RIP, Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

 

I was saddened to learn Sunday morning of the passing of someone I’ve known and engaged with numerous times over nearly 40 years, former U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar. I hope you’ll pardon me a few thoughts about Sen. Lugar’s estimable career as a man I deeply respected, and was inspired by.

He was elected as Mayor of Indianapolis back in the early 1970s. He was forever “tarnished” with being called Richard Nixon’s “favorite mayor,” a moniker used derisively by the left and the media (but I repeat myself). But much later, shortly after Barack Obama was elected to the US Senate, he quietly took him under his tutelage. Suddenly, the media coverage became a bit more favorable.

Lugar paid for that mentorship in part with a GOP primary defeat in 2012 when, nearing age 80, he unsuccessfully sought a fifth term to Richard Mourdock, Indiana’s state treasurer. He lost to Democrat Joe Donnelly. Donnelly was just replaced in the 2018 election by Republican Mike Braun. Lugar was the first US Senator in Indiana history to be elected to four consecutive terms.

Lugar came to the Senate in 1976, succeeding US Sen. Vance Hartke (D). He had lost a previous challenge to Birch Bayh in the Democratic year of 1974. As noted earlier, Lugar had been a highly successful and innovative mayor of Indianapolis. In 1982, when I was helping then-Rep. John Hiler (R-IN) run his reelection campaign, we coordinated closely with Sen. Lugar’s campaign through his estimable campaign manager, now President of Purdue University and former Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Lugar was also a good athlete, and was often spotted in 10K runs around Capitol Hill, including the former “Nike Challenge” race (which was actually a 5K). He helped inspire me to take up this lifelong habit.

Lugar policy chops were substantial. A former naval intelligence officer, he brought his enormous foreign policy and intel skills to the US Senate. He famously once said that if we knew what he knew, “it would keep you awake at night.”

But he was also a former chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and as a farmer (farm owner, more accurately), he understood the details and nuances of farm policy and politics like few could (talk about Byzantine policies and regulations). He even understood US dairy policy, which requires an IQ over 150.

Sen. Lugar ran for leadership positions in the Senate (unsuccessfully) and toyed with a presidential run. But as smart, wise, knowledgeable and skilled as he was, those efforts, sadly, were not successful. He had a habit of quietly, respectfully disagreeing with colleagues, and perhaps to his detriment, tried to school them.

What I probably take away more from the Senator, other than his impeccable integrity, honesty and humility, is the outstanding people he surrounded himself with, from people like Mitch Daniels, Marty Morris, Jeff Bergener, Lori Rowley, and Chuck Connor. Good senators know how to attract great staff.

RIP, Senator Lugar, and thank you.

Government Protects Rights

 

Officer: Hey, get up, you’ll get run over.

Idiot Leftist Protester: I can’t get up, I’ve glued my breasts to the pavement to protest (insert leftist gibberish here).

Officer: Oh, I’m sorry. Here you go. (Places traffic cones.)

ILP: Aren’t you going to do anything?

Officer: I did–look–cones.

ILP: That’s it!?!

Officer: Oh, right! Where is that paper? Ah, here we go. Ahem, Per the Municipal Code, Chapter IV, section 3-E, paragraph C1, municipal employees are not allowed to interfere with the rights of a person or persons to peacefully speak, petition, or protest in a public place. If an employee determines that the person or persons actions may endanger that person or persons’ health and safety, the employee will warn of the possible danger-remember, I said “get up or you’ll be run over”-but may not interfere with the expression of constitutional rights. Once a person or persons have been warned, the municipality is absolved of responsibility for the health and safety of such a person or persons. An employee may, at their discretion, place warning signs, placards, symbols or devices-cones, for example-in order to protect such a person or persons exerting their rights; no such signs, placards, symbols or devices may block the public’s view of the person or persons exerting such rights. Any municipal employee encountering a person or persons in such a protest or petition will read this paragraph verbatim to any and all such person or persons.

ILP: No! It’s not right! I demand that you do something!

Officer: Ohhh, two protests at once. That’s ambitious! Well, good luck. I’d love to stay here and chit-chat, but I’ve got to go.

ILP: What!?! Nooooo!

Officer: Yeah, union rules, I’ve got to take my break now or I’ll get in trouble. You know how it is.

ILP: But, but, I. . .

Officer: Oh, by the way, right now you’re just making a lot of people angry. Once rush hour is over, though, and traffic clears out, the cars will be racing down this street. Let’s hope you don’t get hit.

ILP: Get hit?

Officer: Yeah, that last one was a huge mess. I was almost an hour late getting home and my wife was mad as I’d ever seen her.

Dachau – Never Forget

 

On April 29, 1945, 74 years ago, the U.S. Seventh Army arrived at the main camp at Dachau and liberated the surviving prisoners there. While not as infamous as Auschwitz, Dachau is still a very important concentration camp to know about.

It’s where it all began.

On March 22, 1933, Dachau was opened as the first concentration camp of the Nazi regime. It didn’t start with the Jews or gypsies or homosexuals, but rather with political prisoners. Several hundred people who had stood in the way of the rise to power were moved from other locations to here. Two years later, after the Nuremberg Laws were passed, the camp would see what most people remember as being the true victims of the Nazi concentration camp horror. Originally designed to hold 5,000 prisoners, over the course of the years, the camp expanded to hold tens of thousands.

Dachau was not a death camp like Auschwitz but that doesn’t mean people didn’t die there. They did. Dachau had many satellite camps – the prisoners were processed there and then either remained or were shipped out to the other camps nearby. The prisoners were used as slave labor to run the Nazi war machine, where they were forced to literally work to death in horrible conditions with little to no food.

Dachau -what’s left of the train tracks that brought prisoners

The prisoners came by train right to the front gates, where – like Auschwitz, they would pass through a gate with some advice:

Replica gate at Dachau (the original is in the museum, it had been stolen previously)

The prisoners were processed at the main administration building, where their belongings would be cataloged and stolen. The building is now a museum that takes guests through the entire horrible and heartbreaking history of the camp, with information on every major category of prisoners kept there: Jews, political prisoners, homosexuals, gypsies, Russian prisoners of war and more. You walk through the entire timeline while passing by replica or actual items taken from the prisoners, as well as the record books kept.

The Main Administration Building and prisoner yard

The original buildings that housed the prisoners were torn down shortly after the war. Two have been rebuilt, but built in a way that guests can see the progression on how the camp changed between 1933 and 1945 – having to keep changing in order to hold more and more prisoners in the same space.

Trees now line the path between where the prisoner barracks once stood

It’s hard to picture this place filled with barracks, overflowing with prisoners. The foundations of the buildings are still there, so you have to close your eyes and imagine the horrors. Over thirty-one thousand people died over the years at Dachau. Some were executed (more on that later), some died from horrific medical experimentation, others died from disease and malnutrition. Some died trying to escape.

One of the guard towers – moat and barbed wire faced those trying to escape. One of the rebuilt barracks is in the background

With that many deaths, the Nazis had to do something to dispose of the bodies, so like Auschwitz, they built a crematorium.

The Small Crematorium

But that one wasn’t big enough, so they built another building with more capacity. The larger building, however, was built with the Final Solution in mind, as right next to the crematorium was a gas chamber. Historians are generally in agreement that this gas chamber was never used at Dachau. Words can not describe the feeling when you walk through that chamber.

The large crematorium. The gas chamber was to the left in this picture

The area around this facility was where they dumped the ashes of the bodies and was also where they executed (mostly prisoners of war) people by gunfire.

Today, the sites of where the ashes were dumped are memorials. Jews, Christians, and others in various places around the facility. But all feelings of hope are not lost from this place. Now, where barracks once stood, there are various chapels and memorials – from Russian Orthodox, Protestant, Catholic and Jewish.

The Jewish Memorial at Dachau. A Catholic convent is seen in the background.

You would have to be a monster to not visit this place and feel distressed over what happened here and across Europe during that period. Those who stood up in public were arrested and taken to these camps. Those who silently protested, like the White Rose, were eventually caught and killed. As Edmund Burke said “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”.

May the example of those who were exterminated here between 1933 – 1945 because they resisted Nazism help to unite the living for the defense of peace and freedom and in respect for their fellow men

The structure above now stands between the entrance to the camp and the main Administration building. Dachau is a somber place, a symbol of the horrors of the Third Reich. But visiting is extremely important. Why?

VERGISS NICHT

אל תשכח

DO NOT FORGET

It seems to me that too many of us have forgotten. Or we have focused on only certain aspects of the horrors, and not how they began. We continue to allow open anti-Semitism or excuse it away as being legitimate criticism of Israel. Hate crimes not involving Jews are amplified but the hate crimes against Jews are swept under the rug or just not mentioned. Major newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons without any major concern other than just pulling it from online. A terrorist tries to massacre Jews on the last day of Passover. (and it seems the major response is mostly for gun control, not to discuss the root causes of it) This issue transcends political parties – every major political party has problems with this. Hating someone just because of their religion should never be tolerated, ever. We must never forget what happened before.

I know I won’t. And I’m teaching my kids so they won’t.

Rethinking a Four-Year Education

 

Slowly but sure, chatter about higher education is on the upswing. It’ isn’t just about conservatives being heckled or banned from campuses or the de-evolution of campuses cultures into young adult day care centers. It is also about the de-evolution of campus curricula and education, as was recently put on display by the University of Tulsa (Oklahoma of all places). Parents (and others) are paying for college degrees (some upwards of $70,000 per year) often with little relevance to the real world, with graduates often woefully underprepared for the corporate and work (not to be confused with “woke”) cultures that await them.

During the last recession (2008-2009), many recent college graduates faced economic reality head-on while even today, in some states, upwards of 40 percent of millennials, many if not most college graduates, are living at home with their parents (some for valid reasons, no doubt). And don’t get me started about how these recent graduates are disrupting business cultures, and not always in a good way. Too many of them are trying to impose their leftist college cultures on to their employers.

Fortunately, America is waking up to the reality that, just maybe, a four-year college degree isn’t always the ticket to achieving the American dream. The latest wrinkle isn’t necessarily a new idea – do you really need to attend a college or university for four years to earn a degree? There are plenty of high-paying service and manufacturing jobs going begging, for sure, but if you still want to earn that degree, there may be a better, less-costly way.

As a high school graduate in the Late Cretaceous period (okay, 1974), I planned to be the first of my family to graduate from college. A couple of problems with that: I had no money, and my parents at the time were in no position to provide financial support.

Lucky for me, I earned a couple of small scholarships from the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma, which also featured a “trimester” system. Even better – if you were an in-state student attending full time for the first two trimesters, at the time, the third trimester was tuition-free. To make ends meet, I kept a weekend job at a Braum’s Ice Cream store, before moving on to a local job at a clothing store (selling shoes), and running the dishwasher in the school cafeteria before my 8 a.m. journalism class. Eventually, I scored a cool part-time job as a reporter for the local paper. All while carrying a 13+ hour per trimester course load.

This, while doing plenty of extracurricular activity, such as student government, drama, and editing the school paper. My college career spanned Gerald Ford’s presidency (2.5 years) almost to the day. The thought of a “student loan” was foreign to me. I finished with no debt and a great job waiting for me. And I would not trade this experience for an Ivy League degree and $150,000 or more of debt.

It’s too late for my sons (they both graduates with very expensive degrees from respected four-year private universities). Maybe it’s time to rethink this “four-year college” education nonsense, and that includes starting college right after high school. Two years of military service or enlisting in the National Guard first can instill some critical disciplinary and other skills that will make the college experience more valuable. True, some degrees (e.g., chemical engineering) may require more than five years. And other schools, such as St. Joseph’s University Haub School has a terrific four and five-year food marketing programs that include real work experience that culminates in either a Bachelor’s or Masters degree.

The point is, it’s time for students and parents to rethink whether the “traditional” four-year approach to college is right. This post from The Federalist is worth your time.

Springtime in the Skagit Valley

 

Ray and I took a drive up to Mount Vernon this afternoon. It’s the last weekend of the Tulip Festival. I did a big post over at my own blog, RushBabe49.com with more pictures, but I saved this one for my friends at Ricochet.

The Muse

 

The Muse was a digital algorithmic music composing machine invented in 1969 by Artificial Intelligence researchers Marvin Minsky and Edward Fredkin at MIT. It was built with the digital logic circuitry of the day; gates, registers, and counters in simple integrated circuits.

While strongly associated with electronic music, The Muse was not a “synthesizer” as it only played a fixed level square wave. Instead, it created original melodies from algorithmic processes, something that hadn’t been seen before. There were no pre-programmed sequences or random sources involved.

Minsky and Fredkin formed a company named Triadex to manufacture the units, which sold for $300. Accessories included an amplifier and a light show in matching enclosures. Multiple Muses could be linked together and synchronized.

The Muse is incredibly rare; one report claims that only 280 were built, and a small fraction of those are likely in working condition today. And that’s a shame, because this was a remarkable device and we can learn much from it.

So … one day I felt particularly inspired, and reverse-engineered The Muse, and built a software simulation that runs on a web page. The project was actually a lot of fun; I had it working in one day, and spent a bit more time on the details, nuances and features, some more time exploring its potential, and writing up what I discovered and putting it all together in an article.

So now, anybody can have a Muse.

My article, with the simulation, instructions, references, and a lot of technical details, is here: Triadex Muse in Javascript

Try it out, have fun, tell us what you discover.


There’s more…

The folks at the Barbican Centre in London got in touch. They are setting up an exhibition on AI and the humanities called AI — More than Human, running from May 16 to August 26. And after that, the exhibition tours the Groninger Forum in the Netherlands, December 2019 to May 2020.

And one of the exhibits is… The Muse.

They have an actual Muse on loan from the London Science Museum, and are setting up my simulated Muse running on a tablet next to it.

This is pretty interesting from a museum presentation standpoint as the visitor can:

  • see an actual Muse under glass
  • try out the simulated Muse without risking damage to the original
  • try the presets, dramatically reducing the ramp-up time
  • see how the note patterns work
  • and “take it home” with the URL

I’ve built a special version for the exhibit; standalone, single page, formatted specifically for a tablet in landscape orientation, very little text, and exhibition color scheme (not mine!). It looks like this:

So if you’re going to be in London next month…

Or try it out now; the museum version is here: The Triadex Muse, An Interactive Simulation

I’ve got to say, it’s pretty exciting to have my software in a museum.

“It’s Not Derangement, It’s War.”

 

This post’s title is a quote in an article by Karin McQuillan in American Greatness entitled “It’s Not Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Ms. McQuillan articulates a point that I have made in other posts: the target of the anti-Trump progressives is not Trump, but us. And by “us” I mean those that value Americanism, that embrace our constitutional process even as we might argue about how best to implement the promise of liberty. As Ms. McQuillan says —

Under Barack Obama, ordinary Democrats became enamored of the narrative that they were the Good People, hence entitled to crush anyone in their way, because everything they do is in the service of social justice.

The derangement we are facing is not Orange Man Bad; it is America Bad.

The Democrats don’t believe in our two-party system anymore. They utterly reject American civic norms of treating the president with a modicum of respect and cooperation. They don’t want to alternate presidential power every four or eight years. They think theirs is the only party that deserves to be elected.

Before Trump was a gleam in their eye, Democrats saw themselves as the only morally valid people in the country. They don’t want individual rights anymore, only group rights. They want Republicans and dissenting liberals to be silenced. Silencing is too good for us—they want us publicly shamed, if need be physically attacked, and any contrary ideas hounded out of the public and the private square.

And

Orange Man Bad because America Bad. Trump and his supporters’ big crime is that they believe in and love America. The Democrats real derangement is that they no longer believe in American individualism and freedom of thought, speech, and enterprise. They don’t believe in the philosophy of “live and let live,” so vital to our republic. They don’t even believe in justice, only what they deceptively call “social justice.”

A political movement based on a sense of moral monopoly and it’s own unquestioned right to rule is anti-American at its core. Keep your eye on the main game, not the tactic of attacking Trump. Trump will only be here to defend us for six more years at the most.

The Democrats are in the dismantling of America for the long haul. It is a national tragedy and it must be stopped.

And this is why I anguish over the non-progressive anti-Trumpers. Wittingly or not they add strength to the political goals of the progressives. In an earlier post I called for a truce, not a surrender, between pro-Trump and non-progressive anti-Trumpers. This is why.

After Trump there will need to be another non-progressive champion. Recall two quotes from Benjamin Franklin:

We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.

And

[In response to a question at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”] A Republic, if you can keep it.

If we can keep it is the great challenge now and always.

Men, Women, and Emotions

 

Knowing that men and women are different does not prevent me from taking issue with the simplistic contrasts floating around in our culture: women share their trials to vent, while men want to fix things; men are task-oriented, while women are people-oriented; men talk to give information, while women gab to feel connected. Both sexes laughingly accept these descriptions, but I think further examination warrants refinement of our understanding. Even when there is a degree of truth in distinguishing between men and women this way, clinging too firmly to rough categories can prevent us from truly understanding one another. Also—dare I say it—sometimes descriptions like this give mature, capable women far too little credit.

Take, for example, the cultural idea that women are emotional creatures, while men are more likely to operate from logic. At first glance, this makes sense. When we draw conclusions from what we observe, we often see women more vulnerable to tears, expressions of affection, and talk about true feelings. In latter years, we’ve been more open about discussing how hormones can affect women’s behavior. On the other hand, we often see men thriving in careers that demand cool logic—programming, engineering, architecture. Men like facts, as opposed to emphasizing feelings.

There is some basic truth to the foregoing paragraph, but I would like to point out first that this perspective, when applied practically, can give women short shrift, not only sounding dismissive, but also limiting their opportunities. I have heard someone say that women can’t be appointed to certain positions, because they allow their emotions to interfere with their reasoning. In the secular world at least, appointments should be based on accomplishment and how one has proven him or herself—in other words, on facts—not on bromides giving the impression that women will get verklempt when faced with the possibility of a business merger. I am not arguing for quotas, nor do I believe that women ought to be shouldering their way into the front lines of battle. However, I do believe that we ought to consider how we have allowed this common understanding about emotional females to shape how the sexes interact and make decisions. Few statements are more unfair to a woman than one suggesting that her views are invalid because she is slave to her feelings or her hormones.

Secondly, in categorizing men and women as logical versus emotional, we’ve drawn hasty conclusions from a few surface features. Diving deeper tells a different story.

When we say that someone is emotional, what we often mean, without realizing it, is emotionally immature. Being emotionally immature is being out of control in our emotions, being driven by them. Do most women have and express a variety of emotions? Certainly. Do they seem to cry a lot? Sure. But are they emotionally immature, allowing their emotions to dictate their decisions? Yes, at times they are, but as with the rest of the human race, we are a variegated lot, and you will find many examples of females who have left behind their adolescent impulses. They recognize their emotions for what they are. While acknowledging the feelings, often their decisions are influenced by them only insofar as these feelings align with the facts. Affection, frustration, sorrow, melancholy, nostalgia—while all these may be given outward expression, the mature woman is judicious in acting out of them.

Men have feelings, too—a lot of them. While they keep these at bay as they write computer programs and design bridges, their feelings are evident in their relationships to the people closest to them. Their families see love, anger, anxiety, helplessness, irritation, hope, contentment, and more. I think it’s fair to ask the same question of men that we did of women. Are men emotionally immature? Again, the answer is, even though we may be dealing with different types of emotions, it depends on what man you’re talking about. Men can be stalwart companions and family men, self-aware, passions in check. Or, they may allow themselves to be yanked around by their impulses, alienating those closest to them in the process.

Being emotionally mature or not is a choice. Both men and women can choose. Will they look at the world and their past experiences and rationally act on them? Or will they be ruled by feelings? I say that in the arena of feelings, both sexes are equally vulnerable, equally accountable, and equally capable.

Giving My Kids Trust Issues

 
My wife and I when we were dating – 30 years ago, at a college formal.

My wife and I are about the same height. I’m 6’2”, and she’s 6’1”. I didn’t know it at the time, but when we got married, she swore to herself that she would never weigh more than me. Well, when she was late in pregnancy with our first child, it started getting a little close, apparently. Again, this is all unbeknownst to me. Anyway, she started buying my favorite ice cream, making sausage gravy and biscuits without me even asking, and at supper time cheerfully suggesting, “Why don’t you have pizza and beer for supper! I think there’s a game on! Why not?” Being male, I didn’t really give all this a lot of deep thought, except to think, “Golly, this is swell!”

She didn’t admit her nefarious motivations until years later. I’d like to say I was shocked, but that’s not true. She would probably say that she’d never do it again, but that’s not true, either. But it’s ok. No harm done. We got three wonderful daughters, my wife is pleased that she’s never weighed more than me, and I was extremely well fed for a while. Everyone’s happy. Now that I’m getting old and fat, she’s feeding me more salads and fish and *gasp* hummus. I’m less happy now. I miss her pregnancies.

I can’t even act too indignant. I’m not above this sort of thing myself. I’m embarrassed to admit the following, but it’s true. Don’t tell anybody.

I drive a nice car. It’s a one-year-old loaded Cadillac CT6 with the twin turbo motor. Man, is it fast. You touch the gas, and it takes off like a jet. Which is really hard to resist. It’s a blast to drive.

Anyway, the dealership picked it up for a routine oil change etc, and when the delivery guy dropped it back off with me he said, “We need the car back next week. The guys in the shop say it needs some transmission work.”

I said, “Ok, sure, but geez, it’s only a year old. Why does it already need transmission work?”

The guy asked, “Do you have kids?”

“Um, sure – three teenage daughters.”

He asked, “Do you let your kids drive the car?”

I said, “Well, um, sure. Sometimes, I guess…”

The guy looked at me knowingly and said, “The guys in the shop said it looked like somebody had been hot-rodding in that thing a bit.”

Me: *long pause* “Oh, right. The dang kids. Yeah, ok, I’ll talk to them.”

Delivery guy: “Don’t worry sir. Happens all the time. That thing’s really fast. Sometimes kids aren’t mature enough to drive it properly.” *knowing look*

Me: “Right. I’ll talk to them. Thanks.”

So when they picked up my car the next week, my kids asked what was wrong with my car, and I relayed this cute little story. They were pissed. “YOU BLAMED THAT ON US? THAT’S CRAP! YOU’RE THE ONE WHO DRIVES LIKE AN IDIOT!!!”

I considered attempting to deflect blame by pointing out that their mother was capable of even sneakier behavior than that. But I thought better of it. I am, after all, a mature adult.

My daughters know that I love them unequivocally. And they that they can trust me, well, equivocally. I’m just doing my best to prepare them for marriage. They’ll thank me later, I’m sure.

When they get pregnant, I’ll warn their husbands. You just can’t trust women…

Yes, There Is a Crisis on the Border

 

Regardless of what you’re not hearing from the mainstream media, and regardless of what you’re hearing from some politicians there is a crisis on the border. Here is some local news from Arizona.

More troops are going to be sent to the border. Troops that may be assigned patrol duties should be armed, and patrolling with a Border Patrol agent. Armed means carrying a loaded weapon that’s ready to use if need be. The coyotes in the video are carrying AK-47s. I wonder if they were purchased at Obama & Holder Sporting Goods.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, published on April 24, 2019.

On the night of April 20, 2019 U.S. Border Patrol agents assigned to the Ajo station apprehended a woman and her eight-year-old son after witnessing armed subjects escort the pair into the United States, west of Lukeville, Arizona. Border Patrol cameras observed several men armed with assault rifles escort a mother and child to the international boundary west of Lukeville. The armed men dropped off the pair in an area commonly used by smugglers to bring massive numbers of Central Americans into the country illegally.

From an Arizona Republic article published on April 26:

TUCSON — Border Patrol officials have begun releasing migrant families in Tucson because they lack the space to detain them and immigration officials are unable to take them into custody.

The practice has been going on for about a month, according to the Border Patrol’s Tucson sector, which covers most of Arizona’s border with Mexico.

It was a central topic of a meeting Border Patrol officials in Tucson held Friday with local law-enforcement, elected and community leaders.

The number of migrant families released in Tucson has surpassed the ability of local nonprofits to house them. This past week, the city of Tucson and Pima County opened temporary overflow shelters to house migrants, although those shelters are once again empty, at least for now.

Perhaps it’s time to establish a charity in Arizona that provides bus tickets to illegal immigrants. The Sanctuary State & City Tourist Agency. I hear that the California wine country is beautiful in Spring.

April QOTD: Puh-leeze!

 

“Small minds discuss people. Average minds discuss events. Great minds discuss ideas.” This has been attributed to various people, including America’s former First Harpy (ahem, Lady), Eleanor Roosevelt. “Ah, yes,” we are supposed to think. “How penetrating; how true.” Or maybe it’s supposed to worm its way into our inner insecurities: “Gosh, do I talk […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

one bad rock

 

Marc Fishman is a friend. He posted this on Facebook yesterday. Born in the Soviet Union, My family with me in tote, fled it in 1979 primarily because of antisemitism. In 2014, I traveled to Nepal, on a trek to one of the most remote regions on earth, Mustang, it was only open to travelers […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

What Did the President Know? And When Did He Know It?

 

No, not Trump, Obama! Last week on the Ingraham Angle, Joe diGenovia (a former US attorney) claimed that findings were in and the hammer was going to fall on Sally Yates and others for lying to the FISA court. This all stemming from an investigation into 4 years of abuse by Obama contractors spying on […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Food and Drink Post: The Right Tool For the Job

 

When it comes to cooking and my kitchen, I’m not really a fan of single-purpose tools. So I almost never feel impelled to investigate the “strawberry huller ” (just use a pointy knife); or the “condiment gun” (doesn’t most ketchup and mustard come in plastic squirt bottles already?); or the “carrot sharpener” (Wait. What?); or the “cookie dipr” (shown at right); or any other silly “let’s solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist” sort of appliance. (I’ve found it’s possible to avoid consideration, and even knowledge, of most of these items just by ignoring as many of those “As Seen on TV!” advertisements and aisles in the kitchen stores, as I can).

Nevertheless, I do on occasion discover a useful little implement that does one particular job better than anything else possibly could. Such a tool is my ceramic ginger grater. I have no idea why it only has 2.5 stars in the Amazon reviews. It’s a lovely thing. Stipulate that I love fresh ginger and that I have, over the years, grated my fingers down to stumps, and the ginger to a stringy mess that could not be used in the recipe, because all the tough, hairy fibers, not to mention the … umm … blood, overwhelmed the small amount of it that I’d actually managed to grate successfully. Followed by the cleanup issues, involving scrubbing, picking, and more bloody fingers, as I tried to rid the murderously sharp metal grater of the residual ginger bits.

This tool grates the ginger, and not my fingers, to a nice moist pulp. And the “stringy hairys” are left behind in a handful whose juice can be squeezed out into the mixture and then discarded. What’s not to like? Nothing, IMHO.

Do you have a particular kitchen tool that you’d not give up, no matter what? Inquiring minds want to know. (Or, if you’d like to nominate a particular item for consideration as the daftest, or most useless kitchen implement ever, we’d love to hear about that too!)

Have at it, please.

Forgotten Debates

 

With all the focus on current issues, I was reminded recently that it is possible to lose focus on the timeless debates, that might not have a true answer but must be considered in order to have perspective on where we’ve come from to where we’re going.

I’m speaking, of course, on the ancient struggle between “Great Taste” and “Less Filling.” Now, I can’t say which is the correct perspective, nor would I presume to tell other people what they should think. What I can do is provide information on how great thinkers of the past considered the question, and thereby perhaps help others gain insight on the question.

On the Great Taste side of the debate, we have:

  • Machiavelli said “It is best for a beer to have great taste and be less filling. But since this is not often possible, it is best for it to taste great.”
  • Diogenes was looking for an honest man who could tell him where to get a beer with great taste.
  • Max Planck spent his time determining the smallest amount of beer that could be called a cold one and thus supported great taste.
  • Malthus thought that the world would eventually be unable to make any more beer, and preferred great taste.

On the Less Filling side:

  • Nietzsche was a less filling man. He would often signal for another drink by saying “When you stare too long into an empty mug, the mug stares back at you.” Bartenders hated Nietzsche.
  • Marx was unsurprisingly a less filling advocate, believing that great taste was imparted by the blood of the working class. Later on, Stalin would have Trotsky assassinated because the latter had been advocating for a great-tasting beer which Soviet technology was unable to provide.

Those who were unsure:

  • Heraclitus believed you could never drink the same beer twice, but wasn’t about to let that stop him.
  • Descartes said, “I drink, therefore I am.” and was therefore happy as long as he had a drink.
  • Plato never let his belief in a beer that was the ideal proportion of both get in the way of drinking one now.
  • Hegel spent most of his time trying to develop a synthesis between the two.
  • Einstein had no particular position, however, he was also not invited out much because of his belief that God did not play bar dice with the universe.
  • Schrodinger tried to determine if a beer was one or the other without opening the bottle.
  • Sir Isaac Newton paid too much attention to medieval alchemists and spent too much time trying to transmute one into the other.
  • Galileo believed it didn’t matter since both would travel down his throat at the same speed.
  • Hammurabi decreed that if someone bought you a beer, you were obliged to buy a similar one for them.

As can be seen, it’s difficult to determine whether Great Taste or Less Filling is the more necessary requirement for a beer, but that shouldn’t stop us from trying to find out for sure. Perhaps in the distant future, we may come up with the technology that helps us find out, but in the meantime, I invite everyone to hoist another drink and add their own or other’s opinions.

Counterprogramming

 

There’s a ratings strategy in television called counterprogramming. The idea is to offer the viewing public a stark alternative to what’s offered by your competition. Is there a popular drama on another network? Then move your popular comedies to the same time slot. Is the opposition appealing to men with sports programming? Then find a show that appeals to women.

There’s a version of this that’s played in politics and it’s used by both sides. If Bill Clinton is seen as a draft dodger, then the temptation is to counter with a genuine war hero in Bob Dole. If George W. Bush has a questionable record as a reservist in the Texas Air National Guard, then you offer up a Vietnam veteran in John Kerry, even if his own service is questionable (both during and after the war.)

As in the examples above, counterprogramming is not always successful in politics. Still the temptation is always there. The amateur programmers on the Republican side, those who cannot abide the fact that Donald Trump is their standard bearer, are desperately seeking to offer up something else.

The pitch usually begins with “(Baker/Hogan/Weld) are very popular in blue states!” Ok, why are they popular in blue states? It’s usually because they don’t push conservative ideas or issues, instead choosing to present themselves as efficient managers of the modern welfare state. Oh, they’re personally opposed to a lot of progressive ideas mind you, but not opposed enough to actually do anything about them.

In many cases they actively pursue policies at odds with conservatism. Maryland Governor Larry Hogan is very good at that. He can say he wants to “get the government off our backs” and then turn around and push mandatory paid leave. He “evolved” on same-sex marriage and refuses to deal with abortion. He and his backers say he’s only being “pragmatic.” Same for John Kasich. As Ohio’s governor his stance toward Obamacare was to embrace it and expand it.

In 2012 the GOP offered up the grandfather of Obamacare as the alternative to the father of Obamacare. That makes a lot of people shrug their shoulders and ask, “Why bother voting for Democrat Lite when you can have the real thing?”

The problem for this anti-Trump counterprogramming strategy is simple: Trump is the counterprogramming. He represents the rejection of the business-as-usual run as a conservative but govern as a progressive lite that has dominated party thinking since the ascension of Bush I in 1989, and fully embraced under Bush II as “compassionate conservatism.”

The Democrats are undergoing their own counterprogramming binge. While they applaud the Pelosis and the Bidens for what they’ve done in the past, they want something different, too. But what they’re embracing is more radical than anything they’ve done in the past. Intersectional, redistributionist and more authoritarian than ever, if brought to fruition their plans may even make Bill Kristol long for Orange Man. But once that show is canceled, it’s canceled. Be careful what you wish for.

The Third Shift Detective: The Case of The Double Dealing Diva

 

As many of the denizens of the PIT know, I write a web comic called The Third Shift Detective. The art is bad, the writing is worse, and the handwriting is deplorable. It has been suggested (@garymcvey) that I do a animatic video version. Now that is a lot of work. However, what requires less work is just narrating the images. So here is the first story arc of the series. Later ones will have more polish and possibly better art and writing.

.

Paranormal Communications

 

Having read the book by Bishop James Pike, The Other Side, about his experiences of paranormal phenomena following his son’s death by drug overdose in 1966, it inspired me to write this paper. I feel I need to be in some communication with someone who knows about these matters.

I had for some years been investigating various religions in search of some deeper meaning of my life. I won’t go into detail here, but my life had been a mess. I have undergone psychiatric therapy and finally came to the conclusion that my life was what I made it. As a mature woman, I can no longer blame others for negative actions.

In 1961 at age 23, I was studying some Judaism and looking into other religions. I was living in Los Angeles with my nearly three-year-old daughter. Occasionally I visited my grandmother who lived in Rialto, CA. We could discuss just about anything, and I ran the pros and cons of the various religions I was investigating. My grandmother and I were very close, we respected each other and enjoyed debating different ideas. She was intolerant of my anti-Christian attitude though, as I had tossed it out of my mind at age seven.

In July of 1961, at age 82, she had a stroke while walking to town. I don’t know the details of who found her and took her home, but within a few days, she was placed in a hospital also suffering from pneumonia. I was told she was in a coma and death was imminent, so I went to the hospital to see her. The doctors told me she was in a coma and unaware of anything happening around her. However, she was subconsciously fighting death, her will to live was very strong, and she might remain in a coma for a very long time.

Some of her children were quibbling about her small $2,000 insurance policy. I went to her bedside, noticed tears seeping from her closed eyes. I am positive, in spite of what the doctors said, that she was conscious. She had a stroke, and possibly paralyzed, but not in a coma. I believed she could hear her children arguing about her insurance.

I gathered her into my arms, told her I was Kay, that I loved her, not to pay attention to what the others were saying, and told her the doctors felt she was fighting death. I asked her to let go, “You will be with your Maker and at peace.” We had previously discussed this and she never wanted to be a helpless invalid. She passed on several days later on July 14, 1961.

At her funeral, I completely came unglued and hysterical when I viewed her in the casket. They had plastered her with makeup, her hair all frizzy in curls, and a pink shroud. I just screamed that is wasn’t grandma, it wasn’t grandma … and finally, my mother was able to calm me. My grief over the death of my gran was nearly unbearable. In this whole miserable, rotten world, there was nobody but grandma who truly gave a fig about me. I felt completely alone. Several times I thought of suicide, only having a small child kept me from it.

The following Spring, nine months after gram died, I was in my fifth month of pregnancy with my second child and curled up on the sofa reading, while my little daughter was napping. I had a small rocking chair that had been my gram’s, about 100 years old and it started moving. I looked up and grandma was sitting in the chair. No fear just curiosity as to why she was here. My reaction was one of joy! I was so glad to see her, and asked if she was now at peace? She said no, that she had a lot of work to do before she was at peace, and the people here (this plane, I think) made her work difficult to accomplish. I ask if I could touch her, the answer was no; asked if she could come to me anytime I wanted her, the answer was no. She said, “It wasn’t always allowed, and it took a lot of ‘energy’ to manifest herself and she couldn’t manage the energy.”

By this time I was in tears and so glad to see her. She told me she would try to be near as long as I needed her. She was beginning to grow dim and I didn’t think to ask her any questions about G-d or Jesus. I pleaded with her not to go and she said she came to let me know that I wasn’t alone and she couldn’t stay any longer. Then she rapidly faded out and was gone.

About 18 months later, I heard from her again. I was sitting in a bus stop thinking how easy it would be to step in front of one of the big trucks or buses rushing down the street, and ending it all. I felt her presence next to me suddenly and heard her say, in her clear voice: “Not to do anything foolish, as I still had my two small girls to care for, and ‘they’ weren’t ready for me yet.”

“I told you that you weren’t alone. There are those of us who care about you!” I know that it was my grandmother, as nobody could have faked that exasperated tone of voice that I remembered so well.

[I wrote this about 1973, without spell check, on a portable typewriter. Pretty sad. I didn’t change any of the happenings but cleaned up my spelling, typos, and English usage. I have been going through boxes of papers in storage for the past 40 or 50 years. I’ve told this story before on Ricochet, but hadn’t remembered it as well as this writing suggests.]

Quote of the Day: The Perils of Intelligence

 

“There is usually only a limited amount of damage that can be done by dull or stupid people. For creating a truly monumental disaster, you need people with high IQs.” – Thomas Sowell

This phenomena is one I call the “smartest person in the room” paradox. Really smart people so generally out-think and out-perform those around them (especially in fields requiring intellectual activity) that over time they begin to fall into the trap of believing themselves omniscient. Given a complete set of facts they generally come up with the best solution.

There are two problems. The first is that in the real world the facts they are given are rarely complete. The second is the “facts” are often flawed, created by others with agendas other than getting everything right. (Given a choice between telling the boss what the boss wants to hear to keep their job or telling the boss something contradicting the boss’s beliefs and risk getting fired, guess what some people are going to tell the boss? This explains the current state of climate science. Your grants do not get renewed if you don’t give the paymaster the results desired.)

Working with a set of facts that are incomplete and flawed a brilliant person comes up with a solution — that if everything goes as predicted — yields marvelous results. However, if things begin deviating, even a little, disaster follows. But the brilliant person, knowing they are the smartest person in the room, ignores the warnings because they have been so often right in the past. Even if things go wrong, their adamantine arrogance rarely gets punctured because they know their failure was due to sabotage of others: wreckers, kulaks, revisionists, reactionaries, and the like. Often they double-down on the flawed solution multiplying the damage until monumental disaster follows.

Mueller Went Beyond Scope: Sue to Get Back Excess?

 

It’s been reported that the Mueller intifada against Trump cost about $35M. Yet he knew that there was no collusion by December 2017 and should have wrapped up the investigation then per its scope. Shouldn’t the GAO or the DOJ go after him for all reimbursements after that point? It’s a classic case of a consultant going over budget or beyond scope. Rod Rosenstein should also be asked about this. He was supposed to be monitoring the investigation.

There frequently is a stated goal versus the real goal of an activity. If Mueller’s purpose was not to investigate Trump, but rather to delay investigation into the illegal activities of the intelligence agencies in 2015-6, then the longer the better. The US has become an unusual banana republic where the losers of an election persecute the winners. George Papadopoulos said on the Byron York podcast that one of the people arresting him said, “This is what happens to supporters of Trump.” Even NTers should be disturbed by this.

NYT Descends Into Anti-Semitism

 

The Left is cascading into the worst abuses of anti-Semitism (H/T Legal Insurrection). I won’t hold my breath about the Dims 3,000 presidential candidates condemning this. They’ve proceeded from BDS to supporting rapidly anti Semitic congresscritters to this: I guess the new theme is that Trump is both anti-Semitic and a blind man let by […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Ego Tripping on the Backs of Minorities

 

It’s wealthy white people who tend to be the most “woke.” They see themselves as the “white savior” — as Atticus Finch. But as someone once said, if you’re going to be St. George, you first need a dragon.

To be Atticus Finch, you need a racist society that routinely lynches blacks. So, in their self-narratives, America must become that society. Atticus Finch also needs a Tom Robinson – noble, oppressed, and helpless in the face of an evil society. So, in the woke progressive’s self-narrative, minorities must be without agency, requiring white saviors to act on their behalf.

All this would be no more than a bit of harmless self-delusion if white progressives kept their self-narratives to themselves. But, to become heroes in their own eyes, they must be heroes in the eyes of the world. So, they must tell minorities that they are helpless. That the system is rigged against them and that they cannot make their lives better by their own actions. To the extent that white progressives are believed, lives are destroyed. White progressives are exploiting minorities for their own ego trips.

Tom Turkey Gets His MoJo

 

Before we lived out here in the boonies, we didn’t really pay much attention to turkeys. They did not exist in Sausalito, although they would have been much preferred over tourists. They did, however, exist in many other areas of Marin. Except for realizing these funny miniature ostrich-style birds were actually adolescent turkeys, I didn’t pay much attention to them.

Here in Lake County, with some 2,000 acres of open space as our backyard, we had a full flock of turkeys that came by our place every day for several years. Then they decided to go elsewhere. But one of their adolescent toms decided to make this his place.

As an adolescent tom matures, he looks a lot like a hen. They live a solitary and forlorn life. No fully mature adult male will let the younger turkey dudes hang with the females in his flock, or with the younger birds.

The immature toms have no one else in their orbit to keep them company during their day-to-day routine. For whatever reason, they don’t even pair up with others who are ostracized. Sometimes “our” tom would hang out with this one fawn. Now the fawn is nearly a yearling and they must be rather good friends. When the neighbor around the corner puts out some corn, we will see both of them arriving at this favorite hang out together for dinner.

The turkey waddles in this funny walk. It is even funnier when he runs. He gobbles constantly. He knows my dog is not allowed to chase him, so although he gives her wide berth, he does hang out on our driveway even when Bella and I go for our daily walk.

I was surprised to see him closer to the main road some two weeks ago. It pleased me that the driver of the car in front of mine drove very slowly so as not to spook him into continuing along to the main road. That night, I felt grateful that he made his awkward take off and landing so he could roost in one of the top branches of a very tall live oak. I took comfort that he had come back from the highway safely and in one piece.

Things have been so status quo for the poor lonely fellow that I forgot that things could change. Last week, during one of our last rainstorms, he was right by this office’s back window. He had a girlfriend! And not just one hen but two!

He himself seemed to think this was pretty significant as well. He hunched his shoulders together several times and then did the full gorgeous display of his masculine outspread feathers. Our turkey is now a man! His body and especially his neck has more iridescence. There is more orange and much deep red along his throat. The walk is now more often than not a strut. Maybe I am reading too much into this, but he seems happy.

Shortly after he made his display, his girlfriends took off. Hours later that same day I saw him along the forestry service road. He had a much more jaunty walk and seemed very satisfied with himself. He let my dog come closer than ever before, as I guess he realizes he is all powerful. I mean, if he can get two hens for himself, surely he can cope with one silly dog, right?

Is This Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

 

I was reading an article in the Wall Street Journal this week. Here are some sentences describing someone’s imprisonment.

  • Alone in his cell, he isn’t permitted to leave (on weekends) for the 30 minutes of fresh air he gets on weekdays.
  • The lights burn 24 hours a day.
  • He can’t wear a watch and sometimes finds himself disoriented.
  • Authorities state this is “normal treatment.”
  • He has been interrogated for up to five hours a day, with no lawyer present.
  • Prosecutors can sometimes harangue suspects who choose to remain silent for ten hours a day.
  • The person is forced to sign statements in a foreign language that he cannot read.
  • Family members are not allowed to visit.
  • The cell has a window, but it is very deep in the wall and the prisoner cannot see out.
  • Prisoner is allowed a shower twice a week (three times a week in summer). Cold water is all he gets from the tap in his cell.

So, what do you think of this punishment being meted out, to a person imprisoned for a non-violent, financial crime? It sounds cruel and unusual to me, especially for a person charged with a white-collar crime, who has not yet had his day in court. He has not been convicted, or even tried, for this crime. He is being treated like a violent criminal, subject to conditions often found in high-security prisons.

Where do you think this might be happening? Some third-world country in Africa or Latin America? Nope, this is Japan. And the prisoner is a gentleman named Carlos Ghosn, who until recently was the CEO of an alliance between automakers Nissan of Japan and Renault of France. Mitsubishi of Japan was also a party to this alliance.

The companies had been thriving, producing cars for the world in multiple countries. He was very highly thought of, and a well-paid globetrotter, often jetting around the world to attend meetings and watch over all the factories. He has been accused of understating his salary and skimming funds from his corporations to pay for things for his family and himself. He has lost all of his jobs and has been in prison in Japan since mid-November of 2018, with only one month out of jail before being re-arrested and sent back to confinement.

This seems to me to be cruel and unusual punishment for a non-violent crime. How the mighty has fallen. I don’t think he deserves this kind of punishment. What do you think?

Cross-posted over at RushBabe49.com.

The Logos of Chris Rock

 

Viktor Frankl liked to quote Nietzsche, “He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.” Frankl believed that a great deal of the failings of people and societies was due to the loss of meaning in our lives. Something more important than us, that gave us a reason to continue to live the best life we could – a glorious, righteous struggle against long odds that gives one an easy answer to the eternal question, “Why am I here?”

Frankl observed, “Ever more people today have the means to live, but no meaning to live for.” He said that more than 50 years ago. I think that our world of social media, video games, drug abuse, and sexual chaos would horrify Dr. Frankl. But I also think that he would be very curious to see how people would respond to being placed in a state of such material wealth and spiritual poverty. I think that Nietzsche and Frankl would be particularly fascinated by Chris Rock.

Mr. Rock is an American comedian who has made an incredibly lucrative career out of being black. He can be very funny at times, but so much of his schtick is based on race that it’s hard to imagine what he would joke about if he weren’t black. This creates an obvious problem: If it’s such a hardship being black, then how did he get so rich by being black? I think this is one reason his routine hammers the discrimination against blacks so much. Without that, then why are we laughing at these jokes? But I think there’s more to it than that. And I humbly suggest that Nietzsche and Frankl would likely agree.

I think that one of the reasons that so many celebrities seem so odd is that they know, deep in their hearts, that they went from waiting tables in Malibu to making millions on a sitcom due to, largely, blind luck. I think that one reason that guys who become millionaires in the business of, say, residential light fixture manufacturing, is that that guy understands why he’s rich – he by God worked for it. The light fixture guy is comfortable with his position and doesn’t feel the need to convince others of his personal virtue by preaching about climate change or transsexual rights every time he climbs into his Porsche.

But celebrities realize that they woke up one morning in a remarkably privileged position through little fault of their own. Were they really that much more talented than the other 500 people who auditioned for that part? When they got the role, who knew that the show would hit it big, and they’d go from $5,000 per episode to $1,000,000 per episode in two years? Have they really earned their money? How many people have they helped, to earn their millions? The light fixture guy goes to bed at night knowing that thousands of families are enjoying their safe, well-lit, affordable homes today because of his good work. The sitcom actress wonders, late at night, how much her work has really helped the world.

So she becomes a spokeshuman for PETA. She spends her time and efforts on animal rights. She didn’t have a purpose in life, so she creates one. Frankl would understand. He even wrote a book about it: Man’s Search for Meaning. She gives speeches, saying her life wasn’t whole until she understood the plight of livestock. It sounds funny but her statement is actually very insightful into the human condition.

When Jussie Smollett faked his hate crime by paying his friends to pretend to attack him because of his race, I thought to myself, “Absolutely no one will care about this. No one got hurt. He’s a second-rate actor no one has heard of. Fake hate crimes are common. No big deal. Tomorrow, the news reporters will go back to whatever they were writing about before. It’ll be like this never happened. Which is entirely appropriate.”

Man, was I wrong.

Mr. Smollett was a hero for a few days. He was praised for his courage and integrity until the police investigation discovered that he had staged the attack himself. Then all heck broke loose.

Right-wing news sources were upset, of course, but not any more so than they typically were about typical conservative-bashing. But the left wing – they went bonkers. CNN, AP News, The Washington Post, and everyone else ran one story after another about various aspects of how awful his actions were. Leftist Hollywood types were standing in line to denounce Mr. Smollett in front of whatever audience they could find. Even Rahm Emanuel went off on Smollett. I didn’t understand.

And then Chris Rock weighed in, and I think I understand now.

At the NAACP Image Awards, Mr. Rock said, “What a waste of light skin. You know what I could do with that light skin? That curly hair? My career would be out of here. [Redacted] running Hollywood!”

I found it remarkable that someone who had made such a lucrative career out of being black was suggesting that he would have been much more successful if only he were not black. What a strange thing to say. What a stupid thing to say. But I’ve heard Mr. Rock interviewed a few times and I’m convinced he’s not stupid. I think he’s extremely intelligent. So why would he say something like that?

Mr. Rock viewed Mr. Smollett like the Wizard of Oz viewed Dorothy after she pulled the curtain back. Mr. Smollett didn’t just embarrass Mr. Rock – he threatened to destroy the foundation of Mr. Rock’s very lucrative career. And this transgression was made even more unforgivable by the fact that Mr. Smollett’s career was based on the very same thing as Mr. Rock’s. Would Smollett have gotten his role on the black TV show “Empire” if he were not black? Of course not. Mr. Smollett had exposed the lie behind Mr. Rock’s means of attaining such a privileged life. Such a person cannot be engaged in debate in a public forum – the debate would destroy everyone involved. So that person must simply be discredited and destroyed.

The left responds similarly to anyone who challenges their ideas. Because they know that their ideas are based on, well, not much of anything.

Why has the lawsuit against Mark Steyn gone on for years, simply because he disagreed with climate change tree ring data? Why was North Carolina punished by moving major sporting events to other states because North Carolina had not passed leftist laws regarding transsexual bathrooms? Why was the Colorado baker nearly driven out of business for referring a gay couple to other bakers to bake the cake for their wedding? (A wedding which didn’t even happen, because the gay couple had broken up by the time the lawsuit was initiated.) Are tree rings, transsexual bathrooms, and gay wedding cakes really that important?

No, they’re not. And the left knows it. But if they were important, and if the left really believed them to be valid and true, they would engage in public debate to try to explain why their points are valid. They know they can’t do that, so they engage in the politics of personal destruction. It seems vicious. But they really have no other choice.

As Nietzsche pointed out, “He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.” And in my view, if your “why” is simply the acquisition of power and privilege at any cost, then your “how” is likely to be dangerous.

Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas could explain this phenomenon better than I.

Celebrities understand that their privileged status is largely due to good fortune. The problem is even worse for black celebrities – they are privileged largely because of their good fortune to have been born black. Despite their efforts to add meaning to their lives by adopting causes like animal rights, they have a sneaking suspicion that their enormous successes are based on something that’s not real. Thus, anyone who pulls back the curtain must be destroyed.

Leftists gain power by promoting ideas that they know aren’t real. So they respond to debate on those ideas the same way Mr. Rock responds to Mr. Smollett. Which you know, if you’ve ever tried to debate any leftist on, well, nearly anything.

This makes debate essentially impossible, which makes our politics an absolute mess.

Conservatives miss the polite sophistication of Ronald Reagan. We find Donald Trump’s eagerness to engage in ideological mud wrestling to be distasteful. But Mr. Trump is not the creator of our modern society. He is a result of it.

I’d love to hear what Viktor Frankl would think of all this. It’s hard to say how it will work out over time. But I know one thing:

You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.