Search This Blog

Sunday, April 8, 2018

David and Goliath (NOT a love story)

Oh, COME ON! Cut the projection BS already!
Yesterday I saw that Bill Maher’s joined the antagonistic cry babies of the “right” who are bizarrely, mendaciously and totally imbecilically standing up to a 17 year old kid who survived a gun massacre at his high school – an event which will likely haunt him all his life. These mondo disingenuous fuckers are using their respective bully pulpits to stir up their angry, unstable audience but, but, BUT David Hogg’s the REAL bully.

They’re calling HIM out for sparking a peaceful, First Amendment conferred protest against a heinous example of humanity – a woman with a long history of wanton, nasty-ass, condescendingly cluelesss badgering and intimidation.

Yes, these wealthy, ridiculously out of touch talking heads are actually claiming that David is a bully for fighting back against Goliath. He didn’t, by the by, all of a sudden, have a TV show with a big audience in his thrall. He wasn’t directing his Twitter followers to gang up on and post poisonous personal insults. Nope, he civilly fought back.

This is Luke Skywalker going up against Jabba’s Rancor beast.

This is Stormy Daniels going up against that criminal, racist bullying con and his Mafioso wanna be henchman.

This is every woman coming out against O’Reilly, Trump, Weinstein and the list goes on.

This is me against the rapacious ghoul who tried to take my home from me just weeks after TAB died.
Andrea Vaccaro – David with the Head of Goliath

This is David versus Goliath. (n.b.: David won and so will we)

We’re not rich, powerful or ultra well connected but we can and will continue to smartly, non-violently fight back. We will not meekly take those insults, abuse, slander and condescension.

Forbes has a great post up:
First, the First Amendment of the US Constitution explicitly protects someone’s right to boycott, or as written, “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” This holds doubly for political matters. To view it backwards, Ingraham could boycott all things Hogg and no one would reasonably claim she was violating his right to free speech.
~~~snip~~~
Second, if a person has been removed from a job by a private company, that in itself is also not a violation of the First Amendment because the First Amendment only pertains to actions the government can take against its citizens. There is nothing in the Constitution that says businesses cannot fire someone who has become a financial liability
And finally,
There’s also the case to be made that any successful advertising boycott is by its very nature an example of the capitalist system working as intended.
Frankly, all this I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I diarrheal horseshit is just fear-based, over-the-top, fallacious theater, performed in a crazed attempt to stanch their loss of followers and advertisers. Too late!

10 comments:

  1. I agree that it's capitalism working as it was intended.

    Many years ago (early 90s), I was young and idealistic and I wanted to only buy from companies that were decent companies. It was almost impossible back then, before the internet was really anything more than a blip.

    It's possible today. Giving your money to companies that aren't using that money against you is common sense. Sharing that information is great.

    Good for these kids...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes—much easier now but still confusing when I’m at the local Stop&Shop. Much easier to shop at Trader Joe’s and my local hippy, groovy grocery.

      These kids are inspiring, heartening!

      Delete
  2. Boycotts are not that difficult. For example, Republican businesses re invariably rude.

    Cry-babies is nice. I like it, though I tend to be a bit more florid, candy-strippers when polite, else; cuckold is awesome, in the olde english; other c-words come to mind be we are, afterall, scholars here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The C word is ever so much more common if not acceptable (in the *most* polite of company) in the UK and Australia. I like that.

      Delete
    2. Interesting. As applied to cuckolded cry-baby candy-strippers, or more generally?

      I've been avoiding making observations of the female population of that population simply because I can't seem to come up with any way to describe it that isn't outright misogynous. Perhaps I'm too sensitive? Is it possible I've become ((politically correct))?

      Delete
    3. As applied to whoever I deem worthy of the epithet 🙂 of course.

      We’re creative sorts—I’m certain we can come up with appropriate, caustic discriptives for them. In fact, I’ll consider this a mission!

      Delete
    4. I slipped one (or two) into a blog-post this morning.

      Delete
    5. Ah, you've really got me thinking now!

      Delete
  3. Yeah, I caught that same episode with Maher defending that Fox News chick. I completely disagreed with him as well. What worried me equally was when Rivera more or less said you couldn't criticize the president. Now from what Rivera said on the first segment of Maher's show, he clearly looks up to trump for some reason. That makes Rivera a nonentity for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More and more often, all I wanna do is scream. Maybe the world’s always been this insane and I didn’t notice.

      Jean-Paul Sartre‘s quip, Hell is other people comes to mind.

      Delete