News fatigue …

Maybe it’s terminal ennui, but the news really bores me anymore.

I’m normally a news junkie. Yet the news now always seems to be the same. It’s simply not that interesting. Perhaps I’ve reached the point of diminishing astonishment.

Between never ending protests by the clueless, the Clinton e-mail fiasco, Trump saying stupid stuff, Cruz’ packaged responses, and Obama taking his family on yet another taxpayer-funded junket, it all feels like I’m watching reruns.  Every day seems like Groundhog Day.

Occasionally there’s yet another atrocity committed by one lunatic Muslim or another; some mass murder of innocents perpetrated in the name of Allah. Then there’s the mass murder of logic and reason by our politicians in both parties in the name of demonizing each other. 

Meanwhile, nothing in the Middle East or in Washington ever changes. The warring tribes in both places will always be at war for reasons lost in the distant past. Their constant warfare will produce nothing of value, will fix nothing, and will resolve nothing.

And they will continue to blame each other for that.   

Here in the United States, the stock market will go up and down.  Oil prices will go up and down. And prices for everything else – food, clothing, prescription drugs, college tuition, whatever – will always go up. It makes no difference who is in control of the House, the Senate, or the Oval Office; all these things are as predictable as the sun’s rising every day.

The same holds for the weather and natural disasters. There will be wildfires somewhere, torrential rain and floods elsewhere, droughts in other areas, record high or low temperatures in parts of the north, south, east, or west, and a tornado that hits a church or trailer park. 

That’s just here.  In other parts of the world there will be devastating earthquakes and tsunamis, which makes what’s happening here seem not so bad.   

The media will cover all of the above as if it’s something brand new. 

Far-flung correspondents will breathlessly report on the latest massacres around the globe. Retired military guys will state what they would do if they were still in uniform – which they aren’t. Political hacks from previous administrations will support the party line. Larry Sabato, Karl Rove, and Frank Lund will prognosticate before waffling with an “it remains to be seen” qualifier.     

News anchors with no more grasp of economics than a high-school senior will report on the “jobs picture,” the Fed’s monetary policy, and the rise and fall of the stock market and oil prices, as if they understand what they’re saying – which they don’t.   

There will be the usual hard-luck story – a single mother of five with some disease she can’t afford to treat, the man unable to find a job because of a murder conviction in his past, the child born with no heart or three legs, or some such – designed to tug at our heartstrings, but really to make us all feel better about our own lot in life. 

None of it’s new.  None of it, by definition therefore, is “news.”

Years ago another writer and I competed to create the best headline for one of the supermarket rags – the goal being to come up with something irresistible to their readers.  

He won with “Elvis returns from the dead aboard UFO with miracle diet that cures cancer.”

Tell me that’s not more interesting than “Obama to release more prisoners from Gitmo.”

A tipping point in Europe?

The idea of a multicultural society and open borders sounds, well, enlightened. Let people go where they want to go and be who they want to be. Why not? 

With the recent bombings in Brussels Europeans are being faced with the cold, hard reality that their naiveté about allowing potential terrorists into their midst – terrorists who then provide a support system for other terrorists -- can be deadly.

The European Union’s policy of essentially open borders once someone reaches an EU country has allowed terrorists unfettered and unchallenged access practically everywhere. Its embrace of multiculturalism has enabled immigrants to avoid assimilation and instead establish beachheads where local police have no control, and no vision to pre-empt attacks. 

The “United States of Europe” once envisioned has become a loose confederation of micro states within states; a return to the chaos that was Europe for centuries. There may be a common currency for many, but the divisions remain by language and culture – exacerbated by an influx of immigrants with languages and values alien to the countries in which they’re settling. 

In short, the EU is coming apart from forces within and without.

Members with unstable economies want bailouts for out-of-control government spending on bloated bureaucracies and social programs.  More stable members are pushing back, demanding more institutional concessions and austerity measures before coughing up the money. Those seeking aid are refusing to accept those concessions and austerity measures. 

Then there’s the issue of the flood of mostly Muslim immigrants from places like the Middle East and Africa. Most of these people don’t have job skills, don’t speak the languages, and don’t understand – or openly reject – the customs and culture of the countries they seek to enter.

The last thing many EU members need is more mouths to feed and families to support. They also don’t want more racial and ethnic unrest than they’re already experiencing.  

Consequently, more and more EU members are restricting access or even sealing their borders to prevent those same immigrants from overwhelming their social support systems, and, truth be told, overwhelming their own cultures and values

    

The heads of some EU members – such as Angela Merkel of Germany, most notably – are imploring their citizens to welcome the immigrants, but resistance is growing.  When ISIS claims that it’s embedding hundreds if not thousands of its trained Islamic terrorists into the hordes of immigrants trying to cross over into Europe it’s easy to see why. 

After the attacks in Paris, the bombings in Brussels, and the attacks that preceded these by Islamic terrorists elsewhere, many living in the EU feel they are under siege, betrayed by social activists and politicians who have left them seemingly defenseless. Their police are not allowed to enter certain areas, their cultures and values are under assault, their fellow citizens are being murdered, and their politicians seem incapable or unwilling to do anything to stop this. 

Honestly, I don’t blame them for feeling betrayed. 

What’s going to happen now? Will these episodes of terror for terror’s sake – and ISIS’ latest promise to send hundreds more fighters to wage war on Europe – galvanize the citizens there to demand changes?  Will the continuing slaughter of innocents move politicians to action in unison?

Frankly, I doubt it. 

It’s important to remember that the only times in Europe’s long history it’s been even remotely united have been under the rule of conquerors. It took the Romans, Charlemagne, Napoleon, and the Nazis to bring major parts of Europe under unified control through bloody conquest. 

So the concept of one Europe is a myth. Simmering just below the surface are competing cultures, competing values, and nationalistic tendencies. 

Every country in Europe has been at war with another at some time. In their heart of hearts, they don’t like or trust each other.  And more and more of their citizens certainly don’t like or trust the wave of immigrants invading them and trying to change their country. They already don’t care much for their neighbors; much less people wholly unlike them who refuse to assimilate. 

It’s also important to remember that grudges between these nations and their ethnic groups are measured in centuries. The Serbs still talk about the 500 years the Turks enslaved them. The Greeks still talk about all their wars with the Turks. When Yugoslavia broke apart with the death of Tito, the Serbs, Bosnians, Croats, and other groups there quickly divided along ethnic and religious lines and started killing each other again

Why? Because they still hate each other, based on centuries-old events.   

Already nationalist parties are gaining political strength in practically every EU member.  There’s a popular movement in the UK to leave the EU entirely.  In Germany Merkel’s party took big hits from right-wing nationalist parties in recent elections. Marine Le Pen’s conservative party in France is stirring strong nationalist feelings and winning in many polls.  In Brussels right-wing “black shirts” disrupted a memorial to the victims of the recent attacks. 

There’s more than xenophobia involved here. Many of the countries being attacked by Islamic terrorists have strong Christian roots, whether that’s Catholic or Protestant. I don’t think that’s an accident, any more than Islamists beheading Christians is. Islamic terrorists worldwide are targeting Christians, from Europe, to South Asia, to Africa, and of course the Middle East, including the bombing of Christian families in Pakistan celebrating Easter in a public park. 

The Islamic terrorists want a holy war – devout Muslims on one side; Christians, Jews and other infidels on the other. Nothing less will satisfy them. 

They are hoping for another Crusade. The terror attacks and slaughter will continue until they get what they so fervently desire.   

The real question is whether the countries they are attacking will unite against them. 

We already know that Obama isn’t really interested; he’s not even willing to invoke Article 5 of the NATO agreement (an attack on one is an attack on all). We can’t count on moderate – and I use that term loosely – Middle East countries to join in the fight in a meaningful way. 

What about Europe – has it finally reached the tipping point? 

Or will it wither further under political dithering?  I suspect it will in the near term.  Europe is so accustomed to having the U.S. being its ultimate protector that without a strong response from us, it doesn’t know what to do. 

And I think we all know that until we have a new President here, our government won’t take seriously what’s happening there.  

If we don't, Europe won't, regardless of how many lives are lost there in the meantime.     

Deport them all …

I’ve lost my tolerance for illegal immigrants.

I’m fed up with the crap about immigrant rights – if you’re here illegally you’ve broken the law and should be prosecuted just like any other criminal.

I’m up to here with the fairy tale that somehow illegals who avoid detection for a number of years should be allowed to stay. If someone robs your house and doesn’t get caught for a few years, does whatever they stole then become theirs?    

I’m tired of all the sob stories about how deportation would break up families. Do we worry about that when we incarcerate any other criminals? Do we say – well, he or she has a couple of kids so we can’t put them away for several years? 

Hey, here’s an answer: if you’re so concerned about breaking up a family, then deport the entire family.  That way they can all stay together in whatever country they left.   

Honestly, I don’t care why they came here illegally. I don’t care what race they are, what religion they profess to practice, what country they came from or anything else. They came here illegally and are still here illegally; that makes them criminals and we should kick them out.  

A criminal is a criminal is a criminal. And enough is enough.

I’m particularly offended by illegal immigrants who openly taunt us with their illegality. If any other group of criminals held rallies in our streets, complete with signs defying us to arrest them, we’d round them up and toss their asses in jail.  Yet hardly a day goes by that illegal immigrants don’t openly proclaim their illegality with signs in their native tongue as well as in butchered English, all defying us to arrest and deport them and we do absolutely nothing.

Sometimes they even wave the flags of the countries they fled, as if to say they are more proud of where they came from than our country where they now live, go to our schools, use our healthcare system, and enjoy our freedoms. That’s chutzpah.       

Ah, but don’t we need immigrants?  Why yes we do.  But we don’t need immigrants who start by breaking our laws. In short, we don’t need illegal immigrants any more than we need more burglars, more thieves, more gang bangers or drug dealers – who are also criminals. We can grow our own criminals, thank you; we don’t need to facilitate importing them. 

Especially when there are millions who want to come here legally. 

Now, of course not everyone here illegally is a really bad person. They’re not all murderers and rapists.  But they are criminals – there’s no way to get around that fact. And if you tried to illegally enter the countries these people left you would go to prison in most cases. At best. 

Those countries would see you as a criminal. Which you would be.  Same as here. 

What about compassion? Don’t I have compassion for poor people who come here illegally for a safer environment and better job opportunities? 

Not really, anymore. Why didn't they make the effort to fix where they came from instead of simply running away? If there are millions – perhaps up to 11-12 million – of people here illegally that’s a big number that could force change in the places they left. How did it become our collective responsibility to help those who won’t work to fix their own countries? 

If living in Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, Syria, Albania, Afghanistan or other crap hole sucks then the people there should do something to fix it. If their governments are corrupt and oppressive, it’s up to the people there to fix that, too. Cutting and running here isn’t the answer. 

The big problem is what to do with the millions of illegals already here, who’ve build a life here, who’ve raised their families here, and haven’t broken any other laws. 

The key there is “other laws.” They’ve all broken at least one of our laws already – they are here illegally, whether they snuck across our border or overstayed their visa, whether they hiked through the desert or flew here first-class on a 747.

And the argument that they’ve been here for years already so they should be forgiven and given a path to citizenship is ludicrous. If they wanted citizenship they had those same years to apply and become a citizen by following our laws. As to the children brought here by illegal immigrants? Their parents knew they were breaking the law and putting their children at risk; it’s harsh, but that shouldn’t give them a pass. 

So spare me.  Find all of the illegals.  Deport them. And be done with it. 

Follow your passion …

It’s been said that if you find a job doing what you love you’ll never work a day in your life.

That may be true. But you may not be able to pay your bills either. 

Unless you find a way to monetize what you love you can starve. You certainly won’t be able to live in a nice place, have nice things, or afford a luxury every now and then. Psychic income only goes so far; for everything else you need money.  

If you love doing something that doesn’t make you enough money to live on, it’s a hobby. You’ll eventually need a real job to help support your hobby.  

Sadly, that real job may have absolutely nothing to do with your passion.  If you’re really lucky, that job may have some elements of what you’d love to do.

If you like to write but can’t make a living writing novels or short stories, you could do what some other famous writers started out doing – work at a newspaper or write ads. Some now well-known songwriters started out by writing jingles. Some screenwriters and directors did commercials. It may not always be your long-term goal, but it can pay the bills until you get there.   

When I hear parents tell their kids to follow their passion as the be all and end all to life I think they are doing their kids a great disservice. This advice is what leads to kids getting unmarketable degrees in stuff they like rather than what has value to potential employers. 

Don’t get me wrong – all education has value. The question is whether anyone else thinks that value is worth paying you enough money to live on.  Most employers pay for skills, not degrees.  The more an employer values your skills the more you’re worth on the open market. 

You certainly can get a degree in Gender Studies, Philosophy, Feminist Dance Therapy, Puppetry or some other subject you personally find fascinating. Just don’t expect the normal working world to open its wallet for you. If you’re a trust-fund baby it may not matter. But if you aren’t it’s a different matter.  

If you doubt that, think of all the people with degrees in Philosophy working at fast food joints. When they applied for that job would knowing the world views of Kant and Kierkegaard have gotten them more than minimum wage and a snappy paper hat?    

I don’t think so.

Just because you love something also doesn’t mean that’s what you’ll end up doing. That’s the sad – but true – part of reality.

A lot of people who love animals want to become veterinarians. They can easily spend over $100,000 getting their degree in veterinary medicine. Unfortunately, starting salaries suck for vets who want to work with pets. Even owning a pet-centric practice isn’t that lucrative. The big money is in research:  testing products on animals and then cutting them up to see the results. 

Then there’s the issue of talent. If you don’t have a lot of talent at what you love all the passion in the world won’t make a difference.  Passion can’t overcome lack of talent or ability, regardless of what self-help books, parents or motivational speakers claim.  

This will sound extraordinarily mean, but there’s nothing sadder than seeing someone who really, really wants to be something they have neither the talent nor aptitude for.  Nobody wants to hurt their feelings but at some point someone needs to have a heart to heart with them about rethinking their goals, before they waste perhaps the best years of their lives pushing a rope.      

Not everyone is going to be a great chef, a great novelist, a great speaker, a great musician, a great comedian, or a great painter.  Fewer still are going to be able to make a living at any of those. It may be your passion to be the next James Patterson, Art Buchwald, Jerry Seinfeld or Julia Child.  Or to develop the next great app or social media site.

Or maybe be the best bass fisherman in the world, for that matter. 

But you’ll need more than your passion to make any of that happen.  You’ll need talent and ability, and luck as well. Even then that may not be enough. That’s something the self-help books and motivational speakers gloss over. Setting your goals high, staying focused on your goals, and seeing problems and roadblocks merely as opportunities is all fine and good in theory. 

You’ll still have to eat and pay your bills no matter what. While it’s fine to follow your passion, just be certain that you find a way to make enough money at it.

Otherwise, it’s a hobby. Maybe a very enjoyable one, but a hobby nonetheless.       

Yes … but how?

I’ve been paying more attention to Trump’s interviews lately, since he seems to be hurtling headlong into the Republican nomination. 

He says the same things all the time. Build a wall on our southern border and Mexico will pay for it.  Stop illegal immigrants from taking jobs from Americans.  Replace ObamaCare with something much better. Bring back American jobs from other countries. Cut better and smarter trade deals. Build up our military.  And of course, make America great again. Only the order changes.   

None of his interviewers seems willing or able to ask:  Yes … but how? 

I don’t think Trump has a good answer anyway. 

Amidst all the snark and name calling, there’s no there there.  Seriously.  Even if you go to his web site you won’t find any details.  I’m not saying he should deliver a line-by-line explanation of how he’s going to get from A to B, along with specifics on how he plans to pay for something, but at least he should be giving rational, logical support for how he’s going to accomplish something instead of just why. 

It’s easy to point out our problems. It’s easy to say you’re going to fix them. It’s a lot harder to articulate thoughtful, practical solutions to those problems.

Trump’s not alone in this.  Hillary and Bernie do the same thing.  In fact, every current candidate for President is skating away on the details of executing their promises.

To his credit, when Obama ran the first time he set out very specific details of what he planned to do. Unfortunately, hardly anyone paid any attention; they were too wrapped up in the persona rather than the substance. But had they read his plans – as I did – they wouldn’t have been surprised at how Obama acted and his priorities once he was elected. I wasn’t.     

In Trump’s case, it’s all persona and zero substance.

I dare anyone – whether they support Trump or oppose him – to find any detail whatsoever to justify how he’s going to accomplish what he keeps promising on the campaign trail.  

The closest thing I could find on bringing jobs back to this country was lowering the corporate tax rate to 15% -- but most of us know hardly any big company here pays any corporate income tax anyway; the reason they move jobs overseas is for cheaper labor. What’s Trump’s backup plan – build another wall to keep American companies here?      

As far as repealing and replacing ObamaCare with something much better?  Trump’s just regurgitating or simply plagiarizing the same standard Republican ideas from the past decade: more competition, health savings accounts, blah blah blah. 

I heard him say the other day he’s not going to touch entitlements.  So how is he planning on reducing government spending without addressing those, while he boosts spending on the military and infrastructure? Where is that money going to come from? 

The truth is he simply doesn’t know. Scarier, I don’t think he cares.  He seems to think that once he’s President everything will fall into place through willpower alone.  He keeps saying he’ll surround himself with “really smart people” and they’ll tell him what to do. 

Last night in an interview with Sean Hannity he suggested Hannity might be one of his advisors. Nothing against Sean Hannity, but I’d hope his “really smart people” advising him had more substantive credentials than being a cable TV commentator.

Trump repeatedly says he forms a lot of his opinions about foreign policy from watching the Sunday news shows. 

Just think about that for a moment.  Someone who wants to be President thinks he can learn what to do by watching TV.  Yikes. 

Trump apparently believes simply wanting something makes it achievable.  And the more he says the same things they will become real. Damn the details – full speed ahead.   

Our government doesn’t work that way. Obama’s abuse of his authority may make it seem that way at times, but even he has limits on how far his pen and phone can take him. 

So far Trump has gotten away with his bluster. Sometime, somewhere, somebody is going to pin him down on exactly how he plans to deliver on his promises. 

Either he has details and he’s just holding back, or there are no details.

I suspect the latter.  It's just a matter of time.     

Ignoring the lessons of Nixon’s elections …

I’ll start with a confession: I hated Richard Nixon.  In fact I still do. 

I blame him for dragging out the Vietnam War and allowing more Americans to be killed and wounded there for purely political purposes – even after the North Vietnamese tried to forge a peace agreement to end the war. He was also a monster who used the power of the Federal government against his personal enemies.  Ultimately, he was forced to resign for allowing rogue elements in his administration – operating with his tacit approval – to break all manner of laws, and then participating in a cover-up to save his ass.   

However, he was elected President twice. 

That didn’t happen because he was well liked.  By almost all accounts he was a truly disagreeable person who resented anyone with a more privileged upbringing than him. He especially despised Ivy Leaguers and intellectuals. But he was equally ill-at-ease with ordinary people.  You’ll never read anything about how Nixon exuded warmth or connected with a crowd while campaigning.  He didn’t even bother to show up in many primary states before he won the nomination for his second term. 

So how did he do it? 

The truth is he let the other side help elect him. And they did a wonderful job of driving Americans into his arms electing him the first time in 1968 and delivering a landslide victory over the Democrat George McGovern in 1972.

There are lessons from those elections that seem to be ignored by the Democrats and the far left today.  I’m starting to think history is about to repeat itself. 

The 60s challenged the core values of many middle-class Americans. The counter culture of sex and drugs and rejection of middle-class values among the young made many Americans increasingly uncomfortable. Organized religion was ridiculed. Marriage and monogamy were lampooned in the popular culture. Having a regular job was seen as slavery and moving up the economic ladder through hard work and playing by the rules passé.

The children of the Post-WWII generation seemed to be turning their backs on – and actually attacking – everything their parents had built their lives upon.      

At the same time, the Vietnam War dominated politics and the nightly news leading up to the 1968 and 1972 elections.  Every night there were reports of American soldiers dying in Vietnam; more were coming home grievously wounded. There were also clips of growing protests against the war, mainly by the young. Public opinion was shifting against support for the war.    

Early on, most protests against the war were relatively peaceful. However, as the war dragged on these became increasingly confrontational. Radicals started baiting police, assaulting police, and even intentionally provoking violent police overreactions, as at the Chicago Democratic Convention in 1968. 

Ultra-radical groups such as the Black Panthers, the Weather Underground, the SDS and others started attacking commercial and government installations.  The Weather Underground took credit for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971, the bombing of banks, police stations and other acts that can only be described as domestic terrorism. People died in some of these attacks.  

Perhaps the most atrocious behavior of the anti-war movement was the hatred and venom unleashed on our soldiers when they came back to the States. Returning soldiers were spat upon and called baby killers, rapists, and murderers. Wearing a military uniform in public was almost certain to incite verbal if not physical attacks on many city streets.

Anyone who dared speak in favor of our soldiers was shouted down. Anyone who didn’t toe the radical anti-war line was also shouted down. The radicals celebrated images of Jane Fonda at an anti-aircraft battery in North Vietnam, and John Kerry – yes the same John Kerry – testifying before Congress about alleged war crimes being committed by our soldiers.        

Far from galvanizing public opinion against the war and the political establishment, these acts ultimately had the opposite effect – the American public wanted more emphasis on law and order and a significant segment rallied behind supporters of the war. 

This happened, I think, because the middle class felt they and their values were under assault by people who had no regard for the law, no respect for the rights of others, no respect for our soldiers -- remember, many of the middle-class men were proud of their own service in WWII or the Korean War -- and no respect for what the middle class had worked so hard to achieve.   

To many middle-class Americans, the protesters had become barbarians. The protesters never realized that the more they stepped up their violence, the more they hardened and expanded the opposition.  While the war remained unpopular with most of the public, Nixon became the alternative to the chaos the radicals demonstrated, and which Democrats seemed to support.   

The “silent majority” finally had had enough. The chaos had become too much. The attacks on their core values had reached a tipping point and they retaliated by electing Nixon, not just once, but twice, to the absolute consternation of liberal Democrats and the radical left.    

The left and the liberals in the media never saw it coming.  Pauline Kael of the NYT summed up the ignorance of the left when she said she couldn’t understand how Nixon was elected because nobody she knew voted for him. 

Right now, the left and its supporters, the left-leaning media, and liberal Democrats as well, are equally deaf to the mood of the country.

The recent protests won’t do anything to hurt Trump’s popularity.  If anything, I expect his numbers to rise significantly. The more protesters ramp up the violence, the more they demonstrate to a lot of potential voters that not just Trump, but their own sensitivities and values, are being assaulted by foul mouthed, lawless barbarians who only want violence and chaos.

It may make great TV – seeing protesters try to rush the stage, seeing mobs shouting down candidates and preventing them from speaking, seeing police facing off against angry crowds, and seeing violence between protesters and Trump supporters – but there’s probably a heavy price to pay for this; something the most violent protesters apparently don’t comprehend. 

The vast majority of Americans are turned off by wanton violence and mobs, regardless of how righteous the cause may be to the instigators.   

Much like the most radical anti-war protesters of the 60s and early 70s, the people violently disrupting Trump’s rallies are only helping to build support for the person they want to defeat.

If they truly want to stop Trump, let him speak.  

The thought and speech police …

It was recently announced that the Justice Department is looking into bringing charges against companies that deny climate change.  Specifically, it’s targeting major energy companies for claiming that burning fossil fuels may not be that important a factor in climate change.

Justice is drawing parallels to when tobacco companies were held to have misled the public about the dangers of smoking for years, causing countless deaths. The judgements against those companies resulted in multi-billion-dollar settlements. Justice is now saying the major energy companies are also misleading the public putting lives at risk. 

What’s really going on here is that the Obama Administration wants to use the threat of Justice Department actions to intimidate those it calls “climate change deniers” from expressing their views. Right now, it’s focused on energy companies; however that won’t stop the climate-change crowd from going after anyone else who dares question the somewhat specious science surrounding the whole issue of climate change.    

Attempts to suppress speech isn't just a passing fad.  Anytime someone feels -- or thinks they might feel -- offended, it's not uncommon to see politicians move to abridge freedom of speech. The other day, after a typically raucous public hearing Philadelphia, some City Council person introduced proposed regulations to limit what people could say in public hearings. They were specifically targeting epithets and hurtful language. 

The question is always who decides what's hurtful? And who the Hell are they to decide?   

We’re all aware of what’s been going on with the thought and speech police on college campuses. We’ve heard about the “speech codes” and “safe spaces.” We’re already getting pummeled for calling people here illegally illegal aliens, which is precisely what they are.  Our own President can’t describe terrorists following an extreme form of Islam Islamic terrorists.  Our President and State Department can’t bring themselves to say that it’s genocide when Islamic fanatics specifically target and massacre Christians and others deemed infidels. 

Political correctness is out of control and getting worse. Every few days there’s another article about some supposed affront to one group or another. 

The remedy is sensitivity or diversity training classes – which are exactly what? Recognizing that there are people of different races, ethnicities and religions here? That there are people of different genders here?  That not everybody is heterosexual?  That some people might find a particular joke in bad taste? That you shouldn’t grope a person who doesn’t want to be groped?   

Holy crap.  Everybody with the good sense God gave a sweet potato knows all that already. So what’s the point?  The point is simply to intimidate people into the political correctness standards du jour.  It’s also purely subjective. Protected groups can do or say whatever they wish; anyone not part of those protected groups can’t – they have to be “sensitive” to the feelings of those others. Their feelings trump everybody else's rights.  

This nonsense even gets the official imprimatur of the government. In April 2015 the U.S. Army made 400 soldiers at one base sit through a presentation on how American society “attaches privilege to being white and male and heterosexual.”  All in the guise of diversity training.  To what purpose? Probably just to remind our soldiers they’re defending an increasingly whiney and hypersensitive country that worries more about feelings than its soldiers' lives. 

If anyone wonders why Donald Trump has such appeal, this is a big part of the answer.

His critics accuse him of being crude, offensive and insensitive.  That he is; it’s also why his supporters love him. He blurts out stuff that makes people cringe at times mainly because they’ve been conditioned to cringe at politically incorrect statements.

Sure, a lot of it is over the top – like saying Mexico sends us their rapists and murderers – however people recognize that in his bluster there’s often a grain of truth. The Mexican government may not be consciously sending their murderers and rapists here, but it’s sure as Hell not doing anything to stop them.  Not every illegal here from Mexico is a murderer or rapist, either, but more than one is too many to anyone they murder or rape. 

He calls illegals what they are – illegals.  He wants to build a wall to close our southern border and deport illegals – a view held by many Americans. He calls our current political leaders stupid and incompetent – and it’s not too hard to see some truth in that.  He calls many of our trade agreements a disaster – again, he’s got some valid points there. He blames Obama and Kerry for a terrible deal with Iran over nukes – that’s what most people think. He also blames Obama for weakening the American military and making our allies doubt whether we can be trusted – can’t argue with that either.

Does that alone make him a great candidate for President?  Probably not.  But a substantial slice of the voters – Republicans, Independents, and conservative Democrats – are supporting him. Many of my professional and college-educated friends quietly do as well, so he’s not just getting the lower income, less-educated base his opponents claim he’s pandering to.   

His support is broad and increasingly deep. He’s tapped into the mood of many Americans who feel the pendulum has swung too far  and that the country is headed in a direction they are more uncomfortable with all the time. 

They want to bring things back to an America they can understand again. They’ve had it with the thought and speech police, and walking on eggs so they won’t offend anyone. They’re fed up with nuanced positions and dithering politicians too timid to tell the truth.

Right now they are voting for Trump because they feel he’s the only one with the balls to really shake things up.  He’s the worst nightmare for the thought and speech police and progressive ideals of not just the Democrats, but the establishment Republicans as well. 

And they love him for it.  

Holding your nose to vote …

I’ll admit I haven’t been wowed by the last two Republican candidates for President.

McCain was a hero from the war in Vietnam – and for that he deserved our gratitude and respect. But that alone didn’t mean he deserved our vote.  When you’re running for President I think you need to bring more to the table that shows you have ideas for moving the country forward. McCain never did that for me – he seemed like an old guy from the nursing home who tells you the same stories you’ve heard a thousand times before.

If anything, McCain came across as the poster child for term limits.  Still, I voted for him, almost entirely because Obama was a far worse alternative.    

Then came Romney – super nice guy, super smart, super successful, super honest, but way, way too nice to compete against the smear machine of the Democrats and left-leaning media. Talk about bringing a knife to a gunfight. He didn’t appear to have the stomach for rough and tumble politics.  He believed that being honest and telling the truth alone would carry the day – which, while admirable, also made him seem hopelessly naïve.

I always had the impression he saw some virtue in ignoring the often vicious attacks.  Christians facing lions in the Coliseum probably had the same misconception.  And we know how that turned out. The same happened to Romney. I didn’t think he’d win, but I voted for him. 

Now I am faced with the increasingly likely prospect of Donald Trump as the Republican candidate for President, with Hillary Clinton as the Democrat candidate. 

I absolutely cannot, under any circumstances, vote for Hillary. She really is a pathological liar. She’s also a dishonest, money-grubbing whore willing to sell out anything or anybody – including herself – for the right price. This makes her incredibly dangerous.

Unlike Obama, who was a self-aggrandizing, narcissistic ideologue who set about to transform America into his own image, Hillary is far more venal. She’s willing to do and say whatever is necessary to enrich herself, her family and her friends.

For those who have forgotten her history, remember that Hillary and Bill essentially sold overnights in the White House to the highest bidder. As First Lady – and I use the term “Lady” loosely -- Hillary tried to get the White House travel staff fired so she could hand over their operations to a major Clinton campaign supporter. When Bill was about to leave office, her brother made money by acting as a broker for Presidential pardons, which were also sold to the highest bidder. When she was Secretary of State her “foundation” took in millions from foreign governments and corporations involved in deals over which she had some influence. 

Benghazi and her private e-mail server may get the most publicity now, but Hillary’s history is far more damning.  If Hillary becomes President everything will be up for sale.   

So that leaves Trump in all likelihood. Honestly, I’m dreading the prospect of Trump being the Republican candidate for President.  I’m terrified of the prospect of Trump actually becoming the President. He’s the Jesse Ventura of candidates – promising to kick ass and take names, as if running the government is a simple matter of beating up your opponents in a cage match. 

He’s as arrogant as Obama. He’s as dismissive of the Constitution as Obama. He talks about things he’s going to do – not try to do – for which the President has no authority, on his or her own, to do legally.  He doesn’t seem to understand that we elect a President, not a king or emperor – his every desire will not be a fulfilled simply because he’s President. 

What bothers me most is that he refuses to accept responsibility for his mistakes and when challenged simply lashes out.  I’ve often thought of Obama as a small man in a big job; he always tries to shift blame for his mistakes to others, and resorts to intimidation and personal attacks when things aren’t going his way. I thought of Nixon the same way.  I see too much of the same in Trump.   

Like Obama and Nixon, there’s also a lot of pettiness and vindictiveness in Trump. Obama and Nixon used their office to “get even” with anyone who opposed them. Obama has cut off access to him for some reporters or networks, and his administration even filed a criminal indictment against one reporter they thought had gone too far. Nixon famously maintained an “enemies list” and used the IRS to harass people he didn’t like.  Trump could be even worse. 

Trump likes to point out that he’s so rich he can’t be bought by anyone. He is rich, but he also has an enormous ego and apparently an infinite capacity to absorb flattery. Money may not be the lever to manipulate Trump, but it’s easy to see that feeding his ego might be.

That’s dangerous in a world full of duplicitous political leaders.  Does the phrase “Peace in our time” bring anything to mind?

So here I am. Once again thinking I might have to hold my nose to vote for someone – Trump – who’s only positive attribute is that he isn’t Hillary. 

How sad. 

The American idiocracy …

Some years ago (2006) there was a movie titled “Idiocracy.”

The razor-thin plot centered on the Pentagon selecting an average guy (actually a somewhat dim slacker) for a hibernation project.  After a few years everybody forgot about the project.  Centuries pass. When he awakens in the future he’s instantly the smartest guy in the country.   

That’s because by then the country was incredibly, breathtakingly dumb.

The dumbing down of “Uhmerica” happened because the stupid simply out reproduced the more intelligent.  A narrator explains that the more intelligent and better educated kept postponing or limiting the number of children they had for career or financial reasons. Meanwhile, the less intelligent and less educated just had baby after baby. 

Since evolution favors the most adaptable and most prolific breeders – not the strongest or most intelligent – in a few centuries the population was overwhelmingly ignorant. 

The culture adapted to the desires and abilities of this dumbed down Uhmerica. People who read books were ridiculed.  The top rated show was “Ow, my balls!” which featured – you guessed it – clips of guys getting hit in the balls (the logical extension of today’s America’s Favorite Videos?).

American English had devolved into mix of street slang, profanity, and pidgin.  Ad slogans were crass.  Carl’s Jr’s slogan was “Fuck you, I’m eating’” and its self-service kiosks offered BIG ASS FRIES or EXTRA BIG ASS FRIES. (Think of Kmart’s “big gas savings” campaign, or its “ship my pants” campaign not long ago – see anything similar?)    

When our average guy arrives the President is a popular championship wrestler by the name of Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho. Instead of Air Force One, he has a Presidential RV.  When his opponents talk about the need for more jobs, he belittles them and proposes a counter plan:  printing lots and lots more currency so he can give every citizen a million dollars, because, as he says: People don’t need JOBS; they need MONEY! Plus, if everybody is a millionaire, they don’t need to worry about healthcare or anything else – everybody will be rich.    

Oh, and his campaign poster has one word:  HOAP. 

Here we are 10 years after the movie came out – in the midst of a campaign for President of the United States – and I have to tell you it’s not going to take centuries to get to that future. 

In some ways we’re already there. 

Trump – a popular reality TV star – is leading in almost every poll except in head-to-heads against Hillary or Sanders.  Trump is running on a platform of building a wall Mexico will pay for, deporting 11 million people, and making America great again without any details.  Trump trash talks his opponents like a WWE professional wrestler.  And he claims he “loves” the poorly educated. 

Sanders is promising essentially what President Camacho offers, and Hillary’s not too far from that either.  Both want to spend more money than we have, and both are appealing to an obviously economics-challenged target audience, as well as aggressively courting lower income groups with high-reproductive rates. 

Then there’s our popular culture. 

Need I say more?