January 10, 2019

Kamala Harris on AOC and Rashida Tlaib

I decided many years ago that I can't handle listening to politicians, and for the most part I've avoided it. But this morning I decided to take a chance on seeing what Harris had to say about AOC and Tlaib.

First impression was that it was a setup by the program. They were basically asking, are you on their side or not? Is there drama in the future? No problem with that (it IS a TV talk show about politics), but I think a lot of people probably missed it. But I found Kamala's answers interesting considering who she is and where she works.

Her comment about Tlaib's cussing in public was right on the button: Rashida is not the first, and won't be the last, politician to swear in public. She did not mention T by name, which I thought was canny, but, from the laughter in the audience, I think most people caught her drift.

And I thought her comments on AOC were good: she's challenging the status quo and that's a good thing. Challenging the status quo has been going on for millennia: even whoever invented the wheel was saying, hey, why not? Some ideas have worked and some have been shot down, but at least they were considered when people weren't afraid to consider them.

Which leads right into fear of change or resistance to change, which equate to being afraid of the unknown. I'm not a shrink (far from it; I even took a psych class in college and hated it), but it's so obvious that it happens all the time aside from politics. Guys who don't want to commit? Ha! Fear of change or of the unknown. People at work afraid of a new boss or a new co-worker? Fear of change or of the unknown. People who stay married long after they should? Fear of change or of the unknown.

A non-white president? OMG! The galaxy will stop spinning!!! A female president right after a non-white president??? Double OMG!!! The whole local galaxy cluster will collapse.

January 8, 2019

Networks to air Dems' reponse to speech

From HuffPost:

Television networks airing President Donald Trump’s Tuesday night Oval Office speech on his proposed border wall and the partial government shutdown have also committed to airing the Democratic response to the president.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer say they will make the case themselves. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox broadcasting, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network and MSNBC all said they would air the rebuttal.

So the networks feel that they have to give the other side equal time (so to speak). Ok, I'm for it.

January 7, 2019

The Great Wall of China didn't work either

I've been wondering about this for a while, and just now finally decided to look it up. And, for you lurkers... I deliberately picked a piece that dates back a few years, before the current administration took over. Wikipedia is just too convenient to sling mud at.

Turns out the Wall didn't work. It was fine at first due to the emperor's armies, but, later on, the armies from the north invaded anyway and "and after several skirmishes the Han emperor had to marry off his daughter to the Xiongnu ruler in order to make peace."

One paragraph in the story stands out:

Another argument is that the Great Wall was nothing more than an ambitious project contrived by a vainglorious emperor. The Great Wall was supposed to show the world China’s superiority, making a clear distinction between civilized people and barbarians.

https://gbtimes.com/failure-great-wall

This article also mentions Hadrian's Wall, and a separate article on it (also from years ago) says:

"In both cases, in addition to any military function, the physical barriers served in the eyes of their builders to reinforce the conceptual divide between civilized and noncivilized. They were part of the ideology of empire. (Ancient Civilizations, 313)"

https://www.ancient.eu/Hadrians_Wall/

And yes, I know, both of these articles were written by Democrats with a crystal ball and an agenda.

January 2, 2019

Help with WH press corp response to Obama and Clinton

Okay, I need a little help from some of you knowledgeable folks...

I received a forwarded email from a Republican friend about Sarah Sanders being named FrontPage Mag's person of the year for her role in the media wars, i.e., standing up to the press. The implication seems to be that the press has been overly aggressive and partisan.

As far as I've been able to tell over the years, the press asks tough questions. That's their role. And they do it with everyone. So I'm looking for instances (documented instances) where the WH press corps was "equally aggressive" with previous presidents, especially the Democrats. I don't know if there's anything out there, but I want to say "something" to my friend about it.

And please... no comments about being friends with a Republican. We go back a long way before we had any interest in politics.

December 3, 2018

What's with the ads?

Don't know if this has been addessed already, butt what's with the ads showing up in the forum?

November 9, 2018

Carlson and his colleagues need to understand something

And this goes for every political commentator on TV: they are accountable for what they say.

Yes that demonstration outside his home was wrong. Dead wrong. Americans -- all Americans -- are supposed to be better than this. And yes he was exercising his right of free speech, which he is entitled to do. But being on TV and making a fortune commenting on whatever they want does not give anyone a free hall pass. And especially in this day and age, with the pervasive anger, and demonstrations all over, it's stupid to think you won't get some people so angry that they will do something like this.

I remember when commentators were scarce. We had reporters and anchors, and the occasional analysis. But ever since the networks discovered this new formula of using commentators to deliver an audience to an advertiser, they have multiplied like rabbits. And they make a fortune doing so. But what they seem to fail to realize is that sometimes what they say will get people pissed off at them, and that some people will get pissed off enough to do something about it. They are accountable for what they say, just like the rest of us.

October 21, 2018

Is anybody else fed up with candidates bashing opponents?

Yes, I know it's a long-standing SOP, but it seems the vast majority of political stuff we get in the mail (and we get a lot) consists of the candidate telling us how bad/dishohest/clueless his or her opponent is. To me, this is just a way of getting your name out there without saying anything about yourself. IOW, hot air. And a waste of money donated to the campaigns.

I first noticed this way back in college when somebody was running (I think it was Ted Kennedy), and it seemed like all he ever said was what a jerk the other guy was. It left a crappy taste in my mouth that keeps coming up.

I can't even look at this bashing crap anymore. It just goes directly from the mailbox to the recycle bin - althought sometimes I think it belongs in the garbage.

October 1, 2018

"I can do it but you can't."

With all this talk about white male entitlement, I find it fascinating that some people feel it's okay for them to do something, but not okay for someone else to do the exact same thing. I first noticed it as a little kid, then saw it in school, college, work, and other activities, and it had nothing to do with rank or age. For instance:

"You left the light on."

"You left it on too."

Silence for a moment, then, mumbled, "That's different."

I've seen people get incredibly defensive over this, and it doesn't seem to sink in. Fascinating.

September 29, 2018

I'd love to see "Abby" and "Tim" take over the investigation

from "Fornell."

They would probably complete it in an hour including the commercials. Or it might be a two-parter.

September 28, 2018

Dear American Bar Assoc.: give Kavanaugh an ultimatum

Okay, maybe ultimatum isn't the correct term. In any case, the ABA has standards of professional conduct which they do enforce. Given their response so far (and the Yale Law School's dean's comment), I think they should "threaten" something along the lines of temporarily disbarring him until there's an FBI investigation.

This idea is solely based on the fact that he refuses to have an investigation. Other than that, I'm okay with whatever the investigation reveals.