Theresa May resigns
They won’t have Theresa May to kick around anymore:
“I will shortly leave the job that it has been the honor of my life to hold,” she said outside Downing Street, her voice quivering in the morning sunshine. And with that, she’s off — or at least she will be later in the summer, once a new Conservative leader is elected.
That’s quite a touch for CNN—“her voice quivering in the morning sunshine.” I’m sure the last year or so has been rough for May, and her successor will have his work cut out for him. I say “his,” because it probably will be Boris Johnson, who says he will pursue a No Deal Brexit.
More:
Mrs May will stay in office for the next two weeks, allowing her to welcome Donald Trump to the UK on his state visit, and step down as party leader on June 7.
She will then continue as interim PM until a new Tory leader is chosen, and finally leave office in July.
Two-thirds of Brits in a snap poll agree that May was right to step down.
If you don’t know what “No Deal Brexit” signifies, it means leaving the EU without the terms of that leavetaking having been negotiated in advance with the EU, and no agreement about their future relationship. The left predicts dire economic consequences, of course, and at the very least some of this sort of thing may occur
A no deal Brexit could lead to a number of things happening. For example:
Border checks could be re-introduced
Transport and trade between the UK and the EU could be severely affected
Adults may not be able to drive in EU countries without a special driving permit
It could cost more money to use your phone abroad in EU countries
It would mean no transition period
That first one on the list seems to be a perk, not a drawback. The rest seem relatively minor and/or not likely to happen.
Indian election: Modi wins
The current leadership in India, described as “nationalist” (hmmm, there’s a lot of that going around), has been re-elected in a convincing victory:
Early election results indicate a landslide victory for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu Nationalist party.
It looks like the Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and allies will receive around 350 out of 542 seats, well over the 272 majority mark.
India’s grand-old socialist Congress party, which ruled the country for 54 of its 67 years since independence, may pick up around 80 seats, slightly better than its worst ever showing in the 2014 elections. The electoral landscape has mostly wiped out India’s other left-wing and Communist parties, traditionally strong in the eastern and southern states.
Following his election victory five years ago, Modi has pursued social conservative policies at home, investing in rural development, sanitation, and poverty elevation. Apprehensive of China’s growing influences in the region, he sought closer ties with Western allies, building strong personal relationships with President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
So this seems to be part of a worldwide trend.
The following reportage also seems to be a trend:
Modi’s reelection came as a shock to the mainstream media, which have long shown criticism of his supposed “anti-Muslim” agenda.
“India’s minorities fear return of Modi,” CNN claimed. The BBC parroted the sentiment, reporting: “India’s Muslims fear for their future under Narendra Modi.” The UK broadcaster added that with “an increase in hate crimes against Muslims in India in recent years, some fear the world’s largest democracy is becoming dangerously intolerant under the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).”
India has a history of some terribly dark episodes of religious violence—and the Muslim/Hindu portion involved an extraordinary amount of Muslim violence early on, although it’s not been limited to that side. It’s way beyond the scope of this post to describe the history of bloody interactions as well as peaceful co-existence between the two groups in India, but let’s just say that it’s occurred many times and sometimes on a very large scale.
During the Muslim conquests in the Indian subcontinent…Muslim rulers massacred Hindus, Jains and Buddhists while attacking temples and monasteries, while also forcing them to convert including on the battlefield. Most of the great temples in Northern Indian subcontinent were destroyed during the Muslim rule. Will Durant calls the Muslim conquest of India “probably the bloodiest story in history”, consequently between the years 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of the Indian subcontinent decreased from 200 to 125 million.
Skipping ahead to the Indian drive for independence from British rule during the early-to-mid-20th Century, many activists on both the Hindu and the Muslim side were for a unified India. But the divisive forces won, creating the bloodbath resulting from the partition of colonial India into a predominantly Hindu “India” portion and the predominantly Muslim nation of Pakistan:
The partition displaced between 10 and 12 million people along religious lines, creating overwhelming refugee crises in the newly constituted dominions; there was large-scale violence, with estimates of loss of life accompanying or preceding the partition disputed and varying between several hundred thousand and two million.
That’s an enormous simplification of the long and complex history of the interaction between Hindus and Muslims in the area. But suffice to say it often was far worse in the past than it is today, and that conflict between the groups certainly wasn’t invented by Modi and his party.
So, is it true that India’s Muslims (who are still very numerous, although a definite minority) have anything special to fear from the election of Modi? Doing a quick Googling now, I can see just from the headlines that the leftist media is covering the fear angle heavily (“How Narendra Modi Seduced India With Envy and Hate” in the NY Times, for example).
Is the increasing enmity in India for real? It does seem as though something’s going on that appears to be worsening and polarizing relations between the two communities, but its cause (is it Modi or something else?) and its extent are very unclear.
France belongs to everyone
This seems to be the new world-entitlement mentality:
Video showed hundreds of illegal immigrants storming a French airport and occupying an entire terminal Sunday, demanding to meet with the country’s prime minister.
Hey, why not? [emphasis mine]:
Footage posted on Twitter shows roughly 500 migrants chanting in Terminal 2 of the Charles de Gaulle airport as about a dozen police officers in tactical gear look on.
“France does not belong to the French! Everyone has a right to be here!” one person can be heard yelling into a loudspeaker.
The protest was organized by the migrant support group La Chapelle Debout,
It was the sentence “everyone has a right to be here” that particularly caught my eye.
Note also that, although the linked article appeared in the somewhat right-leaning NY Post, the group that sponsored the rally is described as a “migrant support group.” That word “migrant” has replaced the former “illegal immigrant” or “alien” (don’t know what it would be in French) in many countries of the Western world.
As Orwell knew, words matter, and “migrant” is a neutral word that leaves out the issue of legality, implying that legality is irrelevant. It is not, but a great many people seem to have lost that distinction, and the leaders of this group are playing on that to the hilt. The left has made it clear that countries have no right to decide who comes inside their borders (border? what’s that?), either temporarily or permanently.
But why the airport? This particular group is targeting Air France for cooperating with deportations:
In an official statement, the group asked to meet with Prime Minister Edouard Philippe over the country’s asylum policy as well as the leaders of Air France. They demanded that the airline “stop any financial, material, logistical or political participation in deportations.”
Later Sunday, an Air France delegation met with the group, a member told local newspaper Le Parisien.
A migrant who took part in the protest warned it wouldn’t be the last.
“We have targeted Air France, and other actions will follow,” he told the paper.
I wonder whether Air France made some concessions to this group during that meeting, and whether there is any plan for the police to make arrests if the group disrupts the functioning of the terminal.
I also wonder whether this tactic will spread to the US. My guess is “yes.”
But I thought the science was settled…
Apparently not [emphasis mine]:
Recent studies show [scientists] may have overestimated the age of the universe by more than a billion years — a surprising realization that is forcing them to rethink key parts of the scientific story of how we got from the Big Bang to today.
The lost time is especially vexing because, in a universe full of mysteries, its age has been viewed as one of the few near-certainties…
A few teams, including one led by Nobel laureate Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, set out to make those observations. Instead of confirming Planck’s measurements, they started getting a distinctly different result.
Let’s call them “universe-age deniers.”
Or let’s just call them scientists, struggling to find the truth:
At first, the common assumption was that Riess and the other galaxy-watchers had made a mistake. But as their observations continued to come in, the results didn’t budge. Reanalysis of the Planck data didn’t show any problems, either.
If all the numbers are correct, then the problem must run deeper. It must lie in our interpretation of those numbers — that is, in our fundamental models of how the universe works. “The discrepancy suggests that there’s something in the cosmological model that we’re not understanding right,” Riess says. What that something could be, nobody knows.
Back to the drawing board?
I have no way of evaluating any of this; the math is beyond me. I do know that from the time I first heard about the Big Bang and the age of the universe, as well as its expanding nature, I’ve been willing to trust the scientists on this—but only up to a point. I’ve always been aware that it’s just a working theory, for now, and subject to revision. That’s science, isn’t it?
The push for Trump’s impeachment continues
Nancy Pelosi doesn’t seem to think impeaching Trump would be a winning strategy, but reportedly she’s being pressed by some in Congress to do just that.
Why, when everyone knows there’s no chance of a conviction in the Senate, and that the American people have no stomach for it?
Theories abound. Mine are as follows:
(1) I still don’t think they’ll really do it; I continue to think this is just theater to fire up the base. It’s somewhat similar to the left’s 2-year propaganda campaign about the Mueller report, which created the perception of crimes and was far more effective before the report was released and people could imagine all the truly nefarious acts of Trump the report would finally reveal. At present, talking incessantly of impeachment has the same effect: anticipation is a huge part of its power, a power that might dissipate once a vote to impeach occurs and a trial fails to convict.
(2) The “it’s Pelosi versus the gung-ho impeachers” reports are part of a general good cop/ bad cop perception that’s being fostered. I think most Democratic members of Congress are actually on the same page: they’d dearly love to impeach Trump and want to talk incessantly about it, but realize a pro-impeachment vote will end up hurting them more than helping them if they go through with it.
(3) The entire thing is part of the generalized 2020 election strategy for Democrats that puts Trump animus first and foremost. It’s not the only thing they will campaign on, but it’s a very important part of it. The other issues they will emphasize will almost certainly be environmentalism, defending abortion from the efforts to limit it, and universal health care.
Will the Spygate perpetrators ever be held accountable?
That’s the trillion dollar question, isn’t it?
I used to think I was rather cynical. And I was. But in recent years I’ve become more so. I’ve seen people get away with much more than I had thought they’d be able to get away with (Lois Lerner, call your office). And what’s more, I’ve seen more of my friends wink at it because it suits their political ends.
So the question of whether anyone will pay for what we have come to call Spygate is a real one, and how you answer it depends on how cynical you have become:
As a regular aspect of his reportage, Hannity asks of his truth-seekers a question inquiring minds want definitively answered. To paraphrase, “Will Deep State bad actors be held accountable for what they have done?”
The answer, from Fourth Estate constitutionalists like Gregg Jarrett and Sara Carter, is always couched in a context of cautionary advisement: “They should,” or, “If justice still exists in America, yes,” or, the best conditional condemnation of all, “Put it this way, if you or I had done what (Hillary, Comey, Strzok, etc.) had done, yes, we would likely be looking at serious jail time.”
Lying to a FISA court, destroying evidence, leaking classified information. These are but a minimal sampling of the alleged crimes and malefactions committed in the name of electing Clinton and usurping Trump’s ascendancy.
But…[d]ue to the labyrinthine depths, interconnectivity, and power inherent in a Deep State that has shocked a nation aghast at the reach of rogue bureaucracies, no one can say for certain whether any of those who concocted this conspiracy will ever be brought to justice.
…Across the cable news aisle, the partisan “legacy” media are scrambling to maintain on life support a narrative that pragmatic Democrats like Doug Schoen and Mark Penn are imploring them to abandon. CNN’s ratings have officially bottomed out. At MSNBC, Rachel Maddow and other conspiracy theorists still talk the talk, but the emptiness behind their rhetoric is apparent to anyone with five minutes of viewing time to waste.
Ah, but although Maddow’s rating have fallen, there is a substantial core still feeding on that sort of rhetoric and don’t find it empty at all. They have come to require it. They have become convinced it’s true, have been waiting for years for the big payoff, and cannot abandon it now because a mind is a difficult thing to change. Trump’s guilt is a given, and the people who tried to get him are heroes whatever method they used to accomplish it.
I don’t know what will happen; no one does. But it’s hard to be too cynical these days.
The war on the dollar stores
This article is a few months old, but it just recently came to my attention and I read it because I love dollar stores, although the article is a typical anti-capitalist attack on them as somehow harming minorities in poor communities who don’t have easy access to other grocery stores.
I’m not going to spend a lot of time on it, except to say that it’s typical of so many articles today that ignore economic realities such as, for example, the need to make a profit, and act as though the decisions of corporations are capricious and bigoted rather than motivated by those economic realities.
I also wonder whether the author has actually like, you know, stepped into a Dollar Tree and looked around. Dollar Trees are not grocery stores and were never meant to me. The do carry some food, but the bulk of their real estate is not devoted to food, and the food items they do carry are not easily perishable and therefore can be shelved for a long time. The author wants them to be what they are not and never intended to be: a sort of fantasy healthful and somehow magically cheap Whole Foods that coaxes poor people into making the food choices the author thinks they should be making.
By the way, I speak as a fan of Dollar Trees. Yes, I confess. And I live in a solidly middle class neighborhood, and yet it’s dotted with Dollar Trees, and sometimes I frequent them. I go because I can save a ton of money on things like kitchen supplies. Just the other day I was looking for these little metal scrubby things they used to carry in all groceries and no longer do; very useful for certain cleaning tasks. Couldn’t find them anywhere. They’re being sold on Amazon—of course—for 12.95 a pop plus shipping, but in an online search I noticed they also happen to be at the Dollar Tree. Three for a buck. Not bad, eh? I stocked up.
[NOTE: The comments at the article are uniformly critical.]
“Game of Thrones” do-over
I watched the first two episodes of “Game of Thrones” many years ago at the urging of someone near and dear to me. But I begged off after that. For me, the whole thing was way way WAY too violent, and the violence seemed to be pointless violence for violence’s sake. I have a draft of a long post I once wrote about it and never published; maybe some day I’ll air it.
But I do know that the series finally ended, and that a lot of fans are very disappointed in the slipshod way it was wrapped up:
To say that the final season of Game of Thrones has been, uh, divisive is putting it mildly, and the likelihood that its finale on Sunday will manage to appease its fans has seemingly decreased with each additional episode. Now, a Change.org petition to remake the series’ eighth season “with competent writers” has surpassed a million signatures and was closing in on 1.1 million as of Sunday afternoon.
“David Benioff and D.B. Weiss have proven themselves to be woefully incompetent writers when they have no source material (i.e. the books) to fall back on,” the petition reads. “This series deserves a final season that makes sense.”
How about you? Did you watch the series? What did you think?
4 in 10 Americans think socialism would be good for this country
A recent Gallup poll indicates that 4 in 10 Americans think socialism’s pretty darn good. Here’s Gallup’s short version.
The Gramscian march has borne fruit, because (based on a poll from last year that has age-related data on the same subject), it seems this is an age-dependent phenomenon:
Americans aged 18 to 29 are as positive about socialism (51%) as they are about capitalism (45%). This represents a 12-point decline in young adults’ positive views of capitalism in just the past two years and a marked shift since 2010, when 68% viewed it positively. Meanwhile, young people’s views of socialism have fluctuated somewhat from year to year, but the 51% with a positive view today is the same as in 2010.
Older Americans have been consistently more positive about capitalism than socialism. For those 50 and older, twice as many currently have a positive view of capitalism as of socialism.
That’s probably because older people went to school back when socialism wasn’t praised to the skies, and also because they not only learned more about history and economics and civics, but older people have done more observing of the course of human events.
Here’s the full data, where you can see the Democrat vs. Republican breakdown, which is profound. 70% of Democrats think socialism would be good for the country vs. 13% of Republicans (and who are these mysterious socialist Republicans, by the way?). Also note that the margin of error of the poll is plus or minus 6%, which is quite large.
Additionally, while a majority of Democrats view socialism positively, that is not a major change in the eight years Gallup has tracked this metric. The major shift over this time has been the reduced rate of Democrats who now view capitalism positively (47%).
So the majority of Democrats are high on socialism, and this has been going on for at least eight years. It also represents not so much an increase in approval for socialism as an increasing disdain for capitalism.
But ignorance is also part of it, because it’s unclear that those lauding socialism have a clue what it actually is. They seem to be confusing it with “equality”:
Previous Gallup research shows that Americans’ definition of socialism has changed over the years, with nearly one in four now associating the concept with social equality and 17% associating it with the more classical definition of having some degree of government control over the means of production.
Combined with this increase in ignorance is an increase in confidence in one’s state of knowledge. It’s a common combination, I’ve found:
While 51% of U.S. adults say socialism would be a bad thing for the country, 43% believe it would be a good thing. Those results contrast with a 1942 Roper/Fortune survey that found 40% describing socialism as a bad thing, 25% a good thing and 34% not having an opinion.
Now only 6% have no opinion.
Dunning-Kruger effect, anyone?
That long-awaited declassification
Seems as though we’ve been hearing this sort of thing for a long time now, doesn’t it?:
Republican Congressman and House Oversight Committee Member Mark Meadows there will be more information showing that President Trump was set up by senior officials with the FBI and DOJ. He made the comments Monday on “Fox & Friends,” adding that the declassification of documents will reveal it…
Moreover, the North Carolina Congressman explained that ‘the American people will be astonished’ when Trump declassifies more information. For example, the classified FISA interviews, Bruce Ohr 302 FBI interviews and the so called “Gang of Eight” binder.
Former House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy said Sunday, the new information could reveal “game-changer” evidence further disproving the collusion narrative.
“I think declassification is right around the corner and hopefully the American people will be able to judge for themselves,” said Meadows.
I can’t even imagine what a real “game-changer” would be. There are way too many people who would not believe even the most shocking of evidence about the actions of the Russiagate players, or would justify it and regard it as having been necessary and proper to get the evil Trump.
Now it’s Lynch vs. Comey
Actually, it was Lynch vs. Comey close to half a year ago, but the testimony wasn’t made public till now:
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch denied to congressional investigators last year that she ever instructed former FBI Director James Comey to minimize the Hillary Clinton email investigation by urging him to call it a “matter” instead of an “investigation.”
“I did not. I have never instructed a witness as to what to say specifically. Never have, never will,” Lynch told a joint task force of the House Oversight and Judiciary committees.
The transcript of the Dec. 19 interview, released Monday evening by House Judiciary ranking member Doug Collins, R-Ga., clashes with what Comey testified under oath.
If anyone gets into serious trouble for the entire Spygate matter, it’s a good guess that it would be Comey. Everyone seems to have a beef with him. Could it be because he’s an insufferable, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, self-serving liar?
Although I’m not sure how well that differentiates Comey from all that many of the others.