Had Hillary won I could have taken to the streets, burned flags, beat up Trumpers, flamed cars, broken windows, slashed tires, stolen liquor, not gone to school, gotten under my bed and cried, and engaged in all the other 'wussy' social behaviour and activities of those who are distraught Trump is now our president.
I find humor and satire far more effective. It is also more civil and conservative.
Also, the response of radicals provides so much memo material my cup runneth over. (See 1 and 1a below.)
I guess"when they go low and liberals go high" exposes liberal hypocrisy and means they quit kicking shins and start knocking heads.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick,
I thought Rabbi Pruzanski's article was particularly wise and insightful. I have forwarded it to A-- and our boys.
Thanks for including.
D--
On this Veteran's Day, I have to think back over many that I have observed. All have paid lip service to those who cared and served.
As you, I grew up during WW!!. The important things were God, Flag and Country. Not much else mattered, and then we were allowed to get back to business. I later served and at least thought it was for a cause. Slightly wrong. But we did it and got back to business. Very slowly we watched the dream fade. Fewer and fewer were allowed to participate. It became harder and harder to build the dream. Many did and I give therm much credit.
I had to get out and found it too difficult to start again. I worked many years for one who had the fortitude. It was difficult to see the hoops and hurdles being successful required. I did what I could and 2007-8 was very painful.
Government just continued to burden thru the hard times.
I now have great hopes for the future of our great country. I continue to reread the Constitution and hold our flag high. GBA J--
Simply love all of your messages as did my brother but his present wife is Democrat. S------ C----
You may have to send out a mea culpa for printing mia culpa (I was an alter boy!).
+++
I have two daughters who are writers and editors. This is from my number three daughter:
"I was sorry to learn of the passing of Professor Yaffa Eliach, perhaps best known for her "Tower of Faces" exhibition at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. We met about two decades ago at her lecture in Chicago. I then published a response in The Forward to David Roskies's review of her monumental There Once Was a World and my own review of the same book. Links below.
+++
OH S---! They just will not stop. (See 2 below.)
====
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)November 11, 2016
Dallas, Texas, USA
Bleary-eyed from the 16+ hour flight from Asia, I checked my phone last night once the plane landed to find that riots have broken out across the Land of the Free.
It was enough to wake me from my jet lag.
Naturally there was outcry against racism, sexism, violence, and all the usual anti-Trump arguments.
(Which I found ironic given this video of a Trump voter being viciously beaten in Chicago.)
But one of the recurring themes from these protesters being interviewed, primarily young people, was that Trump wasn’t going to do anything about student debt.
This was a major issue during the election, one that Bernie Sanders grabbed onto with promises of free education and debt reduction.
His message resonated with young people.
I’ve see this same theme all over the world, from Chile to the United Kingdom-- students want free education, underpinned by a fundamental belief that quality education is a basic human right to be provided by the government.
Even if you agree with this assertion, there’s a MAJOR problem with the logic: these students are conflating “education” with “university degree.”
Anytime young people tell me they’re entitled to free education, I always ask the same questions--
How many books did you read in the past six months?
How many times did you go to the local library?
How many free online courses from top universities like Harvard, MIT, and Georgetown did you take at edx.org?
How often have you actually used the multitude of free resources at your disposal to educate yourself?
Most times I just get the deer in the headlights look.
The truth is that they’re not interested in free education.
They just want a free university degree… a piece of paper that confers neither education nor any guarantee of success in life.
Candidly, many of the important things we need to learn in life are not taught in school.
I’ve started more businesses than I can count, some of them spectacular failures, others highly successful. I didn’t learn any of those skills at school.
And everything I learned about farming, for example, was on the land, not in the classroom.
This is true with many other elements that help us achieve success in life-- business, investing, networking, romance, personal health, etc.
Understandably, certain professions do require formal schooling.
But that’s not really the point.
This is ultimately about people expecting the government to steal from others and give them something of questionable value for free when they haven’t yet taken steps to provide for themselves.
One could make the same argument that access to healthy food is a fundamental human right, and that the government should provide organic vegetables for free.
But how many seeds are people planting for themselves? A tomato plant can be grown from a single seed and about one square foot of space with almost no effort.
You’ll eat better (and sooner) taking matters into your own hands rather than waiting for the government to pass some terrible law in order to give you something for free.
It’s the same with education.
Yes, the cost of university in the Land of the Free is out of control. And it really doesn’t make sense for young people to start their lives buried in debt.
But rather than demand a bunch of laws be passed (which, even if this ever happens, will take years), you’ll be much better off taking matters into your own hands.
This starts with expanding your thinking.
Rather than limit yourself to traditional options (i.e. I’m from the US therefore I must attend a US university in order to be successful), consider whether university is the right option at all.
If you truly want to learn a highly valued skill that can pay the bills and provide income security (sales and marketing, business management, investing, design, web development, e-commerce, etc.) you may be better off eschewing university and instead learning directly from someone who has mastered what you want to know.
It’s an extreme example, but you would learn more about investing by working for Warren Buffett than in any university program.
This simple concept of apprenticeship has worked for thousands of years: if you want to be successful, learn from successful people.
Even if you still think that university is the right choice (which it very well may be), expand your thinking to the whole world.
There are plenty of high quality universities overseas that you can attend for almost nothing.
To boot, going abroad gives you a lot of great international experience and the chance to achieve fluency in a foreign language.
So the end result is that you still get that piece of paper (your university degree), along with tons of other benefits and experiences, with almost none of the costs.
Just like I always try to point out with other solutions we discuss at Sovereign Man, this is an option that makes sense… no matter what.
Until tomorrow,
Simon Black
Founder, SovereignMan.com
1a)The Democrat Media Complex Will Never Understand What Happened Tuesday Night
By Stephen Kruiser
Mortally wounded animals will often put up their greatest fight in their dying moments, lashing out with ferocity at all around them to maximize the damage on their way out.
Political media in America may not have been mortally wounded on Tuesday night--though that remains to be seen--but they sure took a hit. The people who fancy themselves as more worldly and knowledgeable than most Americans went all-in on a candidate whose entire candidacy was fueled by little more than the stale identity-politics air that's trapped inside the coastal media bubbles.
I have watched more cable news coverage in the last couple of days than I usually would in a year, all because I keep waiting to see if there will be any sort of epiphany about the real reasons why Trump won or, more importantly for them, why Hillary lost.
Even a little epiphany will do.
A tiny, tiny epiphany.
Nope.
The morning after the election, I was asked by a lifelong Democrat friend of mine what my thoughts were. I told her that my big takeaway was the that media managed to make me respect it less and despise it more even though this was an election cycle where I had no emotional investment whatsoever in a candidate.
It's not just the bias, although I will never condone that while they're pretending to be neutral observers. It's the overwhelming ignorance displayed by a group of people who truly believe themselves to be the smartest ones in the room. It's like an island populated by people who are four feet tall and have never met anyone else: they all think they're giants.
Thus far, the talking heads have almost led themselves to coherent conclusions about the election, but when they get close the myopic world view and overwhelming lack of political and intellectual diversity in their ranks slow them down before getting to the truth. It's their laziness, however, that stops them dead in their tracks after a while.
That laziness is manifested by accusations of racism against any and all who disagree with Democrat orthodoxy as currently presented. For two straight days MSM punditry has actually ping-ponged between three blame targets when discussing how the election went to Trump: third parties, James Comey, and racism. However, rules are rules here in Barack Obama's era of hope and change, so it is racism that naturally gets the most air time.
When discussing voters beyond the coastal bubbles, MSM Clinton apologists focus solely on race. The economic situations of any white voters in flyover states are left at the door as the pundits rush headlong to the only explanation they've really known for 8 years when confronted by the reality that not everyone thinks the same as they do. They see only ethnic and racial voting blocs, not people. If they do spend a moment contemplating the people of middle America as individuals, then the "white privilege" subroutine of their "Racism!" programming kicks in, quickly mollifying any internal conflict that may have been brought on by the brief introduction of evidence contrary to the narrative.
Not all members of the MSM are introspection-free. Will Rahn of CBS wrote this excellent self examination today.
The mood in the Washington press corps is bleak, and deservedly so.This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. Had Hillary Clinton won, there’s be a winking “we did it” feeling in the press, a sense that we were brave and called Trump a liar and saved the republic.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on.
So much for that. The audience for our glib analysis and contempt for much of the electorate, it turned out, was rather limited. This was particularly true when it came to voters, the ones who turned out by the millions to deliver not only a rebuke to the political system but also the people who cover it. Trump knew what he was doing when he invited his crowds to jeer and hiss the reporters covering him. They hate us, and have for some time.
And can you blame them? Journalists love mocking Trump supporters. We insult their appearances. We dismiss them as racists and sexists. We emote on Twitter about how this or that comment or policy makes us feel one way or the other, and yet we reject their feelings as invalid.
Expect Rahn to be looking for work before Christmas. If he isn't, he won't be on many holiday party guest lists after that kind of brutal honesty.
I happened upon a tweet storm by Aaron Wiener, a writer for Mother Jones (who also contributes to The Economist) that's more reflective of the media zeitgeist as they try to wrap their heads around hearing "President-elect Trump." It's a long tweet storm so I will just share a portion of it here. If you want to see the whole thing, here is his timeline. These are presented as seen on Twitter so you need to read it from bottom to top for the proper order.
Ah, there's the smugness Rahn was talking about. Wiener thinks the press is the arbiter of whose lives are more in need of help. He's such a Democrat talking-points automaton that he even works in "reproductive rights," because Democrats have to pretend that every Republican running for president gets a magic wand to overturn Supreme Court decisions. It's laughable that he believes he doesn't live in a bubble because his D.C. neighborhood is ethnically and racially diverse. That's the only kind of diversity that matters to Democrats and progressives, so he's good to go using that playbook.
The losing playbook.
As for political diversity, DC went 93% for Hillary Clinton. Aaron Wiener, however, truly believes he is exposed to a diversity of opinions.
The media won't notice the plights, feelings, or often even the existence of voters outside of their very real bubbles because the media long ago decided those people don't matter.
Why?
Because they're not contributing to a story that makes the media feel good about themselves.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
Report: Chelsea Clinton Eyeing Congress
Chelsea Clinton is being eyed for a congressional run, according to Emily Smith in the New York Post's Page Six column.
The daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton could run for the seat in New York City's 17th Congressional District held now by Rep. Nita Lowey, a 79-year-old career politician, once Lowey decides to retire, according to Page Six.
Lowey's districts include parts of Rockland and Westchester counties, and the Clinton family's home base, Chappaqua. In August, the Clintons bought a home next to theirs, which intended for Chelsea and her family, husband Marc Mezvinsky and their two children.
The Page Six column said that the Clinton daughter lives and is registered to vote in Manhattan, but could change her residence to Chappaqua to run for Lowey's position.
A source told the paper that the Clinton family will continue their political aspirations.
"While it is true the Clintons need some time to regroup after Hillary's crushing loss, they will not give up. Chelsea would be the next extension of the Clinton brand," said the source.
"In the past few years, she has taken a very visible role in the Clinton Foundation and on the campaign trail. While politics isn't the life Hillary wanted for Chelsea, she chose to go on the campaign trail for her mother and has turned out to be very poised, articulate, and comfortable with the visibility."
Chappaqua is the "logical" place for Clinton to run from, according to the source. "It would be straightforward for her to raise money and build a powerful base."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment