Category Archive: These Are The Crazy Years

The right way to boycott Nike

If you’re trashing or burning (or even donating) your Nikes, just remember that Nike has already been paid for them. They’re not out one thin dime because you’ve decided to junk them and buy something else.

The smart way to boycott Nike is to use ’em till they wear out, then buy replacements from a manufacturer who doesn’t purposefully alienate a significant portion of its customer base. Get your money’s worth first, and then spend your money elsewhere. And be sure to tell anyone who asks about your Nikes that you’re only wearing them because you don’t see the point in throwing them away and spending money you don’t have on new ones. There’s no shame in being frugal.

I quit buying Levi’s years ago, too, when they first started getting ideologically squirrely. I’ll admit to buying a couple pair off of Amazon a couple of years ago, when I was having trouble finding jeans that fit, but what I got were of such poor quality that they’ve been reduced to serving as work pants at this point. But I won’t stop wearing them just because Levi’s has now upped the ante on their Second Amendment stupidity. There’s still some use left in them for dirty jobs. But otherwise I’ll wear the ones I’ve been buying from Duluth Trading. Yeah, they come from China. So what? So does damn near everything else. (And yes, I’ve tried USA-made Texas Jeans; nice, but they really don’t fit me right, and I can drive up to Noblesville and try on and buy DT off the rack.)

But don’t bother with the quintessentially lefty tactic of cutting off your nose to spite your face.  No publisher ever cried over book burnings; they got their money, and now the book burners just have empty shelves.  And Nike and Levi’s certainly aren’t going to cry over you trashing merchandise you already paid them for.

If you’re going to boycott, for the love of God, boycott smart.  Even my lefty wife gets that (and said so this morning as she laced up her Nikes for work — “Glad the new shoes I just bought were Skechers and not Nikes, but I’m not throwing these Nikes away till they wear out — and anyone at work who says anything about them can bite me”).

As for me, I’ve never owned a pair of Nikes and likely never would have anyway.  But I haven’t worn sneakers for quite a few years, either.

Slope, slippery, 1 each, redux

In an earlier post, I questioned whether a large media corporation should be held to the same standard as a custom cake designer, or a wedding photographer, when issues of serving or not serving customers due to civil rights issues arise.  In my opinion, the answer is yes, but if you want to argue with me, go read carefully the other post before you do.

Today’s slippery slope questions whether a Catholic high school with a rigorous code of conduct that extends not only to its students but to its faculty, may terminate a faculty member who has violated the terms of her contract by entering into a homosexual marriage — something said contract prohibits.  I’ll just come out front and say that the school in question is Roncalli High School in Indianapolis, and you can read about this gigantic clusterfuck here.

Like the previous question, this does not admit to a simple solution.  The school, while privately owned and operated by an Archdiocese, does accept state funding in the form of vouchers (the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program), and some families may be able to take a state tax deduction for some private school tuition expenses for dependent children, as well.  However, that doesn’t seem to have any bearing on the situation:

The Catholic high school that suspended a counselor for her same-sex marriage is within its legal rights to do so, despite having received more than $6.5 million in public money over the last five years through Indiana’s school voucher program, according to an expert on LGBT legal issues.

Actually, it’s simply within its legal rights to do so, without qualification.  The “despite” bit is projection on the part of our local “journalists” and has absolutely zero to do with what the school may legally do in this situation.  Anyway, from the same article:

“The U.S. Supreme Court has long been clear that just because an organization, whether it’s a school or any other kind of private organization, gets a certain percentage of its budget from government sources doesn’t automatically mean that it then comes under the coverage of the Constitution,” said Steve Sanders, an associate professor of law at Indiana University’s Maurer School of Law. Sanders specializes in constitutional law and LGBT legal issues.


“The state could say that in order to get voucher money (schools) must agree to non-discrimination policies,” he said. “When the government hands out money, as it does in the form of vouchers, it can put strings on that money.

“It hasn’t done so in this case.”

So Roncalli is on much stronger legal ground than the folks we were discussing in the earlier post.  It’s unlikely to face trial in the court system, but that isn’t stopping people — including the center of attention herself — from trying the school in the court of public opinion.


This woman has been a guidance counselor at Roncalli for 15 years.  She’s been with her partner for 22 years, but they did not marry until 2014 (for obvious reasons).  Which means that for 11 years prior to her marriage, she had to have been fully aware of the clause in her contract that forbade her from contracting a same-sex marriage.

She claims that her marriage was an “open secret” at the school and can’t imagine what has caused the ruckus now.

Moreover, legal experts are trying to claim that as she is a guidance counselor and not a teacher, she does not fall under the normal “ministerial exception in anti-discrimination laws”, which treats teachers in parochial schools as ministers whom the church may discipline on that basis.  The argument as to whether or not she falls under this exception seems specious to me; while it is certainly true that ministers are teachers, are not ministers also counselors?  And let’s not get into whether a high school guidance counselor is only there to tell you what classes you need to take, because guidance counselors also have a responsibility to watch out for the psychological health of the students they counsel — just like teachers do.  To claim that guidance counselors have only administrative duties in the school is ridiculous on its face.

And the four-year gap between her marriage and the current contretemps doesn’t seem all that odd to me.  I would imagine that if the marriage were really an open secret, she had probably been advised all along by administrators that she needed to reconsider her actions.  Plus, there’s an adopted child involved, and the administrators were probably loathe to disrupt the child’s family life routine, either by forcing the couple to divorce, or by terminating the counselor and forcing her to find another job.  But when she dithered, or flatly refused, to make a decision to either dissolve the marriage or leave Roncalli, administrators finally acted — probably based on a decision made at the archdiocese, not at the school proper.  The time involved could simply indicate that the school was performing due diligence rather than simply firing her outright at the time.  After all, I am told that the sinner can always repent; and I’m sure that’s partly why there may have been (and still is, since this is just a suspension, not a firing) hesitation on the part of the school.

But to take this out of the context of the current situation:  What’s wrong with firing someone who is in blatant violation of a contract she signed, knowing full well she was in violation of it at the time?  Who is actually injured here?  You could as easily ask, why is the accusation, “You lied to me!”, always pointed at the person who, well, lied?

The school is actually injured in this case because it could not point to its contracted faculty and staff as being 100% in line with Catholic doctrine.  That’s a problem for a school which prides itself in its Catholic roots.  What example is being set by continuing to allow a guidance counselor, who is a partner in a union that is prohibited by the Church, to remain in a position where she may influence Catholic youth?*

Do I really need to point out that the Church** has severe problems*** right now with pedophilia and child abuse?  And should I have to point out the horrific number of women in education who can’t keep their hands off their young charges?  Please read the following VERY CAREFULLY, because I’m not saying this particular woman has any prurient interest in the young boys and girls she counsels, but I can easily imagine Roncalli and the Archdiocese see this as an “appearance of impropriety” moment — and are fully aware that a simple matter of ignoring a term in a contract could blow up into something a lot bigger if accusations were suddenly made.  Not only that, if you don’t enforce the contract terms now, you’ll have a harder time doing so later.

Besides that, what the hell is wrong with people who don’t understand (or pretend not to understand) that when you sign a contract, you’re expected to live up to its terms?  I can assure you if I were to violate the terms of my at-will employment contract, my employer would tell me to shape up or ship out, and if I continued in violation, he would have every right to fire me, and it’s very unlikely I’d have any recourse if it could be shown I was in fact in violation.  Roncalli already has cause to fire this woman; it’s on paper and recorded in the public record as all marriage licenses are.  Yet they dither…and the only reason I can think of that they’re dithering is they really don’t want to fire her and want either to give her every opportunity to recognize the error of her ways (by their lights and by the letter of the contract she signed) or give her sufficient rope with which to hang herself before they terminate her.

People anymore seem to think that they can force change by acting out and forcing other people to respond in ways they find personally offensive.  Yet they don’t seem to understand how offensive they are being in the process.  It’s almost as if this counselor, who may or may not already have been in violation of her contract, decided to get married to see how far she could push the issue.  The answer seems to have been, “barring administrative delay and backing and filling, not very far.”

Going back to the cake baker — did the cake baker throw the gay couple out of his shop?  No.  He told them his personal religious views prevented him from creating a custom-designed art cake for their wedding, but also said that he would be happy to sell them any of the standard cake designs on offer.  At that point, the couple who were importuning him and wasting his time and were doing so on purpose could have said, “Gee whiz, we understand your feelings, and we’re sorry about that.  We’ll take our business elsewhere/We’ll buy one of the standard designs because you do great work.”  But because they were in his shop with an agenda, they left and sued him for discrimination.

Maybe that’s what the counselor at Roncalli had in mind…except according to the legal eagles, she doesn’t have a case.  Unless maybe she’s got a lawyer who’s willing to try to smash up the current wisdom and push things a little farther down the slippery slope.

As I said before:  This has to stop.

When I was a kid, I didn’t get all the toys I wanted, had to settle for a second-hand “real” bike, had to work for my aunt for a summer in exchange for my first car (which really should have been mine without that hot summer of yard work since it was actually my grandmother’s car, not my aunt’s, but then on the other hand, I probably appreciated it more as a result), and we didn’t take cool family vacations or anything like that.  Indeed, my folks strained to send me on a couple of high-adventure Scouting trips and ultimately to a National Jamboree.  When I grew up and understood why I didn’t get all the things other kids got, I didn’t have any complaint.  We were poor, and then we were poorer.  Wasn’t till later years that things got better for Mom and Dad, and frankly they were never fabulous — but they were able to keep the house and the cars and even do a little traveling.  Anyway.  Point is, being a dick about it wouldn’t have changed anything, so I never really did complain that much, and around the time I was 12 or so and was beginning to understand why we were poor, I entirely stopped being a whingney little child about it.

It sometimes seems like the vast majority of young adults — if they may be called adults — of the current generation always got everything they wanted handed to them on a silver platter.  At least that’s the way they often act, as if it is totally impossible that anyone could ever say “no” to them and mean it.  Tam was writing on FB the other day about an antifa handbill she saw posted in Broad Ripple, claiming the area was a “no-fascist zone”, and she pointed out that most of the Broad Ripple “radicals” are actually scions of good families with sufficient money to have provided them with a reasonable education and comfortable home life…so that they could protest inequities and political philosophies they personally have never encountered and likely never will, by stapling handbills on telephone poles in one of the yuppiest of yuppie areas in the entire Indianapolis metro area.

Meanwhile, two or three miles south and a few blocks east begins a part of town that is full of inequities, many of whom will be happy to stop you on the street and make you a little more equal to them if you have the bad luck to run into them on a dark night.  But this is an area that is largely invisible to such people, who would rather drink a beer, have a pizza, play some pool and rock out to some tunes, and protest Donald Trump and imaginary fascists by posting handbills than actually do something of substance to help the true victims of inequity who live down there at Thirty-what and What (or whatever it is that Tam says, I can never remember; I plead age and strong drink).

Point being, kids today — the only oppression they’ve ever known is being given a time-out, or maybe being sent to bed without dessert or being told they can’t watch their favorite TV show because they need to do their homework.  (Parents are such fascists.)  So naturally, when someone doesn’t want to do what they want them to do, they go ballistic instead of simply shrugging, saying, “Well, dude, your loss if you don’t want our money.” and moving on.  Or in the current case, they get all bent out of shape because a counselor they liked in high school is getting the boot because the counselor decided it wasn’t worth her job to abide by her contract.  Or that she thought the contract was just words on a piece of paper that she was free to ignore at her discretion.  Nobody ever actually enforces those things, do they?  (Yeah, sarcasm.)

So today comes the perhaps inevitable news that this chica is going to go on the Ellen DeGeneres show to talk about her situation.  One presumes that the outcome of that will be a foregone conclusion.  But the article also says:

Leaders told her she must support the teachings of the Catholic Church, both in and out of school.

Some students have openly petitioned for her return, and some are even asking for the school to change their policy.

Oh, children.  You have so much to learn!  The school can no more change that policy than you can change your gender (current soi-disant wisdom to the contrary).  The school is bound by the law of the Church, as its leaders have already told their wayward counselor, and the idea that the Church is going to change its law, while less laughable in these degenerate times than when your humble blogger was a snot-nosed Jewish kid growing up in a liberal Jewish denomination some forty-mumble years ago, is little more than wishful thinking.

But kids today think they can change anything.  They’re in for a crashing disappointment in the not too distant future.

Here again we find ourselves on a slippery slope.  The fact is that the leadership of the Church today may actually be reconsidering its stance.  The question is whether or not this is even politically possible when it’s clear the Church already has a problem with homosexuality in its ranks.  As I think I’ve pointed out already, I’m not a member of the Church, so it’s really none of my business; those who are members of the Church either have strong opinions one way or the other, or they don’t.  My sole point in writing this post is to point out that everywhere we look, there are people trying to bring down the pillars of our society, by pushing us faster and faster down that silly old slope.

And this is just another case where somebody needs to put on the brakes and say, “Thus far, and no farther.  Indeed, put that sucker in reverse and let’s back out.”

I’d be happy to hear from Catholics on either side of the argument.  Maybe they see this in a different light.


*For what it’s worth, yes, I’m completely ignoring the doctrinal issues regarding teachers who may be living with a partner out of wedlock but still teaching at Roncalli.  As apparently did Roncalli for 11 years until these two got married.  I’m also ignoring the possibility that married teachers at Roncalli may be having affairs with other teachers at Roncalli or with people outside of the school.  And that there may be divorced and/or remarried teachers at Roncalli.  Hell, there may even be non-Catholic teachers at Roncalli; I have absolutely no fucking idea and don’t care.  I haven’t read the contract involved so I have no idea what it permits or doesn’t, and there may be plenty that’s overlooked by omission depending on the precision of the contract language.  If you have, there’s a comment box down there that is actually working these days; feel free to use it.

** Actually, not the Church per se, but the administrators and ministers and leaders of the Church are the ones who are facing a shitstorm right now.  The everyday people of the Church are not the problem, and they’re just as angry about this as those of us who aren’t members of the Church.  The distinction, therefore, is extremely important.

*** And when I say “severe problems”, I mean, “the reactor is about to melt down and radioactive gas is leaking from every weld.” 


Hugo away now (Part 3)

Seen on Facebook.

Yeah, pretty much just like that.

Hugo away now (part 2)

I’ve written before about my attitude regarding WorldCon and the Hugos — short synopsis, overrun by progs and no longer worth the dime.

SJWs being SJWs, it’s only gotten worse.

A panelist’s bio on the WorldCon site, apparently lifted from another website (and we’ll not go into the ethics and general laziness of that; the con should have required each panelist to provide their own picture and bio) was edited to “normalize” the odd gender pronouns the panelist preferred — apparently because whoever was formatting it for the WorldCon website thought they were typos.  Not going into that insanity either; it’s been well covered by Mad Mike and crew on Facebook.*  Bottom line is that this “triggered” the panelist, who got all huffy and opined that it would not feel safe at WorldCon.  (In other words, the usual snowflake response of someone who doesn’t understand that the world doesn’t give a fuck about its pretentious bullshit.)

So now, the whole LGBTQwhateverthefuck community is up in arms and the WorldCon committee is finding itself bombarded by demands and general pissyness from said community.  It was gigglesome to start with and now it’s completely off-the-rails insanely hilarious.  This sad person has decided to form a so-called “Queer Rapid Response Team” for WorldCon.  Now, given that I’ve never heard of this person and never read any of their work, their authority to do something like this escapes me; but there you have it.  Apparently due to the preferred pronoun “gaffe”, the queer community has decided that they are going to be suppressed at WorldCon (the opposite is more likely true, since most of WorldCon these days is SJWs), so this “team’s” brief is “about making sure [they’re] allowed to operate within the convention itself.”  Give me a fucking break.  Have you never BEEN to a convention?  Nobody fucking cares about your quirks.

I submit to you that this is another self-inflicted wound in the entirely-avoidable Death of a Thousand Cuts being suffered by WorldCon over the past half-decade or so, which are entirely due to its Gramscian capture by nutbags on the left.  When Mad Mike says on Facebook, “When you watch WorldCon self-immolate”, followed by

it’s pretty clear that the non-unhinged contingent is just sitting back watching the world burn at this point.  Well, and snarking about it, of course.  Because it is entirely snarkalicious.

My advice?  Fuck it, support and attend LibertyCon and/or DragonCon, or one of the other ‘cons where normal, rational people organize and attend.  Nominate and vote in the Dragon Awards, screw the Hugos.  They’re toast.

Heinlein was right, although the progs ruling WorldCon would never admit it:  These are indeed the Crazy Years.


* I’m surprised this hasn’t shown up on his blog yet.  I suppose he’s been busy 🙂

Many reasons Democrats seek Trump’s impeachement

blares the headline over the letter to the editor in Monday’s WSJ.  A gentleman from Massachusetts opines that an op-ed from May 26 “notes that ‘many Democrats want to impeach Mr. Trump because they simply don’t like him.'”

He continues,

That’s a misleading oversimplification. Many Democrats (at least the ones I speak to) are happy to explain why they don’t like him. They don’t like him because he makes America unsafe, because of his disdain for important American principles (e.g., inclusiveness, heroism, respect, etc.), valued American institutions (the White House, FBI, science) and for his manifest disrespect for potential allies and essential friends. The president’s behavior, rather than making America great again, is weakening and defacing America’s integrity, making us more vulnerable.

OK, but what’s your point?  Absolutely none of that refutes the statement from the op-ed, and proves once again that the Democrats who have been agitating for Mr. Trump’s impeachment since the day after the 2016 election really don’t understand what constitutes grounds for impeachment.

The fact is that nobody cares that you don’t like him.  Hell, a lot of people who voted for him aren’t really all that fond of him.  But what seems more ludicrous to me is that most of the shoe this fool gentleman wishes to fit to Donald Trump actually fits his predecessor much, much better.  Let’s take this apart a bit.

He makes America unsafe:  Obama drew a line in the sand in Syria and promptly wimped out when the Syrians crossed it.  His SecState allowed the US diplomatic compound in Benghazi to be overrun by insurgents.  We took out Osama bin Laden on his watch, but by all accounts, he just sort of stood around and watched while Seal Team 6 did the dirty work, and then took the credit.  His “leaders” in the DoD left us less prepared to go to war (and more prepared to go to culture war) than we’ve been since before World War II.  Our allies considered him a joke and borderline undependable.  He clearly hated Israel and actively strove to undermine Benjamin Netanyahu’s re-election bid.  And of course, there’s the whole Iran “deal”.  And the recognition of Cuba, which simply resulted in a bunch of our diplomatic folks having to come home because the US embassy there was being bombarded by sonic waves that made them all sick, and Trump finally bringing everyone home and suspending the opening Obama made.

Conversely, Mr. Trump has fearlessly asserted US interests in Syria and the WestPac (now known as the “Indo-Pacific”) and has called Kim Jong-Un’s nuclear bluff.  Folks like the editorial staff of the WSJ think Trump is going to be steamrollered by Kim at the Singapore summit, but I suspect Kim is not going to like some of the things he hears at the summit table.  Trump, not Obama, put ISIS on the run in Iraq and elsewhere.  Whigning that “the plan was Obama’s” doesn’t wash, because Obama didn’t execute.  Trump, not Obama, has developed excellent relations with reform-minded (and Israel-neutral, at least) Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Saudi Arabia.  Trump’s SecDef “Mad Dog” Mattis is demanding that the Pentagon shape up and that the services resume preparing for war rather than turning them into the Diversity and Inclusion Corps.  Trump has got Vladimir Putin over an (oil) barrel and isn’t taking Putin’s shit, regardless of all the screaming about “collusion” from the left (and if they want to complain about collusion, let’s not forget Obama’s open-mic “after the election I’ll have more flexibility” gaffe). Trump is alternately kissing up to and smacking around the Chinese to the point where I don’t think they know if they’re coming or going, and while that can be dangerous, it’s still better than letting the Chinese get away with whatever they want.  Hell, even the Japanese are growing some of their backbone back and getting themselves on a war footing, now that they have some assurance the Americans will not back down in the IndoPac.

The only thing I can think of that Trump is truly getting wrong is remaining in Afghanistan, but he didn’t make that mess, he’s just trying to clean it up.

Frankly, even if we go back into Cold War mode because Trump is asserting US global power, that’s fine with me.  We’ve sat on our complacent asses spending the non-existent “peace dividend” for far too long.

His disdain for important American principles (e.g., inclusiveness, heroism, respect, etc.):  Come on.  This is Obama projection writ large.  Obama never met an American principle he didn’t disdain.  Any time he stepped up for Americanism, it was because it was part of his job, not because he believed in it.  He certainly pooh-poohed the concept of American Exceptionalism, and his wife made it clear that the only thing that made her happy to be an American was the election of her worthless husband.

Trump, on the other hand, is all about American Exceptionalism.  He includes everyone, doesn’t care if they’re white, black, Asian, Hispanic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Zoroastrian, gay, lesbian, what the hell ever.  For goodness’ sake, his daughter married an Orthodox Jew.  His only criteria is patriotism and a love of this country.  He came down hard on the NFL anthem kneelers because he found their attitude unpatriotic and not a little rude to the people who were paying their inflated salaries.  To this day, mediocre NFL player Colin Kaepernick doesn’t have a job because he is unrepentant and has cost the NFL billions of dollars and millions of fans — not because Donald Trump tweeted about what a jerk he is.

Trump is all about heroism.  He supports our military and wants it to excel as it has in the past.  He is deeply respectful of all of the things that make America great.  He clearly dislikes cowards, traitors, and people who want to tear America off the pedestal it has occupied since it became the World’s Policeman after WWII.

Now, if someone would just take his Twitter account away…

[His disdain for] valued American institutions (the White House, FBI, science): Um, what?  Apparently the Obamas left the White House in tatters, and Trump’s comments about the White House right after his inauguration were about infrastructure maintenance (the replacement/installation of new air conditioning ductwork, as I recall) that was making the House unlivable.  Because the White House generally doesn’t get redecorated on the taxpayers’ dime, for people like the Obamas who don’t give a shit, it’s not a priority, and yeah, the place was probably fairly ratty after eight years of neglect.

The FBI…how do you write something like that with the shit that is coming out about the FBI?  The inspector general’s report is apparently scathing.  Things haven’t been this bad at the FBI since Hoover was running it.  In fact, as bad as Hoover was, the folks who have been running the FBI for the last decade or so seem to have been even worse.  How can you blame Donald Trump for “disdain” of the FBI when it’s starting to look like that’s an attitude mirrored by the majority of the citizenry?

And since when is “science” a “valued American institution”?  Science in this country has been going to shit for years, turning into a biased handmaiden of diversity and the left.  I note that the writer did not come right out and say “climate science”, because that’s really what has most people’s knickers in a knot.  I disdain climate science, too, because it’s international propaganda bullshit aimed at making the US no better than any other shithole country in the world.  And yes, there’s that word:  “Shithole”.  Which is what the Obamas were trying to make of America for eight years.  So thank you Donald Trump for withdrawing us from the joke of a Paris Agreement.

[H]is manifest disrespect for potential allies and essential friends:  Again, what?  Sorry, again, that’s Obama projection.  May one simply mention “Israel”?  And one presumes that the writer thinks Iran was a potential ally and essential friend?  Man, has he drunk the Kool-Aid, with extra-strength cyanide.

Donald Trump knows who our allies and friends are.  Well…we don’t have any friends.  Because there are no friends in global diplomacy.  We have allies, of course.  But anyone who has ever studied American Diplomatic History (raises hand) knows, nobody is our friend, and we should not be acting as if they are — not even the “special relationship” Brits.  Trump’s genius is that he knows how to pat an ally on the back until the tip of a hidden knife blade appears from between his fingers and pricks the ally’s skin — and then he promises to remove the blade if the ally will simply agree with him that America’s interests come first.

I keep trying to tell people that you have to evaluate Trump as a businessman — not as a politician.  Politicians are always hail-fellow-well-met types or they don’t succeed in politics.  Trump is not a politician.  He’s a businessman and he makes deals.  You make business deals by making an offer that’s probably outrageous in some way, the other side counters with something a little less outrageous, and then you meet somewhere in the middle.  If other countries truly understood how Trump is trying to use tariffs, we wouldn’t be dancing around the edge of a trade war.  But with Trump, it’s always about the Deal, and the Deal is always negotiable.

The president’s behavior, rather than making America great again, is weakening and defacing America’s integrity, making us more vulnerable.  Nah.  This is the Democrat/progressive short view.  They can’t take the long view anymore because they’ve weakened their intellectual chops so badly as a result of their Gramscian march through the institutions.  They simply aren’t capable of pulling all of the things Trump is doing together and seeing how there is going to be some short-term pain for long-term gain.  But that’s what has to be done, because frankly, the progs have dropped us so deeply into the pit that we’re going to be a while getting out of it.

What the progs really want is a third Obama term, and they thought Hillary! was going to give it to them.  The American people seem to be a little smarter than that.  Although in fairness, the progs’ champion ran a pretty poor campaign for someone who’s been in politics for most of her life.  Must be pretty harsh to get beaten by a guy who’d never run for a political office in his life.

The bottom line here is that it looks to me like Mr. Lawrence H. Climo of Lincoln, Massachusetts, simply made Allen Guelzo’s (the author of the original op-ed) case for him, viz., “Many Democrats want to impeach Mr. Trump because they simply don’t like him.”  Mr. Climo has brought absolutely nothing to the table to refute that and has made himself and his compatriots simply look more petulant and silly than Mr. Guelzo intended.

Progressive Trump Derangement Syndrome.  On second thought, let us not go there.  ‘Tis a silly place.

Here is a fucking non-story

Newsweek (they’re still in business???) opines,

“Trump’s White House Won’t Acknowledge June As LGBT Pride Month, Even As Everyone Else Does”


I don’t acknowledge June as LGBT Pride Month, pretty much the same as I don’t acknowledge February as Black History Month or March as Women’s History Month.  Sounds like an appeal to authority to me — because frankly, “everyone else” more than likely doesn’t.

I doubt many people I know — even the gay ones — give June much thought, other than, “jeebus cripes it’s fucking hot already???” and “fuck my life, where did all these damn bugs come from?”  (Then there’s my wife, yelling, “Why am I not at the beach?“, but hell, she yells that all the time.)

Frankly, I’d be perfectly happy if the White House didn’t acknowledge any of these special days, weeks, or months.  The President is not my daddy and doesn’t need to celebrate holidays (or soi-disant “days”, “weeks”, or “months”, for that matter) as an example to me, and he shouldn’t need to be setting an example for anyone else, either. His job is to run the damn country, not fuck about like a royal and spend half his time on photo ops, ribbon cuttings, and special proclamations.  He’s not a king (even if his predecessor thought he was).

Oh, and about his predecessor?  First crack out of the box, the article bemoans, “After years of precedent set by Barack Obama, President Donald Trump is breaking from tradition by failing to recognize June as LGBT Pride Month.”  Snort.  Excuse me.  “Years of precedent.”  Not more than 8 years, surely.  Some tradition.  Breaking with tradition would be, oh, more like Trump not issuing a Thanksgiving Day proclamation.  Or not lighting a White House Christmas Tree, or (like Obama) being a fucking traitor to his country.

Come on, let’s face it.  LGBT activists (who, like most activists, probably don’t actually speak for the vast majority of the people they claim to represent) are simply a bunch of whigney bitches who are upset because President Trump refused to recognize “their” month.  Please see above for my attitude about random celebratory days, weeks, and months.

Frankly, if we’re going to celebrate such things, we ought to be celebrating American History Year in perpetuity, and be on our knees daily thanking G-d that we live in a country that is still as free as this one is.

All these days, weeks, and months “celebrating” various bits and pieces of our “diverse” heritage do little more than Balkanize us, which I am certain is the point; get us all going for each other’s throats instead of co-existing peacefully as unhyphenated-Americans in a grand melting pot of cultures.

Which, by the way, is what made us the greatest nation on Earth.  That’s what Barack Obama and his ilk truly hate about America.  The only proper response to that sort of hatred is, “Go fuck yourselves.”

The left will not like living under the new rules.

So at work, I have two support engineers/trainers who are declining to train a client of ours who happens to be on the discredited SPLC hate group list.  One is flatly stating that he won’t work with them because of that, the other is hemming and hawing and saying he doesn’t feel competent to train on the subject they want trained on, but I know it’s the same problem at base.

What neither of them seem to realize is that this is EXACTLY what the Christian baker and Christian photographer were getting at when they refused to bake a wedding cake and do a wedding photography package for LGBT couples.  And then got their asses sued off for it and were forced to do it anyway.  Goose, meet gander — you can’t have it just the one way, it has to work both ways or it doesn’t work.

Another support person who also trains from time to time (but who lives on the other side of the world, so generally he doesn’t train American customers due to time zone differences) wrote me to ask what I thought about this, as he’s being asked to do that training now that the other two have declined.

I said that we had a lot of clients whose political and religious views clashed with mine, but that didn’t make any difference, because in business, you have to work with the cards you’re dealt.  I didn’t sell the product to any of those clients, but I work for the company and if I expect to continue doing so, it’s my job to work with clients regardless of their religi-poli stance.

I also pointed out that it’s the law in this country that we don’t have any choice but to do so, unless we want to have our asses sued off.  We did, after all, not have any trouble selling them our very expensive software.  That the group in question is a bunch of lawyers who aren’t afraid to take legal action makes it even more ridiculous that we’d refuse on any grounds to provide training for the product they purchased, even if we really had a good reason (like we stopped doing training altogether).

It’s going to be interesting to see how this turns out.  Thankfully, I don’t run the training department.


Musings on the GDPR and other insanities

I wonder what would happen if a company that has absolutely no presence in the EU, but which may from time to time service customers who are citizens of the EU, were to basically toss GDPR requests into the trash and refuse to respond to them?

This doesn’t apply to the company I work for, since we do have a presence in the EU, but to me, the GDPR is yet another attempt by a national or multinational entity to make its law hold sway outside of its borders where it has no business poking its nosy legal nose. Consider for instance the Polish law that recently went into effect stating that any person anywhere, regardless of nationality, could be prosecuted under that law for insulting the poor widdle psyches of Polish citizens by asserting that the Poles were responsible in any way for the Holocaust. Which, by ignoring what was going on in their own back yard, they were. If that be a violation of Polish law, so be it. The truth is still the truth. Soylent Green is still people.

Consider, for that matter, the ICC, which the US refuses to ratify, because to do so would, among other things, leave American warfighters open to spurious charges of war crimes to be tried by the ICC.

Consider also the strange tendency of late of our courts, including the Supreme Court, to take the laws of other countries into account when deciding matters of strictly American law. The problem with doing that is that there’s absolutely no basis for applying what foreigners do in their own countries to what Americans do in the US. Our judges are supposed to apply American law to American questions of law, and if some other country’s law conflicts with American law in such a case, it is of exactly zero moment.

It is a strange world we live in. Sometimes I wish we’d have told the world to go police itself after the Second World War. Although I probably would have used a word other than “police”. Probably one that started with “F”.

GOPeity GOPeity GOPe.

Well, apparently Ralph Peters (former Fox News contributor) and John McCain (soon to be former US Senator from Arizona, God willing) have both lost their minds over the President today.

Peters, who ought to know better, is pissed off because he believes Fox News is little more than a propaganda machine for Donald Trump.  I’m not so sure I’d go that far.  But Peters is just another Nevertrumper who can’t see the forest for the trees.

McCain is bashing Trump for being a nice guy and congratulating Vladimir Putin on his “electoral victory”.  I put that in scare quotes because anybody who doesn’t know that election was rigged is a naive dreamer.  I will guarantee that Trump’s message of congratulations was heavily steeped in irony.

But these are just continuing reminders that, with friends like establishment Republicans (otherwise known as the GOPe), who needs enemies? No wonder we call it the Stupid Party.

This is how you lose the House and Senate, boys.  The Democrats know that you have to close ranks and maintain party discipline (they’re very Soviet in that way).  The GOPe has a problem understanding that survival as the reigning political party requires adhering to the party line, booting people from the party who won’t toe that line, and backing the president to the hilt when he’s from your party, regardless of what you think of him as a human being.

Peters in particular is an egregious ass, with his statement that Fox is acting as a “propaganda machine for a destructive and ethically ruinous administration.”

You can be as patriotic as you want and you can be as honest as the day is long, but the fact of the matter is that politics is our great national sausage machine — and if you can’t deal with the way sausage is made, maybe you ought to stay the hell out of the political commentariat.

Besides, if Trump is so “destructive and ethically ruinous”, why hasn’t Special Counsel Mueller managed to toss anything at him that sticks?  Mueller has no reason to handle Trump with kid gloves, and plenty of reason (he’s a Democrat, you know) to do otherwise. It’s clear that there was no Russian meddling in our elections (or, if there was, it was mistimed and completely ineffective), and it’s just as clear that there was no soi-disant “collusion” between the Trump organization and the Russians…but plenty of evidence that a whole bunch of Democrats, up to and including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, were awash to their necks in nefarious dealings with the very same Russians.  Can you say “Uranium One”?  Of course you can.  If you can find the news articles about it in our left-wing press.

I won’t even discuss what John McCain has to say because John McCain is a dying and possibly borderline-senile old man who believes he should have been president.  Anything he says at this point about a sitting Republican president is sour grapes and has to be viewed in that light.  I respect the hell out of John McCain for his service (and time as a POW) in the military, but I’ve never really respected him as a Republican senator, and it’s high time he was removed from his comfy seat in the Senate by the good people of the State of Arizona, who could probably do a lot better.  He’s a shining example of someone who’s been in government far too long (31 years this coming November) and it shows.

The fact is, after eight years of Barack Obama, what exactly did either of these men expect?  No normal GOP politician would have had a chance in hell of beating Hillary Clinton, because no normal GOP politician would get out and fight for the job like Donald Trump did.  The fact that Trump won as many votes as he did is testament to the fact that people on the right are sick and tired of the pale, stale political pablum served up by the GOP establishment — a thin gruel, indeed! — and they, like Lincoln before them, could not spare this man — “He fights.”

What’s truly sad about the GOP is that so few of their tenured officeholders got primaried out of their seats in the last cycle, and we’ve been treated to another round of the same old same old by the GOPe.  And now a bunch of them are probably going to simply lose those seats to the Dumbs in November, which is hardly an optimal result.  You want a Constitutional crisis?  Because that’s how you get a Constitutional crisis.

No thanks to people like John McCain and Ralph Peters, we’re probably going to get one.  Hang on tight, folks, and keep your powder dry.  This ride ain’t over yet.

UPDATE, 21 Mar 2018:

* There may be a reason Peters retired as a LTC — who retires as an LTC?  The one I know personally at least got a promotion to full bird when he retired.

The Kozinsky allegations smell ever so slightly of fish.

The latest attempt to take a head in the Great Sexual Harassment Orgy of 2017 is directed against a judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Alex Kozinski.  Yeah, OK, it’s the Ninth Circus, so what?  As it turns out, a lot what.  About this, I wrote elsewhere, in response to a comment that implied Kozinski was little more than an incompetent liberal activist:

For what it’s worth, this guy was appointed by Ronald Reagan. I don’t think he’s a liberal activist in the pure sense of the term. If you look at his Wikipedia entry, the decisions he’s been influential in haven’t been liberal wins. He’s pro-death penalty, for one thing, with the interesting twist that he doesn’t believe in lethal injection, but prefers firing squads, the electric chair, the gas chamber, etc. In Wood v Ryan, he wrote in dissent, “Sure, firing squads can be messy, but if we are willing to carry out executions, we should not shield ourselves from the reality that we are shedding human blood. If we, as a society, cannot stomach the splatter from an execution carried out by firing squad, then we shouldn’t be carrying out executions at all.” That squares with my own long-held opinion that if you’re going to execute someone for a capital crime, do it in the public square.

Now, none of that means it’s impossible for him to be a sleazy scumball who hits on his female clerks, but as usual, I find it interesting that these ladies waited so long to make their allegations, and also that “many” other women who clerked for him say that they were never approached in this way. The WaPo article says, “The Post reached out to dozens of Kozinski’s former clerks and externs for this report. Many of those who returned messages said that they experienced no harassment of any kind and that their experience — which entailed grueling work into the wee hours of the morning every day — was a rewarding one. They noted Kozinski’s wry sense of humor.”

Again, not saying that proves his innocence, but I for one am raising an eyebrow at the very least — and this goes right along with my previous post this morning:  “This business will get out of control — it will get out of control, and we’ll be lucky to live through it.”

With all due respect to Admiral Fred Thompson, it’s already out of control.  We’re just in the “sit back and eat popcorn” phase.  I sure hope Roy Moore wins tomorrow — I want to see the left go even more completely apeshit than they already are.

Older posts «

» Newer posts