Human nature, liberty, and who “deserves” what

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “DNW” writes, in a fairly lengthy comment:

You say that at some period or periods during your life, those in your circle have accused you of ” arguing like a lawyer” and being guilty of the acts of reasoning and logical analysis. This is if I understood you correctly, nothing new and very mich predated even your law degree. It was many of those you knew from day to day living who maintained this.

You have mentioned that 30 years ago in grad school, alarmed, you pointed out the dire consequences for the rule of law and constitutional governance for a particular trajectory upon with your masters of social work associates ( I think it was) had set. And that they heard you out with an air of polite if not sublime indifference not even bothering to respond or rebut.

You have mentioned that in your grammar school days children were drilled in civics and on the importance of Liberty and personal civic responsibility and that heritage of rights which were theirs to keep or lose; but that they got none of that, so you believed, at home. And after all, “Who did normally, or should?” was the standard operating assumption.

Your progressive minded grandmother friends, you say, are mentally occupied for the most part with doting on their grandkids and enjoying themselves; without ever really thinking too deeply about where their choices at the ballot box are driving us all; trusting to the same class affirming news sources they have always defaulted to, along with their feelings.

So, what are the personal responsibilities in a constitutional polity constructed to ensure a regime of Liberty and personal freedom, of such people? Are they meeting them?

In what sense are they deserving of receiving the benefits of such a life lived in a clearing they expend no effort whatsoever in perptuating?

Are they even ” constitutionally” ( no pun intended) fitted by nature for such a life? In what sense do they deserve the freedoms they are so indifferent to maintaining?

Frankly, I don’t think they do much value freedom for themselves if they have comfort and emotional tickles in compensation, nor do they like it much when others have it.

1. What are the personal responsibilities of these individuals insofar as it comes to being informed and thinking critically …whether they are spoon fed it or not.

2. Is it possible that they are not really fit to be free and don’t want to be, as Sarah Conley suggests?

I think you can see the answer for yourself in the words that loom largest in their minds: ” inclusivity”, “acceptance”, ” affirmation”, “community”, “feelings”.

If I was in error in describing them as effen peasants to the core, as basically clever grazing animals, concerned only with the languid enjoyment of their bodily functions and with not a higher consideration in their heads as Aristotle had asserted, I don’t think I could be shown to be in error by much.

I was planning on responding in a comment, but then I thought it might be a good idea to highlight my answer as a post.

First, I’ll get the simplest point out of the way: people who angrily accuse me of arguing “like a lawyer” are not usually referring to political discussions. They often are engaged in a more personal exchange with me, and are trying to defend themselves. I think most people – even logical ones, no matter what side of the political spectrum they may be on – get flustered if and when they’re emotionally involved in an argument, and are especially annoyed if the other person seems to more easily marshal counter-arguments.

The rest of DNW’s comment seems to me to completely ignore the basics of human nature, and to set up a meritocracy of freedom (perhaps “liberty” would be a better word, however) instead of a natural rights belief that all are entitled to it as their birthright. Obviously, freedom must be taught and defended – at least it’s obvious to me, although I seem to recall that DNW (at least, I think it was DNW; I don’t have time to go back and check and so I apologize if it was actually someone else) felt that it was somehow innate in certain people and not only should not have to be taught but could not be taught.

I disagreed then, and I disagree now. Yes, there are people who appear to just naturally (seemingly naturally, anyway) value liberty much more than others. Those people are not necessarily either peasants or aristocrats, and so I have no idea why DNW would consider them peasants, except as some sort of metaphor (a bad one, IMHO). And I find offensive any characterization of human beings as grazing animals – “clever” or not.

The people DNW are describing don’t share his – and my – fascination with politics. What’s more, they don’t read the same sources as DNW and I, and so what interest they have is skewed to the MSM “narrative” which is incomplete at best and deceptive propaganda at worst. That is the fault of the MSM, a group of people I consider far more guilty than any human being (not grazing animal) living his or her life and trying to be loving and responsible while getting a certain amount of joy out of existence.

I would be highly wary of anyone – and that most definitely includes DNW – who sets him or herself up as the arbiter of who “deserves” freedom or liberty and who does not. Talk about elitism! However, it is indeed the case that if enough people in a society do not value liberty, then liberty probably won’t last long in such a society. That is the situation in which we seem to find ourselves, but part of the reason we are here is that people who do value liberty were not aware enough of the leftist march through the institutions to stop it in time, before it had infected such an enormous number of people and such a huge part of our culture.

When I speak of human nature, I am thinking (once again) of Dostoevsky’s “Grand Inquisitor.” Here’s a previous post in which I quoted it at length. The Inquisitor believes that the vast majority of people will willingly give up freedom for security. He uses the metaphor of daily bread, but it can mean any sort of security, such as the hope that the government can protect us from a pandemic, for example. Some people are indeed willing to lay their freedom aside for something like security, but in my opinion most of the people DNW is so incensed at here do not believe they are giving up their freedom in any substantial way. In fact, due to the MSM and other propaganda, they strongly believe it is the right that wishes to take away their freedom.

Lastly, the idea that these people are only “clever grazing animals, concerned only with the languid enjoyment of their bodily functions and with not a higher consideration in their heads” is profoundly mistaken and profoundly narrow-minded. Lack of intense interest in politics, and lack of understanding of what the left is doing, absolutely does not preclude “higher considerations.” Some of these people are religious, many are good spouses and parents, some volunteer to help others, some are into various arts and other pursuits of that nature, and they ponder the meaning of life and all that other non-grazing-animal stuff.

I’m not in the habit of judging people’s lives that way. I figure that’s not my job. My job is to try to live a good life myself, and a responsible one.

[NOTE: I have no idea why DNW wrote that I believed this:

You have mentioned that in your grammar school days children were drilled in civics and on the importance of Liberty and personal civic responsibility and that heritage of rights which were theirs to keep or lose; but that they got none of that, so you believed, at home.

I certainly said we were taught those things in school, but never did I say many of us were not taught those things at home also.

In addition, I’ll add that the people who failed to answer or rebut what I said back when I was in grad school were in an undergrad class with me and members of a much younger generation than I. I was in my forties and they were college-age at the time, between 18 and 21 I’d estimate. So I have no idea what they were taught about liberty when they were growing up.]

“Dr. Sanity” has written a book

The New Neo Posted on by

I bet a lot of you remember blogger Pat Santy, otherwise known as Dr. Sanity. She was a member of the Sanity Squad, back when we did podcasts for PJ Media long, long ago.

Even though Pat hasn’t been blogging for many years (she stopped right after Obama’s re-election in 2012), I’ve kept in touch with her and she’s doing fine and has been busy. Plus, she hasn’t given up writing and I’m pleased to report that she’s written a book.

You may remember that Pat is a woman of great accomplishment – doctor, psychiatrist, jet pilot, NASA member including being the flight doctor for the ill-fated Challenger launch, blogger, and now lay Dominican in a healing prayer ministry. And I probably left something out there; her life has been very full.

Dr. Santy’s book is entitled Prodigal Daughter: A Journey with Mary. It’s a memoir that includes the earlier days of her life plus the more recent re-awakening of her Catholic faith. I haven’t read it yet, but knowing Pat, I would bet it’s fascinating.

I hope to read the book in the not-too-distant future, and will report back on that, but I feel confident recommending it to you even without reading it. Pat’s one of the most interesting people I know, and she’s a good writer, too – as those of you familiar with her blog probably already know.

Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) Merkel’s party has suffered defeat in the German elections, and parties that are more leftist than hers have scored some gains. No party has won enough votes to be able to do anything other than form a coalition government with other parties, however.

I’m wondering – if, as I’ve read, a big factor in Merkel’s downfall was her leftism on illegal immigration, then why has the left gained in strength as a result? Is it that there are no other good ways in Germany to express dissatisfaction with the somewhat-less-left (Merkel and company) than to go even further left?

(2) DHS Secretary Mayorkas admits that most of the Haitians who’ve entered this country illegally in recent weeks have been stealthily released into various communities. He says it’s all under control, though, because they’ve been ordered to appear in court. And maybe some will even do so.

(3) Governor Abbot of Texas says the Biden administration is in dereliction of duty, and promises to hire back any border agents the administration fires for doing their jobs.

(4)AOC has issued a supposed explanation for her “present” vote on Iron Dome, but it’s more of a riff on her crying to mark the occasion:

Yes, I wept. I wept at the complete lack of care for the human beings that are impacted by these decisions, I wept at an institution choosing a path of maximum volatility and minimum consideration for its own political convenience.”…

She continued: “And I wept at the complete lack of regard I often feel our party has to its most vulnerable and endangered members and communities – because the death threats and dangerous vitriol we’d inevitably receive by rushing such a sensitive, charged, and under-considered vote weren’t worth delaying it for even a few hours to help us do the work necessary to open a conversation of understanding.

“To those I have disappointed – I am deeply sorry. To those who believe this reasoning is insufficient or cowardice – I understand.”

This may seem bizarre to you as well as devoid of logic, but I’m pretty sure it is carefully crafted to appeal to her supporters, who value emotion above all and virtue-signaling through the demonstration of emotion. Sympathy for the downtrodden – defined by the left as the Palestinians in any Israel/Palestine issue – is one way to gain virtue. As I said, she doesn’t explain her actual vote – which annoyed those supporters – but she appeals to their feelings.

(5) And somewhat related to #4 directly above we have this gobbledygook from the Biden administration:

In a White House speech promoting his spending plans, Biden said that “the price tag is zero… on the national debt. We’re going to pay for everything we spend. [People say] ‘It started off at six trillion, now it’s 3.5 trillion’… it’s going to be zero.”…

Biden’s allies in the mainstream media are pushing a similar narrative. Appearing on CNN, Washington Post opinion columnist Catherine Rampell argued that “The bill itself will not cost $3.5T in the sense it will be entirely, or at least partly, paid for. So the actual cost, in terms of deficits, will be smaller than that, perhaps zero, although I think that’s unlikely.”

Math is so yesterday. We can change the narrative and it will be fine. What’s more, the administration knows that a lot of people, especially young people, no longer understand math (Biden happens to be one of them, but obviously this isn’t just his doing). So they can spout whatever nonsense they wish, and they also know that for the most part the MSM will back them up.

(6) Young people are terrified about climate change. The left has done its job very well.

The FBI involvement in “the insurrection” and right-wing extremism: the latest is the Proud Boy informant

The New Neo Posted on by

Once again, it should come as no surprise:

The informant’s communications with the FBI [about January 6h and the Proud Boys] show that the group did not have any specific plans once they arrived at the Capitol, but apparently succumbed to a “mob mentality” of the pro-Trump herd of supporters.

Oh, is that what they “succumbed” to? Or was it something urged and facilitated by FBI agents and/or informants?

[The informant’s] federal bureau contact told him to keep communicating and let him know if violence broke out, according to the report.

The revelation that an informant was giving the FBI a blow-by-blow description of the event in real time and that there was no organized planning involved, may derail federal prosecutions already in the works.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, as of Sept. 6, eight months after the incident, more than 600 people have been arrested and charged…

Of the more than 600 charged, 50 have pleaded guilty to “a variety of federal charges” and face jail time, 40 pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges, nine to felonies, and three of those to assault on law enforcement officers which carries a maximum penalty of eight years in prison and a fine of $250,000, according to the agency.

So if the FBI had a real time informant (probably many, actually, as well as real-time participants), why wasn’t the “insurrection” stopped or even prevented in advance? It’s hard to escape the notion that the FBI didn’t want “the insurrection” prevented or stopped. And of course the FBI might even have instigated it, which is the most pernicious possibility of all.

The NY Times has published an article on this – why? The paper usually ignores that which it doesn’t wish its readers to know. When they do publish something that makes a Democrat administration and/or the left look bad, it usually means the news is going to come out anyway – often in some sort of court proceedings – and that the Times is eager to get ahead of the story and frame it in a way that exonerates the government and/or the left as much as possible. I believe that’s the case here.

For example, the article says:

The use of informants always presents law enforcement officials with difficult judgments about the credibility and completeness of the information they provide. In this case, the records obtained by The Times do not directly address whether the informant was in a good position to know about plans developed for Jan. 6 by the leadership of the Proud Boys, why he was cooperating, whether he could have missed indications of a plot or whether he could have deliberately misled the government.

But the records, and information from two people familiar with the matter, suggest that federal law enforcement had a far greater visibility into the assault on the Capitol, even as it was taking place, than was previously known.

In other words, I believe the Times wants to suggest to the readers that (a) informants sometimes are mistaken or lie – and so, for example, in the case of January 6th the Proud Boys might have been planning an insurrection conspiracy without the informant’s knowledge or he could have been hiding that knowledge from the FBI; and (b) perhaps the FBI had visibility into the January 6th events while they were happening, but the agency certainly wasn’t involved in planning or orchestrating those events. Perish the thought!

Here’s some related news:

The report, based on documents seen by reporters, also raises questions about whether FBI Director Chris Wray lied to Congress about the FBI’s lack of foreknowledge of the melee. It also begs the question of why the FBI and other police agencies failed to harden the Capitol in advance.

There were a lot of peaceful protesters there that day. Here’s a man caught on video screaming for the police to call for backup to stop the attack…

Revolver News claims that [another alleged FBI informant] Stewart Rhodes used his position as head of the Oath Keepers to capture others in a conspiracy of his own making and then skated away from any charges.

Oddly, despite the “shock and awe” prosecutions, Rhodes hasn’t been indicted in the Capitol riot case, but, as the publication noted, it was his actions leading up to the Capitol riot for which his underlings have been charged with conspiracy.

“The government has, in effect, built its case against the 16 Oath Keepers in large part by saying “We know you’re guilty of conspiracy because we definitely know your leader Stewart Rhodes is guilty of conspiracy, and it looks like you were following your leader.”

But Stewart Rhodes is not even charged. He is still just “Person One.”

Also related – Howie Carr suggests that the FBI should be abolished. Roger L. Simon has said the very same thing. It’s not going to happen, but it is sadly and outrageously true that the FBI has become a destructive and mendacious force.

Richard Fernandez on China

The New Neo Posted on by

Richard Fernandez has been writing a great many posts about China lately. In fact, his last five were on the subject: here, here, here, here (that one’s indirectly about China, anyway), and here.

One of the essays highlights a quote from John Kerry in the NY Times which goes like this:

“My response to [the Chinese on the subject of energy and climate change] was, ‘Hey look, climate is not ideological. It’s not partisan, it’s not a geostrategic weapon or tool, and it’s certainly not day-to-day politics. It’s a global, not bilateral, challenge,’” he said on a call with reporters. …

“Needless to say, adding some 200-plus gigawatts of coal over the last five years, and now another 200 or so coming online in the planning stage, if it went to fruition would actually undo the ability of the rest of the world to achieve a limit of 1.5 degrees,” he said, adding, “The stakes are very high.”

Not only do the Chinese respond by essentially saying, “Hey, little guy, what are you going to do about it?”, but Kerry’s assertion is absurd on its face. I suppose you could change it to read, “The issue of climate change should not be ideological. Neither should it be partisan, nor a geostrategic weapon or tool, nor day-to-day politics. It’s a global, not bilateral, issue and a possible global, not bilateral, challenge.”

Not that China cares one hoot. And Kerry is also lying through his teeth because climate change long ago became exactly what he says it is not.

Fernandez’s most recent post on China is the one in the group that is of the greatest interest to me. In it he writes:

But the ultimate blow to Biden’s Global World has been to its economic underpinnings. China had been going broke gradually, then all of a sudden. “The roots of the crisis date to [Chinese] tax reforms in 1994 which bolstered central government coffers but left local governments reliant on land financing for revenue.” By China’s own reckoning, the country’s vaunted economic growth rested on three huge bubbles that, once exploded, could threaten the Party’s own legitimacy. “This year, Xi has set out to reform the ‘three huge mountains’ of housing, education and healthcare to rein in soaring costs for city dwellers as a way to shore up legitimacy as the ‘people’s leader’, analysts said.”

The Communist Party encouraged the bubbles in order to tax them. But now, with the stream of new business finally exhausted and the entire edifice threatening to collapse like a house of cards, Chairman Xi has suddenly rediscovered Maoism…

Like Indiana Jones, Xi is pursued by three giant rocks and hopes to reach the socialist bunker leaving Western markets to take the brunt of the impact…

The dissolution of the landscape means the Biden administration isn’t plagued by any one malady anymore but by multiple organ failure. The Guardian writes, “Is Joe Biden failing? Less than nine months into his presidency, rising numbers of Americans and not a few foreign allies appear to think so…

At the heart of the Biden collapse is one major factor: Joe had counted on presiding over a world that no longer exists. He is king, but the king of vanishing empire. The situation can no longer be salvaged by tinkering, but only through a radical paradigm shift that the aged occupant of the White House is neither prepared nor able to undertake.

Fernandez is a very smart guy, and I would always pay attention to what he’s saying. I’m no China expert, but what he writes about that country makes sense to me.

However, I’m puzzled by some things Fernandez seems to be saying about Biden in that essay. One is that he doesn’t emphasize what I think are the two most important elements in Biden’s decline in popularity: the growing perception among US voters that Biden’s mental deficits are huge, and their judgment that Biden (or Biden’s administration) has been responsible for the debacle that was the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Another thing that puzzles me is that Fernandez seems to think – or at least he writes as though he thinks – that Biden is the one who is mainly in charge here and pulling his own strings. I’ve stated several times that I don’t think Biden is as far gone as a lot of people believe, but I do see him as very cognitively challenged and I see his policies as a combination of fairly vague ideas of Biden’s plus a lot of input from “advisors” who are mainly holdovers from the Obama administration (plus some unknown others).

I’m not sure how much credit Fernandez is giving Biden when he writes that Biden “had counted on presiding over a world that no longer exists.” My sense of Biden is that his evaluation of China was as an entity that could be played for money and favors, if not for himself then certainly for his family members such as Hunter. I think that really was as far as it ever went for Biden, who never struck me as especially involved with geopolitical strategies of any sophistication or depth.

And now I think Biden is running on habit as far as his own input into things goes, and although I think he has some input I don’t think it’s very great.

As Fernandez makes clear, these are extremely challenging times, and Biden is not up to handling them. But neither would any Democrat be, in my opinion – and precious few Republicans, as well.

It is said that Otto Von Bismarck stated, “There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America.” Let’s hope so.

Two versions of Robin Gibb’s “I Am the World” separated by over 40 years – plus Glenn Gould

The New Neo Posted on by

The Bee Gees began singing and writing songs when they were little children, and they turned pro before they were even teenagers, supporting their entire family of seven. They became sensations while still in their late teens, but they had to move back to England from their adopted Australia to do that.

Right around the time they left Australia for England they had their first huge hit in Australia and New Zealand, “Spicks and Specks,” released in 1966. Follow the link for a humorous video they made at the time, around ages 16 for the twins and 19 for Barry.

The B side of the single was the song “I Am the World.” It’s not one of my absolute favorites of the Bee Gees, but I do like it considerably.

“I Am the World” was recorded when Robin Gibb was 16. He wrote it himself, around then or some time before that. Although most Bee Gees songs were written by all three together, there were quite a few written by each of them alone, and this is one of the first songs Robin ever wrote solo. Perhaps it’s even the very first, which could account for its holding a special enough place in his heart for him to rerecord it much later.

Here’s his version at 16:

And here is Robin’s rerecording in 2008 at the age of fifty-eight, just four years before he died (the album on which it appears was released posthumously). I don’t know whether he was already ill when he made this recording, but I think he may have been, because photos from the time show him to be extremely thin. At any rate, he was certainly never the same after his twin Maurice died suddenly of a heart attack in 2003, and that is also when the Bee Gees ended as a group because of the death and the importance of Maurice (Mo) to their unique sound.

This second arrangement is somewhat different from the first one, and he seems to have taken the key down a notch. In Robin’s voice the ensuing years of experience, love, and loss can be heard; this is no longer an exuberant 16-year-old singing.

I am quite fascinated with the changes in people’s singing as they age. The voices themselves sometimes degenerate at least somewhat in quality (although I don’t hear much of that decline here with Robin, except for his taking it down to a slightly lower register). But they often gain so much in depth that the later versions bring tears to the eyes when the first versions don’t.

Each has its pluses and I’m not sure which one I prefer in this case. I like the soaring high notes of the younger version, but the rich complexity of the bittersweet feeling in his voice in the second is more touching.

The contrast is more touching still.

It reminds me somewhat of the two versions Glenn Gould made of “The Goldberg Variations” by Bach. That may seem an odd comparison to you, but not to me. The “voice” of his piano was quite different when Gould was an energetic and eager wunderkind at the start of his career, compared to when he reflected back at fifty, bringing to his later rendition a wealth of experience not long before he died. I prefer Gould’s later version, although in a few sections I think it verges on being too slow.

Here they are:

Notice that you can sometimes hear Gould singing along very softly. He didn’t want to do it, but he said it just happened. I once read that Gould’s mother, who was his earliest piano teacher, was also a singer, although I can’t find anything on that at the moment. I did find this:

[Gould] often hummed or sang while he played, and his audio engineers were not always successful in excluding his voice from recordings. Gould claimed that his singing was unconscious and increased in proportion to his inability to produce his intended interpretation from a given piano. It is likely that this habit originated in his having been taught by his mother to “sing everything that he played”, as his biographer Kevin Bazzana puts it. This became “an unbreakable (and notorious) habit”. Some of Gould’s recordings were severely criticised because of this background “vocalising”. For example, a reviewer of his 1981 re-recording of the Goldberg Variations opined that many listeners would “find the groans and croons intolerable”.

I find them fascinating, an attempt by Gould to get even closer to the music and to somehow become it. Isn’t that what singing is?

Report on Maricopa County 2020 election audit

The New Neo Posted on by

Once an election occurs, if mail-in voting fraud occurs it is extremely difficult to catch it and there is virtually no way to prove that it materially affected the outcome. That’s why fraud must be prevented, because it cannot be corrected or even definitely discovered after the fact except in very limited ways in very limited cases (mostly incorrect tallying of regular votes, or smoking gun discoveries in which someone is caught in the act in a way that cannot be disputed).

Those who would perpetrate voting fraud know this. And vote-by-mail – which is severely limited in most sane countries – is one of the very best ways to perpetrate fraud unless very stringent safeguards are in place. Which fraudsters also know.

Which brings us to reports on the results of the forensic audit of the 2020 vote in Maricopa County, Arizona (not the official reports, but rather a leaked copy):

The media is already spinning the findings of the audit.

“The partisan review of Maricopa County’s 2.1 million ballots cast in the 2020 election found a vote count nearly identical to what the county had previously reported,” CNN reported. Like other liberal outlets, CNN focused on the results of the hand-recount part of the audit. As we know, hand recounts may account for slight discrepancies in counting but do not address irregularities or potentially illegally cast ballots.

Yes, we know that, and what’s more, CNN knows it. This audit was not primarily about a recount, which is a great deal easier to do and would never uncover the type of fraud alleged in 2020.

More:

So, let’s look into what the audit actually says…

“On the positive side there were no substantial differences between the hand count of the ballots provided and the official canvass results for the County….

“However, while it is encouraging for voters, it does not allay all of the concerns:

None of the various systems related to elections had numbers that would balance and agree with each other. In some cases, these differences were significant.
There appears to be many ballots cast from individuals who had moved prior to the election.
Files were missing from the Election Management System (EMS) Server.
Ballot images on the EMS were corrupt or missing.
Logs appeared to be intentionally rolled over, and all the data in the database related to the 2020 General Election had been fully cleared.
On the ballot side, batches were not always clearly delineated, duplicated ballots were missing the required serial numbers, originals were duplicated more than once, and the Auditors were never provided Chain?of?Custody documentation for the ballots for the time?period prior to the ballot’s movement into the Auditors’ care. This all increased the complexity and difficulty in properly auditing the results; and added ambiguity into the final conclusions.”

In other words, a lot of “garbage in, garbage out.” And there’s not a thing we can do about it, short of attempting to prevent a recurrence – attempts which the Democrats will aim to block at every turn.

More:

“By the County withholding subpoena items, their unwillingness to answer questions as is normal between auditor and auditee, and in some cases actively interfering with audit research, the County prevented a complete audit,” the summary explains. “This did not stop the primary goal of offering recommendations for legislative reform to the Arizona Senate, but it did leave many questions open as to the way and manner that the 2020 General Election was conducted. As a result, while many areas of concern were specifically identified, our full audit results validating the 2020 General Election are necessarily inconclusive.”

And that was the goal of the County’s withholding. But even if the County had been fully cooperative, I don’t think the question of whether Biden really won could ever have been answered, because we have no way of knowing who the fraudulent, extra, or missing votes were for. The system blocks that ability, due to the secret ballot.

I have described in earlier posts how other countries deal with the issue. Most simply block absentee or mail-in ballots unless there is a very well-documented reason, and therefore the number of them is much much smaller. Certain countries who do have significant mail-in ballots save all the paperwork in safes or other protective ways, and have the ability after the election, if there is a big dispute and the court orders it, to unlock and match the actual ballots to the envelopes in which they came and the documentation of who sent in that particular ballot. Therefore the country retains the ability to do an actual audit that would discover whether fraud existed and also whether it materially affected the results.

Biden’s margin of victory in Arizona was 10,457. Here is a chart of the numbers in the audit:

The auditors have made recommendations to prevent such discrepancies in the future. Whether they will be adopted or not is anyone’s guess.

Sharia law returns to Afghanistan

The New Neo Posted on by

Entirely predictable, including the new secrecy part:

As for their laws and punishments which Turabi insists are not to be criticized, he said that “cutting off of hands is very necessary for security,” but that the new Taliban government hadn’t yet decided whether to carry out the punishments in public as they have in the past but pledged they will “develop a policy” to handle brutal punishments for actions they deem to be crimes. If that’s what the Taliban is admitting publicly, there’s surely worse happening that’s so far gone unpublicized.

The Taliban have learned a bit about PR from their last stint in power and then their years in exile. They will keep their brutality more secret this time, but they will continue to be brutal. They have learned how to keep the West at bay – and indeed, it’s easier to do so than before, because the West is far more tired and feeble and has lost the courage of its own former convictions.

The Biden administration has insisted that it’s up to the Taliban to choose how they want to lead and have called on their new government to [be] inclusive and tolerant…

Laughable and delusional on the part of the Biden administration – although I don’t really think they believe for a moment that it would be possible.

They shoot horses, don’t they?

The New Neo Posted on by

With a camera, taking photos at the border.

And those photos got the horses fired because, as Jim Treacher writes, “The Biden administration cares more about how things look than how things are.”

Actually, they don’t care about either, but since things actually are getting pretty wretched under their administration, they don’t want to talk about or confront that but rather to ignore, dodge, or lie about it. They also know that they sometimes find images, incidents, or false reports that they can exploit for propaganda purposes, and that their supporters love and value that sort of thing. So that’s why they do it.

At this point, Whipgate has apparently morphed into Horsegate, because it has been definitively proven that there were no whips being wielded by men on horseback on Haitians at the border. But there were men on horseback and there were others on foot, and something about the horses seems to have got people’s goat and has been used to conjure up images of slavery. I’m not sure why – my picture of Southern slavery in the US conjures up many images, but horses don’t figure prominently in them at all, except perhaps in front of a plow. I’m also not sure how many people, even on the left, actually are buying this particular hype, but my guess is quite a few.

Treacher continues:

It’s about time the Biden administration did something about the biggest threat in America today: horses. First our hospitals filled up with people OD’ing on horse paste, and now those damn horses are killing black people at the border or whatever. Just say neigh! #BanHorses #JustSayNeigh

Biden murdered seven children in Afghanistan with a drone strike, and nobody was fired. Some cowboys enforced the border on horseback, as they’ve been doing for 100 years, and Biden fired the horses.

Here’s a quote from Psaki [emphasis mine]:

“So what he has asked all of us to convey clearly, to people who are understandably have questions, are passionate, are concerned, as we are about the images that we have seen, is 1, we feel those images are horrible and horrific, there is an investigation the president certainly supports, overseen by the Department of Homeland Security, which he has conveyed will happen quickly. I can also convey to you that the secretary also conveyed to civil rights leaders earlier this morning that we would no longer be using horses in Del Rio. So that is something, a policy change that has been made in response.

There are many things I could say about that quote – including the fact that we never get to a number 2, and that Psaki’s use of the word “conveyed” (over and over) is a somewhat odd construction. But the important part is what I have highlighted, which is the admission that it’s the images that have so offended, and caused the horses to be put out to pasture, and that this administration apparently considers these images horrible and horrific.

That is profoundly unserious and strangely hysterical. Just what is horrible or horrific about these images? Is it the horses themselves, which are doing nothing bad to anyone except perhaps acting as a kind of intimidation? Is it the fact that some men are riding them while others are on foot, setting up a sort of hierarchy? But after all, these are border police, and they are trying to police the border. Is it the fact that the men on foot happen to be Haitians and the ones on horseback (whom I can’t see all that well in terms of race or ethnicity) are assumed to be white (many border officers are Hispanic, but we’ll leave that issue aside for now)?

Or is it the fact that we have a border at all and are trying to enforce it against people who are trying to get into this country illegally? Is that just too awful for words? Not to me. There are some sad human stories there, no doubt, but we have a legal immigration policy and people should abide by it. If American voters wish to change it and allow more legal immigrants in, then by all means vote for representatives who pledge to do that. Until then, the border needs enforcement, and in certain types of terrain horses have long been used as an aid to doing this.

As Treacher also points out, there are far more horrible and horrific things this administration has done, but Psaki et al would prefer not to mention them at all and want us to forget them.