From Drudge:
The capitalists are crazier than the comms
Reply
Fit young men not fleeing danger
Ron Liddle trying to reason with people on the left, that is, trying to reason with people whose heads are filled with cement. They are literally only able to emote about the poor suffering humanity, even if they are neither poor, suffering or, given the infiltration by ISIS, humane. Here are the key facts:
A largely Muslim charity recently reviewed the work its people had been doing to relieve the misery and squalor on the Sangatte refugee camp in Calais. A worker with the Human Relief Foundation visited the notorious ‘Jungle’ encampment and concluded, with some alarm, that 97 per cent were economic migrants rather than refugees. Further, they were almost exclusively fit young men who were not fleeing danger at all and were not in the least desperate.
An executive added: ‘I thought they had a valid reason [to be there]. They do not have a valid reason.’ The charity immediately curtailed its relief efforts. But present these facts to those who simply scream ‘Let them in!’ and ‘We must do more!’ and it makes not the slightest difference to their point of view; it washes over them without leaving so much as a trace.
And here is Liddle trying to reason with historian Simon Schama:
What I realised after that edition of Question Time is that the facts, the practicalities, the realities of the situation, do not matter one jot. There is a small minority of British opinion — the polls suggest that the overwhelming majority of the population, suburban scum that they are, do not wish to see more migrants entering the country — which is absolutely impervious to the facts which show that letting more people in the country will make things worse both for them and for us. And clearly anyone who doesn’t agree is unaware that the migrants are ‘human beings’ and is thus a borderline psychopath, as well as being suburban. And yet ask them for a course of action and none is forthcoming.
How do we crowds at the bottom of the pile make our elected representatives pay attention to our wishes? It cannot be done and we will endure the arrival of masses from the third world who do not speak our languages nor understand our culture.
And this comment at Tim Blair really does capture just how much danger there is where they are departing from:
Two women made less sense than Simon Schama – the first who argued that it was perfectly sensible for the young men to be the first wave, not realising her argument suggested it was safe for women and children to stay where they were and that the young men are clearly the beachhead for a much larger wave to follow.
The second loon justified England opening its borders as if it wasn’t for migration out of Africa 60,000 years ago “we wouldn’t be here”. That is all the reason she needs to open her arms to illegal economic migrants from goodness knows where. Odd really but it does sum up the leftist mindset.
The women in danger are where they are coming to, not where they are coming from.
[Via Tim Blair]
Suppose these are really genuine, then what?
Until I know otherwise, I will assume they are a parody. But it’s precisely because you cannot really tell that the idea of Hillary as President is such a frightening thought.
[From Small Dead Animals]
Lip-sync reading of the first presidential debates
FIRST THE DEMOCRATS
AND NOW THE REPUBLICANS
Of most interest may be that the Democrat Lip Sync attracted 2.5 million hits while the Republican has had more than 10 million. I’m not sure what it means, but it seems to mean at least superficially that Democrats like to laugh at others but don’t like to see themselves ridiculed.
The Playboy philosophy and modern life
I came from an era in which casual sex never happened. The pill changed it all, but so too did “The Playboy Philosophy”. Written in the early 1960s, it is Hugh Hefner’s contribution to the decadence of our own time. It has been the twentieth century’s most important contribution to philosophy and culture. The one and only rule about sexual relations is that other than monitoring the ages of those who are involved, there are no rules. There was a time when people knew what was wrong with the Playboy Philosophy – we read it in the same spirit that we read Abbie Hoffman’s Steal this Book – but those times are long gone. Sex without responsibility and attachment is a kind of adolescent boy’s dream come true. But as we have since discovered, sexual anarchy is the worst of all possible worlds. So to the song:
As the story goes, it was first offered to Johnny Mathis; Columbia Records boss Mitch Miller is said to have blackballed the song, claiming it was immoral. Dawn Eden might think ol’ Mitch may have been on to something:
Like many songs from that more innocent era, “Will You Love Me Tomorrow” expresses feelings that most people would be too embarrassed to verbalize. There’s something painful about the way its vulnerable narrator leaves herself wide open. Yet, even though her asking the song’s title question implies a certain amount of courage, it’s clear that she’s ready to accept a positive answer without questioning it — which is not surprising, given the lyrics’ description of how the evening has progressed. By the time one is worrying about how the other person will feel tomorrow, it is usually too late.
For most unattached single women in New York City, and I would imagine much of the rest of the country as well, casual sex is the norm. It’s encouraged by all the women’s magazines and television shows from “Oprah” on down, as well as films, music, and the culture in general. And while “love” is celebrated, women are told that they should not demand to be loved tomorrow — only respected.
If it’s encouraged for women, it’s almost mandatory for men; a woman who is not sexually active is pitied, while a man who is not sexually active is mocked and ridiculed. (Which may be one reason why very few men — Frankie Valli is one who did — ever recorded this song.) “Tell me now, and I won’t ask again” turns out to be a variation on a theme by Scarlett O’Hara: “I’ll think about that tomorrow.”
This is a song from the 1960s written by Carole King but is the lament of many a woman of our own times. The way the song is presented in the video above by the Shirelles, who sang it originally, you would not know it is the saddest imaginable song with a sadder still message. Perhaps the Amy Winehouse version is truer to its meaning if for no other reason than that she herself had the saddest life. Here are the words with a message that can hardly even be registered by many inside our own decaying culture.
“Will You Love Me Tomorrow”
Tonight you’re mine completely
You give your love so sweetly
Tonight the light of love is in your eyes
But will you love me tomorrowIs this a lasting treasure
Or just a moment’s pleasure
Can I believe the magic of your sighs
Will you still love me tomorrowTonight with words unspoken
You say that I’m the only one
But will my heart be broken
When the night meets the morning sunI’d like to know that your love
Is love I can be sure of
So tell me now and I won’t ask again
Will you still love me tomorrow
Will you still love me tomorrow
Will you still love me tomorrow
Will you still love me tomorrow
Pick-up artists and the hook-up culture are the way of the world. A friend of mine’s nineteen year old daughter just put Tinder onto her phone. My friend is hopeful that it will be all right, but if it will be, it will only be by the greatest good fortune since the culture will no longer look after her daughter nor give her sound advice. The best that can be hoped for is to get through your twenties with no major disasters. How it can be done today is to me an unknown.
[The basic theme is from The Other McCain where the link is found.]
Trump is not “fading” as the left seems to hope – he is getting better
I could just keep quoting Rush forever because each sentence makes you want to read the next. This is about the news-meme that Trump is supposedly fading. This is part of Rush’s take:
So I checked the e-mail during the break, and there was a fairly decent point. “Rush, you’re ripping into Jeb’s campaign people. But don’t you realize, if it weren’t for Trump, Jeb would probably be the guy with 20 points right now and this thing would be over?” Well, there that word is again: “If.” Yeah, well, “if” a lot of things, then things would be different. But that actually kind of buttresses my point. You say, “If it weren’t for Trump…” Well, it is for Trump. Trump is there. You’d better be able to adapt to it and you better be able to figure out why Trump is doing well.
And if the only ammo you’ve got with Trump is, “He’s gonna blow it, he’s gonna fade, he’s gonna step in it, he’s not gonna last, he doesn’t really mean it, he’s gonna get out,” and that’s all you can do, then you’re not doing your job. It’s not hard to explain Trump’s success. It’s really rather easy. That’s why when I see The Politico story, “The Incredible Shrinking Trump.” In their dreams. They haven’t the slightest idea what they’re talking about. “The Incredible Shrinking Trump — The usual blustery billionaire offered a downright demure performance at the third GOP debate.” . . .
If these hacks in the media were not Democrat Party activists, this story could just as easily be written as, “Donald Trump Shows More Maturity as Campaign Evolves.” But, no, because the Democrat media does not see Republicans and conservatives in any way anywhere near a favorable, fair, even almost human way. It’s not possible for them. Trump is a cartoon character to all of them, not just Harwood. He is a cartoon character to all of who they hate.
So Trump, who many people might say was behaving a little bit more serious. Less bombast, less personal assault and attack last night. They might say Trump is becoming more serious. Trump is becoming more mature, whatever. But, if you’re not inclined to note anything positive or synonymous with what you would say is growth in a human being or candidate, if all you can see is somebody’s a cartoon character and a buffoon, and if you think the Republican electorate is so stupid — which they do…
Remember, you people are a bunch of mind-numbed robots to the Drive-By Media. You are incapable of thinking on your own. Your public opinions are nothing but the result of whoever it is influencing you. Me, Fox News, whoever. You’re incapable of independent thought, critical thought, what have you. You put these two things together and Trump’s where he is precisely because he’s a cartoon character, and you people are so shallow and so dense that that’s what you want in a president.
The left assumes everyone else is like they are, that there is a single acceptable position on every issue and therefore once it is proclaimed there is no further thought required. That is not how it is on this side. That they are not embarrassed that Hillary will be their candidate come what may is as sure a sign of the decadence of the American left as there every has been. Why aren’t they embarrassed that not only is she out of her depth on every issue, but that no one else is being allowed to stand in her way even if there were anyone else who could.
A black ban on certain words
It is quite an astonishing thing how suddenly words we have been using all our lives become forbidden in polite company. And it does annoy me that for some reason I am generally clued in about what’s OK and what’s not. Although I may now have reached an age where either the message doesn’t get to me, or I cannot be bothered paying attention, or I just don’t care, I nevertheless find that I don’t break the rules, or not usually. And being aware of all of this, you won’t, for example, catch me using particular terminology to describe people of low mental abilities using any of those insensitive words from yesteryear. Nor will I use any of the terms from my youth about people who do not have the complete use of their limbs. And in this country, I am very careful to say “Aboriginals”, although I might still say Indians when I am talking about “Native Americans”, but that’s probably only because I don’t live there since they now too say “aboriginals”, and thus no longer distinguish between the ones that lived on the prairies and rode horses in comparison with those who lived north of the frost line and were pulled along on a dog sled. As for the Washington football team, it is hard to know whether it is even permissible to be one of its supporters – and now that I live here, I would never, ever say I r–t for the home team.
And so we come to Senator Abetz who described Mr Justice Clarence Thomas of the US Supreme Court as a “Negro” and has raised a ruckus among some of the most dreary people on the planet. They may disagree with everything that Justice Thomas says, but they will defend until the next change of official nomenclature the rightful moral turpitude that surrounds using this word in describing someone of Justice Thomas’s ancestry. I, of course, remember when it was suddenly unacceptable to say that word, which was replaced by “black”. And so, on those occasions I would need to refer to the racial origins of Louis Armstrong say, that would be the word I would use.
But now even that is out. In the US, it is now near-mandatory to say “African-American”. You can see Gerard Henderson wasn’t going to get caught out in the same way as Senator Abetz in discussing this very issue:
According to Craig Reucassel, the term “negro” is no longer used in civilised society with respect to negro music. Wrong — if anyone pays attention to David Marr. And, according to Julian Morrow, anyone who uses the term “negro” in contemporary discussion of African-Americans is a racist. Wrong. Unless the Chaser Boys regard your man Marr as a racist.
Of course it doesn’t make any difference what David Marr says to these people, since no one on the left wants to make cheap political points attacking him. Senator Abetz, on the other hand, that’s something different again. Political correctness is group think for people too dull-witted to think for themselves.
Nothing makes peace inevitable
A Labour-voting Israeli explains “Why I’ve made my home at a kibbutz near Gaza“. The most striking image in the story comes near the start:
My visiting friend wanted to go and have a look at Gaza, so we went to a point at the edge of the kibbutz that offers a good look across the border. On the way we passed by the kibbutz’s pool, with its crystal clear, cool water. It was 8 p.m. and the sun was making its way into the Mediterranean, but while on our side of the border, street lamps were beginning to light up, in Shejaiya everything remained dark. Not just the streets; also the visible homes and apartments, which house hundreds if not thousands of people. Had we returned to that spot two hours later, we would hardly see anything across the border. I’ve been living in Nahal Oz for almost a year and have gone to the observation point dozens of times, but only once at night. It’s too depressing to look at the complete darkness on the other side and realize that many people actually live in it.
I get feeling sorry for the people who live in Gaza. What I don’t get is not recognising that it is only a hard line that will ever bring peace. Only if the other side comes to believe that they can never win through war will war come to an end. It is not going to come from weakness on the Israeli side or a change of heart on theirs.
Is the American media really as clueless as this?
Are journalists the last to know? Are they so uninformed, indeed actually lacking in even a basic notion of the wiles and tactics of politicians, that this Charlie Rose comes off as such an idiot? Are they all like that, or is it just that there is no level to which they will not debase themselves to see Hillary elected? A bit of all of it, I’m afraid.
The media are the opposition
Good answer since at last there is an attack on the media. But the question that I ask is whether people even know what Bosheviks and Mensheviks are. But still good. Here is the Drudge aftermath:
ALL OUT WAR AGAINST CNBC…
Bush campaign manager confronts producer…
BOZELL: Forum Was an ‘Encyclopedic Example of Bias’…
HANNITY: ‘Will Go Down in History as Really Bad Night for Media’…
Montage: Harwood Debates the Candidates…
Moderators booed — again and again…
Trump boasts about limiting debate time ‘so we can get the hell out of here’…
But RNC Chairman Threw Candidates To The Wolves!
REVOLT…
MEESE: Should Be Condemned…
Law of Markets 