Mormons attack Broadway show; media blames producer

May 20, 2015

From The People’s Cube.

MANHATTAN– The NYPD is reporting that shots were fired at 230 W 49th St. this afternoon into the front of the Eugene O’Neill Theatre, which is the site of the Tony-Award winning Broadway musical, The Book of Mormon. It is unclear whether anyone was injured in the attack, but witnesses saw a pair of young men in white short-sleeved shirts with neckties fleeing from the scene on bicycles.

It is being speculated that the young men on bicycles were angry Mormons expressing their outrage at the show’s producers. 

Up until this violent episode, the reviews have been overwhelmingly positive: most critics gave the show a thumbs-up and even the Mormon Church did not condemn the satirical parody, but rather took the opportunity to ask viewers to read the Book of Mormon for themselves.

However, in an effort to appear consistent after recent events in Garland, TX, the media is now changing the tune towards blaming the Broadway producers for inciting young practitioners of the Mormon faith to commit violent acts. 

FoxNews host Martha McCallum brought up criticisms that The Book of Mormon is “taunting” Mormon extremists, saying, “if you want to make a difference, you do it in a Christian way, you don’t do it in a crass crude way by insulting someone’s religion.”

In an exclusive interview, CNN’s Alisyn Camerota sat down with one of the show’s creators, Matt Stone, who is also a co-creator of South Park:

CAMEROTA: Matt, where were you when the gunmen opened fire, and what happened inside?

STONE: We had just finished Act I, and were preparing for the second act when the NYPD came in and asked us to remain calm. They informed us that shots had been fired into the theater lobby from the street.

CAMEROTA: Didn’t you know just how dangerous an event like this could be?

STONE: Well, it’s dangerous because increasingly, we’re abridging our freedoms, so as not to offend Mormons. The very idea that if something offends me, or I’m insulted by something, I’ll go on a shooting spree and that way I can get my way, is outrageous. But somehow this is okay with members of the elite media and academia, which is just as outrageous.

CAMEROTA: Well, I mean, but Matt, nobody —

STONE: It’s a Broadway musical. It’s a funny production!

CAMEROTA: Sure. And nobody is saying that this warrants the violence that you saw. I mean I haven’t heard anyone in the media saying that it’s okay for gunmen to show up at an event like this. But what people are saying is that there’s always this fine line, you know, between freedom of speech and being intentionally incendiary and provocative.

STONE: Intentionally incendiary and provocative by singing songs? This is the low state of freedom of speech in this country. I disagree, and I disagree most vehemently. The First Amendment protects ALL speech, not just ideas that we like. But even core political speech, ideas that we don’t like, because who would decide what’s good and what’s forbidden? The Mormon Church? The government? Inoffensive speech, Alisyn, needs no protection, but in a pluralistic society you have offensive speech. You have ideas. You have an exchange of ideas. You don’t shut down a discussion because I’m offended. If something offends me, should I go out and shoot up a lobby?

CAMEROTA: I mean what your critics say about this is that you weren’t just going after, say, Mitt Romney, or Glenn Beck, or Warren Jeffs, but Mormonism as a whole.

STONE: The West must stand up for freedom of speech. It’s the core, fundamental element of this constitutional republic.

CAMEROTA: Sure, of course, but I hope that you will reconsider whether your show contains a bigoted message that is fit to be seen by the public. You have a right to continue running the show, but many will ask whether it’s really appropriate in this age of political correctness. Thank you for sharing your views with me today.


Scores killed, hundreds injured as extremists riot in Boston area

April 20, 2015

April 20, 1775

BOSTON – National guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed on April 19th by elements of a paramilitary extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.

Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement. Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices.

The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.

The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed widespread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons. Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms. One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”

Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.

During a tense standoff in Lexington’s town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes.

The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists. Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange. Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units.

Colonel Smith, finding his forces overmatched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.

Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor has also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.

Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as ringleaders of the extremist faction, remain at large.


Yes, we can! Students to hurl canned food at intruders

February 4, 2015

From The People’s Cube.

At W.F. Burns Middle School in Valley, Alabama, an administrator wrote a letter requesting that parents send canned food to school. The canned food, she reasons, is not to eat or donate to a homeless shelter, but to stockpile as projectile weaponry against intruders. The canned food will also double as food rations, in case the school wants to keep your children overnight. 

As if you needed another reason to send your children to public schools, now you can be even more assured of your decision. No longer will you have to rely on a rogue Republican school official, with a concealed carry permit, to defend your little ones. Now, your children will have tin cans of food at their disposal, as personal protective equipment.

A reporter candidly questioned the wisdom of allowing children access to cans, listing the ways it could go wrong:

—Children could use the cans on each other, in rapid succession, as assault-can play weapons;

—An intruder might get extra angry at can throwers, who would be like canaries in a coal mine;

—The intruder might hurl the cans back at the children, canceling this brilliant progressive idea.

The administrator erupted volcanically, “Yeah, cans kill people, and spoons make people fat! The original use of canned food is to nourish, not to kill people (just like spoons.) Therefore, cans are an acceptable progressive weapon. Other weapons can’t hold a candle to canned goods. Amer-I-Can. Yes, we can!”

After this incantation, the school district decided to canonize the administrator as a forward thinker, well ahead of her time.

(story continues here)


YouTube commenter watches video before posting

December 18, 2014

From ScrappleFace.com.

In a nearly unprecedented act, a user at YouTube.com watched a three-and-a-half minute political video all of the way through before posting his thoughts about the subject in the comment section below.

“Normally, I just skim the headline and then let ‘er rip,” said the YouTube commenter, “But this time I accidentally hit the play button on my iPad, and then, for some reason, watched the whole thing.”

While he said that “3:26 seems like an eternity when you’re waiting to post your opinion,” he acknowledged that he would have written a much different comment had he not actually watched the video.

A YouTube commenter was surprised to learn this week that YouTube offers video content, along with his personal blogging platform, when he inadvertently triggered a video and watched it all of the way through.

“The main purpose of YouTube, I’ve always thought, is to give me a chance to let the world read what I think,” he said. “It turns out that YouTube also offers a platform for ideas and entertainment in video form, in addition to providing a blog space for me.”

Asked if the experience might inspire him to watch more videos in their entirety before commenting, the man said, “Not intentionally.”

By Scott Ott.


Keynesian economics explained

May 21, 2014


Moon to hold referendum on joining Russia

May 14, 2014

By Scott Ott at PJMedia.

Following in the footsteps of Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, next week’s planned referendum on the Moon would declare “self-rule” and alignment with Russia.

The plebiscite coincides with this weekend’s revelation by Izvestia that Russia may be planning a manned colony on the moon by 2030.

However, a Kremlin spokesman said President Vladimir Putin has “no territorial aspirations on the Moon,” and merely want to ensure local autonomy, the free flow of natural resources, and a peaceful transition.

“We may send in a few advisors, at the request of the locals,” Putin reportedly said, “along with sufficient security to ensure their safety, of course. But we’re not talking about annexing the Moon anytime soon. That’s a CIA conspiracy theory.”

Within hours, crowds of Russian-speaking, flag-waving residents appeared near the Sea of Tranquility demanding their historical right to rejoin Russia.


Russian forces take over space station modules

March 13, 2014

From ScrappleFace.com.

Reports from the International Space Station (ISS) indicate that Russia has effectively annexed several modules of the orbiting laboratory, allegedly at the invitation of a Russian-speaking scientist aboard.

President Vladimir Putin said his forces moved in “peacefully and are committed to protecting the interests of pro-Russian persons on the ISS” — which currently comprises cosmonaut Mikhail Tyurin, who felt threatened by some laboratory rodents run amok.

Mr. Tyurin’s American and Japanese counterparts are reportedly “delighted” by the move, according to Izvestia, the Russian newspaper, quoting sources in the Kremlin.

Russian forces have moved into several modules of the International Space Station at the invitation of pro-Russian forces, to protect them from laboratory rodents run amok, according to Kremlin sources.

At the White House, President Obama is said to be in phone contact with NASA, President Putin and U.N. Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon, from a nearby golf resort where his family is taking a much-needed mid-week vacation. The U.S. president called on his Russian counterpart to observe international and galactic law.

“If Vladimir Putin continues to occupy large sections of the ISS,” said Mr. Obama, “he needs to know that the United States is fully behind the future actions of the United Nations, and that no options are off the table, except military force and economic sanctions.”

Mr. Obama has dispatched Secretary of State John Kerry to the ISS, where he’ll arrive this weekend aboard a Falcon 9 cargo launch, after several hours of grueling training with George Clooney and Sandra Bullock.

Secretary Kerry will carry a red magic marker.

By Scott Ott.


If you like your food desert, you can keep your food desert

February 25, 2014

From the Orange County Register, 2/20/2014:

The successful efforts of a community activist group to scuttle a planned Trader Joe’s development in an economically distressed neighborhood of Northeast Portland, Oregon, illustrates the depths to which ideologues will go under the deceptive banners of racial justice and economic fairness.

On paper, it seemed to be a match made in heaven: the famously progressive city of Portland and Trader Joe’s, with its emphasis on organic, non-GMO food, locally sourced goods and animal- and environmentally-conscious sensibilities. But that was not enough for the Portland African American Leadership Forum. […]

According to a strongly-worded letter PAALF sent to the Portland Development Commission, “A new Trader Joe’s will increase the desirability of the neighborhood to nonoppressed populations, thereby increasing the economic pressures that are responsible for the displacement of low-income and black residents.” […]

Perhaps it has never occurred to PAALF that it is economic opportunity – not government mandates and handouts – that helps the poor improve their lot in life. And government dictates were central to their proposed “solutions.” The group demanded an affordable housing mandate (serving those earning up to 60 percent of median family income), a “legally binding community hiring agreement,” and “an independent, community-controlled body [that] can negotiate a legally binding community benefits agreement.”

So it is not enough that the $8 million development of four-to-10 retail businesses, with Trader Joe’s serving as the anchor tenant, would bring new jobs, quality food and other goods and services, and tax revenues, to a poor neighborhood. PAALF wanted to extract tribute from the developers and businesses in order to further advance its social and political agenda. It is almost like a scene from Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” where the unproductive members of society increasingly feed off of the productive members until the producers decide they have had enough. And, just as in the novel, Trader Joe’s shrugged. […]

This example illustrates the problem of a small group of people – be it a government or “community organizers” – killing the golden goose by deciding what is best for everyone else. If a business does not meet the needs of the community, people will not give it their money, and it will fail. We don’t need any planning commissions, government-sponsored development corporations or heated town hall forums. We just need supply and demand – and freedom.

Stuff like this might attract white people and other undesirables.


That’s the way the cookie crumbles: Community organizers chase Trader Joe’s out of Portland

February 12, 2014

Michelle Obama, whose obsession with other people’s weight borders on the pathological, has said that “food deserts” are partly to blame for the high rates of obesity in the United States, particularly in low-income neighborhoods. According to this theory, the people who live in these neighborhoods have no access to nutritious foods, especially fresh fruits and vegetables, and so they are forced to consume fattening, non-nutritious, health-destroying junk food instead.

Many people who have actually investigated Mrs. Obama’s claims have pronounced them bogus; they say that fresh fruits and vegetables are available in low-income neighborhoods, but many of the locals just don’t buy them — apparently preferring to spend their grocery money on cases of canned soda pop, bags of potato chips, boxes of Twinkies, and other food-like substances that are devoid of any nutrients other than calories.

I’m not going to take sides in the argument over whether or not food deserts exist. What interests me is what happens when someone attempts to do something that would actually provide low-income people with more healthful options. What would happen if, say, a grocery chain that sells high-quality, nutritious food at affordable prices tried to establish a presence in exactly the type of neighborhood that has the First Lady so concerned?

Well, you don’t have to wonder, because I’ll tell you. Trader Joe’s, a California-based retailer, decided to build a new store in Portland, Oregon, in a historically black neighborhood. Jon Gabriel at ricochet.com explains what happened next:

The company selected two acres along Martin Luther King Blvd. that had been vacant for decades. It seemed like the perfect place to create jobs, improve customer options, and beautify the neighborhood. City officials, the business community, and residents all seemed thrilled with the plan. Then some community organizers caught wind of it.

The fact that most members of the Portland African-American Leadership Forum didn’t live in the neighborhood was beside the point. “This is a people’s movement for African-Americans and other communities, for self-determination,” member Avel Gordly said in a press conference. Even the NAACP piled on, railing against the project as a “case study in gentrification.” (The area is about 25 percent African-American.)

After a few months of racially tinged accusations and angry demands, Trader Joe’s decided it wasn’t worth the hassle. “We run neighborhood stores and our approach is simple,” a corporate statement said. “If a neighborhood does not want a Trader Joe’s, we understand, and we won’t open the store in question.”

Hours after Trader Joe’s pulled out, PAALF leaders arrived at a previously scheduled press conference trying to process what just happened. The group re-issued demands that the now-cancelled development include affordable housing, mandated jobs based on race, and a small-business slush fund. Instead, the only demand being met is two fallow acres and a lot of anger from the people who actually live nearby.

“All of my neighbors were excited to have Trader Joe’s come here and replace a lot that has always been empty,” said Nghi Tran. “It’s good quality for poor men.” Like many residents, Tran pins the blame on PAALF. “They don’t come to the neighborhood cleanups,” he said. “They don’t live here anymore.”

“There are no winners today,” said Adam Milne, owner of an area restaurant. “Only missed tax revenue, lost jobs, less foot traffic, an empty lot and a boulevard still struggling to support its local small businesses.” The store was to be built by a local African American-owned construction company.

PAALF objected to Trader Joe’s on the grounds that its presence would “increase the desirability of the neighborhood” for “non-oppressed populations,” adding that “PAALF is and will remain opposed to any development in N/NE Portland that does not primarily benefit the Black community.”

In other words, they didn’t want a business in the neighborhood that would provide good jobs to local residents and good food at low prices because of the risk that it might attract persons of pallor to the area. Can you imagine the reaction from the so-called civil rights establishment if someone had tried to locate a new business in a predominantly white area, and some white racists threw a hissy fit because they feared that the business in question might attract dark-skinned people to the neighborhood?

It’s fitting that the vacant lot Trader Joe’s had chosen as the location for its new store was on a street named for Martin Luther King Jr., a man who worked tirelessly and ultimately sacrificed everything to end segregation and bring about his dream of a color-blind society. The professional race baiters, as well as the community organizer in the White House and his busybody wife, could learn a lot from Dr. King. Unfortunately, they probably never will.


County government crushes little girl’s cupcake business

February 4, 2014

By Phineas Fahrquar at Public Secrets.

And you thought the Nanny State’s “war on child entrepreneurs” was over, after the Great Lemonade Stand War of 2010-11. I’m sorry to say, my friends, that the enemy, enterprising children who want to earn a little money, has opened a new front, threatening us all with the horror of unregulated micro-businesses.

Thank God, however, that the Madison County, Illinois, Health Department is there to protect us from the danger of unlicensed cupcakes:

After-school jobs are tougher to keep, apparently, than they used to be.

On Sunday, a Belleville News-Democrat story featured 11-year-old Chloe Stirling of Troy, Ill., a sixth-grader at Triad Middle School who makes about $200 a month selling cupcakes.

According to a report I watched on Megyn Kelly’s show last night, her parents, seeing Chloe was both serious at her new hobby and good at it, made her an offer: if she saves the money she earns through selling cupcakes, they will match it when she’s 16 and help her buy a car. Great idea, right? Chloe learns some skills and responsibility, how to set and meet goals, and, who knows, maybe she goes on to open her own bakery and creates jobs for other people. “Women’s empowerment,” know what I’m saying?

Winning situation all-around, right?

Well, Nanny State is right there to put an end to this nonsense!

“[The county] called and said they were shutting us down,” Heather Stirling, Chloe’s mother, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Officials told Stirling Chloe could continue selling cupcakes on the condition that the family “buy a bakery or build her a kitchen separate from the one we have.”

“Obviously, we can’t do that,” Heather Stirling told reporters. “We’ve already given her a little refrigerator to keep her things in, and her grandparents bought her a stand mixer.”

The elder Stirling said that she was willing to get her daughter any necessary licenses or permits to operate a business, but could not meet the health department’s other demands.

“But a separate kitchen? Who can do that?” asked an astonished Stirling.

When asked why they were curb-stomping an 11-year old’s business, martinets for Madison county started channeling Judge Dredd:

Health department spokeswoman Amy Yeager said they had no choice but to ask Chloe to close Hey Cupcake.

“The rules are the rules. It’s for the protection of the public health. The guidelines apply to everyone,” she said.

Sharon Valentine, environmental health manager at St Clair County Health Department, added: “If we let one person do it, how can we tell the person with 30 cats in their home that they can’t do it? A line has to be drawn.”

The local health department had been tipped off to Chloe’s baking business after she appeared on the front page of Belleville News Democrat at the weekend.

Somehow –and you can call me “naive”– but I think the “crazy cat lady” scenario is a bit different than a grade-schooler in her parents’ kitchen.

Now, lest I sound like a foaming at the mouth anarcho-capitalist, I’m not averse to regulating food businesses for public health. Restaurants, commercial bakeries, butcher shops and so forth, sure. There is a legit public health interest.

Still, let’s be reasonable here. This is the equivalent of making little Julie Murphy cry in the name of enforcing regulations really meant for adults and real businesses. Asking the parents to buy an inexpensive license, which they were willing to do, and maybe submit the kitchen to a health inspection should be enough.

But “buy a bakery or build a separate kitchen”?? That smacks of a petty bureaucrat being bored and needing some enforcement actions to show for the annual review.

And maybe a little bit of cartelism, too. Reason has written several good articles about how occupational licenses are used to limit competition.

Such as from little girls who are saving for their first car.

(BLUEBIRD OF BITTERNESS ADDS: This story provides further proof, as if any were needed, that the world has gone stark raving mad. God forbid that a bright, energetic, industrious little girl should spend her spare time doing something creative, providing a product that consumers want, earning money to put into her savings account to further her long-term goals. Apparently the imbeciles who run things in her town would prefer that she spend her time texting, playing video games, and vegetating in front of the TV watching worthless dreck until her brain turns into tapioca.)


%d bloggers like this: