Time to close the shop down and head into the weekend.
Unfortunately, it also seems country singer Kenny Rogers is closing shop next year for good, saying he will be retiring from music. While we have heard this "song and dance" from musicians before, who later return for "comeback tours", 78-year old Rogers is probably sincere about it.
But he has had a good career and left a strong musical legacy behind.
His recording career dates back to the 1950's, although he didn't see any success until after he left The New Christy Minstrels with several others and formed The First Edition, which later became Kenny Rogers and the First Edition. Their first hit came in 1967 with Just Dropped In (To See What Condition My Condition Was In), but their best song was the more memorable Ruby, Don't Take Your Love to Town from 1969:
The First Edition broke up in 1974, and it took Rogers a few years to find his footing. Then he got his first gold record with 1977's Lucille:
Lucille was almost a stereotypical country song, yet Rogers made it feel sympathetic, which was the strong suit he had for his biggest hits.
He had along string of hits after that, including Coward of the County, Don't Fall in Love with a Dreamer (with Kim Carnes), and Love Will Turn You Around. But he had his biggest hit in 1983, with the Dolly Parton duet Islands in the Stream:
But my personal favorite from Kenny Rogers was his nugget of wisdom called The Gambler, from 1978:
I guess the "dealing's done" for Kenny?
To the rest of you, enjoy your weekend. Try not to count your money yet. because I will return Monday with more.
Friday, September 30, 2016
Racism
I was talking with my dad yesterday, and he mentioned my blog post where I brought up slavery. He advised me that I need to be careful with that topic. He said it is too sensitive for too many blacks.
While he was right, it made me think: Why?
There is no black person alive today who has experienced slavery, except for the rare exceptions who have been enslaved in other countries or enslaved by wackos. Frankly, most blacks' slavery experience equals my own: If you go back far enough in anyone's family history, you are likely to find a slave somewhere. You may have to go back to ancient times, but it makes no difference, since none of us has directly experienced it.
It has been 151 years since slavery was legal in the U.S. Since nobody is capable of living that long, that means, at best, there might be people old enough to have known someone who was once a slave.
I once met a man from Egypt. That doesn't allow me to claim to understand what it's like to be an Egyptian. Accordingly, knowing someone who was a slave doesn't allow you to claim to understand what it is like to be a slave.
Mind you, I am NOT talking about Jim Crow, or Civil Rights era racism.There are older blacks who know what that is like, and God bless them for what they had to endure. But I am not talking about them either.
No, I am talking about the foolish young black men who point e-cigarettes at cops and expect no consequences. I am talking about the black rioters who come out every time a young black man gets shot by a cop, regardless of whether it was justified. I am talking about "Black Lives Matter", which should be called "Cop Lives Don't Matter".
No, I am not excusing the racist cops out there. But the black community cannot assume every young black man who gets shot by a cop is due to racism.
Having said all that, I am done with pussyfooting around the blacks, especially the young ones. Man up, and take responsibility for yourself. Your excuse for "Black Lives Matter" while you object to "All Lives Matter" is wrong. There will always be certain amounts of racism in the world, and I will gladly do everything I can to help you fight it. But don't read that as some kind of admission of guilt from me, because it isn't. I have never owned slaves, nor have I ever been involved in any form of racial abuse of blacks. I am also not guilty of any of the traditional excuses for allowing blacks to have an unlevel playing field in their favor (otherwise known as affirmative action), let alone any form of reparations.
In other words, if you are looking for any kind of sympathy from me, it is not happening. If you are a poor black person, I will tell you the same thing I would tell a poor white person: If you are poor due to wealthy people stacking the odds against the middle class and poor, I am on your side. But don't expect sympathy for your skin color. Your time for that is over. Now get back to work.
And quit pointing things at cops. That's just dumb.
Why is Hillary Clinton still in the race? Today's news for September 30th
The headline question on this post comes from a similar CNN editorial posing as news:
CNN:
Gary Johnson is the new punching bag of the 2016 campaign.In a year when the other candidates are the unconvicted criminal Hillary Clinton and the P.T. Barnum-like Donald Trump, these are your disqualifying criteria? "Can't name a world leader he admires" and "hasn't heard of Aleppo"? And let's not forget the classic "can't hit the arbitrary 15% support level created by the Republican and Democrat-controlled Commission on Presidential Debates to make it to the debate stage"!
The Libertarian presidential candidate is the subject of intensifying ridicule following his latest televised flub when he couldn't name a world leader he admired during a Wednesday interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews. That follows another embarrassing on-air moment last month when, in response to a question about how he would alleviate the plight of the besieged Syrian city of Aleppo, he responded: "What is Aleppo?"
The gaffes, combined with his failure to make the debate stage and his infinitesimal chance of winning the White House, raise a pressing question: Why is Johnson still in the race?
Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton ribbed Johnson Thursday by pretending to struggle when she was asked to name a world leader she admired. But she made clear her view that she and her Republican counterpart, Donald Trump, are the only viable candidates.Of course he isn't. Not with the deck stacked against him. What Clinton said was almost a confession of the conspiracy against third party candidates. She knows the fix is in.
"Either Donald Trump or I will be the President of the United States," she told reporters on her campaign plane, sending a clear warning to disaffected Democrats flirting with Johnson. "People have to look carefully in making their decision. It will be either him or me."
But Johnson isn't going anywhere.
But then we get to this:
Johnson's decision to stay in the race isn't just an academic question. He and [VP candidate William] Weld are doing well enough in swing states to pull votes from both Trump and Clinton. In the latest CNN/ORC poll of Colorado — a state Clinton must win and which her campaign thought was already safe — Johnson is polling at 13% among likely voters while Clinton trails Trump 42% to 41%.Talk about burying the lede.
Then the article goes on to show how silly the complaints about Johnson are:
It was not the first time that a presidential candidate has stumbled in a world leader pop quiz that raised doubts about their credentials to be President. In 1999, then-GOP frontrunner George W. Bush was stumped when asked by a Boston reporter to name the leaders of Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan.
And gaffes don't seem to derail a candidate in 2016 the way they once did.
After all, Trump has made statements that are far more outrageous than Johnson's comments -- on an almost daily basis -- and he is locked in a tight race with Clinton.
It's debatable whether true Libertarian voters — those who support the party because it favors a disentangling from foreign quagmires and a less robust US global role — are that bothered that their candidate is not deeply acquainted with the details of the Syrian civil war.Speaking as a libertarian (and "big L" Libertarian) voter, I can honestly say no, we aren't, and you shouldn't be either. The world is a big place with a lot happening. Expecting a president to know minutiae is absurd. We have the State Department for that. Would you expect a president to understand the intricate details of how Social Security checks are created?
The article goes on to make this outstanding point:
But there's a more fundamental reason why Johnson may resist calls to quit.
He explained in an op-ed piece in the New York Times on Wednesday that the American political system, by producing such alienating rivals as Clinton and Trump, has failed. That, he argued, means reformers have no choice but to fight.
"Hyper-partisanship may be entertaining, but it's a terrible way to try to run a country. We're the alternative — and we're the only ticket that offers Americans a chance to find common ground," Johnson wrote.He is right. Libertarianism is the only possible way to make this democracy work. Otherwise, we will be forced to choose between gridlocked government, which does nothing, or absolutist government, which grows exponentially faster but only in the direction of whichever party controls the strings of power.
There is something else to consider. Libertarianism is the way of the future:
Johnson also appears to be building a significant base of support among millennial voters -- a demographic that Clinton needs to dominate to make it to the White House -- but which could fuel Libertarian Party growth in future.Unfortunately, after this editorial makes such a strong case for Johnson, it ends on the "wasted vote" argument":
A Bloomberg News/Selzer & Co. poll released Monday found Clinton's 10-point advantage among younger voters cut to a statistically insignificant four points when Johnson and Stein are included in the race.
Vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine is warning wavering Democrats attracted to Johnson that they risk bringing about an electoral catastrophe similar to the one in Florida in 2000 when Ralph Nader siphoned votes away from Vice President Al Gore. That allowed Bush to claim Florida after the vote count showdown in the US Supreme Court.As if somehow Gore would have been preferable to Bush. The idea of having the king of Global Warming nonsense in the White House doesn't sell me on not voting third party.
"If Gore had been president, we probably wouldn't had a war in Iraq," Kaine told Yahoo News' Katie Couric last week. "Casting a vote, a protest vote, for a third-party candidate that's going to lose may well affect the outcome. It may well lead to a consequence that is deeply, deeply troubling. That's not a speculation, we've seen it in our country's history."
Gary Johnson isn't a perfect presidential candidate, but he is easily better than the alternatives.
In other political news...
Heatstreet:
Chelsea Clinton was campaigning for her elderly mother in North Carolina on Wednesday — and showing off her Clinton-esque taste for expensive, carbon-emitting travel options.
After attending campaign events in Greenville, the former first daughter took a private jet to Asheville, just a five-hour drive away, to attend a roundtable event on “clean energy.” Asheville is a paradise for hippies who love the environment.
The Clinton campaign promised during the Democratic primary that their entire operation would be “carbon neutral” and had some friendly reporters write stories about how even campaign manager John Podesta took the bus.
The campaign doesn’t talk about that pledge much anymore, given the how much the Clintons love flying on private jets...In case you are still on the Global Warming bandwagon, consider that major proponents of this B.S. frequently travel on carbon-emitting private jets even when they could take less carbon-intensive travel options. The fact of the matter is they consider Global Warming to be a problem of the proletariat, and not the bourgeoisie like the Clintons and the Gores. WE THE PEOPLE must make the sacrifices, not them. That should tell you how serious they are about this, which is not serious at all.
This is just more evidence that Global Warming isn't the serious problem which the Left paints it to be.
In business news...
Financial Times:
Hedge funds have started to pull some of their business from Deutsche Bank, setting up a potential showdown with German authorities over the future of the country’s largest lender.If that doesn't tell you how bubbly the world economy is, nothing will. Germany is one of the more responsible countries in the world, yet even their largest bank falls under the sway of Keynesian economics, which creates and bursts bubbles.
As its shares fell sharply in New York trading, Deutsche recirculated a statement emphasising its strong financial position.
European regulators and government officials have kept a low profile in public over Deutsche’s deepening woes. However, in private they have struck a sanguine tone, stressing that in extremis there is scope under European regulation to inject state funds to support the bank, provided it is done in line with market conditions.
It is well past time for a new economic regime. I won't suggest "gold standard", but you economists better come up with something else, and soon.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
The UN and slave reparations
The United States should give African-Americans reparations for slavery, UN experts said Tuesday, warning that the country had not yet confronted its legacy of “racial terrorism.”
Amid a presidential election campaign in which racial rhetoric has played a central role, the UN working group on people of African descent warned that blacks in the United States are facing a “human rights crisis.”
This has largely been fueled by impunity for police officers who have killed a series of black men — many of them unarmed — across the country in recent months, the working group’s report said.
Those killings “and the trauma they create are reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynchings,” said the report, which was presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council on Monday.(The above was extracted from a New York Post story.)
This story has two sides to it, neither of which make the conclusion reasonable.
First, there is the United Nations itself, which is a diplomatic body made of many authoritarian nations who despise the United States for multiple reasons. Just as I believe the U.S. should not intervene in the internal matters of other countries, I take a similar view to their "suggestions" to the U.S. To me, the U.N. is just a stepping stone to a world government that will probably be closer to George Orwell's worst nightmare than anything useful.
Second, there is America's "legacy of racial terrorism". The definition of terrorism is, as stated by Dictionary.com:
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.While there are still active laws in the U.S. which were created due to racism, such as the Davis-Bacon Act, the majority of Jim Crow laws have either been removed or ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Black lynchings are a thing of the past, only performed by a small racist minority in the rarest of circumstances, with the perpetrators immediately arrested and imprisoned. As for people who remember the injustices of the Civil Rights era, they are growing old. Most people of any color are too young to remember such things.
What is left isn't "terrorism". There are no more uses of "violence and threats to intimidate or coerce". At worst, the average young black person may face microaggressions, which is less than what the average 5-year old victim of schoolyard bullying faces.
"But what about cops shooting innocent blacks?" I have news for you: We have a problem with cops being armed bullies in society, period. We spend so much time talking about blacks being shot by cops, and not nearly enough time wondering about cops being arrogant a-holes with guns. This has nothing to do with blacks suffering from a "legacy of racial terrorism", and everything about handing cops a legal buffet of charges to choose from, in order to bring charges against anyone they don't like. And if their victim objects, it's a shame about them being shot, huh?
Frankly, with the black community violently protesting every single shooting of a black person regardless of whether the cops were justified, this sends the message "black people are untouchable and should be above the law". It seems silly to consider reparations for this minority of spoiled brats. None of them lived through slavery, and most of them are too young to remember the Civil Rights movement (if they are even old enough to have been born during it, which most aren't). All they have is what the Media and our educational system have told them, which is they aren't responsible for anything in life because of "racism", even though most wouldn't know true racism if it bit them in the butt. All they know is every instance of someone telling them "no" or not giving them exactly what they want is because of racism.
Sometimes, life is rough. Deal with it.
It is well past time for the black community to man up and take responsibility. Just because you are black and that thug down the street is black doesn't mean when the cops kill him, they will be coming for you next. Sometimes, it just means they might have saved your life because he might have killed you in the future.
Of course, looting your local grocery store just to protest a black man being shot will definitely solve your problem, because...why?
So if you are trying to prove the racists are right, keep it up. Maybe even sprinkle some graffiti around the country like this:
There is nothing like "kill white people" to get the white people to notice you, right?
Call it a hunch, but reparations aren't happening any time soon.
Saudis to be held accountable: Today's news for September 29th
Fox News:
Congress on Wednesday overwhelmingly rejected President Obama’s veto of a bipartisan bill letting families of Sept. 11 victims sue the Saudi Arabian government, in the first successful veto override of Obama’s presidency.Reid is Washington's village idiot who thinks taxes are voluntary, Take his vote for what it is worth.
Marking a significant defeat for the White House, the House ensured the bill will become law after voting 348-77 to override Wednesday afternoon. This followed a 97-1 vote hours earlier in the Senate.
Despite last-ditch warnings from the Obama administration that the legislation could hurt national security and was “badly misguided,” lawmakers dismissed the concerns.
"This bill is about respecting the voices and rights of American victims," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., speaking on the Senate floor moments before Wednesday's vote in that chamber, pushed back hard on Saudi government objections to the legislation.
“It’s very simple. If the Saudis were culpable, they should be held accountable. If they had nothing to do with 9/11, they have nothing to fear,” Schumer said.
Lawmakers in both chambers needed to muster a two-thirds majority to override, and did so easily. The lone "no" vote in the Senate was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
Regardless, the Obama administration's arguments against the bill were lame and elitist-sounding:
Despite an expectation that Congress would override, the White House made a last-ditch attempt to fight it. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Reid, Obama warned the bill could cause chaos in U.S. foreign affairs, as other countries would use the measure to justify the creation of ways to target "U.S. policies and activities that they oppose."
"As a result, our nation and its armed forces, State Department, intelligence officials and others may find themselves subject to lawsuits in foreign courts." Obama wrote in a letter delivered Tuesday.This measure targets Saudi Arabia and not "other countries". This excuse doesn't fly.
As for the Saudis, considering they already support terrorists in our country, explain why we should be more concerned about what they might do?
Defense Secretary Ash Carter, in a letter Monday to a senior member of Congress, said he's sympathetic to the intent of the measure. But the legislation could lead to the public disclosure of American secrets and even undercut counterterrorism efforts by sowing mistrust among U.S. partners and allies, according to Carter.The only one this affects is Saudi Arabia. They aren't much of an ally considering they are working against us.
Speaking about presidents...
The Detroit News:
Today this newspaper does something it has never done in its 143-year history: endorse someone other than the Republican candidate in a presidential contest.
Since its founding in 1873, The Detroit News has backed a Republican every time it has made a presidential endorsement (three times we have sat on the sidelines — twice during the Franklin Roosevelt elections and in the 2004 Bush/Kerry contest).
We abandon that long and estimable tradition this year for one reason: Donald J. Trump.Read the entire endorsement. It is one of the better conservative endorsements for Gary Johnson overall, taking into full account both Trump's and Hillary's flaws, as well as Johnson's strong suits.
The Detroit News even goes so far as to point out what they consider to be Johnson's big weakness:
Our apprehension about Johnson rests with foreign policy. He holds to conventional libertarian non-interventionism. But he understands America’s position in the world, and we are certain that once the weight of leadership is on his shoulders, he will meet that responsibility.
He pledges to honor all existing treaties and obligations, and supports NATO, though he wants the European nations to live up to their commitment to pay 2 percent of GDP for the common defense; a reasonable expectation.I disagree with their view on non-interventionism. Libertarian foreign policy brings "do unto others as you would have done to you" philosophy onto the international level. As Americans, we do not want any foreign interests interfering in our internal affairs, so why would we interfere in the affairs of others? If we are to be the "shining city upon the hill" of which former President Ronald Reagan spoke, then we need to behave as a model international citizen.
Within conservative ideology, there is a strong case to be made for non-interventionism. Hopefully, Gary Johnson is the person to make that case.
In other news...
CNN:
For a second consecutive night, protesters gathered Wednesday in El Cajon, California, holding signs and demanding accountability following an officer-involved shooting of an unarmed black man.Really?
Alfred Okwera Olango, 38, pulled a vape smoking device from his pocket and pointed it at police before one officer fatally shot him and another discharged a Taser, El Cajon Police said.
His death set off demonstrations in the San Diego suburb as activists demanded that authorities release video of the shooting. They also want a federal probe into Olango's death.
Some protesters threw water bottles at police while others gathered in the street and parking lot where the shooting happened. Many held signs saying "black lives matter" as police wearing helmets with shields looked on.
Look at that picture above. This is clearly a "suicide by cop" incident. This is not some kind of abusive racist incident.
If the black community wants to know why nobody is taking them seriously, this is a perfect example. They think they have a right to protest because one idiot who happens to have black skin points an e-cigarette at a cop and ends up dead? Sorry, but no. They look stupid protesting this. In fact, they look like spoiled children throwing a tantrum.
There is an old saying which the black community would be wise to consider:
"He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious."--Sun TzuThis is one situation where the black community would have been wise not to fight. In fact, this kind of behavior encourages the very racism they are incorrectly assuming from the police involved. This is "the boy who cried wolf" writ large.
Speaking of the Far East...
AFP:
Japanese archaeologists said Wednesday they have for the first time unearthed ancient Roman coins at the ruins of an old castle.While this is an incredible find, it is entirely feasible. The Silk Road trade route (which ran from Europe to China and points along Asia's eastern coast) dates back to the 3rd century BCE. Prior to this, the Japanese islands were not considered as part of the maritime Silk Road trade route. However, they are not so distant from them. This proves the Silk Road may have extended to these islands, or at least to Okinawa.
The discovery of 10 bronze and copper coins -- the oldest dating from about 300-400 AD -- in southern Okinawa caught researchers by surprise.
It was the first time Roman Empire coins have been discovered in Japan, thousands of kilometres from where they were likely minted.
"At first I thought they were one cent coins dropped by US soldiers," archaeologist Hiroki Miyagi told AFP.
"But after washing them in water I realised they were much older. I was really shocked."
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Wednesday wisdom: Tacitus
"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges."--Tacitus, from Annals
Translation: "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government."
Translation: "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government."
Alicia Machado's story isn't so simple
Former Miss Universe Alicia Machado was brought up by Hillary Clinton during Monday night's debate as an example of how cruel Donald Trump is to women. From Libertarian Republic:
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton attempted to savage Donald Trump in Monday’s presidential debate by bringing up his comments about the weight of former Miss Universe Alicia Machado.60 pounds in 9 months? I didn't even put on that much weight when I quit smoking. Let's be brutally honest here: Machado had a weight/eating problem. While Trump may have contributed to the fact it continued for years, it is clear that Machado already had issues.
In reality, Trump saved Machado’s title and helped her lose the extra pounds, as well.
According to a report [from] CNN dating back to 1997, Trump said that although Machado put on 60 pounds in just nine months, there’s just no way he would strip away her title, putting to bed rumors that her weight was threatening her continued possession of the Miss Universe title, which she won in 1996.
“Some people when they have pressure eat too much. Like me. Like Alicia,” said Trump, who was executive producer of the Miss Universe Pageant at the time.
“We had a choice of: termination or do this,” he added. “We wanted to do this.”
For Trump, “this” meant exercise to get her weight down to a reasonable 130 pounds.
When reporters complained, Trump told them in response, “A lot of you folks have weight problems. I hate to tell you.”
Her issues didn't end when Miss Universe ended. For example, from the Daily Mail:
The former Miss Universe at the center of a bitter exchange in Monday's presidential debate was accused of aiding a would-be murderer and threatening to kill a judge, it has emerged.
...In January 1998, the Associated Press revealed that Machado had been accused in court documents in Cadacras of driving her boyfriend from the scene of a shooting.Forgive me for not buying that.
She was ordered to testify in court, with her lawyer telling a local newspaper that she was in fact filming a soap opera at the time.
The murder, it was alleged, was the culmination of a bitter feud.
Machado's boyfriend, Juan Rodriguez Reggeti, was accused of shooting his brother-in-law, Francisco Sbert Moukso - at the funeral of the dead man's wife, Maria Rodriguez, who was the alleged murderer's sister.
Sbert's attorney alleged that Reggeti believed the dead man had driven his sister to suicide and took revenge, the Associated Press said.
Rodriguez was eight months pregnant when she jumped to her death off a fifth-floor balcony.
The attorney also alleged that witnesses saw Machado drive her boyfriend away from the scene of the crime, and that her boyfriend had snatched the dead woman's 11-month-old son as well.
But her lawyer, Ricardo Koesling, was quoted in a local newspaper calling the claims 'a huge stupidity' and saying: 'She wasn't even present at the site of the incident.'
Machado was not indicted when the judge in the case said there was insufficient evidence that she was at the scene of the alleged crime.
There was clearly confusion as in contrast to her lawyer's initial claim she was filming, Machado later claimed that she was at home sick. The judge said there was also insufficient evidence to prove that claim.
A judge indicted her boyfriend, described by Reuters as 'a 26-year-old graphic designer with movie star good looks' - and police mounted a series of raids to find him, to no avail.
It was not the end of the affair.
A month later the judge went on national television to allege that Machado had threatened to kill him if he indicted Sbert.
Judge Maximiliano Fuenmayor said on national television that she threatened 'to ruin my career as a judge and ... kill me', the Associated Press reported.
Reuters reported that he 'said she would make sure, using her friendship with the president (Rafael Caldera), that my career as judge is ruined and then she would kill me'.
He alleged that when he issued an arrest warrant she made a threatening phone call. He had traced her identity because her number showed up on his mobile phone - in 1998, a relatively new technology.
The judge said he planned to open a new case against Machado. Judges in Venezuela are more akin to prosecutors, having investigatory powers.
The indictment, if it had led to criminal trial, would have carried a jail term of up to 18 months if she had been found guilty.
The Economist reported that she admitted making the call but that that she said it was to thank him for what it described as 'his unbiased pursuit of justice'.
But back to the Trump thing, if you want to blame Trump for anything, blame him for running a beauty pageant. For a century, beauty pageants have been incarnations of sexism. On the other hand, Alicia Machado would be nothing if not for Miss Universe. Let's be honest: The Machado-Trump relationship was mutually beneficial for both of them. The fact she is turning on him now tells us more about her than it does about him.
Democrats shut down government: Today's news for September 28th
Reuters:
A stop-gap funding bill to avoid a federal government shutdown later this week failed to garner enough votes to move forward in the Senate on Tuesday, with Democrats and Republicans both opposing the measure.
The must-pass continuing resolution, or CR, which would keep federal agencies operating from Saturday through Dec. 9, received only 45 of the 60 votes needed to limit debate and be considered for passage by the 100-seat Republican-controlled Senate.
Forty Democrats and two independents opposed the CR because it lacked a $220 million aid package to address the drinking-water crisis in Flint, Michigan. It also drew opposition from 13 Republicans, including Senator Ted Cruz, the former presidential candidate.I guess we can expect to hear hyperbole about how people will suffer if the government shuts down, from the Media and President Obama, right?
Crickets chirping.
Yeah, I thought so. When the Democrats do it, it is ok, because the Flint drinking crisis affects the entire country, right?
Seriously though, I am not insensitive to the Flint situation. But it is simply not a national matter. It is a matter for Michigan voters to hold their state and local politicians accountable.
When your car breaks down, and you need money to fix it, but you don't have enough money saved, what do you do? You re-prioritize. That money you were going to use for a vacation gets spent on the car instead. Or you work some overtime. But whatever you decide to do, you do it within the family structure. You don't get to go to the federal government for it.
Flint's situation is no different.
But there is one bright side to this: If you folks want to shut down the federal government over a simple $220 million giveaway, I am completely in favor of it. Let's keep it shut down. It will save us some money.
And now we return you to your post-debate coverage...
The Charlotte Observer:
Indeed, while polls found that Clinton had won the first general-election debate with Donald Trump on Monday, she may not have won actual votes. And she may even have lost some, at least in the battleground state of North Carolina.
In a focus group of 21 voters from around Charlotte conducted by McClatchy and The Charlotte Observer, four who had been up for grabs before the debate had moved away from her by the end.
...For the four who emerged less impressed by Clinton, it was the seeming familiarity of her proposals for the economy and national security that was a turnoff.It is nice to see people recognizing the Democratic party's solutions are nothing new. They have been tried and failed the world over.
But here is something new:
Before the debate, the tally was nine Clinton, three Trump, six undecided and three [for Gary] Johnson. Afterward, it became seven Clinton, three Trump, six undecided and five Johnson.In other words, as the only candidate to actually gain voters, Gary Johnson was the winner Monday night.
They better get him in the debates soon, or else Clinton might give him the presidency.
Speaking about the debate..
New York Post:
The New York Post's Kyle Smith nails the problem with moderator Lester Holt's performance during the presidential debate:
So Holt’s questions [to Donald Trump] were fair game, but it’s not the case that Clinton has nothing to be embarrassed about either. Holt might have questioned her about, for instance, the role she played in arranging the sale of American uranium assets to Russia after Clinton and her foundation accepted large checks from shady intermediaries. He might have noted that she was chided by the FBI for her reckless mishandling of classified information, or that she put sensitive national security information on a server, less secure than Gmail, that could easily be hacked by the Russians. He could have asked her whether she could be trusted about her health given that she apparently wasn’t going to tell the public she had pneumonia until she collapsed on 9/11 (and even then stonewalled for hours).
True, Hillary Clinton has answered a lot of these kinds of questions before, but not in front of a huge national audience. For Holt to allow her to get away with saying, “It was a mistake” on her usage of email doesn’t cut it, not from a guy who was willing to hammer Trump on a remark like “I just don’t think she has a presidential look.”Personally, as Kyle Smith pointed out earlier in this analysis, a Jim Lehrer-style performance from Holt would have been more appropriate. A debate moderator should be above the back-and-forth, not in it. A journalist I used to know once said the worst thing that ever happened to journalism was Woodward and Bernstein. After they broke Watergate, it became ok for journalists to make the news, instead of just reporting it (although their work was textbook journalism).
Debate moderation is no different: Allow the candidates to shine, as you merely keep them on a level playing field. Smith makes the point that if Holt was going to fact-check Trump, he needed to do the same with Clinton. I would argue the exact opposite: It wasn't Holt's job to fact-check either of them.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Who won? Today's news for September 27th
So who won last night's debate?
The pundits seem to be handing it to Hillary Clinton, as I have yet to see a single pundit give it to Trump, present company excepted. To be honest, I only gave it to him because I can't listen to Hillary without a large dose of skepticism. Too many lies over too long a period of time will do that to you. So it is difficult for me to be unbiased with her.
Mind you, that doesn't mean I trust or even like Trump, because I don't. As I said in my post-debate post, what I saw only confirms my plan to vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson.
But who do the online polls think won? Admittedly, they aren't scientific, and some of them even might be rigged. But here are the results:
Drudge Report:
Donald Trump: 82.1%
Hillary Clinton: 17.9%
Total Votes: 480,044
Time:
Donald Trump: 53%
Hillary Clinton: 47%
Total Votes: 1,405,991
CNBC:
Donald Trump: 66%
Hillary Clinton: 34%
Total Votes: 754,066
Last night's debate was clearly a case of winning the battle but still losing the war. Clinton has a credibility problem that won't be fixed in one debate. And Trump's supporters are clearly the more avid.
In other news...
The pundits seem to be handing it to Hillary Clinton, as I have yet to see a single pundit give it to Trump, present company excepted. To be honest, I only gave it to him because I can't listen to Hillary without a large dose of skepticism. Too many lies over too long a period of time will do that to you. So it is difficult for me to be unbiased with her.
Mind you, that doesn't mean I trust or even like Trump, because I don't. As I said in my post-debate post, what I saw only confirms my plan to vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson.
But who do the online polls think won? Admittedly, they aren't scientific, and some of them even might be rigged. But here are the results:
Drudge Report:
Donald Trump: 82.1%
Hillary Clinton: 17.9%
Total Votes: 480,044
Time:
Donald Trump: 53%
Hillary Clinton: 47%
Total Votes: 1,405,991
CNBC:
Donald Trump: 66%
Hillary Clinton: 34%
Total Votes: 754,066
Last night's debate was clearly a case of winning the battle but still losing the war. Clinton has a credibility problem that won't be fixed in one debate. And Trump's supporters are clearly the more avid.
In other news...
CNN:
The Senate will vote Wednesday to override President Barack Obama's veto of a bill to give victims and families of the 9/11 terrorist attacks the legal right to sue Saudi Arabia for any purported role in the plot, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Monday.
The measure will need a two-thirds vote of the chamber to succeed -- which is expected -- before going to the House for a similar override vote later this week.
It would be the first time in Obama's nearly eight years in office that one of his vetoes will be overturned.
The President opposes the bill because he says it could open the door to lawsuits against the US for actions taken by military service members, diplomats and others.
Obama expressed sympathy for the 9/11 families in his veto message Friday, but said he vetoed the bill because the law would hurt the effectiveness of the administration's action against terrorism by taking questions of foreign states' involvement in terrorism "out of the hands of national security and foreign policy professionals and placing them in the hands of private litigants and courts."
The problem Obama faces is both his administration and the previous Bush administration have both let Saudi Arabia off the hook for their role in the 9/11 attacks. This is unpopular on a bipartisan basis, and now Obama is going to have to pay the price for it. If either of the last two presidents had shown some kind of diplomatic balls and confronted the Saudis publicly, this wouldn't be an issue.
Sorry Obama. You did nothing, and now we are taking it out of your hands completely. Just another item for your legacy of incompetence.
The First Presidential Debate
As I listen to the post-debate focus group on CBS, my head is about to explode. Their reasons for and against both candidates makes me want to choke these people. Of course, I knew they would be stupid from the beginning:
The moderator, Lester Holt, was ok until he went after Trump on his support for the Iraq War. Considering Clinton actually voted for the war as a senator, that seemed like a rather biased attack, holding Trump's feet to the fire over an issue where Clinton was even more culpable.
CBS News' Bob Schieffer made a good point after the debate about how neither of them said how they would actually create some kind of coalition in order to get their ideas passed in Washington.
Overall, Trump was all style, no substance, and Clinton was all wrong substance.
Here are some of my insights from the debate:
I would say that Donald Trump looked stronger early on, but then Hillary Clinton wore him down with her phoney smile every time he would attack her, and then she would counter. By the end of the night, Trump got tentative with his attacks, and they seemed less effective.#debatenight— Ed McGonigal (@1EMcGon1) September 27, 2016
I can't believe this focus group. You want to see the candidates' positions? They have this thing called "campaign websites"...
The moderator, Lester Holt, was ok until he went after Trump on his support for the Iraq War. Considering Clinton actually voted for the war as a senator, that seemed like a rather biased attack, holding Trump's feet to the fire over an issue where Clinton was even more culpable.
CBS News' Bob Schieffer made a good point after the debate about how neither of them said how they would actually create some kind of coalition in order to get their ideas passed in Washington.
Overall, Trump was all style, no substance, and Clinton was all wrong substance.
Here are some of my insights from the debate:
- Trump nailed her on TPP. Clinton will support it. The political elite support TPP, and she is the candidate of the elite.
- Trump's protectionism was annoying. It is what makes him just as scary as she is for her progressive socialism.
- Clinton bringing up her website fact-checking him was silly. Any half-intelligent person wouldn't look to Clinton for fact-checking on the debate.
- Throughout the debate, Trump was painting Clinton with establishment colors. His addressing her as "Secretary Clinton" was part of it. She didn't seem to notice, or else wasn't denying it.
- Trump's statement that not paying taxes "makes me smart" is spot-on.(if he's doing it legally)
- Trump was playing defense on his bankruptcies. He cut the number from Clinton's 6 down to 4, but that's still ugly. No successful businessman has 4 bankruptcies, and Trump's defense of it was poor.
- Both Trump and Clinton are clearly for gun control. Kiss your guns goodbye.
- I can't believe Clinton brought up using the terrorist watch list for gun control. A list where the government can arbitrarily add anyone, and is nearly impossible to appeal if you have been improperly been added to it, is no basis for deciding who can or cannot buy a gun.
- Trump's stupidest comment of the night: If we kept the oil, we could have prevented ISIS. Unfortunately, it would have taken us decades to get all the oil out of there.
- The birtherism question was valid, and Trump really hasn't answered why he carried it on years after Obama released the birth certificate. On the other hand, Clinton hasn't really defended bringing it up before Trump.
If you held a gun to my head and forced me to pick a winner, I would select Trump, only because his empty-suited style does carry some appeal over Clinton's wrong-headed ideology. However, don't read that as any kind of support from me. I consider both of them dangerous candidates. He showed himself to be clueless, and her governing ideology is dead wrong. This is a choice between Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon. And that might be an insult to Hoover and Nixon, because these two candidates are each capable of being the worst presidents in history..
I will still be voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson, and this debate only left me more resolved in this support. The two major candidates are dangerous, when they aren't stupid.
Monday, September 26, 2016
Corruption and Democrats
It is well past time to finally acknowledge an inconvenient truth in American politics: The Democratic Party is thoroughly corrupt. This sad state has come about thanks to a Media which has overlooked the Democrats' crimes for far too long. Nowadays, the Democrats not only don't worry about the Media calling them out for wrongdoings, but they even expect assistance from the Media to cover up failures. The Democratic Party is no longer accountable to anyone.
Case in point: Hillary Clinton's email scandal. From beginning to end, this situation carried the stench of corruption, when it wasn't downright illegal.
Consider this story, from PJ Media:
How about this story, from Politico:
Here is what we know:
Hillary Clinton knew going into her job as secretary of state that she was going to do something politically unpalatable, if not illegal. We know she did, and everyone around her, including President Obama, knew she was up to something.
In summary, something illegal occurred, and it is highly likely that pressure was applied to the FBI to keep them from prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
But here is the kicker: Even with all of this known, there is no Media outrage. If a Republican did what Hillary Clinton did, it would be a 24/7/365 news story until the Republican was in jail.
If you still think the Media hasn't given Hillary a "get out of jail free card", consider this story from WND:
I will not tell you to vote for Donald Trump or Gary Johnson or Jill Stein because of this. But I will tell you that a Hillary Clinton presidency will have absolutely no journalistic oversight from the MSM. Based on her history, she could commit a Watergate-style crime and the MSM wouldn't say a peep about it.
Case in point: Hillary Clinton's email scandal. From beginning to end, this situation carried the stench of corruption, when it wasn't downright illegal.
Consider this story, from PJ Media:
A new document released by the FBI late this afternoon in another Friday document dump adds another damning piece of evidence to the inexplicably closed Clinton email case.
An employee at Platte River Networks, the company that managed Hillary Clinton's emails after she left the State Department, sent a work ticket that referred to the "Hilary [sic] coverup [sic] operation" (Hillary cover-up operation) after Clinton's team had asked the company to modify her email system so that it would automatically delete messages after 60 days.Even the IT guy recognizes what is happening, yet the FBI doesn't?
How about this story, from Politico:
President Barack Obama used a pseudonym in email communications with Hillary Clinton and others, according to FBI records made public Friday.
The disclosure came as the FBI released its second batch of documents from its investigation into Clinton’s private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
The 189 pages the bureau released includes interviews with some of Clinton’s closest aides, such as Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills; senior State Department officials; and even Marcel Lazar, better known as the Romanian hacker “Guccifer.”
In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.
"Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be a pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the report says. "Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email."Good question Huma. However, the better question is raised by this, from CBS News last year:
President Obama only learned of Hillary Clinton's private email address use for official State Department business after a New York Times report, he told CBS News in an interview.
CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Mr. Obama when he learned about her private email system after his Saturday appearance in Selma, Alabama.
"The same time everybody else learned it through news reports," the president told Plante.As former National Security Agency analyst John Schindler said:
What is odd, however, is the fact that Obama previously told the media that he only learned of Hillary’s irregular email and server arrangements from “news reports.” How the president failed to notice that he was emailing his top diplomat at her personal, clintonmail.com address, not a state.gov account, particularly when they were discussing official business, is something Congress may want to find out – since certainly the FBI won’t.To use Howard Baker's famous Watergate question, "What did the President know and when did he know it?"
Here is what we know:
- Obama knew what Clinton was doing, and lied about it.
- Her IT guy suspected Clinton was covering something up, and joked about it.
- Clinton was doing something which was, at the very least, unethical, as secretary of state. (Based on her actions for Russia, after their donation to the Clinton Foundation, she was at least selling her influence.)
- Bill Clinton met with U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch in her airplane a week before the FBI announced they were not pressing charges against Hillary.
- FBI Director James Comey admitted that anyone else who did what Clinton did would have faced "sanctions".
- Based on current law (which was the law when she became secretary of state), Clinton's use of an unsecured private email server to send classified information via email was illegal.
Hillary Clinton knew going into her job as secretary of state that she was going to do something politically unpalatable, if not illegal. We know she did, and everyone around her, including President Obama, knew she was up to something.
In summary, something illegal occurred, and it is highly likely that pressure was applied to the FBI to keep them from prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
But here is the kicker: Even with all of this known, there is no Media outrage. If a Republican did what Hillary Clinton did, it would be a 24/7/365 news story until the Republican was in jail.
If you still think the Media hasn't given Hillary a "get out of jail free card", consider this story from WND:
If you can’t even win when the rules are changed in your favor, things must be REALLY bad.If Media companies will bend over backwards to prop up a bad Hillary Clinton book, is it any surprise they seem to have no concerns about Hillary's criminal behavior?
That’s how it looks for Hillary Clinton’s new 2016 campaign book, “Stronger Together,” co-authored with running mate Tim Kaine.
WND reported just days ago when the book was being savaged on Amazon.com with negative reviews, with 81 percent one-star ratings and an average of only 1.7.
Clinton supporters lashed out at “trolls” they said were criticizing the book only because they oppose the Democrat’s presidential candidacy.
WND previously reported there were more than 1,200 reviews, and the number grew to than 2,000.
But Thursday afternoon, there were only 255, with many of the most critical reviews removed by Amazon, whose CEO, Jeff Bezos, owns the Washington Post, which created an army of 20 reporters and researchers to investigate the life of Donald Trump.
Victory for the Clinton book, however, remains out of grasp, with the negative, one-star responses, outnumbering positive, five-star responses nearly 2-1.
The one-star ratings Thursday were 62 percent, to 35 percent for five-star ratings.
And reviewers many times simply punched the five-star button then made harshly critical condemnations of the book and Hillary Clinton.
From suz702, who posted a five-star ranking: “I didn’t buy this book or read this book, but I have read the reviews, and enjoyed hours of entertaining, fun filled reading, expressing the TRUTH, about a crooked, lying, corrupt, terminally ill Presidential candidate, who stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders, and who is about the steal the Presidency with the use of election fraud. 10 Stars to the authors of these reviews. Proof that not only are Amazon.com shoppers of superior intelligence, but thye call it like they see it…. Amazon shows this as a verified purchase, when I didn’t buy the book … how fun!”
I will not tell you to vote for Donald Trump or Gary Johnson or Jill Stein because of this. But I will tell you that a Hillary Clinton presidency will have absolutely no journalistic oversight from the MSM. Based on her history, she could commit a Watergate-style crime and the MSM wouldn't say a peep about it.
Obama and Syria: Today's news for September 26th
Financial Times:
The US accused Russia on Sunday of supporting “barbarism” over the bombing of the Syrian city of Aleppo...This is all very interesting, especially considering the following:
Accusing Russia of supporting a Syrian regime offensive that has derailed a ceasefire agreement negotiated between Washington and Moscow, Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN, said Russian and Syrian forces were “laying waste to what is left of an iconic Middle Eastern city”.
In a blistering speech to an emergency UN Security Council meeting, Ms Power said: “Instead of pursuing peace, Russia and Assad make war.”
While Moscow was likely to argue that it was pursuing terrorists in Syria, she said that “Russia is espousing fiction”. “What Russia is sponsoring and doing is not counterterrorism; it is barbarism,” she added.
Bloomberg:
When future historians debate why the U.S. did so little to stop the tragedy in Syria, they should dig up the speech President Barack Obama just gave at a U.N. summit on refugees.In summary, Obama is trying to stare down the schoolyard bully Putin, even though Obama isn't willing to confront Putin. Words are not enough with Putin, and Obama's failure in Syria is evidence of that.
While Democrats signaled their collective virtue by denouncing a tweet from Donald Trump Jr. that compared Syrian refugees to Skittles, Obama lectured foreign ministers and heads of state this week on the same topic. "And just as failure to act in the past, for example, by turning away Jews fleeing Nazi Germany, is a stain on our collective conscience," Obama said, "I believe history will judge us harshly if we do not rise to this moment."
Obama went on to state something obvious: "We must recognize that refugees are a symptom of larger failures -- be it war, ethnic tensions, or persecution." But then he said something bizarre: "If we truly want to address the crisis, wars like the savagery in Syria must be brought to an end, and it will be brought to an end through political settlement and diplomacy, and not simply by bombing."
This of course is a straw man. No one who has argued for more U.S. involvement in Syria has said more bombing alone will solve these problems. What's more, the U.S. is doing a lot of bombing in Syria today against the Islamic State.
But there is also something sinister about Obama's formulation. The U.S. is not just another country when it comes to the collective security of the Middle East. Through its alliances and interventions, it has been the region's reluctant sheriff since the end of World War II. In this sense, it's rich of Obama to pose as a Jeremiah when he has acted more like a Nero.
His administration's pursuit of diplomacy and publicly stated policy to not attack Syrian forces gave Russia a green light to establish its forward air bases in Syria a year ago. As Secretary of State John Kerry pursued Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to restart peace negotiations, the Russians deployed bombers and jets to Syria and struck a pact with Iran to regain territory for the dictator, Bashar al-Assad.
This toothless diplomacy has further immiserated the Syrian people. The U.S. government confirmed Tuesday that it was Russian aircraft that destroyed an aid convoy this week, halting the delivery of food and medicine to the besieged citizens of Aleppo, and killing 20 aid workers.
It's worse than this though. This atrocity was committed during what was supposed to be a cessation of hostilities negotiated by Kerry and Lavrov this month in Geneva. The second phase of that agreement would have established a center in Jordan where Russian and U.S. military officers would share intelligence to target the Islamic State and other jihadis in Syria.
Back in the USA...
Facebook:
Granted, Facebook isn't a news site, but sometimes there are things there which are newsworthy. In this case, it is Ted Cruz's endorsement of Donald Trump:
This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.
In Cleveland, I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”
After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.
I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.
Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.
Six key policy differences inform my decision...The six differences he lists are: Supreme Court nominations, Obamacare, energy, immigration, national security, and Internet freedom.
Regardless, this is an odd endorsement coming from Cruz, after he verbally backhanded Trump at the Republican Convention. This endorsement doesn't read like Cruz is trying to mend fences with Trump, but rather that he refuses to support Clinton. So he will advocate wasting your vote on Trump first.
In other news...
CNN:
Arnold Palmer, known as "the King" for his transformative legacy in golf, has died at the age of 87.
He died Sunday evening at a Pittsburgh hospital while awaiting cardiac surgery, according to a statement from his company.Palmer was much more than just a great golfer. He was a cultural icon. He was one of the great 20th century superstar athletes who made advertising a second job for all superstar athletes.
Anyone remember this ad?
Golfing made Palmer famous, but it was his personality that made him an icon.
My own connection to Palmer came via my childhood dentist, who we shared. I remember one time visiting my dentist, and I got to see Palmer in the dentist chair, laid back with mouth wide open, getting some kind of dental work. You don't normally get to meet celebrities that way.
Friday, September 23, 2016
Weekend Closing Post: John D. Loudermilk, Jr.
Time for another weekend closing post.
But before I hang it up, there is a bit of news: Songwriter John D. Loudermilk, Jr. died yesterday, at the age of 82.
Loudermilk has a significant repertoire of songs to his credit. but his most famous song was undoubtedly Tobacco Road, which has been called one of the most covered songs in history. Here is a short list of singers/bands who have covered it:
The Animals
Edgar Winter
Jefferson Airplane
War
Bobbie Gentry
Jimi Hendrix
Jackson 5
Roy Clark
Paul Revere & The Raiders
Lou Rawls
David Lee Roth
Although Roth's version is my favorite, I have to share this novelty video. Lou Rawls singing it with Aretha Franklin playing the piano and singing backup to him:
Among Loudermilk's other songs, I have two favorites. First and foremost is Then You Can Tell Me Goodbye, with the best version by The Casinos:
I would be remiss if I didn't mention one of Loudermilk's most unique songs, and a guilty pleasure of mine, Indian Reservation, made famous by Paul Revere & The Raiders:
The music industry lost a gem in Loudermilk, who was one of the most eclectic songwriters of the 20th century.
That is all for me this week. I will see you Monday!
But before I hang it up, there is a bit of news: Songwriter John D. Loudermilk, Jr. died yesterday, at the age of 82.
Loudermilk has a significant repertoire of songs to his credit. but his most famous song was undoubtedly Tobacco Road, which has been called one of the most covered songs in history. Here is a short list of singers/bands who have covered it:
The Animals
Edgar Winter
Jefferson Airplane
War
Bobbie Gentry
Jimi Hendrix
Jackson 5
Roy Clark
Paul Revere & The Raiders
Lou Rawls
David Lee Roth
Although Roth's version is my favorite, I have to share this novelty video. Lou Rawls singing it with Aretha Franklin playing the piano and singing backup to him:
Among Loudermilk's other songs, I have two favorites. First and foremost is Then You Can Tell Me Goodbye, with the best version by The Casinos:
I would be remiss if I didn't mention one of Loudermilk's most unique songs, and a guilty pleasure of mine, Indian Reservation, made famous by Paul Revere & The Raiders:
The music industry lost a gem in Loudermilk, who was one of the most eclectic songwriters of the 20th century.
That is all for me this week. I will see you Monday!
Congressman steps into the racist hole
So North Carolina congressman Robert Pittenger got in trouble for saying the Charlotte protesters "hate white people because white people are successful and they're not." And then I see this:
On the other hand, what was Pittenger's point? By attacking the protesters like that, he adds fuel to their fire. Even if he is right, there is nothing to be gained by saying that.
"But Ed, didn't you just agree with what he said?" To an extent, I did. Honesty is a lovely quality, one which I admire greatly. But there is a time and a place for it. During rioting is not the time for truth. Get the mobs calmed down first, and THEN you can call it like it is. Until then, don't throw fuel onto the fire.
Let's be honest: Some or even most of the Charlotte protesters are exactly as Pittenger described. They have been raised on a steady diet of propaganda blaming whites and white racism for their own lack of opportunity, even though many blacks are doing better today. In other words, there are large numbers of black people accepting the excuses for failure before they even try to make it in life. Why try if the white man will just hold you down?"Hate White People" pic.twitter.com/Yb45swquI4— Lucid Hurricane™✘ (@LucidHurricane_) September 23, 2016
On the other hand, what was Pittenger's point? By attacking the protesters like that, he adds fuel to their fire. Even if he is right, there is nothing to be gained by saying that.
"But Ed, didn't you just agree with what he said?" To an extent, I did. Honesty is a lovely quality, one which I admire greatly. But there is a time and a place for it. During rioting is not the time for truth. Get the mobs calmed down first, and THEN you can call it like it is. Until then, don't throw fuel onto the fire.
Clinton's eyes: Today's news for September 23rd
The Hill:
A fascinating analysis of Hillary Clinton's health from an objective doctor. Here is the edited version:
Hillary Clinton exhibited abnormal eye movements during her recent speech in Philadelphia and they were not photoshopped.If what this doctor is suggesting is true, I think we are witnessing something more commonly seen with professional athletes. Frequently, athletes will play with significant injuries to avoid what infamously happened to baseball player Wally Pipp (from Wikipedia):
Her eyes did not always move in the same direction at the same time. It appears that she has a problem with her left sixth cranial nerve. That nerve serves only one function and that is to make the lateral rectus muscle contract. That muscle turns the eye in the direction away from the midline.
...Like all things medical, there is a long list of potential causes but in my opinion the most likely one, based on Clinton's known medical history is an intermittent lateral rectus palsy caused by damage to or pressure on her sixth cranial nerve.
...Clinton's physician reported that she was placed on Coumadin (a blood thinner) to dissolve the blood clot. Actually, that is incorrect, because Coumadin has no effect on an existing clot. It serves only to decrease the chance of further clotting occurring...Clinton's physician has also reported that on follow up exam, the clot had resolved. That is surprising since the majority of such clots do not dissolve. The way it was documented that the clot had resolved has not been reported.
If, as is statistically likely, Clinton's transverse sinus is still blocked, she would still have increased pressure and swelling and decreased blood flow to her brain. That swelling would place pressure on the exposed portion of the sixth cranial nerve at the base of her brain, explaining the apparent lateral rectus palsy. And such a deficit can be partial and/or intermittent.
Additionally, when patients who have decreased intracranial blood flow becoming volume depleted (dehydrated) or have a drop in blood pressure loss of consciousness can occur. That could explain her witnessed collapse in New York City on 9/11.
...Pipp showed up at Yankee Stadium [one] day with a severe headache, and asked the team's trainer for two aspirin. Miller Huggins, the Yankees' manager, noticed this, and said "Wally, take the day off. We'll try that kid Gehrig at first today and get you back in there tomorrow." [Lou] Gehrig played well and became the Yankees' new starting first baseman. This story first appeared in a 1939 New York World-Telegram on Gehrig's career, in which Pipp was interviewed. Pipp was later quoted to have said, "I took the two most expensive aspirin in history."Gehrig went on to play 2,130 consecutive games, which was a baseball record that stood for the better part of the 20th century. Pipp was traded to the Cincinnati reds in the offseason, where he played for 3 more seasons.
In Hillary's case, didn't have a strong "second string" player for the presidency. In hindsight, if Clinton had decided not to run earlier, Joe Biden could have stepped into the role, except for one thing:
Elite Daily:
Vice President Joe Biden just revealed that he’d planned on running for president this year, but was ultimately too heartbroken over his son’s death.
...At a talk at the Council of Foreign Relations on Wednesday, Biden said,
"I planned on running. To be completely honest with you, I had planned on running…
"But… my son, Beau, a year before it was time for me to begin to really put this together was diagnosed with a death sentence, stage four glioblastoma.
"Virtually nobody makes it, but you still hold out hope, you know, and things can happen, there’s so much happening.
"When he passed, part of my soul was gone. And no woman or man should ever run for president unless they are capable and willing to give every ounce of their energy to the endeavor. And I just wasn’t."He says that now, but would he have felt the same way if Hillary had decided not to run?
In other news....
CNN:
Tulsa police officer Betty Shelby was booked at the local county jail early Friday and released shortly after on $50,000 bond.I consider this a reasonable outcome to this situation. Cops need to understand that delivering a death sentence for simply failing to follow their orders is unacceptable. Even if the court finds her innocent, the message is sent.
Shelby has been charged with manslaughter in the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man, Terence Crutcher, after his SUV broke down last week.
Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler announced the charge Thursday. The criminal complaint against Shelby said her "fear resulted in her unreasonable actions which led her to shooting" Crutcher, 40. She is accused of "unlawfully and unnecessarily" shooting him after he did not comply with her "lawful orders."
And finally, on to more universal matters...
Cnet:
Stephen Hawking is again warning about announcing our presence to any alien civilizations that might be out there, especially those that could be more technologically advanced.
..."If intelligent life has evolved...we should be able to hear it," he says..."One day we might receive a signal from a planet...but we should be wary of answering back. Meeting an advanced civilization could be like Native Americans encountering Columbus. That didn't turn out so well."Hawking advocates looking for alien civilizations, yet he also says we shouldn't contact them. While he is probably right, I wonder what he would suggest we do if they find us anyway?
Thursday, September 22, 2016
Hillary's missing 50 points: Part 2 of today's news for September 22nd
Zero Hedge:
Seemingly shocked that after spending 10s of millions of dollars, she remains only modestly ahead in the polls, Hillary Clinton exclaimed during an teleconference with the Laborers' International Union of North America, saying, "Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?" Donald Trump was quick offer a three word reason... "because you're terrible!"When you consider their ad spending, this is a valid question:
That cannot be the complete answer, otherwise the following guy would be winning...
New York Daily News:
This editorial is a classic case of big government stupidity, from establishment tool Jason Silverstein:
Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, who is seemingly unaware of terrorism in America and abroad, wants to shut down the Department of Homeland Security to save money.
The low-polling Libertarian sees the department devoted to national security as “just another layer of bureaucracy,” he told the Fox Business Network on Monday.
“Homeland Security, what do they really do?” he pondered.
“Why are there armed Homeland Security agents walking the streets now? Why are those black, unmarked vehicles Homeland Security? What do they do? I just think the morale is low within the Department of Homeland Security and nobody knows really what they do.”The DHS was formed in 2002 in response to the intelligence failings prior to 9/11. There would not have been a need for the DHS if it weren't for the infamous "Gorelick wall" put up between various government agencies which prevented them from sharing information into terrorist activities. President Bill Clinton's deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick was the person responsible for this regulation. Gorelick has had her hands on so many controversies over the past 20 years, only the Clintons have more. Gorelick was one of the people responsible for the intelligence failings leading up to 9/11, and then ironically served on the commission to investigate it (no conflict of interest there, right?). She was also a vice chairman of Fannie Mae from 1997-2003 (where she received over $26 million in income). She was British Petroleum's top legal advisor after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. If that isn't enough, she helped defend Duke University from a lawsuit filed by members of the lacrosse team after the infamous Duke lacrosse scandal. With Jamie Gorelick, when she isn't chasing dark scandal clouds, they are following her.
Back to the DHS, there would not be a need for the DHS if the departments would just communicate with each other. Bureaucracies like the DHS don't facilitate communication. Don't believe me? Ask yourself how many terrorist attacks we had before 2002, and how many have we had since then?
Gary Johnson is spot-on.
The Daily Caller:
Stone Mountain, Georgia — a city with just over 6,000 residents and a poverty rate well above the national average — has resettled more Syrian refugees than Los Angeles and New York City combined."Tiny Georgia Town" is misleading. This isn't some backwoods Georgia town out of Deliverance. Stone Mountain is part of the greater Atlanta metropolitan area.
That said, the number of refugees the article is discussing is also fairly tiny:
Since October 1 (the start of the fiscal year), 72 Syrian refugees have been placed in Stone Mountain, State Department data shows. Los Angeles has resettled just 45 Syrian refugees, while NYC has only resettled nine.
Syrians aren’t the only refugees placed in Stone Mountain this year. Since October 1, 299 refugees have been resettled in the Georgia town. That’s roughly five percent of Stone Mountain’s July, 2015 population (6,109, according to U.S. Census data).
The largest group of refugees are from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which had 83 refugees placed in Stone Mountain.So where are the thousands of Syrian refugees I keep hearing about?
Black accountability: Part 1 of today's news for September 22nd
There is a lot of news today, so I am having to split the daily news post into three two posts.
CNN:
Second verse, same as the first:
Violent protests raged in Charlotte for the second night over the police shooting of an African-American man, prompting North Carolina's governor to declare a state of emergency.I discussed this topic yesterday, so I won't reiterate what I said. However, there is an intriguing addendum to the story, which naturally involves Donald Trump:
One person was on life support after being shot Wednesday night by another civilian during the unrest, the city tweeted. Earlier, the city had said that person had died.
At least four officers suffered injuries not considered life-threatening during Wednesday night's protests, according to police.
Gov. Pat McCrory said he would deploy the state National Guard and Highway Patrol to Charlotte, North Carolina's largest city.
"We cannot tolerate violence. We cannot tolerate the destruction of property and will not tolerate the attacks against our police officers that is occurring right now," McCrory told CNN on Wednesday night.
Think Progress:
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, in his outreach to black voters, frequently describes their lives as if they are living in some sort of hellscape.I will concede the data does show blacks doing better than other recent data points dating back to the 1970's, and even as recently as 2010.
And on Tuesday evening at an event in North Carolina, Trump painted perhaps the bleakest picture yet of conditions for black Americans. “Our African-American communities are absolutely in the worst shape that they’ve ever been in before, ever, ever, ever,” he said. “You get no education, you get no jobs, you get shot walking down the street.”
While it’s true that black Americans face significant racial inequities compared to whites, it’s hard to find any data supporting Trump’s assertion that things are worse for them now than ever before.
All that considered, this begs the question: If blacks are doing so much better, why do they seem to be rioting more than ever?
There is a caveat:
Trump’s claim about black Americans having “no jobs” is also hard to back up. Last month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that black people have an unemployment rate of 8.1 percent. While that’s almost double the 4.4 percent rate for white people, it’s a good deal lower than the recent peak of 16.8 percent of black unemployment in March of 2010 and a far cry from the overall peak of 21.2 percent in January 1983.It should be noted that unemployment rates notoriously leave out the people who have quit looking for jobs after their unemployment benefits run out. For example, Gallup runs its own unemployment poll, which shows a real unemployment rate of 9.7% in the U.S. (that is for everyone). While that is an improvement over the 17% real unemployment rates of the last financial crisis, it is still more than the lows seen back in 2001 (below 7%). It is safe to assume the black community is seeing a real unemployment rate above 10%.
I have a speculation to offer: There is a sub-group within the black community, which is both economically and educationally poor, which receives a constant message from both the Media and politicians absolving them of any responsibility for their situation. When the world tells you it isn't your fault for the situation you are in, and it is all due to your skin color, why should you try to fix it? You can't "fix" your skin color. And then, when you see a situation like a police shooting of someone with your skin color, attached to a rumor of their innocence, it is quite easy to leap to the conclusion it could happen to you too.
What Trump is saying is ethically wrong, but it is also no different than what is being said by both the Democrats and the Media. For example:
CNN:
Hillary Clinton's campaign manager said Wednesday that the Democratic nominee would implement a set of best practices to prevent police-involved shootings like the ones this week in Charlotte, North Carolina and Tulsa, Oklahoma.
"There are two prongs to her approach," Robby Mook, Hillary for America campaign manager told CNN's Alisyn Camerota on "New Day." "The first is to have a set of national standards around how to manage the situations that doesn't exist right now and that could help through training to prevent situations like this."
"There are no set of national best practices on how to manage situations," he continued. "These situations are handled by local policies currently. And what she is proposing is that we actually set up national standards so that localities have better policies to work with and train towards."Can you say "power grab"? How about Rahm Emanuel's infamous quote, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste"?
Seriously, this statement from the Clinton campaign implies that the police are the problem. There are some cases of unjustified shootings. Will this fix those situations, or will it create an atmosphere that makes cops reluctant to take actions against real public threats? Yes folks, some public threats happen to have black skin. But not every single shooting of a black man is due to racism.
(On a side note, why is it always black men being shot, not black women? Maybe because women are smarter than men? Just a thought.)
Regardless, you will notice that NOBODY in politics or the Media are suggesting that MAYBE it might be the black community's responsibility? Too often, these situations occur when a cop (sometimes even a black cop) orders a black man to do something, and they don't do it. This is known as "suicide by cop", and it is far too frequent.
These situations need to be considered one at a time, and not as some national racism problem. Assuming a "blame the cop" attitude before any of the facts of the case have been released is wrong. Rioting because of it is downright childish.
Back to Trump...
Atlanta Journal Constitution:
This story is from Jamie Dupree, one of the finest political journalists in the business. I treat news from him as gospel.
Back to the story:
In a bid to cut down on crime in America’s inner cities, Donald Trump on Wednesday embraced the idea of allowing police to more aggressively “stop-and-frisk” people on the streets, even though those tactics were ruled unconstitutional several years ago in his home town of New York, as a federal judge said it amounted to racial profiling.
“I would use ‘stop-and-frisk,'” Trump said in a Fox News town hall in Ohio. “I think you have to.”Naturally, the Democrats dumped on Trump. But surprisingly, so did at least one Republican:
“If you like big government you will love Donald Trump’s complete disregard for your fourth amendment rights,” said A.J. Spiker, a former top advisor to Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and a past chairman of the Iowa Republican Party.The main problem with "stop-and-frisk" is that it traditionally targets minorities and minority neighborhoods. On the other hand, minority-dominated neighborhoods are also where the crime rates are highest.
"Stop-and-frisk" isn't a solution, and certainly not on a national level. This is a local problem.
At some point, the police or other local political authorities need to get with the community leaders and come to an agreeable solution for policing these crime-ridden areas. If they can't agree to a solution of some kind, then the communities need to be cut loose. Like the old saying goes, if you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. It is past time to force minority communities to take responsibility for their own policing. If they refuse, this requires a tough love solution.
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
Black man shot by cop, black community throws tantrum
From CNN:
Violent protests erupted overnight in Charlotte, North Carolina, after a police officer fatally shot one man while serving a warrant for a different person at an apartment complex.
Police say the man they shot had a gun; his family members say he was carrying a book.
Several hundred people gathered outside the complex Tuesday night, chanting "no justice, no peace!" and carrying signs reading "Black Lives Matter."
The Charlotte case is the latest shooting involving an officer, and racial tensions are high nationwide following a spate of others. Last week's fatal shooting of Terence Crutcher, an unarmed black man in Tulsa, Oklahoma, sparked protests after video of the killing appeared Monday. Protesters have been demanding justice and an end to police brutality for months.
In Charlotte, police went to serve a warrant Tuesday and shot and killed a man in the parking lot of The Village at College Downs apartment complex in the University City neighborhood.
Mayor Jennifer Roberts identified the slain man as Keith Lamont Scott.
Scott was not the person authorities were looking for, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department said.
Scott died at Carolinas Medical Center. A gun he was holding was found at the scene, police said.
Family told CNN that Scott was a father of seven and was sitting in the car reading a book when officers arrived on the scene.'Dare we call this what it is?
On the same day that a black man gets shot by police, a crowd of black people (you can label me racist later) decides the account of the family of the dead man (who may or may not have been present at the actual scene, and who are clearly biased in favor of the dead man) is more accurate than the account from police. Naturally, this crowd of black people decides to start a riot to protest police brutality based on threadbare evidence.
Mind you, I am not saying the police shooting wasn't an act of police brutality. I am saying that a riot makes the assumption it is.
I am saying this crowd of black people is acting prematurely. I will also go so far as to call this what it is: This riot is the act of a bunch of spoiled rotten overgrown children. They didn't like what happened, so they are throwing a collective tantrum.
Martin Luther King Jr. is turning over in his grave as I write this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)