You realize, of course, that it was much braver of Jenner to come out as a Republican than it was for him to come out as a transgender person. As for me, I hope he’s very happy, but I’m going to be very politically incorrect and say that I don’t really care what he does with himself to achieve that happiness — as long as he doesn’t make me pay for it or harm others in the process.
If there were more days like these, I’d complain a whole heck of a lot more than I do. Suffice to say that the work load was unexpected and surprising, and that my mother was not having a good day.
Tomorrow holds promise for being, if not a very good day, at least a day on which I can do my two favorite pastimes: reading and writing.
America has had corrupt presidents in the past. The ones that spring readily to a mind educated in the San Francisco Public School District are Andrew Johnson, Warren
B. G. Harding, and Richard Nixon. Please feel free to chime in with equally corrupt Democrats.
But I ask you this: Before the Clintons, have we ever before had a former president (that would be Bill) and a wannabe future president (that would, God forbid, Hillary) who have sold our country out to foreign interests? (While Bill didn’t do that in office, it appears that he and Hillary worked together to fund their Clinton Foundation in exchange for giving favors to foreign entities that had interests antithetical to American interests.)
And have we ever before — ever! — had a president who turned his back entirely on stalwart American allies and not only made nice with unrepentant enemies, but actually worked hard to expand those enemies’ arsenals? At least when Chamberlain did what he did, he believed that he was, both militarily and economically, in a weaker position than Hitler. Obama, however, is the stronger party, both militarily and economically, in the negotiations and has still given everything in exchange for nothing.
I’d like to hear your opinions on the questions I ask. What I’m suggesting is that past, present, and wannabe future American presidents have engaged in actual treason as defined in 18 U.S. Code section 2381:
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (Emphasis added.)
I’m also thinking that the conduct I’ve described is a first, and I’d be interested if you can think of historic precedents.
I must say, I’m impressed:
(As best as I can tell, the group behind the video — represent.us — is a recycled version of the opposition to the Citizens United decision, but this is still a good video.)
Caped Crusader took seriously my attack of existential anxiety the other day and sent me an email filled with funny cartoons, some of which are political and some of which are not. All of them will make you laugh and many of them will make you think too. That feels just about right:
Kudos to reporter Mark Knoller for asking presidential Spokesboy Josh Earnest whether the President undermines his message when he boards a 747 to fly to the Everglades on Earth Day. The video captures something else interesting (and you may have to turn up the volume to catch it): fellow White House reporters giggle, with one of them alluding to Hillary’s van.
As Caleb Howe, who caught this moment, notes with despair, it seems as if the reporters are horrified that their political betters might have to do something plebian, such as forego a fancy plane ride or pimped-up van journey, even if doing so spares the environment. However, listening to the laughs and catcalls, I’d like to think that at least some of those reporters had a seed of doubt planted in their brains about the hypocrisy at work amongst the gilded members of the Democrat club.
Still, religion is religion and, as I noted in an earlier post, the Left isn’t yet ready to concede that theirs is the God that failed.
UPDATE: The great David Burge nails it: “Cloud god angry! Sea god angry! Big power chief fly great iron bird to swamp village, make science dance for great Earth Mother!”
I continue to be unpleasantly overwhelmed by deadline intensive work. Breaks are few and far between. The virtue of this is that, separated from the minutiae of daily news, I’ve had the opportunity to step back and focus on larger trends. My musings today too me into the realms of Leftist Infallibility.
One of the most frightening things that characterizes the Left it its sense of its own god-like power and knowledge. That’s always been present in its atheistic tendencies (look at the bloodshed of the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions), but we’re seeing a different version of it in the 21st century, one that I think arises because of “scientific utopianism.” When I say “scientific utopianism,” I’m talking about a sense that began with post-WWII culture and, all emerging data to the contrary, continues to escalate amongst Lefties.
Scientific utopianism used to be summed up in the old slogan “Better living through chemistry.” That was a commercial line to sell products, both licit and illicit. Amongst Leftists, however, it’s the belief that science — or, more specifically, their take on science — offers all the cures for mankind, not to mention the power to destroy mankind.
Back in the 1950s, although people understood that science could wreak unbearable havoc (e.g., the atom bomb), at the same time possibilities seemed so limitless and exciting. I think Disney captured it best in educational cartoons celebrating medical and scientific advances, in Tomorrowland, and in the Carousel of Progress. People envisioned a world of clean, easy, unlimited travel; perfect health; endless food and clean water supplies; the ability to wage war quickly, efficiently and, if possible, relatively painlessly; day-to-day comforts that effectively ended work; and comfortable control over the environment.
Barring that looming mushroom-shaped cloud, this scientific utopianism promised the Baby Boomers (and their progeny) that Nothing was Impossible. The ordinary consumer, not given to deep thought, understood these “Better living through chemistry” and “Nothing is impossible” slogans to mean basic, and wonderful things, such as the eradication of polio and the introduction of the microwave often.
For the Leftist intellectual, though, these slogans meant something much greater: If nothing is impossible for man, who needs God? Man is God. So as not to offend those “voting morons in flyover country” (and yes, that is how the Left thinks of you), it’s dangerous to be tactless enough to admit that man is his own God, but the Leftist intellectual class certainly concluded that this was the case.
If man is God, he has asked all the right questions and, solipsistically, has all the right answers. Your Man-God has cleared the way for himself: His beliefs about the Big Bang (a Catholic priest may have come up with the idea, but it clearly means no God); climate (man is more powerful than the earth, and the solar system); diet (science or their accompanying Gaia worshippers, who are the crunchy version of God deniers, know exactly what you should and shouldn’t eat); medicine (which merges perfectly with the “man is God” ethos about science and food); and gender (mere biology is so limiting, and Man-God can and should transcend it) have create to the Man-God’s satisfaction a fully realized universe and moral doctrine. Moreover, given that this is a faith, whether achieved through white-collar science or crunchy Gaia-worship, this new Man-God, is just like that nasty, judgmental, homophobic, probably racist, and definitely misogynistic Biblical God in one very significant way: He is infallible.
Except that every month a slew of news stories shows that your newly anointed Man-God is not infallible. Indeed, far from it. In a very short time, we’ve learned the following (and I’ll leave you to search for links, if you’re so inclined): butter in moderation is not bad for you; cheese in moderation is not bad for you; whole milk in moderation is not bad for you; salt in moderation is not bad for you; artificial sugar in any amount is bad for you; polar bears are not going extinct; glaciers are not vanishing; the Arctic and Antarctic are still here; hurricanes are not worse; the ocean has not risen to the proportions of that mythical Biblical flood; the Big Bang theory may be wrong; unlimited amounts of marijuana probably aren’t harmless; chocolate is healthy (I always knew this); coffee is healthy; vaccinations do not cause autism; and on and on. I bet that, even as you’re reading this, you’re mentally tallying up all the recent stories I’ve forgotten that turn conventional wisdom on its head.
The problem with having elevated yourself to the altar is that the view from there is nice. There’s a heady pleasure in seeing people bow down, worship, and obey your every command. The world’s collective Leftists are therefore unwilling to acknowledge their all-too-human fallibility. Instead, they’re doubling down on their assertions, predictions, demands, and sense of infallibility.
Think of it: In a Judeo-Christian era, when individuals or select groups arrogated god-status to themselves, they’d be appropriately ridiculed and marginalized. Now, they’re worshiped and we offer them the keys to our earthly kingdom.
I’m hoping that today marks the last day I completely vanish because of work. I still have projects I have to do, but I’m hoping that the time lines will be a bit more temperate. This pace would have been wearing when I was young and is a serious challenge now that I’m not so young.
With luck, I’ll have a good night’s sleep tonight and, tomorrow, emerge refreshed with all sorts of exciting blogging ideas dancing around in my head. Now, the sole blogging idea I have is: “How can intelligent women vote for Hillary?”
I asked one of my favorite liberal Facebook friends “What are Hillary’s accomplishments?” Her reply, distilled to its essence, was: College class valedictorian, wrote law review articles, gave lip service to children’s causes, was first lady in Arkansas, raised a child successfully, was a First Lady in D.C., has campaigned against wood burning stoves, presided over a warm relationship between Obama and Turkey (never mind that Turkey has become one of the unhinged Islamic governments), and is a woman!
In some ways, a vote for Hillary because she’s female is even worse than a vote for Obama because he’s black. Obama had the virtue of being something of a blank slate. Those of us who were paying close attention knew the real story (Leftist, anti-Semite, anti-American, no accomplishments), but everyone else just saw the shiny product. With Hillary, though, everyone knows about her downsides the dishonesty; the secretiveness; the paranoia; the rank, even deadly, incompetence; etc.
With Obama, it was a case “if ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.” With Hillary, it’s a case of “I don’t care that I know for an absolute fact that Hillary is singularly dishonest and incompetent. All I care about is abortion generally and the fact that, specifically, Hillary allegedly possesses a vagina.” That’s really what support for Hillary boils down to.
And for those who are thinking “American women really can’t be that stupid, can they?”, the answer is a resounding “Yes, they can!” The mere fact that one of the sharpest women I know forgives Hillary everything, and is willing to elect her to the presidency primarily because she was class valedictorian and raised a nice daughter (oh, and of course, allegedly has a vagina), tells you everything you need to know about 60 years of Leftist brainwashing in America’s schools and her media.
I’m sometimes sorry I wised up after 9/11. If I hadn’t, I too could blissfully contemplate the fact that American women and their whipped men are enthusiastically prepared to hand their nation over to a known crook and incompetent, because . . . abortion and alleged vagina. It’s just sickening.
This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on — it does make you think!!
Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.
That’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. “But he got $7!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I only saved a dollar, too … It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!”.
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man, “why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!
Professor of Accounting & Chair,
Division of Accounting and Business Law
The University of South Dakota
School of Business
No, April 9 is not a typo. I managed to fall seriously behind in keeping you apprised of events at the Watcher’s Council. Still, it’s never too late to let you know about the good stuff that goes on there. The winners, placers, and showers that week were:
The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match up.
“Yes, death to the Great Satan” – Ayatollah Khomeini leading crowds in anti-American chants just over a week ago.
“Peace is purchased from strength. It’s not purchased from weakness or unilateral retreats.” – Benyamin Netanyahu
“If he being Young And Unskillful seeks to gamble for silver and gold/ Take his money my son praising Allah! The fool was made to be sold! -Renowned Persian poet Hafiz, 14th century CE
I believe Herr Hitler is a man whose word can be relied on.” - Neville Chamberlain, 1938
This week’s winning essay by a nose,Joshuapundit’s -Munich II examines President Obama’s so-called ‘framework’ of his nuclear agreement with Iran. As we nowknow, our president was not exactly being honest with the American people in that speech in the Rose Garden! So what’s the actual motivation behind his apparent desperation to achieve some kind of deal..something the Iranians are happily taking advantage of. Here’s a slice: