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.
Sunday, October 30, 2016
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.)
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.
'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
-- 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.
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.
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...”
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.”
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
