This is the Quietest Day for Me

It was the defining moment of my adult life. It was a sharp break between The Way I Thought It Was, and The Actual Reality.

Up to that point, I'd always been a Liberal, Democrat-Voting, Accept that the Left is ON THE "RIGHT" SIDE OF HISTORY kind of girl.

It really was a beautiful morning. I was quietly working in my classroom when my husband came in, tears in his eyes.

Then, he told me what had happened.

This blogger gets it - and expresses it so much better than I.

Check out the difference between the Google.com page, and Bing.com - Google has NONE of the doodles it uses for less important days. Bing's page is low-key, and lovely.

Share

Zuckerberg for President?!

This is wrong, in so many ways, that I can only BEGIN to list them (Boldface are direct quotes from the article):

1. He’ll be able to play the political outsider card harder and heavier than Trump.
1. Are you Freaking Kidding Me?
2. A political outsider, by definition, is one whose only connection with politicians is to lobby to make his job easier. Or, vote.
1. Zuckerberg is a HEAVY contributor PACs affiliated with Democrats.
2. He is pretty even-handed in contributing to politicians, but he has vocally endorsed mostly Democrats.
3. His main business, Facebook, has been manipulated by Leftists to skew the socialization to the Left.
2. Zuckerberg doesn’t need a dime of anyone else’s money.
1. According to the author, he can ignore the donor class. From what I've seen of rich guys running for President, they NEVER use their own money when other people can be tapped for cash.
2. Whether or not he hustles the big-money donors doesn't matter - his interests are identical to theirs.
3. Zuckerberg is the most effective tech CEO in America.
1. I'm not so sure. He spent a LOT of OPM (Other People's Money), and only in the last few years has the COMPANY been all that profitable.
2. He has benefited from the willingness of people and other companies to work with him. Long-term, that will only work if THEY get more out of the relationship.
3. What makes him most effective is what I think will concern the voters - he has intrusive data on a sizable portion of the American public. I think the privacy concerns will make this into a major issue.
4. He understands the media ecosystem. Hell, at this point, he basically owns the media ecosystem.
1. To OWN a dying ecosystem is not that terrific an accomplishment. Hollywood just had its worst summer box office in years. Broadcast TV is losing out to food shows, guys in trucks in wilderness areas, and other media. The newspapers and magazines are DEAD already - NYT, Newsweek, Time - ALL are zombies. If it weren't for school subscriptions, they would have already turned their toes up.
2. I'm not so sure that he understands the disruptive effects of independent media producers. I don't think that the scope of the independent media has been tapped, even at the most basic level. For Zuckerberg, the arrogance of his attempt to steamroller independence and monopolize the media market lead me to say - "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." Be afraid, Mark - be VERY afraid.
5.  Zuckerberg’s a family man—with a family that is the Modern Family to his opponent’s Real Housewives.
1. Is this writer clueless, or what?
2. I certainly didn't vote for Trump because he embodied all of my social values. Most of his outrageous behavior, however, came during that period when he was having a midlife crisis, in full view of a very gossipy public. He's tamed down to his normal behavior - still occasionally over-the-top, but not more than most of us have seen in other celebrities.
6. He will reject all the tropes, traps, and talking points that have led Democrats into trouble. (In other words, adios Nancy Pelosi!)
1. Oh, Honey! I think you overestimate the smarts of a 1st-time Presidential candidate, fresh from successes in other fields. He's gonna overrule his advisors, let his inner thoughts out, and respond to press (not always friendly and inclined to overlook gauchery) as though they were employees.
2. He's already on board with SSM (Same-Sex Marriage), Transphilia, and censorship. He is directly opposed to a sizable percentage of the voting public, and they will NOT believe him if he tries to soft-pedal his opinions.
7. Kamala who?
1. Never underestimate the ferocity of feminist women who sense another opportunity slipping out of their hands - they will go into the KILL mode if another White Male is nominated.
2. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Joe Biden - The Bernie Bros will NOT abandon their guy, unless he is convicted (and maybe not even then). Liz is a joke, but one that is bland and appealing to the 'We Wanted Hill" crowd. Joe - I'm not willing to bet against another White Male Democrat with a - HANDS-ON approach to the voters, lots of baggage, and a snide viciousness when challenged.
3. Cory Booker - another Black guy about whom too little is known, whose politics are burnished with "Amaze-Glow!" - that product that allows Democrats to be dumbfounded by the reality of a Black Guy who is - what was that phrase? - "sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man"
4. Also-Rans - Deval Patrick, Martin O'Malley - come on, they are SO last-campaign!

Lots more blah-blah bull$hit back at the link. That person HAD to have been paid by the Pre-Campaign Campaign organization.

The More Things Change..

...the more they stay the same, as the saying goes.

The real problem with many Democrats/Progressives/Liberals/Leftists (I'm giving the full range of thought on the Left), is that so many are quite badly educated.

Am I calling them Dumb?

No.

I am, however, saying that their education is more properly described as learning in a VERY narrow range - i.e., what unbiased people would call 'propaganda'.

They seldom explore thought outside of that small subset of 'what everyone knows'. They get their information about their opponents from those sources who have the most motivation to mis-characterize the philosophy, aims, and words. In short, how do they know what Conservatives believe?

Someone with an ax to grind told them what THEY believed that Conservatives believe.

That makes it hard to have a civil discussion with them. They KNOW, you see, that ANY argument you put up to them is TOTALLY wrong, racist, and designed to hide your deep-seated hatred of mankind, particularly the browner portions of it.

At best, you will be thought a brainwashed fool, in thrall to those more evil people who have twisted your mind with lies.

A puppet of the Evil Ones.

Or, an unthinking Bible-beater. Incapable of getting to a more 'nuanced' interpretation of it.

Just - not that bright.

That there could be a rational, reasoned approach that differs from theirs is something that has, apparently, never occurred to them.

Why is this?

Because so few on the Left actually read Conservative thinkers. Or, for that matter, the source documents of our country.

Here is a link to some writing of Lincoln, explaining why the Pro-Slavery Forces were so wrong in their understanding of the fundamental nature of our Republic. Surprisingly - to me - the Democrats, even then, believed that the Founders supported slavery. They haven't changed that thinking, although, somehow, they have managed to forget that they were its greatest supporters WELL into the latter part of the 20th century.

Below is a cartoon I found on that site.

Share

Understanding the Enemy

One thing Leftists are quite inept at is understanding how they are perceived by others. This happens, because, all too often, they don't know people outside of their echo chamber, and don't receive the corrective pushback from their opponents. Over time, their statements and positions become ever more extreme.

It's primarily the Left that has 'de-friended' those whose views they oppose. They are forced to invent stories that explain 'what conservatives are like' or 'how the other side thinks'.

I'm not one that goes into internal motivation for people's actions. I pay more attention to what they actually DID.

And, what some of the Left is DOING is appallingly anti-democratic.

Go to this link, if you want to have a cogent explanation of why non-Leftists are NOT jumping on the bandwagon to demolish Trump. The author is a well-regarded Classics professor at a prestigious university, Jonah Goldberg.

BTW, that title - Understanding the Enemy - does NOT explain how I think about Leftists.

It's how - all too often - they think of US.

Share

Some Reflections on Trump

Barring a major catastrophe, Trump will be officially inaugurated today at noon.

And, the Democrats are pouting and dramatically vowing to boycott. Not that most of them will be missed.

And, the RINOs are gnashing their teeth and wailing. (Read the comments on this one, they are priceless).

A fantasy about what Trump will say, and how Liberals/Progressives/Leftists will interpret it.

And, finally, what is wrong about soon-to-be-former President Obama's statement that his was a scandal-free Presidency.

Reality-based community, my a$$.


Share

A Sensible Word About Gay Marriage

First time I heard anyone besides me make this argument.

First of all, fools, the courts in California are not the enemy. Courts do not legislate, no matter what Sondra Sotomayer thinks. Courts decide, based on the rule of law, whether legislation passed by the voters or enacted by elected legislators is constitutional and valid. That’s what the court in California did: affirming the constitutionality of a measure Democrats in California passed in large numbers while electing Dr. Utopia president.

Yes, fools, DEMOCRATS, not Republicans, are to blame for Prop-8.

No matter how many times Tom Hanks and the Hollywood crowd tries to tell you differently, Dr. Utopia won California by a healthy margin in 2008. Prop-8 passed on the same day by a healthy margin. 85% of Dr. Utopia’s black supporters also voted for Prop-8, more than any other group who supported the measure. 95% of those black voters in California are Democrats.

Democrats, Democrats, Democrats.

That's the way to put the smack down on them, Hillbuzz!

Didn't They Do This in 1968?

Ah, the smell of a backroom deal is in the air!

I just have the feeling that the trickiest and most unscrupulous candidate will win. I just don't know which of them qualifies.

Reforming the Primary Systems - That's Systems, With an S

We don't have a primary system in this country, because each state sets its own rules for their primaries - and, yes, that's primaries, with an S again. That's because each party sets its own rules in each state.

Now, I'm no mathematician, but I think that's at least 100 different primaries, with respective rules. Which can be superceded by the National Committes (again, plural), which happened in several states, most notably Michigan, Florida, and South Carolina (for Republicans - SC lost half their delegates).

Washington has an even more undemocratic process, mostly due to its muddled rules:

After a 20-year tug-of-war between the political parties and the state over the best way to pick presidential nominees, Washington sticks with an oddball hybrid - caucuses for party activists on Feb. 9, followed by a primary for the broader electorate on Feb. 19.

A voter can use either format or both. In most counties, vote-by-mail primary ballots begin arriving in just a week.

But there's a big catch: Majority Democrats are using only the traditional precinct caucuses and subsequent party conventions to allocate their national convention delegates, and will completely ignore results from the much more popular primary.

Delegates can be won, wholesale, in the winner-takes-all states. Other states split the delegates. It can result in relatively small numbers, nonetheless, taking at least a few delegates.

My suggestion is to follow along with the count. The magic number, for Republicans, is 1,191. For Democrats, it's 2,025. Keep track of your favorite's numbers, and decide whether it's worth wasting a vote on him/her to send a message to the national party.

My suggestion?

Bunch the primaries into regional consortiums; Northeast, South, Southwest, and Northwest. Maybe allow the really big players (CA, TX, NY) to set their own dates.

That would both preserve the regional focus, and make it a lot easier for the candidates to travel around without aging 20 years in the process. Also, for the environmentally minded, it should save on fuel.

Lack of Cohesion is NOT Necessarily a Negative

This story, from United Press, looks at the current Republican presidential pack as a negative. I suppose that if there were a clear-cut winner, they would criticize the unity as "stultifying". I rather like the division of support - it allows Republicans to debate and decide the future of their party. I hope the Democrats do the same.