Using 'White' as a trigger word meant to be disparaging 100% of the time is simply another brand of racism. Just because it's most often used by white liberals is beside the point. Ever since the Democratic Party replaced Blacks with WASPs, it's become more and more common to talk of Anglo and European Americans in a way similar to how Blacks were treated in the heyday of Amos and Andy.
That doesn't make it right. In fact, assuming that you can drop the W-Word and instantly encourage hostility and judgement and conceit is no better than assuming that the term Blacks should engender the same negative reactions.
That's the trick. Mark Shea was right to blast Trump's inexcusable statesmen about immigrants from Africa and Haiti (assuming he said them they way it was reported). But as I said here, Mark, like many warming up to the modern Left, seems increasingly blind to the newest brands of bigotry and racism. When a round-table discussion on CNN in 2016 brings up the fact that White Americans are committing suicide at alarming rates, and the response is they're likely just upset they're losing their White Privilege, we've turned a corner. This is no longer soft racism. It's the real thing.
Being Christian means rejecting the evils of the past, the present, and the future. Just because the modern Left finds it advantageous to dig up old Nazi and KKK style propaganda, erase the words Jew and Black, and replace with the word White, doesn't mean it's OK for Christians to join in. In fact, how much of the misery of the Church would have been avoided if believers hadn't jumped on the latest bandwagon of the latest evil that all the hipsters at the best parties were endorsing.
Friday, January 12, 2018
No excuse
There is no excuse for what President Trump said about people from Haiti and Africa. Assuming the reports are true - and as of last time I checked, the White House is not denying them - what President Trump said about them is completely unacceptable on a human, much less Christian, scale.
Some of my dearest friends from my ministry days are from Africa. One of the best friends we have made among Catholic priests is a firebrand from West Africa. They are well aware of the shortcomings of their home countries. Most don't blame one thing or another. They don't say it's all the West's fault. They admit where Islam is a threat. They understand the blessings we have, but also bemoan the waste that we produce in our consumerism.
But they are people. And that is their home. With few exceptions, they return to their homes once they receive whatever education and/or training they receive. Because they love their homes. They love their homes, their people, their families. This is what they have.
I have news for you. Compared to Trump Tower and all of his other properties. I live in a s**thole. And that's the underlying, glaring problem eating away at Trump. It always has been. Sure, he's helping us now. Sure, the little guy might benefit. But what exactly does Trump think of all the little people living in s**tholes in this country? There's a reason we're called to be impartial. It does wonders for trust.
Some of my dearest friends from my ministry days are from Africa. One of the best friends we have made among Catholic priests is a firebrand from West Africa. They are well aware of the shortcomings of their home countries. Most don't blame one thing or another. They don't say it's all the West's fault. They admit where Islam is a threat. They understand the blessings we have, but also bemoan the waste that we produce in our consumerism.
But they are people. And that is their home. With few exceptions, they return to their homes once they receive whatever education and/or training they receive. Because they love their homes. They love their homes, their people, their families. This is what they have.
I have news for you. Compared to Trump Tower and all of his other properties. I live in a s**thole. And that's the underlying, glaring problem eating away at Trump. It always has been. Sure, he's helping us now. Sure, the little guy might benefit. But what exactly does Trump think of all the little people living in s**tholes in this country? There's a reason we're called to be impartial. It does wonders for trust.
Donald Trump adds work requirements to Medicaid and that's fine
I'm fine with this, and I'll tell you why. Let me tell you about my experience with Medicaid. In 2005, we decided to begin the journey into the Catholic Church. Being young and stupid, I felt I needed to make a bold announcement to my own church and take the plunge by resigning on the spot. No secret RCIA meetings while I put on a bold face in front of a church whose doctrines I no longer believed. And since I didn't want to wait for my kids to get older, in we went.
Now that means unemployment. And contrary to what some agencies that deal with Protestant Clergy Converts might suggest, it is not easy to make that change. There is no big Catholic safety net or fast track to continued ministry. In fact, I can't help but notice the whole 'Protestant Clergy Convert' thing that was all the rage in the late 80s and 90s was beginning to fade. Just in time for me.
So I found myself without employment with a resume that said 'Religious Stuff' in bold letters across the front. I decided, for the sake of my kids mostly, to buck up and go to my good Uncle Sam. I applied for Medicaid. Since my wife worked at a private Christian school, we had no problem qualifying.
After a few weeks, we got news that we were accepted - everything paid for! Paid for, that is, with providers that accepted Medicaid. I don't mind telling you, I was a little bummed about having to go in and ask if various offices accepted Medicaid. It was a new one to me. Nonetheless, things seemed to be working out.
Then, only a couple weeks after we were told we qualified, I was offered a job at an educational publisher! Hurrah! Benefits, full time, 401K - the works. The one snag was that health benefits didn't kick in until 30 days after my start date. Yuck.
So I called the State and asked if there was a chance to get an extension for my Medicaid benefits. I thought I had been pretty darn industrious after all. I just saved the state a crap ton of money, what with three active boys consonantly getting hurt.
And this is the point of my long-winded build up: They said no, there was no extension. The minute - the second - I began employment, I was off Medicaid. OK, a little disappointed. But I understood. I blamed the company's policy of waiting 30 days more than I blamed the State. But then she continued, and this is what hit me.
She asked how long I had been on Medicaid. I told her only a couple weeks. Oh, she said. You see, if I had been on for at least six months, then I could have received an extension.
WTF? (that's Whisky Tango Foxtrot, or so I've been told). That doesn't make sense. I'd think the State would want me off as soon as possible, and reward my diligence and industry in getting out and hitting the pavement to find employment. Telling me I'm more or less screwed, but I would be rewarded with an extension if I just lounged about for six months and waited to get a job, seemed to be completely counterproductive. It was as if they were encouraging me, rewarding me even, to stay on Medicaid.
And then it dawned on me.
The End.
Now that means unemployment. And contrary to what some agencies that deal with Protestant Clergy Converts might suggest, it is not easy to make that change. There is no big Catholic safety net or fast track to continued ministry. In fact, I can't help but notice the whole 'Protestant Clergy Convert' thing that was all the rage in the late 80s and 90s was beginning to fade. Just in time for me.
So I found myself without employment with a resume that said 'Religious Stuff' in bold letters across the front. I decided, for the sake of my kids mostly, to buck up and go to my good Uncle Sam. I applied for Medicaid. Since my wife worked at a private Christian school, we had no problem qualifying.
After a few weeks, we got news that we were accepted - everything paid for! Paid for, that is, with providers that accepted Medicaid. I don't mind telling you, I was a little bummed about having to go in and ask if various offices accepted Medicaid. It was a new one to me. Nonetheless, things seemed to be working out.
Then, only a couple weeks after we were told we qualified, I was offered a job at an educational publisher! Hurrah! Benefits, full time, 401K - the works. The one snag was that health benefits didn't kick in until 30 days after my start date. Yuck.
So I called the State and asked if there was a chance to get an extension for my Medicaid benefits. I thought I had been pretty darn industrious after all. I just saved the state a crap ton of money, what with three active boys consonantly getting hurt.
And this is the point of my long-winded build up: They said no, there was no extension. The minute - the second - I began employment, I was off Medicaid. OK, a little disappointed. But I understood. I blamed the company's policy of waiting 30 days more than I blamed the State. But then she continued, and this is what hit me.
She asked how long I had been on Medicaid. I told her only a couple weeks. Oh, she said. You see, if I had been on for at least six months, then I could have received an extension.
WTF? (that's Whisky Tango Foxtrot, or so I've been told). That doesn't make sense. I'd think the State would want me off as soon as possible, and reward my diligence and industry in getting out and hitting the pavement to find employment. Telling me I'm more or less screwed, but I would be rewarded with an extension if I just lounged about for six months and waited to get a job, seemed to be completely counterproductive. It was as if they were encouraging me, rewarding me even, to stay on Medicaid.
And then it dawned on me.
The End.
Thursday, January 11, 2018
Piers Morgan points out the obvious
Piers Morgan is hell and gone from what anyone could call a Right Winger and have the label mean anything. So when he draws a contrast between the madness of Donald Trump and the out of left field barking mad crazy of his critics, it's worth the read.
He points out what should be obvious to anyone. That at worst, Donald Trump merely acts as bad as everyone else has acted for the last 50 years. And in so doing, he is causing his critics to become even worse. The most recent cringe worthy moment in a long list of cringe worthy moments was celebrated actor Robert De Niro's Tourette Syndrome laced breakdown of Trump hate before the applause and adoration of his peers and fans.
Yep. That would be the same peers and fans who railed against Trump for, among other reasons, being vulgar and rude. Somehow the movement that brought F-Bombs into our living rooms and a middle finger to every public place being upset about someone's vulgarities is like a polar bear hating snow because it's white.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. As off base, crazy, and sometimes downright childish Trump acts - the only ones making him look halfway good are his critics.
He points out what should be obvious to anyone. That at worst, Donald Trump merely acts as bad as everyone else has acted for the last 50 years. And in so doing, he is causing his critics to become even worse. The most recent cringe worthy moment in a long list of cringe worthy moments was celebrated actor Robert De Niro's Tourette Syndrome laced breakdown of Trump hate before the applause and adoration of his peers and fans.
Yep. That would be the same peers and fans who railed against Trump for, among other reasons, being vulgar and rude. Somehow the movement that brought F-Bombs into our living rooms and a middle finger to every public place being upset about someone's vulgarities is like a polar bear hating snow because it's white.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. As off base, crazy, and sometimes downright childish Trump acts - the only ones making him look halfway good are his critics.
"Yet there’s a wonderful irony that won’t have been lost on anyone who saw [De Niro's] speech and also watched the President conduct that White House meeting yesterday.And it’s this: Donald Trump looked perfectly sane, while Robert De Niro looked perfectly insane."
Who the New Pro Life Catholics are aligned with
Here. A billboard campaign meant to remove the stigma of abortion. Sort of how we removed the stigma of cohabitation, homosexuality and wishing we could eliminate people we don't want. Here is the website, in case you want to have your say.
This is the Leftist tactic long ago mused about by Orwell. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, ignorance is, well, you know.
In this case, abortion is anything wonderful I want it to be:
Sacred. Liberty. Gender equality (That is, take that men, I can do what I bloody well want with our baby, and you only have to wait and see if you have to pay for it).
The NPLM accepts the pro-choice narrative that women have abortions because they are too poor to have the babies due to capitalism. There might be a few who only had abortions because wretched, misogynistic men forced them to. Otherwise, that's it. It's clearly not their fault. All of those women who don't have abortions for those reasons, just like all of those abortions not performed for rape or incest, are not discussed.
This is the only way you dance with the Devil. You tell yourself it's not really the Devil, it's not really dancing, or find some way to blame someone else (including the Devil).
This is the Leftist tactic long ago mused about by Orwell. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, ignorance is, well, you know.
In this case, abortion is anything wonderful I want it to be:
Sacred. Liberty. Gender equality (That is, take that men, I can do what I bloody well want with our baby, and you only have to wait and see if you have to pay for it).
The NPLM accepts the pro-choice narrative that women have abortions because they are too poor to have the babies due to capitalism. There might be a few who only had abortions because wretched, misogynistic men forced them to. Otherwise, that's it. It's clearly not their fault. All of those women who don't have abortions for those reasons, just like all of those abortions not performed for rape or incest, are not discussed.
This is the only way you dance with the Devil. You tell yourself it's not really the Devil, it's not really dancing, or find some way to blame someone else (including the Devil).
When an MIT physicist says something about science
I listen. I don't, as is common in the Global Warming debate, assume he must be some naive toady or corrupt money grubber on the fossil fuel industry dole.
That's not to say he's right. I don't know. I'm not a scientist. But given what I've noticed over the years - an increase in pop scientists always sounding the warning bell of doom about any topic, the obvious politicization of the issue, the often failed predictions of what is supposed to happen, the inconsistency with how the media presents the issue, and my general belief that scientists on all sides of the issue can be both good and bad - I'm willing to bet his take is closer to reality than the scientists insisting 'Climate Change is why I can't find my TV remote: Tonight on CNN'.
BTW, the link. If you notice, once in a while I have to link to Youtube rather than post the video. That's because sometimes Blogger won't access the video in question. It just won't let it post. I don't know why, it just won't. Is there a trend there? I haven't paid attention, but since the last couple times it involved videos of a decidedly conservative nature, I'll monitor it more closely in the months to come. So if you see a link to a Youtube video rather than the video, that's why.
That's not to say he's right. I don't know. I'm not a scientist. But given what I've noticed over the years - an increase in pop scientists always sounding the warning bell of doom about any topic, the obvious politicization of the issue, the often failed predictions of what is supposed to happen, the inconsistency with how the media presents the issue, and my general belief that scientists on all sides of the issue can be both good and bad - I'm willing to bet his take is closer to reality than the scientists insisting 'Climate Change is why I can't find my TV remote: Tonight on CNN'.
BTW, the link. If you notice, once in a while I have to link to Youtube rather than post the video. That's because sometimes Blogger won't access the video in question. It just won't let it post. I don't know why, it just won't. Is there a trend there? I haven't paid attention, but since the last couple times it involved videos of a decidedly conservative nature, I'll monitor it more closely in the months to come. So if you see a link to a Youtube video rather than the video, that's why.
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
Thank you Brittany Hughes
For pointing out what the entire National Media has chosen to ignore: That there is no such thing as 'Your Truth.' That was what Oprah told women during her divine campaign proclamation at the Golden Globes. She said that "Speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we have."
Now, I noticed something not brought up in the video that I couldn't post on Blogger. Note the pronouns. "Your" truth is the most powerful tool "we" have.
My boys made an observation. The reason Trump won in 2016, among other things, was the catastrophe that was the Hillary campaign. Basically she assumed she would win. There were many reasons to think this, not the least of which was the press's clear partisan support, corporate CEOs jumping on board, Hollywood billionaires singing her praises, and basically everyone controlling the information our nation hears and reads hoisting her up like a limp flag.
But another reason she had to be confident was the old Liberal six shooter: call anyone who doesn't vote for her sexist/racist/homophobe/Islamaphobe/thisaphobe/thatist. Drop the sexist card. Make it about sexism.
The problem? Calling someone a sexist in 2016, when women are already in the process of overtaking men in a growing number of areas in American public and economic life, doesn't have the same punch as calling people racist for not supporting Obama. As much as feminism has tried to portray women in America as on the same level as Jews in Nazi Germany, it just isn't as clear cut as, say, America's track record regarding slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and other cases of blatant racism. At worst, America was like pretty much most of the world in thinking men and women might be different and that could mean things. Plus, many women believe feminism is flawed, and that there are reasons that women and men can be different.
So while many in the press and entertainment and academic worlds hauled out the old 'women who don't support Hillary deserve to burn, all others are sexist' memes, it clearly didn't work.
Therefore is it possible - possible mind you - that the deification of the feminine that is happening in the #MeToo era is an attempt to right this? Is it an attempt to establish sexism as the new Nazi, and make it so that the charge of 'sexist' in 2020 will have the same buckshot that racist had in 2008?
It could be. Right now, the whole movement is an intellectual and moral train wreck. Not that women haven't been ill used or assaulted by men. But what is happening addresses one small sliver of the whole problem behind that. But nobody cares. In fact, to bring up other issues - like how women have gladly indulged in the T&A culture, how women could also harass men, how women with the power to do something gladly kept silent for the sake of their power - is to be smacked down as a sexist.
It's a theory. It certainly makes sense. Finding out that screaming 'sexist' doesn't compel people to Guilt Vote like screaming 'racist!' might just need to be remedied. And right now, I can think of no better way than the idea that the great evil of our age is always pure and innocent women being brutalized by a sexist, misogynistic land of daily terror - except where transgenders in the bathroom were concerned of course.
Now, I noticed something not brought up in the video that I couldn't post on Blogger. Note the pronouns. "Your" truth is the most powerful tool "we" have.
My boys made an observation. The reason Trump won in 2016, among other things, was the catastrophe that was the Hillary campaign. Basically she assumed she would win. There were many reasons to think this, not the least of which was the press's clear partisan support, corporate CEOs jumping on board, Hollywood billionaires singing her praises, and basically everyone controlling the information our nation hears and reads hoisting her up like a limp flag.
But another reason she had to be confident was the old Liberal six shooter: call anyone who doesn't vote for her sexist/racist/homophobe/Islamaphobe/thisaphobe/thatist. Drop the sexist card. Make it about sexism.
The problem? Calling someone a sexist in 2016, when women are already in the process of overtaking men in a growing number of areas in American public and economic life, doesn't have the same punch as calling people racist for not supporting Obama. As much as feminism has tried to portray women in America as on the same level as Jews in Nazi Germany, it just isn't as clear cut as, say, America's track record regarding slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, and other cases of blatant racism. At worst, America was like pretty much most of the world in thinking men and women might be different and that could mean things. Plus, many women believe feminism is flawed, and that there are reasons that women and men can be different.
So while many in the press and entertainment and academic worlds hauled out the old 'women who don't support Hillary deserve to burn, all others are sexist' memes, it clearly didn't work.
Therefore is it possible - possible mind you - that the deification of the feminine that is happening in the #MeToo era is an attempt to right this? Is it an attempt to establish sexism as the new Nazi, and make it so that the charge of 'sexist' in 2020 will have the same buckshot that racist had in 2008?
It could be. Right now, the whole movement is an intellectual and moral train wreck. Not that women haven't been ill used or assaulted by men. But what is happening addresses one small sliver of the whole problem behind that. But nobody cares. In fact, to bring up other issues - like how women have gladly indulged in the T&A culture, how women could also harass men, how women with the power to do something gladly kept silent for the sake of their power - is to be smacked down as a sexist.
It's a theory. It certainly makes sense. Finding out that screaming 'sexist' doesn't compel people to Guilt Vote like screaming 'racist!' might just need to be remedied. And right now, I can think of no better way than the idea that the great evil of our age is always pure and innocent women being brutalized by a sexist, misogynistic land of daily terror - except where transgenders in the bathroom were concerned of course.
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
John Lennon couldn't have said it better
So just when it looks like Trump will make some headway after a brutally tough week, once of his surrogates comes out and declares that Trump would win in 2020 against the Virgin Mary and Jesus. Oh brother.
I know, it wasn't Trump who said it. That doesn't matter. Any more than it didn't matter that Obama didn't declare himself the most important person since God. What mattered were the scores and scores of pundits, celebrities and activists who declared him the person who should have died for the sins of humanity.
It matters because it shows a void in the collective heart and soul of our nation, and not one easily hoisted off on one side or the other of the political divide. After all, for everyone who shook their heads and rolled their eyes at the Obama-worship from, among others, Oprah Winfrey and her ilk, it's not so easy to look away when the same is done for Trump. Or anyone for that matter.
Our problem is the heart and soul of our country. The Church and most Christians have abandoned linking that to a rejection of the God revealed through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shouldn't be surprised, therefore, when people start filling that Jesus shaped void with other things. Be it Obama, Trump, or the next politically inexperienced superstar that comes their way.
I know, it wasn't Trump who said it. That doesn't matter. Any more than it didn't matter that Obama didn't declare himself the most important person since God. What mattered were the scores and scores of pundits, celebrities and activists who declared him the person who should have died for the sins of humanity.
It matters because it shows a void in the collective heart and soul of our nation, and not one easily hoisted off on one side or the other of the political divide. After all, for everyone who shook their heads and rolled their eyes at the Obama-worship from, among others, Oprah Winfrey and her ilk, it's not so easy to look away when the same is done for Trump. Or anyone for that matter.
Our problem is the heart and soul of our country. The Church and most Christians have abandoned linking that to a rejection of the God revealed through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shouldn't be surprised, therefore, when people start filling that Jesus shaped void with other things. Be it Obama, Trump, or the next politically inexperienced superstar that comes their way.
The Church of Oprah
So we'll be watching as the Left attempts to lift up Oprah for president - just in case. Biden is still a favorite, though they do have to start reconciling a Biden run with their 35 year track record of making old age a liability. The older Biden gets, the tougher it is to ignore.
Oprah is the best they have. Which says a lot. As much as the Left is throwing all morality out the window, suggesting the scrutiny of candidate's lineages and endorsing unethical medical practices to defeat Trump, they really have nobody ready to step up to the plate in 2020.
Of course Oprah will pose a few problems. The biggest is that she is a celebrity with no political experience - something the Left ruthlessly mocked and hammered in 2016. If they run a celebrity with no political experience against a president who was just a celebrity and businessman with no experience, they will have to admit he did well. After all, what is your argument if you insist he was a disaster? The last celebrity with no political experience was a disaster, so vote for this one?
Plus, in the 90s and 00s, Oprah was not exactly respected among the intellectual Left. Oh, they didn't hate her. But she represented that cognitive fluff that many were pushing back against. More than once, when Oprah's name was dropped in conjunction with some liberal positions, liberal academics and thinkers rolled their eyes. Anyone with knowledge of the topics she discussed knows that she was not well informed - though in fairness, she was a talk show host. She let her writers feed her the info, and otherwise let her guests do the heavy lifting where deep analysis was concerned. She was, to many, emblematic of the shallowness of modern discourse.
Nonetheless, I have unwavering faith in the Left's ability to dismiss its own truth claims when no longer convenient to hold them. The media - which is in near orgasmic levels of gushing adoration over an Oprah presidential bid (for now) - will be instrumental in buffering the narrative against ugly facts and consistency. So we'll see. After all, after 35 years of declaring old age a liability, one of their most celebrated hopefuls for 2020 would be the oldest person ever to run for president. And with the propaganda behind it, we'll learn that old age is good. Real good.
Oprah is the best they have. Which says a lot. As much as the Left is throwing all morality out the window, suggesting the scrutiny of candidate's lineages and endorsing unethical medical practices to defeat Trump, they really have nobody ready to step up to the plate in 2020.
Of course Oprah will pose a few problems. The biggest is that she is a celebrity with no political experience - something the Left ruthlessly mocked and hammered in 2016. If they run a celebrity with no political experience against a president who was just a celebrity and businessman with no experience, they will have to admit he did well. After all, what is your argument if you insist he was a disaster? The last celebrity with no political experience was a disaster, so vote for this one?
Plus, in the 90s and 00s, Oprah was not exactly respected among the intellectual Left. Oh, they didn't hate her. But she represented that cognitive fluff that many were pushing back against. More than once, when Oprah's name was dropped in conjunction with some liberal positions, liberal academics and thinkers rolled their eyes. Anyone with knowledge of the topics she discussed knows that she was not well informed - though in fairness, she was a talk show host. She let her writers feed her the info, and otherwise let her guests do the heavy lifting where deep analysis was concerned. She was, to many, emblematic of the shallowness of modern discourse.
Nonetheless, I have unwavering faith in the Left's ability to dismiss its own truth claims when no longer convenient to hold them. The media - which is in near orgasmic levels of gushing adoration over an Oprah presidential bid (for now) - will be instrumental in buffering the narrative against ugly facts and consistency. So we'll see. After all, after 35 years of declaring old age a liability, one of their most celebrated hopefuls for 2020 would be the oldest person ever to run for president. And with the propaganda behind it, we'll learn that old age is good. Real good.
Monday, January 8, 2018
What is an authoritarian?
So I was informed that Mark Shea has - you might want to sit down for this - posted a piece blasting President Trump. I know. That's like being shocked that Rush Limbaugh criticized Bill Clinton.
Anyway, Mark called Trump an authoritarian. Mark has also mocked those who were concerned about Obama's encroachment on freedom and liberty. Let's compare.
Please let me know what Trump has done that is in the manner of an authoritarian leader. I'm not saying he hasn't, I just don't know of any legislation or executive orders that compromise the liberties and freedoms of American citizens. Just saying he doesn't support the policies of liberal Democrats doesn't count.
Obama? Here are a few:
But only a fool would call Trump an authoritarian and yet turn on a dime and mock those who saw the same in Obama. A fool, or a partisan. A partisan fool, of course, as good as always.
Anyway, Mark called Trump an authoritarian. Mark has also mocked those who were concerned about Obama's encroachment on freedom and liberty. Let's compare.
Please let me know what Trump has done that is in the manner of an authoritarian leader. I'm not saying he hasn't, I just don't know of any legislation or executive orders that compromise the liberties and freedoms of American citizens. Just saying he doesn't support the policies of liberal Democrats doesn't count.
Obama? Here are a few:
- The HHS mandate, otherwise known as 'to hell with religious conscience, I want free contraceptives.' A major step backwards for religious freedom in America.
- Supporting the persecution of business owners and government workers who don't jump on the gay marriage bandwagon. Again, a major step in the eradication of the right to not be liberal in America.
- Threatening to pull government funding from schools over the Transgender bathroom access issue. With no appeal to legislative process or the US Congress, Obama once again took pen and phone in hand, declared the moral absolute, and moved to use his power as executive to threaten the funding of or children's education if schools failed to conform to liberal morality. The best example of authoritarian thinking: he declares a moral absolute, then circumventing the legislative process, threatens the educational well being of our children if we don't comply.
But only a fool would call Trump an authoritarian and yet turn on a dime and mock those who saw the same in Obama. A fool, or a partisan. A partisan fool, of course, as good as always.
The only thing making Trump look good
Is his critics. ESPN's Max Kellerman, who makes Trump seem calm and sanely reasonable by comparison, has blasted the Houston Astros for visiting an administration he doesn't support, after laughably insisting his opinion has nothing to do with politics. When will liberals learn they can't insist they're not holding a can of beer when, in fact, we can see they are holding a can of beer.
Of course milk out the nose lunacy is common for Kellerman. When defending Kaepernick, he compared the idea that people should be expected to respect the National Anthem to political coercion. Truly he is a joy to all who need evidence that stupidity is not consigned to the right of the aisle.
Of course milk out the nose lunacy is common for Kellerman. When defending Kaepernick, he compared the idea that people should be expected to respect the National Anthem to political coercion. Truly he is a joy to all who need evidence that stupidity is not consigned to the right of the aisle.
Dear Natalie Portman
Exactly which men do you believe didn't deserve to be nominated for best director? I'd kill to have one journalist - just one - ask her that. Just like Spike Lee a couple years ago. Ask him, "Excuse me Mr. Lee, but which entertainer who was nominated do you think didn't deserve to be?" I won't hold my breath. When it comes to getting to the bottom of the truth, there are few professions less capable than modern journalism.
That's the thing about Identity Politics, BTW. The individual is swallowed up in the demographic. You therefore can say anything about 'the Demographic' without concern about how it impacts actual individuals.
A reminder:
That's the thing about Identity Politics, BTW. The individual is swallowed up in the demographic. You therefore can say anything about 'the Demographic' without concern about how it impacts actual individuals.
A reminder:
The glaring problem with modern liberalism is the bubble it has created around itself. If this was a conservative? A Republican? A non-liberal entertainer? You can bet the press would be all over her. As it is? She, like the rest of the entertainers last night, can elevate the goddess woman, talk of hair dresser elitists, and basically ramble on with ignorance, intolerance, arrogance, and shallowness and rest easy that not a single news outlet will do anything other than gush - at least when they're not salivating over the idea of an Oprah Winfrey presidency.
In a sane world you don't call yourself a genius
You let others do that. But the manifold heresies, blasphemies and stupidity of the Left have pushed us to the brink of all idiocy and lawlessness. So a half baked tabloid gossip book is now being treated as the Fifth Gospel, and in response, Trump calls himself Donald J. Trump: Super Genius.It's like some weird slow motion comedy. The fact is, the only thing making Trump look even halfway credible is his critics. Most of the national and international press has descended into tabloid fodder, running after gossip, falsehoods, rumors and any subterfuge they can get their hands on. If there is any credibility left in the media, I'm at pains to know where it could be.
Trump's own critics continue to show how Trump could win. The same who blasted him for a host of faults and sins were, in fact, guilty of the same. I can barely post videos of his critics who called him vulgar and unpresidential because most of them have people sounding like Richard Pryor impersonators. Many of the same liberal titans who blasted his supporters for backing a clear sex predator were, in fact, sex predators themselves.
And this laughable notion that a country spending decades making itself into a Debbie Does Dallas nation can suddenly turn and insist on an Ozzie and Harriett president is one of the most laughable examples of amorality in history. Only because the Viagra base of modern Conservatism has spent most of its time trying to insist it isn't part of the Trump movement, rather than blasting the leftist bilge that got us the Trump in the first place, is such an immoral declaration allowed to seem credible.
No, I join my kids in saying Donald Trump is nothing other than a product of the only nation they know and grew up in - except for the fact that he seems to think America is a good country. That, to them, is the biggest departure from the modern norm, as far as they can see.
Saturday, January 6, 2018
Amazing what you find on the Internet
I think my parents are the best parents you could ever have. I'm sure that's a biased opinion, but it's mine. I never believed they were perfect, nor believed they had to be. It's enough that they tried to be good parents for our sake, rather than their own. Still, they did have some quirks I wish they didn't.
One of the things they did, that if I could go back in time I'd slap them over, was a tendency to move. I mean, move needlessly. It wasn't because of jobs. My Dad was a railroad engineer and seldom lived in the same town where he worked. Nor was it for schools. I grew up and stayed in the same school district for my whole life.
They just moved. For reasons they never really articulated. I think my Dad, who grew up dirt poor in the Depression, was just happy to have the money. I think they tended to talk themselves into moving, and often sold their homes faster than they found ones they wanted. That means they often settled for houses they didn't really want, which ended up leading them to - you guessed it - move.
When you're a kid, it's about the neighborhood. Even if you go to the same school, it's the neighborhood that defines the friends, especially in such a small school and community. Due to the constant moving, I was that kid who, already born to parents from out of town, never settled in with one set of friends. Hence my tendency to be somewhat introspective and introverted (which has been interpreted by some as being a bit offish).
Nonetheless, one time my parents did it right. We moved out of town to a small house that was really nothing. My parents didn't like it, I couldn't stand it. There were no kids around. There was nothing to do. It was just me finding ways to keep busy. My sister, who was almost 9 years my senior, and who had little to do with me anyway, was in high school, driving, and going about her business.
So after barely a year, we moved again. Because my Dad was such a handy man and inevitably fixed his houses up better than he found them, we usually sold them quickly. This time, however, they decided to rent a house, allowing for more time to choose. So we moved back into town in the summer of 1976. A few months later, we found out we were moving again.
This time it was to be the final move. And when I saw it, I understood why. What a house! An old "Queen Anne" style house, it sported a conical tower on one corner, more outside doors than you could use in a week, massive sliding doors separating the downstairs living areas, crystal chandeliers, a massive attic, a hidden storage room and - get this - an actual 'secret' passage linking a walk in pantry and one of the downstairs bedrooms.
I loved it. For a while, it had been divided into a duplex and rented out. That led to one of the rooms upstairs being converted into a full kitchen. That became my bedroom, right next to the hidden storage room that was accessed by a concealed door in the closet. An oak stairway with oak paneling circled upwards over two separate landings.
There were changes made. First thing was the sealing up of the hidden passage. My Mom didn't like the idea of some hidden place I could duck into. The solid oak sliding doors were modified to work again (carpeting had made them unusable, so my Dad shimmied the bottom off so they would work again). Of course we never used them, and I wasn't allowed to close them. Finally, the hidden storage room was opened up and made more accessible and less 'mysterious.' Again, my Mom's request.
The conical tower was cool. On the bottom is was the extension to a small foyer next to the main front door leading to the outside sidewalk. On the second floor, however, it was just part of the upstairs bathroom. There was a large, built in, leaded glass china cabinet that my Mom liked, though under used. All in all, it was a great house, and the most enjoyable home to grow up in - until 3 years later when my parents moved again.
Nonetheless, I have fond memories of this. So it was with some pride that I saw, on a FB post, that this house had once been featured in a series on historic homes. The series was done after we had left. The house was built in 1903 (I remember the date was put in tiles on the winding sidewalk from the back kitchen door that cut through the yard and headed toward the main sidewalk). It was built by a businessman named Campbell, and was actually known as "The Campbell House." Somehow being in a house with an actual name makes it all the cooler.
I enjoyed my time there, and a growing number of neighborhood kids warmed up to me as they enjoyed the cavernous rooms (12' ceilings), round tower and rumor of hidden chambers. Why my parents moved, I don't know. They say once my sister moved out for the first time, it was too big for a family of three. Personally I think it's because Dad wanted a large yard, something the house just didn't have. He tried to get a couple old neighbor ladies to sell part of their yards, but to no avail. I can't help but guess that had something to do with it.
Nonetheless, for a time we lived in 'The Campbell House', an early 20th century Queen Anne, and that's not bad. Thanks be to the Internet. It does serve some good purposes after all.
One of the things they did, that if I could go back in time I'd slap them over, was a tendency to move. I mean, move needlessly. It wasn't because of jobs. My Dad was a railroad engineer and seldom lived in the same town where he worked. Nor was it for schools. I grew up and stayed in the same school district for my whole life.
They just moved. For reasons they never really articulated. I think my Dad, who grew up dirt poor in the Depression, was just happy to have the money. I think they tended to talk themselves into moving, and often sold their homes faster than they found ones they wanted. That means they often settled for houses they didn't really want, which ended up leading them to - you guessed it - move.
When you're a kid, it's about the neighborhood. Even if you go to the same school, it's the neighborhood that defines the friends, especially in such a small school and community. Due to the constant moving, I was that kid who, already born to parents from out of town, never settled in with one set of friends. Hence my tendency to be somewhat introspective and introverted (which has been interpreted by some as being a bit offish).
Nonetheless, one time my parents did it right. We moved out of town to a small house that was really nothing. My parents didn't like it, I couldn't stand it. There were no kids around. There was nothing to do. It was just me finding ways to keep busy. My sister, who was almost 9 years my senior, and who had little to do with me anyway, was in high school, driving, and going about her business.
So after barely a year, we moved again. Because my Dad was such a handy man and inevitably fixed his houses up better than he found them, we usually sold them quickly. This time, however, they decided to rent a house, allowing for more time to choose. So we moved back into town in the summer of 1976. A few months later, we found out we were moving again.
This time it was to be the final move. And when I saw it, I understood why. What a house! An old "Queen Anne" style house, it sported a conical tower on one corner, more outside doors than you could use in a week, massive sliding doors separating the downstairs living areas, crystal chandeliers, a massive attic, a hidden storage room and - get this - an actual 'secret' passage linking a walk in pantry and one of the downstairs bedrooms.
I loved it. For a while, it had been divided into a duplex and rented out. That led to one of the rooms upstairs being converted into a full kitchen. That became my bedroom, right next to the hidden storage room that was accessed by a concealed door in the closet. An oak stairway with oak paneling circled upwards over two separate landings.
There were changes made. First thing was the sealing up of the hidden passage. My Mom didn't like the idea of some hidden place I could duck into. The solid oak sliding doors were modified to work again (carpeting had made them unusable, so my Dad shimmied the bottom off so they would work again). Of course we never used them, and I wasn't allowed to close them. Finally, the hidden storage room was opened up and made more accessible and less 'mysterious.' Again, my Mom's request.
The conical tower was cool. On the bottom is was the extension to a small foyer next to the main front door leading to the outside sidewalk. On the second floor, however, it was just part of the upstairs bathroom. There was a large, built in, leaded glass china cabinet that my Mom liked, though under used. All in all, it was a great house, and the most enjoyable home to grow up in - until 3 years later when my parents moved again.
Nonetheless, I have fond memories of this. So it was with some pride that I saw, on a FB post, that this house had once been featured in a series on historic homes. The series was done after we had left. The house was built in 1903 (I remember the date was put in tiles on the winding sidewalk from the back kitchen door that cut through the yard and headed toward the main sidewalk). It was built by a businessman named Campbell, and was actually known as "The Campbell House." Somehow being in a house with an actual name makes it all the cooler.
I enjoyed my time there, and a growing number of neighborhood kids warmed up to me as they enjoyed the cavernous rooms (12' ceilings), round tower and rumor of hidden chambers. Why my parents moved, I don't know. They say once my sister moved out for the first time, it was too big for a family of three. Personally I think it's because Dad wanted a large yard, something the house just didn't have. He tried to get a couple old neighbor ladies to sell part of their yards, but to no avail. I can't help but guess that had something to do with it.
Nonetheless, for a time we lived in 'The Campbell House', an early 20th century Queen Anne, and that's not bad. Thanks be to the Internet. It does serve some good purposes after all.
One bit of fun trivia. A second furnace was at the top of the old stairs. When it cranked on, it made a sound that sounded like footsteps. I used to lay in bed and count, wondering if someone started at the basement and walked through the house, if they would reach me before the noise stopped and the furnace finally kicked on.
The reason the Wolff book is so important
Is this. Yep, the unemployment rate for African Americans is now lower than it has been since tracking began. The press has under reported this*, and if pushed, I'm sure it will rely on giving credit to Barrack Obama. Just like the press continued to blame anything wrong during the previous eight years on George Bush.
Nonetheless, the headline 'Unemployment lowest ever for African Americans' is bad optics. So focusing on Wolff's book is important. It must keep our eyes off the ball, off of what is happening, and in the trenches of personal attack and character assassination.
Of course the book is really nothing new. It's nothing other than an author saying trust him, he talked to people who say what the press, pundits and Trump critics insist people have said for the last year. And insisting he had access to Trump for around three hours over the course of months of campaigning (do the math).
And it's nothing we haven't heard before Donald Trump. Senility, moron, mentally incapable, unfit for office - I heard in in the 80s with Reagan and Dan Quayle. I heard it again in the 00s during the Bush administration. In fact, come to think of it, I notice a trend. When the Left doesn't get the person it wants, it uses the press and other surrogates to attack and destroy the individuals who have thwarted their designs. As this book is supposed to do.
I don't think Trump is the best type of person we could have by a long shot. Unfortunately, the best type of people we have produced have become part of the problem, as this old piece observes. A world with a growing elitist class that cares for itself, and nothing else. If Trump doesn't care either, he's at least shaking things up and, so far, doing things that could help that growing demographic of non-elites that had so woefully fallen behind over the last few decades.
*Except for USA Today, the linked to article, and a handful of local or marginal publications, I've not found major outlets running this story. Those few I found that did address the news were like this WaPo piece, which obviously was trying to downplay and deflect, and keep divides alive.
Nonetheless, the headline 'Unemployment lowest ever for African Americans' is bad optics. So focusing on Wolff's book is important. It must keep our eyes off the ball, off of what is happening, and in the trenches of personal attack and character assassination.
Of course the book is really nothing new. It's nothing other than an author saying trust him, he talked to people who say what the press, pundits and Trump critics insist people have said for the last year. And insisting he had access to Trump for around three hours over the course of months of campaigning (do the math).
And it's nothing we haven't heard before Donald Trump. Senility, moron, mentally incapable, unfit for office - I heard in in the 80s with Reagan and Dan Quayle. I heard it again in the 00s during the Bush administration. In fact, come to think of it, I notice a trend. When the Left doesn't get the person it wants, it uses the press and other surrogates to attack and destroy the individuals who have thwarted their designs. As this book is supposed to do.
I don't think Trump is the best type of person we could have by a long shot. Unfortunately, the best type of people we have produced have become part of the problem, as this old piece observes. A world with a growing elitist class that cares for itself, and nothing else. If Trump doesn't care either, he's at least shaking things up and, so far, doing things that could help that growing demographic of non-elites that had so woefully fallen behind over the last few decades.
*Except for USA Today, the linked to article, and a handful of local or marginal publications, I've not found major outlets running this story. Those few I found that did address the news were like this WaPo piece, which obviously was trying to downplay and deflect, and keep divides alive.
Friday, January 5, 2018
Because everything proves Global Warming
One of the reasons it's difficult to dismiss Global Warming is because everything proves it.
Bitter, historic freezes? Global Warming
Mild, warm winters? Global Warming
Near record flooding? Global Warming
Severe Hurricane seasons? Global Warming
Mild Hurricane seasons? Well, not much, just ignore
Droughts? Global Warming
Floods? Global Warming
Record Highs? Global Warming
Record Lows? Global Warming
Near record anything? Global Warming
Severe weather? Global Warming
Mild weather? Ignore
Earthquakes? Global Warming
And on it goes. Basically whatever happens proves global warming. If it's the worst of anything in X years, it proves Global Warming. Never mind that this means X years ago it was just as bad. That doesn't matter. Just like it might or might not matter what the weather is outside your window. Sometimes it might prove Global Warming. Sometimes it might just be weather.
Sane people can distinguish. Clearly the climate is changing, as it always has since the beginning of the planet. It also seems to be getting warmer, as it has done at different times throughout the eons. And I seriously doubt that our approach to industrialization and technological innovation hasn't had it's negative side effects. Lesson learned: Be cautious about handing science and technology a blank check - you never know what the long term impact might be.
Other than that, most of the hysterics is based on believing the equivalent of a car salesman insisting that the oil slick under the car is supposed to be there.
Bitter, historic freezes? Global Warming
Mild, warm winters? Global Warming
Near record flooding? Global Warming
Severe Hurricane seasons? Global Warming
Mild Hurricane seasons? Well, not much, just ignore
Droughts? Global Warming
Floods? Global Warming
Record Highs? Global Warming
Record Lows? Global Warming
Near record anything? Global Warming
Severe weather? Global Warming
Mild weather? Ignore
Earthquakes? Global Warming
And on it goes. Basically whatever happens proves global warming. If it's the worst of anything in X years, it proves Global Warming. Never mind that this means X years ago it was just as bad. That doesn't matter. Just like it might or might not matter what the weather is outside your window. Sometimes it might prove Global Warming. Sometimes it might just be weather.
Sane people can distinguish. Clearly the climate is changing, as it always has since the beginning of the planet. It also seems to be getting warmer, as it has done at different times throughout the eons. And I seriously doubt that our approach to industrialization and technological innovation hasn't had it's negative side effects. Lesson learned: Be cautious about handing science and technology a blank check - you never know what the long term impact might be.
Other than that, most of the hysterics is based on believing the equivalent of a car salesman insisting that the oil slick under the car is supposed to be there.
Put to the test
Yep. This is the year that opponents of socialism get put to the test. Let's face it, there is no reason that our modern market needs to have gone the way it did. We all know that post-WWII gave America a cutting edge economically. We know that eventually things would change. But as international fortunes shifted, the result didn't need to be what it has become.
And what is that? An era where my kids understand the phrase 'good old American craftsmanship' as sarcasm, rather than fact. A time in which salaries have sat stagnant while upper management, CEOs and stockholders have bathed in exponential growth. An age in which I spend $4.00 for a bag of air and the company kindly throws in a handful of potato chips for free. A time in which entire industries exist in order to fix the products that are released almost guaranteed to fail and fall apart. A generation that has come to be content with hearing corporate leaders explain why a global economy is inevitable, there are consumers in other parts of the world, and if Americans don't keep up, well, "eh."
When these problems are brought up - and I've brought them up in many forums and comments sections over the years - I'm reminded that the reason for the drop in quality, quantity and general care for the average American worker is the direct result of government regulations and back breaking taxation.
OK. Fair enough. We'll just leave it at that and say there simply was no other route to take than the one taken, and that the cause for the growing number of Americans who can't even afford a new car, much less basic healthcare or a standard of living anywhere close to half a century ago, was the result of those two factors.
Now those factors have been removed. Among the chorus singing President Trump's praises are those pointing to how many entangled, burdensome government regulations he has ended. And we all know of the tax bill he successfully pushed at the end of the year. One. Two. The Scylla and Charybdis threatening our corporate beneficence have been addressed, and we'll see a market where corporations will once again push for higher quality, higher quantities at reasonable prices, all while increasing the wages and benefits of their labor force (and not just one time symbolic bonuses).
Right?
We'll see. If it happens, then great. If it happens, and we don't start a nuclear war, expect whoever is president now to be president in 2021, no matter what the press does to change that verdict (barring proof of Russian collusion of course). I don't know if the changes will happen fast enough for 2018. I'm a fair man, and understand there is a certain amount of time for things to come together.
But if, in another two years or so, I see companies continue to raise their prices while gutting quantity or quality, I notice wages continue to stagnate, and I see a new generation coming up that snickers when they hear about 'American craftsmanship', then I expect in another few decades that some form of socialism will be the law of the land, and those politicians standing in its way will be looking for jobs after each election cycle.
We've had about three generations of children raised to hear of the abuses of Capitalism and the exploitation of the free market by corporate interests that increasingly don't give a damn about America, Americans, or, for that matter, the free market. This will be the big test. If they respond correctly and justly, the market might live to fight another century. If not, however, then it's likely that many of those corporate CEOs who seem to prefer a post-Capitalist economy will likely get what they want.
And what is that? An era where my kids understand the phrase 'good old American craftsmanship' as sarcasm, rather than fact. A time in which salaries have sat stagnant while upper management, CEOs and stockholders have bathed in exponential growth. An age in which I spend $4.00 for a bag of air and the company kindly throws in a handful of potato chips for free. A time in which entire industries exist in order to fix the products that are released almost guaranteed to fail and fall apart. A generation that has come to be content with hearing corporate leaders explain why a global economy is inevitable, there are consumers in other parts of the world, and if Americans don't keep up, well, "eh."
When these problems are brought up - and I've brought them up in many forums and comments sections over the years - I'm reminded that the reason for the drop in quality, quantity and general care for the average American worker is the direct result of government regulations and back breaking taxation.
OK. Fair enough. We'll just leave it at that and say there simply was no other route to take than the one taken, and that the cause for the growing number of Americans who can't even afford a new car, much less basic healthcare or a standard of living anywhere close to half a century ago, was the result of those two factors.
Now those factors have been removed. Among the chorus singing President Trump's praises are those pointing to how many entangled, burdensome government regulations he has ended. And we all know of the tax bill he successfully pushed at the end of the year. One. Two. The Scylla and Charybdis threatening our corporate beneficence have been addressed, and we'll see a market where corporations will once again push for higher quality, higher quantities at reasonable prices, all while increasing the wages and benefits of their labor force (and not just one time symbolic bonuses).
Right?
We'll see. If it happens, then great. If it happens, and we don't start a nuclear war, expect whoever is president now to be president in 2021, no matter what the press does to change that verdict (barring proof of Russian collusion of course). I don't know if the changes will happen fast enough for 2018. I'm a fair man, and understand there is a certain amount of time for things to come together.
But if, in another two years or so, I see companies continue to raise their prices while gutting quantity or quality, I notice wages continue to stagnate, and I see a new generation coming up that snickers when they hear about 'American craftsmanship', then I expect in another few decades that some form of socialism will be the law of the land, and those politicians standing in its way will be looking for jobs after each election cycle.
We've had about three generations of children raised to hear of the abuses of Capitalism and the exploitation of the free market by corporate interests that increasingly don't give a damn about America, Americans, or, for that matter, the free market. This will be the big test. If they respond correctly and justly, the market might live to fight another century. If not, however, then it's likely that many of those corporate CEOs who seem to prefer a post-Capitalist economy will likely get what they want.
I wish I was this clever in school
Or anywhere. I'm the person who thinks of a great comeback two days later. I wouldn't stand a chance against these kids (even if some appear quite unintentional).
My favorite:
My favorite:
When you have an administration based on being a loose cannon
Then you're going to get people who are loose cannons. Steve Bannon, America's own Himmler, who was reviled by the Left as one of the top ten most horrible people in history, has turned his gun sights on Trump and his administration and become the most reliable man in America.
Why? I have no clue. Bannon seems to me to be a right wing anarchist. He comes off as a person who sees it as his job to tear down anything and everyone who isn't up to his own pure form of Truth. To that end, he seemed perfectly willing to allow some frighteningly extreme views to be posted at Breitbart. There's a reason I seldom link to that publication.
He was also willing to throw a grenade into the mix when things weren't as pure as he insisted they should be. Exactly why has he launched a full broadside against the Trump administration? I don't know. But when you are building your administration on the idea that we proudly stick a finger in any eye that comes our way, don't be surprised when the same finger is eventually aimed back at your own eye.
Why? I have no clue. Bannon seems to me to be a right wing anarchist. He comes off as a person who sees it as his job to tear down anything and everyone who isn't up to his own pure form of Truth. To that end, he seemed perfectly willing to allow some frighteningly extreme views to be posted at Breitbart. There's a reason I seldom link to that publication.
He was also willing to throw a grenade into the mix when things weren't as pure as he insisted they should be. Exactly why has he launched a full broadside against the Trump administration? I don't know. But when you are building your administration on the idea that we proudly stick a finger in any eye that comes our way, don't be surprised when the same finger is eventually aimed back at your own eye.
Wednesday, January 3, 2018
Dear News Media
Don't mock Trump over his tweet about Global Warming in light of our record cold snaps, when last year you trotted out individuals linking heat waves in the Western United States to Global Warming.
In fairness, most actual climate scientists came out and seemed to balk at the press's attempt to link the record heat waves in the Southwest to Global Warming. They did the same when the press not so subtly tried to make last year's hurricane season about Global Warming.
In short, to hear actual scientists talk, and see how the national and international press was attempting to frame these stories, it sounded like the press was engaged in a bit of 'fake news.'
So when the press, however subtly or not, tries to suggest 'look everyone, it's real hot in New Mexico, so GLOBAL WARMING!', then it shouldn't be upset when Trump looks out his window at record freezes and suggests their attempt to frame the debate around this or that weather phenomenon might be wanting. After all, you can't look out one window and say 'That proves Global Warming!', and then turn on a dime and tell someone looking out another window that it's just weather, and doesn't prove anything about Global Warming.
I've often said the worst thing about Trump is that as bad as he is, he's no worse than the society we've made. And that includes the national media in spades. There's almost nothing Trump does or says that you can't find done (and celebrated) among his political and national opponents.
In fairness, most actual climate scientists came out and seemed to balk at the press's attempt to link the record heat waves in the Southwest to Global Warming. They did the same when the press not so subtly tried to make last year's hurricane season about Global Warming.
In short, to hear actual scientists talk, and see how the national and international press was attempting to frame these stories, it sounded like the press was engaged in a bit of 'fake news.'
So when the press, however subtly or not, tries to suggest 'look everyone, it's real hot in New Mexico, so GLOBAL WARMING!', then it shouldn't be upset when Trump looks out his window at record freezes and suggests their attempt to frame the debate around this or that weather phenomenon might be wanting. After all, you can't look out one window and say 'That proves Global Warming!', and then turn on a dime and tell someone looking out another window that it's just weather, and doesn't prove anything about Global Warming.
I've often said the worst thing about Trump is that as bad as he is, he's no worse than the society we've made. And that includes the national media in spades. There's almost nothing Trump does or says that you can't find done (and celebrated) among his political and national opponents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)