Another week comes to a close, and so I offer for your consideration, an old classic with a new video.
The song is the rock classic Ballroom Blitz by the band Sweet. But this video is on a trailer for the new movie Suicide Squad, which opens next week:
Enjoy your weekend folks, and try not to get into trouble on the dance floor.
Friday, July 29, 2016
Black Lives Matter
The black community has a problem. It comes from both inside and outside itself.
Inside itself, the black community is trapped in a never-ending cycle of self destruction. The rate of black-on-black crime is horrendous. The drug war also seems to have too many young black males trapped, either in jail, or out of jail but unable to find work because of their criminal record.
Outside itself, the police are caught in a different kind of trap. They are supposed to defend blacks from crime, and yet they find themselves facing too many lawless blacks. Admittedly, they shouldn't assume guilt based on color, but they do. It's human nature, which has become even more ingrained by American politics which continues to group people together, as if everyone is the same in certain minority groups.
Racism exists today, but it isn't the vicious kind of previous generations. It isn't KKK lynchings, or laws forcing blacks to the back of the bus. No, today's racism is the benevolent kind. It offers quotas and lowered bars of achievement for those with darker skin. Mind you, not all blacks need this, but it leaves the "other" races looking at black achievers as somewhat less.
Picture a basketball game where a black team plays against a white team. However, the black team's basket is 3 feet lower than the white team's basket. Even if you had a black team full of Michael Jordans, everyone only sees the lower basket. If the blacks win, the response from everyone else is, "Yes, but..."
This creates a taint on black accomplishment. Even President Obama would not have been elected if he wasn't black. Don't believe me? Even if you supported him, ask yourself if you would have voted for him if he was a white man?
There is no quick fix to these problems. Anything we do as a society will take at least a generation to show progress. But there is a way:
When all of us, black and white and brown alike, are all truly free, and no longer slaves to government or crony capitalists, only then can we even hope to move beyond racism, both malevolent and benevolent.
Until we get past the idea that government "fixed" the civil rights problem, when in fact the tyranny of the majority of democratic government WAS the problem. Rosa Parks wasn't told to sit in the back of the bus because it was some kind of racist bus driver. She was in violation of the law. Never forget the civil rights movement was about getting government out of the way of people's rights.
Unfortunately, the civil rights movement turned into a jury-rigged apartheid system, which gave blacks more opportunity, even as it removed accountability, yet our legal system continues to grow into a brutal leviathan. Remember, the more laws there are to enforce, the more we leave it to the discretion of police which ones to enforce, because they are only human. If they abuse their authority, making more laws won't fix it. Creating more bureaucracy just makes it harder for them to do their jobs in the first place.
This is what I mean by freedom. If you want true equality, we have to have a certain amount of faith in our fellow man, regardless of his skin color. Using government to fix that only creates more problems.
Inside itself, the black community is trapped in a never-ending cycle of self destruction. The rate of black-on-black crime is horrendous. The drug war also seems to have too many young black males trapped, either in jail, or out of jail but unable to find work because of their criminal record.
Outside itself, the police are caught in a different kind of trap. They are supposed to defend blacks from crime, and yet they find themselves facing too many lawless blacks. Admittedly, they shouldn't assume guilt based on color, but they do. It's human nature, which has become even more ingrained by American politics which continues to group people together, as if everyone is the same in certain minority groups.
Racism exists today, but it isn't the vicious kind of previous generations. It isn't KKK lynchings, or laws forcing blacks to the back of the bus. No, today's racism is the benevolent kind. It offers quotas and lowered bars of achievement for those with darker skin. Mind you, not all blacks need this, but it leaves the "other" races looking at black achievers as somewhat less.
Picture a basketball game where a black team plays against a white team. However, the black team's basket is 3 feet lower than the white team's basket. Even if you had a black team full of Michael Jordans, everyone only sees the lower basket. If the blacks win, the response from everyone else is, "Yes, but..."
This creates a taint on black accomplishment. Even President Obama would not have been elected if he wasn't black. Don't believe me? Even if you supported him, ask yourself if you would have voted for him if he was a white man?
There is no quick fix to these problems. Anything we do as a society will take at least a generation to show progress. But there is a way:
"When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!'"--Martin Luther King Jr.King gave us the solution: The secret lies in freedom.
When all of us, black and white and brown alike, are all truly free, and no longer slaves to government or crony capitalists, only then can we even hope to move beyond racism, both malevolent and benevolent.
Until we get past the idea that government "fixed" the civil rights problem, when in fact the tyranny of the majority of democratic government WAS the problem. Rosa Parks wasn't told to sit in the back of the bus because it was some kind of racist bus driver. She was in violation of the law. Never forget the civil rights movement was about getting government out of the way of people's rights.
Unfortunately, the civil rights movement turned into a jury-rigged apartheid system, which gave blacks more opportunity, even as it removed accountability, yet our legal system continues to grow into a brutal leviathan. Remember, the more laws there are to enforce, the more we leave it to the discretion of police which ones to enforce, because they are only human. If they abuse their authority, making more laws won't fix it. Creating more bureaucracy just makes it harder for them to do their jobs in the first place.
This is what I mean by freedom. If you want true equality, we have to have a certain amount of faith in our fellow man, regardless of his skin color. Using government to fix that only creates more problems.
Final take on the Democratic National Convention
The Democrats don't appear to be any better than they were 20 years ago when the Clintons were running the country. If anything, they have gotten worse: More whiny, more entitlement-demanding, more politically correct.
Gone is the bravery of the civil rights movement, replaced with the demands of spoiled moochers.
But on to the infomercial for the socialists/progressives...
All quotes from CNN:
Continuing:
Continuing:
But isn't that typical of Democrats? They always ignore the inconvenient truths:
Continuing:
Finally:
Democrats are a bunch of liars, criminals, and looters. This is not a legacy of which to be proud.
Gone is the bravery of the civil rights movement, replaced with the demands of spoiled moochers.
But on to the infomercial for the socialists/progressives...
All quotes from CNN:
For the first time, a major U.S. political party has nominated a woman for president. Clinton said she's "so happy this day has come" -- calling it big for women and men, "because when any barrier falls in America, for anyone, it clears the way for everyone. When there are no ceilings, the sky's the limit."Tell this to Jill Stein, the Green Party's candidate. Sorry Hillary, but you aren't the first. Only the first Democrat.
Continuing:
Hillary Clinton also embraced her inner policy wonk, selling that quality as what qualifies her for the presidency -- and what should rule Trump out.
"It's true," Clinton said. "I sweat the details of policy -- whether we're talking about the exact level of lead in the drinking water in Flint, Michigan, the number of mental health facilities in Iowa, or the cost of your prescription drugs. Because it's not just a detail if it's your kid -- if it's your family. It's a big deal. And it should be a big deal to your president, too."Here is the problem: Policy wonks make better advisers than presidents. Jimmy Carter was very hands-on and wonkish. Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were very hands-off and good delegators.
Continuing:
Notably missing: Any mention of the controversies that have dogged her campaign, like her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.That is the 800 pound gorilla in the Clinton campaign. Trump will be spending the next three months hitting her with that gorilla.
But isn't that typical of Democrats? They always ignore the inconvenient truths:
- After decades of affirmative action and welfare, minorities are no better off, and are arguably worse off. Yet Democrats never have to defend this.
- At what point do we hold the big government education establishment accountable for the generation of messed up, stupid, and whiny children that has been created? Don't ask the Democrats, because they are all on board for more of the same.
- Was the economy fixed after running the national debt up to $20 trillion? Don't ask the Democrats, because they think we didn't spend enough.
- If you followed all the global warming predictions over the past decade plus, you would see failed prediction after failed prediction, yet the Democrats continue to support pointless policies to prevent something over which mankind has no control.
Continuing:
Instead, she told the story of her grandfather working 50 years in a lace mill; his father starting a business printing fabric for draperies; her mother, who was abandoned by her parents at 14, being "saved by the kindness of others."
"The lesson she passed on to me years later stuck with me: No one gets through life alone. We have to look out for each other and lift each other up," Clinton said. "She made sure I learned the words of our Methodist faith: 'Do all the good you can, for all the people you can, in all the ways you can, as long as ever you can.'"I was raised a Methodist too. I don't remember the part about using government to steal money from working people in order to support the wealthy and the poor? To quote Darth Vader, "I find your lack of faith disturbing."
Continuing:
Clinton portrayed herself as solid, steady, experienced -- respected across the world and comfortable in crisis. She then used Trump's tendency to shoot from the hip against him.
"A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons," she said.But we can trust a woman who considers herself above the law?
Finally:
[Bernie Sanders'] legacy: a Democratic Party moving leftward much faster, and in much larger numbers, than party leaders had imagined. Clinton now opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership and pledged to work with the Vermont senator on reducing the financial burden of high college tuition. Her call to overturn Citizens United drew big cheers Thursday night in the hall.Translation: This is a Democratic Party that I can never even consider voting for again. There are a few older Democrats in local offices in Georgia whom I would consider, but never would I consider a newer Democrat who supports the party on display this week.
Democrats are a bunch of liars, criminals, and looters. This is not a legacy of which to be proud.
Thursday, July 28, 2016
Tweet of the day
Democrats are now accusing Russia of manipulating our presidential election... exactly what DNC was caught doing. #DNCleak— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) July 27, 2016
Trump and the Russians
There is a MASSIVE Media attack on Donald Trump underway, trying to link him to the Russians, based on the recent hacker attacks on the Democratic National Committee, and Trump's subsequent encouragement of them. But it doesn't really matter.
First, here is a recent sampling of articles about Trump and Russia:
First, here is a recent sampling of articles about Trump and Russia:
- New York Daily News: Whether or not Russians hacked the DNC to aid Donald Trump, the Republican nominee is dangerously fond of Vladimir Putin
- Vanity Fair: COMRADE TRUMP’S ALLEGED RUSSIAN TIES SPARK SCRUTINY
- Talking Points Memo: Trump & Putin. Yes, It's Really a Thing
- Politico: The Kremlin’s Candidate
I will gladly concede this point to the Media. In football terms, this is the equivalent of "piling on". Trump is already unworthy of the White House.
The problem with attacking Trump is that he has to have violated worse laws than Hillary Clinton to even make some kind of binary argument about unworthiness for the White House. Connecting him to the Russians only puts him in the same category as Hillary, who has her own financial connections to Russia.
We can easily spend the next 3+ months tearing down both Trump and Hillary, but the truth is that neither of them are worthy. They are both elitists, who live in a world most of us can only view from a distance, or step into for a few minutes before returning to our "little people" world.
Most Americans don't get a chance to make personal deals with the Russians. However, if you vote for Trump or Clinton in November, consider that your "proxy deal" with the Russians. You can be a useful idiot too.
Today's News July 28, 2016
Fortunately, the rest of the news got more interesting, so I can cut back on coverage of the infomercial known as the Democratic National Convention.
(At least I am honest.)
CNN:
[President] Obama cast the 2016 election as a choice between two visions for the country: The one he described on the Democratic convention stage when he rocketed to stardom 12 years ago in Boston against a dark and dystopian view from Trump that Obama said doesn't match "the America I know."Tell that to all the people out of work today. Tell that to black mothers of children killed by cops and other blacks. Tell that to people who aren't making about the same wages they made 20 years ago. The only happy people are the Mexicans here illegally, making more money than they did in Mexico, but still below the minimum wage.
The problem with Democrats is they see the world through their own rose-colored glasses when it suits them. Especially when it is the guy who is trying to defend his last 8 years in the White House.
But this was the classic Obama line:
In a direct shot at Trump, Obama said: "Our power doesn't come from some self-declared savior promising that he alone can restore order as long as we do things his way."I doubt Obama realizes he was psychologically projecting there...
Washington Times:
There isn't much news in this story, yet:
...the anti-secrecy whistle-blower group released hacked voicemails of top Democratic officials.
Wikileaks put up a page containing 29 mp3 files of calls, identified by phone number, running approximately 14 minutes combined.Stay tuned next week. Same batty time, same batty party...
None of the messages listened to by The Washington Times contained anything immediately obvious as embarrassing or incriminating.
However, the very fact the DNC voicemail system has been hacked is embarrassing and could augur the release of far more damaging material later.
The Week:
Nancy Pelosi is the gift that keeps on giving. It would take Yogi Berra to explain her.
Case in point:
Republican Donald Trump leads Democrat Hillary Clinton 56 percent to 25 percent among white men, according to a recent survey — and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) believes she knows why.
"So many times, white — non-college-educated — white males have voted Republican," she said in an interview with PBS on Tuesday. "They voted against their own economic interests because of guns, because of gays, and because of God, the three G's — God being the woman's right to choose."Huh?
I cannot connect ANY of those dots.
Leave it to Yogi to explain this (paraphrasing): "She really didn't say everything she said. Then again, she might have said 'em, but you never know."
(hat tip to Fake Posters for the pic)
Heat Street:
Sanders, who considers himself, officially, an Independent in Congress because his views lean further left than the Democratic party’s platform, caucuses with Democrats. But until declaring an intention to run for the presidency in 2015, he had rarely, if ever, identified as a member of the Democratic Party (he’s been in politics since 1979).
And now, despite pleading with his base to support Hillary, even though they’re concerned that she’s too moderate, Sanders will return to Vermont and to his seat in the Senate, and he’ll do it with no official party affiliation.There is an important life lesson from this. There are times in life when we want to get ahead, but we know we will have to make uncomfortable sacrifices. Sometimes, even painful sacrifices. In the case of Bernie Sanders, that sacrifice was registering as a Democrat in order to run for president.
At least he was true to himself in the end. Well, after endorsing Hillary, which we now know was complete b.s.
The Mount Rushmore of Editorialists: Will Rogers
This is the fourth part in my series on the great American editorialists. Part three about Horace Greeley is here. Part two about Ben Franklin is here. Part one about H.L. Mencken is here.
Long before Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich wrote for the New York Times, there was Will Rogers.
Long before Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich wrote for the New York Times, there was Will Rogers.
(hat tip to Wikipedia for the pic)
Rogers had an exciting life before he ever became an editorialist. Although he was an avid reader, he dropped out of school after the 10th grade to become a cowboy. He went from cowboy in Argentina and South Africa, to circus performer back in the U.S., then on to Vaudeville, and even performing at the famed Ziegfeld Follies, then on to a movie career. He later went on to do radio shows, including his own.
In the midst of his incredible life, Rogers managed to fit in a short career as a New York Times columnist. While there is no doubt he would have been famous without writing, many of his memorable quotes come to us from his columns:
"This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer."
"This would be a great world to dance in if we didn't have to pay the fiddler."
"This country has gotten where it is in spite of politics, not by the aid of it. That we have carried as much political bunk as we have and still survived shows we are a super nation."
"You can't say that civilization don't advance, however, for in every war they kill you in a new way."
From an article about the use of scopolamine as a truth serum: "See they conducted experiments on convicts ... I don't know on what grounds they reason a man in jail is a bigger liar than one out of jail ... The chances are telling the truth is what got him there ... It would be a big aid to humanity, but it will never be, for already the politicians are up in arms against it ... It would wreck the very foundation on which our political government is run ... If you ever injected truth into politics you'd have no politics … Humanity is not yet ready for either real truth or real harmony."
"I never met a man I didn’t like."As I have defined editorialists, "insightful, sometimes witty, frequently pithy, prudent, and most of all perceptive", Rogers was all of these. He might have made a career out of playing the rube, but there was a pretty sharp guy behind that mask.
Wednesday, July 27, 2016
Trump gets the bear
I figure by November, my polar bear will think his name is "Trump".
From Politico:
From Politico:
Donald Trump believes American troops are afraid to fight for fear of violating the Geneva Conventions, he said Wednesday.
“The problem is we have the Geneva Conventions, all sorts of rules and regulations, so the soldiers are afraid to fight,” Trump said at an afternoon town hall during remarks on torture.
“We can’t waterboard, but they can chop off heads,” Trump said, referring to the United States and the Islamic State, respectively. “I think we’ve got to make some changes, some adjustments.”
The Geneva Conventions, adopted broadly after World War II, govern the treatment of civilians and prisoners of war — including a ban on torture and summary executions. They mirror rules the U.S. adopted in 1882.
Trump has called for changing laws that govern interrogation techniques to “bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”
Crooked Hillary's sobfest
Hillary Clinton is not unique among Democrats in the way she paints herself as a victim. But in her case, the disingenuity is breathtaking.
Case in point: Her 60 Minutes interview, which was shown last Sunday night.
Here are some of her incredible quotes (from CNN):
Hillary Clinton "felt sad" watching a Republican National Convention that was mostly about "criticizing me," she said an interview aired Sunday night on CBS' "60 Minutes."
"I seem to be the only unifying theme that they had," the presumptive Democratic nominee said. "There was no positive agenda. It was a very dark, divisive campaign. And the people who were speaking were painting a picture of our country that I did not recognize -- you know, negative, scapegoating, fear, bigotry, smears. I just was so -- I was saddened by it."Hillary, you missed the part about Trump's kids saying what a great dad he was? I mean, how divisive was that, right? I mean, Trump even had the nerve to have his own daughter introduce him on the last night! Oh, wait, so are you...
Clinton complained of a "Hillary standard" -- suggesting that she faces more scrutiny than other top-level politicians.
"I often feel like there's the Hillary standard and then there's the standard for everybody else," she said.There is! The "Hillary standard" means she doesn't get convicted of crimes that the rest of us would do some serious jail time for. At least that is what I thought she meant?
Asked to explain that, Clinton cited "unfounded, inaccurate, mean-spirited attacks with no basis in truth" which "take on a life of their own," pointing to Republicans' criticism at the party's convention in Cleveland last week.
"And for whatever reasons -- and I don't want to try to analyze the reasons. I see it. I understand it," she said. "People are very willing to say things about me, to make accusations about me that are -- I don't get upset about them anymore, but they are very regrettable."Here was the part where I was about to make a joke about a "harpy", but then I realized she IS a harpy! Seriously, from Wikipedia:
In Greek mythology and Roman mythology, a harpy...was a female monster in the form of a bird with a human face. They steal food from their victims while they are eating and carry evildoers (especially those who have killed their family) to the Erinyes. They seem originally to have been wind spirits. Their name means "snatchers"
Coincidence? I think not!
But back to the interview...
In the interview, Clinton was asked what she calls Trump, in response to his moniker for her: "Crooked Hillary."
"I don't call him anything. And I'm not going to engage in that kind of insult fest that he seems to thrive on," Clinton said.
"So whatever he says about me, he's perfectly free to use up his own air time and his own space to do. I'm going to talk about what he's done, how he has hurt people in business time after time after time," she said.Translation: I'm rubber, you're glue...
Seriously Hillary, the victim? You? Ok, I'll pull out the world's smallest violin...
Are Libertarians "fiscally conservative"?
There is a fascinating editorial by Brett Chandrasekhar over at The Libertarian Republic: "Libertarians Are NOT Fiscally Conservative". In it, Brett brings up this issue:
“Fiscally conservative and socially really don’t give a damn,” stated Gary Johnson in an interview with MSNBC in late June. “As long as you don’t force me into believing what it is you believe. Let people have choices in life.”
After months and months of criticism, Johnson finally buckled. He modified his long-time slogan “fiscally conservative, socially liberal,” to make room for social conservatives who might consider libertarianism if it meant retaining their social values in a personal sense.
...Unfortunately, this new version is problematic as well. It does not properly describe libertarianism and is a poor way to market the liberty movement.
This begs the question of "what is a libertarian?" Brett gives us a little more definition:
The problems with calling libertarians “socially liberal” are quite manifest to those who are knowledgeable about the liberty movement. For one, social conservatives are prevalent. Ron Paul, Tom Woods, and Andrew Napolitano are all social conservatives but are still libertarian because they do not believe in forcing their views on others. Furthermore, a number of positions typically deemed “socially liberal” are in fact not libertarian, such as prohibiting business discrimination.
Meanwhile, the problems with calling libertarians “fiscally conservative” may not be so obvious at first glance. After all, there is not a plethora of individuals in the movement calling themselves “fiscally liberal.”
Nevertheless, just like the “socially liberal” label, “fiscally conservative” is an inaccurate descriptor. It’s true that conservatives want to reduce taxes and cut government spending and debt. But how many want to completely eliminate the income tax? How many want to drastically cut spending? How many want to end the Federal Reserve and legalize competing currencies? Libertarians have some disagreements on the degree to which they’d do such things, but even the moderates are far and away from typical...fiscal conservatives.
...Further problematic is the fact that many fiscal conservatives are concerned more about eliminating the debt than reducing taxes.
I disagree with Brett's statement about fiscal conservatives who are only interested in eliminating the debt. People like that may exist, but I haven't met them. Even if it did exist, the problem with this political belief is that it doesn't explain how to prevent the debt from being re-created in the future.
Anyway, later on, Brett gives us a handy dandy little chart to demonstrate libertarianism on the political spectrum:
Anyway, later on, Brett gives us a handy dandy little chart to demonstrate libertarianism on the political spectrum:
Overall, Brett does a good job of defining libertarianism, although I have to take exception to his chart. Where he labels it "libertarian" at the top, that would actually be "anarchy", since anarchy is the true opposition to "authoritarian". Libertarian would be slightly lower than anarchy on the chart.
There are anarchists within the Libertarian Party. While I respect their views, I don't adhere to them. Anarchy is preferable to authoritarian forms of government, but it isn't the best choice. Anarchism provides no protection for freedom, which is what the true libertarian seeks.
Fiscal anarchy provides no means for funding a government. A true libertarian accepts (begrudgingly) the need for a government. This is where the libertarian and the fiscal conservative's goals align.
A "fiscal conservative" is one who wants a minimal, but still existent treasury, which is necessary for the government to protect our freedoms (i.e. social liberties). Within a libertarian framework, it remains to be seen how we would accomplish this, although I would recommend a consumption tax, such as the FairTax.
An income tax is, by it's nature, an authoritarian construct, because it allows for control over the workers in a society. In truth, both the Republicans and Democrats would actually appear closer to the authoritarian side of the chart above because of their willingness to use government force to steal money from the people via income taxation.
The beauty of the FairTax in comparison to the income tax is that it preserves an individual's right to retain (read: save) the fruits of their labor. However, when a person goes to spend money, they are clearly not retaining anything. In fact, they are taking advantage of the free market, which is protected by the government. A tax on the free market is a reasonable thing: If we expect exchanges to be fair, is it unfair to ask people to pay for the protections we provide as a collective society?
In summary, Johnson's description of libertarians as "fiscally conservative" is apt for the most part. My apologies to the fiscal anarchists in the Libertarian Party.
Highlights from the Democratic National Convention
I have a tremendous sense of ambivalence this morning at the "official" news of Hillary Clinton's nomination last night.
On the one hand, it is a very good thing to see a woman get the nomination of one of the major parties. This is long overdue.
On the other hand, did it have to be such a flawed woman? Even setting aside the fact Hillary would not have gotten where she is without her husband's career, did she have to be a woman in the pocket of Goldman Sachs? Did she have to be a criminal who used her political power to skirt the law? (pun intended)
This is a Pyrrhic victory for women.
Aside from that, the big news was Bill Clinton's speech last night. But what was more interesting was what Bill didn't talk about: The Monica Lewinsky affair and Hillary's Iraq War vote.
The Lewinsky affair is, on the surface, more Bill's fault than Hillary's fault, so mentioning it would be crass, especially for Bill. Still, could Bill and Hillary's relationship have caused the Lewinsky affair to happen? For example, if they have an "open relationship", the affair could have been meaningless within the context of their marriage. Regardless, nothing in the Lewinsky affair makes Hillary a bad person. At least nothing we know.
As for Hillary's Iraq War vote, that is a different matter, since it affected the American people. In hindsight, we know the Iraq War was a bad idea. But how many of us stood against it at the time? I was for it myself, and I was wrong. I will not hold Hillary accountable for her mistake at the time, unless she refuses to admit it.
On the one hand, it is a very good thing to see a woman get the nomination of one of the major parties. This is long overdue.
On the other hand, did it have to be such a flawed woman? Even setting aside the fact Hillary would not have gotten where she is without her husband's career, did she have to be a woman in the pocket of Goldman Sachs? Did she have to be a criminal who used her political power to skirt the law? (pun intended)
This is a Pyrrhic victory for women.
Aside from that, the big news was Bill Clinton's speech last night. But what was more interesting was what Bill didn't talk about: The Monica Lewinsky affair and Hillary's Iraq War vote.
The Lewinsky affair is, on the surface, more Bill's fault than Hillary's fault, so mentioning it would be crass, especially for Bill. Still, could Bill and Hillary's relationship have caused the Lewinsky affair to happen? For example, if they have an "open relationship", the affair could have been meaningless within the context of their marriage. Regardless, nothing in the Lewinsky affair makes Hillary a bad person. At least nothing we know.
As for Hillary's Iraq War vote, that is a different matter, since it affected the American people. In hindsight, we know the Iraq War was a bad idea. But how many of us stood against it at the time? I was for it myself, and I was wrong. I will not hold Hillary accountable for her mistake at the time, unless she refuses to admit it.
Tuesday, July 26, 2016
Is Sanders a bigger loon than Trump?
Another week, another David Harsanyi editorial! Life is good...
This week's gem: "Friendly Reminder: Bernie Sanders Is A Bigger Authoritarian Than Donald Trump". Sadly, I doubt the Millenials who need to read this editorial will be. But that's just more preachy enjoyment for those of us sitting in the choir...
David starts out with this premise:
Let’s concede that the media’s distress about Donald Trump’s nomination is well founded. I certainly believe so.
If so, surely it’s also fair to point out that Bernie Sanders is by any measure an authoritarian as well. In many ways, Sanders’ proposed state intrusions into the lives of citizens are more significant, enduring, intrusive, and revolutionary than Trump’s.Read the entire article before continuing. You can thank me later.
You done? Good. A few things David says...
Somehow it seems to escape the attention of most of those covering the race that Bernie is a champion of an economic system that has caused more suffering and destitution than any other in modern history.I doubt it escapes their attention. His supporters are either too young to remember communism, or too poor to travel to Europe to see the devastating effects of the modern welfare socialist state, or they are lifelong communists still excusing the failures of communism/socialism throughout history.
(Yes, democratic socialists tend to attain power through “democratic” means in countries where democratic systems are in place.)Thank you David! It is about time someone mentioned that. Whenever I challenge a socialist on their preferred ideology, they always come back with, "But it's democratic socialism", as if that is somehow different. When my daughter first used that socialist's excuse on me, I responded with a sarcastic, "As if the tyranny of the majority makes it all better!" Does it really make a difference if a dictator, an oligarchy, or a democracy decides to throw open the doors to the treasury?
...public schools have done such a swell job educating young Americans, they might actually believe the state can provide them with free things.This one could easily be "quote of the day".
But I do have to take exception to one thing David said:
Well, Bernie seems to believe that life around here is ugly, unjust, and unfair. In his zero-sum dystopia, oligarchs can steal your future and your vote, and oilmen can cause cataclysmic weather events and make an education unattainable — never mind that more kids are going to college than ever before. The system is rigged, and the banks charge you interest! And democracy is stolen by, among others, the “Koch Brothers” — who have actually sat out this cycle, but whatever.Actually, there is something to be said for Bernie's diagnosis, even if his solution is out of the Marxist playbook.
We do live in an oligarchy, where people with money or power can do whatever they like, including ignoring the laws. Bankers like Lloyd Blankfein and politicians like Hillary Clinton can do anything from collapsing the economy to breaking national security laws, all with impunity. The political system is even rigged to keep these people on top (we saw that in play in both parties). The Media overlooks the actions of these people even while cheering them.
By the way, David, remember this tweet?
David, it isn't a "conspiracy theory" if the world really IS this way!i just explained to kid that socialists are booing democrat nom because of emails hacked by russians .. and & i sound like a crazy person— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) July 25, 2016
Hillary the war hawk
Ben Norton's Salon article hits a note Democrats might not like: "Democrats, this is why you need to fear Hillary Clinton: The NY Times is absolutely right — she’s a bigger hawk than the Republicans". It is a long title, but painfully accurate.
He references a New York Times Magazine piece, which he describes below and throughout the editorial:
Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is even more of a war hawk than her Republican counterparts, the U.S. newspaper of record says in a new report.
“How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk,” a long-form article published this week in the New York Times Magazine, details how Clinton’s hyper-hawkish “foreign-policy instincts are bred in the bone,” based on what one of her aides calls “a textbook view of American exceptionalism.”
Clinton’s extreme belligerence “will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets in the general election,” the Times explains, noting “neither Donald J. Trump nor Senator Ted Cruz of Texas have demonstrated anywhere near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has.”
In the 2016 presidential campaign, the report concludes, “Hillary Clinton is the last true hawk left in the race.”
The almost 7,000-word piece in the New York Times, which endorsed Clinton, details how, as secretary of state, Clinton pressured President Obama to take more aggressive military action in a variety of conflicts, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Russia, Syria and more.The article goes on to show how Hillary is, as they describe it, "a little bit to the right" of even the military on some issues.
If you believe the U.S. should be more involved in the world militarily, then Hillary might just be your "man", so to speak.
Highlights from the Democratic National Convention
From Fox News:
Several celebrities including comedian Sarah Silverman and actress Eva Longoria also rallied to Clinton’s defense – with Silverman even taking on the Sanders crowd, saying, “Bernie or bust people, you’re being ridiculous.”I have to side with Silverman on this. I can relate to what the Sanders' backers are feeling now. I supported Austin Petersen in the Libertarian Party, and he lost. Instead, I got Gary Johnson, who is basically lame next to Petersen. However, Johnson is still a much better choice than Trump or Clinton, so I will vote for him. But it still leaves me with a "what might have been" feeling, and I am certain Sanders' backers will feel that too.
From CNN:
[First Lady Michelle Obama] began [her speech] discussing watching her daughters grow up in the White House -- saying she remembers watching them go off to school for the first time.So what are the lessons children can learn from Hillary Clinton?
"At that moment, I realized that our time in the White House would form the foundation for who they would become, and how we managed this experience could truly make or break them," she said.
She added: "This election -- every election -- is about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four or eight years of our lives. And I am here tonight because in this election, there is only one person who I trust with that responsibility -- only one person who I believe is truly qualified to be President of the United States. And that is our friend, Hillary Clinton."
1. Keep your friends close, but keep people in positions of power closer.Just imagine a whole generation of American children learning these lessons!
2. Never marry for sex or love. Marry your political soulmate.
3. Never leave evidence where your enemies can get it. And EVERYTHING is evidence!
4. Deny deny DENY! Then if you get caught, say "it doesn't really matter".
We are so very screwed...
From Reuters:
The tumult began before the convention opened, as Sanders drew jeers from his own supporters when he urged his delegates to back the White House bid of his former rival, Clinton, and focus on defeating Trump in the Nov. 8 presidential election.
"We want Bernie!" they shouted in anger at both Clinton's victory in the race for the Democratic nomination and emails leaked on Friday suggesting the party leadership had tried to sabotage Sanders' insurgent campaign.
"Brothers and sisters, this is the real world that we live in," he said, adding: "Trump is a bully and a demagogue."
Members of the crowd screamed back: “So is Hillary.” "She stole the election!" someone else shouted.I am glad to see at least a few young Democrats have learned how the world works...
But then we have the best quote from the convention so far:
"We're all Democrats and we need to act like it," U.S. Representative Marcia Fudge of Ohio, the convention's chairwoman, shouted over the uproar.Marcia, Marcia, Marcia...They ARE acting like it!
More from the Trumpsters
I am still catching up on all the stories from when I was out last week. I am up to Sunday...
New York Magazine:
Donald Trump is not a Russian agent in the sense that Philip and Elizabeth from The Americans are Russian agents. There’s no hidden radio in his laundry room where he transmits secrets to the Kremlin. But his relationship with Russia is disturbing and lends itself to frightening interpretations.Personally, I worry more about Trump working with these Russian agents:
Don't believe me? Read this first.
Mind you, I am not saying Trump is innocent. Only that focusing on him ignores the influence of Russia on the Democratic side too. To be honest, Russia seems to have bought off the entire U.S. political establishment.
New York Magazine:
Ivanka Trump's dress
Horror of horrors! Trump's daughter didn't wear a "Made in the USA" dress at the convention! He is such a hypocrite!
Take a few deep breaths, you triggered souls. This microaggression will pass, as soon as you realize only the most shallow Americans will be influenced by this.
For what it is worth, as I type this, the tshirt I am wearing was made in Mexico, my underwear was made in El Salvador, and my shorts were made in Honduras. Just call me "Mr. International".
You can check your own garment tags. But most of you will realize that most of our clothing isn't made in the U.S. So pointing fingers at Ivanka is politically self-serving and unrealistic.
Moyers & Company:
As we learned under President Obama, the best Congress can do is slow down a president. Our country is slowly turning into a dictatorship, as our Congress is slowly abdicating power to the Executive Branch. How long before Congress turns into a rubber-stamping function on the Executive's law-making function? Note that only the Congress can create laws under the Constitution, yet the Executive Branch does this all the time under the Obama administration.
This isn't a "Trump thing". This is where the U.S. is going now.
Monday, July 25, 2016
Thought for today
If #Hillary thinks she's above the law, then let her do without the protection of it. https://t.co/kjlwXpwRRg— Ed McGonigal (@1EMcGon1) July 25, 2016
My best tweet of the weekend
Apparently, my response to the following tweet was much loved:
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz looks like a whore— Roberto (@SangreNueva77) July 24, 2016
That's an insult to whores everywhere... https://t.co/84QCsgNjZ8— Ed McGonigal (@1EMcGon1) July 24, 2016
Just when I thought Debbie Wasserman Schultz was done...
...she gets hired by the Hillary Clinton campaign.
If Bernie Sanders' supporters weren't already upset by the shameless way Debbie attacked their candidate behind the scenes, now Hillary snaps up her biggest "unofficial" fan within a day of Debbie's resignation for her transgressions against Bernie.
Instead of "feeling the Bern", I guess Bernie's supporters are feeling "Schultzed on" today.
If Bernie Sanders' supporters weren't already upset by the shameless way Debbie attacked their candidate behind the scenes, now Hillary snaps up her biggest "unofficial" fan within a day of Debbie's resignation for her transgressions against Bernie.
Instead of "feeling the Bern", I guess Bernie's supporters are feeling "Schultzed on" today.
One way to pick a vice president
There is a good article by David Marcus over at the Federalist called, "Hillary Chose Tim Kaine To Keep Bill Happy". There are multiple reasons to select a running mate, but keeping your husband happy is a new one.
In all seriousness, I have to give Hillary some credit for learning from her husband's mistake:
Clinton might have chosen Kaine because his selection is less about next November and more about next January. In 1993, when Bill Clinton took office he gave Hillary responsibility, among other things, for reforming health care. No first lady before or since has ever played as important a role in White House politics. This was the cause of no little tension with then-Vice President Al Gore.
In her book “For Love and Politics –Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years,” Sally Bedell Smith paints a complicated picture of this unstable triumvirate:
Gore was the one most affected by Bill’s reliance on his wife. It was a given in the White House, as Chief of Staff Mack McLarty said, that everyone would ‘just have to get used to’ the fact that Hillary, along with Bill and Gore, had to ‘sign off on big decisions.’ But having what Clinton domestic-policy adviser Bruce Reed called ‘three forces to be reckoned with’ added yet another layer of perplexity and rivalry to the West Wing, where advisers and Cabinet officers knew they could lobby either the First Lady or the vice president to reverse decisions by the president. David Gergen, counselor to the president in 1993 and 1994, called the ‘three-headed system’ a ‘rolling disaster.’I don't agree with Hillary's politics or ethics, but I will admit she is smart.
The Saudis were involved in 9/11
This New York Post headline says it all: "Yes, the Saudi government helped the 9/11 terrorists". Every American MUST read this article.
While everyone has been watching convention news and America's Got Talent, this news has gotten the page 17 treatment.
Consider this: In spite of our government knowing the Saudis were involved with the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government UNDER BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES has kept this a secret for 15 YEARS! Yes everyone, you have been WASTING YOUR VOTES on Republicrats and Democans for 15 years. Both parties have shown more allegiance to Saudi Arabia than they have to the 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11. Both parties have supported wars in the Middle East and Asia against so-called Islamic terrorists, while ignoring the state which sponsored the 9/11 attackers.
Anyone who can vote for an incumbent Republican or Democrat after learning about this should just hang your head in shame. Except for the few legislators that tried to get this information revealed, the rest of them, along with both Presidents Bush and Obama as well as their entire State Department staffs, should face treason charges.
While everyone has been watching convention news and America's Got Talent, this news has gotten the page 17 treatment.
Consider this: In spite of our government knowing the Saudis were involved with the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government UNDER BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES has kept this a secret for 15 YEARS! Yes everyone, you have been WASTING YOUR VOTES on Republicrats and Democans for 15 years. Both parties have shown more allegiance to Saudi Arabia than they have to the 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11. Both parties have supported wars in the Middle East and Asia against so-called Islamic terrorists, while ignoring the state which sponsored the 9/11 attackers.
Anyone who can vote for an incumbent Republican or Democrat after learning about this should just hang your head in shame. Except for the few legislators that tried to get this information revealed, the rest of them, along with both Presidents Bush and Obama as well as their entire State Department staffs, should face treason charges.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Her name rolls off the tongue, like a cheap German schnapps.
Fortunately, her days as head of the Democratic National Committee are over, as she has resigned.
Thank you Wikileaks! Here is why, from the Washington Post:
Thousands of leaked emails have sealed the fate of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's uneven five-plus-year tenure as DNC chair.
Wasserman Schultz's resignation announcement Sunday afternoon comes as a bad situation just keeps getting worse -- and appears as though it might continue to do so.
That's because WikiLeaks has so far released nearly 20,000 emails, new details are still being discovered, and there is still the prospect of additional, damaging emails coming to light.
Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign.This is a woman who thought Obamacare was a "disparaging reference" to the President. It makes you wonder if she realized how that sounded? Then again, she was never the sharpest knife in the Democrats' drawer.
But back to Little Debbie's connection to this scandal (so far):
2) Wasserman Schultz calls top Sanders aide a "damn liar"...
On May 17, after controversy erupted over the Nevada state Democratic convention and how fair the process was there, Wasserman Schultz herself took exception to Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver's defense of his candidate's supporters.
"Damn liar," she wrote. "Particularly scummy that he barely acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred."
3) ... and says Sanders has "no understanding" of the party
That wasn't the only time Wasserman Schultz offered an unvarnished opinion about the Sanders operation. And in one late-April email, she even questioned Sanders's connection to the party.
"Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do," she said in response to a Politico story about Sanders saying the party hadn't been fair to him.
Sanders, for what it's worth, wasn't a Democrat before entering the Democratic primary. He caucused with the party but has long been an independent.
In that way, Wasserman Schultz's comments could be read simply as her defending her party; Sanders was attacking the party, after all. But her comment also suggests a particularly dim view of Sanders that she didn't feel the need to obscure in conversations with other DNC staff.In Debbie's defense, party heads tend to be political cheerleaders for their parties. While there is nothing wrong with cheering for the candidates AFTER they have been selected, they should never take sides during the primaries, even in private. This was Debbie's failing, and her downfall.
This would make an awesome Shakespearean tragedy, except Debbie has no redeeming virtues. Think of her as a King Lear who gets struck by lightning in Act III. However, in this King Lear, it was only Lear who betrayed himself.
All things Republican and Trump
I was watching Fox News a little bit last week, and I can't imagine a network that does a better job shilling for a Republican. Mind you, I am not saying the Democrats don't have their own counterparts (hello ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and the New York Times, among others). I am only saying that Fox News is just another propaganda arm for the GOP. This is why I gave up watching tv news about 3 years ago: It isn't really news.
Moving on to some opinion pieces...
The Weekly Standard:
This would be a great editorial by Jay Cost, except it opens on a failed premise:
Alan Abramowitz, an Emory University political scientist, has published a predictive model of presidential elections for decades. Through three simple factors—economic growth, presidential job approval, and tenure of the incumbent party—Abramowitz explains most of the variation in presidential elections. This time around, his model points to a narrow Republican victory, but he does not believe this result—because the GOP has gotten behind Donald Trump, which "violates a basic assumption of the model that parties nominate mainstream candidates."How does one define a "mainstream candidate"? Considering Trump won with more votes than any Republican has ever had before, it is difficult to find a better definition for "mainstream" than that.
I spoke too soon! Add another failed premise:
Meanwhile, the FiveThirtyEight "polls plus" model, which combines polling and economic data, finds Hillary Clinton nearly a 2:1 favorite over Trump.Actually, the FiveThirtyEight model gives Hillary a 58% chance of victory. That isn't "a 2:1 favorite". Also, the FiveThirtyEight model uses government-supplied economic data to weight their forecast. The U.S. government's economic data is about as accurate as China's, so the average American who doesn't pay attention to that garbage may have a different view of the economy than the politically-rigged numbers show.
Regardless, Cost goes on to discuss how all the Republican "political pros" have jumped on the Trump bandwagon in spite of their own misgivings about him. Yet, deep in the heart of his editorial, Cost brings up a valid point:
With that in mind, it's time for conservatives to ask themselves some difficult questions, above all: What is the point of the Republican party anymore?
The best definition of a party is a team whose goal is to win elections, for the purpose of advancing shared principles.Trump doesn't represent conservatives, except for the protectionist wing of the GOP, which has ballooned in recent years. When Trump decided to run as a Republican, he opened up the GOP to a large segment of voters who had previously been disenfranchised by both parties. Early in the primary process, there were many stories about large numbers of new and transferred GOP voter registrations. These numbers added to the protectionists already in the GOP to create the Trump phenomena.
Returning to Cost's question, "What is the point of the Republican party anymore?", and the answer is "protectionism". For conservatives, it seems the Libertarian Party is the only choice.
The Weekly Standard:
This editorial by William Kristol is the partisan Republican sour grapes story.
This one paragraph tells you all you need to know about Kristol:
But we do think it fair to say, tipping our hat to recent revisionist studies of Warren G. Harding, and making allowances for a few unfortunate stumbles by Richard M. Nixon, that none of the previous GOP nominees was an embarrassment or a disgrace. I can say, as someone who has cast votes for the Republican presidential nominee in the eleven elections of my adult lifetime, that in no case have I felt it necessary to engage in serious second thoughts about the propriety of my choice.So George H.W. Bush's "read my lips" lie didn't even phase Kristol? McCain's ambitious meandering and Romney's empty suit didn't make him consider alternatives?
So Trump is the worst nominee ever? I would add Kristol as one of the worst voters ever.
U.S. News & World Report:
Here is yet another sour grapes Republican story, this time from Mary Kate Cary. Get with the program Mary! It is all about protectionism now.
Isn't it funny that Republicans are all on board with the whole "only two political parties" thing, and "you're wasting your vote on third parties", until a fringe issue enters the mainstream and takes over their party?
Speaking of fringe, back to Trump...
Christian Science Monitor:
The campaign of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is continuing to solicit donations from foreign politicians, despite highly publicized FEC complaints against him, The Hill reported. Accepting donations from foreign nationals is in violation of FEC rules.
Mr. Trump was accused in June of asking politicians in Iceland, Scotland, Britain, and Australia for donations, according to an FEC filing. The complaint was filed by two campaign finance watchdog organizations, Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21, after foreign media reported members of the government in their countries had received emails from the Trump campaign asking for donations, as the Guardian reported.Poor Donald. Doesn't he realize he needs to set up a foundation to channel foreign donations? That is what Hillary did. Silly man.
Catching Up
After a week away, I have much blogging to catch up on. I am looking at 9 articles in my backlog, and that is only the articles I am looking at right now. So this will be spread out over today.
Just a few quick hits:
1. Until the Turkish coup impacts something beyond Turkey's borders, it isn't important. I honestly don't foresee any impact. I know a guy online from Turkey, and while he isn't happy about it, it hasn't disrupted his life.
2. I missed Donald Trump's speech at the Republican National Convention. I will watch it eventually, and maybe even comment on it. But from the "too long" comments I have already heard, I am not looking forward to it.
3. Ted Cruz's "vote your conscience" speech would have meant more before he was using it as a backhanded attack on Trump, Everyone should vote their conscience and not just vote the party line.
Just a few quick hits:
1. Until the Turkish coup impacts something beyond Turkey's borders, it isn't important. I honestly don't foresee any impact. I know a guy online from Turkey, and while he isn't happy about it, it hasn't disrupted his life.
2. I missed Donald Trump's speech at the Republican National Convention. I will watch it eventually, and maybe even comment on it. But from the "too long" comments I have already heard, I am not looking forward to it.
3. Ted Cruz's "vote your conscience" speech would have meant more before he was using it as a backhanded attack on Trump, Everyone should vote their conscience and not just vote the party line.
Friday, July 15, 2016
Weekend Closing Post: Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2
Another week comes to a close, but I have one last little gem to offer you.
In the classical music arena, I have been on a bit of a Franz Liszt kick lately. He made some very catchy tunes, which also displayed a lot of personality. Classical music should evoke some kind of emotion in the listener, or else it is nothing more than elitist muzak. Liszt had a good ear for evoking emotions, and Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 takes the listener through a range of them. It starts out dark, almost foreboding, before ascending to a rather happy/mischievous movement half way through, ending on that happy note.
Both sections of the piece should be familiar to most people, as they have been frequently used in movies and tv shows, and even Bugs Bunny cartoons.
That is all from me this week. I will be taking next week off, but returning on Monday, July 25th.
In the classical music arena, I have been on a bit of a Franz Liszt kick lately. He made some very catchy tunes, which also displayed a lot of personality. Classical music should evoke some kind of emotion in the listener, or else it is nothing more than elitist muzak. Liszt had a good ear for evoking emotions, and Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 takes the listener through a range of them. It starts out dark, almost foreboding, before ascending to a rather happy/mischievous movement half way through, ending on that happy note.
Both sections of the piece should be familiar to most people, as they have been frequently used in movies and tv shows, and even Bugs Bunny cartoons.
That is all from me this week. I will be taking next week off, but returning on Monday, July 25th.
Was Alton Sterling shot justifiably?
A website called Blue Lives Matter has a review of the second Alton Sterling video, where they show conclusively what appears to be Sterling reaching for his gun.
Mind you, I don't think this necessarily vindicates the cops. With him down on the ground, did they do everything possible to keep him from getting his gun? I cannot answer that. However, it is obvious that Sterling was unable to retrieve the gun from his pocket, if that was his intent (it was still in his pocket after he was shot). Remember, it is possible that his arm was uncomfortable being in the position the officers were trying to force it into, and he never actually intended to pull his gun. Admittedly, I am speculating.
Ultimately, I don't see this as a racial killing any more. This was a decision by cops in the heat of the moment. Whether it was right or wrong should be decided in court. But I will say it is possible that in their shoes, I might have made the same decision.
Mind you, I don't think this necessarily vindicates the cops. With him down on the ground, did they do everything possible to keep him from getting his gun? I cannot answer that. However, it is obvious that Sterling was unable to retrieve the gun from his pocket, if that was his intent (it was still in his pocket after he was shot). Remember, it is possible that his arm was uncomfortable being in the position the officers were trying to force it into, and he never actually intended to pull his gun. Admittedly, I am speculating.
Ultimately, I don't see this as a racial killing any more. This was a decision by cops in the heat of the moment. Whether it was right or wrong should be decided in court. But I will say it is possible that in their shoes, I might have made the same decision.
Crying Chris Christie
Today, if Donald Trump were to apply one of his classic nicknames to Chris Christie, it would probably be "Crying Chris".
It seems Christie was not happy about Trump picking Mike Pence as his vice president. From The Hill:
Christie told Nicolle Wallace of MSNBC that he "does not know" who Trump will pick as his vice president on Friday, adding that "no matter what phone call he makes to me today, I will take a deep breath and prepare for tomorrow."
"I mean, obviously, I'm a competitive person. So I'm not going to say it won't bother me, if I'm not selected. Of course it bothers you a little bit. 'Cause if you're a competitive person, like I am, and you're used to winning, like I am — again, you don't like coming in second, ever," said the governor.Sorry Chris, but maybe you should have thought of that before the Fort Lee lane closure scandal?
Trump picks Pence
According to early rumors, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump has selected Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his vice president. So who is this guy?
Here are some news stories and editorials about Pence:
NBC News:
Who is Mike Pence?
Politico:
How Mike Pence embraced Obamacare: He took the Medicaid money but attached conservative strings to the program.
Washington Post:
5 Reasons Why Mike Pence Makes a lot of Sense as Donald Trump's Vice President
RealClearPolitics:
Does Pence Help Trump?
In my opinion, Pence is the "anti-Trump": A mildly interesting conservative who isn't afraid to ruffle a few feathers now and then, but usually stays the conservative course. I won't call him good or bad yet, but he is definitely not what I would have expected from Trump. But he seems like a decent choice based on initial impressions.
Here are some news stories and editorials about Pence:
NBC News:
Who is Mike Pence?
Politico:
How Mike Pence embraced Obamacare: He took the Medicaid money but attached conservative strings to the program.
Washington Post:
5 Reasons Why Mike Pence Makes a lot of Sense as Donald Trump's Vice President
RealClearPolitics:
Does Pence Help Trump?
In my opinion, Pence is the "anti-Trump": A mildly interesting conservative who isn't afraid to ruffle a few feathers now and then, but usually stays the conservative course. I won't call him good or bad yet, but he is definitely not what I would have expected from Trump. But he seems like a decent choice based on initial impressions.
Ginsburg admits mistake
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg finally came to her senses.
According to CNN:
According to CNN:
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Thursday she regrets remarks she made earlier this week to CNN and other news outlets criticizing presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
"On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them," Ginsburg said in a statement. "Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect."
Hours after releasing the statement Ginsburg talked exclusively to NPR's Nina Totenberg, and expanded upon her statement. She called her comments "incautious."
"I did something I should not have done," she added. "It's over and done with and I don't want to discuss it anymore."It's ok Ruth. We have all been there. But it is nice to know that even at 83 years old, we can still say something we shouldn't.
Are we Israel?
After the news about the tragedy in Nice, France, yesterday, I find myself reminded of Israel.
When I was young, and still continuing, I remember how there were frequently news reports out of Israel about some kind of Palestinian terrorist act. Endless scenes of people being blown up or shot, each one usually more clever than the last one.
This hardened the Israeli people. When a group of people is trying to kill you steadily over the course of half a century, it becomes easy to overlook the bleatings of Western Civilization sheep who have never experienced it. (Especially when most of them hate you anyway, but that is another issue.)
Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir once said:
But when we are forced to kill for our own survival, that kills us a little inside. Those who put us in this situation know this: Acts of terror leave us the choice of surrendering to what they want, or to attack them.
Surrender sounds like cowardice, but is it? It depends on what the terrorist wants. If the terrorist just wants us to pull our troops out of their country, is that such a bad thing? Especially when you consider how many innocent people get killed by out troops and our drones. Remember, every innocent death creates family and friends who are now angry at you. When you cause enough innocent deaths, all you create is mass hatred.
I have heard the horror stories about ISIS, and maybe they are every bit as evil as the stories. But ask yourself: Were the German people evil in World War II? Certainly, the Nazis were, but not all Germans were Nazis, and even some of the Nazis weren't necessarily evil. Consider Oskar Schindler.
If ISIS is some form of modern-day Naziism, then why aren't we attacking them with everything we have? I would even add nuclear weapons to our options, if they are the evil some people claim.
However, if there is a chance that they, or even a large number of them, are just people upset about losing loved ones or friends or neighbors to military action from us, shouldn't we give consideration to that? Shouldn't we say, we need to change direction in the Middle East?
If we don't, we become Israel, living with terrorists in our midst for half a century, as we both kill off our children and grandchildren.
Another quote from Golda Meir:
In summary, you can make peace with the Muslim world, or you can kill a billion people. There is no middle ground.
When I was young, and still continuing, I remember how there were frequently news reports out of Israel about some kind of Palestinian terrorist act. Endless scenes of people being blown up or shot, each one usually more clever than the last one.
This hardened the Israeli people. When a group of people is trying to kill you steadily over the course of half a century, it becomes easy to overlook the bleatings of Western Civilization sheep who have never experienced it. (Especially when most of them hate you anyway, but that is another issue.)
Former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir once said:
When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons.When we lose someone close to us, it is an act beyond our control. We are saddened by it, but if we have any strength of character, we can still go on, no matter how horrific it may be.
But when we are forced to kill for our own survival, that kills us a little inside. Those who put us in this situation know this: Acts of terror leave us the choice of surrendering to what they want, or to attack them.
Surrender sounds like cowardice, but is it? It depends on what the terrorist wants. If the terrorist just wants us to pull our troops out of their country, is that such a bad thing? Especially when you consider how many innocent people get killed by out troops and our drones. Remember, every innocent death creates family and friends who are now angry at you. When you cause enough innocent deaths, all you create is mass hatred.
I have heard the horror stories about ISIS, and maybe they are every bit as evil as the stories. But ask yourself: Were the German people evil in World War II? Certainly, the Nazis were, but not all Germans were Nazis, and even some of the Nazis weren't necessarily evil. Consider Oskar Schindler.
If ISIS is some form of modern-day Naziism, then why aren't we attacking them with everything we have? I would even add nuclear weapons to our options, if they are the evil some people claim.
However, if there is a chance that they, or even a large number of them, are just people upset about losing loved ones or friends or neighbors to military action from us, shouldn't we give consideration to that? Shouldn't we say, we need to change direction in the Middle East?
If we don't, we become Israel, living with terrorists in our midst for half a century, as we both kill off our children and grandchildren.
Another quote from Golda Meir:
We have always said that in our war with the Arabs we had a secret weapon — no alternative. The Egyptians could run to Egypt, the Syrians into Syria. The only place we could run was into the sea, and before we did that we might as well fight.We are blessed with a choice. We can choose peace. But if we are destined to choose war, then let us turn the Middle East into a parking lot. Take a lesson from history: After three wars with Carthage, the Ancient Romans burned Carthage to the ground, leaving nothing. There was never a fourth war.
In summary, you can make peace with the Muslim world, or you can kill a billion people. There is no middle ground.
Thursday, July 14, 2016
How to Unite People on Race
If I am going to accuse Obama of dividing America on the issue of race, it is only fair that I should offer my own solution, right?
First, we have to define what is causing the problem. As I have said before:
As humans, we have within our survival instinct the need to recognize dangerous animals versus non-dangerous animals. If we see our buddy Bob getting eaten by a tiger, we quickly learn to identify tigers in the future, so we can avoid and/or kill them.
Sadly, we also apply this to people who look different from us.Like anything else we get from our instincts, we can override this innate tendency. For example, when someone frustrates us enough, it can kick in our survival instinct ("fight or flee"). Instead of bashing in our boss's skull, we instead swallow our feelings and try to work out some kind of reasonable compromise.
So it goes with race. Even the worst racist is capable of making exceptions for people of other colors once they become familiar with them on a personal basis. This was the thinking behind desegregation. Unfortunately, while desegregation can work sometimes, putting two people in a room together who don't want to be in the same room, often leads to even more intense hatred between them.
Where the desegregationists get it wrong is by looking at it strictly as an issue of skin color. What they are missing is the socioeconomic status of people who cling to racism: They are usually poor or lower middle class. As long as people in these classes have no hope for economic advancement, there is no reason for them NOT to get rid of their racism. They have to find some way to justify their own self-image in the face of soul-crushing poverty.
I am not just referring to white racism. This applies to many poor blacks as well, who are also facing the same kind of soul-crushing poverty. Frankly, we should stop referring to black racism as "reverse racism". When black men start shooting cops in the name of racism, why should we separate it from Bull Connor-style racism? Racism is what it is, regardless of which skin color initiates it.
But those are the extremes of racism. We need to concentrate on the everyday. Here are my suggestions:
1. We need to improve the economy. As the old saying goes, "a rising tide lifts all boats". There is less reason to look for reasons to hate when everyone is doing well financially. Too much time is spent improving the economy for the wealthy and not enough for the middle class and poor.
2. We need to remove race from the political discourse. This is actually the hardest part, because it is far too easy for politicians to demagogue the race issue. For politicians, this is the equivalent of poking a bee hive with a stick: It gets the poor people riled up and voting. But they aren't voting for solutions, they are voting out of self-pity and blaming the other side for racism. This isn't productive discourse or action. Trump blames one side, while Hillary blames another side, and round and round we go, but nothing ever gets solved. Somebody may say, "But how can we solve it if we don't talk about it?" I say all the talk is causing most of your problems. If 99% of talking is finger-pointing, then what good is it?
3. Kill affirmative action. If I said the government or a private company or a school was giving preferential treatment to whites, most people would scream bloody murder over it. Yet we don't have an issue if preferential treatment is given to whites. This is the definition of institutionalized racism, which was at the very heart against which the civil rights movement fought. But we say it's ok for it to be done FOR blacks? Hypocritical much?
In summary, this is a simple 1-2-3, but they all come down to one simple reason: Quit giving people reasons to hate each other.
Obama: The Great Divider
The Federalist's David Harsanyi hits another one out of the park with his latest editorial, "How Obama Divides America".
As Harsanyi points out:
...people might be put off by Obama’s grating habit of turning every tragedy into a sermon about our supposed collective failings. I doubt the president is substantively more partisan than the average politician, but like most people on the Left these days, he no longer bothers to make a distinction between a policy position and a moral struggle.
The issue of gun control, for example, isn’t a good-faith disagreement between people of different persuasions, but — like civil rights or suffrage — a struggle waged by the righteous against the evil (and sometimes those poor souls tricked by the NRA).
Seemingly every political battle waged by the modern Democratic Party — gay rights, immigration, climate change, inequality — is imbued with a kind spiritual certitude that justifies circumventing debate. If a person who opposes the administration’s transgender bathroom policy is just like a Klansman, why even discuss the matter? In this context, the histrionics of Democrats in Congress over guns or the media’s melodramas make all the sense in the world.Admittedly, the most of the Democratic Party acts this way, but Obama, as president, should be the leader of all of us, and not just some partisan hack who happened to win an election (or two).
Harsanyi even nails it with a quote from fellow editorialist John Podhoretz's article about Obama's speech to memorialize the fallen Dallas police officers:
As usual, Obama made strange use of the word ‘we,’ because when he says ‘we,’ he means ‘you,’ and when he means ‘you,’ he means people who aren’t as enlightened and thoughtful as he and his ideological compatriots are.To use political phrasing, Obama is using his Leftist dog whistle by saying "we". To those who agree with him politically, they hear this as,"see, I am being open to my political opponents by lumping myself in with them", whereas the opponents hear this and think "here he goes again, talking to us like we're idiots". After eight years of this, nobody who disagrees with him hears him any more, while his "ideological compatriots" hear it and think how wonderful he is for putting himself in a box with his opponents, when exactly the opposite is true. He is using words in an Orwellian style, "doublespeaking" to mean something he doesn't actually believe.
Are Obama's political opponents projecting arrogance on him, or is he actually that arrogant? When a presidential candidate compares his own nomination with the healing of the planet, a strong case can be made that he might be an egotist.
Fortunately, there are realists like Harsanyi, who states a tautology that Obama will never understand:
When speaking about the Dallas shooter, Obama claimed that “None of us are entirely innocent” when it comes to racial discrimination … “and this includes our police departments.” Actually most cops and most people are entirely innocent when it comes to discrimination. Yes, there are racists and bigots in all our institutions and communities, but most Americans don’t need to “open our hearts” on the subject simply because liberals accuse them of harboring ugly thoughts. We need to fix police departments. We need to fix our inner-city schools. And we need to fix the economic prospects of minority populations. People have different ideas about how to go about it. Every day, though, the vast majority of citizens peacefully interact in families, in friendships, and in commerce.I won't spoil the rest of Harsanyi's masterful editorial for you. But when 14 year old white boys have to apologize for being white, there is something wrong with how race relations are being viewed. I won't say it is Obama's fault, but he certainly hasn't helped the situation, and Harsanyi makes a good case that Obama might have made the situation worse.
Tweet of the Day
Editorialist David Harsanyi brings the can of whoopass to MSNBC talking head Rachel Maddow:
Maddow: I’m studying Hitler to prep for Trump https://t.co/DpI40ue9Vu pic.twitter.com/KzFqsWUbcB— The Hill (@thehill) July 13, 2016
Did she study Stalin to prep for Sanders? https://t.co/fTaQvzXkAb— David Harsanyi (@davidharsanyi) July 13, 2016
Today's News: July 14, 2016: Clinton gags and Trump picks VP
Drudge has a headline this morning which links to nothing: "SHOCK POLL: TRUMP 44% CLINTON 37%". I don't see the story on the other usual news sources, so we will see.
Speaking of Hillary...
Fox News:
'Gag' order: FBI confirms special secrecy agreements for agents in Clinton email probe
The FBI has confirmed to a senior Republican senator that agents were sworn to secrecy -- and subject to lie detector tests -- in the Hillary Clinton email probe, an extensive measure one former agent said could have a "chilling effect."
A July 1 letter sent by a senior deputy to FBI Director James Comey to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, detailed the restrictions on agents. The letter, reviewed by Fox News, confirmed agents signed a "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" which says the disclosure of information is "strictly prohibited" without prior approval, and those who sign are subject to lie detector tests.
"The purpose of this form is to maintain an official record of persons knowledgeable of a highly sensitive Federal Bureau of Investigation counterintelligence investigation," the agreement attached to the Grassley letter reads, "....I (FBI agent) also understand that, due to the nature and sensitivity of this investigation, compliance with these restrictions may be subject to verification by polygraph examination."If you know anything about the FBI, standard procedure is agents don't discuss ongoing investigations, not even after they go to court. However, they can discuss an investigation after it is over, assuming there is no trial. So there is only reason to have them sign something like this: The higher-ups knew the fix was in, and didn't want the agents talking after the higher-ups decide not to press charges against Clinton.
Whatever happened to Obama's "transparent" government? The only thing transparent here is the motives of the criminals running it.
Now back to Trump...
CNN:
Trump's VP drama headed for a climax
This is the big news story at CNN? Anticipation about Trump's VP pick?
Sighs.
If I must...
Here are the leaders going into the final leg of the race:
1. Indiana Governor Mike Pence. Because an unknown governor from a small-ish state always works out well. See Sarah Palin and Spiro Agnew.
2. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Admittedly, Newt is one of the most unlovable people ever to have success in politics, but the guy is smart, even if his political savvy is lacking. Best known for having his lunch handed to him by "Political Zen Master" Bill Clinton, Newt would be an ironic choice, truly making this election a reliving of the 1990's.
However, the story pegs a candidate:
But Trump's "gut" could be the wild card, and one source says: "Trump's gut is Christie."I must admit, I kind of like the idea of Christie. Sure, he is a mafioso-style politician, but he is also a brawler politician. He matches Trump's style.
Another source said Trump wants a "fighter" and Christie -- the tough talking former prosecutor -- fits the bill.
The New Jersey governor spent the day in back-to-back meetings in Washington as he leads Trump's transition team.
The abrasive Christie is not everyone's idea of an ideal political partner. But Trump, who puts a premium on loyalty, talks every day with the man who was the first big political beast to back him.
"I tell you, Chris Christie is somebody I've liked a long time; he's a total professional. He's a good guy, by the way, a lot of people don't understand that," he said.
On top of that, Trump is about to go up against the Clinton machine, and he is going to need someone who knows how to fight in the political trenches. Who is Mike Pence? And Newt already lost to one of the Clintons in the 90's. Christie is the best choice here.
UPDATE: Here is the Rasmussen poll which shows Trump up 44-37%. "Other" came in surprisingly strong at 13%.
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Wednesday Wisdom
"It is written that the last enemy to be vanquished is death. We should begin early in life to vanquish this enemy by obliterating every trace of the fear of death from our minds. Then can we turn to life and fill the whole horizon of our souls with it, turn with added zest to all the serious tasks which it imposes and to the pure delights which here and there it affords."--Felix Adler
Happy Birthday Harrison Ford
Harrison Ford is 74 today. In honor of his birthday, I offer my favorite Harrison Ford scene, from Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back:
Jesus Christ and the Tyranny of the Wedding Cakes
"And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's. And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him."--Mark 12:13-17
Whenever I think of what Christ said about government, this is the first thing to come to my mind. It is clear what he is saying: The government of Caesar is for this world, and should be obeyed while in this world.
But what happens when the government is democratic, like we have today? We ARE Caesar today. This is also known as "the tyranny of the majority".
This creates two aspects for the modern day Christian. First, we must obey the government as if it were run by a Caesar. But second, we also have another duty to "love thy neighbor" when we vote. Basically, we need to remember that government enforcement can come with a death penalty for even the most minor infraction (ask Eric Garner or Alton Sterling).
But what is our duty to government laws that go against the teachings of Christ?
Case in point: A florist who is against gay marriages gets asked for flowers for a gay wedding. She refuses, and gets sued.
There are a lot of different ways to view this from a legal/political perspective. I am strictly dealing with the moral/ethical/religious perspective here.
From a Christian perspective, she was wrong. The wedding was sanctioned by the government, hence "by Caesar". To not deliver the flowers was a sin. God may not approve of gay weddings, but he definitely does not approve of treating your neighbors as unworthy of government sanction.
There are exceptions to the "render unto Caesar" rule: "Love thy God" and "Love thy neighbor". Neither of these applies to providing services to gay weddings.
Remember, we are NOT talking about a "Christian" gay wedding, but rather a public service. Forgive the metaphor, but if the government advocated dog weddings, would you refuse to sell them bones? Of course not, because it would be silly. If Christians refused to accept Caesar's horse being nominated to the Senate, we would have to be openly rebellious all the time, because the government does comparably silly things constantly, regardless of whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy.
Christ understood that government can do a lot of insane things at times. They may look worse than they really are, and we need to remember that. So when a gay couple asks you for flowers or a cake for a wedding, just turn the other cheek. You do not have to approve of your neighbor, but at least treat them with love and respect.
Whenever I think of what Christ said about government, this is the first thing to come to my mind. It is clear what he is saying: The government of Caesar is for this world, and should be obeyed while in this world.
But what happens when the government is democratic, like we have today? We ARE Caesar today. This is also known as "the tyranny of the majority".
This creates two aspects for the modern day Christian. First, we must obey the government as if it were run by a Caesar. But second, we also have another duty to "love thy neighbor" when we vote. Basically, we need to remember that government enforcement can come with a death penalty for even the most minor infraction (ask Eric Garner or Alton Sterling).
But what is our duty to government laws that go against the teachings of Christ?
Case in point: A florist who is against gay marriages gets asked for flowers for a gay wedding. She refuses, and gets sued.
There are a lot of different ways to view this from a legal/political perspective. I am strictly dealing with the moral/ethical/religious perspective here.
From a Christian perspective, she was wrong. The wedding was sanctioned by the government, hence "by Caesar". To not deliver the flowers was a sin. God may not approve of gay weddings, but he definitely does not approve of treating your neighbors as unworthy of government sanction.
There are exceptions to the "render unto Caesar" rule: "Love thy God" and "Love thy neighbor". Neither of these applies to providing services to gay weddings.
Remember, we are NOT talking about a "Christian" gay wedding, but rather a public service. Forgive the metaphor, but if the government advocated dog weddings, would you refuse to sell them bones? Of course not, because it would be silly. If Christians refused to accept Caesar's horse being nominated to the Senate, we would have to be openly rebellious all the time, because the government does comparably silly things constantly, regardless of whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy.
Christ understood that government can do a lot of insane things at times. They may look worse than they really are, and we need to remember that. So when a gay couple asks you for flowers or a cake for a wedding, just turn the other cheek. You do not have to approve of your neighbor, but at least treat them with love and respect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)