Search Box

Thursday, March 3, 2016

Miley Cyrus, political analyst

I had been thinking about voting for Donald Trump, but read an article this morning that has given me pause -- Miley Cyrus calls Donald Trump 'a f**king nightmare.'

I often take my political cues from Hollywood stars, especial when their logic and compelling arguments win the day.


In one tweet, Cyrus said, "gonna vom / move out da country [if Trump wins]" along with a hashtag that spelled out "ain't a party in da USA anymo'."

Hollywood stars often threaten to leave the US if the Republican candidate is elected. None of them seem to ever actually do so afterward….but that hasn't stopped the threats from flowing. 

Where will Miley emigrate to? New Zealand? Sweden? Perhaps, given her attachment to black culture -- note her use of Ebonics in her Tweet -- she plans to move to Rwanda, or Nigeria. 

Cyrus concluded, "Yes, that is a tear rolling down my cheek dripping off the end of my nose..... This makes me so unbelievable scared and sad.... Not only for our country but for animals that I love more than anything in this world.... My heart is broken into a 100000 pieces ..... I think I may vomit."

(Is vomiting a normal reaction to heartbreak?)

Is Trump now advocating animal sacrifices as part of his campaign? I must have missed those parts of his speeches. But that settles it -- I'm definitely reconsidering my support for him. 

Before I make a final decision, though, I need to hear what Lindsay Lohan thinks.

37 comments:

Steven said...

For more serious opposition:

http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/

Also, you know Trump said that he would kill the families of terrorists...An ex CIA director, Michael Hayden, said on Bill Maher "if he ordered that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act...you are required not to follow an unlawful order. That would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict".

Not that it stopped America before...but wow that's a big statement.

John Craig said...

Steven --
The instance you quote is a little strange, given that Obama HAS been killing the family members of terrorists, including at least 300 children, as collateral damage in his drone attacks. Now, there's a qualitative difference between going after the families separately vs. killing them while going after the terrorist himself, but the net effect is the same, and the media never seems to object to Obama's killings, and it's hard not to think that if it had been Bush doing this, there would have been a big hue and cry.

As far as the Republican objections, they raise some good points. But they also raise some specious ones:

"His advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars is a recipe for economic disaster in a globally connected world."

Economics 101 tells us that the world is more efficient when trade is unhampered, but right now it's a one way street with a lot of countries, in particular China, which keeps the Yuan artificially low and periodically floods the US with cheap products which have been subsidized by their government in an effort to undercut our domestic production. We need to respond in kind, or at least prevent them from continuing these practices. And we also need to keep US corporations from reincorporating abroad, whether by law or by lowering our own corporate income tax rates. The current system is not working, and that's what Trump has been addressing.

"His hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric undercuts the seriousness of combatting Islamic radicalism by alienating partners in the Islamic world making significant contributions to the effort. Furthermore, it endangers the safety and Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of American Muslims."

Trump's statement on limiting Muslim immigration wasn't "hateful;" he merely said that we should halt it until we can better figure out how to screen out terrorists, which at the moment we can't do at all, as the FBI Director said. And there's a huge imbalance right now between what we're allowed to say about them and what they say about us. The Irani leaders chant "Death to America" and we're supposed to tiptoe around so as not to hurt their feelings? ISIS has employed all sorts of incredibly brutal, medieval methods of killing their prisoners, including US prisoners, and yet we're insensitive because we don't want to let more Muslims into this country?

(cont.)

John Craig said...

Part II:
"Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor."

Sorry, but those passions have already been inflamed, and have been for quite some time; the Republican leadership has simply stuck its head in the sand and refused to acknowledge that. As far as getting Mexico to pay for the wall, that -- from what I understand -- would be accomplished by withholding aid in the amount of the cost of the wall.

"Similarly, his insistence that close allies such as Japan must pay vast sums for protection is the sentiment of a racketeer, not the leader of the alliances that have served us so well since World War II."

We've been paying for the cost of Japan's -- and many other country's -- defenses for a long time. It's time they shared the economic burden; that's simply fairness, not "racketeering."

"His admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin is unacceptable for the leader of the world’s greatest democracy."

Wasn't it the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton in particular, who said they were going to "press the reset button" with Russia? Putin has nothing but contempt for Obama, so that didn't work. But maybe he will get along better with Trump. What's wrong with trying to get along with the leader of the world's second most powerful country?

The other objections the RNC raised are for the most part true, I'll admit. But the RNC's big fear is not Trump's foreign policy, but that he doesn't listen to them, and they can't stand the idea that they'd lose power -- and also the donations from corporate sponsors that come with power.

Mark Caplan said...

Even when Jim-Crow apartheid and the KKK really did rule in many states and counties across America, almost no blacks voluntarily deported themselves, not even to the beautiful life beckoning in Mother Africa.

John Craig said...

Mark --
Yes, and that non-action spoke loudly. It was sort of a corollary to the fact that white liberals, for all the lip service they pay to anti-racism, and for all that they castigate conservatives and accuse them of racism, will never themselves move to a primarily black area and will do all they can to prevent their children from having to go to school with too many blacks.

Anonymous said...

Your one-way street China argument has yet to convince me. I don't expect to change your mind, but I'll blabber on about it anyways... By subsidizing exports through currency manipulation the result is a welfare increase for our consumers and a welfare decrease for our producers. On net, it is a positive welfare affect, however.

From http://internationalecon.com/Trade/Tch90/T90-27.php:

"Although there are both positive and negative elements, the net national welfare effect reduces to area G which is positive. This means that an export subsidy implemented by a "large" exporting country in a perfectly competitive market will raise national welfare in the importing country."

American consumers will therefore receive more goods for less money, leaving them a greater portion of their income either to consume other goods or save/invest. And if our normative assumption is that we should be concerned for our "middle class" I think this is an obvious positive. Especially when you consider that we already to subsidize our producers (often at the expense of our consumers).

-Taylor



LSP said...

LiLo's really against Trump and might move to Canada. So that's it. The Trump insurgency is over. Madonna's against him too, because she's an, ahem, English lady. So you better vote for Hillary, or "Marco."

John Craig said...

Taylor --
In the short term, what you say is true, the American consumer benefits. But the whole idea of government-subsidized flooding of our market with cheap goods in a certain industry is to hurt their American rivals, which will then be killed off, and subsequently the Chinese can raise their prices. It's not dissimilar to what the Saudis were trying to do for a while 9very recently) with oil: hut the american shale producers, driving them out of business, after which the Saudis could cut their own production and raise prices. It's hard to start up a business all over again, and from what I understand, opening up a capped well is more difficult than it sounds (don't ask me for details.)

John Craig said...

Lone Star Parson --
Thank you for that vital info; my mind is now made up.

Steven said...

You make good points, although I'm not convinced the Muslim policy is a wise one (and I don't 100% buy that it would be temporary because I don't see any way to screen for terrorists or identify who might become a terrorist).

What do you make of this? http://www.wsj.com/articles/mexican-immigration-to-u-s-reverses-1447954334

My main concern about Trump, apart from his advocacy of torture, is that he seems like the kind of person who might not respect the restraints on presidential power. The wrong sort of person can undermine a democracy from within, by exploiting loopholes, declaring emergency, using executive order, finding ways to punish or intimidate the press.

.....

Mark,

its not realistic to expect impoverished, disenfranchised, poorly educated people who have grown up somewhere and never known anywhere or anything different and have no resources to move to a different continent they know little to nothing about.


John Craig said...

Steven --
Yes, I've heard that Mexican immigration has slowed down considerably; not sure I buy that it has reversed, although that's certainly possible. (It's hard to count undocumented aliens.)

If the ban on Muslim immigration turns out to last longer than originally planned, so be it. The US shouldn't be the dumping ground for every last war refugee in the world. There are plenty of countries nearer to Syria which take in no refugees.

As far as your point to Mark, yes, it's harder to be mobile if you have fewer resources. But there have been plenty of immigrants to the US who've crossed an ocean to get here who've had few resources too. And there's always been a black middle class (the "talented tenth," as per W.E.B. Dubos) who could have moved if they'd wanted in order to escape prejudice, but never did so.

Anonymous said...

Sure, it's like large-scale long-term dumping. Though I don't think the analogy works perfectly with oil. If the Saudis and other major oil producing nations sold oil at the price where MC = MR, oil could arguably be cheaper. The "intervention" is the supply restrictions that raise the price, and that's what actually puts the higher cost producers in the states in business. Fracking operations that needed $80+ oil shouldn't have been operating in the first place.

The Chinese on the other hand have lowered prices and I don't see there being much of an opportunity to suddenly raise them, as with dumping. They don't have a monopoly on cheap labor, if anything they don't even have an labor-intensive absolute advantage anymore. I just don't see how it turns into a "win" for China.

Even if it were the case that ultimately they'd be screwing us, I still don't see an intervention that would make us better off. It'd be great if both countries would quit with the subsidies and tariffs, but until then I don't want to see us engage in a trade war, with retaliatory tariffs making things worse.

Taylor

Steven said...

Okay fair enough. I guess they would have been even worse off in Africa, economically, and nobody migrates for the promise of a slum. Food and shelter are the first needs. Although I doubt there were even passenger ships going to Africa that they could have got on...was it even an option? Of course black people not wanting to move to worse poverty Africa in no way justifies whatever injustices or ill treatment they were suffering.

re what you said earlier, the mainstream media should have had more to say about Obama killing children as collateral damage but there is still a huge difference between that and purposely pursuing and killing innocent family members as an official policy. Apart from the fact that it is morally deplorable and fascistic and a breaking of a fundamental rule of law that protects our liberty, it would generate a great deal of hatred and antipathy and fear of America. And not just in the Muslim world.

Steven said...

oh and the point in't really that US will stop immigration of Syrian refugees. Its that they would ban all Muslims from entering the US. That would undoubtedly alienate 1.6 billion Muslims, even the moderates who might be on your side in the fight against the jihadists. It would probably be seen as a victory by the jihadists who are aiming divide and push the narrative of a war between Muslims and non-Muslims or the west.

whorefinder said...

(Is vomiting a normal reaction to heartbreak?)

Actually, for a sociopath-rabbit, yes it is. Miley, a rabbit whose amygdala is dead from a lifetime (she began in childhood) of being a famous, pampered celebrity, is now facing a non-rabbit reality (represented by Trump), and the effect is such a shock to her amygala she feels like vomiting. Unable to deal with adversity and not getting her own way, and unable to deal with the fact that she can't just will Trump to disappear, her brain overloads from the stress.

The r/K theory explains so much of the "high strung divas" stereotype, where the slightest thing out of place will set them off and give them a meltdown. I'll can see how Barbara Streisand can be such a controlling but high strung nutbag with such a ridiculous, overinflated sense of power and prestige (during the Clinton presidency, she once claimed in a TV interview that she had regular phone calls with Bill and influenced national policy---I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it).

The question that tangentially comes up is why humans so adore females with good voices that we will pamper them to no end. I mean, a great voice is nice to hear, but historically great female singers have all been "divaesque", and that only comes from incredible lavishing of money, prestige, and power, which sends their female id skyrocketing. Why do people overkill on their praise?

whorefinder said...

@Steven:

oh and the point in't really that US will stop immigration of Syrian refugees. Its that they would ban all Muslims from entering the US. That would undoubtedly alienate 1.6 billion Muslims, even the moderates who might be on your side in the fight against the jihadists. It would probably be seen as a victory by the jihadists who are aiming divide and push the narrative of a war between Muslims and non-Muslims or the west.

lmao. you really drink that lefty kool-aid, don't you?

Steven said...

@whorefinder

No.

Mark Caplan said...

Steven responded to the fact that blacks never emigrated from the U.S. despite oppression, lynchings, Jim Crow, #OscarsSoWhite, etc.:

"its not realistic to expect impoverished, disenfranchised, poorly educated people who have grown up somewhere and never known anywhere or anything different and have no resources to move to a different continent they know little to nothing about."

Hundreds of thousands of impoverished, uneducated Arab Muslims are doing just that very thing every year, from North Africa and Asia to Europe. Tens of thousands of impoverished, uneducated Chinese Uighurs (also Muslim) are migrating here, as are millions of impoverished, uneducated Indios from Central and South America. Probably a million impoverished, uneducated Sicilians came here around the turn of the century, as did millions of desperately poor, starving Irish two generations earlier.

whorefinder said...

@Marc Caplan:

Steven is totally drunk on kool-aid of leftist propaganda. Basically, if we dare demand Muslims behave or they can't come in, that is a "victory" for the jihadist and will "radicalize" Muslims further---so it's all our fault. Steven would ahve them all come in and never demand that basic standards of decency---like not suicide bombing people to convert them---be adhered to.

Steven's just full of nonsense. Self-defense is not allowed by whites in Steven's world.

And Steven makes the typical leftist excuse for blacks as well. "Blacks have been so disenfranchised and impoverished by Evil Whitey, it made even emigration impossible!"

Your points on all the emigration of poor people destroy him, as does the Great Migration (where blacks traveled thousands of miles from the South to the North), the fact that whites set up charities to move blacks back to Africa in the 19th century (this is how we got the disaster that is Liberia), and the fact that, if asked, whites would probably vote for blacks to get a free trip back to Africa fully paid, with the caveat that blacks have to renounce their citizenship to the U.S., stay abroad, and welfare be cut off in the U.S. But blacks would never take it; parasites don't leave their hosts.

Anonymous said...

Muslims don't assimilate into their host country. They really don't add any value to any country. Their religion is barbaric.

-birdie

Steven said...

"Basically, if we dare demand Muslims behave or they can't come in, that is a "victory" for the jihadist and will "radicalize" Muslims further---so it's all our fault."

Any country should be able to demand of individuals that they behave or they can't stay or keep out individual's that have misbehaved before or if there's some evidence that they are likely to misbehave. That's a given. However, I think your statement is referring to Muslims as a group. So when you say "demand Muslim's behave or they can't come in", how much misbehaviour and what kind would warrant them all being banned? Just to say 'demand Muslim's behave' is vague....so what exactly should lead to the consequence of them all being banned?

There are 3.3 million Muslims in the US. How many of them have committed terrorist attacks on US soil in the past 10 years? 4? I can only think of 4- there might be more. So should all Muslims be banned from entering the US based on that level of misbehaviour? If so, just admit that you are banning them all to prevent a tiny minority from entering who might be dangerous. There is certainly logic to that but don 't patronise them by saying you demand Muslims behave when almost all of them are behaving.

"Steven would have them all come in and never demand that basic standards of decency---like not suicide bombing people to convert them---be adhered to."

Would I? Here is an article I wrote after the Cologne attacks:

http://abeeinmybonnet2016.blogspot.co.uk/


I never said anything about stopping Muslim immigration in any case. I was addressing Trump's extreme proposal (as I heard it reported) to ban ALL Muslim's from entering the US, including tourists and presumably business people. That is bound to be divisive and unnecessarily turn a lot of Muslim's against America, which could be counter productive in the global fight against Islamism and terrorism. It would give moderate Muslim's a them and us mentality and put them on the side of the radicals (ie they are against us Muslims), instead of isolating the radicals. America should support the moderates, reformers, progressives and whoever is fighting the radicals. That is my feeling about it, which I arrived at via independent thought.

I predicted at the beginning of America's war on terror that invading Muslim lands like Iraq would be counter productive, that it would predictably cause terrorism to proliferate, which it had done, massively. There would be no ISIS now without the invasion of Iraq. America's war on terror so far has only increased terror and I don't see Trump making things better.


@Mark, as for the point about American blacks not moving to Africa, I concede on that. I was wrong about that but I think I already explained the reason why- because Africa is poorer than America and the flow of people is always from poor regions to richer ones. I guess blacks were better off in America and wanted to improve their lot in America rather than move to somewhere they might be even poorer. That's fine by me, and it doesn't imply that in the 60's blacks didn't have the right to complain about whatever was wrong.

Steven said...

I'll put it even more simply: banning all Muslims from entering the US would harden anti-American attitudes right across the Muslim world. Those leaning towards radicalism would become more radical, the moderates would become more sympathetic to the radicals etc. And for what? Muslims entering the US in the since 911 haven't even done anything wrong.

whorefinder said...

@Steven:

Muslims entering the US in the since 911 haven't even done anything wrong.

LMAO. Now we know Steven is a troll/liar, and can be safely made fun of and ignored/banned for being a liar.

Off the top of my head:

Dzhokhar_Tsarnaev (Boston Marathon Bomber): 2002

Tamerlan Tsarnaev (Boston Marathon Bomber): 2004

Tashfeen Malik (San Bernadino terrorist): 2014

And that's just three big names.

Steven is definitely a Media Matters plant/troll. He now has ZERO credibility.

John Craig said...

Whorefinder --
I'm closer to your position than Steven's on Muslim immigration, but I can assure you Steven is neither a troll nor a plant. He's a young guy from the UK, a good guy, and hasn't been hit over the head with liberal propaganda the way we have over here, so hasn't reacted strongly against it the way we have. I suspect as he gets older he'll move further toward the Right.

Mark Caplan said...

Close to all Muslims greet each September 11th with joy. Why not? It was a glorious victory over the hated Crusaders. And that's fine. It really was a great triumph over a stupid, naive, incompetent, and militarily negligent enemy. Even the failure of one plane to destroy the Capitol building barely tarnished the overall success of the venture.

But do we want those people as our neighbors? How can a civil society consist of two antagonistic groups, where one group's victories throughout history are the other group's defeats, and vice versa? There has never been a cease fire, let alone a truce, between Islam and the West. Both sides are bent on world domination. The West, by example; the Muslims, by other means.

Steven said...

Funnily enough, the two Boston bombers and the San Bernardino husband and wife were the 4 I mentioned. Out of 3.3 million. In any case, like I said, I was only taking issue with a policy of banning all Muslims from entering the US, including tourists and business people. I wasn't criticising a policy of not having Muslim immigration, which could more or less be done quietly, without any fuss or PR cost.

thanks John. I'm not really a social liberal as I am interested in biological explanations for human differences and abhor the liberal view (or tendency to think) that such differences are solely due to environment and socialisation. I'm also anti-abortion.

Steven said...

Muslims entering the US *for short stays* since 911 haven't even done anything wrong. (or have they?) That's what Trump wants to halt and what would have a pr cost.

As far as I know, something like 1 in a million Muslim immigrants have done terrorist attacks since 911, and I only brought that up because whorefinder was talking about the need for Muslims to behave.

Mark Caplan said...

Muslims have little reason to attack us. The day after 9/11 President Bush surrendered. Instead of "A date which will live in infamy," we got, "Islam is peace." We musn't anger our Muslim overlords. In fact, let's open our borders even more to Muslim immigrants from the Third World.

Then we elected Barack Hussein Obama:

"So let’s start with this fact: For more than a thousand years, people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace. And the very word itself, Islam, comes from salam -- peace." -Barack Obama, Feb. 3, 2016, speech at the Islamic Society Mosque of Baltimore.

Evidently the president can't afford a dictionary or doesn't know how to look stuff up online. Every ordinary dictionary says "Islam" means surrender [to the will of Allah, to Sharia Law]. "Muslim" means one who surrenders to the will of Allah.

Even then, to prevent more 9/11's the Department of Homeland Security, the National Security Agency and countless other agencies and departments are spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year and reading our emails and text messages and eavesdropping on phone calls with the hope of preventing new catastrophic attacks.

Homeland Security's relative success causes liberals and Muslim apologists to argue that the 3 million Muslims in the United States must have peaceful intentions, since they have committed only a handful of mass murders since 9/11.

John Craig said...

Mark --
The really telling thing about Muslim attitudes is how they feel about their terrorist kinfolk:

http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-religion-of-peace.html

The vast majority are not terrorists themselves, but a significant percentage of them don't disapprove of terrorism.

Steven said...

Mark,

I agree that politicians should be able to name Islam and talk about the problems of Islamic extremism explicitly.

Although I think the real screw up since 9/11 was invading Iraq (and maybe even opposing Assad) because that's what has led to the current problem with ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and ISIS are now at the forefront of global jihad. There would literally be no ISIS without the invasion of Iraq. (They are even in lawless Libya now, the west's other screw up and the major exit point for African immigrants to Europe.)

I wouldn't really blame you if you didn't want Muslim immigration. But banning all from entering... in the battle for hearts and minds, making every Muslim in the world feel like a victim of American prejudice, doesn't seem like a smart move (even if you think they deserve it). You'll turn millions of Muslims against America and maybe even make American's abroad more of a target. That's doesn't seem smart to me.


I've pretty much said everything I want to say so y'all can have the last words.


Mark Caplan said...

The Saudis prohibit non-Muslims from setting foot in Mecca or openly practicing non-Islamic religions anywhere in Saudi Arabia. Christians and Jews in Islamic countries are, at best, treated as second-class citizens, as Sharia Law dictates. Hindus, a "pagan" religion, fare even worse.

True Muslims who obey Sharia Law have no choice in their intolerance: it's ordained by Allah and therefore immutable. So honest Muslims would be, or at least should be, the last persons to criticize Westerners who follow the Islamic example.

John Craig said...

Mark --
Well said. And non-Musliims aren't exactly welcomed with open arms in a host of other Muslim countries as well.

Wnen it comes to visitors, the pattern seems to be, when Westerners go to a Muslim country, they have to take great care not to offend their hosts (women must wear head coverings, etc.) And when Muslims go to other countries, the hosts must be careful not to offend their new visitors.

Anonymous said...

Being a mother, I would not want my daughter to be anything like Miley Cyrus.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
I don't think any parent would…..though she undoubtedly makes a lot of money.

Anonymous said...

Money aside, she comes across as trampy, a Madonna wannabe. For the life of me, I cannot figure out how she ended up being the way she is. Her father is a Christian. What the heck happened? I'm wondering how her mother influenced her.

-birdie

Anonymous said...

(Is vomiting a normal reaction to heartbreak?)

No but if you have an achy-breaky heart maybe.

John Craig said...

Anon --
Ha!