Archive for compare contrast

You want ugly? How about Fort Sumter type ugly?

The Sacramento Bee reports:

The final night of session is crunch time in the California Legislature: Ambitious new alternative energy goals are adopted. Landmark medical marijuana regulation is pushed through. Donald Trump is denounced.

In the waning minutes before the Senate adjourned for the year, Democrats adopted a resolution condemning the Republican presidential frontrunner’s views on immigration and calling on Californians to divest from his many business enterprises.

“Support this resolution to send a clear message that bigotry and racism and hatred is not tolerated in the state of California,” urged Sen. Isadore Hall, D-Compton, the measure’s author. “It’s time quite honestly to dump Trump.”

Senate Resolution 39 was introduced in July, following Trump’s controversial presidential announcement where he said that Mexico was not “sending their best” to the United States.

It is one thing for private citizens to go off on ‘fake news‘ but for a state to do so is an entirely different level of malfeasance. Fort Sumter was a case of actual gunfire that arose from detesting the outcome of a presidential election. California is running that line and it is a dangerous excess that is in accord with other expressions of rebellion to federal law in the form of “sanctuary” cities and universities. It is creating confrontation rather then resolution and it is doing so on a false basis created to support failed ideology.

You cannot abandon the practices, procedures, methods, and values – as expressed in customs, laws and elections – of the U.S. without losing what they have given you.

This “crunch time” is when people, especially under the colors of the state, need to be extraordinarily careful not to commit acts that will escalate or cause much grief later. The legislators in California need to carefully consider the consequences of their actions and whether they are really worth the potential results. Foolish acts are like Russian Roulette. Eventually, risks will be realized as illustrated by Cuba or Venezuela or what happened after Fort Sumter. Ugly is too kind a word for it.

Leave a Comment

Alt Reality

By Tom Trinko notes that The Problem Isn’t the Alt-Right – It’s the Alt-Reality.

We hear about the alt-right and the alt-left, but the real issue is the alt-reality.

Most Americans’ perceptions of the world are shaped by information they get from primarily liberal sources such as the media, academia, and government.

That’s why many Americans live in an alternate reality where Hillary did nothing wrong at Benghazi, abortions occur only due to rape, global warming is supported by 97% of scientists, the economy is doing great, emotions are good and reasoning is bad, Republicans are racists, Castro was a kind and caring man, and Trump is an insane tyrant.

What led to the Trump win is that the liberals have become so out of step with reality that many Americans decided to completely distrust them.

And Professor VDH expands on this with Universities and the media: arrogant, ignorant, and ripe for reform.

In media land, Donald Trump is a reckless tweeter; Barack Obama’s outreach to GloZell and rapper Kendrick Lamar is just kicking back and having fun (Lamar’s latest album portrayed the corpse of a judge to the toasting merriment of rappers on the White House lawn). In media land, Donald Trump risked world peace by accepting a phone call from the democratically elected president of Taiwan; Barack Obama’s talks with dictators and thugs such as Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, and Raul Castro were long overdue. In media land, jawboning Carrier not to relocate a plant to Mexico is an existential threat to the free market; not so when Barack Obama tried to coerce Boeing to move to Washington State to produce union-made planes, or bullied a small non-union guitar company, or reordered the bankruptcy payouts of Chrysler and essentially took over the company.

The university and the media share two traits: Both industries have become arrogant and ignorant. We have created a climate, ethically and professionally, in which extremism has bred extremism, and bias is seen not as proof of journalistic and academic corruption, but of political purity. The recent election, and especially its aftermath, embarrassed journalists and academics alike — and should not be forgotten.

Instead of introspective self-critique, the media have now gone postmodern, doubling down on their biases, under a new project of attacking supposed “neutrality” and “objectivity” themselves.

Awareness is a first step. It may take a while for the alcoholic to accept he has a drinking problem but his friends certainly will notice the problem and they will, eventually, get the message across. Is this the process we are seeing here?

Leave a Comment

The worst. Except for all the others

Jon Evans has been around as a columnist for TechCrunch. What he sees lead him to suggest Three cheers for Valley capitalism.

It’s easy to be critical of the tech industry, and even easier to be critical of capitalism itself. Let us all continue to do so; criticism is valuable. But let’s remember that we do so because they are so important. Capitalism is still what lifts the world’s least fortunate out of poverty, and technology increasingly feels like the last, best hope of a world otherwise dead set on ruining itself.

I frequently complain about the industry myself in this space, but not this week, because I spent much of it in Havana … which basically felt like a picturesque disaster area, still under the thumb of oppressive one-party rule. It’s hard not to strongly approve of capitalism and free markets, for all of their flaws when left unchecked, after you see people excitedly queueing to buy tomatoes on one of the world’s most fertile islands.

For all of its obvious failings and its copious waste, the flywheel that is Silicon Valley and its outposts — spinning out startup after startup to test and experiment with new technology, absorbing their remains if they fail, accumulating their burgeoning energy if they succeed — remains an engine of change and progress unlike any other on the planet, with the possible exception of Shenzhen’s hardware ecosystem.

So let us not cease in our criticism. Let us remember that capitalism is only our least bad alternative, rather than one which is actively good; let’s keep a wise eye out for something better. Let us lambaste the tech industry when it sins, which is often.

But let’s remember to do so with a grudging respect, because there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot else out there offering much in the way of alternatives to various flavors of dystopia.

It appears that he can’t quite come to grips with the big picture. Silicon Valley (and Shenzhen) are only small components of something much larger. He has no clue as to what “actively good” might be and how the capitalism in his favored environment handles “its obvious failings and its copious waste.” He misses the feedback mechanisms and the factors that corrupt them and how the “flaws” are indeed checked and corrected.

There are lessons to be learned and there are examples out there (and in history) to provide this learning. It can be difficult. A grudging acceptance is one step in the right direction.

Leave a Comment

The Malthusians and Feynman

Professor Motl was prompted by a Stephen Hawking left wing Malthusian assertion to cite a ‘been there, done that’ of another theoretical physicist who made more sense. Feynman vs Hawking on inequality in the world:

Feynman knew why this stuff was and still is garbage. Poverty is the default state of affairs and on the contrary, it’s growing wealth that is exceptional and requires some conditions to be fulfilled. Most importantly, the growing countries require the concentration of the capital which allows the appropriate people to invest into technology and education which create systems and facilities that are capable of producing the wealth and those are more important than the wealth itself!

So the inequality in the wealth is just a symptom of the actual, much deeper inequality in something else – the infrastructure, the concentration of the capital in the past, a free capitalist system that encourages the work that improves the society, education, and, even more deeply, people’s skills and will to educate themselves and do things that are useful for humans in their environment (e.g. their consumers) and/or mankind as a whole. Most of the mankind’s wealth didn’t exist to start with, wasn’t created by a theft from other humans, and it cannot be produced by redistribution. Redistribution is just a zero-sum game. Well, too much redistribution is really a negative-sum game because it discourages the people from working hard and creating new wealth.

You may see that Feynman has praised the machinery that produces the wealth and the #1 precondition for this machinery is the concentration of capital. But the concentration of capital is basically synonymous with inequality, something that both the Jewish leftist at Feynman’s conference as well as Stephen Hawking present as the #1 illness! So the leftists’ #1 culprit is basically the same as the sensible people’s #1 hero responsible for the progress in the world.

The inequality thing is a bogus construct for social warriors – people who need propaganda rather than substance. Those pushing it are thinking of the great physical discoveries of the archaeologists such as the pyramids and other great works of kings that concentrated capital and flaunted wealth and power but built nothing to improve the human condition. Compare and contrast to the concentration of capital in Western Cultures, especially in the U.S. Wealth was from the voluntary concentration of capital that built and created new wealth. People contributed to create a concentration of capital by choosing the people and their ideas that they thought would return a share of created wealth back to them. 

There is a glimmer of understanding of these concepts that has been prompted by the president elect’s nationalism and focus on the creation of manufacturing jobs in the U.S.A. The problem is that of negativity. For instance, the reduction in the workforce in agriculture coupled with the increase in output – a classic case of capital concentration creating a wealth that all people share in terms of nutrition – is seen as a reduction in labor and not as an increase in productivity. The result of productivity is seen as a zero sum game: if you produce all that is ‘needed’ then that is the total fixed sum. You’d think everything from cell phones to the gourmet craze to the organic infatuation would be enough to provide a clue otherwise but, no, Malthusian influence is strong with these folk. (see Malthusian Trap and Zero Sum Game on Wikipedia). 

Inequality is not a result but a symptom or indicator. “So the inequality in the wealth is just a symptom of the actual, much deeper inequality in something else. Wealth in aggregate becomes a measure of culture that encompasses the vigor of the people and their motivation to succeed, build, create, and grow. It is the difference between impoverished neighborhoods that are well kept and those that are decrepit. It is the difference between the animal (nonthinking, reactive, selfish) view of humanity of the Malthusians and others on the left and the humanitarian view that respects people and their abilities to behave in a way to improve not only themselves but their community as well.

Leave a Comment

Hero of the left down: Castro at 90

Paul Mirengoff observes the fall-out from the death of Fidel Castro at 90. Castro is a long time hero of the anti-American left as typified by recent hagiographic remarks from the NFL poster boy for the movement.

It will be fascinating to read and view the mainstream media’s treatment of the dead dictator. I wonder to what extent the MSM, which wants to resist “normalizing” Donald Trump, will normalize the Cuban tyrant and his regime, as President Obama has done to some extent. I expect we will see at least a few stories in the “he did some good things; he did some bad things, but what a giant he was” mode.

Washington Post reporters Kevin Sullivan and J.Y. Smith don’t go that far. … This is clever. The dubious positives are presented as assertions by his admirers; the undeniable negatives are presented as facts. Even the suggestion that Castro was a humanitarian is offensive, but the Post’s treatment is probably the best we can expect from the mainstream media.

It’s better, for example, than the New York Times’ account by Anthony DePalma. … Some might call this account balanced. I call it sickening.

The truth is that Fidel Castro was a monster. That his crimes didn’t rise to the level of Stalin’s or Mao’s is in large part due to the small size of the country he lorded over and the failure of his efforts at conquest in South America and Africa.

It becomes the mystery of our time how so many, like the $20m+ quarterback or the U.S. President much less most of the academic elite, can be so enamored of tyrants and dictators who have caused so much human misery, suffering, and death. And that’s only half of it. The same folks are full of contempt for the culture and governance that has done more for lifting humanity out of poverty and enriching the human existence than any other in world history. 

Leave a Comment

Picked apart, analyzed, and discussed – we can hope

George Neumyar has a Special Report, The Borking Bullies of the Left — “They are a “throwback to a shameful era.” The topic is the resurrection of the (pre-)Borking of Sessions thirty years ago. It is a reminder that Reid had a predecessor (mentor?) in Kennedy along with just how far the Democratic Party is willing to take reality.

“Everything is true except the facts” — the description once given to the British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge about Stalin’s show trials — applied just as much to the Kennedy-dominated proceedings. Whatever Sessions said in a moment of gallows humor was laughably minor, compared to the comments made by Teddy’s brothers, President John F. Kennedy and Sen. Robert Kennedy, about Martin Luther King Jr. Yet Teddy faked up shock at the tendentious testimony against Sessions and declared on the basis of it that he was a “throwback to a shameful era” in America.

The Pravda-like editorial in the New York Times the other day about Sessions is Exhibit A of how the left builds on its own lies.

It is this outrageous demagoguery that the American people rejected at the ballot box. They have grown tired of scaremongering as a substitute for solving problems, and they recognize that it is the self-appointed champions of “victims” who behave like bullies, subjecting mild-mannered figures such as Pence and Sessions to diatribes about decency. The “shameful era” to which they didn’t want to return turned out to be the one in which the Ted Kennedys treated mere conservatism as a career-ending crime.

Who is going to pick up on the Kennedy Reid tradition? The bench is rather empty and no disciple is readily apparent. This time, the transparency has improved. The deceit and dishonesty is on the table. It is being picked apart, analyzed, and discussed. What was under the table is no longer so easy to pretend doesn’t exist.

Leave a Comment

Oh, the arrogance: judgment or opinion

Gary J. Schmitt posts Donald Trump: Tweeter-in-Chief and falls into the trap of confusing opinion with judgment. In doing so, he misses reality.

Trump’s own response to the Hamilton cast’s bloviating was anything but adult-like. Nor was his response to the Saturday Night Live skit making fun of his transition. The fact that Trump finds it necessary it seems to respond to every slight is disconcerting to say the least. Does he really intend, when president, to waste time and energy for the most transitory of matters? His constitutional duty will be to “faithfully execute the office of the President”—not participate in tweet warfare.

Bloviating on Twitter? Isn’t that an oxymoron? 

The comparison and contrast here is in the reports about the meeting with major media top brass. The history Schmitt missing goes back to Reagan as a communicator going directly to the people and around the press. A primary task of leadership is communications and, in this election it was made very clear that Trump’s advantage was in his communications with the people. Whatever he is doing is worth studying for those who want to learn from success. 

If you try to support the denigration of Trump’s tweets with what was actually said, you not only make a fool of yourself trying to make your point honest but you also miss what is happening. By using social media, Trump communicates directly with the public. The people can see that what he is saying – if they actually read what is said as a ‘normally reasonable’ person would – and they can speak themselves. By labeling the actor’s antics as “rude” Trump went no farther than anyone could plainly see. In calling for an apology to that rudeness he was being reasonable and ‘adult’ – the “adult-like” commentary needs to be pasted on those who were rude, out of place, arrogant, bigoted, and not showing those ‘adult’ behaviors Schmitt professes to admire.

If you want to get into “adult-like” behaviors in regard to Trump, a proper reference would be the current President. Then toss in GWB and the Clintons and you’d have a lot of material for compare and contrast. What the people have said in recent elections is that they are doing this comparison and the Schmitt point of view is missing the point.

Leave a Comment

Trying to come to grips with reality: one half at a time

Damon Linker calls it The demagogic genius of Donald J. Trump. In doing so, he falls for a meme that is questionable and inaccurate but demonstrative.

In the two weeks since Donald Trump’s shocking victory, the press has devoted a substantial chunk of its coverage to enumerating the president-elect’s many faults. He’s temperamentally unfit to serve as president. He’s ignorant of policy. He’s corrupt. His early choices to serve in his administration are racist, anti-Semitic, extremist, unhinged. And of course the whole thing is frightening, terrifying, horrifying.

Most of that is true, and it’s perfectly appropriate that we focus on the considerable dangers the nation now confronts. Yet it’s also the case that our appreciation for the distinct character of the threat Trump poses to the country’s political order would be enhanced if we devoted a little more time to acknowledging that the risks are at least as much a product of Trump’s talents as they are of his many faults.

The ominous fact is that Trump is undeniably one of the greatest intuitive political geniuses in history.

Trump’s unorthodox actions, regularly ridiculed by pundits, revealed just how institutionally conservative the gatekeepers are. They strive to uphold norms, propriety, habits — and Trump shredded them over and over again.

Describing Trump as “demogogic,” “reckless,” “wrong thing,” “putulantly,” “umbrage,” … and then citing the “normal rules of politics” ??

Has he been listening to Harry Reid, considered how Sessions pre-dated Borking, looked at the ruckus about “fake news” and “fact checking,” listened to the current President excoriating Republicans on a regular basis, actually listened to (and read) what Trump actually said?

Panties in a wad‘ is perhaps the best description but the psychologists should be having a field day with the dissonance on display. But then, they are too often buried neck deep in the academic swamp so it is up to the people to separate the hooey from the reality and set the path.

Leave a Comment

George Will: Higher education is awash with hysteria. That might have helped elect Trump.

Institutions of supposedly higher education are awash with hysteria, authoritarianism, obscurantism, philistinism and charlatanry. Which must have something to do with the tone and substance of the presidential election, which took the nation’s temperature.

This is, perhaps, why there is a need about How to survive a post-election meltdown Thanksgiving.

Many Americans, afraid of almost everything these days — so afraid of being afraid that they’re easily herded like political livestock — will look to Thanksgiving with just one thing on their minds:

Fear.

It’s true and you know it. You’re afraid somebody will say something. And you’re afraid that you’ll respond, and you will.

Now, you might get lucky and have a Thanksgiving gathering of people who don’t give two figs for politics. But that means you have a house full of 7-year-olds and all they’ll want is mac and cheese, so good luck with that.

Just How ugly will Democrats get in smearing Jeff Sessions?

as a US attorney, Sessions desegregated schools and successfully prosecuted the head of the state Ku Klux Klan for murder — then, as the state’s attorney general, saw the killer executed. That prosecution set the stage for a $7 million civil judgment that broke the Alabama Klan.

Sessions’ votes and ideology are fair game for confirmation hearings. Democrats have every right to conduct a tough and spirited grilling — provided it’s a fair one, and not another in a long line of liberal smears.

But, alas, the party of the KKK has its true colors on display: Trump Cabinet Picks Incite Liberal Backlash — “Democrats, civil liberties groups sound alarm on choices of top advisers.”

“There is a growing and alarming trend among the individuals President-elect Trump is naming to key positions in his administration,” New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker said in a statement. “Some have degraded and demeaned Americans. Others actively promote dangerous fringe ideologies. Still more have threatened Americans’ rights, and attacked the privileges of citizenship.”

“This nomination is deeply troubling to Americans who care about equal protection under the law,” said Wade Henderson, president of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

To see just how far this civility bragged about on the left goes, consider Pat Saperstein’s column Mike Pence Booed at ‘Hamilton’ Performance.

Vice-president elect Mike Pence went to see the hip-hop musical “Hamilton” on Broadway Friday night, and the performance was disrupted when the audience wouldn’t stop booing him.

At the end of the show, the cast addressed his presence, with Brandon Victor Dixon saying “Vice President Elect Pence, welcome. Thank you for joining us at Hamilton-An American Musical. We are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. We hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values, and work on behalf of ALL of us.”

Notice the presumption. With absolutely nothing to support it you have a belief that the ‘other side’ is not going to uphold American values or work on behalf of everyone. That is the true evil and why there is fear at even a family Thanksgiving dinner. It is a fear driven by schools offering propaganda rather than education. It is a fear as a reaction to intolerance and bigotry based on fantasy that just assumes, with religious fervor, that those not in step are evil incarnate. That fear is a realistic fear because the derangement that is on display is extraordinarily costly to resolve on many fronts. One only has to look at the damage and harm being caused by the rioters on the fringe of this phenomena to see that. 

Leave a Comment

Free Range Kids so why not Free Market Medical?

The idea has been under attack much like Uber and Lyft but good ideas are hard to keep down. Taylor Millard provides his take on Changing the medical equation — “An Oklahoma doctor brings the market back to medicine.”

“We thought, ‘let’s just open our own place and get away from these lunatics and not deal with the federal government,’” Dr. Smith said, as he recounted the discussions prior to the center’s opening. “We decided we were going to be honest and fair with our pricing and not deal with the feds. And that was our mission.”

“Dealing with them was the easiest thing in the world,” patient Michelle Ray said. “I called to verify that the price listed on the website was inclusive and accurate. I made an appointment and they told me everything I would need before, during, and after surgery.”

In 2014 he helped launch the Free Market Medical Association, which hooks up patients with like-minded doctors. FMMA holds conferences to show doctors how to make a cash-only system work.

Let the market work!

Leave a Comment

Where did that come from?

Jon Evans has some advice: So you think you elected an autocrat. He seems to be a bit confused. One of the first things to do in a circumstance like he poses is to check one’s perceptions. Where did the idea come from? Is it accurate? Unless and until you have an accurate picture of the situation any effort to deal with it is likely to be as flawed as the perception itself.

In America, for instance, it seems reasonable to expect life to get measurably worse over the next four years for visible minorities, LGBTQ people, women who seek autonomy over their own bodies, etc.

Why is this reasonable? From the point of view of many, this ‘reasonable to expect’ describes what has happened — history — over the last eight years and that history was the reason to create a change in order to put in place a corrective course.

…but maybe the most important thing is to include them in your communities, both online and off. Social media gets a lot of flak around elections, much of it justified, but it is also a crucially important substrate that people can use to band together and support each other when times get tough.

This is no time to get all People’s Front of Judea, or to write off anyone and everyone who disagrees with you as a monster. Note that the same people who say “everyone who voted for the other side is racist and cannot ever be associated with under any circumstances” also often say “everyone’s racist, it’s just a matter of degree, it’s implicit in the system in which we live.” Be very careful who you call an enemy. More us-and-them polarization is exactly what the autocrat wants.

This begs the question of who it is that is excluding others, who it is that is trying to “write off” the opposition, who it is that is branding people by affiliation without basis and who is citing specific behaviors. We can see this in the last campaign where one side was crying “unfit” based on created extrapolations while the other was citing specific breaches of national security. It can be seen after the election when the ‘unfit’ side is trying to deny the results with riots, false allegations and other acting out, and paid rioters who did not even vote.

I’ve been arguing for some time now that the whole concept of a world partitioned into nation-states makes less and less sense. 
 …
That means making a point of extending community and governance projects across borders. That means getting into Bitcoin and the other major cryptocurrencies, as the only true world currencies. That means doing your best to defend Internet (and other) freedoms around the world, where they are under concerted attack, by building decentralized systems that exist orthogonally to nation-states.

Unfortunately the tech industry has been more focused on delivery apps for privileged hipsters than systems and networks that strengthen communities and create new tribes.

Which is it? Is the community a local tribe or a trans-national aggregate? The global community idea needs to carefully inspect the history of the League of Nations and its complicity in WW II. The federalist ideas in the U.S. government need to be compared to the common technology advice to build complex systems out of small redundant parts. How can “strengthen communities and create new tribes” fit into this idea of a global community? Much of the strife we ever see is when the concept of tribe and locality become sufficiently strong to overwhelm a proper consideration for the broader community. This is visible everywhere from inner city gang violence to the Muslim radicalism. The U.S. immigration history has shown how this conflict can be eased in the dual accommodation of assimilation coupled with respect and honor of heritage. Many ‘tribes’ have become a part of the U.S. while still celebrating their roots. Some ‘tribes’ – notably blacks and Muslims – have not.

The conflicts between individual, tribal, national, and global identities are not solved by imposing homogeneity much as they are not solved by fostering exaggerated identity. Individuals need to be able to choose to which tribe they belong. They need to be able to choose their associates. They need to have their rights protected as much as they must respect the rights of others. In this regard, the U.S. also shows how it can be done. Capitalism and federalism are both based on these concepts of individual freedom of expression and participation within the constraints of the greater society. Much of the strife visible now is about whether to minimize or maximize those ‘constraints’ of the greater society. Do we trust the individual in aggregate or a government in isolation? Where should the balance be?

Leave a Comment

What to do with dishonesty, delusion, and denial?

Seth Keshel suggests Drown Out the Lying MSM. The State Propaganda Machine (SPM) a.k.a. the mainstream media has certainly been caught often enough with pants on file to assure that censoring them a more a matter of integrity than ideology. They foment abuse rather than report it.

Do you enjoy being lied to? Or do you have to watch sports so badly that you’re willing to fork over $150 per month for a cable or dish subscription that directly funds people who hate you and everything you believe in and want to mislead you, all while insulting you to your face?

Here’s an ‘anonymous’ (caveat emptor!) on how he Watched Donald Trump Blow A Hole Through The European Elite’s Minds.

my mind embraced Trump. If the elite Europeans despise him so much, and especially executives that run a company that caters to providing status symbols to the elite, he must be what America needs, I thought.

The conference and setting were awesome, the topics interesting, but disbelief gripped the Europeans. How could the Americans get it so wrong?

I did my best to explain in two languages, and I kept it at a level that executives and kindergartners could understand: 1. The cities went with Hillary, but the Democratic Party and media is so completely out of touch with the people outside of the cities that the pollsters missed she never had a chance. 2. A large portion of the United States has a cultural identity that believes in subsidiarity rather than centralization.

Watching 70- and 80-year-olds high-fiving one another had me laughing. Seeing their pride restored because they had struck a blow to restore the American identity also made me cry a bit, too.

There are a number of stories noting the fact that the SPM has taken up opposition camps. John Merlin hits this with One example is about election validity. Outside California, Clinton Is A Big-Time Popular Vote Loser.

Donald Trump’s opponents are having something of a field day with news that Hillary Clinton’s lead in the popular vote currently tops 1 million. … But a closer look at the election returns show that Hillary’s lead in the popular vote is entirely due to her oversized margin of victory in uber-liberal California.

It’s no wonder Boxer wants to do away with the Electoral College, since it would let her state decide presidential elections, even if — as in this election — the Republican candidate did much better in far more states across the country.

In an era of all the concern about equality, the protection of minorities in this particular matter seems to be swept under the rug. The Electoral College mechanism exists to protect from tyranny of the majority but, to the left, tyranny is just fine as long as it is their tyranny. Harry Reid’s tenure in the Senate as a destroyer of protections for the minority by tyranny of the majority might also come back the haunt his party. You can image the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will occur if that comes up!

Leave a Comment

Personalize the target: It’s already going full speed.

Harry Reid has stepped in so you know it’s legit! It’s the Alinsky tactic. In this case, the victim is the President Elect’s nominee for counselor. Jeffrey Scott Shapiro describes The tarring of Steve Bannon — “The charge that Trump’s chief strategist is an anti-Semite is sordid — and wrong.”

Fox News has reported that the Trump presidential transition team is already being called upon to rescind its appointment of Steve Bannon as White House chief strategist, citing accusations of anti-Semitism and racism.

Based on my overall personal experience with Mr. Bannon, I cannot believe he is an anti-Semite or racist. Such allegations are inconsistent with the person I know. Mr. Bannon is a staunch, pro-American patriot who believes in playing hardball with the left and his personality shows it.

As for Harry Reid, see Brietbart. And if you want to see more of the swamp, check out R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. on An inscrutable interview with the BBC. “British viewers get a jug of moonshine to drown post-election sorrow.” From full delusion to ignorance to wondering about just what is in that Kook-Aid — it’s up front and in your face with no apologies nor any hint of self awareness.

The anal exam is going to be quite a change. Every peccadillo, real or imagined, is going to get the Full Monte. No longer the ignoring, the papering-over, the excusing, the down-playing … The new administration hasn’t even begun yet the evidence of the assault is already evident.

UPDATE: See VDH Carpe Diem, Mr. Trump. The tactics and behavior are getting old enough to become a matter of fact to a scholar of ancient history.

Leave a Comment

About that election: the why on display

The ugliness, the hate, the narrow-mindedness, the violence, the authoritarianism of the liberal left unleashed by the election of Donald J. Trump (R), despised by the self-proclaimed dealers of peace, tolerance, love, and open-mindedness, as documented here by Carol Brown and other right-thinking media (and minimized by the so-called mainstream media), is revealing.

Remember, this isn’t the alt liberal-left – the fringe. These are the feelings, the attitudes, and the beliefs of a substantial proportion of liberals.

Ethel C. Fenig says Threatening to assassinate the president has consequences.

Dominating the culture for so long, these lefties thought they could do anything and get away with it. But they can’t.

For instance, Matt Harrigan, CEO of cyber-security firm PacketSled, is, like most of the Silicon Valley executives, bright but arrogant and condescending to those who disagree with him. Despite Harrigan’s wishes, Trump was elected. And so Harrigan publicly announced he would assassinate Trump.

Not surprisingly many of the liberal left, in all its non-peace-loving, narrow-minded glory, approved.

But others didn’t, so Harrigan offered a weak apology, blaming those offended for being offended at his mighty, superior self.

The question is that these rioters, called “protestors” to minimize their extreme and unseemly behavior, are demonstrating just what the election was about. It is related to the LA Police saying they won’t enforce the law in regards to immigration or the mayor of Chicago claiming his city will maintain a pledge of diversity and remain a ‘sanctuary city’ for illegals despite its soaring crime.

Even ‘friends’ on social media talk about Republicans the way the KKK used to talk about blacks. They prognosticate about evil deeds yet to come despite no evidence or history that could be extrapolated to validate such fears.

It has been noted that many of rioters are paid – advertisements for hiring have been noted on Craig’s List. The rioters in Portland appear to be mostly folks who did not vote in the election. Some Democrats in leadership positions remain quiet and muted in objection but many praise the riots. Again, the law means nothing if it gets in the way of the left. That is why the voters spoke out they way they did. 

Leave a Comment

Doing politics — and media complicity

There are riots in many cities – you know, the places where Democrats win heavily. These riots destroy property and injure people. The media yawns and only provides an occasional reports about “protests” and there is the usual rationalizations about such things being a right and even to be expected. That’s quite a flip from just a short while ago when such activity against the President was labeled as Racist or worse.

There are also reports circulating that these riots are professional endeavors with pictures of bus caravans helping populate them. The state propaganda machine is trying to quash that, too. Tyler Durden takes on USA Today in Anti-Trump Protests: Proof Of Professional Activist Involvement.

If the demonstrations aren’t premeditated, then why are all these average citizens actually well-connected activists and protest organizers? USA Today has misrepresented its sources in a way that falsifies their own narrative that the closest we have to protesters are old-timers who “haven’t toted a protest sign since their anti-war days in the 1970s”. USA Today has instead helped demonstrate that the professional protest community is in fact behind the current political protests.

Then there’s the post that Liberals Know So Much That Is Not True. That addresses the FUD mongering as a reason for the riots because of fear.

But if you’re now watching protests across the country and you don’t understand why, or think they are just being sore losers, let me break something down for you. These people aren’t just angry or sad that someone they didn’t support won the election, they’re scared.

Trump is not what you think he is. He is a centrist businessman who will bring new ideas and fresh insight into government. Perhaps it’s time to stop acting like children and start acting like Americans. If you choose to fight every step of the way you have the right, however, Trump is here for the next four years so deal with it.

It is back to the fundamental idea of intellectual integrity. It is why there has also been a plethora of victim hoaxes. Between the professionals trying to de-legitimize the election to the poor souls who have deluded themselves to the point of aberrant behavior it is false witness and a lack of integrity that is driving destructive behavior. In many respects, the voters in the election stood in witness to this delusion. It was as if confronting an alcoholic about his disease and that is often a traumatic event.

Leave a Comment

Basic sales: watch out for preconceptions that blind

Instapundit cited Volokh: The advice brings to mind Scott Adams and his observations of Trump’s skills as salesman. Volokh says Good lawyers don’t deplore their judges and jurors — advice to the young and politically minded.

My advice: Stop deploring.

Hillary Clinton’s condemnation of half of Trump supporters as a “basket of deplorables” was a famous wrong move on her part (as Romney’s 47 percent comment had been a wrong move on his). But it’s important to think about why it’s a bad approach: Why, even if some of your adversaries’ views really are deplorable, thinking this way isn’t useful.

If you’re trying to influence the public, think of yourself as a lawyer, and of voters as your judges and jurors. Except that there are no peremptory challenges or challenges for cause. You can’t strike people because they’re prejudiced, or because you think they are. You’re stuck with them, and they’ll be passing judgment on your client — on your ideas and ideals that you are arguing for. Now what are you going to do?

Good lawyers don’t deplore their judges and jurors. Partly that’s because they don’t want to alienate the people who will be passing judgment on them. Deploring obviously turns off the deplored.

But it’s also because deploring blinds the deplorer. If you focus on how evil some of your judges are, you won’t do a good job of figuring out how you can persuade them — how you can find common ground, how you can fit your requests into their worldview. Good lawyering, like good politics, in large measure relies on empathy: The ability (which starts the willingness) to put yourself into the judge’s and juror’s shoes, to identify the arguments against you that they see as most compelling and to figure out how you can make your arguments compelling to people like them — not to people like you, but to people like them, however benighted you might otherwise think they are.

That’s especially because giving in to the urge to deplore will systematically lead you to misjudge what really animates some of your judges and jurors. The most natural thing in the world is for us to assume the best motives on the part of our friends and to assume the worst motives on the part of our adversaries. Indeed, it’s natural because it’s often so emotionally rewarding.

Sometimes we’re right about the motives of some chunk of our adversaries. But often we’re wrong. Focusing on how deplorable some judges’ or jurors’ views are will often lead us to misunderstand what really drives them, and how we can use that to lead them to our way of thinking (or at least our way of voting).

When you look down your nose at someone you want to do something for you, you are thinking as a master would of a servant and not as a team leader thinking of a teammate. The people of the country said they want to be team members, not servants.

Leave a Comment

PET (post election trauma)

It’s being compared to 1948 and 1980. The polls took a beating. The pundits misfired. The results were stunning.

Thomas Lifson: Scott Adams, the new superstar pundit. Well, as noted in previous posts, Adams kept his ideas tied to reality. The Dilbert cartoon would not be successful if it did not reveal a truthful reality about modern business life (re Limbaugh’s axiom about humor). To be able to see a fundamental truth in a noisy world is a gift and Adams has shown that he has it.

His newest column, posted to the Dilbert Blog (there is nothing pretentious about Scott), takes a well-deserved bow, but more importantly makes some predictions that all the failed pundits need to take a look at. His introduction contains a dramatic prediction about what president Trump will do, and the shrewdest political advice for conservatives I have seen since Trump’s victory

Dennis Evers provides A Democrat’s Guide to Moving to Canada

If you are serious about leaving, you might consider a crowdfunding effort to help offset your expenses as almost everything in Canada is more costly, and there are a lot of us “deplorables” (more of us than you, actually) who would love to assist you in your transition.

It is interesting that Mexico isn’t the preferred destination as it has abundant natural resources, a lot of shoreline, and a much more temperate climate. There are also those who don’t want to leave but rather to secede. This is mostly the San Jose to San Francisco Silicon Valley area. Perhaps they, too, should think about just slithering on down the coast to Baja. There seem to be a lot of folks who think it is time to drain the swamp even if there is fear mongering about climate change and saving non-rare species habitats.

The Post Editorial Board opines that the Democrats need to get past their hysteria and move on. Remember the outrage when Trump talked about contesting a rigged election? Despite the ‘rigging’ by overwhelming spending on attack ads against him, a media complicit in a vile propaganda campaign, and the usual assortment of ballot box ‘irregularities’, the voters swamped the election to make the ‘rigging’ mere noise. And that was another defeat that may have contributed to the riots and dismay.

Tuesday’s surprise loss has Democrats in disbelief and denial — clawing for excuses, predicting Armageddon and refusing to accept the results. It’s unhealthy.

Dems can’t start to get their act back together if they bother with silly columns insisting that Trump’s win proves the country is “racist at its core” and the election was a “contest” between “male vs. female.”

Reality check: Trump scored slightly less of the white vote than Mitt Romney — and higher percentages of blacks and Latinos. And women voted for him at about the same rate as they did for Mitt Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008. Is every presidential election a war between the sexes?

Face facts, folks: “Make America Great Again” had a lot more meaning in the key states than “I’m With Her.” Too many Americans had had enough of being lectured to by self-appointed betters.

Heather Mac Donald poders Law, Order, and Trump — “The Republican candidate supported police and expressed concern about the growing homicide toll in black neighborhoods—in contrast with his opponent.”

Black Lives Matter helped propel Donald Trump’s unforeseen ascent to the White House. The public understood the threat to law and order posed by the movement’s calumnies about the nation’s police—and so, uniquely in the presidential race, did Trump.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton embraced the Black Lives Matter movement. She regularly accused the nation’s cops of systemic, lethal racism.

Black Lives Matter is not going to go quietly into the night. The movement may even grow more extreme, fueled by a university culture devoted to racial victimology. Hate-filled chants like the one recently uttered in Chicago—“CPD, KKK, How many kids did you kill today?”—will continue to plague city streets. But the absence of an echo chamber in the White House for such falsehoods may go far toward curbing the rising violence of the last two years.

The American Spectator thinks that At the end of the day, the Democrats simply asked more of the American people in 2016 than was possible.

To put fully paid to the narrative Jones and other pundits on the Left are spinning, that Trump’s victory was a triumph of American racism and bigotry, an ugly slur which has encouraged thousands of this country’s worst residents to take to the streets in childish and un-American protests of democracy, it turns out that where Trump did make improvements over Romney’s performance was with black and Hispanic voters.

And it’s the Left’s bigotry, and moreover its obnoxious arrogance and never-ending cultural and political aggression, that explains Trump’s victory.

Because what happened on Election Night was that the national gag reflex manifested itself. And the Democrats’ attempts at forcing down a charmless Alinskyite grifter under multiple FBI investigations ran afoul of that reflex. She found herself the victim of a massive laryngeal spasm on the part of the electorate.

Nominating Clinton was an exercise in arrogance and corruption never before seen in American politics. It was a political aggression well in line with a long string of other affronts both political and cultural

Americans have been lectured, scolded, robbed, demoralized, and gaslighted relentlessly for the past eight years. And to top it all, the Democrats demanded that if they wouldn’t swallow a “feminist icon” whose only employment came courtesy of her professional relationship with her husband, who we are meant to believe put the nation’s state secrets forfeit to foreign powers as an innocent mistake and who is obviously guilty of running a pay-for-play influence-peddling scam disguised as a charity alongside what is advertised as “public service,” then that would constitute sexism

Sorry, said the country, but too far is too far. If that means making the guy from The Apprentice president, so be it. America emitted an unpleasant noise, expectorated, and delivered the Democrats to the floor covered in sputum.

Trump may carry with him lots of problems, but among them do not include relentless abuses of power seeking to force unwanted change on a beleaguered population. The country has had enough and has demanded a break from the Left.

This gag reflex – that’s really rather mild response to the ‘micro-aggressions’ described. But then, such aggression has been a cause of the left, a rationale for them to perpetrate their own on the imagined behavior of others. There has been some blow-back but a look at the county results (NY Times) make it clear that it is a city versus rural split and that is dangerous (but it is why the electoral college and other U.S. government processes were specified in the Constitution).

Leave a Comment

Election Fables versus Reality

Victor Davis Hanson at the National Review takes on The Election Fables of 2016.

Clear choices on the issues in 2016 have been far more distinct than in 1960, 1968, or 1992. Most of what we read about the election of 2016 was untrue. Here are the most glaring of the election fables.

In other words, in all these cases of malfeasance, Clinton calculated quite correctly that Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the entire Obama administration, as well as the media and the liberal establishment, would rally to her side, even when it was evident that her denials were empty and her conduct ethically bankrupt and clearly illegal.

‘They go high, we go low’ Clinton enjoys quoting the supposed hip ethical platitudes of Michelle Obama and, by association, her husband (of campaigning ever more nobly while Trump campaigns still more ignobly). In fact, the Clinton campaign has matched all mud thrown by Trump, toss for toss — perhaps even more so, given its far greater cash reserves.

ever since the ascendency of their “war room,” the Clinton-inspired Left has attacked the integrity and morality of all Republican presidential candidates

It is a mistake to believe that any other candidate would have better dealt with the Clinton-Podesta hit teams; all we can assume is that most would have suffered far more nobly than Trump. It would be wonderful if a Republican candidate ran with Romney’s personal integrity, Rubio’s charisma, Walker’s hands-on experience, Cruz’s commitment to constitutional conservatism, and Trump’s energy, animal cunning, and ferocity, but unfortunately such multifaceted candidates are rare.

Campaign set a new low? Not if you know history. There were no issues? Only if your hearing was selective.

There was also this thing about money – that’s why the Citizens United SCOTUS case, Soros, and the Koch brothers got a lot of mention. The Trump campaign was an illustration that  having a lot of money behind it was not the key to success. A lot of paradigms and assumptions are going to need re-evaluation. That is for the professional campaign managers. For the people, it is the propaganda and VDH illustrates just how off base that has been. 

Leave a Comment

Trump’s closure

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame has been rather ‘out there’ in this campaign. He offers two posts on his blog about how Trump is making his closing argument and why the Hillary assertions about Trump don’t pass the smell test. The two posts also contradict the often posited presumption that it is Trump who is avoiding issues and personalizing the mud slinging.

Trump the Closer: I had been wondering if Trump was planning some sort of special closing argument. He did not disappoint. In my opinion, his final ad is the political ad of the year, if not the best ever. Watch it here [YouTube link https://t.co/WvTLumkqxO]first and I’ll include my thoughts below.

He cites five specific reasons why he thinks the video is a “fantastic” closer for Trump.

Unhypnotizing a Clinton Supporter: Today I teach you how to unhypnotize a Clinton supporter.

Keep in mind that the strongest form of persuasion is fear. Clinton’s team of persuaders has convinced her followers that Trump is dangerous. If you remove that part of her spell, Trump wins. Here’s how.

5. Trump might start a war: Trump owns buildings and property around the world. As a general rule, people who own a lot of real estate don’t start wars because their own assets are at risk. But Clinton is “sponsored” – via the Clinton Foundation and speaking fees – by defense companies that profit from war. Likewise, Clinton is sponsored by foreign countries whose interests don’t align with American interests.

That idea that Trump holds significant property around the world and would not want to risk it is an interesting take on the Left’s global society thing. Getting those assets means working with other governments and societies to obtain desired ends as well and that addresses fears of Trump instigating other world leaders.

Another interesting point that Adams brings up is that of alcohol use by the two candidates. His entire list of 8 points is worth consideration but: it is logical, reasonable, and fact based. How do you expect that sort of basis to “unhypnotize” someone who has imbibed heavily of the cool aid and bought the snake oil on the pitchman’s claims?

Leave a Comment

That rug is getting awfully lumpy

Trying to sweep things under the rug can make things look OK for a while but then it makes the rug lumpy so it is hard to walk on and some of that stuff swept under the rug starts to fester and smell. After 30 years, this seems to be happening in the Clinton Camp.

Thomas Lifson says The presidential race has changed because The Awful Truth about the Clintons is sinking in. “Here is the logical chain of four shocks that I think a big enough (10%?) share of Democrats have pondered

For one of those dirt piles under the rug, see the FBI Release 100 Clinton Investigation Pages: “Quid Pro Quo”, “Shadow Government”, and More…. “Much of this will not be covered by MSM because it exposes an aspect of Hillary Clinton that is well beyond self-serving. In addition to including the full pdf below – we’ve pulled out some important pages via screen grab to pay particular attention to

Then there’s VDH on The Clintons as Farce — :Should we laugh or cry at the latest developments in a madcap campaign?”

Hillary Clinton was resting, running out the clock, sitting on a supposed large lead, and hoping that the election was sooner than later. Now after the latest Weiner disclosures, she is crisscrossing the country, terrified of collapsing polls, and wishing that she had three more weeks rather than just one. With the Clintons, farce is the desert to scandal: the profiteering Clinton Foundation as a humanitarian treasure; Hillary the former corporate attorney as child and little-guy crusader; Bill Clinton, both sexual predator and feminist hero.

Yet no one thought discredited deviant Anthony Weiner could much harm Hillary—except of course “conspiratorial” Donald Trump. He warned months ago that Clinton aide Huma Abedin might have been passing on classified materials to her dissolute husband. Because Weiner couldn’t repress his electronic libido with young girls, he ended up on the FBI’s radar—and by extension his smartphones, tablets, computers, and by further extension supposedly his estranged wife’s confidential communications.

Should we laugh or cry when Barack Obama’s Department of Justice warns about mixing politics with the Weiner investigation, after Attorney General Loretta Lynch had stealthily met on the tarmac with Bill Clinton while her office was supposedly investigating his spouse?

Thomas Lifson has another item on the Blockbuster report on internal FBI conflict over investigating Clinton machine. “Devlin Barrett of the Wall Street Journal has apparently mined many sources at the FBI, DoJ, and other “people familiar with the matter,” and put together a remarkable piece that is providing a lot of new information.”

There is a lot of controversy being genned up that Comey should have kept quiet about FBI investigations to avoid tainting the election. The problem is, as usual, that it’s happened before. Consider Weinberg when the ‘apologies’ didn’t come until after the election. There is a conflict between proper legal niceties in criminal investigations and the need of the public to know about their choices in an election. The investigation wouldn’t be an election problem if the partisans had not nominated someone with such a known and threatening scandal issue. As with Nixon, what wasn’t known before the election raised a crisis later and the Watergate scandals don’t hold a candle to what is being revealed now about the Clinton scandals.

Leave a Comment