Category Archives: Social Commentary

“Unfit To Be President”

Barrack Obama says Donald Trump is. Howie Carr says it takes one to know one:

Brave talk from a guy who thinks there are 57 states, that they speak Austrian in Austria, that they speak Arabic in Afghanistan, who pronounced the state he lived in for three years as “Mass-a-tu-setts,” who pronounced corpsman as “corpseman.” Who thinks the Transcontinental Railroad was “intercontinental.”

He described Eric Holder’s wife, a physician, as a “nationally renowned ohbee-gynee.” He misspelled “Syracus” on his NCAA brackets sheet. He is utterly tongue-tied without a teleprompter. He makes “recess” appointments when the Senate is not in recess.

If he had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin. His grandmother was a typical white person. The Cambridge Police Department acted stupidly.

It never ends with this buffoon. Yesterday, in Singapore, he mangled the name of the country’s founding father. He can’t be bothered acting like an adult. He chews gum in public. Remember how he took selfies of himself with the Danish hottie at Nelson Mandela’s funeral?

The media were all over Trump like white on rice yesterday because he was goofing around with a baby at a rally. But Obama gets a base on balls on absolutely everything. If his middle name weren’t “Hussein,” it would be “Entitlement.”

Indeed.

Dumb Luck

What’s with the post-modern emphasis on it?

As noted, it provides an excuse to redistribute from those who have “won life’s lottery” (as Dick Gephardt once put it), to those less “fortunate,” who then can purchase steaks on food stamps from a hard-working sales clerk who has to get by on hamburger, or worse.

It’s worth noting that there are some fields in which a lot of luck is involved, because the supply of “talent” (such as it is) vastly exceeds demand (e.g., Hollywood). When you see a family of actors (e.g., the Baldwins or Afflecks), it’s because once one of them is in, they then have the connections to bring in the others. And they know it. The guilt they feel knowing that they lucked out while others equally talented didn’t make it probably drives a lot of their “liberal” (which isn’t really; it’s leftist) guilt.

Brexit And Trump

What do they have in common with Rob Ford?

I think this is right. I wish very much that I didn’t think this is right:

…for the people living through it, as with the World Wars, Soviet Famines, Holocaust, it must have felt inconceivable that humans could rise up from it. The collapse of the Roman Empire, Black Death, Spanish Inquisition, Thirty Years War, War of the Roses, English Civil War… it’s a long list. Events of massive destruction from which humanity recovered and move on, often in better shape.
At a local level in time people think things are fine, then things rapidly spiral out of control until they become unstoppable, and we wreak massive destruction on ourselves. For the people living in the midst of this it is hard to see happening and hard to understand. To historians later it all makes sense and we see clearly how one thing led to another. During the Centenary of the Battle of the Somme I was struck that it was a direct outcome of the assassination of an Austrian Arch Duke in Bosnia. I very much doubt anyone at the time thought the killing of a minor European royal would lead to the death of 17 million people.

My point is that this is a cycle. It happens again and again, but as most people only have a 50–100 year historical perspective they don’t see that it’s happening again. As the events that led to the First World War unfolded, there were a few brilliant minds who started to warn that something big was wrong, that the web of treaties across Europe could lead to a war, but they were dismissed as hysterical, mad, or fools, as is always the way, and as people who worry about Putin, Brexit, and Trump are dismissed now.

Then after the War to end all Wars, we went and had another one. Again, for a historian it was quite predictable. Lead people to feel they have lost control of their country and destiny, people look for scapegoats, a charismatic leader captures the popular mood, and singles out that scapegoat. He talks in rhetoric that has no detail, and drums up anger and hatred. Soon the masses start to move as one, without any logic driving their actions, and the whole becomes unstoppable.

That was Hitler, but it was also Mussolini, Stalin, Putin, Mugabe, and so many more. Mugabe is a very good case in point. He whipped up national anger and hatred towards the land owning white minority (who happened to know how to run farms), and seized their land to redistribute to the people, in a great populist move which in the end unravelled the economy and farming industry and left the people in possession of land, but starving. See also the famines created by the Soviet Union, and the one caused by the Chinese Communists last century in which 20–40 million people died. It seems inconceivable that people could create a situation in which tens of millions of people die without reason, but we do it again and again.

But at the time people don’t realise they’re embarking on a route that will lead to a destruction period. They think they’re right, they’re cheered on by jeering angry mobs, their critics are mocked. This cycle, the one we saw for example from the Treaty of Versaille, to the rise of Hitler, to the Second World War, appears to be happening again. But as with before, most people cannot see it because:

1. They are only looking at the present, not the past or future

2. They are only looking immediately around them, not at how events connect globally

3. Most people don’t read, think, challenge, or hear opposing views

Trump is doing this in America.

Yup. Read the whole thing, despite how depressing it is.

It is similar to people who think that the climate is going crazy, because they didn’t live through the 30s, or the 50s. Let alone times farther past.

Hillary

What does she want?

She became a senator from New York as a final tribute from a Democratic electorate to her husband. The man who preceded her in office, the great Daniel Patrick Moynihan, wryly saluted her “Illinois-Arkansas enthusiasm,” Hillary and New York being as much a marriage of convenience as Hillary and Bill. She was a legislative nonentity in the Senate, because she was running for president from the day she was sworn in. (A few of the 2016 Republican contenders know a thing or two about that.) When her moment came, she was outdone in the Democratic primary by an even bigger legislative nonentity in the Senate. It was funny, in a cruel way, and people laughed at her, in a cruel way.

Barack Obama condescended to offer her the scrap of a Cabinet position, which she botched, doing great damage to his administration and the country in the process. She was one of the most inept chief diplomats in memory. Bill Clinton had found a place on the global stage through his close relationship with Tony Blair while Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright minded the shop. George H. W. Bush before him had in a moment of Middle Eastern crisis shown himself to be a true master of the game. Mrs. Clinton’s State Department had the nation, including its Democrats, longing for the steady-handed confidence of the Carter years. She was bad enough that John Kerry was considered an improvement.

When her moment came again, she was put through the wringer by a dopey socialist from Vermont whose young, idealistic partisans — the people people like Mrs. Clinton like to think of themselves as — still don’t want her. They’ll take her over Donald Trump, of course, and they’ll feel a little like the man who hears: “You’re responding reasonably well to the chemo.”

RTWT. It’s cruel, but fair.

[Update a while later]

Link is fixed, sorry.