Thursday, October 06, 2016

Let's not take the bait


  • Old news: Sick, crooked Hillary Clinton's "basket of deplorables" remark, a kind of class sneer. There was the "yeah, I'm a deplorable and proud of it" reaction; understandable. "Agree and amplify" can be good to defuse that stuff but we don't want to fall for bait either, nor let the other side frame the discussion ("Am not! Why, some of my best friends are..."). On that note, the left keeps shoving race in our face hoping one of us will snap and say something nasty about race.
  • Barney Fife runs North Carolina. Something to think about: don't surrender in the culture war (rather, a retreat with honor like the Ukrainian Catholic Church, where I worship once a month, going underground under the Soviet ban) but maybe let's not take the bait and get Barney Fife-ish about any trannies using the ladies' room in North Carolina. Take away the left's pulpit: secure the stalls or put an inside lock on the door, and just call it a restroom or a family restroom (yeah, stick it to the left that way) and best of all, ignore them (the left). I was taught not to pick on people with problems.
  • School district declares "gorilla war" on employee speech. From Rational Review, left-libertarian but a useful non-mainstream source of real news. We are not free; social media are in part a trap, tricking you into helping potential enemies surveil you. A school district fired a teacher's aide, not even a teacher, for calling Michelle Obama a gorilla and saying that Muslims have no business being in America, neither of which was at work in person or posted on a work site on work time but on her private Facebook page. (Who will they go after next to prove their righteous anger, the old white janitor?) The government shouldn’t be allowed to punish people for what they say. There’s a word for that. That word is “censorship.” The content of Allen’s personal, non-work Facebook profile was and is, quite simply, none of the school district’s business. Firing her is essentially fining her, in the amount of all future wages and retirement benefits she would otherwise have earned, for the “crime” of having opinions the district’s officials disagreed with, and for expressing those opinions on her own time and using her own resources. "People were offended," based on the distorted Christian gospel of niceness, is the workplace truncheon or whip of the 2010s.
  • Whither Sanders' supporters? Face to Face says the blue-collar ones have switched to Trump.
  • Why Trump. Skewering the holier-than-thou opposition. "Ew, he sounds like a dockworker." = "I'm afraid of a candidate who appeals to dockworkers." (Language.)
  • My guess. Trump owns the popular vote. (He's all we've got so he's got my vote.) George Soros and the elite in both parties are fixing the election so Clinton will get enough electoral votes. She'll drop dead in office so boomer Modernist Catholic Tim Kaine (that impolite creep in the recent debate with Catholic-turned-evangelical Mike Pence) will be president.
  • A Catholic angle on this election dog-and-pony show. The two would-be veeps illustrate a big story from Sixties America, that the Protestants got their wish (partly because of our misstep of Vatican II) of neutralizing and assimilating the country's big Catholic minority (also, the Pill, and the Rockefellers buying off Fr. Hesburgh); the "Catholics" in this case are just a mainline Protestant/secular humanist (same thing) vs. an evangelical. (Conservative Protestantism is liberal Protestantism on the slow train; fundamentalists mean to defend the faith but, not having the church, don't know how.) Catholics who actually try to follow Catholicism are a small minority.
  • All signal, no virtue. Photo from Goodbye America.

15 comments:

  1. The numbers say that there are probably not enough "deplorables" and other uneducated whites to balance out Trump's obvious incompetence and classlessness. Only crackpots worry about what George Soros is doing (even lefties don't care) but rightwing attempts to suppress no-white voting are probably going to be insufficient to fix the election.

    Really, John, when even the big conservative newspapers are endorsing Clinton specifically because they cannot bring themselves to countenance Trump in the White House, you need to step back and look at how you come up with this stuff. Trump is nobody's friend and nobody's champion, and he is not going to do anything to help the working class or small business. Everything about how he has done business shows that he is an amoral, egomaniacal predator, and only marginally competent at best. He cheats everyone and is completely untrustworthy; no matter how much you want to buy into the "lying Hillary" trope (which is exaggerated anyway), Trump is a lot worse. And at least you could be voting for Gary Johnson.

    The hard truth is that the GOP got stuck with this jackass because they do not and apparently will not do anything for the kind of people Trump is supposed to be appealing to. The Libertarians aren't enough different to matter, now that (a) it's been shown that the average GOP voter doesn't care squat about moral issues, and (b) the religious right "leaders" have shown themselves willing to prostitute themselves in an attempt to keep some influence. I'd love to sign on to a conservative party, but it's got to stop selling itself to the wealthy, and it has to quit stooping to using crazy/malevolent propagandists like Breitbart and Savage and Coulter and so forth. Buying into conspiracy theories is itself a form of corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  2. C. Wingate, you mean buying into things like a vast right wing conspiracy, right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's a matter of pick your poison. I think John is right to pick the poison that isn't systemic.

    The church and the polity have changed beyond recognition over the past 50 years. We do what we can to cope with Decline and Fall.

    BTW, have you seen this clip and trailer from the new 'Jackie' film? Natalie Portman and the actor playing Jack Valenti are uncanny:

    https://youtu.be/7J5f3IIhadQ

    https://youtu.be/jjClaFDhSCs

    ReplyDelete
  4. One suspects that the counterbalance to all of those horrid, racist, nasty "uneducated whites" will be the outpouring of support for Ms Clinton from the over-educated blacks and Hispanics.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Look guys, it comes down to this: a vote for Johnson or Trump is a vote for the notion that competency isn't a requirement for the job.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If political corruption is now considered competency, by all means vote for her. Personally, I am rather taken aback at her self-righteous indignation about boys' locker room conversation that took place more than ten years ago from a woman who actually declared that any woman who was sexual molested by her husband were "narcissistic loony toons."

    Of course, in her defense, one of the attacks against her made by Bernie Sanders was that she was not pro-choice enough; subsequently Bernie was invited to the Vatican and was personally greeted by the Pope.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I grow tiresome of having to repeat Trump's manifest lack of qualification, so we can skip that part except to repeat, again, the irresponsibility of ignoring that. If yo can't bring yourself to vote for Clinton, then by all means vote for Gary Johnson, who is a least well-meaning and who has some minimal executive political experience. He's still underqualified and represents a crackpot political idea, but he's still a lot better than Trump.

    Clinton is hardly without flaws, but the rightist picture of her is a mixture of willful rumor-mongering, blatant sexism, and the deepest denial of what being an effective politician actually looks like. My prediction? She comes in with a small but solid popular vote majority, is crippled by a doggedly oppositional house, but manages to set up a more centrist supreme court. the country bumbles along more or less as it has for the last eight years, and the GOP, having failed to learn its lesson, runs the same pack against her four years later and gets clobbered.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, it is indeed tiresome. One could perhaps have some respect for your position if you had not resorted to the normal dirty tricks and name calling so evident in attempted conversations Democrats. Those who do not agree with you are either uneducated (forgetting that the two largest demographics who vote Democrat in overwhelming numbers have the lowest educational qualifications of any American group), white (now considered a slur by the Democrats), racists, sexists (have I covered all of your name-calling?). Next you will be calling us Catholics, or even worse, Evangelicals.

    Without flaws? Are you really even trying to be serious? Massive corruption is now simply a few flaws? Do not vote for Thrump, but at least consider a more honourable third party candidate, please take your own advice. Notice that no one here who as disagreed with you has resorted to your level of name calling.

    ReplyDelete
  9. “I grow tiresome”

    I... just... No. Too easy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I didn't say any of those things, though. All I said was that Trump is plainly unqualified, which he is, or else you wouldn't resort to ad hominem as your main defense.

    It has been apparent for some time that Trump has two distinct constituencies, not just the "deplorables". It therefore comes back to why supposedly educated enough people buy into him. He won't get a popular majority and he's not going to get an electoral majority either, and it's not because George Soros has anything to do with it. I can't imagine how Soros could have anything to do with it, at that. There isn't going to be any meaningful voting fraud, either.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear Mr Wingate, these are the exact terms you used for anyone who may support Trump:

    Uneducated
    White
    Blatant sexism
    Suppress no(sic)-white voting

    Please re-read your own comments.

    One suspects that the joy of being a liberal is never having to take responsibility or consequences for their own statements.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh, and you are the only one who ever mentioned Soros.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dale, that last is flatly untrue. John's very words in the article: "George Soros and the elite in both parties are fixing the election so Clinton will get enough electoral votes."

    My views on Trump voters have shifted somewhat, though I am not seeing enough data to clarify matters to my satisfaction. Nevertheless the polling is clear that Trump's core support is white males, be they sexist, racist, or whatever. It seems worthless to get you to see the details of what I said (picking out single words and juxtaposing them is an essentially falsifying act), but in any case, I keep coming back to the point that Trump is plainly not competent. You could step up to that, since after all it is an important issue. Indeed, pretty much every policy journal and newspaper in the country sees this as the only issue; even those that in the past have declined to do so see Trump's competence as a crisis driving them to make an endorsement this year. Can you not step up to this?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Once again, if rank lying (notice how the woman tells Wall Street, who have given her over 40+ million, and what she tells the basement dwelling Bernie supporters is completely different?), absolute corruption (the issues surrounding perhaps stealing the nomination from Bernie is more than a bit problematic, and that is only one issue, the Clinton foundation and selling of political favours is a real issue) do not bother you, than by all means vote for her. Also, just what are you basing your supposed Clinton competency? Her spectacular handling of the Benghazi affair? Really?

    When I mentioned Soros, I was referring to the conversation, and no one but you have brought him up; one could say the same thing about Mr Obama and Ms Clinton's harping on the Koch brothers.

    At least you do seem to realise that you have indeed been calling people names. But then Ms Clinton has publicly stated that she will not be President for all the American people, only some, the others being irredeemable deplorables, and hence not really human. She cannot even bring herself to state that all lives matter.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I like the curious conceit that that the she-Clinton would bring about "a more centrist Supreme Court." I suppose one could see it "centering" on the defense of sexual perversion and baby-killing, but I don't understand it otherwise.

    ReplyDelete

Leave comment