Tag: politics

Peaceful and tolerant people

So much for the idea that Donald Trump can’t beat Hillary Clinton:

An acid-tongued Hillary Clinton ripped into conservatives on Thursday for what she said was an ‘obsession in some quarters’ with the notion that the global spread of terrorism is a byproduct of the Muslim faith, denying that the two are connected in any way.

‘Islam itself is not our adversary,’ the former secretary of state said during a campaign speech outlining her foreign policy objectives.

‘Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.’

If Trump wins the Republican nomination, I would expect we’re going to be seeing those words frequently over the next 12 months.

Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.’
– Hillary Clinton

It’s rather astonishing. Hillary Clinton may actually be a worse presidential candidate than Bob Dole and John McCain. It must be the Democrats’ turn to throw the election.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, ten or so peaceful and tolerant people who have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism have attacked a Radisson hotel in Mali and hold 170 hostages there.

UPDATE: Le Monde reports that the Malian security ministry has confirmed three deaths so far in the siege.

Social justice serves justice

It doesn’t happen often, so enjoy it when it does. Sooner or later, the revolution always eats its own:

Students staged a protest Wednesday inside the office of Princeton University’s president, demanding the school remove the name of former school president and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson from programs and buildings over what they said was his racist legacy.

Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber told the students he agreed with them that Wilson was racist and that the university needs to acknowledge that, according to a video posted to YouTube. But a school spokesman said the president also told students it is important to weigh Wilson’s racism, and how bad it was, with the contributions he made to the nation.

Hi-freaking-larious. Woodrow Wilson was one of the worst US presidents in history. He set the stage for many of the problems we presently face today and he should be a significant hero to SJWs.

But he was racist and therefore he has to go. I look forward to hearing about Mr. Eisgruber’s inevitable apology and resignation.

It’s going to be even more amusing when they eventually turn on Scalzi.

Rubio is the new Bush

Not that anyone here will be surprised, but it looks as if the GOP establishment has given up on Jeb!

Marco Rubio, moving to capitalize on a wave of momentum in the Republican primary, will host a Capitol Hill fundraiser on Monday that will draw an influx of new supporters.

Around 70 of Rubio’s financial backers are listed on the event invitation — over half of whom, organizers say, signed on with the senator after last month’s Boulder debate. The fundraiser, which will draw lobbyists, bundlers, and several members of Congress, is expected to net around $200,000.

Monday’s fundraiser was initially going to be held at a Washington, D.C. townhouse, but organizers moved it to the Capitol Hill Club — where a large room has been rented out — after the RSVP list began to swell.

Among the names listed on the invitation, who are relatively new to Rubio’s fold, are Peter Davidson, a Verizon lobbyist; Christopher Chapel, a NextEra Energy lobbyist; Russ Thomasson, a former top staffer to Texas Sen. John Cornyn; and Mathew Lapinski, a lobbyist at Crossroads Strategies.

The GOP elite must be freaking out now that the Paris attacks have driven up Donald Trump’s support to 42 percent. They’re moving to Plan B faster than I had anticipated prior to the attacks.

Whether you like Donald Trump or not, whether you believe him or not, you have to admit that his response to the Paris attacks was easily the strongest and most forthright of any of the candidates in either party.

Mailvox: the Farmer’s Iowa call

Farmer Tom makes a prediction:

I’m personal friends with the Iowa campaign managers for Trump and Cruz. I know Carson’s Iowa guy, Huckebee’s guy, hate the a-hole who was Perry’s guy. Met several times Rubio’ s guy, once in his Senate office.

I know these people and the insides of the system.

I can tell you right now that Trump will not win Iowa, he will get second or third.

1. Carson
2. Trump
3.Cruz
4. Probably Rand because the RP people will hang to the end.

I don’t predict American politics anymore because I’m far too out of touch with them. But that’s the word from the ground in Iowa.

GOP Establishment prefers Clinton

This Washington Post article demonstrates that there is, in truth, but one bi-factional ruling party:

Less than three months before the kickoff Iowa caucuses, there is growing anxiety bordering on panic among Republican elites about the dominance and durability of Donald Trump and Ben Carson and widespread bewilderment over how to defeat them.

Party leaders and donors fear that nominating either man would have negative ramifications for the GOP ticket up and down the ballot, virtually ensuring a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency and increasing the odds that the Senate falls into Democratic hands….

The apprehension among some party elites goes beyond electability,
according to one Republican strategist who spoke on the condition of
anonymity to talk candidly about the worries.

“We’re potentially
careening down this road of nominating somebody who frankly isn’t fit to
be president in terms of the basic ability and temperament to do the
job,” this strategist said. “It’s not just that it could be somebody
Hillary could destroy electorally, but what if Hillary hits a banana
peel and this person becomes president?”

Angst about Trump
intensified this week after he made two comments that could prove
damaging in a general election. First, he explained his opposition to
raising the minimum wage by saying “wages are too high.”

Second, he said
he would create a federal “deportation force” to remove the more than
11 million immigrants living in the United States illegally. “To
have a leading candidate propose a new federal police force that is
going to flush out illegal immigrants across the nation? That’s very
disturbing and concerning to me about where that leads Republicans,”
said Dick Wadhams, a former GOP chairman in Colorado, a swing state
where Republicans are trying to pick up a Senate seat next year.

And one of the biggest concerns to the ruling party is that Trump will lead a nationalist surge against immigration. But keep this in mind when you hear them re-run the old “Most Important Election Ever” song-and-dance and use the Lizard Queen as a scare tactic. They would rather have Hilary as president than either Trump or Carson.

Second time farce

I used to think David Goldman’s “Spengler” columns were pretty good. But as time goes on, he seems to be getting almost deranged:

Kissinger’s latest offering has the distinct virtue of reducing the foreign policy Establishment’s thinking to absurdity. Kissinger saw the major powers as fixed entities to be moved around on a geopolitical game board, in a Parker Brothers’ version of the Congress of Vienna or the Treaty of Berlin. He missed the internal decay of the Soviet economy and its strategic consequences–the Russians’ realization in the mid-1980s that they could not compete with the American economy and its capacity to invent new military technologies. It wasn’t quite Stratego, to be sure: Kissinger drew on non-trivial mathematics, for example Thomas Schelling’s game theory. Variables in an equation and tokens on a game-board, though, both remain fixed entities to be arrayed according to given rules. Sometimes the long-term sometimes overtakes the short-term and mugs it.

The internal decay of present and former nation-states from Libya to Afghanistan is even more obvious, and even more germane to the politics of the region. Kissinger’s current recommendations for the Middle East, outlined in an Oct. 16 essay in the Wall Street Journal, treat the region’s players as if they were fixed entities that can be manipulated into a stable balance of power. It is obvious, though, that nothing is fixed about these entities, and this leads Kissinger to torture logic until it expires on the rack. Here for example is a characterization of Iran: “On one level, Iran acts as a legitimate Westphalian state conducting traditional diplomacy, even invoking the safeguards of the international system. At the same time, it organizes and guides nonstate actors seeking regional hegemony based on jihadist principles….The U.S. should be prepared for a dialogue with an Iran returning to its role as a Westphalian state within its established borders.”

One can imagine Iran’s supreme leader attempting to parse Kissinger’s logic: “Westphalian? What is ‘Westphalian?’ I have Googled it, and behold!, it is a kind of ham! The infidel Kissinger likens us to pork!” Iran perhaps the least Westphalian political entity on the planet. It is not a nation-state in any sense of the term but the rump of a collapsed empire, in which Persians comprise barely half of the population, with “Azerbaijanis (16–25+%), Kurds (7–10%), Lurs (c. 7%), Mazandaranis and Gilakis (c. 7%), Arabs (2–3%), Balochi (c. 2%) Turkmens (c. 2%)” making up the rest, according to Wikipedia. Shi’ite messianism and attendant imperial ambitions are its raison d’etre. It is like saying, “Excuse me, Mr. Hyde, but is Dr. Jeykll at home?”

And about what should the United States engage Iran in its “Westphalian” incarnation? “It is preferable for ISIS-held territory to be reconquered either by moderate Sunni forces or outside powers than by Iranian jihadist or imperial forces.” If we had some Westphalian ham, we could have ham-and-eggs, if we had some eggs: if we had “moderate Sunni forces” we could persuade the “Westphalian” Iran to withdraw the “jihadist or imperial” Iran to acquiesce in the reconquest of ISIS-held territories by Sunnis. Then “The reconquered territories should be restored to the local Sunni rule that existed there before the disintegration of both Iraqi and Syrian sovereignty.” Someone should break the news to Dr. Kissinger that Saddam Hussein is dead and that the previous Sunni regime is not available.

Is Iran any less a nation-state than the USA? If diversity is our strength, is it not also the strength of “the rump of a collapsed empire” in which there is still an ethnic majority more solid than a mere “proposition nation”?

And Spengler misses, or more likely, intentionally ignores Kissinger’s observations about the breakdown of the Westphalian state. Indeed, some of Man’s foremost thinkers about Man’s oldest art have been thinking very hard indeed about the implications of what they call “the crisis of the State”.

The fact that Kissinger could be – and in my view, observably is – wrong about the dangerous geopolitical situation in which the world finds itself does not mean that either the man or his ideas should be belittled, especially by someone who is so shortsighted that he genuinely believes his people can simply jump to China when their welcome in America finally wears out.

The original Spengler was tragic. This pale imitation smacks of farce.

Hitler’s 125 IQ

It’s rather remarkable to see that the entire Nazi leadership was nearly a standard deviation more intelligent than the average Ashkenazi Jew, especially when we are so often informed that the reason for Jewish success is their exceedingly high level of intelligence. That being said, I suspect the average IQ of the current Israeli leadership is even higher; the same clearly cannot be said of the current U.S. or German leaderships.

As I recall from what I’ve read on Hitler and internal Nazi politics, of the above list, particularly “close associates” of Hitler would include: Goering; Ribbentrop; Speer; and until his “betrayal,” Hess. Their average IQ is 129.

While there was never much love lost between Hitler and the German military establishment, the closest military connection to Hitler from that list would be Keitel, who was infamous for his toadying behavior towards the Fuhrer. His IQ also happened to be precisely 129.

(Incidentally, while Jodl is regarded as far more competent than Keitel – he is the guy who actually made OKW command structure run – it’s interesting to note his IQ was actually lower than that of his boss, if marginally so).

In practice, Goering’s IQ during his time as Nazi bigwig might have actually been lower, due to his morphine addiction. On the other hand, there are suspicions that Speer was in fact considerably cleverer than his test scores indicated, because he was playing the “dumb dreamer architect” type so as to pretend ignorance of the death camps and avoid execution (if so he was successful). So these two factors might cancel out.

Adjusting for the Flynn effect – but only modestly, since the most useful (not rules-dependent) forms of intelligence haven’t improved all that radically, and we have an IQ of around 125 for Hitler normed to today’s Greenwich standards.

While I was initially skeptical of the idea of estimating Hitler’s IQ by those of his associates, on second thought, the fact that the average IQ in the Digital Ghetto was above 140 forces me to admit that it’s not a completely unreasonable basis for an estimate. It also fits with the available evidence; it’s pretty clear from reading Mein Kampf that Hitler was bright, but not highly intelligent.

For obvious reasons, the most successful popular leaders tend to be within the 30-point communications window of the norm. I would expect that Stalin was north of 130 IQ, both on the basis of his writing and his erratic, introverted behavior; unlike Hitler and Churchill, he had no need to rely upon personal popularity with the masses.

Politico admits Carson didn’t lie

Not about West Point, at any rate.

Politico‘s Kyle Cheney admitted that he fabricated a negative story about Ben Carson. At least, according to his own standards, he admitted the grievous journalistic sin.

In a story published early on Friday, Politico’s Kyle Cheney authored a piece headlined “Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship” with a subhed “Carson’s campaign on Friday conceded that a central point in his inspirational personal story did not occur as he previously described.”

There were at least five major problems with the story:

  •  The headline was completely false
  •  The subhed was also completely false
  •  The opening paragraph was false false false
  •  The substance of the piece was missing key exonerating information
  •  The article demonstrated confusion about service academy admissions and benefits

Some of the readers here were upset that I linked to a news piece without doing any due diligence concerning whether it was true or not. To them, I can only suggest that they avoid reading every single post here that contains a link, because I don’t ever do any due diligence on any link.

I am responsible for my own words. I am no more responsible for the words on a linked site than I am responsible for your comments on this one. I had no more reason to doubt that Dr. Carson said something stupid about his past than I have to doubt that he said something stupid about the Egyptian pyramids. Perhaps Politico made that up too. I don’t know because I am not the News Police.

Tom K asks why I would denigrate Dr. Carson:

I’m wishing you could explain why you would denigrate a man who is, as far as I can tell from the fact that the media hasn’t been able to trash his medical credentials, a truly inspiring black man who exercised the discipline necessary to become a fucking brain surgeon and an expert at separating conjoined twins.

Because he wants to be President of the United States of America. I wouldn’t have a word to say against him if he was content to continue being a surgeon or if he took up professional knitting. But I’d rather not see another affirmative-action anti-gun intellectually overmatched individual at the head of the US government in what are all but certain to be unusually interesting times.

Also, unlike many, I do not find inspiration in black individuals who manage to do what white people have already done. I wasn’t impressed by Herman Cain being a chairman of a regional Fed bank either. Fair or not, all accomplishments by black individuals will remain intrinsically dubious so long as affirmative action is a U.S. government policy.

Sometimes the vile hatred spewed out in the things I read on this site, posts and comments, turns my stomach. I don’t understand it. It makes no sense. What the fuck has Ben Carson ever done to hurt you? He’s got ideas you don’t like. Yeah. So? Argue the facts. Point out where he’s wrong. Hatred and contempt should be reserved for those with contemptible motives and evil goals.

Just because it doesn’t make sense to you does not mean it doesn’t make sense. Ben Carson’s motives are contemptible: he wants to rule over us despite being utterly unfit in almost every way. And Ben Carson has evil goals; he is absolutely wrong on both immigration and guns, the only two issues that matter. He absolutely merits contempt. The only reason he’s been treated with kid gloves until now is because he is a) black and b) as this campaign’s Token Black Republican Candidate, no one has been taking him seriously.

Stephen St. Onge doesn’t appear to have paid attention to previous elections:

Lots of you believed this Politico lie because you were pre-disposed to believe something bad about Carson. Which means you have typical human weaknesses. Try to overcome them.

It is admittedly possible that something legitimately disqualifying won’t surface about Carson by the time he ends his campaign. But the history of Token Black Republican Candidates strongly suggests otherwise.

Meanwhile, Phelps demonstrates that he doesn’t know what an SJW is:

Accepting any story from Politico was a serious own-goal. You get a soccer metaphor for acting like a SJW. I hope to see this embarrassment put you back onto your game.

Again, Politico is responsible for their error. Not me. If I were to stop linking to sites I know to have posted erroneous original material, I would not be able to link anywhere except Castalia House and iSteve. Phelps should give up the retarded rhetoric; also, he is fat. Sorry, no offense, but it’s true.

Meanwhile, for those who are seeking a more substantive reason to hold Ben Carson in contempt, the Token Black Republican Candidate helpfully provided it yesterday. Although perhaps I should not post this, given what I already know about the Wall Street Journal’s propensity for falsehoods:

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said Friday that he supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement negotiated by the White House – aligning himself more with the GOP’s establishment wing than with the social conservatives who have powered his campaign.

Your “Get-Out-of-Racism-Free” has now expired

Ben Carson’s scheduled implosion would appear to have begun:

Ben Carson’s campaign on Friday admitted, in a response to an inquiry from POLITICO, that
a central point in his inspirational personal story was fabricated: his
application and acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy at West
Point.

The academy has occupied a central place in Carson’s tale for years.
According to a story told in Carson’s book, “Gifted Hands,” the then-17
year old was introduced in 1969 to Gen. William Westmoreland, who had
just ended his command of U.S. forces in Vietnam, and the two dined
together. That meeting, according to Carson’s telling, was followed by a
“full scholarship” to the military academy.

West Point, however, has no record of Carson applying, much less being extended admission.

This concludes this electoral campaign’s scheduled “crazy no-hoper black Republican who rides cuckservative fear of being called racist to glory” ride. Please return your electoral support to the prescribed GOP-designated candidate.

I’m looking forward to hearing that Carson isn’t a surgeon at all, but is actually a janitor at Mercy Medical in Baltimore.