Stormy Daniels was in Chicago last week, taking her clothes off and dancing for 15 minutes. Yep, a quarter of an hour, that was, at least on Thursday, the duration of her show.
Although I was off work on Thursday and the Admiral, an old vaudeville house that has been a strip club for decades, is just 10 miles from my home, I wasn’t there. Tickets to her show were pretty cheap, $30-$50. Compare that to the usual $25 entrance fee to the strip club, plus a one-drink minimum for a non-alcoholic beer which will set you back another eight bucks.
I assume the owners of the Admiral had to pay Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, a hefty fee for her appearances. If so, they had to make back their money elsewhere, so a photo meet-and-greet was organized–$20 bucks a pic–which ignited a spat that led to the Admiral’s owner, Sam Cecola, cancelling her Friday and Saturday night gigs.
Oh, in case you’ve been living under a rock for the last six months, Daniels claims to have had sex with Donald Trump twelve years ago. Trump’s former lawyer, the embattled Michael Cohen, paid $130,000 to Daniels to keep quiet about it.
The dispute, according to the Chicago Reader, was not limited to Daniels’ objection to the photo ops. Keep in mind, this is a person who has sex, often unprotected, with men and women, and sometimes both at the same time, on camera. The Admiral also wanted Daniels to mimic Marilyn Monroe’s “Happy Birthday Mr. President” routine she offered to John F. Kennedy in 1962. Thursday was Trump’s 72nd birthday. She declined, another woman lip-synched Marilyn. Cecola says Daniels was an hour late for Thursday’s show, she demanded a bigger cut from that photo receiving line, and she didn’t rehearse her act. The porn actress also was perturbed by the presence of a Trump impersonator hired by the Admiral.
Sheesh, it’s only because of her claims about the real Trump that so many people, including myself of course, are paying attention to her.
By Friday afternoon Cecola and Daniels–metaphorically speaking, of course–kissed and made up. The shows were back on.
As you know, I didn’t attend any of the Daniels performances, but I’ve been to the Admiral a few times. (A blogger’s life brings me to many surprising places.). What kind of place is it? Muscular bouncers are everywhere and there is a no-touch policy in regards to the strippers–they prefer to be called dancers of course–although the last time I was there a friend of mine paid $100 for a booth dance. VIP rooms are even more. But table dances are just $10.
The seedy side of the Admiral, in what the Chicago Tribune Morgan Greene called “a wide ranging interview” with Daniels about the Chicago dust up and her life as a mainstream celebrity, was not covered, nor was the content of her porn movies. Anyone who makes the president look bad must be taken seriously by the Trump-hating media. Greene says that Stormy isn’t interested in politics but a quick Google search uncovers that in 2010 she was briefly a Republican candidate for the US Senate seat then held by incumbent David Vitter of Louisiana, who once was a client of an escort service. Hey Greene, it’s called research.
At 39, Daniels doesn’t have much time left to cash in on her notoriety. If she doesn’t squirrel away her money, she might be on the washed-up celebrity bartender circuit in a few years and collecting money from photo meet-and-greets. Men wearing Trump wigs will be welcome, I am sure.
In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court (thankfully) ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, the baker who declined to be forced to bake and decorate a custom cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding. The ruling was based almost completely on the documented religious hostility of the members of the Civil Rights Commission, and thus there is concern that in the future the Court would allow government to force bakers and other service providers to support same-sex weddings over their religious objections as long as the bureaucrats pretended to be neutral to the baker’s religious views.
There are a few fig leaves in the decision that an optimist could take as good news, such as Justice Kennedy saying “the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” and that “government has no role in deciding or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience based objection is legitimate or illegitimate.” And at least he conceded that “a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion.”
The path to the case, if not necessarily the decision, in Masterpiece Cakeshop, is an easy one to follow. It started back in 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas, which found a constitutional right to Liberty as exemplified by homosexual sodomy in that particular case (although Justice Kennedy, in his majority opinion explicitly refused to declare that homosexual sodomy itself is a constitutional right). Justice Scalia correctly predicted the path in his dissenting opinion, noting that the decision “leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.”
The next step in the chain was United States v. Windsor in 2012, which ruled the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts both pointed out that this Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion would inevitably lead to the Court declaring same-sex “marriage” to be a constitutional right, which of course it did in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 (also authored by Kennedy). This is where Justice Thomas presciently predicted that the decision “threatens the religious liberty our Nation has long sought to protect.” And here we are.
A lot of the analysis of Masterpiece Cakeshop centered around whether baking a custom wedding cake counted as “speech” for the purposes of the Free Speech clause of the first amendment. And was Phillips really discriminating against the gay couple when he offered to sell them anything else in the store, or to create a cake for any other occasion? The answer is obviously “no” and therein, I think, lies the solution to this conundrum.
As I have said before, no one has a right to force someone else to provide a good or service. If Phillips had refused to sell a pre-baked cake to the gay couple, that would have been discriminatory since he had already invested his time and talent to create the cake and it was already available for purchase by the general public. This would be the same as if a gay couple tried to by a photo print from a studio where the photographer was displaying his images for sale. But in either case, the gay couple does not have the right to force the baker or photographer to participate in a gay wedding if the vendor’s religious beliefs prevent him from doing so. So the government could not force the photographer to attend the ceremony, document the event and then produce the images, all of which require him to devote his time and talent to an event that violates his religious views.
This rule would also apply to the Arlene’s Flowers v. State of Washington case currently being petitioned to the Supreme Court.
If Mrs. Stutzman had refused to sell a floral arrangement available to the general public to a gay customer, she would be guilty of discrimination. But she had sold flowers to the gay couple – whom she considered friends – for years without a problem. It was only when she refused to be forced to design the flowers for their wedding, which involves not only creativity on her part, but also the nuts and bolts of getting the flowers to the ceremony and arranging them there, that she supposedly discriminated against them. Clearly, this is an infringement on her first amendment rights to free expression and freedom of religion.
Justice Kennedy’s reasoning in all of these cases seems to be rooted in the infamous “Sweet Mystery of Life” passage from Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which he wrote “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” As Justice Scalia correctly pointed out, this is “the passage that ate the rule of law,” but is nonetheless central to Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudence. A person’s religious views, by definition, define his or her “own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
Why is a religious person’s liberty, which is expressly guaranteed by the Constitution, worth less than a gay person’s?
Don’t forget to hit DaTipJar!
Or better yet, subscribe!
Netflix has reportedly banned workers from looking at each other for more than five seconds as part of its new anti-harassment rules.
The new policy also bans the company’s film crews from asking their colleagues for their phone numbers, according to an article in the Sun.
“Senior staff went to a harassment meeting to learn what is and isn’t appropriate,” an on-set runner told the Sun. “Looking at anyone longer than five seconds is considered creepy.”
“You mustn’t ask for someone’s number unless they have given permission for it to be distributed,” the source continued. “And if you see any unwanted behaviour, report it immediately.”
Other new rules include: “Don’t give lingering hugs or touch anyone for a lengthy period of time,” “Don’t ask out a colleague more than once if they have said no,” “Steer clear of a colleague once they have said they are not interested in you,” and “Don’t flirt.” The rules also encourage employees to “Shout ‘Stop, don’t do that again!’ if a colleague has been inappropriate.” (…)
Netflix hasn’t confirmed or denied the new rules, but did release a statement to the Independent, saying: “We’re proud of the anti-harassment training we offer to our productions. We want every Netflix production to be a safe and respectful working environment. We believe the resources we offer empower people on our sets to speak up, and shouldn’t be trivialized.”
Back in the day, the “five second rule” was called reckless eyeballing.
Honestly, who can blame Netflix for trying to save themselves some potential sexual harassment settlement money?
People have long used the workplace as a playground. I’m not judging this, but if an employer wants its employees to minimize the playing of grab*ss and get those DVDs in the mail, I can’t judge that either.
If you ask me, Netflix sounds like a good candidate for automation.
Now about that Obama contract, Netflix …
Never mind, I don’t have an account.
Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here. She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.
Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host!
An interesting thing happened to me the day before yesterday.
I work in a place with a lot of people who are either under 30 or not from the new England and are going absolutely mad about the upcoming world cup and completely excited at the prospect of it coming to the US in 8 years.
During the conversation about sports I causally mentioned the Red Sox being in first place and how it is such a change from the time of the Curse of the Bambino.
Now there was a time not all that long ago that if you said “The Curse” in New England every single person regardless of age knew what you were talking about without having to mention Babe Ruth, the Yankees or “No No Nanette”
They had no idea what I was talking about.
Yesterday I expanded the experiment, at work I randomly asked almost two dozen people two questions.
If I say “the curse” to you what am I talking about?
If I say “the curse of the bambino” what am I talking about?
Of the two dozen people I asked two people knew at once what the curse was, two more realized what I was talking about when I mentioned “the bambino”.
The rest didn’t have a clue.
Just 14 years ago that would have been unthinkable. For generations the curse of the Bambino was an integral part of being a New Englander. It would not even have been necessary to include “of the Bambino” just reference to “the curse” would have been enough for heads to nod. Bookswere written about it. Plays were made about it. HBO’s real sports did a full show on it.
and it was the reason why in New England, Bucky Dent’s middle name isn’t Earl.
To say “the curse” was an obsession would be the ultimate understatement. When 2004 began you would have been hard pressed to find a single man woman or child in New England that didn’t know what the curse was.
Then this happened
and this the next day
and this a few days later
and then finally the following week.
a few days later my sons and I were part of the 3 million people who poured into Boston for this
It was the biggest thing you ever saw in the area. We have won two more World Championships (2007 & 2013) and as of today two years after the retirement of Big Papi the Red Sox sit in first place and are likely to win over 100 games this year. It’s a great time to be a Red Sox fan.
But it seems like nobody cares anymore.
It’s been just under 15 years later and I can be in a place full of people who live in New England who have no idea what I’m talking about when I bring up the curse and that is going to grow when you consider that high schools and colleges around New England will graduate tens of thousands of students this year who have no memory of a time when the Red Sox were not Champions. 15 years ago every single caller on sports talk radio would be in a state of excitement with the Red Sox neck and neck battle of titans in the AL East on the 100th anniversary of Babe Ruth’s last World Series win in a Red Sox Uniform. Nothing else would have mattered
On Thursday night the 1st place Red Sox were about to start a 4 game series against the surprising 1st place Seattle Mariners. An epic battle, yet what was the topic of conversation on the home station of the Red Sox as I drove in…An interview with Tom Brady’s wife and Brady’s interview with Oprah!
It was typical. During the Sox amazing run if you turned on sports talk radio you were much more likely to hear about Tom Brady not showing up for voluntary workouts and should the Celtics make a play for Lebron James than Red Sox talk. On the late night drive a few days ago I actually heard a guest state that the only reason a host mentioned the Sox at all is that the station compels him to because they carry the games.
If the Red Sox had not won that world series in 2004 or 2007 or 2013, this would not be the case but with victory came comfort and with comfort the loss of collective memory of the shared frustration that united us here in New England.
In the last hour of the week I noted four guys talking sports at work, none of them were discussing the Sox Seattle series or the game in progress (The Red Sox would win 2-1 despite a nail biting 9th) all they were interested in was Russia beating the Saudis at the world up and if that Russian team was the real thing or not.. As I listened to them for a brief moment I found myself missing the curse that was the common bond that bound six states and everyone in it together…
… but then I remembered all those wonderful moments from 2004 and that regret disappeared overwhelmed by a wave of pure joy that come over me faster than you can say: “Big Papi”
The curse was a cultural milestone but I’ll take winning any day.
Closing thought. I wonder how much larger over the norm the graduating classes of 2023 will be in New England and if anyone will realize the reason why?
I think a lot about whether social media are good or bad for society. I’ve written about how they make it easier for people to form mobs, facilitate the weaponization of emotion, and allow bad ideas to spread like disease through early civilizations.
But I also have to wonder: Are social media bad for our brains? (…)
Of course, this isn’t the first time that technology has changed people’s mental processes. Preliterate people had a lot less access to knowledge than people who can read — but preliterate people tended to have amazing memories by today’s standards. (…)
Now, of course, actual bound books are fading, and people read much more on screens. As a result they tend to multitask — read something for a bit, check email, go to see whether you’ve gotten any “likes” on Facebook, go back to reading for a bit, check Twitter. And social media tend to make that worse by subjecting users to a vast stream of bite-size it. (…)
Deep thinking is becoming less common, and worse, this seems to be particularly true among the academic/political/intellectual class that’s most on Twitter.
Glenn says he doesn’t have a solution to this. I do, but it takes personal will.
I, too, found that too much Social Media was harmful to my concentration process. It was taking me much longer to finish reading books than it used to; sometimes I wouldn’t finish them at all since I frequently use e-books and audio-books downloaded from the LA Public Library. Another symptom is pervasive: many open browser tabs. And this is the worst: the degeneration of my ability to concentrate enough on an idea in order to write about it sensibly and to connect one idea with another. (Thank God that I wrote my novel before Social Media’s ascent!)
The solution is very simple: disconnect for a set and regularly scheduled time segment.
Sometimes, I devote the segment to audio-book “reading” coupled with apartment cleaning; other times to something outside of myself.
I do this about twice a week and I can see the change. Additional benefit: the times when the scatter-brained, emotional poo-flinging hits the brim — even when it’s from those with whom I usually agree – and makes me want to shut it down. Call it a sign of detox.
Of course, I’m paranoid enough to believe that the mass splintering of our collective attention spans is intentional.
It doesn’t have to stay that way, though. But recognizing the problem is the first step.
Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here. She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.
Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host!
We are once again seeing people suddenly apologize for daring to like a Chick-Fil-A chicken sandwich
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey found himself back pedaling after tweeting about using Chick-fil-A’s mobile app, saying he’d forgotten about the fast-food chain’s history of opposing gay marriage.
Dorsey found himself the subject of a tweetstorm after he posted a screenshot showing how he’d saved 10 percent using Chick-fil-A’s app at one of the fast-food chain’s outlets in Los Angeles.
Reaction was swift:
This lunacy has gone too far. The CEO of @Twitter bullied into apology for patronizing @ChickfilA because owners support “biblical definition of marriage”. Holding a personal view taught by mainstream Christianity is now boycott worthy. https://t.co/EnChlPBStc via @cbsmoneywatch
Given that the biggest obstacle for the right in election 2018 is energizing their voters this is exactly the type of thing that will help boost GOP turnout.
Between this Chick-Fil-A nonsense and the Robert Di Niro / Tony Award standing O I think you’re going to get a lot of angry Trump voters dying to re-elect even week republicans to stick a finger in their eye.
Seriously is the GOP paying these guys?
If you think the cost of what we do is worth it to counter balance the MSM and the various online censors I would ask you to hit DaTipJar below
Consider subscribing. We need another $200 in monthly subscribers to make up for attrition in 2018 thus far
I really liked Anthony Bourdain’s shows. And while I don’t know Kate Spade, I didn’t like the news that she also committed suicide.
But I’ve written before on suicide (here, if you’d like an older article), and I’ve been watching young people over the last ten years. I honestly don’t think it’s going to get any better in the short term.
Everywhere you look in the media the headlines are full of it. Incivility Reigns! Bullying! Cyber bullying! Mean Girls Rule! All there on the front page, all there on the splash, all there waiting for you to click on to see who said what about whom. Never mind if any of its true, never mind for any of it matters to anything more than some imagine scorecard written in some media office pool. But we’re constantly berated, and constantly told that we’ve allowed incivility to overwhelm our Republic. We elected President Trump and created the Republic of Hate, all incivility for everyone all the time.
The only problem is it’s not true.
Every book on etiquette I have ever seen has had some version of the phrase; the social norms today are much looser than they were in our parents’ time. This is way of saying all the social norms are out the window, and the world is going to hell in a hand basket. This is also a common refrain when people talk about civility. I find this kind of incredible, but of course completely credible because so few people understand our history.
We are in a golden age of Civility, even though we are also at an all-time high for the use of George Carlin’s 7 words you can’t say. It was not that long ago that mob violence common occurrence in our country. Levels of incivility in our nation are on the decline people actually get along a lot better. There is a lot more Harmony than people give credit to because “War Imminent” headlines sell more newspapers than “Peace Breaks Out.”
It is up to all of us to do our little bit to spread Civility and to not make incivility profitable. Don’t get me wrong I’m not thinking being civil is easy, and frankly I’ve had my own lapses. But if we remember our history, we will see what happens when we allow those dogs to get off the leash. Incivility is detrimental to our beliefs about who we are and who we want to be. Practicing Civics with Civility is the main way that each of us can do our share to create that more perfect union.
President Worcester Tea Party
Pete has chosen to allow me to post here weekly. I look forward to posting next Wednesday.
Please Support the work of the Worcester Tea Party.
[The two priests arrive at the scene of the fight between Sean Thornton & Red Will Danaher]
Father Paul: Father, shouldn’t we put a stop to it now?
Father Lonergan: [Smiling, making fighting movements] Ah, we should lad, yes we should, it’s our duty. Yes, it’s our duty... [Smiles as a punch is heard]
The Quiet Man 1952
4th Doctor: The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views…which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.
Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Pt 4 1977
A long time ago on my radio show I did an hour on the redefinition of marriage and the deficit. This was back in ancient times when Barack Obama had for political reasons not “come out” for gay marriage and thus one could still publicly argue against it the entire media / left defining you as a racist, sexist bigot homophobe for stating facts that had been true for millennia. (For the record I stand by my arguments against gay marriage that I made 10 years ago here)
Now you might think these two topics are as unrelated as you can get but I pointed out on my show that the insistence that there was nothing wrong with redefining marriage opened up huge possibilities for solving the deficit.
All we had to do is redefine what a “deficit” or a “balanced budget” or even “debt” was and viola suddenly deficits would be a thing of the past and we would be able to look forward to balanced budgets for the rest of our days.
The possibilities were endless and the best part of it was people wouldn’t have to vary their spending or borrowing habits one bit and if any person holding a debt objected why they were just not as enlightened as the rest of us.
The entire point of that monologue was to not only point out the insanity of redefining marriage but to also point out that once you decide you can redefine one word for the sake of one’s personal advantage you can redefine another. Or as Kurt Schlichter prophetically put it a few years later
Liberals May Regret Their New Rules
I thought of that when I saw This piece by Stacy McCain about the conflict between lesbians and the Transgender community:
Lesbian feminists are being attacked as “TERFs” (trans exclusive radical feminists) because they don’t want to date men in dresses, nor do they want to cede control of the feminist movement to men in dresses. Transgender activists are insulting lesbians as “vagina fetishists.”
and they just can’t understand why this is happening to them.
In 2018, lesbians are being called “vagina fetishists,” being censored by social media, being targeted & assaulted…and all by people in the so called “LGBTQ.”
WTF is even happening? https://t.co/IukpxvliZa
— Julia Diana Robertson جوليا ديانا (@JuliaDRobertson) May 31, 2018
The answer is in fact very simple. The people who had no problem redefining the word “marriage” to satisfy their own narcissism and then tried to drive those who fought them from the public square (ask yourself why the Catholic Church is no longer allowed to deal with adoptions in Massachusetts) are now shocked Shocked that other narcissists would choose to redefine word “woman” and by extension “lesbian” and bring the same public social and legal opprobrium upon them that they gleefully and self righteously applied to others who dared suggest that words actually mean things.
You see, once one realizes that in one fell swoop by the act of redefining words one can:
satisfy one’s narcissism
turn one’s proclivities into virtue to be celebrated
turn mental illness into courage
and silence one’s enemies by both cultural and legal censure
you’re not like to let simple things like biology or objective reality stop you.
Now Stacy McCain who has been the target of radical feminists and Christophobic folk for daring to take his protestant faith seriously is right when he stand up for those radical feminists, who despise his very existence, on constitutional grounds
By the way, a conservative need not endorse homosexuality to believe that lesbians should not be insulted as “TERFs,” etc. What is at issue here is a matter of basic liberty. The First Amendment, which guarantees both freedom of speech and freedom of religion, likewise safeguards the principle of freedom of association. In guaranteeing “the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” our Constitution expresses this principle. A woman who chooses to avoid intimacy with men is exercising her basic liberty and, while we might lament her choice, the friends of liberty cannot in good conscience compel her to do otherwise. Forcing citizens to associate with others against their will is not “social justice.”
The Christian is as free to eschew association with non-believers as the homosexual is free to eschew the companionship of the opposite sex. For decades now, the Left has accused Christian conservatives of seeking to “impose their morality” on others. But what is it that transgender activists are attempting to do now? Aren’t they attempting to compel others to do their bidding, and to silence their critics?
But while I agree with Stacy McCain’s first amendment arguments defending the radical feminists targeted in this effort, applaud Cynthia Yockey’s efforts to make this fight on behalf of her fellow lesbians who refuse to redefine what a lesbian, man or woman is and , as a faithful Catholic have sympathy for folks like Julia Diana Robertson for the abuse she and other feminists, both straight and gay are getting for these actions, I can’t help but think that the shock that radical feminists and lesbians have as they suddenly find themselves victims of the terror they helped unleash must be the same that Maximilien de Robespierre felt just before blade of the guillotine that he had used to eliminate so many “enemies of the revolution” beheaded him.
This is one of the disadvantages of thinking that the lessons of history are all just the ravings of a patriarchal past that have no application for the present, you don’t realize that revolutions always eat their own.
I’m sure there will be a few in the Christian right who will join the fight like Stacy McCain who closes his piece saying;
It is truly astounding to find myself defending lesbian feminists against transgender totalitarians.
Like I keep saying, people need to wake the hell up.
and will will speak up for the like of Ms Robertson and company, but I suspect that the vast majority of Conservative Catholics and Protestants who have spent the last decade being told they are beyond the pale from the likes of them and their allies and have had the full force of both culture and government brought against them will watch their oppressors with Schadenfreude for a while more as this verse from Proverbs comes to pass
Those who trouble their household inherit the wind,
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
And remember the same people “triggered” by this blunt statement of the teaching of the Catholic Church “hate speech” would be triggered by this movie clip too:
Aren’t we so lucky to be ruled by the values of the most narcissistic generation vs the values of the greatest one?
The whole Roseanne kerfuffle brought to mind something I wrote when I announced that after 41 years my love affair with Doctor Who had ended:
Now I know that since the series came back there has been a bit of a sjw agenda that has been pushed since the 2nd half of the 1st season. As the years have gone by it’s become more and more open but I let it go, first because I was so pleased to see the series back, then because I thought David Tennant was great, then because I thought Matt Smith was the best thing to happen to the series since Tom Baker, then because Peter Capaldi had given the character depth and then because Michelle Gomez was just so good as Missy and she and Capaldi worked so well that you wanted to see what happened next.
The actual reality is that I loved this show and even as it tried to nudge me away or suggest that I and my values were unwelcome I clung to it because of what it meant to me and mine. In a world becoming increasingly hostile it was my last my childhood escape that decades later was still intact.
The ability to sell a particular worldview where the British Empire, Capitalism, the Military and Christianity and the values they espoused was the source of the world or in this case the universes was helped by the fact said message was sold to the British public in general and British youth in particular by two of the best TV writers of the 21st century Stephen Moffat and Russell Davies and by suburb acting by not only all of the doctors from Eccleston to Capaldi but by an incredible ensemble including Arthur Darvill, Jenna Coleman, Alex Kingston, Catherine Tate, Matt Lucas (who really surprised me) and especially Michelle Gomez whose performances rank as some of the finest in the entire 55 year history of the show.
And the sales pitch was so subtle that by the time we saw Moffatt use the 1st Doctor as a stand in punching bag standing in for the values of the generation that saved the world from Nazism as something to be mocked that the generation that was saved from subjugation by those folks were laughing at those who saved them without realizing what they were doing.
That’s what skilled propaganda does and it’s particularly effective on members of a “fandom”. It’s the nature of fandom that you remain a fan. You might decide a particular show or actor wasn’t up to snuff but because you have built a relationship with a show or character or universe it’s hard to let go, even if it’s hostile to you and your believes, you let it go because of that relationship, particularly if it one that you had for years (or in my case decades). Without being well grounded in actual reality it’s very easy to surrender.
And that brings us to Roseanne.
For all the fuss about Roseanne being “right wing” she is and always has been a creature of the left, albeit one who likes Trump which I suspect comes from still remembering the life of a stand up comic. Other than her ability to recognize the danger of radical Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood her values are Hollywood values.
Moreover those Hollywood values were shared by her cast, her writers and the network that carried them and while they were careful in season 1 not paint supporters of the current administration as villains the groundwork was being laid for the seasons to come.
Those season were going to be all about teaching the “Connor” family to accept things that conservative in general and social conservatives in particular reject. Oh to be sure it was going to be subtle and the comedy was going to be there and there would be real care not to portray the Connors in a negative light but don’t doubt for one minute that if the series continued this was going to be the plan.
It would have been pulled off brilliantly by their group of 1st class writers and a strong cast headlined by Roseanne herself, Sarah Gilbert and the spectacular John Goodman who is in my opinion on of the best all around actors/comics in the industry.
The irony of course is the conservative audience would have gone along considering their viewing a rebellion against a media culture that hates them not knowing that they were going to be played and within a season or two the critics would have been hailing the series for progressing and becoming more “inclusive” as the years went on.
That was the long game, all of that was what was coming and the left might have pulled it off, if they had been capable of accepting Roseanne’s apology over her tweets over the years.
But fortunately for us on the right there were not and now not only has the left’s best chance to sell their values to the right without them even realizing gone up in smoke but it’s done so in such a way and at such a time designed to cause maximum damage to that same left in a critical midterm election we couldn’t have planned it better if we tried.
That’s why after acting rashly out of anger they are trying to figure out how to the plan back on track
There is some cautious optimism that Roseanne, cancelled by ABC on Monday, could continue without co-creator and star Roseanne Barr. I hear the show’s producers will be meeting with Disney-ABC executives on Monday to pitch a revamped Roseannewithout the title star (and likely the original title too).
Details about the concept that will be pitched are unclear but the show is expected to stay true to the praised first season of the revival — the series’ 11th overall — featuring the other cast members except Barr. There could be stronger emphasis on Sara Gilbert’s character Darlene, which can be expected since the revival was centered mainly on three characters, Roseanne (Barr), Dan (John Goodman) and their daughter Darlene (Gilbert) who moved back home with her kids.
, Allahpundit however is most likely right about what it would mean if anything:
Darlene is the fourth-most compelling character on the show, tops. I like the idea of keeping “Roseanne” going but only if it’s fundamentally a show about Dan and Jackie moving on from Roseanne’s death. If they go the Darlene route, they’re going to get one season out of it. Although maybe that’s the point: All they’re doing here, perhaps, is giving the cast, crew, and writers the second year of employment they were counting on before Roseanne ripped it out from under them. They’ll do 10 episodes of semi-respectable ratings and then pack it in.
In one sense that would be justice as none of those people had anything to do with the cancellation but “the Darline show” is unlikely to draw the conservatives who were upset with the cancellation and any attempt to subtly dose any who do hang around is now likely to be spotted a mile away.
So in the end conservative Roseanne fans without knowing it, have gotten lucky break