“The Democracy We Want”

The American Left has lost its mind. It’s not just that they are incoherent on a whole host of issues, but now they are so recklessly anti-Trump that they would rather see the country they live in suffer misfortune than experience any success attributable to our President.

Downplaying the historical significance of the first meeting between a U.S. President and a North Korean head of state, I heard one “expert” on the radio say, with all the sophistication of a fifth-grader, that other Presidents could have done it, but “they didn’t want to.” To the geniuses on the Left, maintaining negativity re Trump is the thing, so they are praying the incipient rapprochement between the President and Kim Jong Un falls apart in some way—their nightmare is the Korean Peninsula becoming denuclearized and peaceful as the result of anything The Donald does.

And I’m not so sure they wouldn’t prefer to have nuclear ballistic missiles aimed at us¹ from Pyongyang than admit that President Trump did a good job at the Singapore summit. I used to think that the Left was too ideological, that they would push a social agenda forward regardless of the collateral damage. Like the Soviet Union, say, or Cuba. They love their social engineering ideas even if actual people suffer. You see something similar at work in their global warming activism. In a crusade pretty far removed from science, they protest against CO2, against  the greenhouse effect—you know, things that make this planet habitable—to the point where I’ve come to doubt that they truly believe their own climate hysteria. Maybe they are just using it as a tool to get us to do what they want, like put up windmills and drive exploding electric cars. That would at least explain why they warn us of the perils of warming, yet shun any data that indicate we are not warming. But not warming—wouldn’t that be good? I guess not. Did you know that we’ve been cooling for the past two years? Shhhh!!

But there is more going on here, of course, than simply Leftist ideology versus conservative-populist thought. The Left is not ideologically opposed to peace, or in favor of global warming, but they want control, and in pursuit of that they are reckless. What American in his or her right mind would actually want a recession, except knuckleheads on the Left, as a means to discredit Trump’s economic policies (see under Maher, Bill; asinine comment)? And who thinks it has been in any way helpful to this country to keep yammering about the Russians? If they were civic-minded, the Left would hope that there is no collusion for the special counsel to find,  but of course, they hope the opposite. And they will keep pretending to look for it regardless of anything to find, because the investigation itself is disruptive to the Trump Presidency, and that will do.

This is cultural nihilism, aka insanity. I don’t have to defend everything about The Donald to write that he seems to be basically a decent person, and is doing just fine as President. You could argue against those points if you wish, but you really should bring more to the table than—you hate Trump. And that seems to be the common thread running through much of the Left’s antics today. They sniff that they are “progressive” while displaying the temperament of children. Sadly, they also wield the power of grownups, controlling the mainstream media and a big chunk of the political machinery.  Plus, they can organize, and have no scruples to speak of. Those things should worry the rest of us.

I see their handiwork in the small community where I live. The large storefront window of a print shop on the main drag is plastered with a bounty of hateful anti-Trump posters and messages (he’s awful, doesn’t like immigrants,  is a white supremacist, must be impeached, etc.) and of course, a sign that says “Hate is not welcome here.” It’s beyond parody. If I wanted to mock an anti-Trump business by exaggerating the presentation of mindless, over-the-top messaging, I could not outdo this actual window.

And in this forward-thinking community, a group has formed calling itself “Unifying for Democracy.” It’s basically Democrats getting Democrat politicians together to attend meetings with locals to discuss how to elect more Democrats. Well, fair enough, but the premise is disingenuous—unifying for democracy? Here’s a quote from one of the organizers as it appeared in the local newspaper, citing the question they hope to resolve:

“How do we get the democracy we want?”

Maybe I overreact, but what a bizarre, Orwellian statement that is. The democracy they want? Such as what? A democracy that excludes people who disagree with them?  You know, people who lack progressiveness (and voted for Trump)? I think that’s it. Oh, they claim to be concerned about things like corporate influence and gerrymandering, and let’s say they are up to a point, but let’s also face it: this is all about their angst over President Trump. See, I’m pretty sure they had the “democracy we want” when Obama was President. Yeah, I doubt that they’d be all about having political meetings at the Presbyterian Church if we had a President Hillary Clinton right now. Their problem is they would like a “democracy,” but without the risk of lowbrow democratic outcomes like the election of a populist President.

By all means, work to persuade others to vote with you, but don’t claim that democracy is broken when you don’t get your way. We hear it all the time now, how our President is a threat to our democracy. How we must remove him to save our democracy. The closer we look at those claims, though, the more we see machinations of the Old Guard, the losers who don’t want to let go of their ability to control us. Not in pursuit of some high ideals, but just power for its own sake. I guess you could call that an ideology: the Ideology of Power. They would steer us away from democracy. We should not let them.

And here we are. As those who decry hate are themselves the haters; who decry fascism, themselves the fascists, so it is with people who now proclaim that President Trump is a threat to our democracy—they are themselves the threat. Ask yourself: who’s more likely to riot in the streets to get what they want, “progressives,” or Trump supporters? Two out of the last three Presidential elections were disappointments for me. I lived through Mr. “Pen and a Phone” for eight years and didn’t bemoan our democracy, demand impeachment, require a support group, throw a tantrum, or burn anything down. I accepted the will of the idiots who elected him.

That’s the deal with elections—there will always be those who are disappointed with the outcomes. That’s why we have elections, because we don’t all see things the same way, because we are a country with diverse takes on what direction we should go as a nation, what issues need to be addressed, and how; and what candidate is the best choice to lead us. We sort these things out through elections, and guess what happens in a couple more years? Yes! Another Presidential election! If you don’t like the President we have now, elect someone else. Pretty simple. That’s democracy, and much to the chagrin of the “progressives,” it’s alive and well.

¹ 6/29/2018 UPDATE.  In an interview published in Rolling Stone, Leftist freak Tom Steyer is asked about relying on established checks and balances in our government to reign in Trump and “correct the course,” rather than going for impeachment. Steyer responds, “I remember 2006. What happened is that George W. Bush, he put us in two disastrous wars and we were headed toward the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression. So if the answer is that we need those three things to happen for a course correction, I’d prefer to move a little quicker. How about that? But I take your point. Maybe we can have, like, a nuclear war and then we get a real course correction” [emphasis mine]. After the interviewer commented that such an idea was  “sobering,” Steyer took back the remark about nuclear war.


Open Letter to Robert Mueller: Please Find My Socks

Dear Mr. Mueller—I’m writing you with a request pertaining to this Special Counsel investigation you’re doing. Well, not just you, but you and that boatload of lawyers you have working for you. What do you have now, 16 prosecutors, 17? Not criticizing, but how did you screen your team anyway? I’m thinking it was a single-question application:

1. Should we impeach President Trump?  (Check One)

□ Yes! Sooner the better!         □ I don’t want this job, but thanks anyway.

I’m starting to feel sorry for some of these people you are targeting. People under scrutiny so nit-picky I doubt even the FBI itself could escape it unscathed (shall we find out?). People entangled in a “Trump-Russia” probe who may or may not have anything to do with Trump,  or who may or may not have anything to do with Russia. People I don’t normally care about, who are accused of doing things I don’t worry about, ever.  Should I? Jared Kushner’s financial dealings with China now? Is that right? China? Paul Manafort (whose home you no-knock raided), and now some Dutch lawyer who maybe did some work for him once? A George Papadopoulos, meeting some professor in London? George has pleaded guilty to a “process crime,” a new concept for me, which I love. It’s where instead of uncovering wrongdoing, you create it through your investigation! Nice. Oh, and Mike Flynn, to whom we are in debt for his long and distinguished military service, well, he too committed a process crime, so string him up, man!

It’s gotten to be just a creepy, nasty, mean-spirited business, a prosecution more than an investigation, and conducted without regard for negative impact on this country or the people who are trampled over in the process.  No crusty pile is left unturned, no chummy reporter unleaked to, as you attempt to confirm activity that is not actually illegal (campaign “links” to the Russian government) but which you hope will lead to something big, like the removal of President Trump from office. It’s a “fishing expedition,” sans the beers and the calming effect of the lake.

Oh, you did manage to indict a bunch of Russians for messing with us on the Internet and organizing rallies, but with all due respect, are you serious? You must be going somewhere else with this, otherwise these are trivial accusations, and against people you will never be able to extradite anyway. And it gives the impression that the United States just can’t keep up with all this social media stuff, or that we’re so clueless we’ll blindly attend demonstrations, or elect a President based on Facebook posts. It’s not a good look for the greatest democracy in the world, Mr. Mueller. The Russians did not make me vote for Donald Trump.

If you have accomplished nothing so far it’s because your assigned mission was a dishonest one from the start. No one is truly concerned about actual Russians here; the “Russians” are a hologram, a projection of the DC establishment’s frustration and disbelief that we would actually pick an outsider like Donald Trump to be our President. How dare the unwashed elect such a clown? As the old guard begins to quake at the idea of losing influence, they have called upon you to go once more unto the breach. Given all your resources, you are almost certain to find something eventually, but what will success look like for you? Bringing down the leader of the free world based on a violation of some arcane financial regulation, or the missteps of some inexperienced staffer, or, if all else fails, the ever-handy process crime? I personally think it is beneath you to take part in such a farce.

But if you are going to soldier on, how about borrowing the physician’s maxim: First, do no harm? Since you are free to roam and look into whatever “may arise” during the course of your investigation, can you help me find my socks? I had a pair of argyles. Had. I’ve rummaged through both of my sock drawers, a lot of plain navy blue ones and black ones, but I also had a pair of green-blue argyles which are nowhere to be found and (bonus!) I think the Russians took them. Yes, I’m pretty sure about that. What other explanation could there be?

If you could help me out here, that would be great. Don’t let any of your prosecutors duck this assignment, Mr. Mueller; none of this “I’m too good to look for socks” crap, if you know what I mean. Anyway, there’s no downside for you on this. No harm will come to our country by looking for my socks. Thanks for your time.

—Respectfully, Malcolm Beifong

UPDATE! Stop the presses! Guess what? Mrs. Beifong found the socks! She is amazing! They’d fallen between the washer and dryer. Embarrassing. So never mind.

Obsessing Over the Guns

Of course we should place some restrictions on the sale of guns—they are dangerous, after all, so let’s not sell them to children—but we should not kid ourselves that gun control will prevent attacks from those dark souls who would terrorize us. After the Las Vegas shooting, there’s a lot of serious-sounding discussion about regulating the sale of “bump stocks.” Well, the Las Vegas shooter had an arsenal of 23 guns in his room and 50 lb of Tannerite (explosive) in his car. Take away the “bump stocks,” and we still have a problem, no?

In fact, most of the gun control ideas being discussed in the aftermath of the shooting are bizarre non-sequiturs to the tragedy. Background checks? The shooter passed those. Ban suppressors? Laughable, Hillary. Please go home and stay there. Ban automatic weapons? Already banned with an exception for pre-1986 guns, and it’s hard to get those. Ban assault weapons? We tried that from 1994 to 2004, and still had the Columbine shooting in 1999; in fact, from what I’ve read, the impact of the ban relative to gun violence is that it made little or no difference, although it did reduce by over 20% the incidence of…gun shows. (The ban was not renewed.)

Even if we were to go to the extreme and repeal the Second Amendment, then confiscate all the guns we can, and make the sale and possession of guns illegal, we would be about where we were when weed was illegal in all 50 states, i.e., there was still a lot of it around. So we would accomplish nothing useful, but do a lot of damage to our constitutional democracy. It would not be worth it because the problem is not the guns. Not really. See, even if, if, we were able to keep guns out of the hands of mass murderers, these sociopaths will not be stopped because, unfortunately, there are many other ways to kill a bunch of people. Drive a truck into a crowd of tourists, say.

We want to live normal lives and raise our children to be healthy and successful, but roaming among us like the living dead are those who did not get the memo that love and peace is where it’s at.  It’s time for some cultural introspection. Time to take stock of this social environment we have created as we try to explain these villains—did we feed them too many violent movies, too many first-person shooter video games? Did we give them too much privilege, or not enough? Did we fall back too easily on drugs to address their anxieties? Did we set them loose in the name of Freedom, only to find they actually needed to be cared for and kept separate from us? Did we spare them the burden of our ancient religion, only to find that they needed that burden, so replaced it with an ancient evil?

I don’t have the answers, but I know that “gun control” is misdirection and that politicians who make a big show of calling for it are wasting everyone’s time. We will not make things better by obsessing over the guns.

Football on Mars!

Did you know we play football on Mars? Yes, true fact. I know, you think it’s “barren” up here, but that’s because we mess with your data. All the time. You send these probes through space and we have lots of fun thinking up ways to throw you off. My friend Bob dumped his famous chip dip on one of your spectrometers during halftime (“Let’s see what they think of that! ha ha!”), and I probably should not admit this but I’ve got your Curiosity rover parked in my driveway (use it for shopping). But let’s skip all that, I’m a big football fan (because I hate those little footballs!) and my team is the Alba Mons Spiders. They are championship caliber, I have season tickets, and I never miss a game.

Sometimes I try to watch broadcasts of your games but, man, what the heck have you done to football? Let me give you some friendly Martian advice. Just a few things:

Taunting.  I almost fell off my chair laughing when I saw this—the “Taunting” penalty. Are you kidding me? A 15 yard penalty for “Taunting”? What next? Loss of down for “Harsh Language”? “Picking Your Nose”?

Up here on Mars, we require taunting after a play. In fact, we penalize teams for “Failure To Taunt”—15 yards and loss of down! Yeah baby!

“Instant” Replays. What’s instant about them? More to the point, though, why even have them? You’ll have a wide receiver make an acrobatic catch in the end zone with a cornerback wrapped around his legs, the ref signals Touchdown! and the crowd wants to go crazy, but wait. Wait. Was he juggling the ball? Was his left foot in bounds? Let’s have some league geniuses in a booth a thousand miles away take a look at the replay. Let’s have a little huddle of refs on the field scratching their heads for 10 minutes. Finally the result comes in, yes, touchdown confirmed. Yay.

See, on Mars, we ensure that our refs are properly trained to position themselves every play so that they have a good shot at making the correct call. They are expected to do their best, to be unbiased, and when they make the call, that is the end of the matter. “Touchdown!” really means “Touchdown!”

They are only Martian, and they will make mistakes, but here’s the thing: those mistakes are part of the game. Bad calls are the stuff of legend, and they make for pretty spirited debate down at the Pink Monkey Bird Sports Bar.

You on Earth turn every big play into a court case (“Your Honor, what is a ‘catch’ really?”), with the outcome decided well after the excitement of the moment has passed. Is that what you want to do? It’s unwatchable.

Politics. Oh brother, I hate to go here, but why-oh-why do you allow your games to become platforms for political protest? On Mars, we watch football to get away from politics!

People are always going to crab about something. Life is not perfect on Mars either, and we don’t all get along all the time, even though we are all part of the same great country, which we call “Tharsis.” We’ve got a lot of Tempe Terrans who have migrated to Alba Mons, and they are real assholes, but still, they played a part in the fight for Tharsis independence so we try to remember our common bonds when we get to Bowie Stadium. It’s a beautiful moment as we all rise up together, hands on our hearts, and sing the opening strains of the Tharsis national anthem:

“I’m an alligator…”

A beautiful moment. But I notice that on Earth, in “America” I think you call the place, you mix politics and football. I don’t get that. Why should you care what political point your football players want to make? They are abusing the celebrity you have given them, and playing you for fools. “Hey, I’m famous because I play a game, so I want to talk to you about my take on social justice.” How about doing that on your day off, dufus? How about discussing why it is that you are a millionaire when school teachers are just getting by? How does that scan, social justice-wise? How about right now showing some respect for the sacrifices made by those who founded your country and fought to keep it? How about recognizing the opportunity you have been given to bring people together, and rising to the occasion? How about getting off your butt for a few minutes before the game to stand up, hand on your heart, and sing?

“Keep your ‘lectric eye on me, babe…”

Or if your national anthem is not Moonage Daydream, then sing however yours goes. Ok, enough of that. Game’s about to start. I’ve got to jump in the rover and get some supplies. Bob’s bringing his “unidentified geologic anomaly” chip dip. Yum!

Veto the Sanctions

Forget about “optics” or whatever. During your campaign you suggested we would have better relations with Russia if you were elected. Now is a great time to start delivering on that, Donald.

Let me ask—who is running this show: You, or the press? I, for one, did not elect “The Press.” They were not on the ballot. I did not check a box for “Washington Post.” As my mentor might say, “Wag the dog, the tail must not.” (Yes, my mentor is Yoda. So what?)

In all seriousness I advise you to (a) refuse to sign the sanctions bill against Russia passed by the congress, and (b) definitely invite Putin to the White House for a beer. Let the usual suspects rant and rave all they want. Let Maxine scream “impeachment” from the highest rooftop in Inglewood. Dude, you are the President! No one said it would be easy, right? You will be criticized, sure, but what else is new? You can take it, and further, it’s your job to take it.

As my mentor might say, “If heat you cannot take, out of kitchen you must get, hmmm?”

Good luck.

Response to David Brooks

Response to the June 2 NYT opinion piece titled “Donald Trump Poisons the World,” by David Brooks. Certain not to be read by David Brooks.

I used to admire your writing, David. You wrote well and your political commentary was insightful. Then something happened to you: President Trump.

The problem is that you are not recognizing the revolution happening now, in real-time, nor understanding the need for it. When Gil Scott rapped that The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, he was more or less correct. Talking heads on CNN, voices on NPR, the New York Times, none will tell you about the revolution though you may see it in reflections of their panic. I see it in your panic, in your opinion piece “Donald Trump Poisons the World.” Are you hiding under your bed right now?

Our elected so-called representatives had become a bloated, slothful, self-interested monstrosity of elites, out of touch with the people they were ostensibly representing. And when those of us who had been living in quiet disagreement with the way things were being done around here found someone who seemed ready to shake things up, we said go for it, man!

This freaks you out no end, and I guess pulling out of the Paris climate accord finally pushed you over the edge. But President Trump sees the world as it is, not as you pretend it is. He’s a good person, and Americans are good people, your whining notwithstanding.

You have lost sight of who we are, blinded as you are by your disdain for the President. We are charitable and peace-loving, but that’s our business. Trump’s job is to keep the hounds at bay, to keep a watchful eye over this country, and to lead us forward. He’s doing fine, and would do even better with a little help. You should take a break.