…about the bubblegum pig and why telling lies is not a good idea.
She also explains what it’s like to be a person born to write fiction, which reminds me once again of one reason I wasn’t all that good at it. The people in my head were always real.
…about the bubblegum pig and why telling lies is not a good idea.
She also explains what it’s like to be a person born to write fiction, which reminds me once again of one reason I wasn’t all that good at it. The people in my head were always real.
You can see a lot of commentary on the question of who won the first debate. I’m not going to even try to chime in my answer, and not just because I didn’t watch it. It’s because I not only don’t know, it’s because I think no one knows.
I’ve noticed that commentary is all over the place in terms of the answer and in terms of the reasons for giving whatever the answer might be. The left is fairly unanimous in saying Biden won and Trump lost and is a boorish idiot as well. But the left always says that. It’s the right that’s interesting, and it doesn’t fall into neat pro-Trump vs. NeverTrumper lines. It’s the pro-Trump camp that is split.
I also think the answer depends on the audience to whom each candidate was appealing. Was Trump merely trying to “solidify his base,” and did the debate help him achieve that goal because he came off as a feisty aggressive fighter? But I thought Trump’s base was already quite well solidified, and they already know he’s a feisty aggressive fighter. I thought it was the people on the fence he had to woo – if there are any.
Maybe he doesn’t think such people exist, and so no use trying to appeal to them. Maybe he wanted Biden to alienate some of his base, which may be softer than Trump’s. Maybe that happened, for example when Biden disavowed his support of the Green New Deal.
Some people say the fact that Democrats are now trying to say there should be no more debates between Biden and Trump is evidence that Democrats feel Biden lost this debate, and don’t want to expose Biden further. But although that’s possible, that’s not my interpretation. My first thought on hearing their demand was that they think Biden did pretty well in proving he could function in a debate for 90 minutes, and that was their goal all along, so they think it would be wise to quit while they’re ahead.
2016 was a very strange and difficult-to-predict presidential election. I think the same is true, but double, for 2020.
…threatens to sue Joe Biden for defamation.
As well he should.
Have you noticed how Democrats seem to love unjustly smearing white teenaged boys these days? Just ask Nick Sandmann.
The thing that makes me most angry about this phenomenon is that half the country or more probably believes these defamatory lies, and the MSM pushes the lies as well.
Fairly succinct and very clear:
I had trouble sleeping last night. My mind kept turning over the debate – a debate I didn’t watch, but read enough about to know I was right to not watch it. And even unwatched, it disturbed my sleep.
That’s not just because Trump apparently didn’t do well – although I’m not even sure anyone knows how it went over with the voters who still are undecided (if any exist). I’m talking about the whole debate debacle, and more.
By “debacle” I mean the decline in the level of public discourse. And by that, I don’t just mean name-calling or even primarily name-calling (or even things like this from a Stanford law professor). I mean “all of the above” – the extreme bias of the MSM, the lies that are not challenged, the outrages that go unpunished and are even sometimes rewarded (example: Russiagate), and a decline I see in our general culture and society.
Yes, I’m an old curmudgeon. But that’s what I see.
It used to be that presidential candidates had dignified public personae. It was pretty much required. Whatever those people were like in private (and now we know that some were notoriously ill-behaved in private, for example LBJ), they knew that in public they had to meet certain standards or the public would reject them. I put that last bit in italics because I think it’s the most important reason candidates reined themselves in, at least when in the public eye, at least in the historic times of which I was a witness in my youth.
I’m not blaming Trump or Biden for that decline. The decline is in society at large, and I think it started in the late 60s. I was in college then, and I remember it well. It was surprisingly sudden. I started out in a world of rules and curfews and dress and behavior requirements, and then they were almost entirely gone by the time I emerged at the other end. It wasn’t just at school, either. Adults who had never uttered an expletive in public were suddenly eff-this and eff-that.
I’m not going to bother to analyze why it happened, certainly not in this rather brief post. But that, plus the change in the role of the MSM which happened at around the same time, is what I think has led us inexorably to where we are today. I chronicled that media turning point in a 2-part post about Walter Cronkite (see this and this). From that first link:
Previously the top brass at CBS, as well as the reporters there, had understood their function to be reporting “the facts, just the facts.” Editorializing was kept strictly separate; at CBS, it was a function of Eric Sevareid, and clearly labeled as such.
The president of CBS news, Dick Salant, was a man of almost fanatical devotion to the principles of non-editorializing journalism, according to Cronkite’s interview. Cronkite said that, till Tet, he “almost wouldn’t let us put an adjective in a sentence” when reporting, he’d been such a stickler for “just the facts.”
But, according to Cronkite, as the Vietnamese War had worn on, and because of the confusion of the American people about the war, reflected in letters to the station, Salant sent Cronkite on a trip to Vietnam with the idea of doing a piece of opinion journalism when he came back, in order to help the American people “understand” what was going on by explicitly editorializing and advising them.
One can speculate long and hard about why Salant decided it was time to make such a drastic change. From Cronkite’s interview, it appears that the brass at CBS was part of the turmoil of the 60s with its “question authority” ethos.
It’s not just that people with Salant’s original attitude were eventually replaced, although they were. It’s that rather suddenly, people like Salant changed their minds on the function of news. And it’s no accident that it happened during the late 60s, along with the rest of what I’ve described.
That is what I think of presidential debates. I have never understood why we hold them or pay attention to them. They are a form of strange theater, having little to nothing to do with the business of being a president, and controlled by the MSM which has way too much power and way too much bias.
I sensed this one was going to be even more so. And apparently it was, as I’ve learned from reading comments here and there and around the blogosphere. A slugfest, loaded with lying and interruptions, with the moderator showing even more bias against Trump than Candy Crowley did against Romney back in 2012.
I have no idea whether this debate will matter or change a single mind. But I think debates have become a low charade, and I no longer can watch them.
Here’s a thread for tonight’s debate. Not sure if I’ll watch or for how long, because (as I’ve said many times) debates make me very, very tense. And of course, tonight’s debate has the potential for extreme tension – as well as extreme entertainment, I suppose, for a person with a lighter attitude than mine.
Feel free to comment here – before, during, and after.
Of all the WalkAway videos I’ve ever seen – and I’ve seen many – I believe that this is the best. Actually, it’s the best video I’ve seen on the process of political change in general.
It’s long, and I originally had planned to only watch a bit of it. But this woman’s story riveted me. She is extraordinarily good at describing the process of indoctrination and then the ever-so-slow flickers of doubt and awakening, and then the quicker change as the evidence piles up, and the resistance to and then acceptance of the change. Naturally, I could identify, and although the details are quite different (the era and her age and life experience), her story is very very close to being my own story, in some basic sense.
I plan to send it to quite a few people.
Like this woman, I originally had no idea my objections to various things I saw were political at all, or had any ideological consistency, or were conservative in nature – no idea that I might be one of them.
And when she describes one of her turning points, she indicates that changing her mind on one thing made her wonder what else she might have been wrong about. That’s what happened to me at some point, as well.
She says she got to where she felt, “I need to think for myself, and I need it like I need oxygen.” That’s it. And I especially appreciated the last seven minutes or so, in which she says it was, “Nothing short of an awakening – I felt like my left-wing brainwashing was falling like a house of cards. All the things that didn’t make sense – and I’d been ignoring that they didn’t make sense – it was like all of a sudden, that stuff was falling away and I didn’t have to believe things that I didn’t believe.”
She mentions certain conservative thinkers on YouTube whom she listened to during this process. For me, though, it was through reading (YouTube didn’t even exist), and the person whose writings resonated for me was Thomas Sowell. “At last,” I thought, “a person who makes sense! I’m home!”
And why does Stanford Law School tolerate her?
It used to be that no professor would air this sort of language or these sorts of thoughts in public. There was some notion of dignity to uphold. Now that’s a laughable, quaint idea.
Here’s what I’m referring to – aimed at Noah Feldman, whom I praised yesterday and called a “profile in courage.” He must have known he would be the target of tremendous vitriol for defending Amy Coney Barrett. But to this degree, and not just from some random Twitter user, but from a Stanford law professor?
Well, if he didn’t expect it, he should have, because this is the way the left rolls these days:
Steve has noted one passage from professor Michele Dauber’s rant — her reference to Feldman as a “worthless shitty white man.” Dauber also claimed that Feldman was unqualified to clerk on the Supreme Court because, while in that job, he sought guidance from fellow clerks Barrett and Jenny Martinez, now the dean of Stanford Law School, on complicated issues before the Court. Dauber translated this to mean:
“I am stupid and get women to do my homework for me. Yet because of my white penis I had a job I apparently admit I did not deserve.”
I wonder whether Dauber believes she deserves her own job. Seriously, that is not the rant of a secure person.
And white of this “white penis” business? By the way, Dauber is white, as far as I can tell. I believe that this is apparently her husband, although I’m not certain. But if he is, he looks rather white as well, and I would assume the same is true of his nether regions.
Dauber isn’t the first to use similar wording in order to insult white males, although there’s usually a lot more alliteration and art to it: “pale penis people” is the phrase I recall, and sure enough, that’s it, as in “Patriarchy of the Pale Penis People.”
We seem to be in a race to the bottom, don’t we?
[Hat tip: commenter “JimNorCal.”]
Reports are that although several days ago the Biden camp had agreed to a Trump request for a pre-debate check to make sure no one was wearing an earpiece, today they rescinded that agreement. Biden’s people were also were demanding a break every thirty minutes during the debate, for a total of two breaks, and the answer is no.
There are a bunch of possibilities here. One is that the report isn’t true, but it comes from the NY Post and Trump has confirmed it and Biden’s group hasn’t denied it, so my guess is that it’s true.
Ace has a theory that this is an attempt to get Trump to cancel the debates. But if it is, in my opinion there’s no way Trump will do that. My own theory is that they originally were prepping Biden and it seemed to them that he was doing okay, but in the last day or so he hasn’t been performing well and they decided an earpiece was needed after all.
It should be standard to check for such things. But apparently it’s not.
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Biden has also gotten the questions in advance, but even that may not be enough to assure a decent showing. Of course, he doesn’t need to do much to outperform expectations, and most of what he says is repetitious and meaningless boilerplate blah blah blah anyway. He could probably do most of it in his sleep.
The Biden camp probably thinks – and perhaps they’re correct – that if Biden can steer clear of some unbelievably huge meltdown during the debate, than it’s all okay. After all, few people are voting for him; most Biden voters simply hate Trump and think he’s some combination of Hitler, Stalin, and a demon.
And the Democrats may also be counting on massive voting fraud to carry them through. On the latter point, we have several recent stories that are depressing: in Minnesota, possibly in Pennsylvania, and in particular in Texas. And those are just the ones that are coming to light. The opportunities are vast, particularly in states that mail ballots to every voter on the registration rolls.
[ADDENDUM: More evidence of the travesty that is mass mail-in voting. Aside from the huge opportunities for fraud, we have sheer and massive incompetence.]
Kendi is molding young minds at Boston University as the recently-appointed head of the Center for Anti-Racist Research. He’s a popular author who’s ridden the anti-racism wave as it has been building over the last few years.
Now he weighs in on multi-racial adoption from third-world countries, in response to Amy Coney Barrett, who apparently has seven children, two of whom are adopted from Haiti:
Some White colonizers "adopted" Black children. They "civilized" these "savage" children in the "superior" ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity. https://t.co/XBE9rRnoqq
— Ibram X. Kendi (@DrIbram) September 26, 2020
Go to the tweet and take a look at the responses. Let’s just say that the readers there don’t think this tweet was Kendi’s finest hour – or anyone’s finest hour.
But I doubt Kendi will miss a step, because his fellow academics probably think such sentiments are insightful and “courageous ” (a word sometimes used to describe his book How to Be an Antiracist). He’s won many writing awards and has been the subject of admiring articles (see this in GQ). Kendi’s thinking is what passes for wisdom in academia and publishing these days.
And then there’s the following: “In 2020, Time magazine named him one of the 100 most influential people in the world.” I don’t think that’s empty hyperbole, either. Right now, Kendi just might be one of the most influential people in the world. The fact that his ideas are toxic probably makes him more influential rather than less.
Kendi is also the author of a picture book for young children called Antiracist Baby.” And no, I am not making this up:
…[It’s] a new 9×9 picture book that empowers parents and children to uproot racism in our society and in ourselves, now with added discussion prompts to help readers recognize and reflect on bias in their daily lives.
Take your first steps with Antiracist Baby! Or rather, follow Antiracist Baby‘s nine easy steps for building a more equitable world.
With bold art and thoughtful yet playful text, Antiracist Baby introduces the youngest readers and the grown-ups in their lives to the concept and power of antiracism. Providing the language necessary to begin critical conversations at the earliest age, Antiracist Baby is the perfect gift for readers of all ages dedicated to forming a just society.
Which brings us full circle. Maybe if white people who are adopting children from Haiti read Antiracist Baby to their children, Kendi will forgive them their colonialist adoption virtue-signaling, which is not the approved sort of virtue-signaling – unlike his book, which is the “perfect gift for readers of all ages dedicated to forming a just society.”
And a lot of people must want that perfect book, because as I wrote this, the book is #1 on Amazon in children’s Values Books, #1 in Children’s Books in the US, #2 in Children’s Prejudice and Racism books, and #133 in Books of all types. So yes, Kendi is a highly influential person, both with the older and the younger set.
Only 5% of the thousands of reviews at Amazon are one-star, with 81% 5-star. But among the one-star reviews you can find this, for example:
This book is probably the worst thing I have ever bought for my kids. Reading some of the positive reviews, I thought this would be great to help facilitate racism discussions with my kids. Wow was I wrong. This book is absolute garbage. The majority of the book doesn’t make sense and it has zero truth within it. I started to read this with my children and had to quickly stop as I realized it’s promoting violence and I do not condone that. The book explicitly states there won’t be a stop to the violence until we stop being silent. Are you kidding me? Why in the world would I promote that, much less tell my children that.
Because you’ll get virtue points for it, that’s why.
As far as I can tell from reading his Wiki page, some interviews, and his website, Kendi doesn’t appear to have much if any third-world experience and no particular Haitian nor adoption expertise. He seems to have been the child of an intact family in Queens and then Virginia (last name: Rogers, a name he later changed), with parents who were a tax accountant and a health care business analyst but who then became Methodist ministers (of Black liberation theology bent). So what qualifies him to speak about people who adopt children from other countries and/or of other races? Well, I found this interview from November of 2019:
For Kendi, the “civilized theology” often espoused in middle-class black churches meets his definition of racism. Civilized theology is the idea that the function of the church is to bring wayward people into the church to save and civilize them. Those wayward people tend to be working-class and poor black people. According to Kendi, the church is saying that behavior-deficiency is causing their plight. “The reason why this is racist is because it suggests that there is something wrong groups of people,” said Kendi, who revealed that he is not a member of any church. “Racism is anytime we perceive the problem as the people instead of addressing the problems of the people,” he asserts.
To further explain his theory, Kendi compared two types of preachers. “There are preachers who fundamentally preach about the problem being structural, racism, and society. They use Jesus and the word to galvanize people to challenge society,” he said. This is what most people know as liberation theology.
Then there are those preachers who focus on the individual. “You have preachers who say the fundamental problem is the laziness of people, or the inability to not be violent,” Kendi said. Further, “Basically, people need to change. The way you change people first is by becoming saved?”
Wow, just wow. So religion is not about the individual, and Christianity is not about the need of the individual to be saved, but it is or should be political in nature. The sinner is not to ever be blamed, and only by changing society can that person be helped or saved. I’m no expert on Christianity, but I don’t think that’s the basis of the faith, nor have I ever heard it as the basis for any faith on earth. It’s the basis for political movements, not religious ones. But of course, everything’s political these days.
That said, I think Kendi takes it even further than replacing the religious with the political. He believes that a church (even a black church) is racist if it tries to tell a black person that “wayward behavior” needs changing. And not only that, but Kendi conflates a black pastor telling a black person to straighten out his/her life with “suggest[ing] that there is something wrong [with] groups of people.” Did you catch that transition from the individual to the group? Kendi makes it, although the pastor didn’t.
What is Kendi suggesting here? That black individuals who make bad choices cannot change until some undefined “systemic” change happens in all of society? That they have no – to use a popular word these days – agency? No responsibility for their actions, and no hope? And does this only apply to “middle-class” black churches? What’s middle-class got to do with it? And what of white people in churches – middle-class or otherwise? Do they have agency? Are they a “group” when a pastor speaks to them as individuals with individual responsibility? Do they have an ability to change as individuals, because of white privilege (of course), that black people lack?
And why is this man considered a person who should be instructing anyone in anything?
[NOTE: I will add that one possible result of his tweet is that any black child, adopted by white parents, who might be reading Kendi’s tweets (such as, for example, teenagers), might react by feeling that he or she was adopted not out of love but in a narcissistic parental desire to deny that parent’s innate racism. Can you imagine the effect on some of those children and their parents, on reading that the great antiracist guru Kendi has spoken thusly?]