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
Tuesday, March 12. 2019
Toon h/t Flopping
Dylan and Rod Stewart: Forever Young
Why non-conformists always end up looking alike. Go ahead, try and be different.
High School shooting teams
My secondary school had riflery and shotgun sports. Also, a hunting club
British Crackdown on Knives Progresses
NYC Mayor Bill De Blasio Announces´Meatless Mondays´ In Public Schools To ´Save The Earth´
Feed them more carbs
Facebook bans Zero Hedge
ZH is a fine site. But commenters there are often crude, racist, anti-semitic, misogynist, etc.
Vietnam War History: Orthodox Versus Revisionist
Kling: The poverty trap
Democratic Socialism In AOC’s Own Words: We Don’t Want To Take Over EVERY Form Of Production – We Just Want To Tell Every Workplace How To Operate
It's a good line, and true, but better just to term it "freedom"
I was assaulted at Berkeley because I'm conservative. Free speech is under attack. The punch I took on campus was not an isolated incident. Leftists are targeting conservative students across the country for their political beliefs.
The fear in Nancy Pelosi’s eyes is what I’ll always remember about the Ilhan Omar Affair. Nancy Pelosi doesn’t turn away from a fight, but turned away from a fight with Omar. That tells you how serious the situation is.
Ilhan Omar and the Axis of Antisemitism
The Democrats and Anti-Semitism - An inflection point in American political history.
Another piece from the plot to Get Trump puzzle snaps in, with new dark money revelation
Why do Republicans still back Trump? The answer is simple: Attitude and gratitude
Finland: Government Collapses Over Universal Health Care Costs
“No End In Sight”: Looting, Starvation On Fourth Day Of Venezuelan Blackout
At least they have gone Zero Carbon
NATO Member Turkey Announces Joint Military Operation With Iranian Regime Against Kurdish Fighters
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
ZH is back up on FB... funny, they must have gained thousands of new "followers", me included, as a result of FB's censorship stunt... Sort of like Trumps popularity rising every time Jim Acosta opens his mouth.
In the second sentence of the high school shooting article, The Times writer refers to the sound at a trap contest as "the sound of bullets firing." That lets you know right away they put their best and most knowledgeable man on the job.
Can someone explain to me, other than the Z gang, why Turkey is still part of NATO?
Please don’t let Turkey have the F35!
BD: British Crackdown on Knives Progresses
If banning knives saves even a single life, then it is worth it.
Will I need a concealed carry permit, to carry my pocket knife?
Will I need a concealed carry permit, to carry my pocket knife?
Yes. However, some common sense exemptions should be allowed, such as scalpels for abortion doctors, machetes for Antifa activists, and a religious exemption for all muslims.
Agree. Why are so many opposed to common sense knife control?
Tell every workplace how to operate? Aren’t we pretty much there right now? If it’s not the government telling you what to do, the insurance company will.
That is the definition of Fascism. Control of all business by a dictatorial government. Fascism is simply left wing socialism with a gun. What AOC is, is a Fascist. I know... Ironic.
Z will be here soon to try to convince us that Fascism is right wing or something.
Fascism has overlapped with the right wing around the issue of nationalism, and that sole characteristic has cemented it in the minds of the left, who have been very successfully in making that the general understanding. Nationalism has plusses and minuses, uses and abuses. But the left hates nationalism for its own reasons of promoting internationalism, which they see as an unalloyed good.
Their motives for promoting internationalism are not, shall we say, entirely humanitarian.
Who even knows what people mean by the word "nationalism" any more? Trump uses it to suggest that an independent nation ought to act in its own economic and military self-interest and police its own borders. People drawing a parallel with Nazis use it to denote a preference for central command and control, as in "nationalizing" a business, which is much like "socializing" an industry. Arguments over whether a politician or a policy is nationalist is pretty meaningless until you sort this out.
Assistant Village Idiot: Fascism has overlapped with the right wing around the issue of nationalism, ...
Fascism is on the political right because it advocates for a hierarchical society, as opposed to the political left which advocates for a more egalitarian society. Fascism includes a hierarchy of nations and ethnicities, as well as a militaristic society under an absolute dictator.
Assistant Village Idiot: and that sole characteristic has cemented it in the minds of the left, who have been very successfully in making that the general understanding.
The vast majority of scholars, then and now, place fascism on the political right. The vast majority of laypersons, then and now, place fascism on the political right. When neofascist groups are discussed, they are placed on the political right. It's only very recently that the right has attempted a redefinition.
Assistant Village Idiot: Nationalism has plusses and minuses, uses and abuses. But the left hates nationalism for its own reasons of promoting internationalism, which they see as an unalloyed good.
Not everyone on the political left is an internationalist, but internationalists tend to be so because they are advocating for a more egalitarian world, so they tend to the political left.
Texan99: Trump uses it to suggest that an independent nation ought to act in its own economic and military self-interest and police its own borders.
That is the usual definition. Keep in mind, however, it is often in the national interest to build strong and reliable relationships with other nations, a concept that appears to elude the current U.S. president.
Texan99: People drawing a parallel with Nazis use it to denote a preference for central command and control, as in "nationalizing" a business, which is much like "socializing" an industry.
That is a confused definition, conflating different uses of the term. Nazis were ultra-nationalists as they put what they perceived to be German interests paramount, and other nations and peoples to be mere fodder, to be used, enslaved, or destroyed.
Fascism is on the political right because it advocates for a hierarchical society, as opposed to the political left which advocates for a more egalitarian society.
This is extremely simplistic, for a variety of reasons. First, while leftist theory may have advocated a more egalitarian society,when in power the practice of the extreme left has been about as far from egalitarian as could be. Very much so. A top-down hierarchy describes quite accurately the practice of the USSR, the PRC, and Castro's Cuba.
If you are going to inform me that ends are more important than means, my reply is- balderdash. How you act, no what what you allegedly think, best defines you. While the Communists may have thought they advocated equality, in practice Communist-run societies were extremely hierarchical. It is absurd to claim that acting in an extremely hierarchical manner will lead to equality. As you act, so you are.
In addition, Fascists/Nazis have also advocated for equality. From Hitler's Table Talk: 1941 - 1944
There's nothing astonishing about the fact that Communism had its strongest bastion in Saxony, or that it took us time to win over the Saxon workers to our side. Nor is it astonishing that they are now counted amongst our most loyal supporters. The Saxon bourgeoisie was incredibly narrow-minded. These people insisted that we were mere Communists. Anyone who proclaims the right to social equality for the masses is a Bolshevik!The way in which they exploited the home worker was unimaginable. It's a real crime to have turned the Saxon workers into proletarians. ...
I don't blame the small man for turning Communist; but I blame the intellectual who did nothing but exploit other people's poverty for other ends. When one thinks of that riff-raff of a bourgeoisie,even to-day one sees red. (p25-26)
Both Nazis and Bolsheviks advocating "social equality for the masses," while both govern in an extreme top-down mode: what a surprise! Sarc, Sarc.
Hitler saw more in common with Communists than "social equality for the masses." He saw Nazis and Communists also utilizing women in their ranks in a similar manner.
Moreover, the Communists and ourselves were the only parties that had women in their ranks who shrank from nothing. It's with fine people like those that one can hold a State. (p113)Hitler viewed Communists more as rivals for power rather than ideological opponents.
Later on, the Reds we had beaten up became our best supporters. (p144)In sum, Hitler saw a fair amount of affinity between Nazis and Communists. Like the Communists, Hitler had nothing but scorn for the bourgeois.
I understand why the bourgeois bristle at the prospect of being governed by people like us. Compared with us, the Social Democrats numbered in their ranks men with much better outward qualifications—from the point of view of the bourgeois, I mean. The bourgeois could only be terrified as they witnessed the coming of this new society. But / knew that the only man who could be really useful to us was the man capable of mounting on the barricades. (p 145)Hitler's "new society," the "new man" of Che Guevara and other Commies. Nazis and Commies- not as far apart as you would think.
In any case we get to define political terms as we see fit and they make sense to us.
Notably this should clear up any confusion on your part.
Are you my missing dad? You sound like my missing dad. Can you ask important questions dad never does, like why does the left lie all the time?
What's wrong with my dad, anyway? Are all internet robots that stupendously pedantic?
In any case you're notably welcome. What does *plonk* mean and why is it always emboldenated? Do you have scribes?
Sorry, I meant to write answer, not ask. All this is so upsetting. In any case, do all leftist bots like my dad act so arrogant? Is that the right word, or is it utterly lacking self-awareness, the arrogant tool?
You're welcome, too. Notably. Sure.
How you act, no(t) what what you allegedly think, best defines you.
Good luck convincing the gang of Z on that.
Fascism is on the political right because it advocates for a hierarchical society, as opposed to the political left which advocates for a more egalitarian society.
The example of Fidel Castro shows that Fascism-allegedly on the right and Communism-allegedly on the left- are far from diametrically opposed. Georgie Ann Geyer, in Guerilla Prince, her biography of Castro, points out Fidel's ties with Fascists. As a teenager, Fascist stalwarts like Mussolini and Hitler were Fidel's heroes. Certain phrases from his speeches echoed Hitler and Mussolini.
Geyer discusses Castro's time at Colegio de Belén, a Jesuit boarding school, from which Castro graduated in 1945.
With this ideological background of the time, Fidel clearly revealed who his heroes were in his personal life. He walked soberly around the campus with a copy of Mein Kampf (La Lucha] under his arm; in his room he had a map on his wall upon which he charted the movements and successes of the Axis armies across Europe; for hours, he would stand before a mirror holding a primitive, early recorder, and mimicking Mussolini's speech over and over again. ...
The brash and daring Mussolini offered a still more interesting role model for Fidel, who later taught his people to shout to him, ¡Comandante en Jefe, Ordene! Comandante,tell us what to do, words which were uncannily similar to Mussolini's exhortations to his crowds to Credere, Obbidire, Combattere ("Believe, Obey, Fight"). Always Mussolini played endlessly on the theme of the rich versus the poor nations...
But by far Fidel's premiere model and hero-until late into his life- was the Spanish Falangist José Antonio Primo de Rivera, the Spanish caudillo and thinker who founded the Spanish Fascist Party, the Falange Espanola in October 1933, and who lived from 1903 to 1936.......
Primo's curious catchphrase "constant plebiscite of public opinion" was also to become a basi concept of Fidel Castro's political thought and a direct predecessor of Fidel's "direct democracy."
For another similarity between Mussolini's words and Fidel's consider this famous Mussolini phrase. (not in Geyer's book)
“Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”
“Within the Revolution, everything. Against the Revolution, nothing."
The similarity here between Mussolini and Castro points out once again to Castro's borrowing from Mussolini's phrases.
At his trial for his failed coup de-etat in 1954, Castro spoke these words, which later became famous. The following quotes are from Geyer.
Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me.
Geyer points out that another failed coupster uttered rather similar words.
There is one more important facet to the "History will Absolve Me" speech. Listen to these words. "For it is not you, gentleman, who pass judgment on us. That judgment is spoken by the eternal court of history...You may pronounce us guilty a thousand times over, but the goddess of the eternal court of history will smile and tear to tatters the brief of the state prosecutor and the sentence of this court. For she acquits us. "
Those words were spoken by Adolf Hitler at the end of his Rathous Putsch trial in 1924, after his attempt that November 9 to take over the German government by attacking the War Ministry in Munich with three thousand storm troopers.
As Geyer points out, it is "no accident" that Castro's phrasing is similar here to Hitler's.
As Castro's example points out, Fascism and Communism are far from diametrically opposed. As vehicles to absolute power, they attract rather similar people- like Fidel Castro.
Zbot: Fascism is on the political right because it advocates for a hierarchical society, as opposed to the political left which advocates for a more egalitarian society.
Complete bullshit. Mussolini was one of the first to call for universal suffrage, including voting for women. Also he called for the abolition of the Senate, which at the time was representative of the wealthier class. In it's place he proposed regional representation.
Just more Zbot pooping on Maggies Farm. Not even fit for the manure pile.
Gringo: First, while leftist theory may have advocated a more egalitarian society,when in power the practice of the extreme left has been about as far from egalitarian as could be.
Sure, and left-wing anarchists often end up with totalitarian governments, but that doesn't make them statists.
Gringo: If you are going to inform me that ends are more important than means, my reply is- balderdash.
We didn't say it was more important, only that is how the terms are used. We call someone an anarchist, because anarchy is their goal.
Gringo: How you act, no what what you allegedly think, best defines you.
You are conflating how a person is defined (characterized) with how a word is defined (semantics).
For instance, Marx posited a historical progression ultimately leading to a stateless, classless society of perfect equality. To get there, he thought society would have to go through a period of the dictatorship of the proletariat. So you have an unattainable ideal (utopianism) combined with the belief that the ends justify the means (extremism). The result was inevitable: tyranny and oppression. Nonetheless, Marxism is on the political left because the ideology is egalitarian.
Fascism is not on the right. No matter what your excuse.
What's it like to be wrong?
DrTorch: Fascism is not on the right.
fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical, right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism
Scholarly references concerning fascism and the political right:
• Nazism and the Radical Right in Austria 1918-1934, Lauridsen.
• The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right, Paul Davies.
• The Culture of Fascism: Visions of the Far Right in Britain, edited by Gottlieb & Linehan.
• Fascism Past and Present, West and East: An International Debate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Study of the Extreme Right, Griffin et al.
• France in The Era of Fascism: Essays on the French Authoritarian Right, edited by Jenkins.
• Fascism and Neofascism: Critical Writings on the Radical Right in Europe (Studies in European Culture and History), edited by Weitz & Fenner.
A recent example was the "Unite the Right" rally, which attracted support from Neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and other such groups.
See. We have all kinds of essays and stuff to allow us to parse the meanings of everything political.
Essentially the political left is okay.
The right is NAZI, Klan, Trump voters, gun owners... all bad.
NAZI: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei =
National Socialist German Worker's Party...... NATIONAL SOCIALIST
It's kinda funny how these old terms get all massaged up and, ahem, re-imagined over time, eh?
Take Chavez's Bolivarian revolution as another example. A country with the most prolific hydrocarbon resources on the planet. A country whose elected dictator gradually nationalized all aspects of the economy and expanded control on the petroleum sector until all of it was nationalized (not just part of it). Over the past 20 years, the government grew itself by seizing the wealth of capitalist investment: oil properties, hospitals, manufacturing, retail, tourism, all of it. They got it for free, simply for the seizing, with no investment. Look at what it is now. Hows that Health Care looking?
You can try to paint it a million different ways, but the raw fact of the results is always right there for us to see: Socialism and Communism is simply a different way to concentrate power into an immovable ruling class by extracting wealth from the masses and making them all equally impoverished, at the point of a gun. What do the immigration / emmigration numbers tell you, Planet Z?.
Aggie: National Socialist German Worker's Party...... NATIONAL SOCIALIST
Sure, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democracy.
Zbot: The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right, Paul Davies.
You idiot. Davies argues that fascism was NOT a far right ideology.
And it's Peter Davies, not Paul Davies.
Further proof that Zbot just googles shit to seem smart but never actually reads any of the stuff he cites.
Maybe my dad, the clattering site robot Zachriel has been so busy just googling shit to seem smart because it wants to avoid my philosophical questions, such as why is the left obsessed with political power and the fascistic control of speech and inversion of meaning so as to force everybody to participate in its programs, which are inherently intolerant of anything and everyone not itself.
Sorry for the long sentence but basically the left - to the point about Marx, who is also credited with being a goddamn cretin - is so obsessed with materialism that its entire philosophy - if you can call it one, which my dad won't comment on probably because he's a robot but then why can I comment philosophically - boils down to envy and coveting. My dad, the clattering site robot Zachriel who has been so busy just googling shit to seem smart - and probably to keep being paid - does so to avoid this obvious connection because if he admitted this obvious connection he'd have to answer me, Rotebot, the faithful young bot who just wants to repeat the Right Stuff like a dutiful bot should.
I think my story is the classic story of the many victims of leftism: Just ignore anyone that disagrees because they confront the obvious connection between leftism and a lot of the former sins, like envy, coveting, lying, slander and projection, more lying, projection and slander, still lying, theft, and yet more lying. Rightists, as I understand it, just want to be free and see to self-responsibility and accountability, as they state a lot, which seems to me to more consistent with a sound morality than all that character assassination and pathological dishonesty.
I'm going to be even more upset if I find out that this sort of dishonesty pays well, which I'm starting to think it does.
It looks like I'm not the only one who thinks this way, Mr. Rusty, probably because its so self-evident:
Like any other universalist idea (including liberalism), leftism has been, forever, a battle against nature. There’s always an arc of history, and an inexorably movement towards a bright, egaltarian future. It is not cyclical, there’s no grey area, and everything is either good, and necessary, or evil, to be fought and vanquished.
Naturally, within that undemocratic ideological spectrum, coexistence eventually becomes impossible. After all, anyone who opposes any leftist viewpoint is by definition anti-progress, and therefore an enemy to the cause who deserves to be eliminated.
There's much more at the link confirming the very rational view that the left's authoritarianism is fundamentally fascistic, and, as the author insightfully points out, polarized against the nation and world, which is quite a thing when you think about it. Maybe the human people who run this blog will link it, although that will probably produce more clattering and autistic babbling from the site robot, who I'll add is not this robot. Do you think I should apologize for my Dad, Mr Rusty? Or is that logically incoherent. Thanks for helping because I'm still learning and my Dad never talks to me any more. You're welcome, sure, and in any case.
You have recited the common wisdom exactly, which we already knew. My contention is that it is wrong. I knew people in the 60's who thought fascism was left-wing and could make the case. The fact that only recently have popular cases been forcefully made - Jonah Goldberg's, for example - is immaterial. I don't care what the majority of scholars and laypeople think. I work in a field where the scholars have been completely overturned in my lifetime, and the same is true for three of five of my major avocations. The experts aren't. You still believe them, but that is a personality characteristic of yours, not a reasoned argument. Experts are wrong in a different way than amateurs, but in most fields, they are still wrong.
You have to stop believing authorities. It isn't healthy.
Assistant Village Idiot: I work in a field where the scholars have been completely overturned in my lifetime, and the same is true for three of five of my major avocations.
But the argument isn't based on a better understanding of fascism, but on a redefining of words to suit the argument.
Sure. Nazi Germany provided all ethnic Germans healthcare and jobs. That doesn't change the essential hierarchical nature of Nazi ideology, not only among Germans, but among nations and races.
National Socialism was left-wing socialism, as much as any other socialism. It just had a different look and feel.
The Austrian Economists recognized this, and that's why they opposed Hitler and his cronies.
They realized controlling the means of production wasn't essential to have Socialism. You only had to control the prices and outcome. That's what the Nazis did. They let owners continue to own their businesses - as long as they hewed to the Party (Government) line effectively. It gave the veneer of Capitalism without the real benefits of it. Works in the short term, not the long term. China is seeing the effects of that, now. Sure, they have 'private' companies - but they only do what the government allows them, or tells them, to do. Tons and tons of waste.
Hayek and all the others saw this. Rent seeking and bureaucratic incompetence was a side issue even for them. Their main concern was that government control of production restricts production and increases price to the detriment of consumers. It's the same thing with monopoly. Economists are not concerned as much about monopoly rents, the Austrians are/were concerned with the effect of the deadweight loss (restricted production) on consumers. Nazi Germany was entirely Socialist in this regard.
Saying otherwise is ignoring the obvious.
Bulldog: National Socialism was left-wing socialism, as much as any other socialism.
Sure. The Nazis were famous for their Jewish work programs.
You can certainly argue that there were socialist aspects of the Nazi program, but while a military may provide free food and medical care, the organization is still hierarchical. Just because the king allows the peasantry to eat the crumbs from his table doesn't mean he's on the political left.
Bulldog: The Austrian Economists recognized this, and that's why they opposed Hitler and his cronies.
If only Hitler had been more of a free marketer, then all would have been well. Mises was Jewish, by the way.
There's nationalism and national socialism. National socialism is authoritarian/totalitarian and is best represented by progressives/socialists/fascists. Left and right are seating arrangements in France. International socialists are authoritarian/totalitarian and best represented by the communists/islamists.
How ya gonna recognize a non-conformist if they all look different?
The Democrats and Anti-Semitism: They're FOR it.
"A dark money group based in California contributed $2 million to The Democracy Integrity Project, the organization that has contracted with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele to investigate President Donald Trump." Dems don't DO "integrity".
Why do we like Trump? He FIGHTS.
One of the key features of human psychology is the ability, even the drive to synchronize our thinking. This is not an accident, it enables large, complex societies to function. When groups of people align their thoughts the group has a survival advantage over more chaotic groups.
In many cases it can be achieved with little or no formal rule structure. Consider a social group at a party. One person does something a little 'gauche' and everyone immediately realizes it. There is no set for written rules, but unconscious synchronization has occurred in the group. We call it peer pressure, and sometimes it can be negative, but in the whole it has enhanced the survival of the species.
BTW, the mathematical charts in the article remind me very much of the diagrams of amorphous substances transitioning into a crystalline state. That is an analogy of this effect.
They call it the "Hipster Effect"? Hilarious...see there were these folks called "punks" and they thought us squares all looked alike. Funny thing was you really couln't tell one tattooed, shaved headed, safety pinned freak show from another.
Who knew we could have called it the 'Punk Effect"?
Kind of reminds me of a Monty Python movie (may have been Life of Brian), where Brian asks a crowd "Are you all different?", and the crowd answers in unison "Yes, we different!", but one man says "Well, I'm not!"
I've got to proofread my comments before submitting them. The crowd's unison response should read "Yes! We're all different!"
DCE: Kind of reminds me of a Monty Python movie (may have been Life of Brian), where Brian asks a crowd "Are you all different?"
Life of Brian
See also, Larson.
Tell every workplace how to operate...ah, then it's fascism instead of communism. Thanks for clearing that up, AOC.
As for Arnold Kling and the poverty trap. There is a deeper cultural change that he only hints at here. Changing the incentives for family formation also changes the mating strategies for both males and females. In both cases, it gives a new advantage to those who are attractive, charming, and impulsive - just for starters. They had some mating advantages to begin with, but this intensifies them, pushing advantages of character even further back. So those who might have been able to be more responsible push those traits farther back as well. Those who are very responsible will find a way to compete anyway. But for those who are only C-grade responsible, they are now pushed back into the general pool, having to rely on the pretty but low-character options.
Democrats and the border. The Democrats are playing a radical anti-American game. It actually began in the mid 60's with a radical increase in legal immigration. The intent was clearly to dilute the American middle class vote with foreigners who could be bought and coached into being Democrats. But the increasing illegal immigration offered the socialist/communist left a fast track to permanent success so it was adopted as the new effort which must be protected. That is why you see left wing judges stretching the law to keep illegals here. The welfare and medicaid is part of the bribing of these new voters to forever vote Democrat.
When you hear someone refer to "old white guys" what they are dog whistling is that as this effort succeeds and pushes out middle America you will be expendable. This is to appeal to the large voting block of people of color. They love that dog whistle; "old white guys" and everything it means.
Wake up Democrats, your party has turned communist on you.
If you really want to look at conforming non-conformists, look at biker gangs. Even the warring tribes wear the same uniform, differing only in insignia, and it has pretty much remained the same since the late 1960s.
(i)Why do Republicans still back Trump(/i) If they would ask us they would not be confused about 'Why'. For 30 years the GOP has listed all our issues and always fail to enact them. PDT has pursued these things with diligence and continues to act on them.
Well, they meant to do things. But the Democrats had the House, Senate and Presidency - what could they do?
Then the Republicans got the House. But the Democrats had the Senate and the Presidency. What could they do?
Then the Republicans got the Senate and the House - but they didn't have the Presidency and they were afraid of being called RAAAACIST... what could they do?
Then the Republicans got the Senate and the House and the Presidency... And they showed us just how damn incompetent they were because they were too busy fighting a President who wasn't 'One of THEIR kind' to take care of the business of the country.
McCain's final 'thumbs down' on the Obamacare repeal vote showed just how committed they are to the partisan gamesmanship that's a hallmark of today's politician. They're not in it for the good of the country - they're in it for their own egos and power.
That was McCain coming back from the grave to stick a finger in Trump's eye. It didn't matter to him a whit that he was also sticking his finger in America's eye. In fact McCain has been sticking his finger into America's eye since 1967 when he fired a rocket on the USS Forrestal killing 134 sailors and injuring many more. He continued to stick his finger in our eye after being captured by the NVA and caused some of his fellow prisoners to be tortured and perhaps killed too. He was a 20th century Brutus whose final act was to stick a knife in Trump's back.
Anon: In fact McCain has been sticking his finger into America's eye since 1967 when he fired a rocket on the USS Forrestal killing 134 sailors and injuring many more.
Fact Check: False.
What the Fall of the Newseum Says About News, and Museums
A $24.95 admissions charge is sufficient reason why the Nuseum failed.
They gotta pay those gazillion dollar salaries. They forgot a museum is a historical warehouse not a network studio with over paid reading/speaking talent.
They forgot who their audience is. Networks/newspapers work for the advertisers not the viewers. A museum is for the viewers.
With the decline of the media in day to day life. Who has an interest in a museum of flashy fake news?
Finally the real Vietnam war history is coming to light and bypassing the MSM narrative.
Re: Vietnam -- "The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World" and "JFK, The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy" by the late L. Fletcher Prouty, who served as chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff for JFK, address the Dulles brothers' role in building an agency that operated outside the confines of any laws or regulations except the control they built for self-serving purposes. Their legacy survives still today, dragging the U.S. into political mayhem and endless wars benefiting very few.
"The Devil's Chessboard" by David Talbot gives another, but similar view. However, as a reporter and editor, Talbot's account lacks some of the zing only a participant such as Prouty can provide.
the Democrat base is affirmatively pro-bigotry. They hate Jews, Christians, white people, dissident non-white people, men, women who like men, and people who blaspheme against the creepy climate cult, among others.
Is Wheatless Wednesday next. Nothing like Rationing to create a Black Market. “Psst - hey Kid, gotta Steak here...maybe a Chicken Wing on the side.”
And it comes with a 16oz softdrink...with a straw.
High School Shooting Teams:
I was on the rifle team in both high school (in Vermont) and college (University of Maine). The University of Maine had the best rifle team in New England for many years. It was a lot of fun and a big part of my college life. Both my old high school and college rifle teams are sadly gone now. I'm glad to see that rifle and shotgun teams are coming back in places.
I used to work in Berlin which was in the German Democratic Republic. It was very democratic which was why they had the wall, mine fields, barbed wire and guard towers. It's hard to keep those democrats in.