Identity Politics Fouls American Melting Pot

Given the range of human behavior and perception, it's a social and romantic myth that “opposites attract.” In fact, it's likely a subconscious tendency for people to associate with others based upon superficial commonalities like ethnicity. All value judgments aside, its root is likely an ancient survival instinct. (Something that has nothing to do with hate or racial discrimination.)

This impulse emerges from one's family unit, building outward to larger circles of shared interests via common language and cultural experiences. In turn, these “specialized” factions form the matrix of vibrant communities from the local to the state level and beyond.

Still, there always remains some psychological tension between the individual desire for independence—versus any group's desire for uniformity. However, even in the case of identical twins, diversity is still seen in distinctive personalities. Thus, achieving a balance between all of these forces—where difference is as respected as sameness is embraced—is the foundation of any healthy and prosperous society.

In the modern age, freedom of thought, lifestyle and religious expression defines the West. Specifically, this is why America is the envy of the world: why people from distant shores—and diverse backgrounds—flock to live here. Yet, today, the vital mechanism that makes all of this work is under constant attack by Democrats' progressivism. Their words imply: 'come to the U.S. and impose your origin country's values even when they diametrically oppose our traditions'. Hence, Garrett Hardin, Ph.D. (1915 - 2003), ecologist and social scientist, cautions:

“Diversity within a nation destroys unity and leads to civil wars. Immigration, a benefit during the youth of a nation, can act as a disease in its mature state. Too much internal diversity in large nations has led to violence and disintegration. We are now in the process of destabilizing our own country. The magic words of destabilizers are ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’.”

Positive differences—same as new ideas—remain wonderful, and necessary things. Indeed, both add “spice” to any human interaction or evolving relationship. But, identity politics preys on those dissimilarities, exploits them for the ruling class's self-centered political ends. So, liberals subtly promote their Big Lie of the “bad American”: the dominant culture (read: white folks) perpetually victimizes minority groups because of their differing external appearance. Scurrilously, Democrats imply a deep-seated intolerance in our daily lives that does not exist. To add insult to injury, they pretend that those they claim to champion are somehow helpless or inferior. In reality, anyone can realize the American Dream with hard work, and a little luck.

Capitalism is the basis of America's economic strength—embodied by the good, but often stylistically mercurial President Trump. For context, his attitude of U.S. victory contradicts that of another recent political upstart: socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Unlike Trump's motto of “America First”—based upon private sector investment and expansion—Sanders peddles big government intrusion as the “solution” to society's woes. In retrospect, as a harbinger of failure, was it any surprise that Bernie was swept into office during the 110^th session of Congress: when polarizing Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) became House Speaker, and the legislature fell under total Democratic control?

Since that time, what of the nation's metastasizing debt—nearing 20 trillion under liberals' (and RINOs') inept ministrations? Does any clear-thinking person still buy the Washington swamp's narratives? For one, President Ronald Reagan certainly didn't. Back on August 12, 1986 he said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”

Absurdly, “helpful” progressives act as if all non-whites have a built-in ax to grind because of their minority status. So, if something goes wrong for them, fault is always “elsewhere”. In fact, identity politics only gains traction because liberals, via the MSM, manipulate the low-information voter into believing he or she is aggrieved. As a case and point, if this is not so, why are they so busy fracturing the country over mute and harmless Confederate statues—otherwise completely ignored for generations?

Democrats' fiery rhetoric is stirring America's melting pot to the boiling point. Most eloquently, Suzanne Fields of The Washington Times recently wrote:

“Now we’re embroiled in domestic wars of a different kind and the younger generations challenge democracy from within, even marching against free speech, making the protection of the fragile First Amendment ever more difficult.”

When free speech is repressed—as it is now by unhinged leftist mobs—an angry and frustrated environment encourages the generalized use of fists rather than words. Remember, these purveyors of alienation want chaos, open borders, lawlessness, and most of all, tribalism. What's absolutely alien to them is the American motto e pluribus unum: out of many, one. The underlying reason for all of their destructive vulcanization is simple: a happy electorate votes for Republicans.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

Tarnished Oscar Gold

“It's a political time, so I imagine the Oscars will look exactly like your Twitter of Facebook feed. Why should we ignore for three hours what we're talking about 24 hours a day?” – Lin-Manuel Miranda, “Hamilton” creator, in a guest column for the Hollywood Reporter on February 20, 2017

At the nexus of art and commerce, the movie business has always been about escapist entertainment. Today, that dynamic is severely undermined by actors making polarizing statements during awards shows. Naturally, everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion. Yet, sometimes it's wiser to keep a controversial view private if it's likely to alienate the public. After all, ticket buyers keep the whole industry afloat. Isn't this lack of civility equivalent to biting the hands that feed them?

Recall, the purpose of the Academy Awards is to celebrate the practitioners of the dream factory. Perhaps the best representation of this was Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers gliding across the dance floor in their “Top Hat” (1935) finery! Watching them, the audience could briefly forget about their Great Depression troubles. This Sunday, the glitterati dressed in designer duds for a three-hour spectacle should behave accordingly. Why then does Lin-Manuel Miranda encourage real-life banality to intrude?

Would someone read Lin-Manuel his Miranda rights: swear him—and his fellow travelers in La-La Land—to blissful silence just this once? Honestly, does anyone go to the theater to be lectured to? Historically, as today, people go to movies for many reasons: for vicarious experience, to learn something new, to have an emotional outlet or simply to be distracted from our social ills. None of the above include to feel irritated. Therefore, the Silent Majority speak loudly—with their feet—by avoiding the cinema. Likewise, the TV ratings for the Oscars has also fallen to the lowest point since 2008. Who isn't weary of the vitriol—the perpetual airing of grievances and political causes—by the rich and famous? And why should these truly fortunate complain, or target fellow Americans for holding a different perspective?

The statistics of erosion tell the tale. Only 9.7 percent of the population or 27.3 million people (read: 3 percent of adults in 2017) still go to the movies weekly. Compare that to 80 million or 65 percent of the population who went to the movies at the same rate during the Astaire-Rogers era. Of course, high cost and a plethora of modern options are contributing factors to the titanic decline. And exactly how does A-list divisiveness help?

In skilled hands, any successful movie message is accomplished with subtlety and persuasion. Even though the medium is fictional, the heart and the intellect are authentically moved. Actors function as living props in the enterprise of telling a story. Their talents are based on conveying other people's words. Without the safety net of a script to parrot, these professionals at make believe are lost. Ironically, they come off as hollow when they ad-lib. Thus, it's clear why their turned off viewership has dwindled—and their do-gooder intentions fall on their cradled Oscar's deaf ears.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

Journalist, Not Biased Hack

“Objectivity is dead, and I’m okay with it.” – Lewis Wallace, former “Marketplace” reporter

The above is the title of his essay published on the website, Medium. As this attitude negates Wallace's “impartial” role as a journalist, he was ultimately terminated by his employer.

Recall, the purpose of journalism is to convey current events impartially with facts. Any unbound person—unwilling to exercise fact-based dispassion—can't be a legitimate journalist. Instead, that's a de facto activist: a propagandist with a press pass.

Facts are essential, intractable things. They remain elemental to authentic journalism. Specifically, facts anchor news stories to reality. When correctly utilized, they greatly aid journalistic truth-telling. 'Just the facts, ma'am'—for good reason.

Journalism's traditional tenets don't impede anyone with skill from getting their writerly point across. Wallace finds himself in the unemployment line solely for willfully violating a professional taboo. Demonstrating the rank intolerance he rails against, he writes:

“We need to admit that those who oppose free speech, diversity and kindergarten level fairness are our enemies”.

How is it not fascism to demonize others simply for holding a different political perspective? Is it not hypocritical, and childish, to condemn another in the name of Wallace's militant “fairness”? To paraphrase Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, a bad judge to the law is equivalent to the journalist disregarding objectivity. They are incongruent and cannot coexist in the same sphere.

Without facts, journalism rapidly degrades into valueless, gelatinous goo. Reporting becomes untrustworthy and indistinguishable from fiction. Hence, the Orwellian specter of today's “fake news”. The false is peddled as true: witness the absurd claim of Trump's “threat to invade Mexico”. (He didn't, per CNN he actually offered help.) This Associated Press narrative was mindlessly disseminated far and wide as truth. Is this American journalism or an old fashioned telephone game from Mr. Wallace's kindergarten class?

Beyond the editorial page, neutrality remains a job requirement. Lewis Wallace confused a First Amendment right of self-expression with his professional duty. His employer acted appropriately because he wouldn't (read: another pesky fact for this “victim” to misconstrue and grouse about).

As with everything he advocates, Wallace only has himself to blame. This is the fallout of competing interests—and the healthy expression of a difference of opinion.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

No Home for Drunk Illegal

“We are devastated. My children are crying, but we know there's nothing more we can do.” – “victim” Giovani Jimenez of Fredericksburg, VA

Like her “devastated” hubby—Virginia squatter Wendy Uruchi Contreras, 33—is illegal. Apparently, this menace can't go from point 'A' to point 'B' without violating numerous American laws. For her misdeeds, this sauced Spaniard—ironically an immigrant rights activist for CASA—inadvertently turned the spotlight of hypocrisy on herself. Thus, her own undocumented status was exposed. She was arrested last year, pleaded guilty to DUI, and is subsequently being held in custody. Today, her deportation is imminent. Sorry Charlie: too bad, so sad! Welcome to Trump's America.

Is it any wonder why this lawbreaker couldn't get the laws of this land to suddenly work for her? After an overlong six-month process (including denied last-ditch appeals), Uruchi is to be repatriated to Madrid forthwith. (Symbolically, an appropriate capper to Donald Trump's rapid-fire first week as a newly minted law and order president. Happily, like Ronald Reagan, but on steroids!)

Oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth in casa de Uruchi-Jimenez. One feels a measure of sympathy for their American-born children, Alex, 13, and Lucia, 7. Yet, overriding this consideration is the fact that both parents intentionally flouted our legal immigration process. The couple then chose to procreate. A ripple effect of poor choices, ultimately resulting in this family's geographic dissolution. Still, the cause—and the fault—remains squarely with them.

Knee-jerk liberals make the contrived argument that America's immigration laws are draconian: “anti-family unity” or somehow contrary to the “best interests of children”. Well, what if this lead-footed lush had killed someone else's child? Such an act would permanently—and irrevocably—end another person's God-given right to exist; shattering that family's unity. What of the rights of law-abiding citizens—our innocents and their loved ones?

For eight years, golfing ex-president Obama turned a blind eye. Even worse, he abetted the rising body count (exemplified by record-breaking Chicago: the nation's murder capitol for five years of his presidency). A cause of this disgrace was highlighted in Mr. Trump's August 2016 speech in Phoenix:

“Since 2013 alone, the Obama administration has allowed 300,000 criminal aliens to return back into United States communities. These are individuals encountered or identified by ICE, but who were not detained or processed for deportation because it wouldn’t have been politically correct.”

So much for longstanding progressive “sympathy” for actual victims of illegals' crimes like Kate Steinle. Cry baby ideologues make subject-changing excuses for them by demonizing the rest of us as “intolerant”. Therefore, these “do-gooders”—philosophically twisted like pretzels around their own axles—are not to be believed, or trusted. For they are destructive harbingers of leftist chaos: advocating the twin scourges of open borders and illegals' illusory rights. Indeed, the characteristic defining the polarized Obama years was their subversive efforts to aid the torrent of violence, drugs and lawlessness.

Our democratically-created laws are fair. They have one purpose: to preserve life. Within our sovereign boundaries, they protect men, women—and most of all—children. The heartbreaking number murdered at the hands of this invading underclass is unknown.

In 2002, Uruchi arrived on a 90-day visa waiver program. So, she's already been a de facto criminal for fifteen years. Moreover, by what right did this speeding drunkard endanger public safety in 2016? Someone with neither legal standing nor moral fiber has no automatic right to reside in our country. Naturally, her brood is exempt from her wrongdoing. They can return here when they reach maturity. As adults and legal citizens, America will graciously extend them the welcome mat.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

Audiences Abandon Hateful Hollywood

“I sincerely apologize for my lapse of judgment, ... for causing such dismay and heartbreak to my fans. … Regretfully, I did not take into consideration that my performing for the [Trump inaugural] concert would actually instead be taken as a political act against my own personal beliefs and be mistaken for support of Donald Trump and Mike Pence.” – cowed Broadway songbird Jennifer Holliday

To coin a new phrase, intolerant Hollywood is “Streeped” (rather than steeped) in liberal fascism. Tony Award-winner Jennifer Holliday had participated in presidential inauguration festivities since Ronald Reagan. That included four presidents, Democrats and Republicans alike. Why then the firestorm of criticism and n-word profanity for her agreeing to perform at last Thursday's “Make America Great Again! Welcome Celebration”? In 2017, how is singing at a pro-American event suddenly “offensive”? Yet, Ms. Holliday's dogmatic Hollywood overlords misconstrued her authentic patriotism as a public act of defiance. Their marching orders to her (and others) were unequivocal: perform for Trump and you'll never work in this town again. So, she didn't: Sieg Heil!

Hitting a crescendo in the polarizing Obama years, Hollywood—in absolute lockstep with the propagandist MSM—has been politically weaponized. Therefore, is it any wonder that an article last June in Vanity Fair reported: “2016 is on track to be Hollywood’s worst year for ticket sales in a century”? Hollywood's overt, anti-patriotism has made it radioactive to its middle America movie-skipping audience. You know, the salt of the earth folks populating the vast spaces outside of Democrats' cosmopolitan urban centers. This Silent Majority elected President Donald Trump. Those sick of being demonized by failed Democratic politicians as “deplorables”—and lectured to by Hollywood limousine liberals who “know better” than the rest of us.

To be fair, the underlying economics of this steady decline are complex. They include high ticket prices, a preponderance of sequels and reboots (read: a lack of original material) and a host of fingertip entertainment options including satellite TV, and paid streaming services like Netflix. However, the vital element not factored into any of these calculations is the widening left-right cultural divide.

A-list Hollywood actors are the best at playing make-believe. Essentially, these surrogates function as attractive movie props. Thus, they parrot the ideas of off-screen, invisible others. In cinema classic “Sunset Boulevard” (1950) character Joe Gillis (played by William Holden) admitted:

“Audiences don't know somebody sits down and writes a picture; they think the actors make it up as they go along.”

He's right. Actors convey the writer's words, feelings—and most importantly, message. That's why Hollywood types—when speaking for themselves—come off as condescending, entitled and phony. Even someone as exalted as Meryl Streep. Indeed, her Golden Globe anti-Trump rant disrespected and alienated millions of American voters. Further, her unwarranted criticism of the then President-elect showed a fundamental lack of fairness. And given her lack of good faith, what loyal American will spend hard earned dollars to watch her future films?

These Hollywood elites are very well paid visual placeholders in a story. Nothing more. Their power depends on their ability to fill increasingly empty chairs in entertainment venues. What has-been “Sunset” actress Norma Desmond (played by Gloria Swanson) called, “Those wonderful people out there in the dark!” Our modern-day equivalent to this character is the deluded, self-important Meryl Streep.

Her ilk will quickly discover that Trump's America is a new paradigm. Unfortunately, for regurgitating imaginary grievances, Ms. Streep is not the most atrocious example. That title goes to washed up actress and singer Madonna. At Saturday's misguided Women's March on Washington, the Material Girl provocateur publicly proclaimed she had “thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.” In true Orwellian fashion—after understandable blowback—she clarified she had actually intended a 'revolution of love'. What two-faced Clinton style 'is'-word gobbledygook! Madonna's un-American totalitarianism is crystal clear.

Expressed anarchy is not free speech. It's a call to violence—inciting potential criminal acts—and advocating sedition. Consequently, the superficial shine is rapidly fading from loud-mouthed celebrity egotists. And only time will tell if anti-American know-nothings—exemplified by Streep and 'Madge'—will suffer forgotten Norma Desmond's fate. The new sunset is “Streeped” Hollywood: those marginalized for imposing themselves as ideologues instead of simply entertaining. These left-wing poseurs should stick to their prepared scripts (or sheet music). They need not play politics too, by spewing Hitlerian hate from the nearest MSM microphone.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002

Shellacked Dems Ignore Trump “Mule”

“There’s no education in the second kick of a mule.” – Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Senate Majority Leader

President-elect Donald Trump is a political tsunami for returning Democrats as well as the outgoing president. Yet, the signs of an outraged electorate have been apparent for years. In the election cycles of 2010 and 2014, increasing Republican gains to 2017's domination of the federal government prove this assessment true. Why does the progressive political class continue to disregard the meaning of this circumstance? For Mr. Obama's obtuseness, the cost will be enormous: his disastrous legacy. For those remaining, the reelection of old guard leader Nancy Pelosi will likely consign Democrats to minority status for the foreseeable future. Reality is the pro-American wrecking crew of an upcoming Trump Administration.

For their collective defeat, these elitist egotists believe themselves to be “victims”. Post-election is about licking wounds for their sidelined little clique—not respecting the will of the voters. Lacking grace, all make revolving door excuses that deny personal responsibility. As examples, Mr. Obama claims unsubstantiated Russian interference while Mr. Clinton accuses “angry white men” of misogyny. Hillary blames FBI Director James Comey—and seemingly any tangent that readily leaps to mind. For her part, coddled Michelle vents to gal pal Oprah. All this gelded quartet needs is a mirror.

For years, these panderers have lived large as self-absorbed jet-setters. They've demonized opposition with false charges of intolerance. Trump's victory is the country's natural reaction: the third—and largest—kick of the “electorate mule”. Self-regard blinds them to this thunderous jolt. Ultimately, the 2016 election is more than a resounding repudiation of the Obama legacy or a future Clinton presidency. It's a wholesale rejection of the anti-American progressive agenda.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Resegregating Obama's America

“The amazing aftermath of Birmingham, the sweeping Negro Revolution, revealed to people all over the land that there are no outsiders in all these fifty states of America. … The bell of man's inhumanity to man does not toll for any one man [or student group]. It tolls for you, for me, for all of us.” – Martin Luther King, on racial discrimination

In 2016, hard-fought '50s and '60s social gains have been eroded at California State University Los Angeles. Leave it to deluded millennials—wholly ignorant of the meaning of Civil Rights struggles—to thumb their entitled noses at Brown v. Board of Education (of Topeka), 347 U.S. 483 (1954). In that historic integration decision the Supreme Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools based upon the superficiality of race unconstitutional. So, today that landmark determination is suddenly wrong? In Obama's America separate is suddenly equal—and preferential?

Furthermore, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1968—which guarantees equal housing opportunities regardless of race, color, creed or national origin—“guilty” school officials have capitulated to requests by the CSLA Black Student Union to provide race-exclusive housing (at the Halisi Scholars Black Living-Learning Community). Only in the city known for liberal nutcases could an educational institution claim “... learning experiences that are inclusive and non-discriminatory” while simultaneously promoting a blatantly exclusionary policy. Is this George “1984” Orwell's dystopian Ministry of Inclusion at work?

Will this topsy-turvy generation also come to believe that retro black-only water fountains or lunch counters are good ideas? You know, the same “white-only” facilities that their grandparents risked life and limb to undo 60 years ago? In any case, how is black-focused housing not just a variation of theme: racial discrimination to everyone else? The very inhumanity—a hurtful skin-deep consideration—that MLK railed against?

It's a little spoken of 21^st century conceit that black people can never be racists, only victims as such. This faulty assumption stems from our country's unfortunate involvement with slavery that ended in the 19^th century. Of course, given the passage of time—and the natural evolution of social attitudes—only antiquated propaganda is promoted, not causal connections. Specifically, these false narratives are built around urban myths. One primary example is Michael Brown's 'hands up, don't shoot' which never happened. In turn, the social unrest fomented—based upon big MSM lies—has spread like wildfire to the coasts (fueled by George Soros' funding of Black Lives Matter anarchy). Related specifically to CSLA, how can Los Angeles—one of the most proudly multicultural and cosmopolitan U.S. cities—also be a hotbed for armies of racially motivated “microaggressors”?

Are these malcontents afraid of their own shadows on sunny days? Such perceptions defy reality—and common sense. One reasonably assumes these aggrieved CSLA students would see racism in a bowl of cornflakes and chocolate milk. In the real world, these coddled “safe spacers” fool no one with their politically correct demands. Ironically, while they claim nebulous slights, these isolationists do actual damage that is both thoughtless and intentional. Is it right to arbitrarily demonize the rest of the collegiate community?

In truth, regardless of skin color, any person who negatively evaluates another on the basis of race is, by definition, that. One does not overcome racism by promoting the same lifestyle and mind-set that is so despised in others. Beyond introductory courses in U.S. history and law, these jaded and time warped youngsters need a serious reality check. Rare “microaggressions” notwithstanding, 21^st century America is so widely tolerant, it's quietly integrated. For additional proof, one need only consider the ethnicity of the current commander-in-chief. What of the collective character demonstrated by their faithful countrymen—in two elections—who made Mr. Obama's presidency a fact? These “sheltered” CSLA students should embrace these disregarded millions they hide from in their black-only housing.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Poverty, a Mental Illness?

“You have people who are... whose poverty is such that it creates a mental illness and it's just not being addressed” (in Washington, D.C.) – Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy on WMAL's Mornings on the Mall (June 27, 2016)

Progressives masquerading as journalists these days have go-to narratives to explain away criminality. First, they irrationally (and relentlessly) blame the inanimate object—the gun—not its user. Of this, Courtland Milloy's “To black kids living amid violence, it matters little who fires a gun” (July 13, 2016) is typical. Actually, he's completely wrong. There is a world of difference between appropriately armed white hat elements (the police, legal gun owners, the military) of our society versus chaos-causing wrongdoers.

As an example, last June four ski mask-wearing young men robbed eight retirees at the Hillcrest Recreational Center tennis courts of money, credit cards and jewelry. It was broad daylight, multiple guns were used, and three of the four were teens of similar ages as the victims' grandchildren. Hypothetically, if the elders had been legally armed this assault might have been prevented (or evened the odds.) After all, criminals (as Democratic politicians) sensibly fear an armed population. Realistically, as police can't be everywhere, this dynamic actively discourages crime and protects innocents (no matter their skin color).

Mr. Milloy aptly observes, “That's [the robbery] not just surreal. It's appalling.” Indeed, where are the fathers of these lost boys to teach them safe and proper conduct? (Put simply, right from wrong.) Recall that Democratic welfare programs have provided (for more than half a century) an economic incentive to single mother households. Hence, generations of fatherless boys running wild in minority communities. (Who else but they engage in all too common D.C. neighborhood shootouts? Does Mr. Milloy believe this dangerous activity is being perpetrated by law-abiding citizens or thrill-seeking cops?) Make no mistake, LBJ's progressive policies have destroyed the black nuclear family unit—and with it virtually any chance of upward (capitalistic) economic mobility.

Now, spinning himself silly, this Washington Post scribbler comes full circle with his laughable claim that poverty causes mental illness. (A whole new category for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)!) Interestingly, mental defect is the exact excuse this fop used to rationalize the barbaric actions of Omar Mateen (the ISIS-inspired Orlando mass murder of 49). What if some in the crowd at Pulse had legal guns strapped to their hips? Innocent lives would have very likely been spared. Guns in responsible hands—for the preservation of life—is the reason for the Second Amendment. That's not something dishonest men of Mr. Milloy's ilk will ever address. It's easier to make a cushy living promoting fictions in weekly columns populated by bogeymen: American “intolerance,” and gun-totting racists and sickos.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Sulu's Dark Side of Half Moon

“We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” ― John F. Kennedy at Rice University, September 12, 1962

Immortalized as classic TV, Star Trek (1966 - '69) and its optimistic opening phrase “Space: the final frontier...” was a veiled reference to JFK's New Frontier ideals of a fair and inclusive society. It was the definitive sci-fi program (stylistically years ahead of the tastes of its meager original audience). Under the guise of fictional 22^nd century space explorers, the show dealt directly (albeit subtly) with highly-charged social issues. Recall that the 1960s was the Civil Rights era. As an example, the program made commentary on evolving race relations with “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.” In season three, episode 70, a pair of two-toned, hate-filled humanoid characters are the last survivors of their kind. One is black/white face right/left, the other is the same—colors reversed. For 50,000 years one has relentlessly chased the other. In the story their mutual journey ends in isolation—and certain death on their nuked home planet. (Produced today might the two “space aliens” be portrayed with black and blue color schemes representing Black Lives Matter and the recently slain 5 Dallas police officers?)

As Star Trek traveled the cosmos (the creative landscape of the writers' imaginations) Jack Kennedy made the real-life determination that Americans would be the first to journey to the moon. This 'one great leap for mankind' was accomplished during the Apollo 11 mission when the Eagle lunar module touched desolate terra firma on June 20, 1969. However, Star Trek did not fare so well. Its “five year mission” was cut short after only three seasons (canceled by NBC for low ratings). Synchronistically, Star Trek's TV life span mirrored the brief three years of “Camelot,” the nickname of Mr. Kennedy's presidency (due to his assassination in Dallas on November 22, 1963).

Today, finding universal acceptance of biological differences like skin color and sexual orientation seems more difficult than JFK's realized dream of moon walking. Star Trek, in its own way, was similarly groundbreaking. Specifically, the first interracial kiss on TV occurred between Lt. Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) and humanitarian lothario Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner) modeled on JFK. Let's just say that Captain Kirk seemed to have a comely, scantily dressed new female at every port of call. And related to this “smooch heard 'round the world,” Mr. Shatner rakishly insisted on a script change so the glory would be his rather than Spock's (Leonard Nimoy). Thus, he boldly went (on TV anyway) where no man had gone before.

Warp speed to America of 2016. With interracial marriage commonplace—and gay marriage newly legalized—what's the big deal that one of the signature characters will be openly gay? In the appropriately named “Star Trek: Beyond,” the third installment of the movie franchise (re-imagined with a new cast), doesn't such a thematic change rightfully pay homage to the spirit of creator Gene Roddenberry's original show—and inclusive sensibilities? Isn't this just a simple substitution: sexual orientation for race? Surprisingly, not everyone is creatively on board. Ironically, the person opposed is now openly gay actor George Takei who played navigator Hikaru Sulu in the original series.

Mr. Takei came boldly out of the celluloid closet in real-life in 2005. Why can't today's fictional version of Hikaru Sulu do the same? Played by John Cho, his take: “This movie is going to be coming out on the 50th anniversary of Star Trek, the 50th anniversary of paying tribute to Gene Roddenberry, the man whose vision it was that carried us through half a century. Honor him and create a new character. I urged them. He [director Justin Lin] left me feeling that was going to happen.” Well, precisely. How is it that Mr. Takei has gotten everything so entirely backwards when saying, “Unfortunately, it’s a twist of Gene Roddenberry’s creation, to which he put in so much thought. I think it’s really unfortunate.” Sorry Georgie! As a Hollywood veteran, he knows very well there are no creative sacred cows—for better or worse. An example of better was the superior reboot (read: story, acting, special effects) of the brilliant “Battlestar Galactica” (2004-'09). In this update Lt. Kara “Starbuck” Thrace featured a thematically complex female (Katee Sackoff) in place of the unremarkable male version (Dirk Benedict) in the original. On the other hand, inevitably there is worse. Does anyone seriously believe that an all-female team of “Ghostbusters” is really a good idea?

The original Star Trek portrayed a fictional Kennedy-style Utopian society aspired to. Today's Star Trek feature films reflect today's reality of a widely tolerant America that has—in great measure—arrived. On screen, as in real-life, the journey to universal acceptance of difference steadily continues. Notable tragedies like Orlando and Dallas are manipulated and spun by the propagandist MSM as generalized American “intolerance.” Similarly, anarchist movements like Black Lives Matter are wrongly highlighted for a polarizing political effect beneficial to progressives who lead by social division. Yet, to any clearly thinking person, the violence and the killing remain exceptions to the rule. Optimists see the truth: the normalcy of open minds, everyday courtesy—and shared grief in the loss of innocent lives. Ultimately, love overcomes fear in the same way that light overcomes darkness. And as Star Trek aficionados well know resistance to certain things—like reaching for the stars or accepting diversity—is indeed futile.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Brandeis President defends hypocritical ban of women’s rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali for her “intolerance”

Part of Fred Lawrence’s letter dated April 27, 2014 verbatim: “I made the decision to withdraw the honorary degree invitation previously extended to Ayaan Hirsi Ali with great consideration after I was made aware of extremely troubling statements she has made in the past that I believe are contrary to the core values of Brandeis, among them religious tolerance. Ms. Hirsi Ali has had a distinguished career on issues of human rights--advocating against violence toward women, forced marriages, honor killings, and female genital mutilation. As you may know, I am a staunch advocate for free speech and if this had simply been an invitation to speak on campus this would have been a clear decision.  However, an honorary degree is fundamentally different in that it unreservedly endorses an individual.”

I have been greatly dismayed by some of the frankly questionable decisions Brandeis has made over the years.  One example is the long term employment of Anita Hill.  Though well qualified on paper, given her past actions and accusations, she remains a controversial political figure ill-suited to represent a University whose motto claims to value Truth and moral character.  Equally bizarre to me is the fact that Brandeis, America’s premier culturally Jewish university, would give honorary degrees that “unreservedly endorse” individuals who are apparently outspokenly anti-Semitic.  This latest wrinkle, the president’s withdrawal of a well-deserved honor to the heroic Ayaan Hirsi Ali in order to capitulate to Muslim fanaticism is both mystifying and completely inexcusable.  It is said that evil flourishes when good men stand by and do nothing.  The same holds true for a university that sticks its collective head in its ample nether regions.

Re: ‘Academic dishonor at Brandeis; Ayaan Hirsi Ali discovers the truth about a university’s ‘core values’’ (Clifford D. May, The Washington Times, Commentary section)

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/