Running out of invectives and bad words …

I’ve noted many times that all humans have a point of diminishing astonishment.

The more pervasive something becomes, the less impact it has.  The surprise, any shock value, and any reaction to whatever it is diminishes the more you see of it. 

It then has to move a whole magnitude to be noticeable. But some things have a finite limit; there’s no way to move another magnitude.  Incremental moves simply don’t cut it.   

That’s the big problem with name calling and cursing.  There are only so many horrible things to call someone before you run out of stuff. And only so many bad words, too. 

It’s like hearing a three-year-old say “asshole”; at first you’re shocked, but then you realize people say that all the time – now even on shows running on basic cable. Maybe once it was a bad word, yet now, not so much. It’s lost its impact.    

In today’s political environment, the principle is the same.

Those on the left, in particular, are desperately searching for new things to disparage people they hate.  They already used up homophobe, xenophobe, and misogynist early on.  Now, however, they’ve overused bigot, racist, white supremacist, fascist, and Nazi, to the point that where these once had real meanings and emotional impact, they’re just words today.

Someone uses those today and you think: what a clueless asshole. 

They’ve also run the ever-popular “anti” into the ground:  anti-gay, anti-women, anti-poor, anti-children, anti-science, anti-immigrant, and whatever else they can attach an “anti” to.

That’s just way too many “anti” whatevers to keep track of; the result is a collective yawn as it all becomes just more white noise.  Especially when they can’t defend any of these charges with concrete proof – it’s just more name calling.  And just more of what everyone’s heard already.

So the left and their pals in Hollywood and the media moved on to bad words in their latest campaigns of shock and awe.    

George Carlin, years ago, had a great bit: “The Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television.” While they’ve not exhausted all those quite yet, they're off to a good start.  

They've skipped past "mother******" probably because that would be be seen as cultural appropriation. I've noticed they've also not used "c***sucker" (although Stephen Colbert came close), maybe because that would be considered disparaging to some of their base.    

Let's go with “shit,” one of the basic building blocks of cursing. 

There was a time, believe it or not, when you never heard that word on TV, except for movies and series running on cable networks. Sure, you said it when you stubbed your toe or hit your thumb with a hammer, but that was you, not some network anchor on live TV. 

However, after Trump in a meeting used the phrase “shitholes” to describe – accurately, I might add – certain countries around the less-developed world, shit was everywhere on cable news and opinion shows. Talking heads couldn’t wait to say shit on air as often as possible. Like little kids.  

Now, nobody gives a shit about hearing someone say shit on TV.   

   

The gold standard for bad words used to be fuck.  And, of course, its derivatives.

A few years back liberals and Democrats were aghast when Dick Cheney told Patrick Leahy “go fuck yourself.” (Which was well deserved.) Now we have Robert De Niro at an awards ceremony proudly and repeatedly saying “fuck Trump” to the cheers of the audience. 

Democrat Senator Kirstin Gillibrand may have set a new record for her use of fuck and its derivatives in a speech not long ago.  And most recently, some unnamed Congressional intern shouted “Mr. President, fuck you!” in the hallway as Trump passed by on his way to a meeting.

Fuck is now on its way to losing its shock value.  That’s sad.  But overuse does that. 

So the left is forced to plumb new depths.  They are doing so eagerly.  Comedians and celebrities are now exploring the infamous four-letter “c” word as an alternative. Unfortunately for them, that one can only be applied properly to women. Nonetheless, there’s been a outbreak of the c-word being applied to women like Melania Trump and others deemed horrible humans by the left.

This from folks who claim to be the champions for treating women with respect.   

My, my. How times have changed. 

At some point, the left will have to reboot the invectives and bad words and start over. They’ve worn out the usual ones. They’ll have to go back to the basics.   

Maybe calling someone stinky-butt or a poopy-head is poised for a comeback. Might as well, since these are about as meaningful as what the left is using today. 

A brutally honest conversation about illegal immigration …

We have a legal right to decide who gets to come into our country. Much less stay. It’s not a civil-rights issue. It’s not a question of international law. 

And we’re not legally required to adhere to a poem on the Statue of Liberty.  I find it rich that many advocates for illegal immigrants quote that poem as if it has the weight of law.

It’s a poem, for God’s sake.

Even more disingenuous are those who quote the Bible to claim we have a moral obligation to give a free pass to illegal immigrants. 

Spare me the pontificating.  Especially when many of the same people openly ridicule and revile anyone else who uses the Bible as a guide to how they should conduct themselves. Then when they act on their beliefs, what’s in the Bible doesn’t matter at all. 

Ask the folks at Chick-fil-A. Or Hobby Lobby. Or the Little Sisters of the Poor.  Or the bakers in Colorado.  Or just about anyone else these nouveau-righteous prigs have attacked. 

Hypocrites. No, I take that back – assholes.  But I digress.        

It makes me crazy when Democrats, liberals, and their pals in the media – all of whom couldn't otherwise care less about “morality” most of the time – claim the whole question of what to do about illegal immigration is one of morality. 

Keeping would-be illegal immigrants out is immoral; kicking out those here illegally already is also immoral. Yet protecting violent illegal immigrant criminals from deportation is moral. 

Talk about selective morality. 

Then there’s their Orwellian use of weasel words like “undocumented” to describe people here illegally. As if being here illegally is simply a matter of missing the proper papers.

By their standards, I can call myself an “undocumented” airline pilot and be allowed to pilot a 747, even though I have no formal training, have no pilot’s license, and no legal right to do so.  But hey, it’s just a matter of paperwork, right? Merely a technicality. 

Calling illegal immigrants simply “undocumented” is dishonest. They didn’t lose their paperwork. Their dog didn’t eat their immigration forms. And their documents aren’t still sitting somewhere, left behind by accident. So stop pretending their illegality is just a technicality.

They are here illegally. That makes them criminals, regardless of why they came here.  Building a border wall is akin to locking your doors to keep other criminals out. When our law enforcement catches a criminal, they arrest them and then prosecute them. I fail to see why illegal immigrants should be treated any differently.      

That’s why I have such a hard time with the whole immigration debate.  If I felt that illegal immigrants crossed our border not knowing they were committing a crime, I might feel different. But the hard truth is they know they are committing a crime; they just hope to get away with it.  That’s no different than a run-of-the-mill criminal.  So why do they expect special treatment? 

The media can show all the tear-jerker videos of illegals being deported and leaving behind their bawling broods. They can tell stories about someone who has never broken any other laws, but because they came here illegally years ago is afraid of being deported.  They can go on and on about the plight of children brought here illegally by their parents.  They can show caravans of migrants hoping to gain asylum, including the mothers hoping to drop their anchor baby here instead of Mexico.      

I don’t care. 

I have lost any sympathy whatsoever those already here illegally. If someone has been living and working here for years and never applied for US citizenship, time’s up. Get out.

I especially abhor many of those now using their kids, or some kid that may or may not be theirs, as a get-in-the-US-for-free card. Make no mistake: that was their plan from the get-go.  They counted on politicians and our media to make the case for them, using kids as hostages.       

Democrats and the media are doing their part to further these immigrants’ plan. Both are publicly horrified we’re separating those same kids from their parents – or someone claiming to be their parents – when they try to breach our borders. We’re obviously monsters.   

How can we be so cruel? How can we be so heartless? After all these kids have been through to get here: the hardships, the life-threatening travel, the scrounging for food, water and shelter, the dangers they faced – how can we possibly take them away from the adults they traveled with?

Simple. Those adults put those children in danger. They don’t deserve to have custody of any kids anymore. They’ve shown they are clearly irresponsible. When anyone is that negligent of the welfare of children, possibly even their own, they can’t be trusted.

If they weren’t illegal immigrants trying to get in, and just another ordinary American parent, Child Services agencies across the country would take those kids away from them, too, for putting children through all that. Think about that for a moment.   

Those adults knew perfectly well what they were doing and therefore should be held solely responsible for the consequences. They knew the peril they put the children in to get here. They knew what would happen when they got to our border. And they didn’t care. They hoped they could use a child as a shield to bypass our border enforcement laws. 

It was callous and calculated.  Just as it is now when Democrats and the media make it seem that Maria and Pepe had no idea they would be separated from the kids they brought. I’m sorry for the children caught up in this, but the adults who brought them are entirely to blame.  

The adults knew the law. All of them did before they started trekking toward our border.

There are few innocent adults here in all this – just people trying to use children as pawns. We can’t allow anyone to use children that way.  Forget the sob stories and the made-up propaganda about “child prisons” and realize what many of these people really are: hostage takers. 

If we send a message that it’s okay, we’ll put more innocent children at risk. As it is, the threat of separating children from the adults they’re travelling with should be a powerful deterrent to anyone who cares about the welfare and safety of those children. 

We should not be afraid to continue the practice.  Separating those children from those adults may make for heart-wrenching video, but it’s often in the best interests of the children. 

The bigger problem is continually waffling on how we enforce our immigration laws. It’s the perpetual ambiguity that encourages more illegal immigration.      

As harsh as this sounds, highly publicized zero tolerance is the only answer.

We can’t leave any doubt about what will happen. It needs to be crystal clear that you simply can’t cross our border illegally.  I say turn back at the border anyone trying to cross illegally – adults with children, pregnant mothers, unaccompanied minors, whoever – and particularly anyone faking demands for asylum when they’ve already been offered asylum elsewhere. 

Like Mexico. Which many of them were.    

Illegals already here screwed the pooch and diminished any compassion I might have had. 

They’ve done this by demanding rights they don’t have and don’t deserve. They’ve forged documents to get benefits to which they are not entitled. They’ve belied their real feelings about assimilating into America by insisting we must adapt to them, not they to us.  

They see no need to learn English, or to follow our laws, and many of them publicly and openly mock us for thinking we can ever kick them out. That's chutzpah. 

Which prompts me to ask: Who the Hell do they think they are? 

Spineless Republicans are too afraid to deal with this. They’re afraid Hispanics will not vote for them if we actually enforce our immigration laws. 

Hispanics here illegally won’t, of course. 

But maybe Republicans should talk to Hispanics other than bullshit-artist activists like Jorge Ramos, Congressman Luis V. Gutiérrez, the propagandists in the media, and others.

Any number of recent polls show that a majority of Hispanics here legally, especially immigrants who went through the legal process to become citizens, are opposed to illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal immigrants, and support cracking down on illegal immigration. Almost 74% are opposed to sanctuary city laws that protect violent illegals from deportation. 

And here’s why: they think too many illegal immigrants are gaming the system, burdening public schools, draining public assistance programs, reducing wages, and taking jobs away from citizens. They can’t understand why people who come here illegally should be praised and given a pass for no other reason than they refused to respect and follow our immigration laws.

Doubt this? Talk to some Hispanics who are US citizens or in the process of becoming one. They’re fed up, too.  Many want the border wall as much as Trump and a lot of other Americans, for many of the same reasons. 

It’s not about race, to them; it’s about fairness and equal justice under the law.  

We need to fix our immigration system, that’s true. But when we start the process, we need to put the priority on equal justice and fairness to our own citizens first. 

There’s absolutely no reason to give preferential treatment to any illegal immigrants. 

The paradox of tolerance ...

I recently read something so apparent yet overlooked.

An author discussed his view of the conflict between relativism and tolerance, in the context of our current society. (Bear with me, this will go somewhere.)  

Relativism – grossly oversimplified – asserts that morality and what’s right or wrong are only artificial constructs relative to specific cultures and societies and are often based on circumstances unique to each. Therefore, anybody’s interpretation of morality, for example, largely depends on who they are as a product of their specific culture or society.

In essence, all mature cultures and societies have evolved their own set of rules and taboos over time that work for the people within them. What’s acceptable and the norm in one may be anathema to others, while what’s acceptable and the norm in others may be anathema to them. It’s a mistake to judge another’s culture and values solely by those of your own, in other words. 

Tolerance, greatly simplified, promotes the acceptance of the validity of differing beliefs and values without judging these solely against your own beliefs and values. Validity does not necessarily mean agreement; it just implies others’ beliefs and values should be respected.    

The two seem complimentary.  And haven’t both been taught as cultural ideals to us generation after generation?  Especially tolerance for people from other cultures, and people with beliefs that differ from your own?  If you don’t you’re a bigot, right?

But what happens when tolerance is not a two-way street? 

What if a person’s concept of intolerance is shaped only by their own values and their personal beliefs? What happens when one side refuses to accept or even acknowledge the possible validity of another’s values?  Does that make them the intolerant one? 

I think it does. Tolerance too often becomes simply a matter of perspective: I’m tolerant because my beliefs and values are right; you’re intolerant because you don’t agree with me.        

This is precisely how extreme intolerance under the guise of tolerance can rear its ugly head.  That’s when the name-calling and sometimes violence start. 

That’s why those fighting so hard – sometimes violently – to oppose anyone spreading “intolerance” seem to be the ones far more intolerant than the people they’re attacking.

We see that in our politics all too often these days. Nobody seems willing to entertain the possibility other views might be valid or should be respected at all. Some don’t even want those views to be publicly expressed, much less discussed rationally, because those views have already been judged wrong by them, according to their standards. 

We’re in an era where we’ve divided ourselves into what might be called microcultures – each with its own value system that transcends our broader traditional American culture.  

Consequently, tolerance or intolerance are increasingly in the eye of the beholder, dependent on what their microculture dictates.  Cultural and racial diversity might be the popular cause these days, but diversity of opinions – or even the tolerance of diverse opinions, is becoming less and less welcome among many of these microcultures.  Their opinions must be right and righteous because everyone in their microculture agrees on them; therefore, anyone who disagrees is wrong and possibly evil.    

So much for relativism. And so much for accepting the possible validity of differing beliefs and values without judging these solely against your own beliefs and values.

Within certain microcultures, supporting existing laws that prohibit illegal immigration is intolerant; opposing enforcing those same laws exhibits tolerance.  Sheltering and protecting from deportation violent criminals here illegally is tolerant; favoring deportation of those same violent criminals is intolerant. Encouraging the immigration of people from cultures and religions that support female genital mutilation, the killing of homosexuals, the killing of Christians and Jews, and forced marriages of children to adult men, is a sign of tolerance; anyone who simply questions why we’d want to bring in those people whose values are so alien to ours, is intolerant.

It’s all been decided. So shut up. 

This is just nuts. This is one-way tolerance. 

There is real, objective intolerance in the world everyone can agree on.  Nobody disagrees that neo-Nazis and white supremacists are intolerant. Nobody wants to listen to their hateful rhetoric against Jews, blacks, homosexuals, immigrants, or whomever.  But they have a legal right under our Constitution to express their views as long as they are not inciting violence.   

Yet when they are physically attacked by armed protestors who want to silence them in the name of fighting intolerance, who are the intolerant?

Shift scenarios for a moment.  At the rally in DC following Trump’s inauguration, those opposed to Trump talked about blowing up the White House. Later, an actor mused about assassinating Trump.  A comedian held up an image of her holding a severed head intended to look like Trump. They said Trump deserved it because of his intolerance toward women, blacks, immigrants, Muslims, homosexuals, the transgendered, single mothers, and the poor, among others.

They said they were standing up against his intolerance.        

People who hated Trump – including the media – didn’t see a problem. By their standards, within their own microculture, this was all fair game.  Yet nobody physically attacked them to prevent them from expressing those hateful and clearly intolerant opinions, did they? If someone had, they would have been crucified for being intolerant of perfectly acceptable views.        

What is tolerance and what isn’t shouldn’t depend entirely on your own values. When someone uses opposition to intolerance as a weapon for their own intolerance, it’s wrong. 

      

Consider the antifa movement. Black-clad anarchists emerge to prevent anyone hearing any message they find intolerant. But who are they to decide what’s acceptable and what isn’t?  Who made them the sole arbiter of what’s allowed and what isn’t?

They gave themselves that role. Supporters of Black Lives Matter have done the same.

Antifa and BLM aren’t alone in deciding what is right and what is wrong. In the name of tolerance, there are now speech codes and prohibited words on college campuses. Administrators and activist groups are shutting down speakers who question open borders, transgender rights, identity politics, and of course racial or gender quotas, among other things. 

Those speakers are deemed “haters” and intolerant. And to protect their students and others from hearing a view that may differ from their own, they are not allowed on campus. 

Speakers have been prevented from fulfilling speaking engagements because they might espouse “intolerant” views. Riots have happened with property damage, assaults on police, and physical attacks on speakers in the name of supporting tolerance.

Meanwhile, speakers who openly promote assassinating police, are in favor of segregating dormitories for black students, support banning whites from certain campus events solely on the basis of their race, blame Jews for all the problems in the Middle East, and cheer for Islamic terrorists who kill innocent women and children, are welcomed with open arms.

Because that’s what tolerance is all about.       

This is positively Orwellian. 

And that, in a nutshell, is the paradox of tolerance.

When everyone has special needs ...

As a society we’ve allowed “special needs” to get out of control. 

That’s not to say there aren’t people who need special assistance to function in the world.  There are people with physical disabilities from birth, injuries, or devastating or degenerative illnesses. There are the visually and hearing impaired. And those with serious mental illnesses that can only be managed through treatment and medication.    

We have a collective responsibility to help them as much as possible.  

But somewhere along the line merely being uncomfortable became a special need. And being unpleasant became an acceptable way to get whatever you want. 

That’s when we’ve gone too far. We’ve enabled otherwise completely healthy people to demand and get special treatment for no other reason than they want it.  If someone whines enough – kid, parent, or adult – we’re supposed to change all the rules for them.  They get special privileges not given to others, excused from selfish and bad behavior, and preferred treatment.

The more people who do this get rewarded, the more other people want the same.  It cascades exponentially as a result.  People already gaming the system inspire others to game the system as well.  As one former client said to me when he whipped out his handicap hang tag to zoom into a handicap-reserved spot before sprinting into a Staples, “everybody does it.”

This is from a guy who works out in a gym two hours a day and has no discernable handicap except occasional bouts with kidney stones. Other than that, he’s in perfect health and has been for years; there’s absolutely no reason he has a handicap tag. 

Except he wants one to park closer to restaurants and stores. 

I know plenty of people with real disabilities who need handicap parking spots. This jerk-off didn’t, nor did his partner who also used the same hang-tag for close-in parking.  

But hey, both of them have “special needs.” Like wanting to park closer.   

You see the same thing with emotional support animals. To be clear, I’m not talking about real service animals, like guide dogs and other specially trained animals to help the truly disabled. 

Nope, I’m talking about ordinary pets people claim to need for emotional support. They get a note from some hack doctor that they need to bring their dog, cat, ferret, peacock or duck with them everywhere so they don’t feel anxious. Or they simply skip the bogus note and go online to buy a service/support animal vest for their furry or feathered friend. 

These pets have no special skills. Their special talent is that they “comfort” their owners, which isn’t unique.  After all, isn’t the sole purpose of most pets to give comfort to their owners? 

Emotional support animals are increasingly frequent flyers. Instead of leaving their pet at home, more people are claiming they need them to reduce their anxiety about flying. 

Do you get anxious about flying? Doesn’t everyone?  I bet even pilots are anxious about flying, which is a good thing – I’d hate to think pilots don’t worry some about flying.

Having your dog, cat or whatever with you so you don’t feel anxious about flying has become utter BS. What’s that animal going to do for you that hitting the drink cart for a double won’t? 

Face it: most people on planes with “comfort” animals just want to show how special they are and/or take Muffy, Fluffy, Barfy or Captain Sprinkles on an adventure without paying for it. 

They are the same weasels who “blue-shoe” their way on board early yet once on seem perfectly fine. Or those who try to muscle enough luggage for an Everest Expedition on as “carry on” using their little kids as Sherpas to evade the “one-personal-item-per-person” rule.  

Special, special, special.  Sheesh. 

Clearly indulging all these “special” people is getting out of hand.

Before I go any further, let me say I have nothing against pets.  I love most dogs, except pugs – sorry they are hideously ugly (and no, they are not so ugly they’re cute). I’m okay with most cats, too.  But aside from certified guide and service dogs, I don’t want to see pets on planes.

And in other places where they don’t belong.  I especially don’t want to see ordinary pets in grocery stores or restaurants. Yet many special people think it’s cute to bring their dog along to those places.  It’s not cute; it’s disrespectful to everyone else and it’s also a health issue. 

How so? Well, for starters your dog licks its butt then licks your hand. Okay?  Despite what you want to believe, your dog’s spit is not magically antiseptic. Don’t share it.       

The sad part is I expect the special-needs landslide to only accelerate. We’re training entire generations to assert their rights to be held to different standards than everyone else. 

Because they have special needs.

I read in a recent WSJ article about the problems colleges are having accommodating the ever-expanding pool of students with special needs.

We’re not talking about bona fide disabilities; we’re talking about students who can’t deal with the “stress” of modern college life, what with all the studying, testing, and social pressures that may make them feel a bit anxious.  You know, the same stuff those of us who went to college endured – and somehow survived – when we were there. 

To listen to today’s college students, it’s much worse today. They are actually expected to squeeze in studying, and to pass exams, which is highly inconvenient, apparently, to many of them. So, they are claiming “special needs” to get more time to take exams, the right to get up and walk around during class, and the right to take exams alone because they are bothered by having other people in the room. And school administrators are giving them all that.   

Some colleges are already providing “crying rooms” for overwrought students upset by elections.  Safe spaces for those who might be damaged by hurtful speech. And on and on.

Good job, colleges. You’re reinforcing that nobody has to do anything they don’t like, or be held to the same standards, if they merely claim to have “special needs.” 

I wonder how well that training will pan out when these snowflakes hit the workforce. I would love to be there the first time one of them tells their boss the task they’ve been given makes them too anxious, so they’re simply not going to do it. Or they miss a critical deadline because “something came up” online that upset them.  Or when one of them goes to tears over a bad performance review and has their mom or dad try to intervene on their behalf.

That is presuming they ever even try to join the workforce. Which I doubt.   

It’s probably going to a deal-breaker when they discover nobody in the real world gives a damn about their made-up “special needs,” regardless of what mommy and daddy have told them.

More to the point, they’ll find when everyone has “special needs” their own “special need” isn’t all that “special” anymore. When you flood the zone with made-up “special needs” the only people who stand out – the only ones worth paying attention to anymore – are those without any.

Those will be the people who aren’t constantly demanding the rules be changed just for them.  Or that rules and common courtesy don’t apply to them because they are so special.

And those will be the people getting along and working with others, instead of just whining.     

Nobody cares ...

As much as our media wish we did, we don’t care about a lot of things. 

First and foremost – Stormy Daniels. 

It’s sad that Democrats and the media have such short memories.

When Bill Clinton was accused of being a decades-long sexual predator by multiple women, Democrats and the media buried the allegations as irrelevant.  “A vast right-wing conspiracy,” Hillary said.  James Carville said you could find the same type of women by dragging a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park. 

Then Republicans in Congress made way too much out of Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, which was discovered as a completely unrelated element that fell out of Special Prosecutor Ken Starr’s overzealous investigation of the Whitewater controversy. When his Whitewater case started to run out of steam, he and Republicans shifted to the Lewinsky affair.   

Starting to sound familiar? 

Democrats claimed it had nothing to do with the original Whitewater investigation, which it didn’t, and was just about sex between two consenting adults, which wasn’t and still isn’t a crime.

More importantly, Democrats said the American public didn’t care who had sex with whom.  Democrats were absolutely right about that.  

But Republicans kept pushing and paid a heavy price in the next round of elections for House and Senate seats. The public saw the attacks on Clinton as a wasteful and distasteful sideshow, including way too much focus on what was on the infamous blue dress and how it got there.  How could parents explain to their young kids what that was all about?

The public just wanted it to end. And those who kept it going to be punished.   

I’m stunned Democrats and the media have forgotten all this. They’ve also forgotten perhaps the most important thing – the short attention span of the American public; the longer a “scandal” drags on the less interested the public is.  Especially when those hyping the scandal have neither a crime, nor an actual victim, but won’t give it a rest.

Which brings us to Stormy Daniels. She’s an aging pornstar – try to explain what that is to young children.  You don’t really need to for teenage boys – I suspect most of them have already Googled her repeatedly and by now are extraordinarily familiar with her and her “acting” talents.

Purely in the interest of research, mind you, I Googled her, too.  (That’s my story, it was only for research, and I’m sticking to it, okay?) Let’s just say that she’s experienced. Very.   

Stormy claims she once had consensual sex with Trump about a decade ago, long before he ran for President. She signed an NDA and was paid $130,000 to keep quiet about it. She’s suing to get released from that NDA; I suppose to tell her side of the story we already know – she had sex with Trump. Once. I'm fairly sure that's the entire story.    

Oh, and now she claims she’s been defamed. 

For the life of me I can’t find the crime the media seem to think exists. As to defamation, you have to prove damages. If anything, she’s gotten far more publicity out of this than she ever did for her more than 150 film credits, many of which were for hardcore porn videos. 

Only the truly creepy, and hardcore Trump haters, care. Nobody else does. 

Yet that doesn’t stop CNN and MSNBC from making Stormy the lead almost every day.

Why? Because sex sells, I suppose. At least that’s what their producers must think. 

For most Americans, however, Stormy’s a yawner.   Nobody cares. 

The same could be said for Mueller’s investigation into alleged Russian interference in the last election, which mutated into investigating alleged Russian collusion with the Trump campaign.  

Another thing the media cover nonstop.   

After a year there’s still nothing to show from the millions spent investigating this.  Well, to clarify, it’s true the Russians tried to interfere in the last election – nobody denies that – but nothing that shows Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russians.

There have been charges brought against some one-time Trump associates for things having nothing to do with Trump or his campaign or Russian involvement with the campaign.  

The score on collusion remains the same.  Zero. Zip. Zed. Nothing.

There’s been a lot of fluff without substance. A lot of political posturing on both sides of the aisle.  Half-assed theories about Russians hacking voting machines – disproven.  Half-assed theories about the big effect Russian trolls posting fake news online had on the election – disproven. And more half-assed theories about how Russians coordinated the hacks of Podesta’s e-mails and the release of those e-mails with Trump campaign officials right before the election – disproven. 

Obstruction of justice by Trump? Again, nothing. If anything, James Comey’s own memos – supposed to be the smoking gun proof of Trump’s obstruction – prove the opposite.

Was firing Comey an attempt to stop the Russian interference investigation?  Nope.  As more comes out by Comey himself, it’s clear he was fired for good reason. He was a self-aggrandizing jerk who was mismanaging the FBI and wildly exceeding his authority. He wasn’t a hero. 

The more he tries to stay in the public eye the less likeable and admirable he becomes.   

Mueller’s investigation is suffering the same fate. Frankly, it’s boring to many. 

Now, something interesting may yet come out of it – but not something Democrats and the media will probably like. It may turn out there’s proof some former Obama appointees broke any number of laws to interfere in the last election.

And when Trump won anyway, kept breaking laws to keep him out of office. 

That’s not what those who initially cheered on the Mueller investigation hoped for. They’re now facing the unintended consequences of launching it.  They’re hoping nobody cares about what Mueller finds that hurts them far more than Trump.

While Democrats and former Obama Administration officials, including the former heads of the State Department, DOJ, CIA and other intelligence agencies, keep saying they can’t wait for Mueller’s report, I suspect that’s for show – I think a lot of those folks are worried. 

They should be.   

The Hillary campaign clearly colluded with Russians, via the infamous Steele Dossier her campaign paid for, which relied heavily on info from Russians sources.  Even James Comey – who takes credit for starting the Mueller investigation, and instantly went from villain to hero for Democrats, may have inadvertently confessed to lying to the FBI and to Congress. Andy McCabe of the FBI has already been found to have lied to the FBI and Congress, too.     

Mueller’s investigation has also opened the door – perhaps not intentionally – to a whole range of other misdeeds which are now surfacing by government officials.  Some intelligence agency bosses from the Obama Administration apparently stepped way over the line to cook the books on the Hillary Clinton e-mail fiasco and produce her puzzling exoneration, and to frame Trump before and after he was elected.

Now we’re learning that the FBI may have embedded a paid informant in the Trump campaign to entrap campaign staffers and gather dirt.

This is not good news for the Democrats, Trump haters, and the media.  Or what’s rumored to be the “deep state” obsessed with driving Trump from office. 

It will be curious to see what the media will do with all this new info.  Will Democrats and the media aggressively bury those stories, claiming “nobody cares” about what happened?   

I think that’s precisely what they’ll do.  

John McCain ...

It’s time to put John McCain into perspective.

When he finally passes on the obits will probably be generally glowing.

Just as they were for Robert Byrd, a one-time ardent segregationist and proud member of the Klan. And for Teddy Kennedy, a philandering weasel who killed a young female staffer and tried to cover it up. And for so many others the media have covered for.   

I’d like to interject a bit of reality about McCain before the media covers for him.

We all know the media love to quote John McCain. Always have.    

He’s their hero. The maverick. The Republican that likes to trash fellow Republicans. The Republican that absolutely hates Trump. 

He’s up there with Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, and Bob Corker – “brave” Republicans willing to stand up to conservatives and fight for the same things Democrats support.  That imbues them with virtue in the eyes of our media. You’ll see them quoted often, usually after the claim that “even some leading Republicans disagree” with whatever Republicans generally support. 

But McCain always get the most coverage.    

Everybody knows McCain’s backstory – graduate of the Naval Academy, son and grandson of two 4-star admirals, and a decorated (Bronze Star) jet jock shot down in Vietnam. He was held prisoner for years in the infamous Hanoi Hilton and in other camps where he was repeatedly tortured. As the son of an admiral, he was offered release several times but refused unless all his fellow prisoners were also released.  He was finally repatriated in 1973.

He returned as a bona fide war hero. No doubt about it – he was a hero. 

That’s the story everybody knows. But there’s more, much more after that.

After McCain returned from Vietnam, he divorced his first wife – Carol, who had been a beautiful swimsuit model when he married her in 1965.

While McCain was in Vietnam, Carol had a horrible car accident that nearly killed her. After more than 20 surgeries to save her, she was severely disfigured by the time he returned. He came back not to the ravishing beauty he left but a woman struggling to walk again.

He divorced her, as she said, because “John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25.” About a month after his divorce he married the daughter of a leading Anheuser-Busch distributor. Her father was a multimillionaire with strong political connections, which helped McCain.

Later, McCain was also helped by one Charles Keating – a sleaze ball banker who played a big role in the savings and loan crisis in the late 80s and early 90s.

Perhaps you remember that Keating ran Lincoln Savings and Loan. Lincoln collapsed in 1989, at a cost of over $3 billion to the federal government. Lincoln bondholders – some 23,000 – were defrauded in the process and many investors lost their life savings.

When Lincoln collapsed, it was learned that five sitting U.S. Senators had received campaign contributions from Keating, totaling about $1.3 million. That spawned a Senate Ethics Committee investigation into charges that Keating leaned on those Senators to intervene on his behalf with the FHLBB regulators to call off the dogs.

It was abundantly clear that’s exactly what Keating expected in return for his money. It was also clear that these beneficiaries of his campaign contributions were told in no uncertain terms by Keating what he expected them to do for the money.    

Keating was quoted at the time as saying: "One question, among many raised in recent weeks, had to do with whether my financial support in any way influenced several political figures to take up my cause. I want to say in the most forceful way I can: I certainly hope so."

McCain was one of those Senators. While he was eventually cleared of the most serious charges, he was nonetheless found to have exercised “poor judgement.”  

Keating was sentenced to five years in prison. McCain continued his political career.

Oh, as one result of the Keating Five scandal McCain coauthored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation.

With that, suddenly, McCain went from being under review for questionable ethics himself, to a crusader for enforced ethics on campaign funding. He also became a “statesman” who “reached across the aisle” for coauthoring that bill with Russ Feingold, a Democrat. 

McCain-Feingold was a joke. While it mandated disclosure of campaign contributions from wealthy individuals and corporations, it unintentionally, perhaps but maybe not, encouraged the growth of “soft money” sources, which had no disclosure requirements.

Guess where donors went?  Can you say political action committees? 

The flood of undocumented dollars into PACs had the same result as before: pressure on politicians to do what big-money supporters wanted.  The difference was that now those soft-money groups tended to be much more extreme and narrow focused. And donors didn’t have to be identified. 

If you wonder why the airwaves are flooded with special-interest ads filled with half-truths and often outright lies during campaigns, sponsored by groups with misleading names designed to hide their motives, thank John McCain. He’s your guy. 

Now, all this is not to say McCain isn’t a real American hero from the Vietnam War era. He absolutely is. And he fully deserves our thanks and respect for what he did back then.  But all that happened decades ago.  He’s been riding on it ever since. 

In recent years John McCain has devolved into a shameless publicity whore. A political opportunist of the first order. Someone more interested in fawning press coverage than results.

It’s a pity this John McCain been all about himself and less about doing good for the country and the people of Arizona in particular. His state has serious problems with illegal immigrants, criminal gangs, and drugs crossing its borders.  Yet John McCain has argued for giving amnesty to illegals, and against a border security wall and enhanced prosecution of illegals.   

So who does John McCain represent?

Simple. Himself. 

Outside of being a contrarian just to be different there isn’t much else to him. I’m not sure he strongly believes in anything. That became crystal clear when he ran for President. He couldn’t make up his mind whether he was a liberal Republican or a conservative Democrat. Or what. Nobody knew what he actually stood for because he didn’t know, either. 

That’s how he lost to a first-term Senator with zero legislative accomplishments.

I believe he still has that problem.

When he recently faced a more conservative primary challenger, he decided to brush up on his conservative bona fides. It was all just for show. He’s done this time and time again. 

People should remember this same John McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts, then voted to extend them, then voted for the Trump tax cuts. He also voted against repealing ObamaCare. He tried to push through amnesty for illegal immigrants with Democrats. 

He wavers whenever it’s politically expedient. 

During the most recent Presidential campaign he showed an especially nasty and vindictive side; a side he continued to show long after Trump was elected. And continues today. 

Of course, McCain being McCain, he always claims he’s only looking out for the country.

In today’s WSJ, he has a lengthy op-ed piece about how evil Putin is. Duh.  But in that piece he recounts why he gave the infamous Russian dossier to James Comey. McCain claims he only did this – not out of petty hatred of Trump – but because he feared Russia could use it to compromise Trump. As usual, it was always about saving the country.  

Yep, that’s his story. Classic McCain.       

Lately he’s been mucking around in the hearings for the new CIA Director, despite her exceptional qualifications, because he’s opposed to “torture” he claims happened on her watch.  Mind you, that “torture” is a matter of interpretation; it was actually waterboarding of three – count ‘em, three – high-value prisoners captured after 9/11. 

Democrats loved that he was voting no.  So did the media.

Most recently he’s told folks he wants Obama, Bush, and Clinton at his funeral, but not Trump.  Leave it to McCain to try to grab the spotlight once again with a stupid, spiteful gesture.

But that’s who he is.  

John McCain has been diagnosed with a brain tumor that will probably take his life fairly soon.  I am sorry for him and his family. I don’t want to be kicking a man while he’s down. 

He should resign from the Senate now, nonetheless.  Honestly, he should have done that a long time ago when he first got his diagnosis. I’m pretty sure he won’t. Not because he has unfinished business in the Senate, which he clearly doesn’t.

He won’t resign for the very same reason he ran for re-election the last time, even though he knew then he was gravely ill and probably wouldn’t live to finish out his term. But he refused to give up the limelight, even though it was well past time for him to leave.  

It’s very sad.  Actually pathetic.

When he finally passes, he will be lionized by the media as a real “straight shooter,” a “voice of reason” in the Republican Party. His Democrat pals will deeply mourn his passing as one of the last Republican “statesmen” of our time. 

Glossed over will be who John McCain really was.

The same way the media glossed over Robert Byrd and Teddy Kennedy’s sordid pasts. 

Funny hat night ...

What’s funny is highly subjective.

Making a goofy Easter bonnet from provided parts, or a faux Kentucky Derby hat – with the goal of being the most outrageous – is not funny to me. It’s stupid.

Sorry. But if you’re running a social event and feel you need to “spice” things up with a theme or game that involves everybody making a fool of themselves, I’ll pass.

I’ve never understood why event planners in social clubs feel compelled to introduce “contests” with ridiculous rules to force everyone to participate in teams. I know it may seem like a great idea at the time – sort of the answer to: well, what else can we do after we’ve eaten? – but it’s not. Most often some people enjoy it – the same folks every time; the rest of us endure it. 

That happens a lot here in The Villages. Which is downright bizarre. It’s not like we crave additional entertainment bolted on to an otherwise pleasant social get together. 

Honestly, this is a big community of the most active adults you’ll probably ever find. There are always people out on bikes, running, swimming, doing water aerobics, dancing in the squares to live music every night, and playing golf, Pickleball, softball, or taking lessons. 

Hell, there are over 2000 social clubs for everything from line dancing, quilting, target shooting, archery, reenacting old-time radio shows, and more. People here are busy. 

Yet somebody in a social club always seems to want to “spice” things up with games you’d expect to find at a senior center for folks on their last legs. Or a party for little kids.     

I went to one of the clubs I belong to the other night. The theme was Kentucky Derby, which is a sporting event up there with synchronized swimming on my list of things that interest me the very least. You could safely add Olympic short-track speed skating to that list as well. I simply don’t care who wins or loses in those sports. I’ve never understood why anyone would.

In fairness, the food that night was great. They should have stopped there.   

But, after eating, they held a competition to see who had created the silliest Kentucky Derby hat. To me, they all did. Then they had a game with big foam dice to advance contestants who had hand crafted wooden stick horses they decorated themselves.

Why? I don’t know.  I guess it was fun for them. I thought it was dopey.   

As I’ve said, what’s funny is subjective. Wearing silly hats and riding around on a kid’s stick horse – while making horse sounds – doesn’t do it for me.

It’s just evidence for a competency hearing: “Well, I went to visit grandpa and he came to the door wearing a hat with glued on plastic animals while riding a stick horse and neighing loudly.” 

Yep, guess who won’t be living on their own anymore.           

Truth is, if I want to make a complete ass out of myself I’m perfectly capable of doing that on my own. I have years of experience. I’m an expert.  I don’t need any additional props.

I don’t like “fun” games when I feel they’re too forced and too contrived. And especially when there’s no actual skill involved or a real point to the game except to consume time.  Or the primary goal is making you look like a senile idiot. Or it’s a mindless game better suited for an eight-year-old’s birthday party than for adults.

If you must have a game, why not poker?  Or beer pong?

Or even better, skip the game altogether. Let the adults eat, drink, socialize and be merry. Trust me, they’ll have more fun on their own. It worked for us as kids    

If you have to work too hard to get to fun for fun’s sake, it usually isn’t. Don’t ever force fun; just let it happen. And it will, naturally.  It’s really that simple. 

Socializing with others is fun.  Going out to dinner with others is fun. Going out to a dance with others is fun. Having a few drinks with others is fun. Meeting new people is fun.

Dressing up in costume for Halloween can be fun – I’ve done that many times, even on a cruise. I’ve enjoyed participating in Ugly Holiday Sweater events, getting Irish’d up for St. Patty’s Day, and getting Gator’d up for a University of Florida football game with other fans and alums.

I’m not opposed to dressing up for certain stuff, in other words. Still, if you’ll notice, all of the above aren’t about looking like a moron. Tacky and tasteless, maybe; dumbass never. 

There are many other ways to have fun.  It all depends on you.

There’s playing golf, Pickleball, softball, billiards, or Mexican Train with others. If you enjoy those things they can be a source of great fun for you. You can be fairly certain anyone you play with wants to participate, too. You’re all in it together.        

That’s fun. For you and for them.

More power to you.

Don’t get me wrong: I love having fun.

However, my idea of fun typically relies less on props and made-up games, and more on doing things I can now enjoy as a grown up. 

None of  us has time to waste anymore.