Samuel L. Jackson Schools Lily White "Reporter"

OK, I have to come clean and admit that the actor Samuel L. Jackson annoyed the devil out of me when I wrote about this horrible web ad that he did for the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his reelection campaign.
But give that devil his due on this because the same Mr. Jackson schools this lily-White SWLPL* "reporter", aka film critic when he can not come to say the N-word.
That's right.
The mother of all racist words never to be uttered in the company of Black people, evah. Especially if you are a White person.
That word, in case you are not aware, is nigger.
In the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, here is the multi-definition of nigger:

Definition of NIGGER

1

usually offensive; see usage paragraph below: a black person

2

usually offensive; see usage paragraph below: a member of any dark-skinned race

3

: a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons

 

Well, using a quote from the former congressman and Oakland, California mayor, Mr Dellums, is lowering a terrible word even more.

But seriously, it is not meant to be a nice word. It is harsh and it is a harsh way to denigrate overwhelmingly Black Americans.

Now back to the cowardly "reporter".

This film critic, Jake Hamilton, is interviewing Mr. Jackson about the latest movie from Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained, in which Mr. Jackson is a star.

It is, in typical Tarantino fashion, an over-the-top movie that is set in the Antebellum South and involves slavery.

And involves gratuitous use of the word nigger. Roughly well over 100 times in a two hour and forty-five minute movie.

Again, this is set in the South and involves slavery.So yeah, I think that the word nigger was in fact used very gratuitously. Like it or not.

Enter Mr. Hamilton, aka Mr. SWLPL. Here is a video of the part where Mr. Hamilton sheepishly asks Mr. Jackson about the over-the-top use of the word nigger:

 

 

 

As Mr. Hamilton asks, Mr. Jackson interjects, “No? Nobody? None? The word would be?” and Mr. Hamilton will not say the word. Mr. Jackson rightfully persists and Mr. Hamilton tries to deflect. But Mr. Jackson still persists in trying to get Mr. Hamilton to ask the question in a direct, forceful manner, “Try it … try it. We’re not going to have this conversation unless you say it.” And eventually, Mr. Hamilton backs down and they move on.

Here is where Mr. Jackson schools Mr. SWLPL guy.

It is people like him that now are utterly horrified to say the word at all. They are so horrified that one can not even utter the full word in a question about the context it is used in a movie. But, I am certain Mr. Hamilton/SWLPL guy would have not trouble dropping an f-bomb or two or three.

And here is a real difference.

The f-bomb is a word that the Federal Communications Commission has deemed one that can not be said on over-the-air television and or over-the-air radio. The fateful racial slur, offensive as it may be, can be said in full.

Unless it is by a coward and cowering "reporter" like Mr. Hamilton trying to show he is empathetic with Mr. Jackson and his peeps.

More like pathetic.

Here is a clue Mr. Hamilton.

If someone like Mr. Jackson is in a movie like Django Unchained, then he gets the context and is saying the racial slur the way that it is intended in the movie.

So, if you want to ask a question about what you think is gratuitous use of such a word, say it!

That is what Mr. Jackson mocked you, Mr. SWLPL, about. Your inability to say the word that you are asking about.

What would have impressed me is if Mr. Hamilton had the nerve to ask about the I am certain gratuitous use of the word fuck. Which I am certain is used at least the same amount as nigger.

It is amazing that in today's society, a profanity about a sex act that used to be taboo is said with little or no thought by the hip crowd. Yet a non-Black says the word nigger and all hell breaks loose.

Hey, I think that BOTH are offensive and should be used as little as possible. But if there is context, I am not a total prude about it.

But the prudity today is saying in full racial slurs. And that is where Samuel L. Jackson schooled one Jake Hamilton in an interview. And good for Mr. Jackson!

 

*-SWLPL-Stuff White Liberal People Like. A derivative of Stuff White People Like.

 

Is There An Anti-Parent Trend In The United States?

Well, if you asked me that question say five years ago, I would have said no. An emphatic no.
But ask me today and I think that there is a sometimes subtle, sometimes not subtle anti-parent attitude in the United States today.
What got me thinking about this was reading yesterday's Morning Jolt from Jim Geraghty of National Review. If you don't get this in your inbox every weekday, you should. And as an aisde, Mr. Geraghty is one of my favorites over at NR. I have quoted him many a time on this blog.
What Mr. Geraghty wrote about was taking his young boys over to a local Starbucks every Sunday morning and spending some quality time with the kids. Something that every father should do, no matter what their own marital situations.
But one Sunday, they went to a different Starbucks. Actually one near a playground in Alexandria, Virginia.
And it was not a good experience.
First is Mr. Geraghty's description of the crowd:

And the clientele was . . . different. You know the type: Beard. Skinny. Vintage t-shirt. Probably a piercing or two, definitely a tattoo. If they lived in New York, they would live in Brooklyn.

Ok, I would just change that to a Left Coast theme. If they lived here, it would probably be North Hollywood or West Hollywood. Or in downtown Los Angeles in one of the lofts. Basically, a hipster or a SWLPL type of vibe.
And then was Mr. Geraghty's description of the, well, disapproving looks from this hipster, SWLPL crowd:

I definitely got the feeling that our presence was disruptive to their perusal of the New York Times book-review section or their work on their screenplay. Nothing vocal, just regular disapproving looks in our direction. How dare a breeder like myself desecrate their temple of almost-urban cool.

And there was an awful word Mr. Geraghty wrote.
Breeder.
Breeder?! I had to read that a couple of times to realize that what Mr. Geraghty meant was that he was. . .a. . .dad! And a dad in the ol' fashioned way.
And what is wrong with that?
In my mind not a damn thing.
Being a step dad has been the most rewarding thing I have done other than getting married. Sure, I am not a breeder per se, but I have had the privilege to be a part of my stepson's life as much a father except for the "breeding" part.
Yet the thrust of the piece by Mr Geraghty is simple.
There is an anti-parent culture out there and it is getting louder and louder.
To stay with the coffee theme, there are three big chains here in So. Cal. They are the aforementioned Starbucks, then there is Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf and Peets. And I confess that I like them all. Even though all three are very, very liberal in their politics.
Which leads to a rule of your humble blogger. Try not to let politics get in the way of what you like. Laugh it  off as a 'Well, hello?!' moment. Thus, until there is a Righty Coffee chain, I will continue to like the three I mentioned.
Back on point.
In the following order of the vibe and politics, Peets is the worst and Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf is the least of the hipster, SWLPL type of crowd. Which, oddly enough, means Starbucks is pretty middle-of-the-road.
I think that it is great that parents can take their children to a place like this. It is certainly better than the local pub. Or the race track. Or, well you get the point.
Are there some crappy parents? Yes, but most do not have children to be crappy parents. Not all parents let their kids run amok in inappropriate places. But come on, it is a coffee house. A chain coffee house. Hey, hipsters and SWLPLers, if you want to the full European coffee house vibe, there are a boatload near college campuses.
A lot of people like to emphasise the negative parents out there. Again, there are some. But there are many parents that are trying to be good. And teach their children how to behave. Right from wrong. All that kind of stuff.
I for one love seeing dads especially have a close relationship with their kids. It is sign of maturity. Of a dad giving of himself. I know that it is sexist to write what I am writing here, but it is true. It is expected that moms are naturally giving of themselves. But dads, that is another story.
And that is another point Mr. Geraghty raises.
How this hipster, SWLPL crowd is male dominated.
So true.
And they like their "freedom".
Freedom from what?
Their freedom is a myth.
What it really is is a self-absorption that they are too lacking to realize.
It is all about one's self. What? You want me to care about another human being? You know, beside bedding down a gal (or a guy-being a wee bit PC here!), actually a having a relationship? Having to give of my self to another person? WTF, man?!
When anyone gives of them self, that is true freedom.
I think that the problem here is that too many people have a misconception of freedom. And are just plain self-centered. And some of these people are. . .breeders. And they pass down their self-absorption to their offspring.
For me,  I get how people feel about the modern parent. But I try to remember my parents and how they raised us. And yeah, it is pretty different from parenting in the 21st century.
But again, I do hate to admit, there is a trend of anti-parent and anti-parenting that is on the rise. And you can find some of it at the local coffee house.










 

Now California Wants To Harass Roach Coaches

OK, it is not politically or "foodie" correct to call "food trucks" by their traditional name, roach coaches, but in California, once again, trolls for big government want to regulate where food trucks can set up their ware.
Yep, only in Cali can this come about. Although give it time folks. It will come to a town, county or state near you.
The "brainchild" of state Assemblyman William Monning (of course Democrat-Carmel) says he likes him some of the "gourmet" fare that the "food trucks" serve. But it is those darn roach coaches that are the problem according to the good assemblyman.
Here is some wisdom from Assemblyman Monning:

"The reality is the trucks that are coming to the schools are pushing low-cost, sugar-sweetened beverages and high-sodium snacks. The kids aren't paying $17 for a risotto from a gourmet food truck."

Really?! The kids are not paying $17 for a risotto from a gourmet food truck?
I would like to know where one does pay $17 for risotto from a food truck, roach coach, whatever!
First of all, the elitist snob, Monning, represents tony and posh Carmel-by-the-Sea, hometown of Clint Eastwood, the former mayor. And as the article points out, surprise, there are no licensed food trucks or roach coaches in Assemblyman Monning's hometown.
I am shocked! Shocked I tell you! That there is no such animal in Carmel-by-the-Sea.
And when one looks at this website about some of the restaurants in Carmel-by-the-Sea, I do not see a fast-food one on this list. Nor anything inexpensive either.
The problem is simple.
Traditional roach coaches serve the workingman and woman in many cases. Many of those workers would not have anywhere to eat nearby their place of employment. Because many work in factories and or areas that sit down restaurants do not operate.
No, they do not serve gourmet food. That is an invention of the liberal or Stuff White People Like "foodie" crowd. They took the roach coach and turned into snobby fare for foodies. And while I do not deny my inner foodie every now and then, I have enjoyed many, many a meal from a roach coach and I am still alive, and do not blame my slight overweight to roach coaches.
But Assemblyman Monning does. And this is not a new attempt at regulating the traditional roach coach over the nouveau food truck.
So what does this legislation do exactly?
It would make all food trucks, roach coaches have to set up shop a minimum of 1,500 feet away from elementary, middle and high schools.
To show the absurdity of this legislation, a "medical" marijuana dispensary only has to be 600 feet from the aforementioned schools.
So, it is easier to get that joint than to get food from the roach coach, food truck, whatever.
But this has united the SWPL foodies with the roach coach purveyors.
As Matt Geller, chief executive of the Southern California Mobile Food Vendors Association, pointed out, gee those kids will still be able to go to McDonalds if they really want to. From Mr. Geller:

"This bill won't do anything to cut children's access to unhealthy food. They won't eat at the food trucks, but they are going to eat at the McDonald's nearby. They are going to eat at the convenience store, the gas station."

Bingo!
Oh, his bad! He may give Assemblyman Monning some more dim ideas.
But Mr. Geller is spot on. Kids will eat what they want and where they can.
And there is a group called California United Family Loncheros Association. They are essentially the group for the roach coach, or taco truck crowd. And their CEO, Erin Green said pretty much the same thing:

Trying to improve student health is "noble," said Erin Glenn, the group's chief executive, but the legislation (AB 1678) is too broad. It doesn't address, for example, the proximity of stores where students can "buy a bag of Hot Cheetos and a bottle of Coke," she said

Once again, bingo!
The best way to change people's eating habits is through education, pure and simple. If people have the information about good eating, I really think that they can make good choices. The problem with the busy-body left is that they think you are stupid and easily taken in by such things as roach coaches and anything else in their "minds".
If schools do their job and, oh boy, e d u c a t e said students and yes, parents, I think that they so-called obesity problem will lessen.
And it will lessen without the busy-body left telling us once again how to conduct legal business with no clue.