The New American Digest

… but I’m not complaining.

I have no reason to believe it’s not.

… other than my built-up cynicism.

“Remove this president or there will be violence“

I’m guessing they’re so blinded by their own light that they don’t realize it’s that supposedly intolerant right – those that haven’t been burning, looting, and destroying in “peaceful protests” – that have the weapons and would tend to “violence” back if push came to shove.

I’ve not seen any way to avoid large sale guerilla action in this country for quite a while; the only surprise is it hasn’t gotten fully started yet. I suppose much of that reason is the so-called “right” hasn’t started pushing back yet.

Going to be an interesting show this summer …

“Indiana’s Chatterbox Jazz Club Threatens Patron with a Bat for Wearing MAGA Hat -Then Kicks Her Out“

Though the threat of physical harm was uncalled for.

Time to rock the boat and let my extreme right-wingness out of its box for a bit – I’m all in favor of a bit of judicious segregation.
Let me know you don’t want me “there” and I won’t go. Just don’t be surprised or “offended” if I return the favor.

I believe the owner of a private business* has every right to “We reserve the right to refuse service“; to serve the customers desired and not serve those not desired. Put up a sign at the door: “Abandon all hope, ye honkies who enter here“. I’ve known places like that, even without the sign.

If a bar owner wants to allow customers to smoke, those that don’t smoke do not have to enter. It’s certainly not the government’s business … and if the bar owner goes out of business because of such a policy, so be it, it’s his concern. And “protestors” do not have the right to argue or block said business.

If I offer custom services, I get to pick and choose those I will work for. “No, I won’t bake your cake. Find someone else or do it yourself.”

If a store wishes to serve only the latest collection of letters and not straight white men, so be it. If a straight white man chooses to not serve those of that latest alphabet soup, so be it.

(There’s a restaurant in town here that makes a point of telling all that it’s “LGBTQ+ friendly”. I don’t go there. Not that I care who or what you sleep with but a place that feels the need to advertise such would probably get me involved in some sort of politics …
… and I’m just looking for a good meal.
They’re probably Democrats. Would they spit in my food knowing I’m not LGBTQ?

If someone doesn’t want blacks or arabs or whites or gays as customers? … there are plenty of businesses that prefer to not serve straight white Americans. That’s OK … just don’t be upset if straight white men don’t want you as a customer.

If store wishes to not serve gays, gays stay out … as the same gays should be able to keep straights out of their places of business. Actually, I’ve found gays – the screaming queen types – to be more one-sided segregationist than any other group. Those I’ve known (I worked theatre for several years) want every “right” to do as they please, to go where they wish … but want to keep straights away from their “special” places (not that I ever understood why a true “straight” would want to go to such places).

(Though there is a tale of me and a girlfriend looking for a room on Castro St in SF over 40 years ago.
We were meeting a gay friend who happened to be the editor of a national magazine in NYC.
He got pissed at that hotel over their treatment of us.
We ended up at the Sir Francis Drake instead … It was a different world back then.)

People love the 1st Amendment because of “freedom of speech” (or hate it for the same reason). A less known phrase is “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” which may also be stated as freedom of non-assembly. Nothing is gained by forcing “togetherness”. Gee – I have relatives I’d just as soon not “assemble” with.

Much might be gained by allowing voluntary separation … aka, segregation. Screw “civil rights”; LBJ messed up this country more with his Great Society than he did with Kennedy’s assassination or Vietnam. How can anyone claim “affirmative action” is not as >ra-a-ay-cist< as any Jim Crow law???

When all these “special” groups argue for “rights”, they’re not seeking equal treatment, they’re arguing for “we’re special” rights (rights being contrary to freedoms). Left-handed, 3-legged dwarfs don’t want equal treatment – they want special consideration because they’re victims of being left-handed 3-legged dwarfs and want the rest of us to be required to bow down to their victimhood.

Bah, humbug …

*A business which chooses to become “public” – that is, raising money on the open market; selling stock on a public exchange for example, should not have that right.