Thoughts

Some thoughts...

● The first caravan helped the GOP by exciting GOP voters. I think the second will help the GOP even more with moderates. Why? Because the first could be excused as a small group of desperate poor trying to escape a bad situation. The second suggests an endless flow of people coming here for money.

● The media is excited about a MSNBC poll showing Cruz only 5% ahead. The problems are, (1) this is an MSNBC poll and very unreliable, better polls suggest 7%, (2) even the MSNBC poll only shows 3% undecided, so if they all went for famous boy Beto, Cruz would still win, and (3) the celebrities have started to jump on the bandwagon, which should be worth 3-4% for Cruz.

● The shooting stuff is hypocritical. You have a nasty violence-encouraging media that has done things like post assassination fantasies about Trump, screams racism every change they get, and sells the GOP as a bunch of white who want to rape women and restart slavery... and they're whining that Trump's rhetoric encouraged this? Hardly. If rhetoric is a problem, and I think it actually is, then the MSM bears the lion's share of the blame.

● I am sick of this media crap of running every video they can find of some cranky ass white trash woman cussing out a black person. First of all, that's not news. Secondly, the fact they can only find a dozen of these out of hundreds of millions of people should be encouraging, not discouraging. Third, this is a total distortion akin to showing every crime committed by black males. If you just showed the crimes in Chicago, you would outnumber these videos hundreds to one, but that's not representative of black males or America. That makes this a narrative... propaganda.

● So much of the "news" is not news. Some liberal actor insulting Trump is not news. Nothing said on Twitter is news. Some asshole actor/actress responding to a troll is not news. Some actor out shopping is not news. People leaving anonymous comments at some website is not news. Someone criticizing a royal for what she wears is not news. An actress stretching is not news. Does no one in the MSM know this anymore?

● Hillary Clinton is musing about running again. I'm all for it.

● Our Democratic candidate for Governor (Jared Polis) once attacked a woman (a female employee), who called 9-1-1 on him and then got a restraining order. Not a peep from feminists on this. Surprise!

● Today was 76 degrees. Tomorrow... it snows. Welcome to Colorado.

The Meaning of 'Diversity'

Had an interesting experience last night. We went to a college fair with our oldest and got the "diversity" treatment. Interesting implications.

For those who don't remember, my oldest is half black. The black half of her family is what you would consider ghetto black -- criminals, father-less children and "black culture." Indeed, these people are obsessed with their blackness and they are worried that she is not. She has an aunt, for example, who keeps reminding her to stay in touch with her "blackness" and warns her that whites will never accept her. She has another aunt who castigated her for using big words that make "people" uncomfortable, i.e. black people. The word that upset her was "imbecile." What's more, one of her aunts actually has been trying to discourage her from going to an engineering school because "that's no place for black folk. They ain't gonna let you succeed." (Reminds me of the family in Hoop Dreams.) She then recommended that my daughter go to some shitty local black college where "people like us belong." Lovely.

Fortunately, my daughter sees through this and is rather angry at what they are trying to deprive her of with their racial self-pity. She's even come to enjoy antagonizing them, suggesting to her ultra(fake)-religious aunt that she's an atheist lesbian who wants to date white girls, and now wanting to pose in polo gear... the whitest sport known to man.

So anyways, last night we went to a college fair with about three dozen colleges sending representatives who (wo)manned tables as you came by to ask questions (every representative but one was a liberal woman). Each visit to a table began with the rep asking if we had questions. My daughter then jumped right in like a pit bull. Her first question was, "What are you most proud of about your school?" The school she was most interested in (the best of the lot by far) blew her away with their answer. They talked about being a tier one research school, with astronauts on staff, NASA money, research grants ("we do research that changes the world"), tech parks, named-dropped all the big tech companies, 600 clubs on campus, etc. My daughter was very impressed.

The others... well, they defaulted to "diversity."

See, apparently, when you are a black girl, all you want to hear about is how diverse the school is because you won't possibly care about education and activities, all you care about is the race of those around you. One of these women never even got to the point of talking about education... all she talked about was diversity. Even after my daughter started pushing for details on their programs all this woman kept talking about was diversity. Amazing.

What's more, after talking about "diversity" in the big picture and using the phrase "women of color" enough to make me want to slap her, she suddenly got really excited and told my black daughter how the school's goal (about which she is SOOO excited) is to make sure that next year's entering class is at least 25% Hispanic.

Huh.

So apparently, the world breaks down into honkeys and diversities and if you are diversity then it doesn't matter what race/color the other diversities around you are so long as you are surrounded by them. Said differently, this woman seemed to think that because my daughter is black, she needs to be sold on a place as being not-white and it doesn't matter what kind of browns they have.

This is really telling. For starters, the illogic of it is astounding. If my daughter really was obsessed with her blackness then why in the world would she be excited about being surrounded by Mexicans (that's what "Hispanic" means out here, as compared to DC where it means Latin Americans and New York where it means Puerto Ricans)? Wouldn't she want to be surrounded by blacks? Not Mexicans? Telling her she would be surrounded by Mexicans should be a turn off, shouldn't it? Hence, her sales pitch makes no sense... unless you see all diversities as a monolith, which is exactly what she's doing. She's divided the world into white and brown and she's decided that browns are all one big happy family who all want alike (sounds like: they all look alike to me, doesn't it?).

Even worse, she's decided that being brown is so all-consuming that this is the only sales pitch that matters: "we have lots of browns." There is no room in this woman's tiny mind for the idea that my daughter was there for education rather than pigmentation solidarity. Screw her.

Wanna bet she doesn't give the same pitch to a white boy?

Fortunately, my daughter told me that the woman turned her off with her opening sentence and kept digging from there. It is insulting though. And, for the record, it's racist... as so many liberals are.

Thoughts?

Election Suspicion: GOP Victory

I don't have any analysis to back this up yet... but I think the GOP is gong to hold the House. Here's what's making me think this:

(1) Gerrymandering is a powerful thing and it takes more than a couple poll points to overcome that.

(2) Liberal polling (NBC) says the Democrats have a 9% advantage in the generic poll. But that number falls to 7% for registered voters. NBC didn't report likely voters, who will decide the election, but they usually lean a couple more points to the right. Take out the liberal bias of say 3-4% and you're looking at an advantage of less than 4%, possibly as little as 2%. That's not enough for the Democrats to win because that is a national number, which means millions of Democratic votes get squandered in California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland and places that don't count like D.C., Guam and Puerto Rico.

(3) GOP numbers always improve the closer you get to the election. Right now, GOP intensity is 68% compared to 71% for Democrats. That is a high number for the GOP given the anti-Trump hate and it may yet improve. GOP voters are also more likely to convert intensity into turnout.

(4) Trump's approval rating is as high as it's been. NBC has him at 47%, Rasmussen has him at 51%. Either way, it's never been higher. That's inconsistent with the idea that the public wants to punish the GOP. Something is off here.

(5) I'm on Democratic mailing lists and they are remarkably lackluster and timid at the moment. There has been no rousing call to victory. They are also equally focused on 2020 as 2018, which suggest they are not invested in the present.

(6) The Democrats seem to have lost touch with reality. In several races where the Democrats could win (like Arizona), they seem to be running people who have endorsed terrorism or socialism or other crazy crap, and they don't seem to see the problem with this. That suggests a lot of their people are not in touch with the public.

(7) The Democrats are relying on (single) women, young people and Hispanics to turn out. If they don't, then they lose. I have seen no evidence that these groups ever turn out, no matter how upset they are. Moreover, the Hispanic stuff seems to have fizzled as they have not been deported. Democrats also haven't wooed them until the last few weeks and that apparently generates a cynical response. Young people have disappeared from the news cycle. There is no mention of college cost, the job market is super strong, and there are no young people issues. Even corollary issues like gays and pot are all going their way, so there is no reason for them to turn out.

Single women are the one agitated group, but they have blown a ton of energy on worthless causes the past two years. The pussyhead rally busted on the inertia of "somebody else save me!" MeToo has turned into a gaggle of scandal ridden, in-fighting losers who are losing every little bit they gained, which was never much -- even Harvey Weinstein is going to beat the rap. The Kavanaugh protest was always elitist and hypersensitive... and it again brought a devastating loss. Three movements, each getting smaller and more shrill, combined with each loss getting larger suggests a pattern: narrowing support leading to a spiral of demoralization and cause-abandonment.

(8) The Democrats who would normally be racing to claim credit for the coming victory are all shifting their focus to the future. No one seems to want to claim this baby yet, which suggests there might not be a baby.

None of this is set in stone and I don't have a lot of data to back it up, but these are the hints I'm seeing right now. They suggest lower than expected Democratic turnout and a small GOP victory.

Thoughts?

Pelosi's Agenda

I've seen several headlines now claiming that Nancy Pelosi has laid out her agenda, should she retake the house. Most of these articles then turn into diatribes about this being the "Year of the Woman"... like every other year. They never seem to get to her agenda. That said, I finally found it. Prepare to be amazed!

(1) Pelosi plans to introduce a campaign finance reform bill. No details available. Yawn. If prior history is any indication, this will be an attempt to stop GOP donors from donating. Basically, they want to stop rich people (excluding Democrats) from being able to spend money politically unless it's on Democratic causes.

(2) Pelosi wants to lower drug prices... by magic.

(3) She wants to work with Republicans to create a gun background check bill. "Work with Republicans" is code for "want to look like we're doing something, but not actually do anything because doing would be political suicide."

(4) She wants to protect "Dreamers," who don't seem to be in any danger.

And that's it.

Do we believe this or is she just hiding the crazy? Actually, I believe this is probably all they've got planned. The reason is they don't really have much of an agenda anymore except being anti-Trumps and making sure black people and single women are paranoid. Sometimes there's talk of a $15 minimum wage, but "surprisingly," that never seems to arrive even in places controlled by Democrats.

I think the Democrats will more likely spend their time holding hearings, trying to prove every rumor about Trump. There may be some idiots who introduce bills with names like "The All Women Get Raped, Believe It! Act" and "The Every White Person Is Racist Act", but those won't pass... they're just for show. Of course, the Dems have drifted so far to the whacko fringe that you never know, but their leadership at least still believes that their "beliefs" are just for show.

Thoughts?

Irony? No, Liberals

I've been super busy -- sorry for no articles -- but not busy enough to notice some odd ironies. Or is it just liberals?

● Yahoo sports ran an article in which they called a cheating allegation against a Redsocks pitcher conspiracy thinking. The a-hole liberal writer did it by saying, "This is the kind of thing social media like Breitbart picks up." How's that for ironic? After all, Yahoo is the one running with the story, not Breitbart. So who is promoting conspiracy theories?

● I'm trying to understand the new rules. A white trash woman in a convenience store is standing at the counter. A black kid walks past and accidentally touches her butt with his backpack (wash the bag, kid). She turns around and sees him walk past and assumes he touched her skanky ass. She screams harassment and calls the cop. Everyone makes fun of her because it's the bag and because she's obviously racist. Got it?

But then we are told that any woman who makes a complaint against a white male, even if the supposed harassment happened in a prior life and with no evidence and if she's not even sure it was him but she wants it to be true... that needs to be taken seriously, be believed, and the white man loses his career. And if he produces evidence that it couldn't have been him, (1) we attack him for victimizing her twice by defending himself, (2) we are told it doesn't matter if it really happened or not, only her pain matters, and (3) we ridicule the evidence.

So why don't the same feminist rules apply to the skank?

● The media is outraged over crimes against the media, such as the killing of some Saudi journalist and they would happily send us to war to punish those who committed this unholiest of crimes. But other people get killed every day and the media doesn't care. Soldiers. Joggers. Screw you unless you're a journalist or you can be spun politically.

● OMG! That WOMAN in Arizona called her Democratic opponent a "traitor" for protesting against American troops while... well, it doesn't matter. The point is she called that woman a traitor and that's unacceptable in American politics! Which is interesting, since we went through a month of every liberal Democrat and lots of MSM types calling Trump a "traitor". They didn't seem to have a problem with that.

● Bill Clinton's rapes are different. Those women were technically adults. So sayeth Hillary and none of the women's groups said a word of dissent. Wanna bet they don't buy that if a Republican says the same thing?

● Melania has called herself the most bullied woman in the world, and the left whined and screamed and bullied her over it. So the anti-Bully types are super-bullies. Now some rapper has made a nasty little video in which a Melania look-alike strips for him. Not a peep from the anti-bully types or the army of women's groups who so very recently told us that anything even kind of sexually suggestive against a woman is the equivalent of rape. At the same time, they're horrified that someone said Michelle Obama looks like Bobo the Chimp standing up straight. Apparently, it matters who the insult is against, not what the insult is.

● Elizabeth Warren took a DNA test and now has, according to liberal media experts, "strong evidence" she's part Cherokee. Leaving aside the fact they seem to worship the apartheid system, there's a problem with this. First, it's only 3%. So her story about an Indian grandmother pretty much can't be true because it's far too distant. Secondly, as the Cherokee themselves pointed out angrily the other day, DNA testing is not a valid way to determine if someone belongs in the tribe. This time, the MSM doesn't really give a crap what they say. On any other issue, they do. I wonder what the difference is.

Ridiculous Leftism Vol. 2.3 Million

The left continues to be ridiculous... hateful... stupid... intolerant. Here are some of the latest example.

● Attention black people. Obey your masters or liberal celebrities will mock you in racist ways. Even CNN will call you a "token negro." You have no right to independent thought. Get in line... or else.

● Black Vermont legislator Kiah Morris is quitting the Vermont legislature because of supposed racist threats. I doubt it. But hey, let's run with it. Ever notice how it's the liberal states where these things happen? Did you know the states with the worst income inequality are ALL the big liberal states? The states where all the racist stuff happens are liberal states. That's where the hate crimes happen. That's where people don't have healthcare. Etc. Etc. Anyways, Morris says she is quitting because "I cannot speak my truth." Huh. Well, for one thing, K-Mo, it's not your truth. Truth is truth and belongs to no one. And if you think it is indeed your truth, then either you're a fool or "your truth" is probably utter bullshit... or both.

● The latest line from celebrities is to claim that they no longer feel comfortable in America. Good, leave.

● The left is very upset that Melania claims she's the most bullied woman in the world. It's true. Leftists LOVE to bully her, almost as much as they love smearing Trump's children. But they don't like being called on it. And they really don't like being accused of bullying someone they think deserves it because she's married to someone they hate.

● Continuing along Melania hypocrisy, they've been smearing her all week for everything she wore on her recent African trip, while simultaneously whining that it's wrong to judge liberal sluts on their clothes. Emily Ratsomething is upset that people are commenting on the slutty bra-less wifebeater she wore to protest Kavanaugh and other celebrities are jumping in claiming it's wrong to point out women's clothes... while mocking Melania for what she wore.

● The headlines have been something else this week. It's no wonder the drones are so messed up. "McConnell plans to destroy Senate!" "Republicans intend to destroy constitution." "Senate Republicans work to undermine women." A racist person in city X said Y. A sexist school administrator said Z. Global warming is so much worse than anyone knew... we're all going to die. Etc. Etc. What a bunch of lies and hate meant for the consumption of people too stupid to know better. You know... liberals.

● I've seen a new trend. Whenever liberals get in trouble, some dipstick runs out and creates a "study" which reveals that everyone was wrong about the liberal. Imagine that!! The latest involves the NFL and the Kaepernick thing. We are now told by a study that the kneeling had nothing to do with the NFL's ratings decline -- ignore the fact that the kneeling coincided perfectly with the ratings decline and even reversed itself now that no one is covering the three guys kneeling anymore.

This study is bullship, as most of them are. It claims that the real cause was the "quality of the games." Except, that's a subjective measure and, therefore, cannot be measured. It could be excluded, but not measured. Moreover, there are simply too many factors to determine what caused a particular rise or fall. Also, they in no way explain how the coincidence of the kneeling and the decline and then re-rise aren't connected except that they asked some people who said it didn't really bother them. This is no study, it's an opinion pretending to be a study, as so many of them seem to be suddenly.

Thoughts?

P.S. There will be a new Monsterpiece Theater tonight.

Kavanaugh Fallout!

Let's follow up on the Kavanaugh fallout.

● Here's a quote to remember:

“This is a historical moment for women and ... will go down in history as the moment it was revealed how rampant sexual assault is and how it is no longer going to be tolerated,” said Jen Palmieri, the communications director for Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The left excels at wrongly predicting history. Remember the picture of the black chick that was supposed to be iconic but was old news within a week? Anyways, this quote is virtually identical to quotes I've heard after Bob Packwood, Anita Hill, during the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, when #metoo was created last year, and now. Yet, the numbers never show rampant sexual assault so feminists retreat to the tired claim that there are 10 rapes for every one reported, and they always claim women are too scared to report. This is a game and you will see it repeated the next time they get some liar to accuse a Republican of sexual assault... and the time after that. It's like the year of the woman, a fantasy that will never come but comes every election cycle.

● Leftist strategists are worried that the Democrats need to stop whining about Kavanaugh or they will damage their chances in the mid-terms. Already, their misbehavior has raised Republican enthusiasm to a par with Democrats, erasing many Democratic leads. The problem is the left just can't help themselves. They are on a tantrum bender and these emotional little creatures just can't stop.

● Speaking of which, it would seem that Kavanaugh has killed off Senate Democrats in South Dakota, Missouri, Indiana and Montana. Even New Jersey may be in play now. It's also destroyed potential victories in Texas and Tennessee. The Senate appears safe. I suspect the House is safe too, but we'll see. It is now common wisdom on the left that the Republicans will lose the House because Kavanaugh will cost them suburban women voters. Except, those seem to be the women who were worried that their husbands, sons and brothers could be the next Kavanaugh. Not to mention, the liberal women among them have proven they don't vote. So I think their certainty of victory is far less than certain.

● The #metoo movement keeps imploding further into farce. Now movement founder Rose McGown has called the movement "bullshit" and say it exists only to make Hollywood-types look good. Well, duh!

● For those who don't know, leftists kidnapped Doctor Who and decided to turn him into a woman. Indeed, their comments are sickly vindictive in this regard. Anyways, they've been touting this as some major rise for women, a moment of triumph. I, conversely, predict this will simply kill Doctor Who. First indications are that I'm right -- of course, because I don't engage in wishful thinking and I don't ignore reality in my analysis. What tells me they are seeing the writing on the wall? Well, reviews of the first episode are already assigning blame, suggesting a pending failure. They are blaming the writing, not the fact that Doctor is a woman. See, it's not the bizarre politically correct and unworkable choice of making him a woman which flies in the face of the formula which drives the show which is killing the show... it's the leftist who decided to make him a woman who has refused to write her properly. Uh huh.

● It's going to snow tonight. Ug. I blame Kavanaugh.

● I've been debating if Kavanaugh's victory will increase leftist turnout or depress it. It's hard to tell. Will this demoralize them or make them angry? We have two clues. The mobs sent to protest Cavanaugh were laughably small. That suggests demoralization. Similarly, all the posts from idiot celebrities are depressed rather than angry. Again, that suggests depressed leftist turnout.

Robin Hood Is Tiresome

You know, I'm over Robin Hood. I have been for a long time now, actually.

When I was kid and I first heard of Robin Hood, I have to say that I was enthralled. Here was a guy who stood up to a tyrant to bring freedom to the people. He fought unfair taxation. He opened up the King's wrongly-private lands. He freed the oppressed from a pretend King and his lackey Sheriff who knew no bounds and followed no laws, for whom the law was a weapon rather than a set of rules. This guy was like the classic conservative ideal. Add in Errol Flynn or a Disney fox and he even had class.

But then remakes kept coming. The villains became ridiculous. Robin's soul became blurred. Did he do it for principle? Was he just another noble in a power struggle? Did he do it for the girl? Oh look, a version where he's a feminist. A version where he doesn't really exist. A version where... you know what? I don't care. I don't care anymore. You can't take a very clear character like this and turn him into whatever pet peeve you have. You can't take a character like this and remake his story to the point that we've seen it a million times in a million different way, none of which understand who he is. Live action films. Television version. Version from different perspectives. Cartoons. Doctor Who episodes. Modernized versions. Hell, there's probably a naked version on roller skates. I'm done.

Seriously, I'm done with Robin Hood. Robin Hood is an archetype. He is the reluctant libertarian hero who had his moment... and I'm tired of seeing him used over and over and over and over and over again without any understanding of what made him capture our imaginations. He was cool because he stood for freeing the people from tyranny. Nothing more. Now, he's become the rock anthem sold into commercial slavery to pimp toilet paper and snack foods.

At this point, I seriously can't choke down another reincarnation of him.

You?

Some Thoughts/Reactions

Some thoughts in a busy week.

● The media is saying that angry Republican men will now play a role in the election just like outraged women will. If that's true, then the left is in trouble. Angry men vote. On the other hand, the past few years have shown us that outraged women don't. #metoo never left Hollywood and media women before it did a desperate retreat into scandal and wishful thinking. The pussyhat rally died the minute they littered their signs and went home and bravely called for somebody (else) to do something! Women for Hillary apparently never turned up for the election (BTW, Hillary is now at an all time low in popularity according to Gallup despite appearing on a sitcom). So if an army of angry men intends to show up, then the left has lost.

● Why does the word "white" always get used by leftists and the media when this issue is men v. women? And do you think the left would let it slide if I kept sneaking "black" into my angry sentences?

● If this is men v. women, why do so many women support Kavanaugh?

● The media has this wrong anyways, when they say white men are angry. White men aren't angry because white privilege or male privilege is being taken away... as if there was such a thing. No, white men are angry because we've spent the past 2,000 years learning about the protections we need from the government and from each other for society to function. This group of shrill victim-wannabes, like every other racist or hate group, wants to strip those away in the name of their pet peeve and leave us in an era of star chambers that would shame the Nazis, the Communists and the witch burners. When that happens, people get killed and society collapses. See, it turns out that the zombie apocalypse is not a wave of animal-like creatures biting each other, it's packs of liberal targeting people they envy.

● I've had a vision of my death. I'm going to fall and break my neck or something... in the kitchen. For the next three days, my kids are going to walk over the body pretending not to see anything. I intend to haunt the little sh*ts.

● Monsterpiece Theater is starting again at the film site Friday. Make sure you check it out!

I Am Perplexed

So Donald Trump insulted a female reporter and I'm not sure I understand what lesson I'm supposed to draw from this. The reporterette in question is Cecelia Vega. Trump told her, "I know you're not thinking. You never do." And the response from feminists has been outrage. But not just outrage, outrage that implies there is something sexist or anti-woman about what he did.

Hmm.

Here's what bothers me. There is nothing sex-based about what he said. He just called her a moron. The identical could have been said to anyone of any race or gender or religion without having any racial, gender or religious connotations. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've said it to lots of people and I've heard other people say it to lots of other people. So what makes this somehow sexist?

Do you see the problem here? If they had said, "He needs to stop insulting reporters boo hoo, we're so weak we can't take it!" Then I can understand where they are coming from. I can't respect it, but I get it.

But by implying that the problem is that he said it to a female reporter, they've change the whole meaning of their whining. Now they are suggesting that female reporters are delicate and can't stand the same insults lobbed at male reporters.

Are they? Are they delicate flowers we must protect from the mean old world? Or are they, as we're told, actual reporters?

You know, I was always told that female reporters should be treated like men, but apparently not. Apparently, they need to be coddled and protected... like children. Maybe they shouldn't be in the field if they can't handle a little insult like this?

Has it dawned on anyone that the feminist view of women is super condescending and oddly Victorian? "We are equals, just don't say anything mean... or do anything that might raise the specter of sex... or cause me to be upset 40 years from now... or that goes beyond the way the Victorian stereotype of how little girls behave." Get me to a convent to protect my delicate virtues! Why is this how feminists see women? The non-feminist women I know are a good deal tougher than that. Is feminism just about protecting pathetic, weak women?

Thoughts?

By the way, if you're a liberal, a feminist or a reporter and you need me to define any of these words, just email me and I'll be happy to dumb things way down for you.