The #Calexit Mordancy
The irony of the whole #Calexit movement is that the people advocating for it seem to think that because they are “not represented” they should be able to go their own way. They never, ever, ever think about the reality of California and just why there has been a “State of Jefferson” movement for the last seventy-five years.
Think about this for a minute or two. The #Calexit people are upset because the proportional representation system did not reward them and they believe that they are now “unrepresented.” These are the same people who have pushed “one man one vote,” which eviscerated political representation from areas like the Central Valley and the northern counties. In other words, the same people who celebrate their own dominance of the political system and gleefully refer to their opponents as “irrelevant,” now can’t handle it when the shoe is on the other foot (as it is always apt to be). Instead of manning up and dealing with it, they cry “unfair,” and “we’re taking our ball and leaving.”
If we were to scenario rosily and presume an “independent” California, based on the political leanings and beliefs of those advocating for such an action, how likely do you think that it would be that small businesses, the very lifeblood of an economy, would survive in Independent California? Remember that from 2008-2014 there were an estimated 9000 “divestments” – that is businesses leaving the State – most of which were small businesses because of the harsh business climate. Is that climate likely to improve or get worse under the proposed #Calexit scenario?
(I know that many of you disagreed with my take on the whole Bergdahl trade. That’s fine. Just keep in mind that if you do not make that trade, you never get to have the good Sergeant ask the President for a full pardon.)
There has been a good deal of conversation recently about Presidential Pardon power and whether or not a person has to be convicted or at least charged first. The answer is no, but… what does it indicate when a man charged with desertion and facing a Courts Martial under the next administration with a brand new Defense Secretary ASKS the outgoing President who traded for his release for a full pardon? My guess – and it’s purely a guess – is that Obama might do it. Why? He will say that it’s because Bergdahl “cannot get a fair trial” given the President-Elects statements on the matter. But reality is that he will just want to stick it to everybody that turned his “deal” into a public relations disaster.
Over the weekend we were informed that the two surviving suspects in the death of Misty Holt-Singh, the mother who had been an innocent bystander when they tried to rob a Stockton Bank, took her hostage and then used her as a human shield in their shootout with police, had decided to take a plea deal that will leave them in prison without facing the Death Penalty. The Defense Lawyer stated that his client had no reason to take a deal until the outcome of Prop 62 was was known, which could have banned the Death Penalty in California. Not that we use it. In any case, Ramos, the coward who hid behind MIsty Singh-Holt will die in prison, and his partner will rot into old age.
The President Elect said that Taiwan (The Republic of China) called him to congratulate him on his victory. Others have claimed that he called them, thus tweaking China (The Peoples Democratic Republic of China) and causing them to issue an official complaint about to whom Trump talks. Here’s the thing, Red China is looking for a fight. The aren’t as interested in what starts the fight as they are in having the fight. In the modern world, a country can’t just go around invading its neighbors and expecting the rest of the civilized world to say, “Bang on! Good at ya!” anymore. Given the long term relationship between the US and Communist China, they can’t just start a war over some Archduke and a pretend insult. No, they need an actual valid pretext for a fight.
Twenty-one years ago then President Clinton (the one who won) let the President of Taiwan into the US to give a speech at a college. Red China had a meltdown over it and we ended up having to send two Carrier Battle Groups to the China Sea to send the message that “Hey, dipshits, it was a speech at a college, not a legal recognition of the the nation of Taiwan’s existence.” After that incident, Clinton (Won) issued his famed “Three No’s” policy in 1998. Simply put, it stated that that the US would not (1) Not support Independence for Taiwan, (2) Not support any “two-China’s policy” and (3) not support Taiwan’s entry into any international organizations. All of this despite the Taiwan Relations Act passed by Congress in 1979 which, depending on how you read it, could require the US to defend Taiwan against any Red Chinese aggression. But just the people, not the actual island. Maybe.
After his call, Trump tweeted (I told you a Trump Presidency would be interesting) that the US “sells billions of dollars of military equipment” to Taiwan so why should it matter if he takes a “congratulatory call from it’s President?” In the broader scheme of things, he may be correct, but the real politick is that Red China is far more important to the US than Taiwan is. All the public really wants to know is who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. Sometimes though, diplomacy means doing business with those whom the public see as the bad guys.
By the by and as a complete aside… did anybody notice that Taiwan President is a woman?
I love inside baseball. A few years ago the whole Bubba the Love Sponge case was as entertaining to me as just about any movie could be. So it was with great excitement that I learned over the weekend that Art Bell, the former host of Coast-to-Coast AM, is now suing The Savage Nations Michael Savage.
Because Savage said something about topics that he won’t talk about, including UFO’s and added an additional comment to the effect that hosts that do talk UFO’s end up in the Philippines hanging around with “ten year old hookers.”
Art Bell’s wife is from the Philippines (as was his previous wife who passed away in 2006). She is also quite young, having just graduated from college when they married in 2006, shortly after the death of his previous wife.
The truth about Chat Show hosts is kinda iffy on the matter. Most of us won’t really talk about it, but for the most part we aren’t really what you would call “friends,” either. It’s a competitive business, and everybody thinks that there is either a standard blueprint to follow or that you have to be different to stand out. There are a few friendships, a lot of “friendliness,” and a whole lot of behind the back chatter and comment. I’m not immune, nor is any other Chat Show host. But this may be a new level.
Suing somebody for a vague – let’s face it, unless you are a close follower of the AM Chat Show circuit or somebody explained it, you’ve no real idea of why Bell is upset at all – reference in an innocuous but certainly not “Topic A” discussion about topics that Chat Show Hosts should probably avoid seems… sordid and counterproductive. Where Savage went full Bell was when he said, “That’s an in-joke, by the way, for people who know the business.” Meaning that he intentionally meant Bell with what he said. But was it “defamation?”
Defamation, by the by, is not a crime. It is a “tort” (a civil wrong), but does it rise to level of “hurting the reputation” of someone like Art Bell? Keep in mind that Bell is also a public figure. With a reputation. At the end of the day, did what Savage said on his show really hurt Bell at badly enough to be damaged financially, let alone any at all?
Look, I’ve criticized other hosts on the air. Specifically Hannity and on occasion Limbaugh and Beck. I’m well known for my disdain for AJ and the nonsense he peddles. Although to his credit, I believe that he actually believes his bullshit, unlike some others I could name. Chat show hosts also have huge but very fragile egos. We all believe that we know the truth the best and at the same time if we don’t get praise every few hours we start sliding into depression and wondering, “What did I do wrong?”
For my own part, Art Bell has always been… wack-a-doodle. The stuff he purports to believe and talked about on his show back when he had one, was generally hyperbole and imagination, designed to confuse rather than enlighten or frighten rather than relieve. I get it, there’s a huge audience for this stuff (it’s why AJ’s show works) because people find a complex and completely illogical conspiracy more believable than a simple truth. I’ve thought that for years. But I have also never said anything about Bell’s wives, or his apparent penchant for a certain type of woman. Nor would I. What possessed Savage to do so is what I was saying above. He doesn’t like Bell, for whatever reason. And in an unguarded moment (we all have them) he let it show, instead of putting on the facade of friendship that we usually have.
And therein lies the heart of this matter. What is that reason why Savage dislikes Bell and was willing to take a swipe on the air? I have no idea. But it would be the best popcorn munching I’ve had since listening to various left side people explain to me for hours on end that Trump didn’t win, Clinton lost. This would be right up there with Bubba the Love Sponge’s case and would be entertaining to say the least. Even if it is just inside baseball.
Posted on December 5, 2016, in American, Art Bell, Article I, Bergdahl, China, Constitution, Execution, History, Michael Savage, President Donald Trump, Radio Shows and tagged #Calexit, Art Bell, Bergdahl, China, Defamation, Jorge Ramos, Michael Savage, Misty Holt-Singh, Pardon, Taiwan, Trump. Bookmark the permalink. 2 Comments.