Bookworm Room

Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts.

President Trump, NeverTrumpers, and keeping kosher

by Leave a Comment

Regarding NeverTrumpers, are there two different kinds — the sleazy grifters and the genuinely principled people who cannot swallow the idea of Trump?

Kosher symbols Trump NeverTrumpersThe Torah (that is, the five books of Moses) imposes multiple life rules on Jews and how many of these rules a given Jew follows depends on that person’s degree of religious orthodoxy. For non-Jews, the kosher dietary laws are probably the best known commandments that religious Jews must obey.

For those Jews who keep kosher, there are myriad rules about the type of food that may be eaten, the way animals must be slaughtered, the way the food must be prepared, and the dishes on which it can be served. Keeping kosher is complicated and takes observant Jews outside of the mainstream of American eating.

For those with a deep commitment to God, however, the kosher dietary laws are simply a fact of life. Moreover, they find non-kosher food so viscerally repugnant that they wouldn’t dream of knowingly eating it.

God’s laws, though, are still subsets of an even more important principle: The Torah’s highest and most important directive is to choose life. In keeping with this directive, over the centuries the rabbis developed the doctrine of Pikuach nefesh. Per Wikipedia, which seems to be quite accurate on this point:

Pikuach nefesh (Hebrew: פיקוח נפש, IPA: [piˈkuaχ ˈnefeʃ], “saving a life”) describes the principle in Jewish law that the preservation of human life overrides virtually any other religious consideration. When the life of a specific person is in danger, almost any mitzvah lo ta’aseh (command to not do an action) of the Torah becomes inapplicable. [Hyperlinks and footnotes omitted.]

Specifically with regard to the intersection between Pikuach nefesh and kosher dietary rules, Wikipedia explains as follows:

Non-kosher food may be eaten under the following circumstances:

  • If no kosher food is available to the person, and failure to eat the non-kosher food may result in starvation.
  • If a non-kosher food product specifically is needed to cure an illness.

If necessary for recovery, a patient may eat non-kosher foods. In the Babylonian Talmud, Chapter 82a of Tractate Yoma mentions pregnancy cravings for non-kosher food (the passage discusses a pregnant woman who craves pork on Yom Kippur) as the paradigmatic example of a presumed life-threatening situation where a person is allowed to eat non-kosher food (and is permitted to eat it on Yom Kippur). [Hyperlinks omitted]

The fact that something is permitted, though, doesn’t necessarily mean someone is able to do it. I have heard stories of extremely orthodox Jews who, when rescued from Nazi concentration camps, were unable to make themselves eat if the only food available was not kosher. (This obviously doesn’t apply to quarrels about which plate to use; it applies to being offered pork or some other forbidden food to eat.) These Jews would tell their children to eat the food, but they viewed it with such revulsion — akin to your being asked to eat a piece of ancient, rotten, worm-ridden meat — that they simply couldn’t force it down. I don’t know if these stories are true, but they work nicely for my Trump analogy — or rather, for my NeverTrumpers analogy. [Read more…]

Avenatti, Hillary, and Trump: thoughts about character and sociopaths

by Leave a Comment

Avenatti and Clinton are self-serving criminals, while Trump is just a boaster and brawler — and he uses those traits constitutionally to serve America.

AvenattiI don’t know about you, but I’m finding completely fascinating the lengthening laundry list of malfeasance associated with Michael Avenatti. It turns out he’s not just a garden-variety crooked attorney with a gift for self-promotion who padded his bills or missed filing deadlines, only to lie about these things later. Instead, assuming the allegations against him to be true, Avenatti is a criminal of epic proportions. He embezzled millions of dollars from clients, one of whom was brain-damaged, in order to fund his other businesses enterprises as well as his high-end, race car-driving lifestyle.

Speaking only for myself, If I ever started engaging in crime, even minor crime, my instinct would be to keep a low profile. My crime motto, if I had one, would be “If you’re going to speed, do it in a boring car, not in a bright red sports car.” Thankfully, I am not criminally inclined, so this is not an issue.

Avenatti, however, who is apparently a true criminal, went in an entirely different direction. He did everything he could to make himself visible. Even more importantly for purposes of this post, he made himself visible at the national level by sitting in judgment — moral judgment — on the President of the United States. He spent months on Leftist TV speaking endlessly about what a corrupt person President Trump is. Then, when that fame started diminishing, Avenatti ratcheted up the fame factor again by thrusting himself into the heart of the baseless attack on Justice Kavanaugh.

To go back to my car metaphor, Avenatti wasn’t just speeding in a red sports car. He was speeding and running red lights, all while driving a red car with the top down, playing rap music at full blast on the top-end sound system, boasting a flag on the antenna reading “Hey, look at me” and, below that, another flag saying, “No, really, look at me!”

If I had to guess, I would say Avenatti is a sociopath. Or perhaps I should say he has an “antisocial personality disorder” (ASP), which is the modern DSM-5 classification for those people whom we once called sociopaths and/or psychopaths. I’m a little soured on the DSM, which seems more concerned with politics than clinical accuracy, but this laundry list of signs that someone has an ASP is remarkably accurate in describing not only Avenatti’s crimes, but his lust for fame, a lust entirely at odds with someone who actually wants to get away with criminal activity:

  • Violation of the physical or emotional rights of others
  • Lack of stability in job and home life
  • Irritability and aggression
  • Lack of remorse
  • Consistent irresponsibility
  • Recklessness, impulsivity
  • Deceitfulness
  • A childhood diagnosis (or symptoms consistent with) conduct disorder

Except for the last item in the list, about which we have no information, Avenatti ticks off all the other items. Nor is this a case of trying to massage a vaguely dishonest or insensitive person into the laundry list, even if that person really doesn’t belong there. Avenatti fits like a well-oiled key in a custom-made lock: His blatant attacks on others; his divorces and refusal to pay child care; his aggression; his manifest lack of remorse for his crimes (were he remorseful, he might be more low key); his carelessness with his clients and, indeed, with his own welfare as a criminal; the recklessness that drove him to the spotlight; and his blatant dishonesty — it’s all there. [Read more…]

Random thoughts on the unfolding Russia Collusion hoax

by Leave a Comment

With Barr promising to investigate the Russia Collusion Hoax, it’s a good time to think about the motivations driving those who masterminded the hoax.

Russia Collusion Hoax StrzokYesterday was another day spent pulling out ivy, a process I found so exhausting, I couldn’t write last night. Not writing, though, doesn’t mean not thinking. I’ve been thinking a lot about the Russia collusion hoax, especially about what drove the major actors to do what they did. After all, even if they thought the risk was minimal because they were banking on a Hillary victory and doing their best to ensure that victory, the power players knew that what they were doing was both illegal and immoral. That’s a pretty big hurdle for otherwise law-abiding people to make.

To get to my answer, I’ll start by looking at what they did (and mine is a slightly different focus than most others), and then I’ll try to answer the question about what powered these people’s engines. Here goes….

I suspect that several of you, like me, remember the Watergate scandal. For any of you young’uns reading this, way back in 1972, while acting on behalf of Nixon and his innermost circle, a bunch of former government operatives broke into Democrat National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex to steal information related to the election.

To give what they did some context, the equivalent act would be for some former 49er football players, acting at the behest of the current coach to break into Seattle Seahawk headquarters to steal the coaching book for the upcoming football season. It’s an aggressive form of cheating in the midst of a fiercely fought rivalry.

With that in mind, we can see that there are some parallels to Watergate in the Russia collusion hoax and some things that differ wildly. It’s easiest to start with the obvious difference, which is that the Russia Collusion scandal did not involve outsiders acting only once to steal a playbook. Instead, it involved permanent government employees embedded deeply in our entire security apparatus — the FBI, CIA, and DOJ — working in concert for months. Watergate was kindergarten and this was post-graduate work.

Moreover, unlike Watergate, after Trump was elected, this collusion scandal morphed into a full-blown government coup intended to take down a duly elected American president. That the Left — from the DNC, to the media, to the people down the block from me — looks upon this complacently instead of with horror tells you that the Left no longer has any allegiance to America, American values, or the Constitution. Every Leftist, no matter where situated, is enthusiastically embracing tin-pot banana republic tyranny. There are no words for how sad and how dangerous this is.

Interestingly, though, I haven’t heard anyone articulate what information these bad actors were seeking in the run-up to the election. I know this sounds like a stupid observation, and it may well be. The obvious answer is that these bad actors were seeking evidence of Russian collusion in order to create an October surprise that would bring down Trump’s candidacy.

The thing is, though, that you and I know that, while a few true believers may actually have thought that Trump and/or people within his inner circle were working in concert with Putin, the reality is that the big bad actors — Comey, Brennan, Clapper, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Priestap, etc. — knew perfectly well that there was no collusion. They knew this because (so far as we know) the only proof they could bring to the FISA court to justify spying on Trump was the Steele dossier. [Read more…]

[VIDEO] Magnificent Trump victory dance — and no mercy

by Leave a Comment

Some say Trump should be grateful he was “exonerated” and let bygones by bygones. I say, “NEVER!” The wrongdoers MUST be punished and Trump MUST dance.

On a more serious note, I can see where “reconciliation” might be appropriate response when an entire sector of society has engaged in immoral behavior over the course of decades or its entire history. Punishing each individual is time-consuming and there’s a serious question as to whether there’s any judicial process that can properly identify all individuals who deserve punishment or that can prevent the process from being used to wage private vendettas. [Read more…]

Mueller Day: What Should Happen Next (Updated)

by Leave a Comment

Mueller shows that Russia Collusion belonged to Clinton/Democrat, not Trump. We must now reinstate the Rule of Law by prosecuting those behind this crime.

Mueller collusion arrestsMueller Day has arrived — and what we find is that everything provided to the FBI to start this investigation — all of the factual allegations — were b.s.  What should happen next is a special prosecutor to look at the greatest — and most illegal — dirty trick in political history.

Highlights from the findings of the Mueller Report, as summarized today in a letter to Congress:

“The report does not recommend any further indictments, nor did the Special Counsel obtain any sealed indictments that have yet to be made public.” . . .

“The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. ” . . .

“The report’s second part addresses a number of actions by the President – most of which have been the subject of public reporting – that the Special Counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction-of-justice concerns. . . . The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion – one way or the other – as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.

. . . After reviewing the Special Counsel’s final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel’s investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.” . . .

What Should Happen Now? We must reinstate RULE OF LAW in this nation. [Read more…]

Fisking the Left’s escalating demands for Trump’s impeachment

by Leave a Comment

Even though Mueller has totally vindicated Trump, you can expect cries for impeachment to intensify. Learn here how stupid those impeachment demands will be.

Impeachment Trump Derangement SyndromeOne of the Progressives on my real-me Facebook feed contends that she never wanted Trump to be impeached because, as Nancy Pelosi said, “he’s just not worth it.” However, now that the Mueller Report has finally dropped, she’s suddenly changed her mind and says that impeachment is the only way to rein in Trump’s power. In other words, now that the Progressive’s primary nefarious scheme to reverse the 2016 election has failed, it’s time to move on to the next nefarious scheme.

To support her new tack, the Progressive cites to The Atlantic’s March 2019 issue entitled Impeach Donald Trump : Starting the process will rein in a president who is undermining American ideals—and bring the debate about his fitness for office into Congress, where it belongs.  The article is certainly timely insofar as its publication conveniently coincides with the Mueller Report. The Progressive says the article is totally believable because the author, Yoni Appelbaum, is a “moderate,” albeit one with a “little bias.”

Having looked at Appelbaum’s article, I have to say I disagree with the article’s title, with every argument contained within it, and with my friend’s assessment that Appelbaum is a “moderate.” It therefore struck me as an article ripe for the fisking. Before I do so, though, I want to do three things. First, even before addressing Appelbaum’s argument, which on its face gives the lie to any claimed “moderation,” I’d like to address Appelbaum’s record, which also gives the lie to any claimed “moderation.”

Appelbaum is an editor at The Atlantic, so he doesn’t write a lot. When he does . . . well, here are most of Appelbaum’s videos or articles over the past couple of years:

I don’t know about you, but I’m not seeing political moderation in Appelbaum. Instead, I’m seeing monomaniacal hate against Trump from a hard-Left perspective.

Second, before diving into Appelbaum’s article, it’s worth remembering what the Constitution has to say about impeachment (Art. II, Section 4; emphasis mine):

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

After Friday’s news drop, I think we can confidently say that, with Mueller refusing any indictments, treason is off the table. (Also, considering Trump’s morning joie de vivre, I doubt that the report says, “Trump should be indicted, but the DOJ has to wait until he leaves the White House before beginning the process.”) The question, then, is whether Appelbaum can make an argument for “Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Third, as we dive into Appelbaum’s reasoning, I’d like to remind you that surrounding a bad argument with endless historical facts and analysis will not remedy the false data and poor analysis lying at the article’s heart. Appelbaum, a history major, likes to tout his erudition. That erudition, however, does not offset the flat-out lies he advances, nor does it offset his illogical and often hysterical take on Trump’s presidency.

Now, let the fisking begin:

Appelbaum’s first two paragraphs say that President Trump swore to uphold the Constitution and, instead, has blatantly violated it, running roughshod over the separation of powers, the rule of law, and civil liberties (implying that Trump is a racist, misogynistic  Muslim hater). Well, at least we know what Appelbaum believes he will prove. Whether he meets his self-imposed burden of proof remains to be seen.

Things start falling apart immediately because, in his third paragraph, Appelbaum goes directly to a tried and true fallacy, namely the appeal to authority. In this case, his authority is two well-known #NeverTrumpers; namely, failed presidential candidates McCain and Romney: [Read more…]

Ocasio-Cortez and Kamala: some random comments about two dangerous women

by Leave a Comment

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Kamala Harris: I want to share with you a few thoughts I’ve had about two women who are unaccomplished but still dangerous.
Ocasio-Cortez Kamala Harris

Re Ocasio-Cortez:

1. The woman is a dim bulb, defined by ignorance and inanity.

2. Her low wattage does not make her any less dangerous.

3. She is dangerous because she is a master of the modern medium.

4. She is the living embodiment of Marshall McLuhan’s statement that “the medium is the message.” That she lacks substance, knowledge, wit, logical ability, or any other qualities that matter for governance, is irrelevant; she can communicate in 21st century fashion and that is sufficient to elevate her.

5. If we only ridicule her, we actually enhance her “medium as message” status.

6. We should treat her utterances seriously and, even as we expose each fallacy, nevertheless maintain a respectful tone. (You’ll notice that I’ve long since stopped doing “dumb Ocasio-Cortez” posters in my illustrated editions.) Remember, that she is a dim bulb is irrelevant. She’s a shiny, pretty, bubbly socialist who knows that communication, rather than substance, is currently the only thing that matters.

7. Do not call her “AOC.” It’s easy to type, but it elevates her to “Barbra,” “Bono,” “Cher” or “Hillary” status.” Given her mastery of the medium, Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t need our help. [Read more…]

“Heil Hitler! Heil Trump!” — one story reveals the American divide

by Leave a Comment

When I read that a man screamed “Heil Hitler” and “Heil Trump,” I knew he was a Proggie, but a Proggie I know still insists the man was a Trump supporter.

Heil TrumpYesterday, the media was filled with stories about an outburst at a Baltimore theater. The Baltimore Sun first reported on the event — and please note that it immediately identifies the man as a Trump hater (emphasis mine):

A man shouting “Heil Hitler, Heil Trump” during a performance of “Fiddler on the Roof” in Baltimore smelled of alcohol and told police he was motivated by his hatred of President Donald Trump.

Anthony M. Derlunas, 58, told an officer he “had been drinking heavily throughout the night” before the outburst at the Hippodrome Theatre on Wednesday night, according to a police report.

But before details of the police report became public in the early evening, the incident rattled many already anxious about a recent spike in anti-Semitism and hate crimes in Maryland and nationwide.

Audience member Rich Scherr said the outburst, which happened during intermission, sparked fears of a shooting like the one in a Pittsburgh synagogue last month that killed 11 people.

The man, later identified as Derlunas, had been seated in the balcony and began shouting “Heil Hitler, Heil Trump.”

What’s so fascinating about the story is that I knew instantly, without having to read the bolded language, that the man hated Trump. There were several clues. First, Neo-Nazis tend not to buy tickets costing upwards of $70 for an event at an upscale downtown historic venue. If you pay attention to the facts outside of the media narrative, you know that Neo-Nazis tend to be very angry bottom-feeding people who hang with other angry bottom-feeding people endlessly revisiting their real and imagined injuries (these two videos — one and two — are my favorite looks at the white supremacy issue). That any genuine Neo-Nazi would bother to spend the money to see Broadway’s version of a shetl just to raise a ruckus is a near zero likelihood.

The other thing that tipped me off is that the only people in America who liken Trump to Hitler are . . . Progressives. While it may be true that America’s microscopically small, sector of pathetic, low-life white supremacists throw their lot in with Trump, they do so, not because they worship him as another Hitler, but because their former home in the Democrat Party has gone away.

The Democrat Party that once was home to America’s white supremacists is still pathologically race-obsessed, but it’s switched from the old model (whites on top, everyone else on the bottom) top a new model (whites on the bottom, everyone else on the top). You could say it’s gone from being a “white lives matter” party to being a “black lives matter” party.

Evicted from their former ideological home, those foul excrescences who label themselves “white supremacists” figured out that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” and latched on to the GOP. Again, they don’t worship Trump; they just have nowhere else to go.

All of this was instantly obvious to me without the necessity of the man’s confession that he hates Donald Trump. [Read more…]

Bookworm Beat 10/22/18 — the Honduran invasion edition and open thread

by Leave a Comment

This Bookworm Beat is about more than the slo-mo Honduran invasion, but that figures largely here, hence the post’s title.

Bookworm Beat Honduran InvasionA round-up of ideas and information about the Honduran invasion. When thousands of military age men threaten to storm your border, there’s only one proper description: “an invasion.” All that other stuff — economic migrants, refugees, huddled masses — is euphemism intended to obscure the reality that inherently dangerous people [i.e., military age men and men from terrorist-supporting and non-Latin American countries] are announcing loudly and clearly that will ignore American sovereignty and invade our country.

I don’t doubt that women and children are sprinkled throughout this horde to make good television when Trump (God willing) stops them at the American border but, again, that’s not the bulk of the group. Instead, those women and children will find that, just as the Palestinians like to place children front and center for maximum propaganda impact when Israel finally fights back against deadly provocation, so too are these women and children unwitting tools in the Leftist war to destroy American sovereignty.

As it happens, we don’t need to guess what this invasion will look like. First, we saw a trial run with the children’s invasion on Obama’s watch, an invasion that came complete with diseases, MS-13 and other criminals, and a new cohort of anchors for chain migration. We’ve also seen the adult version play out in Europe over the past three years and it has, at best, strained Europe’s economy and, at worst, led to sexual assaults on women and children, increased property crimes, murders, racially-based violence, and terrorism.

Immigration should be based upon the capacity and desire of the receiving country, rather than the demands of those unfortunate enough to be residents of countries distinguished by corruption, theocratic dictatorships (that the immigrants want to bring with them), and economic failing. If these military-aged young men want to improve life, let them turn back home to Honduras and take a stand against crime and corruption there, rather than bringing those society-destroying vices here.

One of the things that may have struck you is that those young man are moving at a bizarrely rapid clip. Could it be that they’re not marching at all but are getting a little help? Why, yes it could:

However many trucks are working the convoy now, they’re going to need more — while Mexico made some ineffectual efforts to stop the original invasion at its own borders, that failure has emboldened others to join:

New estimates cited by El Universal, a Mexican newspaper, say the caravan now has 14,000 people, many of them already in Mexico while others still wait. {Emphasis mine.)

Another thing that someone found noteworthy is the clothes these “spontaneous” refugees are wearing:

And then there’s the flag under which they’ve chosen to march, as well as the flag they’ve chosen to burn:

(As always, the Daily Mail has a great gallery of photos, showing the marching mob’s testosterone, child pawns, and violent impulses.)

Again, this is not a “migrant movement.” It is a full-fledged, planned invasion of a sovereign nation.

Moreover, as Don Surber notes, an invasion of this size, complete with transportation and publicists, is bigger than George Soros funding it by his lonesome (although I’d be very surprised if he were not involved):

Caravan adults will work for under-the-table wages that are off the books. This allows them to collect welfare. Their employers don’t have to pay the 7.65% employer match to payroll taxes or provide health insurance.

Illegal aliens can live in America working for less than minimum wage if it is off the books. That is because they still collect welfare and get Medicaid in addition to their untaxed pay.

They do better than legal citizens who make minimum wage.

The Chamber of Commerce does not want to stop this because it provides cheap labor.

Mexico does not want to stop this because so many illegals send lots of money home.

This is why other nations, nominally allies, allow the caravan to head north.

[snip]

This is a well-financed caravan aimed at using women and children to hide the real intent of this movement. Corporate interests are with cheap labor. Conservatives only fool themselves if they think George Soros is alone in this venture.

Wolf Howling contends (and I agree) that those Americans funding this enterprise need to be found, arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned for extended periods of time.

By the way, if any Leftist says to you “but Posse Comitatus,” ignore him or her because that person is ignorant. The Posse Comitatus Act exists to prevent a president from using the military against Americans. It cannot possibly be extended to prevent using the American military to protect Americans from an external invading force.

I’ll wrap up with Trump’s tweets on the invasion:

I hope Trump means it about cutting off funds to the countries allowing this to happen (something Roger L. Simon thinks, as I do, will benefit these same countries by forcing them to address their internal failings) — and I hope he has the balls and the spine to do what it takes to block this invasion at the border. [Read more…]

The Bookworm Beat 10/9/2018 — the American life edition and open thread

by Leave a Comment

Here it is — a round-up about American life in the wake of the Kavanaugh hearings, with everything from politics to plumbing thrown in.

American Life Bookworm BeatThis will be my last big post before my week-long hiatus (during which, as I said, I’m sure something big will happen). Fear not, though, because my friend, the brilliant and inimitable Wolf Howling will be holding the fort in my absence. Meanwhile, here’s some stuff about American life that you can chew on while I’m gone.

But before I get to that, I wanted to update you on the dog situation. Mr. Bookworm finally conceded that our aged, demented, blind, deaf, arthritic dog with an anxiety disorder was (a) miserable and (b) unreasonably burdensome. When she began needing walks every 90 minutes to stay ahead of the incontinence, and even that wasn’t always successful, he made the appointment at the vet. And when she started keeping us up all night long, panting, restless, unhappy, and incontinent, he said he wouldn’t dream of canceling the appointment.

So it was that yesterday our little dog made the journey over the rainbow bridge to doggy heaven. The vet did everything she could to make it a comfortable experience, including having a special cushion for the dog, rather than a scary metal table. She also provided premium doggy treats and our little gal happily munched through those treats to her very last breath.

It was what I call a “Bing Crosby death.” As some of you may recall, Bing Crosby was an avid golfer. It was his favorite pastime. He died of a massive heart attack while golfing on a lovely course in Spain, overlooking the Mediterranean. I always like imagining Bing in the midst of a good round, winding up for a massive swing, and being felled in an instant, with his last conscious thought before Death claimed him being “I am happy.”

Many thanks to all of you who chimed in with your stories and opinions about when to put a beloved pet down. I don’t think I clearly conveyed in the comments how grateful I was for all the wisdom you so generously shared with me.

And now back to our regularly scheduled Bookworm Beat round-up:

Kavanaugh inflamed the moderates. My friend Neo is one of the smartest people blogging today. It’s no surprise, therefore, that she had an incredibly brilliant insight about the reason Kavanaugh’s confirmation process was an earthquake, rather than a temporary tremor. She makes nine specific points, all of which are worth reading, but I want to focus on her last three points:

(7) At that point, it was the moderate wing of the GOP that was galvanized. They suddenly discovered that the rules they thought they’d been playing by all this time, the ones they thought at least some of their Democratic colleagues shared, meant nothing to the opposition.

[snip]

(8) And that’s why it was the moderate side of the right that stepped up to the plate and delivered the goods in the Kavanaugh fight. Lindsay Graham, Susan Collins, Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell, all of them harshly vilified in the past by the more conservative wing of the party, found themselves uttering words that those who had previously reviled them were now cheering.

(9) Those words from the RINOs had more power to rally the base than if the same messages had been delivered by senators further to the right. The factor of surprise made for a much more attention-getting story. Lindsay Graham’s tirade was much more newsworthy because it came from Graham rather than, for example, Ted Cruz.

I clipped a lot from the above quotation, because I want to encourage you to read the whole thing. Neo will help you understand the catharsis in the Republican party over the last two weeks. [Read more…]

The Kavanaugh hearing and the true danger of Godless Communists

by Leave a Comment

Watching the Kavanaugh hearing, it’s obvious that Leftists who don’t believe in eternal damnation have no internal brakes stopping their evil behavior.

Kavanaugh Godless Communists Hand of God and Adam MichaelangeloIn 1954, Congress added the phrase “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance, something it did as a direct rebuke to Godless communism. I never really focused on the “Godless” part of the phrase “Godless communism.” To me, communism was the scourge, and the Godless part was almost akin to a verbal twitch or perhaps a clear identifier. They’re not just communists! They’re Godless communists!

Thinking about it, though, the phrase “Godless Communist” has a deeper meaning than I first realized. To the extent that America was founded as a nation beholden to God (even though the First Amendment thankfully) ensured that the federal government could not impose religious values, rituals, or doctrines on people, communism was not only an economic threat, it was also cultural threat.

Communism’s war on God undermined everything America stood for: A nation that took directly from the Creator Himself the self-evident truths underlying its ideals. Without a Creator, those self-evident truths become mere wishful thinking. “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as meaningless and ephemeral as any garden-variety slogan.

“Now, more than ever!” “Just Do It!” “Does she or doesn’t she? Only her hairdresser knows for sure.” “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — on sale now until supplies run out if you vote for your local Democrat politician.”

Looking at the Kavanaugh hearings, though, I can see an even deeper implication to the dangers lurking behind Godless Communism. God is a moral brake. Without God, one may have rules, but they are simply man-made strictures with which men comply or avoid depending upon consequences from . . . other men.*

After all, there is no moral imperative regarding right turns on red. In some states, you can; in some states, you can’t. And in those states in which right turns on red are barred, what stops us isn’t any moral sense of wrongness, it’s the fear of getting caught and having to pay an expensive ticket. Some of our rules look back to the Bible (“thou shalt not murder,” “thou shalt not steal,” but we enforce them from a civil, not a religious perspective.

Again, I’m grateful that our First Amendment keeps the judge from intoning that, not only are you going to prison, but you’re also going to Hell. Having said that, though, I prefer a population that thinks Hell is part of the mix to one that doesn’t. Again, government can be scary, but only if it catches you. An all-seeing, all-knowing, ethical God always catches you.

I’ve mentioned before in connection with the hearings that Kavanaugh is an openly devout man. His faith is an integral part of his life. I think his is a true and deep faith, rather than hypocritical posturing. (I can’t help think of Obama “not really listening” in Rev. Wright’s church as the latter excoriated America.) If I am correct, Kavanaugh truly believes there is a God. [Read more…]

Rape Accusations, Leftists, Blurred Lines, and poor Brett Kavanaugh

by Leave a Comment

Once Orwellian Leftists got their hands on it, “rape” as traditionally understood became a malleable concept to be used to destroy political enemies.

Rape Pulp Magazine coversItem: Former Vice President Joe “Creepy Touch” Biden, when announcing that the Obama White House was creating a task force to address campus rape, stated “One in five of every one of those young women who is dropped off for that first day of school, before they finish school, will be assaulted in her college years.”

In fact, that statistic goes far beyond being a lie or a damn lie. It’s a complete fraud. This video soundly debunks that statistic:

Here’s the key takeaway:

[That “statistic”] comes from a study conducted over the internet at two large universities one in the Midwest and one in the South. The survey was anonymous no one’s claims were verified and terms were not clearly defined. In round numbers, a total of 5,000 women participated. Based on their responses, the authors, not the participants, determined that 1,000 had been victims of some type of non-consensual or unwanted sexual contact and — voila! — from one vaguely worded unscientific survey we suddenly arrived at a rape culture on college campuses. Tellingly, the study authors have since explicitly stated that it’s inappropriate to use their survey to make that claim. Much more comprehensive data from the US Bureau of Justice Statistics or “BJS” estimates that about one in 52.6 college women will be victims [sic] of rape or sexual assault over the course of four years. That’s far too many, but it’s a long way from one in five. The same BJS data also reveal that women in college are safer from rape than college aged women who are not enrolled in college — but the truth doesn’t serve the purposes of feminist activists or vote seeking politicians. Lies work much better and the one in five claim is tantamount to a lie.

Let me say it again: the notion of a campus “rape culture” is a grotesque lie, based on a manifestly flawed study, that the Left peddles because it allow them to control young women and destroy young men. As Glenn Reynolds likes to point out, no sentient adult actually believes this statistic because no loving parent would ever allow his or her child to go to a place that has a rate rape comparable to the rate in South Africa, one of the most sexually violent countries in the world. The only ones who believe these statistics are college administrators and the terrified female students brought to heel by these statistical lies.

For those unclear on why I added “Creepy Touch” to Biden’s name, this video helps explain:

[Read more…]

Bookworm Beat 8/29/2018 — the “bitch is back” edition

by Leave a Comment

I’m in a snarky mood today and this Bookworm Beat  has a lot to snark about, from McCain’s funeral, to Hillary’s server, to Pontiff scandals, and much more.

Bookworm Beat Woman WritingAgain, my apologies for the delay in getting this post up. Aside from catching up on things that fell behind during my travels, I was also updating What Business Thinks. Please remember to check it out — and let me know if you find the companion blog helpful. Oh! One more thing. If you like the site, please share it with your friends.

And now, back to our irregularly scheduled Bookworm Beat blogging….

John McCain — brave warrior and a-hole. Not only did McCain destroy our one shot to rid ourselves entirely of Obamacare and then use his last breath to attack Trump, he barred the President from his funeral, invited his hard-Leftist opponent Obama to give an oration . . . and excluded Sarah Palin, his loyal running mate.

Props to McCain for bravery in Vietnam, but he’s pretty much been a disgraceful, self-centered weasel since then. Bravery and moral indecency are not mutually exclusively. McCain’s passing is therefore no loss to the American political scene — and I devoutly hope that Arizona’s governor doesn’t yielded to Democrat demands and appoint either his unqualified wife or equally unqualified daughter to fill his seat.

Robert Reich has the intelligence of a garden gnome. Speaking as a seriously height impaired person myself, I feel comfortable saying that, in Robert Reich’s case, his garden gnome stature is commensurate with his intellectual limitations. How else to explain the idiocy behind his demand that we “annul” the 2016 election? My friend Mike McDaniel breaks it down:

Ah, so that’s what Reich is saying!  We’ll just declare Trump’s election legally invalid or void.  We’ll make it ineffective or inoperative!  That should be easy, right?  We’ll just refer to the Constitution, Article II, Section 5, which says:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on annulment upon the desires of former minor cabinet officers that worked for the Clintons, because Trump.

That seems pretty clear…what’s that?  There is no Section 5 in Article II of the Constitution?  Well, what’s that got to do with anything? I mean Robert Reich wants to annul Trump, and he’s a past semi-famous Democrat, so what does the Constitution have to do with it?

Read the rest here.

(And no, you’re not imagining it. I am in a bitchy mood. I only had three hours of sleep last night, having arrived home late and been awakened early, and that definitely strips away the Pollyanna gloss I often try to project and leaves the real me, red of tooth and claw.) [Read more…]

The Resistance at the library: they’re reading and weeping

by Leave a Comment

A trip to the local library makes clear that the Resistance is not dying. It is, instead gathering steam, preparing for martyrdom and explosion.

Library ResistanceFor the past few days, my time has not been my own, which is how I found myself staring at the “new in non-fiction” shelf at our local library. My home is unusual in that the younger generation prefers paper books while I, in part because of my less-than-perfect vision, love being able to read on my iPad, where I can make the text a little larger and the light a little brighter.

Thankfully, my library has signed on to the Libby App, so I have access to many recently published books, all with the aforementioned adjustable text size and bright light. Still, today was a day on which the younger generation was in charge, so I got a chance to see in concentrated form the books my Marin library thinks (probably correctly) that its patrons want to read.

If you ever wanted to know (a) that there really are two Americas and (b) that the self-styled Resistance is still struggling to understand how small-minded, tribalist Americans could reject its Utopian vision of a world in which all Leftist dreams are realized, my library is the place to go. On the few shelves dedicated to “new in non-fiction,” I saw all of the following Resistance books. Most had multiple copies gracing the shelves presumably because of  high demand.

In addition to the books’ titles, I’ve included some quotations from the reviews that the books’ various publishers included on the Amazon pages. These reviews are a microcosm of everything the Left hates about Trump — which is everything that the Left hates about America. Trump’s America is one in which modern racism is a Leftist social construct that can be done away with through an exuberant economy; border policies that keep out illegal aliens who take away jobs from minority Americans; national security that acknowledges a violent, colonialist streak in Islam; climate policies that acknowledge change but manage it wisely rather than using it as an excuse to push America back into pre-industrial darkness; and, of course, old-fashioned patriotism.

For the Left, this American vision is a daily, living nightmare that they must dissect and destroy. And so, without further ado, the books on my library’s shelves: [Read more…]

President Trump, our behaviorist in chief, schools Kim Jong Un

by Leave a Comment

Kim Jong Un’s temper tantrum upon mention of Libya was predictable, so I’m betting Trump put that out there on purpose to continue using behaviorism on Kim.

Kim Jong Un North Korea NuclearBack in my kids’ pre-school days, one of the moms told a very funny story. She had been struggling to get her three-year-old to put on his shoes before he left the house. He thought this was a terrible idea and would throw a temper tantrum every time she told him to put on his shoes. When the tantrum ended, and he put his shoes on, she would give him a cookie to reward him for putting on his shoes.

It was only after going through this routine for several weeks that she realized that her son thought that the tantrum was a prerequisite to the cookie. In other words, she had managed to train him to tantrum first, put on shoes second.

What my friend described was behaviorism gone wrong. Good behaviorism, though, produces better outcomes. Before I go further, I’d better explain what I mean by “behaviorism.” Wikipedia offers a leaden definition:

Behaviorism (or behaviourism) is a systematic approach to understanding the behavior of humans and other animals. It assumes that all behaviors are either reflexes produced by a response to certain stimuli in the environment, or a consequence of that individual’s history, including especially reinforcement and punishment, together with the individual’s current motivational state and controlling stimuli. Although behaviorists generally accept the important role of inheritance in determining behavior, they focus primarily on environmental factors.

Yeah, whatever. Let me try to explain the concept as I understand it:

When you are dealing with a third-party (or a dog), and you want to change that third party’s (or dog’s) behavior, the reality is that, absent brute force, you it’s almost impossible actually to change someone else’s behavior. Like the famous light bulb, they have to want to change. The best that you can do when your current behavior is not effecting a change in the other person or dog is to change your behavior to see if that affects their responses. It’s essentially motivational training.

Dog training offers a good example. The old way of housebreaking dogs involved screaming at the dog if one found a puddle in the house and then rubbing the dog’s nose in it. This effectively terrorized dogs, but that did not mean they associated our behavior with the principle that they should do their business outside. Our psychological cues made no sense to them.

Sensible behaviorism says that we should create conditions within which the dog will succeed: Because dogs do not like to soil their immediate environment, we should keep them in that environment in the lead-up to their anticipated walk to prevent pre-walk accidents. Then, when the time is right, we take them outside and expose them to scent stimuli that will encourage them to do their business. Immediately upon their having done so, we praise them or give them a treat. Our behavior is no longer irrationally punitive but is, instead, purposefully positive. This encourages the dog to change its own behavior and to view the back yard, rather than the living room, as its toilet.

The same holds true in dealing with children. I will deny with the last breath in my body that I was a very good parent. I did figure out, however, that a child who is having a tantrum is demanding attention. The best way to deal with a tantrum, provided that the child is not hurting himself, someone else, or your house, is to ignore the child. The result was that my children never threw tantrums because there was nothing in it for them to do so.  [Read more…]