perky" as everyone thought - as she wanted to be. And, wow, she looks rough now.  Well, don't we all after all these years, but she really has not weathered it well.

Anyway, along she comes with her so-called documentary "Under the Gun" - billed as a balanced look at the gun control (let's call it what is is and dispense with that "gun safety" nonsense they are pushing) debate:  It clearly has become obvious that balance was the last thing on their mind in putting this together and their willingness to staunchly defend their lack of ethics only stands to validate the criticisms.

For instance, Couric spent hours interviewing individuals like John Lott, a well-qualified researcher who has written several books on the relationship of guns to crime (such as "More Guns, Less Crime") and yet those hours of footage ended up on the cutting room floor.  I think we can all agree that a researcher of Lott's credentials had a lot to add to a balanced discussion of guns in American society and it is not only likely but is verified by her own report, that Couric did not ask any questions that were new or different and that had not been or could not be answered adequately. So why not include even a minute of interaction with Lott? The only reasonable conclusion is that there was an agenda for the film, a plan and a message that it was meant to portray and intelligent and research-backed comments from an advocate for gun ownership was not part of that plan. Once the footage was in, it became clear it clashed with their agenda.

This is, of course, the same reason that deceptive editing was used in portraying Couric's questioning of members of the Virginal Citizens Defense League.  As has been discussed across the web (but tellingly not so much on mainstream outlets where there is a decidedly anti-gun bias), Couric asked this group about how, without universal background checks, we could keep terrorists from getting guns. Instead of using the original footage (as revealed by audio recordings) which would have shown the members immediately and thoughtfully responding, she and the producer chose to edit in footage of them sitting silently and looking around that was captured during a lull in the filming. Why go to this length?  Because the conclusion of the "balanced presentation" was already known by these people and they were merely collecting footage they could use to make their point.  They were not interested in the answers of people who were more than capable of responding to their questions in intelligent ways.

Their response to the exposure of their manipulation - thankfully those involved were prescient enough to audio-record the events - has been to use the tried and true "We did not intend to make anyone look bad and apologize if anyone feels that way".  No - we did nothing wrong but are sorry if you think we did.  The non-apology apology. It is not that they feel that way - it is that you are underhanded, conniving and unethical.

In technical terms these people are sorry-asses who should not be allowed to peddle this tripe in the guise of a documentary.  Welcome to modern 'Merica.

2.  Just a short note on Rosie.  Really?  Has-been, washed-up, hard-to-believe-she-is-still-alive-much-less-that-anyone-cares-what-she-thinks, should be doing a commercial for Januvia Rosie O'Donnel?

Well, it is clear no one would care except for modern politics.  The best way for a has-been to get attention from the populace these days is to call a presidential candidate names - half will cheer and half will hate. So Rosie lifts her prodigious bulk off the ground, puts the crack pipe down, pulls her face from a food trough somewhere long enough to call Donald Trump a "shit stain". Pot meet kettle, except she's a bigger one. Speaking of stains, someone should use this "stain" notion in a commercial with a blue dress and a "I did not have sex with that women..." quote from Bill against Hillary.

Have noted numerous times - I do not care for Trump, I simply care for Hillary even less.  But really - Rosie? Yea, I am sure that is going to hurt Trump.  Lots of people have been waiting for Rosie to wake up from her stupor and tell us what she thinks so we can make up our minds.

I am not one of them.

Dark times.

Pardon my rant

1..Talk about being clueless and lacking of self-awareness:  Can someone please get this president to take an honest look at himself, the world and how it has changed (for the worse) during his 8 years in office.  What are the triumphs?  well, Osama is dead - wow that really helped!  Well, people can now decide to take a piss in whatever restroom they want.  Why didn't that happen when I was much younger?  Well, black lives matter - when police are doing their job, but not much of any time else.

Obama can slam Trump if he wants but he is just as pig-headed and irrational and, to some of us, his "accomplishments" are just as absurd.  Let's be honest, with the state that Europe and the rest of the world are in at this point - including this country - should we really give a damn what leaders around the world think?  Glass houses much? Europe is going under, drowning in a tide of immigration that will change the very nature of the continent (and our's too eventually).  Meanwhile they think we are crazy and trump is stupid.  What do I care what their failed leadership thinks?  And sure thing Mr. President - you've got it all figured out. You are an effete intellectual snob who never considers that he might be wrong.

2. I know, I know, I must be a callous bastard, but I really do not think that we need to take care of every refugee in the world. Not our responsibility. And I won't mention civilization jihad.

Just remember:

3.  Somebody call the "wahmbulance" on this one. Nope, the outrage is not what was done in the name of a religion and the anger is not that people do this to others, the anger is that someone did not take all the required multikuti notions into account in laying blame.  As long as people are allowed to kill others who are not allowed to defend themselves and others can be outraged at having to hear about how some of their countrymen and co-religionists - people who look like them - are terrorists and murderers then we are in for a long road.  Hey, HuffPost - didn't you consider all gun owners, southerners, and Confederate flag flyers (I am not one) racists and killers?  Thought so!

4.  So, a rich guy I have never heard of once said that female suffrage was bad for democracy.  I can see that. You don't think that rampant immigration, multiculturalism, cultural sensitivity, and the whiny world of social justice all evolve out of feminist philosophy?  I do.

5.  In the wake of this and other recent events in states where they are working to trim away abortion rights around the edges, let me point something out to my liberal friends. This is exactly how your president has been "coming for your guns".  One little nibble on the edges at a time, one little regulation here and there. You say no one of coming for them, but you are wrong and if you really believe that, then believe this; no one is coming for your abortions either. Oh, and there is no amendment that says "the right to an abortion shall not be infringed." Same for this who shriek at any kind of "Abortion Waiting Period" - if a person wanting to legally buy a gun needs a cooling off period, so does a mother seeking an abortion.  Just asking for the merest modicum of consistency here.

OK, worn out.  Getting ready for the Memorial Day weekend.

Wait - this cracks me up! I know women, and she is not a woman! I am wondering which bathroom it uses.

Please remember:

Excuse me?!?! How the hell is this "Trump's Night of Chaos"?

Once again Huffington Post decides to create a headline that does not accurately describe the story or events.

I suppose this is just those anti-trump protesters being "rowdy" again.  How is this Trump's night of chaos?  Protesters assaulted police, set merchandise on fire, broke windows, and created general mayhem.  They are clearly spoiling for a fight, clearly willing to use violence.

Meanwhile, the best that Huffington Post can do, in order to cover their liberal asses, is note that:

"Many of Trump’s rallies have been accompanied by violence among supporters and detractors. Trump, who at times has encouraged violence, has been condemned for not doing more to disavow the hostilities."

Get serious - this was an action taken by protesters, not supporters and not Trump.  Are you really wanting him to disavow the violence perpetrated by his detractors.  Have any of his detractors or opponents disavowed these actions?

I am not a Trump fan nor am I registered with any political party - never have been - but I am a Never Hillary supporter.  Two choices- really bad and even worse.  You can't blame this on Trump and, frankly, such violent protests prove his point in many ways. It will get worse, a lot worse, before it gets better and there will be clashes in the streets.

Welcome to the world of diversity, a world without shared culture, norms or mores. A culture of entitlement.

And someone thinks we will be lining up to willingly disarm ;<).