Yesterday I noted the irony of the black lives matter crowd using the #alllionsmatter hashtag for their purposes with this quote from Althouse emphasis mine

“Why are the Americans more concerned than us?” said Joseph Mabuwa, a 33-year-old father-of-two cleaning his car in the center of the capital. “We never hear them speak out when villagers are killed by lions and elephants in Hwange.”

Looking closer at the base piece Ann linked to reminded me of something Evan Sayet said during his appearance in Boston that stuck with me is that in the past being stupid could cost you your life, but America has become o rich that people can be stupid without danger.

That came to mind when I saw this 

“What lion?” acting information minister Prisca Mupfumira asked in response to a request for comment about Cecil, who was at that moment topping global news bulletins and generating reams of abuse for his killer on websites in the United States and Europe

meanwhile in America…

In contrast, the previous evening 200 people stood in protest outside the suburban Minneapolis dental practice of 55-year-old Walter Palmer, calling for him to be extradited to Zimbabwe to face charges of taking part in an illegal hunt.

Perhaps there is a reason why the people in Zimbabwe are less interested in the story

For most people in the southern African nation, where unemployment tops 80 percent and the economy continues to feel the after-effects of billion percent hyperinflation a decade ago, the uproar had all the hallmarks of a ‘First World Problem’.


In other words, American are rich enough that they can spend days crying of a dead lion that they imagine as a Disney Character, but  one’s perspective is different if one lives  in a country where being killed by wild animals is not uncommon,

Telling isn’t it?


Normally I wouldn’t put it this way but right, with a car falling apart, a floor that needs to be torn up and some big debts I’m really in a bind and I’d really appreciate it if you can give me a hand getting out of it.

My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand which will give me a nominal living doing this.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta)  If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.

Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.

Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

If you could kick in I’d really appreciate it.

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.