Reminder: Most of the comments below are links to stories being commented upon. I urge you to read the links for background to my commentary.
Well, folks, let’s hope this works, as I return to the lists with new software. Please let me know if the links do not work.
Once more, we delve into the news of the day with the commentary of the old news editor. I hope you find these selections entertaining, informative and thought provoking.
This article is an interesting defense of American "exceptionalism" , which seems under siege by liberals and progressives who would rather find fault in things "American" and point out how many different classes of victims of "America" need to be lifted up. Needless to say, I come down on the side of America being exceptional and that victimhood really is getting worn out as an excuse to get others to give you something you might not otherwise have. Envy is as bad a greed, and probably more so, because envy breeds jealousy, which breeds efforts to take things by force to end the perceived "inequality"
I doubt very much that Democrats, liberals and progressives see things this way, but I suspect that the description of the Koch brothers in this essay is far more accurate than the vitriol and criticism that is heaped on the pair from the left. They have their own wealthy "bad apples" they should tend to. Beginning with George Soros who makes most of his money gambling (for that is all a hedge fund manager does. There is no investment anything real) with other people's money on the markets around the world.
Thomas Sowell makes his case that supporting Donald Trump is a situation where emotion trumps facts. Now, that is probably true, but then emotion projection also explains those who are/were enamored with Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders.
Assuming the LA Times has it ducks in a row and this story is true, it would seem to me that a host of federal election and workplace laws are being broken here. Not that I expect any prosecutions because most of it is in support of Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. It is, the last time I looked, illegal for foreign nationals to contribute or participate in American elections.. It also is illegal, I think, for people to employ immigrants (legal or illegal) without their having proper work permits. It just seems odd to me that this gets a pass ... not only from the big national media but also federal prosecutors ... oh, that is right, President Obama doesn't want illegals prosecuted for violating federal laws, rules and regulations.
Apparently, President Obama has reached the point that Congress has become superfluous to his rule ... now the question is whether the courts will back him ... or will Congress people finally realize the intrusions on their turf constitutionally and actually try to stand up and do something about it. I am somewhat hopeful about the former, but less sanquine about the latter ... I just don't see it happening.
Atlantic's defense of President Obama in light of his "losing" the war in Iraq, which is a current GOP meme. Well, they are both wrong. The people who lost Iraq are the Iraqi people themselves. It really didn't matter if the US left troops behind to help the Iraqi forces train or not. The Iraqi people didn't fight for their country, but rather let the government split it along sectarian lines and creating a whole new set of grievances and feelings of victimhood. ... Come to think of it, that sounds like today's Democratic party that seems bent on Balkanizing the US by race, religion, sexual orientation and economic status. Just thinking mind you.
Now if Hillary Clinton ever really becomes a "target" of a federal investigation, I will be surprised. If she gets indicted, I will be shocked. I mean the Clintons take being "Teflon" politicians to a new level (and in the 1980s, everybody that was somebody in the opinion making elite complained that Ronald Reagan was "Teflon-coated")
Interesting treatise on the fact that the old "consensus" that has governed American politics for several generations has, essentially, collapsed and is no more. We seem to be in a period of transition to a new paradigm. What that will be: Who knows? But is being wrought by the telecommunications revolution, with the internet and the advent of the social media. It is a Brave New World out there ... so get ready for a wild ride ... or as we used to say when I was growing up: an E-ticket ride. (if you don't get the reference, research the original Disneyland pricing structure)
Ok, folks, this is the wild card: Michael Bloomberg. Will he run as an independent, or will he try to horn in on Hillary Clinton, after Bernie Sanders proves she is vulnerable (ala Gene McCarty), and Robert Kennedy stepped in to co-opt McCarthy as more electable, in 1968. Of course, he doesn't have RFK's cachet as the carrier of JFK legacy torch. My operating theory is that we are seeing a replay of the 1968 Democratic battle for the nomination. Hillary is in the role of LBJ as the representive of the old guard of the Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders is in the role of Eugene "Keep Clean with Gene" McCarthy who had generated so much enthusiasm among the college set and younger voters, and Joe Biden is sitting there in the role of Hubert Humphrey (the party's fallback position in the Happy Warrior). Of course, Elizabeth Warren could try to step in, or Jerry "Gov. Moonbeam" Brown, to take the role of RFK when Hillary's campaign falls apart due to all her nefarious activities over the years. Not that I am holding out much hope that she will pull an LBJ and pull out of the race.
Of course, anyone with a lick of sense knew this was in jest, but still it has its point that support for candidates this go around in the 2016 presidential race is about emotional projections and not really about what the candidates do or say. Which is sad.
The National Review takes a shot at Donald Trump by comparing him to Muqtada al Sadr, the Iragi Shiite scion who was such a pain in the butt in the reconstruction of Iraq after 2003. I am not sure it fits, but it is an interesting take on the Donald.
Not because I am enamoured with The Donald, but this is a fricking hypocritcal hit piece. Sorry, even though the author disavows that Trump is responsible, or at least needs to explain away, the sins of his father ... I don't see any other candidate having to do this, not even our president when he was running.
I have a problem with this HuffPo piece ... heck, I understand the woman's position ... but it not just men who seem to be above the law ... like actors and athletes, but also our political class. So while she tells women not to get involved with the rich and famous (which is really good advice) because they will use you, abuse you and then throw you away when you are no longer useful, I disagree that they should just walk away. That only perpetuates the problem ... and yes, it is difficult, if not exceedingly hard, but standing up to those who break the law is preferable than quietly acquiesing to their transgressions.
Unfortunately, for this Brit, they never seem to understand the American process or its whys and wherefores. It has many flaws ... and purely democratic it ain't (but then it never was designed to be so as to be a buffer against the excesses of the mob). It is, however, compared to the inherent instability in a multicultural environment of the parliamentary system (see post war Italy) which can fall on a vote of no confidence at any turn, forcing yet another election, is a model of stability and reason. At least the American system provides a stability and regularity that comes around every two to four to six years (depending on the federal office). Now that it is a two to four year circus is because we have the telecommunications revolution with the 24 hour news cycle. We have all these pundits, talking heads, poll takers, political consultants, political reporters who would be sitting around twittling their thumbs for a number of years if they didn't start ginning up the horse race for the next election in two to four years the moment after the ballots are counted and before the newly elected are even sworn in. In some ways, I think an old Texas law would be most appropriate at the federal level. It said that you could not (if you held any other elective office on pain of forced resignation) declare yourself as a candidate for any other public office more than a year before that office's new term began. Only applied to state races, but you get the drift. I have felt for years that the US campaigns (Thanks to you Jimmy Carter) are way too long. I think that filing for federal office should probably open in June and end August 1, then the states could hold a primary in mid-September with the top two or three vote getters appearing on the general election ballot in November. Not going to happen, but that would be my solution.
Revisiting the Constitution: Sometimes there are those who forget that the entire document is a compromise ... and no one gets a whole loaf. Actually, I am of the opinion that the Madisonians did a good job of honoring the concerns of those who opposed it and had the integrity to follow through. That integrity, honor, duty and public service no longer are ideals that Americans find attractive is more at fault to our current problems than anything with the document drafted 229 summers ago.
This guy really has a point ... not that it is politically correct in today's charged atmosphere ... but I have contended for a very long time that the only minority that you could abuse without them having any recourse was the WASPCEMOPs, especially if they were veterans or those who chose to serve their country in the military reserves. Oh, you want a translation of "WASPCEMOP" ... well, it has evolved over the years but basically it stands for "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant College Educated Male Older Professional" of any wage earning stripe. Sorry, but I have been there, done that and taken all sorts of slings and arrows because of it.
Hey, I know this fellow ... I am glad he thinks he is making a joke to make a point about the Second Amendment ... because if he was serious ... well, I will not say here what I think of him
Now, in my humble opinion, if you think any of these five options actually are good ... well ... I don't think there is much hope for you. If you think about each one, you are surrendering your freedom and liberty for a false sense of security or some benefit that will have to paid by someone else's indentured service.
While I agree, in a sense, with this article, it bothers me considerably that once again we are setting up a double standard ... with no intention of really punishing those who violate these protocols. That is my problem ... the other side doesn't obey the rules ... and as Pappy once told me: A gentleman never starts the fight, he merely finishes it as quickly as possible with any means at hand with no holds barred. Unfortunately, progressives don't see the logic behind that and are wrapped up in feeling good about their moral superiority as they go down in flames.
Ok, count me among the "climate deniers" - actually I am more of climate skeptic - but unfortunately, I fear the data is on the side of the people supporting this report.
This to me is the epitome of the epic progressive mountain out of a molehill. Sorry, but it not something that I can get all that worked up over as a major problem requiring massive federal government intervention.
Oh my goodness, where is our President on this horrible school shooting? Call out all the gun control advocates and lets have a panic drive for new controls ... oh ... OOPS, this happened in Canada and they already have very, very strict gun control measures in effect. Sorry, my bad ... everybody go back to sleeep now.
Taiwan: Is it worth American lives? Is the US willing to defend its agreement with the Taiwanese government in the face of a possible Chinese attack with the new independence-minded president? Elifino, but it is a question we ought to be considering in light of the changing dynamic in that area.
I love stories like this. China will not initiate military action in the South China Sea - Chinese expert says. Please note that this "expert" is a former Chinese government official with close ties to the current regime. Now, the Chinese would never think of using him to sow disinformation, would they? Remember, Hainan is a province (not some independent entity like Hong Kong used to be and Taiwan is) of China and has been since Mao took over in 1949 and its officialdom marches to Beijing's orders.
No comments:
Post a Comment