Everybody really needs to see this one -- which is really rather short -- before I go on to my account of the Seven Stupid States and the Abortion Controversy.
Tuesday, May 28, 2019
(I don't usually copy other people's articles, but this one is just too fascinating to resist.)
Herman Bendell, Superintendent of Indian Affairs
“Curly-Haired White Chief Who Speaks with One Tongue”
Friday, May 17, 2019
A random comment by some news pundit on TV reminded me of something that happened 'way back when I was still living in California. My godson Darshan knew a couple of runaway kids who were desperately looking for a safe place to stay, so I took them in while I hunted around for any safe resources for them. It took me all summer to get reliable help for them, which says something about the real social services in supposedly-Liberal California. The boy's problem was that his family had singled him out to be the clan scapegoat, and everybody took turns beating him. The girl, remakably pretty at 14, was getting unwelcome attention from her stepfather, and simply couldn't convince her mother of that. Yes, they both had good reason for running away.
Anyway, the two kids -- a boy and a girl -- also had a problem with dyslexia. The could both read, but had trouble with their eyes, and attention, tracking left to right.
The boy could read an average book for about five minutes, and then his eyes would start wandering and the letters would slip and slide all over the page. I found a simple fix for him: a clear-plastic magnifying ruler, which kept the letters lined up for him. Using that ruler, he could read for as much as ten minutes at a time. Unfortunately, his parents -- who had decided that his rebellion was caused by drugs-drugs -- sent him off to a "treatment center" which took the ruler away from him because "it could be used as a weapon". He eventually got out of there, reached legal age and left the state, so I don't know if he ever got a replacement for that ruler, or any other treatment for his dyslexia.
The girl's problem was a little different; letters and whole words would flip from right to left and back, and she had trouble telling the two apart. I guessed that she needed to get a solid "feel" for left and right, so her eyes could track left-to-right automatically. So I made a habit of taking her into the back room every evening, where she would pull her shirt off, and I'd take a hairbrush and brush it slowly from her left hand, up her arm, across her shoulders and then down her right arm, while chanting "left...to right, left...to right". After a month of this, I gave her four pretty -- and heavy -- costume rings to wear on all the fingers of her left hand, so she could always feel the difference between left and right. Eventually she made peace with her mother, moved in with a sympathetic aunt, and went back to school. Last I heard, she was planning to go to community college after she got out of high school, or passed the GED, so I guess she managed to read adequately.
Soon after that I moved down to Arizona and lost track of the kids. They're certainly adults now, and I hope they survived well.
What always puzzled me about the case of those kids was what poor resources there were for them, in supposedly-Progressive California. It took me weeks to find a law firm that would provide pro-bono legal services for children, and none of the schools or rehabs we could find provided any treatment for their dyslexia. Why not, when I could do as much with my own small means? I wonder if, in the years since, anything has changed.
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
Understand that, as an old peace-marcher and radical-labor activist, I have no love for the FBI. I despise their bigotry, their corruption, their incompetence, and particularly their ironclad political loyalty to the Democratic Party Uber Alles. (The bureau gained its present political power under Woodrow Wilson, who did it in order to sick federal agents on the then-dangerous Labor Movement -- particularly the Industrial Workers of the World. Likewise, I despise the CIA for its similar sins -- and its blind loyalty to the Republican Party.) Nonetheless, to give the devil his due, I must admit that it's the closest thing to a reliable source of accurate information on crime in the US. It's absolutely more accurate than the Southern Poverty Law Center, or the Anti-Defamation League, or the National Crime Victimization Survey -- all of which are private organizations, far more pro-Democrat/Liberal/Progressive/Socialist in attitude, and far less bound by govt. oversight.
Therefore, when the FBI admits to the Bureau of Justice Statistics that it can't confirm any great "surge" in "White supremacist" groups, membership, or violent crime -- despite its best efforts --https://www.lawfareblog.com/search-data-white-supremacist-violent-crime, you can be pretty sure that no such "surge" exists, regardless of what all the Democrat presidential candidates and their media cronies may tell you.
The reasons for inventing such a "surge" are politically obvious (https://spectator.org/the-mythical-rise-in-white-supremacist-violence/) here in the US. The Democrats have totally hated Trump, plotted to impeach him since the day after election day, and shown themselves willing to use any tactic available, including hoaxes (https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/28066-new-phenomenon-of-fake-hate-crimes-creates-perplexing-problems-for-law-enforcement).
The theory they're pushing through the media is that Trump Is A Nazi And So Are All His Voters; therefore, anything he says in any of his sloppy speeches or comments (admittedly, Trump is a very bad public speaker) is a "dog-whistle" urging violence to neo-Nazis everywhere. His every word is a secret code that only White Supremacists (and, of course, properly "woke" Democrats) can understand, that's meant to Incite Racial Violence Here And Abroad. That's how his "divisive rhetoric" is somehow responsible for a mosque shooting in New Zealand and Muslim attacks on Christians in Sri Lanka, not to mention a synagogue shooting in Calilfornia. It's all Trump's fault!
Never mind that prominent Democrats like Maxine Waters have been openly inciting attacks on Trump voters everywhere in the US, and those attacks have provably happened. No, that's different! Never mind that the New Zealand shooter mentioned in his manifesto and live video (ferociously censored by the NZ govt.) that he hated Trump ("As a leader? God, no!") and deliberately shot up the two mosques (he was stopped at the second one by a worshiper with a rifle) in order to make the NZ govt. ban semi-auto rifles -- which it promptly did (which suggest the question, was the NZ govt. working for the murderer, or was he working for them?). No, that's irrelevant. Never mind that Jihadist terrorists took the credit for slaughtering those hundreds of Christians in Sri Lanka. No, they must have been "provoked" by "anti-Muslim hate-crimes" and, of course, Trump's "rhetoric". Never mind that the California synagogue shooter (who was driven away by an off-duty border patrol agent with a gun) referred to Trump as a "Zionist, Jew-loving, anti-White, traitorous c*cksucker". No, no comment from the media about that. No, it's all Trump's fault for creating a "surge in White supremacy groups". Uhuh.
This scenario makes it easy to ignore the real rise in Jihadist-encouraged religious violence, in the US and the rest of the world. For years the media have been ignoring the FBI's reports that the single group most often victimized by hate-crimes is Jews -- in the US. In the rest of the world it's Christians. The perpetrators are overwhelmingly Jihadist Muslims, which no one seems to want to admit. Neither have the media noted that, according to the FBI, fully half of all claimed/reported "anti-Muslim" hate-crimes are hoaxes, and the other half are committed by other Muslims. (https://quillette.com/2019/02/22/hate-crime-hoaxes-are-more-common-than-you-think/) This policy of deliberately not looking does more than just allow blaming Trump And The Nazis for much of the world's violence; it also hides or excuses Jihadist violence to everybody else.
The hate/blame/get Trump motivation of the American political Left is understandable, but it doesn't explain the almost-frantic defense of the Jihadists, not just in the US but elsewhere. We really have to wonder why so many political pundits would rather raise an illusion of phantom Nazis than deal with the real political threats on their doorstep. Really, they have to know that ignoring the problem -- or blaming Trump And The Nazis for it -- will not make it go away.
Wednesday, April 17, 2019
Understand that I have never been a fire-fighter, nor dealt with anything bigger than a campfire. Nonetheless, I know that a fire doesn't start spontaneously in two spots within 100 feet of each other at the same time. That, according to the early investigators' reports, is what happened in the Cathedral of Notre Dame: one fire at the far end of the nave, up high under the roof, and the other in the north bell tower.
Another oddity: the church closed for the day at 6:00 PM and visitors and staff began filing out, but at 6:20 the staff heard a fire-alarm going off. They searched for the fire but couldn't find any sign of one. Local firemen arrived, and couldn't find anything either. 23 minutes later, when everyone had left the building, a second fire-alarm went off -- and this time the fire under the roof had well started. That's when the firefighters arrived in serious numbers and began fighting the blaze with all the equipment they could bring in. It took 9 hours to put the devastating fire out.
Everyone saw the live news-feeds of Notre Dame burning, and various officials commenting on it. The commentators took exquisite care to avoid even hinting at the word "arson"; the closest they would come was to say that the cause of the blaze might have been "accidental", possibly as a result of the actions of the team doing repairs on the structure. In fact, some officials actually claimed that the fire was "accidental" before the blaze was out, well before any investigators could have gone in and studied it.
There was not a whisper of the "ethnic" makeup of the workmen on those repair teams. There was not a hint of the fact that, while grieving Parisians outside sang "Salve Regina" and cried as the cathedral's spire fell, further back were crowds of "migrants" laughing and cheering as the cathedral burned.
Nobody mentioned that, just the week before, the church of Sainte Surplice -- the second-biggest church in Paris -- was also burned, and the police had no problem admitting that the cause was arson. Neither did the news-feeds mention that churches have been burned and vandalized all over France at the rate of at least one per week for the past year and more. The well-trained media of France haven't mentioned that one of the complaints of the Yellow-Vest protesters is that the working-class of France is being taxed to death to pay for roughly a million "migrants" sitting about on Welfare. And none of the news-media outside of France mention the "migrant" riots that plague Paris almost monthly -- usually notable for mass tossing of Molotov cocktails. So far, none of the Jihadist groups have actually taken credit for the burning of Notre Dame, though ISIS-linked groups have called it "retribution" and "punishment" (for what?), and issued threats and warnings of more burnings to come. Nobody will mention aloud what everyone is thinking.
Only CNN even hinted at the possibility that Jihadists set the fire, and that was a masterpiece of subtlety. Its news programs showed, repeatedly, the Notre Dame spire falling in flames -- juxtaposed with images of the Twin Towers falling on 9/11/01 -- and let the viewers draw their own conclusions.
The question now is how much do the French police, government and media know, and how much are they only guessing. Seeing how much they've been concealing for the past year and more, I suspect that they're not guessing.
So why the widespread secrecy?
The comparison with 9/11 is useful. If it becomes widely known that the Jihadist "migrants" burned Notre Dame -- let alone Sainte Surplice and all the rest -- the French populace won't stand for it, any more than Americans put up with the 9/11 massacre. The Yellow Vest protests would more than double; they 'd paralyze the country, demanding that the French government stop supporting or welcoming the "migrants", but turn around and Throw The Bums Out. They might even demand that the French government join the US in making war on the Jihadists overseas. In any case, they'd make a point of hunting down and throwing out the Jihadist "migrant" groups, no matter how their apologists whine about "Islamophobia".
In fact, if it becomes clear that the Jihadists burned Notre Dame, "Islamophobia" may become a public virtue instead of a knee-jerk insult. Very few politicians want that! It would hasten the inevitable coming war between the Jihadists and the rest of the world.
Thursday, April 11, 2019
For the past few days I've been distracted with chasing down a parable that I heard many years ago. I recall that it was written by one of the classic Anarchist theoreticians, and for a long time I thought that was Max Stirner -- it sounded like his kind of wacky humor -- but I haven't been able to find it under his name. Possibly I've got the title wrong, but what I recall was "The Parable of the Highwayman". If anybody can help me hunt it down, I'll be grateful.
The tale, as best I remember, goes like this; the excuse govts. give for themselves is that they protect us from robbers of various sorts -- "enemies foreign and domestic", as US law puts it. In exchange, the govt. asks for... well, everything that govts. ask for.
So how much much worse can the robbers be?
Consider the "Highwayman", says the parable. He attacks you on the road, he takes your money, and then, having gotten what he wants, he goes away. He does not accompany you on down the road, telling you how important he is and how lucky you are to have him with you. He does not tell you how to conduct your life to the smallest detail. He does not keep on robbing you at regular intervals. He goes away.
In this way, the Highwayman is more endurable than the govt.
Well, the author of the parable didn't take into account modern slave-dealers or drug-cartels, but for the most part his parable still holds up. He could also have added persistent deceit, and poorly enough to be insulting.
For example of the latter, I give you Senator Cory Booker -- yet another reason that my childhood state of New Jersey is a good place to be from. He's not content with pandering to the Black vote by pushing the old idiocy about Reparations For Slavery, which has made even other Black Democrats call him out for patronizing and insulting the voters. No, he's also jumped on the anti-gun bandwagon with shameless exploitation of victims and flat-out lying, disguised under some weasel-wording so thin that it insults the people he's trying to fool. At a "presidential(!) town hall" in North Carolina a few days ago, he brought in a weepy self-described stay-at-home mother who felt "traumatized" by learning that her daughter was taught an "active shooter drill" in kindergarten, and asked Booker the perfect set-up question of what he intended to do about "all this gun-violence". He neatly avoided giving any real concrete solutions, but complained mightily that in the US we have "in the aggregate, a mass shooting every day".
Now think about that. "In the aggregate": what country is "TheAggregate"? I've never heard of it. Have you? It sounds like a good place to stay away from. In the United States, on the other hand (FBI stats), we do not have a mass shooting every day, or every week, or every month, or even every year -- not unless you define "mass shooting" as a single incident in which at least two people are shot": not killed, just shot. The FBI defines it a little differently: as a single incident in which at least four people are shot dead. Now an average of 30,000 Americans die every year of gunshots -- but a little over 20,000 of those deaths are suicides, another 1100 are "justifiable homicides" (i.e., crooks shot in the act by police or armed citizens), and about 500 are accidents. That leaves about 8400 real gun-murders per year. Now the figures fluctuate considerably from year to year, but generally about 3/4ths of all those real murders are singletons: that's about 6300 per year, which leaves the other 2100 as real honest-to-whatever "mass shootings" -- depending on the math. Divide 2100 by 365, and you get... a little over 5 per day. (Your mathematics may vary; I'm terrible with arithmetic.) But at least now we're getting close to what the FBI defines as a "mass shooting". Considering that the majority of FBI-defined mass shootings are gang-fights in just 8 of our largest cities, and those gang-fights usually involve more than 5 participants, I think we can compress the numbers a little further.
At least now we can guess where Booker got his "aggregate" from -- and it's a cheat. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me -- but try to fool me with insultingly stupid cheats, and you deserve to be met in a deserted ally with an old traditional Newark, New Jersey tool: a half-brick in the toe of a sturdy tube-sock. Guess.
In any case, the average highwayman -- or street-thug -- would be better to deal with than a politician like this. He makes Trump look downright honorable by comparison, and that takes some doing.
Friday, March 29, 2019
No sooner was Rep. Alldyslexia Occasional-Cortex's infamous Green New Deal voted away (47 to 0) than the House Democrats came up with a new, somewhat watered-down version which, no doubt, they'll be trying to sell to the voters over the next few weeks at least. The details haven't been published yet, but what little information has leaked out includes the wonderfully Green commitment to abolishing all use of "fossil fuels" -- including coal, petroleum, and natural gas. Of course there's a commitment to ending the practice of "fracking".
Now I certainly would agree that we've got to stop burning coal and petroleum; they're much too valuable to burn! Coal and petroleum are much more useful in chemical reactions than for burning up and turning into air pollution. Besides, once those fossil deposits are used up, there won't be any more of them. Yes, it's possible to create, in a fashion, coal and petroleum -- by vacuum-baking wood into charcoal and squeezing oil out of jojoba nuts -- but we'll never make enough that way to make them economically viable as fuel. Better to make internal-combustion engine fuel out of ethanol -- which can be made, by half a dozen different processes, from cellulose. Also better to make diesel oil from algae, which a lot of companies along the west coast are doing right now. In fact, the US Navy has established two fuel depositories -- one on the east coast and one on the west -- containing algae-sourced biodiesel fuel: enough to supply whole fleets of ships. Yes, it is possible to replace coal and petroleum with "renewable" fuel.
For that matter, it's possible to replace standard Uranium and Plutonium-based nuclear power-plants with much safer and cheaper Thorium-salts reactors, which produce enough heat to boil water to make steam to turn generators, without ever getting close to being fissionable. For some reason the Green Deal pushing Reps. don't mention any funding for research and development of Thorium reactors, although the govt. of India has already done so.
But what particularly floors me is their inclusion of "natural gas" among the fuels they want banned. "Natural gas" is nothing more than methane, which is produced by natural processes, such as the farts (more accurately, belches) from all those cows that AOC wants banned. It's created in nature by microbes breaking down organic compounds -- particularly in swamps, which is where "swamp gas" comes from. It's entirely a renewable fuel; there are countless books on homesteading which tell how to build methane generators that process compost into methane and fertilizer. So why is methane ranked among the Greens' devils?
For one thing, because oil companies have recently made a habit of bringing up methane deposits deep in the ground by "fracking", and fracking -- by anybody's definition -- is seriously bad news. It consists of pumping raw sewage deep into levels of fractured bedrock so as to force the methane to the surface. This pollutes the water-table and causes earthquakes, as well as uncontrolled methane upwellings. Fracking is an environmental disaster, and far be it from me to oppose putting an end to the wretched practice. Especially when its so easy to create methane, and under far safer conditions.
For another thing, because methane is considered a "greenhouse gas" that traps the sun's heat near the earth and contributes to global warming -- ooops, excuse me: "climate change". But there are also natural processes which have been breaking down methane for ages, particularly lightning, which strikes somewhere on earth at least 200 times per second -- and where lightning passes through methane, it quickly burns/oxydizes the gas into carbon dioxide and water. Carbon dioxide is another natural compound which nature has dealt with likewise for ages, primarily through plants. Plants -- all of them -- inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. Animals inhale the oxygen and produce carbon dioxide. This exchange has been going on as long as there has been life on earth, and shows no signs of slowing down. The solution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to plant more plants, especially trees, which inhale a lot more of the stuff than smaller plants, and for much longer time.
So, to anyone who passed junior high school biology, the solution to global warming -- ooops, "climate change" -- is to plant a lot of trees, thereby reforesting the continent, and... encouraging lightning. That is, if lightning needs to be encouraged. We could also put up electric arc-generators near every swamp and cow-pasture a helluva lot cheaper than doing without cars, trains, or airplanes, especially if we get serious about developing Thorium nuclear generators.
Now, anybody who has really bothered to study ecology, or biology, or simple chemistry, let alone "atmospheric sciences" would know this. So are the "green wave" Democrats ignorant, or just hypocritical? Why, after the firm defeat of the disastrous Green New Deal are they still pushing any incarnation of that mess?
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
The problem with selling a big lie is that you have to keep adding more and more lies to shore it up, and eventually somebody digs out just one truth that takes the whole structure down. I saw a little kid do this, back in grade-school, when he played hooky from school and then had to create an excuse to his teacher the next day, so he said his mother had been hit by a car and was in the hospital. The teacher called his home address, got the boy's father who was home for lunch, and asked about the accident. Since the mother was actually out shopping, the father knew nothing about this and got considerably upset, and began phoning the local hospitals. The hospitals called the police. I forget what stories the kid came up with to get around that, but by the end of the day the kid had a lot of explaining to do.
I'm reminded of that by the amazing stuff we're seeing from the Democrat-supporting media these days. Consider: a lunatic in New Zealand shot up a local mosque, mentioned Trump exactly once in his published manifesto (saying only that he liked Trump as a "symbol of renewed identity", but as for his policies: "Dear God, no!"), whereby the news media happily blamed Trump's "rhetoric" for the massacre.
How did they explain that? By claiming that Trump "covers and excuses White Supremacy". Never mind that Trump has never said anything in favor of White Supremacy; no, he's somehow supposed to be giving "dog whistles" to White Supremacists with everything he says. How does that work? Why, because Trump supporters are all White Supremacists, of course! Millions of adults voted for Trump; therefore there's a "huge surge in White Supremacy throughout America". Where's the evidence for this? Claims from, if you please, the Southern Poverty Law Center -- which, incidentally, makes its considerable money from donations under the excuse of "fighting White Supremacy in America". Uhuh.
If you bother to go to the FBI's website and look up its annual Uniform Crime Reports statistics, you'll see that the numbers of "white supremacist" groups, and their members, are minuscule. According to the FBI, there are maybe 100 real neo-Nazis in the entire US, not counting their nearly 20 FBI infiltrators. There are maybe 500 real Ku Klux Klansmen in the country, likewise not counting their FBI watchers. The number of Black Nationalist groups, and members, is immensely larger. As for "hate crimes", the vast majority of religious hate-crimes are aimed at Jews. Of hate-crimes targeting Muslims in the last five years, half turned out to be hoaxes, and the other half were committed by other Muslims. The single group found committing the majority of "hate crimes" is the Muslims.
It's no surprise that the FBI no longer lists the SPLC as a "reliable source", and no longer links to it on the FBI website.
The Threat of White Supremacists is a hoax, created and inflated by the liberal/Democrat-sympathizing media for political reasons. It's part and parcel of the anything-to-get-Trump nuttiness we've seen the Democrats pushing for the last several months, from the blatant Jew-hatred of their new federal Representatives, through the Green New Deal, to Rep. Jackson Lee's new demand for "reparations for slavery" from all Americans to exclusively Black Americans. The passionate ideological craziness is alienating more voters every day -- accusing everyone who doesn't vote for you of being a potentially-murderous neo-Nazi is not the way to win sympathizers -- but the Democrats don't seem to be able to stop.
How long can they keep painting themselves into a corner like this? Already, cracks are appearing in the facade. Minor news outlets are noticing that, during the same week as the New Zealand massacre, Muslim extremists in Nigeria massacred several hundred Christians -- which none of the major news media covered. Direct news coverage of the New Zealand is being censored, to the point where a local teenager has been arrested and threatened with 14 years in jail for video-streaming on-the-spot footage of the massacre -- which showed details contrary to the police reports -- and that news is beginning to spread. CNN hosted a Muslim journalist, Dr. Qanta Ahmed, to denounce Trump's "role" in the New Zealand massacre, but instead she claimed that: "Viewers should know that this president and this administration is often castigated as Islamophobic, but I move in the Muslim world -- where this president... and the Republican Party, going back to George Bush, is very dearly held" largely because of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the continuing war against ISIS. Oops.
Not even in North Korea does the govt. has such a stranglehold on all information as to keep the truth from getting around. The image of America as full of fascist-White-Supremacists is beginning to break already, and the pushers thereof are losing credibility fast. But how can the Democrats get themselves out of the corner they've painted themselves into? They'd have to deny so very much that they've already preached, and how can they pull that off without losing the rest of their own base?
My hope is that the majority of the voters will follow my suggestion. "A plague on both their houses; vote Libertarian."
Monday, March 11, 2019
Big news for the last week or so has been the Democrats trying frantically to cover for the blatant Jew-hatred being spouted by their shiny-new House Reps.
Rashaida Tlaib has been cozying up in public with Maher Abdel-Qader, a big fund-raiser for her election campaign, who's famous for his amazingly anti-Semitic videos that claim, among other things: that Jews aren't really Jewish, but they're really Satanic anyway, they never really lived in Israel, the Holocaust never really happened, and the Jews control all the news-media, so you can't trust any of it -- except when it's attacking Trump, of course.
Ilhan Omar merrily spouted some amazing Jew-hatred and Israel-hatred on her job in Congress, which had Nancy Pelosi scrambling to soften its effects. The Democrats started to put together a motion censuring Omar and taking a stand against anti-Semitism, but Tlaib and Omar wouldn't play along. Omar flatly refused to even apologize, and the two of them obliged the Democrats to water down their motion to a vague and wishy-washy statement against all "hatred", which didn't convince anyone. Then Omar started attacking Obama, if you please: criticizing his use of drones in the war with ISIS, and caging migrant children at the southern border, a charge Democrats usually throw at Trump. Other Democrats leaned on Omar, who took down her post, but didn't apologize for it. Instead she accused the media of misinterpreting what she said, and insisted that she was really an Obama fan.
Despite her quarrels with Nancy Pelosi, Omar still has backing among Democrats. The amazing Ocasio-Cortez -- even as her "Green New Deal" proposal has gone missing from her website -- has continued to heap praises on Omar, calling her "one of the most effective voices (in Congress) right now". She also insists that AIPAC -- the officially Israeli lobby -- is "coming after" her, and Omar, and Tlaib, for which there's no evidence whatever.
What all this noisy and fashionable Jew-hatred has accomplished is to make a lot of Jewish Democrats decide that the Democratic Party is no longer a safe place for them. House Rep Lee Zeldin (Dem., NY) sounded off about Omar and Tlaib in front of Congress. A disgruntled Jewish group formed a new PAC called Jexodus, urging other Jews to quit the Democrats and look anywhere else for politicians and policies that will welcome them.
They're following two earlier groups: Blexit (disgruntled Black voters) and #Walkaway (disgruntled ex-Democrats in general). These new ex-Democrats don't necessarily love the Republicans either -- quite the contrary in some cases -- but they've had enough of the current Democrat agenda.
I could give them a suggestion, of course: a plague on both their houses; vote Libertarian!
But what intrigues me about this hemorrhaging of voters is how quickly the Democrats brought it on themselves. Less than four months, and the great Blue Wave is disintegrating! How did that happen?
Could it be because the Democrat platform was a media-propaganda bubble in the first place? After all, for the past two years the Democrats have based everything they say or do on Getting Trump. Whatever he'd propose, say, or even joke, they'd howl for the opposite. They managed to convince themselves that Trump got elected only because he's a ray-ray-racist (despite lack of evidence), and everybody who voted for him was ray-ray-racist -- and, of course, sexist too -- so naturally they felt obliged to put up candidates who were "ethnic" and female whenever possible. Ocasio-Cortez shamelessly admitted that she simply went to an audition by a PAC calling themselves Justice Democrats, who liked her style and hired her on the spot, and afterward ran her campaign for her. Much the same worked for Omar and Tlaib. The Democratic National Committee picked its candidates not with any great concern for their policies but because of how good they looked and sounded on TV -- when properly coached by their personal Public Relations managers. This election was a media-blown bubble, and easily burst once the candidates had won their seats and felt confident enough to start saying what they really believed. They promptly turned on Nancy Pelosi, whom the Democrats had worked so hard to keep in power as the Speaker of the House, and now they've started turning on Obama too. They've become a disaster for the Democrats.
But why did these shiny-new Dem reps start ignoring their PR coaches and say what they really thought? What made them ignore their managers, turn on their former mentors, shut off the common-sense censors in their head, and start blatting their stupidities and bigotries to the world?
Well... Gee, maybe it was witchcraft.
Way back during the Nixon administration, when I was living in Chicago, I was part of a psychic study group that did a lot of interesting experiments. Not having the funds of an academic or govt. department, we couldn't afford much in the way of equipment, but we made good use of what we had -- and carefully recorded everything. After a few years of study we came up with some solid conclusions: (1) Yes, psychic phenomena are real; (2) No, we don't know what form of energy powers them, though we have some ideas; (3) There are different specific "talents" and strengths thereof, which vary with the individual. The most common of these is "empathy": the ability to receive or send emotional states or sensory impressions. (4) The ability to summon and manipulate psychic energy seems to be rooted in the mid-brain, which reacts to emotions and sensory input rather than logic and reason, so it has to be manipulated by carefully-crafted little psycho-dramas which raise the sensory images and emotions needed to arouse, aim, and release the psychic transmission; this is called a "ceremony", or "ritual", or "spell".
Well, we experimented with a lot of "spells", usually healings, but not always. I believe I mentioned in an earlier post about "The Getting of Falwell" and his so-called Million Christian March on Washington -- and how it came to be rained out. I don't think I've ever published the account of our spell for getting Nixon.
We did a lot of research, measured our psychic strengths and weaknesses, and finally concluded that the best way to get him was through Empathic Projection to make him reveal what Arlo Guthrie called his "natural bastardness". So we put together a ceremony designed to get all of us into the right level of brain--wave activity, focused on an image of Nixon until we felt we could connect to him, then read a poem (which I'd helped write) flattering his vanity, telling him that the whole world was waiting with bated breath to hear his words, that he should ignore all those enemies who were just jealous of him, throw caution to the winds, and say exactly what he thought and felt, and make sure the world heard him. (We also sent a copy of the poem, by mail, to the White House -- knowing Nixon himself would never read it, but simply to get it into his proximity and use it as a focus.) Then we used all our built-up psychic charge to project that idea at him. We called it The Curse of the Running Mouth.
It's probably a coincidence that Nixon started tape-recording himself around that time, but we all know what happened as a result of those tapes.
Anyway, we went on to other experiments, and learned that once we'd become adept enough at getting into the right state of brain-wave activity, and focusing, and releasing, we really didn't need that much of a theatrical ceremony, or psycho-drama. A half-hour's meditation and visualization could do it. I find it easiest to use music and candles or stone discs. One of us -- I'll call him Hank -- developed a handy technique of dropping into meditative state, visualizing a sort of changing-booth with mirror walls around a subject, and projecting a "spell" inside it. All these systems worked moderately well, often depending on how strongly the operator felt about the working.
Well, time passed and the lot of us went on to other jobs and other things. We scattered to the four winds, and some of us died in the following years, but I kept at least tenuous contact with the survivors.
'Twas shortly after the "blue wave" election last autumn that I heard from Hank, who was truly dismayed by the composition and direction of the new House of Reps, as well as infuriated by the political power of the nasty anti-semite, Linda Soursewer. We commiserated a bit, and then recalled the old days in Chicago, and came up with an idea. I suggested he put one of his psychic "changing-booths" around Soursewer -- with The Curse of the Running Mouth inside. He remembered the basic theme of that projection, cheered up quiet a bit, and promised to "drop a changing-booth" on her.
Perhaps it was just coincidence, but within a week Soursewer was in trouble for the things she'd started saying publicly.
Next time Hank called with political grumbles, I congratulated him on the success of his "changing-booth", and recommended that he do the same with those nasty new Muslimas in Congress. He happily agreed. "But what about Alldyslexia Occasional Cortex?" he asked. "She's as bad as the other two." I told him not to bother with her; "She's doing a fine job on her own," I said. "Don't waste energy on her."
He chuckled, and agreed. Not too long after that Omar and Tlaib started spouting their blatant Jew-hatred to the world, and throwing the Democrats into a tizzy. As for AOC, she seems to have done just fine pushing her Green New Deal -- and picking fights with high-ranking Democrats -- by herself.
It's probably just a coincidence. After all, those three Democrat front-women really were like that to begin with, and maybe their new fame -- and money -- and adulation just went to their heads. Plenty of lottery-winners have fallen in much the same way.
Nonetheless, Hank, I congratulate you on the success of your changing-booths.
Friday, March 1, 2019
Hearing the usual TV news tonight I was suddenly reminded of an incident years ago which could have been -- according to the logic of the news media -- a case of collusion between Russia and, if you please, me.
Now this was better than a decade ago, back when Bush was still president, at a WorldCon (in LA, I think, but don't quote me). I was there, as usual, to sing at all the filksings and help peddle albums. As usual, I'd spent the first afternoon checking out the dealers' room. Among other things, I found there a table displaying a lot of Russian military insigniae, tools, and even a whole uniform for sale. I noticed that because -- this being after Glasnost, when 'twas well known that Russia was in really bad economic shape -- I'd heard that the country was so badly off that it couldn't pay the majority of its army. It made sense that its military was selling off anything small and portable; that was possibly how the Russian Sci-Fi fans behind the table had paid their way to WorldCon. I paused to admire the goods, and said some flattering things about the pretty designs -- and noted also that the Russian fans spoke quite fluent American English. Uhuh. These guys had some connection to the Russian govt. somewhere. I wondered why the Russian govt. would bother to send agents -- no matter how far down in the ranks -- to the World Science Fiction Convention. Were they hoping to pick up crumbs of new US scientific explorations? Stranger things have happened.
Anyway, a day or so later, after my afternoon concert, I wound up lunching with a couple other fen in the hotel coffee-shop, and one of the Russians asked if he could have one of the empty seats at our table. Well, sure. We ate lunch and talked fandom topics for awhile, and the Russian gradually pulled the conversation around to politics. Of course, I asked how things were in the old country now that the Cold War was over. He got noticeably morose, admitted that the economy was in bad shape, and then complained that it didn't have to be that way; "Siberia has more oil reserves than Saudi Arabia", he said, "But we have no way of developing it."
Now I, a mere entertainer, could readily see the answer to that. "So, go to Bush," I said, munching a french-fry. "He'll be happy to help out."
"...What?" said the Russian, looking slightly pole-axed.
"President Bush," I explained. "He's an old oil-man. He has plenty of contacts in the oil business, and they'd be happy to develop a whole new oil-field. Just make an appointment with him, and persuade him to put together a consortium of his old buddies to develop Russia's oil industry."
"...Just make an appointment, with the President of the United States..." said the Russian. "Just like that."
"Well, tell the Russian ambassador to make the appointment, actually," said I, pausing to take another bite of my cheeseburger. "Given the subject you want to discuss, I'm pretty sure he'll be interested."
"Why?" asked the Russian, pulling his jaw back up.
"To get another oil-source, of course," said I. "Everyone knows we can't trust the Arabs. Frankly, we'd much rather deal with Russia."
"...Why?" he asked again.
"Because Russians may be paranoid, but they're not religious fanatics -- and they've given up on trying to conquer the world, which the Arabs haven't. They can be talked to sensibly, about practical things -- like world peace, and survival."
"...Anything else?" he tried.
"Sure," said I, around a mouthful of beer. "For one thing, we'd like Russia to stay strong enough to counter-balance China. For another, we really don't want to see millions of Russians starve."
He just nodded, with his mouth still hanging open. I finished my cheeseburger and beer, and waved for the waitress to bring my bill.
"...Make an appointment with Bush..." he mumbled again, as if wrapping his head around the idea.
"And don't take less than 7% royalties on the deal," I said, getting up. "Good luck."
And I walked off and went to pay my bill, and then got back to the filksinging. I didn't see him again, and the convention was lively enough that I soon forgot about him.
I didn't even think about that whole exchange until several months later, when I happened to see a sideline article in the news-feeds -- about how Bush had put together a consortium of oil companies to develop untapped petroleum fields... in Siberia. That set me to wondering. Did that Russian fan duly report all I'd said to some bureaucrat who considered it seriously, and did the Russian govt. actually take my advice?
Gee, did that mean that I colluded with the Russian govt. to "meddle" in the US's foreign policy?
Saturday, February 23, 2019
Because Rasty was busy on house repairs this afternoon, he left the TV running on the wrong channel: CNN instead of MSNBC, for once. Thus I came to see something astounding.
CNN Pundit Kmele Foster used the Jussie Smollett case as an example for a half-hour speech about the dangers of political hysteria. He warned that the media have become so used to believing anything that could possibly be used to denounce Trump that they’ve let themselves forget not only civil discourse but logic, the rules of responsible journalism, and common sense. He followed that with an interview with a Gay Indian Muslim TV comedian who had nothing good to say about Jihadists.
Quick, run to your window and look out, and see if you can spot a pig soaring past!
Of course, the show then moved on to explain how the Sanders/Occasional-Cortex “70% marginal tax” on the rich wouldn’t really take that much, and played an announcement for Bernie Sanders hosting a “presidential town-hall” – but still, that first speech (and its following interview) was astonishing for the corporation that has previously well earned the nickname of “Clinton News Network”.
Was it just the revelation that Smollett’s supposed attack by racist/homophobic/Trump-supporting White men turned out to be a hoax? That Smollett set it up himself with a couple of Black Nigerian buddies? That he did it to jack up his ratings and extend his contract?
Or was it the announcement that the libeled
students had hired a really good
lawyer, who was now suing the Washington
Post for $250 million (coincidentally ((?)) the amount that Amazon CEO Jeff
Bezos paid when he bought the Post in
Could it possibly be something so unrelated as the massive outpouring of negative reactions to the Green New Deal and its supporters, despite all the approving build-up the media gave it? That does, after all, imply that the media don’t have the manipulative power that they thought they did.
Or could it be something as simple as the steadily falling subscription rates of not only print media but their online versions, and the shaky viewership-rates of the cable-TV networks? People rarely view media outlets that they don’t trust, after all.
None of this, really, can be blamed on Trump’s insistence that many of the media push “fake news”; after all, Trump really isn’t a very good speaker. He doesn’t have anywhere near the oratorical skills of the average Baptist preacher, let alone the near-hypnotic abilities of Hitler. Remember that the American political right – from one inch to the left of Hillary all the way out to the fanatic fringe – has had plenty of experience (immunization?) with skillful speakers. It was never Trump’s speeches that won him public support. His simply repeating the phrase “fake news” wouldn’t have worked.
Nothing could have disenchanted the public with the media except direct and repeated experience with sloppy and biased reporting. There’s no teacher more effective than personal experience, and in their two-years-long blizzard of anti-Trump propaganda, the media have clearly overplayed their hand.
Possibly the icing on the cake was the too-often repeated phrase that the supposed attack on Jussie Smollett was the result of “Trump’s divisive rhetoric”, when everyone can see that the “divisive rhetoric” has been coming steadily from the other political side. So the revelation of the hoax blew that claim completely out of the water.
It’s interesting that CNN was the first media outlet to realize that the tide had turned. We’ll have to wait and see who else catches on, and how quickly.
Sunday, February 17, 2019
As I predicted a few weeks ago, Trump agreed to sign the Democrats' budget bill -- and thereby keep the fed. govt. fully open and working -- but he also declared a "National Emergency" at the US/Mexico border in order to get the remainder of his Wall built. And of course the Democrats have gone into a feeding-frenzy of lawsuits, bills, persuading border states and land-owners to refuse to let their land be used for the Wall, and anything else they can think of. The problem with all those lawsuits and bills is that, by the time they're settled, the Wall may already be finished.
The trick, which the Dems seem to have forgotten, is that the POTUS is also the supreme commander of the US armed forces. Trump doesn't have to re-route money from one allocation to another to finish the Wall; he can simply order the Army Corps of Engineers to do it, using money already allocated to the military. Those Engineers have a history of amazingly fast construction, and part of the Wall is already up, so they only need finish it.
First, understand that at least half of the US/Mexico border is can't be built on; it's the whole meandering length of the shallow, narrow, Rio Grande. No, there won't be a wall there -- only drone, aircraft, vehicle and foot patrols. Then again, whatever wall does get built will require tight patrolling too; a wall is only as effective as its watchers. But of course, Congress already allocated money for that -- despite demands by the new Socialist/Democrat fringe for total abolition of the border patrol. Still more of the border can't be built on because it's fiercely jagged mountains and deep canyons that even mountain-goats have trouble crossing.
Another section of the border, right here in Arizona, lies across Tohono O'Odam land, and those "nativist" Natives won't want to give up a yard of their land -- but they're quite willing to patrol the border themselves, as they've been doing quire effectively for the last couple decades, to keep the "Aztecs" out. They'd also be quite happy to see the border swing a mile or two southward to take in lands which they've claimed for centuries, even if that takes a chunk out of Mexico. This isn't so impossible as it looks; the last accurate survey of exactly where the border lies -- right down to the yard, or foot, or inch -- was done by the US, and simply accepted by Mexico. Since those Native lands are technically a sovereign nation, Mexico would have to complain to the Tohono O'odam, and I don't see Mexico going to war with the Native tribes, seeing who their ally is.
In any case, there already are stretches of wall across several miles of the border; they only need to be improved and extended, and the military engineers can easily do that. If any land-owners or states complain, the border can easily be relocated southward, as in the case of the Natives. Besides, a lot of those states and private landowners would welcome the Wall, having had more than enough of illegal immigration across their lands already. And yes, there is an "emergency" at the border -- and has been for decades -- as the Border Patrol, and those landowners, and those Natives, can readily tell you.
So yes, I predict that the Wall will be built, and patrolled, despite the antics of the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi's determination to stop Trump from doing anything that might possibly get him re-elected.
The problem for the Dems is that, in their frenzy to Get Trump, they've encouraged their members and allies to run further and further out into the weeds. The mainstream media, and even some of the more reasonable Democrats, have already begun pointing out the idiocies of Alldyslexia Occasional-Cortex's so-called Green New Deal, though that hasn't slowed her down any. Reps. Tlaib and Omar have been caught in public spouting obvious Jew-hatred and showing their fondness for friends of known terrorists. Sen. Booker's insistence on making the whole country Vegan is already a national joke. It's one thing to claim that we've got to stop burning coal and petroleum for fuel (they're much too valuable for their use in chemical reactions to burn, anyway), but it's another to insist that the US give up all cars, airplanes, and livestock-raising. It doesn't help that various Dem supporters are also pushing some truly astounding social and racial theories -- such as demonizing all White males as "privileged" and "racist". The DNC's policies have stopped looking merely radical and are looking downright delusional to the majority of American voters, who are generally centrist and practical.
One has to wonder why the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot like this. Are they so blinded by Trump-hatred that they really believe these stupid policies themselves? Don't they realize that every time their cadre of cute/young/female/"ethnic" Reps open their mouths, the Democrat party hemorrhages votes? Do they really believe that they can use their vast influence with the media to sell these out-of-the-ballpark policies to the voters? Or do they believe that they can censor all the media -- including the Internet -- so that the public never hears a discouraging word?
If so, then they should remember that even in China, or North Korea, word manages to get around. They should remember the 2016 election, which they thought they had in the bag because all their polls and experts and media pundits predicted an overwhelming win for Hillary. They should remember that information is like water; the more you try to squeeze it, the more likely it is to leak out -- or burst out, sometimes with explosive force.
The irony is that the same "liberal" pundits who preach that "hate" is self-destructive and self-defeating don't apply that idea to their own hatred of Trump, his cronies, and all his voters.
Of course my solution, as always, is: "A plague on both their houses: vote Libertarian", but that's looking a lot more popular as the Democrats continue cutting their own political throats.
Monday, February 4, 2019
Bear in mind that my hometown, Buckeye, is some 20 miles west from the center of Phoenix, Arizona. It was a sleepy farming and ranching town of maybe 7000 inhabitants until about 20 years ago, when its city council decided to "upgrade" the town by giving over the northern half of its territory to real-estate developers. In short order, a lot of old ranch-land and some undeveloped desert became a "bedroom town" of close-built overpriced houses, which raised the town's population to 40,000 -- without increasing the number of local businesses. Apparently the inhabitants of the New Town all drive into Phoenix for their jobs. They don't spend much of that income here in town, which is why the city government is always putting on fairs and festivals to attract spending. The town's actual industry hasn't increased any.
Another effect of this social engineering has been an influx of the homeless. There's a stretch of land owned by the railroad, less than 5 miles from my house, that's turned overnight into a tent/shantytown full of homeless folk. The neighbors, whose back yards back up to the railroad, have tried giving the homeless folk flyers listing the local social services available, and also calling the railroad HQ to ask that the "squatters" be removed. In any case, the homeless can't stay there; winter, even in Arizona, is a bad time for living in a tent. Besides, there's no running water out there, or sanitary services.
Obviously our town, and county, need to create more homeless shelters. They could also reinstate the institution known as the "poor farm"; this being farming and ranch land, such a farm could actually support itself -- and possibly even turn a profit.
But beyond that, the problem of homelessness is becoming visible all over the country. Regardless of what the media may claim, average people can see from looking that there are a lot of homeless poor clustered around our cities and even small towns.
The first question is, where do they all come from? It's also visible that a lot of them are drunks and druggies; the number of empty booze-bottles and needles obvious in the trash around the homeless encampments make that clear. Certainly some of them are victims of their own weaknesses. Others are victims of bad luck and economic "downturns", though the unemployment numbers have been going down for more than a year. But there are more who are visibly illegal immigrants. Seriously, this isn't hard to see. Regardless of skin-color or clothing styles, people who cannot speak the local language are obviously from somewhere else.
Federal agencies admit that the US's population right now is 327 million that we know about. That alone gives the US the third largest population in the world -- behind only India and China. There are also an estimated 12-20 million "undocumented" that we don't know much about. The obvious solution is, as the old saying goes, Throw The Bums Out. This is why Trump's Wall is gaining in popularity down here in the border states.
More to the point, the citizens were dissatisfied with the govt. long before Trump was elected (which is one of the reasons he was elected). The growth of our economy since he got into office has mitigated the dissatisfaction somewhat, but not entirely. The number of those homeless has only added to the problem. Worse, anyone who chooses to look -- the Internet being not entirely censored yet -- can see that the homelessness problem is worst in those towns and counties that have given themselves "sanctuary" status, thus attracting more illegal immigrants. It's no secret that these govts. have primarily Democrat administrations. Not that Republican govts. look much better; most of them are notorious for doing nothing.
The citizens are still dissatisfied. This explains why the shiney-new Democrat majority in the House of Reps. is losing its glamour so fast. The best propaganda-engine in the world (which, arguably, the Democrats have in the US news media and academia) can't outweigh what the citizens can see for themselves every week if not every day. The citizens are also losing trust in the media, which explains why so many of them are losing circulation. The laboriously-constructed wave of pro-Democrat enthusiasm that swept those new Reps into power three months ago can fade faster than it rose.
And where will those cynical and disgruntled voters go then? Not to any political party that wants to import or allow more floods of immigrants, and not to any party that has done nothing about the problem.
If the Libertarian Party can reconsider its "open borders" policy, it just might take a much bigger chunk of the vote than it's had before, and that alone could change the political game seriously.
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
Rudyard Kipling worked for newspapers in his younger days, and he once wrote a poem called "The Press" in which he described the news media of his time as "king over all the children of pride". He also described how "the old black art" worked in politics: "The bubble is blown and the bubble is burst by us and such as we." I've worked on three magazines, two newspapers and a radio station, and I can tell you personally that the only major change between Kipling's day and ours is that electronics has made the bubble-blowing -- and sometimes the bubble-bursting -- a lot faster. For example, I give you the case of the Covington Kids.
It started with a 10-second (at most!) video/sound-bite on MSNBC, on Saturday morning. There was a three-second shot of some high school kids in sports-team clothes (except for one boy who had pulled off his shirt and was dancing like a cheerleader) standing in a line, giving sports-team chants. This was followed by another three-second shot of a kid in a team shirt and a MAGA hat, smiling with almost-desperate politeness while an old man with an Indian (ooops, mea culpa -- "Native American") look chanted and pounded a drum less than a foot from his face.
By themselves, these two shots wouldn't have meant much -- sports team chanting, team-kid smiling at drummer -- but the ten-second-or-less voice-over from the reporter "put it in context", that is, explained it all for us in a quick headline-blurt: "Covington Catholic School Trump Supporters Harass Native Americans at the Lincoln Memorial!" Never mind that we didn't see any "harassment"; the reporter said it, so it must be true.
Almost instantly, the word spread to Democrats everywhere, who responded -- on the media and the Internet -- with righteous indignation. A thunder of Twitter-tweets called for beating the kids, expelling all of them, burning down the school, and Disney film producer Jack Morrissy posted a cute meme showing "MAGA kids go screaming, hats first, into the woodchipper". SNL writer Sarah Beattie offered a blowjob to whoever would first punch the MAGA-capped boy in the face. The Native American drum-beater, described as Vietnam veteran Nathan Phillips, only called for expelling the kids. He also claimed that the boy whose face he was drumming in, Nicholas Sandmann, mocked and taunted him for his race (though in the video we never saw the boy's mouth moving), and the other boys surrounded him, chanting "Build the Wall!!", and that he felt threatened and intimidated.
He forgot one thing; there were other people there with cameras, cell-phones, and Internet connections.
By Sunday the counter-story came rolling in, backed up by other videos, witnesses' statements, and Internet research. First, the kids had shown up early that morning for their annual anti-abortion protest (what do you expect? It's a Catholic school), where they marched around with their signs for about an hour, then lined up at the bus-stop to go home. They were approached by a bunch of Black protesters who called themselves the Israelite Hebrews(?) who started yelling "homosexual insults" at the boys. The Covington kids responded by chanting their school sports-cheers so as to drown out the yells. Then all of three Indians approached the boys, beating their drums. Since the drums were in time with the chants, the kids thought the Natives were sympathizing with them -- until they got closer, and the kids could hear that the Indians were calling them "White beasts" and yelling at them to go back to "the caves of Europe". Nathan Phillips pushed into the line of students until he was right in the middle of them, nose to nose with Nicholas Sandmann. Sandmann stood his ground, put on a nervous smile, stopped another kid from getting in an argument with one of the Black protesters, and just waited while the Blacks and Indians threw insults at the kids. Meanwhile the bus pulled up and stopped, and the schoolkids started climbing on it. When the last of the students got on the bus, the Black and Native protesters turned away and started chatting with reporters.
Also, more information surfaced about Nathan Phillips. He wasn't a Vietnam veteran after all. He had pulled stunts like this before, to the point where police were obliged to escort him away, and... his story about the Lincoln Memorial incident kept changing, and his every claim was refuted by other videos of the incident.
More, the same media pundits who puffed up Phillips and his cronies in the first place were suspiciously silent on real attacks against Native protesters at Standing Rock, and when Jordan Stevens was beaten to death -- on video -- by ten cops in Yuma, and when Native women were kidnapped and sold into sex-slavery in North Dakota. Other media outlets have begun wondering why the big news companies ignored these real abuses, but raised a nationwide howl about a smiling schoolboy in a MAGA hat. Likewise, lesser pundits have apologized for jumping the gun on their assumptions about the schoolboys, while the major media -- CNN, MSNBC and ABC -- only backpedaled, claiming that the boys' chanting and Sandmann's stoic smiling were "insensitive".
What this reveals is not only the blatant anti-Trump bias of the major media, but their unwillingness to learn the whole story, or check the facts -- as shown in last week's scandal about "Buzzfeed". They're willing to toss out the basic rules of journalism for any chance to attack Trump, or his followers, or even a kid in a MAGA hat.
How can any sensible person trust them, really?
Sunday, January 6, 2019
The media turned the swearing-in of the new Congress into a frenetic victory-party for the Democrats -- including an hour-long puff-piece on MSNBC adoring Nancy Pelosi. Apparently, it's possible to get as drunk on political victory as on booze -- drunk enough to lose common sense and admit to truths that do not automatically please the voters.
There's no other explanation for Rep. Rashida Tlaib's happily obscene anti-Trump rant, at a victory party thrown by MoveOn.org last Thursday, in which she promised: "We're gonna impeach the motherf*cker", among other things. It didn't occur to her that along with all the supporters who cheered and clapped for her there were other witnesses with cell-phones, who made video-clips of her and put them up on YouTube, so that she had to do some quick and fancy explaining the next day. She couldn't have been drunk on booze; she's a loudly proclaimed Muslim.
Likewise, Ilhan Omar -- another well-advertised Muslim who has made several borderline anti-semitic comments in public -- whose first day's work in Congress was to sponsor a bill allowing Reps to wear head-coverings, such as her hijab, in the House. She also denounced the "PayGo" rule -- originally proposed by Nancy Pelosi -- which requires that the federal govt. must come up with a spending cut for every spending increase. This did not look like a good first day's work to many of the voters, and a lot of them were watching.
And then there are the amazingly ignorant statements by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, which have impelled the DNC to tell her outright to please stop making speeches in public lest she embarrass them further. None of this is concealed from the public. It's clear that the flush of victory is encouraging the shiny-new cluster of socialist-Democrat-young-minority-women Reps to reveal too much of themselves, and too soon. If they keep talking, they'll make Trump look good -- even on CNN and MSNBC.
The gods know, we've seen over-eager politicians hang themselves with their own mouths before this.
The Democrats mounted a truly epic campaign to elect lots of socialist-young-minority-women to the House of Reps in the midterms election, thereby giving themselves a more-than-slightly stereotyped public image. Now they have to live up to the stereotyping, and cracks are already appearing in the image -- and the supposed unity.
Now this is the age of the ubiquitous camera, the all-seeing public eye, where everybody has a camera and a phone to transmit what they've seen. This universal public eye is not controlled by any central authority -- and public manipulations, even very good ones, can't last long against the attrition of a steady rain of publicly-displayed facts. The steady storm of daily revelations that the media has been using on Trump can be -- is already being -- used on the Democrat favorites too. Any political weapon is a two-edged sword.
In fact, the average American is not anti-semitic nor Islamophiliac, not misogynist nor snowflake-feminist, not racist nor globalist, does not automatically hate Latinos and does not believe in open borders either -- and therefore neither falls into the Liberal stereotype nor falls for it. Those shiny-new Reps have already revealed their real attitudes, which are not as popular as they -- and the DNC -- like to think. They won't be able to conceal their intentions constantly, and they'll be revealed, repeatedly, soon enough. Then the public disillusion will set in. The only question is, how fast? How long before the voters say "A plague on both your houses"?
2020 just might be a great election year for the Libertarian Party.