Tag Archives: Media

Hail to the Chief

Ok, I can admit when I’m wrong. I’ve never had a problem with that. So, here goes. I was wr-wr-wr-wr—wr….ahem….I was wr-wr-wr-wr-wr….(I can do this)…uh, I was….not exactly right. (apologies to the Fonz).

So, Trump won after all. I didn’t expect that. But it’s all good. At least Hillary didn’t win and that was the real issue. All my concerns about her machinations to ensure her presidency are now moot. The good news is that America has a chance to have a conservative justice to replace Scalia and any judges who retire in the next 4 years, which was one of my biggest concerns with a Clinton presidency. That, and with a Republican controlled house and senate, we should have no worries about infringements on our second amendment rights for the next four years.

For these reasons, I am happy.

But now we have the Donald as president. That is…unpredictable. Granted, Obama demonstrated that the presidency can be shackled by a recalcitrant congress, so if Trump goes too far afield, congress should be able to rein him in, but the real concern will be his mouth and how he interacts with world leaders on that stage. He is used to making multinational business deals, but politics is a bit different. Hopefully, he will surround himself with competent advisors to council him on protocols for dealing with politics on a world stage and he won’t embarrass himself or the nation.

To those who bemoan this missed opportunity to have a woman in the Oval Office: please do not take this election as a reaffirmation that America won’t allow a woman to be president. This election merely asserted that America won’t allow Hillary Clinton to be president. By all means, select a more qualified candidate next time. If she is not completely crazy and an elitist, ultra leftist/neosocialist who cannot identify with mainstream America, she has a chance. Having a vagina should NEVER be a criterion upon which a president is chosen. The president should represent his or her constituency, not describe them as deplorable when they do not agree with him or her.

I am glad I was…not exactly right. It means that our election system is not totally corrupted and run completely by the media and businesses (Soros), and that citizens can determine their governance which is as it should be. That, my friends, is democracy in action, even if we don’t agree with the outcome. I was pleasantly surprised as the election results ticked in on my browser last night. I refused to watch the media’s reports as they worked feverishly to predict and direct a Clinton win.

Speaking of the media, they have been lamenting the loss of their golden child all morning, trying to explain Hillary’s loss in terms they can understand. One pundit said it was because many more white voters went to the polls that they anticipated. Another claimed it was “Whitelash” as white voters cast ballots against Obama, rather than for Trump. Really? Now it’s racist? The media spent way too much time and energy trying to sway voters to vote for Hillary, they are having fits trying to figure out how to go on in the wake of the Trump victory. If only there was a way Americans could vote the media out of office, that would be a true victory at the polls.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Society

The Fix Is Still In

Bernie Sanders endorsed Hillary. How can anyone be surprised by this? Of course he did. His whole campaign was a farce from the get-go; just a dog and pony show to convince the democratic voters that they had a real choice in the election even though the Democratic National Convention had already chosen Hillary eight years ago. The only way she would drop out of the democratic primary in 2008 was if she got the party’s assurance that she would be the candidate this year. It was a done deal and all the media and all the commercials and all the hype of the Sanders’ campaign was smoke. I know the true Sanders supporter will rail at the suggestion that Bernie was not a real candidate and those supporters will trot out poll numbers showing that he did in fact have more popular votes than did Hillary, but that is irrelevant. Sanders was never going to be the Democratic Presidential candidate. I doubt he will even be the running mate.

The only reason Sanders did as well as he did is that Hillary is so damn toxic that even her party faithful can’t abide the idea of her presidency. Only the militant feminist block who would elect typhoid Mary solely on the fact that she possessed a vagina are truly supporting Hillary. Them, and the DNC financial backers, that is. The media will spend the next three months trying to convince us that she is the only person that can lead our country and they will spend millions on media to hide the truth of her misdeeds and minimize her scandals, much the same way they did for Bill in his day.

One interesting tactic that has made an appearance in social media lately is the notion that the media is anti-left. I literally laughed out loud when I read that. There is a headline where Hillary says that the media is undermining democracy, as if there is a machine driving the media against the democrats. The truth is that the leftist media recognizes the problems with a Clinton presidency and are doing the best they can to hide the crimes, but the truth is too big to whitewash over. It’s like painting a blue room white with one coat of paint. The blue is still obvious. So Clinton will smear the media to make it look like they are against her. This is lunacy. The media are the left’s lapdogs. The statement is actually true, but in reverse. Rather than undermining the democrats, the media is undermining the conservative right. Another story claimed that the democrats need to get more control of the media, because they don’t favor the left enough. This is the environment in which we the people find ourselves. We can no longer trust the fifth estate to keep government in check, especially with regard to elections.

So, Sanders is backing Clinton. No surprise there. He is actually on the short list to be her running mate, though I doubt he will get the nod. The only reason he is supporting her nomination is that she publicly stated that she will support his initiatives—free college, free healthcare, etc—on her platform, for what that is worth. Of course, it will only matter if the Dems can regain the house and senate. The scariest thing about a Clinton White House is the potential to fill not only Scalia’s seat, but others who retire from the Supreme Court over the next four years, not to mention her desire to gut the first and second amendments to the constitution.

Be scared America. We’re not out of the woods yet.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics

The Fantastic Failure

Reading audiences have been fascinated by fantastic flights of fancy since the beginnings of literature. Jules Verne gave the world the adventures of Captain Nemo on the Nautilus and H.G. Wells produced amazing journeys that took heroes to unimaginable lands far away. For younger audiences, comic books brought forth heroes who were set apart from normal people by extraordinary abilities of super strength or flight or invulnerability. These comic heroes have been part of pop culture for more than 50 years. The abilities of these heroes have been so fantastic that the technology to depict them visually has only recently been developed. This is why the super hero has become the big box office draw for the past 20 years or so. With every new movie, the public’s appetite for fantastic visual effect-laden comic based movies has only grown and every movie has satisfied that appetite. Until now.

The Fantastic Four opened Friday to tepid public response. Expected to fetch $50 million on its opening weekend, the film barely made half that, only garnering $26 million. Public reviews have given the film a low C, the lowest score for a major Hollywood backed superhero film franchise. Even the dismal Green Lantern scored higher.

While many “experts” will offer their ideas on why this latest reboot of the Fantastic Four, one of Marvel Comics’ most famous titles, I doubt anyone will lay the blame where it really belongs: squarely on the shoulders of those who think that by reimagining the franchise, it will increase its appeal. This is sorely incorrect thinking.

The story of any of these heroes is one that was born on the pages of the comic book. Writers labored over the back story, the origin of the hero, the birth of the super to make them engaging to the audiences. They succeeded. Not every time, though. Garbage piles are full of failed comic book titles that didn’t connect with audiences, much the same way that, over in the next garbage heap, is a pile of celluloid from bad movies. No, the titles that have lasted for decades work for the audience. Now, if you have a successful franchise, why mess with it? Why try to fix that which is not broken? Why reimagine it?

Some have said that the first two Fantastic Four films were not as successful as they could have been, so the studio felt a change was needed. They probably went to their consultants, people who probably never opened a Fantastic Four comic book in their lives, and asked them how could they make a more successful film. These consultants probably opened an issue of the comic and said “Oh! Look! There are no black people in the team! You can’t have that. Statistics have shown that X number of audience members self-identify with being African American. You should really have one person on the team represent that demographic.”

They probably followed that up with, “Oh, look! These characters are too old! You can’t appeal to the younger audiences by having heroes in their 30’s and 40’s (Reed Richards, leader of the Fantastic Four, has always had graying temples). No, these heroes need to be high school aged. Yes! That’s the ticket. Make them younger.”

So what we end up with is a movie based on a successful story that was consulted to death. In defense, the movie was purportedly based not on the original Stan Lee comic book, but on the revamped title “Ultimate Fantastic Four,” part of the Ultimate series that Marvel foisted on the public in 2004. But then again, the ultimate series was a mistake for the same reasons.

The original story of these heroes begins with Reed Richards, one of the most respected and established scientists on Earth, building a rocket ship to explore space. Along with his crew, Sue Storm and her biological brother Johnny, and Ben Grimm, a mechanical engineer, they are accidently subjected to cosmic radiation that alters their bodies, imbuing them with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men. They are all adults. They are all capable of rational thought, and they are all respected professionals. Not kids. Sue and Johnny are brother and sister. There is no need to create some convoluted back story of how a black man adopted a girl from Kosovo just to explain how Johnny Storm is black. Johnny Storm doesn’t need to be black. The character was introduced in 1961 as white. Even in the Ultimate series, he is white. Why change it? Unfortunately, this isn’t the only super hero character getting a historical makeover either. The comics have introduced other racial identities for some heroes, but those heroes are different people. While the new comic version of Captain America may be black, Steve Rogers is still white. While Spiderman may be Hispanic, Peter Parker is white. While Green Lantern may be any number of races, Hal Jordan is white. This is consistent.

Marvel’s hands are not entirely clean in this debacle either. Several years ago, Marvel needed cash so they sold the rights to some of their most famous titles to other studios. Spiderman went to Sony, X-Men and the Fantastic Four went to 20-Century Fox and the Hulk went to Universal. Because of these deals, multiple studios can develop multiple production teams to develop any number of movies based on the characters involved in the deal. Disney bought Marvel outright in 2009 and set to developing what has become known as the Marvel cinematic universe. This has led to the highly successful series of films with the Avengers, Iron Man, Thor and Captain America. Marvel got the rights to the character of the Hulk back in 2008, and Spiderman is now a shared property with Sony, so both of those characters can also appear in the Marvel universe. 20-Century Fox has decided that they don’t need to play nice, however. Since their X-Men films have been so wildly successful, they don’t see a need to work with Marvel in developing their properties. This is why none of the Marvel studios movies mention mutants, X-men or the Fantastic Four.

Marvel has developed their titles using material developed from the original comic books. Stan Lee, the progenitor of almost every title in print, had a hand in the development of the cinematic universe and more to the point, the creative people he hired at Marvel are working on these movies. This is the biggest reason why they are so successful. Even a little known minor character in the comic books, Ant-man, had a successful movie. I don’t even want to think of how Fox would have tried to make that one work.

So, Fox, listen up: Sell the Fantastic Four back to Marvel, or at least partner with them. You don’t know how to make that movie. They do. Besides, those characters can be important to the upcoming Infinity War series of movies and you know you will want a piece of that action.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Reviews, Society

Still Waiting for the Evidence

CBS Sunday Morning this week covered the Cosby allegations again and again slanted their coverage under the assumption that Cosby committed the crimes of which he stands accused. I have avoided talking about the rigmarole surrounding Bill Cosby because I feel all the evidence has yet to be uncovered. It is folly to offer a judgment in absence of all the facts. This is a primary principle of our criminal justice system and has served us well for more than two hundred years. Yet the media and many in society keep trying to dodge the issue of innocent until proven guilty in an effort to prove themselves correct in their assumptions on any given issue. This happened in the Michael Brown case so badly there that even once the justice system did weigh in, the media and the masses rebelled, declaring their judgment more sound than the law. Now Bill Cosby is facing allegations of sexual abuse spanning his entire career. More than thirty women have come forward to accuse the man once referred to as America’s favorite dad of one of the most heinous of crimes.

Let me predicate the rest of this as saying I do not know if Cosby is guilty. There is not enough evidence to prove his guilt, therefore there is no way to know. All we have is the word of several women who have waited in some cases more than forty years to come forward with these charges. That fact alone makes the charges suspicious. Add that none of them came forward until this year and all of the sudden there are thirty accusers makes the whole scenario suspect.

If a woman wishes to charge someone with rape, that woman—via the state—must have proof beyond the shadow of a doubt that the crime did take place and that the accused committed that crime. Not one of these women has any proof. None. No evidence exists that any crime even occurred. Only one accusation claims the crime occurred within the statute of limitations, so even if the accusations were true, no prosecution can be filed.

All that exists is the word of thirty or so women. Now, for many people, that is enough. One person making an accusation in the absence of evidence can be dismissed. Thirty people making the same accusation gives the accusation more weight. Unfortunately, the multiple accusers are not referencing the same incident, therefore they are not corroborating each other’s testimony. They are all making their own accusations of actions on different occasions at different locations under different circumstances.

I find it difficult to believe that a man, no matter how famous, could be a serial rapist and not have been discovered at the time he commits the crimes. Everyone who hears the allegations automatically believes them, however, because in our modern politically correct society, everyone is expected to defer to the perceived victim in these cases. The Rolling Stone magazine published an account of a self-proclaimed rape victim without investigating the claims. This supported a narrative of “America’s Rape Culture” that is permeating the media, and was too juicy and too salacious to bother checking the facts. There are many men and boys who have their lives ruined by false accusations because of society’s rush to judgment concerning rape. The crime has risen above other crimes in that its very mention evokes anger and a rush to judgment that larceny, embezzling, blackmail, fraud and even murder to not engender. The only crimes that are on parity with rape for such automatic belief is parental kidnapping—which I do not view as a crime in most cases—where the accused is automatically presumed guilty.

I don’t know Bill Cosby. I’ve never met the man, even though I always thought I’d like to. He has always seemed so approachable. What I know of him comes from the media and his vast repertoire of work. He dropped out of school, attempted the military, went back to school and got a degree in physical education. He started his show business career as a standup comic and quickly amassed a following in a day and age when black artists found it all but impossible to break into the limelight. He made money. He garnered praise. He became famous. Now, call me misogynistic, but those three traits alone are enough to attract any number of women, especially in the 60’s with the drugs and sex that permeated the club scene.

Did he have sex with several women? Almost assuredly. Again, I don’t know, there is no proof, but it seems very likely. Did he have to drug the women? I seriously doubt it. Again, with all he had going for him, it seems unlikely he would have to resort to such nefarious tricks to get satisfaction. Did he anger the women he slept with? Again, almost assuredly; and again, I don’t know for sure. Many of the women who clustered in his orbit did so hoping to ride his coat tails into fame and fortune as well. When that didn’t happen, it is not a hard stretch to imagine they developed a grudge; a grudge that festered for almost forty years.

Whether or not he had sex with any of these women is not the issue. The question of whether the women were willing participants is the question for the courts. The real question is why wait forty years to file a complaint, when the statute of limitations has made a criminal case moot. The answer to that is easy, though. Criminal cases mean jail, while civil cases mean money. Which one will appeal to most of these “victims?”

Now Cosby is trying to make a living and finding an increasing challenge in doing so. His TV projects have been cancelled by the networks. He is trying to do the job that we as a nation have supported for more than forty years. Yet now his shows are picketed by rape activists. As if watching a comedian is supporting rape. Some patrons have reported being verbally assaulted by the picketers both going in and coming out of the theater. Media personalities have spoken out against Cosby as if they were a judge passing sentence. All of these actions are grossly unfair.

Even if the women are telling the truth and Bill Cosby is a serial rapist unlike the world has ever seen, or even if they are all liars and trying to carve a bit of cash out of a man whose career is almost over like a bunch of vultures picking over a wildebeest, the biggest crime is not either case. The biggest crime is how we as a nation are abandoning the principles upon which our nation was founded to engage in a media-driven frenzy. We are throwing out due process in a rush to judge a man without all the evidence. In the absence of evidence, we are compelled by justice to presume innocence, even if it galls us to do so.

2 Comments

Filed under Media, Society

Look For the Label

I have really been wrestling with blogging lately. It seems as though there are a million leftist blogs supporting every issue that I find either disagreeable or downright offensive, but there are also a few conservative blogs that I can find some agreement with, but they get some issue wrong, or they espouse a middle-ground mentality that appeases the left in efforts to try to please everyone. I am long past trying to make people happy, and I have come to the conclusion that no amount of logic can sway a die-hard leftist from adopting the force-fed media blitz ideology that inundates all of us. That is why I don’t blog as much anymore. That, and I am still working on my academic assignments and trying to finish my novel before the new year.

Having said all of that, my wife said something to me the other evening that got my hackles up. She works for a school district and said her district is labeled “majority-minority.” This because their student demographics are diverse; so diverse that Caucasian children are outnumbered, or underrepresented, in the student body. Now let that percolate for a minute. I realize that not everyone is a writer and the nuances of the English language might escape them, but as a writer, words are important to me. I like to use the best word to effectively convey the idea I am trying to communicate. If one group of students is smaller than the other groups, that group is the minority. Think about it. Minority, according to Merriam-Webster, is the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole. Therefore, a smaller group cannot be a majority, even if one hyphenates it with the word ‘minority’. Conversely, a minority is the smaller number. So if the smaller group is white, that group is the minority. If the larger group is Hispanic, or any other non-white race, then that group is the majority. Period.

The leftist school board, not wanting to admit that Caucasians no longer have larger numbers, need that minority label on all non-Caucasians in order to get federal funding for their programs, or promote their socialist agenda. If Hispanics or blacks outnumber whites, that means whites are now the minority and should, God-forbid, qualify for those same programs. But that cannot happen. It would fly in the face of 40 years of affirmative action and social justice programs designed to help those races held down by centuries of white-dominated society. Or so they say.

What needs to happen is the school board, and the state board of education, and the federal Department of Education all need to come to the realization that after 40+ years of civil rights, mixed race breeding, natural migration patterns, and forced bussing, the whole race issue needs to be put to bed. Stop prioritizing children based on the color of their skin. Stop assuming that just because a child’s skin is white, they are “majority” and because another child’s skin is not white they are a minority. Those labels are not accurate, not beneficial and not worthwhile, but they are demeaning, insulting and erroneous. It only serves to perpetuate and reinforce the racist ideologies that the left purports to oppose.

Far be it from me to hold up a celebrity as an example, but actress Raven Symone recently spoke in an interview with Oprah wherein she eschewed these labels, to the chagrin of Oprah and other Hollywood liberals. The Cosby Show actress told the host that she did not wish to be identified as an African-American. “I want to be labeled a human who loves humans. I’m tired of being labeled. I’m an American. I’m not an African-American; I’m an American.”

Needless to say, this didn’t sit too well with Oprah. “You are going to get a lot of flack for saying you’re not African-American. You know that, right?”

I don’t know why she would. She’s from Georgia, not Africa. While I do not agree with everything the young actress espouses, I give her props for hitting this nail squarely on the head. Racism can only stop when everyone stops looking for it. If anyone of any race defines a person, or group of people, by the color of their skin for ANY REASON—beneficial or not—racism continues and thrives. If the left truly wants equality, they must stop lumping people together as a majority or minority and take people as one label…Human.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Society

Porcine Problems

As I travel the country, I am exposed to many different kinds of people. Some of these people share similar ideals and tastes as me and we get along quite well. Others have differing viewpoints and we deal with each other in a cordial manner as often as possible. Whenever people congregate, it is important to be respectful of other’s sensibilities. To that end, those in polite company try to avoid intentionally and deliberately offending others. This was a lesson I—and many of my peers—was taught growing up. It is the polite thing to do. It is not, however, mandated by law. Imagine a world where anything found to be offensive to anyone could subject one to stiff penalties including flogging or death. No one would ever interact out of fear for their life. Thankfully we live in a country that protects free speech. Or do we? The media is filled with stories of people taken to task for the crime of uttering their personal beliefs. Perhaps we will soon face the troubles plaguing other countries. A family in the UK had to deal with a particularly onerous issue when confronted on a bus by an Islamic woman wearing a hijab.

According to a story in The Daily Mail, the young couple was trying to comfort their autistic 15-month-old by singing the theme song to the popular children’s show Peppa Pig. The show is about a family of pigs and the song features snorting sounds. The Islamic woman approached the couple and expressed her offense after which the bus driver told the couple to leave the bus two miles from their stop.

In a land that celebrates free speech, who is in the wrong here? Is it the couple trying to comfort a child? Or is it the woman expressing her outrage at what she deems an offensive song? In my opinion, it is the bus driver for sticking his nose in the matter. Both parties have the right to express their opinion and they did so, but to eject a person from a public bus for inadvertently offending another is the real crime here. If the couple intentionally sang the song knowing that in doing so they would inflict emotional harm on another, then some kind of sanction might—and I stress MIGHT—be in order. But even then, free speech is protected by law, so the sanction could not be by the state or any representative of the state.

Now, as this happened in the UK and I am not up to date on British law, I cannot address the legality of speech in that country. If this happened in the US, however, I would recommend that driver be removed from his post and the Islamic woman be strapped down and forced to binge watch Peppa Pig episodes until she sings the song in her sleep. But I digress.

Lately it seems that people are so self absorbed that they cannot acknowledge others. So self absorbed that they focus only on their own sensibilities to the exclusion of everyone else. What this means is that they feel their needs supersede the needs of others, and that they are more important than anyone else. This creates a morbid sense of entitlement that threatens to shatter social decorum.

If something creates any degree of offense, no matter if it was intended or not, it is the equivalent of committing a mortal sin worthy of death. People have opinions and just as no two people are exactly alike, no two opinions are the same. A collection of opinions forms an ideal. Quite often the ideals are diametrically opposed to the point that they may cause offense. This is where the problem lay.

A lot of progressives and liberals will shout the mantra of inclusiveness and diversity from the rooftops until they encounter someone whose ideology runs afoul of theirs. They cry for society to be tolerant of Islam while they browbeat Christians. When Muslims cry out in offense, liberals demand that society accommodate them. When Christians express offense, liberals slap them with separation of church and state.

Now we face situations where one group of people is trying to dictate what the rest of the world can and cannot do. While Christian students are banned from praying in school, Muslim students are given a special room to use to pray. Students in many schools have to abide a uniform policy that dictates what they can and cannot wear; Muslim students are exempted from this. Soon, schools may be forced to remove food items from the menu that offend Muslims. We may find our entertainment dictated by the auspices of these ideologues. Peppa Pig may get cancelled by Sharia law.

If a mother cannot comfort her child by singing a song because it offends one person, then we are already on the path to the end of our society. The best that we can hope for is that liberals realize the door swings both ways. Tolerance does not apply only to Muslims. Everyone has to be able to express themselves as they see fit, even if that way is to sing a song about pigs on a bus full of Muslims.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Society

Matters of Corporate Faith

The Supreme Court, in a rare and splendid example of getting it right, affirmed a principle that most people—especially liberals—overlooked in its recent decision concerning Hobby Lobby. Justice Alito even called it out in his majority opinion: corporations are people; groups of individuals. The problem with liberals is that they do not want to recognize the individual. Liberals have long tried to marginalize the accomplishments of the individual in favor of the group. This has led to the complete bastardization of youth sports where teams no longer keep score and everyone gets to play no matter the level of their athletic ability. It also leads to open enrollment where individual academic achievement is no longer a determining factor in college admissions. Liberals want a utopia wherein every citizen gets a shot at every benefit regardless of skill, talent or initiative.court-PQBG

This stems from a skewed interpretation of the old mantra “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.” This derives from the basic democratic principle of majority rules. Liberals extend this idea into the absurd by saying that individual liberties are extraneous when considering the overall good as they see it. While there exists some applications wherein the idea has merit, overall the concept is a fallacy. Mom and pop stores, big box stores, corporations and even the government itself is comprised of individual people whose rights are protected by the constitution.

Despite the cries of “war on women” and “right to choose” (all of which are blatant lies) the Court’s decision is not refusing women the ability to use birth control, not forcing them to have unwanted babies nor forcing them to convert to Christianity. It merely states that the Government cannot force employers to pay for four of the twenty means of contraception that the ACA covers, when those means are counter to their professed religious beliefs.

This country was built to protect individual freedom and specifically religious liberty. This is why the very first amendment in the Bill of Right specifies that congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. Liberals are very quick to cite this amendment to deny religion in the public sphere crying “separation of church and state,” but hate when the faithful cite it to protect their rights to practice the tenets of their faith.

The Supreme Court, after a string of decisions that limit religion, held that publicly held for-profit corporations, just like non-profit corporations, do come under the protections of the first amendment. Liberals immediately cried out in outrage, claiming that a company is not an individual and that the owners of the corporation should not be able to “force their religious views” on their employees. They wish to treat corporations as though they had the same limitations as the federal government. This is a fallacy as the court has upheld by saying “protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them,” and “Business practices compelled or limited by the tenets of a religious doctrine fall comfortably within the understanding of the “exercise of religion” that this Court set out in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 877. ”

Liberals have also used the argument that if one religion is respected by law, then all religions should be which would be unsupportable and unreasonable. Alito addressed these concerns as well by saying “It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. ”

The most important comment in the majority view is the one defining a corporation: “A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.”

This does not mean only some of the people, like employees or shareholders, but all of the people in the corporation. No one should be forced to surrender their religious freedoms by mandate. “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

So, despite George Takei’s missive in the Huffington Post denouncing religion while asserting that businesses and governments have no place for faith and Senator Reid’s announcement that Democrats will not let the decision stop them from covering all forms of birth control, the Court did the right thing on this one.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics, Society