I Can Find Nothing to Disagree With in This Piece

I am a pessimist by nature, shocking admission, I know.  But being a pessimist I am very seldom disappointed, and occasionally pleasantly surprised.

I do not expect to be pleasantly surprised by the fallout from this:

Forget About Seeing Any Justice For Obamagate

Excerpt:

Allow me to disabuse you of your naïve delusion that we still live in a country with a justice system and break it to you that no one is going to jail for what was done to Flynn, or for the unmasking business, or for the Russia hoax or, for that matter, for any of the corrupt Dem/foreigner collaborations exemplified by the payoffs received by stripperphile and Bolivian folk medicine enthusiast Hoover Biden.

No one.

To quote David Burge, aka Iowahawk: “We live in a nation of laws in the same way people on ‘Hoarders’ live in houses of cat food boxes.”

When and How Did I Turn Right Wing?

Another Quora question.  Lots of post inspiration over there.  Here’s my answer:

I’m 58 years old. That means that in 1974 I was 12. I vividly remember Watergate, and Nixon’s resignation. I also remember Jimmy Carter’s “American Malaise” period. I think Jimmy Carter is a nice man who was a lousy President. I turned 18 in 1980. I cast my first vote for President for Ronald Reagan. I watched as he, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II rapidly accelerated the downfall of the Soviet Union. It was literally inspiring.

Then George H.W. Bush won the office. He was not Ronald Reagan. He was Establishment Northeastern Country Club Republican. When he ran for reelection I voted for Perot in that one. Perot tried to warn us, and he was right.

Bill Clinton became President. Honestly, Bill (except for being a rapist) wasn’t that bad as President, but his wife gave me the heebie-jeebies. Dead people, cattle futures, sexual abuse, etc. etc. etc. and everything rolled off the pair of them like they were Scotchguarded.

It was about this time that I figured out that the Democrats were no longer “The Loyal Opposition,” they were The Other Side™ and they were out to WIN, no holds barred. And they cared not a whit about what the law said, they just had to find an accommodating judge. The Constitution? P’shaw, merely an outdated guidline. Appoint enough Judges to the Federal courts and especially the Supreme Court and you can make the law mean whatever you want. “Social Justice,” you see. Which is the opposite of actual justice.

Then Bush v. Gore cemented that for me. I watched the press conference where, as I noted at the time:

With the continuing legal maneuvers in the Florida election debacle, I have been forced to a conclusion that I may have been unconsciously fending off. The Democratic party thinks we’re stupid. Not “amiable uncle Joe” stupid, but DANGEROUSLY stupid.

Lead-by-the-hand-no-sharp-objects-don’t-put-that-in-your-mouth stupid.

And they don’t think that just Republicans and independents are stupid, no no! They think ANYBODY not in the Democratic power elite is, by definition, a drooling idiot. A muttering moron. Pinheads barely capable of dressing ourselves.

Take, for example, the position under which the Gore election machine petitioned for a recount – that only supporters of the Democratic candidate for President lacked the skills necessary to vote properly, and that through a manual recount those erroneously marked ballots could be “properly” counted in Mr. Gore’s favor. They did this in open court and on national television, and with a straight face.

So, it is with some regret that I can no longer hold that uncomfortable conclusion at bay:

They’re right. We are.

And I started seriously wondering how we got to that point.

I could go into vast (and hyperlinked) detail here, but I’ll instead just use one word:

Progressivism.

I’m not really a Conservative. Steven Den Beste (PBUH) said it best, and I’m in complete agreement with him. So I invite you to read his explanation. But I’m not a Progressive.

More Quora Tolerance

I was asked to answer the question “Is it accurate to say that the left is intolerant of the right’s ideas while the right is intolerant of the left’s behaviors?

One of the first answers I saw to the question was by a Scott MacDonald that went like this:

The left is intolerant of intolerance.

The right is intolerant of…

Religions that are not Christianity
Skin colors that are not white.
Political views that are not modern Republican
Sexuality that isn’t hetero
and so forth.

Put it to you this way.

If the left were tolerant, of the right’s intolerance we would be allowing them to walk all over actual minority groups who need protecting, not majority religious groups who want to act like persecuted minorities, just because after a few thousand years people are finally evolving past their ideas.

So I responded in kind:

The Left is intolerant of anyone who does not toe their (ever-changing) ideological line. If you oppose any part of their incoherent philosophy, you must be a:

Racist
Sexist
Gun-hugger
Bible-thumper
Cousin-lover
Homophobe
Islamophobe
Misogynist
Science-denier
Etc.

Oh, and “You want (X-group) to DIE!” (Where X is: old people, brown people, children, homosexuals, etc., etc., etc. depending on the outrage-of-the-day.)

THAT is the “Party of Tolerance and Inclusion.”

Why do I say “incoherent”? Well, consider this “logic” train:

Gender is a social construct, but “I am woman, hear me roar,” but anyone can be a woman, but no uterus – no opinion, but transwomen are women, but “I demand women’s rights!”, but men are women, but men are scum, but drag queens are beautiful, but appropriation is evil. – Matt Walsh.

Note that the people trying to end Freedom of Speech, who protest speakers, who bang drums and fire off air horns to drown out the words of people they don’t “tolerate,” are the Left, not the Right. The Right likes it when the Left runs their mouths. It exposes their hypocrisy and vacuity. And far too often it exposes the schisms between the various victim-groups that make up the Left.

So yes, I think it’s fair to say that the Right does not like the behavior of the Left, and the Left hates the ideas of the Right. Pundit Charles Krauthammer explained it in 2002 – “To understand the workings of American politics you have to understand this fundamental law: Conservatives think liberals are stupid. Liberals think conservatives are evil.

You do not debate with evil. You do not compromise with evil. You do not tolerate evil. You destroy evil. It’s a religious crusade. They are the Chosen People who will drag us, kicking and screaming if necessary, into their Promised Land. As evangelists, it is not unusual for them to enter careers in education, journalism, and the entertainment media. How better for them to proselytize? And, of course, politics, because how else can they drag us into Utopia unless by force of government? After all, their ideas are so wonderful, they must be mandatory!

My answer was collapsed for violating Quora’s “Be Nice, Be Respectful” policy. Mr. MacDonald’s is still up.

“Anti-Intellectualism”

Those of us on the putative “Right” are often – and loudly – accused of “anti-intellectualism.”  One of their favorite memes is this one:

This was most recently illustrated on CNN’s Tonight program when two of his guests, well, watch it yourself:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Puwn-DNGj9g]
Now, I’m not going to say that there aren’t such people on the right side of the divide, but the Left paints us ALL with a brush that should be reserved for a tiny minority. The theme of “anti-intellectualism!!” is wound through their worldview, and I believe it is part and parcel of the Leftist belief that it is they who should be leading us all into a Utopia, if only we’d just stop RESISTING them, and the only reason we resist is because we’re too stupid to see that they’re right.

Robert Heinlein posited what has been called “The Expert Syndrome.”  It goes like this:

Expertise in one area does not impart expertise in other areas, though experts often think so.  The narrower their area of expertise, the more likely they are to think so.

I’m reminded of an old joke:

A shepherd was herding his flock in a remote pasture when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him.

The driver, a young man in an Armani suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the shepherd, “If I tell you exactly how many sheep you have in your flock, will you give me one?”

The shepherd looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing flock and calmly answers, “Sure. Why not?”

The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his cell phone, surfs to a NASA page on the internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo. The young man then opens the digital photo in Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany. Within seconds, he receives an email that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with hundreds of complex formulas. He uploads all of this data and, after a few minutes, receives a answer.

Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized portable printer and finally turns to the shepherd and says, “You have exactly 1,586 sheep.”

“That’s right. Well, I guess you can take one of my sheep.” says the shepherd. He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.

Then the shepherd says to the young man, “Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my sheep? “

The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, “Okay, why not?”

“You’re a consultant.” says the shepherd.

“Wow! That’s correct,” says the yuppie, “but how did you guess that?”

“No guessing required.” answered the shepherd. “You showed up here even though nobody called you, you want to get paid for an answer I already knew to a question I never asked, and you don’t know crap about my business…”

“…Now give me back my dog!”

Mike Rowe talks a lot about our severe and growing “skills gap,” described as a distinct lack of skilled labor, caused by decades of telling our children that their only path to a good career is a four-year college degree. The “intellectual” life. And in doing so, the plumbers, carpenters, electricians, A/C technicians, welder, machinists, pipe-fitters, and on and on get older and retire, and too few follow them into what are necessary and decent-paying careers.

Because we need to work smarter, not harder.

Mike illustrates the difference between office-bound “experts” and someone who actually does the job for a living in a twenty-minute presentation. Please indulge me and give it a watch:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-udsIV4Hmc]
The “experts” tell Mike the “proper” way to castrate a lamb. The guy who actually raises sheep shows him the better way to do it.  It’s an epiphany for Mike.  The people who are out there actually doing things understand the real world.  They know how things work.  The people in the high-rise office buildings, capitol buildings or university campus offices know how things OUGHT to work, and we should listen to THEM.  They’re EXPERTS.

And if you don’t, you’re an “anti-intellectual.”

On top of that, the intellectuals haven’t exactly wrapped themselves in glory, but then they seldom (if ever) pay a price for being wrong.  University professors don’t lose tenure, cabinet members keep their jobs, or end up as consultants making more money, etc.  Those of us who follow their lead (willingly or not) are the ones who suffer the consequences when they err.

We would trust the intellectuals more if they had to live with those consequences along with the rest of us.  Or if they acted like there was a crisis when they tell us there’s a crisis.  Until that happens, I guess we’ll remain “anti-intellectuals.”

UPDATE 5/9:  Rev. Donald Sensing points to this piece – The Fallen State of Experts:

Excerpt:

If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you’re not paying attention to the experts. Epidemiologists tell us that if we do not hide in our houses with the door securely locked, hundreds of thousands will surely perish. Economists tell us that if we do not return immediately to work, civilisation will collapse. Good luck figuring out which expert has the better advice. Is it any wonder a harried Michael Gove blurted out, “I think the people in this country have had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms saying they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.”

Quote of the Day – Democrats Edition

From Jeff Greason, seen on Facebook:

There’s a scene in one of the Lord Darcy books, where Darcy uncovers the spy. They are discussing who might have turned traitor, and the other party discounts the suspects, because they have money, and so wouldn’t sell out. From this, Darcy correctly concludes the other party must *be* the traitor, and must *have* sold out for money, because he can’t think of any other motive for turning traitor.

For decades, the Left has talked about this or that adversary of the moment is to be feared, because they want power, crave power, would abuse power, and would not peacefully surrender power.

From this, you can correctly deduce what the Left dreams and obsesses about.

It’s called “Projection,” and the Left does it in 70mm IMAX with full Dolby sound.

In Relation to My Previous Post…

I’ve Been Thinking, there’s this:  Stay Alive, Joe Biden, a piece in The Atlantic published day before yesterday.

Key graphs:

Democrats—some independents, and some Republicans too—were terrified and furious at the prospect of another four years of Donald J. Trump. And as the weeks of the primary season ticked on, it became clear that there was one option to forestall that possibility, and his name was Joe Biden.

Through it all—the fairly awful campaign events and confusing statements and garbled debate performances—the idea of the former vice president has somehow remained consistent, and apparently convincing, as both Trump’s inverse and co-equal. Senator Bernie Sanders may still be in the race, but this is a detail. Democrats have chosen Biden as their vessel for Trump’s defeat, and that choice is the entire point: The vanquishing matters more than anything else.

Biden’s team appears to understand this, and to believe that what matters most now is keeping their candidate alive in the American imagination as an alternative to Trump. His appearances these days have an almost parallel-universe quality to them: Biden’s audience-less remarks from his home in Delaware have the suggestion of an Oval Office address, and their content seems intended to offer a glimpse into the twilight zone where someone else, someone more empathetic and capable, is president. It’s as if Biden is telegraphing to his public: You have already imagined that I can beat Trump; now imagine what it will be like when I am president.

For the foreseeable future, there will be no more speeches in front of hundreds, or lines of people waiting to shake Biden’s hand. There may not even be the glossy fanfare of a convention with a prime-time address. But, truthfully, all those things were always sort of beside the point. Like on that morning in McClellandville, and countless other ones besides, Biden was never really convincing anyone on the stump—his political power at this point is an idea, held collectively, about how to defeat Trump. The work now is to keep that idea convincing enough, for long enough, among as many people as possible, for the corporeal man to actually win.

“Keep their candidate alive in the American imagination….”

See also: Ace of Spades

And this:


Great minds and all that.

I’ve Been Thinking…

…Yes, I know that’s a dangerous thing, but….

The DNC has, for all intents and purposes, once again rigged their Presidential Primary and selected Quid Pro Stumblin’ Joe as their candidate of choice.

And as we can all see, Joe’s having…issues. The only other contender is Comrade Bernie, and they ain’t having any of that.

Does this remind you of anything? It does me. In 2002 New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli was running for re-election. He had the Party’s nomination. His name was on the ticket. Problem was, he was being investigated for ethics violations, and it was patently obvious that he had no chance of winning re-election.

So on September 30 – just weeks before the election – the Democrats substituted Frank Lautenberg. Lautenberg hadn’t run, had not campaigned in the slightest. Torricelli had run unopposed in the primary. Lautenberg was just… picked.

When the DNC figures out that Biden cannot win, who are they going to just… pick?  And how long are they going to wait?

UPDATE:

OK, I’m convinced.  I’m betting that at the last possible minute Andrew Cuomo will “sacrifice” his NY Governorship to take up the heavy burden of being the Democrat Nominee. He’s already being groomed for it by the Church of State:



Quote of the day – Not Real Socialism Edition

I just recently had a “discussion” with someone on FB on the topic of “democratic socialism.”  He indignantly left the conversation when I posted this cartoon:

But that’s not the QotD.  This explanation – in its entirety – by Larry Corriea is:

I keep seeing this idiotic thing where “socialism” is used as a synonym for “government”. So if you like fire departments or roads, you’re a socialist…

BULLSHIT. These people drive me insane.

Government and its many programs all existed before Karl Marx. Socialism has an actual definition, and it isn’t this mealy mouthed, wishy-washy, nebulous, feel good, gibberish people use today. It actually means something.

Going back to the men who created the philosophy, socialism means that regular “value” isn’t what drives economics, instead production is coordinated through central government planning. That’s the key element. Duh.

In other words, you take decisions away from the people/the market who would normally make them based upon what they value, and instead put those decisions in the hands of government. This is why Bernie is offended by there being too many brands of deodorant.

It isn’t social programs. It isn’t roads. It isn’t fire departments. Or any other project governments have spent tax money on for thousands of years. If it was just that stuff they’d call themselves democrats/republicans in the US and this wouldn’t be an issue.

But Bernie calls himself a socialist for a reason, and words mean things. Socialism isn’t a blank slate for you to scribe your dreams on.

Which is why almost everybody who has actually studied history at all thinks actual socialism (as opposed to your fluffy magic unicorn version) is evil, while those who have studied history and still want it are wannabe totalitarians and statists who think it sounds awesome, because they assume they’re going to be the ones in charge. Then they sell the fluffy unicorn version of socialism to the useful idiots. They tell you it’s social programs and fairness, when actual reality is bread lines, inefficiency, and eventually gulags and firing squads.

Chris Matthews and James Carville are flaming liberals, but they’ve studied enough history to know that socialism is a terrifying evil. That should be a clue to all of you who normally identify as liberal, but who’ve been snookered into thinking socialism is innocuous.

And no, Denmark isn’t socialist, when even the PM of Denmark has to come out and say, Hey Bernie Bros, quit using us as an example of socialism, because we’re actually a traditionally capitalist nation with a lot of social programs.

Because again, socialism isn’t a synonym for government. Whenever you treat it as such, you’re being a useful idiot. When you say you prefer socialism, it’s actually you saying you want the government to be in charge of everyone’s business, because you think freedom is icky. (which is also why that declaration gets such a strong reaction from everyone who actually knows what socialism is)

This ignorance is partly the right’s fault for knee jerk reaction calling every government program socialist. However, they are right to do so if the program is designed to take freedom/decisions away from people/business, and instead have the government make those decisions for them. That would be socialist.

This is also why polls show young people prefer “socialism”, because they’re thinking of the fluffy unicorn version they’ve been sold. When you narrow it down and ask about specific policies, it turns out they don’t want the government telling them where/how/what they can do with their lives, while some unaccountable faceless bureaucrat decides what their time/labor/effort is worth.

If you’re just in favor of social programs and safety nets, the democrat party is thataway (and don’t blame me that they suck! That’s on them!). But don’t let the DNC’s suckiness confuse you into supporting a system which has been one of the greatest, actual evils in human history.