By on

I wrote about this the other day so I thought I had vented my spleen sufficiently but then I stumbled across Erick Erickson’s lame rejoinder regarding Trump’s threat to destroy a civilization and the spleen became inflamed again. Erickson rather blithely said he would have preferred that Trump had not said it but if it was between that and Trans Recognition Day then well wink wink nudge nudge. Get it.

Fuck you, Erick Erickson. How was this the choice? The choice was between Trump making a measured comment about the American involvement in a war (or military operation if you will) and one where he threatens to destroy a whole civilization. On Easter — the Christians holiest day. Trans people were no where in the equation until Erickson dragged them out.

This is yet another example of Trump supporters dismissing Trump’s terrible behavior. I don’t like what he said but it is better than the alternate. The alternate, in this case, is a president savvy enough to talk reasonably about a dangerous situation that he is responsible for. What needs to be addressed is Trump’s statement. Erickson needs to give critical feedback without the additional little zinger about Trans people which suggests, I might add, that there are no limits to Erickson’s support of Trump. This might have been a good time for Erickson to stipulate these limits instead of giving him limitless support for fear of what was it? Oh, yeah, Trans Recognition Day.

Trump has always been an asshole and will continue to be an asshole. He is what he is. But his supporters are a different story. To continue to support a careless president is madness particularly as he continues his dangerous meanderings through the world. Republicans and Conservatives must draw the line because they hold the power in Congress to stop him.

Just for the record, and I can’t believe I am suggesting this, the alternate is J.D. Vance. When that weasel starts looking good to me, and he is, you know we are in desperate times.

By on

A few weeks back, I was talking with a woman who complained that she never knows what she is hearing is actually true. She hears something and a few days later learns that it was “fake news.” This is even more troubling when it is news that she relays to other people only to find out later that it was indeed “fake news.” I understand her concern here because I sometimes do the same thing with the same embarrassing results.

My friend blamed the internet as the source of the problem and, at first, I agreed with her. Yes, it would be nice if people only passed on truthful information. It would certainly make life easier but this isn’t neither new nor startling behavior. People were bull shitting long before the internet existed. The problem, as it has always been, is human behavior where there has been a long history of people trading in rumors, half-truths and just general bull shit.

In fact, the internet gives me the power to check on something the moment I hear it and, then, being able to determine whether this is indeed true. Since I have become more diligent at verifying information, I am astounded by how much bad information is passing through the world — even from people who I would normally trust. I can’t tell you how many times I have learned that the information was total bull shit, more often partial bull shit or the irritating taking someone’s statement out of context which is bull shit dressed up as truth.

The lesson here, as it was in the past, is verify before passing on. It is a hard lesson but a valuable one. Only you can prevent bull shit spreading.

By on

I try not to talk about Donald Trump too much. It is a nearly impossible task as he is president of the United States and is always inserting himself into everything. So I apologize for yet another Donald Trump post and, after some consideration this more about Donald Trump’s apologists who, instead of trying to right Trump’s direction, just go along with him come Hell or high water.

I took a photo (see below)of an Instapundit post because Instapundit doesn’t provide a direct link to their post so this was the only way I could figure out how to get you the post in question without you paging through the whole blog which would leave you disheartened from the slavish loyalty to Donald Trump. It is a dirty job and I am willing to do it.

Trumps threat in this post, although a bit tamer than the one where he wants to bomb Iran back to the stone age one, is about annihilating a whole country. Instapundit’s defense is to point out that the Islamic aspect of Iranian civilization is actually a colonist civilization and is separate from actual Persian civilization. So, I am gathering, destroying Iran now is perfectly OK because it is Islamic and not in fact Persian.

Well OK thanks. I guess but that has nothing to do with the point Piers Morgan was making. Trump is talking about destroying an entire civilization because they won’t do what he wants. Maybe Trump has a less deadly idea of what destroying a civilization is but my interpretation is that all the Iranian people would be dead along with all buildings and all infrastructure. There would just be a pile of rubble after the Tuesday deadline. This is what Trump is threatening. The distinction between Islamic and Persian here is meaningless. Islamic rubble and Persian rubble are pretty much the same thing. Rubble.

Trump’s tone and Instapundit’s unwavering support are unhelpful in bringing about peace for the following reasons:

  1. The US does not have the fire power to flatten Iran. It would take nuclear bombs to accomplish total destruction and, call me naive, I am assuming nuclear is off the table. We could maybe level the center city of a few major cities but the rest of Iran would still be standing. Threatening annihilation is an idle threat and everybody knows it.
  2. It is also nearly impossible, at least in the short term, to destroy a civilization. Both Japan and Germany recovered quite nicely after World War II which was the last time we experimented with total annihilation. There were a lot of dead people and burned out buildings but both nations recovered. So, even, if the worst were to happen (see point 1) the Iranian people and their civilization will survive. The hated Iranian government might even survive.
  3. It does not help that Trump at numerous times have told us that the Iranian military and the nuclear capability has been destroyed while also threatening to destroy Iranian military capabilities. Sometimes even in the same statement. Which begs the question, what is left to destroy?
  4. The snarkiness about Muslim culture might feel good in the moment but keep in mind we are depending on some Muslim allies in the region for bases in which to wage the Iranian war. They are already taking missiles for us, they may feel a little less inclined to assist if they think we are antagonistic to Islam.
  5. If Trump wants to help the Iranian people, he might try to co-ordinate his war making with Iranian critics in Iran. He may be doing that but his tone suggests he is not. What reasonable Iranian ally would want to see the total destruction of their civilization?

Trump’s go to tone is the aggressive attacking of his opponents and then when you are done attacking them, go back and attack them again. It has worked well for him in the past but is wrong for this moment. He might even consider just keeping his trap shut for a few days just to see if people are more amenable to what he is trying to do. It is worth a try.

And, if he can’t see his way into keeping his trap shut, this is the time for his allies and supporters to tell him to do so. They are failing miserably in their responsibility here. Pissing off half the nation and our allies is a terrible strategy for winning a war. But, hey ho, at least I learned the difference between Muslim Iranian culture and Persian culture. Very helpful that.

By on

I once worked in a company where everyone, and I mean everyone, hated the Vice President for Human Resources. Being new to the corporate environment, I asked an executive in the know why then does she keep her job then. He just laughed and said she knows where all the bodies are buried, implying, in the process, that the President of the Company was greatly dependent on her discretion because of his many indiscretions. This analysis was proven correct because when a new President took over and she was the first person shown the door.

Which brings me to Pam Bondi. One of the dangers of firing and humiliating someone who knows where the bodies are buried is that person, once removed from office, can opt for revenge. I don’t know how angry Bondi is, I am hoping really pissed off, but she might, if sufficiently pissed off, be willing to reveal the graveyard map of Trump’s many indiscretions.

I do know that she was given an impossible job with high expectations from an unreasonable boss. Since she failed to satisfy the tyrant, her professional reputation in tatters because she tired to keep in happy and was humiliated by the boss in the process, she has absolutely nothing to lose any more and might be willing to point people to the relevant graves. Given Trump’s experience with troublesome ex-employees, I suspect he has paid Bondi off in some way or has something on her that will buy her silence. On the other hand, as the old saying goes: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, we might be in for a summer of fun.

By on

I was watching the trial by combat joust in the new Game of Thrones iteration “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms” and it dawned on me on how attracted human beings are to violence. People are willing to joust and people are willing to watch jousting even though there was a good chance that somebody would, at the very least, get maimed or, worse still, be killed; furthermore blood sports have a long history in humanity.

The modern world makes a show of caring more about the athletes in their games but the danger still exists (think boxing, rugby, football, hockey, Formula One). These men risk their bodies and possibly their lives to entertain us.

Some observations here:

1.The participants are largely men. There is something innate in men to show their bravery by risking their health and lives. Some men like to rumble. I knew a guy who liked to get in bar fights. He would arrange situations where he might have to defend his “honor.” His honor was broadly defined as anything that irritated him, things like tailgating on a highway or running into him in a crowded bar. I generally thought his honor wasn’t at stake and a simple apology would suffice but he felt differently. The show of physical courage is important to men.

2. A lot of people like to watch these displays of physical courage. Millions of people watch football games and boxing matches — knowing full well that these men are risking their bodies for their entertainment. Even though they would like to detach the idea of this as courage, most people in the audience for these events would largely agree with this idea of physical courage. It is important to them to know there are men capable of this type of courage.

3. These ideas are pretty much locked into our definition of courage. As this appears to have been going on for as long as humans have been in civilizations, speaks volumes of the importance of violence in civilization. I can give all kinds of rational reasons why this shouldn’t be so, that it is insanity for a man to risk his future brain for a Super Bowl ring now but I am fairly certain it will fall on deaf ears. In order to prove his courage, a man must risk his body to prove it and this is the way things have been for a very long time.

What I am trying to figure out is why society’s approach to violence is to treat it as some aberration instead of fundamental to the nature of the male of our species. So much of what humans profess to think about something has nothing to do with how we feel about it. Men want to box. People want to watch boxing. Saying that they shouldn’t box or enjoy boxing fails to deal with the reality of the situation. When someone screams fight in high school parking lot, the people rushing to the fight are not running to break up the fight but rather trying to catch the action before it ends.

I wish I had answers but I don’t. But completely quashing this very strong emotion in humans and making them wrong, doesn’t stop people from having them. It is irrational and inexplicable but despite our best efforts to reform and our continued disapproval of physical violence, it persists. Let’s face it, humans like to rumble.

By on

I think if you want to get plastic surgery and it makes you happy, by all means, get it.

I won’t. Mostly because it won’t make me happy. I just don’t have the time or the energy or the money to keep working on my looks. It is, after a certain age, a losing battle.

No matter how much plastic surgery I get, I am still 68 years old. A 21 year old guy, even just a regular old 21 year old guy, not some super good looking movie star/model type of guy, walks into the room and then I walk into the room. The half way good looking 21 year old guy has me beat. By a mile. By 10 miles. By 100 miles. If I get talked about at all, which, let’s face it, is a very big if, it won’t be about my good looks but on how he has had work done.

Then there is the cost. People who I know investigated plastic surgery are talking thousands of dollars and, with my luck, it will turn out making me look worse. I know some people who have had excellent plastic surgery. I also know people who were disappointed with their surgery (see awful plastic surgery). It is a roll of the dice and if I am rolling the dice, I would much rather be rolling the dice in Las Vegas than rolling it on surgery.

Besides, I am that age where I need procedures and surgeries just to stay healthy. If I were to also get plastic surgery with the other surgeries I need, I might never leave the hospital. I just don’t want to take up residence in a hospital, at least not yet.

At this point in my life, I would rather fall back on my vast supply of charm and joie de vivre than attempt to alter my looks any further.

By on

Donald Trump acknowledged that he calls the Iranian military operation instead of a war because of legal reasons. Congressional Authorization, then, boils down to what the President calls his action rather than a universal understanding of what war is. You say potato, I say … Sorry, that old saying does work in writing but you catch my drift. Also, just as a reminder to the President, parsing phrases to avoid the unlikely retribution of Congress only really works if you don’t tell everyone what you are doing otherwise, in legal terms, this is known as a confession.

But, never mind — a military operation it is. This military operation has been going on a good month. Now I can quibble, and I will, about bombs and targeted assassinations being acts of war, but, say I wanted to be generous to Trump here, and agree with his characterization of those actions as being a military operation instead of a war.

When does a military operation become a war? And, just like that, an answer appears — when you send 50,000 ground troops. Bombing plus troops surely adds up to war. Or are we in some semantic Hell where Trump can call a war anything he wants and the Congress will agree to in order to avoid the wrath of Trump’s more rabid supporters. Apparently it is semantic Hell.

This whole operation is caught up in different definitions of words. Trump supposedly can only act without Congressional Authorization if it is an emergency. The USA would have to be in immediate and grave danger. My understanding of this power would be an impeding attack of USA was about to take place. There is absolutely no evidence that this was the case.

But the Iranians were trying to restart their nuclear program. No doubt, however, according to Trump the Iranian nuclear program was destroyed in a previous attack so the idea that so the idea that the Iranians had miraculously resurrected their nuclear capability to the point of an immenent attack is unbelievable. I am fairly certain there was more than enough time for Congress to review the problem and give its consent.

The Iranian, dare I call it, War is a disappointing display of hubris on the part of Trump and cowardice on the part of Congress. The whole point of Congressional Authorization for wars is that war is a serious business for a country. If we are going to take on such a responsibility it needs to come after careful consideration from the body that represents the all the people of the USA. For wars, particularly messy and potentially long term commitment wars to be won, everyone needs to be on board. This has not happened.

Instead we have semantic parsing of words so one man can drag a nation of 300 million plus people into a war dressed up like a military operation.

By on

The other night I got reacquainted to Patty Griffin’s song Let Him Fly. It is a song about a woman breaking up with a man who isn’t ready, if he ever would be, to settle down. He isn’t a bad man just a wandering man, he honestly tells her this and she had some hopes of keeping him even though he told her so but she now realizes it is hopeless so she surrenders to her fate and lets him go.

Her lyrics are filled with sadness but absent of anger which carry the heavy weight in most break up songs. There is none of this you are a rotten son of bitch and I don’t know why I put up with you so long which consume most break up songs. It is sad without being vindictive. She loves him but she needs something more than he is willing to give. Two mismatched people instead of one good one and one evil one.

The song is spare — just a guitar and Griffin singing in her clear strong voice. At times you can barely hear her guitar, it follows her singing but does not direct it. I could imagine her singing this song a cappella.

Even though her album cover is for more than one song, it really fits the mood of “Let Him Fly.” It looks like someone crumpled up photograph of Griffin and then, having second thoughts, retrieved it from the trash bin because he decided he wanted to keep it. It certainly captures the spirit of the song.

I highly recommend Patty Griffin’s “Let Him Fly.”

By on

As I get older, I am beginning to understand my peculiarities that stumped me before but are beginning to make sense now. I used to think I hated shopping. Any shopping. I did everything in my power to get in and then get out with whatever I thought I needed.

I thought, for the longest time, this hatred of shopping placed me on some superior moral ground. The capitalist overlords failed to entice me into a life of mindless consumerism. Something occurred to me as I was dodging super large shopping carts in Costco the other day. It isn’t so much that I hated shopping, it is more that shopping overwhelms me. I can feel my nerves begin to jangle every time I enter a store.

I can manage shopping if I have a list with specific items to be acquired by the time I return home. I find. I buy. I leave the store as quickly as possible. I rarely, if ever, will buy more than what is on the list. The list is sacrosanct.

On the other hand just lallygagging in a store to kill time almost always ends the same way — me fleeing after a few minutes without purchasing anything.

For example, I love to read so bookstores should be heaven for me. Not by a stretch. I want to purchase almost every book I pick up. Everything sounds like something I would like to buy, so much so that I reach fairly quickly a point of indecision. I can’t choose anything because I want everything which I know that I neither can afford nor will ever find the time to read them. So I punt and buy nothing.

Big ticket items provide a somewhat different problem for me. I don’t have a vision of what I want. If I am buy a car, all I want is something that moves me from place to place with a minimum of problems. A lot of friends I know walk into car lots with a strategy of getting specific things they want, and how to maneuver the salesman into giving them the deal they want. They know all the bells and whistles they want to purchase. All I want is a compact white Ford.

Worst of all, choice just baffles me. The more options I have the more stumped I become. Two or three choices I can manage. More than that I am wondering how I can get out of this showroom without looking like an asshole.

What I am saying is that shopping is overwhelming for me. I don’t so much hate it as all these products and choices leave my mind so overstimulated that I my mind is whirling with all the choices and I become exhausted and all I want to do is go home and take a long nap. This is why I hate shopping.

By on

The problem that many people, including myself, have with Donald Trump is he is, above all else, an asshole extraordinaire. That this detestable prick is president of the United States is both extremely depressing and a source of conflicting feelings about what he does.

So let me lay it out for my present destress:

  1. I dislike Donald Trump and disagree with most, if not everything, he does.
  2. I like the United States. It is my home.
  3. Donald Trump is the president of the United States.While I think he is a fuck up and fucking up everything he lays his tiny hands on, he also leads my country.
  4. I want my country to succeed whenever possible.

Which leads to the question, how can I hope for the best for my country with this miserable little shit running the country?

For example, the war with Iran. I think it is a big mistake. On the other hand, I think the world would be a worse place if the United States lost it. Muslim extremism, chaos in Iran and in the neighboring region, Women’s rights, Gay rights, things could get a whole lot worse if he were to lose. I can’t see how any of this would be better if the United States lost.

But, then, Trump is such a detestable man, if he wins, he will take credit for the victory and thus become even more insufferable. He will think he is smarter than he actually is and will continue governing as he had thinking he is wiser than he is. Thus making him even more likely to make even more risky decisions because he keeps rolling the dice and coming up a winner.

My one fond hope, though highly unlikely, is that Trump will be forced to work with Congress and our Allies to obtain a settlement that frees Iran from Muslim extremism while also bringing some peaceful resolution to the troubles in the region. So what I want, I guess, is for Trump to succeed only after he throws himself on the mercy of Congress and our Allies in order to ensure the victory.

Barring that, all I see is a mess.