pawatercooler.com

You’ve done your required reading, right?

I could probably write ten thousand words about the pair of NYT articles I’ve begged people to read, but I’ll keep my response to a few select points.

Digital Divide

Overall I find little fault with the article’s take on this issue. One simple graph makes that apparent. The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

Demographics

From what I can gather from various reports about the Romney strategy, there really was no messaging strategy. They decided to make one last go at the white-majority strategy, with catastrophic results. As pollster Kristen Anderson was quoted in the NYT piece, “Did you not see the census? Because there was one! And it had some pretty big news — like that America’s biggest growing population is the Latino community! Surprise, surprise! How have we not grasped that this is going to be really important?”

We’ve known about the diminishing white majority for some time. We didn’t just wake up one morning to a bunch of Latin-American immigrants and their children.

The excuse of the bad polling model not is a very good one. Not because it was impossible to have gotten that wrong, but because the strategy they decided to implement was a narrow, skin-of-your-teeth strategy that required every last thing to go right with no margin of error, even if they did manage to get the demographic weighting right, which they didn’t. There was no room in the Romney strategy for expansion. No room to persuade anybody, and the results show it.

Issues and Deal Breakers

Issues have some importance, though not all issues are created equal. The evidence that people really don’t vote exclusively on issues keeps piling up. I might even be persuaded to argue that issues are not even of primary importance. There are certain issues though –the deal-breakers– that deserve some attention.

In my opinion, abortion and the entirely fabricated birth control issue should not be deal breakers for most swing voters. (For the sake of brevity, I’ll leave it at that.) Same-sex marriage may for some folks be a deal-breaker, though I can’t imagine it’s too terribly many since Obama ran in 2008 on a tepidly anti-SSM position. At the very least SSM combines with abortion and birth control to create a social super-issue. I really don’t have a good answer to this, though I would like to point out something that rubbed me the wrong way. The above-mentioned Kristen Anderson was said to identify herself as “socially tolerant” rather than “moderate”, as “moderate” is something like “Satanic” to base conservatives. I object to this supposedly improved designation on the grounds that everybody else must be “intolerant” if they object to gay marriage. I suggest reworking this, perhaps to “libertarian”.

Immigration reform is a deal-breaker for Hispanics. No, it is not going to mean Hispanics will suddenly wake up to Republicanism. It means we get an opportunity to make our case. And yes, as the article suggests, Rubio qua Rubio will not save us.

Nobody Ever Gets Fired

Eric Telford:

“I think there’s a very incestuous community of consultants who profit off certain tactics, and that creates bias and inhibits innovation.”

I’ve been complaining about this for a long time. If major changes don’t occur in the wake of 2012, the GOP should just pack up shop.

More than Tech – The Tin Ear problem

Of course, the problem is much greater than just the internet and social media. (I think most of the subjects interviewed in the article would agree to that general proposition.)

A major component of the techie complaint is that the Romney team ran an old-style TV and traditional media campaign. This is true, but I would also argue that even on traditional grounds the Romney camp exhibited a lackluster showing. They seem to have regressed from the Bush-era campaigns. “Applebee’s America” was published in 2006, so long ago that its antiquated title sells short the wisdom within its pages. Democratic campaign operations have taken this wisdom and expanded upon it. It seems to be a remedial reading recommendation for the Romney campaign.

Something the NYT article doesn’t directly address is what I’ll call the “tin ear” problem. Do Republicans not understand how they sound?

How many times lately have you heard the term “balanced approach”? How many times have you heard a Republican competently respond to that phrase? Even Deval Patrick and Harold Ford Jr recently talked about “economic growth” on Sunday morning talk shows. Most astonishing to me is the jujitsu reversal Obama has managed on closing tax loopholes. This is a Republican issue! Yet somehow Obama has made Congressional Republicans defenders of everything that is wrong with the tax code.

Do they not understand how badly they are being beaten? The more I see this pattern of behavior, the more I am convinced that they really don’t get it.

Forget “rapid response”, there’s not even a competent slow-response team.

Sometimes I think our problem is so enormous it would be easier to teach chimpanzees to fly F-16s.

From, of all sources, the New York Times.

Yes, I know.  But they’re good.

“Can the Republicans Be Saved From Obsolescence?”
“Behind the Cover Story: Robert Draper on Why the G.O.P. Is So Slow to Adapt to the Digital World”

I plan on eventually commenting on these as I don’t quite agree with everything, and think a few things were overlooked.

And yes, these are absolutely required readings.  There will be a quiz afterward.

 

Baltimore Has Every Right Not To Send A Plump Cheerleader To Big Game

“Originally I would have loved to go to the Super Bowl, but at this point it looks like it’s not going to happen…. I can’t say I didn’t expect it, but at the same time, they owe that to me.”

So pontificates Courtney Lenz, a Baltimore Ravens cheerleader whom the team did not send to the Super Bowl.

Talk about carrying the massive chip of entitlement on her plump shoulder.

But fear not! A movement is underway by misguided souls (aka idiots) using social media to mount a campaign aimed at changing the team’s mind. One of the organizers even threatened to boycott the game, stating that because of this unconscionable incident, people want to burn their jerseys and no longer support the Ravens.

Great! Do it! Burn everything with a Ravens logo and stay home from New Orleans! One empty seat at the world’s biggest sporting event will most definitely teach those mean-spirited Ravens!

And, naturally, the national media has picked up Lenz’ cause, fawning over the “beauty’s” plight and unashamedly biasing their stories to reflect negatively on Baltimore — without, of course, looking at its side of the story.

Thank God we don’t have any problems in this country other than rallying around a cheerleader who admitted being somewhat overweight and who announced her intention that she was quitting at the end of the season.

So before we see a politically-correct decision by the NFL to pressure Baltimore to reverse itself, let’s set the record straight in this case:

1) The Baltimore Ravens employ 60 cheerleaders. The NFL allows only 32 from each team to attend the Super Bowl. Given America’s educational ineptitude, let’s say it another way: 28 cheerleaders, by definition, cannot go to the big game.  This isn’t a new rule, and every cheerleader in the NFL should explicitly know that.  That’s the job — take it or leave it.

2) Understanding the aforementioned rule, no one is entitled or “owed” anything. Get over it, Ms. Lenz.

3) The Baltimore Ravens, like every NFL team, has set forth criteria that must be met in order to be considered for Super Bowl duty.  In its opinion, Lenz came up short in some capacity. Is Lenz the only one with more than three years of service that isn’t going to New Orleans (according to her)? Yes.  Does that stink for her?  Yes. Does she deserve to go on that basis alone? No.

Thankfully, the Ravens don’t employ a tenure system whereby one is guaranteed benefits regardless of his or her performance — kind of like how our public education system and public unions are operated. And look at how well both of them are doing.

4) If Lenz’ weight was the deciding factor in the Ravens’ decision, so be it. Cheerleaders, like dancers and other entertainment professionals, must meet stringent physical standards. Not only is fitness critical to optimally performing the cheerleaders’ demanding routines, but no one wants to look at an overweight woman shaking her assets.  Call that ignorant, sexist, and chauvinistic.  Fine. But make sure you call it something else: reality. We may be a fat country, but we don’t want to look at corpulent cheerleaders. And that’s a fact.

It’s like portly pop singer Adele recently slamming Madonna and Lady Gaga for using skimpy, sexy outfits to sell their music. Maybe they do, but they also have fantastic voices and dynamic entertainment abilities. Adele also has great pipes, but she is an anomaly, as most singers are highly fit and often (but not always) wear provocative outfits. Adele can lament all she wants of the sensual nature of top female vocalists, but that is what the vast majority of fans — both male and female — not just gravitate to, but demand. Maybe if Adele cut down on her caloric intake and worked out just a bit more, she wouldn’t be so envious.

5) The Ravens’ decision on Lenz is discriminatory —and that is a good thing, exactly how it should be.  Discrimination has become a dirty word, yet it is an everyday part of life. We discriminate — another word for making a choice — all the time, from what clothes we wear to what kind of latte we order.  No one held a gun to her head ordering her to be a cheerleader, and the Ravens have every right to make personnel decisions as they see fit — no explanation warranted or necessary.

They may have chosen not to send her to the Super Bowl because she weighed more than they preferred. Or because she was ending her career as a cheerleader and they wanted an up-and-comer who would be continuing her service with the Ravens. Or because they didn’t like her attitude. Or because they thought she smelled.  Who cares? Lenz apparently wasn’t denied the Super Bowl because of color, creed or religion — and certainly not gender — so no one has the “right” to feel that that “entitlement” was wrongfully revoked. Not Lenz. Not her Facebook friends. And not the news media.

*****

If there is one underlying factor at the root of America’s demise, it is widespread sense of entitlement. It is a cancer that has become pervasive throughout all levels of society — not limited to just the “welfare dregs” that some so wrongly label as the biggest offenders. It is millionaire CEO’s looking for a government handout. It is billionaire sports team owners demanding their stadiums be built with taxpayer money. It is college graduates believing they are entitled to a six-figure salary right out of school. It is retirees thinking no reform in benefits is ever warranted. It is public sector unions rejecting generous 401k’s, instead demanding unaffordable defined-benefit plans. It is politicians and parties— Democrat and Republican, liberals and Tea Partiers — thinking they are entitled to the offices they hold, offended by anyone with the gall to challenge them.

And yes, it is cheerleaders who think they are “owed” a trip to the Super Bowl.

Go Baltimore!

Newsmax Link:

http://www.newsmax.com/Freind/Ravens-Cheerleader-Super-Bowl/2013/02/01/id/488462

 

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at FFZMedia@Gmail.com

 

 

 

Of course the constructive thing to do is take a deep breath and soldier on, … swinging pendulum or whatever.  The darker part of my psyche thinks that with this election we’re going to start seeing some of those irreparable consequences folks have been talking about, and that even if things swing back our way in four years there might not be much left for us to work with.

As for learning our lessons, I’m not holding my breath.  You’d have thought we would have learned something from Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle, but no.  And that’s not to pick on the Tea Party, because the Establishment ran losers too (-most notably, Mitt Romney).  Candidate quality is of utmost importance.

Since every other pundit in the universe has spun this election to fit his or her own pet Theory of Everything, I might as well too….

The winning formula that I have discussed at great length is to find a high quality conservative candidate who knows how to translate conservative ideas to non-ideological/moderate/middle voters.  We had pretty much the opposite of that in Mitt Romney, a mediocre candidate with a wobbly conservative history who had no chance of conveying conservative thoughts to moderate voters because he really didn’t understand them himself.  (This would be why I was for Pawlenty, self-professed “Sam’s Club Republican”.)

Agreed, Fred, we should entirely reject the notion that we must become Democrat-lite and either abandon or moderate every conservative position under the sun.  Everybody say it with me now — swing voters don’t vote on ideology.

The one policy exception I see is immigration.  I don’t like to play this card too often, but I’ll BLAME BUSH for screwing up the immigration issue.  The “comprehensive piece of sh*t” he cooked up was so bad that even notable immigration softie Bill Kristol didn’t like the bill.  That fight brought out the worst of people on both sides of the argument, and the real loser was the GOP –even after we nominated John McCain, king of comprehensive immigration reform.  Now Obama will get to be the guy who claims credit for delivering immigration reform — ironically after avoiding the issue in his first term, and while following a bizarre gun policy wherein a key element was that there would be a bunch of dead Mexicans.

Going forward, I’ll try to be as positive as possible.  Just understand that privately I’ll be shopping for miscellaneous firearms and lingering at Cabela’s.  And I am definitely interested in Fredistan.

I don’t know if you’ve read any commentary about the 2012 elections recently–heaven knows it’s hard to find–but from what I can tell, the only chance that Republicans have of ever winning another election for anything anywhere is to immediately run to the left of Debbie Wasserman Schultz on everything.

Let’s all just take some Nyquil and listen.

Conservatives are textbook manic depressives. Remember on November 5 when we were going to win everything–White House, Senate–everything? Then November 7 came and we, reassured by all the pundits on the left and right, became convinced that, conservatism and the Republican Party were so discredited that all elected Republicans should just give up their seats to the nearest Democrat?

Apart from just being insane, that kind of thinking betrays a complete lack of perspective. In 2001, Karl Rove talked about a permanent Republican majority. In 2004 George Bush won 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties in the US. In 2006 and 2008 we had back-to-back Democrat waves which supposedly irrevocably altered American politics. That lasted until 2010 when Republicans picked up 63 seats in the US House and finished election night with 30 governorships. That has all happened in the last 11 years of the 236-year history of the Republic.

Politics is a constant state of ebb and flow. We need to learn our lessons from 2012 (e.g., don’t nominate idiots for the US Senate, even in red states), correct the mistakes we can (e.g., if you nominate an idiot for the US Senate, make him drop out at the soonest possible opportunity using whatever shameless and/or barely-ethical tactics are necessary), and get ready for 2014. Everything else is just navel-gazing, and it’s not productive.

Case in point: if you’re not familiar with Morton Blackwell, he’s a guy you should get to know. He’s been involved in conservative politics longer than many of us have been alive, and he has this to say about the election of 2012.

I had a very exciting time at the Republican National Convention. My conservative allies and I all worked very hard in the presidential election.

When I woke up the day after the election, everything I had worked for appeared to be in ruins. An extreme leftist had been reelected president of the United States.

Some liberal Republicans immediately began to blame newly activated conservatives for the presidential defeat. I knew they were wrong. It was clear to me that these newly active conservatives would be the key to major future victories for conservative principles.

The day was Wednesday, November 4, 1964.

Perspective.

Read the whole thing.

Part 1 of 2 on obesity, bullying and the lack of shame in America

 

Think just because there’s a presidential election there aren’t other “big” issues? Believe that, and pigs can fly.

 

In fact, there is a large — huge, even — discussion eating at many Americans, the girth of which we are still trying to get our arms around.

 

What is this weighty issue that once again has been feasted upon by both sides?

 

The massive rate of obesity in America, and whether publicly calling attention to it, as well as obese individuals themselves, should be on the table.

 

The obesity issue got cooking again after overweight news anchor Jennifer Livingston of WKBT in La Crosse, Wisconsin, received a private email from a viewer.  Kenneth Krause called her weight into question, asking whether she considered herself “a suitable example for this community’s young people, girls in particular,” and adding, “Obesity is one of the worst choices a person can make and one of the most dangerous habits to maintain.” He ended by hoping that she would, “reconsider (her) responsibility as a local public personality to present and promote a healthy lifestyle.”

 

Since Livingston’s skin was surprisingly thin for someone in the public eye, she responded with a four-minute on-air editorial rebuking Krause.

 

But rather than giving viewers food for thought regarding her perspective on obesity, she left everyone wondering “Where’s the beef?” by barely weighing in on the issue at all. Instead she had a cow, ranting incessantly about bullying.  Yes— bullying. To the point where she even blubbered about how those struggling with sexual preference, skin color and even acne needed to stand up to bullying.

 

Bravo!  And since anchors often sink, that classic bait-and-switch tactic ensures Ms. Livingston a long political career should her day job not pan out.

 

However…

 

While many other media outlets are fawning over Livingston’s diatribe, Freindly Fire won’t serve up Grade A compliments so freely.  This is far too much at steak — stake, sorry — to allow her to duck the meat of the issue.

 

*****

 

First item on the menu are the facts:

 

1) Livingston received a private email, and chose to go public with it. Krause didn’t “bully” her, but offered his opinion to a public figure —which Livingston certainly is. She could have responded privately or simply ignored it. Getting nasty emails is part of the job.  Hell, Yours Truly gets pummeled so often — including occasional death threats — that a “bullying” email like Krause’s would be a dream. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the…kitchen.

 

And would someone please explain how a non-vulgar, non-threatening email can be even remotely considered bullying?

 

2) Every single aspect of the obesity epidemic needs to be discussed in an open, straightforward and respectful manner, regardless of whether feelings are hurt. That’s not bullying. It’s constructive dialogue, something quickly disappearing from the American scene.

 

3) The vast, vast majority of obesity cases — which includes nearly 40 percent of the

American adult population — are due to lifestyle choices, namely, immense overeating and a lack of physical activity. Only an extremely small percentage is related to medical conditions.

 

4) Let’s put a fork in the myth — perpetuated by so many obese people — that thyroid conditions are more prevalent than the common cold. Not only are they rare, but there are numerous medications which treat that condition, combating weight gain. Interestingly, Livingston never mentioned during her editorial that she had a thyroid condition. That morsel only came out after the story — and Livingston herself — became an international headline.

 

*****

 

 

In fairness to Livingston, it would seem that Krause formulated his opinion not knowing if she had a medical condition that contributed to her obesity.  While the odds were certainly in his favor that she did not, it would have been prudent to have addressed that question in his correspondence.

 

That said, as big as Livingston has become, given her appearances on national television shows, she is not the issue. Nor is Krause.

 

But before we get to the skinny on obesity, it is equally important to understand what this issue isn’t about — namely bullying.  Does it exist? Of course. Always has and always will. And reasonable efforts should be made to fight it. But “bullying” has become the catch-all phrase we use whenever someone feels jilted, offended, or bad about themselves.  The truly tragic part is that combating real bullying has taken a backseat to an all-appeasing political correctness running rampant throughout America.

 

From social media to the schoolyard, we’ve reached the point where children are no longer permitted to fight their own battles, instead seeing the authorities swoop in at the first sign of conflict.  Sounds nice, and sometimes intervention is necessary, but for the most part, that paternalism leaves children woefully unprepared for that pesky thing called The Real World.  And now we are seeing the results of crib-to-college coddling: our businesses are sanitized risk-averse petri-dish experiments for social engineering, wars are fought so as to not offend the enemy, and scoreboards are often turned off in youth sports so a team down by 5 goals doesn’t cry and quit.  But no worries! Everyone gets a trophy so all can feel good about themselves.

 

Maybe if America prioritized growing up and not out, we’d be a whole lot better off.

 

The real issue is how to gnaw away at the exploding obesity rate, an epidemic that is all-consuming.  Obesity-related medical costs are soaring (over twenty percent of all health care spending) as cases of diabetes, heart disease and stroke meteorically rise.  Health insurance premiums for everyone increase in order to subsidize the obese. Worker productivity is down. Even energy costs are up.

 

But perhaps most alarming, America’s young people are being de-sensitized to obesity and all its negative effects.  In what is fast becoming a “do-whatever-makes-you-feel-good” society, that makes for an extremely dangerous recipe.

 

And the best way — maybe the only way — to change that fatitude is shame, a value in thin supply.  Part Two will chew that fat on how shame, correctly utilized, can lighten the load on America’s youth.

 

As published in Delaware County Daily Times:

 

 http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2012/10/11/opinion/doc5076b94a3667d182779799.txt

 

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

 

 

 

 

 

I seem to recall Barack Obama saying something about not wanting to go back to the old policies that got us in trouble in the first place.

Bob Casey’s plan?  Go back to one of the old policies that got us in trouble in the first place!

Namely, putting people into mortgages that they otherwise couldn’t get without government intervention.

Kinda the definition of insanity, isn’t it?

(Don’t worry… they’ll get it right this time!)

What is the biggest threat to our security?

 

1)      Al-Qaida

2)      Illegal immigration

3)      Joe Biden’s mouth

4)      Gas grills on decks

 

Gas grills, naturally.

 

In an act that can only be described as prescient, Avalon, New Jersey burned its competition by being one of the first to protect its citizens from the menacing grill crisis.

 

It outlawed propane grills on decks.

 

No joke, as the Borough Council ordinance reads:

 

“Propane gas grills are not permitted on any deck, under any building overhang, or within five feet of exterior wall. (Natural gas, charcoal, and electric [grills] are allowed).”

 

Avalon beachgoers should feel privileged, as that regulation undoubtedly keeps them safe from the greatest pandemic we face as a nation: the destructive force of exploding gas grills.  How grave is the threat? The National Fire Protection Association claims that “more than 6,100 accidental fires and explosions occur [each year] due to the improper use of grills.”  A conservative estimate is that 60 percent of America’s 114 million households own gas grills (that’s 69 million gas-grillin’Yanks). So the accident rate is a whopping — wait, we need a bigger calculator — 8.84 x 10^-5, or, in layman’s terms, .009 percent.

 

So let’s get this straight. We’re passing laws to protect the .009 percent of the idiot population who can’t use a gas grill properly?

 

Interestingly, it’s a law that only applies to renters — not homeowners. So therefore, is it safe to say that all renters are morons and homeowners grill-savvy? Or is it to prevent renters from lugging their 100 pound grills on vacation with them? (Doesn’t everybody do that?)  Or, as is likely the case, is it government intruding into where it does not belong?

 

If a homeowner wants to allow a renter to grill, that should be his prerogative.  If not, then lock up the grill.  And if, Lord forbid, there is an unfortunate event, that’s why God made homeowners’ insurance. But government should not be needlessly interfering in the private affairs of citizens.

 

What makes the situation so explosive is how such laws are selectively enforced. Should a house be subject to a noise complaint, the police, upon noticing a grill on the deck, can order its removal and levy a fine — with no action taken against every other house on the block sporting a deck grill. The end result of such blatant favoritism is disdain for the law and the agents who enforce it.

 

While it would be nice to think that such a law is an isolated intrusion on our freedoms, that’s not the case.  Ego-driven government officials seem to be the norm, deliberately placing laws on the books that can shut a business down or make one’s life pure hell for virtually any reason. Consider:

 

-Ordinance 7:2-5.10 prohibits the alteration or repair of any building on any Sunday in the summer. While vacationers surely desire peace and quiet, should government have the right to tell a homeowner that he cannot work on his home?  Many houses are rental properties that must be up to code in order to be put on the market.  Since most of their owners work during the week, the only time they can make necessary repairs are on the weekends.  But in Avalon’s view, if you can’t make it down the shore on Saturday, you’re out of luck.

 

A cynic might think that policy smacks of collusion between the local government and shore contractors.

 

And naturally, there is an exception for —you guessed it— Avalon itself, as the ordinance does “not apply to limited projects of the Borough of Avalon.”  Nothing like being above the law.

 

But it doesn’t stop there.

 

-An Avalon homeowner passed up an opportunity to have a new garage built for free.  His existing garage was adjoined to his neighbor’s, who was razing both his house and garage to build new structures. The builder calculated that it was more cost-efficient to level both garages rather than dismantle just one.

 

So why pass on such a lucrative offer?  Because his washer and dryer are in the garage, and if he were to demolish the building, he would not be permitted to reinstall them (they are grandfathered).  Why is Avalon telling a homeowner—and yes, a taxpayer— what he can and can’t do in his own garage?  It isn’t to prevent a “bungalow” situation, since that arrangement is already outlawed in the zoning laws. So what then, other than to simply maintain the ability to penalize an individual or business at will?

 

We may have won the Cold War, but too many government officials have since forgotten what we were fighting to protect: freedom from governmental tyranny.

 

*****

 

One of the greatest threats to America is the overabundance of regulations governing every aspect of our lives, and worse, the selective enforcement of those laws.  Too many have been conditioned to just accept the “inevitable,” because, after all, many of those laws “aren’t really enforced.”

 

But then why have them on the books at all?

 

While reasonable discretion can and should be applied to each individual case, selective enforcement opens the door to an oppressive government — a door that rarely closes.

 

And it has pitted citizens against each other.

 

Don’t like your neighbor? No problem. Just rat him out. With thousands of obscure laws on the books, he’ll always be guilty of something. The ultimate irony is that when a society pits people against each another, utilizing an endless web of laws, it becomes a lawless nation.

 

The way to maintain stability is to enforce laws uniformly and without prejudice.  If Avalon chooses to keep a law as stupid as prohibiting grills on decks, then it should enforce it across the board, no exceptions.  But no one should ever get cited just because a neighbor wants to “get him.”

 

Ronald Reagan once stated, “Whenever…

 

Read the rest at Delaware County Daily Times:

http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2012/06/20/opinion/doc4fe1c18d44789066128527.txt

 

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 If it talks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it must be….human?

Such is the quacky rationale of many activists as they hoot about animal-cruelty (including and especially all of us who callously continue our non-vegetarian ways), all the while grousing about “inhumane” treatment.

 

Perfect logic from Vegan Central.

 

Of course, they conveniently overlook that “inhumane,” by definition, can only apply to humans, and animals don’t have the same rights afforded people. Common sense tells us that outright animal cruelty, such as when Michael Vick ran a dog-fighting ring, is, and should be, against the law.  But doggone it, when we start listening to fanatics who want to outlaw everything related to consumption of animals, we become sheep being led to slaughter.

 

While these extremists may be irrational, they’re not dumb. They target areas with liberal populations, self-righteous legislatures, and city councils that think banning things is their paternalistic responsibility.   Nowhere have these folks been more effective than the People’s Republic of California, where for years restaurant patrons have been harassed for their love of certain delicacies.  The animal rights folks claim their mission is simply one of education, yet restaurant owners feel threatened and their customers intimidated.

 

And with good reason, because the fanatics have just scored a “whopper” of a victory as one of the all-time greats is set to be outlawed —statewide — on July 1.

 

So what was their “beef” this time? Liverwurst?  Tripe?  Nope.

 

Or was it Right Whale, whose extraordinarily tender meat tastes even better with the knowledge that there are only about 300 of these beasts left in the wild?

 

No, the big “flap” in the Golden State was regarding foie gras, which is French for “really, really good food”.  According to the non-carnivores, the methods employed in making the delicacy (which has been enjoyed since ancient times) are—yes, you guessed it— “inhumane.”  The duck (or goose, if you’re in France) is fed a constant diet so that it fattens up and its liver swells to several times its “normal” size.  The animals are then “put out to pasture,” being sent to finer culinary establishments so they can end up in our stomachs. (Kind of “winging” it here, but the fact that the duck’s liver lands so close to our livers really has a poetic, full-circle effect.)
So what’s the big deal?

 

If you look at the facts, not much.  If you buy into deliberate misinformation, a lot.

 

Like most everything, there is more than one way to skin a duck, so let’s look at the real picture.  Ducks have no gag reflex, so the “force-feeding” is not painful. Sure, it looks bad when you see the video of the feeding tube inserted into the throat, but I saw humans doing that all weekend at the Jersey Shore.  Interestingly, both were intaking grain-related products: cornmeal for the duckies, and grain spirits for the humans.  Neither seemed to mind.

 

Speaking of New Jersey, a fascinating point comes to mind.  Every spring, birds making one of the longest migrations on the planet stop on the shores of the Delaware Bay.  Why?  To gorge themselves on the eggs of horseshoe crabs. Since their journey originates at the southern tip of South America and ends near the Arctic, they need a tremendous amount of energy.  Unfortunately for the birds, there aren’t too many service plazas along the flyway.  Armed with this intuitive knowledge, our aviary friends eat before they start their trip.  A lot.  Ditto for the stopovers. 

 

Interestingly, something happens to these birds as they gorge themselves for the expedition.

 

Their livers swell to several times their “normal” size.

 

Given the “inhumane” nature of such an event, I hereby call on all horseshoe crabs to stop laying eggs on the beach.  It should also be illegal for birds to engage in any such feeding activity, and offenders should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  Enforcement of this policy guarantees that the problem will be solved, and these migratory birds will never have to deal with large livers again.

 

They will all be dead from starvation.

 

*****

 

Let’s try looking for consistency from the “vegetarian outreach” side of the debate. (As an aside…

Read the rest at Philadelphia Magazine:

 http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2012/05/31/chefs-foie-gras-menu-cowardly-cowards/

An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

 

 

 

 

As published in Philadelphia Magazine’s Philly Post:

 http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2012/05/07/obama-full-credit-killing-osama-bin-laden/

 

Coaches aren’t on the field, but they get credit for success.  Why the double standard from the Right?

 

If you’re wondering why America is no longer able to make even the most basic, common-sense decisions, there are two simple answers: extreme partisanship and willful hypocrisy.

 

Forget the desire to seek truth.  Many on the Right and Left are simply incapable of seeing the real picture, even if it’s smacking them in the face.  And those rare souls who do rise above partisanship to tell the truth are viciously discredited by their own, branded “traitors” and “sellouts.”

 

The incessant calls for “bipartisanship” are nothing more than pure campaign posturing. Once the election is over, the personal attacks begin anew, demonizing adversaries for miniscule partisan advantage.

 

Nowhere is this more apparent that the Right’s nonstop barrage against President Obama for his “politicizing” the killing of Osama bin Laden — an attack, by the way, that will backfire as it repels swing voters from the GOP and pushes the Prez closer to re-election.

 

There are countless articles, commentaries and videos (including a particularly apalling one from Veterans For  A Stronger Future) that bash Obama on everything related to the bin Laden raid.  Outside of throwing red meat to the far Right (who obviously aren’t voting for Obama anyway), this misguided strategy is destroying whatever credibility the Right may have had. Some common themes we are hearing include:

 

-Obama deserves absolutely no credit for the raid that killed bin Laden;

 

-It is George W. Bush who really should be praised for nailing bin Laden (as Obama did nothing at all to contribute to the hunt — he was just a lucky guy who happened to be on watch when the terrorist was located);

 

- It is the Navy SEAL’s who deserve one hundred percent of the credit, as they are the “real heroes” who did the job (see Point One);

 

-The President never thanked the SEALs or the intelligence community, instead taking all the accolades for himself because he used the word “I” in a few sentences;

 

-A Republican would never politicize anything about high-profile killings, war, or terrorism — especially in front of a foreign leader.

 

Yeah, good thing George Bush never politicized Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on terror, the capture of Saddam Hussein, WMD’s, or anything related to national security.  And not to throw a bone to the conspiracy theorists, but since national security/war on terror was, literally, the only issue in which Bush and the Republicans held an advantage over the Democrats (after 2004), didn’t it seem like there was a “non-specific color-coded heightened terror alert” every other week, especially right before elections? 

 

Of course Bush politicized security matters. How many videos do you need to show the truth?  Just Google it.  And, for the record, Bush even politicized the terror issue in front of a foreign leader (the Iraqi Prime Minister).  But to those on the Right, those things are simply not acknowledged, conveniently overlooked, or hypocritically justified.  Which is why they can’t make inroads winning the hearts and minds of The Great American Middle.

 

Speaking of hypocrisy, please explain how Bush should be credited with the bin Laden killing (he put the intel apparatus in place, we are told), but Obama should not. A) Most intelligence analysts uniformly agree that the search for bin Laden actually decreased under Bush, as assets were pulled from that mission and re-directed to Iraq, Afghanistan and the general war on terror. B) Obama made the search for bin Laden a priority.  C) He ordered the raid. D) He is Commander-in-Chief. Bush had eight years to get the job done, and didn’t.  Obama did. What am I missing?

 

And because The President wasn’t physically carrying a machine gun into the compound means that he had nothing to do with the raid? So a coach should get no credit when he guides his team to a Super Bowl because he isn’t on the field? Parents don’t deserve recognition for their children’s academic performance because they aren’t in the classroom taking the test? CEO’s shouldn’t be lauded when profits are up because they weren’t on the widget line?

 

And would the same “Obama wasn’t physically there” litmus test be used if Bush had been in office when bin Laden was killed? Not a chance.

 

Make no mistake about one thing. If U.S. personnel were killed or captured, or the helicopters crashed into a Pakistani house, you can bet the ranch the President would have been crucified by the Right for incompetence.  You can’t have it both ways.  He either owns the mission or he doesn’t.

 

Were the SEALs courageous and competent? As always, yes. Are they unknown heroes?  You bet.  But let’s keep the emotion in check here.  We don’t live in a military dictatorship. We are led by a civilian president elected by the people; the military — even the elite SEALs — work for him. Period. The SEALs didn’t go in until expressly authorized by the President, and, while that decision now seems like a no-brainer, it was infinitely more complicated and risky than the general public will ever know. The nation (and civilized world) owes a debt a gratitude to the SEALs, and they deserve high honors for their precision work.  But without question, the bulk of the credit must go to their leader. 

 

And the President did, in fact, congratulate and heap praise not just on the SEALs, but on everyone who helped make the mission a success. Let’s not forget that the SEALs didn’t find bin Laden; without good intelligence agents, there wouldn’t have been a raid.

 

And for a President who doesn’t deserve credit, here’s a pretty big irony.  Barack Obama and his family will, for the rest of their lives, have a literal target on their backs from bin Laden supporters.  Paybacks are a bitch, and as we have learned firsthand, Muslim fanatics redefine “patience.” Obama will always wonder if his house will be car-bombed, or a person at a speaking engagement (post presidency) has a bomb strapped to his chest.  Or if his children and grandchildren are safe. For all the dangers the SEALs faced, they will never have those worries. When their missions end, they’re done.  Not so for the President.

 

For a guy whom the Right tags as anti-American and in bed with the Muslim community, ordering the assassination of radical Muslims’ ultimate hero doesn’t exactly fit that mold. 

 

*****

 

Obviously, the Right does not have a monopoly on hypocrisy.  It’s just more pronounced because Obama currently occupies the Big Prize.  It was no different when Bush was in charge, as the Left refused to give him credit when the Fort Dix Six were captured, avoiding a mass killing spree.

 

I was a consistent critic of W. (and by no means am I on the Left), yet I gave him total credit for that security victory, since it happened on his watch. Only fair, even though Bush did not physically participate in the operation.

Archive link: http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/home/item/222-the-“fort-dix-six”-is-all-about-illegal-immigration

 

Mitt Romney should, but won’t, have the guts to chide those who are attacking Obama for something that any President would do — take credit for removing the most dangerous thug in the world from the living. Regardless of Obama’s stances on any other issues, the decapitation of al-Queda by whacking bin Laden stands as a mammoth achievement.

 

As Commander-in-Chief in the world’s most public job, Barack Obama will be receive the greatest amount of credit, and deservedly so.  And for anyone who doesn’t like that, one basic question: Would you rather have bin Laden still walking among us?

 

 An accredited member of the media, Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com