The Roseanne Conundrum

THE ROSEANNE CONUNDRUM

by Tom Wise

By now, the entire world has heard that Roseanne Barr “lost her job" with ABC-TV (US) after tweeting an insult about and/or to Valerie Jarrett, the former President Obama's chief of staff. This tweet apparently or supposedly made fun of Jarrett's facial features, that she resembled an ape of some sort. Whether we agree with that assessment or not, it would seem to be imprudent in a time of extreme Leftist doxing that someone as entrenched as Roseanne should make such an error-filled tweet. This, however, is the problem with the entire story. That is, Roseanne IS entrenched. She's an icon.

It makes no sense in the real world that Roseanne is fired and discarded except if the powers-that-be have truly committed to the endgame of Stalinist/Nazi America, where no one, no matter how high up the chain, may insult one of the inner circle, whether we believe that circle to be communist, radical Muslim, or occultist. In Valerie Jarrett's case, it is certainly communist (https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/06/communism-in-jarretts-family/), and possibly radical Muslim (through Huma Abedin). So is it that Roseanne committed a cardinal sin of the Left, that is, taking on one of their own?

This seems silly. Her tweet is, generally speaking, not offensive, and is almost nonsensical, childish in its attempt to be anything right-wing. In fact, it is adolescent, mean-girl, and just dumb. It is SO dumb that it almost seems intentionally dumb, as if to paint a caricature of a conservative attacking an Iranian Leftist. In fact, it is SUCH a caricature, it’s as if this scene were playing out on a TV show rather than in real life. This is a fishy part of the story.

Roseanne is not so disconnected from Hollywood or Obama that she doesn't know the protocols of the Left. No, she is VERY connected and knows all about what is expected. That she has been hurling insults on such Leftist luminaries as George Soros is beside the point. Is ABC-TV so intent on Leftism, or so sure it can now take over the country, that they would cancel their top-rated Tuesday show, and not only her show but also reruns of Roseanne's previous show? At first glance, yes, and this is what has been reported, that her show is cancelled and reruns on various other channels are kaput. So, we are expected to believe that TV stations no longer care about revenue? Doesn’t Roseanne have a very strong contract? These are further fishy parts of the story.

What about Roseanne? Who is this person conservatives are defending? Does no one remember when she mangled the Star-Spangled Banner ON PURPOSE, grabbed her crotch in COMPLETE disrespect, and earned a rebuke from President Bush (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls1YVhcLD2c)? Does no one remember when Roseanne said that anyone who earned more than 100 million dollars and wouldn't help solve the banking "crisis" should be guillotined (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/10/03/roseanne-barr-guilty-wall-street-bankers-should-be-sent-to-reeducation-camps-or.html)? Remember when she wished cancer on Chick-Fil-A customers (LINK)?

So let us not kid ourselves that Roseanne is a conservative. She is an opportunist who created a show that lampoons conservatives, and conservatives in turn good-naturedly embraced the show, as if to prove they could take a punch. The satire of “Roseanne” does not rise above general "hillbilly" jokes, which are now in the bloodstream of America, so conservatives smile and laugh and tell themselves Roseanne is awesome and brave. The character of "Jackie" was inserted for "balance" and made to appear loony, but in fact Jackie is a softened version of Leftist insanity, easy to laugh at, a victim and not a perpetrator. The ratings are huge, and ABC now owns that Tuesday slot. Are we to believe that a television station, which depends on ratings, and which must compete against cable and Netflix, would jeopardize their position, and hand Tuesday over to the competition, because people who don't even watch Roseanne are offended? This makes no sense. It is the same as Laura Ingraham apologizing to people who don't listen to her radio show because they are boycotting her sponsors. The problem is, those non-listeners don't affect Laura's ratings or revenue, and her sharp commercial comeback proves that. There is no difference with Roseanne. She has nothing to fear and neither does ABC-TV. This therefore smacks of a publicity stunt.

If it IS a publicity stunt, it is brilliant. It engages every conservative and Republican into her world. It is the Trump strategy. With Trump, it is the media out to get him, which they are! With Roseanne, however, there is no such comparison. She does not run the country, and she is not the long-time thorn in the side of liberalism that Trump has been. Still, it seems as if the Right is falling all over itself to "save Roseanne" in a rallying cry second only to protecting President Trump.

If it is NOT a publicity stunt, two things: (1) ABC-TV is supremely stupid, and (2) Roseanne has the potential to start the next level of a Left-Right civil war, something which she might relish, given her history. The issue is, which side is she on? Her personal history shows her to be Left-leaning libertarian, but also a Trump supporter and not a Bernie or Hillary supporter

(https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/9/roseanne-barr-slams-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders/). She is, however, not conservative, and one wonders what it is about conservatism that should attract her. Perhaps it is the hordes of raving new conservative fans who cannot move fast enough to protect this non-victim, because Roseanne is not going to suffer. No, in fact we should find her perhaps taking to the road and accompanying Trump on the trail, as Sarah Palin did early on for Trump. The question is, can Roseanne hit the conservative notes like Sarah can, or will it be something less substantial?

This is not a hit piece on Roseanne, but rather an honest look at some of her history, some logical views of the current situation (as of May 29 2018), and what might next transpire. Don’t shoot the messenger.

Why So Many School Shootings?

WHY SO MANY SCHOOL SHOOTINGS?

By Tom Wise

There are multiple realities in school shootings.

First, why schools? One might say it is the "gun-free zone" which attracts school shootings, but there are other gun-free zones that don't share such dangerous pattern. One might say it is all the children packed in like neat fish in a barrel, but a Little League baseball game or a mall are also similarly populated, and don't suffer such statistics. Indeed, a school or campus is an odd place for a shooting except for one thing: there is a mandatory recurring schedule of a particular person or persons, whether teacher or student. Who would want to know this? Almost certainly, another student or teacher. Why would they want to know this? Almost certainly, someone has been, or believes themselves to be, bullied or persecuted. It makes sense then that school violence erupts from prior violence, whether it be physical or emotional, actual or perceived. That is to say, there are no cheerful stable people shooting up schools.

Second, bullying. Can we acknowledge that bullying is terrible, and not downplay the role of bullying on the lives of children? Regardless whether it's children or teachers tormenting other children or teachers, schools are brutal places where dissimilar people are forced to congregate, and work out their differences under mostly casual supervision. This is not to justify school shootings as natural consequences of bullying or schools. Gun ownership and bullying have both been prevalent through all eras of history, but the gun has only recently been the tool of revenge. In fact, bullying has coexisted even in schools which provided gun (and archery) training and team sports. So if it's not the availability of weaponry which is the catalyst for school shootings, what might it be?

One possible problem which has been increasing is mental illness, and treatment of it. How long have we been drugging our "ADD" and "ADHD" boys with Ritalin (1960's) and Adderall (1990's)? How has this affected overall societal aggressiveness, either increasing it in volcanic lads, or submerging it too deeply so that one day it explodes like Vesuvius? What about Xanax and other benzodiazepines? This 2017 article (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/over-130000-us-toddlers-and-children-aged-0-5-are-prescribed-addictive-anti-anxiety-drugs-300538185.html) says that 130,000 TODDLERS have been prescribed benzos! What about SSRI prescriptions for manic-depression, clinical depression, and other disorders? This 2017 article (https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.pn.2017.pp9b2) estimated that about 8.8% of people between 18 and 44 were on SSRI as of 2014. Although SSRI prescription percentage for children and teens with depression is unclear, even 2% indicates one person on such medication in every classroom of 50 people. These numbers do not even count the number of children and teens with some form of mental illness which is not being treated which may cause violent tendencies anyway. Some may downplay violent tendencies as "harmless" growing pains, but the victims don’t think so. Thus, the dilemma is, to drug or not to drug.

The core of treating mental illness today seems to be to "stuff it down," especially where it concerns anxious, angry, or hyperactive boys. This should be a cause of concern for all of us. It has never been a very good mental health strategy to stuff. It is good to teach kids to behave correctly but it serves no purpose to drug them to get what the inconvenienced adult wants, which is essentially peace and quiet. It is a condemnation of adult patience and effort that drugged is a common go-to. Perhaps that's why teen drug use has become more acceptable; not that it has been proved harmless, but that it keeps them quiet or busy that much longer. Sad!

There also seems to be an uptick in criminal mindset. I don't mean criminal statistics, which have actually been falling for many years (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm). I mean the gangsta stance, the craving for respect which most times has not been earned (see Jordan Peterson for more), and the glorification of Mafiosi in film and music. Add to that radical behavior which is not classified as criminal, including violent activism of Antifa and other such groups. Add to that behavior and actions which cause minds to become broken, including adultery which breaks up homes, underage sex and abortion, and other loose activity which sets no boundaries and causes moral confusion. Some may classify these behaviors as merely erratic, some as moral issues with no true connection to childhood and teenage violence, and some may think this is all perfectly normal and natural. This too is a problem in our schools, the disunity of our society, and the making of enemies along lines which adolescents traditionally did not, as a rule, think about. Since the 1960's, this "us against them" mentality has pervaded not only normal teen angst and rebellion, but also teenage politics, socio-economics, and religion. Some might say this is good competition to societal norms, but much of it is coerced and fostered at the adult level, for example, when a teacher threatens student grades for having this or that view on capitalism or conservatism or Christianity.

This is not to say that conservatives are the perpetrators of school shootings. Indeed, it has more often than not been the work of a Left-leaning mentally-ill person who (again, more often than not) is on prescription meds for that illness. So it is that the combination of a permissive society that likewise glorifies criminal behavior, coupled with an inconvenienced adult population that medicates its agitated and depressed sons, finds itself faced with homicidal and doped-up (primarily) male shooters.

Some say this is the intentional work of the government, a conspiracy to create such shooters for the express purpose of banning guns in America. This implies that all it takes is a shocked populace to change the Constitution, when in fact it would take three-quarters of the States in an Article V Convention to make such amendment to the Amendments. It also implies that an armed American populace, including its criminals, would voluntarily give up their one billion arms and 1 trillion bullets. It also implies that such a disarmament Amendment would not immediately be followed up with a reversal through the more numerous concerned citizens who treasure their personal safety and freedom. So while communism indeed has plans to disarm America, their shrieking voices are louder than their actual numbers. Nevertheless, communism must be destroyed because it uses such things as school shootings to bolster its ranks under the banner of "caring" and "sympathy."

Is there a solution for school shootings? Ten million marching for "the children" (actually, for disarmament) cannot stop a random mentally-ill homicidal male from taking the lives of those he believes have irreparably harmed him. Perhaps a greater police or guard presence, or armed teachers, makes some sense to us, but it only acknowledges reality without changing it. That is, a determined mentally-ill shooter will find his target sooner or later. The only permanent solution is to change the way we handle perceived mental illness, and to decide if we want to continue glorifying criminal behavior.

On that latter point, there is one more element: attention-seeking. For not only is it the objective of the school shooter to be rid of his perceived tormentors, but also to garner some attention for himself which affirms his plight, which the media are only too happy to accommodate. Thus, the short but blistering fame of the school shooter is glorified, even immortalized, as useful fodder by such attention whores as CNN and other communications outlets, as well as the Communist Party, and Hillary Clinton, to name a few. We pick only on the Left here because the Right does not benefit in any way from school shootings, neither in its politics or religion or rights.

How to Begin Solving Gun Violence

The political Right is illustrated as being for the current hierarchy and for little change, and the Left is drawn as being for the little guy and against bullying. The problem is that one is not the oppressor and one is not the savior. 

What if every conservative were drummed out of office? Then the Left could get their way, right? What would be the first move on guns? Why, to control them so hard no one could EVER say the Left didn't "do something." Two things here: 

(1) To accomplish this requires complete fascism over guns, and over whoever is in favor of guns, regardless of how "mild" your gun control is, because whoever dissents must be moved out of the way, right? 

(2) You won't stop criminal behavior, you won't stop rage, you won't stop crimes of passion, you won't stop mental illness. Or will you? How? 

The response to me shall be "But we must TRY!" We do try. We HAVE tried. We have gun-free zones when that in itself smacks of unconstitutionality. We have gun-free STATES (New York, for example). But you know what we do NOT have. We do not have a united front against gang warfare, inner city crime, hostile immigrants where they exist, and so on. 

Think about THIS: 

It's NOT "Save kids not guns" - it's "Save kids AND guns." 

It can be done. Just TRY.

THE DIFFICULTY IN BEING A CONSERVATIVE

by Tom Wise

It's hard to be conservative. It's hard because it's often a misused term. It's hard because we are fewer than Republicans at large. It's hard because we are the main target of the fear-mongering and emotional Leftist and left-wing radical. Conservatives are blamed for everything. If there is a bottleneck in Congress, it's the fault of the Freedom Caucus. If there is a shooting, the first instinct of the conservative is, "Uh oh, somehow this will be blamed on me." Or perhaps that is the second instinct.

The first difficulty is conservatism being properly defined. Technically, conservative means "close to the vest" - that is, reluctant to change something that isn't broke. This of course is in the eye of the beholder, because we often hear from our opponents how the system which we treasure is the one which is broken. There is a difference, however, between conservatives and their opponents, which is that conservatism is foundational and stable, while their opponents desire all manner of chaos in order to make their points and take power. Conservatism is also quite religious, usually founded in godly principles. Are there atheistic conservatives? This depends on the atheist, doesn't it? Many atheists subscribe to communism/socialism, or even "anarchy" (if that is a real thing), but there are a minority of atheists who are conservatives, and therefore mathematically a smaller minority of conservatives who are atheists. 

In the United States, conservatism equals republicanism, which means the States have unique power over the federal government, the citizens have power over the States through their legislatures, and Rights are inalienable via Constitution, the contract we have with the federal government which is supposed to keep the latter's power at bay. Often we hear that the United States is a "democracy" - and this is true to the extent that our voting system, except for President of the United States, is by majority rule. However, it is the States who make and amend the Constitution, their obvious inaction notwithstanding.

This brings us to the second difficulty of conservatism, the inadequate civic education of the people. When the people are ill-informed, all manner of conservative opponents and, frankly, enemies of the state are able to infiltrate weakened minds and therefore open-border (if you will) legislatures, courts, governorships, and so forth. The Republican Party, the conservative's supposed political arm, neglects to fill this gap, and it often falls on spirited citizens, and blocs such as Tea Party, to hold educationals forums and meetings. The Left, on the other hand, is extremely motivated - only to interpret the Constitution as broadly as possible (the opposite of conservatism). In courtrooms, and social media, every manner of argument is made to favor Leftist interpretation of constitutional and legal issues in a Leftist light. Meanwhile, conservatism is constantly on the ropes, defending fundamental rights which are attacked as "bigoted" and "oppressive" by a passionate and organized Left.

This brings us to the third difficulty of conservatism, the tendency of conservatives to not band together. Whether this is a reaction to Leftist organization, as a high-minded protest against such mobs, or whether it is even a genetic predisposition to be alone ("atomistic" is the term), it hurts conservatism, and helps its opponents, that conservatives just want to be left alone. By contrast, Leftists can organize at the drop of a hat, are more technically oriented (for the most part), and will not often split their group over personal hatreds. In fact, it is rare to find a Leftist publicly attacking another Leftist, even one so obviously insane as Maxine Waters, whereas it is quite common to find Republicans demanding the resignation of another Republican for merely sounding a little "off" or "rough." The intrinsic problem with Republicans is, I believe, this preoccupation with "looking good" or "better than them" - and while conservatives are a bit more sturdy and pioneering, there is no shortage of conservatives (or so-called conservatives) browbeating other conservatives (or themselves!) over the most miniscule faux pas.

Such in-fighting and self-debasement is wonderful ammunition and target for the enemies and opponents of conservatism. It is quite easy to mark a Sarah Palin, for example, by saying she is disqualified for not knowing the "Bush Doctrine" or for implying you can see Russia from Alaska (a true statement, by the way). On the other hand, no matter what Nancy Pelosi says, you will rarely if ever hear a Democrat say it's time for her to retire. To take it to the extreme, Al Franken, who resigned in so-called shame, is already seeing an organized push for his re-re-election, even if he hasn't yet public embraced it (a strategy, not a conscience). I'm sure you can think of many more examples how the Left gets away with murder but the Right can't even blink incorrectly without it instigating banshee howls from not only the Left but members of the Right also!

The solution, in my opinion, is that conservatism, Republicans, and the Right in general needs to grow some courage and fortitude. It's not enough to claim victory with Trump when we endured TWO terms of Obama due to mealy-mouthed Republican candidates. It's not enough to think we have some hold on social media when the trajectory is actually more censorship against the Right, not less. Instead, there needs to be concerted efforts to embrace more Trump-like figures who don't apologize and explain little of "what they meant." There needs to be more technical investment at election time, and not reliance on the same tired phone lists which are 60% wrong and disconnected (the Left no longer use these). There are surely thousands of innovations which conservatism can put to use. The difficulty is, conservatism is reluctant to change ways and reluctant to organize. 

ON RACISM & WHITE GUILT

by Tom Wise

This is an opinion piece. It contains language which some may find offensive or detrimental to a particular cause or notion. With that in mind, on with the opinion...

I am against racism. There are good and bad in every race, so I judge individuals, not races.

The liberal, however, sees things, ironically, in black and white when it comes to racism. Either you believe in the concepts of Systemic Racism, White Privilege, Male Patriarchy, Neo-Colonialism, Micro-Aggression, and so forth, or you are the enemy of the world. This is the liberal's view, yet it only seems to apply to white people. According to the liberal, only white people can be racist because white people hold all the cards, and keys to power. This, of course, is a ridiculous statement, but it is the basis of their belief system on racism. Even if the liberal were to admit racism on the part of non-whites, it would still be blamed somehow on white power, or white history, or white thought.

Rationally, however, all races have some systemic racism. Blacks have prejudices and show racism against other blacks, whites, Latins, and Orientals. Mexican vs. Guatemalan. Chinese vs. Japanese. Arab vs. Jew, black, and white. It's inherent in the human race to recollect history and war, to desire what someone else has, or to just fear or hate something different. It's not an exclusively white characteristic.

Consequently, the liberal, especially the white liberal, cannot think straight when it comes to explaining or battling racism. For example, the liberal cannot answer rationally if asked, Is everybody in the world battling racism at the same time and rate? Are the Japanese, and the Koreans, and Arabs, and blacks all trying to defeat racism with the same fervor and zest as whites seem to be?  I would posit that the world is just as racist as it ever was. Only in the liberal's mind is progress being made, and, arrogantly, only by white liberals in white nations!

So the next question for the liberal is, are white people the leaders of the world in fighting against racism? Are whites first and foremost in this area? If the liberal says Yes, he admits whites are superior in this field. But isn't that superior attitude supposed to be anathema for liberals in the modern day? Now, if the white race is superior in the fight against racism, isn't the liberal's claim that "white equals racist" nonsense? If the liberal, on the other hand, says No, he must be pressed to answer which race is more active against racism than whites.

The next question for the liberal is, what is the purpose of fighting for the rights of all races if the other races are not doing likewise? If the liberal says it is the duty of the white race to lead in this arena, it must be asked if the other races are "backwards" or "primitive" when it comes to fighting racism.

I think you see where I'm going here. The white liberal's superior attitude in fighting racism is itself a superiority of race, even if the white liberal's main target is other white people. The white liberals throw mud at their own race, screaming at those who do not agree with their methods and tactics and chicanery, because at heart the white liberal must understand that the target of frustration must really be those of other races who do not share their beliefs. In other words, it is a way of saying "You're not trying hard enough" to whites rather than to all races because, for the white liberal, to expect other races to toe their reasonable line would constitute them being racist.

White liberalism has boxed itself in. If it does not act aggressively towards its own race, there seems to be lacking passion. If it expects the same from other races, there seems to be that old "oppression" they say they're fighting. Therefore, white liberalism is not against racism as much as it is against expecting the same from other races. This in itself is a form of racism because it says "You other races are not able to battle racism as well as the white race can battle racism" and they justify this by adding "...but you don't have to because the white race owes it to you."

I am not proposing we stop battling racism. Naturally, we have always fought against racism, but we have had to make our fight more visible online and elsewhere to keep the white liberal from destroying everything we've done. Unfortunately, even when we seek to appease the white liberal, this appeasement is used only to leverage more and more from us. As this further leverage is exerted, fewer and fewer want to take on the task of fighting racism. White liberalism therefore destroys the very thing it says it wants most, and (of course) blames not itself but those who balk. It is no wonder so many lose interest in helping society, when whatever is given with good intentions is slapped in the face.

I do not have a solution to this problem, since it is the nature of those who battle racism to want peace, and the nature of the white liberal radical to provoke disharmony and poke hornet's nests in order to justify their anger, and sometimes to justify their so-called non-profit organizations. All we can do is keep embracing individuals with whom we agree, no matter their race, to build the type of world which the liberal can only dream about, one of true equality under the banner of a flag which we respect as standing for our rights.

I put forward these opinions in the interest of conservative political science and philosophy. I hope they are received in the good-intentioned manner which I offer it.