The Real Problem With Sony

I notice the MSM, with their usual keen eye, have entirely missed the point of the Sony issue – it isn’t that there was a cyber-attack: in the modern era, cyber-attacks will only become more common. No, the problem is that Sony – and Paramount – have shown an incredible level of cowardice.

I’m not sure if Sony was more worried about a terrorist attack on a theater or further revelations of internal Sony communications, but whatever the reason for their surrender, it is disgusting. It doesn’t matter who really did the cyber-attack – and people falling over themselves to devise ever more bizarre theories about who might “really” be behind the attack are just distracting from the real issue (and as the MSM seems to be running with it, I’m guessing that a lot of MSM outfits are terrified of their internal communications being revealed to the world: as an aside, this brings me back to my view about doing anything over the internet – it is a completely public place, there is no real possibility of privacy…if you can’t do it in broad daylight in your front yard with your grandmother watching, don’t do it on the internet). What have we become? A nation which is afraid – afraid to say things and do things for fear that someone might attack us for saying or doing. It is a terrible state of affairs.

It is also, of course, tailor-made for leftism…and no surprise that a Communist nation like North Korea might well be behind such things. What is the difference between what North Korea has allegedly done and screaming Stalinists in the United States do when they, for instance, get a speaker banned from a college? Peas in a pod. What this event tells me is that 25 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Communism is again on the march and is being far more successful than it ever was when run from Moscow…now its run from a hundred different places, and enabled by cowards who are afraid of a fight.

UPDATE: Rand Paul has essentially taken Obama’s side on the Cuba issue. This is just another reason why I can never be a Libertarian and while I’d vote Paul if he got the nomination, he’s way down there on my list of choices. Libertarians have the nonsensical – really, rather stupid – idea that if you trade with tyrannical regimes they will liberalize. Grab a clue: they won’t. In fact, they’ll get more tyrannical. We’ve been going down this route with tyrants since we set up relations with Stalin’s USSR in the 1930’s. Here’s the thing everyone needs to understand: tyrants don’t care. They’ll steal their own people’s money in order to live well. They’ll have them slave away in order to make things which can be sold to us for hard cash (tyrant money is always functionally worthless in the global market). They’ll use the wealth we provide – that which they don’t steal to build themselves palaces and monuments, that is – to buy weapons to fight us, allies to hate us, and traitors to undermine us (the USSR routinely funded leftist groups in the West – these days, Oil State kleptocracies spend money in the US to burnish their image, and hold down US oil production). Trade with tyrants is always a bad idea – we shouldn’t be opening up to Cuba; we should be shutting ourselves down to China.

No, Jeb, No

So, it is semi-official:

…As a result of these conversations and thoughtful consideration of the kind of strong leadership I think America needs, I have decided to actively explore the possibility of running for President of the United States.

In January, I also plan to establish a Leadership PAC that will help me facilitate conversations with citizens across America to discuss the most critical challenges facing our exceptional nation. The PAC’s purpose will be to support leaders, ideas and policies that will expand opportunity and prosperity for all Americans…

Just to be clear, I voted for the elder Bush in 1988 and 1992. I voted for W. in 2000 and 2004. I helped to write this blog when it was “Blogs for Bush”. Heck, I even voted for Jeb on his first, unsuccessful run for Florida governor in 1994. If you’re listening out there, Jeb, then do lay this to heart: you will never be President of the United States.

There is, of course, the very high hurdle of getting the nomination in a party where the base is ticked off that we went with two moderates in a row and got creamed. But supposing you manage to get past that and win the nomination – the presumptive nominee is going to be Hillary and in the public mind, there is no contest: the people will pick a Clinton before they’ll pick a Bush. If you are the nominee then the whole of 2016 will be an endless, nauseating, false and disgusting rehash of all the BUSH LIED!!!!1!! nonsense from 2004 and 2008…Obama will be off the table. It’ll all be about your older brother, and the promise that Hillary can restore the peace and prosperity of the late 1990’s. You will lose, and lose rather badly – and even if the Democrats go full kook and turn to Warren, you’ll still lose because your last name is Bush.

I’m one of the people who have always held that you take what you can get – that even if the GOP nominee isn’t what I really wanted (Mitt was my 6th or 7th choice in 2012), you still back that nominee as the Democrat alternative is always much worse. In 2016, if you’re the nominee, then I’m writing in Bobby Jindal. And that is how it will go…you’ll win Independents by double digits over Hillary, but her base will be vastly more motivated than yours, and you’ll lose…and probably by a bigger electoral margin than McCain did in 2008.

Just don’t do it, Jeb – if you really are listening, then listen to common sense: you can’t win. Stay out.

Dealing With the Unreasonable

Anyone paying close attention would have noticed that last night I deactivated my Twitter account. The account for Wost President (Victory Books, actually) is still up and running and will remain so – but I dumped my personal Twitter account. There were several reasons for this, but one of the major reasons was to drop down the level of crazy in my life.

Not to condemn Twitter – which does have some very good uses, especially when there is major, breaking news – but we have in our society quite a large number of unreasonable people. People who don’t know history; are only hazily aware of the facts, but are absolutely convinced of their worldview and determined that anyone who dissents from it be squashed. This is mostly on the left, but it is all too common on the right, as well. Twitter is ready-made for such people – it is impossible to explain to someone in 140 characters or less just how they are wrong but it is very easy for someone to get very insulting in 140 characters. I found myself getting drawn into the crazy on Twitter too often. The Worst President account is easier to handle – as it is not a personal account, people seem less inclined to start a flame war on it; I guess its the difference between insulting Victory Books (meh) or insulting Mark Noonan (woohoo!!).

But this also brings to mind the general unreasonableness of our society – You might have heard that the President of Smith had to apologize for saying “all lives matter”, this a take on the Twitter hashtag #BlackLivesMatter. Because someone made a Twitter meme which has been identified by some as the “correct” position to have, the President of a major university had to crawl in apology essentially for not having the right hashtag in her statement. This isn’t just political correctness: this is crazy. And crazy is a good definition for the modern West in general.

And I do wonder just how crazy we will get before something really goes smash. It might seem cool to encapsulate an idea in just a few words, but the trouble with slogans is that they tend to shut down thought (which is, by the way, the secret of advertising). Mindless repetition of slogans and shouting hate at anyone who questions the slogans is picture perfect for a totalitarian society trying to have uniformity of belief…but in a still-free society like the United States, its the recipe for developing vicious hatred, on both sides.

I’d like to say that our solution is to convince those who don’t know to shut up and listen – but those who are least knowledgeable are most likely to believe they are practically all-knowing. Our actual solution is to try to ignore such silly creatures. In a sense, that is what we’ve done here – and while there are fewer comments, such comments as their are tend to increase the sum of knowledge. Of course, this is just a little-noticed blog – but I think it can serve as a model. Let us who are reasonable discuss what is best and then try to obtain the ability to implement it. Don’t engage every silly screwball out there who has an opinion armored from head to foot in ignorance. It just doesn’t pay – and it doesn’t help advance the solutions we need.

And just in case the crazy seems a bit much, some advice:

A Ballad Of Suicide by G. K. Chesterton

The gallows in my garden, people say,

Is new and neat and adequately tall;
I tie the noose on in a knowing way

As one that knots his necktie for a ball;
But just as all the neighbours—on the wall—
Are drawing a long breath to shout “Hurray!”

The strangest whim has seized me. . . . After all
I think I will not hang myself to-day.
To-morrow is the time I get my pay—

My uncle’s sword is hanging in the hall—
I see a little cloud all pink and grey—

Perhaps the rector’s mother will not call— I fancy that I heard from Mr. Gall
That mushrooms could be cooked another way—

I never read the works of Juvenal—
I think I will not hang myself to-day.
The world will have another washing-day;

The decadents decay; the pedants pall;
And H.G. Wells has found that children play,

And Bernard Shaw discovered that they squall,
Rationalists are growing rational—
And through thick woods one finds a stream astray

So secret that the very sky seems small—
I think I will not hang myself to-day.

The Feinstein Report

As a parting shot, the Democrats decided to dust off an old playbook once agin and expose America in bad light in the name of transparency. Never missing an opportunity to make themselves feel “enlightened” at the expense of average Americans and this time, at the possible cost of patriotic military lives, Dem. Sen. Diane Feinstein has issued her $40 million report that has revealed absolutely nothing new regarding the CIA’s conduct in the direct aftermath of 9/11. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by publishing this report with the possible exception of settling a personal score for Feinstein which wouldn’t surprise me knowing the base level of childishness shared by all Democrats. Additionally, in an interview this morning ex-CIA Chief Michael Hayden confirmed that members of Congress including Feinstein were briefed all along the way on all methods of interrogation being used and at the time there were no objections. Only now, years after the fact and at a time when personal agendas can be served do the objections rise, although only on behalf of the Democrats, as every single GOP member of the committee abstained from contributing to this report. In fact, the GOP did issue their own minority report as did the CIA but strangely I am not hearing accounts of those reports at least in the liberal MSM. My personal opinion, shared by many others, is that water boarding is not torture. While it is an obviously brutal technique, and should only be used in extreme and rare instances, I believe that the circumstances surrounding the events of 9/11 did warrant such techniques and furthermore believe that the men and women of the CIA should be applauded for their efforts and not criticized by self serving, sanctimonious politicians or their sycophantic minions in the media.

The irony of course in this “search for the truth” effort on behalf of Democrats is deep and wide considering their lack of transparency on nearly every other major issue confronting the country, i.e.; the Fast & Furious program, the IRS, the NSA, the EPA, and of course the ACA. Speaking of the ACA, did everyone see Dr. Jonathan Gruber apologize for revealing the truth behind that program? Not surprisingly MSNBC, the publicity department of the Democrats spent approximately 40 minutes over two separate hours covering the Feinstein report this morning, and about 2 minutes at most covering the Gruber hearing. So what issue has the most impact on American lives? The partisan manipulation of the health care industry under the cloak of secrecy? Or the rough interrogation techniques of sub human murderers? And they wonder why they no longer control the Congress.

UPDATE: We are now in the third hour of Morning Joe on MSNBC and it is wall to wall coverage and analysis of the Feinstein report. Apparently, nothing else is going on in Washington. One liberal analyst anguished over the “humiliating” treatment of the sub human murderers, which reinforces my belief that media liberals, Progressives and/or Democrats (my apologies for the redundancies) should be ignored and excluded from future debate and decisions on governing this country.

One of the Results of Ferguson: Worse Policing

Victor Davis Hansen notes:

…Will some law enforcement officials now surmise that it is wiser to ignore some crimes in the inner city on the practicable logic that the denouement for the officer will likely be negative — either by stopping the assailant through force or not stopping the assault and thus being assaulted?…

Why should a police officer even try? After all, if you’re policing a heavily minority area then any action you take may be construed as racist, and career-ending. Act or don’t act, and it can work out equally badly for you…so maybe just work your patrol route so that you just don’t go into certain areas where you suspect there will be a number of minority men who are up to no good. In other words, surrender part of the streets to them, because fighting them for control of the streets will still leave them in control and might get you fired and possibly sent to jail for civil rights violations.

As readers here know, I am in favor of very deep reforms to policing – but what we’re getting here now is the creation of “no go” areas of our cities. That, I think, is what the criminal element (ie, those who actually looted) want, and it is what the political element doesn’t care about (and, remember, most of the race-baiters live in carefully policed areas…safe and sound in their swell homes, free from any fear of criminal activity, it is easy for them to rabble rouse, knowing that the ill-effects won’t come back to haunt them).

We’re getting in to a very bizarre world here: a world in which lies triumph (only for the moment, of course) and those who are rational are hated. It could be a very bad few years coming up here.

Stupid Liberals

They are everywhere – a few examples:

The Obama administration is refusing to discuss reports that emerged early Thursday claiming that the White House is considering imposing sanctions on Israel for continuing construction on Jewish homes in Jerusalem.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf dodged several questions on Thursday when confronted with reports that the administration had held secret internal meetings to discuss taking action against Israel for its ongoing building in East Jerusalem…

And then this:

Rolling Stone has gotten a lot of publicity recently with a sensational article about a rape in 2012 at the University of Virginia, written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely and featuring some harrowing and disturbing details. The victim was identified only as “Jackie.”

Almost as soon as the story was published, doubts arose about its veracity, or at least about the journalistic standards of its author, who did not manage to interview the alleged perpetrators even though it would seem there were ways to have contacted them. Even worse, Erdely hasn’t been forthcoming about the extent of her efforts to find them, and did not include any mention of any of her efforts or failures in the article.

I’ve read many articles pro and con, including of course the original Rolling Stone piece in question (warning: it’s long), and I’ve got my own opinion, which is that not only did Erdely demonstrate abysmal journalistic standards, but that the story itself is quite possibly a fabrication by the alleged victim…

And then, this:

When asked about Mubarak’s exoneration, State Department Spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki offered a rambling non-answer which did not fool the diplomatic press corps one bit. When Associated Press reporter Matt Lee called Psaki out for essentially saying “nothing,” Psaki gave it another try.

“Generally, we continue to believe that upholding impartial standards of accountability will advance the political consensus on which Egypt’s long-term stability and economic growth depends,” she said. “I don’t have any more specifics on this.”…

And,finally, this:

But she also told the audience that the world still has a long way to go in terms women’s participation.

Of the hundreds of peace treaties signed since the early 1990s, between or within nations, she said fewer than 10 percent had any female negotiators and fewer than 3 percent had women as signatories.

“Is it any wonder that many of these agreements fail between [sic] a few years?” Clinton asked.

So, we’ll lift sanctions on Iran even though, as just one for-instance, they hang people for being gay, but we’ll mull placing sanctions on Israel because they’ll build a house. Meanwhile, over in race-and-gender-war-land, we’ll write an article full of details but won’t include any proof the event in question happened. Over at State we’ll mouth some meaningless words and at the end of the verbal spew which contained nothing specific, we’ll say we don’t have any further specifics (in defense of the State Department flack, she was later caught on a hot mike admitting that her statement was worthless). And to top it all off, we’ve got the putative next President of the United States asserting that only if a few more women had signed the treaties, wars and calamities would have been prevented.

Why, when Hillary made her absurd statement, did the audience not immediately laugh in scorn, walk out and announce their support for Elizabeth Warren in 2016? When the article for the Rolling Stone went up to the editors, why didn’t even one of them ask, “you got any facts to back this up?”. The reason for those two bits of stupidity – and all other liberal stupidity we see these says – is that they didn’t dare. You see, to hold Hillary in utter contempt for her stupid statement is forbidden to liberals – such an act would do the worst thing possible: confirm that the liberal narrative is wrong. Similarly, when the Rolling Stone story hit the editor’s desk, there was no chance such a question would be asked: merely to ask such a question would indicate a disbelief in liberal ideology about what goes on at elite universities vis a vis women.

If you ever thought that at some point liberals, as such, could become sensible then just give that thought up – the only way they can is by switching all the way over to conservative. To be a liberal in 2014 requires belief in not just a series of lies, but in a series of very stupid lies – and my guess is that the enforcers of thought on the left want it this way: the more absurd beliefs they can enforce, the more firm their control – after all, to switch from being liberal in 2014 not only requires you to change your beliefs, but to admit you believed things which anyone with an IQ of 80 could see were stupid lies. Just do the mental exercise yourself for a few minutes and think of all the admissions of being a sucker a liberal would have to make by switching to conservatism…and how much fear of humiliation that carries along with it. Better for most to just brazen it out: “Ok, so I believe a lot of stupid stuff: but I can’t admit it or I’ll have to admit I was a fool so I’ll just keep going! Hey, conservatives, if women signed treaties there would be less war!”.

To me, its all rather sad – and yet another reason to work hard to get these people away from the levers of power. Who knows what the opinion enforcers of the left will force their minions to believe next…

UPDATE: Huge amount of comment today around the interwebs regarding the Rolling Stone article…a bunch of “how could this have happened”. Seriously? People gotta ask how an MSM outfit could have allowed a falsehood to get published? Look, my friends, when it comes to reports which advance the liberal agenda – especially in areas of race, gender and class – assume every one of them is a lie…if not an outright fabrication, then at the least a severe twisting of the facts to fit the liberal narrative. Dishonesty in liberalism isn’t a bug, its a feature.

But, you say that you know honest liberals? Sure. Bet you do. But where the rubber hits the road, that won’t matter all that much. Think about it – you’re at the editorial meeting and the UVA story comes up for review. To question the story – which supports the liberal narrative – would be highly dangerous. Even if you proved to all and sundry that it shouldn’t be run, you’ll anger the more hard core leftists whom you work with – and who might have charge of your employment prospects. Meanwhile, if you let it all slide, 90%+ of the time no one is ever seriously called out for falsehoods. Much easier to go along to get along, even if you want to be honest…the hard core lefists didn’t care, don’t care and never will care if the UVA story is true: what matters to them is that it must be true because that is what leftism demands; even if the particular details of this story are false – even if you can never find an actual, demonstrable example of that sort of thing going on (and, remember, the contention of the story is that the horrific action described is endemic to the culture of UVA…that the student body of that school knowingly and callously does this horrible thing as if they believed it to be a good thing) – the overall story is true: because those who in any way adhere to any institution not on the side of the left are just like that in the view of the left…rat bastards who kill, steal, pollute and oppress just for the sheer fun of being evil. Anything which attacks non-left institutions is thus good and true, even if false in actual fact.

Monday Open Thread

Hands Up, Don’t Shoot – its entered the popular mind. Another great example of just how well the Big Lie works.

Liberal stupidity continues – Minnesota plans to eliminate gender gender distinctions in sports…leading to either a 200 lb boy tackling a 90 lb girl, or the banning of anyone weighing more than 90 lbs playing football…or a ban on football (which would probably be a liberal goal these days).

Apparently, Dear Leader is not to be offended - be nice if next time there’s a GOP President that the Presidential kids are actually off limits.

How about we just leave Ferguson burned down? We can call it the Barack H Obama memorial ruin.