Connect with us

News

Roseanne continues to drive the left crazy

Published

on

Did you catch Roseanne last week? It was a pretty good one and the revival of the show has turned out to be one of the few network offerings that my (Democrat) wife and I both look forward to. Unfortunately for some of the more safe space oriented viewers, the show once again slipped in a joke that sent them diving for the fainting couches. USA Today reports that liberals are highly put off over a throwaway line having to do with illegal aliens.

Dan Connor learns that he’s lost the bid on a job, which he finds suspicious because his crew “works for union minimum.” When he inquires as to who wound up with the bid, he asks, “You’re not hiring illegals, are you?” Honestly, I didn’t even notice the line. It wasn’t even close to the being the best among the number of funny zingers peppering the show. But it certainly put Ruben Navarrette Jr. off his feed.

Last week’s episode of Roseanne preached tolerance toward Muslim-Americans. Yet it contained an intolerant slap at “illegals.”

Creator Roseanne Barr has tweeted that, in her sitcom reboot, she wants to “challenge every sacred cow in USA.” But she missed the sacred cow in the immigration debate — the fact that blue-collar workers who feel squeezed out of jobs by illegal immigrants often have only themselves to blame…

Dan blames the immigrants who “are so desperate they’ll work for nothing, and we’re getting screwed in the process.” Meanwhile, Roseanne insists the real villain in this drama is the client, who is “taking advantage” of cheap labor.

Everyone accepts that undocumented immigrants hurt working-class Americans by taking jobs and lowering wages. But Americans need to ask more questions.

This is one of those moments where I almost resent the company policy against using obscenity at Hot Air, because were we having this discussion on Twitter I would have begun this response with #FFS. It’s a TV show. It highlights many facets of normal American life using lovable, funny characters. It prompts discussions to be sure, but must you get so bent out of shape over it?

Also, Navarrette’s kindly characterization of illegal aliens as, “someone who is in the country illegally, who doesn’t speak English and has a sixth-grade education, and who can’t get legal status because both major political parties flunked the immigration issue” may indeed apply to some of the illegals seeking work in this country. But he conveniently ignores the fact that they are still in the country illegally and it’s against the law to hire them. But hey… don’t let pesky details such as those slow your roll.

Still, this episode demonstrates that the show is still hitting its mark and getting people talking at least. Which is why I found this announcement from ABC a bit confusing. Are they really going to extract the politics from Roseanne in the next season? (The Independent)

ABC has revealed that Roseanne will be pivoting from focusing on politics to family in its second season.

On Tuesday, Channing Dungey, president of ABC Entertainment told Variety: “I think that they’re going to stay on the path that they were on towards the end of last season, which is away from politics and towards family.”

The statement shows a change for the show which began its revival with a longstanding family debate between Roseanne (Roseanne Barr) and Jackie Conner (Laurie Metcalf).

Seriously, guys? Moving back to “the path they were on” in the previous season might not be such a hot idea. If you recall, the end of the run for the Conner family wasn’t exactly viewed as going out on a high note. That whole lottery story arc and the case of the mysteriously vanishing Becky made it seem like the writers were really struggling. Also, why do you think there was so much buzz about the return of Roseanne and the actual actress’ activities on social media? It was correctly pitched as entertainment focusing on a different worldview than the generic, social justice warrior storylines being cranked out in every other studio. It made for tension and debate while filling a void created by a plethora of shows which made it look like the entire country was full of families who came straight out of liberal, coastal enclaves.

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but the revival of Roseanne is ringing up serious ratings precisely because of the way it knocks around the ongoing political debates in the country without getting bogged down in them or preaching too much. If you abandon that, I somehow doubt your numbers will be going further up.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Lesley Stahl: Trump told me he attacks the media so that people won’t believe us when we report bad news about him

Published

on

By

I mean, obviously. A scandalized shiver runs through the room in the clip after Stahl says this but nothing about Trump is as transparent as his strategic goal in gaslighting people about “fake news.” Here’s something I’ve linked before, written two days after his inauguration and attempting to explain why Sean Spicer held that embarrassing “these were the biggest inauguration crowds ever!” press conference. Among the suggested reasons:

The point of carping about “fake news” isn’t to discredit the stories that are false, it’s to discredit the stories that are true. It’s the same as the “witch hunt” rhetoric about Russiagate, which has already produced five guilty pleas and 17 indictments. Any politician pinned to the wall by damaging news would kill to have a reservoir of suspicion about the media among their base that they can call on in a pinch to defuse that news. The goal isn’t necessarily to get people to disbelieve a story but to stoke enough doubt about the reliability of its narrators that the public will conclude there’s no way to know what’s truth and what isn’t. That’s the art of the gaslight. And the author I quoted above also anticipated that:

If ever there was a “tell” about Trump’s strategy, it was this tweet posted 17 days after he was sworn in. It’s one thing to claim that reporters are slanting their coverage to disfavor him, as that obviously does happen. It’s another to suggest that pollsters are engaged in willful fraud, en masse, to make him look bad by manipulating their data and willing to risk their professional reputations in doing so:

Everything that’s bad for him is “fake” and you shouldn’t believe it, and if you do you’re siding with Them over him. He’s not coy or in any way subtle about this. This is a guy, remember, who back in the day used to dial up reporters posing as his own PR flack to tout his wealth or his womanizing or whatever. Subtlety’s not his thing, certainly when dealing with the media. The reason there are murmurs in the room after Stahl tells her story, I think, is just because he’s willing to cop to the gaslighting openly, even to a member of the media itself. It’s all just a game, played to a strategic end. Why pretend otherwise?

In lieu of an exit question, something unrelated but fun. Apparently Trump’s inimitable Twitter style is, in fact, imitable:

“West Wing employees who draft proposed tweets intentionally employ suspect grammar and staccato syntax in order to mimic the president’s style, according to two people familiar with the process,” the Boston Globe’s Annie Linskey reports.

The details: “They overuse the exclamation point! They Capitalize random words for emphasis. Fragments. Loosely connected ideas. All part of a process that is not as spontaneous as Trump’s Twitter feed often appears.”

That’s GOP-style populism in microcosm. You’ve got one guy, the populist-in-chief, whose grammar and spelling are not the best but whose style is “authentic” and “relatable.” And then you’ve got a coterie of well-educated phonies and cronies mimicking him, pretending to be stupid in the same way because that’s what he wants and they’re convinced that that’s what the people want. No one has any incentive, political or financial, to be better. Sad!

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Trump Goes Scorched Earth on FBI Spy Campaign: ‘Follow the Money, the Spy Was Only There to Help Crooked Hillary Win’

Published

on

By

President Trump unleashed on the FBI’s infiltration of his campaign Tuesday evening in a pair of tweets.

The President said, “Follow the money!” the spy wasn’t there to find ‘Russian collusion,’ he was there to help Crooked Hillary win the election!

President Trump, please never stop tweeting!

President Trump lit up Twitter Tuesday evening after he tweeted what we are all thinking–the spies infiltrated his campaign for political purposes to help Hillary Clinton win the election.

Trump tweeted: If the person placed very early into my campaign wasn’t a SPY put there by the previous Administration for political purposes, how come such a seemingly massive amount of money was paid for services rendered – many times higher than normal…

Trump then slams Crooked Hillary: …Follow the money! The spy was there early in the campaign and yet never reported Collusion with Russia, because there was no Collusion. He was only there to spy for political reasons and to help Crooked Hillary win – just like they did to Bernie Sanders, who got duped!

The informant, Stefan Halper, was paid a total of $411,575 in 2016 and 2017 for work with the US government that included spying on the Trump campaign.

It was a lucrative business for Stefan Halper.

Now the Democrats are in spin mode.

They went from ‘there was no spy inside of Trump’s camp’ to ‘the informant was there to help protect Trump against the Russians.’

Former DNI Chief James Clapper is claiming embedding spies is “a standard investigative practice.”

Hillary Clinton wanted to spy on her political opponent and she accomplished her goal with help from Obama’s weaponized intel agencies.

President Trump is right; Spygate is worse than Watergate.

Earlier Tuesday, President Trump told reporters, “If they had spies in my campaign, that would be a disgrace to this country.”

Loading…

Leave a comment

Continue Reading

News

Shouldn’t Publix be forced to bake the Latin cake?

Published

on

By

Palette cleansers don’t usually come this sweet … if we’re still permitted to use that phraseology. A family celebrating the graduation of their son with high honors had ordered a cake made from the local Publix supermarket, using their online system to proudly display Jacob Kosinski’s status as a summa cum laude student. Just one problem, the online system responded — they don’t allow obscenities on their cake designs.

Shouldn’t they be forced to bake the Latin cake?

Cara Koscinski organized a graduation party for her 18-year-old son. For the occasion, she ordered a cake online from her nearest grocery store, Publix, which lets customers build their own cakes complete with a customized inscription, which they enter into a message box marked “cake message option.”

Carefully, she typed in the words she wanted on the cake: “Congrats Jacob! Summa Cum Laude class of 2018.”

Publix’s online system was unhappy with the word “cum.”

Good Lord. This is less about mandatory cake-baking than it is about cultural ignorance and classical illiteracy. We stopped teaching Latin as a compulsory subject in most schools decades ago, but this Latin phrasing in particular remains very common — used in all college and university graduations, and many high school degrees, too. Magna cum laude is understood by most people not to be a reference to a particular prophylactic, for Pete’s sake.

Publix apologized and returned the family’s money, which is as much as they can do for this particular error. It should remind them to pay attention to the special instructions in their own flippin’ system, however, especially when the customer calls to explain it to them in plain English. If Publix doesn’t want to make cakes for a particular special occasion or to proclaim a particular message, they shouldn’t be forced to do, and neither should anyone else. But is it too much to ask that they check out requests to ensure that they really object to it?

At least Jacob has a pretty clear understanding about the nonsensical levels of political correctness and ignorance he’ll encounter in the wider world. It might keep him more grounded than most other high school graduates entering colleges and universities this fall. In the meantime, let’s offer a Latin lesson for bakeries around the country, just in case they need to conjugate. In the language sense, that is.

Leave a comment

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Like us on Facebook

Advertisement

Trending

Close