Tagged: Blogging

Media’s Paradox

What if they start suggesting that the polls indicate Trump will win, and then Trump were to lose?

This, my fellow Americans, is why you don’t lie.

They lied for so long, that now, they cannot see a way to recover their integrity.

****

Up next, I am going to answer the age old question about the task of diagramming sentences, “Why do we have to learn this?”

The Spark

I’m not saying it will ignite what seems inconceivable—a full and prolonged civil war—but I am saying it will light a proper insurrection.

The spark is going to be a widely attended and publicized funeral.

When the time comes, the funeral, and its attendant crowds, will be the event and day and time that ordinary citizens, and not-so-ordinary citizens, will violently enflame the tinderbox of MAGA vs. DNC incivility. Stay home.

Yes, I have been reading Les Misérables. Yes, I got the idea directly from it. No, I do not think the situation in America is anything like 1832 Paris. But we all can feel that more escalation and more outrageous events await.

It’s my blog. There is a thrill to making measurable predictions. Don’t steal my joy! And before you get your panties in a bunch, just admit that, sadly, you know I am right on this one.

Nothing Surprises

It’s all hype. There are no surprises.

I really want to say something about the content of Jack Smith’s “motion for immunity determinations”, but the truth is that the only thing that bothers me about it is that it is being hyped as “October Surprise!” I’m bothered because it isn’t a surprise! In fact, nothing surprises.

Nothing surprised because the news cycle is not 24/7, the cycle is perpetual. In fact, there is no cycle anymore. Also, there are no journalists. Instead, there are varying levels of paid hype-snitches.

We are suckers when we insist that there is such a thing as news and journalists. There used to be news and journalists. But today there are only empty forms. There is no substance. Something new is occurring, some new kind of communication. And the way to keep the upper hand, the way to stay true to yourself, is to admit it. And then train yourself to be as discerning as possible.

Example:

“October surprise! October surprise!” says the news.

You think, “Next!”

Got it?

Power Vs. Acquiring Power

Trump is about to be the man who defeated the first female nominee and the first Black female nominee. I do not come across many, if any, comments on this fact of the election cycle.

It seems to me that there is a continuum of reasons why this is not discussed. On one end, there is the noble (and therefore extremely unlikely) notion that the formerly fun “men vs. woman” schtick is so abhorrent to us woke folks that it is unworthy of our time. On the other end, there is the sober fact that leadership in Republics has never been about sex.

Leadership, I propose, is about power. And while there are many different types of power, there is only one way to gain power: you must take it.

Hillary Clinton did not take the power. Kamala Harris’ entire political career seems to be defined by accepting power.

As for Trump? His career, his notoriety, and his very real power comes solely from his constant belief that there is a power vacuum and he is the man to fill it.

We’ve all seen the clip of 30-something Trump declare he just may have to run for president. And whatever he was thinking until 2008, by the time he saw Obama’s lack of power, Trump obviously convinced himself that there was more power for the taking—and he took it. Who can forget Obama’s smug, “At least I will go down as a president”? Would a powerful man say that?

So ladies, take note. In not having been president, it has never been about you being women. People care that you are weak, just like Obama was weak. And people want power in the presidency. That’s all it is about.

On Musk’s Hype, On Authoritylessness, and On Homeschool; Or Marriage Advice from Pete

This gets old for me, but I am happy to do it. Here goes: Don’t believe the hype! Even when the world’s richest man is behind the hype, it is still hype. Do not believe it.

The world isn’t at some precarious moment. Democracy/America isn’t at a precipice. Do not believe the hype.

****

A friend and I who were in college (super small liberal arts college) together and had the pleasure of seeing Clarence Thomas speak were discussing the smear campaign the other day. Today my friend sent some WSJ op/ed about it. Let me be clear: there is no “authority” anymore. There is no news organization who can clear a name, nor one who can condemn a name. They have all lost all respect, and consequently lost all authority. You’re all suckers if you believe any of them or believe in any of them.

****

I have wanted to homeschool my children for around a decade now. First, my 14 yr old, H-. And now my two toddlers, A- and J-. Divorce ended the first marriage. And this second marriage is to an Ethiopian who quite literally cannot imagine homeschool. I didn’t quite think through the profound ignorance regarding the field of education which Ethiopians have when I married her, but even had I laid out the entire plan, I am certain she would have been agreeable until she changed her mind—like every other woman.

The charter school my step-son just enrolled in (pretty sure affirmative action on some level got him in) is actually one of the good ones—ie has a “classics” education. And so while I still believe homeschool—by me, for my kids—would best set them up for success in life, I can also see that in some twist of fate, the two toddlers will be able to easily bypass all normal gate guards into the desirable charter school since their “black” (not really, but whites can’t tell the difference) brother already attends.

When I mentioned this somewhat change of heart to my wife she was ecstatic. She was most ecstatic, I was most sad.

I bring things the kids into the world and all anyone wants to do is take them from me. I lose my first daughter to the first, worst person I have ever met. And now, even when I have met a regular woman and married her and made babies with her, she cannot wait to give them away to strangers. It’s fucking messed up. And makes me sad. I have this goofy schedule where I am home every other week for the entire week. In other words, I am gone half the year for work. The flip-side is I am home, no work, half the year. If the kids are in school full-time, the amazing schedule I have is of no value. And it actually is a shitty schedule because now I am gone half the year and additionally miss my kids while I am home.

I didn’t have kids to be alone. I had kids to raise kids. Fuck. It is not that complicated. Why else would anyone have kids?

With everything we are watching in the news, with every event from the bullshit pandemic (can’t be worldwide if most of the world is too stupid to know it is sick with a new disease), to the wars, to the election, to the faggots, to those who want to let children cut off their dicks, to the childless cat ladies who think they should have a say regarding someone else’s kids’ education, to the women who want to kill their children, I just wouldn’t have guessed there was anyone still around who thinks, “less time with our children” is the answer. I just wouldn’t have guessed the selfishness (get the kids away from me so I can shop!) and belief in groupthink had spread to all corners of the globe.

So here’s the lesson, for any young readers. Selfishness is everywhere because selfishness is childish. It is immature. Don’t be selfish. And don’t marry selfish people.

Groupthink is everywhere because groupthink is childish. It is immature. Think for yourself. And don’t marry people who can’t think for themselves.

Puppet vs. Man, Two Doozies—You Decide

Ladies first:

“That’s how — that’s how we came into being, because the people before us understood that one of the greatest expressions for the love of our country, one of the greatest expressions of patriotism, is to fight for the ideals of who we are, which includes freedom to make decisions about your own body; freedom to be safe from gun violence; freedom to have access to the ballot box; freedom to be who you are and just be, to love who you love openly and with pride; freedom to just be.  And that’s who we are.  We believe in all that.”

(That’s from whitehouse.gov, by which I mean to highlight that they do not know how to punctuate her utterances. The semi-colon is for sentences, equivalent to periods and conjunctions. They should have been commas. But that would make it seem like a long sentence. Or that’s the best reason I can figure besides incompetence.)

****

The Donald:

“They’re eating the dogs! The people that came in. They’re eating the cats! They’re eating, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

****

The question is not, “Which of these quotes is true and which is false?”

The question is, “Which lie (they are both lies) is the BIGGER lie?”

I have already indicated that eating wild animals that Americans typically don’t eat, like geese from the local hangout spot lake, is okay by me. But that isn’t what makes Trumps claim a lie. It is that no one in Springfield, OH (or anywhere else likely) has eaten someone else’s pet. So that’s a doozy for sure, on account of scale.

But! But, but, but! Kamala’s lie contains many, many lies and confusions and deceptions. I have time and so have listed them.

  1. The antecedent to “we” slips from “Harris/Walz” to “Americans” without comment. Which “we” does she mean, for example, when she says “that’s who we are” at the end? That’s who “Harris/Walz” is? Or that’s who populates America?
  2. “The people who came before us” could mean “previous democrats” or “founding fathers”.
  3. Abortion, as the issue it is today, wasn’t on the minds of either early Democrats or the Founding Fathers.
  4. Gun violence, in the contemporary sense, wasn’t on the minds of either early Democrats or the Founding Fathers.
  5. Access to ballot box, in the contemporary sense, wasn’t on the minds of either early Democrats or the Founding Fathers.
  6. Sodomy (“love who you love”) was definitely on the minds and deemed immoral by early Democrats and the Founding Fathers.
  7. Vagrancy (“just be”) was also definitely on the minds and deemed immoral by early Democrats and the Founding Fathers.

Taken together, what began as a history lesson turned into a party paper and yet no one can say for sure what Kamala said or meant. This actually undermines the lies she told, and yet she is the winner, in my book.

Kamala, puppet that she is, told the bigger doozy. What do you think?

Brief Excerpt from Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables from which to Compare Personal Experience with Children

“That Cosette continue to love him! That God would not prevent the heart of his child from turning to him, and remaining his! Loved by Cosette, he felt healed, refreshed, soothed, satisfied, rewarded, crowned. Loved by Cosette, he was content! He asked nothing more. Had anybody said to him, “Do you wish for anything better?” he would have answered, “No.” Had God said to him, “Do you want heaven?” he would have answered, “I would be the loser.”

****

Before H- was born, we chose not to know the sex of the baby. As a military man, I feared a son, because he would naturally want to follow in his dad’s footsteps and leave home for war. So when H- came into the world, I said, “Good! She can live with us forever!”

Then divorce; essentially weekends only; moving away for work, which was sold to H- by her vindictive mother (and gee-ma and gee-pa??) as her father abandoning her (to full applause of society, including professional counseling sessions for problem of “abandoned by father”); moving back, only to be ghosted by H- since last December.

It may seem that one could reasonably conclude that my “she can live with us forever” was uttered in the same manner as Jean Valjean’s sentiment.

It was not.

As I explained above, my sentiment was about being frustrated with the result of my war-seeking and not wanting it to define the rest of my time on earth, ie, I didn’t want to pass on military service to my son as if it was a genetic disease. The better option seemed to have a girl, since obviously war is for boys.

To conclude, unlike Jean Valjean, noble hero that he is, I am not made content or discontent by one of my child’s feelings toward me—especially while they are a child. There’s really no one on earth who affects my “contentment”, let alone is sufficient for it. I regard the idea as a character flaw. But in a romantic novel of novels, it is perfect and Jean Valjean is perfect.

The Image of a Microscope which Accompanied the Science Article—That’s What Bothered Me Today

The Sunday paper had an interesting article about the current war with China. Interesting as it was, there was no call to action. Or at least not a memorable one. There certainly was nothing for citizens to do. I think what I’m suggesting about the op/ed was that the scale wasn’t appropriate.

On the other hand, there was an article suggesting two “Life Science” bills be voted down. One of the two stock “science-y” images the paper used was of a microscope. Of all the articles and opinions in today’s paper, this irked me the most. Why? Because unlike the other author’s claim that China is an existential threat to America (the sky is a-falling!), this image is one which an individual—likely an editor—can do something about.

“Science” is not merely tool use. If anything, science is to tool (science:tool) as man is to wheel (science:tool::man:wheel). Science invents tools; science is never the process of using tools.

And an editor should know this—could know this. And that editor would be doing a service to truth, and his bottom line, if they put a bit more reason into their product.

What image should the editor use to capture science?

There are many that would work. But an easy one would be of someone writing an excellently organized paper, with a title which sufficiently describes the paper’s purpose.