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.
Thursday, November 30, 2017
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:
One such of many:
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?
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?
Wednesday, November 1, 2017
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
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.
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.
Friday, November 11, 2016
Happy Veteran's Day!
I teach about veterans and military culture and have done talks on those subjects. I have worked in the VA system and on funded projects aimed at preventing veteran suicides. I have worked with non-profit organizations supporting our warriors, especially SOF. Of course, I am a veteran. I work in a world where that is unusual and the warrior spirit of commitment and sacrifice are alien to most. Their idea of sacrifice is getting up at 9 to be in class. They need safe zones to hide from evil words, while warriors face bullets and bombs.
I do not take advantage of the day's offerings of free or reduced price stuff. To be honest, I consider all of that lip service, feel good balm for those critics who sit at home and pontificate - taking one day a year and increasing your customer flow by offering 10% off of food, drink, or products on which you make an 80% profit. Also I was fortunate to spend 10 years of serving in times of relative peace - I wrote the blank check that would have been paid to my nation if necessary, but was fortunate never to have that nation cash it.
The "thank you" gestures are probably noble and more sincere than my cynical mind makes them out to be, but if you want to help, then do so year-round and make it substantial enough to make a difference. In my work, I see too many veterans who are left to fend for themselves. No glitzy ads, no official statements to the generic and nameless veterans. Do something to affect individuals.
This is not to say I am not appreciative of the sentiments of friends, family, and the many veteran friends that I have. I am thankful for all of them. But partly that is because they know me, I know them, these are personal sentiments, sentiments I know are heartfelt. They are not a University president, making some blanket statement with a fake smile, spouting platitudes and who is likely more interested in the material rewards it will bring her than in the topic of the email. You have to know the individuals, hear their stories, see the nature of their tribe, their honor to really make the sentiment mean something. Thankfully for our veterans, they are a cohesive group and just as their major motivation to survive is to be sure the warrior to their right and left survives, when they come back to fight the battle for reintegration, they are once more ready to give all for their fellows. But the rest of us need to follow suit - and not just one day out of 365 give a nod and a grin and handshake and a quick "Thank you for your service".
And let's be sure we understand that this is not just a warrior's sacrifice, but the sacrifice of the family as well. While we honor our veterans we have to remember their families, who also serve in so many ways. Many now suffer the absence of loved ones and all continue to deal with the effects of the commitment and sacrifice that was made.
Not a day for politics, so I will leave that there.
Well - except to say that I served under two presidents many decades ago - neither were my favorite. To be honest I never thought of them but of my job and the soldiers with whom I trained and worked - or who, as I rose in rank and responsibility, I was charged to train so that they might survive when our time came.
I know many who are now serving or recently served and have no love for the administration under which they have served or are serving. Let us remember that, while we have people in the streets, smashing windows, attacking others and burning flags, these warriors fought and some have died defending the ideals of that flag. Not the president of the day, but the ideals of the nation. While some cry and say they are "afraid" of what is to come, consider the fear that those warriors have faced when they have seen death; that of their opponents, their friends or even the prospect of their own.
We have to hope that some number of brave souls will continue to see the ideals of this nation as worth fighting and dying for and not turn to selfish motivations such as taking a knee when they are called.
Out.
I do not take advantage of the day's offerings of free or reduced price stuff. To be honest, I consider all of that lip service, feel good balm for those critics who sit at home and pontificate - taking one day a year and increasing your customer flow by offering 10% off of food, drink, or products on which you make an 80% profit. Also I was fortunate to spend 10 years of serving in times of relative peace - I wrote the blank check that would have been paid to my nation if necessary, but was fortunate never to have that nation cash it.
The "thank you" gestures are probably noble and more sincere than my cynical mind makes them out to be, but if you want to help, then do so year-round and make it substantial enough to make a difference. In my work, I see too many veterans who are left to fend for themselves. No glitzy ads, no official statements to the generic and nameless veterans. Do something to affect individuals.
This is not to say I am not appreciative of the sentiments of friends, family, and the many veteran friends that I have. I am thankful for all of them. But partly that is because they know me, I know them, these are personal sentiments, sentiments I know are heartfelt. They are not a University president, making some blanket statement with a fake smile, spouting platitudes and who is likely more interested in the material rewards it will bring her than in the topic of the email. You have to know the individuals, hear their stories, see the nature of their tribe, their honor to really make the sentiment mean something. Thankfully for our veterans, they are a cohesive group and just as their major motivation to survive is to be sure the warrior to their right and left survives, when they come back to fight the battle for reintegration, they are once more ready to give all for their fellows. But the rest of us need to follow suit - and not just one day out of 365 give a nod and a grin and handshake and a quick "Thank you for your service".
And let's be sure we understand that this is not just a warrior's sacrifice, but the sacrifice of the family as well. While we honor our veterans we have to remember their families, who also serve in so many ways. Many now suffer the absence of loved ones and all continue to deal with the effects of the commitment and sacrifice that was made.
Not a day for politics, so I will leave that there.
Well - except to say that I served under two presidents many decades ago - neither were my favorite. To be honest I never thought of them but of my job and the soldiers with whom I trained and worked - or who, as I rose in rank and responsibility, I was charged to train so that they might survive when our time came.
I know many who are now serving or recently served and have no love for the administration under which they have served or are serving. Let us remember that, while we have people in the streets, smashing windows, attacking others and burning flags, these warriors fought and some have died defending the ideals of that flag. Not the president of the day, but the ideals of the nation. While some cry and say they are "afraid" of what is to come, consider the fear that those warriors have faced when they have seen death; that of their opponents, their friends or even the prospect of their own.
We have to hope that some number of brave souls will continue to see the ideals of this nation as worth fighting and dying for and not turn to selfish motivations such as taking a knee when they are called.
Out.
Thursday, November 10, 2016
Rising from the ashes
It’s been a while – been out wandering the wasteland – “I’ve been to the mountaintop and seen the other side – it was more mountains” - watching the comings and goings in the lead-up to this week’s election.
In the aftermath, some commentary is needed:
1. I have tried, really tried, worked very hard to keep my mouth shut and the grin from my face ever since I woke up early Tuesday morning and heard what I thought was either a joke or an SNL skit – that Trump had one the presidency. Shocking!
Not that I am happy he won – Lord knows there are so many people who would make better candidates and presidents. The grin is simply because HRC lost – and from hearing the lamentations of those who supported her inevitable reign. Seeing her clear amazement and depression at it is amusing. Her smug and elitist entitlement to the presidency and her supporters’ entitlement to the president they wanted has given away to depression. The elitist attitudes that accompanied every twitter and FB post now give way now to the childish stomping of feet and gnashing of teeth. No, in the best of all possible worlds, I would not wish for a Trump presidency – the notion is almost surreal and startling – but in a world where we are have to choices, I find the prospect no more catastrophic than an HRC presidency would have been and, frankly, likely much more hospitable to the rights I hold dear. So I grin and giggle inside for seeing the smugness turn to tantrum, not because I am overjoyed with Trump, but at seeing our future queen defeated.
2. Lots of talk of invisible voters; some say that the polls were wrong because many people feared being honest about their intentions. Some say not. I have seen interviews with Trump voters who acknowledged fear at being open about the candidate of their choosing, concerned about reprisal. The ongoing reaction of the liberals to their disappointment substantiates this fear –it is still a good idea to stay under the radar. I will admit, as one who works in academia, that my own voting intentions – indeed, my own voting choice – is not something I talked or will talk about with my colleagues. It is one reason, as I noted above, that I only grin on the inside.
Perhaps the “unity and diversity” crowd should ponder this when considering what went wrong; if our society has gotten to the point where one needs to be afraid of announcing their preference (after all, we had been told that those who preferred “not HRC” were deplorable, racists, sexists, homophobes, Islamophobes and fascists) perhaps that is how you ended up with a reality show host as president. People feel anger at being cast in such light simply because they disagree with the progressive master plan and vision of the world. They do not see themselves as evil because they disagree with the notion that immigration should be uncontrolled, that only black lives matter and no black criminal should ever be harmed. They do not see themselves as evil because they believe that freedom of speech is central to our nation and the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is constitutionally guaranteed and sacrosanct. Such anger is what drove this outcome.
Progressives can either double-down on this persecutory gambit – as their temper tantrum suggests they will – or can re-evaluate the strategy of demonization as a road to political power. Quite frankly, people are tired of being told what they can think or say, which of their unalienable rights they can exercise. And, as I noted, given the environment in which I work, I am qualified to speak on this. Within these walls is an elite core of people who know best what everyone else – the unintelligent and unwashed masses – should do. Anyone who would speak against that world order is anathema.
3. Speaking of the RKBA, I would make a personal suggestion. It will not come as surprise to any of you have read anything I have written. Many people out there have liberal leanings – I have noted before that I voted for Kerry, and Obama twice – but also enjoy the RKBA. There are many rights I support and have always supported, not because I like them nor because they benefit me in any direct way, but because I believe in individual rights and not being told what to do within the limits of the rule of law. If you do not want to lose those people from your movement, I suggest you find a way to moderate your approach to limiting that RKBA. If I cannot have my firearms to protect myself and my family – even my nation – then I will not support your right to your abortion. “Choice” is important – and being anti-gun is being anti-choice. No choice for me, no choice for you.
HRC may have felt she needed to bash 2A believers – make us “deplorables” – to shore up her base. That was probably not true, but if it is what democrats and liberals wanted to hear from her, then her loss is partially on you. She lost votes by using this as a weapon. In fact, your current president lost votes for HRC by taking the approach he has taken to this issue, suborning crime while wanting to restrict law-abiding rights. But again, elitists and cry-babies know best what the rest of us should be allowed to do. BTW, if Bernie had been nominated and stuck to his moderate support for the RKBA (and not been forced to toe some anti-gun line), I suspect he would have won this handily. That’s on all of you and your party leadership for anointing HRC the future queen. Another place where you can carry the blame for Tuesday’s results.
4. Related to the above – hypocrisy! (Gesundheit!). When HRC and her supporters knew she would win, they were smug, they decried the potential for failure to accept the results and resistance to her plans, they – liberal media - went out to interview and ridicule “militias” that were planning for the great repression and revolution to follow her ascendance to the throne. They just knew that all the “crazies” out there were going to lose it and there was much handwringing over such a reaction. HRC even ended her run-up to her inevitable coronation by calling for unity among everyone – this after calling people deplorable.
But, alas, dreams do not always come true and she lost. Now, the shoe be on the other foot, and who is not accepting the outcome? Now we see the progressive versions of “militias” on the streets (I see no reason not to define liberal hate groups engaged in thuggish behavior as militias). It is so easy to be smug and point fingers when you know you will win. But it was also apparently easy to over-estimate ones’ power, to assume the mantle of leadership one had yet to be granted. Can you tell I am grinning?
5. Visited Huffpost today; a couple of interesting observations:
a. Can you say “hissy fit”?
b. They say that the Russians have admitted that there was contact – they played a role in wikileaks. Of course what this means is “We only believe the Russians when they agree with our conspiracies”. That and “We can’t believe this is happening!”
c. They also make a big deal about anti-choice legislation. I will only reiterate, as a believer in rights, that choice is not just about abortion.
In the aftermath, some commentary is needed:
1. I have tried, really tried, worked very hard to keep my mouth shut and the grin from my face ever since I woke up early Tuesday morning and heard what I thought was either a joke or an SNL skit – that Trump had one the presidency. Shocking!
Not that I am happy he won – Lord knows there are so many people who would make better candidates and presidents. The grin is simply because HRC lost – and from hearing the lamentations of those who supported her inevitable reign. Seeing her clear amazement and depression at it is amusing. Her smug and elitist entitlement to the presidency and her supporters’ entitlement to the president they wanted has given away to depression. The elitist attitudes that accompanied every twitter and FB post now give way now to the childish stomping of feet and gnashing of teeth. No, in the best of all possible worlds, I would not wish for a Trump presidency – the notion is almost surreal and startling – but in a world where we are have to choices, I find the prospect no more catastrophic than an HRC presidency would have been and, frankly, likely much more hospitable to the rights I hold dear. So I grin and giggle inside for seeing the smugness turn to tantrum, not because I am overjoyed with Trump, but at seeing our future queen defeated.
2. Lots of talk of invisible voters; some say that the polls were wrong because many people feared being honest about their intentions. Some say not. I have seen interviews with Trump voters who acknowledged fear at being open about the candidate of their choosing, concerned about reprisal. The ongoing reaction of the liberals to their disappointment substantiates this fear –it is still a good idea to stay under the radar. I will admit, as one who works in academia, that my own voting intentions – indeed, my own voting choice – is not something I talked or will talk about with my colleagues. It is one reason, as I noted above, that I only grin on the inside.
Perhaps the “unity and diversity” crowd should ponder this when considering what went wrong; if our society has gotten to the point where one needs to be afraid of announcing their preference (after all, we had been told that those who preferred “not HRC” were deplorable, racists, sexists, homophobes, Islamophobes and fascists) perhaps that is how you ended up with a reality show host as president. People feel anger at being cast in such light simply because they disagree with the progressive master plan and vision of the world. They do not see themselves as evil because they disagree with the notion that immigration should be uncontrolled, that only black lives matter and no black criminal should ever be harmed. They do not see themselves as evil because they believe that freedom of speech is central to our nation and the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is constitutionally guaranteed and sacrosanct. Such anger is what drove this outcome.
Progressives can either double-down on this persecutory gambit – as their temper tantrum suggests they will – or can re-evaluate the strategy of demonization as a road to political power. Quite frankly, people are tired of being told what they can think or say, which of their unalienable rights they can exercise. And, as I noted, given the environment in which I work, I am qualified to speak on this. Within these walls is an elite core of people who know best what everyone else – the unintelligent and unwashed masses – should do. Anyone who would speak against that world order is anathema.
3. Speaking of the RKBA, I would make a personal suggestion. It will not come as surprise to any of you have read anything I have written. Many people out there have liberal leanings – I have noted before that I voted for Kerry, and Obama twice – but also enjoy the RKBA. There are many rights I support and have always supported, not because I like them nor because they benefit me in any direct way, but because I believe in individual rights and not being told what to do within the limits of the rule of law. If you do not want to lose those people from your movement, I suggest you find a way to moderate your approach to limiting that RKBA. If I cannot have my firearms to protect myself and my family – even my nation – then I will not support your right to your abortion. “Choice” is important – and being anti-gun is being anti-choice. No choice for me, no choice for you.
HRC may have felt she needed to bash 2A believers – make us “deplorables” – to shore up her base. That was probably not true, but if it is what democrats and liberals wanted to hear from her, then her loss is partially on you. She lost votes by using this as a weapon. In fact, your current president lost votes for HRC by taking the approach he has taken to this issue, suborning crime while wanting to restrict law-abiding rights. But again, elitists and cry-babies know best what the rest of us should be allowed to do. BTW, if Bernie had been nominated and stuck to his moderate support for the RKBA (and not been forced to toe some anti-gun line), I suspect he would have won this handily. That’s on all of you and your party leadership for anointing HRC the future queen. Another place where you can carry the blame for Tuesday’s results.
4. Related to the above – hypocrisy! (Gesundheit!). When HRC and her supporters knew she would win, they were smug, they decried the potential for failure to accept the results and resistance to her plans, they – liberal media - went out to interview and ridicule “militias” that were planning for the great repression and revolution to follow her ascendance to the throne. They just knew that all the “crazies” out there were going to lose it and there was much handwringing over such a reaction. HRC even ended her run-up to her inevitable coronation by calling for unity among everyone – this after calling people deplorable.
But, alas, dreams do not always come true and she lost. Now, the shoe be on the other foot, and who is not accepting the outcome? Now we see the progressive versions of “militias” on the streets (I see no reason not to define liberal hate groups engaged in thuggish behavior as militias). It is so easy to be smug and point fingers when you know you will win. But it was also apparently easy to over-estimate ones’ power, to assume the mantle of leadership one had yet to be granted. Can you tell I am grinning?
5. Visited Huffpost today; a couple of interesting observations:
a. Can you say “hissy fit”?
b. They say that the Russians have admitted that there was contact – they played a role in wikileaks. Of course what this means is “We only believe the Russians when they agree with our conspiracies”. That and “We can’t believe this is happening!”
c. They also make a big deal about anti-choice legislation. I will only reiterate, as a believer in rights, that choice is not just about abortion.
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Funny how that works!
So, in response to a heckler at a campaign stop, one who yelled that "Bill is a rapist" and held a sign that asserted that as well as "Hillary is a criminal", HRC gets all pissy and "holier-than-thou with:
“I am sick and tired of the negative, dark, divisive, dangerous vision and the anger of people who support Donald Trump.”
Oh, yes - HRC is the candidate of inclusion - if you are her supporter.
For the rest, she is fine with dark, divisive and angry - kind of like:
For the rest, she is fine with dark, divisive and angry - kind of like:
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the 'basket of deplorables'. Right?. The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it."
Problem is, Hillary, your husband is a rapist and you and he are criminals. You have been far too long in the public eye to deny this and it is not dark, divisive, dangerous or angry to state that fact. What you are sick and tired of is hearing that people have figured this out and do not want to give you a pass on it.
Remember: the anger did not start with Trump. The anger is partly the result of people like you with long histories in public life, raping and pillaging. Trump is a convenient vessel. Perhaps it is his entrepreneurial instinct and his salesmanship that lead him to recognize that this anger exists and to capitalize on it. But is does not emanate from him, it is simply reflected by him.
So while you cry about it, remember you were trying your best to be dark, divisive, and angry. Problem is, those you think are deplorable are proud to be considered so by an elitist immoral criminal who thinks she deserves respect. I suspect the King of England felt this way about those upstart Americans as well.
Remember: the anger did not start with Trump. The anger is partly the result of people like you with long histories in public life, raping and pillaging. Trump is a convenient vessel. Perhaps it is his entrepreneurial instinct and his salesmanship that lead him to recognize that this anger exists and to capitalize on it. But is does not emanate from him, it is simply reflected by him.
So while you cry about it, remember you were trying your best to be dark, divisive, and angry. Problem is, those you think are deplorable are proud to be considered so by an elitist immoral criminal who thinks she deserves respect. I suspect the King of England felt this way about those upstart Americans as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)