It’s been a bit of a roller coaster ride today, but starting this afternoon things have been good with my operated eye (knock wood). I’m going to do a bit of computer work now but not too much. At some point I plan to tell the longer story, but not tonight.
Once more, thanks to you all for your prayers and good wishes!
Commenter “Frederick” asked an interesting question:
[Breitbart said] “Politics is downstream from culture.”
Was he right about this? Take CRT for example. How did people who hold CRT views accumulate so much political power when they are such a tiny minority? They didn’t take over the culture, win elections, and THEN impose CRT when everyone agreed with them. Same with some of these other issues like men competing in women’s sports. Only a very tiny minority of the culture has this huge and outsized political influence. How is this happening if it’s like Breitbart said?
I think it is as Breitbart said, except that it depends what is meant by “culture.” I don’t think culture necessarily means majority culture. It can mean culture within a certain institution. For example, take CRT, which began as an academic formulation. Academia is a subgroup that is very atypical, where quite some time ago the left got a large toehold and then kept expanding until it dominated the culture of academia. Once that happened – combined with a technique of threats, which I’ll get to in a minute – it became a powerful group able to impose its will on the others and eager to impose its will on the others, and then to spread outward into society – into the larger culture.
The spread was accomplished through education rather than persuasion of the population as a whole. Once believers in the value of CRT and its corollaries began to dominate education schools, school boards in many localities, and trainings for businesses and government, they could reach a lot of people. The way this was all accomplished was through a simple threat: the threat of calling those who disagreed racists and bigots.
And that’s where the larger culture was important. Beginning some time in the 60s, by my estimation, being called a racist began to be just about the most dreaded epithet in the world, something people would bend over backwards to avoid. Obama used the threat in fairly subtle but nevertheless powerful ways during his campaign (see this). The false charge was used to torpedo the Tea Party movement. It’s used against the GOP as a whole. It’s in the false Charlottesville narrative against Trump, and that narrative is what Biden led with when he began his campaign.
I could go on and on with examples, but I doubt I have to convince you of the power of accusing people of bigotry. And it is that that became an integral part of the culture and of politics: the idea that bigots were everywhere in the US and that America continues to be a highly racist country. Many people and institutions would do almost anything to deflect that charge. It gave the accusers tremendous power over the culture – at least, until now.
The second example Frederick gave – men who identify as trans women competing in women’s sports – is only slightly different, because it rests on the same foundation: the accusation that those who oppose it are bigots.
I believe that there are signs that the left has taken this about as far as they can, and that people have seen the “racist” and “bigot” accusations used so often and in such absurd ways that the epithets have lost some of their power and people are willing to defy those who would label them that way. In turn, I see this change affecting certain political areas – the Virginia governor race, for example, and later the school board elections in San Francisco. Whether this is the start of a trend that will spread I don’t know, but I think it began with another cultural change: race card fatigue on the part of the public.
The cataract was removed successfully, the surgeon seemed satisfied, and now I’m taking it easy. My vision is still funky, but it’s very early yet and the next few days will tell the tale.
Many many thanks for all your good wishes.
I think Joe Biden owes this guy an apology. So does Time magazine.
He’ll never get one from either of them.
This is the sort of thing I’m talking about (dateline 12/9/19):
Former Vice President Joe Biden got into a tense exchange with a man during a campaign stop in Iowa…[T]he man told the 77-year-old candidate he believed him to be too old to become President.
Fancy that. Fancy that. Why, the nerve of that man! But Joe told him:
“Look, the reason I’m running is because I’ve been around a long time and I know more than most people know and I can get things done,” Biden responded.
And I suppose that’s true. Biden has gotten things done, and in record time. They’re just all the wrong things.
Then Biden challenged him to a physical contest, including pushups. But the exchange wasn’t over:
Biden’s comment was part of a larger exchange that also included the man claiming Biden “sent” his son to work in Ukraine, and accusing the former Vice President of “selling access to the President.”
Now, where did this man get that crazy idea? After all, Hunter’s laptop contents hadn’t yet been revealed, then covered up, and then discovered again. But Joe had a ready answer:
Biden responded by calling the man “a damn liar,” adding “no one has ever said that.”
No one. Ever.
More:
President Trump is currently facing a House impeachment inquiry over claims that he withheld aid to Ukraine while pressuring the country to investigate the Bidens.
Ah yes. Trump was impeached for that. Astounding to look back and reflect on it.
This is what the august Time had to say about the accusation:
Although Biden’s son Hunter Biden did hold a position on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, claims about corruption have been debunked.
Utterly and totally debunked. Debunked debunked debunked….
I’ve noticed quite a few recent references to the Gulf of Tonkin incident that occurred during the Vietnam era. The Gulf of Tonkin is treated as though we all know the story: the government lied to get us into a war.
But did you ever wonder why you believe that was a hoax, besides the fact that it’s something “everybody knows” was a hoax? It’s based on the Pentagon Papers, right?
Did you ever read the Pentagon Papers? The actual Pentagon Papers? I discussed that topic long ago (in 2006), but I think it’s time for a repeat of some of it (unfortunately, the first link in the quote is dead):
A fascinating piece on the subject of war coverage by the MSM–both then and now–was written by James Q. Wilson and appeared recently in the Wall Street Journal. Take a look at this, on the Papers:
“Journalist Edward Jay Epstein has shown that in crucial respects, the Times coverage was at odds with what the documents actually said. The lead of the Times story was that in 1964 the Johnson administration reached a consensus to bomb North Vietnam at a time when the president was publicly saying that he would not bomb the north. In fact, the Pentagon papers actually said that, in 1964, the White House had rejected the idea of bombing the north. The Times went on to assert that American forces had deliberately provoked the alleged attacks on its ships in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify a congressional resolution supporting our war efforts. In fact, the Pentagon papers said the opposite: there was no evidence that we had provoked whatever attacks may have occurred.
“In short, a key newspaper said that politicians had manipulated us into a war by means of deception. This claim, wrong as it was, was part of a chain of reporting and editorializing that helped convince upper-middle-class Americans that the government could not be trusted.”
In writing this post, I went back and read a few of the comments to my earlier Vietnam essays. I happened across this one, that deals with the very subject at hand: media coverage of the Pentagon Papers:
“The NYT and WaPo reporters (Neil Sheehan, et al) who provided a highly abridged (paraphrased and quoted) version [of the Pentagon Papers] to the public of that era (’71) distorted the originals in sundry and fundamental ways in order to imply or more directly state that Pres. Johnson and others employed deceptions at critical junctures in the conflict when in fact (as stated in the original document as well as the scaled down version) they did not. A specific example (and a critical one in that era) taken from Michael Lind’s Vietnam: The Necessary War:
“The June 14, ’71 NYT edition of their edited version of the Pentagon Papers indicates Pres. Johnson had virtually concluded his decision to initiate a bombing campaign against the North by Nov. 3, 1964. (If true this would have made Johnson out to be deceitful toward the American public at an early and critical stage in the conflict.) However the Pentagon Papers itself states: “… the President was not ready to approve a program of air strikes against North Vietnam, at least until the available alternatives could be carefully and thoroughly re-examined.” That quote, reflecting November, 1964 circumstances, can be located via a search in this section of the Pentagon Papers.
“This single distortion may not appear to be dramatic in and of itself, but there were other overt and more subtle distortions in the NYT’s and WaPo’s paraphrased versions of this document. In sum they always and consistently distorted the picture in a manner which eroded Pres. Johnson’s (and others) reputation, broadly characterizing him as being willfully deceitful; that general mischaracterization is what proved to be critical at the time rather than any single aspect of the paraphrased report.”
Some of what we think we know, or are even sure we know, are things that are false – or at least have a good chance of being false. It’s pretty easy to ascertain what the Pentagon Papers actually said – just read them. Problem is, they’re long, and most people haven’t read them (and that includes me). Most people base their point of view on the summaries provided by the MSM.
I often complain about how ballet has lost much of its charm and art, sacrificed to ever more spectacular technique and tense gymnastics. The greatest of the olden-day dancers didn’t raise their legs as high, and didn’t perform as many turns, but they were more enjoyable to watch because they transcended the doing of steps and they conveyed the fluidity of dance. The greatest of the newer dancers – most of whom I don’t consider great, but others do – show off their poses and extensions (that’s a term for how high the leg lifts) but tend to ruin the line in the process. Who wants to see a 180-degree split in a tutu? Not me.
I think this video shows some of what I’m talking about. You can see a general decline (in my opinion anyway) from the fluid charm of the elegant Fonteyn and the effervescent Sizova in the first two clips, to a more stop-and-go and slightly static sort of movement (is that an oxymoron?) later in time – although the very last dancer does somewhat better than the ones in-between; and Cynthia Gregory, a dancer from the 70s whom I usually like, is somewhat miscast in this role because of her natural restraint and regalness.
The ballet is “Sleeping Beauty” – not one of my very favorites, but it’s good for illustrating what I’m talking about. The occasion is supposed to be the 16th birthday celebration of Princess Aurora, and this is her first entrance. These dancers aren’t 16, of course, but their art is supposed to aid them in suggesting the innocent and radiant joy and energy of a 16-year-old.
Note particularly what Fonteyn does between minutes 1:42 and 2:17. The steps are simple, but it’s the use of the arms and upper body that is so magical (unfortunately the film quality is blurry). Sizova’s clip starts at 2:41, and you can see her amazingly light and airy jump. Her arms movements are more simple for that same portion I called attention to with Fonteyn, though; you can view Sizova’s version from 3:56 to 4:16:
As I’ve said before, I haven’t posted much specific Russia/Ukraine war coverage – battles, atrocities, troop movements, weapons used – because of a combination of the fog of war and the purposeful fog of propaganda. But the topic keeps coming up, especially in the comments.
It’s with that background that I offer the following video. It’s from the BBC, and relies on British reporters in Ukraine. You and I may disagree with the politics of the BBC, but in this case the video seems quite bona fide as far as I can tell. It does appear to portray some of what the Russians have been doing in certain cities, because it was filmed shortly after the Ukrainian troops retook the town from Russian occupation.
It seems to me that either the Russian troops have been told to be brutal to civilians, or they’re doing it on their own due to poor discipline and generalized rage.
You may have a different opinion of what you see here, but that’s mine.
The policies of the Biden administration have done a lot for Israeli/Arab relations:
A summit was held in Israel over the weekend between Bahrain, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Israel and the United States. The meeting was designed to back the U.S. into a corner. The United States wants to reach a new understanding with Iran, roughly built on the negotiation platform that was abandoned by President Donald Trump in 2018 as insufficient in dealing with the Iranian threat. Israel and the four Arab countries, plus some others, oppose the Biden initiative, and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken was there to persuade them. It did not seem to work. A paper in Dubai headlined that a new Israeli-Arab front had been created. The question has been frequently asked if unity among Arabs and Israel might be reached. The answer seems to be that it’s possible due to fear of Iran and hostility toward American plans for Iran.
That cooperation was something Trump was able to foster and to capitalize on. Biden and company seem to be furthering it despite themselves and against their own intentions.
[NOTE: The rest of the post at the link contains a really interesting and intelligent discussion of the possible outcomes of the Russia-Ukraine war. It’s fairly succinct and well worth reading.]
Like many people “of a certain age,” I have cataracts that have gotten to the point where they impede my vision quite a bit. But unlike a lot of people, I don’t have a simple situation. Probably as a consequence of an iridotomy I had about fifteen years ago (and which I briefly mentioned in this post from 2017), I have significant adhesions in my left eye which make the cataract removal more challenging.
Right now I’m on the west coast, staying with relatives, because the eye surgeon I chose is here. I’m scheduled for the surgery in my left eye this coming Monday. It could go any number of ways, and it’s hard to predict the recovery time because it’s not the ordinary uncomplicated cataract surgery. If things go smoothly it could be quite a quick recovery, or it could take longer even if things do go smoothly otherwise.
So this post is just to let you all know what’s going on. If I have time before Monday, I may schedule a few posts for Monday and maybe Tuesday. Certainly the open posts, anyway. I’ll be planning to give you an update as soon as I can.
My grandfather holds me up, aged 3.
