Search Box

Sunday, October 30, 2016

A basic difference between Right and Left

I was recently criticized for not being positive enough about Trump, and Trump's chances on November 8th. It's true, I was probably paying too much attention to the polls, which are turning out to simply be another branch of the mainstream media.

But it got me to thinking: virtually every Trump supporter I've spoken to who's going to vote for Trump has been willing to concede his shortcomings: he's boorish, vengeful, egotistical, inarticulate, etc. And often, when they say they're going to vote for him, they'll say something like, "Listen, I know the guy's a jerk, but the country needs a change."

Yet almost no one who's going to vote for Hillary concedes anything about her. The most they'll say is something like, "Well, I'm not that crazy about her, but we can't have Trump as President!" But they'll almost never go into specifics about why they're not crazy about her.

I've heard people say I'm voting for Trump, but I sure wish he'd stay off Twitter."

I've never heard anybody say, "I'm voting for Hillary, I just wish she'd stop lying all the time."

I've heard things like, "I'm for Trump, but it's frustrating to watch him in the debates, he's sure got a limited vocabulary. And really, the guy's sort of a pompous jerk."

I've never heard, "I'm for Hillary, but geez, she sure comes across like a strident harridan."

People who support Trump will say, "Yeah, he's guilty of hyperbole, and he shouldn't have wasted his time going after the Khans and Alicia Machado. But I'm in favor of enforcing our borders and trying to keep American business from exporting jobs, so......"

But you'll never hear a Democrat say, "Yeah, I know she's corrupt, I mean she's been that way ever since she took that cattle futures trading bribe back in Arkansas, but I support her policies."

This is a basic difference between Right and Left. People on the Right are generally more willing to look at both sides of an issue, and both sides of their candidate. People on the Left simply turn a blind eye to anything which doesn't fit their viewpoint.

People who are willing to admit fault are open-minded. People who refuse to consider the possibility that something might be amiss with their side are close-minded.

How ironic that the latter group is the one which constantly congratulates itself for its "open-mindedness."

And never admitting faults (of their own, or their side) certainly fits with the idea that Social Justice Warriors tend to be narcissistic.

Friday, October 28, 2016

Down with the establishment!

Commenter Gardner said something two nights ago that struck a chord:

The two lines that resonate most with me are: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," and calling DJT a "Molotov cocktail" being thrown at the political system. A vote for HRC is not simply a vote for her, or for the Democratic party, but for the perpetuation of a degenerate system. And by system I mean all of it -- the corrupt, colluding media, global corporate interests being put above those of Americans, the laying waste of the American middle class to enrich a few.

In the 60's, hippies used to demonstrate by saying, "Down with the establishment" -- by which they meant anyone with a job. That quickly became a cliche, and, in fairly short order, self-parody. (As did "Don't trust anyone over 30.")

As others have pointed out, things have flip-flopped.

Barack Obama is supposed to be living proof of the established wisdom that there are no differences between the races -- and that the only reason blacks might underperform in any arena is because of racism.

Meanwhile, he encourages the kind of immigration which hurts the middle and lower classes. While taking $3.6 million dollar golfing weekends with Tiger Woods.

Hillary is supposed to be living proof of the now established wisdom that women are in every way the equal of men, and that all this time the only thing holding them back was the glass ceiling.

Meanwhile, she sells access to the State Department via the Clinton Foundation, and takes money from those she decries, like Wall Street, and Arab countries which persecute gays and women. (In terms of corruption, Hillary is more than the equal of any male Presidential candidate). 

The media and the corporate world have all gotten in line. The media has been in full blown hysteria mode ever since Trump got the nomination. And not a single Fortune 100 CEO has donated to Trump, while eleven have donated to Hillary.

Even more scarily, they are keeping others in line. Sure, there's freedom of speech in this country. Just not for those who want to keep their jobs.

Which is why virtually every commenter here uses one as well. You've got to be anonymous if you want to tell the truth.

The media seems to be composed mostly of true believers. They, for the most part, seem to believe the politically correct line of nonsense they spout.

The corporations have two reasons. First, political correctness is the path of least resistance for them because the people who can and will make the most trouble for them are from the Left. (The Left will holler and fuss and march in protest and organize a boycott; the Right won't bother.)

Second, Leftist ideology provides a convenient cloak for importing more cheap labor under the guise of anti-racism and "this is who we are" and "we're a nation of immigrants." This, of course, hurts the middle class -- and those among the lower class who aspire to become middle class.

In any case, as Gardner pointed out, they all seem to be in collusion to bring down Trump, who would (theoretically) help the middle class at the expense of the globalists and the one percenters.

Down with the establishment!

Not sure why, but it feels good to say that.  (And actually mean it.)

Thursday, October 27, 2016

"Hillary told friends Obama is 'incompetent and feckless': book"

[This is a post from June 27, 2014. I only wish the incident had gotten more publicity.]

The NY Post has a revealing article this morning detailing Hillary's honest opinion of Obama, as excerpted from Blood Feud, a new book by Edward Klein. The first paragraph of the article:

Hillary Rodham Clinton called President Obama “incompetent and feckless” and charged that he had “no hand on the tiller half the time,” during a boozy reunion with college pals, a new book claims.

"The thing with Obama is he can't be bothered," Clinton continued. (In other words, he's lazy.)

Google offers the following definition of "feckless": lacking initiative or strength of character; irresponsible.

Dictionary.com offers this definition of "shiftless": lacking in resourcefulness; inefficient; lazy.

So "shiftless" and "feckless" mean pretty much the same thing.

Interesting that Hillary, the Democrats' great hope for 2016, would effectively call our nation's first black President lazy and shiftless.

(The private Hillary certainly seems far more interesting than the public one, who sidesteps every question she is asked.)

In vino veritas.

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

"Sabrina Rubin Erdely's Malice in Blunderland"

Great article by Steve Sailer neatly tying together Rolling Stone's coverage of the University of Virginia rape hoax and the media's coverage of this election.

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Declining NFL viewership is symptomatic of something larger

Two days ago an article in the Sacramento Bee said that NFL viewership is down 11% this year, and some of that is attributable to the Colin Kaepernick episode. The relevant excerpt:

A Rasmussen poll found 32 percent of the population is less likely to watch a game these days as a direct result of the Kaepernick-led, take-a-knee protests that have taken hold around the league.

There were other possible reasons cited for the drop in viewers, among them the prevalence of advertisements and the attention focused on the Presidential race.

There were other possible reasons cited for the drop in viewers, among them the prevalence of advertisements and the attention focused on the Presidential race.

But it's hard not to wonder if the whole thing isn't also partly due to the growing racial polarization of this country. Whites just seem to be increasingly uninterested in watching pro sports dominated by blacks.

In the past thirty years I've heard a fair number of white guys express sentiments like, "You know, I actually prefer watching college ball these days. Just really not into pro sports as much anymore."

Or they might say, a bit more directly, "I just got tired of all the showboating you see in pro sports."

The subtext of such statements comes through fairly clearly.

The declining interest may also be related to articles like this one, about an incident that took place last night in Philadelphia: Crazed teens viciously attack college kids for no apparent reason.

These days, when you see a headline like that, there's never really much doubt about the color of the attackers, and the color of their victims. There's also very little doubt that "for no apparent reason" is basically a lie, and that a more honest headline would have substituted the words, "because they're white."

Evidently, several groups of roughly 20 to 30 teens, demonstrating the good sportsmanship for which such "teens" are noted, attacked individual whites, getting them down on the ground and then kicking them.

But, in deference to political correctness, all of that must be studiously ignored. Instead we're supposed to pretend to be mystified as to why these "crazed teens" would attack the college students. (Race is mentioned in the article but once, and then only in an excerpt from a Facebook post by one victim's father.)

In the meantime, we're supposed to admire Colin Kaepernick for his solidarity with the BLM movement and their essentially fictitious grievances.

Viewers are voting on that with their remotes. 

Monday, October 24, 2016

Why I'm voting for Hillary

This may come as a surprise to readers of this blog. But after some long and anguished soul-searching, I've decided to vote for Hillary for the following reasons:

1. She's a financial genius. Hillary turned a $1000 investment into $100,000 through cattle futures trading in just ten months. Anyone who can just read the Wall Street Journal for a few weeks and have the expertise to do that, as she claimed, is the right person to get our economy back on track.

2. Hillary, like all good entrepreneurs, recognizes opportunity when she sees it, and doesn't let any silly little qualms get in the way. The Clinton Foundation is open for business! Our country needs more of this kind of entrepreneurial spirit.

3. Hillary is loyal to her friends, and even tries to get them jobs. She is a job-creator.

4. Some of these Secret Service agents, Arkansas State Troopers, and State Department security details get a little big for their britches (you just know that in their own minds half these guys see themselves as James Bond.) Hillary puts them in their place. We need a no nonsense leader who speaks her mind and doesn't mince words.

5. She's not some dull teetotaler. Far better to have a President with some spirit! Or, at least, spirits.

6. Even though she once said she's "not some little woman, standing by my man like Tammy Wynette," she in fact did. Who isn't touched by a story of true love like this?

7. Like her namesake Sir Edmund Hillary, she wants to do what has never been done before. We need a leader ready to scale the peaks!

8. Hillary understands the immigrant experience well: all four of her grandparents were immigrants.

9. She's patriotic: she tried to join the Marines in 1975, even though they turned her down. Semper fi!

10. She's a battle-hardened vet anyway, having survived a sniper attack in Bosnia. And after having been in the line of fire herself, she'll think twice before sending our boys into harm's way.

11. She knows what it's like to be poor, having been dead broke when she left the White House in 2001. Who better to help the poor of this country than one of their own number?

12. Hillary is thrifty, going so far as to write off Bill's used underwear when First Lady of Arkansas. No doubt she will show similar attention to detail with the federal budget.

13. She's against the Trans Pacific Partnership. (Even if she was for it before.)

14. She's for gay marriage. (Even if she was against it before.)

15. She recognizes that the Iraq War was a mistake. (Even if she voted for it as a Senator.)

16. She's not intimidated by anyone, not even the leader of the free world. We need a fearless President!

17. Last but not least, she has a great sense of humor. (Seeing humor where others don't can be a sign of intelligence.)

Saturday, October 22, 2016

A little cheerleading

Yesterday, in response to my moaning about the fact that it looks as if Hillary is going to win, commenter Pangur wrote:

I hadn't realized that Just One Minute was my one stop shop for defeatist, depressive conservadad talk. Sack up ladies.

(He got the name of the blog wrong, but otherwise I couldn't really argue.)

About the same time, I got this email from a friend, Ed:

What a bunch of ‘Eeyore,’ glass half empty bunch of whiners on your blog -- and I'm throwing you in that bin too.

'Trump’s not smart enough. He’s not prepared enough. He uses the same words too often. He could have been less offensive.'

Compared against: He smashed through the Republican establishment, and won the nomination on a populist, pro–common man agenda. When was the last time the US saw a Presidential candidate as independent from political corruption as Trump? The establishment, represented by Hillary, is clearly terrified – the media is off the rails with its crazy attacks on Trump every day.

The most recent national polls indicate the race is tied. Trump is on the brink of pulling this out.

I read an analysis that showed polling organizations have no idea how to poll this race – because the patterns are totally unlike any race they’ve tried to predict. I agree, and I believe on voting day it will break in Trump’s favor.

I view Trump supporters resigned to defeat as a real negative.


I replied:

What you say is true; but what I've said on the blog is also true. I certainly hope I'm proven wrong on election day, though I doubt I will be, especially with the amount of fraud I suspect will happen. 

Ed wrote back:

Its not that I disagree with most of the negative things you say about Trump – but that I think there is far more to praise about the man than there is to criticize. And now is the time to deal Trump all the praise in the world. Almost the entire media is eviscerating the man every day – both for valid reasons, and for completely imaginary reasons. ‘His own’ shouldn’t, in my opinion, be denigrating him now.

I sense a mindset from a lot of people commenting on your blog that is too negative, and not nearly appreciative enough for what Trump has already accomplished politically and for the opportunity in this election.


Ed has a point. The media's conniptions over Trump demonstrate how terrified they are that they might lose control over the parameters of the national dialogue. Trump has scoffed at their political correctness, and a lot of people have responded positively.

And maybe I should sack up -- I certainly don't want to discourage Trump supporters from voting.

But the idea of this blog from the start was not to be an unbridled id like Chateau Heartiste, nor to preach to the converted (which is inevitably what sites like this end up doing anyway), but to influence those who might conceivably be swayable. And if you don't admit your own side's faults, you lose credibility, and won't sway anyone.

And, frankly, it's a lot more fun -- and interesting -- to be honest. If you're going to accuse the media of being one-sided and dishonest, it's incumbent on you not to be the same way, and not whitewash anything. (I meet people all the time who always say whatever it is they think they're supposed to say, and I can never get away from them fast enough.)

Anyway, Ed's and Pangur's viewpoints have merit, and deserve airtime.

And, in case I haven't made it clear enough in the past, I am rooting for Trump.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

Impressions of the debate

It's the superficial impressions of the candidates that will determine how the electorate feels about them. Here are a few of those.

Trump

He has a hard time speaking in complete grammatical sentences, and as a result doesn't come across smart. Trump also uses the same limited vocabulary over and over again.

And he always seems to fall back on boasting about the "beautiful company" he built. (Who thinks of a corporation as "beautiful?")

He's florid, like a rich guy who enjoys his steak dinners and the drinks and dessert that go with them. His bone structure is perfectly good, but all the fat makes his eyes look somewhat piggish, which doesn't help his case given that he's constantly being accused of being a chauvinist pig.

Constantly interrupting Hillary by saying "wrong" does not prove your point; it just means you're an interrupter.

A more skilled debater could have skewered Hillary with more adroit references to the recent revelations from Project Veritas and Wikileaks. A skilled debater could have tied together the Department of Justice and the FBI and made the case for collusion.

But all Trump can do is shake his head and say something like, "Her husband and the Attorney General meeting on that plane on the tarmac for half an hour. Very bad. Very, very bad."

Hillary

Hillary is the far more polished debater. She pivots, avoids answering questions, lies brazenly, and knows how to keep her easily distracted opponent off balance.

But has there ever been anything phonier than Hillary's smile? It's meant to be dismissive, to imply that a criticism leveled at her is so far off base it's actually amusing. But the smile never seems to reach her eyes. And laughing every time you're attacked is simply not a credible response.

If you looked at Hillary's eyes, you saw that she would mostly look down as she talked, occasionally look up, and whenever she looked at Trump while he was accusing her of something, she looked extremely stressed out. She also looked unhappy and bitter.

Part of the bitterness must have come from not having been able to just tell her Secret Service agents to shoot Trump -- in that hectoring, strident voice of hers.

Speaking of her security, an article which came out yesterday claimed that when Hillary broke her elbow, her security detail secretly exulted. (How incredibly unpleasant do you have to be for them to react that way?)

Hillary comes across as if she is filled with fury. Her original hatred of her father (he was reportedly a martinet) spread to Bill, and now it includes Trump. But really, it encompasses all men. And now she wants revenge.

That dumpy body may be near death (you can understand why Trump offered to take a drug test if she would), and her face has been lifted so many times that it's started to look like a mask. But, she's absolutely determined to be the first woman President, and she's not going to let anything stand in her way.

Not a sense of ethics, not a sense of shame, not a desire to play by the rules, and certainly not Donald Trump.

Sadly, it looks as if she is going to get her wish.

The Arab Spring

While listening to the debate last night, and hearing the discussion about Syria, it occurred to me that one phrase you never hear any more is "Arab Spring."

Back in 2011, when some of the worst of the corrupt, despotic dictators in the Middle East had either been toppled or were in the process of being overthrown, it seemed as if hope and change were in the air in that part of the world, all with either the tacit or overt encouragement of the Obama administration.

It's all fallen apart since, either into anarchy or hard-core theocracies. Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Iraq, and Egypt are all big messes now.

"Spring" has a nice, fresh, rejuvenating sound to it. It's the start of something new, when the long, cold winter is finally over and the buds are emerging.

Unfortunately, what has blossomed most has been Islamic terrorism. And, like an invasive weed, it's spread to areas where it hadn't existed before.

And if Hillary gets elected, and gets her way regarding the Syrian immigrants, we can expect even more of it here.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Who would win in a fight?

I happened to see this picture of the First Couple hosting their final state dinner yesterday --


-- and I had the same childish thought I often do: which of them would win a fight?

Michelle has the arms and shoulders, and appears toned:



Whereas Barack, seen here pre-Presidency, does not look all that hard-bodied:


Michelle also seems to be more of a fighter by nature:


Whereas Barack appears less belligerent:


And Michelle actually has an interest in fisticuffs:


Whereas Barack appears to be more of a pacifist:


Then again, Barack has the guy thing going. Early on in his Presidency, he played basketball:


Though he has reportedly given that up, and now just plays golf:


It's a tough call.

But my guess is that if they ever did go at it, Barack is the one who would end up shaken to his core.

(I know, silly post. But I swear, I have that thought every third or fourth time I see a picture of them, and I needed to exorcise it.)

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

What is an "unwanted sexual advance?"

It's when you lean forward to kiss a woman, and she pulls away. In other words, we've all done it.

If you've never tried it, you've probably never kissed a girl. And you certainly haven't gotten laid.

How can a guy know ahead of time whether the female will be receptive? She may be extremely flirtatious, then decide at the last minute to play coy. That has been known to happen.

So, from now on, only virgins will be allowed to run.

Adam Lanza for President!

The idea that Donald Trump is now guilty of "sexual assault," while Bill Clinton's actual rapes are overlooked, is indicative of how biased our media are.

Trump tried to kiss a woman who wasn't receptive. Well, that definitely disqualifies him from being President.

Personally, I've probably insulted more women by not making a pass than by making one. A woman you make a pass at, even if she turns you down, will tend to regard you fondly afterward. A woman who expects a pass, and doesn't get one, will never forgive you. She may even tell her friends that she thinks you're gay. (I've had that happen.)

Or, she may just lie and tell her friends you made a pass at her. (I've had that happen as well.)

My guess is, that's what happened with at least one or two of the women who are now claiming that Trump made an unwanted sexual advance at them.

Monday, October 17, 2016

Interview with Michelle Obama


In the wake of her scathing speech against Donald Trump, Just Not Said has obtained an exclusive interview with Michelle Obama.

JustNotSaid: Thank you so much for agreeing to meet with us.

Michelle Obama: Thank you. You wouldn't believe what great press I've gotten the past few days.

JNS: Oh, we can believe it. But frankly, we're a little confused by your having said that Trump's words have shaken you to your core. That implies your sensibilities are fresh from a cloistered 1950's nunnery, yet you've invited rappers to the White House who've said far worse than Donald Trump ever has. For instance, Rick Ross, who --

MO: Rick is a wonderful, melodious, Christian singer.

JNS: But he's constantly rapping about his "hos."

MO: That's not the Rick I know; I'm sure he must be referring to his gardening hoes or something.

JNS: But in his song U.E.O.N.O., he raps, "Put Molly all in her Champagne/ She ain't even know it/ I took her home and I enjoyed that/ She ain't even know it." Do you think this promotes constructive behavior?

MO: Believe me, Rick is a gentle soul who wouldn't hurt a fly.

JNS: Or Common --

MO: (interjecting) Oh, Common! I just love his song "Letter to the Law."

JNS: But in it, Common raps, "Tell the law my Uzi weighs a ton....I hold up a peace sign but I carry a gun." Now, your husband has taken a strongly anti-gun stance, so don't you think that message is somewhat at odds --

MO: (interrupting) Oh you know, that's just poetic license. He's trying to make a point, that's all.

JNS: Now you've said in the past that you can't imagine a better role model for your daughters than Beyonce. But she's sung, “Who the fuck do you think I is? / You ain’t married to no average bitch boy / You can watch my fat ass twist boy / As I bounce to the next dick boy.” Is that really the way you want your daughters to talk?

MO: Oh please. Beyonce happens to be very ladylike, she's just trying to sell albums.

JNS: But you said you were shocked to your core when Trump talked about grabbing pussy, yet Beyonce herself has sung, "Why can't I keep my fingers off it, baby, I want you." Is that not the same thing?

MO: Not at all. Beyonce is a star. Being a star comes with certain privileges, you know.

JNS: But that's exactly what Trump was -- never mind. Now, you also said in your recent speech that the men in your life do not talk about women the way Donald Trump does --

MO: They'd never dare! Why, even when Barack was with his buddy Reggie Love, I never once heard that kind of low-down, ill-mannered talk about women. They were perfect gentlemen. Reggie would always call me "Ma'am." As a matter of fact, he almost seemed a little afraid of me, I don't know why.

JNS: Did, uh, Reggie Love date women much?

MO: He didn't have time to date -- he was too busy with his job! You have no idea how much work it is to keep America running smoothly.

JNS: But his job was just to attend to Barack's personal needs.

MO: And he did a good job of that. Barack always seemed to be in a good mood whenever Reggie was around.

JNS: You've really never, ever heard Barack talk about women in a suggestive manner?

MO: No, even when he was hanging with his first body man, Nick Colvin, who'd been with Barack since he was a Senator. Barack was just never disrespectful that way. In fact, he never even gave another woman a second look.

JNS: But how about when Kal Penn was at the White House? After all, these Hollywood types have a reputation for being very upfront about sex.

MO: No, not even with Kal. I mean, the two of them would giggle a lot, and seemed to have a good time, but it wasn't at all as if they were being impudent, or discourteous to women.

JNS: Okay, I think we get the picture. A slight change of subject here: your speech praised Hillary Clinton to the skies. Yet back in 2008, your husband said that Hillary would, and we quote, "Say anything and change nothing."

MO: Why would you want to go digging up ancient history like that?

JNS: But that secretly recorded tape of Trump with Bill Bush was done even earlier, in 2005.

MO: (shaking head) I'm telling you, that tape shook me to my core.

JNS: Well thank you very much for this enlightening interview.

MO: Thank-you

Sunday, October 16, 2016

From the horse's mouth

You've undoubtedly heard the argument over voter ID laws. The Republicans say it's necessary to prevent voter fraud. The Democrats say it's just a way to repress the black vote.

But you need an ID to cash a check, get on an airplane, or drive a car. Nobody has ever suggested that those were methods of keeping black people from driving, etc.

Finally, we hear directly from a Democrat -- a Board of Elections Commissioner (in New York City) -- that voter fraud is rampant. The relevant excerpt from the NY Post article:

“Certain neighborhoods in particular, they bus people around to vote,” he says on the tape. “They put them in a bus and go poll site to poll site.” Asked if he meant black and Hispanic neighborhoods, he nods: “Yeah, and Chinese, too...”

And some of it is just common sense, such as his rejection of most Democrats’ resistance to voter-ID laws: “You know, I don’t think it’s too much to ask somebody to show some kind of an ID,” he says. “You go into a building, you have to show them your ID.”

And: “People think [opposing voter-ID laws is] a liberal thing to do, but I take my vote seriously, and I don’t want 10 other people coming in negating my vote by voting for the other candidate when they aren’t even registered voters.”

Bear in mind, this is a Democrat speaking. And now Mayor de Blasio wants to fire him for having committed the cardinal sin for a Democrat: admitting the truth. 

Here is the original videotape where he was surreptitiously recorded, courtesy of Project Veritas. It's worth a look. Alan Schulkin, the Commissioner, seems like a decent enough guy. He also seems to be disgusted with the way the Democrats operate. 

Anyway, that answers the question of whether voter fraud is real. 

(But don't expect the NY Times or Washington Post to cover this story.)

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Michelle's Obama's hypocrisy, and one true statement

Much has been made of Michelle Obama's hypocrisy in saying that Donald Trump's dirty talk "has shaken me to my core."

Here's one site, LifeZette, which points out that at the same time that Michelle acts so shocked at Trump's words, she was hosting rap stars who've said far worse -- quite publicly -- at the White House. In fact, Michelle once said that she couldn't think of a better role model for her children than Beyonce.

I won't repeat all the relevant lyrics by Beyonce, Jay Z, Common, Rick Ross, and other invited White House guests here. But I would like to point out that in the midst of all her holier than thou posturing -- and she did go on and on at great length about this -- Michelle did say one thing that rang true:

"I can tell you that the men in my life do not talk about women like this."

That, I believe. 

Friday, October 14, 2016

A graphic that's been making the rounds

A friend emailed this:


I don't know who came up with it, but I thought it worth passing along.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Which is more important?

There hasn't been a time in recent history when the country has been more divided, and when there are two more divergent visions of what this country should be. The fate of the nation hangs on this election. Yet the election seems to be being determined on some awfully unimportant things.

Should we accept more Muslim immigrants who are potential terrorists, and who will probably be more loyal to their nation of origin than to the US? Does it matter that once they reach a critical mass they will start to demand Sharia law and forever alter the complexion of this country?

Well, maybe, but it's far more important that Donald Trump once told an interviewer that as a celebrity women would let him get away with a lot.

Should we have good relations with Russia, or should we escalate tensions, possibly leading to a major war?

Who cares about a little thing like that when Donald Trump once tried to kiss a woman without asking permission first?

Should we enforce our borders so that we're actually a nation?

It's obviously far more important that Trump, incredibly, once referred to people who snuck across those borders as "illegal aliens" rather than "undocumented workers."

Is it a problem that so many of our jobs have been shipped abroad and that the middle class is being decimated?

Well, it's not nearly as big a problem as Trump saying that Megyn Kelly was "bleeding from her wherever."

Should we choose as the next Supreme Court Justice one who will respect the Constitution, or one who will push the activist agenda of the Obama administration?

Who cares about such an inconsequential thing when it turns out that during production at The Apprentice, Trump actually talked to his coworkers about which women on the show he'd like to bed?

Should we continue to enforce ridiculous standards of political correctness whereby criticism of one group is okay but similar criticism of another is not? Should we continue to call realistic talk "hate speech," thereby ending all honest discussion of our domestic problems?

Who can be bothered about a trivial matter like that when Trump once called Rosie O'Donnell a fat pig?

Should we be concerned about the rising murder rate in our cities and the fact that our police now feel hamstrung when it comes to law enforcement?

Of course not -- this pales in comparison to the fact that Trump used the word "pussy."

It's good to know that the media is keeping America focused on the things that really matter.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Vandalism from the Left vs. the Right

An article in the local paper a couple days ago described how Trump signs have been vandalized all over town. People put them on their lawns, and then, within a few days, someone has either stolen them or pushed them over.

There have been no similar complaints from people who put up Clinton signs.

The local paper didn't get into a philosophical discussion about what that means.

But it's hard not to see this as an example, in microcosm, of a basic difference between Left and Right.

The Right believes in free speech. The Left believes in free speech for its own side, but categorizes anything it disagrees with as "hate speech," which they do their best to repress.

The Right respects other people's property. The Left does not, whether it's a Trump sign or someone's taxable income.

A friend recently put a Trump sticker on his car, somewhat apprehensively, just to see what kind of reaction it would get. Within a week one lady shook her head and hissed at him, "America is already great!"

I don't think that liberals who put a Hillary sticker on their car get equivalent reactions. My friend was worried that someone might key his car (no one has, so far). I don't think liberals worry about that.

The same friend got a Trump t-shirt. While he was walking with his girlfriend on the beach, another guy glared at him. (Do conservatives glare angrily at people wearing Hillary t-shirts?)

He said yesterday, "At the dump a guy in a pick-up truck looked at me and did a prolonged shaking of the head and amused frown, as if in disbelief." (Do conservatives condescend so ostentatiously?)

The most telling thing is that, somehow, none of this is surprising.

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Does Trump have ADHD?

Commenter Mark Caplan made an insightful suggestion this morning: Trump likely has ADHD.

From Wikipedia:

Inattention, hyperactivity (restlessness in adults), disruptive behavior, and impulsivity are common in ADHD. Academic difficulties are frequent as are problems with relationships. The symptoms can be difficult to define as it is hard to draw a line at where normal levels of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity end and significant levels requiring interventions begin....

A child with ADHD hyperactive/impulsive type has most or all of the following symptoms, excluding situations where these symptoms are better explained by another psychiatric or medical condition:
-Fidget and squirm in their seats
-Talk nonstop
-Dash around, touching or playing with anything and everything in sight
-Have trouble sitting still during dinner, school, doing homework, and story time
-Be constantly in motion
-Have difficulty doing quiet tasks or activities
-Be very impatient
-Blurt out inappropriate comments, show their emotions without restraint, and act without regard for consequences
-Have difficulty waiting for things they want or waiting their turns in games
-Often interrupt conversations or others' activities


This does sound like Trump, and it would explain a lot. During the last debate, much was made of the fact that when it was Hillary's turn to speak, Trump would often walk back and forth, and at one point even did some modified push-ups on his chair. (Fidgety.)

He has by all accounts been reluctant to sit down and practice debating with his team. And he has also been unwilling to do his homework on the minutiae of foreign policy, learning other countries' leaders' names, and so on. (He has "trouble sitting still...doing homework" and is "very impatient.")

Mark mentioned that Trump has admitted that he doesn't read books, another activity requiring patience.

Trump interrupted Hillary frequently during the debates. ("Often interrupt conversations...Have difficulty waiting their turns...")

His frequent and often self-destructive Tweeting is another sign of impulsiveness. As is his spontaneous blurting out of insults about people's looks.

He's been married three times. ("Problems with relationships" -- although, in all fairness, this may just be par for a billionaire.)

Is it possible that even his tendency to repeat himself is a sign of ADHD -- the repetitions buy him time to gather his next thoughts, which tend to scatter.

Mark also pointed out that Trump describes everything as either a "disaster" or a "catastrophe." Might it be that his limited vocabulary is another side effect of the ADHD? (If you can't concentrate, it's harder to remember a lot of words.)

Remember, Trump was sent to a military school at age 13 because he was a "discipline problem." Those two words are often used to describe someone with ADHD.

The Clinton team undoubtedly hired some psychologists to give their opinion of Trump, and they undoubtedly offered the words "narcissistic" as well as "attention deficit" and advised her to keep him off balance and off message with personal attacks. (These work well with a narcissist, as he will always defend himself, and with someone with ADD or ADHD, since he will lose his train of thought.)

Hillary was able to do this successfully in the first debate, much less so in the second. The Clinton campaign, of course, wants to prevent Trump from sticking to his script, since he has a winning one. So far they've been partially successful.

Let's hope -- for the good of the country -- that somebody gives Trump some Ritalin for the third debate.

And, that somebody points out to him that there are many perfectly good synonyms for "disaster" (courtesy of Thesaurus.com): debacle, calamity, failure, fiasco, flop, washout, blight, and bust.

All of which would describe a Hillary Presidency well.

Sunday, October 9, 2016

Newsflash: that's how most guys talk

You've undoubtedly heard of the recording from eleven years ago where Donald Trump talked about how he tried to have sex with a married woman.

Trump said:

"She was down in Palm Beach and I moved on her. I moved on her and I failed. I'll admit it. I did try and fuck her. She was married....You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful women, I just start kissing them, it's like a magnet. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything....."

Now, all sorts of politicians are claiming to be shocked, shocked I tell you, by Trump's vulgarity. According to the Washington Post:

After the video appeared online Friday afternoon, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wrote on Twitter: “This is horrific. We cannot allow this man to become president.” 

[No one could ever accuse Hillary of being self-serving.]

Her running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.), told reporters, “It makes me sick to my stomach,” while campaigning in Las Vegas.

[Funny, he himself evoked that same reaction from much of the audience during the VP debate.]

Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which has endorsed Clinton, issued a statement from Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens saying: “What Trump described in these tapes amounts to sexual assault.”

[But there's a big difference between merely describing it and actually doing it, as Bill Clinton did.]

Trump was also criticized by members of his own party. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who said he is “sickened” by Trump’s comments, said the Republican presidential candidate will no longer appear with him at a campaign event in Wisconsin on Saturday. “Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.”

Ryan's holier-than-thou posturing is particularly sickening, given that he's obviously lusting after the 2020 nomination, and is hoping that Trump does not get elected -- and Hillary does -- which will clear the path for him.

It's hard to believe that any of the people who've claimed to be so shocked at Donald Trump's words are actually all that shocked, since this is the way most men talk when they're with their buddies. In fact, the only guys who never talk like this are stiffs (~20% of the male population), true gentlemen (~1%), gay men (~4 or 5%), and self-righteous, hypocritical politicians (<1% of the population, though that description fits > 90% of politicians).

I'm guessing Paul Ryan falls into at least two of those categories, and "true gentlemen" is not one of them. 

And what did that tape tell us that we didn't already know? That Trump is an egotistical boor? We already knew that.

So what? Hillary is a corrupt, traitorous sociopath.

A couple things from that tape. First, note that Trump admitted to failing his seduction attempt. His honesty puts him a level above many men, who simply lie about their manly pursuits. (For instance, Paul Ryan, who ran a marathon in 4:01:25 and then claimed to have broken three hours.)

Second, I doubt that Trump ever once made a pass at a woman by grabbing her by the pussy. Whatever his other failings, Trump is undoubtedly a man of the world. As such, he had undoubtedly learned by age 59 that starting off an attempted seduction that way is not the most effective method of landing a woman in bed.

Trump was obviously just trying to make a point by exaggerating what he could get away with as a celeb. There was a certain schoolyard bravado to his words; if you want to say that's pathetic for a 59-year-old, I won't argue.

But better empty boasting than what Bill Clinton did, which was to actually did grope -- and in some cases, rape -- women against their will.

If Hillary brings up the recent video in the debate tonight, Trump should respond, "Hillary, I just talked about it -- which I regret. Your husband has actually done those things, and worse. You've said I shouldn't be President because of my words. Do you feel your husband should never have been President because of his actions? And while we're at it, you were in charge of the war room dealing with all the so-called bimbo eruptions around Bill. You savaged all of those poor women who were Bill's victims. Does this mean you shouldn't be President?"

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Peaceful protests

When the Obama administration initially described the Benghazi attack of 9/11/12 as a "peaceful protest over an offensive internet video that spiraled out of control," the mainstream media dutifully reported this version events --


The MSM, as loyal to the Obama agenda as Tass was to the Kremlin, referred to the recent rioting in Charlotte as "peaceful protests" --



After a black cop in a police department run by a black commissioner shot and killed a black man in Charlotte, crowds of angry blacks attacked random whites in reprisal. But the MSM continued to characterize these goings on as "peaceful protests."

It's unfortunate that these sorts of honest and accurate depictions of events weren't available for other periods of history. Instead, what we always seemed to get were sensationalized accounts which overly dramatized what were, in fact, humdrum events.

It's high time we rewrote history to conform to the more up to date, sophisticated standards of great newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Here are some early Romans holding a peaceful love-in that involved a few Sabine women:


Here are some of Genghis Khan's Mongol peaceniks on their way to a friendly demonstration in Baghdad:


Here are Tamerlane and his nonviolent protesters outside the ancient city of Urganj, in what is now Turkmenistan:


Here is Atlanta after General Sherman led a peaceful protest march through the city:


Here's Winston Churchill inspecting the aftermath of a peaceful rally by the Luftwaffe in Battersea:


And here's Dresden after a counter protest by the Allies:


Imagine how much clearer our understanding of history might be if only it had been recorded by modern journalists. Small wonder that the New York Times has garnered 117 Pulitzer Prizes, and the Washington Post 47, for their hard-hitting reporting.

Thursday, October 6, 2016

Leanness and looks, Part II

I'm not sure exactly whether the main difference between today's diet and that of 150 years ago was the proportion of carbs vs. fats or just the overall amount consumed. Obviously there was a big difference as far as the physical exertion put forth as well.

But it's hard not to notice the difference between the way Civil War soldiers looked --




-- and the way Civil War reenactors look:




Being lean not only makes you better-looking, it somehow makes you look more capable, and more serious as well. If either the Grays or Blues had seen opposing soldiers who looked like these reenactors, it would have undoubtedly boosted their confidence.

This may conflict with the spirit of the Fat Liberation Manifesto, but it doesn't conflict with basic human nature. There is something about a lean face that makes it seem more somber, and grim, and gritty -- as if the person behind that face is ready to wage war, as opposed to just play act at it.

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

The interrelatedness of sociopathic traits

If you look at the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders, or the DSM, as it's popularly referred to, they list the following diagnostic criteria for "antisocial personality disorder," which is how they refer to sociopathy.

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

At first glance, this looks like a random collection of undesirable traits, all of which combine to form an extremely unattractive personality. But in fact, each of these characteristics is related to the others.

A failure to comply with the law (1) is nothing more than a consistent irresponsibility (6) combined with a certain impulsiveness (3). It often incorporates a reckless disregard for safety (5) as well.

The kind of people who are repeatedly deceptive (2) are that way because they feel no remorse (7). If you feel guilty -- or at least embarrassed -- about lying, you don't do it, and certainly not on a regular basis. Lying is also the act of a person who is impulsive (3), who wants some sort of satisfaction at that moment, and who doesn't care about the future, when he may get caught in that lie.

(It's hard for most people to imagine, but a sociopath will lay claim to a nonexistent accomplishment just to bask in the glory of the moment, even though it's inevitable that he will eventually be caught in his lie.)

"Conning others" (2) is also a function of "consistent irresponsibility" (6) as well as a "lack of remorse" (7) and it often is illegal as well (1). One behavior is a prerequisite for another.

"Impulsivity or a failure to plan ahead" (3) is how you behave when you never learn from experience, and you never learn from experience when you never feel remorse (7) or even embarrassment about your mistakes.

"Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults" (4) can only result from a "reckless disregard for safety of self or others" (5). And the irritability is often a byproduct of a personality which is incapable of remorse (7), and never sees himself as being at fault, therefore always blaming others for whatever goes wrong in his life. And actual physical assaults are "grounds for arrest"(1).

What is a "reckless disregard for safety" (5) other than irresponsibility (6) combined with a failure to plan ahead (3)?

"Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations" (6) usually incorporates deception (2), since sociopaths almost always promise to work hard and pay their debts. Inconsistent work behavior is usually a result of "impulsivity" (3), going off to do something more fun than working. And not keeping one's promises is the behavior of one who has a "lack of remorse" (7).

It's not an accident that these traits and behaviors cluster.

Much of the literature on sociopathy states that you have to see several of these behaviors before you can accurately diagnose sociopathy. But if all you get is a little snapshot of someone, and one of the behaviors described above is extreme enough, you can pretty much count on the others being there as well.

Sunday, October 2, 2016

How whites react to black misbehavior

About a week ago commenter Puzzled sent in a link to an excellent article -- Protest Thugs and the Real Evil in Charlotte -- describing what was really going on in North Carolina the week before.

The mainstream media, of course, covered the goings on predictably. Keith Lamont Scott, who had a long record of assault, including assault with a deadly weapon, was described as a quiet family man.  The rioting, which involved much violence and the looting of several stores, was described as a peaceful protest. And the fact that the cop who shot Scott was black was usually buried fairly deeply. That the black mobs were attacking random whites because of their race went completely unreported by most of the MSM.

None of this is surprising. In fact, the public now routinely expects this kind of see no evil-hear no evil-speak no evil dishonesty from the media.

But it's not just the media. In general, when whites are individually confronted with blacks who misbehave, or do something dumb, they just pretend not to notice.

When I was 14, in 1968, I got sent to a small private school. The headmaster, Charles Merrill, was the son of the Merrill who founded Merrill Lynch. (He was also the brother of poet James Merrill.) Charles Merrill gave scholarships to a certain number of poor black students from Dorchester and Roxbury, to balance out the sheltered upper middle class whites who comprised the bulk of the students.

One of the black students was named Johnny Barnes; he was two grades ahead of me. One time we were sitting at a lunch table with a group of other students and he reached his hand across the table to touch a girl's breast. The girl was also black, so she just pushed his hand away brusquely, without making a fuss about it. Johnny then got this mischievous little boy smile on his face and said, "Sorry Michelle, I forgot where I was."

I found it hilarious that he would just do that in front of everybody, so cracked up laughing. But when I looked around, no one else at the table was laughing. They were all just looking away.

Johnny must have realized that he had a receptive audience in me, though, because he reached across the table to touch Michelle's breast once again, a sly grin on his face. This time she brushed his hand away with a little more annoyance, but maintained her stolid disposition. Johnny cracked that little boy smile again, and said, once again, "I forgot where I was."

I tried to contain my laughter, but that somehow made it worse, and so laughed even harder. Meanwhile, everyone else at the table just continued to studiously ignore him.

Later that year there was a party at someone's house. Johnny was there; I saw him smoking marijuana on the front lawn. Later he came into the house and started to dance, by himself, to the music.

Johnny started to mimic a guy masturbating, but he did it while dancing, and keeping perfect rhythm with the song. As he continued, he pretended that his penis was continuing to grow, until he was using both hands to masturbate an imaginary organ roughly two feet wide and four feet long. As he did it, he had his eyes closed and wore a blissful expression, as if consumed by passion. Never once did he crack a smile, and never once did he lose his rhythm.

It was the most outrageous, coolest, and funniest thing I'd ever seen. It was also, of course, the most socially inappropriate. I can't recall ever having laughed harder. This time, there was one other guy who seemed to be watching him, and he too was beside himself with laughter. He walked over from the other side of the room to where I was, but neither of us was capable of coherent speech, all we could do was point at Johnny and sort of splutter with laughter. We were both, literally, in tears.

But even with all that mirth, I noticed that this one other guy and I were the only ones paying Johnny any attention at all. Everybody else was acting as if they hadn't even noticed his dancing. And it wasn't as if it was easy to miss. He was doing that dance with big, dramatic, impassioned gestures. Actually, it was impossible to miss.

But of the twenty or so people in the room, only two of us seemed to find it noteworthy and funny.

You could say I was laughing at Johnny, but really, I was mostly laughing with him. I think.

(I have to wonder what he would have thought had he known that someone would write about that incident 48 years later.)

In any case, most of us have noticed similar situations. A friend once told me that there was a black student at his majority white high school who got away with all sorts of things a white student would not have. One time a teacher was asking questions of the students to see if they had completed a reading assignment. He then asked the black student a question. The black student replied, "Man, you wanna know that shit so bad, why don't you look it up yourself?" (He wasn't trying to be funny, he was just annoyed that the teacher would call on him.)

I asked my friend what the teacher did. My friend said, "Nothing."

I asked, what would have happened if a white student had replied that way? My friend shrugged, "He would probably have been reprimanded."

On another occasion the students were told to fill out some sort of official form (I'm not sure what the form was). The same black student just crumpled his form up and threw it on the floor, saying, "This is bullshit," and walked out.

And, once again, he didn't get into any trouble.

When I was in business school, I took a class which required us to break up into four man groups, with each group assigned to come up with a solution to a problem. Our team included one black student. He obviously didn't know what was going on, and every now and then he would say something completely nonsensical, but with a business buzzword or two thrown in, just to appear as if he was contributing to the discussion. I would always look at the other two students, curious what their reaction would be. They would look at him, deadpan, listen politely, and then continue the discussion as if he had never spoken. But they never laughed, smirked, or questioned him.

(I found their reaction almost as funny as his comments, though I managed to repress my laughter this time.)

When I lived in New York City, back in the 80's and 90's, I would often see black people acting out in some way in the subway: smoking, panhandling, having their music turned up too loud, etc. Never once did I see a white person object to their behavior. Most wouldn't even look at the miscreant. (In all fairness, white miscreants are usually ignored too; in big cities, people learn to simply avoid those who might be crazy.)

But even with blacks who are obviously civilized, whites pretend not to see them make mistakes. When Vice President Dan Quayle misspelled "potatoes" back in 1992, the media went wild. When George W. Bush mispronounced "nuclear" (he said "nucular"), the comedians went wild. But when Obama said, back in 2008, that he had visited 57 states, there was only a deafening silence from the MSM.

Obama has actually been comedy gold over the years, as I pointed out here and here. But no comedian has been willing to mock him. Some of this, of course, has to do with the media's liberal bias. But even a Democrat who was white and made similar gaffes would have attracted more comedic attention than Obama has.

(If a tree falls the woods and there are only liberals there to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it does, even though the liberals act as if it did not.)

Mostly, whites have just been brainwashed into knowing that they're not supposed to show disapproval of, or laugh at blacks, because to do so would demonstrate "racism." It's a sort of paralysis by political correctness.

I understand that feeling; I've felt it myself. It's two parts wanting them to feel comfortable, two parts wanting to be liked, three parts wanting to prove you're a good person because you're not "racist," and about eight parts not wanting to set them off.

It's that last part, the fear, that's actually the strongest -- though tacit -- acknowledgment of racial differences. Whites instinctively sense that blacks are much more volatile, and will fly off the handle and scream racism and make a scene and possibly even turn violent at the slightest provocation. So, whites keep their heads down and pretend not to notice anything.

The dynamic involved is not entirely different from the way that a sociopath will manipulate people: with the constant, implicit threat of a completely unrestrained reaction to anything you might do which displeases him. People end up walking on eggshells around someone like this.

Just as whites do around blacks.