From Lewis Carroll to Today

In my youth, I learned a segment of a poem written by Lewis Carroll.  It comes from his most famous work, “Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There, published in 1872. That brief snippet of the poem has stayed with me these many decades.  But the poem, in its entirety, seems to offer an analogy to the politics we oysters have chosen for ourselves. 

 

The Walrus and The Carpenter

 

The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright--
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.

The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done--
"It's very rude of him," she said,
"To come and spoil the fun!"

The sea was wet as wet could be,
The sands were dry as dry.
You could not see a cloud, because
No cloud was in the sky:
No birds were flying overhead--
There were no birds to fly.

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
"If this were only cleared away,"
They said, "it would be grand!"

"If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year.
Do you suppose," the Walrus said,
"That they could get it clear?"
"I doubt it," said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.

"O Oysters, come and walk with us!"
The Walrus did beseech.
"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each."

The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head--
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.

But four young Oysters hurried up,
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat--
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn't any feet.

Four other Oysters followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more--
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood
And waited in a row.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

"But wait a bit," the Oysters cried,
"Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!"
"No hurry!" said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.

"A loaf of bread," the Walrus said,
"Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed--
Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed."

"But not on us!" the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue.
"After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!"
"The night is fine," the Walrus said.
"Do you admire the view?

"It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"Cut us another slice:
I wish you were not quite so deaf--
I've had to ask you twice!"

"It seems a shame," the Walrus said,
"To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!"
The Carpenter said nothing but
"The butter's spread too thick!"

"I weep for you," the Walrus said:
"I deeply sympathize."
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.

"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.

It's a Curiosity

           It appears the mainstream media has recently noticed that Hunter Biden’s overseas dealings maybe some kind of issue.  This comes on the heels of an announcement the Department of Justice has several on-going investigations into Biden’s financial dealings.  While it would not seem unusual for the press to report these facts it is remarkable, they are just now coming to the forefront.  After the Biden-Harris win.

It is almost as if some hidden power is pulling all the strings in preparation for a transition of the Presidency from Trump to Biden to Harris.  While many of us speculated on the mental soundness of Biden to hold the office it would seem the real kingmakers are leaving nothing to chance.  If they can’t get him out with the 25^th Amendment then they go for resignation in lieu of impeachment as the alternative.

My money is on Harris as President before the summer solstice.

How Do We Know Who to Trust?

We are in a time where we’ve seen the obvious political agendas of the news outlets and where opinion is offered as fact. How then do we know whether or not we can trust the results of the election?  Each side will make its claims, each side will say the other is lying, and each side will find fault with something about the election.

In the past, we looked at politicians as trustworthy public servants.  Can the same be said today?  We’ve had four years of the vilification of the President so can we trust him?  Then again, we had eight years of the celebration of a President who claimed his administration was “scandal free.”  Unfortunately, even the smallest amount of research shows that is a pure fabrication.  If we consider President Obama’s time we see:  A gun running scandal that led to the death of a federal agent.  An IRS targeting scandal that called into question the impartiality of the IRS approval tax of free status when it came to requests from conservative organizations.  The unexpected withdrawal of forces from Iraq that led to the creation of ISIS.  The claims  the Islamic riots in Egypt and the over throw of Libyan’s dictator were due to some minor YouTube video.  The failure to help the Ambassador in Libya when he was attacked by violent mobs.  The dispersal of Kaddafi’s stockpiles of weapons after he was overthrown.  How about the cages he built to house children at the southern border?  The list could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.

These same observations can be made of Representatives, Senators, Governors, State officials, and so on down to the lowliest bureaucrats.  How many politicians have enriched themselves and their families while claiming to make life better for their constituents?

So, now we come to the question, who can we trust to reassure us that our vote was counted and the election was fairly run and the results legitimately reflect the will of the people?

Our Constitution delegates the running of elections to the individual states.  It is their job to organize, train and equip the state to run a fair and unbiased process.  For most of the states the job falls within the purview of their Secretary of State and if history is to be understood they have done that reasonably well, although there are always exceptions.  If there weren’t those exceptions the jokes about the dead voting in Chicago, the paying for votes of Irish immigrants coming off the boat to support Tammany Hall, or the resurrection of newly found ballots wouldn’t exist.  The controversy of recounts, having people try to determine what a voter really intended, or what constituted a legal ballot would not be a consideration.

Now, in this information age we come into a new spectrum of data manipulation.  We see in the nature of polls a natural bias that may exaggerate one set of data or eliminate another.  With our transition into massive voter data collection, we also see the potential for vote manipulation.  When one side points this out, and the other side dismisses the possibility we are left with a legitimate question, why would one side not acknowledge the possibility?

My conclusion is a simple one.  One side thinks they have control of the data and the other side does not. I’ll leave it to you to decide how you answer that question.  But at the end of the day, we individual voters really don’t get to say who we trust or not.  Until something remarkable changes our system we must accept the decisions of the individual Secretaries of State, and of course the court challenges that arise from questions about those decisions.  My takeaway from recent elections is we can no longer trust the media projections sent out to support a clearly bias agenda.

In Conclusion

Or not, because it will never be over.

I guess the public impeachment hearings are over, and Rep Schiff in what can best be described as self-righteous indigitation bemoans the fact the President doesn’t trust the deep state and those partisan Republicans refuse to criticize him for not totally believing the bureaucrats who’ve stood against his election.

For me, the one remarkable thing is how Schiff can look into the camera and feign the outrage when he had no problem defending “his president” when Obama was accused of using the government against his opponents.  I guess this really shouldn’t be remarkable to me, it has gone on with increasing regularity since I’ve bothered to pay attention to the politics of our Federal Government.  It was true during the Johnson years, Nixon, Carter, Reagan and everyone else.  What has changed, and it changed in the 1990s when we removed the sense of tradition and now see impeachment as just another political tool to use to vilify the opposition.

As I said at the beginning of this whole impeachment drumbeat if the President is impeached by the house, he won’t be removed by the Senate.  No matter how sanctimonious Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff may sound it is all simply theater.  What this impeachment will do is open the door for every President who doesn’t have control of both houses in the Congress to be investigated with an eye towards impeachment.  Heaven-help the individual who has a minority in both houses for then removal becomes a real possibility.

Neither the deep-state nor the career Washington politicians give a tinker’s dam about the “will of the people.”  It is purely a game of power, not unlike the “Game of Thrones.”

I Wonder?

I’m so old I remember when both mainstream parties held a spectrum of political views ranging from conservative to progressive.  The Republicans of the Northeast were different from those of the West.  The Democrats of the North and North Central states were significantly more liberal than those of the Southern States.  In my opinion this all began to change when the parties introduced the primary system to ostensibly allow a greater voice to the members, but then the political activists took charge of shaping the primaries and the party platforms.  Now we seem to have two parties racing towards the extremes with decreasingly little concern with middle of the road solutions.

Years from now when the Millennials are old and complaining about how that younger generation just doesn’t understand the struggles of life and the decay of society what will they be posting on the thought machines of the day?

Will they be identified by some aspiring thought leader/social influencer as the “Greater than the Greatest Generation?” Will they replace the one our great social influencer Tom Brokaw knighted for their role in surviving the great depression, winning a globe-spanning war, fought the communist threat to liberty, recognized social inequity, expanded the social safety nets, and created the most robust economy in the world for over 60 years?

Will this Millennial generation actually learn from the lessons of the past or will they duplicate all the mistakes of our generation?

Unfortunately, from my vantage point, it appears to me they are falling into the same traps my generation fell into.  Whether they recognize it or not they are being herded along, like so many sheep, by those who view the society our generation has built as evil and destructive.  Each day it seems we move just a step closer to the doom portrayed in the post-world war writings of George Orwell.  The newest crop of social influencers seems to happily climb on board with vilifications of opponents, by the politicians and celebrities who are clearly in it for the fame, wealth, and the power it offers and in so doing accelerates us down a path of division.

For example, my generation railed against a war that cost America 58,000 lives and the after-effects, which have impacted the entire generation but go willingly along with wars that were okay with the press when the cost didn’t seem too high.  Now we are in another war without end, with no apparent way to get out.  If the President does anything the opposition will point out how dangerous that is and how unsafe the world will be.  Far easier to just keep spending the money and the lives.  For the newest generation coming of age this war doesn’t seem to be nearly as critical as making sure the right minority groups receive favorable press coverage, the majority religions and races are vilified for their dominance, the right people are let into the bathrooms of their choice, or if drag queens can read to toddlers.

Ask yourself are there fewer terror groups, or less hatred of minorities today than when my generation rose up in civil protest?  We fielded our own extremist groups, just as the millennial generation is doing, but in 50 years what will they look back on as actual accomplishments?  We had the weather underground setting off bombs in protest of the war, they have Antifa beating up people in the streets of Portland in protest of differing political opinions.  We had the freedom riders and protests in the South to end segregation and racial hatred, today they have the talking heads on television telling us we are all still racist and owe African-Americans money for what the slave traders of Africa and slave owners in America did.

Our politics are still dominated by boomer generation leftovers.  On the one side is an individual who made his wealth in private enterprise, on the other are people who made their wealth through the largess of government and their political connections. 

Like so many Pied Pipers of Hamelin, they offer a utopian world to the youngest generations now coming into adulthood.  They are describing how they, and they alone, know how to save the planet from itself or how to reduce the populations of continents living in despite poverty by funding their abortions.  Offhand, that sounds a lot like a call to return to the progressive idea of eugenics where the global elites believe it is their right and responsibility to limit the births of those who can least afford children (see: Margaret Sanger).  Of course, the moral superiority of those destined to rule the world is beyond reproach, but to a simple person like me, it seems pretty racist.  But then I remember when we were dismayed by the Chinese state policy of one child and the resultant death of so many female children.  Perhaps the new science of non-specific gender identification will make reproduction irrelevant and everyone for at least one last generation can be asexual and no children will be born, thus solving at least one social issue and one environmental problem.

They say hindsight is 20/20, but in the modern world who looks back to say, well that was a stupid idea then and I think it will be a stupid choice now.

I wonder?

Saving The Earth for a Generation Who Don't Want Kids

Summing up the week in Democratic Politics seems to come down to which of the clowns is really driving the clown car?

CNN held some sort of marathon political rally for its candidates calling it a town hall on the environment.  Within the seven hours of softball questions and blathering, we've learned little about how they would actually save the world, but a great deal about how little they really know of how our nation works within the context of the global community.

First, we come to saving the ocean creatures.  The key to marine survival is to eliminate plastic straws.  The pioneering work on this has been done by the brilliant progressive scholars on the left coast.  This work has been supported by those equally brilliant scholars on the east coast who know without exception that "Big Gulp" drinks are making Americans obese.  There is clearly a cause and effect relationship they are working to figure out, but they do know without straws you can't drink Big Gulps and as a side benefit the turtles will all be saved.  Ms. Harris knows the pain this will cause, for she has used a paper straw once and knows they bend and collapse unless you drink everything in the first 30-seconds.

Mayor Pete and Bato, while chomping down on the subject of red meat and straws recognize they are somehow part of the problem that leads to global warming and certain death unless the Green New Deal completely alters the planet's ecosystem within the next 24-months are willing to identify others whose appetites need to be altered.

Next, we come to clean energy.  Everyone just knows those greedy tycoons in the carbon-based fuels group (coal, oil, and natural gas) are spending billions of dollars to keep us from realizing the true potential of wind-driven cars and solar homes.  We, in the US, must be completely off of such toxic things like petrochemical and nuclear fuels if we are to singlehandedly save the planet for the Chinese.  Besides, saving our petrochemical supply to make plastic (except for straws) will extend our domination in the creation of products that fill the landfills and the oceans, but don't affect marine life except for the unfortunate few who get caught in the carriers for our beer cans and our fishing lines and nets.

The drama in this latest political rally was so great Joe Biden burst a blood vessel in his eye while he explained how he had saved the planet so many times before any of this latest crop of wannabes was around. 

While all this was happening, God created the world's worst Hurricane because of all the global warming we've been doing.  Fortunately for us, some politicians just knew this storm was a result of President Trump's misuse of sharpie marking pens and they hoped God would send its wind to destroy Mara-Largo.  If people who were unfortunate enough to live near there were killed it was a small price to pay.   I am sure the people living around Mara-Largo were thankful God didn't listen to them.  Unfortunately, this meant the Bahama's had to suffer the brunt of the storm while God looked for another den of inequity to smite.

At the end of the day, I'm still not sure which insane candidate will face the wrath of President Trump in the upcoming election.  So far it seems like each of them is trying to out-crazy their competition, which plays into the crazy ideas of those infected by TDS.

Robert Mueller and His Political Theater

Apparently, Robert Mueller is the only person who has read less of the Special Prosecutor's report on Russian hacking and Trump's collusion in the 2016 election then me.   This creates somewhat of a problem for the politicians as they should really talk to the people who actually wrote the report so they can get them to testify about all the evil stuff they actually know about.  

But at the end of the day, facts don't really matter.  At this point in time, it is all about the Political Theater.  Those who want to impeach the President made up their collective minds shortly after November 8, 2016.

If they were hoping Robert Mueller would somehow come down from the mountain with the impeachment indictments etched into stone tablets they must be hugely disappointed.

Life will go on, and as far as I can tell, the democratic candidates will continue to drive away all the moderate independent voters in numbers unseen since the 1972  primaries when the party faithful were asked to choose between 15 different candidates.  Eventually, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey, George Wallace, Edmund Muskie, and Shirly Chisholm secured primary wins.  In that campaign, McGovern became the party's candidate but lost the general election to Richard Nixon.  It wasn't even close.

The electoral vote totals were 512 for Nixon, 17 for McGovern.  The popular vote was 46,740323 for Nixon, and 28,901,598 for McGovern.

Of course, we are a lot more polarized these days, but I don't see, in the current field and with the current agandas, any move to solicit those who are looking for a strong middle of the road choice.  At the rate the DNC is moving I'd be surprised if they are even close in the popular vote, but we have a year for them to turn things around and who knows, one of them may find a real issue, just as Bill Clinton did in 1992 when he beat George Bush who had just won a war.

The Cost of Democratic Campaign Promises.

Let’s review the promises to Americans (and non-American visitors) made by the Democratic candidates this campaign season.

Top of the list, Universal Healthcare:  According to Bernie Sanders (in a Washington Post interview 31 July 2018), he projects government cost to be $30 to 40 Trillion (over 10 years).  Of course, he goes on to say it would really save $2 trillion by translating private costs into government costs.  Color me skeptical – I’ve zero (nada, zilch, zip) experience where a government cost is ever really less than a private cost.

Student debt forgiveness:  According to Student Loan Hero, published Feb 4, 2019, the current balance of student loans tops out at over $1.56 Trillion with about 45 million Americans carrying debt from their schooling.  There are currently a number of debt forgiveness programs and according to Forbes (2016), we are spending about $170 billion over 10 years on those programs.  So far, all the candidates have voiced some sort of plan that would just wipe some or all the debt off the books, with plans for increased taxation of the ultrarich to pay for it.  Of course, eliminating student debt sounds good, but the real benefactors of this approach are the colleges and universities who can now charge whatever they want and expect students to flock to them in anticipation of a free four, six or maybe ten years of relaxed intellectual/politically sensitive indoctrination.  

Elimination of border security:  On the surface, this promise should save the government about $44 billion a year when we eliminate Homeland Security.  Of course, this $44 billion would be reduced when we can’t just fire federal employees and the Democrats would probably want to keep things like FEMA, and maybe the U.S. Coast Guard, but I have to ask why we would keep the Coast Guard, if we’ve decided anyone and anything can come into the country and there was no need for walls and approved ports of entry.  The real question is how to transition the federal employees from work to welfare, so again that $44 billion would be reduced as the welfare programs are expanded in direct proportion to this new-found government “wealth.”  My guess is we would still spend the $44 billion, just not on things that would impede the mass migration of others into America.

Green New Deal:  All the candidates have jumped on the “Green New Deal” train, although the Senators in the mix refused to vote for it when push came to shove.  This is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY 14) signature legislation publicly intended to save humanity from extinction in 14 years and privately intended to eliminate the threat of capitalism.  Estimates on the cost for the GND range from $51-93 trillion (2020-2029), but factcheck.org questions those values saying the proposal is too vague to put a real price tag on.  From my personal experience, I’ve not seen where the Congress or the President have really ever come in under original cost estimates so for the sake of argument lets split the difference and call GND a $72 trillion home improvement project.   

Well, those are just the Big-Ticket items I’ve noticed so let’s stop there.  Of course, existing programs like Social Security, Welfare, and Defense will continue their expansions through the normal budget cycle, but those will happen regardless of who is in the White House.  The only question that really remains unanswered is what happens when we have more debt than we can pay and the rest of the world stops believing in the dollar as a basis for international trade?  I’m sure there is a Nobel Laureate Economist somewhere who would have a theory on that, but Paul Krugman’s pronouncements on the economy have routinely been wrong so who should I trust?  The same MIT dude who admitted they had to lie to the American people to get the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (AKA Obamacare) passed?  Sorry, no he is an admitted liar.

It's a Mystery.

I am a little confused by the DNC primary process.  There is nothing in their policies, public statements, or candidates to suggest they are at all interested in what middle America (the flyover states) have to say.  Why then do they hold their earliest primaries there? 
Wouldn't it be more cost effective to just divide NY, MA, CA, WA, and OR into like 50 different districts and concentrate the primaries there and then tell everyone else how it turned out?

Actions Matter

Socialists running for President are having a tough time this week with this whole wealth redistribution thing.

Bernie Sanders was asked why he hasn’t paid “his fair share” in taxes.  He noted in the town hall his 2016 campaign advocated for a 52% tax rate on the wealthy (which includes him).  When pressed by Martha MacCallum on why he hasn’t paid that (he’s taken advantage of all the tax breaks afforded under the changes passed by Congress and signed by President Trump), his response was purely reactionary, essentially -- well why don’t you?  It seems to be a standard for socialist politicians – you all should pay more, but I won’t unless forced to.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for Bernie keeping his money as long as he complies with the tax requirements, but then I’m not suggesting the rich pay more either.  If you advocate for a high tax rate to pay for government spending, and are not willing to voluntarily pay that much yourself then all you are doing is advocating for less freedom for others.

The exchange:

Marth MacCallum: “So would you be willing to pay 52% on the money that you made? You can volunteer, you can send it back”

Bernie: “You can volunteer too…why don’t you give? You make more money than I do”

MacCallum: “I didn’t suggest a wealth tax”

Bret Baier: “And she’s not running for POTUS”

Then, to deflect the questioning, he launched into the "let's see Trump's tax returns" defense.

Beto O’Rourke was asked by a student at the University of Virginia why his charitable donations are so low when compared to others (averaging about .7% compared to 3-4% as a national average).  His response was: "There are charities that we've donated to that we've recorded and itemized, others that we've donated to that we have not," O'Rourke said. "I'll tell you, I'm doing everything I can right now, spending this time with you, not with our kiddos, not back home in El Paso, because I want to sacrifice everything to make sure that we meet this moment of truth with everything we've got."[1]

Essentially, O’Rourke’s answer is he is so important his time running for office is his donation.

There are a number of studies that highlight the different views of liberals and conservatives regarding charitable donations, but I find nothing that suggests one group is more or less charitable than the other.  The one thing I do find is one group thinks it’s the government's job to provide for the basic needs of the people, while the other group thinks the government’s job is to set the framework for success and let the people succeed or fail under that framework.  The charities the two groups contribute to reflect that philosophical difference.

---

[1] https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2019/04/15/beto-orourke-releases-10-years-tax-returns-shows-366000-income-2017

When Words are Meaningless, Actions Replace Them

In this age of instant communication, and near instant outrage and counter-outrage it is almost as if we have universally decided that words have no fixed meaning and can be redefined on a whim.  Political activists are great at this, choosing to alter meanings to fit the political attack or defense, but when they do we can look at actions to define their actual positions.

The President is again, supposedly, in trouble for referring to MS­­-13 gang members as “animals.”  The fact he did this a while ago, poses no problem for those seeking to vilify him and claim some sort of moral high ground.  Those who criticize the President’s words range from journalists like Dan Rather to politically inclined (usually Democratic Party-affiliated) individuals speaking with their own moral authority.  They point out evil men like Hitler used such language to create an environment where the population went along with the killing of those who were so labeled.  At times this self-righteous indignation is almost palpable.  But I wonder, do they ever take time to consider the conflicts within their own position.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC for short), likes to paint itself as the party for human rights.  The party that cares about individuals and their human conditions, but history has shown clearly the DNC is not consistent in their support of human rights, rather they use it as a tool in a kind of “bait and switch” operation as they try and determine what will keep or return them to power.

Today the DNC seems to be all about “black lives” and any candidate who claims “all lives” matter will be pilloried until he or she falls in line.  The same can be said for immigrant lives, where illegal immigrant lives are far more important than those who follow the approved processes.  They are vigorous in their condemnation of children being held by the INS, but strangely silent on the fact these children were transported by adults seeking illegal entry into the country.  As we see with the DNC the rights of children aren’t really that important unless they are creating an illusion of caring.

Of course, the issue of “woman’s rights,” which is really a euphemism for “abortion rights” reflects perfectly the difference in the DNC’s view of human rights.  Women can vote, fetuses can’t.  Therefore, the death of viable infants is not so very important from either a moral or political standpoint.  In fact, the more a candidate supports the concept of infanticide the stronger the support of the DNC and its propaganda arms in the entertainment and news industries, as evidenced by the Hollywood led attempted intimidation of Georgia. 

 Finally, and I find this to be pretty funny, we see a growing acceptance of anti-Semitism within the most vocal voices of the party.  The fact they will compare the President to Hitler the same day we the party members call for the elimination of Israel is rich in its irony. Here, once more, the actions of the party count far more than the words.  Who does the DNC look to and who does the DNC embrace when it comes to their position?  When the media covers their rising stars, what coverage is glossed over, and what coverage is brought to the forefront?

A Fable.

Once upon a time in a quiet kingdom located high in the mountains there lived a group of people who knew themselves to be peace-loving and generous.  Some would even say they were generous to a fault.  Each day they would greet each other and comment on how peaceful and friendly they were. 

The air and water in the kingdom were sparkling clean and the grass had no weeds to disturb the lush green of the open fields.  Even the animals were gentle.  The sheep were guarded by tame wolves (and only occasionally would one or two sheep wander off and be lost).  The cattle, who grazed on the lush green fields, gave the sweetest milk anyone had ever tasted.

The kingdom was so remote even its existence was virtually unknown to the rest of the kingdoms in the distant lands.  One day a stranger happened to wander into the valley and seeing the gleaming castle decided to stop and chat with the people.

The stranger, dirty and ragged from his journey, looked far different from the people of the kingdom.  He was rough-hewn and spoke with a strange accent.  In the course of meeting many people, he asked questions about how things were done, and why things were as they were.  He wondered aloud whether the kingdom was actually as wonderful as it seemed, or was it all an illusion that would come tumbling down at some point in the future?

Suddenly, the leaders of the peace-loving kingdom were afraid this stranger would destroy the harmony they had worked so hard achieve and feared the questions this stranger was asking would only lead to dissension and bitterness among the people they ruled.  So, they came up with a plan to destroy this stranger, but it had to be done in such a way that all the people would believe he had destroyed himself because they were, after all, a peace-loving and generous kingdom.

First with whispers, and then with an open disdain they set out to vilify the outsider.  Soon, there were rumors that if the stranger didn’t leave violence would surely occur.  Fearing these threats the stranger departed in the middle of the night to continue his wanderings, but he left behind a kingdom where more and more people began to question whether the kingdom was really as peace-loving and virtuous as the king had promised it would be.  Could the wolves really be trusted to guard the sheep?

Privilege, White and Otherwise

A recent fad among the social justice warriors is to accuse anyone who disagrees with their demands of having led a privileged life where because of their skin color, gender, or financial status they were allowed access to education or opportunities the poor African-Americans/Latinos/LGBTQ minorities and women weren’t.  This, much like the critical race theory, started as a social justice academic theory widely embraced by those seeking something to hang all the social failures on.

An interesting aspect of the recent “hate crime” scandal in Chicago is how little we hear of the privileges afforded a connected black actor.  Here we have an individual with connections back to the former Senator from Illinois and President.  An actor who claimed he was a victim of a hate crime in that den of MAGA politics – Chicago.  When the police investigated – their findings suggested he was the principal organizer of this farce.  He was dutifully charged, arrested and posted a bond to ensure his return to court.

We will never know beyond a reasonable doubt if he was guilty or was truly a victim because while this was playing out in the public arena his political connections were working behind the curtain to have the charges dismissed.  The fact all of the behind the scene players shared a party allegiance makes this scenario all the more credible to the average outside observer.  The telling thing in this negotiation was the charges went away, but he lost his bond money.  If, in the opinion of the prosecutor, the charges were found to be unsupported by the facts why did she keep the bond money and suggest it would go into the coffers of Chicago?  It is almost as if she concluded the actor should pay a small price for wasting the time of the Chicago Police Department.

This is just the simplest of scandals but it reflects clearly why the average middle-class citizen is losing faith in the judicial system because of the obvious double standards of accountability.  When the ideal of equal justice under the law no longer exists, can our government long continue?

Don’t get me wrong, I think privilege exists.  It has always existed but as the term is used in today’s society it has been bastardized to such a point the average woke SJW who uses it as a club really doesn’t have a clue as to where and how actual privilege is determined and applied.

For example, isn’t it the privilege of wealth and connection that afforded those involved in the most recent academic admission scandal to gain access for their children to the colleges of their choice?  The irony is so many of those taking advantage of their privilege were more than happy to tell the rest how we must think and behave to be socially acceptable.

Where There's a Will

What do you do if you have a problem that is too big to tackle the conventional way?  Why you get creative and find solutions you can implement, even if it means breaking a few eggs.

That appears to be the case with the Democrats right now.  Rather than admit they lost the last election because of a flawed candidate and an equally flawed campaign strategy they have chosen to focus on the issue of our electoral college versus the massing of democratic voters in big cities in the east and west.  The mantra from the DNC after President Trump’s upset victory has been “But we won the popular vote!  It just isn’t fair!”

Now we have states with Democratic Governors and State Houses beginning to move to invalidate the will of their own voters and cast their lot with those of NYC, LA, Seattle, Boston, Atlanta, and the other major metropolitan areas.  How are they doing this you ask?  Easy, they write legislation that will commit their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote.  The assumption being no Republican can ever win over the majority of voters so they will most certainly go to support the Democratic candidate. 

But what if a Republican were to campaign and win in the cities, but not the flyover states?  While not an obvious scenario, it is possible.  What if a Republican were to win the popular vote and not the electoral vote, would these same Democrats rejoice in their decision?   For example, suppose there was a fissure in the DNC and one of the losing primary candidates decided she should run as an independent, as happened in the 1960 election.  In that election, Nixon lost to Kennedy by less than 115,000 votes (a result that would be immediately challenged in recount) but lost in the electoral college by 84 votes.  What if the contest had ended in a tie in the popular vote with the independent candidate drawing off just enough of the democratic vote?

So far, Colorado has taken the lead, but Delaware and perhaps other states will follow.  The funny thing is politicians never seem to learn from past experiences, and this appears to be another example.  Remember when the Democratic Senate cast aside the tradition of requiring 60 votes to confirm a judge and now find themselves on the losing side of simple majority votes?  Today, thanks to their shortsightedness, all they can do is attempt to destroy the person in the hopes they will withdraw or be withdrawn by the President.

Not being a Constitutional scholar, I wonder how the choice to align electors with the popular vote, rather than the votes cast within the state will play out as these laws are challenged in the courts?  And they most certainly will be challenged for on their face they potentially disenfranchise the choice of over 50% of the state’s voters.

What I do know is these types of moves can and will be cast as responding to the will of the people, but in reality, they are nothing more than political power grabs that remove any illusion that politicians believe the people they were elected to serve should have a voice in the governments they run.

If Only

Acknowledgement:  I would like to thank someone I don’t know who felt compelled to comment on a post about Donald Trump for providing the genesis for these thoughts.

“If only we had a President who respected Congress and our laws.”

Yes, if only we had a President who like Andrew Jackson, founder of the modern Democratic party, so respected our laws and our nation that he worked tirelessly to kill off the Native Americans so his friends could take their land.

Yes, if only we had a President like Woodrow Wilson, who ensured we maintained the white/black segregation within the Federal government, and who with his enlightened friends like Margaret Sanger viewed Blacks as inferior, and should be shown their place.  Someone who brokered the Treaty of Versailles whose punitive agreements and division of Europe created the conditions for the Nazi party’s rise to power.  He also helped create the League of Nations but was unable to convince the Senate to agree with U.S. membership.  He was clearly a President of the people, as long as they were white.

Yes, if only we had a President like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who viewed his own imperial status as above the tradition set by George Washington to serve only two terms.  A President who attempted to pack the Supreme Court when it wasn’t ruling as he thought they should, and who at the onset of World War II imprisoned over 150,000 Americans simply because of the national origin.

If only we had a President like John Fitzgerald Kennedy who promised the anti-communist Cubans that the United States would support them if they decided to return to Cuba and fight Castro, and when push came to shove let them die on the beach at the Bay of Pigs.

What I wouldn’t give to have a President like Lyndon Baines Johnson, who did little to support the equal rights acts passed by the Congress, but made sure he and his Secretary of Defense micromanaged a war that would cost 50,000 American lives.  Along the way, he created welfare programs promising a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but in reflection really just created a new class of economic slaves.

Man, Barrack Obama.  Now there was a President.  Coming into office as the first African-American he held the promise of unifying the nation like no one before him.  After eight years in office, he left creating greater racial and religious divide than anyone the KKK could have hoped for.  His respect for Congress was unequaled.  His party stonewalled 8-years of legislation and abandoned the traditions designed to encourage bi-partisan legislation.  His quote, “I have a phone and I have a pen” will stand as a testament to his love of the law and Congress.  A President who had no qualms about using the national intelligence agencies to spy on his opponents or even the average American.  A President who weaponized supposedly neutral agencies like the IRS and FBI to hunt down and destroy all those who didn’t share his vision of “Hope and Change.”

Oh, what it could have been like if we had just elected a woman who has more skeletons in her closet than she has shoes.  Someone who is directly responsible for the creation of ISIS with her support for the overthrow of two African regimes not led by religious zealots.  I am totally sure she would have worked with Congress and respected the laws she had ignored all those previous years.

Apparently, Civics is not taught these days so we can make the same mistakes over and over again.  If only we had a President who the press liked so we could ignore all his imperfections or a political party that was willing to accept the Constitution as the governing document for our nation...

Living in the Real World

Perhaps one of the funniest things I watch these days is the variety of Twitter storms that flash up and are feed by people who’ve come to believe their opinions are totally insightful.  Of course, I approach these festivals of insight with a bias; developed from years of listening to self-important people explain to me all that is wrong with the world, and how if we just do what they suggest it will be great.

For example, as an impressionable young man growing up in the hometown of Franklin Delano Roosevelt I was persuaded by the charism of JFK, and then the social conscience of LBJ as he proposed we greatly expand the welfare state to help those struggling with poverty and no medical insurance.  That plan was going to create a “Great Society” where poverty would be a thing of the past.  Although I didn’t pay too much attention to the details I was sure the creation of Medicare would dramatically improve the health of the nation.  It was only years later that I began to wonder who was paying the bills for it?

Then the self-important created federal enterprises to encourage mortgage companies to write more loans so more poor people could buy houses.  Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac would buy the mortgages from the banks, in theory freeing up bank money to write more loans.  Of course, with the assurance of the Federal Government to back the loans the bankers assumed increasingly less risk and wrote increasingly more risky loans.  Then, in 2008, we had a day of reckoning and all that risk came crashing down.  How many people lost their homes because they had paid far too much for a house, based on an assumption that if they lived in it a couple of years they could turn around and sell it for far more than they paid for it?  It was almost as if we just knew we couldn’t be as foolish and greedy as those poor saps in 1929.

Now we are told the world will end in 12-years, or so, if we don’t get rid of everything that uses fossil fuel.  Again, it seems eerily like the warnings issued a few dozen years ago that unless we immediately got rid of nuclear power we would suffer catastrophic meltdowns what would burn through the earth’s core.

The issue I have with these self-important people making these catastrophic predictions is they seem totally unwilling to lead by example.  It is almost like they are our fathers.  “Do as I say, not as I do!”  Those who seem to have the loudest voices regarding the end of the world also seem to be the ones flying on their own jets, or living in their own multimillion-dollar homes.

Recently, the freshman Representative from New York’s 14^th District proposed a radical new approach to saving the world, one that by her reckoning will end in 12 years, where aircraft would be abandoned for highspeed trains and cars powered by hydrocarbon fuels would go the way of the Edsel.  When the NY Post observed she routinely flies from DC back to NYC she posted.  “Living in the world as it is isn’t an argument against working towards a better future.”  Last time I checked there was a train that ran from NYC to DC and back. 

Apparently, socialists don’t like to be called out for their inconsistencies’.  As one commenter to her tweet noted, “I’ll start listening to your advice when you do.”

Proposed Campaign Slogans for BS.

"Hundreds of tenured academics, and political economists can’t be wrong.  Can they?”

Or

“Vote for Socialism, this time with over one hundred years of failure, I think we might get it right (at least for the politically connected)"

Or

“I know I was a Communist when it wasn’t fashionable, but now that I am rich so I’m for those who will keep me that way.”

Or

“Free stuff for everyone who votes to keep me rich.”

Or

“I am the face of the youth movement - despite the fact I am over 70.”

Or

“Prove Trump wrong.  Destroy Prosperity for All.”

Or

“Socialism leads to Prosperity, Just Like Unicorns do.”

Or

“Socialism means never having to worry about climate change.  Bread maybe, but definitely not climate change.”

Or

"I know Marx and Engels had it right"

Or

"Socialism, destroying incentive and prosperity for over one hundred years."

The Evolution to Propaganda

It used to be news came to us in manageable doses.  A television hour here, a newspaper hour there, a few radio snippets thrown in for good measure.  There was a clear separation between the morning “feel good” shows like NBC’s Today Show and real news.  In fact, they would make a point of when they were changing to a 5-minute news break.  We didn’t really view the stars as real journalists, they were “personalities.”

That all began to change with the creation of Ted Turner’s Cable News Network, where we got the news 24/7/365.  They found that filling 61, 320 hours of airtime would be cost-prohibitive unless they played the same stories over and over.  People got bored so they had to come up with "discussion hours" where opinion became the main course.  The other networks found they were losing market share and thus began the evolution from morning personalities to “journalists.”  But to fill the airtime they still had to attract personalities the viewers wanted, and the best way to do that was to get in people who had a personal agenda in appearing.  It could be as simple as hawking a movie or book, or as complex as detailing a scandal.  The more scandals the better for the networks.  If they didn’t have a real one, then why not make one up?   That had been the way entertainment had sold itself for decades, and as news became entertainment they naturally fed into the tried and true ways of self-promotion.

As we’ve seen - the evolution from journalist to entertainer has been gradual, and most news people seemingly still live with the delusion they are “Journalists and members of the fifth estate,” charged with keeping the government honest and the people informed.  Unfortunately for all of us, they are unwilling to be candid and honest about the views they hold as dear and are used to flavor the news they choose to present, or the fashion they choose to present it in. 

As we’ve seen, with increasing clarity, these organizations have shifted from simple reporting of the news to flavoring news to support of a political agenda.  Now when something happens, they roll out not only the story but a wealth of “talking heads” who are supposed to be experts in the area of concern who will tell us what the event really means.  That keeps the real purpose intact.  We are not obligated to think for ourselves, they are happy to tell us how to think.

Let’s review the history on this whole Jussie Smollett affair and please feel free to jump in and tell me where I am wrong.  Since Smollett is an actor, let’s put this into the form of a tragedy in three acts. 

Preface:  Setting the stage:  The left hates Trump and Trump supporters and since his election has done anything and everything to discredit and vilify him and them.  (That is my opening position.  Feel free to show me how I am wrong).

Opening Act, Scene 1: Jussie Smollett (JS) an activist actor, who was allegedly attacked on the snow-covered streets of Chicago in the late hours of a freezingly cold night by two Trump supporters, (JS claimed they were wearing Make America Great Again ball caps), who were apparently wandering around looking for a gay black man to vent their homophobic and racist views on.

Opening Act, Scene 2:  JS is courted by a media who is totally on-board with the idea that all Trump supporters must be homophobic-racists, and his story is broadcast repeatedly without questioning the logic of his story.  (For the record, and to their credit, I believe the Chicago police took a good track in believing the victim until reasonable doubt became obvious.)

Act 1, Scene 3:  Every prominent liberal politician and media personality jumps into the fray with condemnation of the crime without one shred of evidence to support this was, in fact, a legitimate crime.  (It was critical for both the politicians and entertainment celebrities to be seen as sympathetic of JS victim status and confirm America’s intolerance is so great Trump must be destroyed.)

Act 2, Scene 1: Questions begin to arise as to the details of the JS storyline as the police continue their investigations into who actually executed this “hate crime.”

Act 2, Scene 2:  Details of previous problems JS has had with telling the truth begins to emerge.

Act 2, Scene 3:  Good Morning America has JS on and is interviewed by what could only be described as a totally sympathetic Robin Roberts to defend his victim status.

Act 3, Scene 1:  The men first highlighted in Chicago’s CTV video are identified and questioned.

Act 3, Scene 2:  Rumors begin to float that the men knew JS, worked with JS, and perhaps were hired by JS, and they were agreeing to testify about what really occurred.

Act 3, Scene 3:  Chicago police and the District Attorney have sufficient information to charge JS with filing a false report and he is arrested.  Fade to black.

Postscript:  This story has not fully played out, but it does not appear there will be any serious self-appraisal on the part of those in the alleged journalist profession.  The agendas will remain intact, and JS will soon be just a Wikipedia footnote.

One final thought:  There was someone on twitter who had what I consider a brilliant summary of this whole affair.  “Jussie Smollett is what happens when the supply of racism fails to meet the demand.”  It is my hope the supply of racism continues to decline until it can’t be used by those who would claim it as a defense for bad acts.

Whose Campaign Will Have the Best Slogan?

Regrettably, we have entered into the 2020 Presidential campaign season, with all the Democratic hopefuls coming out as candidates.  Of course, the most important thing a successful candidate must have is a great reminder, positions can come and go, but a slogan is with us forever.  For example, who remembers anything about the 1840 Presidential election, or the unremarkable tenure of William Henry Harrison, but who doesn’t know the campaign slogan “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too!”

Some campaigns choose wisely and some don’t.  We need only look at the last election to see the stark contrast.  We had “Make America Great Again” and “I’m with Her.”  For the average blue collar worker, it was no contest.

I think we heard President Trump's 2020 slogan last night in the 2019 State of the Union address.  My bet is “Choose Greatness” will be the lead for his campaign.  What are we seeing from the Democrats to counter this?  So far, not much.

Kamala Harris: For the People          Sorry but this sounds like a slogan for a law firm specializing in personal damage claims.  In fact, it is.  Morgan and Morgan:  For the people is a big firm here in Florida and I am surprised they haven’t already talked with the Kamala people, but then again, maybe they have.

Cory “I am Spartacus” Booker: Together America, We Will Rise   Perhaps if we were in the middle of a depression, like 2008, this would be a good choice, but as we see the current policies bring a booming economy the question then becomes who will rise from what?  I imagine the hope is to rise from the Trump Derangement Syndrome so many seem to focus on.

Julián Castro: For the Future             The former mayor of San Antonio and an Obama appointee he has announced his intention to be the next President, but I think his chances of success are slim since he is the wrong gender for the Democrats.

Tulsi Gabbard: Run Tulsi Run (?)                 Ms. Gabbard is a Congressional Representative from Hawaii and has announced she is running for President, but I’ve not found her official campaign site, only a place that claims to be a grassroots movement to “draft” her as a candidate.  Her most recent claim to fame is to call President Trump “Saudi Arabia’s bitch.”

John K. Delaney:              John Delaney’s bio indicates he was a businessman and CEO of two successful companies before becoming a Congressional Representative from Maryland.  His campaign site does not have a slogan.  Again, I rate his chances of a successful campaign as slim to none.  He is just filler to make it look like the real candidate hasn’t already been chosen.

Kirsten Gillibrand:  Compassion and Courage (?)         She announced her candidacy in mid-January but I haven’t seen a real slogan yet.  Perhaps the marketing department is still doing research on what would be a good choice.  For me, I’ll go with her announcement that said as a young mother she has the compassion and courage to lead us to a better America, at least until she makes a real slogan official.

Still waiting to announce:

Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren:  TBD              It is reported she will announce on/about 9 February so expect that to be part of her roll out.  My guess is it will be somewhere along the lines of “Make the rich pay their share.”

Peter Buttigieg: Middle-class life separates me from other contenders  Who is Peter Buttigieg and why does he think he has a chance?  This is probably not his real slogan but he is so far down the list I don’t feel like spending a lot of time on him.  From what I can tell his claim to fame is he is a millennial who has moved out of his parent’s basement.

And then there is.

Howard “Starbucks” Schultz:             Still deciding to run or not as an independent he is the Democrats worse nightmare.