Posted by Christopher Johnson | Saturday, November 26th, 2016 | Uncategorized | 28 Comments
Do you think that the American left is bat crap over the mere idea of United States President Donald Trump? You ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Seems that Jeb Bush, the “reasonable,” “decent” and “civilized” Republican candidate in the recent election, supports an Article V constitutional convention.
Americans, by wide majorities, agree that Washington is broken, so let’s send power back to the people and back to the states. Republicans should support convening a constitutional convention to pass term limits, a balanced-budget amendment and restraints on the Commerce Clause, which has given the federal government far more regulatory power than the Founders intended.
What the former Florida governor is referring to is an entirely constitutional method amending the US Constitution that has never before been tried in this country’s history.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.
Is there any chance of this happening? Probably not. This is one of those things that an American politician can say he’s for, secure in the knowledge that it will never actually take place.
But what if it did? Like I said before, you haven’t really seen leftist crazy before. Because this could settle lots of issues and not just the ones that Bush mentions. Abortion would be up to individual states; if your state wanted to allow it, it could. But if it didn’t, it couldn’t be forced to.
You couldn’t lose your business because you refused to bake a cake for a homosexual “marriage.” Your state wouldn’t have to allow homosexual “marriage” at all. Pass these sorts of amendments and those celebrities who claimed that they’d leave the country if Trump were elected actually would.
But I’d go further. I’d constitutionally allow the option of peaceful secession. If a leftist state, California, say, or Vermont, decided that it just couldn’t accept these changes (and if a state-wide vote was overwhelming, at least three-fourths opposed), I’d allow it the possibility of opting out. Make a deal with Mexico or Canada or go it alone and become an independent state.
Vaya con Dios either way.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, November 25th, 2016 | Uncategorized | 19 Comments
Donald Trump figures out that the traditional American news media has become completely irrelevant:
President-elect Donald Trump and the news media are settling into an uneasy relationship.
Distrust and ill feelings are held on both sides, and no one is predicting the acrimony that characterized the final months of the presidential campaign will disappear.
Given how much the media detested him and still does, Trump’s trying to be magnanimous.
At the same time, Trump in his Tuesday meeting with reporters and editors at The New York Times offered an olive branch, acknowledging that he’s a longtime reader and pledging a willingness to develop a professional working relationship.
“I would like to turn it around,” Trump said. “I think it would make the job I am doing much easier.”
But it’s not like he actually needs them or anything.
But there are no laws requiring that an administration maintain a press pool or even that news outlets have access to administration officials, the briefing room or White House grounds.
During his primary campaign, Trump blackballed some news outlets from covering his rallies, which were open to the public, because he was unhappy with their coverage of him.
He also singled-out individual reporters for ridicule and would whip up a frenzy against the media at his rallies, where Trump supporters would jeer at the press pen.
But Trump has little incentive to go through traditional media channels, some experts say.
Facebook and Twitter combine to give him one of the most powerful social media presences in the world.
He has former Breitbart executive Stephen Bannon at his side in the White House, giving him a powerful ally in the massively influential world of right-wing news.
And when Trump releases a straight-to-camera video to announce his 100-day agenda — as he did this week, in lieu of a press conference — it elicits the same volume of coverage as a press conference would.
Press advocates are worried that the president-elect appears to be holding all the cards.
Which, until you people get a clue, he basically is.
Welcome to modern times, bitches. This is well-deserved payback for fervently working for the election of one candidate, ignoring her open and evident corruption, while frantically trying to turn every single character flaw of her opponent into a high crime and misdemeanor.
The general public doesn’t trust you any more.
But you know what’s way worse than not being trusted?
Not being necessary.
I hope your local Starbucks is hiring. And you may want to practice the phrase, “Would you like fries with that?” because some of you are going to be using it a lot during what’s left of your working lives.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, November 24th, 2016 | Uncategorized | 10 Comments
Not all that long ago, the University of Missouri had one of the most impressive athletic programs in the country. The football team was briefly rated number one and the basketball team almost always made it to the Big Dance.
Even when MU moved to the SEC, we were still up there. Granted, when we got to the SEC football title game a few years back, Gus Malzahn coached rings around Gary Pinkel, Tre Mason racked up something like 479,653 rushing yards and Auburn handed MU its ass on a sterling-silver platter. But we had the gay guy and we were in the conversation.
We’re not there any more. I don’t know for sure if MU’s recent attempt to become Berkeley-on-the-Missouri has affected Tiger athletics or not but new MU football coach Barry Odom, the team’s former defensive coordinator, hasn’t had any influence whatsoever; Tennessee racked up 63 points against the Tigers last weekend.
Basketball coach Kim Anderson, a former Tiger player (and that’s the only reason why he got the job) is also in over his head. So a lot of us here are changing our allegiances to Missouri State or Southeast Missouri. Or even Northwest Missouri State who’s got a bit of a dynasty going in Division Two or whatever they call it now.
At this point, I’m pretty sure that even Northwest could take the Tigers down.
A former University of Missouri tutor has blown the whistle on alleged academic fraud within the school’s athletic department.
Three months after closing an investigation into improprieties within the men’s basketball program, Mizzou announced Tuesday evening that it is under investigation again for potential NCAA rules violations.
According to a statement from the athletics department, “The University of Missouri has received allegations of potential academic rules violations by a former tutor in the Athletics Academic Services area. Consistent with our commitment to rules compliance and to operating our athletics program with integrity, we are conducting a review of the allegations. We also have informed the NCAA who is working with us on this matter. To protect the integrity of the review process, we will not comment further at this time.”
The statement did not mention any specific programs or the scope of the alleged academic misconduct, but former tutor Yolanda Kumar detailed some of the potential academic fraud in a post on her private Facebook account Tuesday afternoon.
When reached by The Star, Kumar confirmed the authenticity of the post, in which she alleges that she took or assisted with entrance exams and completed classes for student-athletes. She also apologized to her friends for her role in the alleged academic fraud.
St. Louis University? University of Missouri-St. Louis (or Umsel in the local patois)? If you’ve ever considered the idea of starting a Division One football program, now would be the perfect time. You’d have a dome to play all your home games in and the whole eastern half of Missouri as potential season ticket holders.
It’s a win/win.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, November 23rd, 2016 | Uncategorized | 18 Comments
If you fervently hate half of your country, don’t figure on winning any national elections any time soon:
Three days after the election, my wife and I were shopping at the Fairway Market in Red Hook, Brooklyn. For those unfamiliar with it, Fairway is a less corporate, more co-op version of Whole Foods, offering pretty produce and exotic cheeses that don’t come cheap. The mood in the store was glum. As in most of Brooklyn, people stared ahead, moving slowly, still in shock from the political earthquake of Tuesday night.
After getting our Brazilian Arabica ground for drip (I know, I should really use a French Press), Libby and I walked towards the organic maple syrup. That’s when it started. I suppose there had been music playing in the store, but I hadn’t noticed until a familiar guitar lick pierced the air and a soft voice said, “Turn it up.”
Libby and I both stopped and looked at each other. “Seriously?” said my wife, a very disappointed Clinton supporter. She started gripping her soft Tomme Crayeuse a little too hard. By the time Ronnie Van Zant’s drawl started in with “Big wheels keep on turnin’,” everyone in the store was standing in shock. Brows were furrowed, people mumbled to each other. The song seemed to get louder as one of those New York moments happened, when everyone was thinking the exact same thing.
A woman in her fifties, wearing a Love Trumps Hate button, turned to her Brooklyn-bearded husband and said loudly, “This is unbelievable!” She found the nearest store clerk, a young woman in a green apron who was staring up at the ceiling, looking for the invisible speakers blaring this message from the other America. “This is so inappropriate,” the woman said. “Can we turn this off?”
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, November 23rd, 2016 | Uncategorized | 9 Comments
Both The Washington Post and the Guardian have pieces up on how tough Thanksgiving’s going to be in America this year, what with the Great Progressive Cataclysm and all. Both are basically from the perspective of pore, pore, pitiful Clinton voters who have to deal with their stupid, brain-dead, bigoted, Trump-supporting families and crap.
And I hope that this douchebag doesn’t need a familial kidney any time soon. “You’re a perfect match but you voted for Trump? I’d rather die, asshole.”
You have to admire that kind of commitment.
Tomorrow could be a strain and maybe wreck more than a few families. Or it could be an occasion for a lot of fun. Ace reposted something from last year in which he proposed the following:
Given that the progressive elder-children-yet-not-quite-adults you’ll be encountering this Thanksgiving (who I will henceforth refer to as “grownchildren”) will be armed to the teeth with Vox explainers and Obamacare propaganda, I herewith humbly submit these first sketches of a new branch of Lifemanship I call “Thanksgivingmanship,” which I define as the gentle art of insulting the stupid without alerting them to the fact that they’ve been insulted at all.
My basic strategy is thus: It would be as rude of you as it is rude of your cretinous grownchildren kin to allow a Thanksgiving dinner into a stupid game of Rachel Maddow Talking Points and their rebuttals.
So, rather than confront the unemployed idiots who will be assailing you, I propose instead to superficially avoid conflict and engagement on their dummy mouthflappings, and appear instead to agree with them.
But — and here is the point — a skilled Thanksgivingman will only appear to agree with the grownchildren to feeble intellects, such as those possessed by the grownchildren themselves. Instead of disagreeing with them — which will cause argument and anger — you will instead claim to agree with them, while in fact contradicting them, subverting them, of baffling them with statements that nearly, but do not quite, make sense.
You may also use uptalk to express an insincere solidarity. As with dogs and babies, progressives find artificially high-pitched vocal tones to be soothing and possibly a prelude to Walkies and Snackies.
Whenever a progressive grownchild says something stupid and ignorant, which will be always, do not engage on the merits. Progressive grownchildren will become highly emotional and agitated at the slightest show of disagreement, and may wet the floor or claw at the furniture.
Instead, say something which is either neutral or nonsensical (which successfully communicates your true beliefs to other real human beings capable of deciphering obvious meaning) while deploying smiling, nodding, and uptalk to falsely convey agreement with to the more-stunted intellect of the grownchild.
For example, if a progressive grownchild says, “Rachel Maddow is just so amazing,” you can respond by nodding and saying “Absolutely, Rachel Maddow is without doubt a mammal.” (Or: “A mammal…?”)
Possible responses to common grownchild mouthchatter include:
“Well I see that the ‘Faux Noise Machine’ has gotten everyone riled up about so-called ‘terrorism’ again.”
“Doubtless! Terrorists only win when we allow them to make us afraid, or dead.” (Or: “Afraid, or dead…?”)
“Can’t people see that stupid cons are doing Just What ISIS Wants us to do?”
“It’s so obvious– the attacks in Paris weren’t just an attack on human lives. They were an attack on our shared human capacity to be alive.” (“To be alive, and stuff…?”)
Fake statistics are another possible approach.
It was my old friend Boston Irish who alerted me to this ticklish little trope, when he observed that no matter how absurd the statistic you proposed to a progressive, if that statistic seemed to call attention to whatever bugaboos xhe was excited about, xhe would respond with a gushing “I know, right?!“
He demonstrated this to me at a party by interrupting a couple of liberals talking, and announcing to them:
“You know, based on current statistics, in ten years, the entire state of California will be homeless.”
“Right! I know!” came the response.
By the way, that is not schtick. That is not a joke written for this blogpost. I was really there, he really said that, that really happened.
By the year 2030, global warming predicts that the entire North American landmass will be flooded by seawater and wolves.
99.4% of the world’s wealth is controlled by six-tenths of a single person.
I’m not going to take any of this on because you need prep time and I don’t hate my siblings. But I come from a long line of Democrats. My dad grew up in Kansas City, Missouri so it was kind of the law. And I remember him telling me one time about how word eventually got out to Montana that Truman won in ’48 and my mom wouldn’t stop crying.
So I’m the family oddball. Always have been, always will be. I remember after my dad died, we kids were sitting around yammering about this and that and my oldest sister asked me, “Are you a Republican?”
“No,” I replied. “I’m a conservative. That’s not the same thing.”
And I think she got it.
That’s about as political as my family ever gets. I don’t know what tomorrow’s going to involve. I’m planning on going over to my sister’s place but I guess I ought to have a back-up plan.
Over to the market in a bit.
Posted by Bill (not IB) | Wednesday, November 23rd, 2016 | Vomit Inducing Stupidity | 18 Comments
There are times I seriously question that I am awake, and not in the middle of a horrible nightmare where down is up, wrong is right, and logic is nonsense.
Then I realize that a nightmare would be far preferable to reality.
During my school years, part of the daily routine was for the class to recite, at the beginning of the day, the “Pledge of Allegiance”. I recall it fondly; everyone placing their hand over their heart, and trying to pronounce the words correctly. I was (and am!) proud to be an American.
One of the greatest honors that one could receive in our schools was to be “flag bearer”; to carry the flag in and out of assemblies, and to be responsible for raising and lowering the flag on the school’s main flagpole. There was a great deal of competition for this position; it had about as much je ne sais quoi and esprit de corps as could be imagined.
I never rose to this high honor; I chose to work in the audio/video department, which got me out of countless classes, and provided some much-needed opportunities to sleep.
Still, my respect for the flag, and the nation it stands for, was unshakable.
So when I see scheiss like this, it’s enough to launch me higher than Dr. Who on steroids:
Apparently (background music of tiny, tiny violins playing Harry Nilsson’s “You’re Breaking My Heart***”) the student body at Hampshire College was completely unhinged by Trump winning the election.
The school responded to Trump’s victory by keeping the U.S. flag at half-staff, as if in mourning, which upset some community members. Then, on the night before Veterans Day, somebody took the flag down and set it on fire.
How better to express your opinion that to dishonor the symbol of the nation you live in? It’s usually referred to as sh!tting in one’s own nest…
But, since the flag has become an object of controversy, instead of trying to deal with it, the college has decided to simply delete it:
“We will not fly the U.S. flag or any other flags at Hampshire for the time being,” Lash said in a campus-wide email, according to Campus Reform. While acknowledging that getting rid of the flag may be “especially painful” for military veterans and their family members, Lash said he hoped doing so would “enable us to instead focus our efforts on addressing racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic, and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and behaviors.”
So – instead of the Pledge of Allegiance, we’ll now have:
The Pledge of anti-racist, anti-misogynist, Islamophilic, pro-immigration, Semitic, LGBT+54
In the words of Lawrence Welk,
*** – You’ve probably never heard this song. It cannot be played on any mainstream media (radio, TV, and possibly cable) without immediate punitive action by the FCC. At my college’s radio station, the album it was on had the track slashed with razor blades to prevent it from being played. The song is very obscene – and truly hilarious. The opening verse is:
You’re breakin’ my heart,
you’re tearin’ it apart
so f*ck you!
All I wanna do is have a good time
Now I’m blue!
You won’t booglaloo, Run down to Tramps,
have a dance or two, ooohhh
You’re breakin’ my heart,
you’re tearin’ it apart
but f*ck you!
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, November 22nd, 2016 | Election Fallout | 21 Comments
Mainly because the single classiest leftist response to the recent election that I’ve seen occurred at this very site, I’ve tried to hold down the schadenfreude over November 8th. But it’s hard to read lefty tantrums like this one and this one and not fervently pray, “Oh dear LORD, please make this happen.”
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz signaled willingness to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court Friday afternoon at a conference of conservative and libertarian lawyers in Washington, D.C.
“What I will say is that history is long and can take unexpected paths,” he said in response to an audience question about his filling the vacancy. “I think it is absolutely vital that that seat and every other seat that comes vacant on the court be filled by principled constitutionalists who will be faithful to the law and will check their own policy preferences at the door and simply honor their oath.”
“I can also tell you that I have right now the privilege of serving in the United States Senate, of representing 27 million Texans,” he said. “That is a privilege and a responsibility I take very, very seriously. And I look forward to continuing to carry out that responsibility and continuing to fight for the principles of freedom and the principles embodied in the Constitution and Bill of Rights,” he added.
Because American elections have consequences and stuff.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, November 22nd, 2016 | Election Fallout | 19 Comments
If this were to actually happen, I’d take an Uber to the nearest gun store, buy up whatever I could afford (pretty easy to do in Missouri these days), take an Uber home and get my Confederate flags back out.
Be careful what you wish for, lefties.
Because you might get it.
UPDATE: The Democrats were responsible for this country’s first civil war so why not an encore?
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Monday, November 21st, 2016 | Website Issues | 17 Comments
The reason for the recent down time here was a MAJOR hack at Greg’s server. We seem to be back up but if you get any weird messages whilst accessing this place, e-mail them to me and I’ll send them on to Greg.
Update from Bill (not IB)
If you have any questions, just contact me.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Sunday, November 20th, 2016 | Neat Stuff and Ideas | 15 Comments
Have any of you guys ever cooked a Turducken? I’m thinking of taking one on. For those of you who don’t know what a Turducken is, it’s a very large bird that’s native to the United States and that quite a few people prefer for their Thanksgiving, Christmas or Easter feasts. How long do you roast them? And how good is Turducken gravy?
I’m thinking Turducken, stuffing on the side, Turducken gravy, a green-bean casserole and absolutely NOTHING containing even the smallest hint of sweet potatoes or yams since I refer to both as Vege-Nazis. As far as dessert is concerned, since I am fiercely opposed to all squash-related foodstuffs, pumpkin pie is out.
And while I’ve got your attention, have any of you ever cooked with rattlesnake? There’s a place online where you can order it and I’ve always wanted to make a rattlesnake chili just to be able to say that I did it.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Saturday, November 19th, 2016 | Election Fallout | 59 Comments
Trump voters? You’ll be pleased to know that Geoff Holsclaw, a professor at Northern Seminary and pastor of Life on the Vine Church in suburban Chicago, doesn’t believe that you’re evil people:
To the evangelicals who voted for Donald Trump:
I believe you. I believe in you.
I believe you love others. I believe you are doing your best. I believe you want good for America.
As a fellow evangelical, a local church pastor, and a seminary professor, I believe you want to be true to the gospel — to the “good news.”
In supporting Trump, I believe you did what you thought to be right by trying to vote for the lesser evil.
I believe you are not a racist, a misogynist, or a white nationalist because you voted for him. I believe you try to love your non-white neighbors, your Muslim coworkers, and your gay family members. I know you feel marginalized and shamed for your values.
I believe you see your vote for Trump as a call for another way, even if it was a vote for the lesser evil.
I believe you.
By my count, eleven “I believe you’s.” Which basically means that Geoff really believes that you people suck.
But a spike in hate crimes and harassment since the election reveals the consequences of voting for the lesser evil.
The empowerment of hatred because of Trump [Really? Got any empirical backing for that claim, Geoff? – CJ] is now being felt across America: A woman was groped in the aisle of a grocery store in Grand Rapids, Mich., Swastikas and Trump’s name were spray-painted on windows in Philadelphia; a Chinese American woman said she was harassed by a white man in Minneapolis and told to “Go Back to Asia.”
Trump was elected with the support of four out of five evangelicals — people of the “good news.” But countless stories since his election show that, for people of color, women, and Muslims, his election has been very bad news.
I believe enabling this hatred was not your desire. You were just voting for the lesser evil.
But if you do not confront racism, misogyny, and Islamophobia wherever you see it, then your vote for the lesser evil will become a vote for hate.
We seem to have come full circle. In response to secular, liberal critics, evangelical leaders have defended their participation in major political and social battles, citing the example of the civil rights movement, when faith leaders from Christian and Jewish denominations lent their moral authority to the fight for racial justice. If, however, Christian conservatives are now making amoral, political calculations, they cannot very well set themselves up as arbiters of values or tell their congregants how faith should influence their votes.
We underscore one more aspect of evangelicals’ support for Trump. There is no issue on which evangelical conservatives have been more vocal and indignant than on the issue of “religious liberty” — the First Amendment right of Americans to avoid obligations that might otherwise fall on them so as to preserve their religious tradition (e.g. a conscience clause for doctors who object to performing abortions). However, in embracing a candidate who painted an entire religion as the enemy, for a time wanted to ban all its adherents and favored a “Muslim registry” (!) these evangelicals have been revealed to be egregious hypocrites and, yes, even religious bigots. At least we know with whom we are dealing.
The problem there is that I can remember a time, not all that long ago, when evangelicals, traditionalist Catholics and other Christian conservatives thought that candidates for public office ought to maintain certain moral standards and were angrily lectured to, particularly by the Christian left, that they had no right to “impose their interpretation of the Christian religion” on the rest of American society.
So what did we do this year? We did what much of the left always wanted us to do, namely, to express our preference for the First Civil Servant of the United States of America while leaving our “interpretation of the Christian religion” off the table. For which we are labeled “egregious hypocrites and, yes, even religious bigots” by titanic dolts like Jennifer Rubin.
As far as Jen is concerned, we’re damned if we do and we’re damned if we don’t.
David Gushee, of all people, actually kind of gets it.
There is a certain kind of anti-Trump person who continues to be convinced that to have voted for Mr. Trump, after everything that he said and did in the campaign, was itself an incomprehensible act of moral evil that more or less places the voter beyond the pale of human decency. Many relationships have been strained or broken because of the implacability of this conviction or resistance to it. Thus we again see the extent of the political division in our country. It is acutely painful.
Academics, especially in the humanities, tend to be liberal in their politics. They also tend to take words very seriously, to be especially committed to diversity and inclusion, and to center their politics on defending marginalized groups. Thus it is no surprise that many academics have been especially appalled by the vote — because they found the words and policies of Donald Trump repeatedly offensive to their values and assumed that most others would be similarly offended. The gap between their values and the apparent values of sixty million Americans leaves them deeply frustrated and dispirited, and is already leading to considerable anguished conversation at our academic professional meetings.
Some anti-Trump people have about them a mood of teachability, while others are having difficulty getting past pure outrage and incomprehension. The former want to know what they didn’t understand, what they missed, about the American electorate. They may still be very deeply upset over the election results, but they are trying to listen, to break out of their echo chambers, to seek greater clarity. I noticed in this past Sunday’s New York Times opinion section a considerable amount of this kind of reflection, which I appreciated, and am hearing it some from Democratic politicians and activists.
Anti-Trump people of my acquaintance struggle to understand that anyone could have had anything approaching a serious moral or policy objection to Hillary Clinton, at least by comparison to Donald Trump. But this is to underestimate concerns held by many millions of Americans, especially Catholics and evangelicals, about the unresolved moral issue of abortion. And worries over the ethical baggage that over four decades has accrued to the Clinton account mattered to many. What people count as morally important varies. And morally important issues are not the only issues people vote on.
Divisions in economic circumstances are very often invisible to those who are privileged. Most of us now live and move in economically homogeneous circumstances. For example, I am a knowledge worker who has done well economically, especially in the last decade when many other Americans have struggled desperately. It is hard for me and those like me to properly weigh up the economic concerns of people whose jobs are disappearing and communities decaying, none of whom I actually know very well. If desperate people found hope in one candidate and no hope in another, in very large numbers, but I am not in the social class of those who chose the other candidate, perhaps I have some things to learn about the rest of America, rather than dismissing them as dupes and rubes.
Should be an interesting four years.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, November 18th, 2016 | Election Fallout | 16 Comments
It is SO cute when Europeans pretend that they understand the United States. Bob Tyrell schools the BBC:
The interview got off to a bad start and became worse. The moderator commenced with: “The first ever black president will be followed by a president who was endorsed by the KKK.” Then I was asked, “Where does that leave you?” My response was what any normal American would say, “I can’t imagine anybody [sic] more marginal to American elections than the KKK.” I went on to say, “every four years the KKK comes up because people like Hillary want to bring the KKK up.” I began to add that the Klan was composed of a few hundred stoneheads living marginal lives in the American outback, until they could be dredged up to serve the Democrats’ malign purpose, but the moderator interrupted me. “So it doesn’t shock you?” I responded why not talk about the influence of the Knights of Columbus?
My interlocutors apparently had no idea what the largest Catholic men’s organization in America might be. The host inquired, was it “another extremist group?” It was at that point that I was reminded that fruitful conversation is utterly impossible with the woefully ignorant. My thought was reinforced by the ever-helpful Chimamanda who observed, “There seems to be a refusal to accept reality. So she [the moderator] asked you [that being me] a question about the KKK, and it hasn’t been engaged with, and instead we’re being told that there’s this other group called the Knights of Cint—whoever….” My reply was “Balderdash, utter balderdash,” which “engaged” both of these ladies.
The conversation continued its downward spiral. Memorable moments came when Chimamanda notified me, “If you’re a white man; you don’t get to define what racism is. You really don’t.” I responded, “Do you know what the false consciousness [is], which is the theory you’re [employing]? As I pointed out, it ‘is a Marxist concept.’” The lady had not a clue as to what false consciousness meant, but you might think about its consequences for intelligent debate the next time you hear it employed by a lazy mind. Then la Chimamanda came up with more evidence of the president-elect’s alleged racism. When he says a judge “is unable to judge him fairly because he is Mexican, that is racist.” I supplied her with the judge’s name. It was Judge Curiel, who I suggested was as white as me. We are both white men. Race was not at issue between us. My correction had no impact on her. She continued in her invincible ignorance.
A couple things. Anybody who attempts to make anything at all about a Ku Klux Klan “endorsement” of Donald Trump is, quite frankly, too stupid to be allowed out in public unsupervised. If I was depraved enough to want to, I could quite literally start my own KKK tomorrow. Quite a few idiots already have.
The KKK, in all its various versions and iterations, currently consists of the scum of the Earth. Anybody who thinks that the Klan still has any influence whatsoever in this country is deliberately lying. Or Democrats, if you’ll pardon the redundancy. But if you’re interested in intellectual consistency, you can go ahead and kick Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and US Senator Robert Byrd out of the leftist pantheon.
Because both were members.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, November 17th, 2016 | Election Fallout | 27 Comments
I don’t want to be anywhere around when today’s college students don’t get that first job that they really wanted or ever get let go from a job because I don’t think they’ll take it at all well. SINCE DONALD TRUMP IS GOING TO BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (sorry, couldn’t resist), this kind of garbage has been going on all over the country but this example from the University of Pennsylvania is particularly idiotic:
A dorm at the University of Pennsylvania on Wednesday hosted a post-election “Breathing Space” for students stressed out by election results that included cuddling with cats and a puppy, coloring and crafting, and snacks such as tea and chocolate.
The event at the Ivy League insitution was hosted by the faculty director of Fisher Hassenfeld College House.
“There were actual cats and a puppy there,” Penn student Daniel Tancredi told The College Fix via email. “There were sheets of paper available with black and white printed designs on them for students to color in. Essentially they looked like pages from a coloring book that were printed from a computer. They all had positive feel-good messages on them. Students colored them in with colored pencils.”
“For the most part, students just hung out and ate snacks and made small talk,” Tancredi said. “Of course, that was in addition to coloring and playing with the animals. The election was mentioned a few times, though mostly in very timid and fearful tones. The event as a whole seemed to be an escape from the reality of the election results.”
Kids? You’ll never learn this in whatever stupid, wildly-overpriced
kindergarten university you happen to attend so here’s one way that actual adults deal with these kinds of situations:
(1) Go to a supermarket or a liquor store and buy yourself a big bottle of some serviceable bourbon. Jim Beam, say, or Evan Williams. There’s no point in breaking the bank for something top-shelf because it’s not going to matter after a short time.
(2) Go home, lock your door, put your car keys where you can’t easily get to them, sit down and start drinking. You can cut the stuff with water, ice or both if you want to because, as I implied before, a fine bourbon-sipping experience is not what you’re after here.
(3) About five or six drinks in (or whenever you come to, depending), you’ll realize that the SINGLE most important rule in all of life can be summed up in six words.
YOU WIN SOME, YOU LOSE SOME.
(4) Once you understand that is when you sack up, grow up and quit whining. In terms of winning and losing, a few of you kids may eventually turn out to be New England Patriots while a lot more of you will turn out be St. Louis Blues. But that’s for another lesson.
And more bourbon.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, November 16th, 2016 | Tears/Fears for Hillary | 19 Comments
Know why Hillary Clinton really lost? Seems that some of you gals don’t much like women:
Hillary Clinton’s campaign has a new culprit for its loss to Donald Trump: Self-loathing, sexist women.
During an appearance on MSNBC on Monday, former Clinton campaign communications director Jess McIntosh claimed it was women with “internalized misogyny” who couldn’t bring themselves to vote to elect the first woman president.
When she was asked by Chris Hayes why Hillary didn’t do better with white women than Barack Obama did in 2012, McIntosh responded, “Internalized misogyny is a real thing and this is a thing we have to be talking about as we go through and see.”
“We as a society react poorly to women seeking positions of power. We are uncomfortable about that and we seek to justify that uncomfortable feeling because it can’t possibly be because we don’t want to see a woman in that position of power,” McIntosh said.
“We have work to do talking to those women about what happened this year and why we would vote against our self-interest,” McIntosh said.
Don’t look at me.
Posted by Bill (not IB) | Tuesday, November 15th, 2016 | Tears/Fears for Hillary | 7 Comments
There have been all sorts of reactions to the election of Donald Trump. Relief, joy, fear, protest – you name it, someone has expressed it.
Nonetheless, I was astonished by an item in today’s Dallas Morning News:
This is a very well thought out and worded statement, and it’s near and dear to my heart – I am a Libertarian as well, but in order to preserve the United States my vote for president went to Trump, rather than the Libertarian candidate.
Anyone who thinks Hillary is a feminist, or that she understands “women’s issues”, is in serious need of a brain transplant. She let her husband get away with multiple infidelities, and even helped in trying to hush them up, and then whitewash them away. As an adult, she has never faced economic adversity; she has had opportunities that most women could only dream about; and for her, the “glass ceiling” was a mirror, rather than a barrier.
It was always a mystery to me how the major women’s/feminist organizations could bring themselves to give Bill Clinton a “pass” on his egregiously sexist behavior. Given that Hillary didn’t file for divorce, she can’t run away from those issues either; she’s in them up to her ….
So seeing an article from the perspective of ” the opposition” which says many of these same things is downright refreshing.
Here’s another interesting item:
And of course, Oprah is getting *really* slammed for failing to join in the Trump-bashing/paranoia…