“Out of Time” – compare and contrast
“Out of Time” was a Rolling Stones song from 1966, and not an especially big hit for them. I had the record it appeared on, “Aftermath,” and I don’t even remember the song. But I came across this cover version by the Bee Gees when they still were Australian teenagers in 1966, and it features Robin Gibb at the age of 16.
It’s an oddity for a number of reasons. One is that the Bee Gees almost never did cover songs, although when they were little kids they did lots of them. I guess this was a transition time for them, from being a kid act in Australia to being a teen act in Australia. It was shortly before they moved to England to get more global exposure.. Another odd thing is their choice of a Stones song, a group they don’t resemble, and one with a sound very unlike that of the Bee Gees – although on a few occasions later on (“Heavy Breathing,” for example) the Bee Gees went to more of a rock sound.
I’m putting it up because I think it’s a good example of the maturity of Robin’s voice at that age, and the remarkable range he had. The person manning or womanning the camera seems to have had a bit of a fascination with Barry’s flowered-pantsed butt, as well, and the go-go dancers are quite the thing, too:
Here are the Stones doing the original:
And this guy had a bigger hit with it than the Stones did. On this recording, apparently Keith Richards and Mick Jagger were singing backup:
The DOJ is not charging the police officer involved in the shooting of Jacob Blake that sparked the Kenosha riots
Another high-profile case that was cynically exploited by the left is revealed to be what those of us who had looked closely into the facts at the time have long known it to be: a case in which the police’s actions were not out of line and not actionable under the law.
People who have forgotten some of the details might be forgiven, because there have been so many of these cases that follow the same sad and sorry pattern: the killing by police of a resistant and violent offender who happens to be black (it happens to white people too, but those cases don’t make the headlines). The rush to judgment of Democrat politicians and presidential candidates, as well as BLM and attorneys such as Ben Crump, is abominable and fans the flames of interracial rage. The riots in Kenosha were the result.
Here’s one of many posts I wrote about the situation, a little over a year ago. In the meantime, local authorities have declined to prosecute, and now the DOJ has done the same. That tells you how incredibly weak the case against the police was, because the present DOJ is not in the habit of caving to the right:
State prosecutors decided not to file charges against Sheskey earlier this year after video showed that Blake, who was wanted on a felony warrant, was armed with a knife.
The U.S. Department of Justice launched its own investigation days after the shooting. The agency announced Friday that a team of prosecutors from its Civil Rights Division and the U.S. attorney’s office in Milwaukee reviewed police reports, witness statements, dispatch logs and videos of the incident, and determined there wasn’t enough evidence to prove Sheskey used excessive force or violated Blake’s federal rights.
“Accordingly, the review of this incident has been closed without a federal prosecution,” the Justice Department said in a news release.
Not enough evidence? Like, no evidence? That of course hasn’t stopped Blake’s family members from saying the officer should have been prosecuted, but I don’t have too much of a beef with that because this is the family and their emotions are heavily involved. It’s the cynical and mendacious leftist race-baiting politicians I have a problem with, a big one.
The Blake shooting and the resultant accusations against police, as well as the riots, have served the left’s purpose. What difference does truth make? How many people are aware of the truth as opposed to the original lie? I would say a minority, and nearly all of them are probably on the right anyway. Most people probably have only a vague memory of the case at this point, but that memory merges into a whole host of similar cases in which the takeaway will be: black men are being hunted down and persecuted, and sometimes shot and killed with no excuse other than racism, by out-of-control police. That’s the narrative the left wants to promote, and they’ve been remarkably successful in that endeavor.
[NOTE: By the way, Blake was not killed, but he’s paralyzed from the waist down and had to have quite a bit of his lower digestive tract removed as well. This is sad, but it’s the direct consequence of his actions.]
McConnell says let’s make a deal
Are you angry about McConnell’s decision not to block the debt ceiling raise vote? A lot of people are. Here’s the latest on it:
Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has informed President Joe Biden that he, along with other Republican senators, will not vote to raise the debt ceiling in December should Democrats face “another avoidable crisis.”
“Last night, Republicans filled the leadership vacuum that has troubled the Senate since January,” McConnell said in a letter to Biden, referencing a vote by the Senate Thursday night, supported by 11 Republicans, to increase to the federal debt ceiling. “I write to inform you that I will not provide such assistance again if your all-Democrat government drifts into another avoidable crisis.”
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., had “three months’ notice to handle one of his most basic governing duties,” McConnell wrote.
“Amazingly, even this proved to be asking too much,” McConnell wrote.
McConnell also targeted Schumer for his “rant” following the vote to raise the debt ceiling.
Those who take the “it’s the Uniparty, and McConnell is one of the worst offenders” position will probably find this move of McConnell’s less than persuasive. My observation, though, is that sometimes McConnell seems like a caver, and sometimes he seems like a wily coyote, and I often have trouble telling the difference except quite a bit ex post facto.
So, will McConnell block this move in December or not? He says he will, but I have no idea whether that will happen.
Republicans say the move helps take pressure off of Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) to change the legislative filibuster and pokes a hole in Democrats’ argument that they don’t have enough time to raise the debt ceiling on their own.
McConnell’s letter is a warning to Democrats, but also gives an early signal to his own members that he won’t give Democrats the same offramp in December. The decision by McConnell this week to open the door to a short-term debt extension earned him an unusually intense level of criticism from the Senate GOP caucus,
Schumer’s angry speech after the GOP had cooperated with the Democrats didn’t appear to sit well with Joe Manchin:
The move angered several GOP senators as well as Manchin. Manchin and GOP Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and GOP Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) were among the senators who spoke to Schumer after the speech, with Thune telling reporters that “I let him have it.”
McConnell appeared to reference Manchin, who could be seen briefly with his hands over his face during Schumer’s speech…
McConnell warned that Schumer’s “childish behavior” had “alienated” GOP senators who helped advance the short-term debt increase and “poisoned the well even further.” They are likely the same GOP senators Schumer would need to lean on to raise the debt ceiling outside of reconciliation later this year.
Some would say this is all failure theater on the part of the GOP. I think the jury is most definitely out on that. But I do think it’s theater, of a carefully orchestrated variety. Comedy, tragedy, or farce, or some elements of all three? Each person is playing a role.
But I have never seen both parties as the same. Yes, they’re both very flawed. Yes, money is a big part of what they’re interested in, and yes, a lot of their behavior is theatrics and posing and tactics. That’s politics and it always will be. But the Democrats are now dedicated to bringing leftist destruction to this country, and the Republicans are not. In fact, I see most of the GOP as wanting to keep that from happening, although some are more sincerely dedicated to that than others.
Open thread 10/9/21
Another semi-obnoxious narrator, but an interesting video:
NYC: gifted and talented no more
New York City will be phasing out its gifted and talented program in the public schools.
I’m surprised it lasted this long.
I am a product of this program (or an earlier but similar program) in the NYC public schools. Without it, I really don’t know what I would have done. Many years ago, back when I was still a Democrat, I was very alarmed when people talked of doing away with such programs (and yes, they were already talking about it back then). My personal experience was that they are absolutely vital and that they are instrumental in keeping the more academically inclined kids from going crazy from boredom, as well as helping them learn in order to go on to achievement later on.
But the programs weren’t in line with racial “equity” – meaning that representation of minority students has not been exactly in line with each group’s percentage in the general population. Too many Asians; not enough black kids. So all the gifted and talented must suffer – including those black children who were rescued by such programs. And believe me, they will suffer.
This is garbage:
Instead, the city will train all its kindergarten teachers — roughly 4,000 educators — to accommodate students who need accelerated learning within their general education classrooms. The city does not yet have an estimate for how much the training will cost, though it is expected to be tens of millions of dollars.
So the plan is for these children to somehow still be identified, and to be given special treatment in regular classes. That will make it harder for teachers, cost more money, not meet the “gifted” children’s needs at all because it won’t be nearly adequate, take away the teacher’s attention from the other kids in the class, and make everyone feel rotten.
The Chauvin third rail
The Minnesota Supreme Court has denied Derek Chauvin the right to a public defender for his appeal. They say he’s not poor enough, or at least has not successfully proven that he’s poor enough, but he sounds pretty poor to me:
The chief justice wrote in the order, citing state law, that a defendant is considered too poor to provide their own lawyer if they, “through any combination of liquid assets and current income,” are not able to finance their own attorney.
The former police officer claimed in an affidavit that he has no earnings other than nominal prison wages he has received, according to The Associated Press. He contended that his debts are larger than his assets.
Chauvin also said he does not currently have legal representation for his appeal.
Note that last sentence. It could be that no one has volunteered yet, pending this decision. Or it could be that no one wants to touch the Chauvin third rail, and so no one will be volunteering and no organization will be willing to foot the bill.
I can’t think of a defendant recently who’s been more demonized than Chauvin (Weinstein’s probably next in line but not even really close, and he has managed to find counsel and had the money to pay for it). In the past in the US, all defendants have been entitled to a lawyer, and even the left used to say that. No more. Now, as in other banana republics (I contend we have already become one or are well on our way to that or worse), lawyers are targeted and afraid. In fact, in the Chauvin case, even witnesses for the defense were threatened and intimidated.
It seems to me that if Chauvin doesn’t get a lawyer for his appeal, this would be a good case for SCOTUS. They may also be too scared to take it, though – and who would handle the appeal process for getting there, anyway?
More on the DOJ’s war against protesting parents – and on fighting back
You’ve got to hand it to the left – they follow a well-thought-out if nefarious plan, and they take the long view. Lately, though, they’ve been accelerating, and that might cause problems for them because the frog that is the American public may be starting to realize that the water is boiling.
Even before January 6th, the left had been preparing the way for the new DOJ to proclaim that domestic terrorists of the right are the greatest threat to the republic. It’s long been a leftist message, just as “Islamophobia” is far worse to them than the myriad hate crimes of anti-Semitism. January 6th was a golden opportunity that may have (and IMHO probably was) aided and abetted by FBI undercover agents in the same way that the Whitmer “kidnapping” case was used right before the November 2020 election to stir up fear against the right. I’ve written many times about the connection between these things, and Glenn Greenwald has done great work summing up the situation (see this, for example).
The next step has been to weaponize the DOJ against parents protesting leftist indoctrination in the schools. Now a nonprofit organization called American First Legal has sent this letter to IG Horowitz. Here are some of the claims in the letter (which is titled “Request for Investigation Regarding Potential Improprieties Related to the October 4, 2021, Attorney General’s Memorandum”):
The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized American parents’ fundamental liberty interest in and Constitutional right to control and direct the education of their own children. On this basis alone, the nationwide protests by parents against public school policies and practices—regarding Critical Race Theory indoctrination; anti-religious and anti-family gender ideology; and/or force online education and mask mandates—are entitled to the most robust federal constitutional protection. Instead, in light of the Attorney General’s Memorandum of October 4, 2021, it appears the Department of Justice is committing the full weight of its federal law enforcement resources to prevent parents from exercising constitutionally-protected rights and privileges, for inappropriate partisan purposes.
We already know that. But the letter adds this:
In early September, Biden Administration stakeholders held discussions regarding avenues for potential federal action against parents with a key Biden Domestic Policy Council official (Jane Doe #1) and White House staff (John Doe #1). Stakeholders also held discussions with senior department officials, including at least one political appointee in the department’s Civil Rights Division (Jane Doe #2). Jane Doe #1, John Doe #1, and others in the White House separately expressed concern regarding the potential partisan political impact of parent mobilization and organization around school issues in the upcoming midterm elections.
• Upon information and belief, at the express direction of or with the express consent of Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2 and other Biden Administration officials developed a plan to use a letter from an outside group (“not the usual suspects”) as pretext for federal action to chill, deter, and discourage parents from exercising their constitutional rights and privileges.
• Upon information and belief, in or about mid-September work began on development of what became the Attorney General’s Memorandum. Concerns expressed by department staff included (1) the absence of federal law enforcement nexus and authority, and (2) the constitutionally protected nature of parent protests. However, Jane Doe #2 made it clear this was a White House priority and a deliverable would be created.
• On or about September 29, citing legal authorities including the Patriot Act, the “National School Boards Association” made public a letter demanding federal action against parents citing authorities including the Patriot Act….
• On October 4, the Attorney General’s Memorandum was made public. The short time frame between the September 29 letter and the Attorney General’s Memorandum suggests that either the entire matter was precoordinated and the September 29 but pretext, or that the normal clearance process and standard order both within the department (including legal sufficiency review by the Office of Legal Counsel, the Civil Rights Division, the Criminal Division, the Office of Legal Policy, and other components), and between the department and the White House Counsel’s Office and the Office of Management and Budget, were bypassed or corrupted.
• On October 5, there was a follow up call involving, inter alia, the White House Counsel’s Office, Jane Doe # 2, and many other Biden Administration political and career officials. The briefing included how to talk about “equity” initiatives, avoid liability for violating discrimination laws, and hide “equity” measures, initiatives, and action from Freedom of Information Act disclosure.
This is very easy to believe, based on what we’ve seen lately in terms of leftist planning and collusion by the government and the coverup of the planning and collusion. Now it also appears that someone in the DOJ and/or the Biden administration isn’t altogether happy with the program. This person (or persons) hasn’t quit, but has decided it might be more helpful to leak.
Will anything come of it? Will there be such an investigation? Will most people even hear about this, or care?
The idea of this initiative against protesting parents is not necessarily to arrest them but to frighten them into submission for fear of arrest, and also to make the gullible portion of the American public believe that such protestors are terrorists (much as they got a lot of people to think the Tea Party was composed of racists, or that Trump supporters were all white supremicists).
But here’s one person who isn’t cowed:
Solas: In the beginning, I was very nervous to go public because I had never had media attention. I had never really wanted it. But I felt like it was necessary because my school was publicly attacking me. And I felt like I had to have a public response to show them that I wasn’t just going to quietly let them walk all over me. …
They wanted to publicly humiliate me. They paid a PR firm to call me a racist in the national media. So they really wanted to ostracize me from my community…
Garland is having multilevel law enforcement meetings as if parents truly are domestic terrorists, like the National School Boards Association said we were. And it’s scary because you’re starting to see how this fits into this broader political narrative where the federal government is really trying to purge ideological opponents…
So [in] this crazy time that we’re living in, I can’t even believe it’s happening, you really learn who’s willing to put their boots on your neck, given the opportunity…
I mean, I posted a tweet that said, “Arrest me.” I mean, I dare you to do something about me going to my school committee meetings and asking questions of the people that I pay to educate my kid. I mean, I dare you, arrest parents. … Fine, go. I mean, do we really want to destroy the country?…
I mean, we have legitimate concerns and now the FBI wants to intimidate us and have a chilling effect on parents who simply want to know what their kids are learning and they want to have a say if what their kids are learning is not appropriate. So, that’s my response.
I know other people are scared—it’s not to dismiss being scared, this is the federal government and they have power over us and we need to take it seriously—but we need to not stick our heads in the sand and the fence. If they’re trying to chill our speech, then we need to talk louder and we need to talk more and we can’t let them chill our speech.
Well, I think parents need to be assured that you’re going to have more support than you think, because it’s like a domino effect. When one parent speaks out, another parent feels like it’s safe for them to speak out. And you just need one person to start that.
The whole interview is worth reading. This is a woman with guts.
Open thread 10/8/21
Victor Davis Hanson…
…on why he left National Review.
It’s really not all that hard to figure out, if you know much about National Review. But because it’s Victor Davis Hanson, it’s still an interesting story.
For example:
I think there were certain people in the Republican movement, or establishment, who felt it is their duty to internally police their own, and that’s kind of a virtue signal to the Left….
I think there’s an image that a lot of Republicans have, both in politics and they sort of represent a sober and judicious way of looking at the world, and we are the adults in the room.
And it’s more about a culture than it is an ideology.
In other words, they have been revealed to be snobs who are very full of themselves and not especially interested in events in the real world and their consequences for the average American.
Jan Morris and Conundrum
The name of Jan Morris came up in yesterdays trans thread. For example, commenter “PA Cat” wrote this:
Jan Morris (born James Morris; served in the British Army in the last years of WWII, and was the journalist who accompanied Edmund Hillary’s 1953 Everest expedition) transitioned as an adult in 1964. He had already married and had five children by the time he became a transwoman. I read Morris’ book Conundrum, in which s/he did not try to explain why s/he transitioned, only stated, “I was three or perhaps four years old when I realized that I had been born into the wrong body, and should really be a girl. I remember the moment well, and it is the earliest memory of my life.” What struck me, however, is the section of the book in which Morris recounts returning from gender reassignment surgery in Morocco in 1972, starting to live openly as a woman, and being shocked to discover how rude and condescending many men are to women. IOW, Morris no longer appeared as a man (army officer, at that) among men, and found that she felt vulnerable in a way that she never had before.
And commenter “Art Deco” responded by quoting that next to last sentence of PA Cat’s about Morris’s shock, and added “Non ci credo” – which means something on the order of “I don’t believe it.”
I had read Morris’ book Conundrum back in 1974 when it came out, and I remember it. Not well, actually, and not in detail, but I remember the impression Morris gave back in the days when trans people were less commonly encountered and someone who had had the surgery was fairly rare. Morris became something of a celebrity because as a man – James Morris – he had already been a fairly well-known writer, and because (as PA Cat describes) he had done some stereotypically masculine things and had looked like a fairly rugged and athletic specimen of manhood. Those characteristics, in addition to the fact that the transition occurred well into adulthood – Morris was happily married and had five children at the time – made for quite a bit of media coverage when James became Jan. The adult transition and the relative ruggedness also meant that as a woman Morris didn’t “read” as especially feminine.
My recollection of Jan Morris (I had previously never heard of James) was that she was an unusually good-natured person. I’d describe her as quite jolly, in a Mrs.Doubtfire-ish sort of way. Her book revealed her to be a good writer – that was no surprise – and her transition story was similar to that of other trans people of the time in one way: it featured a very very early and unshakeable conviction of being a girl rather than a boy.
I did a little searching and discovered that she lived to be 94 and died about a year ago. I also managed to locate a relevant excerpt from her book, and refreshed my memory by reading it. It’s got none of the political message of today and none of the rancor. Morris has what I think is a unique story and a unique sensibility.
Here are some quotes:
I have tried to analyse my own childish emotions to discover what I meant when I declared myself to be a girl.
What was my reasoning? Where was my evidence? But it remains a riddle. So be it.
To me, gender is not physical at all but altogether insubstantial. It is soul, perhaps; it is how one feels, it is light and shade, it is inner music. It is the essentialness of oneself.
Transsexualism is not a sexual mode or preference. It is not an act of sex at all. It is a passionate, lifelong, ineradicable conviction.
At nine, I joined the choir school of Christ Church, Oxford. The school itself was sensible and un-hearty.
Each day, a moment of silence followed the words of the Grace.
Into that hiatus, I inserted silently every night, year after year, an appeal no less heartfelt: ‘And please God let me be a girl. Amen.’
Jan Morris speaks only for herself; her story is her story alone, and she was an unusual person in more ways than the trans part of her. For example, the impression I get from the article is that she was asexual and remained so, although love and the desire for children allowed her to have sex with her wife as a man.
So after her surgery she didn’t seem in any sense at all to have missed what had been removed.
In a passage relevant to the question of how she perceived herself to be treated as a woman, Morris wrote this, and as you read it be aware that even after her surgery Morris really didn’t look very convincing as a woman:
Fortunately, the first society into which I ventured frankly and publicly sex-changed was the profoundly civilised society of Caernarfonshire. My neighbours greeted my moment of metamorphosis with an urbane insouciance.
Some could not restrain a kind of gasp, instantly stifled. Some tactfully said how well I looked that morning. But most simply pretended not to notice.
Elsewhere in the world, the impact was more abrupt.
The very tone of voice in which I was now addressed, the very posture of the person next in the queue, the very feel in the air when I entered a room, constantly emphasised my change of status.
Thrust as I now found myself far more into the company of women, I began to find women’s conversation in general more congenial.
Men treated me more and more as a junior — my lawyer, in an unguarded moment, even called me ‘my child’.
I discovered that, even now, men prefer women to be less informed, less able, less talkative and certainly less self-centred than they are themselves.
The subtle subjection of women was catching up on me.
It was, of course, by no means all unpleasant. If the condescension of men could be infuriating, the courtesies were very welcome. And people are usually far kinder to women.
So Morris saw the reactions of others as a mixed bag, and she was well aware – and seemingly accepting – of the fact that she didn’t look all that much like a person who’d been born female. Her good nature seems to have lasted throughout her long life, although she remained as she titled her book: a conundrum.
[NOTE: Nowadays, trans people can avail themselves of more varied ways of changing their external characteristics, and cosmetic surgery is often part of it. There are trans models, for example, who look like stunning women (albeit like women who are models, hardly typical females in the first place).]
Are we in the grip of a mass psychosis?
A lot of people have said that things have gotten crazy in the last year or two – that we’ve gone through the looking glass, and that it feels surreal. People seem to have become somewhat unhinged by the COVID lockdowns, the isolation, the riots, the election, and the speed of the turn to the left.
The following video advances an interesting set of ideas about what’s been happening. The writers consider it a mass psychosis. But I don’t think the analogy to schizophrenia or any other kind of psychosis is correct, although I do agree with some of the assertions in the video, such as the enormous influence of fear and the drumming up of fear.
Take a look:
Another point made in the video is that although fear is the first step, the type of propaganda we’ve been subjected to includes contradictory reports, confusing information, and even lies. These things are features rather than bugs, because the inducement of confusion is intentional. Illogic cannot be met successfully with logic, and illogic is more effective anyway in preying on fear.
Isolation and the cutting off of normal social interaction is very important as well.
After the fear and confusion are stoked, the leaders offer a way out – but the way out involves the relinquishment of liberty and submission to the control of the leaders.
Towards the end of the video, some ways to combat the propaganda are offered. One is simply to spread the truth as much as possible, although as previously stated, logic has trouble countering emotion that is not logical. Humor and ridicule are other weapons (Eff-Biden, anyone?).
Another suggestion is to create parallel structures that exist morally outside the society. I’m not sure exactly what those would be, unless it means things like home schooling or even the relative autonomy of states within our federal system. The red states don’t exist outside the society, but they are parallel to the blue states. Of course, that’s why the feds want to control the red states ever more tightly, so that they can’t construct these parallel systems