Picture > 1000 words

This is the picture that is worth at least a thousand words (from here).

They gots to get their story straight.

Trump may well be - in fact most likely is - a bully.  An indiscriminate bully, an equal opportunity bully.  Even more frustrating to people, a direct, confrontational bully as opposed to the more indirect, passive-aggressive bullying employed by the left.  To some, that is part of his appeal - screw tact - in the face of criticism, in the face of passive-aggressive, indirect, "ism" assault, go for the jugular.  The left, from Warren, to Gillibrand and others of both sexes, expect to say what they want and face no response.

The modern "Red Scare"?

So do we now see the strategy that will be used to take down opposition candidates, regardless of party, in the months and years to come?

When I started wondering if this might be the new "Red Scare" I was shocked to see that on History.com that they had to explain why it was called "Red"; "Communists were often referred to as “Reds” for their allegiance to the red Soviet flag."  Am I that old?  "Doesn't anyone know history anymore?" It was really before my time, as well (not by much), but I still knew what it was and wrote papers on it several times. But who cares for history – reading it might mean we have lessons to learn from it.  That’s absurd – everyone knows only today’s people know anything worth knowing. History is for old farts, romanticizing about days gone by.

Anyway, accusations of connections to communists were a major political tool in those days, used both to bolster the accuser and to denigrate the accused.  There may have been some reality to it, but it did not matter whether there was evidence or not - the simple matter of being accused was sufficient to "black list" a person. There was no burden of proof. It cost many good people their future.

So, the question:  Is this déjà vu all over again?  Two ongoing situations mirror this phenomenon wherein accusation is sufficient to assume guilt.

1.  The ongoing Trump-Russia accusations (those damned reds again!).  To date, a year later, there is no evidence of "collusion", only an accusation.  Still, via politically-motivated incessant repetition and insinuation, the story lives on and via mere exposure, gains a modicum of truth in the minds of some. Fortunately, the curtain is being pulled back a little on some of this manipulation – although you would not know it reading most news sources.

2.  Accusations of sexual assault. First, the obligatory disclaimer so that I am not “accused” of insensitivity or worse:  Sexual assault, harassment, abuse or any other misbehavior is unacceptable and perpetrators deserve their consequences. But, it appears that this has become the new weapon in the battle of politics and the sexes. Its use in this way diminishes it.

Because of the unacceptable nature of such behavior, coupled with the ubiquitous outrage over “male privilege” (with an apparent acceptance of female powerlessness) any accusation of “sexual misconduct” is reflexively accepted as true.  “Accusers deserve to be believed” is a popular sentiment while the idea that accusations can be false is not only ignored, but actively made taboo.  Denial is more evidence of both the truth of the accusation and of “male privilege.”  The reality is that there can be no defense of one’s self other than denial when proof is not required –when proof of innocence supersedes “innocent until proven guilty”.  This death by accusation can quickly become a weapon of mass destruction.

Current events also diminish the truly heinous behavior that has sometimes been revealed.  There is a drastic difference between “He sent me suggestive sexual texts”, “I was subjected to unwanted advances”, “He put his arm around me a grabbed a handful of flesh”, “He fondled my breasts”, and “He bent me over a desk and forcefully penetrated me.” Yes, all unacceptable, but equating forcible penetration to he sent me texts I did not want about things I did not like to read takes this in an insane direction.

But, I digress:  The point is that if accusations are to be accepted as true simply because they are made, then they will become the new weapon of choice for taking down people we do not like, for getting revenge. There will come a point when accusations are no longer taken seriously because of this.

The common element between the Red Scare, the Russia scandal and the “Me, too” movement is the absence of a burden of proof and the weaponization of accusation. In the end, in all instances, at best the answer seems to be “Of course he did it, we just need to find the proof.”  At worst, the idea of proof is simply discarded.

Trying to figure out...

Trying to figure out how someone (e.g., Mika) can scream about equality yet suggest that anything blunt a man says to a woman is harassment.  If you want to play the game, you are likely to get tackled.  That goes for Liz Warren, too, with her stupid comment about "slut-shaming". (see the article for how the world responded). Don't step up if you can't stand up and stop using little made-up names and upsets to try to score points.

We have entered a time when men, quite appropriately, are expected to consider women as equal partners and treat them with the respect equal partners deserve.  But that is not consistent with treating with kid gloves.  That is not equal.  Trump, for all his ill-advised tweeting (I hate his tweets and that word), referred to Gillibrand in the same way he would a man - that's equality.

Really?

Well, it certainly does not get any more foolish and telling than this:

"The family of Akayed Ullah, a Bangladeshi man accused of detonating a pipe bomb packed with screws near Port Authority during Monday morning rush hour, released a statement through the Council on American-Islamic Relations in New York saying they were “heartbroken” by the violence. But the statement then chastised law enforcement officials for “interrogating” family members after the terror attack.

“We are heartbroken by the violence that was targeted at our city today, and by the allegations being made against a member of our family,” the family statement released by CAIR legal director Albert Fox Cahn said.

It added: “But we are also outraged by the behavior of the law enforcement officials who have held children as small as four years old out in the cold and who held a teenager out of high school classes to interrogate him without a lawyer, without his parents."

Really? Sorry our son came to this country, got pissed, is stupid, and tried to kill a bunch of you.  But because we are Muslims it is not fair that your law enforcement does their job in trying to find out what happened.  Your son tried to kill people you morons.  Where you come from that may be commonplace and just fine, but here it is against the law - and you are not in charge - yet. You're not hiding your intentions very well.

Oh, we know - all he did was try to kill some infidels - dhimmi - people who are less than human to you.  We are really sorry for your inconvenience.

Clearly his family is trying to capitalize on the negative sentiment toward law enforcement in this nation. It is kind of their own "me, too" campaign of maltreatment, the "not fair" defense. Reminds me of the parents of the Seminole Heights murderer in Tamps, who refuse to answer any questions about their son.  Kind of like "sorry about your damned luck of people getting killed".

Weaponizing "isms"

Just wanted to highlight this excellent read on Townhall by Kurt Schlichter on woke conservatives.

He clearly defines the battle to be had - conservative or not.  If you are an independent thinker, if you are willing to be logical and rational, if you think blaming others and the "success through guilt" industry are shams, if you think accusations do not equal guilt, then your only recourse is to stop giving a shit what they say.  They have weaponized race, gender, sex, diversity and so on.  In the end, the equation is you either agree with their beliefs or you are an "ist". We all shudder at the possibility that we might be called some form of "ist".  Schlichter is right to suggest that it is time to ignore the labels.

Strange thing is how they do not realize the marginalizing effect that this "ism" approach has for what are important issues.  Sexual assault and harassment are serious issues that need to be dealt with.  But in their rush to weaponize them, they trivialize them.  They are not advocating for change, they are simply using the issues as tools.  Putting them to political purposes, exaggerating them beyond rational bounds simply creates a caricature that loses all significance.

When one is a racist, a sexist and inordinately privileged simply because they are white, when one is a gun-toting terrorist because they believe in the Second Amendment and defending themselves, then you have created a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing. There is no logical recourse in this regard - expect to stop caring what they say, stop attending to the lies.

And one more thing...

Not sure whether to laugh or cry about this, although I think we are all about to the point now where things like this that make us want to chuckle need to be taken more seriously.  This is not just one crazy individual but someone who is at a state university and was given access to writing this racist screed in a university paper.

White folks DNA is an abomination

I don't want to dedicate too many words to this piece specifically because it is clearly someone who is not well, has an ax to grind, and is also baiting folks to react in kind - so they can be called racist while he is, I am sure, considered a "community activist".

Is this really where we are headed?  Do people like this really want to start a civil war?  I cannot see any other way this goes.

My belated Veteran's Day thoughts.

Realized I had not posted anything for Veteran's day this year.  Looked back at last year's post and wanted to reiterate and expand a bit.

A year later and I still resonate to the idea that, as a soldier, I served under two presidents - Carter and Reagan.  Neither on my list of favorites. But I never thought of them except when I saw all the pictures on the walls of my Chain of Command or when training young soldiers who was in their chain of command.  I was not training and serving for them.  I thought of my my job and the soldiers to my left and right.  As I gained rank and responsibility, I thought of those I trained, how I might give them the skills necessary to face the day the nation cashed the blank check each recruit signs.

I know many who are now serving or recently served and have/had no love for the administration they have served or the Commander in Chief at the top of that chain.  Still, they trained, some fought, many died - regardless of whether "Whoever that is is not my president".  Consider that, if those who serve were like those marching in and blocking the streets, smashing windows, attacking others and burning flags, taking knees for the national Anthem, there would be no flag, no nation, no ideals to which we all aspire, however unsuccessfully. These soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and guardians serve to support not the president of the day, but the ideals of the nation. Some think the only way they can honor the symbols of the nation, is if it is perfect in all respects. Given the impossibility of that. they apparently would have us give it up.

We have to hope that brave souls will continue to see the ideals and aspirations of this nation as worth standing, fighting and dying for and not turn to selfish and self-serving motivations such as taking a knee when they are called.

It is still true.

Complicity or picking apart the tragedy

For quite a while now we have been inundated by stories of sexual harassment. It is clearly a sad commentary on our society, pulling the curtain back on many unsavory issues that run across ideological lines. even those who are self-styled and revered social justice warriors have fallen to this tragedy.

One such of many:

The fall of the mighty continues.

This story is not unique given the ubiquitous recent reports but contains elements that highlight some things that must be considered and said.

- First, can we please not say that this is a problem with men?  Just like we are repeatedly admonished to never assume that terrorism is a problem of all Muslims and crime is a problem of all blacks, this is not all men.  In fact, although a minority, there have been complaints of men being harassed and assaulted as well - by other men.  This is a problem of men in power, men who see themselves as entitled, as untouchable, above law and common decency.  Men who preach morality, who say "Do as I say, not as I do."  This is a sad reflection of our culture's hero worship, its idolatry of celebrity and power - especially men in power.  It is an undesirable effect of considering the opinions and persona of such people critical and important.  While clearly less egregious, it is not dissimilar from the idea that NFL athletes have that they can do as they wish and no one will mind, no one can disagree. This is supported by the fact that reports almost universally say "everyone knew".  What subculture supports this kind of behavior?

- Second, and related stories such as the one recounted at the link above also evidence how passive and subservient people can be to those they see as in power. Again, this is not all women - this is certain women with certain men (more on that later).  The story details a nauseating tableau in which Lauer has a switch built into his desk with which he can lock his door (who the fuck does that?), a married woman in her 40s complies with Lauer's demand that she unbutton her blouse (and we worry about predators with our daughters?) and is then willing to endure being taken "doggy style" (my words) over his desk until she passes out on the floor and is taken by him to a nurse (who either could not figure this out, was not told, or did not care that this woman had been screwed into unconsciousness).  Then this story was not told for 16 years.

      Consider how this happens without the easy reversion to "well, it's men asshole!".  A culture that reveres and apparently submits to men in power creates a desire for power in those who want to dominate others and a sense of entitlement in those men who achieve it.  That a man, such as Lauer, Weinstein, Spacey, and so on did not question their own actions tells this story.  Consider who among men is drawn into such a world of wealth, power, politics; consider who, among women, may also be drawn into such a world and believes they must comply with such behavior, submit to such brutality, and hide it from the world. Just as a man may, 16 years later, express contrition for his acts, so a woman, who played that game years ago, might also now see it through a different lens. This is not meant to blame a victim, merely to highlight the subculture that suborns such behavior.
      Certain men may be drawn to such roles, but certain women are also likely drawn to their part is this tragic play.  I feel assured that the women I know in my life (and if they are with me, they were not drawn to power or wealth ;<)) would not have sat there timidly when the door was locked, would not have unbuttoned their blouse on command, and so forth.  Has no one taught the unfortunate victim(s) that she need not submit to power and that a "grab and rip" would have quickly stopped this sex act - prior to unconsciousness? 

Yep - that'll work

Never have I ever read a more psychotic, narcissistic, histrionic and absurd piece of tripe.  Well, that's not true, but this one is certainly competitive for craziness ever.

Oh, the insanity of it all

This is what our world is up against.  Let's see this in light of events yesterday in NYC and how people like this author react to them.  Her thesis in the piece linked above (hate to have to link such manure, but it does deserve public scrutiny and ridicule) is that all men, all masculinity are responsible for the evils of the world. No man is exempt from this guilt, as, well, men are masculine.

Fast forward to NYC - and remember that even though this one person who strongly identifies with a certain religious persuasion committed this heinous act, he was a bad one and it is not all of them.

A man or even many men act foolish - all men and masculinity are to blame.

A Muslim man commits murderous terror - an anomaly.

Right- that makes sense.

I am willing to accept that not all Muslims are terrorists or murderers.  Will this author and others accept that not all men are evil?

If masculinity does become toxic, remember that people like this author made it that way.  Sometimes you create your own enemies. Maybe one can make a case that we did that with Islam - although I think it is more likely the other way around. But this author, as did her (I assume) candidate of choice, defined a large segment of the population as evil, "deplorable", and the enemy.

I am reminded of what I am sure Rob Reiner considered a parody, but in this case rings too much of truth:  COL Nathan Jessup's tirade in A Few Good Men:  When there are no good people to stand on that wall, who does this author think will defend her?  As with many in the halls of academia (I know, I work there), there is little to no appreciation for the world out there and the role that good men and women play in it.

There is no reasoning with this mentality.

Here we go again...

I guess it makes sense that people who, when concerned about population growth, kill unborn children rather than expect people to take responsibility for their sexual habits and irresponsibility would also decide that the way to deal with crazies incited by liberal divisive rhetoric and politics who shoot people is to ban firearms.

Look at how they respond to such events:  They say that they have no sympathy for the victims since it was a C&W concert and most of them are Republicans and Trump voters anyway.  Of course, that has nothing to do with why people like the LV shooter or the Congressional Baseball practice shooter did what they did.  It was simply the firearms.  It's not the people who say "Burn it down".  It's not the arsonist. It's time to ban fire.

They chant things like "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" and are shocked and surprised when people assault LEOs and either the assaulter or LEO is killed.  They call people they disagree with "deplorable" and then seem shocked when those who believe them and believe in them feel comfortable killing those "deplorable" people. It must be the guns.

It seems they see dehumanizing those they disagree with as a harmless ploy for political purposes. Their late-night clowns spew mis-informed invective with impugnity.

They foment disorder and incite violence and then rush to blame the tool used to commit it.