I see that the October jobs report this morning is spectacularly good, with 250,000 jobs added. It is amazing that so many Americans are going to vote against Republicans in the midst of such a strong economic surge following the end of Obama’s recovery-strangling policies. The lesson for future leaders, perhaps, is that the public cares more about a President constantly acting like an asshole than they do about what he accomplishes. From an ethics point of view, I would see that as a positive development, if I didn’t strongly suspect that the real reasons for apparent votes against self-interest are 1) that the news media isn’t reporting the economic news with anything like the enthusiasm it would if this were a Democratic administration, 2) that people really believe the ridiculous spin that this is somehow an Obama recovery, and 3) that so many young Americans have been indoctrinated into socialism that even as Venezuela crumbles, they are still buying the fantasy.
1. Next try: The Oprah-Jennifer Lawrence Dinner. This is pretty funny. Following the lead of other Democratic state organizations, The New Hampshire Democrats insulted the party’s two founders, Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, also two of the nation’s greatest leaders, by removing their names from the annual party dinner. For 2017, the event was renamed…wait for it!…the Kennedy-Clinton Dinner! Yup, two serial sexual assaulting misogynists, assuming it’s Jack and not Teddy being honored, in which case it’s a negligent killer, for the Party of Women. What a brilliant choice! How can anyone not vote for a party capable of a decision like that? But for some reason, as the Harvey Weinstein Train Wreck rolled along, the new name came under criticism. Who could have foreseen that? So the dinner has been renamed again; now it’s called the Eleanor Roosevelt Dinner, after the cruelly-treated wife of another Democratic icon.
2. Who makes these rules? Why, Al Roker, that’s who! After he was called a hypocrite on social media for dressing up as “Doc Brown,” the Christopher Lloyd character in the “Back to the Future” films—Al, you will recall, helped get Megyn Kelly fired for saying that a white person could impersonate a black character using dark make-up without engaging in racially offensive conduct—tweeted,
“I’m going to say this one last time, but the folks who get it, understand and the ones who DON’T, won’t. I can be Doc Brown, and I wear the outfit and wig and not change my skin color if you’re white , you can be President Obama if you want. Just don’t color your skin!”
Wait: what about hair, Al? I’ve read that it’s racially offensive for a white person to wear a black-hair wig, like an Afro or Bob Marley hair. But it’s okay for you to wear a crazy old white guy wig?
Why, Al? For that matter, why isn’t wearing make-up that allows someone to actually look like the person or character he or she is portraying acceptable? Who makes these rules? Oh! Right! You do!
When I first saw that picture, I didn’t know who the hell Al was playing. I thought it might be Michael Jackson if he had lived, let himself go, and grew his nose back.
3. Relevant context: Trial lawyers are among the biggest contributors to Democratic candidates. In Frank v. Gaos, which had its oral argument before the Supreme Court this week, the issue is whether it should place limits on class-action settlements in which the plaintiffs’ lawyers receive millions and their clients get nothing. Courts often reject such settlements as unjust, but a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld this crazy settlement, with all three judges agreeing that trying to pay compensation to the class would be inefficient, as the individual payouts from the defendant, Google, would be about 4 cents. So the plaintiff’s lawyers, under the settlement, were paid more than $2 million, but members of the class received no money at all, only the warm glow from knowing that Google would make contributions to institutions concerned with privacy on the internet, including centers at Harvard, Stanford and Chicago-Kent College of Law, and the AARP.
Sounds fair to me! Actually, it doesn’t, but it does apparently sound fair to Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The ancient justice defended the deal, saying that the plaintiffs got “an indirect benefit.” What benefit? The justification for such settlements is that the defendant’s tortious conduct is curtailed and penalized, and that benefits the class while justifying the attorney fees. How does making tax-deductible charitable donations–including to organizations Google gave to anyway—punish Google? Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked, “Don’t you think it’s just a little bit fishy that the money goes to a charity that Google had contributed to in the past?” Meanwhile, some of the lawyers in the case had degrees from schools receiving the mandated contribution. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh was concerned about “the appearance of favoritism,” but he’s a serial rapist, so never mind.
4. To be fair, the administration’s position is that the U.N. is worthless. Apparently ex-Fox Blonde Heather Nuarte has been offered the job of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., a job for which she has no apparent qualifications whatsoever.
She also had no qualifications for her current job, Acting Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, which she has held since June. To recall my previous post, this international whiz actually cited D-Day as evidence that the U.S. has a long-standing relationship with Germany.
5. I don’t care whether they are criminals and dangerous or not. They are lawbreakers. The Homeland Security website emphasizes that the “caravan”—you know..
… include “over 270 individuals along the caravan route that have criminal histories, including known gang membership. On October 29, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S. described some of the caravan members as “very violent:” “Unfortunately, some of the people in the caravan have been very violent against authority, even though they have offered the possibility of entering in compliance with immigration law and refugee status.”
So what? It shouldn’t matter if they are the Central American Care Bears: they don’t have any right to force their way into the United States. Apparently the President and his administration feel that they have to keep emphasizing that these are potentially dangerous illegal immigrants, because so many Americans have been brainwashed by sentimental progressive cant and mainstream news media propaganda into believing that simply violating our laws and borders isn’t enough to make these people undesirable. It is.
6. And speaking of mainstream media propaganda: The Washington Post has this objective, non-partisan headline (sorry, feeling sarcastic this morning) : “Trump revives ‘Willie Horton’ tactic with ad linking illegal immigrant killer to Democrats.” The story begins:
Pinned at the top of President Trump’s Twitter feed Wednesday was a video. The man on the screen has a shaved head and a mustache and long chin hair. Smiling, he announces, “I killed f‐‐‐— cops.”
The man is Luis Bracamontes, a twice-deported Mexican immigrant who was given the death penalty in April for killing two California law enforcement officers in 2014. At the time of the shootings, Bracamontes was in the United States illegally — and now, with the midterm election approaching, he’s the star of the GOP’s latest campaign ad.
“Illegal immigrant, Luis Bracamontes, killed our people!” reads text on the 53-second video, which is filled with audible expletives. “Democrats let him into our country. . . . Democrats let him stay.”
The text is superimposed over videos of Bracamontes appearing to show no remorse for his crimes, and even declaring, “I’m going to kill more cops soon.”
“The Willie Horton tactic” refers to an effective ad used by George H.W. Bush’s presidential campaign to defeat Mike Dukakis, who had championed a controversial prisoner furlough program as governor of Massachusetts. One of the inmates furloughed was Willie Horton, who was serving a life sentence for murder (without the possibility of parole!) did not return from his furlough. He was too busy committing assault, armed robbery and rape. Because Horton was black and the ad showed his photo, this was called a “racist ad.” Of course, there is no reason to believe that the ad wouldn’t have been just as effective if Horton had been as white as Elizabeth Warren. The furlough program was irresponsible and reckless, and Dukakis deserved every bit of the criticism and distrust the fiasco engendered. It wasn’t a racist ad, but even back in 1988, Democrats were redefining racism as “saying anything critical about blacks whether they deserve it or not.”
The Bracamontes ad isn’t racist either. It is arguably unfair, because Republicans share the blame for our porous immigration enforcement system.