Out and About on a Tuesday

Just to be clear about our Progressives, a reminder from Instapundit:

Lefties are a minority that relies on punishing speakers to ensure that the majority doesn’t realize just how big a majority it is. That’s why they hate free speech, and especially anonymous free speech. It’s why many campus groups demand that universities block Yik Yak.

Remember: They’re not well-meaning people who are just a bit overzealous. They’re horrible, nasty, awful people who want everyone who disagrees with them to be silenced and afraid. Keep this in mind, and respond with the appropriate level of respect and politesse.

The other day on Facebook I saw a picture I’ve seen before – a teacher before a blackboard, and the comment on it is about why Finnish kids do so much better than American kids. The answer, per the picture, is that Finnish teachers are paid as well as doctors and there is no mandatory testing. I did a quite check and found that Finnish doctors actually make quite a bit more than Finnish teachers and, indeed, American teachers make quite a bit more than Finnish teachers (and, it seem, American teachers make more than at least some Finnish doctors). As an example of Progressive lies this is pretty mundane stuff – just make things up with make out that allegedly socialist, foreign nations do it better than we and then demand the United States become socialist. But that is not primarily what struck me – what got to me was the condemnation of testing. If we don’t test, how in the heck are we to know if the kids are learning anything? And if the tests aren’t standardized, then how will we know how this year’s class is doing in relation to last year’s? I tried to remember back when testing became the wrong thing to do – and I seem to recall it happening right around the time it was noticed that American kids do dismally bad on tests. That is public education in a nutshell: if it ain’t working, change the standards so that you can pretend it is.

Seems that recently reviewed e mails show that (a) the State Department knew full well that Hillary was using a private server; (b) Hillary’s aide Huma also knew, and pushed back against a State request to set up an official e mail account for Hillary. Ask yourself: why would a government official not want to use official channels? If you can think of an honest reason for doing so, I’m all ears.

In related news, Hillary now says that no one should be too big to jail.

China put out some economic numbers which are allegedly what everyone expected, so Asian markets are up and Dow futures are positive. Whistling past the graveyard appears to be a requirement for being an investor…

The Progs are all in a snit over the Oscars. Let me just put this on my list of things to care about…number 12,549…

The Establishment hates Ted Cruz so much they may start backing Donald Trump. If this gets widely known, it’ll help Cruz.

A Trump/Kasich ticket is suggested. I don’t know what to even think about that…

48 thoughts on “Out and About on a Tuesday

  1. Retired Spook January 19, 2016 / 8:50 am

    Lefties are a minority that relies on punishing speakers to ensure that the majority doesn’t realize just how big a majority it is

    Nonsense — the modern Left is inclusive, tolerant and diverse. They welcome those who think differently than they do.

  2. Cluster January 19, 2016 / 8:54 am

    Well first of all, this has been a terribly sad week with the loss of Glenn Frey and David Bowie. Two musical icons who defined 1970’s and 1980’s rock and roll. One thing I didn’t know is that Glenn and Jackson Brown lived together at one time and the song Take it Easy was actually a Jackson Brown song but he was having trouble finishing it. So Glenn took it and finished it and made history. RIP Glenn and David, you will be missed.

    Secondly, I think we are seeing an ugly display of racism this week as well. Black racism. Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett are boycotting the “white” Oscar’s because of the lack of any black nominee. And Chris Rock is having a field day with it as well, proving once again in my opinion that black folks are the most racist people in this country. I don’t want to at all diminish the racism that does exist amongst white folks, because it is out there, but far and away I believe black people are the most radicalized when it comes to identifying ones self in terms of skin pigmentation. I don’t believe there are any Asian nominees or hispanic nominees either and I don’t see those communities revolting. From Al Sharpton, to Jesse Jackson, to Eric Holder, to black lives matter, to Julian Bond, to NAACP, to Barack Obama, there is not one other single ethnicity that is as loud and demanding when it comes to recognition and deference. Blacks represent 13% of the population, yet comprise probably 80% of the NBA and dominate most other sport industries as well, yet I don’t see Asians boycotting sporting events. I think the sad truth here is that Democrats and race hustlers rely on racial discord to feed their bank accounts and power structure and they will take every opportunity to “keep the dream alive”. And there you have it.

    • Retired Spook January 19, 2016 / 10:06 am

      Amazona and I were discussing this over the weekend, and she just absolutely nailed it. I don’t think she’d mind if I reprint her response in its entirety.

      I went to a belated wedding reception for my cousin, who married a Vietnamese woman. He wanted her to kind of settle in a little and meet his family in smaller groups before putting her in a big social setting. My thought was that in just fifty or sixty years we seem to have gotten past the Viet Nam war, on both sides. In spite of the Japanese atrocities in WW II, we are quite friendly toward Japan and the Japanese. (Partly due to mass ignorance of those atrocities, but still…..) We get along great with the Germans. All the Allies and Axis nations of WW II are friendly now, with the possible exception of Russia, which just likes to be obnoxious anyway. But even those whose ancestors were brutally victimized by the Cossacks aren’t still harboring grudges. Brits have an obsession about how wonderful they think the Scandinavian countries are, evidently having gotten over the murderous rampages of killing, looting and taking of slaves by the Danes for so long (identified as Vikings but more accurately Danes) and even the perpetually irate Irish have more modern grievances, not those of the slavery of Irish in Britain and vice versa that was so common for so long, or the brutality of British rule that was the norm for centuries.

      And none of those countries has really apologized, in any meaningful way, to those they harmed, or done anything to try to make up for their actions. We just all got over it.

      So, can any of us name the one demographic that simply cannot move on and get over past events, which still nurtures grudges over things that happened—or maybe did not happen—to long-dead ancestors?

      We don’t have hysterical “protests” over things like bull-baiting, or sending people into arenas to be torn apart by lions, or any of the other brutal events in history that would never be tolerated now because we, as humanity, have moved beyond them. But it seems that one group of people will never lay to rest a period of about 100 years in American history, which was by the way repeated in nearly every other nation in the world in one way or another, and that of course is black slavery.

      As this grievance is so beloved to American blacks, and is by the way supposedly based on black slavery which still exists only in black nations which embrace the enslavement of other blacks, is it racist to wonder if the rest of the world is more evolved? I never thought this way until the past seven or eight years, and it has been forcibly shoved into my consciousness by black people in this country, but by now I am ready to say it out loud. We have, unlike the Japanese or the Romans or the Cossacks or anyone else, apologized till the cows come home, have bent over backwards to try to make up for that brief period in history, have acknowledged that it was a really really ugly part of our heritage, and so on, and still we are supposed to pay for it in one way or another in perpetuity and be hated and reviled for it as well. No matter what is done or said, we are now told it will never be enough, there will never be forgiveness, there will never be a decision to put it all behind us and move forward, and we will always be hated. I am just tired of it.

      • Cluster January 19, 2016 / 11:47 am

        That says a lot.

    • Amazona January 19, 2016 / 12:22 pm

      Wondering about all the adulation of Bowie, as he bragged about deflowering very very young girls, as young as 15 (and that is what he admitted to). Yeah, he made some decent music, but a hero? Only in America, after having his sordid past expunged by a fawning Leftist media

      • Cluster January 19, 2016 / 12:33 pm

        Bowie was a pioneer in music and probably wrote more music for other bands than he performed himself. I am not aware of his personal exploits but his musical vision carved out a new genre of music.

      • Amazona January 19, 2016 / 12:37 pm

        And, in our culture, this matters more than personal integrity or decency. It is sad that celebrity shields some people from consequences for their criminal and immoral actions.

      • Bob Eisenhower January 19, 2016 / 2:30 pm

        One would be hard-pressed to find a top-tier artist without finding perversion or addiction or violence or whatnot. Creative genius and insanity go hand in hand, unfortunately.

        All my artistic heroes are perverts, it would seem. I defy you to name a great genius that is not.

      • Amazona January 19, 2016 / 7:02 pm

        “…All my artistic heroes are perverts…”

        I think that statement falls into the TMI category, not something people need to know about you.

        But it seems to be based on your conviction that “One would be hard-pressed to find a top-tier artist without finding perversion or addiction or violence or whatnot.” We evidently have different choices of who we consider “top-tier artists”. Personally, my own choices for the most talented don’t include any pedophiles, rapists, or other behaviors I would think of as “perversion”. There are behaviors that are not always perfect, as the choices available to me are from the human gene pool, so I don’t include random bouts of moderately bad behavior.

        ” Creative genius and insanity go hand in hand,.”

        Nope, don’t buy that. Some personality traits that are unconventional, or erratic, perhaps, but not insanity, or perversion, or violence. If you are right, then the obverse is true, and insanity and creative genius go hand in hand, and that’s just plain silly. If it were true, psych wards and mental hospitals would be churning out great art and music.

        What we have is a culture which tells talented people that they are not expected to be held to the same standards of basically decent behavior as, for example, their mechanics or their gardeners or their accountants. It is true that many highly talented people are wound a little more tightly than most, but when that happens it is the culture that surrounds them that tells them they are so special they don’t have to worry about the same rules the rest of us live by. So, surrounded by fawning yes-men who never stand up to them, they die on toilets or in bathtubs or on the floors of their bedrooms, due to excesses that are far more closely related to weak character and self-indulgence than to “genius”.

        Pick out any schmo off the street, elevate him to the status of a demi god, make him famous and rich, agree with everything he says and does, and it won’t be long before he will be acting out violence and perversion and addiction if he by nature a pervert or violent or has an addictive personality, none of which is related to talent or “genius”.

        I’m not going to get into a discussion about what is and what is not “genius”. I do know that there have been brilliant musicians and actors who have not wallowed in perversion, screwing little girls or becoming addicted or violent. We just have a silly, superficial, starstruck culture that hovers around entertainers and literally idolizes them even when they are disgusting human beings who do disgusting things to other people as well as themselves, because we like their “art”.

        It wouldn’t bother me to acknowledge the contributions Bowie did make, if the commentary also included the dark and ugly side of his persona. It is the swooning, the attitude that being talented makes up for his reprehensible behavior, that offends me. It’s this whole grieving, “we have lost a great person” thing that hits a wrong note with me. There is no balance.

      • Bob Eisenhower January 19, 2016 / 7:12 pm


        While you dismiss the notion one would be hard-pressed to name an artistic genius free of perversion yet I claim you cannot do it.

        You can stretch a crazytape from David Bowie to Michelangelo and it will hit every great (underscore “great” and not just “all”) artist and entertainer that ever lived.

        Go ahead. Name a great performer that didn’t marry his cousin or have untoward relations with a peach tree. Ya cain’t do it.

      • M. Noonan January 19, 2016 / 8:48 pm

        Mozart was a devout Catholic; Jimmy Stewart was a model family man; Dolores Hart was a big splash in Hollywood until she decided to become a Nun…you can be rich and famous and not be bizarre. But I do note that the Vatican’s official account Tweeted out some lauds to Bowie when he died…which makes me wonder if he converted before his death…he did some amazingly immoral things back in the day, but for the past few decades he seemed to have gone pretty moral…staying married to his wife for 32 years being a prime example of this.

      • Bob Eisenhower January 19, 2016 / 9:02 pm


        I’m sorry, were you talking about the alcoholic Mozart? Jimmie Stewart, who cheated on his wife with one of my uncle’s friends? Dolores Hart, the artistic genius whose biggest movie was the epic “Where the Boys Are?”

        Only one of the three you named are artistic geniuses and Mozart had a whole lot of moral turpitude in his brief life, which backs my thesis.

        You cannot name an artistic genius without a disturbing thingamajig in their story.

      • M. Noonan January 19, 2016 / 10:06 pm

        We’re all sinners, so you can always point to sins in a person – but there’s a difference between sinning and positively reveling in sin.

      • Amazona January 19, 2016 / 11:41 pm

        This is a loaded question, dependent on quibbling over semantics and personal opinion, which is why I said I didn’t want to get into it. All you have to do, in your own mind, is either come up with a single error of character or judgment and equate that to perversion, violence, etc. As I said, all people are prone to human error and I refuse to compare something like that to having sex with underage girls, or other perversions.

        For one thing, I don’t see alcoholism, in and of itself, as either perversion or violence.

        I can name lots of very talented people who have never shown any of the vile behavior you claim is part and parcel of creative genius. Reba McIntyre and Tom Selleck come to mind. Gregory Peck. Even Bob Dylan, while a nonconformist, was not a pedophile or pervert.

        It’s a silly effort to draw people into silly arguments, because you want to justify adulation of horrible people by claiming that “genius” not only excuses the horrible things they do, all geniuses are perverts, addicts, violent, or any combination of any number of vile behaviors.

        You go right ahead making excuses for inexcusable behavior and I’ll go ahead refusing to enable it by pretending it is OK if I can just define someone’s work as “genius”. Personally, I found some of Bowie’s work interesting and much of it pretentious, so I don’t even put him in this “genius” category. He had his moments, some thought he was absolutely wonderful and many did not. But he took advantage of starstruck girls who were legally underage, he screwed them, and he bragged about it. What a guy.

      • Amazona January 19, 2016 / 11:43 pm

        “You can stretch a crazytape from David Bowie to Michelangelo and it will hit every great (underscore “great” and not just “all”) artist and entertainer that ever lived.”

        Nonsense. Absolute crap.

      • Bob Eisenhower January 20, 2016 / 12:38 am


        I agree wholeheartedly but you are talking to the wrong person. When Amazona cast stones on one of Cluster’s (and my) artistic heroes, dismissing his genius due to another part of him, I felt compelled to point out that artistic greatness is always accompanied by outrageousness, perversion, etc.

      • Bob Eisenhower January 20, 2016 / 12:46 am



        And Bob Dylan did not lead a sainted life, read any interview with his son.

        On the other hand, look at Michael Jackson. Horrible pervert? Sure looks that way. But that does not take away for the songwriting, singing and dance genius that he was.

        Edgar Allan Poe. Pervert? Probably. Towering genius of Amercan literature.

        It is not I looking for an argument, it is me rebutting your statement that Bowie is somehow lesser than, solely based on words in an interview. He was an artistic genius and I’ve heard nothing of his life that would lessen that description.

      • Amazona January 20, 2016 / 12:37 pm

        Bob, try actually READING what I say, without some knee-jerk spasm of defensiveness wiping out your reading comprehension. You say “…it is me rebutting your statement that Bowie is somehow lesser than, solely based on words in an interview. He was an artistic genius and I’ve heard nothing of his life that would lessen that description.”

        What I said, from early on, was “It wouldn’t bother me to acknowledge the contributions Bowie did make, if the commentary also included the dark and ugly side of his persona. It is the swooning, the attitude that being talented makes up for his reprehensible behavior, that offends me. It’s this whole grieving, “we have lost a great person” thing that hits a wrong note with me. There is no balance.”

        I am saying to admire the work if you really think it was all that great, but don’t elevate the PERSON to greatness.

        People have been pretty open to saying that Michael Jackson was a very disturbed person who did some very distasteful things and possibly some vile and criminal things, but he made some great music. That’s fine.

        And BTW, it is quite dishonest to dismiss Bowie’s admission of having sex with very young girls as nothing more significant than “words in an interview”.

        Hey, you love the guy so much he can do no wrong. To read your posts, if you met Bowie and he had a crack pipe in one hand and his business in the other, and said “Hey, dude, why don’t I take that fifteen-year-old daughter of yours back to my hotel room for a couple of hours” you would have been thrilled and sent her off with him, because after all YOU LIKE HIS MUSIC.

        And it’s only MUSIC. He was not curing cancer, or feeding the poor, or freeing slaves, or making any difference in anyone’s life beyond giving them some sounds they like to hear. He was an ENTERTAINER.

        Just write off my inability to really give a damn about David Bowie as part of my amazement at the power of pop culture where whatever “art” is produced is somehow merged with the person who produced it, gilding the “artist” with the same emotional reaction that the art itself generated and elevating the person to someone revered for himself. Me, I’d just say something like “He was a horrible person but sometimes he managed to rise above it and produce something worthwhile” and let it go at that.

      • Bob Eisenhower January 20, 2016 / 1:59 pm


        Actually, the words you wrote that spurred me to respond were, when Cluster called Bowie a musical genius “in our culture that matters more than personal integrity or decency. It is sad that celebrity shields some people from consequences for their criminal and immoral actions.”

        See, that states that their moral integrity – in your opinion – matters more than their genius. To which I stated that artistic genius always comes with issues of moral integrity.

        I do not care whether you like Bowie, that was never the point. The point was that if an artist’s morality override’s the value of their genius, there would be no artistic geniuses.

        Think about it this way, I don’t think Hitler’s horrible actions take away from him being probably the greatest orator of the Twentieth Century. Was Hitler perverted? No doubt. Was he a genius at emotionally reaching a populace? Inarguably.

      • Amazona January 20, 2016 / 2:13 pm

        Yet it is Hitler’s perversions that are his heritage, not his skill at demagoguery. Even after all these years, he is not remembered for this “genius” of manipulating peoples’ emotions, but for the horrible things he did. His ability to sway people emotionally is mentioned as a footnote, to explain why he was able to do what he did.

        I can’t imagine an American mourning his death, grieving that “we lost a great man, a hero, a GENIUS” because of awareness of his oratorical skills. No, he didn’t get a free pass on his atrocities because he had stage presence and some people even swooned over him. I think the only people who saw him as a hero are, or were, those who agreed with what he did. If you really want to try to salvage the silly Hitler comparison, you would probably have to take it to its logical conclusion and say you find him a hero worthy of adulation because of an element of “genius” you find in his oratory, and that that is more important to you than a world war and the Holocaust. You would have to say that you refuse to let what he did take away from your admiration for this one talent of his, which you personally describe as “genius”.

        Or you would have to agree with me, that the accomplishments that some find admirable do not compensate for bad acts, bad character, perversion or violence. Which is what I have been saying all along.

      • Bob Eisenhower January 20, 2016 / 2:42 pm


        Again, you missed the point. It was not that Hitler was a hero, it was that a person’s genius stands apart from their moral failings.

        You are absolutely right, had David Bowie started WWII and slaughtered Jews, he would not be remembered for his music. But Bowie was known for his music, was a genius at his music, and his moral failings does not take that away.

        I’m sure Bowie was the only rock star to sleep with teenage groupies, Oh, wait now, I think all of them did that.

      • Amazona January 20, 2016 / 4:53 pm

        1. I didn’t miss the point. I merely pointed out that it is a stupid point and does not hold up under analysis

        2. You missed MY point, which is that according to your stated beliefs you would be fine with your 15-year-old daughter being deflowered by a degenerate drug user twice her age because HE’S A FREAKIN’ GENIUS !!!

        3. Your whole argument seems to be based on your belief that Bowie is widely acclaimed as a musical genius, because, well, you think so. Those who don’t? I guess you would just say they are wrong, and in a Bob-centric pop culture worshiping world they probably are.

        4. And while Hitler’s demagoguery was quite effective, in his specific time and place, with his target audience, I have never heard it referred to as “genius” before. Perhaps you use the word quite loosely, to cover a wide range of accomplishment?

        5. “I’m sure Bowie was the only rock star to sleep with teenage groupies, Oh, wait now, I think all of them did that.” And no doubt once you have sorted out which of them you personally would designate as “genius” you would give those guys a pass, as well. Because what higher calling can any human being have than to entertain people? Damn right, they’re heroes.

      • Bob Eisenhower January 20, 2016 / 7:58 pm


        Wow. Simply wow.

        OK, down your list:

        1. “it is a stupid point and does not hold up under analysis”

        – sorry for its stupidity but you have yet to refute it. I beliebe Reba & Co. are not up to most peoples’ list of historic geniuses.

        2. “you would be fine with your daughter deflowered by Bowie”

        – yeah, that is a reasonable conclusion to draw. I point out that rock and roll is replete with stars sleeping with groupies and your interpretation is that I’m a-ok with my daughter becoming a groupie.

        3. “based on the belief that Bowie is widely acclaimed as a musical genius.”

        – I don’t know about WIDELY acclaimed. Only the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Rolling Stone Magazine and just about every critic but I get it, you no likee.

        4. “while Hitler was effective in his specific time and place, I’ve never heard if it referred to as genius.”

        – hmm, anyone else on B4V ever heard of Hitler called an insane/evil/whatever genius before? yeah, me either. Oh, yeah, that’s right, every intellectually honest person concede’s his amazing charisma and oratory skill.

        5. “no doubt once you have sorted out which of them you personally designates as genius get a pass”

        – the term “pass” is meaningless. A genius is a genius. They are two separate things. Another example, Cosby is disgusting but he was a comic genius that influenced a generation. That doesn’t mean I hope he gets a pass out of jail. The man is a monster. That is one thing. He was/is a towering figure in American culture. That is another.

      • Amazona January 20, 2016 / 8:36 pm

        Oh, get over it. The single thing I have learned from this bizarro exchange is that once you have taken a stand you will die on that hill, no matter how silly the topic may be.

        OK, if this is what it will take to shut you up:

        All geniuses are perverted degenerates
        All geniuses of the past were perverted degenerates
        Any future geniuses will, by definition, be perverted degenerates
        If all rock stars have sex with teenaged girls this means (1) all the girls were all under the age of consent and (2) that is OK if you consider them geniuses
        Once you have decided someone is a genius he or (I assume) she is above criticism for any act of perversion or degeneracy
        The only people who can be brought into a discussion of whether basic morality should be applied to everyone are people YOU have designated as geniuses—the opinions of anyone else regarding the degree of talent is immaterial
        You think David Bowie and Adolph Hitler were both geniuses
        Everybody, or at least everybody who counts, thinks both David Bowie and Adolph Hitler were geniuses
        Jerry Springer has probably influenced more people than Adolf Hitler—is he a genius?
        It would be OK with you for your 15-year-old daughter is deflowered by a degenerate drug addict if he is a qualified genius, qualified by you
        You are really really impressed by whoever is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and/or Rolling Stone.

        And you really really like to use the word “genius”—maybe because you think it makes your pop culture obsessions sound more intellectual.

        There, I think I covered it.

        But your passion for pop culture and your feeling that it is, somehow, as important as classical art, is just you. I find it superficial. That’s just me.

      • Bob Eisenhower January 20, 2016 / 11:00 pm


        I accept your apology.

    • Amazona January 19, 2016 / 12:36 pm

      Perhaps we need Affirmative Action in acting awards, maybe an AWB (Acting While Black) award.

      BTW, way to go, black actors, if your goal is to make sure that producers and directors think twice about hiring you, now that they know you will pitch wall-kicking hissy fits, mount meaningless “boycotts” of various award shows, etc. if you feel snubbed. Hey, actors have huge egos and will always feel unappreciated for their wonderfulness. Every actor who was NOT nominated for an Academy Award has felt that his or her brilliance had been overlooked. Fortunately, most have too much personal dignity, and/or awareness of how utterly shallow and stupid and whiny they would look if they made a big deal out of it, to have public temper tantrums. I can’t think of anything that will contribute more to segregation in movie making than making it clear blacks have to have special treatment.

      Will Smith and his wife lead lives of amazing luxury and security, and are famous and have been, at least to this date, respected and admired for their talent. Ditto for Spike Lee and Chris Rock. What they don’t seem to get is that this success is based on the willingness of white people to look at their talent and not just at the color of their skin, and to accept them and reward them for that talent. While most white people have not only accepted but embraced the concept of being color blind, we are learning that black people have not only not arrived at that level of development, they have made the conscious decision that they never want to, and that they intend to make skin color the primary factor in any act, any decision, and any reaction to anything.

      And yes, I do know that this does not apply to ALL black people, Some, like Clarence Thomas and Thomas Sowell and no doubt hundreds of thousands if not millions of average American citizens who happen to be black do not feel that way. But they are shouted down by the rest.

      • Bob Eisenhower January 19, 2016 / 2:57 pm

        All I can say is, thank God Leonardo DiCaprio is white. My lord, if there is any actor that understands the black man’s struggle in white Hollywood it is him.

      • Amazona January 19, 2016 / 6:35 pm

        Gee, I didn’t realize the role for which DiCaprio is nominated is an expression of “…the black man’s struggle in white Hollywood ,,” Here I thought it was about a man’s struggle for survival in the wilderness, without skin color ever being an issue. Good thing we have you to explore the subtext and nuance of the entertainment world.

      • Bob Eisenhower January 19, 2016 / 7:15 pm


        Dude. It was a joke. See, DiCaprio has famously never won despite many nominations. Were he black, the BLM-ers would say it was because he’s black. So, in a warped fashion, DiCaprio knows the plight of the black man, who will never get an Oscar because whitey.

      • Amazona January 19, 2016 / 11:47 pm

        So hard to tell when you are being serious. Look at your lengthy apologia for perversion, above. I find it hard to take a word of it seriously, but you keep repeating it and doubling down, going from associating talent and bad behavior to claiming that “You can stretch a crazytape from David Bowie to Michelangelo and it will hit every great (underscore “great” and not just “all”) artist and entertainer that ever lived.”


        I think the only thing you said that makes a lick of sense is “warped”

      • Bob Eisenhower January 20, 2016 / 12:52 am


        Let’s play a game. I’ll list some geniuses who were perverts in some judgmental way. For every 10 I list, you name 1. And all my names will be unquestionably genius level. No Rebas or Slim Whitman. Here’s the first 10.

        Bob Dylan
        John Lennon
        Paul McCartney
        Elvis Presley
        Michael Jackson
        Pablo Picasso
        Vincent Van Gogh
        Eduard Manet
        Leonardo da Vinci

      • M. Noonan January 20, 2016 / 2:01 am

        I think where we’re varying here is in the difference between flawed people, and people who wear their flaws like a medal. All sorts of non-geniuses, after all, engage in sin, too.

      • Amazona January 20, 2016 / 11:59 am

        It’s a completely stupid argument. We might as well be arguing about who would win, pirates or ninjas. Bob takes two positions: That degeneracy is part and parcel of “genius” and that all geniuses are or were degenerate, and therefore degeneracy in geniuses is not to be criticized. I pointed out that the biggest problem with this argument is the ability to bicker endlessly about which “artists” are TRUE “geniuses”. He has shown that I was right in this.

        Bob, like anyone else, has the right to make his own moral judgments and to apply moral relativity any old time he wants to. He can, in his own mind, say pedophilia is OK if committed by someone he has designated as a “genius”. He can construct elaborate scales of both “genius” (where he gets to draw the line between merely “talented” and absolute “GENIUS”) and his own hierarchy of perversion and degeneracy, in which “not being a saint” or “having an affair” equate to violence, pedophilia, statutory rape, and so on.

        Some of us disqualify people for honor if they are personally despicable, some don’t care if they happen to like the music, or whatever the “genius” has produced. Bob doesn’t care. Sorry if I invaded his personal fanboy space with my obviously unwelcome commentary that I think it is possible to honor the art without worshiping the artist.

        As for agreeing on “genius”, ain’t gonna happen. Whitney Houston’s voice made my ears bleed and if I ever commit a horrible crime (and am to be held responsible for it because I am not a “genius”) all you have to do to punish me is make me sit through a Celine Dion concert. If I ever inherit a Picasso, I will sell it before the sun goes down rather than have to live with it on my walls. I thought the movie “Avatar” was pretentious, derivative, garish, and clumsy in its effort to send a political message.

        So it is obvious that any effort on your part, Bob, to draw me into some silly game of “name that genius and his perversion and let me make the rules as we go along on both who is a genius and what is a perversion” is not going to get any traction with me.

      • Bob Eisenhower January 20, 2016 / 2:10 pm


        I see you moved from addressing me to trying to sell the crowd on how wrong you think I am.

        I agree there will always be disagreements over who is a genius and who is not but it would take a long time to find people who equate Reba – of whom I’m a big fan, btw – with Mozart or John Lennon.

        If you are going to name current artists, they have to be once that will be commonly remembered a couple centuries from now, as Beethoven, Mozart and Bach (and a smattering of others) are today. In music, I think that list will be Lennon, McCartney, Johnny Cash and Elvis (and a smattering of others).

  3. Retired Spook January 19, 2016 / 11:47 am

    I was never a big David Bowie fan, but I still have a 90 minute cassette that I recorded off The Eagles Greatest Hits 1 and 2 albums back in the 80’s. My 2005 Toyota Highlander is one of the last ones to have a cassette player, and that cassette is still one of my favorites. I know it’s going to wear our one of these days, just as my Beatles cassettes did, but at least it won’t be difficult to reproduce it on a CD. And, fortunately, my Highlander also has a CD player.

    • Amazona January 19, 2016 / 12:39 pm

      Wow—-my 1978 convertible also has a cassette player, original to the car. I never stopped to think about how long they were around.

  4. Cluster January 20, 2016 / 11:05 am

    Well this is heartwarming. The following is from a respected female Islamic scholar:

    Those whom you own’ (slavery) existed before Islam. It existed among all nations and countries, not just among pre-Islam Arabs. Anyone could trade in freeborn men and women. This is called the selling of freeborn people. It’s like the selling of human organs and trafficking in freeborn humans today. But when Islam emerged, it put (slavery) into order, by limiting it to legitimate wars between Muslims and their enemies. If we fought Israel, which is plundering land, and is an aggressor against people and their faith… Obviously, it is impossible that we will fight Israel, even though Surat Al-Isra in the Quran foretells this, and nothing is beyond the power of Allah… The female prisoners of wars are ‘those whom you own.’ In order to humiliate them, they become the property of the army commander, or of a Muslim, and he can have sex with them just like he has sex with his wives.

    Some opportunists and extremists, who only harm Islam, say: ‘I will bring a woman from East Asia, as (a slavegirl) under the status of “those whom you own,” and with the consent of my wife, I will allocate this woman a room in the house, and will have sex with her as a slavegirl.’ This is nonsense. This is not prescribed by Islam at all. Islam says that a woman is either a wife or a slavegirl. Legitimately-owned slaves come from among prisoners from a war, which is waged against the Muslims, a war to plunder land, a war against our faith, and so on. What some people are doing now is an aggression against Allah and against Allah’s legal texts in the Quran, and we must not be influenced by this at all.

    So Islam says that women are either “a wife or a slavegirl”.

    What a barbaric religion. The entire world should be denouncing this archaic, violent cult.


  5. Cluster January 20, 2016 / 11:37 am

    OK, so this is even better. Professional Riot Organizer (I didn’t make that up) Deray McKeeson of the black lives movement was on Colbert last night and this is part of their exchange:

    “I’d love to know what you plan to do now that you understand your whiteness a little better to dismantle it,” McKesson asked Colbert, adding, “Why do you think white people are uncomfortable talking about race?”

    “I can’t speak for other white. I feel guilty for anyone who does not have the things I have. And that includes, you know, black people or anyone because I am so blessed, that I think there’s always the fear that it’ll be taken from you,” answered Colbert.

    I have some ideas that may alleviate Colbert’s anxiety.

    • Amazona January 20, 2016 / 12:13 pm

      The fact that Colbert even gave this yahoo air time says volumes about Colbert and his values. I have a lot more than a lot of other people, but I don’t feel GUILTY about it, because it is not due to anything wrong done by anyone.

      I do feel blessed, and I do feel that I should share my good fortune with people in need. And I do. That is my PERSONAL obligation, as a human being, but it is not guilt. When I had less, I shared less. Now I share more. I don’t do it because of a superstitious fear that if I don’t it will all be taken away from me. I do it because it is the right thing to do.

      Colbert, on the other hand, is either consciously supporting and enabling black victimhood and violence or pandering to a demographic by giving it a public voice and the appearance of legitimacy and acceptance. Or both.

      Only people who put race and skin color above everything else would even THINK of something as silly as “understanding your whiteness” and then coming up with the bizarre concept of “dismantling” it. Maybe if this guy quit focusing on his skin color, and that of people around him, he could actually contribute something to the world besides hatred and violence and unrest and resentment.

      • Cluster January 20, 2016 / 12:32 pm

        Maybe if this guy quit focusing on his skin color, and that of people around him, he could actually contribute something to the world besides hatred and violence and unrest and resentment.

        Well yes, but then his power base and funding from Soros would dry up, and we can’t have that. It’s best to keep the racial divisions alive. There is a lot of money to be made and power to be gained.

      • Retired Spook January 20, 2016 / 2:02 pm

        It’s best to keep the racial divisions alive. There is a lot of money to be made and power to be gained.

        But don’t you think that, at some point, it has to evolve beyond demonstrations, riots, making rich, white Liberals feel guilty, etc., and on to an all-out race war? If there were a race war clock like the nuclear war clock, it would have advanced significantly during Obama’s tenure. He’s done more to divide people along racial lines than all the presidents in my lifetime put together. Eventually our society is going to reap what he’s sown.

    • M. Noonan January 20, 2016 / 10:55 pm

      That is it, though. People in the arts tend to talk about their struggle to make it but no matter how you slice it, there’s not much struggle in there. Some fail at it, to be sure, but those who make it tend to just be lucky…be in the right place at the right time and/or get to know the right person. This is not to say there is no talent involved – to credibly act out a part in a movie does take talent; so does singing well for those in music. But for those who make it there is a great deal of “hey, presto!” about it all – and a huge amount of marketing (and especially for the music industry). One day you’re a nobody, next your rich and famous. Trouble is, when you suddenly get rich and famous without actually having to do much, it can lead to feelings of guilt…and a desire to be relieved of this guilt. It could be relieved by donating the cash to charity and withdrawing from the stage – but where’s the fun in that? Better to just mouth whatever words are fed to you about how you agree with this or that SJW on the make…that way, you get to be morally superior and remain rich and famous at the same time.

  6. Amazona January 20, 2016 / 2:20 pm

    The racism that the Left steadfastly ignores is the rising and increasingly virulent anti-Semitism that is growing more open every day. Of course, this is a racism held almost exclusively by Leftists, so it is OK.

    “This recent Facebook post by Lisa Marie Mendez, a UCLA student who is also employed by the UCLA Medical Center, will give you an idea:

    “F**king Jews. GTFOH with all your Zionist bullshit. Crazy ass f**king troglodyte albino monsters of cultural destruction. F**king Jews. GTFOH with your whiny bullshit. Give the Palestinians back their land, go back to Poland or whatever freezer-state you’re from, and realize that faith does not constitute race.”

    Anyone think the charming Miss Mendez will lose her job over this? Anyone….?

    • Cluster January 20, 2016 / 4:07 pm

      Wow. It is a sad statement that those who consider themselves to be “who we are”, or who are on “the right side of history”, are increasingly becoming the most intolerant racist people in memory. And this is all brought to you by our leftist Democrat Party. Speaking of Democrats, they are simply just full blown anti gun, socialists now. Amazing how far off the rails that party has gone.

    • Amazona January 21, 2016 / 12:21 am

      Did you catch that “Crazy ass f**king troglodyte albino monsters of cultural destruction” riff? She has a pretty wide range of racist hatred there, Jews and white folks.

      Radical Lefties in this country used to have to tread lightly, but having Obama in the White House has given license to let it rip.

  7. dbschmidt January 20, 2016 / 10:30 pm

    From “the Shores of Tripoli” as the Marine Corps hymn goes. That is how long the war between Muslims and other faiths has been going on. If you do not believe it–read up on the Barbary Coast pirates.

    To end this once and for all will take a determination that I see in none today–running for office or not.

    • Amazona January 21, 2016 / 12:17 am

      I just finished a book about Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli pirates. It is interesting that you just brought this up, because it struck me as I read the book that I had not known the origin of the phrase “from the shores of Tripoli”.

      Garrison Keillor has a cat version of the Marine Corps hymn on his “Songs of the Cat” album in which the lyrics refer to “the shores of Katmandu” but that is another story altogether. (The man is a GENIUS )

      • Bob Eisenhower January 21, 2016 / 2:58 pm

        “The man is a GENIUS”

        He’s no David Bowie.


Comments are closed.