(and I’m not fooling…)
1. Why is this result considered good news? McLaughlin & Associates, a research firm, conducted a poll online March 18-25 asking the question, “Would you favor or oppose an executive order ensuring that free speech would be protected on all college campuses?” With 1,000 likely 2020 voters thus polled, the results showed 73% in favor of protecting free speech on campus, 18 % opposing, and the typical 9% of slugs who said they were “unsure.” McLaughlin and Associates found “no statistically significant difference by education level, with college graduates favoring the executive order 72 percent to 21 percent and non-college graduates favoring 74 percent to 16 percent.” Similarly, men and women both favored the executive order at a rate of 73%, and there was no significant difference by party affiliation either.
The fact that less than 75% of American citizens whole-heartedly support freedom of speech in higher education is no less than horrifying, and shows how badly the ahte speech and thought-control termites have gotten into our foundation.
2. Speaking of those inherently untrustworthy polls… a Washington Post-Schar School poll found that nearly two-thirds of registered Democrats reject special counsel Robert Mueller’s finding of no collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russian meddling in the 2016 election. It’s a “Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind’s made up!” classic, and also demonstrates how believing the mainstream news media agitprop because their biases fit neatly with yours—except you’re not paid to be objective and indep…oh, never mind. Why do I bother?—eats your brain. What in the world to these alleged (poll assertions are always alleged at best) skeptics base their beliefs on, other than the fact that, like Rachel Maddow, they so,so,so want our President to be an impeachable traitor? Mueller spent three years shaking down people and crushing them with his prosecutorial boot to get evidence of Trump collusion that would stand up in court, and failed. And those Democrats know better?
3. Wait, what? Authentic Frontier Gibberish from cool guy Democratic Dark Horse Pete Buttigieg! In response to despicable creep Bill Maher’s question, “[Trump]’s fat, you’re thin. He’s old, you’re young. You went to Afghanistan, he dodged the draft…. So how do you beat him?”, the gay mayor nobody heard of answered:
“We gotta be willing to talk not just at the highest level, about our values, but at the ground level, about how following our values cashes out, and instead, a lot of the time we’ve been stuck at that middle level, which is about the policy designs, before we really win the day, either for the values that motivate those policies or for the results that come from those policies.”
And THAT my friends, is how Trump wins debates. When anyone answers a question with that kind of impenetrable drivel, I don’t trust them. Pretending to be profound and intellectual when you really have nothing to say is a form of lying. Why is Maher a creep? He’s a creep because his question is a long ad hominem attack and mostly bigotry: using fat and old as implied flaws is exactly what the Left calls hate speech when it’s directed at someone they like (Alternate Universe Maher to Mitt Romney in 2011: “Obama is black, you’re white; he’s got big ears and is funny looking, you’re handsome…) [Pointer: Althouse]
4. This makes me uncomfortable. You? The Trump campaign sent a missive to TV executives warning them not to book Russiagate conspiracy purveyors like Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Representative Adam Schiff, and others. The government, including the Executive, crosses a big, think line when it starts threatening journalists of dark consequences if they displease the State. Heck, I’ll warn them to stop being irresponsible and untrustworthy lest they destroy their own profession, but I don’t have any way to punish them when they go ahead and become an arm of the political Left anyway. The President does, or at least might think he does. And why stop with elected officials? Why not warn the networks to stop kissing Dan Rather’s ring, or to quit giving has-been Carl Bernstein a platform to pretend Trump is Richard Nixon, or to send unethical journalists like Don Lemon, Chris Cuomo, Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow to journalists to the unemployment line? The President punching down at them by calling the news media “enemies of the people” is bad enough (though he’s correct). Warnings about displeasing Big Orange Brother are worse.
5. “Oh, come on!,” as Professor Butler of Georgetown Law Center memorably interjected to shut me down on NPR because I was accurately describing sexual harassment law, and he and my host thought that it would excuse President Trump. Now pundits and journalists, perhaps realizing that old, white, not-too-bright, bungling Joe Biden might still be the Democrats’ best chance of unseating President Trump now that the coup seems to have failed and all the “woke” candidates appear to be light-weights, wackos, hypocrites or socialists, are trying to excuse the ex-Veep using the time-worn, “that’s just how he is,” “he doesn’t mean anything by it,” “he means no harm.”
What? This was exactly what I was explaining on NPR: older men often blunder into sexual harassment without meaning harm, because what matters is a) whether the object of his touching or staring or verbal flirtations like it or not, and b) how it affects how others in the workplace view the culture. Some of the worst sexual harassers sincerely see nothing wrong with how they treat women, because they were brought up seeing women treated that way all the time. Too bad: sorry, that’s no excuse…not for Joe, not for Harvey Weinstein not for anyone. Intentions are irrelevant.
For the Washington Post to try to cover for handsy Joe at this point is head-exploding hypocrisy. The Post piece I link to above says that Joe’s unwanted touching is “affectionate.” COME ON! Sexual harassers, especially the touch-feely species, are usually “affectionate.”
6. As W.S. Gilbert wrote, “Things are seldom what they seem; skim milk masquerades as cream.” The recent PBS documentary on “American Masters” covering the life of entertainer Sammy Davis, Jr. revealed that Presient-Elect Jack Kennedy had Davis dis-invited from a private inauguration party hosted by Davis’s pal Frank Sinatra because Davis was married to a white woman. Nice. I was surprised, given Jack and Bobby’s ostentatious civil rights pretensions, but I don’t know why. The hypocrisy of the entire Kennedy myth apparently has no bounds.