Dec 31^st

Today we hear from Thomas Sowell; Dr. Sowell is an economist with a doctorate from the University of Chicago. Economics has been called the “dismal science” by Thomas Carlyle, the Scottish philosopher. Carlyle also said, “Teach a parrot the terms supply and demand, and you’ve got an economist.” Of course Carlyle was writing in the 1800s and everything is more complicated now. He still seems right about “dismal” though because Sowell, as usual, is far from cheerful.

He is unhappy with 2015 and particularly with the Iran agreement. “We let the world know that we were giving up any effort … to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.” The agreement with Iran also includes Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia and China but Sowell mentions only the US as “giving up;” and of course, as is typical of conservatives, he offers no alternative plan.

Sowell then turns to Benghazi and Secretary Clinton’s comments about the Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans, including out Ambassador. The conservatives, lead by Congressman Trey Gowdy, are still hammering away at the Secretary’s initial description of the attack as being motivated by a film instead of by a terrorist group. The eleven hours of grilling by Gowdy’s committee is reduced by Sowell to “Mrs. Clinton melodramatically crying out ‘What difference does it make?’”  The “melodrama” here is produced entirely by Sowell who goes on to make the unlikely case that if the Benghazi attack had been labeled a terrorist action then President Obama would have lost the 2012 election. Sowell believes that it would have detracted from the killing of Osama bin Laden which he reminds us was really carried out not by the President but by a team of Navy Seals. Sowell seems to believe that the President should have been on the scene himself.

Then he takes on his own party and accuses them of lying. “The most recent budget deal showed that Congressional Republicans lied wholesale when they said they would defund Obama care, Planned Parenthood and other pet projects of Democrats.” Sowell might have a Ph.D. in economics but he knows next to nothing about politics. The new Speaker of the House was not about to shut down the government again and again have his party take the blame for it. This meant that there had to be some compromise, a dirty word for most conservatives and apparently for Dr. Sowell.  The Republicans made 50 attempts to gut the Affordable Care Act; none of them made it through the Senate and the Republican House knew these actions were never going to reach the President’s desk. They thereby wasted untold hours of what might have been constructive compromise. It was far more important for these legislators to be seen as trying to obstruct the President than to pass effective legislation.

Sowell’s column today, on the last day of the year is noteworthy, not because of his hostility to all things progressive, that’s understandable. He is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and such hostility toward progressives is expected of him. It is noteworthy, however, that he says absolutely nothing about any of the Republicans vying for his party’s nomination. I believe that discussing Trump, Cruz and other candidates would produce a more dismal outlook than even an economist could bear.

Dec 30^th

This morning we are presented with a column by Cal Thomas; Cal is a “gloomster” of the first rank. (For youngsters who do not remember the Rukeyser years, Lou Rukeyser was a financial journalist with a popular PBS program. People negative about the stock market were called “gloomsters.”) It does seem that most political columnists are gloomsters; if they are Republican they are gloomy about the slow pace of the economic recovery (Never mind the 5.4 percent unemployment rate because that is surely an artefact, as is all encouraging statistical data.) or they are gloomy about the ISIL threat ignoring the fact that we have retaken Ramadi, rolled back by more than 30 percent of the territory controlled by the so-called Caliphate and killed off, recently, some leaders among which was the engineer of the Paris attacks. None of that counts because two years ago President Obama declared ISIL was “the J.V. team.” Of course two years ago they were a J.V. team. They aren’t now and our armed forces are treating them accordingly. As their territory is rolled back and their leaders killed off they are striking back in the only way they have left, attacks against soft civilian targets. This means we must be more alert but surely not to the point of demonizing all Muslims which gives ISIL the support for their assertion that the West wants to destroy the Muslim faith.

Columnists on the left are gloomy as well. Eugene Robinson who writes a column for the Washington Post claims “The GOP will be changed forever” and he doesn’t mean changed in a good way. Robinson says, “Trump has given voice to the ugliness and anger that the party has spent years encouraging and exploiting.” Trump’s party, far from being the inclusive group it needs to win the White House, is now the party that appeals to the less well educated, the less well paid, the lily white and the very angry at Washington voter. Robinson is a distinctly liberal voice but he doesn’t want to see the Republican Party changed into a bunch of proto black shirted jingoistic thugs; country first, party second is common among liberals,  perhaps less so among conservatives.

Now that I’ve totally buried the lead I’ll go back and disinter Cal Thomas. Cal starts his morning column by saying that the Obama administration assures us that we have nothing to fear from terrorism. No citation for that claim of course and it doesn’t fit well with the government’s “If you see something say something” slogan. No matter, Thomas is a right wing columnist and needs to document nothing he says. Thomas claims that, “Fear can be a factor that motivates to action…” unfortunately Thomas is talking about fear of that old bugaboo, political correctness. He is oblivious to the far greater problem, fear of the other. This is the fear that leads Trump to talk about building a wall against Latinos and prohibiting any entry into the country of Muslims. Thomas claiming that fear of political correctness is a problem compared to this xenophobia is ludicrous.

Then Thomas talks about, “The mess the secular progressives have made.” Does he believe it was the progressives who refused to raise taxes to pay for the Bush wars and boosted the national debt by trillions of dollars? I suppose Grover Norquist who insisted on pledges from the newly elected that they would not raise taxes was a progressive? Then he claims that, “The baby boomers and their progeny set about destroying it (the bright future) on the altar of self-indulgence.” The average income for the baby boomers in retirement is 37,200 dollars a year. Exactly what kind of “self-indulgence “does this level of income permit? Cal Thomas apparently isn’t aware that the internet provides information about income that gives the lie to his outrageous claims.

Dec 29^th

In this election nothing seems more important than numbers, particularly numbers obtained from polls. A recent comparison found that at this point in the election cycle we have had about three times as many polls of Iowa and New Hampshire voters as we had before the last election. This is not surprising given that Donald Trump, the Republican front runner, is obsessed by his poll numbers and cites them at every opportunity. (Maybe he is secretly paying for the additional polls.) On the rare occasion when he is not the front runner he claims that the poll was poorly conducted, just like the kid who claims the test he flunked was unfair. But there is more: Trump’s comments about women, John McCain, and others ad nauseum, have made everyone wonder when his poll numbers will drop off. The result is that not only Trump, but nearly everyone else watches for the results of the next poll.

Mona Charen doesn’t cite polls but she does seem to be obsessed with statistics; at least she is in today’s column. I counted 24 references to statistical data in the first half of her column. Her thesis seems to be that the decline in Christian religious observance is related, indeed probably causes, people to vote Democratic. (Although Mona would never say “Democratic;” Mona only says “Democrat.”) She claims that “in 2014, 22.8 percent of American adults describe themselves as unaffiliated with any church.” She points out that belief in God is much lower in Europe where “churches stand virtually empty on Sundays and few profess belief in God.” She cites the percentages of those who believe in God for the various European states to prove her case.

But Mona is focusing here entirely on the reduction of enthusiasm for Christian Church services. I find it curious that she has not one word to say about the secularization of the Jewish community and it has certainly been secularized. One third of Jews born since 1980 describe themselves as secular. Forty-four percent of Jews have a non-Jewish spouse. Jane Eisner writing for the Jewish Daily Forum calls the results “devastating.” Even Israel, as a country, lives secular lives; there are 2000 secular Israeli schools which celebrate Jewish holidays and teach Jewish history but with no prayer or religious observance of any kind. Mona seems oblivious to these facts, or if she knows about them she much prefers to talk about the decline in Christian observances instead.

At the beginning of her column this 57-year-old columnist claims that on Christmas Eve she “was stunned to find that not only were the restaurants open but that they were packed.” Then she says, “I had expected to find my Christian friends and neighbors gathered around the table Norman Rockwell style eating goose or ham or whatever gentiles eat.” Isn’t it amazing that this woman who has spent her entire life in this country doesn’t know that many restaurants are open Christmas Eve because many women, secular and otherwise will be working very hard most of the next day providing a Christmas feast for their families. Who knows, perhaps if she got to know these “Christian friends” well enough she might be invited to have dinner with them so she could find out exactly “whatever gentiles eat.”

Dec 28^th

The Manchester New Hampshire Union Leader recently endorsed Governor Christie of New Jersey for President. They gave a variety of reasons for doing that, none based on any objective evaluation of his record as Governor of New Jersey. That omission was appropriate because Christie’s record in New Jersey would lead a concerned person to suggest that he be made a ward of the court lest he injure his family and himself. (I have detailed his near criminal ineffectiveness as Governor in a previous post.)

Now that the New Hampshire primary is getting closer, and Christie is not meeting the expectations of the Union Leader, his polling numbers do not show him emerging from the pack of also rans well behind Trump. He seems unable to do better than third among the contenders with Trump some distance ahead of the pack. Now the Union Leader comes charging into the fray once more apparently recognizing that their boy needs some shoring up…or that Trump, the leader needs to be whittled down. They have opted for the later, probably because taking down Trump is easier than boosting Christie.  Here is a bit from a current Union Leader editorial about Donald Trump:

“Trump has shown himself to be a crude blowhard with no clear political philosophy and no deeper understanding of the important and serious role of President of the United States than one of the goons he lets rough up protesters in his crowds.”

I doubt that the Union Leader’s name-calling will change the mind of a single Trump supporter; it may, however, lead to a reduction of the number of subscribers to the Union Leader.

Trump has now threatened Hilary Clinton that if she brings in Bill Clinton to support her he will attack Hillary’s comments about Monica Lewinski. So in Trump’s mind his comments about Clinton’s “disgusting” trip to the bathroom, Fiorina’s “unimaginable face” in the Oval Office, Megyn Kelly’s menstrual flow, are somehow offset by Hillary’s comments about the woman who brought her “presidential kneepads” to Washington in a deliberate attempt to seduce Hillary’s husband. Linda Tripp who outed the Clinton-Lewinsky relationship is, once again, coming forth to do her duty by telling anyone who will listen to her that Hillary Clinton should never be President of the United States. Her reasoning is that Hillary should not be President because she acted to protect Bill Clinton and she decided that she wanted to be President.

This woman has done very well after leaving government employment. Linda is married and is involved in a German themed Christmas Store in Middleburg Virginia. She and her husband also own a rather posh horsey farm that is for sale for three million dollars.  I guess the notion that the Clintons come after the people who did them wrong is not entirely accurate. Ms. Trip is considering a reemergence into public life, at least according to her son. Poor Hillary!  

Dec 27^th

The big news today is that Trey Gowdy has endorsed Marco Rubio for President. While you might have heard of Marco Rubio, the semi-controversial Senator who is a Republican candidate for the Presidency, Congressman Gowdy is less famous. So let’s begin with an explanation of Rubio’s being semi-controversial. You would suppose that a Cuban-American whose father fled Cuba would have considerable appeal to the Latin American community. Indeed he would and this appeal would be enhanced by his inclusion in the “gang of eight,” a bi-partisan group of Senators (four Republicans and four Democrats) who planned to offer a road to legitimacy to undocumented immigrants. As you might expect the very idea of any bi-partisan group working on anything was anathema to the far right of the Republican Party and when bi-partisan is coupled with immigration reform, particularly a path to citizenship, the far right near fainted dead away at awfulness of it. So Marco Rubio, who was a member of this group, as was former Republican standard bearer John McCain, had to cleanse himself by claiming that he no longer agreed with the group.

As you might imagine all was by no means forgiven and Rubio has been dealing with the shame of his association with the “gang of eight” ever since. Now comes the stern faced Trey Gowdy who chaired the Congressional Committee charged with browbeating Hillary Clinton into guilty submission on the Benghazi issue. It didn’t quite work out that way. After grilling Clinton for eleven hours Gowdy had discovered nothing he didn’t already know. Clinton however had shown great stamina and considerable restraint coupled with some amusement at Gowdy’s antics. Her performance at this inquisition certainly gutted Trump’s suggestion that she hadn’t the stamina to be president. Can anyone imagine Trump surviving such a grilling? The upshot was that instead of diminishing Clinton’s appeal Gowdy gave her an eleven-hour advertisement. Rubio now has Gowdy’s endorsement but why would he want it?

And now we have George Will providing some interesting commentary about Donald Trump. Will is very unhappy about the Trump phenomena and Trump is almost equally unhappy about George Will.  George Will even goes so far as to claim that denying Trump the Republican nomination is more important than beating Hillary Clinton in November. Will claims that Trump as the Republican nominee will destroy the Republican Party. Of course denying Trump the nomination would almost certainly mean that Trump would run as an independent which would assure Hillary Clinton’s election victory. As far as Will is concerned that outcome is preferable to having Trump as his party’s nominee.

According to Will, Trump is a “fundamentally sad figure who has every disagreeable human trait.” He compares Trump’s comments about Russia’s Putin to “a puppy’s insatiable need to be petted.” But then Trump claims that Will should be banned from Fox news because he is “boring and biased.” But biased is surely no reason to be banned from Fox News.

Dec 26^th

Today we look at Governor Chris Christie’s rebirth in the polls. The Governor had lost ground with the conservatives because he had the temerity, and the horrible political judgment, to hug and (gasp!) shake hands with President Obama when the President came to New Jersey to assess the storm damage from super storm Sandy. Christie insisted that he had simply shown the President the courtesy he deserved and that, regarding the help offered to New Jersey, Christie said of Obama, “He’s kept every promise that he’s made.” Greta Van Susteren of Fox news, in an apparent attempt to help Christie salvage his conservative creds, claimed that after looking carefully at the pictures, “They didn’t look like hugs to me.”

Of course that was way back in 2012 before Christie had put his Presidential campaign fully into gear. Now Christie is well above water thanks largely to a life raft provided by New Hampshire’s largest newspaper, The Union-Leader. This newspaper has endorsed Christie for President. That endorsement amounts to a resurrection of Christie’s campaign and his Presidential hopes. Of course this paper’s record of endorsements is not exactly enviable: In 2012 it endorsed Newt Gingrich, in 2008 John McCain and in 2000 Steve Forbes. Only one of them got the Republican nomination and he lost the election.

Then there is the fact that Christie’s tenure as New Jersey’s Governor is hardly without blemish. We can leave out the bridgegate scandal in which several lanes of a bridge were closed down presumably to punish a politician who refused to endorse him. Christie denies any responsibility and no one has proved anything but that isn’t going away. In a recent poll 47 percent of New Jersey residents disapprove of his job performance while 39 percent approve of it. New Jersey is one of only three states where the poverty rates have increased; in 2007 8.6 percent were below the poverty level; in 2013 that jumped to 11.4 percent. Fully half of N.J. residents would leave the state if they could; he has cut tax rebates for senior citizens; the state has had eight credit downgrades and now has the second lowest bond rating of any state in the union… and Christie gets the endorsement of the Manchester’s Union-Leader. What were they thinking?

During the Republican debate Christie referred to Obama as “a feckless weakling.” Christie obviously wants to undo those hugs he gave President Obama and reestablish himself as being really, really nasty toward the President. I had heard the word “feckless” before but while I was sure it wasn’t complimentary I wasn’t sure just what it meant; presumably if you are feckless you lack feck. Feck derives from effeck, which is Scottish; the modern word would be effect. To be feckless then is to be without effect. It is fascinating that when the President could help the citizens of New Jersey, and consequently Governor Christie, he was quite adequately feck but now that Christie is better served by nastiness the President is feckless. Who is surprised?

Dec 25^th

We’ll start today with the conservatively correct greeting, “Merry Christmas.” As you know the current crop of Republican candidates are using political correctness as a target for all things evil. This brings me to consider just what constitutes the conservatively correct position on a variety of issues. Conservatively correct is clearly the opposite of politically correct.

The conservatively correct couple consists of a male and female and they are married. They have two or three children, certainly no more than four. The children are home schooled. Home schooling is so important because it eliminates several problems: The first is any concern about the requirement that the children be vaccinated. The conservatively correct parent knows  that vaccinations are not 100 percent effective and may cause all manner of brain damage because of the preservatives, specifically mercury, in the vaccines. Home schooling eliminates that concern as vaccinations are not required.

Then there is the matter of teaching American history; some history texts put undue emphasis on slavery as a cause of the southern states seceding from the union. Conservatives know that slavery was a very minor consideration. No need for young people to actually read the various states reasons of secession and find out otherwise. The home school parent can control this as well as other outrageous writings, for example fictions about President Reagan’s providing arms to the Nicaraguan contras. Parents’ homeschooling their children can protect them from these biased historical accounts. (American History books approved for use in Texas are worth considering because they are properly screened.)

Of course once the children begin seventh and eighth grade math, mother, if she is the teacher, may have a problem if she has not learned the difference between square root and square feet. Of course those pesky word problems can also be very tricky. A charter high school will probably be available, one that has a good conservative reputation and of course there are lots of colleges with deeply conservative principles. Biola University comes immediately to mind. Its name was once The Bible College of Los Angeles. A student discussion group once focused on the issue of whether one could be a Democrat and a Christian. Senator John Thune of South Dakota is a graduate of this fine university where every graduate is required to have the credit hour equivalent of a minor in Bible.

Church attendance is expected of the whole politically correct family every week. The children will participate in the children’s choir and will attend Bible school in the summer months, although the teacher of this class should be carefully screened; liberals are occasionally known to be Christian and active church goers.

Certainly other aspects of one’s politically correct lifestyle must also be considered. The family automobile should be American made and certainly not a hybrid electrical vehicle. No solar panels should appear on the house, The National Review and The Wall Street Journal should appear in the mailbox while the TV set is never allowed on while young children are up but is tuned to Fox News later in the evening; Bill O’Reilly’s program is never to be missed. The Limbaugh brother’s radio programs help mother through her morning chores, although they do raise her blood pressure. The family library has all of Ann Coulter’s books and her famous quotes are framed and hung in the den.

It is clear that not all of the Republican presidential candidates fit this conservatively correct ideal. Mr. Trump’s characterization of the sacrament as his “little cracker” and “little glass of wine” should immediately disqualify him as a properly conservatively correct person. Some blemishes are not repairable, but no matter, he seems to be the favorite of the politically correct set anyway. It’s probably the haircut.

Dec 24^th

The first President I remember was FDR, although Hoover was President in 1927 when I was born. All of these Presidents had a certain gravitas appropriate to the office. I have trouble imagining any of them standing in front of an audience and mimicking a reporter’s physical handicap because they didn’t like what he wrote; then, in spite of film showing this mocking performance, denying that he ever did it. The reporter, Serge Kovaleski, suffers from a congenital defect which makes it difficult for him to control his arms. The performance artist mimicking him was Republican candidate for the Presidency, Donald Trump.

Mr. Trump has also distinguished himself in other fourth grade ways; he has claimed that Hillary Clinton’s use of a restroom was “disgusting” and then staying within his own party, saying of Carly Fiorina, “Look at that face, can you imagine that the face of our next President?” Consider another public incident in which Trump seemed physically unable to stop talking. I discussed this in an earlier post; it occurred on “Morning Joe” where Trump appeared from off the set. Scarborough tried to ask Trump a question but Trump just continued to talk over him. This continued for some minutes until Scarborough finally told Trump that if he continued to talk the program would take a commercial break. Trump continued and Scarborough cut him off. Once the break was over Trump apparently regained control of himself and the interview continued. I am not a clinician but this behavior is borderline pathological. If you listen to Trump’s rallies and his speeches you find that there is no orderly progression of ideas. I doubt that this matters at all to Trump’s typical audience. It will certainly matter to the Republican Party if he wins the nomination.

 Now to turn to another issue: Consider the Israeli Air Force. While the Jordanian, British, French, Danish and American air forces are pounding ISIL controlled territories where is the very powerful Israeli Air Force? They are confining their efforts to striking Hezbollah targets. Most recently thy sent smart bombs into Syrian Territory and killed a Hezbollah commander. Their efforts against ISIL controlled territory that might help their US ally is not much in evidence. Why is that? And more importantly why are the Congressional leaders in both parties apparently paying no attention to the Israeli’s absence from the air war?

Dec 23^rd

There have been some interesting developments in the last few days, some are rather surprising. You may recall that there was a Democratic debate. Apparently, (I didn’t watch it) there came a point when a “bathroom break” was called for. This event elicited a new, and far more sensitive, side of Donald Trump. Trump claimed that Hillary Clinton visiting a restroom was just “disgusting” and that he “didn’t want to talk about it.” Of course he really did want to talk about it because he was talking about it.

Governor Huckabee was unwilling to cede all of the Hillary restroom bashing to Donald Trump. Huckabee maintained that Hillary was far more effective as a debater when she was in the restroom and that she should have stayed there. Huckabee says that if he doesn’t come in at least third in the Iowa caucus that his campaign is over. I heard him say that. Given Hillary Clinton’s polling numbers and Mike Huckabee’s polling numbers it might behoove Huckabee to find a restroom and spend some time there.

Trump has an unusual new employee; her name is Katrina Pierson. She usually appears on news broadcasts to “clarify” (patch up) some comment The Donald has made. This woman is grim faced, unsmiling and all business. As with all Trump employees Donald Trump is always referred to as “Mr. Trump.” Pierson has an interesting history; a staunch tea party supporter, she once ran against Congressman Pete Sessions in the Texas Republican primary. She lost…badly. We next find her working for Ted Cruz’ Senate campaign. He won but unfortunately for Pierson it was discovered that she was drawing Federal unemployment compensation at the same time that she was employed by the Cruz campaign. She is also a leading figure promoting various conspiracies; the most recent is the UN Agenda 21 which she is certain is designed to destroy the United States. She does seem a perfect fit as a Donald Trump spokesperson. Watch for her but don’t expect any laughs.

Then we had an unfortunate cartoon in the Washington Post. It showed Cruz as Santa Claus with two little monkeys, presumably representing the Cruz daughters, on leashes. This cartoon was taken down very quickly but it never should have appeared in the first place. It was a response to a political ad showing Cruz reading stories to his adorable little daughters. This ad may have been designed to show that Cruz can be nice at least with his children even if his goodwill doesn’t extend to other Senators. Of course candidates’ children are supposed to be off limits, but they aren’t always, just ask Chelsea Clinton. Cruz has raised a considerable ruckus about this “mainstream media” gaffe. Like a good conservative he has discovered a way to make a buck from it. He is asking his supporters for donations in support of his outrage in hopes that they will reach a million dollars. I don’t believe that Cruz  is really all that upset about the Post’s cartoon.

Dec 22^nd

George Will, the intellectual standard bearer for all the right wing columnists, has constructed a column belittling the recent international climate change agreement. Will’s column is titled, “Another false ‘turning point’ on climate change.” He refers to an agreement by nearly 200 nations to monitor and otherwise concern themselves with climate change. Will claims that this is just another in a long history of “turning points.” For Will it seems that a turning point must require a reversal of direction. A simple movement away from the primary path doesn’t count as a change in direction.

He says, “Any agreement requiring U.S. expenditures and restriction on wealth creation would founder on the reef of representative government.”  Of course this “representative” government will tolerate no restrictions on “wealth creation.” This is because those who function as representatives represent primarily those into whose pockets go the created wealth.

Will then quotes Senator Mitch McConnell from Kentucky who says, “Before they pop the champagne, they should remember that this is an unobtainable ideal based on a domestic energy plan that is likely illegal, that half the states have sued to halt and that Congress has already voted to reject.” Well of course; what else would you expect from the Senator from Kentucky who represents the coal industry.

Will treats us to a history of the coal industries’ role in the upward and onward progress in the civilization of mankind. He waxes most eloquent about coal being important in civilization’s progress. He says, “…let us praise the solar energy source most responsible for the surge of human betterment that began with the harnessing of fossil fuels around 1800.” Now he wants us to think of burning coal as just another manifestation of solar energy. Considering his eloquence on this issue one is inclined to suspect that Will may have some financial ties to the coal industry.

He says that “the Paris agreement occasions slight excitement among the billions who lack electricity and the millions who lack potable water.” Some of these people probably live in Bangladesh and others in the Nile delta in Egypt.  Will fails to understand that if something isn’t done about global warming the people living in these regions will value swimming skills far more than they will be concerned about getting electricity. Much of the coastal lowlands in Florida will be on the real estate market within the next few years at greatly reduced prices. Florida’s Republican  Governor Rick Scott has discovered a new way to handle this problem, at least in Florida; he has banned the terms “climate change” and “global warming” from all state documents including emails. He must believe that if the issue isn’t discussed it will disappear. Welcome to the Republican world of magical thinking.

Dec 20^thand 21^st

Now we have the Democratic debate behind us and no, I didn’t watch that one either. The good parts, such as they were, are even now being shown on various Monday morning shows. Bernie Sanders demonstrated part of his appeal when he was asked by the moderator if he would apologize to Hillary Clinton for taking advantage of the DNCs data breach. Immediately, and with none of the typical politician’s, “If I have offended anyone…,” he said, looking squarely at Mrs. Clinton, “I apologize.” Well, that’s a new kind of politician. I doubt that I would pick him over Hillary Clinton but I understand his enormous appeal.

Hillary Clinton unfortunately claimed that Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim rants were shown on TV all over the mid-East and used as an ISIL recruiting tool. She was wrong about the TV part but right about the recruiting tool part.  Trump immediately demanded an apology which he will not get. Clinton was right about the use of Trump’s speeches as an ISIL recruiting tool but there is no evidence that they were televised. Although with ISIL’s internet capabilities they might well have made them available to TV owners on U-Tube.

Trump’s irrational Islamaphobia has now contaminated the whole country. There has been a 300 percent rise in anti-Islamic behavior so far this year. Someone fired five shots into a Mosque in Meridian Connecticut. No one was hurt but Trump’s anti-Islamic rhetoric feeds the ISIL message that the West’s Christians are eager to destroy Muslims and now they can include even those living peacefully in America. How can Trump’s comments be challenged when he has screaming fans supporting his xenophobia everywhere he speaks? Trump has now benevolently decided that Muslim soldiers serving this country overseas would, in his administration, be allowed to come home. The man is all heart once you get to know him.

is really a disaster.  We must have the support of Muslims if we are ever to defeat ISIL. We are seen as the enemy of all Muslims, certainly by ISIL supporters and they could not find a better spokesman than Donald Trump. At least he is now finding himself heckled at more and more of his performances. (I watched his performance briefly tonight in Grand Rapids and he was interrupted by hecklers twice in the five minutes I watched him. Both of them were ejected of course but they did stop him in mid-rant. He stopped his talk and mugged a bit for the cameras and this is exactly what the hecklers wanted; anything to shut him up.)

Remarkably, recent polls have Hillary Clinton doing better against Donald Trump in the general election than against any of the other candidates. Of course this came from Fox news which has long had a contentious relationship with Trump. Maybe it’s true and maybe it isn’t.

Dec 19^th

Every once-in-a-while when I want to see what the conservatives are up to (or down to) I turn on Fox News. This is interesting because it is carefully designed to appeal to those already furious at liberal policies and particularly paranoid about “big gov’ment.” These are the folks who claimed that Michelle Obama, Salutatorian at a Chicago magnet school, got into Princeton only because of affirmative action. They trivialize the President’s recent stop to console the relatives of the murdered victims in San Bernardino, California. Fox says the President was there anyway. Does that mean he would deserve no credit for comforting these people unless he hiked in from the Whitehouse?

I happened to hit the Saturday morning show on Fox hosted by the ubiquitous Tucker Carlson. Tucker is a thorough going conservative, except for the fact that he seems to have no objection to gay marriage. You won’t hear him discuss that departure from conservative orthodoxy on his Fox program however. This program, like many others on the Fox channel is at least partly a carefully orchestrated leg show. The women participants are all seated on a couch fronted by a low table. All are in thigh high skirts of course, no slacks are permitted. The women participants are young, articulate, almost all obviously Caucasian and without exception seriously conservative. One of their programs, “Outnumbered” consists of four short skirted young women seated two on either side of the “outnumbered” male guest. I’m sure that some viewers tune in to listen to the back and forth banter just as some once bought “Playboy” for the articles on philosophy.

Moving on to more serious issues, we now have Donald Trump polling in the high 30s to low 40s. Ted Cruz is now a distant second. Cruz is said to be waiting for Trump to fall on his face so that he, Cruz, can pick off Trump’s supporters, you know rather like a jackal scavenging a lion kill. There are some obvious difficulties with this plan: First, and most obvious is Trump’s comment, “I’m not going anywhere folks.” Now that Trump is pushing 40 percent in the polls with his nearest competitor below 20 percent it is more obvious than ever that Trump will not be dropping out any time soon. If he thinks that the RNC hasn’t played fair he will run as an independent, either way Cruz gets nothing.

The second difficulty is Cruz’s assumption that if he doesn’t criticize Trump, and if Trump drops out, Cruz will get those Trump supporters. OK why should they support Cruz if they don’t support him now? If Cruz believes that he is Trump “lite” he might find that Trump’s supporters want the real thing or nothing at all. They can always stay home.

The Brits who can bet on our elections are giving odds that are enlightening: The favorite Republican candidate, if you’re betting, is Marco Rubio with Trump second and Cruz well down in the pack. Hillary is still the odds on favorite to win the election.

Dec 18^th

We come now to conspiracy theories; the most insane of which involves the recent, and some not so recent, mass shootings. Consider the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The perpetrator of this crime, Adam Lanza, first killed his mother and then stealing her guns he went on to kill twenty children and six adults at the school.

Alex Jones, who runs a radio talk show in Texas, is convinced that these murders never happened. He claims the victims were actors paid by the government to discredit the Second Amendment. Adam is certainly the premier conspiracy theorist we have today. He has an alternative conspiracy theory for the Oklahoma City bombing, the Moon landing, 9/11 (the towers were dynamited by the government), the incineration of the Astronauts, Grissom, White and Chaffee (murdered by the government because they might reveal that the Moon landing was a hoax)) all of the recent school shootings (never happened, all done by actors hired to help discredit the gun lobby.)

Who buys into this nonsense? A good 6 percent of the people who heard the Moon landing fake believed it. For the 9/11 conspiracy that the government had planted explosives in the twin towers the believers amounted to 16 percent. There are similar percentages of Americans who believe in each of Jones conspiracies. Well, who cares?  We’ve always had the looney tunes fringe, what harm can they do?

Quite a lot of harm; one of Jones’ fans, James Tracy, an Associate Professor of Communications at Florida Atlantic College went so far as to send messages to the parents of the youngest victim of the Sandy Hook murders insisting that they provide him with proof that their son, Noah, had in fact once lived, and that they were his parents and the rightful owners of his photographs. Tracy continued to bother the parents of this murdered child until Noah’s parents got a restraining order to stop this curiosity from harassing them. Florida Atlantic University is in the process of dismissing this member of its faculty.

Why Americans seem to love conspiracy theories I have no Idea. Incidentally it will be no surprise for you to learn that Donald Trump agreed to be a guest on Alex Jones radio show. Then this morning when Trump was on Morning Joe he was asked what he thought of his endorsement by Vladimir Putin whose minions had executed a variety of news people. The only thing Trump cared about was Putin’s compliment about his intelligence. I guess if you’re not that sure of yourself you’ll take whatever compliments you can get from whomever you can get them.

 

Dec 17^th

On Dec.12^th we examined Justice Scalia’s obviously racist comment about the dis-service minority students get by being admitted to universities whose academic demands might overwhelm them. Mona Charen has today supported Justice Scalia in a column titled “The liberal ‘Festival of Smugness.’” She claims that “Liberal smugness follows any comment by a conservative public figure that can be twisted into a racial slight.” Unfortunately for Mona’s point, Justice Scalia’s comment required no twisting at all to be considered a racial slight. He talked specifically about African-American students being poorly served by attending elite schools where they do not do well.  Charen says that Scalia perhaps should have said “some” students do not do well. No, neither she nor Scalia understands the problem.

Scalia could have avoided being pegged as a racist if he had said that many poorly prepared students admitted to elite colleges do not do well. This is true whether or not the students are minority students. Poor preparation doesn’t mean just mediocre high school grades. If you aren’t interested in learning what is assigned then you’ll have a problem and that problem will have nothing to do with minority status. There are plenty of non-minority students whose academic credentials don’t entitle them to admission to elite colleges but who get in anyway. Some of these are legacies, students with an important relative who graduated previously. Maybe George W. Bush fits into this category. Some applicants have a special skill perhaps the 6’ 2” seventeen year old women’s basketball player has the coach writing to the admissions committee to make an exception in spite of her 500 SAT scores..

Every college, even the truly elite schools, have students falling in the bottom quarter of their test score and grade distribution. So is Scalia suggesting that these students should go somewhere else?  Charen cites a controversial book by Stuart Taylor Jr. and Richard Sanders titled “Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help and Why Universities Won’t Admit It.” The authors are an economist and a journalist. When the case of Fisher vs the University Of Texas came to the Supreme Court this book was placed in evidence. There were about a dozen members of the National Academy of Science who filed a friend of the court brief demonstrating the various difficulties the authors have understanding basic statistical methodology. Charen cites this book as if its characterization of affirmative action was not at all controversial.

There is another problem: the racism that continues to exist in many colleges and universities, even those considered to be elite. We’ve seen that recently in the racist insults scrawled on dormitories at the University of Missouri. Michelle Obama, when a freshman at Princeton, had a roommate who insisted that she did not want to room with a black girl. Do you honestly believe that this kind of in your face racism would have no effect on a minority students’ academic performance?

Dec 16^th

The spectacle has come and gone; “…full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” What has changed? Nothing much has changed. It is clearer now that Trump and Cruz have not yet decided on mortal combat, or indeed combat of any other kind. Carly Fiorina, having nothing new to say, played the “girl” card again by quoting Margaret Thatcher who quipped that men talk, but women do. Christie remains pumped in New Hampshire as a result of the “Union Leader” recommendation. Now he also wants to shoot down Russian planes if they enter a no fly zone he would declare. Marco Rubio got the better of Ted Cruz in their exchange about electronic surveillance because now it seems that the appropriate Senate committee overseeing these things is checking out Cruz’s assertions. Rubio had said the he didn’t think Cruz’s comments revealing what is now being done should be broadcast to fifteen million people. The Senate Intelligence Committee might agree. Does Cruz have any friends in the Senate? Not really, you have to go over to the other body, to Congressman Steven King of Iowa who says that, “Cruz is the answer to my prayers.” Stay tuned for the Senate Intelligence Committee’s verdict about Cruz’s possible naughtiness.

The bright light, or maybe “lite” because he hasn’t been doing well at all in the polls, was Lindsey Graham, the Senator form South Carolina. He was witty and not at all in agreement about banning all Muslims from the country. He pointed out that many Muslims are serving in our military and that banning their co-religionists is a stupid move. Senator Graham was a “bird” colonel in the Air force Reserve (now retired) and he has had a few, very few, active duty assignments overseas. He is an attorney and served in the Adjutant General’s department. His service certainly does not qualify him as an expert on military matters. That doesn’t stop him from presenting his opinions. He is a politician after all!

We come to the coalition of those now fighting ISIL. Even Saudi Arabia is involved in the bombing but only of Shia Muslims because the Saudis are Sunni Muslims (Wahhabi Sunnis, a very strict variant of Sunnism.). This is an important difference. The Saudi Kingdom has the despised (by us) Sharia Law. If you visit Saudi Arabia you will be subject to Sharia law just as you would be in ISIL controlled territory. If you are gay you will have your head cut off; if you steal something you will have your hand cut off. The difference between the punishment for various “crimes” in Saudi Arabia and those in ISIL controlled territory is none at all. Keep in mind that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi citizens. We can count on the Saudi Arabian air force to bomb targets just so long as the targets are Shia Muslims. Note that Iran is primarily Shia Muslim. The ISIL people are Sunni and like the Saudis willing to quickly chop up any Shia apostate they run across. Maybe we should just leave them alone to settle this among themselves.

Dec 15^th

Pat Buchanan’s opinions appear in today’s paper. These are quite predictable if you know the typically xenophobic ideas Buchanan usually has. He is all for a “moratorium” on Muslim immigration until we can, in Donald Trump’s words,  “…figure out what the hell is going on.” You can be sure that both Trump and Buchanan will agree that figuring that out won’t happen any time soon. Buchanan seems to have an atavistic paranoia toward anyone who doesn’t look like him. Some years ago a conservative icon, William F. Buckley, writing in the National Review, the magazine he founded, said, “I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan from…a charge of anti-Semitism.”

Buchanan worked for President Richard Nixon another notorious anti- Semite. He was also an apologist for the Nazis, even maintaining that Germany was well within its rights to invade Poland and calling World War 2 an “unnecessary war” caused primarily by Winston Churchill’s insistence on preserving the British Empire. Buchanan even wrote a book with “The Unnecessary War” as the title.

So what’s the deal with banning Muslims from entering the country? It is perfectly legal…it’s also perfectly stupid. The government can ban anyone it wants to from entering the country. Constitutional protections begin for foreigners after they get here; the constitution’s freedom of religion, trial by jury and other rights apply to “persons” not just citizens. Voting and holding elective office are another matter.  The restriction on who can come in to the country has been curiously asserted in the past; for example children of an unmarried couple at one time could not come in to this country. I don’t know if that’s still the case. Maybe that’s one of the laws the administration isn’t enforcing. Deny entrance to the children unless the parents can prove they are married and you’ve got the cudgel the “defenders of marriage” demand.

Buchanan’s and Trump’s proposal to exclude Muslims from the country is particularly stupid for several reasons: First, we need information about potential attacks by Muslim terrorists and this information is most likely to come from other Muslims. If we alienate the American Muslims, we have isolated our security people from a valuable information source. Second, ISIL wants to institute an “us against them” scenario in which all of the Muslim world is seen as pitted against all of the West. A blanket prohibition on Muslims entering this country reinforces that scenario perfectly.

The advantage of the prohibition is that it plays nicely into the fear and paranoia that Trump, Buchanan and others on the right are stoking. Trump supporters have now become unhinged at any criticism of their hero. Last night at a Trump rally a protester was ejected but not before trump’s supporters were screaming, “kill him,” “shoot him,” “burn the ****.” A new era in American politics has arrived.

Dec 14^th

Tomorrow night is the last “debate.” Praise be! I will not be watching it because any interesting fireworks will surely be picked up and re-broadcast later. And I have no wish to listen to Carly Fiorina nervously and ferociously harangue the audience about the awfulness of Hillary Clinton. It also appears that Rand Paul has a spot on the main stage; these are reason enough to avoid this final performance.

Chris Hayes presented an interesting factoid this morning. Over the last many election cycles the ultimate Republican nominee has won either the Iowa caucus or the New Hampshire primary. If your very favorite Republican candidate doesn’t win either of these don’t bet on him/her becoming the Republican standard bearer in the general election.

The “Morning Joe,” Joe Scarborough, tell us that Senator Cruz is seriously disliked by his Senate colleagues. I can’t imagine that given that he called the Senate leader, Senator McConnell, a liar, but when I googled “Senators for Ted Cruz” nothing came up. I guess that Cruz will not have a committee of his colleagues promoting his candidacy. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School claimed that Cruz was a brilliant student. He might well have been brilliant as a law student but alienating the vast majority of your Senate colleagues if you want to run for President is bone stupid. Intelligence and judgment are certainly positively correlated but high intelligence is no guarantee of superior judgment; Cruz is a case in point.

 

 

Dec 13^th

I see that New Jersey’s Governor, Chris Christie, has had a nice bump in the New Hampshire polls. The Governor had not been totally moribund but he had been sagging badly when the Manchester “Union Leader,” a very significant newspaper, rather surprisingly, gave him their endorsement. I watched the predictably laconic publisher of that paper, Joseph Mc Quaid, being interviewed. He was asked why Christie had received this honor. He said that Christie was better than Trump and he would get no argument there.  But then he produced nothing but the usual platitudes about how Christie had the experience, yada, yada. He would probably have added Christie’s inherent honesty and good looks but he recognized that he had stretched the limits of belief already. It is hard to imagine why else Christie should be pulling ahead in the polls and, as a result, be on the main stage Tuesday night instead of at the kiddy table.

Rand Paul on the other hand may be headed for the kiddy table and he is very unhappy about that. His childish pout over the possibility of being relegated to the minor leagues really doesn’t look at all Presidential.

Republican big wigs got together recently and began to consider the possibility of a brokered convention. That will be fun to watch if it happens. A brokered convention occurs if no one candidate gets enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. Donald Trump is mightily upset about this possibility because he believes that a brokered convention is a plot to steal the nomination from him. (It is hardly surprising that Trump who spreads paranoia wherever he goes is a bit paranoid himself; on the other hand Trump may have a point.)

If no candidate in a brokered convention gets enough votes then some horse trading goes on. Maybe the number three candidate agrees to release his delegates to number two in exchange for a Secretary of State position in number two’s administration if he’s elected. You can see that even if Trump has many delegates some of those behind him could combine to win the nomination. If that happens, Trump might decide that he has been treated “unfairly” and go it alone. Of course by then it would probably be too late for him to get on various state ballots and do any severe damage to the Republican cause. If Trump claims that he was treated unfairly and asks his enraged followers to stay home that could also hand the election to Hillary Clinton. As you can see a brokered convention could be more fun than…well almost anything!

 

 

Dec 12^th

Justice Antonin Scalia has had some remarkably political incorrect things to say about education recently. Here is the back-story: A young lady, Abigail Fisher, sought admission to the University of Texas at Austin. This well-regarded school automatically admits any student graduating in the top ten percent of his/her high school class. Unfortunately Abigail didn’t make the cut; her grades were good but not in the top ten percent of her class and her SAT scores were equivalently modest. The university reserves a substantial percentage of its entrance slots for students who don’t make the ten percent cut; these are often minority students. Abigail claimed reverse discrimination because she claimed that minority students with credentials just like hers were admitted but she had not been admitted which was clearly discriminatory.

Now Justice Scalia offers his opinion in a rather ham-handed way: The Justice suggested that minority students might be better served at less selective colleges and universities where they might be more able to meet the lowered educational demands. It happens that for many elite colleges getting in is harder that getting through. Then there are a host of things students learn from fellow students at elite colleges that don’t appear on their transcripts. An engineering student I knew attended a school which also had a fine arts department. A fraternity brother, an art student, painted his ceiling with Mondrian’s “Composition ‘C’.”  My friend’s acquaintance with Mondrian won’t appear on his record.

Even in some “elite” universities certain course work appears especially targeted to marginal students. The University of Michigan has its notorious “General Studies” major beloved by the football players. For the University as a whole 3 percent major in General Studies but that major gets about half of the football team. Go figure.

Many colleges require tests of all incoming students, both transfers and new students, to determine who needs remedial course work. A college I’m familiar with required tests in both writing and in mathematics. A problem surfaced when some minority students transferring from a community college (Not NMC) who had received good grades in their community college writing course discovered that they had to take a non-credit course in remedial English. They quickly assumed that it wasn’t their poor writing skills but rather their minority status their caused their problem. Counselling helped to convince most of them that their writing did need help.

Most colleges, even those with reasonable admission standards, will admit some weaker students. When that happens their advisor gets test scores and grades telling him that the first semester shouldn’t be calculus, chemistry, and economics. In short, all colleges will have those who barely meet their entrance standards. Adequate counselling can help those students to succeed. There is no need to insult them by sending them off to “less demanding” schools.

Dec 11^th

You may remember that a few days ago Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu emphatically criticized Donald Trump’s idea to prohibit entrance into this country by people based on their religion. He spoke about Israel’s religious tolerance and pointed out that such a restriction as banning Muslims would be against Israel’s national values. Trump promptly changed his plans to visit Israel. Now Mona Charen has decided to add to the anti-Trump chorus.

Not that she hasn’t been anti-Trump all along, on July 24^th of this year Charen writes about what she calls the “Trump bump;” she claims that, “Progressives are panting to interpret his surge as evidence of Republican’s black hearts. Some Trump supporters say that his success such as it is/was…is an indictment of the limp “Republican establishment.” Then Charen tries to show that Republicans aren’t so viciously anti-immigrant after all. She says that 66 percent say illegal immigrants are “mostly honest.” And that only 19 percent said they were “mainly undesirable.” What an endorsement! I can see the Latino community flocking right back to the Republican Party. Then Charen says, “Trump’s moment is probably fading, but his little balloon ride is disturbing none-the-less.” Well, no one in July expected Trump to be where he is now so Charen can be excused for her tendency to make light of Trump.

Most of her column isn’t about Trump but is used to denigrate the “execrable leadership of the Democratic Party and its allies in the press. We have witnessed several years of stoked race hatred in America.” Shooting down fleeing black men, putting sixteen bullets in a teenager in fifteen seconds and other obscenities had nothing to do with this race hatred; it’s all just poor Democratic leadership.

We come to today’s column: Charen is mightily upset because everyone is talking about Donald Trump instead of the “disastrous fecklessness of President Obama and his party in the face of terrorism…” Notice that once again Charen makes no specific criticisms; The President is “feckless,” the Democrats are “unravelling” from Obama Care, just as back in July Charen talked about “execrable” leadership. As far as I can see, Charen has not, in any of her columns, managed to claim the President has done “X” when he should have done “Y.” Charen has developed a penchant for the vicious attack about nothing specific.

Then she claims that, “Far from targeting American Muslims for discrimination the U.S has been a haven.”  And she says, “(The most common target of religious bigotry in America? Jews.)” This “Haven for Muslims” has seen a 300 percent increase in attacks on, or incidents about, Mosques and a 23 percent increase in attacks on Synagogues. Again, two minutes on the internet and Charen could have discovered this for herself.

Charen’s concern with Trump is that everyone is talking about Trump instead of Democratic shortcomings. Not a word about Trump’s hopelessly un-Constitutional call to stop Muslims from entering the country. Other Republicans, including most candidates for the Republican nomination have criticized Trump’s proposal as being un-American, against our values. Charen’s only complaint is that his newsworthiness stops complaints about Democrats.

 

 

 

 

Dec 10^th

It seems that Donald Trump has had to change his travel plans. He had expected to be warmly welcomed by Israel whose citizens are much more at risk of terrorist attack than are Americans. Prime Minister Netanyahu announced his rejection of Trump’s “exclude the Muslims” policy. Netanyahu said that Israel was open to all faiths. OK, so that means one less tourist for Israel; Trump has announced that now he is delaying his trip until after he becomes President of the United States. Poor Trump, someone should have told him that about 17 percent of Israeli citizens are Muslim…and they vote…and Netanyahu is an elected official. See, Donald money can’t buy everything.

In Scotland, where he has lots of business interests, he has been deprived of his status as a member of GlobalScot a premier international business network. Then Robert Gordon University has rescinded the honorary degree they gave him because his comments were incompatible with the university’s values. But wait! There’s more! A petition with 390,000 signatures is circulating to ban him from England. This has really gotten under his skin and there is nothing he can do about it. Well, who cares; he has the whole-hearted support of two thirds of the Republicans questioned. What does he care if the Brits think he’s a fascist? He isn’t running for anything over there…and that is too bad!

Then we have Representative Peter King of New York, a member of the Homeland Security Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. His current enthusiasm is to investigate Muslim radicalization. He recently appeared on Frank Gaffney’s radio program where he claimed that there were too many Mosques. Frank Gaffney is a well-known conspiracy theorist and he and King had a very agreeable meeting. Gaffney is the founder and chief person at The Center for Security Policy. His conspiracy suggestions have extended to insisting that Grover Norquist, the anti-tax man, is in fact an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood. Gaffney’s other fantasies are similarly absurd. Why a very senior member of the house intelligence establishment would stoop to appear on Gaffney’s program is hard to explain. But that’s no easier to account for than the notion King has that there are too many Mosques.

We have always been easily seduced into paranoia; I believe it is genetic. Someone is out to get us so we must get a carry permit, use this soap to avoid body odor (Don’t you use **** don’t you wish everybody did?). It is only a step to get to the belief that some group, usually defined by religion or skin color, is responsible for all our problems. Then comes the strong man who can make everything OK if we will just give him some room to do his thing even if doing his thing isn’t entirely legal.  Right now we might be uncomfortably close to that.

 

 

Dec 9^th

Yesterday we had our old friend, Patrick J. Buchanan, taking on the press. (Trump occupied me yesterday, so Buchanan’s turn comes today.) Buchanan begins with a history lesson describing the “Fourth Estate,” which is the press; the first three estates are the nobles, the clergy and the common people. According to Buchanan “today the press decides what words are permissible and what thoughts are acceptable.”

That’s nonsense; the press does no such thing. The press is constrained by economics. If the press publishes something offensive to their readers and listeners it will affect their readership and ultimately their revenues. In a very real sense the press decides only to echo what the people want to hear. Listeners who are offended by programs referring to Native Americans as “Indians” or those enthusiastically supporting Columbus Day will stop listening to those programs and the stations broadcasting them know that. Even with the press it’s all about the money. The same is true with interviews with politicians: If Joe Senator is asked what he thinks of Donald Trump and instead of answering that question directly he says that “we must keep our country safe,” the interviewer will usually not follow up by insisting that the Senator answer the question for then the Senator might not be willing to return as a guest.

Buchanan, an ardent admirer of Richard Nixon, writes that, “When the national press and its auxiliaries sought to break his Vietnam War policy in 1969…Nixon dispatched Vice President Spiro Agnew to launch a counter-strike on network prejudice and power. A huge majority rallied to Nixon and Agnew…” Shortly after this “rally” in 1970 we had the murder of four unarmed protesting Kent State students by poorly trained and panicked Ohio National Guardsmen. Perhaps Buchanan believes that those murders never happened that it was just an exaggeration by the mainstream media.

As everyone knows public opinion turned against the Vet Nam war for a variety of reasons, some of which several administrations attempted to hide quite unsuccessfully. By 1973 Spiro T. Agnew had resigned in disgrace, the first Vice President ever to do that. A few years later Richard M. Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment for which his conviction was certain. Buchanan worked for Nixon and still believes he was the victim of a left wing plot; no leftwing plot was needed, Nixon demolished himself.

Then Buchanan says, “…the media have played right into Trump’s hand. They denounce him as grossly insensitive…for what he said about women Mexicans, Muslims, McCain and a reporter with a disability. …And when they demand that Republicans repudiate him the GOP replies, “Who are you to tell us whom we may nominate?” Well Pat, what a difference a day makes.  After Trump’s call to ban Muslims Speaker of the House Paul Ryan says, “This is not conservatism. More importantly it is not what this country stands for.” RNC Chairman Priebus, “I don’t agree; take on terrorists but not at the expense of our American values.” I guess Trump went a step too far and he is now being “repudiated” by his party. Pat probably believes that this too is a mainstream media plot.

 

Dec 8^th

There is no shortage of curious right wing material to write about today; I’ll begin with Donald Trump. Trump was interviewed this morning on “Morning Joe” and that interview has been replayed over and over again…and with good reason. Trump, the previous evening had brought his audience to its feet by asserting that this country should refuse to admit any Muslims. Now he was given an opportunity to expand on this idea.

It was not really an interview; we assume an interview means that the interviewee is asked questions and supplies answers that clarifies or expands his position. This was an attempt at an interview with several people calmly asking Trump questions and Trump, before the questioner could finished with the question, interrupting and veering off the topic to something he, Trump, preferred to discuss. Then the questioner would calmly return to his original question and get the same non-response from Trump all over again.

One of Trumps diversions was to rehash the discredited comments by “Bobby” Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana, who claimed that there were sections of London where the police dared not go. When put on the spot he couldn’t name them. Now Trump has tried the same trick only Trump has added Paris to London as cities having Muslim sections where the police fear to go. When Scarborough asked Trump which sections of Paris he was talking about Trump just kept insisting that it was Paris. Trump’s standard response to questions he doesn’t like is to ignore them and keep talking.

Trump effectively dominated the discussion by talking incessantly until Scarborough finally said that if he kept up his uninterrupted flow of speech, Scarborough would go to a commercial break. Trump kept talking and Scarborough went to a break cutting him off in mid-sentence.

First of all, such a ban on Muslims entering the country would not be Constitutional. Second, the very suggestion of such a ban by a leading political figure will do major damage to any attempt by this government to build a coalition of Arab (Muslim) states to fight ISIL. Jordan, that had one of its pilots burned alive, and has been a staunch ally now learns that its citizens cannot enter the United States. Whose side is Trump on? If boots go on the ground to defeat ISIL they will have to be Muslim boots. Trump is a disaster for this country’s efforts to defeat ISIL.

Trump isn’t getting much support on this issue from other Presidential candidates; they reject his position on prohibiting Muslims entering the country, usually in unequivocal terms…with one exception. Ted Cruz is very gentle with Trump. Cruz says that he “disagrees” with Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the country but that he will not criticize him. What a surprise! Cruz is waiting for Trump to flame out and then Cruz expects that he will inherit the Trump supporters. This only works if Cruz doesn’t get on the wrong side of Trump and friends so Cruz is being very careful. For some conservatives, practical considerations trump principle every time.

 

Dec 7^th

Today is the 74^th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack. We had more Americans killed on 9/11 than were lost at Pearl Harbor but when Pearl Harbor was attacked we knew who had attacked us; that wasn’t the case after 9/11.  In spite of the fact that 15 of the 19 attackers were Saudi citizens and that Saudi Arabia subsidized Madrasas that preached nothing but “hate Americans” (and still do) we attacked Iraq on the basis of likely deliberately faulty intelligence. Go figure!

Last night we had a speech by the President; this morning we had the usual condemnation of his speech by the right wing pundits…same old, same old. In fact the rhetoric coming from the right has now become predictable enough to be boring. Obama asks for an a renewed authorization to use force against ISIL (AUMF) but while some of the more bellicose in Congress want something like that, the majority will have nothing to do with any such authorization…so it languishes.

Most of the right wing columnists echo each other and then come around full circle to repeat themselves. Only occasionally will someone say something unusual as Kasich did when he recently claimed that we should allow those on the terrorist watch list to buy semi-automatic weapons, and presumably use them, because to stop the purchase would tell them that they were on the prohibited list! I have been doing this blog for just shy of a year and that is absolutely the nuttiest thing anyone has said.

Coming close was Trump’s suggestion to register all Muslims into a data base and require them to carry identification labeling them as Muslim. What he says is not all that scary; what’s scary is that huge numbers of Americans agree with him. They agree with him because they are frightened. Effective politicians know how to keep them afraid and then persuade the fearful they’ve created that they, and they alone, can keep them safe.

Now I’ve just wasted a few minutes listening to Trump’s fear mongering in a speech he is making in South Carolina.  He says that “we have no idea who is coming into this country.” If you have ever been out of the country and then returned you know that Trump’s assertion is nonsense. Then Trump takes the mandatory shot at the media singling out Katy Tur who had apparently not been worshipful enough with her coverage of him at some point. Now I’m sure that Ms. Tur and all of her NBC colleagues will fall right into line.

Maybe, in the next few days, there will be something worthwhile to comment about but if something doesn’t soon maybe I’ll be reduced to telling war stories.

Dec 6^th

George Will tells us that after the shooting in Southern California some 180 thousand people went out and bought guns. Will claimed that these people “voted with their feet.” Will doesn’t tell us how many of these purchasers were new owners and how many were just adding to an already existing arsenal. Then we have Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University, suggesting that all of the university students there should carry concealed weapons.

John Kasich, the governor of Ohio says that he would have voted against banning those on the terrorism watch list from buying guns. He provides a new and interesting logic for his decision. Most of the right wingers who suggest not enforcing such a ban maintain that the list is flawed, that some are on the list that don’t belong there. (See Carly Fiorina’s comment about this.) Of course no test is perfect. The fact that there are a few false positives shouldn’t lead us to abandon such lists but to improve them. Kasich suggests that if we ban anyone on that list from buying an AR-15 or an AK-47, then they will know that they are on the list. So which is worse, having a couple of terrorists get AK-47s and shoot up a mall someplace or stop the gun purchase and in so doing reveal that they are on the watch list. Is Kasich serious that this is a choice?

Then we had a right wing Trump fan on a morning talk show who handed out the same curious information on the inadequacy of gun control laws we’ve heard over and over again. She claimed that California had strict gun control laws and that is spite of that, these terrorists had no problem getting weapons. Nonsense! California is just next door to Nevada and no one checks packages coming into California from Nevada where guns are easily obtainable. We get this same nonsense from right wingers about Chicago’s gun laws; just go outside the city limits and buy all you want; or Washington D.C which has strict gun laws, but is a ten minute cab ride from Virginia where buying is easy.

(Now it can be told: I got a Marksman medal in the USAAF during basic because the guy standing next to me was shooting at my target. We had three 5 shot clips for our .45s and my target had sixteen holes in it. The sergeant asked me what happened. I said I didn’t know…but I was mightily tempted to tell him that I was one helluva shot.)

 

Dec 5^th

Mona Charen is presenting her opinions again in the morning paper. Charen takes just three paragraphs to present her case and then to contradict herself.  She begins by quoting Hillary Clinton, “let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary…” Then Charen asks, “What happens when a major political party becomes so wedded to political correctness that it feels constrained to deny reality?...the threat of Muslim extremism is glaringly,, blazingly obvious.” Finally Charen circles back and agrees with Clinton by saying that, “Most Muslims are peaceful. Beyond that they practice charity, care for the sick and practice good works.” Apparently Charen is upset because Clinton did not condemn Muslim extremism but simply said that our adversary is not Islam which Charen then seems to agree with.

What’s going on here? Charen must have needed a conservatively correct column, something that took a swipe at Hillary Clinton to maintain her conservative chops and what you saw is what you got.

Charen goes on to comment on the Muslim refugees and the ability to assimilate them into our society. She starts with a little scare tactic by telling us the percentages of Muslims who favor the death penalty for apostates. (Perhaps she should also direct us to Deut. 23: 6-9 which does he same for straying Jews and those who entice them.) Charen seems to forget that these refugees whom those on the right fear so much are refugees from this very extreme interpretation of Islam. If they agreed with it they wouldn’t be trying to get away from it.

Then comes Ted Cruz to assert that violent felons are all Democrats. That is nonsense of course but when does that stop Cruz who wondered not long ago why the Pope hadn’t been “fired” and Cruz, a Catholic, should know that isn’t how it works.  The research that Cruz misinterprets doesn’t distinguish “violent felons” from non-violent felons. A disproportionate number of convicted felons are poor, black or Latino and minimally employed. Anyone who fits into those categories is likely to vote Democratic whether or not they have been convicted of a crime.

Then Cruz points out that Democrats have tried to restore voting rights to felons who have served out their sentences. He says that “Democrats go in and fight for the right to vote to convicted felons. Why? Because Democrats know that ex-felons are more likely to vote Democrat.” What? You mean that after a felon has served his sentence and been released, and then he discovers that the Democrats have been actively trying to arrange for him to have the right to vote again he is likely to vote Democratic. Now isn’t that shocking?

Dec 4^th

Thomas Sowell is upset because of what he calls the intolerance shown for dissenting political views on American campuses. He is particularly aggrieved at the administrations of various Ivy League colleges for caving in to student’s sensitivities.  Harkening back to the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) of the late sixties, he refers to those protesters as “campus storm troopers” but finds the University of Chicago praiseworthy for “standing up to them.” His own doctorate in economics happens to be from the University of Chicago; it must be a heavy burden for him to admit that President Barack Obama taught constitutional law at his university for about twelve years. He never mentions that fact.

It is not easy for African-American students attending Princeton University to tolerate the fact that President Woodrow Wilson, a past president of Princeton and a past President of the United States was a world class bigot who, once he got in the White House, proceeded to “cleanse” the government rolls of Black workers. This action caused enormous hardship for many families. That, and his praise for the Ku Klux Klan make the reverence for his memory at Princeton hard to bear for many students regardless of color. It’s easy to dismiss those concerns and simply say that he was a man of his times, but he wasn’t, because the previous President, William Taft, or Theodore Roosevelt before him, had hired these bmen. Woodrow Wilson’s bigotry was obviously an anomaly and he was not a product of his times.

Sowell goes on to give high praise to a book, “Choosing the Right College,” an evaluation of many colleges on the basis of their “ideological intolerance.” Included are the book’s author’s opinions about how tolerant each rated college is to dissenting opinions. Most of the Ivy League schools get red marks signifying intolerance. As you might expect, the University of Chicago gets a green light and Sowell has written a resounding recommendation for the book on Amazon!

There are a good many lesser known colleges that probably should also be included in this book but are not, colleges that need have no worry about dissenting opinions; these are the fundamentalist and evangelical institutions that carefully screen their entering students lest anyone be admitted who might not be compatible with the college’s mission. Biola University, formerly the Bible college of Los Angeles, Is not included in the book Sowell recommends. Biola’s first requirement of any applicant is that he or she “must be an Evangelical believer in the Christian faith.” This is not a tiny school; its enrollment is oversix thousand students. With this rigorous entrance screening it is vanishingly unlikely that Biola students will cause the administration any problems.

There are many colleges and universities just like Biola, and it is unlikely that with their intense focus on careful student selection, that the issue of any divergent opinion would ever arise. One of these, Letourneau University, recently got some publicity when it banned its student athletes from supporting gay marriage. Perhaps their admissions officer needs to review the entrance requirements.

Dec 3^rd

Today a few words about guns; it seems appropriate given the news from Southern California. There an American citizen, a Muslim, and his wife, armed with military style rifles and an assortment of handguns murdered fourteen people and wounded seventeen others. There were no cries of ‘Allah Akbar’ from the shooters who were apparently very badly upset about something that went on during the celebratory dinner many of whose attendees they then murdered.  It does seem to me that Muslims can have murderous rages and kill people just like the Christians can. Although the enormous amount of ammunition and bomb making material found in their house points to additional agendas.

While this country is afloat in hand guns many households don’t have any. In 1977 about 77 percent of households had a gun but that has now dropped to 32 percent. So who has all the guns?  Many of the 32 percent that have a gun don’t stop at one. Maybe it’s like taking vitamins; who takes just one vitamin supplement? If one gun makes you feel a little safer, then five will make you feel even safer and fifteen guns safer still. How many are required to make you feel safe enough. There is no number because everyone knows that the Obama government will confiscate whatever guns you have. This means that you should bury several guns in your basement, some more in your back yard and hide some in the attic.

This morning Carly Fiorina appeared on “Morning Joe” to make her case for just why she isn’t doing better in the polls and to comment on the Southern California shooting. Ms. Fiorina quickly produced some curious logic. Scarborough asked her why we shouldn’t prohibit gun sales to those on the terrorist watch list. Fiorina claimed that the terrorist watch list was flawed and had many false positives. That’s almost certainly true. She claimed that to prohibit gun ownership to those on the government’s terrorist list simply deprived those citizens of their second amendment rights. (This terrorist watch list is quite controversial in itself.)    However flawed this list may be, by her curious logic because we find some innocent people guilty of crimes we should therefore ignore our laws.

Then she provided tis bit of misinformation about the watch list, indictment and firearm possession:

"That's kind of a red herring, honestly," she said. "If somebody is a suspected terrorist on a watch list they can be indicted at any time. And once you are indicted you cannot own a firearm. So let's enforce the laws we have. Let's start with that."

Nonsense! Anyone, not just those on a watch list, can be indicted at any time; all it takes is an aggressive prosecuting attorney. The person he wishes to indict does not get to respond until and if the case goes to court. In some cases the indictment alone can lead to imprisonment until the trial occurs. On the issue of gun ownership: You can most certainly own a gun while under indictment. Fiorina is simply wrong about that. However, while under indictment you cannot buy a gun, or transport a gun. The law does not specifically say that you cannot own a gun; it is very specific about buying and transporting,  so if the law meant to prohibit gun ownership it probably would have said so. Fiorina is much too full of herself to bother fact-checking what she says. That might have been part of her problem at H-P.