Showing posts with label fake news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fake news. Show all posts

Friday, March 20, 2020

Red China virus

A kerfuffle has arisen over what to call the virus. I've been calling it the Coronavirus because it's a neutral designation, and one of the first quasi-official designations. If you want to be understood, you generally go with common, recognizable designations. That label has been popularized, and I have no overriding reason not to use it.

More pedantic is COVID-19. Trump has taken to calling it the Chinese virus to shine attention on the regime.  

I'd avoid that designation because it's too generic. However, there's nothing new about naming a disease in association with a particular region of origin, viz. German measles, Spanish influenza, Ebola, West Nile virus, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever. Cf. https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/13/17-diseases-named-after-places-or-people/

Some people call it the Wuhan virus, which is more accurate but obscure, unless you're a geography buff. 

If I wanted to use an alternate designation, I'd dub it the Red China virus (or Chinese gov't virus) due to the extensive complicity of the Communist regime in contributing this disaster. However, "Red China" has Cold War connotations that will be lost on anyone younger than a Baby Boomer.  

Friday, January 31, 2020

Impeachment wrapup

A few parting observations on the impeachment charade:

1. It takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate to convict a president. So it would be necessary to peel away many GOP senators to have enough votes to convict Trump. From what I've read, nearly 90% of Republican voters oppose impeachment. Therefore, it would be political suicide for the Senate to convict Trump. As such, the impeachment process initiated in the House was always going to be DOA when it got to the Senate. 

2. I see Democrats accuse Trump of cheating. But Trump didn't cheat in the 2016 election. By contrast, Obama used the IRS to steal the 2012 election, while the Obama administration (e.g. FBI, NSA, DOJ) did all it could to steal the 2016 election for Hillary.

3. Then there's the demand for witnesses. It's a game of chicken: Democrats say they want Bolton to testify. Republicans counter that we'll give you Bolton in exchange for Joe and Hunter Biden. Democrats balk. 

Anyway, Bolton has nothing new to say. The quid-pro-quid, dig up dirt on Biden has been on the table from the get-go. Most Republicans and many independents just don't care. 

On the one hand I think it's an abuse of power for a president to use his position to damage a political rival. On the other hand, there are mitigating factors in this case. There's nothing inherently wrong with digging up dirt on a dirty politician. And it's not coincidental that Trump was seeking information from Ukraine about the Bidens, since Joe's activities regarding Ukraine leave him genuinely vulnerable. 

Presidents can and often do have multiple motives. National interest and political self-interest intertwine. 

4. I believe Democrats have also said they want the "whistleblower to testify. He's been informally I.D'd as Eric Ciaramella. From what I've read, the whistleblower is a partisan apparatchik. And in any event, his knowledge of the phone call is hearsay. It adds nothing to the public record. The only smoking gun is a toy cap gun. 

Friday, November 08, 2019

My Bodyguard

The impeachment circus continues. Democrat elites can't fathom why Trump's support hasn't cratered. The sycophant media keeps churning out new Trump scandals, but it doesn't change the numbers.

A basic reason Democrat elites are blindsided by Trump's enduring support is because than can't identify with why his supporters feel endangered by the Democrat establishment. And they're blind to that because that's the side they're on, so they don't sees themselves the way the other side sees them. They've cast themselves as the heroes. They don't don't views themselves as a threat. They see themselves as saviors. 

It's like a nerdy weakling who gets beat up at every school day, so he hires a body guard. The bullies then bitch and complain that the bodyguard is mean. They show the nerdy weakling his wrap sheet. "Why don't you fire him? How can you associate with someone like that?"

But of course, that's why the nerdy weakling hired the bodyguard in the first place. It takes a bigger meaner S.O.B to protect him from the gang of smaller thugs. If he fires his bodyguard, the bullies will resume punching his lights out everyday. 

It never occurs to Democrat elites that their alternative is why so many Americans rightly feel endangered by the Democrat establishment. That's why they voted for a bodyguard. That's why he may well be reelected. 

Thursday, October 03, 2019

Trump hysteria

Trump hysteria is like watching the classic Twilight Zone episode, "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street." It's both disturbing and amusing to see how easily so many people allow themselves to be manipulated by only exposing themselves to one side of the argument. They reflexively follow the trail of breadcrumbs laid out by the NYT, CNN, MSNBC. Then they're furious and dumbfounded that the rest of us don't share their apocalyptic panic. But they're products of their conditioning. 

Trump says lots of goofy things. It never occurs to Democrats that maybe, just maybe, he doesn't always mean what he says. They think he's crazy enough to believe the crazy things he says (or crazy statements attributed to him by anonymous sources). And they think he's crazy because he says crazy things (or crazy statements attributed to him by anonymous sources). Circular confirmation bias on full display. 

Yet it seems to me that Trump's rhetoric is often tactical. What's entertaining is how Democrats let themselves be played. It reminds me of how Jeb Bush was blindsided during the debates. He never caught on. He said Trump can't insult his way to the presidency. But Trump did insult his way to the nomination. That's because, for Trump, the primary debates were not about winning arguments but about establishing where candidates stood in the dominance hierarchy. He was alpha male to Jeb's beta male. Jeb never knew what hit him. 

Wednesday, August 21, 2019

Smack talk

I don't know Donald Trump personally, so I don't know for a fact what makes him tick, but I'm struck by how many people take his tweets so seriously. It's my impression that Trump is trolling and talking smack. It's a psychological tactic. And his critics invariably take the bait.

Tuesday, July 16, 2019

Mean Girls

I did a satire on reaction to Trump's "Go back where you came from" tweets, but now for some serious observations:

i) I'm struck by how the "news" media and the political establishment constantly play into Trump's hands. He's a provocateur and they always take the bait. That empowers him. That enables him to control the news cycle and frame the issues. His enemies are totally reactionary. They freak out over his sometimes outrageous tweets, which is just what he wants. That allows him to change the story line and manipulate his opponents. 

ii) I'm struck by how they suffer from a moth-like attraction to the bright lights of political theater, to Trump's tweets and optics (e.g. tanks in DC for Independence Day) rather than his policies. The constant freakout over what he says rather than what he does (at a substantive level).

iii) He seems to have good political instincts. What Peter Hitchens called "low animal cunning". He picks a fight with widely unpopular Democrats in the "AOC squad" (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib). They're only popular among elite white Twitter Democrats. That's a win for him. 

iv) I think it's probably a mistake to parse Trump's words. I don't mean this particular tweet but in general. As one pundit famously said, "Take Trump seriously, not literally."

It's my impression that Trump doesn't use language to convey information but for leverage. To incite a reaction, then use that for competitive advantage. To put it technically, Trump cares more about the performative function of language than the propositional function of language.

v) Trump has a habit of saying what a lot of people privately think but are afraid to say in public. That's a large part of his success with his constituency. 

vi) At the risk of oversimplification, there are immigrants who come to America because they like what America stands for as well as what it has to offer. There are things about American culture they admire, in contrast to what they left behind. They come here with the intention of becoming integrated into American culture and society.

However, you also have immigrants (as well as native-born Americans) who despise American values and wish to make it more like the countries they left behind. There's such a thing as a self-hating American.

To take a comparison, there are Muslims born in the UK who radicalize. They are profoundly alienated from the country they were born into. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are good examples. Consider some of the stories about them at Michael Spencer's Jihad Watch. 

To take another comparison, consider Democrats who move from blue states to red states to escape the high taxation and overregulation, but continue to vote for Democrats. They turn the red state into a purple state or red state with blue cities. They reproduce the problems they were fleeing from.

Go back where you came from!

Jonathan Merritt
Religious News Service

Donald Trump's incendiary tweets have ignited a religious firestorm. On Twitter he told the Prince of Darkness to "Go back where you came from!" In a follow-up tweet, he added insult to injury by saying, "Go to hell!"

Pushback was fast and furious. In protest, Washington National Cathedral flew in Mick Jagger to perform  "Sympathy For The Devil" at Evensong. Pope Francis ordered a black Mass at St. Peter's basilica. 

Michael Bird denounced the tweets as "racist!" Russell Moore said "This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Pres. Trump is a xenophobe!"

N. T. Wright, in a learned open letter, corrected Trump's faulty demonology. "Anyone conversant with Second Temple literature can tell you that hell is not where Satan came from. Heaven is his place of orgin."

In a joint statement, Jemar Tisby and Thabiti Anyabwile said Trump's latest remarks underscore the pressing need of white evangelicals to have a conversation about reparations for the dark side, which lost their homeland after they were kicked out of heaven. No wonder they go around possessing people! 

In a rare dissent, Mark Levin expressed concern that Trump's critics were taking the devil's advocate routine a little too seriously. 

Monday, July 01, 2019

"Cages"


i) How does Mayor Buttboy define a "cage"? Is a chain-link enclosure a cage? If so, does that mean parents with fenced-in backyards are putting their kids in cages? Are fenced-in playgrounds cages? 

ii) Children are separated from parents when a parent is jailed or imprisoned for breaking the law. Are Democrats taking the position that having a child should literally be a get-out-of-jail-free card for parental felons? 

iii) In addition, there's no presumption that the adults are their parents. There's lots of child-trafficking at the border. Are these parents or smugglers? 

iv) The kids are being used a political prop for emotional blackmail. I feel sorry for the kids, but national policy can't be based on emotional blackmail. And we didn't create the crisis. People don't have a right to just show up at your house and demand to be cared for. 

Saturday, June 29, 2019

AOC's 3-hanky performance

Grab your hankies while you watch AOC's heart-wrenching reaction as she sobs uncontrollably at the sight of a parking lot:

Saturday, June 08, 2019

High-water mark


I'm no expert, but it seems to me that there's an objective, straightforward way to verify or falsify global warming. If true, global warming causes rising sea levels due to melting ice caps. Now there are countless structures in coastal towns and cities that have a high-water mark. The ocean at high tide stains the structure at that level. It's like a photograph of how high the the water rises at high tide. In addition, there are countless historical photos floating around which show the high-water mark in, say, the 19C. Presumably we only need a few clear-cut examples comparing the high-water mark in the 19C to the high-water mark in the 21C to establish if sea levels are, in fact, rising, or rising at an alarming rate.