Search Box

Tuesday, August 27, 2019

The CEO

The extent to which Trump views himself as the CEO of America became even clearer recently, when he offered to buy Greenland from the Danes.

That's what CEOs do, make acquisitions.

They negotiate, as Trump is doing with the Chinese.

And they try to get their partners in joint ventures to pay a larger share of the expenses, as Trump is doing with the other members of NATO. (CEOs hate being taken advantage of.)

So far, at least, Trump has avoided the needless expense of another war.

CEOs have a tendency to frequently look at how their stock is doing, since this is usually a fair barometer of their own performance. In Trump's case, his "stocks" are the Dow, the NASDAQ, and the S&P 500.

And CEOs hire and fire people at will. (Trump doesn't seem to be one of those CEOs who feel obliged to give their departing minions flattering letters of recommendation.)

When you think about it, all of this is only natural. Trump has spent his life as a CEO, so sees our country as America, Inc.

Obama, whose previous experience involved doling out money from the Annenberg Foundation, saw our country as a big foundation, with largesse to be distributed among his favored groups. He had also worked as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, and at times, seemed to regard his Presidency as one big "teachable moment."

If we had elected, say, Bill Belichick as President, he'd have seen the country as a larger version of the New England Patriots. He'd have assembled his ideal team for the Cabinet and tried to come up with winning plays. America might have had to suffer through a Deflategate or two, but sometimes that's the price you pay to get a winning coach.

If we had elected Steven Spielberg, he'd have been a bit of a micro-manager, wanting to direct every last detail. Whether you'd have liked the resulting production would probably depend on whether you approve of the sometimes not-so-subtle messages in his actual movies. (Alternatively, we could have elected Clint Eastwood.)

Maybe we should have people from different professions rotating through the White House. Not only would it be more entertaining, but the diversity of viewpoints (real diversity) would be refreshing.

In the meantime, it's refreshing to have a guy who's negotiating on our behalf. Trump's arrogant CEO-like personality doesn't sit right even with a lot of his supporters, but at least he's on America's side. (Name another country whose prospective leaders campaign by promising to do the best they can for foreigners rather than the nation's citizens.)

Saturday, August 17, 2019

Hillary's feelings about Elizabeth Warren

Musing about Rachel Dolezal's thoughts regarding Warren recently reminded me of the one person whose thoughts must be even more poisonous.

A little peek into Hillary's brain:

"It was bad enough when Obama beat me in '08 by parlaying his racial background into the Presidency. But Elizabeth Warren? That would be too much to take."

"I was supposed to be the first woman President! Much as I despise Trump, it'd be even worse if that bitch gets to sit in the Oval Office. If I have to abide this phony dime store Indian taking my place I'll fucking explode."

"How can I undermine her? I think I'll mention the Indian thing every chance I get, you know, just obliquely. Maybe I'll say something like, she'll be great for the downtrodden, for blacks and Native Americans. You know, just sort of inject a subtle reminder. Or I could say, well, at least she didn't benefit from white privilege the way most of the other candidates did. Maybe I'll drop the fact that she was a Republican until she was 47."

"Her husband's a complete nobody. Has anybody ever heard of Bruce Mann? I had to put up with Bill, and let me tell you, most women wouldn't be able to deal with that crap."

"Listen to her talk about her family recipe for Pow Wow Chow, like she's some little housewife who enjoys nothing more than staying at home to bake cookies. What a complete fraud! I made it clear right from the start I was a new kind of woman, not some little Loretta Lynn stand-by-your man type."

"I had to dodge sniper fire in Bosnia; when did she ever do anything like that? I turned a thousand dollars into a hundred thousand in the cattle futures trading market. When has she ever done anything like that?"

"Can you believe the way she drank that beer from the bottle in her kitchen when she announced she was running, like she's just some regular gal? What a complete charlatan! I could drink that prissy little prig under the table any day."

The worst part will be if she's elected, when I have to pretend to be thrilled about it. As if I'm happy to finally see a woman as President even if it's not me. I don't think I'll be able to swallow my bile. It's going to take all my will power not to just shoot her. It should have been me!!"

Friday, August 16, 2019

Fredo's tantrum

This post is a couple days late, especially since most people who follow current events are totally consumed with the Epstein situation. But if you can remember back a couple days....

You undoubtedly heard about Chris Cuomo's reaction to having been called Fredo. It sounded like 'roid rage; turns out, it looks like 'roid rage as well:


The above picture is from Reddit, and was posted by someone who had similar suspicions about him juicing five months ago.

During his outburst, Cuomo claimed that "Fredo" was an insult against all Italian-Americans, and likened it to the n-word. That's ridiculous: anyone who's ever seen The Godfather knows it's merely a reference to a weak, dumb brother.

Chris may be neither as smart nor as sly as his Machiavellian brother, Governor Andrew, which is why being called Fredo struck such a nerve. But with those store-bought muscles, at least he's stronger.

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

Rachel Dolezal's thoughts

It's early in the game, but it looks increasingly as if Joe Biden is going to gaffe himself into irrelevancy. And no one seems to be excited about him to begin with anyway. Which means the candidate currently running second in the polls, Elizabeth Warren, may actually get the nomination.

You have to wonder what Rachel Dolezal thinks about this. She must be shaking her head, wondering where she went wrong.

A few guesses as to Dolezal's thoughts:

"What kind of double standard is this? I practically got crucified and they may actually nominate that lame ass bitch for President!"

"She didn't even have to go through the kind of childhood I did after my parents adopted those four black children. It wasn't easy having to compete for my parents' love!"

"And I don't think there was even any love there to begin with! After all, they're the assholes who turned me in! That self-righteous little prig Elizabeth Warren didn't have any of her relatives rat her out!"

"That bogus Pow Wow Chow recipe, which that phony said had been handed down through the generations in her family, turned out to be completely plagiarized! That sure casts doubt on that bullshit about that great-great-grandsquaw of hers! I know I can make okra and cornbread and collard greens way better than that bitch could ever make Pow Wow Chow!"

"And then she has the nerve to talk about where her high cheekbones came from! That shrew doesn't even have high cheekbones, she has fat cheeks like a goddamn squirrel!"

"I'm way more hard-working. I dyed and curled my hair, darkened my skin, and was always careful to apply the lipstick generously. I even married a brother to keep it real! That goodie two shoes didn't do shit, she even went the other way, from brunette to blonde, and still expected people to believe her lily white ass. Why did I have to go to all that effort for nothing? It's not fair!!"

"Why aren't I running for President? Someone please let the Democratic Party know I'm available. I'm tired of working as a hairdresser!"

"Hmm.....Maybe she'll pick me as her Vice Presidential candidate. We'd certainly make a good pair!"

More epitaphs

Back in April '10, I posted a few suggestions for what should be on my gravestone. I recently had a few more thoughts:

"Help! Get me out of here!"

"No urinating allowed."

"Honestly, of all the things I thought I might become, a corpse was not among them."

"Like you, I once thought I'd never die."

"Attractive women have my permission to dig me up and have sex with me. I promise not to tell!"

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

How evil skates

You may remember the outcry a couple months ago when Virginia governor Ralph Northam was found to have jokingly worn blackface a few decades before. It got extensive coverage, and he nearly lost his governorship over it. He was smart: he refused to resign, and the mob's attention turned to the next scandal du jour.

Was Northam insensitive? Yes. Was he evil? No.

Roseanne Barr, in an unguarded moment, jokingly Tweeted about Valerie Jarrett, "Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes had a baby." Barr claimed she had thought Valerie Jarrett was Jewish, not black; that may or may not be true. Either way, her joke was petty and insulting. But it wasn't evil.

Barr was not so lucky: she had to answer to the gods of Hollywood, not just an electorate. They canceled her show, effectively ending her career.

But again, being offensive is simply not the same thing as being evil.

When jokes and insensitivity are considered "abuse," truly evil people get to fly under the radar. What does true evil consist of? It consists of acting the way sociopaths always have. They exploit and manipulate and undermine and foment discord and pretend to be something other than what they are. And sometimes they even kill.

When people are outraged that someone would dare use a "dead name," i.e., refer to Caitlyn Jenner as Bruce Jenner, they are less likely to focus on the 3 bombs per hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for an entire year, that the US lobbed in the Middle East in 2016, killing at least 300 children in the process.

When people are outraged over "fat shaming," they are less likely to focus on a prominent politician who has set up a foundation which accepts donations in return for doing things like approving the sale of 20% of all North American uranium mining rights to the Russians.

When people focus their indignation on the suggestion that athletes born biologically male not be allowed to compete against women, they are less likely to focus their indignation on a family which has made billions by promoting the spread of opioids, which has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths.

When people choose to be offended by whites donning Indian headdresses on Halloween, yet choose not to be offended by a Presidential candidate who actually claimed to be Native American to get ahead in academia, they are definitely focusing on insensitivity rather than evil.

When people focus their attention on a Christian baker who declined to make a gay wedding cake, yet ignore a Muslim doctor in Michigan who actually cut the clitorises off young girls, they are directing their outrage at a relatively harmless consequence of religious belief rather than a truly destructive one. (Would you rather the inconvenience of having to go to another bakery, or be robbed of sexual pleasure for the rest of your life?)

When the nation's attention is focused on such tempests, real evil skates.

Given the media's bias, it's hard not to think there's a certain amount of purposeful distraction involved. The powers that be in the media know that after a lifetime of brainwashing, many will start to equate morality with left wing sensibilities. So disobeying the Eleventh Commandmant -- Thou shalt not speak honestly of human differences, or joke about them -- is met with shock and horror by all the brainwashed, and another "scandal" erupts.

And, real evil slips under the radar.

Filial Respect Part XIII

Somehow the subject turned to half-breeds the other night, and I said, "That's why I'm so strong. I have hybrid vigor."

My son replied, "That's just more liberal bullshit. It's more like someone took a random pile of Ford parts and Toyota parts and tried to mash them together and make it look like a car. It doesn't look right, and it also doesn't work."

Monday, May 27, 2019

How I fell in love with Patti Lupone....

.....by listening to Madonna.

I was at the local library's book sale the other weekend, and (hurriedly, since the sale was about to close) picked up a bunch of CD's to listen to in the car. Among them was the soundtrack to Evita. I used to enjoy my Evita cassette; but try finding a cassette player these days.

Later, upon closer examination, I found I'd picked up the soundtrack to the movie version, which featured Madonna. Having gotten used to the Lupone version, the CD was frustrating to listen to: Madonna could reach neither the high notes nor the low ones, and she doesn't have the powerful voice called for in this role.

I'd heard in the past that Madonna was actually not a particularly good singer. I'd never listened to her much, so had no opinion on that. But this apples to apples comparison made me appreciate how great Lupone had been.

When I used to listen to Evita, I mostly marveled at the genius of composer Andrew Lloyd Webber, and the cleverness of lyricist Tim Rice. I had just taken Lupone (and Mandy Patinkin) for granted.

No more.

Later that evening I told my son, also an Evita fan, that the movie soundtrack (which also featured Antonio Banderas) was about halfway from that of Lupone and Patinkin to someone just reciting the lyrics.

He said, "You idiot, you always have to get the OBC."

"What's that?"

He said, "The original Broadway cast version. You didn't know that? You sound like some stupid hetero."

Lupone doesn't quite have Shirley Bassey's power and brass, but she can hit the high notes in a way Bassey couldn't, which makes her, in her own way, just as great.

Friday, May 3, 2019

One-upping the out-flankers

To the casual observer, it may seem that all of the contenders for the Democratic nomination are engaged in a desperate battle to outflank each other on the Left. It's as if they all think that whoever ends up furthest Left will win the nomination.

I'm convinced I can play this game even better. So, I'm throwing my hat in the ring.

You may be surprised to find that I've decided to run as a Democrat. But this game is simply too much fun to resist. So, herewith, my platform.

To celebrate sexuality in all of its forms, some on the Left have introduced a panoply of new pronouns to accommodate every shade of gender identification. It's hard to remember all of them, so simplification is called for. Under my administration, the first and second person pronouns, "I" and "you," will still be allowed. But "he" and "she," which, unintentionally or not, enforce existing stereotypes, will be banned.

Henceforth, the only allowable third person pronoun will be "it." For instance, if you refer to my campaign, simply say, "It is running for President."

Hollywood discriminates against the ugly all the time. To cast only thin people is blatant looks-ism, and strict guidelines guarding against this will be instituted. From now on, all TV shows and movies must features actors and actresses who look like America, with one third overweight, and another third morbidly obese. And they cannot just be used as comedic sidekicks, either: they must be given their fair share of the romantic lead roles.

Jenny Craig, Weight-Watchers, and all other organizations which implicitly fat-shame by imputing a negative value to obesity, will be banned.

Barack Obama tried to make campuses safer for women by making it near impossible for male students to defend themselves from charges of rape. And feminists say that all victims should be believed. I would go a step further: if a woman claims a man raped her, he goes straight to prison, no questions asked.

Some of my opponents have suggested that the legal voting age be lowered to 16. But that would discriminate against those who are only 15. And so on. Children should be allowed to vote from the minute they're born.

Similarly, we must eliminate the discrimination implicit in the minimum drinking age.

But this pervasive prejudice cuts both ways. From now on, every NFL and NBA team must field a squad with at least 20% of the players over the age of 60.

The SATs, ACTs, MCATs, GMATs, LSAT, GREs, IQ tests, and every other form of standardized testing should be banned. The proof of their inherent racism is that year after year, without exception, Hispanics and African-Americans score lower than whites. Such instruments of racial oppression have no place in a fair society.

Whites must wake up to the fact that they need to be on the right side of history -- the losing side.

My opponents have said that requiring an ID is a form of voter suppression: of course it is. Requiring a photo ID to cash a check, board an airplane, and drive a car is similarly discriminatory against minorities, and, under my administration, will no longer be required.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez -- our very own Che -- has proposed free college and medical care for everyone, including every noncitizen who makes it to our shores. I would take this a step further: the government should simply give a million dollars to everyone who does not yet have that amount, and this includes everyone who can manage to set foot inside our borders.

If everyone is a millionaire, this will make for a much happier country.

And that will be even truer if we institute a 100% wealth tax on any assets over a million dollars. Equality isn't just a vague ideal to be paid lip service.

My fellow Democrats want a ban on fracking. My administration would put an immediate ban on the use of all fossil fuels.

The Green New Deal proposes banning all cars and airplanes in ten years. I would add bicycles to this list: smelting the steel and aluminum that goes into them causes pollution.

I would not only abolish ICE, I would abolish the police. Once everyone is a millionaire, crime will stop, and there will be no need for oppression. I will also abolish the military: once we have open borders, we'll have no need to defend them.

Several of my opponents have called for the impeachment of President Trump. I say, let's just clap him prison right now. As far as I'm concerned, he's guilty on every count we can think of until proven innocent. 

A few of my opponents want to do away with the electoral college. I would take it a step further, and let only coastal cities with populations over two million vote. We must leave no stone unturned in our efforts to achieve the desired result.

Some of my opponents, frustrated with the current Republican majority on the Supreme Court, want to increase the number of seats to fifteen, and stack those with Democrats. I would go further, and simply make it illegal for Republicans to be on the Supreme Court.

After every instance of Islamic terrorism, my opponents' biggest worry is that this might lead to Islamophobia. My administration would not even allow newspapers to report such attacks: people need to get woke.

My opponents say that our country has too much gun violence. I agree: under my administration, every one with a legal gun will be required to turn it in within a month. After that, they'll be shot on sight.

My opponents have supported an end to mass incarceration. I would free all prisoners. (Except male rapists and Donald Trump.)

Bernie Sanders recently said that all prisoners, even Muslim terrorists, should be allowed to vote. I say, let each newly freed prisoner -- under my system -- vote twice, since they deserve recompense as victims of our unjust criminal "justice" system.

Elizabeth Warren has said we should forgive all student loans. My administration would forgive all loans. No more metaphorical debtor's prisons -- that's not who we are.

Cory Booker believes in reparations. I say, forty acres of their choosing, be it in midtown Manhattan or Beverly Hills.

I would like to take this opportunity to affirm my absolute, unswerving commitment to free speech -- but not to hate speech.

My goal as President will be to transform the entire country into a safe space.

May the boldest Democrat win!

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Guess it wasn't MAGA country after all......

This entire Smollett affair, from its sleazy beginning to this sleazy end, has been an absolute blessing for the Right. 

People on the Left and Right will never change their minds about anything. But those in the center are going to be outraged by all the dishonesty, posturing, and high level influence-peddling this affair has brought forth. 

Which is actually a great way of turning purple states into MAGA country.

Dr. Dre, then and now

Rapper Dr. Dre (real name Andre Young) was in the news Sunday for boasting on Instagram about how his daughter had gotten into USC "all on her own."

Most of the articles went on to point out that in 2013, Dr. Dre, along with Jimmy Iovine, had donated $70 million to USC to fund the Jimmy Iovine and Andre Young Academy for Arts, Technology and Business of Innovation.

There ensued widespread mockery of Dr. Dre's ridiculous claim.

Yesterday, he was in the news again for having deleted that Instagram post.

But what seems almost as jarring as Dre's self-delusion is the glaring difference between his earlier pose as a gangsta and his new sensibilities.

Deleted or not, Dre's Instagram post calls for a revision to the lyrics of some of his old rap songs: so I've added an extra line to reflect his new priorities. (His original lyrics are in italics; the only italics in the new lines are for emphasis.)

To appreciate the contrast, you have to imagine him rapping his own lines in a threatening "We're comin' to gitcha!" voice, then imagine the new line spoken like a bitchy white Real Housewife of Beverly Hills.

From Let Me Ride:

Creeping' down the backstreet on Deez
I got my Glock cocked cuz niggaz want these
Now soon as I said it, seems I got sweated
by some nigga with a tech 9 train' to take mine
ya wanna make noise, make noise
I make a phone call to call my niggaz coming' like the Gotti boys
bodies bein' found on Greenleaf
with their fuckin heads cut off, motherfucker I'm Dre

Oh, and by the way -- what were your daughter's SATs?

From Fuck Wit Dre Day:

Yeah, Mista Busta, where the fuck ya at?
Can't scrap a lick, so I know ya got your gat
Your dick on hard, from fuckin your road dogs
The hood you threw up with, niggaz  you grew up with
Don't even respect your ass
That's why it's time for the doctor, to check your ass, nigga

Oh, and Mister Busta -- where is your daughter going to college?

From Nigga Witta Gun:

44 reasons come to mind
Why you motherfucking brothers hard to find
He be walking' on the streets and fuckin' with mine.
Stupid punk can't fuck with a mastermind.
See I never take a step on a Compton block
or LA without the AK ready to pop.

Well, my daughter got into USC -- but quite frankly, I'm a bit concerned about the neighborhood it's in.

Thursday, February 21, 2019

The temperature of the populace

Yahoo News is a typical propaganda outlet whose articles constantly demonize Trump and his supporters in any way they can. So it's a little surprising that they still allow comments after their articles, since most of those comments lean in the other direction.

This morning's article on Yahoo about Jussie Smollett's arrest was not written by Yahoo News, but is simply a reprinting of a straightforward ABC News report. (It would be hard to put a Leftist spin on this piece of news.)

It has -- as of this writing -- 3731 responses. If you click on "View reactions" at the bottom of the article you'll get a sense of how people feel about this case. Virtually every single one flies right in the face of Yahoo's ideology.

It's hard to escape the conclusion that the constant propagandizing by Yahoo News and its ilk that has pushed readers rightward.

It's almost beginning to seem that this prodding is by design.

Wednesday, February 20, 2019

Observe a sociopath in action......

....by watching this interview of Jussie Smollett by Robin Roberts on Good Morning America from a week ago (before the information on his two Nigerian accomplices surfaced). You needn't watch the entire sixteen minutes to get a sense of how sociopaths operate.

Note how heartfelt Smollett's delivery comes across. There's absolutely no sheepishness or furtiveness on his face, and no catch in his voice to betray him.

Note how reasonable and calm he appears.

Note how he characterizes his doubters as "offensive," and "unfair." (There's no better way to put your opponents on defense these days than to claim "offense.")

And listen to Smollett's noble words: "We have the right and responsibility to make something meaningful out of the things that happen to us, good and bad.....I just want members of the LGBTQ community, I just want young black children to know, how strong that they are." (See? He doesn't care about himself, he only wants to do right by the downtrodden!)

Note the tremulous passion in his voice as he says these things.

Note how the tears come to his eyes as he recounts the attack. What a traumatic memory that must be for him! (Sociopaths can summon tears at will, as we have seen here and here.)

Note how gentle he seems. (No wonder Kamala Harris described him that way!)

It's enough to make you want to stand up and chant, "Justice for Jussie!"

That is, if you can suspend your disbelief -- which a number of Presidential candidates were apparently willing and able to do.

One of the giveaways to Smollett's dishonesty is that he repeatedly prefaces his statements with the word "honestly." And at one point, he refers to his doubters as having made "false, inaccurate" statements (one of those words would have sufficed), demonstrating typical sociopathic overuse of adjectives (and sometimes adverbs), as we saw here and here

Note how Smollett tells his doubters, "You don't even want to see the truth," though that advice would actually be better directed at his supporters.

And when Roberts asks him what people need to hear the most, Smollett replies, "I think what people need to hear is the truth. It's just the truth."

The gentleman doth protest too loudly.

Keep in mind, this isn't even a particularly intelligent sociopath. (If he were smarter, he would have come up with a more plausible story.) A smart one is more slippery, and gets further with his lies.

And a really clever one can even get elected President.

Monday, February 11, 2019

A modern day lynching

It's now all but certain that the attack on Empire actor Jussie Smollett two weeks ago in Chicago was nothing but another hate hoax. Although practically his entire walk that night was captured by security cameras, there is no footage of him being accosted.

It took place at 2AM, on a night when it was 6 degrees, a temperature which tends to inhibit outdoor criminal activity.

It seems highly unlikely that some hate-mongering white supremacist gay-bashers would actually recognize Jussie Smollett (who claimed they called him "that Empire f----t n----r"), in the middle of the night, when he's presumably bundled up to ward off the extreme cold.

Jussie Smollett himself still refuses to release his phone records from that night to the Chicago police.

The "noose" which was found tied around Smollett's neck was not tied in a hangman's knot, but rather the way a necktie is. (What self-respecting lynch mob would ever use a Windsor or four-in-one knot?)

And when Smollett, after his "ordeal," showed up at a friend's apartment, he still had the "noose" around his neck. (Wouldn't your instinct be to get that thing off you as soon as possible?)

Immediately following the reports of the attack, Presidential candidate Kamala Harris released a statement saying, "@Jussie Smollett is one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know. I'm praying for his quick recovery. This was an attempted modern day lynching. No one should have to fear for their life because of their sexuality or the color of their skin. We must confront this hate."

Presidential candidate Cory Booker, our modern day Spartacus, released a similar statement: "The vicious attack on actor Jussie Smollett was an attempted modern-day lynching. I'm glad he's safe. To those in Congress who don't feel the urgency to pass our Anti-Lynching bill designating lynching as a federal hate crime – I urge you to pay attention."

Both candidates are undoubtedly regretting their hasty words. But both are correct, in a sense. What happened that night in Chicago was in fact a "modern day lynching": the kind that never took place.

Historically, lynchings are a blight on this country. Between 1882 and 1968, roughly 3500 blacks and 1300 whites were killed this way.

Now things are different. I don't have an exact number, but it does seem that a high percentage of the most dramatic instances of white-on-black "hate crimes" so breathlessly reported on by the media in fact turn out to be hoaxes.

The mainstream media, of course, splash the initial reports all over their front pages, but then, as they are debunked, are content to let these stories quietly die.

I've explained before how hate hoaxers have Munchausen's Syndrome, which is nothing more than an offshoot of sociopathy. Except that these days, instead of falsely claiming to be victims of cancer, that time-honored sociopathic scam, they choose to be victims of "hate crimes" instead. Gays will pretend to be victims of gay-bashing, and blacks will pretend to be victims of racially-motivated hate. (Jussie Smollett claimed to be a victim of both.)

The one thing that all of these "victims" have in common is that they're sociopaths. (No one else would even consider such a scam, let alone keeping it going with ongoing lies for as long as they can.)

Given which, Kamala Harris's description of Smollett as one of the "kindest" people she knows seems a severe misjudgment of character.

Such a mistake is forgivable: we all make them, especially with sociopaths. (At the time it just seemed surprising that Harris would know Smollett so well: do their social circles really overlap that much?)

We can hope that a President Harris would learn from her mistake and be a tad more circumspect about the next such "hate crime." Maybe she'll even acknowledge that black-on-white violence is far more prevalent than the reverse, despite what the media would have us believe.

But that seems unlikely.

And perhaps a President Booker might, along with his demand for an anti-lynching law, also consider a law against hate hoaxes, given how they stir up so much hate.

But that, too, seems unlikely.

And perhaps even the kind and gentle Jussie Smollett himself -- our modern-day Emmett Till -- will feel guilt-ridden about his hoax.

But, once a sociopath, always a sociopath.

But it's not just sociopaths. For the most part, no one ever changes.

So probably the stupidest mistake of all was for me to think I could ever sway anyone's thinking in the slightest by explaining the truth about these things.

Thursday, January 31, 2019

Gays as signposts

A young man told me the other day that no nightclub is really worth going to unless the clientele is at least 10%, maybe 20%, gay guys.

He explained, "First of all, they attract a lot of young model-types who assume that wherever the gay guys are must be fashionable and trendy." 

"Second, they add a certain air of degeneracy that makes the club feel like Weimar Berlin or something." 

"And third, maybe best of all, they drive away the dumb frat boys and Wall Streeters who always ruin a club. All those guys ever want to do is impress their friends with how smart and cool and tough and good with women they are, and inevitably, they're none of those things."

Everything the young man said rang true.

I was never a nightclub denizen, but listening to the young man made me wish I had been. I was always a little too self-conscious to hang out in a place where every opening line, no matter how well-disguised, inevitably translates as "Wanna fuck?"

Maybe my problem was that I was never much of a drinker. Alcohol has been called a lot of things -- a scourge, an addiction, and a crutch, among others -- and it is all of those things. But in the short term, that crutch can do wonders for the self-confidence and nerve (the definitions of which, now that I think of it, have about a 90% overlap).

And who knows, with a drink or two in me, I might not have been as put off if one of those gay guys had made a pass at me.

If I'd been smart enough to choose the right nightclubs.

Sunday, January 20, 2019

What job experience qualifies one for higher office?

When Donald Trump was campaigning, many pointed out that he had no political experience, and was therefore unqualified for the Presidency. But he had name recognition, the advantage of being a unique candidate in a crowded primary, and he knew how to harness the widespread disgust with political correctness.

What exactly are the right qualifications for higher office? There's no set list of prerequisites one must check off before running. There seems to be a general consensus that certain types of expertise help.

Many politicians have law degrees. This makes sense, as the purpose of Congress is ostensibly to pass laws. That said, a legal background seems to be regarded as less of a necessity than it used to be. And, one need not know the intricacies of the law to know which policies one favors.

Previous political experience also helps: it's generally assumed that the best qualification for higher office is time spent in lower office, though some, like our current President, have managed to bypass that tedious process.

Military service has always inclined the electorate to regard one favorably. A willingness to put one's life on the line for one's country presupposes a certain self-sacrificing patriotism and nobility, qualities which will theoretically not desert one once in taken office. (Though the list of former military people who've been tempted to cash in -- last exemplified by Ryan Zinke -- is a long one.)

Being successful at one's previous occupations is a plus: an electorate will generally assume that such implies future success as a legislator. This generally mean more in a primary than in a general election, where most people just opt for whoever will be a reliable vote for their side. (How many people do you know who've voted for the opposing party's candidate simply because he had a more impressive resume?)

Then there's the "charisma" factor: is someone good-looking, and does he have a pleasing voice?

Finally, does the candidate have the right ethnicity for his electorate? People do like to vote for their own. (The one notable exception here is white people, some of whom see the opportunity to signal virtue even in a voting booth.)

Trump, if he lacked for legal, military, and political experience, did not lack for life experience. And even if he failed in more businesses than he succeeded at, he ended up wealthy. And the case can be made that anyone who has successfully negotiated the incredible sharp-elbowed worlds of real estate and television is ready to take on anyone.

In fact, Trump's Presidency might be characterized as that of a man who's not only willing to take on anybody, but actually wants to take on everybody. At the same time. For better or worse.

This brings us to another politician who's received an inordinate amount of press.

Spending five years waitressing and bartending generally isn't generally considered the ideal background for a legislator. Nonetheless, an ebullient young woman from the Bronx was recently elected on the strength -- or, at least, despite the weakness -- of that resume. But, she was the right ethnicity for her district, and she is comely. Those two attributes, in the eyes of Bronx voters, outweighed the obvious holes in her skimpy resume.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's lack of life experience is evident in her proposed policies. She has recently come out in favor of a Medicare for all, free college tuition, and a universal guaranteed income. She also wants open borders.

The idea that the US could afford such giveaways with people streaming across our southern border seems a bit unrealistic. If her plan were actually put into effect, our population (currently 325 million) would exceed a billion in very short order. When you propose unlimited goodies for an unlimited number of people, the numbers don't add up.

Who knows, maybe one night a few years ago she scribbled some magical formula on the back of a cocktail napkin which somehow makes those numbers work. But it seems unlikely.

Certainly, no one in the press seems in the least inclined to explore the question of her qualifications, or her numeracy. In fact, their "You go girl!" attitude implies that she will be the savior of our nation.

It's probably safe to say that no one since Trump himself has received such outsized media attention. This disproportionate attention, like her candidacy, seems to be largely a result of her looks. Though whenever I see a picture of her, I'm usually struck by the size of her mouth --




-- which seems metaphorically apt.

When she decides to run for even higher office, she won't suffer from lack of name recognition. And by then she'll be able to say she's had experience on the House Banking Committee.

Ocasio-Cortez will turn 30 in October. By then she'll have a little bit more life experience. Admittedly, "life experience" is often just another word for "old." But will AOC's experience on the Banking Committee make her more numerate?

As far as her supporters are concerned, it probably doesn't make any difference.

In the meantime, she does seem to be suffering from overexposure, which she has done her best to encourage. And it's hard not to escape the feeling that the amount of (mostly) uncritical attention she has received so far will eventually backfire.

She has already started to receive criticism from those in her own party, and she hasn't been at all reluctant to lash back.

She's actually not unlike Trump in her brashness, outspokenness, willingness to pick fights, and complete confidence in her own righteousness.

The difference is that before he came to office, Trump dealt with movers and shakers in real estate, television, the garment industry, airlines, banking, and sports. He's negotiated with labor unions, foreign governments, politicians, and probably even the Mafia (he was in the New York real estate business). So he has a pretty good sense of how to deal with politicians.

AOC, by contrast, is really only qualified to fetch them drinks.

Monday, November 5, 2018

The personal vs. the political

The other day I dropped a relative off at the entrance to a hospital, then drove off to park in the designated lot. While walking back to the hospital I saw a car idling at the exit to the lot; the driver was apparently having a hard time figuring out how to pay.

As I walked by the car, the driver, who looked Central American, gestured at me and asked for help. I walked over, and he communicated to me in broken English that he didn't have a credit card and therefore could not pay. I ended up paying the $2 fee with my credit card and he handed me two one dollar bills. Afterwards, he thanked me profusely.

As I was walking backing toward the entrance where I'd dropped my relative off I saw that the Latino was waiting for me at the corner leading into the street. He gestured at me once again, and offered me a ride to wherever I was going. I thanked him and said I didn't need a ride.

But it was touching how his gratitude for such a minor favor was so palpable. He was obviously a genuinely decent fellow, and it occurred to me that no white person in that situation would ever be nearly as grateful.

It was almost enough to make me feel guilty for favoring The Wall.

The next week we switched cable services, and had two different men -- both Jamaicans -- come out on separate days to install first the satellite dish, then the phone and internet service.

Both men were efficient and polite. And after I'd chatted with each, they were friendly and exuded congeniality in a way that whites in that situation almost never would. (I've said before on this blog that when blacks are friendly, there usually seems to be an actual spirit of genuine goodwill, whereas when whites are friendly, it's usually just a matter of observing social proprieties.)

It was almost enough to make me feel guilty for having written honestly about race and IQ.

I mentioned these experiences to a guy I know who is a bit of a white nationalist. He laughed and said, "On an individual basis, almost everyone is better than whites. But that doesn't mean they should come here."

I knew exactly what he meant.

Whites, per capita, seem to have a far higher rate of pretentiousness and phoniness and entitlement. Instead of being genuine, they'll almost always just say whatever it is they think they're supposed to say in a certain situation, unless they're angry or drunk. ("In vino veritas" was an expression coined by whites.)

On the other hand, people of color don't seem to be capable of producing the sort of society -- well-functioning democracies with technological innovation, state of the art manufacturing, high literacy rates, and low infant mortality rates -- that white people are. (Before you call me racist, name a country that is majority Amerindian or black which fits that description.)

The phoniness and pretentiousness of white people may be best illustrated by virtue signaling. Consider how many of them will deny the obvious truths of the above paragraph, while simultaneously congratulating themselves on their moral superiority over those who do not.

In any case, that seems to be the choice we're facing. We can become more of a warm, friendly, welcoming country -- albeit with a higher murder rate -- or we can remain a First World country.

Did you know that Beto O'Rourke's father-in-law is a billionaire?

A friend just forwarded this article, which I found absolutely astounding. I'd had no idea that O'Rourke's father-in-law was worth $20 billion.

In all the accounts you've read of the skate-boarding, free-spirited, youth culture-representing, Kennedy-evoking, good-looking, hero-of-the-downtrodden Beto O'Rourke, have you read a single one which also described him as gold-digging?

Think the little factoid that his father-in-law is a fabulously wealthy real estate developer might possibly be relevant to his candidacy?

And, do you think the fact that O'Rourke may have married for money might provide an insight into his character?

The MSM obviously does, otherwise why would they remain so deafeningly silent about it?

Sunday, November 4, 2018

A tale of two blondes

Megyn Kelly has had an interesting career trajectory. First she was a star-in-the-making at Fox. Unlike most of the perky blondes who populated that network, she seemed to actually think for herself. The execs there were impressed, and after Bill O'Reilly was #MeToo-ed out of his career, she was given the prime 8PM slot.

Then came that fateful Republican debate in which she pointedly asked Donald Trump about how he had treated women in the past. This seemed a legitimate enough question, given his history. And if she hadn't asked it, there were certainly plenty of other people who would have -- and did -- during the course of the campaign.

But, that was the beginning of the end for her at Fox.

The brass at NBC, however, seemed to take her question as proof that she was on their side, so they hired her, with great fanfare, to be a soft news host on their 9AM slot. But to their dismay, she continued to demonstrate independence and outspokenness, and not just at Trump's expense.

Jane Fonda had talked publicly of her plastic surgery earlier; but when Kelly asked her about it, it was considered a gaffe. When Kelly cut off Tom Brokaw because they were up against a commercial break -- a reality that has to be dealt with on every talk show -- that too was considered another gaffe. On other occasions, Kelly was criticized for her awkward dancing.

The last straw for NBC, as has been widely reported, was when she said that kids dressing up in blackface was not necessarily that bad. Her exact words:

"But what is racist? Because you do get in trouble if you are a white person who puts on blackface on Halloween, or a black person who puts on whiteface for Halloween. Back when I was a kid that was OK, as long as you were dressing up as, like, a character....There was a controversy on The Real Housewives of New York with Luann, and she dressed as Diana Ross, and she made her skin look darker than it really is and people said that that was racist. And I don’t know, I felt like who doesn’t love Diana Ross?"

But the news outlets which reported her comment for the most part didn't analyze exactly what she said, but simply implied that she had condoned Al Jolson-style blackface done for the sake of racial mockery rather than refer to a specific instance of what was essentially a tribute.

So, she's out of a job. 

Meanwhile, it turned out that NBC's own Jimmy Fallon actually dressed up in blackface as Chris Rock. Jimmy Kimmel donned blackface to portray Karl Malone. And NBC's Al Roker donned a wig of straight white hair to portray fictional character Doc Brown. (Roker later said his version was okay because he didn't wear facial makeup; decide for yourself how fine the line being drawn there was.)

None of them, of course, suffered any ill consequences.

Once again, "racism" is defined as however you can hurt your political opponents, hypocrisy be damned.

Elizabeth Warren's claims of Indian ancestry have been well-publicized; you're undoubtedly familiar with that saga. It's certainly harmless enough to mention that one's family lore includes rumors of an Indian ancestor a few generations back. But listing oneself as Native American on the Harvard University faculty when that is obviously untrue is another matter.

Warren is, for all practical purposes, Rachel Dolezaal, Jr.

But instead of being given the Dolezaal treatment -- shameful ignominy -- she is still being touted by the Left as a possible Presidential candidate. (Admittedly, that talk has died down a bit since the latest iteration of her tale.)

Likewise, for Harvard Law School to have proudly proclaimed that Warren was their first "woman of color" on the faculty was simply dishonest.

Given all of which, it was a little surprising to see this early picture of Warren as a brunette:


(She must have dyed her hair blonde later on to emphasize her Indian ancestry.)

You can say that as a media personality, Megyn Kelly should have anticipated that her comment would be taken out of context and willfully misconstrued. You can say that no one should feel sorry for someone as wealthy as her. And you can say that her rumored behind-the-scenes diva-like behavior alienated coworkers. All of those things are probably true. But it's also true that her biggest crime, as far as her detractors are concerned, is to show a common sense and honesty which have gone out of style. (Bear in mind, her independence offended those on the Right as well as Left.)

Elizabeth Warren went a step further than blackface, and actually claimed to be what she is not.

Which is worse?

Sunday, October 7, 2018

Elon Musk = Donald Trump

This hasn't been Elon Musk's best year.

Back on May 2nd, at Tesla's quarterly earnings presentation, two analysts dared to ask impertinent questions, and Musk responded by saying, "Boring, bonehead questions are not cool" and "These questions are so dry, they're killing me." (The analysts were simply asking the hard questions about Model 3 production that they were supposed to be asking.)

There was that well-publicized incident with the "pedo guy" who dared to call Musk's offer of a submarine to rescue those Thai soccer players a publicity stunt. Musk's PR people convinced him to apologize, but then, a month later, Musk repeated the insult.

On August 2nd, Musk Tweeted that he was pondering taking Tesla private, and had "funding secured." The SEC let him off for that lie with a slap on the wrist: a $20 million fine means little to someone worth $20 billion, and stripping him of his chairmanship while allowing him to remain CEO left him firmly in control. Nonetheless, Musk couldn't even let this "insult" pass, and Tweeted this past week that the SEC now stood for "Shorts Enrichment Commission."

The common thread with all these incidents is that they were sparked by Musk's inability to take an insult without returning one. Musk will get into a spat with anyone, from Wall Street analysts to Pedo guy. None of these people are nearly as rich or famous or powerful as Musk, but that doesn't deter him.

Every time Musk responds to criticism with an insult, it's hard not to be reminded of Donald Trump, who considers no target too small to be the recipient of a scathing Presidential insult delivered via Twitter.

Musk's promises of imminent profitability for Tesla seem farfetched, given that their backlog is diminishing, consumer tax credits are coming to an end, and their cash is being rapidly depleted. There have been production difficulties as well as safety issues at those Jerry-rigged "factories" (some of which are housed in tents). And far fewer Tesla cars pass their initial inspections than at a normal automobile manufacturer (roughly 20% as opposed to 80%).

Musk's other promises regarding the cost of the Hyperloop and having Space X settle Mars starting in 2024 also stretch credulity.

(Trump, too, is given to hyperbole, though he's been far better about delivering on his promises.)

Though it's easy to dislike Musk, he doesn't seem to be a sociopath. There's a certain lack of subterfuge, a certain guilelessness in the way he lashes back at his critics. (Again, like Trump.) A sociopath would be far more likely to disguise his insults as left-handed compliments. And a sociopath would be far more calculating about the image he presented to the public.

There are differences between the two men. Trump, like many relatives of alcoholics, won't touch the stuff. Neither does he take illegal drugs. And it's hard to imagine Trump breaking down and crying during an interview the way Musk reportedly did during an interview with the New York Times in August.

Nonetheless, the parallels are hard to miss. Both men are textbook examples of narcissistic personality disorder.

But neither man lies about who he is, and neither pretends to be something he's not, which is the essence of sociopathy.

Both basically say, here I am, warts and all -- and if you don't like me, screw you. While those warts may be unsightly, at least they're not surreptitiously hidden from view.

Another thing to consider: if they hadn't been narcissists, neither man would have accomplished what he has.

It takes a certain grandiosity to create as many companies as Musk has. And it takes a bold, confident -- perhaps overly confident -- man to think that he can win the Presidency while scoffing at political correctness and antagonizing the media.

So maybe we should just resign ourselves to the fact that a lot of public figures are going to be insufferable.

It pains me to point out the similarities between the two men, as support Trump politically while I think Tesla is headed south. But the likeness in personality is striking.