"Allez vous faire foutre"

About a year and a half ago, when our president withdrew the United States from the Paris Accords/Climate Change agreement, France's president, Emmanuel Macron, promised that “France will not give up the fight.” And he invited American "scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs, responsible citizens who were disappointed by the decision of the president of the United States" to come to France where they would find a "second homeland."

I expect the number who did that was roughly equivalent to the number of Hollywood types, who after promising to do so, actually kept their promise and moved to Canada.

Now, a year and a half later, the people of France are expressing *their* opinion on this and a whole bunch of other, not unrelated, subjects. And they are expressing those opinions loudly enough that French President Macron felt the need to send 8,000 policemen (along with armored vehicles) to Paris to quell both their complaints and the complainers themselves. And at the same time to pretty much close down the French capital's more upscale business and shopping areas as well as that famed city's tourist attractions.

President Trump, as is his way, has not remained quiet about about all this. But French President Macron has.

The later's "quiet", however, has not been complete. There are people who he has been speaking to.

Whom?

France's business leaders. France's big union leaders. And that nation's politicians.

Tonight though, after a week of nearly complete public silence, President Macron plans to address the French people.

There are several points to all the above that are worth taking note of.

First, the "who"s in all of this. As in who is on whose side.

Doing so we'll see that in France it is pretty much the same as it is with us here.

On one side are the business leaders -- the internationalist 'big wigs' -- along with the leaders of the major unions, and of course, there as here, the politicians. And these are all strongly supported by pretty much all the major media.

On the other side, both there and here, are the common people. The nobodies. Those who have been pushed out, and pushed about, and told to -- and fully expected to -- just remain silent and accept things as they are.

All, of course, for (as we have been endlessly told) "the people's own good."

For a long time all that was heard from the people of France was... silence.

But no longer. Today the average working Frenchman has begun to speak. To give an answer. And that answer is pretty much always the same.

"Allez vous faire foutre."

Roughly translated into English that means...

"Screw you."

We might wonder, though. Are the above "facts" really, as in my introductory expression, "fun" facts?

The answer is both "yes" and "no."

Rebellion, in truth, is often as ugly as the things done to raise it. And the battle of words -- what most of us still prefer -- can, and sometimes does, turn to something uglier: Violence and the destruction of property.

Those things are certainly not fun.

But it has also been observed -- and this throughout history -- that that the end result of even such violence is often in the long run greater peace, along with greater life opportunities for a greater number of people.

The battle in France has now taken that turn. Or begun to. It is"on the streets."

So far, here in the USA, it is still mostly in our homes. In softly spoken words. In humorous expressions.

These next several months, though, promise to be interesting. Very interesting.

Here, as in France, the powers that be are retrenching. International business interests and politicians are even vocally uniting against the people, and against the man we elected to do OUR will. The will of "we the people."

We are expected to be silent. We are pressured to be the same.

Unpopular truths are not to be spoken.

We -- the common man -- the "nobodies" -- are ridiculed. We are called names. We are made to feel alone. Outcasts.

But many of us wear that as a badge. As a thing of honor.

We "deplorables."

We who really have the power. If only we know it and are willing to bear it.

_

Continuing As "The Land of the Free"

When we Americans speak of our nation as "the land of the free" it offends some. Some abroad. Of late even some here.

When we speak of our government being 'of, by and for' the people-- and then act to ensure that it remains such -- we are derided for that.

But the truth of the uniqueness of our nation and its more traditionally 'American-minded' people is real. What has happened with Brexit once again has shown this.

The British people voted to free themselves of the EU with all its strictures and laws and crushing limitations -To become again a nation of their own, under their own dominion. And yesterday a deal was signed to deny them what they chose, and their Prime Minister told them in pretty direct terms to shut up about it. To simply accept it.

"This" she told them, "is the deal that is on the table, this is the best possible deal, this is the only possible deal.”

Of course it is not. It certainly is not "the deal" that our president would have negotiated. Yes, and insisted upon.

Will the British people simply accept it?

I'd say likely yes.

They'll for a short time moan a bit. And then they'll 'go off to the pub.' Just as they have when when so many other freedom sapping and empowered-empowering laws have been put into place.

Similar forces are at work here, too, of course And, yes, a great many are 'going to the pub' here, too. But not so far the majority.

May we remain "the land of the free." And may we realize that to do so we also remain (and in some cases yet become) "the home of the brave."

-

What's Coming...

The Kavanagh War is over. Goodness won. The left's malicious gossip machine lost and lost badly.

What's next? I'll make a prediction:

I do not think the left has kept the ridiculous Mueller Investigation going for nothing. What I expect is a sudden and very dramatic release of "findings" that appear to sully President Trump, his administration and by connection we who support him. And these "findings" will be made public carefully timed so that the owned media can air the doubtful dirt with sensational headlines leaving little or no time for objective evaluation of their dubious worth.

Why do I make this prediction? Simple...

1) It is, as we have just witnessed, what they do. And 2), It is really the only tactic they have remaining to them.

The good of President Trump's approaches - those of harnessing America's strengths to resolve America's problems -- are working. People are starting to once again dream, and plan, and hope. And those dreams, plans and hopes are based on things that we the people ourselves want to do with our lives. They are not dependent on our being either squeezed or hugged by some overpromising, bloviating, government machine.

The left and the so-called "Deep State" -- those who have been quietly controlling our nation for a good many years and steering everything their own way -- are losing control. To us. To We the People.

They are frightened. They are cornered.

And a frightened, cornered, animal is a dangerous thing.
We should expect their teeth.
They will be coming.
And then what?
We will beat them once again.

We should expect their charge. 

-

Hate? I want none of it

Anyone else simply tired of hearing all the drummed-up anger and hate?

The lies about now Justice Kavanaugh were to me disgusting, but the stories had to be aired; the questions resolved, that so a just decision could be made.

But now? Both left and right seem to want to keep this hatefest going. And with such can only come division.

Maybe doing that, today, is the norm for the Democratic Party. They as a political party no longer seem to have either ideals or an agenda for building up our nation -- only for tearing it down. But conservatives say they favor the ideals expressed in the Pledge of Allegiance" -- words that speak of "one nation, under God, indivisible."

We cannot again be "one nation" if we keep seeing only the bad in one-another and harping on our differences.

We cannot hope to be "indivisabe" unless we, ourselves, stop creating divisions, but instead look to put balm on the wounds that past division and hate mongering have created.

No, this does not mean ignoring the differences that exist between us (some of which remain very important to resolve). But it does mean being willing to see the good that is be found even among those with whom we in some areas differ. And it does mean lowering our voices -- and sometimes even covering over our own disappointment and pain.

For myself this means turning off the hate switch. And turning off supposed "news" sources that do little to inform and much to stir up anger.

This, sadly, includes Fox News -- a source that at one time I appreciated for its willingness to cover stories that most of the media ignored, but today does as much as any to keep the hate going and noise level rising. This, I assume, to gather viewers and readers.

For myself I will have none of it.

My neighbors who vote for Democrats are not my enemies.

Shallow thinking "entertainers" are not the voice of the people no matter which party they support.

Spouting hate -- or quoting those that do for the purpose of headlines and sensationalism -- is not to me proof of love of our nation. No, quite the opposite.

We can fight for principles and speak unpopular truths without trying to cause division.

Making America great again must include binding our nation's wounds and helping us to be again "united." Not just fifty united states, but as important, a united people.

Hate? I want none of it.

-

The Very Public Indignities that were the Kavanaugh/Ford Hearings

A few short thoughts on yesterday's Kavanaugh hearings...

That shame and discredit this brought on the Senate chamber is undeniable. If there was any truth to Ford's charges they should have been brought up far earlier in the process. And they would have required *some* level of corroboration beyond a women's rather confused and contradictory statements.

The political aspect, however, was consistent and obvious beyond words. Thus the amazing power of Lindsey Graham's cold and righteous anger.

It now appears that Judge Kavanaugh will be approved, first, tomorrow morning, in committee. Then later by the entire Senate.

Assuming that proves true was all of this just another quick-to-pass-from-the-collective-memory senate happening?

I think not.

The hurt done to the people involved will last. The Kavanagh family. The reputation of Professor Ford -- a sad thing to the extent that whatever her personal experience she was used for political gain and abused by Sen. Feinstein and others. But more important than even those personal stories is the damage done to the Senate as an institution, and the loss of stature of the government as a whole.

Connected to the later is this question: What honest and conscientious person who saw this horror will consider putting themselves forward for high public office? And that means the nation will be limited to at best 2nd tier candidates, and at worst to the type of bloviating charlatans we repeatedly saw on display over the last several days .

Could any good come from all this? I think yes. For it put on display what in fact the Democratic Party has become. Shallow. Power hungry. And ineffective to the point of incompetence.

That the nation is so closely divided politically makes even a small shift in public thinking here -- how each party is viewed -- important. And in that respect the Democrats truly blew it for themselves.

If even one percent of the voting public saw with understanding what was on public display these last few days the nation will benefit. And frankly I expect the percentage who "saw," and who will be influenced by what they saw, quite a bit higher.

As for those who did not see because they could not see -- well their craziness is likely to be on even greater display in the weeks and months to come. And that will swing yet more people towards the president and his party.

That these affairs have been ugly goes without saying. But, sad to say, that is the way democracy sometimes works. One group of people work against even their own selfish interests. And from that 'negative' comes a positive that moves things ahead for the greater number and the greater good.

-

Hillary's 'Magic Mirror'

In the centuries-old Brothers Grimm fairy tale, "Snow White," we are introduced to an evil witch who expects the world to see her as fair and beautiful no matter what the mirror shows.  So fixated is she on her own self-seen beauty that she even expects her mirror to lie for her. Yes, lie to her, to hide her haggish appearance and make her look radiant, beautiful and bright.

Fairy tales catch hold on the human imagination because they often, in a truly magical way, reflect back truths with a disarming honesty. All this in the form of a story. And thus the idea of a mirror lying -- presenting a total falsehood as "truth" -- makes for an especially powerful tale.  It's a tale being told once again in the latest web edition of The Atlantic, penned by Hillary Clinton,  where many people's favorite witch reveals her own lying mirror.

The cover piece, titled "American Democracy Is in Crisis," was initially written by Mrs. Clinton as an afterward for the paperback edition to her post election fantasy novelette  (as at least some of its readers saw it), "What Happened," and then edited a bit for the The Atlantic's short story/essay format.

In her story, Hillary's "magic mirror" obeys her command -- at least to her own eyes.  But its lies are not seen by anyone who is not themselves bewitched. Anyone with clear and honest eyes will quickly see the truth.

Let us then look into her magic mirror, at the tale she tells, together, first through Hillary's eyes as revealed in her Atlantic piece. Then again, with eyes like that of youth -- eyes that are honest and of innocent intent.

Hillary's first "vision," as does any good fairy tale, has an evil monster at the heart of its story. And here that monster is -- surprise! -- President Trump. And her story is truly a tale. One that presents a picture of "unspeakable cruelty" that the Trump monster has, first, "inflicted on undocumented families arriving at the border."  Oh, that evil, evil Trump!

But of course, in Hillary's magic mirror, there is no vision of families in the pre-Trump era -- that of the Obama administration -- being separated from their parents on a regular basis. Or of children who have no understanding of American society -- not even of the language commonly spoken here -- being shipped out to locations throughout the land. No, nor of those of their number who brought with them the plague of MS-13 gang violence.

In Hillary's magic mirror there is no reflection of the pained faces of American parents who had seen their children brutally macheted to death by their new "classmates."  Hillary's mirror is required to skip such things. In its vision she, and the administration she served, are seen as innocent. But the vision of Donald Trump reflected in her magic mirror is distorted, crude and ugly.

Vision two in Hillary's magic mirror reflects an "ideal" that is "enshrined in two powerful principles." It is a vision of a world where "not even the most powerful leader is above the law." It's a world where "all citizens are due equal protection under the law."  What a lovely picture!

But as we'd expect from a witch queen's mirror, even that lovely image is completely distorted. For in it, we see Robert Mueller as a crusading saint. And in its story there is a mean, ugly and tyrannical 'orange haired' monster who interferes with his honest investigation.

Well, such is to be expected in a fairy tale. Is it not?

The third vision the witch queen conjures from her magic mirror is that of evil Russian hordes corrupting an otherwise fair and honest election, and of monster "Trump’s complete unwillingness to stop it or protect us."   Scary, scary stuff!  (But too old a story to any longer frighten the children.)

The Magic Mirror's forth vision calls forth a new fighter against the same dastardly villain: The Washington Post -- on a bright white steed -- going after that same dastardly Donald and all his evil lies.

Trump, her mirror friend tells her (and us), "has made 5,000 false or misleading claims while in office and recently has averaged 32 a day."  Imagine that! What a story it tells!

The wicked "lies," though, as in the best fairy tales, are left almost entirely to the reader's imagination.

But reader's imaginations are up to it! We all, for instance, know that Trump promised lower taxes. -That he promised less dangerous illegals crossing our border. Less "red tape" and fewer paperwork blockades to the creation of American businesses. Fairer trade deals. Less of America's monies going to nations that oppose us. And Hillary's mirror, of course, expects us to know that none of that has happened. (Yes?)

Such, I suppose, is a magic mirror's ability to fool the eyes. Well, they seem to fool Hillary's anyhow.  And, one might suppose, those of The Atlantic's readers.

Vision five from Hillary's magic mirror is particularly scary. It reveals "unprecedented conflicts of interest" and includes in its vision "Republican organizations (that) do business with Trump’s companies or hold lucrative events at his hotels, golf courses, and other properties."  Oh the horrors!

But being that hers is a "magic mirror," there are no scenes that show migrating uranium. Nor are there visions of funds passing into the Clinton Foundation's bursting bank accounts. Nor are there visions of the Haitians who are still waiting for promised housing for which the donated funds have somehow disappeared.

In any good fairy tale -- especially one told by a magic mirror -- the coming of the fears and horrors towards the story's end escalate, coming faster and faster and faster. And here Hillary's magic mirror, with its rapidly passing scenes, does her will.

We in quick succession see visions of  "Immigration and Customs Enforcement ... running wild across the country." Of federal agents "confronting citizens just for speaking Spanish," while "dragging parents away from children." And after tales such as this, and some more of the same, the tale reaches its conclusion.

Every good fairy tale needs a happy ending. And Hillary's magic mirror conjures one that surely must delight her and all her Atlantic readers. One where "fantastic candidates" are "running all over the country, making their compelling cases every day about how they’ll raise wages, bring down health-care costs, and fight for justice."  And that exciting end, her mirror tells her and us, is coming soon. "If they"  -- her dream minions -- "win." "They’ll do great things for America."

What a fairy tale! What a vision!

The only thing missing from Hillary's fairy tale is perhaps the most essential ingredient -- one that was in the old Brothers Grimm tale: A mirror that won't lie.

Alas, Hillary would never allow for such a thing from her mirror.

But readers need not feel too bad.  For while Hillary may not be willing to include a truth telling mirror, she seems very happy to give us another part of this tale...

The poisoned apple.

"Hillary's 'Magic Mirror'" as posted here was first 
published by American Thinker on Sept 19th, 2018

Some Thoughts on Choosing Facebook "Friends"

To me one of the very best things about Facebook is that it has allowed me to get to know interesting people from all around the globe. And some of these "friends" have actually come to be friends -- with no scare quotes needed.

FB itself endlessly recommends people, based on shared acquaintances ("Friend of a friend's 2nd cousin, once removed") , but frankly I almost never respond to those. No, my new FB Friends most commonly come when either they, or I, take note of an interesting thought* and then search out the person, find that there are several such, become intrigued, and then put in a "friend request."

That process has given me "friends" in far away places I will never likely visit. England, Wales, Australia, Israel, Nigeria. Even Cape Cod!

Because I contribute to quite a few web sources as a writer and commenter, and quite often use my Facebook moniker as my 'sign in,' my thinking -- apparently found intriguing by not a few -- quite often brings me FB "Friend" requests. And of these a few are accepted. (Very few. My total FB "Friends" list presently numbers just 144.)

How do I determine who to accept, who to just say "hi!" to and whose request to simply ignore/delete?

Sometimes, I am a bit ashamed to admit the later happens because I just do not have the time the requester's request fairly deserves. (Just yesterday I got 17 such requests) But when I do have the time I use certain rather subjective filters.

How active is the person? If a requester's FB Timeline is largely blank there is no way for me to make a judgement -- and thus the judgement has to be to reject.

If there is a solid Timeline what does it contain? Family news and photos are for many a key part of the FB experience, and these are meaningful, but only, really, to their friends and family. It's like hearing "Happy Birthday" sung at a restaurant. Such is not meaningless to be sure. But who is it meaningful to? Usually only those at or in the party. Others just smile at the joy being expressed, and then basically tune it out. And so it is with family stuff seen on a "Friend" requestor's timeline.

If I see nastiness as a common theme -- even when it targets people to whom I myself harbor some dislike, those requests too are deleted. Wit I like. Even some gentle sarcasm. But nastiness is just not something I want more of in my life. These I delete.

What does attract me -- and makes me consider hitting the "Accept" button -- are people who have interesting, positive, thoughts that will both inform me and brighten my day. And if there are shared interests -- the person is a musician, for instance, or an artist -- well those things in combination make me take note, and some of the time, say "yes."

These filters are real and thought through, but they are not infallible. I am sure that there have been some wonderful people, with much to offer, whose friendship I have missed.

But isn't that true throughout life in this big, beautiful and highly varied world?

Life is short. Too bad we seem to get only one.

(Hmm.... Maybe I need some thoughtful and convincing Hindu friends.)

*Good word that -- "Thought." Google it and see!

"Oh, Chicago!"

The death count from the insanity that is Chicago's gang-filled inner-city continues to rise. (74 shot, 11 dead -- just this past weekend -- including victims aged 11,  12 and 13). The Mayor's response it to try to push through a Black Lives Matter/ACLU drafted change in how the city is policed that follows those organization's favored principles.

Meanwhile the pattern of mayhem continues to spread.

New York City, still relatively safe (as it has be since the Giuliani/Bratton team raised the cost of even minor crime in the city back in the `90s), is now seeing an increase in the type of crime that is destroying the quality of life in large parts of Chicago.

Baltimore now has an even higher rate of blood letting than does Chicago -- brought on largely by the same anti-policing strategies pushed by the BLM movement and the ACLU.

Stronger policing, not weaker policing, is what is needed.  But in truth even that is at best a stop-gap measure -- one that can only hope to slow the spread of the ever increasing death and destruction.

Is a real, lasting, solution possible? What would such require?

Manhattan Institute Fellow Heather Mac Donald cuts to the chase when she writes in today's City Journal...

"Policing is only a second-best solution to the anarchy in inner-city communities. The best solution is a culture of marriage that expects boys to take responsibility for the children they conceive."

She continues... "As long as more than three-quarters of Chicago’s inner-city children are raised without their fathers, black-on-black violence will continue."

But years of closely following this story tell her that politicos and media will pay little attention.  Or not at least until "the numbers are too egregious to ignore."

Aren't seventy plus shootings over one weekend in one city "egregious" enough?

Apparently not.

Just think of who politically controls these cities -- and has largely done so for several generations.  Then none of the above, as terrible as it is, is reason for surprise. For it is they, more than anyone else, that have created the inner city culture that is making life in key parts of America increasingly hellish.

_

The Great Ruskie Bust

What are we to make of the headline-busting "bust" of twelve Russians for hacking Dem Party computers, releasing the supposedly confidential info there, and thus messing around with an American election or three?

Notice my question... "What are we to MAKE of" the above.
For to me that is the real question. One that is in and of itself its own answer.

This act by the Department of Justice has no meaning in a legal sense. The Russians ain't done nothing (yes, double negative -- perfect for here) that they (and the US government) have not been doing since at least 1918. And in this case it had absolutely no effect on any outcomes apart from raising the decibel level.

And that is exactly what this supposed 'bust' is to do as well.

Think of how much there is right now that the "Department of Justice" (sorry, but those scare quotes are needed) needs to drown out. -The Mueller idiocy. The success of the Trump Administration's policies. The slow reveal of the DoJ's own malfeasance in trying to upset the last election.

How better to do this than by a phony 'bust' of some ugly Ruskies?

Do they really expect the Russian government to extradite these people for trial here? (Would they 'bust' 'em if that was even a possibility? With the Russians thus able, via American criminal law practices, to demand access to all the information the DoJ won't even allow congressional committees to see? Really?)

And what about the timing? This occurring just as 1) a key FBI official is telling congress between smirks that 'no. I will not answer your questions -- the FBI lawyers tell me I cannot' and 2), President Trump about to meet with Russian President Putin -- and pull off who knows what State Department mortifying surprise?

No, the Russians here are not the target. We are. You, me and our elected president. -Our growing self-confidence and demand for taking control of what is ours -- control that threatens everything the so-called "DoJ" and the rest of "State" looks upon as its own.

Will this gambit work?

I think not.

Yes, NY Times readers will nod their heads in agreement, just as they are inclined and have been trained to do.

Those who live in the social media/tabloid world (increasingly the same thing) will ignore it as far less interesting then, say, four woman beating up a waitress at an Applebees.

But the bulk of thinking Americans will see it as just what it is -- another attempt at gaming us through the old and now largely ignored media circus.

No, they -- those perpetrating this farce -- won't go away. But their hold is day by day, and act by act, weakening.

This entire gambit is equally an example of that -- and an accelerator of their demise.

An Overdue Apology

It struck me while reading the unreported parts of the "news" how really unbalanced my own thinking and writing has been. I mean it's fine to be glad about low unemployment across the board and such, but aren't business owners, factory managers, shipping directors -- aren't those people Americans as well? Shouldn't I really be considering their plight too? After all its not just workers that are having to deal with the changes since the Trump economy exploded. These peoples' problems also are real!

Think of group one, above. Those business owners. With demands on them growing what is going to happen to their summer vacation plans? Its easy to say we don't care -- but these are often family people. "Sorry honey -- gotta tell the kids -- there is no way I can join you like we planned on that vacation. The phone -- it's now ringing twenty-four/seven. Three of my top managers have left for higher paying jobs. Even my admin assistant has left me. Someone has to answer those calls. And someone has too figure out how to get all those orders filled. Its all falling on me. Day after day after day!. Vacation? I can't even think of taking timer off!"

The fact is that those business owners' plight is real and its simply not fair to ignore them or pretend it doesn't matter just because they are rich and getting richer.

Then there are those factory managers I mentioned above. Do we realize the stress these changes in the economy is putting on them?

"More and more and more! They keep demanding more! Bigger orders that they need now, always now!. I mean what do they expect me to do with the warehouse filled one day and emptied out by the next? It takes time to find skilled workers. Such don't just get in line any more -- begging for work."

"I put up ads and the few who answer them look at our wage and benefit packages and say 'are you kidding me? I can get 40% more just up the street.'"

"And then there is the enlargement of the factory floor. We rented that space out to the welfare office and signed a ten year contract with them. They may no longer need it, but they've got it and we're stuck with no place to expand. -And even if we can find the space that doesn't immediately solve the problem. Manufacturing equipment orders now have to go in months in advance. It like the fifties again and I'm no longer a young man."

"God I miss those golf afternoons!"

And then there are the shipping directors. "We need trucks! We need truck drivers! There are none anyplace! What am I supposed to do -- drive the rigs myself?"

"Oh, and the overtime we are paying. Two or three times what we used to pay during the Christmas rush -- and its Summer -- the supposedly slow time of the year."

So to all you business owners, plant managers, shipping directors -- please accept my apology for ignoring your plight. And anyone else, too, who is being run ragged by what is happening in our nation.

But hang on -- Trump only has, likely, six more years. With any luck at all you get some typical political schmo into the White House then and we'll all finally be able to get some rest.

_

Making Sense of President Trump's Numbers

A headline based on a Gallup poll tells us that "Donald Trump is more popular with Republicans than almost any president since WWII with an approval rating of 87 per cent." That, we are informed in that same piece, is even higher than the numbers among Democrats for JFK.

How can this be when the President's overall approval rating among voters is below 50%?

In fact those numbers make perfect sense. They fit what we could expect in a politically (and otherwise) divided nation for a president who is, some say, like none before him when it comes to doing what he promised voters he would do.

President Trump's theme, both as he campaigned for the office, and daily since he won the position, is to "Make America Great Again." Now one would think that such a goal would itself be universally popular, with, perhaps, just some question about how that was to be accomplished, or specifically on what basis that "greatness" was to be evaluated

But is restoring the nations economic footing a partisan thing -- or something we'd expect all to see as great? Is greatly rising employment being experienced by every group -- educated, and less educated, skilled and less skilled, black, white, Hispanic and Asian, male and female -- is that of only partisan interest?

The answer seems to be, rather shockingly, yes.

This past week a once popular TV personality, Bill Maher, said that he was hoping for a major recession -- this despite knowing the pain and suffering it would cause many, many people. To him -- a man of significant wealth -- such loss of what one would think everyone judged as "greatness" would be desirable if it hurts the president's popularity and support.

That is how divided out nation is. Some see improved life and security for all as "great." Others do not.

And for that reason President Trump, who has done even more than he promised in more than a few areas -- things that are benefiting almost all Americans -- is loved and supported by some, and loathed and unsupported by others.

The distinction seems to simply be how one feels about America and the daily joy and satisfaction, plus the future hopes and dreams, of the American people.

Bottom line: Are you for them, or against them?

That 87% of Republicans have come to support President Trump -- even those to whom his 'NY ways' are foreign and, perhaps even off-putting -- says a lot about both the man, the party and about America as a whole.

That so many Democrats do not -- well that speaks just as loudly.

The good President Trump is doing goes beyond numbers, or even people's hopes and dreams. For along with all that it is opening eyes to the truth of where the various political entities stand regarding the welfare of the American people. That some are for us, and other simply don't seem to care.  And for that eye opening all of our Republic should be glad.

As seen on American Thinker

War is an Ugly Thing

War is an ugly thing.

After years of looking to fine gentleman generals – men with only one flaw: that they repeatedly lost battle after battle – President Lincoln found Ulysses S. Grant.  Grant was in some ways less than a perfect gentleman.  He seemed focused on just one thing: winning.  "The art of war is simple enough," Grant had said.  "Find out where your enemy is.  Get at him as soon as you can.  Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on."

Was it really that simple?  Not to many educated gentlemen.  And some such "gentlemen of the press" thought it their duty to say so.  "He is a drunkard!" they wrote – not entirely inaccurately.  Others focused their columns on the losses among Grant's own troops, which seemed inordinately high.  Others wrote endlessly of the pain of families they knew who had lost loved ones fighting in Grant's endless bloody battles and, some said, pursuit of his own personal glory.

President Lincoln thought otherwise.  Any or even all of those "facts" might be true, but he had finally found someone who took the war to the enemy and, yes, won.

The publications of the period found themselves in a hard place.  How should they editorially balance the basic values they had long stood for against such things as protecting troop morale?  What were they to do with writers who themselves were friends and gentlemen but who simply could not, or would not, get fully behind the winning general?  One who had finally rallied the troops and raised the hopes of a people long worn down by hopelessness and defeat?

Tough questions, these. 

So it is today.  Where does the balance stand between old ideals and the new situation?  How important is reporting the full truth about a general, including his personal failings and weaknesses, in comparison to protecting the morale of the troops and that of the citizenry, to keeping the finally achieved momentum toward victory moving forward?

Such a choice was seemingly faced by the publishers of RedState – and they apparently chose to stick with the general, letting go numerous respected writers who simply, for whatever reason – maybe even and simple love of "truth" and "principle" – refused to "get on board."

Yes, war is an ugly, ugly thing.

_

The above piece is an edited version as it appeared on American Thinker

It's Over. America Remains Ours

There comes a time when one must realize and accept that one's argument lost.  This is something that every adult experiences.

It needn't mean accepting that you were wrong. Or that you didn't "deserve" to win.  No, just that you didn't. You lost. The game's over. It is time to move on. To be quiet. To go home.

I can't  but think that any objective viewer cannot help but see that we here in America have reached such a time. -That the big "argument" that has been going on -- the one about the underlying worth of our nation and the value of the principles on which it was built -- has been publicly won. And that in the nation's favor.

Yes, you can still think that we, the winners of that debate, were wrong, but the fight is in fact over. Now all that's left is acceptance of that fact, or denial and self pity.

In a real sense that argument was won a year ago last November. Or, one could argue, even before that, when Donald Trump took out all his adversaries and got the Republican nomination.  That because among his adversaries was a voice for every argument for what makes up good government here in America.  The other side in the election itself was simply the remnants of power trying to hold on to the same -- with old, stale, ideas and jaded, empty, promises.

But the losing side on that clear November night a year past didn't, couldn't, wouldn't accept it. They were certain that they were somehow right -- that they had been all along -- and that all that was needed was a bit of time and some loud, coordinated, voices of "reason" -- and then the nation as a whole would see and follow and be thankful.

Uh uh. 'Twas not to be.

This past week or so has, to borrow a phrase, "put the kibosh" on all of that.  The Stormy Daniel debacle on CBS's 60 Minutes, the news out of Korea (how funny -- yes, and revealing -- to see those two things set side-by-side as if they were equals), the restoration of the bull market on Wall Street, and now... and now...  the Roseanne show revival and its 18 million plus viewers.

You, Dear Coasties, lost.
You in editorial position at the NY Times and the WaPo, you lost.
You Hollywood types -- despite all your self-assurances (to say nothing of your self-congratulations) and despite your pretty faces and lovely gowns, you lost.
You in the news rooms, with your deep, serious, sonorous, voices, you lost.

We the people listened. We were unimpressed.

Your machinations of power, your lies, your corruption and attempts at control. They all failed.

You may still believe in yourselves -- in your supposed cause (whatever that may be?) -- but no one else does. In fact we are no longer even really listening. Well, except for a chuckle.

Trump not only won on election night, but he was won again and again ever since.

You can deny it. But you cannot any longer even pretend to be winning.

It's over.
Go home.
Be quiet.

America remains ours.

A slightly modified form of this article appeared on
American Thinker.

My Love of 1950s Sci-Fi. Why?

For a few days I've been participating in a really fun discussion on a forum of fellow musicians that focuses on 1950s Science Fiction films.  I was kind of amazed how many folks there love these as much as I do.  And not just older guys either.  Many younger ones who discovered them a while back, or even more recently, via TV and cable.

After several pages of discussion on each of our favorites -- many of which were shared -- one member new to the conversation asked about the thus far unmentioned Japanese sci-fi.  Films such as 1954's Godzilla.

One or two forum members said they liked those films, most had nothing to say.  I said I wasn't a huge fan, but had no idea why.

As is my want that got me thinking.  Is there a "why"?   And the answer is yes.  Here is what, after some thought, I concluded:

Sci-fi films of the fifties were in several ways much like another motion picture genre:  The American western.  Both were entirely products of the American culture of the time -- and for both genres that was a big part of their appeal.

Both westerns and sci-fi typically focused on situations of public risk, and then found the answer in the actions of an individual, often an outsider -- one who was generally viewed as unimportant and sometimes even looked down upon.

In the western genre such were Shane, the gunfighter who enters a community by chance, acts on principle beyond self, and saves that community from an 'alien' force -- he then moves on. Or Will  Kane in High Noon -- an older, retiring, lawman who is himself threatened by a murderous 'alien' force -- and then, after years of serving the town, finds himself totally alone, with everyone else in denial, thinking that the danger is his alone and one from which he should simply flee.  Kane, too, saves the town. Then he moves on.

Fifties sci-fi in much like that.  The "hero" is typically a nobody -- a teenager from outside the 'in group' -- such as "Steve," played by Steve McQueen, in 1958's  The Blob. Or the quiet geologist in "The Monolith Monsters."

Each of these become aware of the threat and takes charge, first for the care of an early victim of the 'monster', (an old man in The Blob, a little school girl in the Monolith Monsters), then for the entire town when the authorities -- the police (The Blob) or the state's governor (The Monolith Monsters) -- gets tied up with 'more important' things.

There have been popular westerns and sci-fi made elsewhere. Sergio Leone's westerns, The Man With No Name trilogy for instance, and sci-fi such as those popular 1950s Japanese monster films (of which Godzilla is just one).  These films have much to recommend them of an for themselves, but they are  very different from what American fifties westerns and sci-fi films culturally represented. Indeed -- and interestingly -- they are in many ways much more akin to what today's society has become.  Places where individuals are at best anti-heroes.  -Where communal salvation comes -- if it comes at all --  not so much from an average individual putting himself on the line, but from the top down -- the work of government agencies and the like. Or some magically empowered "super hero." A world where everyday men and women are basically seen as victims; as mere fodder, grist for the mill.

Much that has filled the news of late has been just this:  The cry for someone -- not meaning some individual, but government -- to "do something." To remove the threats. Yes, and people's fears.

How interesting it was, then, for me to see how, even unrealized, there was in my pre-teen years a strong attachment to that old, and to some, outdated, American ideal. A way of viewing life mythologized in these film forms that focused on an individual acting with conscience and strength. On this being central to a community's well-being.

Yeah, I'm old school.  And that in part explains why I'd often prefer to fill a Sunday afternoon with these old sci-fi films than the modern variety -- those where the focus in on wowing the film viewer with special effects and emphasizing how close we all are to death and destruction -- unless "somebody (else) does something."

_

The Homeless -- "What would you do?"

I recently posted to Facebook an editorial from the L.A. Times about that city's (and others roundabout) severe and still growing problem with "the homeless." The troubled people, their needs, the terribly destructive affect such are bringing to the city's quality of life.  Yes, and the sometimes serious health crises their rapidly increasing presence has brought in its wake.

A long-time friend who is a resident in a community some miles from L.A. shared a caring and thoughtful response. He spoke of  his "mixed feelings about the group of homeless who roam around the park not more than a mile from my home" who "while relatively peaceful ...litter the grounds with all kinds of refuse." Of how "the recreational area where my children played are empty when the homeless sleep on the benches nearby and drive the families away" and how such have taken up residence, too, in the local library. About how "the staff is politely accommodating (as required by law) but must citizens put up with the common areas being used as a toilet?"

He spoke of his own concerns and actvity trying to find even a workable short term solution, and that while recognizing that "what is ultimately going to work to erase homelessness is anybody’s guess."

His thoughtful, deeply felt, and much appreciated comment ended with a question: "...how would you handle a sudden influx of the homeless into P________?"

Here, posted for my regular blog readers, was my response...

*****

K___, your's was a thoughtful answer -- deserving of more than a reply -- worthy of thought. And one that lead me to both think -- and to realize how ludicrous it was for me to do so while in my warm and comfortable home, surrounded by love and beauty, while making blueberry pancakes -- a long-time Sunday ritual -- to bring into my always smiling wife who is snugly wrapped in a blanket.

Where to even start? (and how it keep it appropriate-to-the-venue short?)

First off I realized that no frank answer would make for a good Hallmark Channel presentation. 

I started yet smaller... What if some down-on-their-luck people started an encampment somewhere on my property? Would I allow that?

No. 

I do keep it open for hikers, hunters, bird watchers, picnickers, and have had youths build blinds and small encampments -- a campfire and so forth. Such were welcome. But to take up residence? No.

Part of that is because such grows. One family becomes two then twelve. Appreciation becomes a right. And the law, generally, is so open to "interpretation" that I could not count on it if such became my only recourse.

But then what would I do? 

First find if they were locals. Then, if yes, see if the local family services could help. The goal even there would be for them to fairly quickly vacate.

But why the question of whether they were locals? The answer to me is in nature -- man's nature. Individual, family, tribe. I can care about the abstractions of "fairness" and "justice." But cannot care for the world. Big things for short periods. Small things for long periods. 

Okay, what about in a public park?

Basically the same. The town's shared spaces are just that -- the towns people's shared community spaces. The bigger "family." ("Tribe?)

No, out they must go. Not preferably cruelly, but go they must.

But where? 

The best answer is the old one: "Across the tracks."

That was what American society -- one built on personal liberty and responsibility -- came up with. For those who by choice, genetics, chance -- whatever -- had a non community-values way of living. They were free to do so -- "across the tracks."

Thus there was "the Bowery." Thus there was the "combat zone." Bars, shooting galleries, hookers, families with no responsible heads -- all of that.

Nope -- nothing "Hallmark" about it.

Does such "work"? Not in an idealized way. But better than anything else. For one it is self-contained.For another, self limiting. And nothing else that I have seen is.

"If you build it they will come."

Yup. Public housing. Free this and that. 

Free universities too I guess. But make them open to all, and not admission-standards based -- and well, we see where that took us. To just what your local library has become. And public rest rooms. And parks.

Now your local situation is not the same. The barn door was left open. The cows are wherever. The careful farmer no longer holds sway. 

How to clean up that mess "neatly" I have no idea. Today even what used to be called "slum clearance" is seen as something else. The once honored "smart" and "industrious" are today seen as the thieves. Of places. Of other's cultures. 

Nope. Do what you can. Be kind as you can. Genuinely -- not as mere manners. But kindness includes protecting what is good. What brings others here. They want it too! 

Fair enough. You want it? Here is how you get it... (and it is not what you wish to hear).

Is that an answer?

*****

Is it?

_

Gun Grabbing - A Modest Proposal

Over at Powerline Blog, John Hinderaker, borrowing heavily from earlier writings of Charles C.W. Cooke, focuses sharply on the desire of the left to end the 2nd Amendment. "Talk is cheap" he tells us -- let them actually act.  The article then goes to show why such is nearly impossible. Neither American law nor the American people would likely tolerate such a thing.

I think that both Hinderaker and Cooke are right about that. But still, as in good medicine, might not a trial be allowed to test the hypothesis? A "test case" as it were. One that in a small way, avoiding many of the larger problems outlined in the two articles, allows us -- politicians, their media voices, and most importantly the American people -- to see how much "cure" there is in the gun grabbing idea -- and what issues, expected and otherwise, might need to be balanced against any demonstrated efficacy.  In that spirit I here put forth a modest proposal:  That guns already illegal -- many of which are even now doing observable harm -- be "grabbed."  Legally under present law, or such small modifications of which might pass at least local muster.

Let the police -- no, charge them! -- to remove all the illegal guns in the city of Chicago.  Now.  Starting today.  Or as soon as the needed organization and momentum for it it can be built.

"If just one child's life can be saved it will be worth it."  -So we are often told when it comes to a nation-wide gun grab.  Well certainly such will prove to be the case in Chicago. Indeed it'd likely be far more than one each and every weekend. And many more over some holidays.

Now we are not suggesting that all guns be "grabbed." Such would be unconstitutional. Just the ones that are currently possessed illegally under laws that have already seen at least local "testing" in the courts.

Let the authorities request such all be turned in. Then, as would be needed if the experiment should proceed to a larger field (be it the entire nation or a given "test" state), the police would take whatever action is legal to gather any that might remain.

The beauty of this test case is that its efficacy would quickly be apparent. And make great headlines to boot.  "Seventh Weekend In a Row Without a Single Shooting in the City!"  Who wouldn't like to see such a thing?  What politician wouldn't like to run taking claim for it?

Oh yes, there might be some problems.  Perhaps a few illegal gun owners might not willingly comply. Perhaps searches would be neccasary -- legal ones of course, authorized by courts based on evidence that an illegal gun is owned. Some might even resist. (And they'd somehow need to be dealt with. Without shedding any blood of course.)

Well what is that in comparison with what would be needed to grab all of the guns nation wide?  And where are we more likely to see the will to get guns off the street than in perpetually violent, left-leaning, Chicago?

If it works. -If all those unlawful weapons are no longer possessed by wrong doers -- If the streets have in truth been made safe -- then our leaders can bring that fact to the American people and let us, having seen the good, decide.

The argument could be well made about how safe we'd then be -- our children in school for instance -- if only the local police are alerted to a home where violence had taken place.  (Such would stop for sure!), or, failing that, if the FBI was alerted to a possible danger. ("'So-and so' has a gun and plans to do harm." -With the FBI alerted certainly we would feel and actually be "safe." Or local school and community authorities could be made aware and local social services, now involved, could assure us that 'so and so' has been interviewed and is assuredly "of no danger to themselves or others."

Yes, then We the People" -- the true rulers of our land -- could decide about the relative safety afforded my each and all of these methods. And having decided, based on tested facts, we could either keep our constitution as written, or legally modify it.

-
A slightly modified version of this piece
was published by American Thinker