Random Thoughts On Dictators

Yo! Long day. I didn't have time to put together an article, so let me share some thoughts about dictators. I've been watching a documentary on Papa Doc Duvalier recently, some stuff on Hitler and some stuff on Stalin (quit Stalin and get on with it! :) ). And here are some thoughts about liberals in particular as well.

1. Dictatorship is the herd instinct gone wrong in the extreme.

2. It is impossible to control another person... not a stranger, not an employee, not a friend, not a spouse, not a child. You can contain them for a while and you can make them pretend to be controlled when you're looking, but actual control is an illusion. And the more you try, the more they resist. This is why oppressive regimes always fall and why government control always fails.

3. You can't change humanity. We are creatures of our evolution and we don't change. So when your goal is to make humanity something it is not, you've already failed. Socialism, Communism, Religion, Political Correctness... none of it has been able to remake humanity. The only thing that changes humanity is experience, and even those aren't fundamental changes.

4. Judging a person on their personality rather than their actions is stupid, but it's also very liberal. Papa Doc took control in Haiti with the full support of leftist/liberal journalists because they thought he seemed like a nice guy. They were shocked SHOCKED when he started having people beheaded. This is why liberals should never be allowed any say in power. They overlooked the fact that Duvalier decided to form his own secret police because they assumed he was nice. They ignored the fact these were murderers recruited out of prison because they assumed he was nice. They ignored his harassment and murder of opponents because they assumed he was nice and wanted to do good things. By the time he had killed all his enemies and bathed with their severed heads, it finally sunk in to these liberals that he was bad. Idiots. Judge a man by his actions, not your fondest wishes for who he is deep down.

5. Ever notice that dictators kill their friends? The official line is that they worry these people might challenge them. I suspect the reality is that their friends remind them that they really can't control other people and that becomes an obsession.

6. Dictators lie. They set up fake elections. They create false economic data. They invent excuses to murder their opponents. This is why truth is so important, Farrell, and why you can't say, "well, everybody lies."

7. It amazes me how sentimental liberals get about dictators. In Cuba, many liberals point to the ice cream parlors as a reason to love Castro. They routinely fall for photogenic images. They fall for flashy wardrobes. They fall for roguish sexual behavior. Are these really reasons to overlook the murders, the oppression and the destruction?

8. Ever notice that it isn't the intellectuals who take over after a socialist revolution? It's typically the most brutal thugs and peasants who float to the top. Then they ship the intellectuals to the gulags.

9. Did you ever notice that after authoritarians fall out of favor, liberals try to dismiss them all as deviants and psychological weirdos. I guess it's hard to accept that ideas you loved so much turned out to be evil.

Thoughts?

Alright, Let's Ease Back Into This Thing...

How was everyone's Thanksgiving? Good, I trust? Here are some easy random thoughts to stretch your mind and get you back into the week.

● Viva La Dictator: Castro died. Good. He never amounted to much more than a murderous thug. I would rank him with the likes of Idi Amin, Robert Mugabe, Kim Il Sung, Papa Doc Duvalier, Saddam Hussein. As always, the left loved him because he was photogenic and spoke in idealistic terms as he rounded up his enemies and put the torch to the institutions that made his country run. But hey, he did create an ice cream store where anyone could get cheap ice cream, so he wasn't all bad. Let them eat ice cream as Cuba burns...

● Colin Crapernick: Kapernick praised Castro for his education policy. Interesting. So should we praise Hitler for his highway policy or his policy on women in the workforce? Stalin for his emphasis on science? Mao for his policy on leaping forward? Idiot. Do yourself a favor, Colin: STFU until you actually learn something.

● Ha ha, wrong: Amazon is running these tolerance commercials, like the one with the Muslim and the Catholic praying together and then buying each other knee pads so they could pray more easily. Oh, how special. Anyways, they have a new one involving some kid who looks like a girl and is dressed like a girl, but apparently is male, but surprisingly isn't accepted by the other kids. The commercial describes him as "shy." Gee, I wonder why he's shy? Anyways, his neutered father buys him a superman costume and suddenly the kids gather around him happily. So is the message that commercialism makes you popular? Should we judge people on what they wear or own? Or is it that dressing your kid like the wrong sex is pathetic and the kid is better off dressed in a fantasy costume? Not sure, but none of this seems like the point they wanted to make. And why does the kid looks like Danny from The Shining?

REDRUM REDRUM!!

● Speaking of Wrong: Covergirl is using some "male" model in their ads. It's an obnoxious ad and the "male" looks like a freak and acts like a freaky drag queen. It grossed out my daughters. This is not the way to do whatever the heck they were trying to do. Yada yada tolerance freak you out beatches! Tolerance! TOLERANCE! BUY OUR SH*T YOU INTOLERANT BASTARDS!!!

● Black Friday Is A Mistake: Several deaths nationwide from Black Friday. The problem is that something that encourages people to fight and act crazy in public will draw out people who want to fight and act crazy or who don't have the values not to act like animals. Encouraging that is stupid.

● Not As Good: I don't like the new Most Interesting Man in the World as much as the last. This one seems to lack the class of the last. The commercial they've given him also seems a tad condescending and not very clever. If this one came first, I don't think the campaign would have caught on.

● Warm Up Stretches: All right, to get you back into things, let's do some warmups. I'll have some good things to say about Trump later in the week. But I think his spokeswoman is a disaster. She needs to STFU about Romney and stop shooting off without thinking. Also, who knew the Green Party worked for Clinton? So much for any credibility they have. Oddly, Obama has finally been acting like a President lately. Too bad for him he didn't start earlier... he might have a legacy other than his race.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone! It's starting to look like we have a lot to be thankful for in the political world this year. Yay! Hopefully, things are going as well for each of you personally! :)

For those not in the celebratory spirit, let me ask the following:

1. Do you really have a favorite color or does your choice of a favorite color depend on what is being colored? Blue for this... brown for that... green for that other thing.

2. What is your favorite word apart from the meaning of the word?

3. Isn't it interesting that some music can calm you while other music makes your blood pump? What is your favorite song in each category?

4. Why aren't conservatives using the ballot process to get blue state Colorado to split its electoral votes proportionally?

5. It's funny. The NFL just did a game in Mexico City. The leftist ESPN announcers were all but cheering for the crowd to boo during the American anthem. They didn't... they cheered. It's the same way they turned a handful of anthem protestors into a vast movement that was growing each week even as their numbers shrank. It should come as no surprise that ESPN's outside watchdog has reported that ESPN has moved far left in their coverage. In response, an ESPN anchor actually said, "It's not about being left or right, it's about being correct." Yeah, no bias there.

6. Speaking of the left... the NFL turned Monday's game into a bit of "Americans and Mexicans are like brothers" theater. Yet, the left hates the NFL. Disney presents a happy inclusive view of history as well. Yet, the left hates Disney. Isn't that interesting? The left hates companies that present an inclusive view of the world.

Thoughts?

For The Record...Again

Since it is once again the anniversary of the assassination of John Kennedy, I am updating a 2013 post on the same subject since, well, nothing it has changed...

Today is the 53rd Anniversary of the Assassination of President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. As a native of Dallas, I always feel the need to set the record straight just in case you are one of those who believes that "Dallas killed Kennedy". You would be surprised how many people do. So, for the record, one more time... I had nothing to do with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Yes, I was in Dallas, but I was 4 years old and probably taking a nap. There I said it. it wasn't me. I know you may think that it goes without saying, but growing up in the specter of the assassination and guilt that has been foisted on Dallas that has followed these 50+ years, you may be able to understand the guilt I may or may not carry. But really, I wasn't involved. With that out of the way, I also have no direct memories of the assassination either [naptime, remember?].

All that out of the way, I can admit now that I have spent many years wondering why Dallas has been held responsible rather than one lone Marxist assassin named Lee Harvey Oswald. Other cities have hosted assassins:

Washington D.C:

- President Abraham Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth on April 14, 1865 (died April 15, 1865).
- President James A. Garfield was shot by Charles Guiteau on July 2, 1881 (died September 19, 1881).

Buffalo, New York:

- William McKinley was shot by Leon Czolgosz on September 4, 1901 (died September 14, 1901) in Buffalo, New York.

Yet, neither of these cities has been held responsible. But then, the shooting in Dallas was different and I finally understand why. In each of the other shootings, it was obvious who did the shooting. Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley were all shot at close range and their assassins were caught almost in the act. Boothe was killed, but he was clearly the assassin having shot Lincoln in full view of an audience of a theatre audience at Ford's Theatre during a performance of "Our American Cousin". Guiteau and Czologz were tried and were brought to justice in a court of law, and both were executed. Cases closed.

Lee Harvey Oswald, on the other hand, shot Kennedy from a longer range with rifle from a window overlooking Dealey Plaza. He was arrested later in the day, but was killed by Jack Ruby before any investigation could be completed. Another unique aspect is the Zapruder film. Kennedy's assassination was the first caught on film. It isn't a stretch for me to believe that one lone, crazy gunman with a grudge could do this. There have been many unsuccessful attempts on other President throughout our history by lone gunmen (or women) yet the conspiracies persist with this one.

But what do you think?

Here are some personal fun facts from that day in Dallas: My mother worked at Parkland Hospital and was at the hospital on the day Kennedy was brought in. She was the head therapeutic dietitian and was put in charge of Gov. Connally who was also shot by Oswald. She was almost fired because she fed the Governor chili. When he was able to eat, she went to his room to ask what he would like for lunch. Mrs. Connally asked what was on the menu and she told her that they were serving Texas chili. Mrs. Connally said then that would be just fine for the Governor. Later in the day, my mother's boss, Mrs. Lively, called my mother into her office and was furious that my mother gave the Governor chili! My mother, no shrinking violet, shot back (no pun intended) that it was what he wanted! Well, she wasn't fired...

A few years later, my mother was also assigned to Jack Ruby when he was in Parkland suffering from advanced lung cancer. My mother was so paranoid that someone would try to poison Ruby that she decided that only one of her trusted cooks or she would personally make his meals. But, on January 3, 1967 she was late for work. She was driving to the hospital with the radio on when a breaking report came on that Jack Ruby has died. In a panic, she got off the highway and went to the first payphone she could find and called in. She just needed to make sure that Ruby had died BEFORE he had breakfast! He had...phew.

Truth is better than fiction, right?

Trump Transition: Still Going Well!

Some perspective on Trump appointments.

● Trump is considering a Democrat, Hillary donor as Treasury Secretary. This is Jonathan Gray, the head of Blackstone Group. What’s interesting here is that Blackstone is a real massive estate group. They hold office buildings, hotels, homes and malls all around the world. This likely represents a fundamental change of perspective from the never-ending flow of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley people who represent stock traders and deal brokers/investment bankers. I like this a lot. The real estate perspective gives Gray a perspective on the “old school” economy where average people live and work, and where the public are seen as the cogs who make the system work. By comparison, the world of Goldman Sachs is the world of financial middle men who make money no matter what happens and who see the public as resources to be milked. I think this change could matter a lot.

● According to Politico, Jeff Session’s selection as Attorney General could spark an exodus from DOJ Civil Rights Decision. Good. Seriously, if this is true, then it’s fantastic news. This is a group of race-baiters and hardcore feminists who are trying to impose their twisted views one lawsuit at a time. The bad news is that they aren’t likely to leave because they are typical bureaucrats who can’t conceive of life outside the safety of a government office. Sessions looks like a lock, by the way, despite the Democrats whining about opposing him. He will be solidly conservative.

● It looks like Trump is leaning toward retired Marine General Matthis as Secretary of Defense. That would be a fantastic pick. Matthis was the top commander in Afghanistan and wrote the manual used in Iraq to beat the insurgents. He strongly supports NATO, hates Putin and points to Iran as the biggest danger in the Middle East. He would likely be a no-nonsense leader who would do a solid job preparing America to meet the challenges of our enemies.

● The Republicans are getting an agenda ready. One of the first things they plan to do is repeal large parts of the regulations Obama has issued. They have targeted 100 regulations so far to undo. They are also looking at tax reform and undoing Obamacare early on. As an aside, one thing slowing things down will be that House Conservatives prevented Paul Ryan from passing a budget last year, so the Republicans can’t use reconciliation to avoid filibusters this first year.

● Rinse Pre-Bus on the supposed “Muslim list” the left is whining about:

“There are some people within that particular religion [Islam] that we do fear. We don’t believe in religious tests and ... are not blanketly judging an entire religion, but, in fact, we will try to pinpoint the problems and temporarily suspend those areas from coming into the United States until a better vetting system is in place. We’re going to temporarily suspend immigration from that country, or region, until a better vetting system is put in place.”

Makes sense.

Thoughts?

Media Smears And The Transition

Wow. The media is in full smear mode with Trump right now. Check this out. In the past week, I have seen the following tactics used to smear Trump:

● They associate Trump with the words (not even acts) of random individuals. "That guy said New Balance is a white supremacist shoe! This is all Trump's fault!" When no random word/act has been done to fit the narrative, they've invented "intent" and held him responsible for the intent of people who may or may not even exist. "You know that's what they're thinking, right? And it's all because of Trump."

● Treat Trump's hyperbole as literal statements and question his judgment based on that. "What does he mean, 'to the moon'? How can you punch someone to the moon? This man must be stupid." Spin gracious tweets into sarcasm and label all responses as attacks and failures to respond as "silence" (i.e admissions). "He thanked Romney for his tweet, what a nasty attack!"

● Treat the attacks of his enemies claiming to have heard hearsay from unidentified sources as if they were true. All the rumors of a transition in chaos and enemies lists are coming from anti-Trumpers who weren't hired. What's more, some of this came from Christie people who got canned when Christie got canned. Disgruntled, anyone? Pence sounds like he's done a great job cleaning that swamp, and the transition looks pretty smooth actually and the names being floated are generally high quality and happy to serve.

● Speaking of swamps. The media went ape shit when they found out there were five possible "lobbyists" being considered. "How dare he break his promise!!" (A promise they were cool with Obama breaking.) Then Pence dumped those people. Now the media has flip-flopped and is whining that he's losing expertise and that not hiring lobbyists is "dangerous."

● Remember when Trump had no idea he needed to hire his own staff! No. That's not what happened. He expressed mild surprise at the number of people who needed to be hired, which apparently no one else knew either... least of all the people using this to attack him. It's supposedly above 4,000 people according to some sources. Clinton took years to finish his staff, btw.

● The media/left have accused Trump of inspiring hate, which is actually their own hate which they are themselves fanning.

● Apparently, there are now "thousands" of women he raped. Twenty+ was overkill... this reeks of casting.

● They accuse him of being intransigent if he doesn't change and then of flip-flopping if he does. Words like "betrayal" are being tossed around in articles as settled facts even when they only think he won't follow through on a promise.

● There are an incredible number of scare tactic articles:

● Trump will take away your healthcare.
● OMG, he will deport millions of immigrants.
● He's going to something something and gays dying of AIDS and end gay marriage.
● He's encouraged white supremacists to take back America, here comes slavery!
● One of his people praised the internment of Japanese! He's going to round up Muslims!
● OMG, the stock market dropped after a week of solid gains!
● OMG, the dollar will crash and destroy America/ OMG, the dollar has risen to a 13 year high and is destroying America!
● He's going to shut down Ford and GM.
● He will destroy Medicare.
● He's going to go to war with Russia! / He's going to knuckle under to Russia!
● He's going to wipe out the EPA! / He betrayed his followers and won't shut down the EPA!
● He's going to prosecute Hillary! / He betrayed his followers and won't prosecute Hillary! / He won't tell us if he'll prosecute Hillary, how dare he not prejudge a legal issue!
● He's going to use the military to round up Mexicans! / He's planning to betray his followers and not get rid of the Mexicans!
● OMG, his "wall" is only going to be a fence in some places!
● He's going to raise the interest on your student loans... and double the amount you have through magic!
● OMG! He wants to have oil independence from Saudi Arabia! The monster! (A democratic plank for a long time.)
● He wants to waste money on infrastructure which will make our debt grow! (A democratic plank for a long time.)

And of course:

● Wahhh! His evil daughter is selling the same jewelry she wore in an interview!!!

● He went to dinner with his family when he should have been working!

● Him taking only $1 in pay is a gimmick!

● Him saying he won't take holidays is evil because... well, because he's evil!

Notice a problem here? This is called a dishonest media. And of course, in the midst of all of this, our "unbiased" media is proclaiming that they "want him to fail spectacularly" and that they "will oppose" him and "will not be silenced"... as if anyone was trying to silence these fools. Sorry, idiots, there is no bravery required to speak liberalism in the US.

Anyways, don't fall for a word they tell you unless you hear the quote directly from the administration.

NYT Mea Culpa and Other Stuff

As if the world hasn't gotten crazy enough since Nov. 8, here are a few of my observations to discuss:

New York Times Mea Culpa (sort of):

In a Nov. 11 post-election Nov. 11 post-election letter to their readers/subscribers (who they have been shedding at an alarming rate), New York Times publisher/executive editor Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger, Jr. published this:

When the biggest political story of the year reached a dramatic and unexpected climax late Tuesday night, our newsroom turned on a dime and did what it has done for nearly two years — cover the 2016 election with agility and creativity.

After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome? Most important, how will a president who remains a largely enigmatic figure actually govern when he takes office?

As we reflect on the momentous result, and the months of reporting and polling that preceded it, we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you. It is also to hold power to account, impartially and unflinchingly. You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team.

We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our readers. We want to take this opportunity, on behalf of all Times journalists, to thank you for that loyalty.

Sincerely,

Arthur Sulzberger Jr., publisher

Dean Baquet, executive editor

But the New York Post, always looking for a way to stick to the Times, found that this one sentence had been scrubbed from the original letter when posted to all readers (paying or not) on their website on Nov. 13:

“We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign.”

I know, you did a spit-take when reading that line, right? Considering that they have been all "Obama good/Republicans Bad" for 8 years and all "Trump Bad all the time" for this election cycle on their front pages and Op/Ed pages with scant reporting on Clinton issues like email, alleged Foundation/State Department co-mingling of assets and other issues. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt, right?

When questioned by the NY Post as to why that particular sentence was scrubbed from the original letter, a spokesperson responded:

A Times spokeswoman acknowledged the missing sentence, but insisted it is “no great mystery.”

“The letter was originally drafted with our subscribers in mind,” the spokeswoman said.

She said the paper made the decision to run the letter on the homepage because “we thought an honest dialogue on the issues raised by this election with all of our readers was important.”

“Given how broad the audience for the letter would be in that context,” she noted, “we removed the line to avoid it being interpreted as defensive.”

Now this sounds like the NYT had a "come to Jesus" moment, and realized that perhaps their reporting may have been just a little slanted and they just wanted to reassure their readers/subscribers that they promised to do better. Well, consider this. Trump is going to be the President on January 20th. So when they continue to report the "All Trump Bad all the time" it will because that is now real "Journalism" and they will be speaking Truth To Power.

Sanctuary Cities Bruhaha:

Apparently, come Jan. 20th, Trump is going round up all of the immigrants in the country and ship 'em all back home. Well, honestly he might try, but I doubt that it is really that easy. For background, there are 32 cities who declared themselves "sanctuary cities" which means that they refuse to report illegals (yes, I will use that term) to the INS or hold them for possible deportation hearings. In an article published by NBC News

'Sanctuary Cities' Vow to Protect Immigrants From Trump Plan New York City's Bill de Blasio, Chicago's Rahm Emanuel and Seattle's Ed Murray have declared that they will "continue a longstanding policy of refusing to hold people charged with civil infractions for federal immigration officials." Many other mayors of these "sanctuary cities" have followed suit. Of course, this is all in flagrant violation of federal laws, but whatevs.

Of course, NYC Mayor de Blasio, who is running for re-election in 2017, went a step further and threatened to scrub the data connected to our uniquely NYC ID program to protect card holders from the Feds accessing this information. Two years ago, the city began issuing free New York City ID cards so that people who did not otherwise have any ID could obtain one. The ID cannot be used for any ID outside of the city like airport security. Mainly these IDs were for our illegal immigrants so they would be able to access city services that require some form of valid ID - finding housing, get utilities, open bank accounts, and other services. And incentive was added that includes free museum memberships and other perks. Now maybe I am wrong, but scrubbing all the data would render the NYC ID useless because there would be no way of verifying the information. But I have never known De Blasio to think more than one step behind, so he probably didn't think about that.

Please share your thoughts and/or feelings...


This week

Let There Be Slavery!! Just Kidding

Interesting article today on the Colorado "slavery" issue (LINK). This article shows what's wrong with leftists, journalists, and the whiner movement. Here's the dealio...

This issue is this. In November, Colorado voters just barely (19,000 votes) voted against a change to our Constitution which would have changed this language: “There shall never be in this state either slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime.” by removing the exception for prisons.

What were we thinking, right? After all, slavery is illegal and immoral so why should we still allow it as punishment for a crime? Seems like a no-brainer, right? Yet, we got it wrong. Right? Well, it wasn't a no-brainer, and that's why just over half the public voted against it.

The reason is that the measure was pushed by a group whose ultimate goal is to eliminate the prison system. What exactly their intent is was not clear, BUT there was a lot of concern that what this measure would do would be to eliminate prison work programs and community service. A lot of people don't like that. Prison work programs are often the only way to reform criminals and it is often the only skills training they will get in life. What's more, without community service you would either need to let most small crimes go unpunished (essentially eliminating small crimes) or you would need to build more jails to hold people who currently get off with community service. Bad idea all around.

So why did nearly half vote for it? Because it sounds great to eliminate "a reference to slavery" in the constitution. (BTW, Colorado was never a slave state so the idea that this promoted slavery is nonsense.

And that brings me to the article. Rather than presenting what I just told you, the author presented it as a no-brainer. All they wanted to do was to eliminate "hurtful language" from the Constitution. Well, f*ck you. Do a better job of writing your proposed change if that's all it is. Besides, why are we tinkering with the operating document of a state merely to cater to the idiosyncrasies of the delicates?

Further, the author is outraged that the state voter guide dared to state the "no" position "when there was no organized opposition!" In other words, it's unfair to be impartial. How democratic. Moreover, you apparently only need to be fair if there is a recognized lobby on each side. Apparently, we should only hear approved opinions.

Third, he assumes the public was confused, when I suspect the public really saw through the confusion generated by the proposed change. In other words, the public looked past the sales pitch "it says slavery!!!" and looked at the substance of what could happen. We're not confused. He is.

Fourth, he finds someone who was never a slave but gets described as if she and her family were slaves to shame us. Go away. I don't own a plantation or want slaves... no one does, and if one word in the constitution ruins your life, then you have bigger issues than this.

Fifth, he never mentions the goal of the people who introduced this. He instead described the process, using that to make it sound like the legislature spontaneously came up with this idea.

Finally, he never mentions the reason people opposed it. He does, however, try to refute it with a throwaway statement from an expert that "gee, this never meant the end of work programs before." Of course, he omits the fact that this guy is talking about other states and that the Colorado Supreme Court can get batshit crazy whenever it comes to issues like this.

So basically, you have an author who can't understand why more than half the public opposed something, but who thinks it's probably racism or a secret desire to have slavery back. Sound familiar? It's the media in a microcosm. They can't understand why Trump won. They refuse to understand. It must be racism or a failure to understand the truth, right? And both are outraged that the opponents arguments were even presented to the stupid, racist public.

Thoughts?

Doubling Down on Stupid

Naive me thought that once the election was over that calm would be restored. And we would all spend time in quiet reflection on what just happened in the last two years. Boy, was I wrong. It seems that no one has learned anything in the last week. Everyone is doubling down on the chaos. Our little snowflakes are creating a blizzard of protests and rallies, though I have a sneaking suspicion that they don't even know why except they didn't get what they wanted. But I get it. We have spent so much time and energy demonizing each other, that we are beginning to believe our own science fiction.

The Democrats do not want to take any responsibility for the outcome. But they are loving the protests and riots and destruction of property. It couldn't possibly be because they spent 8+ years demonizing, degrading, insulting, shaming, disrespecting anyone who disagreed with their policies. I mean did Clinton really think that calling a large swath of potential voters a "basket of deplorables...The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it...irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America." was really going to win her votes in "fly-over country"?

And why did they assume that all women would just fall in line to vote for her? 53% of women did not. Of course many of them were deplorable working-, middle-class and white (well, 74% of the population is "caucasian", so math or something...). This statistic baffled all of them. How could women betray Clinton like this? (Yes, a friend really said that) Didn't we know it was "her time to make herstory?" Sorry, but women did not break from under the thumb of the patriarchy, just to be put under the thumb of the matriarchy. Women have brains and we won the right to use our brains and think for ourselves.

Remember when I wrote about how there weren't any signs, bumber stickers, or campaign buttons anywhere to be seen during this campaign season? There was reason for that. People were so afraid of voicing their opinion for fear of being called [see above] that there were no outward signs literally for the pollsters to consider. So all of those people who were scared to voice their opinions, did it in the voting booth instead. Surprise!

As I said in one of my comments post, when we rewrite/update the "Political Campaigns for Dummies" handbook, the first chapter should say this. "The only name you are allowed to call the voters is "the voters"...full stop." Of course convincing potential voters as to why they should vote for you rather than spending all of your campaign capital on the evils of your opponent is a good idea too. But we have to start somewhere.

And just because I really liked this post-election video by British satirist Jonathan Pie/Tom Walker, I am going to leave you with this. It really drives the point home. [Warning: language]



Anyway this is old news, so I will not speak of it again because clearly no one wants to learn this lesson. How do I know? This quote from Noam Chomsky - LINK...

"On Nov. 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government—executive, Congress, the Supreme Court—in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history."

Trump: Foreign Policy

For the next however long, I'm going to try to get a handle on what is likely to happen now that Trump is President. Let us start with foreign policy because that's pretty easy.

There was a fascinating article the other day at WashPo (I recommend reading it: LINK), written by a liberal, which really stuck a knife in the liberal movement for its enabling of Obama's foreign policy. The author noted that Obama had come to office with a large number of liberal principles and promises to undo the evil policies of President Bush. But the minute he took office, Obama not only adopted the Bush policies, he expanded them. Worse, the Democrats/progressives flipped to support him on a dime ("It is hard to overstate how complete the Democrats’ about-face on these questions was once their own leader controlled the levers of power."). The author considered this shocking and now worries that Trump will be given these abusive powers Obama took.

I've been saying this since 2008, so I'm glad the left finally caught up to reality... eight years late. Anyways, here's what will continue for sure:

● The right to detain and assassinate people without judicial supervision.
● Mass surveillance without oversight.
● Drone strikes without oversight, even against Americans overseas.
● Unauthorized wars (e.g. Libya).

Now, turning to specific policies:

● Trump will undo the meaningless Copenhagen Climate Agreement that promised to one day make promises, and the Paris Climate Agreement where we promised to cut carbon but there is no enforcement mechanism, i.e. it's for show only. Trump can and will undo this because Obama never submitted either to the Senate for approval. He will wipe out these symbolic agreements.

● The Iran Deal where Kerry gave Iran stuff and agreed to let them build the bomb will be dead on arrival. Again, this agreement was never sent to the Senate and therefore isn't law... it's policy, so Trump can undo it. The left will argue that it's law because the UN approved it, but that's not how American law works. And even if it does, Iran is already in violation of the agreement (Obama is dismissing their violations to avoid having to act) and Trump can call them on it and impose sanctions, which defeats the purpose of the agreement. Expect him to reverse this one by imposing sanctions.

● Obama unilaterally removed the sanctions from Cuba. Because this wasn't Senate action, Trump can reverse this by Executive Order. Trump promised to reverse this in Florida, but I suspect he won't. I suspect he will attempt to renegotiate it first because he sees casino and tourist opportunities.

● Trump has made a big deal about cancelling NAFTA, but he's switched that to renegotiating NAFTA. I don't honestly know if he will try to do this or not. I suspect he will approve the TP pipeline to Canada and then will make a big show of making minor tweaks to NAFTA.

● The Asians are worried that Trump will abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, a sort of free trade deal in Asia. I think Trump will call it dead, but will really hold it until the economy heats up. Then he'll slip it into place under the premise of a security deal to build an anti-China organization.

● China is no longer the lurking economic Dragon it seemed in 2008 -- predicted here in 2008 and later. It is in economic trouble in fact and it is getting eaten alive by cheaper Asian countries now. So I don't see Trump worrying about them manipulating their currency or trying to steal American jobs. No trade war here. That said, the Navy has refocused on the Chinese threat and I think Trump continues that. I do suspect he will try to get Japan to increase the size of their military though.

● Obama tried to refocus our foreign policy away from Europe. Trump has already called the British to say that he wants to be close friends again, and he called the British PM "my Maggie" (meaning Thatcher). I think Trump will turn back to Europe and may push a free trade agreement with Britain -- something popular on the right for a long time.

● The wars continue because they are one war and no President can abandon it and then explain a terrorist attack. Look for Trump to declare victory in one or two of these locations though, somewhere minor like Yemen, and then make a big deal of walking away without actually walking away. I suspect a lot of this is on autopilot and Trump won't mess with it.

● I wonder about Mexico. Trump's history suggests that he angers his opponent first and then comes in acting like a great friend. This is an effective way to manipulate people believe it or not, and in this case it makes me wonder if Trump isn't going to decide to do something "grand" in Mexico once he's in friend mode. I can see him sending troops to help fight their drug war or some sort of economic thing to pump them up. This is just a guess, but it seems like it fits a pattern.

● Finally, Putin. This is the wild card. I know a lot was made of Trump and Putin during the campaign, but that's all flack. Ultimately, I suspect Trump will be more willing to let Putin bomb Arabs, but otherwise, the boundaries all remain the same. In Europe, I think that Poland is the line we won't let Putin cross without a fight. Further East, I think we will only impose sanctions if Putin attacks prior Soviet territory (Baltic, Ukraine, Georgia, the "-stans"). Whether or not Putin risks it is something we can't know.

Thoughts?

More Thoughts (Some Trump, Some Not)

How about some thoughts for Friday?

● Thanks To All: Thanks to everyone who shares their views here. This has been a strange election cycle and I want to congratulate everyone on being civil and sharing interesting thoughts, even when we disagree. Let me particularly say thanks to Scott, who always speaks his mind even though he knows that most of us will disagree with him. Let me also thank Bev for all her efforts. It's really hard to keep coming up with stuff, trust me, and she's done a magnificent job. Thanks to tryanmax for always sharing insightful thoughts from different angles. And thanks to Kit. You have lost your mind my friend, but I respect your passion and your attention to detail.

● Only In America: I love that our First Lady is going to be an immigrant. Welcome to America!

● Reveal Thyself: The left (and a lot of people who pretend they aren't left but are) is really exposing itself. This outpouring of hate is amazing. For people who whine about racism, sexism and lookism, there sure is a lot of that spewing from their mouths. Twitter assassination threads. Vile comments. Smears. Stereotyping. Racism. Sexism. Widespread attacks on anyone they think voted against their utopia. Intolerance. Attempts to bully co-workers, family and friends. Breakdowns. Threats of disloyalty. Attempts to de-legitimize democracy. Comparisons to Hitler. Physically attacking high school students. This is your left, ladies and gentlemen. Never forget.

● More Great Moves By Trump: He told Britain he wants to re-establish the special relationship Obama killed. His potential cabinet: Newt. John Bolton. Rudy Giuliani. Chris Christie. Bob Corker. Jeff Sessions. The CEO of Dune Capital. The Founder of Lucas Oil. The CEO of Nucor (Steel). Billionaire Wilbur Ross. Ben Carson. The CEO of Continental Resources. An impressive list. His shift from eliminating EPA to “refocus the EPA on its core mission of ensuring clean air, and clean, safe drinking water for all Americans.”

● Idiot: Colin Kapernick didn't vote. Of course, he didn't. He's a whiner whose been brainwashed by a guy the 49ers employ, not an activist.

● This Means War: The Democrats have begun a civil war and it looks like Clinton people like Donna Brazile are being bumped off by the progressives. Interestingly, there is some question as to who is left to lead the Democrats. The only leaders they have left are geriatrics with questionable skills. Bernie Sanders? Elizabeth Warren? Chuck Schumer? Joe Biden? Nancy Pelosi? That's your All-Star team. Good luck with that.

● Nooooo Cannnnadahhh!: None of the a-hole celebs who promised to go to Canada will keep their promises. We should make them.

● Watch Your Back: Be careful out there people. After eight years of there being no homeless, no AIDS, no body count in our non-war wars, no inflation and no unemployment, expect all of that to return with a vengeance the minute Trump takes over. Don't worry, the media will explain it to you... every. single. day.

● I Miss: I miss great lyrics. I've been listening to music from the 60's and 70's and 80's and there were such amazing lyrics. Dire Straits. The Fixx. Crosby Stills & Nash. The Police. Genesis. Supertramp. These groups sang about things you'd never suspect and turned a phrase in amazing ways. Today, it's like all lyrics are written by twelve year olds writing about sex. Do you know 'Telegraph Road' from Dire Straits? Who would think to write a song about the evolution of a city from a single man in the woods to the modern world? Listen to 'Camphor', 'Sign of the Fire', 'Liner' ("when a saint starts hiding sins"), 'The Fool' from the Fixx. 'Home By The Sea' from Genesis... talk about spooky. How about the concept albums of Alan Parsons? Hell, the instrumentals of Alan Parsons Project ('Pipeline') are more expressive than anything Lady Gaga has written. 'Try Message In A Bottle' from the Police -- "I wasn't alone at being alone." I miss singers with things to say and the skills to say them.

● This Means War II: I've been asked to join a sort of secret committee to combat the bike lane they added down the road. This is how Vietnam started, I think.

Thoughts?

Trump Thoughts

Here are some thoughts on last night's "event." Please feel free to share your own as well.

● Could Be Amazing: I encourage everyone to listen to Trump's victory speech... all of it. You will hear the perfect speech. He was conciliatory, genuine and hopeful. He sounded like the perfect president with the right priorities. It was the speech you would want to hear if you hired someone to run your company. What's more, the people you saw on stage with him were the type of people to carry out those kinds of policies. This was not a bunch of yahoos.

Whether Trump manages to keep that tone or not is a good question, but I think he will. He came across as "businessman Trump," a man who wants to work with people to fix our problems rather than make more, and that seems to be the Trump his employees talk about. What's more, he knows that his record is what will matter and I don't see him wanting to be a failure. Also, he showed tremendous character by being kind to all the people who smeared him so vilely. That's not something his detractors think he had within him and it's not something Obama or Hillary could have done.

● GOP Are Big Winners: The GOP got the House and the Senate while feuding with Trump and while smacking down their fringe. I think this bodes well. I think this suggests a more responsive and less fringe GOP. Hopefully, it also pushes them to start listening to the public rather than their echo chamber, but we'll see.

● Strange: Trump won states he shouldn't have (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa) and lost states he shouldn't have (Colorado, Virginia, Nevada). I think what is behind this is a new class war going on. States that are middle class are becoming more red while states that are wealthier are becoming more blue.

● Not This Woman: A lot of chickies (yes, I'm being insulting at a certain group of women) are upset that women actually voted for Trump. I would say this... (1) this shows that most women are rational and they are looking at policies rather than getting their feelings hurt, (2) it shows that women will not ignore the bad things about female candidates, and (3) it shows that women don't vote with their genitalia and they will not vote for any woman. Indeed, Hillary was an awful candidate for "the first female President," and I think a lot of women got that.

● Angry White Bullsh*t: The leftist spin on the election is that this was a "Whitelash" of uneducated angry white men rising up to take a stand against our black president and against women. Of course, this is crap. This was an election with massive turnout and there aren't nearly enough rural voters to make this happen. Trump won this election in suburbia. Tens of millions of women voted for him. So did college educated people. What this was, was a Middle Class-lash. This election was the middle class flipping the bird at the elites who have run the country into iceberg after iceberg.

● There's Your Anger I: I watched NBC to see their reaction. They were in shock last night. Check out the comments in the prior post. The media was spinning an end of the world scenario in which they assumed all of Hillary's smears were true and then they were aghast that anyone would vote for Trump. They couldn't understand how these ignorant hicks could win an election, and they spun it into racism, sexism and every other -ism they could. They spewed things that were purely ignorant of our laws and how our government works. It was leftist talking points as obituary.

● There's Your Anger II: The left is freaking out this morning. They are all over twitter and Facebook and the such whining about this being the end of the world. They deserve their anguish. They and their celebrity friends lied and screamed their way through this election, living happily in the world of groupthink. Their group failed... their world shattered. Let them suffer.

● Black Turnout: I suspect that blacks didn't turn out for Clinton. That's why he won North Carolina and Michigan and why Ohio was called so easily. I will be curious to see what the final numbers say.

● Not What People Think: So what happens next? I think it won't be what people expect. Trump is going to hire a lot of people from across the aisle is my guess. Then he's going to propose a combination of tax cuts and infrastructure spending. They will tweak Obamacare, probably with the GOP replacement plan. After that, I'm not sure. I don't think he will be the most hands-on president. Somewhere along the way, he will demand that they tighten our borders and then he will probably drop the "path to citizenship" bomb.

● Bernie: Oh, and I think Bernie would have beaten Trump.

Thoughts?

Today's The Day!

Today is finally here! That day where we jump out of one frying pan and into the another one repeatedly over and over until...oh, wait, that was just a nightmare I had about voting. The reality is that most people will go to the polls today and cast their ballot and whatever happens, will happen. For better or worse, the Republic will survive.




According to RealClearPolitics.com, here is how the electoral votes shake out as of 8:30pm on Nov. 7:

203 Clinton/Kaine                  171 Toss Ups                164 Trump/Pence

As you can see, it is going to be close and could even come down to another recount in Florida. It also could happen that one candidate wins the popular vote, while the other wins the electoral vote.

Some of you have already had the opportunity to cast your votes. Good for you! But for those of us who have to cast our votes the old fashioned way by actually standing line, let us know what is happening at your polling place. As always, let us know what you think, how your feeling, and, most importantly, what you're drinkin' to get through the night until the results start rolling in.

If you are still undecided, maybe this video from Cleveland will help you decide...



But whatever the results...God Bless America!

Rectified... Open Thread

In honor of the election, I've decided to get a medical procedure that involves a bowel prep kit and feels a lot like voting for one of these two. Arg. Please talk amongst yourselves.

Takin' A Wikileak

Nothing too heavily researched tonight. But I do want to talk about what the Wikileaks drop has shown in a general sense. Then I have a couple questions for you.

Wikileaks has shown us that:

● Bill followed Hillary around getting paid by foreign countries after she had meetings with their muckity-mucks. In other words, our foreign policy was for sale.

● The Clintons associate happily with child molesters and rapists and insider traders and other criminals. Yet, her idiot followers couldn't care less. So rape only matters if the wrong people rape someone.

● The Democratic primaries were rigged to keep out Bernie Sanders. I guess "disenfranchisement" is cool.

● The media is as biased as we thought they were. Moderators tipped Clinton about debate questions. They coordinated stories with the Clintons. The Clinton people saw them as an arm of their campaign.

● Clinton lied to everyone. She lied to supporters and then told Big Business what they wanted to hear too. Pharrell said, "Hey, who cares if she lies... everybody lies." That's true, but it misses the point. She lied about the reasons he claims to support her, which makes him an idiot.

● Obama suggested tying Trump to the KKK. So much for fixing race relations.

● Clinton is cheering for Obamacare to fail. Good for her.

● Hillary apparently lacks humanity. Gee... who could have guessed?

And don't think it's just Clinton. In fact, let me add just a couple things Democrats have been caught saying:

● Remember Harry Reid and his racist statements about Obama?

● Pelosi telling people they needed to pass the law so we would know what's in it?

● Chris Dodd and Barney Frank working with Big Business to write the rules that regulate Big Business.

● Joe Biden's casual sexism, racism and statements offending everyone.

● Think about the antisemitism of the Democratic Party.

● Think about the Democrats using truly vile anti-woman statements to attack female Republicans, deep racism to attack conservative blacks, using racism and sexism as smears, pushing fake rapes, selling class hatred, selling race hatred, selling gender hatred, selling religious intolerance while screaming about tolerance.

How can any decent person support these people? Seriously, in a more rational world, the Clintons would be jailed, their allies sent home in disgrace and the Democratic Party dumped into the ash bin of history next to the Nazis, the Commies and the Inquisition. Yet, liberals overlook all of this happily.

This tells us that liberals are not honest people... not smart people... not people we should ever trust or honestly care about. It's time to win back the moderates away from this gang of turds and get back to making America the shiny city on the hill it can be.

Cubs Win, the Apocalypes Begins...Or Not!

Okay, so as of 9:30pm (EDT) the Cubs are leading 6-3 at the top of the 7th inning. So, it's the end of the world as we know it, right? But other than that, I've got nothing. So if this game ends the way I think it will, it's been nice knowin' ya'. The Apocalypse is nigh...

Now, just in case the world doesn't end (except in Chicago) and Earth doesn't stop spinning, we can go from there. But the 2016 election is 7 days away, so all bets are off. Just a few issues, the NY Marathon is Sunday which means that I am held captive for at least until 2pm (EST) as I live at the 17 mile mark. Oh, and Daylight Savings Time ends on Sunday morning, so don't forget to turn your clocks back. The good news is that we get an extra hour to agonize over the endless election polling...yey?

Please feel free to comment on anything....

Of course at this writing, this may end in a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment, as the Cleveland Indians could pull it out at the last minute and the Earth can be saved...

RSVP Cruelty

I want to talk about something that is pissing me off. First though, I shall toss out some political stuff.

Here's the political stuff:

● According to The Hill, the FBI has investigated Trump's connections to Russia and found none. No surprise there actually if you think about it. The rumor mill won't like it, but I'm sure they'll ignore it. It also contradicts Harry Reid who is claiming the FBI found "something explosive"... what a liar. And it contradicts Slate, which is claiming that an unnamed scientist did some magic investigation and discovered that a server at one of Trump's properties has "unusual" (unspecified) connections to a Russian bank.

● CNN has sacrificed Donna Brazile after it was discovered that she fed Clinton two debate questions before the debate. Note that feeding one question is ok, but two will not be tolerated! So much for any real attempt to maintain professional ethics. As an aside, recall also that none of them got fired for the Journo-list either. Ditto on all the reporters who are married to Democratic figures, or who came from Democratic campaigns or administrations. So bias is cool. Just don't get caught... twice.

● Obama is regretting letting young people stay on their parents' health plans because he now realizes that those people could have been forced into the exchanges and made to help reduce the rates. Ha ha. Maybe he should just put everyone in the exchanges on their parents' plans too?

● Ryan and Cruz both voted for Trump. Kasich did not. He apparently wrote-in John McCain's name. Way to shoot blanks, John.

So here's the other thing I want to talk about: RSVP's!

There was an article online the other day, ironically right after I vented on this topic to someone, about a mother whose child ended up alone at his birthday party. The kid had handed out invites with an RSVP on it. None of the kids who got the invites RSVP'd or declined the invites. The day of the party came and the kid was waiting for his friends to arrive... and none of them came. Talk about heartbreaking!

I actually ran across this issue for the first time a couple years ago with an article about an autistic child. At the time, there was a lot of speculation related to the kid's autism being the reason people didn't attend. That didn't make it right, but it seemed to explain it to a lot of people. I thought it was asinine and the reason being offered was crap. They still could have had the courtesy to decline no matter what their prejudices.

Either way, it seemed isolated.

Then our girls started having parties. Imagine my surprise to discover that this current generation of parents thinks there's nothing wrong with their kid not only not showing up, but also not telling anyone if they are coming. Last year, a child I know invited eight kids to her birthday and only one showed up... our kid. The others didn't show and never said a word. A few weeks ago, another little girl invited thirteen "friends" to her party, only to have none of them show up. My youngest (who hadn't made the initial cut of 13) found out about this and went to the party just so the little girl wouldn't be alone. I've also heard about a half dozen other times this has happened. This last weekend, we had two separate Halloween parties. One of our girls invited 10 "friends" and got no RSVPs. Six showed up. The other invited 12 and five showed up. One girl RSVP'd. Both parties turned out to be a ton of fun and, frankly, no one missed the kids who didn't show up, but still... WTF?

How selfish is it to make people plan as if you are coming, and then not to come. People buy food, choose cake size and pay fees to party locations based on the number of kids coming. Not to mention, how asinine to leave the kids unsure who else is coming and waiting to start their party. And talk about cruel not to go! This is one of those cuts that does not heal when a child finds themselves rejected by their "friends." Trust me, as a parent, you see the damage this does. It is viciously cruel.

This really bothers me. What the f*** is wrong with parents that they think this is acceptable? Their lazy and/or cowardly and/or opportunistic behavior is scarring kids. It's no wonder the world is messed up if people are teaching their kids that this is acceptable behavior.

Grrr.

Compare & Contrast

Okay, the Cubbies are in a "do or die" situation with the Indians one game away from winning the World Series OR tying it up 3-3 and going back to Cleveland for the final game! So while we are waiting for the end of the world as we know it ('cause I just know that Nostradamus wrote an apocalyptic quatrain about the 2016 Cubs/Indians game), let's discuss "absentee voting".

As a taxpaying, registered voter in the state of New York, I do not have the right to the following:

1. To vote in the our primaries because I am not registered in a party.
2. To have a referendum added to the ballot because that is the job of our elected officials.
3. To vote absentee without a pretty damn good reason

Qualifications to Vote by Absentee Ballot in New York:
-Absent from your county or, if a resident of New York City absent from said city, on Election Day.
-Unable to appear at the polls due to temporary or permanent illness or disability; or because you are the primary care giver of one or more individuals who are ill or physically disabled.
-A patient or inmate in a Veterans' Administration Hospital.
-Detained in jail awaiting Grand Jury action or confined in prison after conviction for an offense other than a felony.

And they say that New York is so liberal...well, that, but I literally vote in a church. Now I don't have a problem with this per se. My issue is that with all the screaming about "separation of Church & State" being all sacred and all so's religion doesn't have any undo influence on the peeps, WHY AM I VOTING IN A CHURCH WITH A GIANT CRUCIFIX HANGING ON THE WALL?? And yet, I am not allowed to gaze upon a nativity scene in any public space 'cause "separation of Church and State".

We are clearly behind the times in New York. What are the qualifications for early voting in your state?

Or any other topic you choose.