What Kind of President Would Donald Trump Be?

With Trump seemingly gaining the kind of momentum he needs for the establishment to decide to embrace him, I thought it made sense to point out what kind of President Trump would be. Unfortunately, I have no idea. It's like the man suffers from multiple-personality syndrome. That is the real problem with Trump. But that won't stop me from enlightening you (or perhaps delightening you). Here are the possibilities as I see them.

(1) Amazing Conservative... Ronald Fricken Reagan II: It is possible that Trump will be the greatest American president since Ronald Reagan. This is premised on the idea that Trump has been playing a role and nothing he's said so far to his supporters is true. Further, it's premised on the idea of who is in his kitchen cabinet. If Trump essentially steps aside, enjoys the pomp and circumstance, and lets Arthur Laugher, William Bennett and Rudy Giuliani make his policy, then he could very well run the most competent, conservative administration since Reagan's second term. This administration, by the way, would be largely fiscally conservative, have a neocon foreign policy and have a reasonable-but-not fringe social policy.

(2) Hard Core Liberal: If you look at the positions Trump has held consistently, his views are that (1) the Government should spend money to help business and stimulate the economy, (2) he's pretty far left on social policy, (3) he favors concentrations of power in government, foreign organizations (like the EU), and business, (4) he knows the value of having illegal aliens to do the work Americans won't, and (5) he likes to be popular, so he's poll driven. That makes him pretty close to Bernie Sanders in outlook except he doesn't like the minimum wage.

(3) Crony Capitalist: Trump's core beliefs are crony capitalist. He believes in Big Government helping Big Business. He's comfortable with Big Unions. He thinks government is about settling scores and he thinks nothing of bending the laws to help those who find ways to use the power of government against their enemies.

So which is he?

Well, he's selling the idea that he's the first. His supporters seem to be relying on this in fact. At the same time, his long-term views are the second. But his personality suggests the third. That leaves me with the suspicion that Trump will be this:

(4) Obama II: Most likely, Trump will be this. He will essentially adopt Obama's policies of indifference while kicking back and enjoying the perks of power. His policies will be a random foreign policy, generally liberal social policies (doing nothing difficult), and neutral economic policy with the real purpose of his policies being to grant favors to donors and friends. He will view the government as a means to a four-year taxpayer paid vacation and as having the cat-bird seat to plunder the Treasury to enrich himself and his friends.

Thoughts?

Post-Debate Thoughts

By Kit

Confession: I did not watch the debate. Instead, stressed out over the election, I went to a showing at my college of this German film:

In case the lack of subtitles didn't help you (which was probably likely), the movie is set in 1988 and is about two teenage East German sisters who, while at a "Pioneer's camp" in Hungary training for their Kayaking team, meet up and one of the girls falls in love with one of the boys. It was a nice movie. But I won't go into more detail because I plan to do a review of it.

The Debate, and what it Means

Rubio didn't have a good night, he had a great night. But, I know what you will say, so let's go through them: (1) Nothing has worked before, (2) Trump has a lead, (3) he is like Teflon, nothing hurts him.

I heard all of this before, in the week leading up to Iowa. Everyone said the National Review article would have no impact, many said Trump was guaranteed a win with high turnout. And what happened? He lost. After a week of a sustained onslaught he lost to Ted Cruz.

Yes, he won in NH, SC, and NV. But that was because the opposition stumbled. Ted Cruz had to skip NH while Rubio fumbled the state (and admitted it). In SC and NV the non-Trump candidates continued sniping at each other, leaving Trump largely free to win, as he did.

But now he is facing an onslaught again. And he has no idea what is coming. the pro-Rubio SuperPac, Conservative Solutions, according to Politico "has already purchased or reserved $6.4 million worth of ads" in the week prior to Super Tuesday. And that is just one SuperPac. How will he handle this? How will his numbers?

It is also worth remembering he lost in Iowa largely because the fierce anti-Trump campaign in Iowa galvanized the anti-Trump vote. Yes, it does indeed exist. Iowa proved it and the other states (save, maybe, Nevada*). If pro-Trump sentiment was the sole thing driving turnout, he would likely continually earned more than 50% of the vote. Well more.

But he didn't. He has grabbed considerably less. As proof of the anti-Trump sentiment, I offer up the fact that in South Carolina, more people voted against Trump than voted in the state's 2012 primary as a whole.

So, what now? Christie has endorsed him in an effort to shift the news cycle so Rubio and Cruz will have to stay on the offensive. As Ian Tuttle said, those two "must treat this as the Hunger Games." They may not be able to win many states, save Minnesota and Texas (maybe) but they may be able to close the vote. As New York Times's Nate Cohn recently pointed out, Rubio can win the election without winning a single state in Super Tuesday.

*Which was beset with complaints of irregularities and problems.

Open Thread with Rick Perry

Good news for the Great State of Texas. Former Texas Governor and two time Presidential Candidate Rick Perry is a free man. Just in case you have forgotten, former Gov. Perry has been under indictment since August 2014 accused of abusing his power while in office. This all was because he first threatened and then carried out a veto that defunded a statewide public integrity unit in an attempt to force Travis County (Austin) District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg, head of the unit, to resign after a DWI arrest came to light.

Just in case you have forgotten the circumstances as to why Perry wished for Lehmberg to resign, here is a link to my previous post: Roll the video...

After Perry vetoed the bill and defunded the unit, the DA of the very liberal, very Democrat Travis County took the abuse charges to a Grand Jury and the Grand Jury indicted him on two felony counts - abuse of official capacity, a first-degree felony, for threatening to veto $7.5 million in funding for the Public Integrity Unit and coercion of a public servant, a third-degree felony. The second charge was dismissed by the lower court in July, and as of today, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed the second. In his statement after the dismissal was granted he stated that

"The court's decision today proves that this indictment was nothing less than a baseless political attack, and an assault on constitutional powers...I think anyone who has paid attention to presidential races, saw this indictment had a negative effect on our candidacy."

Yeah, very few people who know about Travis County politics would doubt that. I would expect that there will be some kind of civil suit filed against Travis County to follow shortly.

Please feel free to change the subject.

So Personal Choice Can Be To Blame?

There was a fascinating article the other day. This article basically explained why blacks don’t earn what honkeys earn: they choose the wrong majors. The fact that this article suggested that the personal choice of blacks is to blame for inequality shows that the world had indeed changed. This same article in the 1980's or 1990's would have brought on howls of racism and the authors would have been lynched.

According to this article, which reported on a study, the problem for black students vis-a-vis income is that they choose majors in college that “don’t reflect” their college effort. Specifically, they move into jobs like social work or childhood caring fields, so called “intellectual and caring fields... where low incomes do not reflect their years of higher education.” By comparison, honkey kids select majors like science, engineering, architecture, pharmaceutical studies, etc. These are so called STEM majors.

The result is that black students are picking fields that have salaries that are typically only 50% of the STEM fields. Hence, they make a butt load less money.

This explains not only why blacks don’t make as much as whites, it also explains why their jobs are less secure. It also explains why so many end up working for the government, because that is the typical employer for those fields. Said differently, this means that the reason blacks are far less economically secure than whites is because they choose, to go into fields that make them less economically secure. It has nothing to do with racists lurking in the bushes sabotaging black careers.

Interesting. Just suggesting that personal choice has something to do with the failures of blacks would have gotten one sent to re-education camp a few years ago. Indeed, much like feminists, race baiters pushed the idea in the 1990's that blacks and whites were identical. Hence, any disparity in results had to be the result of discrimination (as an aside, any positive disparity for blacks, such as in sports, was essentially accepted but considered off limits for exploration lest doing so opened the door to investigations of negative disparity). Many an author or researcher found themselves attacked for being a bigot for exploring good or bad disparities. So indeed, times have changed if a report like this can come out without the study authors being lynched for inconvenient truthism racism.

Now... all that said, there is an interesting bit of backtracking. At one point, the author of the study clearly realizes that blaming blacks, rather than racism, for their own failures does remain a thoughtcrime in certain circles. So he tries to explain part of this away. According to the author, this issue isn’t all about personal choice. Instead, blacks are forced into making these choices by the racists in Silicon Valley because most blacks cluster in black colleges and Silicon Valley, which is packed with Kanye-hating racist racists, puts in only lackluster recruitment efforts on those campuses. Boo racism! But the study also notes that black students are “concentrated in institutions where students have limited choices of majors offered.” As the article then notes, “in other words, it’s tough... to major in a field such as chemical engineering if it’s not an option on campus.”

Think about what this really means, though. Translated to reality, this means that attending a black college keeps black students down because those colleges aren’t as good as non-black colleges at offering good choices of study. This would also explain why evil racist Silicon Valley doesn’t hire many kids from black colleges too, doesn't it?

What’s more the study suggests that these schools need to improve their counseling to explain to black students what other options are out there because, right now, they are apparently telling these students to “give back” to the community through these low income careers. Again, this means that not only are black colleges failing black students, but the counselors at those schools are leading kids down the path that causes the income disparity which has heretofore been attributed to Evil Racism™.

In other words, the reason blacks earn less, hold crappier jobs and are less economically secure is because they make choices that lead them into the wrong fields. Leading them into those fields are the black counselors at black colleges, which fail these students with bad advice and by not even offering the programs those students need for success. Honestly, this is a "well, duh," moment. But the fact that it can now be spoken is a huge step forward in our culture.

The first step in solving a problem is being able to discuss the problem. Times are indeed changing.

Thoughts?

By the way, two things I would add in this moment of Black Glasnost. First, people have long noted that blacks excel in athletics. I think it's important to point out that this too is essentially a question of choice. A much greater percentage of black children are told that sports is a viable career path than white kids. The result is that the candidate pool of black athletes is much higher than that of other races in the US. This is the same reason Latinos dominate baseball and whites dominate golf: personal choice leads to different applicant pools which leads to different racial outcomes. The one exception seems to be pure running skill. And for that we possibly have point two...

Point Two: there was an interesting discovery discussed this week regarding genetics. Apparently, humans and neanderthals interbred about 100,000 years earlier than thought. The result is that about 2% of the DNA of whites and Asians is from neanderthals. Blacks, apparently, do not share this. This actually suggests that some differences between the races might be genetic in nature. It will be interesting to see if science finds that this does lead to meaningfully different traits.

Einstein Was Right Again

I know that we are in the midst of the most contentious political season in my lifetime, but I thought it was worth mentioning that there has been one earth-shaking scientific discovery in the last two weeks that snuck by with barely a blip.

No really, that is exactly what it was. A set of BLIPS that proved Einstein's last theory of the existence of gravitational waves was correct.

The scientific world has been going crazy! Just to put this into perspective, this could be the most significant scientific confirmation in our lifetime and quite possibly may turn out to be our next new energy source - gravitational waves. These are cosmic waves that transport energy through space.

From what little I have read, Albert Einstein vacillated for years about whether these waves even existed. Imagined and denied and reimagined by Einstein until his death in 1955, scientists finally have reported that they have detected gravitational waves and proved that Einstein was right all along.

Gravitational Waves Detected, Confirming Einstein’s Theory

Now that we know they do they exist, if we can figure out how to harness this source of energy transfer just like we have with the petroleum, electricity, wind, water, nuclear, and solar energy sources, this could actually be the new energy source that we have been waiting to find - non-toxic, renewable, and plentiful. And an energy source that could propel us to the far reaches of the universe.

Now I don't pretend to understand most of this, but according to my brother who knows these things, this is really big, huge, monumental news.

Now back to your regularly scheduled Trump-a-thon...

Steady As She Goes

For those of you following the primaries, circle March 15. That’s the date that matters for the outcome of the GOP primary. Everything before then will only be about determining who matters on March 15. March 15 will tell us who will win in the end. Here’s what you need to know.

I predicted some time ago that Trump can’t win the nomination. I stand by that. The only thing that has given me pause in that is Trump’s win in New Hampshire. The thing about New Hampshire is that it normally goes to the party’s moderate wing. In this case, the moderate/establishment wing got 49% of the vote whereas Trump/Cruz combined for 48% of the vote. I would have expected something closer to 60/40 pro-moderate outcome, so the 49/48 pro-moderate result was a little startling.

BUT, this could be explained in several ways. First, Trump apparently has strong ties throughout the state which were causing people to say Trump had home field advantage. If that’s the case, then it’s easy to explain an 8% surge. Secondly, the fight between Trump and Cruz for the fringe vote likely brought out more fringers. That too could explain an 8% surge. Third, Trump could be more popular than I thought. South Carolina suggests that’s not true, however.

Carolina was the first of the Southern states to vote. Like the other Southern states, it is about 60/40 pro-fringe. So while the big story is that Trump won and that Bush dropped out, the real story is that Trump+Cruz scored only 54% of the vote. Combine with Carson, they did hit 61%, but together in their death struggle for the fringe, they got only 54%. I’m not sure what this means yet. Does this mean Caron’s voters are resistant to Trump/Cruz, or is this only temporary while Carson remains in the race? If they are resistant, then Trump/Cruz are in serious trouble. The evidence for this is the growth in the Carson vote since New Hampshire. The extra 5% he got in Carolina are not people who love him, they are most likely people who don’t want to vote for Trump or Cruz.

On the other hand, if they just like Carson better, then things are exactly where I expected with the fringe accounting for 60%. Either result though tells us that New Hampshire’s 8% surge was an anomaly rather than a shift of moderates into the Trump camp. If moderates were indeed going for Trump now, the fringe would have scored higher in Carolina than the 60% it typically gives those candidates.

We will find out for sure on March 15.

March 15 is when Ohio and Florida vote. Both states reflect America at large and have much more establishment friendly GOP primaries. The votes in these states should reflect the vote in almost all of the states outside the South (and some small plains states), which states easily decide the primary no matter what the South does. Hence, March 15 will tell us who will win the primary.

Right now, it looks like we are headed either for a Trump v. Rubio March 15th, or a Trump v. Cruz V. Rubio March 15. (Kasich may hang in as well, but he won’t be relevant outside of Ohio). I suspect the result will be a 60/40 establishment win over the fringe. If that is the case, then Rubio will win the nomination. If the result is closer to 50/50 (like New Hampshire), then Trump wins the nomination. It should be that simple.

In the meantime, watch for despair to set in as Trump and Cruz win primary after primary as we next go through the theological states in the South with the SEC and Texas primaries coming March 1. These states gave Santorum 60% to 39% wins in 2012 and they should go for Trump or Cruz again in the same margin. Unfortunately, the short-term-thinking, always-sensationalizing media will assume that each of these victories will mean that Trump/Cruz has made some surprising victory that represents the views of the nation rather than realizing that this is just the Trump/Cruz stronghold in the electorate.

Anyways, ignore these states as bellwethers. Where these states matter will be in deciding whether Cruz or Trump ultimately gets to be the fringe’s champion. These states should decide it, but I’m betting they don’t. I’m betting that Trump will win most, but Cruz will win just enough (especially with Texas in the mix) that he will stay in the race.

All told, I stand by my prediction of an establishment (Rubio... formerly Bush) victory.

Thoughts?

About that Doritos Ad

By Kit

A week and a half-ago was the Super Bowl. Which means, once again, the American people were forced to endure an onslaught of ads as we indulged in the ad makers’ pretense that these were the best they, or anyone, could create. While no doubt some were good there were quite a few that were dreadful, such as the unholy abomination from hell that was the Puppymonkeybaby. The American people deserve better after enduring such a horror.

But the most controversial ad of the night was the Doritos’ ad featuring a mother getting her first ultra-sound with her stereotypically schlub of a husband next to her munching on, what else, Doritos chips. Soon, the baby on the ultrasound starts grabbing for the chips and the husband, who finds this amusing, moves one back and forth over the (now annoyed) woman’s pregnant stomach with the baby moving within the stomach trying to reach for the chips. The mother eventually grabs one of the chips and tosses it away and the baby, using his legs, jumps out of the woman’s stomach, thus ending the ad to the cue of the mother’s the doctor’s, and the father’s mass of horrified screams.

It was a dumb ad.

But that is not what made it “controversial.” No, what made it controversial was that NARAL Pro-Choice (originally, “National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws”) sent out a tweet attacking the ad for using the “anti-choice tactic” of “humanizing fetuses”. Yep. They also attacked the “Ryanville” ad for being sexist because it depicted three women being distracted by the dreamy good looks of Ryan Reynolds.

Anyway, one has to find their objection to the Doritos ad rather interesting, “humanizing fetuses”.

At 17 weeks the baby, who has already grown teeth and can turn his or her head, begins to dream, at 25 weeks, a little more than halfway through the pregnancy, he is growing baby fat, and at 30 he can follow a light source.

And at 20 weeks, the point where you can determine your child’s sex, he can feel pain. Which means that people might be turned off by abortion when they hear those facts laid next to Anthony Kennedy’s description of the very technical-sounding Dilation and Evacuation Abortion: “the fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb. The fetus can be alive at the beginning of the dismemberment process and can survive for a time while its limbs are being torn off."

And he feels it.

One can easily see why NARAL would rather we ignore this little fact. They would rather we pretend that abortion is “like going to the dentist” and that the unborn child is, instead of a human being, nothing more than a glob of cells. But ultrasounds have thoroughly disproved this point, even if the results are not as glaring as those in the commercial. We throw baby shows and chatter about what are unborn child can do at this week, at the same time calling it a "baby," while we "terminate" the "inconvenient" ones. How will can such a national cognitive dissonance continue?

Anyway, all this mess succeeded in doing was getting Doritos a bit more coverage for an ad that should probably have been forgotten as just another a dopey Super Bowl commercial. All because NARAL desperately wants to avoid the fact that they advocate the killing of human beings. NARAL probably would’ve been better off using Puppymonkeybaby as a jumping-off-point to push their evil views. Even I might’ve been persuaded a little by that one (only might and only a little).

Purple Trending Red

Short one today. American elections are often viewed as a pendulum. I don't like this thinking because it implies that the electorate will always swing back and forth and that's not true. The country swung left in the 1930s and didn't swing back until the 1980s. Since that time, it's stayed right until Obama, who had a chance to move it left forever, but he blew it. Anyways, right now it appears that we're swinging right again... sort of.

At the end of the W Bush debacle, the country ran about as far left as the current crop of citizens seemed able to go. States that had long been considered solidly conservative, like Virginia and Colorado, were now reliably Democratic and places like California, which was competitive in the 1980's was so far left that conservative candidates were essentially jousting windmills. This was when Obama took over. And if not for his arrogance and his petulance, the country likely would have gone through a generational leftward realignment.

But Obama blew it. He angered and scared the public and did things that reminded the public why leftist policies will destroy their wealth, their peace and their security. A shift to the right began.

Between 2010 and 2014, the electorate drifted back toward the right. There is now evidence that this drift is changing the political landscape. Not only do Republicans control most states at the state level, but polls are showing that many purple states are drifting red and blue states are drifting purple. Specifically, according to Gallup, when Obama won in 2008, 35 states were solidly Democratic or leaning Democratic. But by the end of 2015, things had changed. By the end of 2015, only 12 states were solidly Democratic or leaned Democratic. That's a loss of 23 states the Democrats once held. At the same time, the GOP now holds 20 states which are solidly Republican or leaned Republican. Here's the list:

Democratic: California, New York, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, New Mexico and Vermont.

Republican: Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, South Caroline, Utah, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Alaska, Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Indiana, Mississippi, West Virginia and New Hampshire.

This is a significant change and it represents a real lifeline for the Republicans. Had the 2008 trend continued, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan would be solidly Democratic with Ohio and Florida trending that way. That would doom any Republican candidate and would keep control of the Senate in Democratic hands. Instead, the GOP now controls the Senate and looks to keep it, and the GOP candidate has a genuine chance of victory -- something more important than ever now that The Pillow Shoppe has murdered Justice Scalia. Keeping this trend going and exploiting it will take more than the current crop of candidates seems to have the ability for, but fortune may still smile on the GOP in November through no credit of their own.

Thoughst?

My Vote Is My Right To Complain

There are few things that get me faster onto my high horse than seemingly intelligent people who gleefully exclaim that they do not vote in Presidential elections. Especially those who set themselves up as an staunch conservative makers of opinion. But this is the single-most stupid sentence I have ever read. When asked by a follower who he was considering in the primary...

.@igerner none of them. I haven't vote for a presidential candidate since 1984 and I won't this year either.

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) February 13, 2016

When I read that my head began to spin around and the green soup was about to spew forth.

@iowahawkblog @TurtledoveJB if you don't vote, you give up your right to complain...period.

— BevfromNYC (@BevfromNYC) February 13, 2016

I vote specifically so that I CAN complain. And as you know, I do it loudly and proudly.

But this is what confounds me. I have casually followed him since the early days of Big Hollywood. He spends countless hours wittily admonishing his readers and Twitter followers in an endless stream of who we should and should not vote. He has an opinion about every candidate and every issue. But in that one tweet, all of his opinions and witty political reparte became just so much hot air and meaningless noise because he does not vote. Which translates to me that he is not brave enough to cast his vote and be wrong.

But then showing his true ignorance of history, he went on:

.@TurtledoveJB They also died for my right not to vote.

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) February 13, 2016

He fails to recognize that those who died to win him that right to vote that he so arrogantly throws away, all died not having the right to vote.

I am not saying that the act of voting is the solution to all of our problems. But when people so cavalierly toss aside their right to vote and deem it a worthless exercise, what other rights will they be willing toss aside as worthless because they are just too lazy or scared.

Idiot Grade Paranoia

OMG! Justice Scalia was murdered by a pillow! No... wait. He was killed by Russian Terminator Robots which snuck across the Mexican border to stop him from stopping Obama from stopping the government from deporting illegal Mexican pedophiles!!

Ug. Why do so many people insist on going full retard?

Repeat after me... NO ONE KILLED Justice Scalia.

There are no terminator robots. Real robots can barely even walk.

Mexico is out of Mexicans. The 11 million who are here illegally represent only 3% of the country.

Donald Trump is a douche bag.

Russia is a paper tiger.

Cops are not hunting black men.

Back on this Scalia thing. It is highly, highly unlikely that the Republicans will refuse to confirm Obama's nominee. It's just too hard politically to deny a President a high profile nominee for 10 months. It's possible, but it seems unlikely. When talk radio whines that the GOP needs to do this, they are blowing hard.

Ok. Back to it.

Repeat after me... Kanye West is a douche bag.

No one is spying on me. I'm not that important.

Ranchers who try to steal federal land are not heroes.

Putin is a douche bag. He and Trump and Kanye should have a convention.

China is a paper tiger. It will never surpass the US.

I think it's pathetic that the NFL-covering "media" is obsessed with destroying Peyton Manning to defend Tom Brady. If the public bought this crap, then tell me why Manning stars in dozens of commercials and Brady only appears in one national campaign.

No one killed Justice Scalia!
No one.
Not even a pillow.

Stay off Drudge drugs, it will make you stupid.

On second thought. Just for fun. Why doesn't everyone spin their stupidest conspiracy theories involving Scalia's death!

The Oscars: Hoisted By Their Own Petard

This whole thing about the Oscars being racist has been a joy to watch. This is liberal on liberal crime of the highest order and it’s hilarious to watch them stumble and spew and sputter all over each other. Here are some of the more entertaining and interesting moments.

This whole debate about the Oscars began when Jade Pinkett decided she was going to boycott the Oscars because her husband didn’t get nominated for his flop Concussion because she discovered that no black people were nominated for any of the high visibility awards – there are blacks and Hispanics nominated for lower profile awards.

This quickly spread to three or four other race obsessed liberals, and soon the Academy was surrendering and asking to be punished. Well, here are a couple things to realize:

● Nothing But Liberals: Make no mistake, all these people who are pointing the accusing finger of racism are smug liberals. What’s more, they are pointing their accusing fingers at people who are themselves smug, progressive liberals who assume they are incapable of being racist. This is all liberal on liberal, and that’s awesome. Indeed, it’s made all the more awesome that these liberals assume that they can’t be racist but everyone else is inherently racist. snicker snicker

Even worse, this would have been avoided if they weren’t all liberals. Why? Because everyone else in America knows that if you’re going to select a group of anything, you need some token minorities or you will be burned in effigy for being a racist by these same liberals. Hence, it is ironically hilarious that these liberals failed to do that.

This is exactly like catching a televangelist snorting coke with a naked, underage male prostitute.

● Failed Excuse - Let’s Be Rational: Equally ironically, these same intolerant liberals who would never accept any explanation other than an admission of racism have tried to offer various justifications. A couple Brits, including Charlotte Rampling and Michael Caine have tried to point out that the current crop of black films simply aren’t deserving. As if these same liberals would accept IBM saying, “Well, we just couldn’t find any qualified black people.” No, that doesn’t wash with liberals.

● Failed Excuse - I Have Black Friends: Steven Spielberg came out today and pointed out that the explanation can’t be racism because a couple years back the Oscars did nominate a black film or two. This is the equivalent of “I’ve had black friends” and liberals never accept this. To them, a charge of racism cannot be defused by showing a prior history which lacks racism.

● Failed Excuse - Black People Said I Could: Stallone has tried to excuse his participation in this Hollywood Klan rally by claiming that he called the minority writer of his film Creed and volunteered to stay home if said brown person didn’t want him going. Fortunately for Stallone, his dark friend told him that he could go. Hence, he was forgiven in advance. LOL! Yeah, this one doesn’t work either. Many alleged racists have pointed out that they consulted minority advisors and were given the okay, but liberals don’t care. It’s your actions that matter, not your intentions (unless we’re talking about murder or selling drugs or earning respect through achievement... then only the intention they attribute to you matters).

● Failed Excuse - We’re All Africans: One of the highlights has come from Meryl Streep, who first gained infamy for promoting junk science. In fact, the term “the Steeping of Science” became a thing because of this dingbat. Well, in the middle of all of it, Streep tried to defuse the situation by making the silly claim that “we’re all Africans originally.” LOL! Good one. This is like the unicorn fart version of “but I have black friends.” Indeed, if we accepted this bit of logic, then I can use the n-word because I’m technically black. What’s more, that pretty much means that claims of racism are false since we’re all black now. Nice try, Meryl.

I am loving the irony in all of this. Liberals did what most people do: they voted based on merit* and they failed to account for the whininess of black racial agitators who disdain merit for guaranteed representation. These agitators then attacked, which is where these same liberals usually jumped on the bandwagon. Once on the bandwagon, they typically shot down the very rational arguments these liberals now are advancing to defend themselves and they did so with utter smugness. The irony in that is delicious... this is Kafka-grade irony.

Finally, with the Oscars surrendering now, the deck will be stacked in favor of minorities in the future. Sadly for them, this raises the question of merit. Once everyone knows the deck is stacked, then any achievement thereafter becomes suspect: was it based on merit or was it an affirmative action vote? Hence, in solving this invented problem of Hollywood racism, the black racists and their liberal enablers will make it that much harder for minority talent to prove their merit through awards.


* I used the word merit, but I don’t think it was a merit vote. Looking at the nominees, I get the sense that the designated PC winner this year was going to be the transsexual film The Danish Girl. I would have guessed the film would have won eight or nine awards in a “stunning night.” But the black racist faction has upset this. I wonder if Hollywood will go through with this and give The Danish Girl their political stamp of approval or if this protest has disrupted that?

Thoughts?

AHHHHHHH! (Updated)

It's time for a primal scream before moving to the next phase of this crazy election cycle.

Okay, now that that is over...nope, I still feel like screaming. At least the field is thinning. That's something.

In: Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Kasich, Bush, and Gilmore.
Out: Fiorina, Christie.

Otherwise, I got nothing. The floor is open...Oh, wait...

Yesterday at Sylvia's in Harlem. Bernie made a special trip just to have an audience with Al Sharpton.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Oh, and take this as your final warning: Valentine's Day is Sunday.

History Repeating...

What happened last night has happened before.

2008

● Hillary Clinton: //tears couch cushion apart with her teeth Ahhhhhh!! Who is this uppity young negro? I’ve never heard of him? Where the hell did he come from?!

● Bill Clinton: He’s from Chicago.

● Hillary Clinton: Shut up, Bill! Nobody asked you. This unknown bastard has destroyed my campaign. I’m supposed to be inevitable. I’m the next in line! I’m the God damn queen of the universe! This is the year of the f***ing woman and I’m the only woman in the damn race! How can this black bastard do this to me?!

● Bill Clinton: Honestly, your campaign isn’t that good.

● Hillary Clinton: I said shut the hell up, Bill! Nobody asked you!

● Bill Clinton: Fine, I’m gonna go sleep with your interns.

● Hillary Clinton: Yeah, you do that you syphilis colony. Humma?! Get in here!

● Humma: Yes, ‘Madame President’?

● Hillary Clinton: We need to destroy this Barry Obama creature.

● Humma: Destroy?

● Hillary Clinton: He mocks me! He mocks me and I shall have him. I’ll chase him ‘round the states of America and ‘round the electoral Maelstrom and ‘round perdition’s flames before I let him defeat me. To the last, I will grapple with thee, Barack... from Hell’s heart I stab at thee. For hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee!

● Humma: //swallows hard

● Hillary Clinton: We need to humanize me again. Last time, I baked f***ing cookies. God damn f***ing cookies. What do we do this time?

● Humma: You could kiss a puppy.

● Hillary Clinton: Kill a puppy? What’s a puppy? Oh never mind. I know what I’ll do. I want you to fire all my disloyal staffers. Go through the office and cull the ones who don’t support us.

● Humma: How do I know who they are?

● Hillary Clinton: //looks out window with evil eye Peer into their souls like I do. They’re the ones who don’t grovel enough. pauses I will win this Humma. No black man is going to stand in my way. I’m inevitable.


2016

● Hillary Clinton: //tears metal desk apart with her bare hands Ahhhhhh!! Who is this uppity old fart? I’ve never heard of him? Where the hell did he come from?!

● Bill Clinton: He’s from Vermont.

● Hillary Clinton: Shut up, Bill! Nobody asked you. This unknown bastard has destroyed my campaign. I’m supposed to be inevitable. I’m the next in line! I’m the God damn queen of the universe! This is the year of the f***ing woman again and I’m the only woman in the damn race! How can this old bastard do this to me?!

● Bill Clinton: Honestly, your campaign isn’t that good.

● Hillary Clinton: I said shut the hell up, Bill! Nobody asked you!

● Bill Clinton: Fine, I’m gonna go sleep with your interns.

● Hillary Clinton: Yeah, you do that you disease breeder. Humma?! Get in here!

● Humma: Yes, ‘Madame President’?

● Hillary Clinton: We need to destroy this Bernie Sanders creature.

● Humma: Destroy?

● Hillary Clinton: He mocks me! He mocks me and I shall have him. I’ll chase him ‘round the states of America and ‘round the electoral Maelstrom and ‘round perdition’s flames before I let him defeat me. To the last, I will grapple with thee, Bernie... from Hell’s heart I stab at thee. For hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee!

● Humma: //swallows hard Not again.

● Hillary Clinton: We need to humanize me. Get me a puppy, I’m going to do something human to it.

● Humma: Like what?

● Hillary Clinton: I don’t know... whatever you do to one of those things.

● Humma: Yes, ‘Madame President.’

● Hillary Clinton: Wait! I have a better idea. Let’s castrate and fire all my disloyal staffers. Go through the office and cull the ones who don’t support us. Peer into their souls, Humma. Make those with the blackest hearts pay for their treachery.

● Humma: You want me to kill the blacks?

● Hillary Clinton: //looks out window with evil eye Do as I say. Avenge me. Fear will keep the campaign in line. Do it now. I must be inevitable. No old man is going to stand in my way.

Women And The Draft

Once again, we find ourselves at a crossroads waiting breathlessly for the result of today's New Hampshire primary. While we wait I have a couple topic to dwell on while we wait.

Well this is something that feminists never expected. Last week, top Marine and Army generals stated that women should have to register for the draft as the integration of women in combat rolls proceeds. LINK

Just last week, a bill was introduced that would require women to register at the age of 18 just like men - Legislation introduced to require women to register for the draft

Well, all I can say is, it's about freakin' time! For years I have been saying this - if women really want full equality, they should be required to register for the military draft at 18 years old just like every man is required. Now, in all honesty, the reality that we would ever activate a real conscription military is slim, but why shouldn't women have to resister even if symbolically as a true sign of equality?

It is not the first time that drafting women has come up. With little internet research, I found out that during WWII, the idea was seriously on the table. With a shortage of nurses, it was seriously considered that single women without children should be available for conscription - LINK

But this is the 21st Century and if women really want full equality then that means registering for potential military concription.

On a relate note, the first woman who has been resister as a combat engineer has been designated as a deserter...LINK This is what "equality" looks like, folks.

Let's discuss...

Rampant Stupidity

I don’t have a particular article for a number of reason, many of which come down to me watching the Super Bowl. Nevertheless, I have a few things I’d like to mention.

● Race & Cam Newton: During Super Bowl week, I was saddened that Cam Newton suggested that part of the criticism aimed at him is the result of his race. This isn’t true. Yes, there is a lot of nasty, unwarranted and false criticism aimed at Newton, but I don’t see any of it having a racial component. If anything, there is a generational component. Indeed, much of the criticism seems to be centered around Cam acting in a way that differs than the older, more staid quarterbacks of the last couple generations (he’s like a throwback to the guys from the 60’s and 70’s). More accurately, however, this is just trolls doing what they always do – making themselves feel better by spewing hate and idiocy at better people.

What troubles me is that Cam reached for the race explanation when none of it even suggests a racial component. Newton is a role model and as such, I would hope that he would be much more careful about accepting such a dangerous and controversial explanation without at least some justification. Indeed, isn’t it funny that we are cautioned not to assume that Islam was a motivating factor when Islamic terrorists killed non-Muslims and claimed they did it in an Islamic jihad, yet it’s acceptable for a black quarterback to blame racism as the basis for criticism of conduct that many people simply consider unsportsmanlike and without a hint of anyone suggesting a racial component to their thinking.

● Race & Beyonce: Bizarrely, Beyonce decided to perform a song at the Super Bowl halftime which supports Black Lives Matter and which includes the line “stop shooting us.” My response is simple. We aren’t shooting you. You are shooting each other. What’s more, if anyone has a grievance, it’s whites being killed by black thugs. Why don’t you care about that?

● A Hostile Press: I’ve been fascinating watching the NFL-centric media doing their best of late to destroy the NFL. It’s really become an obsessively, paranoid adversarial relationship. Indeed, the media obsesses over the issue of concussions, their view that the NFL is unfairly trying to destroy Tom Brady, is covering up for Peyton Manning’s supposed use of human growth hormone, etc. Seriously, the coverage has long ago left the realm of reporting or even advocacy reporting and slipped firmly into a realm that is vaguely similar to when an obsessed loser wants the world to know that their ex-significant other is worse than Hitler.

This has been fascinating to watch, particularly as it compares to the political media and their relationship to politics. Read a site like Huffpo or watch MSNBC and you see a similar obsessiveness with the focus on the absolute destruction of their mortal enemies, i.e. anyone not on the far left. It’s frankly amazing that a group of supposed professionals could lose touch with reality so completely that they could become seething cauldrons of rage whose sole purpose is to destroy people they have been hired to report upon.

I wonder if this is how groups like the Nazis develop secret police so easily?

● A New Species: I have been wondering about this Zika virus. Is this how evolution works perhaps? I can easily see this thing spreading to the point that it becomes ubiquitous. Add to that, that we don’t know yet what will happen when the affected children have their own children. But it’s quite easy, frankly, to see this leading to a permanent change in humanity. Interesting thought. Interesting too how quickly it could work this change. Rather than being a slow process that takes tens of thousands of years and hundreds of generations, this thing could change half the world in only a generation or two.

● Bush: Jeb made a point that needs to be shot down. He whined that he could drop his pants and the media would still ignore him. The implication is that a candidacy depends on the press because the press decides how much exposure a candidate gets.

The thing is, Trump has proven that’s not true. Trump, like Reagan (and that’s the only time I’ll ever compare those two men), has shown that a candidate can make themselves relevant by being relevant. In other words, if you are compelling, the media will give you the following you need whether they want to or not because they simply cannot afford to ignore you. So my response to Bush is that this just highlights how poor he is as a candidate.

I will also add that ironically, Billionaire Trump’s rise and Bush’s failure has proven that money does not control politics, as the Democrats want to believe. Being compelling brings coverage and interest and an audience whether you spend money or not (Trump hasn’t). And conversely, money cannot save you from being worthless as a candidate (as Bush’s futile spending has shown).

Thoughts?

Open Thread

Once again I find myself without a clear thought and without the time to form one. So, let this be a day for free-form thoughts and comments on the subjects of your choice.

Starting....now.

Idiots Out Wandering Around: IOWA

Here are my thoughts on Iowa and what this means. Interestingly, it seems likely to have cleared up the GOP race while hopelessly muddling the Democratic Race.

The Republicans

● Rubio: The Real Winner. I would dare say this wins the election for Rubio. The question for Rubio has always been whether or not he can capture the establishment vote. So far, that hasn’t been clear. This election, in very hostile territory, proved that he can. Not only did he score 23% in a state where he should have scored single digits, but his competition all scored very, very low single digits. That will kill all the other potential establishment candidates. So look for the establishment to consolidate behind him, which means donors and about 60% of primary voters will now switch to Rubio. That also means my analysis early in the year will hold true and he will win the nomination.

● Trump: The Biggest Loser. Trump’s campaign has been about smoke and mirrors. He’s projected the idea that some silent, angry majority existed out there waiting for a champion, and that this army of people would carry him to the White House. Even the polls helped support that idea with Trump showing as much as 43% support. But Trump’s distant second place showing (in a very Trumpy state) shatters the myth. It shows that his army of supporters either doesn’t exist or is too lazy to turn out, and they aren’t taking him anywhere. At this point, look for Trump to collapse rather quickly as the “Palin fringe” abandons him to find a “reel ‘merikan” who can destroy the RINO menace – most likely Cruz.

● Cruz: Winner. Cruz won because he beat Trump. But I hesitate to call Cruz a winner because Cruz is only a winner to the extent that he has won the crown of being the “anybody but ___” candidate of the fringe. That means he will win the southern states, but that’s about it. Even then, he still will need to fend of Trump for a few more rounds before Trump completely collapses.

● Carson: Loser. Carson’s fall from grace is complete. The fringe fell for him when they saw him as an Obama-attacking black man. But novelty acts rarely have staying power and with his background proving shaky, he mouth prone to gaffes, and his campaign being underfunded and disorganized, he’s finished, even as a VP contender.

● Paul: Loser. Paul has become forgettable. With the establishment and the fringe picking their champions, there’s just no room left for him.

● Bush: Loser. Bush’s campaign died in the summer, but he must have missed the memo. The election nailed the memo to his forehead. He will now be cut off from donors and his campaign is dead, whether he believes it or not.

● Christie: Loser. Christie was always a hard sell and it struck me that he was only relevant as an alternate if all the other moderates imploded. Rubio didn’t and so his role is over. His campaign is dead.

● Fiorina: Loser. She excited no one and now she’s finished. She likely didn’t even earn consideration as VP with her 1.86% performance.

● Kasi-hucka-torum-ilmore: Losers. With apologies to Animal House... 1.86%, 1.79%, 0.95%... 0.01%. Fat dumb and stupid is no way to go through life boys. Go back to your day jobs.

The Democrats

● Hillary: Loser. Ms. Inevitable has once again fallen flat on her face in Iowa. Last time, this led to fake tears, bringing out Bill, and then utter collapse as Obama mopped the floor with her. It’s unlikely the same will happen with old man Trotsky, but the fact that it seems possible has triggered every warning signal the Democrats have. By barely squeaking past a gag candidate, Hillary has shown that she cannot connect to voters, inspires no loyalty or enthusiasm, and can’t even organize a solid ground game. She is incompetent as a candidate in every possible way. This election will evoke all the doubts about her and send the Democrats into a frenzy to replace her.

Even worse, Sanders has inadvertently or intentionally raised some good questions about the result last night, which means that Hillary will find herself awash in conspiracy theory (something people already want to believe about her), which may backlash against her with the very voters she needs should she ultimately win.

● Sanders: Winner. Sanders came within a hair of beating Ms. Inevitable, and in the process he totally de-pantsed Hillary when it came to young voters. What he did was expose Hillary’s utter lack of competence. In so doing, he continued to buy himself a right to continue until Hillary proves that she can slaughter him. If she can’t prove that over the next few states, he suddenly becomes a very viable replacement for the failed Hillary.

● O’Malley: Loser. O’Malley came as close to humanly possible to getting negative support. That confirms that he has no draw, no ability to replace a fallen candidate, and no ability to act as spoiler. In other words, he’s electorally useless. His campaign was dead on announcement and remains dead.

● The Mystery Outsider: Winner. The Democrats are in a panic today. It looks like Hillary should still squeak to victory, but has proven that she’s an awful candidate which no serious party should run. That opens the door to a mystery candidate with some stature to jump in, especially as the alternatives to Hillary are even less electable. This is the time to jump in if your name is Cuomo, Biden, Bloomberg, Warren, or ???. Indeed, this is the chance to be seen as the party savior and to find near total support swinging your way almost overnight.

In Defense Of Barbie From a 1st Wave Humanist

While we are waiting from the results of the Iowa Caucus to roll in, I just want have a minor rant-lette about 2nd wave feminists. I do not know why, but my views on women's issues come down to two misunderstood icons - Scarlett O'Hara and Barbie. Let's leave Scarlett for another day and focus on Barbie.

And as we all know, Barbie has been a sore spot for 2nd wave feminists for years because of her measurements. They all obsess endlessly about how Barbie is the root of all anti-feminist evil making little girls feel bad about themselves because if she were a real human woman, her measurement would be something like 41/14/32. Who could ever compete right?

But let's go to the wayback machine. [Cue: sound effects] I was born 3 months before Barbie was introduced to the world, so it is safe to say, I have grown up in the shadow of Barbie as an icon. Yes, in the beginning, Barbie was a fashion model with out-of-proportion measurement and plenty of clothes and accessories with which little girls could spend hours and hours playing. Yes, she was a "high fashion" model who travelled our imaginary world being pretty. She was also the first adult woman doll made for little girls to play with. Don't hold me to that historical fact though.

We all played with Barbie and had a little Barbie clothes cartel in my neighborhood where my little girl friends and I would meet and share our Barbie fashions. Sometime in the '60's Mattel introduced "career" Barbie dolls. First she was a high fashion model with a stewardess uniform, then came a nurse, pilot, doctor, and astronaut. We did not see Barbie as a sex object with a wildly proportioned body and frankly, no one liked Ken. We saw her as a woman who could be an astronaut!

This all leads me to what happened last week. Maybe you missed the big announcement from Mattel, but Barbie got a makeover. I'm not talking about a new dream house or career. I am talking about Barbie going into extensive therapy and coming out all P.C.'ed up -

New improved P.C./Feminist Barbie.

Not Barbie the astronaut, pilot, or doctor, but Barbie the "curvy", "tall", and "original" mean-girl fashion model again. 2nd wave feminists have focused on the wrong problem. So it's not her proportions they should be upset about. It's that she's back to the '50's version of a woman who can only derive her self-esteem from the way she looks and not what she can achieve.

Now on to the Iowa causus results...

9:45pm EST - Cruz (27k+) to Trump(22+) with Rubio (20+) not far behind with full votes. Clinton delegates counted (433) leads Sanders (416) barely. 1% reporting...