sitting on the edge of the sandbox, biting my tongue

May 24, 2016

Gary Johnson, The New Voldemort

Filed under: election2016, Gary Johnson, politics — Tags: , , — edge of the sandbox @ 4:46 pm
I caught on Stefanie Miller that (or some kind of generic female libtalker, anyway) that the”Libertarian presidential candidate” was in hot water for comparing the Holocaust to mass deportations.  A little research yielded this:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld — who is expected to be picked alongside [Gary] Johnson to run on the Libertarian Party ticket at a nominating convention this weekend — told The New York Times on Thursday that Trump’s plan to remove the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants from the U.S. reminded him of “Kristallnacht,” or the “Night of Broken Glass.”
“I can hear the glass crunching on Kristallnacht in the ghettos of Warsaw and Vienna when I hear (Trump’s plan), honest,” Weld told the Times.
The 1938 pogrom against European Jewry occurred when anti-semitic mobs burned synagogues, destroyed Jewish-owned stores and killed scores of Jews, but not in Warsaw, as stated by Weld.
On Saturday, Johnson told CNN’s Victor Blackwell on “CNN Newsroom” that he wouldn’t have made the Holocaust reference but defended the sentiments behind the remark.
I’m glad liberals are outraged because they should be.  To compare the extermination of European Jewry to sending home the non-citizens residing in the US illegally is simply repulsive.
I’m not a liberal, of course, and I am on record being pro-deportations, which, I trust, would be conducted humanely, so long as we keep the most eager Trumpkins out of the process.  We can agree or disagree about it, but I think it’s reassuring that we both find Weld’s histrionics questionable.
In a normal election year Weld’s statement would be a deal-breaker to me, but with both Hillary and “Mr.” Trump being so vile and so corrupt and so authoritarian, I’m willing to give the Libertarian duo a pass.
One can argue that a veep candidate making such a rookie mistake is not ready for prime time, but neither is Trump.  Besides, both Johnson and Weld have gubernatorial experience, which is more than both Hillary and “Mr.” can boast.
I think it’s interesting that the libtalker didn’t refer to the “Libertarian candidate” by name.  She clearly wanted to highlight the controversy, and, again, I’m glad we are on the same side here, sort of, but was she afraid of being devoured by a death eater?
Nuh.  She knows how weak Hillary is, and suspects that Johnson has a real chance to appeal to both the right and the left.  Perhaps he can even win.


In related news, another poll shows Johnson is in double digits in a three-way race.

May 19, 2016

Clearly We Need A Dictator

Filed under: politics — Tags: , , , , — edge of the sandbox @ 6:20 pm

Robert Kagan frets about fascism coming to America:

The Republican Party’s attempt to treat Donald Trump as a normal political candidate would be laughable were it not so perilous to the republic. If only he would mouth the party’s “conservative” principles, all would be well.

But of course the entire Trump phenomenon has nothing to do with policy or ideology. It has nothing to do with the Republican Party, either, except in its historic role as incubator of this singular threat to our democracy. Trump has transcended the party that produced him. His growing army of supporters no longer cares about the party. Because it did not immediately and fully embrace Trump, because a dwindling number of its political and intellectual leaders still resist him, the party is regarded with suspicion and even hostility by his followers. Their allegiance is to him and him alone.

I don’t know about the “historic role” bit, but the cult of personality is definitely there.  As is always the case with the strongman types, what the fans find charismatic is highly subjective.  Was Hitler not a bloviating idiot with a funny mustache?  Is Putin’s bare chest something to laugh about?  Is our short-fingered vulgarian too bloated and pasty?


Are Americans too bloated?  Yes.  Good news, there is always time to slim down.  Take the example of North Korea, the world’s number one thinnest nation:

Don’t mention it to the exalted leader Kim Jong-un, but his people are literally starving. They’re poor (earning an average of only $2-30 per month), their every move is monitored and controlled, and the government constantly mismanages the economy by buying weapons for a hypothetical war it is obsessed with, but would never win. North Korean food, to its credit, is relatively healthy (and includes dishes like rice, noodles, corn porridge, kimchi, soybean sausage, and bulgogi), so that deserves part of the credit for the population’s shockingly-low 4.4 percent overweight/obesity rate. Yet an even bigger factor is the ongoing famine, which caused the deaths of as many as 3.5 million citizens in the last 20 years.

I suspect the bulk of the 4.4% overweight/obesity population of the Hermit Kingdom hails from the nomenklatura class:

While malnutrition is widespread in North Korea, the restaurant scene in Pyongyang is thriving. It is never a problem to find a really good meal if you can afford it – and you know where to look. The newer, semi-private eateries tend to keep a low-profile, and often have their windows covered with heavy curtains. The signboards are also small, if not absent, so outsiders would have few clues of the luxury inside.[…]

All these pleasures might appear cheap for a visiting foreigner, but for the average North Korean restaurants are prohibitively expensive. A dinner in a regular upmarket restaurant would cost about $7-10 (excluding alcohol), but the most expensive places charge around $30-40. To appreciate how out of reach this is, remember that the average monthly salary of a university professor in North Korea is about 80 cents. In most cases, the consumers pay in foreign currency, usually Chinese yuan, which has long been a currency of choice in the up-market North Korean shops.

While Mr. Dpumpf lacks the trim physique, so does Baby Kim, and Putin’s been getting bloated lately.  Yet They are not us, and as a country we can stand to lose some weight.  It’s good for us.  Michelle Obama said so.

May 9, 2016

Programming Notes

Filed under: Uncategorized — edge of the sandbox @ 9:54 pm

As some of my readers know, I had a five week long adventure in living room painting which included chapters on stomach flu and my husband stepping through the ceiling while trying to install an electrical box. 

I was looking forward to some peace and quiet, and to posting my heart away, but alas! — now comes Harry Potter birthday party and one cannot take such event lightly. So, anyhow, hopefully next week I will be back. 

Happy belated Mother’s Day, VE Day, Victory Day — or whichever applies to you. 

March 14, 2016

Trump in Chicago: Leading from behind

Filed under: politics — Tags: , , — edge of the sandbox @ 9:42 pm

Last September I commented on Trump’s enduring popularity:

He’s not bound by conventions, unscripted, an outsider, supposedly, with an aura of machismo, and he hit a nerve with his opening salvo on immigration.  None of which explains why Trump’s defenders forgive his support for partial birth abortion or his hob-nobbing with the Clintons.

I think I have an answer for that, and it’s not because Americans (or conservatives) are stupid or racist.  My answer comes from Maurice Bloch’s Prey into Hunter, a book exceptionally annoying even by the French standards.  I mentioned this book in the past a few times because, even though I can’t stand Bloch’s style, I value his insights.  Looking at the hunting ritual in Africa, Bloch noted that hunters dress like prey and identify with prey in order to then go on an offensive against an animal in a hunt.

It’s not hard to notice similar rituals in the political world.  A photo of a dead toddler washed up on the beach in Turkey is printed on the front pages of Western papers, bleeding hearts identify with the child (the Donald was among them for 5 minutes), demanding opening the borders to “refugees” without thinking through the consequences or even looking into the toddler’s story. (As Peter Hitchens pointed out, he was a victim of human traffickers.)

Back to Trump, when he burst into the race with his common sense remarks about Mexican illegals, the media, business and political elite all but declared a war on him.  The perpetual defenders of the perpetually offended were screaming their heads off; Macy’s was dropping his merchandise, Univision was canceling his contracts.  Any of that could happen to any one of us — if only we were so lucky.  We identified with the Donald, the victim, not the underdog, but the victim; we wanted to stand up for him, we called for Macy’s boycotts.

It is now clear that playing victim is the businessman’s forte.  After a half a year of dominating the media, Trump failed to consolidate the Republican majority, commanding about 35% of the primary vote.  The Donald thought the masses would flock to power, that his candidacy would snowball, but we conservatives stood by our principles and he never gained momentum.  So, in the desperate attempt to gather support prior to winner-take-all primaries, he plays his favorite trick again.

That Black Lives Matter, Move On and Bernies wanted to shut down the Trump rally in Chicago and that they gleefully took credit for shutting it down is not in dispute.  At this point the totalitarian tendencies of the left are well established.  Who gets credit for shutting it down is another issue.  The Chicago Police Department denied recommending Trump to cancel the event.  Trump himself canceled it to play the victim.


Chicago Police removes a protester from the Trump event

As many commentators pointed out, the candidate courted violence at his rallies, commenting that “in the old days” a protester would be “carried out in the stretcher” and that he’d like to punch somebody in the face.  Not surprisingly, people were hurt at his rallies and a journalist was manhandled.

As per the script, shortly after the Chicago rally was canceled Trump felt empowered to go on offensive, intimidating Bernie supporters.  The following tweet is now heavily promoted by Twitter:

While Trumpster might appeal to our sense of justice and our passion for the First Amendment, he himself is no staunch proponent of freedom of speech.  He threatened the Chicago Cubs owners for funding a campaign against him and told us that he would like to open up liable laws to sue his critics.  Before his presidential run, Trump blamed Pamela Geller for the jihadist attack at the Draw Mohamed event

Trump’s views on First Amendment do not annihilate his right to free speech.  What I question is his status as a victim, our identification with him as a victim and our willingness to get defensive on his behalf.  Our blood boils because some on the left assaults the First Amendment, but it should not matter if the target is Trump or anyone else.  If the goal is to defend our natural rights, we should vote for a constitutional conservative leader like Ted Cruz, not an amorphous self-styled victim like Trump.

I’m not sure to what extent the Donald is aware of the effects of his strategies.  It could be that he’s just doing what worked for him all his life.  And what worked for him? What kind of person he is? Who plays victim?  Donald is the kind of guy who, when standing on the podium, with all the lights on him, all microphones on, finds it necessary to make fun of a man with cerebral palsy.  Tiny Fingers is nothing but a bully.  When after months of igniting tensions he canceled his Chicago rally, Trumpster was leading from behind.

Will his strategy work?  We’ll find out tomorrow.

March 7, 2016

One Cheer for Obama

Filed under: elections2016, politics — Tags: , , , — edge of the sandbox @ 12:13 pm

Several girls were performing a chant at the last Friday morning assembly at our elementary.  It went like this:

Obama is our President for one more year,

So lets all give him a big cheer!

At which point the school erupted in cheers, parents especially.

The return of the Obama cult makes some sense because think of what’s about to follow.  We luuurve Bernie around here, and the fact that he’s unlikely to become the next president makes him more attractive: he’s the beautiful loser.  Everyone knows that Hillary is a criminal plutocrat, but most Democtars will turn up and vote for her anyway because she’s a liberal.  And Obama, at least he didn’t talk about his, you know, on prime time TV.

Anyhow, I switched from Thursday night’s Republican debate to American Idol — what a breath of fresh air!  Two of the contestants were actually good, there was no botched plastic surgeries on display and even with all the tattoos and piercings and crazy hair, it felt wholesome.  Had any of the contestants dared to bring up their anatomy, they’d be fired in a very non-melodramatic, non-Trumpian manner.


Sonika Vaid is the one we like second

Strange world: aspiring pop stars can be counted on to uphold social mores whereas the Republican presidential front-runner  acts like a crazy uncle.   Except that the crazy uncle’s excuse is that he’s inebriated, but the Donald is a teetotaler. Which is scary.

March 2, 2016

Hillary And Trump: Compare And Contrast

Filed under: elections2016, politics — Tags: , , — edge of the sandbox @ 12:58 pm

Anticipating Drumpf-Clinton presidential contest, Salena Zito wrote:

[T]wo wealthy New Yorkers, neither particularly well liked in their parties, will conduct ruthless, calculated campaigns aimed at each other’s personal destruction in the hope that the electorate will find both so repulsive that they refuse to vote and only the candidates’ hardcore bases will show up.

I want to give them both a hand and do a short compare and contrast:

  1. Although “liberal” is much nicer sounding word, Hillary insists on being called progressive.  When Trump was asked during one of the debates how is it that he’s a conservative, he promised to conserve money.  And there I was, thinking that in 2016 for sure I’ll get to vote for a conservative for president.  Come to think of it, I might just do that and find a third party I can support.
  2. Hillary lived her life to put her bloated behind in the Oval Office, and so did the Trumpster, steadily increasing his name recognition to, eventually, put his bloated behind there.
  3. Hillary wears ugly clothes.  Trump puts his honest name on ugly buildings.
  4. Hillary supports abortion.  Trump, who avoided the draft in the 60’s, considers sex in the 80’s his “personal Vietnam”.  So, naturally, he supports abortion.
  5. Hillary’s significant other was a Rhodes scholar.  Trump’s current wife is one of those poorly educated he loves so much.
  6. Hillary would appoint the “living breathing Constitution” types to the Supreme Court.  Will the Senate confirm them?  Trump will not appoint anyone who’d overrule Kelo or Row — why would he?  The Senate will confirm the nominee.
  7. Hillary wants amnesty to create more Democratic voters, but she’ll be met with resistance.  The Donald is perfectly positioned to usher in an amnesty because his hardcore followers will fall in line.  He’ll keep promising that he’ll build them the wall and that Mexico will pay for it until he won’t built it, and in the meantime he’ll legalize everyone.  Well, maybe the short-fingered vulgarian will erect a mile-long barrier somewhere in Arizona in summer 2020.  More likely he’ll make the very idea of the fence radioactive.
  8. Hillary has one child by one man.  The Donald has several children by at least three different women.
  9. Hillary’s husband is old and low energy.  The Donal’s wife tops the lists of celebrity plastic surgery disasters.
  10. On civil liberties, both candidates want Apple to give FBI the key to our cell phones.
  11. Both the Clintons’ and Trump’s children are in the family business.
  12. Hillary hit the Reset button with Putin.  The Donald wants to be buddies with Putin. Considering his Russian mafia connections, he’s probably already dealing with him, even if indirectly. Vladimir, I’m sure, had read Art of The Deal, and thought, “Oh, OK, that’s pretty strait forward.  I can handle it.”
  13. Madam Secretary’s husband bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan.  The current Republican front runner wants to target terrorists’ families.  Whatever, he’ll leave it up to Russia.
  14. Although both candidates have Jewish in-laws, they are a bit shifty on Israel.  The Donald announced he won’t take sides and Hillary has dealings with Israel’s enemies.  Not to worry, though, as soon as the orange-colored candidate will find himself in a position to make similar deals, he will.
  15. Hillary once praised Democratic Senator and KKK member Robert Byrd.  Trump regularly retweets neo-Nazis and pretends he doesn’t know anything about the KKK and David Duke.  This is very interesting; he must believes that he needs them.
  16. Hillary is a big government economic travesty.  Trump is an even bigger big government economic travesty who plans to start a tariff was with China.  He might just deliver on this one because he needs the unions more than he needs some poor shmucks who want their border enforced.
  17. There is a crucial difference between them, though.  They are power-hungry megalomaniacs, but when Trump watched Tiananmen massacre on TV, he identified with the ChiComs: “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength.”
    For some reason I find it difficult to believe that Hillary didn’t side with the tank guy at the time. I’m afraid she’s more like me.

I’m not saying I will vote for Clinton, but there is no reason to vote for Trump.  And come on, how bad will Clinton be?  She’s old and tired and clintonian.  She’ll triangulate.  The thought of the Clintons back in the White House is rather painful considering her family’s perverted history there, but at least none of their clan was photographed naked.  At least Bill didn’t go on Howard Stern to talk about her potty habits when they were dating, and she then married him anyway.  She subjected herself to somewhat lower level of humiliation.

March 1, 2016

When Bernie Honeymooned at Lenin’s Tomb

Filed under: politics — edge of the sandbox @ 1:48 pm

Please read my post at Legal Insurrection: When Bernie Honeymooned at Lenin’s Tomb.  Many thanks to Professor Jacobson.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: