We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, January 24. 2019
There isn't much to say about this, except what we all know. The press got it wrong by a long shot, is now incapable of winding it back, and the Progressives have latched on to a David Hogg-type character they can hate for a single reason. He smirked (no, really, that's their reason, it has nothing to do with a MAGA hat. I've already been told it has nothing to do with that hat. Nothing.).
Let's see where the basis of hating the smirk comes from.
"The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself – anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face (to look incredulous when a victory was announced, for example) was itself a punishable offence. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime, it was called."~George Orwell, 1984
I'll admit smirking can be criminal. I'm not sure a teen's confused smile is a 'smirk'. But if it is, it certainly can be criminal, as we've seen:
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Once again I will repeat that the Left is picking on a CHILD.
They are bullying children.
What's next? Are they going to kick 3 year olds to the curb for wearing a MAGA hat?
To be fair, they said the same thing when David Hogg was the flavor of the month.
I'm less concerned about picking on a child. If the child, like Hogg, presumes to know more than an adult, they deserve what they get.
Sandmann was the unlucky recipient of a stare from a demented activist. I give him credit for standing his ground and not provoking a situation which the adult was trying to provoke.
It is clear that the students were "set upon" and that they were confused about what was happening and unsure about the motives of the adults who were confronting them. Don't forget that the Far left Indian activist was not alone and had others with him who got behind the student that became the focus of their threat. They were waiting for, hoping for and provoking for a physical response where they could create a media event. It was ONLY the students becoming jovial and joking that broke the tension and ruined the moment for the provocateurs.
What the MAGA teen did wasn't a "smirk"; it was a forced, confused smile.
Anyone with the least amount of body language skill would recognize that, if they noticed his eyes and the skin around them!!!
Strzok's smirk is intentional as his eyes clearly betray! Eyes of an arrogant, evil traitor!
...the Progressives have latched on to a David Hogg-type character they can hate for a single reason.
Even if he may have been encouraged by others, David Hogg actively sought to use the Stoneman Douglas shooting as platform to become a spokesman for gun control even though his only connection was being a student at the school. Nick Sandmann would still be totally anonymous today if he hadn't been singled out at random by Phillips and the left-wing internet mob.
Good point. There is a difference between seeking the spotlight and being thrust into the spotlight.
Exactly. Which is why I said "-type". I wasn't saying they are the same.
Hogg is a media hound. But to the demented Left, he's a hero and Sandmann is just a MAGA racist. To them, there's a legitimate comparison. It's based on a false premise, but most of what they believe is based on a false premise.
Yep, it was nothing more than an unconscious nervous smile. I had one when I was younger and made a conscious effort to get rid of it. I'm sure some of the people pretending to be outraged know enough about body language to spot a nervous smile, but they're running with the smug smirk angle anyway because they're scumbags.
I'm old and a city slicker. I would know to give a wide birth to anyone haranguing passersby or chanting while banging on a drum. I wouldn't expect kids form KY to know that. I don't buy into the smirk malarkey; I agree with the above.
I have read two complaints about the Covington teenagers by liberals which are infuriating because they are twisted truths. There was an immediate focus on what the schoolboys could have done differently which would be better. "Exasperated" above gives some idea how that conversation might go. An adult who is on your side and wants things to go ever-better for you might have that discussion. That is true.
But for the unsympathetic, trapping opponents it is a deeply dishonest approach. The first focus should be on what the adults might have done better. That list is certainly much longer, and they have greater responsibility. In both articles the liberal writers minimized what the adults were doing. The Black Hebrews were described as merely "hollering" like a street preacher, completely neglecting the direct and vile insults directed at children; the actions of the AIM activist were described as if they were somehow an improvement on the situation, as if it would not be alarming for an older man doing something unusual and staring to be slowly advancing on children for no apparent reason.
They are simply tribal and want their political opponents to be punished, even if they are minors. They don't want peace, they are just on the other side. All else is smokescreen.
Just to be clear, I think the Native American guy targeted and set those kids up to stage a confrontation and feigned being a victim. I don't know how kids could be expected to handle that kind of intrusion/pressure/aggression. I'm not even sure I could, except that I would have kept my distance, assuming I saw them in time.
I am livid over him targeting children, so much so, that
I would like to contribute to the lawyer. I've been on line but want to make sure I send to the right law firm. Anyone?
I heard they have an attorney. Must be pro bono as someone set up a GoFundMe account that now is being diverted to a right to life group the students support.
The Left has given me one more (unnecessary) reason to detest and despise them.
Thoughtful article in The Atlantic about just how completely unethical the media have been during this sideshow.
the Atlantic article was half decent. Spent too much time describing the liberal reaction. Did not fault the "Adults" at the scene -- especially the "elder" whose supposed wisdom would not be aggressive to children.
"(no, really, that's their reason, it has nothing to do with a MAGA hat. I've already been told it has nothing to do with that hat. Nothing.)"
I've been told the opposite by multiple people; that the hat itself is a symbol of hate (that's a given, according to them, and is not disputable), and that therefore the young man wearing it was deliberately provoking people and was wholly responsible for what happened.
Focusing on the MAGA hat or not being 'respectful' to an older person is a convenient dodge to avoid the real source. He's a white male that didn't back down.
The facial expression of the involuntary smile (which the kid could not suppress) -- is a base primate reaction to a sense of threat from another in a potentially violent social encounter. It is in fact an involuntary signal that the threatened primate is not trying to escalation a dominance contest, and is in a submissive mode, not contesting for dominance.
This is seen all the time in military basic training where the drill instructors will be screaming within inches of the new recruits face and the recruit simply cannot suppress a smile, even though he may have just seen someone else punished for smiling.
Drill instructors then work very hard (much the the pain and discomfort of the recruit -- though for his own good) to punish and redirect this involuntary reaction. They do this not because they feel insulted (as they suggest in their screaming response) -- but because their purpose is to take ordinary, non-dominant males who naturally respond to attack with submission and to make them into males that respond to attack by NOT submitting, and instead to become immediately aggressive in the face of aggression.
Taking this principle writ large in society, and in this specific instance -- whatever the progressive left thinks they are accomplishing -- they are in fact taking a non-dominant group of juvenile males who responded to social attacks with calm and submission signals -- and they are effectively training them to exert dominance traits and to respond to aggression with aggression.
It will not result, I fear, in the reaction of coercing the greater submission that they intend by their invectives. It just doesn't work that way. Militaries the world over have proved this time and again in their training methods.
It is interesting to note that the student, Nick Sandmann, is not being mentioned by name much now, apparently haven fallen from the news interest and become merely the face of the Covington "issue". His "opponent" Nathan Phillips is mentioned by name in nearly every news story. What ill-gotten and cheap notoriety he has been handed by the press. Here is Sandmann's open letter which not only explains the situation from his personal experience but also shows his incredible maturity and reason such as is not often seen in a high school student.
"I'm not saying he was wrong and deserves to be trashed for what he did. I'm reading the question asked as what would have been the best response, and I think turning and walking away would be best. I think that is something we do all the time when we encounter people doing weird things at us in a public space. I haven't always done that myself, but it is my standard approach. I have also stood my ground and I have been hit with a vuvuzela."
And I'm saying that it doesn't matter what we "do all the time" when we are being videoed by activists looking to cause trouble and who are willing to lie to make appearances fit their narrative. Remember, they were at the March for Life. It's a highly charged venue where pro-lifers are constantly harrassed and mocked. These boys had been targeted for over an hour by the Black Israelites. None of that would even be known if the "elder" hadn't created the controversy by lying in the first place.
The bigots on the left were gleefully on board with having their worst thoughts about MAGA hat wearing white boys confirmed. Walking, standing, drumming in solidarity, nothing would have appeased the mob." end Susan quote
I think we all realize that if the NA hadn't gotten Sandmann he would have gotten into the face of the next kid, or the next...… It just happened to be Sandmann, and once he was in their sights, he would damned if he did; damned if he didn't turn and walk away. There was no winning, either way he would be accused of disrespecting a Native American elder and veteran. The NA set a good trap.
I agree that turning and walking away is the smartest thing to do. However these were a couple dozen school kids waiting at their appointed place for their school bus to take them home. So where would they go? Also for anyone thinking of turning and walking away the alt-left activists have a nasty habit of hitting you with something if you take your eyes off them. So when you walk away start by backing away until you are out of their reach and then carefully walking away.
Funny the leftists focusing on the MAGA hat. Clothing is not provocative -- ask any feminist.
smiling while white is a heinous crime to liberal America. however abusing Indians and their mocking their culture is perfectly permissible. calling people fa$$ots and ni$$ers, words that are suppose to send liberals into cases of the DT's is also permissible if your a "young black man" preaching the bible.