Sleepless in Midland

Quote of the week -- Holman Jenkins -- conspiracy theory is a dismissive pejorative to avoid the evidence

This comes from Don’t Expect Police to Shoot at Crowds by Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., and while the topic of his essay is certainly appropriate, it touches on topics other than the obvious one in the title.

The quote below almost seems like a throwaway line. But it's something many of us have probably thought about. "Conspiracy theory" is a line we hear all the time in an effort to demean someone's argument. Anyway, here's Jenkins:

Conspiracy theory is a dumb term and should be abandoned when people really mean “false narrative.” Theories can be right or wrong. Conspiracy is merely a word for cooperation toward a criminal end. But our media use “conspiracy theory” as a dismissive pejorative to avoid showing what the evidence says. Many states, including states Mr. Trump won, conducted the election in ways not strictly compliant with state law due to the pandemic. A sharp drop in the rejection rate for absentee ballots needs explaining, though it was likely due to greatly relaxed security requirements.

"A dismissive pejorative to avoid showing what the evidence says." Yes, exactly.

Should we call Hunter Biden "Dr. Biden"?

Joseph Epstein is getting ripped because he put in writing his opinion that Jill Biden and her media minders shouldn't be so insistent that she be called "Doctor." See WSJ op-ed writer critical of ‘Dr.’ Jill Biden gets canceled by Northwestern University.

He's right, though. The use of the "Dr." to address someone really has been expanded beyond those to whom we would reasonably expect to address as "Dr." And it often seems that those PH.D. holders in the field of education are the ones who are most insistent on being addressed with that title.

But what about Hunter? That happy entrepreneur apparently got a law degree at Yale. See Hunter Biden: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know.

And according to the Yale website, their law degree makes the holder a Juris Doctor.

So what's stopping Hunter's stepmom and the main stream media from insisting that he, too, should be addressed as "Dr."?

--------------
2:48 PM 12/14/2020

--------------

Ginsburg's dying wish gives rise to skepticism

Ruth Ginsburg is alleged by her granddaughter to have said, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

I'm skeptical. She's on her deathbed, and she says that? Who does that?

But let's say RBG really did say that and parse the words as she would have done. The current president is Donald Trump. And if he is reelected, he will continue to be president. So that phrase " a new president is installed" could only apply to someone other than Donald Trump.  That's understandable.  But it certainly doesn't say the Senate should wait for that other president before naming a successor.

This whole thing is simply the partisan anti-Trump gamesmanship that has been going on for four years.

--------------
1:38 PM 9/21/2020

--------------

Quote of the day -- what America has is very fragile but worth keeping

This comes from To America, From a Worried European Friend by Daniel Schwammenthal. Subhead: "A country convinced that it is irredeemably racist can’t lead the world as the ‘indispensable nation.’" Here's the quote:

History and evolutionary biology teach us that the normal course of human affairs is tribalism, oppression and poverty. The emergence of liberal democracies isn’t the inevitable endpoint of supposedly linear Western progress but an aberration—and a rather fragile one at that.

This is why the rising illiberalism in the U.S. is so troubling. Activists who seem to understand George Orwell’s “1984” not as a warning but as a manual see free speech—the lifeblood of democracy and human betterment—as a fascist tool of oppression. Other classical liberal ideals—a colorblind society, rational discourse, the scientific method—suffer the same fate.

These unenlightened views have spread with lightning speed. Once confined to the campuses of the nation’s elite universities, they have moved into the mainstream of public discourse. America’s future leaders have been spoon-fed two theories born of Marxism. One is postmodernism, so called because it rejects the liberal ideas of modernity and the very notion of objective truth. The other is critical theory, which is preoccupied with uncovering hidden power structures that have supposedly stood in the way of a communist revolution.

These once-fringe theories have given rise to quasireligious dogmas that divide society into hierarchies of oppressor and oppressed, setting the stage for eternal societal strife. In this new cult, dissent or insufficient fervor is interpreted both as validation of the doctrine of ubiquitous racism and a punishable thought crime. As in medieval witch hunts, both denial and forced confessions prove the defendant’s guilt.

Let's throw in another quote to supplement Schwammenthal's point. This one is from Ronald Reagan: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." Is the current generation that is seeking control -- steeped in Marxist ideology and Gramscian methodology -- the one that will extinguish it?

The November election will be about much more than Trump vs. Biden.

------
10:51 AM 7/30/2020

--------------

The silent majority may rise again

"Silent majority" was a popular phrase during Nixon's campaign for reelection in reference to those people who were appalled by the rioting and whose own method of rioting was at the ballot box.

The phrase was supposed to have been first used in politics by Warren Harding in 1919. So Nixon can't take full credit for its use, but he certainly took advantage of it.

Which brings us to the present.

The election is months away, and it's too early to predict. But the rioting, looting, burning, and commandeering of city blocks has certainly turned off a substantial segment of the voting public.

There are those who would probably like for the demonstrations to continue until the November election in hopes that they may be hurting Trump by demonstrating an inability to come up with a way to end it or perhaps goad him into overreacting.

But the silent majority if out there. Will their momentum be enough to reelect Donald Trump? We'll see what happens.

------
10:52 AM 6/18/2020

Should someone registering to vote be required to show proof of citizenship? 10th Circuit says "no"

The state of Kansas simply wanted to require people registering to vote to show proof of citizenship. That should have been easy.

However, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the roughly 30,000 people who couldn't prove their citizenship shows that the "requirement unconstitutionally burdens the right to vote." And the court ruled the Kansas law unconstitutional. Further, the court ruled that having to prove citizenship violated the "minimum-information" requirement of the Motor Voter law.

There are plenty of partisans who want to make it as easy as possible to register to vote, but that seems like an invitation to fraud. Fraud does happen, and it's hard to ferret out. Voter fraud happens in a number of ways, and efforts are being made to eliminate the various ways to cheat. However, it requires plugging each hole. In the aggregate the number of fraudulent votes could be large, but any one tactic might not yield a huge number of votes. Reformers have to tackle each tactic one by one. The job is made more difficult by the requirement that large numbers of cheaters must be proved before reform is allowed.

Anyway, for a discussion of the case by the the Kansas Secretary of State at the time the law was passed, see Kobach: The Tenth Circuit Wrongly Strikes Down Kansas’s Proof-of-Citizenship Election Requirement. And click FISH v. SCHWAB to read the 10th Circuit's opinion.

------
10:15 AM 4/30/2020

Who are Biden's Supreme Court picks?

Pundits speculate on who Biden's VP running mate will be, and so far, he has hit all the notes in the identity politics song. But the other importion question is who will be his Supreme Court picks.

Many 2016 Trump voters were focused on the replacement of Antonin Scalia. And candidate Trump was smart enough to publish a list of originalists. He has subsequently selected some fine jurists to fill empty spots not only on the Supreme Court but the whole federal judiciary.

But what about Biden? So far, not much forthcoming. It would probably be fair to assume his picks will be straight up proponents of the living constitution theory by which a judge decides for him/herself what the constitution should have said so that it fits in with present day political whims.

Democrats know that, so it probably wouldn't benefit him politically to name his potential picks. But it would be fun to watch the political theater when Democrats complain that there aren't enough jurists of one group or another on the list.

Actually, at this point in the process, we don't even know for sure that Biden will be the nominee. There are probably plenty of Democrat insiders who would like to dump him.

------
8:46 AM 4/25/2020

Pelosi and Schumer put the "dem" in pandemic

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer try hard to never let a crisis go to waste. And when we see headlines like this -- ‘We Have Real Problems’: Pelosi And Schumer Demand Republicans ‘Stop Posturing’ On Coronavirus Relief -- we can suspect politics are at play.

A clean bill without all the Democrat wish list fulfillment would be ideal. But opposition parties must oppose. And with President Trump demonstrating daily the irrelevance of the progressive movement and their friends in the media, it's almost enough to make a person feel sorry for them.

------
5:10 AM 4/14/2020

A stock market crash must make Democrats absolutely giddy

Secretly or not so secretly, Democrats must be hoping for a prolonged stock market slump.

Before the recent crash, some prognosticator said the best number to watch for election prediction was the Dow Jones Industrial average. If the DJIA was below 22000 at the time of the election, the Democrats would have a very good chance of winning.

By that measure, Democrats must be overjoyed about that possibility.

It's a shame that political power has such a draw that those out of power would tolerate misfortune of others if that's what it took.

Meanwhile, the market had a sizable rebound last Friday. We'll see if it lasts.

------
3:17 PM 3/15/2020

Elizabeth Warren has her sights set on the VP slot

So Liz Warren dropped out of the race. If there's one thing we've learned about her, it's that she really knows how to game the system.

And her history tells us she has a game plan. Odds favor the plan of becoming Joe Biden's vice presidential pick.

As of the time of this writing, she has not thrown her weight to either Joe or Bernie. So we can presume that neither has offered her the slot on his ticket.

How long will Joe Biden hold off giving Warren what she wants? Could it be that he has already offered the spot to someone else?

------
8:13 AM 3/7/2020

Charles Lipson explains why the two parties want to strangle each other

Democrats and Republicans are at odds, to put it mildly. That's not a healthy development, and as Charles Lipson tells us America’s House Divided Cannot Stand. The article is behind a paywall, so here's a long excerpt:

For constitutional democracies to thrive—or even muddle through—voters and candidates have to respect their political opponents. Parties must see the competition as legitimate even amid vigorous disagreement on ideas. This shared sense is a load-bearing wall for democracy.

Over the past decade, the U.S. has become much more divided, sawing holes in this wall and hoping to miss the support beams. Progressives and conservatives agree on one thing: It’s the other guys with the chain saws. A 2018 Axios poll summed up the sentiment: Some 61% of Democrats thought of Republicans as racist, bigoted or sexist. About half of Republicans described Democrats as ignorant or spiteful.

Why do so many Americans see their political opponents in such stark terms? One reason is that many on both sides think the future of American democracy hangs in the balance, that a victory for their opponents could ruin the republic. Conservatives fear the growth of the administrative state—powerful bureaucrats who rule by fiat and undermine elected leaders. For progressives, the perceived danger is Donald Trump. The left sees him as an aspiring dictator who is willing to shred constitutional norms.

The two sides might seem diametrically opposed, but they aren’t. Both could be true and form a vicious circle. If “the swamp” and the “deep state” bureaucracy are out to sink President Trump, he can stay afloat only by fighting them ferociously. The harder he fights, the more progressives double down to defend the administrative state, which their policies have built.

This conflict is sharp, deep and toxic for democracy. It is grounded in the country’s profound ideological divide, now embodied in its two parties, and the shared belief that the stakes are very high, perhaps the highest since the Civil War.

Progressives say Mr. Trump started the fight. He is confronting allies, unilaterally imposing tariffs, and rolling back regulations. He is attacking opponents on Twitter. Progressives—and some Republicans who dislike Mr. Trump—are especially troubled by his attacks on “fake news,” which they consider a dangerous assault on the First Amendment. The left is appalled when Mr. Trump criticizes federal judges, whose independence is central to the rule of law. The left also fears Mr. Trump’s entirely legitimate effort to reshape the courts.

Both sides believe in their mission—and their righteousness. The civil servants and lawmakers who oppose President Trump believe they are saving democracy. They consider it a civic obligation to speak out, leak highly privileged documents, launch endless investigations, and unleash the powerful tools of national intelligence on domestic political opponents. They are guided by what former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey calls “a higher loyalty” that pre-empts laws and procedures designed to prevent such abuses. In their minds, the ends justify the means. ...

Mr. Trump and his supporters believe they are being persecuted by these opponents. They see their views being “canceled” in college classrooms and in the media. Mr. Trump’s supporters see elites treating them with open contempt. And they’re angry about it. ...

And there is no easy escape from this confrontation. Unlike the deep cleavage in the late 1960s, it won’t end when the troops come home. Unlike the divisions in the 1930s, it won’t end when one candidate wins overwhelming popular support. The country is too divided for that.

The division won’t end after the November elections, and the question is how to repair the damage. Democrats will need to acknowledge winners in elections, not resort to calling them frauds. And both parties need to show the tolerance and respect for different views that define a healthy liberal society.

"Tolerance and respect." Easier said than done. But we should try. Arthur C. Brooks suggests we should love our enemies. One step at a time. Let's start with tolerance.

------
3:05 PM 2/26/2020

Someone gave me a cold -- Liz Warren explaining hoarseness

In a recent campaign address she told the crowd, "Someone gave me a cold," to explain why she was so hoarse. Most of us might have said, "I caught a cold." But it says something about her that it had to be someone's fault other than her own.

Anyway, there are plenty of other reasons to dislike Warren, such as the flip flop on super-pac donations.

As she trails in the polls, maybe it's rude to criticize her. But who can predict the future? After all, she could be Bernie Sander's running mate. The two of them have a lot in common.

------
3:48 PM 2/25/2020

That was easy -- debunking report that Putin wants Trump to win in 2020

The very idea that Putin would prefer a President Trump over any of the Democrat candidates is absurd on it's face. Even one of the Democrats own witnesses in the House impeachment hearing admitted that Russia was more interested in sowing discord than getting Trump elected in 2016.

When one thinks about it, if discord is what Putin wants, the Democrats have already delivered it on a silver platter. And if, for example, that Green New Deal were to become law in the U.S. it would be the best gift Putin could ever hope to get. And he wouldn't even have to lift a finger.

Anyway, see Washingtonexaminer.com for more: National security official discredits NYT report on Russia helping Trump in 2020.

The swamp is still swimming with people trying to hurt Trump's reelection chances.

------
2:25 PM 2/21/2020

Not a jury of his peers -- Roger Stone juror was Trump hater

One of the foundations of the U.S. criminal justice system is that the defendant is entitled to a jury of his/her peers. Unfortunately, the federal court system's jury voir dire gives the judge the authority to question the jurors, not the attorneys. And while a prospective juror might proclaim impartiality, it would be difficult for the defense attorney to root out some deep seated animosity.

And now we are hearing about the jury foreman, Tomeka Hart, in Roger Stone's trial. Seems she is a Democrat party activist and an avid Trump hater. Furthermore, there were others on the jury with similar bias. Could it be that no one in a typical Washington, D.C. jury pool not biased against Donald Trump? If that's the case, the trial should have been removed to another jurisdiction.

References: Juror 1261 in Roger Stone's case: Was justice undone?;
Tomeka Hart: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know;
Roger Stone mistrial? Trump hater Tomeka Hart was Jury Foreman;
Roger Stone Requests A New Trial, Citing Revelations About Anti-Trump Juror.

------
11:36 AM 2/15/2020

Better dead than red -- University of Massachusetts would prefer a life ending meteor strike than Trump re-election

This doesn't appear to be satire. However, one has to reason that Democrats will lie to pollsters to emphasize their dislike of Donald Trump.

Whatever the case, The University of Massachusetts Lowell conducted a YouGov poll of mostly Democrats, and one question in particular is worth noting. Here's the headline from thecollegefix.com University poll finds New Hampshire Democrats choose human extinction over Trump re-election.

The screenshot the below features the question and responses.

But the tell that it's a bluff can be found in question UML908 which purports to show that only 5% approve of Trump's handling his job as president.

That's very far off from recent poll results of some of the more famous pollsters. And it's probably a good indicator of the bias among the respondents.

The poll results can be see at UMass LowellSurvey of New Hampshire Democratic Primary Voters.

Oh, by the way. For anyone who doesn't remember the phrase in the headline, "better dead than red," that was a slogan was a response during the cold war to Khrushchev's threat to bury us. Khrushchev later revised his threat with the prediction that gullible Americans would eventually vote in communism. That one is still unresolved.

------
1:13 PM 2/9/2020

Battle of publicity stunts -- Pelosi ripping up speech and Gaetz' threatened ethics investigation

Nancy Pelosi performed a publicity stunt when she tore up her copy of President Trump's speech at the end of his State of the Union speech. Other Democrats probably loved it and thought it was a fitting way to try to regain the spotlight after a tremendous speech.

Now we learn there is an ehthics investigation threatened. See Gaetz to File Ethics Charges Against Pelosi: ‘She Destroyed Official Records.

Maybe technically Pelosi actually violated an obscure rule against destroying government records. But as we've seen with Hillary Clinton's email scandal, the Democrat position on the issue is "so what?"

Pelosi was only conducting a publicity stunt. That's all she had left. And if it's OK to burn an American flag, then ripping up a paper copy of a speech doesn't seem all that bad.

But in these days of battling publicity stunts Gaetz has every right to do whatever he wants. Go for it Matt.

Ridicule is bloggers' weapon of choice. And Pelosi with her senile/infantile tactics is fair game.

------
6:25 AM 2/6/2020

the dog that didn't bark -- Dems haven't passed any laws making what Trump did illegal

The impeachment theater has been going on so long the audience has either tuned out or passed out.

Nonetheless, it's now raging in the Senate.

But here's the dog that didn't bark. If Democrats are truly bothered by what Trump is alleged to have done in Ukraine, then why haven't they passed a bill that would outlaw the conduct that has so outraged them so that it won't happen again?

The answer is actually quite simple. They don't want to put laws in place that would likely be used against a future Democrat president. (Also, such a law could be unconstitutional.)

------
2:40 PM 1/26/2020

Schiff Chia Head -- an appropriate memento of Trump's impeachment victory

Nancy Pelosi made a celebratory moment of the impeachment articles signing with her commemorative pens. But in spite of the hortatory zeal of the House Managers, it appears unlikely that the Senate will go along with impeachment.

The Obama Chia Head was pulled from the market before it got launched. After all, in an era in which a rodeo clown with an Obama mask could get fired, who in the MSM could tolerate such a thing?

That era has passed, and President Trump needs a cheap memento for the upcoming impeachment victory. And here's a free idea: A Schiff Chia Head. Yeah!

------

Star gazing celebrity worshipers: ‘American Hero’: Hollywood Sold On ‘Rockstar’ Schiff’s Impeachment Screenplay

------
2:23 PM 1/24/2020

Should we be worried about 2020 election interference?

Andy Kroll tells us in Rolling Stone that Hackers Are Coming for the 2020 Election — And We’re Not Ready.

Mr. Kroll cites a major cyber hack in 2016 conducted by Russian operative brought the internet to a halt. Then he goes on to a Russian group with a modest expenditure of "$15 million to $20 million and wreaked havoc on the psyche of the American voter creating the impression that behind every Twitter avatar or Facebook profile was a Russian troll."

Actually, that havoc on the psyche of the American voter was more likely the result a ploy by Hillary Clinton to deflect blame for her election loss and the Comey gang's efforts to criminalize Trump.

But never mind. The Russian are still busy bears. And regardless of any bias in Mr. Kroll's analysis, he makes a good case for caution going forward.

Most of us knew that already, though. For example, Wahingtontimes.com tells us 4 in 10 voters say U.S. ill-prepared to secure 2020 elections. Unfortunately, there's little any one individual can do, especially when many local election agencies are not that well equipped to deal with normal election safeguards. E.g., Hundreds of non-citizens registered to vote in Illinois due to technical glitch. Will they vote responsibly? We can hope.

------
10:14 AM 1/22/2020

Martin Luther King Day today

For many of us over a certain age Martin Luther King was a epochal person.

Judge persons by the content of their character not the color of their skin -- he opened a lot of eyes and minds with those ordinary words with such an extraordinary meaning. Today, after several decades, those words seem quaint and old fashioned. Now we have identity politics permeating practically everything.

I, too, have a dream. I dream of a day when we can go back to judging people by the content of their character and not some ancillary characteristic.

For more on this see For MLK Day: Thomas Sowell reflects on the legacy of Rev. King and his famous speech.

Meanwhile, happy MLK day!

------
3:14 PM 1/20/2020

We all know why Trump didn't reveal more secrets about the Soleimani hit

Nick Arama tells us what we already knew. In short, there was too much of a possibility that the Democrat representatives would leak it to the media who would in turn expose it to our enemies. There was too much at stake to reveal security secrets. Mo Brooks Identifies Reason He Thinks Officials Had to Hold Back During Congressional Briefing, It’s Not Good.

Quoting another article, Arama says this:

“[It’s] also consistent with that concern is what you just got done seeing with Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee during the impeachment proceedings wherein that information that was collected in a SCIF was invariably leaked to the news media,” Brooks continued. “So if you just had that experience where members of Congress are quite clearly leaking information that was collected in a SCIF environment, how can you trust them not to leak classified information regarding Iran that could lead to the deaths of our intelligence sources, or empower terrorist organizations to avoid American retribution for the killing that they have done?”

It's very easy to suspect that some, although not all, Democrats are so dedicated to defeating Trump that they would tolerate putting American lives at risk to accomplish that goal.

------
2:18 PM 1/11/2020

Joe Lieberman on dems' response to the Soleimani hit

Objective observers might be wondering why Democrats are condemning the killing of a known terrorist now when they either cheered or were silent when the previous president did the same thing. Could it really be just partisan politics?

Joe Lieberman sees through the dust cloud. He even provides a warning to Democrats:

If enough voters decide that Democrats can’t be trusted to keep America safe, Mr. Trump won’t have much trouble winning a second term in November. That’s one more reason Democrats should leave partisan politics at “the water’s edge” and, whatever their opinion of President Trump on other matters, stand together against Iran and dangerous leaders like Qasem Soleimani.

Found at The Democrats and Iran. Also here: Joe Lieberman Rebukes Democrats For Senseless Partisan Extremism.

Well, for the longest time Americans knew that Republicans would most likely defend the country, and the best they could hope for was that Democrats might defend the country.

------
3:43 PM 1/7/2020

Abigail Shrier in WSJ -- claims of sexism less about women's feelings, more about hurting competitors

Abigail Shrier penned an interesting editorial the other day titled Ken Fisher, Joe Biden and the Merciless Young how a clumsy old guy can easily get trapped by the "me too" movement.

Apparently, Ken Fisher made a remark at a conference to the effect that people need to be careful what they say, using a crude example:

... it’s like “going up to a woman in a bar and saying, ‘Hey, I want to talk about what’s in your pants.’ ”

Cue the outrage. Competitors pounced on the remark with their twitter feeds, and according to Ms. Shrier,  "As of this writing, Fisher Investments has lost more than $2 billion in institutional assets, and Ken Fisher has been widely tarred for sexism." Ouch!

Likewise with Joe Biden's touching -- years ago women could handle it, but not now.

Ms. Shrier gets to the point:

None of this is about women. Denouncing sexism is a pretext that permits one competitor to damage another while playing the hero. Messrs. Biden and Fisher were successful in their fields, but vulnerable because of old age. They failed to keep up with political correctness. This is the competitive advantage of the young—that they can so readily assimilate the ever-expanding list of shibboleths and forbidden expressions. Mock horror is the next generation’s form of rent-seeking, and political correctness the younger players’ edge.

What then are the lessons for other Ken Fishers and Joe Bidens? Shake fewer hands, make fewer jokes, never speak freely or off the cuff. It’s a tall order.

For now, their younger competitors need only lie in wait. But someday age will render them more human and less vigilant, too. Eventually, they too will cough up the keys to their own downfall. Viva la revolución!

Accusations of sexism for minor touching and unguarded comments are now merely weapons to be used against competitors.

------
4:02 PM 10/26/2019

Selective outrage over taboo words

In today's society the N-word is off limits. And even college professors risk being fired for using that word even in what most of us would think was a proper context. But African American comedians can use the word freely and have the audience laughing.

This selective outrage strikes many of us in flyover country as hypocrisy.

The most recent example of this double standard is screaming from Democrats about President Trump's use of the word lynching. But wait. What's this? Democrats threw the term around like rice at a wedding back when Bill Clinton went through his own impeachment. Go figure.

It's almost as if everything in the news these days is simply partisan politics.

------
1:45 PM 10/23/2019

How does one make a death threat against someone they can't identify

Sometimes it seems as though some of the hard core lefties wear death threats like red badges of courage.

We hear from news sources that an individual was so disturbed by President Trump's phone conversation with the Ukrainian president that he just had to become a whistle blower to out the whole conversation. The transcript was released, however it wasn't the smoking gun we were led to believe it would be.

And the whistle blower has gone underground. Anonymous. Identity hidden. Full Jason Bourne.

But now those news sources are rationalizing the anonymity by alleging death threats were made against said whistle blower.

The obvious question that arises is this: How exactly does one make a death threat against someone the threatener can't identify? Presumably, the threats come through social media. But if so, wouldn't there be a pixel trail of some sort?

In any event, it often seems that some public figures love to boast about death threats they've received. Reminds me of the old SNL skit in which socialites at a cocktail party bragged about the crack babies they've adopted.

Meanwhile, many conservatives are opting to stay undercover because of real fears of threats coming from the left, e.g., Jordan B. Peterson film sparks threats: 'We really don't want to have to bring out the guillotine'.

------
1:33 PM 10/21/2019

Darkness at Noon -- Stalin's show trials similar to Schiff's impeachment thingee

I just finished reading the novel "Darkness At Noon" written by Arthur Koestler and published in 1941 (translated by Daphne Hardy). The period described in the novel, although not identified as such in the novel, was during Stalin's rule over Russia, and particularly the period of the purging of the old guard.

The main character, Nicolas Salmanovitch Rubashov, had been a hero in the revolution and eventually became a party big wig. But the dictator, called "No. 1" in the novel, implemented the liquidation of all those old guys. And Rubashov ended up being charged with thought crimes, speech crimes, and conspiracy to assassinate No. 1.

After his arrest, he was subjected to "hearings" which were one-on-one examinations conducted by an aggressive and experienced interrogator. Although there was no physical torture, sleep deprivation was sufficient to ultimately get a signed confession -- Rubashov having resigned himself to the same fate as his old friends from the early days. We learn of the resulting trial through an ancillary character reading about it in the newspaper, and the actual trial had all the earmarks of a show trial in which the verdict had already been decided.

Fast forward to the present, and Donald Trump is on trial in a secret chamber which is off limits to the plebeians. Only the insiders know what is going on there. And presumably Trump is being accused of all sorts of things for which the evidence is very slim but with enough exaggeration and no rebuttal could be stretched into something serious. But the outcome has already been decided by the inquisitors. They will only need to move the goal posts just enough to fit the facts.

Most of us believe by now that the intent of the Trump inquiry really isn't to impeach the president but to increase the likelihood that he won't be reelected.

Nonetheless, the similarity between the Stalin show trials and the impeachment inquiry is striking.

------
3:32 PM 10/19/2019

Democrats' bizarre focus on honest gun owners instead of criminals

Beto O'Rourke's noisy campaign to confiscate citizens' guns always gets an eager cheer of approval from his audience. Many gun owners believe Beto's followers and other Democrats are motivated less by crime reduction than by the urge to sock it to those who don't subscribe to the progressive agenda.

The "tell" is that Democrats have no realistic proposal to disarm criminals. It's only the law abiding citizens they want to disarm.

Time and again researchers have produced studies telling us that criminals have ways of obtaining firearms that bypass the legal channels. Here is a sampling with excerpts:

The Armed Criminal in America:

Based on interview with more than 1,800 incarcerated felons, the study found that few of the gun-owning felons had bought their guns from a retail source. Rather, the majority usually obtained them from family members or friends or on the street. Often they stole them.

Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016:

An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a firearm during their offense. Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer.

The Last Link: from Gun Acquisition to Criminal Use:

The CIS respondents were almost all barred from purchasing a gun from a gun store because of their prior criminal record—as a result, their guns were obtained by illegal transactions with friends, relatives, and the underground market

It's trite but true. Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns.

------
2:56 PM 9/17/2019

AOC stuns us again with absurd claim that her generation is more informed than others

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can get headlines anytime she wants. Problem is, it's usually because she said something that shows how uninformed she is.

People today have access to more information than any previous generation. They have the capability to be more informed than any previous generation. Yet by almost all accounts those in her age group are woefully uninformed about history, economics, and the way the world works outside social media.

So here we have AOC making this claim:

“I think young people are more informed and dynamic than their predecessors. I think that they are more sensitive in a positive way in that they actually care about other people’s experiences and lives,” she said, praising what she calls the younger generation’s “radical acceptance.”

Sigh.

A couple of famous quotes come to mind. First, Joe Biden: "We value truth over facts." Yep. Make your own truth, call it true, and it becomes true.

Second, Ronald Reagan: "The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." AOC is constant reminder of that.

------
2:04 PM 8/29/2019

Slavery in 2019

Byron York tells us about the NYT's latest effort to sway voters in the next election in New goal for New York Times: 'Reframe' American history, and target Trump, too. The reframing puts slavery front and center and will attempt to make "race the central theme of Times coverage for the remaining two years of President Trump's term in office."

It's all partisan politics, but those of in flyover country might wish that they could tackle the real problem of modern day slavery with the same fervor they attack Trump. The State Department periodically publishes a report on slavery, and you can download the most recent one at https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2019-Trafficking-in-Persons-Report.pdf. Or see the overview at 2019 Trafficking in Persons Report.

A screen shot about the Western Hemisphere should appear on the right. Note that Cuba and Venezuela are the only two countries in this hemisphere that are Tier 3 countries. (Tier 3 is the worst in terms of slavery.)

We last talked about this in 2012 in a blog post titled Slave states - present day. Looks like Cuba was in Tier 3 then, too. But Venezuela wasn't. Hugo Chavez and his successor must have thought Friedrich Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" was a how-to manual.

------
2:57 PM 8/19/2019

James Comey making payments on his insurance policy -- donating to Democrats

The headline says it all James Comey and Wife Donated Nearly $20K to Democrats This Year.

Republicans are gunning for him because of his corrupt actions in the FBI which were directed toward the efforts to remove Donald Trump from the presidency. Comey's chances improve drastically with Democrats in the House and Senate. But his best chance is with a Democrat president.

It's self preservation. It's his insurance policy.

------
6:07 AM 8/19/2019