As people all over the nation reel from the murders or more accurately suicide by mass murder I wish I could say I was shocked by it.  I’m not and neither should you be.   Given the cultural changes of the last 50 years and the spate of young and teenage suicides that simply weren’t going on when I was young one can’t be surprised by this unless they haven’t been paying attention.

But this, THIS surprised me:

It was meant to be a day of mourning, but parishioners inside a Catholic Church here had their fears renewed Sunday when a bomb threat forced a mid-morning evacuation and a SWAT team converged and surrounded a rectory.

The threat, which came during morning services, was “a menacing call that threatened to disrupt the Mass in a violent way,” said Brian Wallace, a spokesman for the local diocese.

That another young man with nothing in his heart and little in his head has decided to commit suicide by mass murder is no shock, that while the bodies of the kids are still unburied somebody actually called in a bomb threat to the church where people are trying to cope and grieve, that’s simply incredible.

I can almost understand the concept of a non-entity either embracing or trying to purge his demons by making himself permanently are part of the lives of the families he has destroyed but I simply can’t wrap my head around the subsequent bomb threat.

My fear when hearing about this was an accomplice hoping to drive people into a killing zone, hearing that the killer made a point of trying to disable his PC made me wonder.

What kind of person does this? What do they gain in satisfaction I think they simply like watching people already grieving dance?

Every time I think our culture has gone as low as it can go, it’s manages to surprise and disgust me just a little more.

In 1973 Billie Jean King seven years removed from being #1 woman in the world Defeated 55-year-old Bobby Riggs 6-4, 6-3, 6-3 in a $100,000 winner take all match billed as the Battle of the Sexes.

King’s victory cemented her as a feminist icon for silencing Mr. Riggs, ranked #1 in 1941 in the world 32 years earlier and member of the Tennis Hall of Fame who said that at age 55 he could defeat women 25 years his junior.

What a lot of people forget is the four months before losing in to Miss King, Bobby Riggs took on another 30 years old former #1 ranked women, Margaret Court and demolished her in straight sets.

Today people make Riggs the butt of jokes conveniently forgetting his lopsided victory over Court (losing only 3 games) while playing competitively with King. The actual lesson of the exercise was this 55 year world champion with his best years decades behind him was able, on a national stage able to hold own against the very best women of the time both young enough to be his daughter managing a combined score of 22-21 in five sets.

For all the accolades Miss King received, No sane person would contend that at age 55 in 1998 she would have had a prayer against a 31-year-old Boris Becker or a 33-year-old Stefan Edberg. That’s not to imply she wasn’t a spectacular Tennis Champion, she was, it’s simply because at age 55 she simply could not have physically been able to compete with either of these men.

That’s simple biology…which brings us to Gabrielle Ludwig

In the days leading up to the game, people had plenty to say about 6-foot-6-inch, 220-pound Gabrielle Ludwig, who joined the Lady Saints as a mid-season walk-on and became, according to advocates, the first transsexual to play college hoops as both a man and a woman.

When I saw this story all I could think of was Riggs/King with a twist.

Gabrielle Ludwig like Riggs is 25 years the senior of the women on the basketball court, both teammates and opponents. but there are three huge differences that work in Gabrielle Ludwig’s favor that Bobby Riggs didn’t have going for him.

1. While Basketball like Tennis is a fast paced physically demanding game it has certain advantages in terms of stamina. The nature of the game allows Gabrielle Ludwig periods of rest and relief, particularly at half time. Bobby Riggs had to play through the match without such relief.

2. Bobby Riggs was #1 in the world in 1941, he took on Margaret Court #1 in the world in 1962 & Billie Jean King #1 in the world in 1966. All three are rightly in the Tennis hall of fame. While Riggs enjoyed the physical advantages of manhood, they were offset not only by age but by the experience and skill of two opponents prepared both physically and mentally to cope with the absolute best the world had to offer. Gabrielle Ludwig on the other hand, operations and hormones not withstanding not only has the muscle set of man and some coaching experience. These physical & mental tools are being deployed against 18 & 19 year old girls who are still learning the game of basketball at a college level.

3. Basketball is a sport where, Muggsy Bogues not withstanding, height is critical. The Avg height of players in women’s basketball is 5′ 8″ in the WNBA it is 6′ and the avg height of a center in the WNBA is 6′ 8″. Consider this information on an article on “Why there are so few dunks in the WNBA all emphasis mine

The average female college basketball player has a vertical leap of approximately 19 inches, compared with more than 28 inches for the average male player. Since you have to get your fingers about 6 inches above the rim to have a chance at dunking, a female player of average leaping ability would have to be around 6-foot-6 with a standing reach of 8-foot-11”—the approximate measurements for Michael Jordan. (His Airness reportedly had a 48-inch vertical leap.) Few female players are that tall, and none of those giants is an exceptional leaper.

Gabrielle Ludwig is 6′ 6″ age not withstanding that height advantage combined with a 220 pound frame in basketball makes a huge difference.

Mind you this is not against NCAA rules as the SunTimes says:

As someone living as a woman and taking female hormones since 2007, Ludwig was eligible to play in the NCAA. Transgender student athletes who have taken medication to suppress testosterone for a year may compete on women’s teams under a policy adopted last year.

But I do object to the following on non-basketball grounds

The California Community College Athletic Association had another hoop for Ludwig. Because its rules base gender on a student’s birth certificate, she would need a new one. Ludwig, who had sex reassignment surgery over the summer, petitioned a judge and obtained her papers on Nov. 30.

So now according to new official paperwork Gabrille Ludwig mother gave birth to a daughter 51 years ago, but what’s re-writing history when we have a meme to promote?

When it comes to the game a false birth certificate can’t hide the politically correct biological facts.

Advocates can cheer all they want but Gabrille Ludwig is able to compete in the NCAA college woman’s game, because hormones operations and the blessing of society not withstanding, Gabrille Ludwig is a man.

I do not doubt nor question Gabrielle Ludwig’s drive. At the age of 50 the effort play basketball at any level is considerable and commendable but let’s be blunt:

If a woman with the same prior experience attempted to make the team had attempted to make the team, the odds of success would be slim and none.

Furthermore if Gabrielle Ludwig had been born a woman and had gender reassignment surgery in 2007 the newly minted Gabe Ludwig would not be able to compete with the young women Gabrielle Ludwig plays with today, let alone make the men’s college team.

The only reason Gabrielle Ludwig’s efforts have been rewarded is because Gabrielle Ludwig is Bobby Riggs.

It’s a truth that everybody knows but in the culture of 2012, such things can’t be admitted in polite society, not when there is a liberal meme to be sold to a gullible public.

Update: I guess I owe Gabrielle Ludwig an apology for comparing him to Riggs. Weirdness not withstanding Gabrielle Ludwig isn’t throwing any games.

“And that one?” I pointed to a man up to his chin in boiling blood. He was screaming in agony so his face was distorted, but he looked Oriental.

“New one,” Billy said. “Seung, something like that. Went out and shot a bunch of people in the college he was at. Allen, it puzzles me that a man can shoot thirty-two full-grown men and women before the sheriff’s men gun him down. You’re more his time, maybe you can tell me. Why didn’t someone just shoot the son of a bitch?”

I scratched my head. Billy’s viewpoint seemed skewed, alien.

“Five of ‘em where teachers,” Billy said. “They had to protect their kids. How could they now be armed? It’s as if someone has been taking away their guns.”

Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle Escape From Hell

Don’t go to parties with metal detectors Sure it feels safe inside; but what about all those niggaz waitin outside with guns? They know you ain’t got one..

Chris Rock No Sex in the Champagne Room from the Album Bigger & Blacker

I’ve been out of circulation for a little while so I didn’t hear about the shooting in CT until I came home around 7 PM yesterday evening. It’s a horrible thing. It’s hard to lose a parent but that is the natural order of things in life, it is quite another to lose a child and I can only offer my prayers and condolences to the people going through this horror.

If we were one nation and had the culture we once had, this post would now end, but unfortunately we no longer live in that culture, nor will I recycle my post from July despite the temptation provided by an auto save glitch that erased most of this post that I am now re-entering.

One can no longer cede the floor, after all if George Washington choose propriety he would have stayed home on Christmas Eve 1776 and the people of America would be even more obsessed with the former Kate Middleton. (Is that possible?)

So let address what I’m thinking point by point to the groups of people those thoughts are directed toward;

1. To our Atheistic Secular Humanistic friends in full: “If there is a God why does he allow this” mode:

I’m laughing at you. Because that argument much like phony “The Bible endorses slavery” one is in effect a statement of the existence of God.

It’s classic misdirection, rather than blame man, in this case a particular man for an act of evil, you blame God in effect crying: “God let this happen God sucks.” Strange the need to blame one who “doesn’t exist” or are you just trying to convince yourselves?

BTW no matter how much you think God Sucks he still loves you.

2. To the “Blame the Gun Crowd” asking “Why do we need so many guns?”

I find you aren’t much different from the “It’s God’s fault” people above. I’m not surprised at you, simply bemused.  While you ask ‘why there are so many guns out there‘ strangely enough you forget 50 or 60 years ago we were just as heavily armed yet such events were so rare we actually knew the names of all the people who did stuff like this.

I think a better question is:   How did we get to a society where such acts are common when we once they were not?

I doubt you will ask that question because it might lead to the odd coincidence of a particular cultural meme removed from the classroom two generations ago.  Even worse it might lead to the conclusion the values suggested by said cultural meme gave people, particularly the young who are so willing to kill both themselves and others these days, purpose and control in a way modern culture doesn’t.

We can’t have that can we?

3. To our media and elite betters:

You really miss the days of the feudal lords don’t you? You are so anxious to disarm the citizenry for the “common good” as long as your own bodyguards remain heavily armed aren’t you.  I shouldn’t be surprised.  This has always been the way of elites the world over, restrictions for the common good on everything from food to travel to light bulbs, but exceptions for the right people. Perhaps that’s why Rupert Murdock is so willing to block Glenn Reynolds who today in USA today quoted author William Burroughs:

“After a shooting spree,” author William Burroughs once said, “they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.”

Glenn asks: Hey, Rupert: Why is your life more deserving of protection than a battered woman’s or a 7-11 clerk’s?

Because he, like Bloomberg is the Lord of the manor and we are just the Hoi Polloi THAT’s why!

4. To our ultra liberal friends who still think they are rebels 30-40 years after they declared “never trust anyone over 30” and never stop talking about their beloved 60’s:

Tell me, why on earth are you willing to support a society where only THE MAN has access to guns? Haven’t you spent the last several years telling us about how many innocents our government killed in Iraq, in Afghanistan? Haven’t you told us how we are targeting Americans and making the disappear on terror grounds?

How can you trust such a government to be the sole holder of weapons? After if one killer can slaughter 20 how much more can a government do? Particularly if someday there is an evil racist sexist bigoted homophobic republican in the White House ready to come after your lady parts? I speak especially to the Black Americans in the liberal cities who are ready to march on the police whenever Mr. Jackson or Sharpton tell them to. If the police and government are so racist do you really want to be disarmed and at their mercy?

5. To those who speak in the language of political correctness.

I doubt that I could do as well as Stacy McCain who coincidentally also invokes Chris Rock.

Our culture has lost all sense of perspective, of reasonable balance, so that we are unable to make common-sense judgments about risks. Which is the greater danger: That a schizophrenic might have his feelings hurt, or that a schizophrenic might go off his meds and kill people?

Common sense is quite nearly illegal nowadays and it’s certainly unfashionable in the Obama Age. So the usual liberal dingbats — including the ACLU types who assured us it was “a fearless, independent life style” for a crazy woman to defecate in public on the streets of Manahattan — are telling us we need more gun control.

And I say, no, what we need is more kook control. But no member of Congress in either party would have the guts to introduce “The Dangerous Lunatic Incarceration Act of 2013,” which would put wackjobs like Adam Lanza some place where they couldn’t kill people.

Chris Rock was right: “Whatever happened to ‘crazy’?

I think that whole philosophy is about making oneself feel good.  After all from that philosophy do we even have the right to question the motives of this shooter?  Doesn’t he have the right to define his own morality and if in fact man is just another animal that needs to be understood is this just not the natural act of such an animal at this stage of development?  We certainly can’t judge him, that would be the ultimate sin.

6.  Finally to those who insist the media is not biased,

Imagine just for a moment how this story would have been approached if this shooter had been named “Nidal” or “Mohammad”,  had said the words “Allah Akbar” before firing and belonged to a religion that rhymed with “fizlam”.

I Imagine who the story would be written about how we should understand what drove this killer to do his deeds, likely the horrible acts of the west, the same thing that must be the source of this story:

An elderly Swedish charity worker who was seriously injured in an attack by unidentified gunmen in Lahore was on Monday flown home in an air ambulance for “medical and security” reasons, officials said.

Birgitta Almeby, a 70-year-old worker of the NGO Full Gospel Assemblies of Pakistan, was attacked near her residence in Model Town of Lahore on December 3.

FGA spokesman Liaquat Qaiser had described the incident as a “targeted attack”.

Birgitta has since died, her murder will never be newsworthy to some people.

As I said in a different time It would have been enough to write what Sarah Palin did:

My heart goes out to the families of the victims of this terrible tragedy in Connecticut today. Words can’t express the horror everyone feels in seeing such evil manifested against innocent children. Nothing could be worse than the murder of innocent children. Let’s all pray for the victims, their families, and the whole nation.

but she will in fact be attacked even for this, so I might as well vent and be attacked for a wolf rather than a sheep.

In my post on the subject yesterday I talked about the purpose the Pope on Twitter

Most twitter accounts are about the people or organization who have them, the purpose of my account is to promote me, keep me in touch and aid me in making my living. That’s not what the Pope is shooting for. His purpose is not for his own aggrandizement but to spread the good news of Christ for the salvation of any who hear it.

And it’s not just the spreading of the world but as the Anchoress notes, what matters is how he communicated to the faithful

I love this piece by Cathy Grossman in USA Today, in which she makes not of the real people behind the questions that Benedict answered, today:

At noon, he addressed a mom who asked: “Any suggestions on how to be more prayerful when we are so busy with the demands of work, families and the world?”

Benedict replied: “Offer everything you do to the Lord, ask his help in all the circumstances of daily life and remember that he is always beside you.”

Let me introduce you to the lady in question:

Meet Linda Binggeli:

If you do a search of “Linda Binggeli” on the internet for the period of Jan 1, 2008 to Dec 1st of this year you will find 37 results the most interesting one being a story of an app for Eucharist Adoration for the iPhone. The woman in the picture resembles the photo above and the location is right so I assume the developer is her husband.

So Linda this ordinary wife and mother posed this question on twitter on December 6th:

:

and I’m sure to her surprise the Pope answered it directly:

Now that tweet got the attention of not just the news but people all over the world. The English Language version of it has been re-tweeted over 16,500 times.

That however isn’t the story. The story is a member of the faithful, an ordinary person, asked a question to the Pope and he answered.

This answer was not delivered by the Vatican, not by a Cardinal, an Archbishop, Bishop, Monseigneur, Priest or Deacon. It was delivered directly from the Pope.

It was not filtered by any media service, not the Vatican News Agency, CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, FOX, The New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, or even her local paper before the Pope stated it.

It was not dissected by Morning Joe, Made fun of by Maureen Dowd, scoffed at by Fr. Richard McBrein or Denounced by Richard Dawkins before the Pope expressed it.

This was the Holy Father, the Supreme Pontiff, the direct Successor to St. Peter, the holder of the Keys who can bind and loose on earth and in heaven, speaking directly to the faithful and interested in general and to Linda Binggeli in particular.

It’s been my experience that the many of the objections to the church (particularly among Christians) are objections the a Church not as it is or as it teaches but what they think it is and teaches based on what they’ve been told it, perhaps from a minister, a secularist or perhaps even from a priest who has given poor catechesis.

In other words they object to or attack a Catholic Church that doesn’t actually exist.

But with the Pope now able to tweet directly to the masses, that is eliminated. There is absolutely no question that the message given is consistent with the authentic teaching of the Church.

That power and ability to bypass the media filter will only grow over time and that effect will be profound, The Anchoress again at the Washington Post:

I’m tempted to say there is a danger that the pope can be misconstrued, but it’s difficult to imagine how Benedict can be any MORE misconstrued than he usually is in most media stories about him — witness the silly headlines following the release of his latest book, suggesting that Benedict was naysaying the Christmas narratives. On the other hand, if His Holiness is misconstrued, setting the record straight is much faster and more efficient online. He won’t have to wait four days for a “clarification” (in section C, page 36) of the screaming headlines that had appeared front page, above the fold. In that sense, I guess you could say Rome has a shot at grabbing the wheel of the Barque of St. Peter from the hands of the media and being its own helmsman-of-perception.

And it is this fact more than anything else, the potential to do this and actually save souls that causes that anger and venom spewed in his direction. The Anchoress however notes this will backfire in a special way:

It’s interesting to see folks indulge themselves like that; lashing out at an 85 year old man — or tweeting risque pictures to try to shock him — reveals a great deal about the people who do it, but if folks think they’re hurting the pope, they should think again. All they’re doing, when they try to shock, or vent, is opening the door to their own salvation. They’re only prompting Benedict to pray directly for the healing of their souls, as the Vicar of Christ encounters their need.

Seen in that way, it’s impossible to take offense at these tweets; easier to see them for what they are: cries from the shadows, by sheep in search of their shepherd but wounded, and cold — and so very afraid — that they do not know how to trust.

as Thomas McDonald put it:

When you tell the world to hope, pray, and look for Jesus in the faces of the needy, and they respond with “f*ck you you child molesting old queen,” that doesn’t say a thing about the pope or his message. It says volumes about the demonic forces unleashed in our world. It’s nice for Catholics to see a tweet from the pope, but it’s important for the haters to see one. emphasis mine

No matter if it’s a cry for help, demonic forces unleashed or a little of both, they will get the word of Christ and his Church directly from the Chair of Peter.

And that reality will not change no matter how they protest, but it might in the end change the world.

Glenn Reynolds linked to this debunking of a study which claimed that Fox News viewers have an average IQ of 80. Yahoo News published the study.

An IQ of 80 is awfully low – representing somewhere in the range of the least intelligent 10% of Americans.  (More, here.)

About thirty percent of Americans regularly watch Fox News. The Nichols study, cited above, claims that those thirty percent of Americans are, on the average, dumber than 90% of Americans.

Okay, I’m cracking up here.  This guy’s claim is the opposite of Lake Wobegon, but just as mathematically inept: he’s saying that 30% of Americans are among the dumbest 10% of Americans.  Not possible, kids, not possible.  Basic pigeonhole principle.

At most, 20% of the population can have an IQ that averages in the bottom 10% of the population: every person with an IQ of 100 could be balanced out by someone with an IQ of 60. Since IQs are distributed on a bell curve, and less than 1% of people have an IQ of 60, you can only balance them out with an equal number of people who have an IQ of 100 to keep your average at 80.  (Imagine reflecting the left-hand side of the bell curve over the average, and you have the highest number of people who can have that average IQ, and the ways that it is distributed.) Ergo, even assuming that every single Fox News viewer were among the dumbest in the nation, you can’t get more than 20% with an average IQ of 80.  Sorry, liberals!

I will further note that even a small number of highly intelligent Fox News viewers will wreck havoc on the results (if the  ‘average’ were taken to mean ‘the mean’) – you need quite a few people with IQs in the lowest 10% to balance out one Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, or Ann Coulter.

But keep remembering, my conservative readers, we’re the dumb ones.  Those who look at a “study” like this and publish it on Yahoo News are smarter than those who can prove that said study results are mathematically impossible.  Turns out, the joke is on them.

The latest battle in the War on Women comes from California: a 6’8, 220 lb male Desert Storm veteran who is now playing women’s college basketball.  His teammates are not opposed, but the other teams (and, perhaps, the sixth best player on his team, who no longer starts) are irate. (Hat tip: Stacy McCain, and really Stacy this time, not Smitty dressing up as Stacy. Or something.)

This is allowed to happen because Ludwig was born a man, grew to be 6’8 and 220 lbs, then had a sex change operation a few months ago.

The 95th percentile in height for women is right around 5’8, 5’9. For men, the 95th percentile is somewhere around 6’2.   (Here’s the bimodal distribution; Ludwig is 203 cm, for the record.)

Without getting too much into the math, let’s just point out the obvious: almost no woman can compete athletically against a man.  Debbie Heald, featured in this month’s Runner’s World, set the women’s world record in the mile (and, IIRC, still has the high school record) in 4 minutes, 38 seconds. (The current women’s world record is 4:26.)  Guys at my high school ran 4:30 miles on a semi-regular basis.

If you want to ruin women’s athletics, make us compete against men.  Like Sarah Palin, I’m a Title IX girl and loved playing sports in high school, loved competing, and loved winning.  (I also loved being part of a record-setting relay team, which would never have happened if men had been part of another relay team.)  Athletic women understand that most of us can’t compete against reasonably strong men, and that none of us can compete against 6’8 Desert Storm veterans.

So, progressives: which is more important, women’s athletics or fighting ‘transphobia’? Because this ‘transsexual rights’ thing is a war on women if I’ve ever seen one.

Why not a sensible solution: unless you are unequivocally female, play on the men’s team?  Hormones ridiculously out of whack? Men’s team.  Have y-chromosomes in every cell in your body? Men’s team.  Let us do our own thing and succeed as we are capable of succeeding – by competing against each other and not men.

Update: Evil Blogger Lady writes about a man, with intact genitals, who exposed himself to women in a sauna.  How that is not some form of sexual harassment, indecent exposure, or sexual assault is beyond me.

This post inspired by this post by the amazing, the fabulous, the handsome Smitty, inspired by this post by Skippy Stalin. It appears that some earnest, well-meaning young woman wrote a sign that made its way around the interwebs, reading, “I need feminism because my university teaches ‘How to avoid getting raped’ instead of ‘Don’t rape’ at freshman orientation.”

A quick logic lesson: would this young lady also approve of “I need Randianism because my university teaches ‘Lock your dorm room doors’ instead of ‘Respect the private property of others’ at freshman orientation”?  (If so, that’s cool by me – let me be clear.)

Moving right along, let’s talk about what big, bad, scary conservatives have to say about rape.  In 2008, the Supreme Court decided the case of Kennedy v. Louisiana, holding that the state cannot execute a man for raping a child so violently that her vagina detached from her cervix and her rectum protruded into her vagina. ‘Feminist’ jurists voted that the sub-human walking filth could not be executed for his crimes, while Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and other right-wing whackadoodles believe that the Constitution permits us to execute such sub-human filth. Not the greatest record for ‘feminism’ and rape.

Since I’m a lawyer, I can’t help but think of other Supreme Court jurisprudence that is not exactly helpful in preventing rape or getting the message through to men that rape has consequences.  There are the famous gun-rights cases, Heller and MacDonald v. Chicago, wherein the conservative faction held that guns – which make small women able to beat up their would-be rapists – cannot be banned wholesale by the government. The liberals, who distort the Equal Protection clause to their ‘feminist’ ends, couldn’t find it within themselves to say that women have a right to meet men with equal or greater force.

Just on that record alone, normal people would conclude that liberals want women to be raped and don’t want to mete out punishment to rapists.

This is a problem when the rapists in question are drunk horny twenty-something men on a college campus. They’ve spent their entire lives getting the message that sex is just fun, anyone who says that women get all emotional about sex are repressive patriarchs, and rape doesn’t carry consequences like getting your gonads blasted off with a Sig Sauer.

Against that backdrop, what is there for a university to do besides teach young women how to not get raped?  If homeowners were never armed and door locks were deemed to be tools of the patriarchy, I would spend all my time teaching would-be victims how to not be victims, too. But that hardly means that I would condone robbery.

There are two things that really don’t make any sense to me in the so-called “Fiscal Cliff” debate.

The first is the considered opinion of everyone involved that “sequestration” is a bad thing when it was a bipartisan law passed by a GOP House with broad democrat support and through a democrat senate with over half of the GOP signing on then signed by the president.

But there is a second question that I found odd that isn’t getting a lot of play.

We are told by both sides that we have to do X because of the election. The left says the GOP has to give into the president because he won re-election, the right says the president has to give some because the members of the House won re-election and the senate says nothing because they don’t want to remind people that Democrats have control (and responsibility) for half of congress.

This makes no sense since the congress that WAS elected won’t be sworn in until Jan 3rd.

If we as a nation are going to make decisions, one way or the other, based on the election, why not simply let the congress that is coming make these decisions? Let sequestration come, and then let the new congress do what they were hired to do when they were hired to do it.

And if we don’t like the job they do, well their contracts come up in two, four and six years.

In my last post I explained how TV shows like last week’s The Good Wife is used as liberal cultural propaganda.  Now lets look at how it would play if it was done the other way around.

What if even one scene from that show had been written with a conservative slant instead a liberal one?

Let’s re-set the stage  Supreme Court Lawyer Jeremy Breslow (Bruce McGill) is arguing for spousal privilege on a wiretap involving a gay couple in a federal tax fraud suite.   He has just finished cross-examining the former US AG who maintains it’s the Administration’s opinion the Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against same sex marriage and is unconstitutional  and therefore is not enforced.

We pick up the revised action just as Breslow finishes and Judge Claudia Friend (Cheers’ Bebe Neuwirth) turns the witness over to the Federal prosecutor Bucky Stabler (played by Brian Dennehy)…

Attorney Breslow: I tender the witness

Judge Claudia Friend:  Bucky.

Federal Attorney Bucky Stabler: (getting up from his desk walks toward the witness) So Attorney General Shipton it is the opinion of the current administration that Defense of marriage act discriminates against same-sex marriage and it should not be enforced?

Fmr Attorney General Shiption:
Yes sir as I said.

Federal Attorney Bucky Stabler: So, tell me Attorney General Shipton, if this is the case why has the administration not removed the law from the federal code?

Fmr Attorney General Shiption: Excuse me?

Federal Attorney Bucky Stabler:
Well you have testified that it is the opinion of this newly re-elected President that this law is unconstitutional. If it’s Unconstitutional why hasn’t the executive branch used it’s authority to simply removed this law from the books as Unconstitutional?

Attorney Breslow: (Rising) Objection your Honor: Basis

(the shot briefly flashes toward the judge)

Federal Attorney Bucky Stabler: (Turning to Judge) The Basis your honor the Attorney general is stating the law is unconstitutional surely he can explain to the court why the administration does not declare it so?

Judge Claudia Friend: Sustained. Bucky the court is aware the executive does not have such authority.

Federal Attorney Bucky Stabler:
Attorney General Shipton as the law can’t be declared unconstitutional by the executive branch, surely it can impose a new law to replace it?

(camera pans briefly to AG Shipton looking uncomfortable)

Attorney Breslow: (Rising) Objection your Honor

Federal Attorney Bucky Stabler:
I withdraw the question, your honor.

Judge Claudia Friend: (annoyed) Mr Stabler let me remind you one more time we are not before a jury. I know the powers of the executive branch, you don’t have to explain them to me.

Federal Attorney Bucky Stabler:
Very well your honor, (wearing a slight grin walking toward the witness.) , So Attorney General Shipton it is the opinion of this administration that this law is unconstitutional and while you can’t unilaterally change the law or remove the law you can decide not to enforce it, is that right?

FRM AG Shipton That is correct.

Federal Attorney Bucky Stabler: Tell me what is the administration’s opinions of the current Federal Gun laws?

(AG Shipton taken aback)

Attorney Breslow: Objection your Honor Relevance?

Federal Attorney Bucky Stabler: (Approaching the bench looking entirely serious )Your honor the defense asserts because the administration has an opinion that this law is unconstitutional based on the position of the administration it is entirely proper for the law not to be enforced. If the administration claims such power is valid we would like to establish what other laws this administration believes it doesn’t have to enforce.

Judge Claudia Friend: (Surprised, Pausing, serious and thoughtful) Overruled. (Turning to AG Shipton) You may answer.

Attorney General Shipton: I, (pausing) I’m not currently in the administration so I certainly can’t speak for them on such a matter.

Federal Attorney Bucky Stabler:
Well you certainly has no problem speaking for them on Gay Marriage…

Attorney Breslow: Objection…

Federal Attorney Bucky Stabler:  I withdraw the statement.   Attorney General Shipton can you speak for the time you WERE in the administration.  What was the administrations opinion on current gun laws at the time you were there?


Attorney General Shipton:
It was our opinion the Gun laws was not strict enough.

Federal Attorney Bucky Stabler:
So those laws were enforced?

Attorney General Shipton: Yes.

Federal Attorney Bucky Stabler: What about laws involving Religious Freedom?

Attorney General Shipton:
Of course we enforced the laws.

Federal Attorney Bucky Stabler: Really, the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church would disagree.

Attorney Breslow: Objection!

Federal Attorney Bucky Stabler: (before the Judge can rule) Withdrawn. What if a subsequent administration believed Social Security or Medicare or the Voting Rights act was unconstitutional? Could they simply ignore them?

Attorney General Shipton: Ah..

Federal Attorney Bucky Stabler:
What about the The Freedom of Information act? Did you enforce that law for everyone or only the people you agreed with?

Attorney General Shipton: I resent that implication…

Attorney Breslow: Objection, counsel is badgering the witness!

Judge Claudia Friend: (Looking Exasperated) Sustained! Bucky…

Federal Attorney Bucky Stabler: ( ignoring all else)Tell me Attorney General it’s the function of the executive branch to enforce the laws lawfully passed by the people’s representatives, What were the other laws you as Attorney General, decided just weren’t worth enforcing?

Attorney Breslow: Your HONOR!

Federal Attorney Bucky Stabler: (going to the Bench and speaking with passion) Your Honor if the Executive branch can arbitrarily decide what laws count and what ones don’t, why bother having a legislative or judicial branch at all? Why bother having elections? Why bother having you at the bench? This is civics 101, (turning to the crowd and toward the camera) either the laws of the land mean something or they don’t, if the administration doesn’t like this law they can submit a repeal bill to the congress and push for its passage, either this republic and our constitution means something or it doesn’t!

Judge Claudia Friend: (All business). That’s enough! (She pauses to Composes, Camera briefly goes to Bucky and the Defense table, she turns to the Former AG.) Attorney General Shipton, you are excused. Thank you for your time. (the now rattled AG gets up from the stand and laws out , the camera follows him as he stare at Stabler with a look of disgust) I’m ready to make my ruling.

Judge Claudia Friend: ( Looking very serious and speaking in a tone lower than before.) During the late election I supported this administration. Their opposition to DOMA was a part of my reason for that support but if this administration was defeated at the polls, I would have expected its replacement to enforce the laws as written even the ones like the abortion laws, they disagree with. If a law passed legally by the elected representatives of the people and signed by a duly elected president, ANY president can simply be discarded on a whim then we have ceased to be a representative republic and a country of laws.

Until the congress repeals this law, or it is struck down by a qualified court DOMA is the law of the land and it will be obeyed. It is the ruling of this court that under federal law as written recognized Marriage as the Union between a man and a women and spousal privilege is NOT allowed. The wiretap may be played.

Imagine for a moment what the effect of such a scene acted out by quality actors would have on the viewing audience? Well that is what we are fighting every week on every channel on the Television.

I submit and suggest that this has to be fought and I have a proposal to do so.

I would suggest a weekly show, a web cast where the three or six scenes like this from various shows are re-written from the conservative view, shot and presented as a parody/alternative. Such speech would be protected by the first amendment.

I think fans of these shows would watch, I think it would be a YouTube sensation, I think the MSM and Hollywood would go nuts objecting and I think it would generate more buzz than a beehive hit by a baseball bat.

You can’t change the culture until you get the attention of the people in it. I say it’s time to do so.

One of the functions of the liberal control in Hollywood the to pass on the liberal mindset hidden within drama. It’s done with some subtlety, to make sure it is not too obvious, but like Joe Morgan and the pitchout one you know the signs you spot it every time.

Last Sunday’s  episode of the The Good Wife is no exception. The primary storyline of this weeks was a case of a spousal shield in a federal court. You have two execs who are accused of defrauding the IRS, After an objection a gov wiretap of the CEO’s conversation with his wife is disallowed under spousal privilege, a second wiretap of the CFO’s conversation with his gay spouse causes a dispute because of DOMA.

And of course this is the week when the protagonist, lawyer Alicia Florick Gay brother happens to show up saying how proud he is that she is fighting this.

A well-known Supreme Court Lawyer Jeremy Breslow (Played by Bruce McGill) wanting to overturn The Defense of Marriage Act volunteers to join the defense as it is considered an excellent chance for overturn the law. This leads to an interesting exchange where Judge Claudia Friend (Cheers’ Bebe Neuwirth) and both sides argue the “validity” of both the law and of the gay couple’s marriage.

There is a sequence where Breslow brings in a former Attny General to testify about the current administration’s opinion of DOMA. The Fmr Att General states the Administration considers the law unconstitutional and therefore it should not be enforced.

The Federal prosecutor (played by Brian Dennehy) then comes back with a litany of benefits that the federal government doesn’t allow showing the government enforces the law when it comes to money.

The judge seeing this asks for evidence as to the “marriage” of the gay couple.

This is a clever moment, by listing the benefits “not allowed” it paints a picture of an evil government denying equal protection to people because of sexual orientation rather than a group of people redefining an institution for their own narcissism. It allows the show to attack the law in the guise of defending it.

In the end after during testimony over fidelity and “Free Fridays” the judge (Bebe Neuwirth) rules that DOMA is the law of the land and the wiretaps can be played.  Of course considering her argument the entire sequence asking for evidence is meaningless, but the point was to argue the unfairness of DOMA  to the viewing audience not to make a realistic court drama.

So the point is made Violins play and the audience is shown just how HORRIBLE DOMA is. The liberal writers had done their work.

And that is what we are fighting against 100 times a week on Network TV.

How would this work if things were different? How would this pay out if it had been written by a conservative?   Well that’s my next post…

 

Update:  How a conservative would have written it

Update 2: Removed the words “on a regular basis” from the 3rd to last sentence.