Daily Pundit Is Just Insufficiently Cynical Regarding Donald Trump

by Smitty

Bill Quick’s analysis is true as far as it goes:

I’ve been thinking about this ever since Trump rode the White Horse of conservative hatred for open borders and scamnesty to the top of the polls, and in the process, spread terror and loathing throughout the GOP establishment.
I mentioned a couple of days ago that the strategy of the Gentry GOP uses to co-opt the votes of the Republican conservative base (even though they despise almost everything that base so desperately wants) is to make sure that, in the end, that base has only three choices – vote for an establishment crap sandwich GOP candidate the base can barely stomach, vote for a Democrat, or don’t vote at all. And they combat that last option by trumpeting at every opportunity that refusing to vote is a vote for the Democrat, knowing that voting for a Democrat is anathema to most members of the base.

Read the whole thing. Bill posits that the GOP is going to fold like the Whigs it supplanted in antebellum America.

I don’t think that this captures the evil of the GOP in its fullness. My take is:

  • there is a single, Progressive party in the United States that has carved up the electorate along various fault lines, then assigned the chunks to the Demmican and Republocrat parties;
  • the conservative urge for reform is threatening the starboard, Republocrat shock absorber, due to Tea Party fanatics;
  • the Donald and his ridiculous hairstyle will have some glorious meltdown around the time the JEBbage is anointed the clear GOP leader by the Codpiece Media;
  • the Trump card of going Independent will be played with flair and panache;
  • the #NoMasBush crowd cheerfully votes for Donald;
  • Her Majesty cackles maniacally all the way to the coronation;
  • Bush, Clinton and Trump (privately, so as not to give up the game) #PartyLikeIts1992 and laugh all the way to the bank, since they are all hedged to win financially, irrespective of the symbolic electoral results.

I’m all for Scott Walker, but my faith in the GOP is relatively cratered. I have the gnarly suspicion, for example, the IRS emails are taking so long to drag out because the Vichy GOP would stand revealed as having certain strange familiarities with the details of what Lois Lerner was up to.

Or not. I have not idea what the ground truth is. Just sayin’.

REVIEW: ‘Lightning Fall’ By Bill Quick

by Smitty

He emailed me a review copy, but I was having none of that: I wired myself the Kindle version onto the ‘droid phone for my plane flight home yesterday.

As an author, Quick befits a smart phone format well: kinetic prose from right out of the gate, plenty of characters, even pacing. Quick’s status as a disaster preparedness guru adds authenticity to the effects of an EMP burst on the West Coast. His research on military topics is such that you really have to know your stuff to point out minor boo-boos, but Quick shows more effort than most. Also, as an ex-Aegis Command & Decision System technician, I’m a bit of a ringer here. Love you, Bill.

Atop the disaster knowledge and writing skill, Quick’s savage political wit is a blast. “B.J. Carter” indeed. While nowhere near subtle, Bill manages to mix in humorous subtext without going campy and distracting from the plot. Nicely done. Now for the task of carving out the time to finish reading it.

Do not hesitate to get your Quick on:

@DailyPundit, Optimist At Large

by Smitty

But since [the re-election of Rep. Boehner as Speaker] just a squabble over the leadership of the minority faction of the Ruling Party, none of this has a great deal of meaning in the larger scheme of things. No matter who is in charge of the GOP faction, everything will continue to go to hell in the same way it has been going to hell for the past several decades.

I just wonder where Bill gets his supply of rose colored glasses. The #FiscalCliff kabuki was only a 60-day stay of execution for the sequester. Then there is the debt ceiling. If the purpose of the #FiscalCliff, besides thrashing the holidays of all paying attention, was to destroy public interest in paying attention to what these yahoos are doing with the public purse, it was largely successful. Speaker Boehner’s resumption of the gavel was anticlimactic, despite a minority of the peanut gallery stimming itself about unseating him.
From Boehner’s remarks:

Our government has built up too much debt. Our economy is not producing enough jobs. These are not separate problems.
At $16 trillion and rising, our national debt is draining free enterprise and weakening the ship of state.
The American Dream is in peril so long as its namesake is weighed down by this anchor of debt. Break its hold, and we begin to set our economy free. Jobs will come home. Confidence will come back.

As I was able to Tweet the good speaker for his immediate inattention:

Sticky Political References

by Smitty

Bill Quick points to the maple syrup story in the great white north, and figures that the 15k barrels suddenly ‘missing’ from a Canadian warehouse were never filled in the first place.

In the age of politics in everything, let me be the first to point out what an excellent metaphor we have here for our monetary system. As long as nobody actually wants a little something for the pancake, you can borrow against that non-existent supply, trade stock in it, do whatever.

We can all enjoy the idealized world of Obama’s speeches, as long as nobody actually wants to live in it.

Thursday Is Mary Jo Kopechne Day; Would Government Health Care Have Been A Good Investment For Her?

by Smitty

Roughly three weeks shy of 343 years to the day after ersatz naval architect Ted Kennedy proved conclusively that a ’67 Olds does not a submarine make, but with the right name you can still be the Lyin’ of the Senate, the PPACA decision arrived, in a flurry of prestidigitation that defies reasonable analysis. That is, only an oxygen-deprived academic could find sense in it.
A lot of the smarter folk aren’t buying the country’s in the very best of hands argument about PooPoocACA (ObamaTax).

The point is, [elites] don’t care, and will be perfectly happy to engineer a “meltdown” of the American health care system by any means necessary, for the simple reason that they will then use that meltdown as an opening to push full single-payer, government administered socialized medicine into the breach.

Ted sure did put his concern about health care way ahead of politics:

Nixon had other reasons, beside his dead brothers, to support reform. Medicare had just been passed, and many Americans expected universal health care to be next.
“We had the same problems then as we have now,” Altman said. “A lot of people uninsured, and health care costs were considered too high.”
Ted Kennedy, whom Nixon assumed would be his rival in the next election, made universal health care his signature issue. Kennedy proposed a single-payer, tax-based system. Nixon strongly opposed that on the grounds that it was un-American and would put all health care “under the heavy hand of the federal government.”
Instead, Nixon proposed a plan that required employers to buy private health insurance for their employees and gave subsidies to those who could not afford insurance. Nixon argued that this market-based approach would build on the strengths of the private system.
“Government has a great role to play, he said, “but we must always make sure that our doctors will be working for their patients and not for the federal government.”
No one breathed a word at the time about Nixon’s plan being unconstitutional. Instead, it faced opposition from Democrats who insisted on “single-payer.”

More recently:

Ted Kennedy often said his biggest political mistake was turning down a health care deal with Richard Nixon and Kennedy’s old lament had Democrats yesterday thinking again about compromise on reform.
Kennedy said he turned down the universal health coverage plan offered by the Republican President in the early 1970s because it wasn’t everything he wanted it to be. He later realized it was a missed opportunity to make major progress toward his goal.

I guess the most galling thing about this is the bi-partisan quasi-ratification of FDR’s personal hooey-pile (emphasis mine):

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:

  • The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
  • The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
  • The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
  • The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
  • The right of every family to a decent home;
  • The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
  • The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
  • The right to a good education.

Notes to Progressives:

  1. This is an unratified Article V rewrite. Were you even a little bit righteous, you’d not have to resort to the parade of cheating evidenced the last few years.
  2. The whole Progressive project has proven unaffordable. You can no more tax your way to Utopia than you can mainline your way to a stable heroin buzz. Economics and Biochemistry just don’t work that way.

Picking up on the Nietzschean Will to Utopia, I sort of eavesdropped upon a fellow who was interviewed by an apparently sympathetic female. This is from 28 Jun, across the street from the SCOTUS, mere minutes before Chief Justice John Roberts collected his 30 pieces of silver. The audio is trashy for the first 10 or so seconds, so I provide a transcription. I have no idea who the speaker is, but the sign displayed MoveOn.org prominently:

Man: . . .I think if we have a setback today, we’ll keep fighting. If we have a victory today, we’ll keep fighting. Whatever it is, healthcare for all is still a process, it’s a goal to be achieved, and we’re still a long way off no matter what happens today.
Interviewer: And you’ve got Senator Ted Kennedy’s image right behind you. What does that mean to you?
Man: Well, that was Ted Kennedy’s lifetime achievement. . .was this healthcare bill. It was something he crusaded for long before Hillary’s initiative in the White House. So he’s kind of the. . .moral icon of the movement, and he’s a man whose works I greatly admire. So I’ve got the sign up.
Interviewer: And what do you think as a senior of these people on the sidewalk. It actually seems the crowd has doubled in the last few minutes.
Man: Well, it belongs. . .it needs to be dealt with. I mean, this is the issue that is defining our moment. . .defining our age, so, in a lot of ways, I feel like all of America should be here today.

Fine, sir. I’ll allow that you stated a position antithetical to liberty as though it was religious dogma. And you can pry my liberty from my cold, dead Charlton Hestons. But this is precisely the rub on this election; Socialism or capitalism. Slavery or liberty. The country the Founders envisioned, or a zombie aristocracy that shakes with the right hand, while stabbing with the left.
I’ll sign off this post with something I haven’t found anywhere on the net, probably because it’s just so brutally funny, but apropos:

Source:

‘Supidity’ Indeed. In Mathematical Terms, It’s Like Saying 2+2=3

by Smitty

Bill Quick is taken aback at the postulated indifference toward the gay Green Lantern comic from DC:

Why? Because mom and dad are such freaking idiots they think their kids will catch the dread gay disease from reading a comic book?
I’m gobsmacked.

This is the same Lefty media that brought you, in no particular order:

  • Barack Hussein Obama
  • Anthropogenic Global Warming
  • Butchery of the unborn
  • Orwellian Progressivism
  • and so on

Do I cling bitterly do my Western, Christian tradition in the face of this onslaught?

Am I concerned that my 10 month know how to swim before his feet no longer touch bottom in our effluent culture?

If somebody were to proclaim that 2+2=3, would it take some sophistication to respect the speaker’s free speech right to be completely jacked up about math, while gently refusing to let the speaker serve as one’s accountant? My example may seem absurd, but consider Madoof and Corzine.

Face it: the gay Green Lantern will go over about as well as gay marriage, when voters are actually given a chance to express their preference, an not told what to think by the judiciary. But this could actually be part of a second Obama term plan by DC, come to think of it. Drive their sales through the floor so that #OccupyResoluteDesk has to bail out comic books, and nationalize them.

Then, via taxes, I could be forced to pay for comics I don’t even want to read. Call it ‘a higher form of gay’.

Update: linked at The Daley Gator: ” I really do not care about Gay marriage one way or the other, but I do wish that we would let our kids be kids.”

Update: Linked at Andrew J. Patrick, who has some deep comic book thoughts.

Is Mr. Quick Arguing Against Freewill?

by Smitty

Are we really having this argument?

Is it your contention that homosexuality is a choice? If so, I disagree. I would further contend that the weight of scientific evidence is on my side of the disagreement, leaving you in the position of arguing that something RSM might call a “neutral objective fact” is otherwise.

Yeah, I’ll see your ‘scientific evidence’ and raise you some Anthropogenic Global Warming, Bill. Are you implying that gayness is a genetic defect?

I have actually studied a bit of Biochemistry, and I’m confident that the Gay Grail, or “Grayl” which you seek just doesn’t exist. In terms of the OSI Stack, I’d venture that sexuality is a Layer 1 implementation, and homosexuality is Layer 7. Taking your argument, then, are you really going to treat gayness as a birth defect? Really?

“Form follows function?” If you’re an engineer, tell me again what a penis is designed to do, formwise?

Given the set A={‘penis’, ‘anus’, ‘vagina’}, and a few centuries, my utilitarian argument is that there is exactly one pair of two items from A capable of producing sustained societal value. I’m sure that I’ve missed something. Oh, I’ve probably missed much. But that’s what the Internt’s for, no? Emphasis mine here:

And what I’d like to get from you, Smitty, is your thoughts on whether admitting the existence of homosexuality as a reality, not a choice but as much a part of some humans as skin color is of others, is “political correctness?”

Homosexuality is something people do, in the same vein as shooting heroine. I guess that was a vain attempt at injecting humor into the thread. Please, needle me about how I’m injecting “sinful” notions into what is intended as a dispassionate, sober inquiry.

But let’s check out your slippery slope, Bill. If you’re going to argue a ‘Sexual Calvinism’, and contend that people are prisoners of their groins, then why do we maintain this façade of representative democracy? Why don’t we just suck up ObamaCare, and every other Postmodern, Orwellian bit of nonsense intent on destroying Western Civilization?

Maybe there is a middle ground I’m missing here, but it seems that we are either arguing for liberty or against liberty. People can jump through any hoops they want and label it ‘marriage’, but if I lose the right to say ‘marriage means what it has meant across time and societies’, then we’ve lost much, indeed.

In closing, when the Postmodern, PC wrecking ball has fully destroyed meaning, it is my intention to marry a pound of bacon. Because, at that point, why not?