As IF Times

Source: Trump answers critics who say he’s inciting violence at campaign events | Fox News

To some, it’s still a mystery as to how the bombastic and unfiltered GOP front runner can continue to amass greater and greater support numbers even as critics from both sides of the political divide push back against his rhetoric.  We’ve heard to death, the media’s explanation that this is a reflection of voters’ anger with Washington elites.  That’s only part of it and this explanation overlooks the real reason for their anger.

Intelligent people don’t like to be told what to think.   The subtle coercion of thought by media, by entertainment, by politicos and by educators has morphed into a cultural regime more resembling fascism on the part of the leftist/liberal orthodoxy over the past few generations.  It gets increasingly difficult to express an opinion which doesn’t offend the sensibilities of some victimized subset of society.  Or worse, to attack the sacred cows which are dear to the anointed intelligentsia.  I’ve written at length about the preposterousness of the ever morphing Global Warming charade, but this may get more difficult if some legislators get their way.  There have actually been proposals  about making any skeptical discussion of Global Warming illegal with consequent jail sentences!    So if you don’t hear again from me for a while, check the local hoosegow.

In Chicago yesterday, thousands of ‘socially conscious’ protestors thought it was their duty to disrupt a speech by Trump…well that and some money from moveon.org.  This seems to be the standard response from the tolerant and inclusive left who think that freedom of speech is fine… as long as you agree with them. Odd that no one notices the parallel with fundamental Islamists banning unacceptable speech in that regime.  It was like watching Kanye West jumping on stage to interrupt Taylor Swift at an awards show.  As The Donald would invoke, you just want to punch him in the neck.

You can imagine an average person watching these events unfold from their living rooms in Nebraska, or Kansas, or Montana and saying to themselves, “Wait, who  said those idiots speak for me?” These normally politically inactive people decide to support Trump just because he represents them; the silent majority who for years silently endured the ongoing creep of ‘rightthink’ in their lives because it was easier than standing up individually.  They see in Trump, someone who finally has the cojones to push back, something they wish they themselves could do. They support the guy even though he exhibits the worst public manners, the most narcisstic ego and the most cartoon-like policy proposals.  He may be obnoxious but he represents the unspoken sentiments of a large, long silent, disenfranchised majority.

Source: Jury selection begins in Erin Andrews $75 million lawsuit against Marriott | syracuse.com

Although stupid lawsuits are as common as insults during a Trump family dinner, when it’s worth 75 million dollars and involves an attractive female ‘personality’ it’s still news. The defendants in this peeping Tom case are not only the perp, but also the Marriott hotel chain which supposedly aided and abetted the creep in allowing him to film Erin in the expected privacy of her room.

You won’t find anyone taking the side of the creep who should get whatever punishment he deserves based on existing laws.  Without the benefit of a procedural legal system, the best solution would be for Erin’s brothers or friends to take this guy out in the back alley and sh0w him some manners.  No lawyers, no judges and possibly no repeat crime.

But the Marriot company is also drawn into this as a co-defendant and likely the only party that will have to pony up $75 million in the case of a court loss.  This is preposterous. It creates a wildly asymmetric cost/benefit profile for the hotel.  Imagine that for the price of a 200 or 300 or even a 500 dollar room, the hotel is expected to provide complete and absolute security for the entire duration of the customer’s stay.  It implies that the customer can never be harmed by virtue  of putting down a few hundred bucks per night.  If that were the case, the FBI witness protection program may as well contract out to hotels.

If in fact there is the expectation that absolute privacy and safety must be ensured by the hotel, a few hundred bucks per night isn’t going to pay the cost of such security.  They may have to reassess their business model and add a few digits to all room rates in order to prepare for the lawsuit contingency. You may need mortgage brokers in the lobbies of these places. Only in the west and the U.S. in particular,  are people so delusional that they think their ‘hurts’ have a legal price tag attached to them.  Every visit to a business including hotels,  grocery stores, yoga studio, movie theaters or fast food outlets which  results in real or imagined harm would have the potential to be  lotto ticket winners.

In Erin Andrew’s case, we wonder how they arrived at the $75 million dollar damages number.  If the point was to teach Marriot a lesson, why not claim $200 million and really teach them a lesson?  I suspect that the hotel can argue that sexism is at play here, because if it were Terry Bradshaw being the victim, he’d be lucky to be offered a room upgrade on his next visit.