Pres. Trump and National Security Adviser John Bolton
In the spat with the ousted John Bolton as National Security Adviser, Trump responded to Bolton by saying “guys like Bolton and others wanted to go into Iraq and that didn’t work out too well.” Leaving aside the fact that Bush and Petraeus had succeeded in stabilizing Iraq by September 2008, and Obama cut-and-ran in 2014, Trump exposes his selective memory and bent for near-isolationism. His approach to foreign affairs is a combination of bluster and bluff (“Rocket Man”, “We’ll respond with the likes of nothing you’ve ever seen before”), patronizing niceties as if he’s talking to a municipal planning board (“They’ve got tremendous potential”, etc.), and finding excuses not to use the US military that he boasts so much about. Trump sounds more like Charles Lindbergh and his 1940 America First Committee than Ronald Reagan. Trump is the one who refuses to see the bear in this Reagan campaign ad from 1984 (see below).
The bear ad came to mind after reading Jim Geraghty’s piece in National Review, “The Missing Word in Trump’s Call: ‘Russia’” (Read the article here). The phone transcript between Trump and Zelensky should be read with the pall of Russian aggression against Ukraine overhanging the conversation. It certainly was on the mind of Zelensky as his country is being dismembered by Russia, if it wasn’t in Trump’s head. The Ukraine is at the mercy of American military aid, since the bureaucratic pacifism of the European Union makes it a eunuch and the poor country is geographically isolated. The president talks about his personal squabbles with malevolent Democrats in the conversation as Zelensky’s Ukraine is invaded. I would think that Zelensky is at a severe disadvantage. Thus, he responds with the equivalent of “Yes, yes, Mr. President, yes …”
The crazy Democrats’ serial drive for impeachment and the president’s narrow focus on the never-ending domestic assaults against him must make the American political scene seem like kabuki theater to the guy at the other end of Trump’s phone line. We, Americans, are missing a more serious picture. Back to the bear ad and Lindbergh’s America First Committee, another pall should overhang Trump’s current management of our foreign relations. It’s the tumbling dominoes of the Rhineland (1936), the Anschluss (1938), Czechoslovakia (1938), and Poland (1939).
The Anschluss with Austria, 1938.
A zigzagging foreign policy careening from bluster and bluff to excuse-mongering inaction as we deal with thug countries like North Korea, Iran, and China is a disaster-in-waiting. The measure of success should not be the number of wars avoided but are we any safer and our interests protected.
Besides, the choices aren’t between a boots-on-the-ground invasion and the diplomacy of “All You Need is Love”. Whether Trump likes it or not, the US on the international scene corresponds to the high school Dean of Students. No, we’re not the cop but we are the disciplinarian of last resort. And by discipline, I don’t mean nation-building. To borrow from 19th century, there’s such a thing as “butcher and bolt”. Go in, smash ’em, and get out, as in Operation Praying Mantis from 1988.
An aerial view of the Iranian frigate IS ALVAND (71) burning after being attacked by aircraft of Carrier Air Wing 11 in retaliation for the mining of the guided missile frigate USS SAMUEL B. ROBERTS (FFG 58).
Oh, but Trump might still insist that we aren’t the world’s policeman. Okay then, Trump, continue you’re blustery bluffs followed by artful dodging on inaction. A new set of dominoes is being set up. It may take awhile but the ministries in Pyongyang, Tehran, and Beijing, and any erstwhile two-bit thug, are taking notes. A principle from ancient Rome applies: If you want peace, prepare for war. I would like to add a corollary: And be prepared to occasionally use it to make it real. If not, inaction comes at a bigger price later. Unless, of course, you claim the power to repeal human nature and assert that it never had a role and never will. Now that would qualify as sheer fantasy.
Trump, drop the America First Committee shtick as you fight off the loons in the Democratic Party.
The transcript is a Rorschach test exposing the realities of domestic and international politics. What does it mean? Here’s my take.
(1) Politics brings out the crudity in people. Yes, Trump is crude, him being a political neophyte with all the rough edges and a huge ego. But have you watched the Democrats’ presidential sweepstakes lately? It’s insanity on parade. Their rants include more than wacko ideas but also serial insults to Trump (“punch him in the face”, etc.) and half of the electorate (“racist”, “anti-gay”, “we’re going to forcibly take your guns”, etc.). Trump is crude and the Democrats are crude and unelectable.
(2) Washington, DC, is a cesspool – not the city but the environs around the capitol. There is a Deep State and it’s in those dozens of blocks encompassing the Mall. The “whistleblower” apears to be a never-Trumper. The whistleblowing complaint apparently is based on scuttlebutt from water-cooler or social banter. The complainant wasn’t tapped into the president’s line. If he’s a never-Trumper, he (or she, et al) will have to join the hierarchy in the State Dept., Justice Dept., and intelligence community in 2016 and 2017. A partisan leak has been recast as whistleblowing.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
(3) The transcript shows the nature of politics as it has existed since political power was wedded to a human being. Trump’s call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is not unknown in history. For example, FDR’s shenanigans in going after Samuel Insull, a prominent utility CEO, just because he needed a scalp for the Depression, was sickening. After they finally got their hands on him, and after much chicanery with France, Greece, and Turkey, all FDR and the boys (girls, et al) got was an innocent verdict on all counts. Do I need to delve into the more egregious antics of JFK, LBJ, and Richard Nixon?
Samuel Insull
(4) Trump’s call has an interesting predicate: Joe Biden’s on-air boast in 2016 that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired. He was the same prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma Holdings for corruption at the time his son was on the Board of Directors. Intriguing, eh?
Viktor Shokin
(5) The transcript of Trump’s call shows no quid pro quo: as in, you give me the dirt on Biden and I’ll give you American aid. You could argue that it is implied, but that would be no more dispositive than Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) letter to Ukraine’s prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, demanding the end of investigations critical of Robert Mueller’s probe. They demanded that he “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important investigation.” You can read about the episode here.
Yuriy Lutsenko
(6) The Ukraine seems to be as entwined in American politics circa 2016 as Russia was alleged to be. Trump’s call makes it abundantly clear. First, Ukraine may have been on helpful terms with at least Obama if not the Democrats in that election cycle. How helpful? The transcript shows Trump mentioning two things: Crowdstrike and the US ambassador to the Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. The ambassador was, not surprisingly, an Obama administration conduit to the Ukraine, and given the spying capers on Trump in 2016, would be involved in any Ukrainian hanky-panky. Speculation? Yep, but no different than the knee-jerk cries of “outrageous” regarding anything Trump. And there’s the mention of the cyber-security firm Crowdstrike. It was the company who was paid by the DNC to take possession of their server and examine it for evidence of hacking. It’s out of this Democrat-funded escapade that we have the Russia-hacked-our-election chant. What’s the Ukrainian connection? Well, there’s enough intriguing evidence for John Durham to be looking into it. You can read about it here.
I’m sure that more can be said and will be said in the coming days. As for me, as of right now, one more thing needs to be mentioned. The Democrats are out to reverse an election. Suburban voters in the 2018 elections handed power to a party bent on imposing socialism and removing a president. Is this what these voters wanted? I kinda doubt it, but they are getting it anyway. Indeed, they should have known this would happen because the party leadership said as much since inauguration day 2017.
The 2018 elections show one weakness of democracy. It was indicative of how an electorate can be whipsawed from detestation of presidential behavior to handing power to the irresponsible. The individuals who were elected in swing districts may not be like the core of the party, but the newcomers will help a party with statist socialism in their political DNA to gain majority status. Those 40 reps pale when compared to the 195 others. It’s simply a matter of math.
Thank you swing-district voters. Now we have an impeachment-palooza and socialism on the cusp of being the law of the land.
Piedmont, Ca., seventh-graders participate in the global strike for climate change in San Francisco on Sept. 20, 2019. (Credit: Andrew Reed/EdSource)
Overton Window: noun; the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse, also known as the window of discourse. The term is named after Joseph P. Overton, who stated that an idea’s political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range.
A Google search produced the above definition (more on the concept here). We are experiencing an attempt to impose the limits of acceptable opinion on certain issues. That word, imposition and its derivatives, will occur a lot in this piece. No better example can be found than the construction of an Overton window on the issue of climate change. As with any imposition, the range of acceptability is being forced upon all, while also being arbitrary with the mode of enforcement more indicative of mob behavior. A highly excitable throng endeavors to manhandle the window leftward.
The Global Climate Strike of students of September 20-27, 2019, brought to mind the idea of the Overton window. Here we have young people ranging in age from elementary to college boycotting their classes to engage in protests demanding more government power to control people for the purpose of “saving the planet”. I have my doubts about whether the goal is to “save the planet” or simply expand government power to impose a political clique’s narrow vision of the good.
Means and ends get muddled here. I was a college adjunct instructor in Physical Geography and was continually exposed to the ideological dogmas of climate change – “climate change” being the more robust and useful term as compared to the mere “global warming”. “Ideological” is the correct adjective for the belief system that riddles the curriculum, support materials (textbooks, et al), and teacher preparation. There is much about the movement’s claims to scientifically question. Yet, the movement glosses over the uncertainty about the climate issue’s severity, the exact nature of the phenomena, and the realities of proposed solutions to immediately rush to the goal of revolutionary social, economic, and political reorganization.
However, before the zealots get to their beloved revolution, prudence requires the rest of us to seriously consider a simple question: Are the zealots’ claims correct? Much has been said and written about the issue but only a small slice gets the light of day. To be clear, the purpose of this article is not to present a detailed examination of the activists’ assertions about “climate change”, but to report on a singular episode – the students’ Global Climate Strike – as part of an ongoing campaign to use politicized science so one may foist on the general public a drastic alteration in our settled social, economic, and political arrangements and confer near-totalitarian power in the hands of a select few.
If interested, if you have 32 minutes, below is a reminder that an honest debate on the science of climate change actually exists, something the fanatics would like to squelch and close the Overton window..
What happens when fanaticism replaces scientific inquiry? Well, we get young and impressionable minds ditching school for a day to help stampede lawmakers into creating the environmentalists’ Leviathan. How were the kids primed? Well, the ideology-as-science corrupted the dogma’s purveyors, the teachers, and permeates the kids’ media-rich social ecosystem. I know; I’ve been there, particularly at the campaign’s pedagogical front.
It’s interesting to know that the professional and degreed people with the least scientific background take up positions as the most prominent mouthpieces of the movement, some in taxpayer-funded government posts and some riding their earlier name-recognition in politics to a new and very lucrative career in climate change. Does the name “Al Gore” come to mind?
Almost any metropolis and city with a university presence will have a municipal position solely devoted to the issue of climate change. For instance, in my state of Montana, Chase Jones serves as the Energy Conservation Coordinator for the City of Missoula with the portfolio of developing and coordinating the city’s climate plan.
Chase Jones, City of Missoula Energy Conservation Coordinator
In a radio interview, he stipulated that he has a degree in Communications from University of West Virginia. He cut his teeth in Montana environmentalism through the Montana Conservation Corps, an environmental non-profit. The Chairperson of the Corps’s Board of Directors is Jan Lombardi who has a rich personal history in Democratic Party politics, Planned Parenthood, National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), etc. Another member of the Board is Chris Pope, the Democrat representative of Montana House District 65 and possessor of a Spanish Degree from University of Oregon and Masters in Public and Private Management from Yale. Chase’s background and the résumés of those around him are symptomatic of the kinds of experiences that inclines them to accept broad and general scientific claims, especially if they confirm ideological biases, while they lack the detailed understanding to debate the substance of any of the many scientific aspects of a meta-issue like climate change.
Jan Lombardi (center), chairperson of the Montana Conservation Corps
These people are impressed by the pronouncements of large groups, as if the announcements put finis to any further scientific inquiry, and closes the Overton window to those who dispute them. They then can announce a “consensus” to dismiss the irritating queries of those of a more scientifically skeptical mind. All the while, they ignore the vast scholarship on groupthink and Public Choice Theory which does more to explain the behavior of large associations and bureaucracies in perverting pure science. The stance may work for the politically-motivated non-scientist, but it isn’t science. It’s partisan politics masquerading under the rubric of science.
Non-scientists are pushing the issue with the assistance of politicized scientists and their politicized associations. Large and long-established professional associations are particularly prone to fashionable political moods. Blacklisting is common. Remember McCarthyism? In regards to climate, remember nuclear winter, global cooling, and now global warming? Remember the Union of Concerned Scientists and their Doomsday Clock during Reagan’s defense buildup to counter the Soviet threat? Remember the blowback to Reagan’s idea of missile defense? Going back further, how about scientists’ enthusiasm for eugenics that would ultimately seep into the Final Solution? The wreckage is astounding whenever science is mingled with politics.
“Best Baby” contests promoted eugenics at the Oregon State Fair in the early 1900s. (courtesy of The Oregonian)
“Selection” of Hungarian Jews on the ramp at the death camp Auschwitz-II (Birkenau) in Poland during German occupation, May/June 1944. (Wikimedia Commons/Yad Vashem)
Inevitably, science will be the handmaiden to politics when the two are merged, with disastrous consequences.
The loudest advocates of a Green New Deal are likely to have the least acquaintance with real science. If anything, they have just enough exposure to be dangerous. Their stunted view is propagated to the young in a never-ending torrent from one grade to the next, from one movie to the next, and from one social media post to the next . The stage is set for a critical mass of people who lack the tolerance for opinions cynical of the artificial zeitgeist. The radical all of a sudden becomes the popularly “sensible” and those outside of this favored cohort will be dismissed, or worse. The eco-revolutionaries, hiding behind the innocence of youth, are well on their way to the kind of power to upend our way of life and build a new green order.
Some concessions to popular consent will have to be made, but the threat of an opposing majority will have been lessened by a demography-wide closed mind. It will be a constituency willing to cede great power to a set of elite experts in the arts of the eco-gnosis. But to be on the cusp of power in the first place requires more than indoctrination. It’s necessary but not sufficient. To tip the edifice into a revolution, a panic must be created through crisis-mongering, or as long-dead progressive/socialist leading lights would have called it, the moral equivalent of war. What goes for the “conscience” of the Democratic Party, our giddy sophomore class president and congressional blowhard from NY’s 14th congressional district (AOC), parrots the war line along with sycophants in the party’s presidential derby. After the panic attack produces electoral success, once in power, they aren’t going to give it up because the population happens to be profoundly discomforted by the mandated changes. In this ends-justifies-means world, popular sovereignty will be luxury that can no longer be afforded. The whole scheme could end up being one man (or woman, et al)/one vote/one time.
A 1968 Cultural Revolution poster. The caption reads: “Destroy the old world; Forge the new world.” Today’s eco-activism is reminiscent of Mao’s campaign to reinvigorate the revolution.
This is more than a slippery slope. It’s a well-trodden path through the pages of history. Why are eco-activists so intent on repeating the horrifying record? Interesting question but the answer is obvious. They think that they’re immune to the trap many others have fallen into over the past couple of millennia.
They are kidding themselves. Over those very same millennia, power has proven to be quite an intoxicant. It overwhelms a person’s conciliatory and moderating nature. The goal of eco-purity will crowd out everything including tolerance for the opposition. To borrow from Lenin, a vanguard elite leading the way to the green future won’t trifle with elections unless they can be manipulated into validating predetermined decisions. Pure and simple, it comes down to imposing a small group’s preferred mode of living on a broad population who may be unaware of what is happening.
The 1920 Presidium of the 9th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). Seated from left to right are Enukidze, Kalinin, Bukharin, Tomsky, Lashevich, Kamenev, Preobrazhensky, Serebryakov, Lenin and Rykov.
I’m reminded of the circumstances in Russia in the few decades before the Revolution of 1917. One is struck by the wide acceptance of radicalism among the educated classes (teachers, the professoriate, students), many circles in urban populations, and some of the well-off gentry in the years leading up to the Revolution. It even penetrated the military’s officer corps. Denunciations bordering on treason, even advocating the assassination of government officials from the czar on down, riddled the last couple of decades of the regime. Socialism of a variety of shades was trendy, as is the “green future” and “sustainability” today.
Policy mistakes compounded the troubles. One was the decision in 1906 to confer a safe space from police intervention for university campuses. It was hoped that the policy would quiet things down on the campuses. It did no such thing. The radicalism was allowed to fester and boil over to nearly all sectors of society. The radicalized young of 1905 became the violent revolutionaries of 1917 and later Lenin’s shock troops in the imposition of the Bolshevik conception of the good.
Russia, 1917: Mass political meeting of workers at the giant Putilov factory. Bolshevik and other radical student agitators were active in fomenting strikes and other upheavals Tsarist Rusia.
Sound familiar as you view the images of the young faces demanding a Green New Deal in the Global Climate Strike? Those scenes of a radicalized youth who are radicalized by a radicalized curriculum, sustained over the many years of their matriculation, should send shivers down the spines of anyone knowledgeable of Russian history circa 1890 to 1921. In the end, a radicalized caste will get the opportunity to impose their narrow vision of the good on a population ignorant of their own children’s indoctrination.
The Overton window of tolerance for opposing views is shifting left. The zealot’s politicized science will be the only approved form of science. That means that the only accepted version of science will be the kind that has garnered the assent of the governing elite. It must, like everything else, serve the ends of the secular dogma’s dream of the good life. It’s so Orwellian.
Climate protesters September 24, 2019.
In the end, prepare to retreat back a couple of centuries in quality of life. These vision quests aren’t concerned about the production of wealth so much as dictating the smallest details of living for 330 million people. Conditions gradually deteriorate as the legacy of prior affluence begins to erode. Some flee and others adjust to a world without variance from the rules of the eco-commissars.
I’ll end this piece where it started: the student Global Climate Strike. Watch the speech of a sincere but naive youngster before a UN panel as she tearfully pleads for the erection of the eco-Leviathan. Also observe the shamelessness of the adults as they exploit a child whose personal identity has been supplanted by a fanatic’s nightmare of impending doom. Watching her as she gives her speech is wrenching enough, but remembering what has been done to her is much more terrifying.
I am a retired California teacher (since 2015) after 29+ years in California high schools. The state has become a zoo, and now so will the classrooms. AB 493 would require teacher training in LGBTQ ideology. SB 419 will make suspensions for, among other things, unruly behavior almost non-existent. For teachers, it’s like being wheeled into the operating room and seeing the medical staff armed with sledge hammers. There won’t be much improvement in your condition but there will be a big mess to clean up.
493 takes teachers out of the classroom to be indoctrinated in all things sex-related. The propaganda line is as follows: Forget the Bible and millennias of understanding and accept the idea that a person can will themselves into another sex. Transgenderism is an important part of the coursework. Of course, we can’t do the same thing with race or ethnicity. Remember cultural appropriation? We can’t do the same thing in regards to height or long fingers. But teachers will learn that genitalia and chromosomes don’t matter.
I know; I know. The ideologues have a chest full of rhetoric and vocabulary to make others well-versed in the pseudo-science. Just remember, this isn’t the first time “experts” were enthralled by intellectual mumbo jumbo. Remember phrenology? Remember eugenics? If you do a deeper dive, you’ll find more bunk.
If that isn’t enough, 419 moves the schools further down the road to a suspension-free utopia … or maybe dystopia is more accurate. A school is commanded by the ideologues in Sacramento to jump through more hoops before a kid can be suspended for unruly behavior. It’s not as if schools already don’t do this. They do, and a lot. In some cases, too much. Nikolas Cruz of Parkland fame benefited from this bend-yourself-into-pretzels disciplinary regime. Last year, California’s Kern High School District teachers rebelled against the imposition of the “restorative justice” flim-flam.
So, the not-so-golden state will have boys-now-girls in the girls’ bathroom, locker room, track team, soccer team, …. Chaos in sex and gender will be supplemented by classrooms that more resemble prison riots. Teachers might begin to act like the Lloyd Bridges air traffic control character in “Airplane”: “Looks like I took the wrong week to quit ….”
“Steve” (Lloyd Bridges) sniffing glue in “Airplane”.
The whole situation will drive teachers to more than the bottle. It’ll drive many out of the state … if they remain sober enough to operate a U-haul.
I got a reply from “cushelp.com” at Walmart regarding my comment on the company’s new gun policies. The company’s online respondent indicated that the comment will go up the chain of command, and included a link of the newsletter/memo from President and CEO, John McMillon, to the employees (see the first edition of “A ‘Woke’ Walmart” for the link). This only further drew my ire. After reading McMillon’s missive to employees, I pounded a reply. Here is my rebuttal:
Thanks so much for your timely reply to my email which contained a link to a company circular from Doug McMillon, President and CEO, to associates about the new policy. Apparently somebody read my detailed response to your new policy on guns and ammunition. Again, thanks for taking the time to read it. However, rather than allay my concerns, they have been heightened.
McMIllon’s announcement to associates reads like a heated reaction to an issue-of-the-moment. Indeed, it goes further. It adopts wholesale the line of argument of partisan gun control activists such as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, the Brady Campaign, etc., etc. All in all, Walmart is gradually aligning itself with the center/left. McMillon is confirming John O’Sullivan’s famous aphorism: “All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.”
Let me count the ways. Surprisingly, I am not bothered so much by the company’s decision not to allow open carry in the stores. The problem lies with joining well-publicized nationwide gun-control crusades, emblematic in the demand that “the status quo is unacceptable”. It’s part of the usual rhetoric coming from the usual hive of gun-control groups and the Democratic Party. Parts of the memorandum could just as easily come out of Chuck Schumer’s office (D, NY).
I’d like to remind Walmart that the Second Amendment is part of the “status quo”. The Supreme Court defined the ownership of firearms to be an individual right, not a collective one. It’s presence in the Constitution is not for hunting or protection from MS-13. The Amendment is an avatar for citizen control of their government. A lesson in the English Civil War would work wonders in the corporate boardroom at Walmart.
So, what parts of the “status quo” is to be subjected to change? Well, it’s inanimate things like guns and ammo that are to be targeted (no pun intended) for punishment. The unstated premise is that the availability of these things constitutes a danger to the public. You tout the the company’s previous decision not to sell “military-style rifles”. The policy is nonsense as is the call to join a debate on resurrecting the Assault Weapon Ban. Calling for a debate are weasel words for establishing one (Ban). The debate on the Ban has been over for quite some time: the thing didn’t work, was allowed to lapse, and the Democrats refused to bring it back when they had the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress.
Further, the “military-style” nomenclature is silliness on stilts. It’s all about a gun’s cosmetic qualities. These guns are no more dangerous than any semi-automatic gun. By the way, guns are by their nature “dangerous” … as are crossbows. If they weren’t, they’d be no good for hunting. The AR platform and its knock-offs are associated with the miscreants of mass shootings because they are broadly popular with the gun-buying consumer base in the general public. They are the most highly demanded product in a gun manufacturer’s inventory. Hopefully, you’re not suggesting that all these buyers are crazed lunatics. If semi-auto shotguns with more compact barrels were to be all the rage in the murderous-loser class, would a call for a ban on semi-auto shotguns be next? Strange legal principle: find out what’s popular with lunatics and prohibit it.
The ludicrous nature of the Ban can be seen in the bumbling attempts to codify the concept into law. Is it the pistol grip? Is it the semi-auto nature of the thing? Is it the magazine capacity of over 4 rounds? Is it because it looks like something in a John Wick movie? Going from state to state examining their bans is an exercise in chaos theory. Usually the laws are written by people with the least knowledge about firearms. Watching them at a press conference is a real hoot. The big problem with the ban stems from the quixotic desire to proscribe a product for its cosmetic qualities. That’s it!
Then Walmart stacks its current silliness with more silliness on the ammo front. No handgun and .223 ammo. What’s the logic behind that? Clearly, the company associates those cartridges with mayhem. Why else put them on the no-go list? What’s next, a ban on 12 gauge? Any cartridge’s survival on Walmart’s shelves hangs by the thread of a killer’s choices.
Astoundingly, McMillon applauds the likely decline in the company’s market share in ammo. Now that’s a first: a company defining success as a decline in market share. Sears and JCPenney should be popping champagne corks instead of wringing their hands. It seems like the national Walmart is taking its cues from California Walmart. California is a mess and hardly an example to be imitated. I fled the state as a third generation native Californian to Montana. The state is no place to raise kids. Are the Walmarts in Montana soon to be looking like the ones in that lefty loony bin?
As always in these kinds of circulars, there are some palatable suggestions. Shoring up FixNICS and competently-written red flag laws are things to consider. But the gun and ammo ideas are just warmed over goofiness in Democratic Party bullet points. None of the ideas have a scintilla of relevance to curbing these mass shootings. Ditto for the much-vaunted “universal background checks”. Try to enforce that idea when family heirlooms are passed down from parent to child. The dribble is trotted out each time for the sole purpose of hammering more traditional and conservative circles in our population.
I suspect a general leftward orientation in corporate boardrooms. Others have noticed it as well. Walmart has not been inoculated. I attribute the phenomena to an increasing isolation in corporate governance from the common people, particularly in flyover country. Socio-economically, the “suits” identify with each other and the urban values of their location. Much has been written about this. Now these collectivist values appear to be seeping into Walmart. O’Sullivan might be proven right once again.
For your information, I shifted my recent tire purchase from Walmart to Discount Tire. In fact, I used your cheaper price to get a price match from them. You are to be thanked for providing the price leverage. But to be honest, I would have agreed to a higher price to avoid doing business with a company who appears to be lurching left. I will be doing the same with our other consumer purchases. Don’t look for my car in your parking lot.
……………………………………
Once again, the online receptionist indicated that my response will go up the chain of command. I suspect the reply is boilerplate.
After learning of Walmart’s new gun policy after the murderous rampage in an El Paso Walmart, I spirited off a reply on Walmart’s website comment link. Here is my initial comment to the company’s new policy:
I am commenting on your recent policy regarding guns and ammunition. I hope somebody reads it.
Right at the start: I am no gun enthusiast but am a strong believer in the Second Amendment and its pure and historical purpose. Also, I have come to notice the left-leaning tendencies in corporate boardrooms across the country. More and more, corporate policies are reflecting the left-wing zeitgeist of our urban and academic centers. I could provide more detail about this orientation if a history and philosophy lesson is required. Still, the trend is increasingly becoming apparent at Walmart.
Certain ideologically-laden code words keep recurring in many corporate policies, including Walmart’s. These are partisan leitmotifs that are littered throughout in more than just bland pronouncements on the company website, but also in company actions. Take for instance “corporate responsibility”. In the past, I have come to associate the phrase with Walmart’s attentiveness to community needs such as assistance to homeless shelters and schools. Well, it’s gone way beyond that. “Sustainability” has glommed onto the phrase. “Sustainability” has morphed into much more than roadside trash pickups. The word is corrupted with lefty crusades such as the massively politicized “climate change”, the wars on fossil fuels and plastics, and the never-ending campaigns to force “equality” in all its intersectional and “marginalized” guises, in the name of “equity” – whatever that means.
The last one is a war on tradition. Established notions of public morality, institutions like marriage and family, and values such as self-reliance, personal responsibility, and economic freedom are assaulted in the pursuit of making the “new man/woman”. Call it social engineering; something reminiscent of more sordid episodes of the 20th century.
I am sad to see that Walmart has succumbed to the zeitgeist. Now, it’s guns. The new policy about open carry and ammunition may have something to do with liability issues. Nonetheless, the corporate course on these matters is still troubling. A mob is afoot emanating from our megalopolises, the worst in academia, and the media that is tied to the two. It takes courage to stand athwart the mob. Yours appears to be waning.
I’m reminded of Simon Schama’s chronicle of the French Revolution, “Citizens”. The mob of Paris and its fire-breathing demagogues were the bane of civil governance for the country for centuries. Threats, intimidation, violence, and blackmail were all-too-common. The lid blew off in 1789 and France plunged into darkness and dictatorship for decades afterwards. At the time, some people made their peace with the Revolution. Have you made yours?
Don’t mistake fashionable trends of thought for wisdom. The Second Amendment is a symbol of citizen control of our polity. As such, I’m exercising my sovereignty in severing any personal commercial association with Walmart.
Currently, I’m in a spat with Walmart. No, my complaint isn’t about Walmart as an unabashed exploiter of the working poor, the complaint common among illiterate social justice warriors. Au contraire, I’m referring to Walmart’s gradual alignment with the cultural left. Surprise, surprise.
What drew back the curtain was the company’s new policy on guns and ammunition. An emotive reaction to a horrible incident like the one at the El Paso Walmart is understandable, but don’t mistake “understandable” with “reasonable”. For many reasons, much in Walmart’s new stance on guns is absurd. More about this later.
Walmart’s approach is encapsulated in this memo to employees shortly after the El Paso shooting. It can be found here: https://corporate.walmart.com/…/mcmillon-to-associates-our-….
John McMillon, President and CEO, of Walmart.
A Wikipedia search of the memo’s author, John McMillon, President and CEO, uncovered more. Guns and religion are two of the most salient issues in the culture war. And McMillon weighed into both. In 2015, McMillon proclaimed that a “religious freedom” bill before Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson “threatens to undermine the spirit of inclusion present throughout the state of Arkansas and does not reflect the values we proudly uphold”. Cut through the gobbledygook and we see that Walmart has joined the LGBTQ crusade to punish religious dissenters for disagreeing with them. McMillon sounds like Pelosi. Religious freedom laws have become a necessity as government agencies and commissions under the sway of the powerful LGBTQ lobby have targeted private individuals for taking the Bible seriously. Talk to Jack Philips, or take a look at the Houston mayor’s attempt to subpoena pastors’ sermons, or governments’ efforts to force religious organizations to facilitate abortion.
Jack Philips of Masterpiece Cakeshop and the target of legal action by Colorado’s Human Rights Commission. Their actions against Philips were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.
But now we have the big cheese at Walmart declaring “inclusion” trumps (no pun intended) “religious freedom”.
A scan of the company’s website will find it littered with the eco-lobby’s hobby-horses. I suspect that the “suits” in charge at Walmart chafe at those viral pics of unsightly-dressed shoppers. They want to upscale the company’s image by showing that they too are like the swank Malibu types with fashionable views to go along with a fashionable look.
A page from the “Global Responsibility” link on walmart.com.
McMillon’s personal history, though, presents a conundrum. He’s a born-again Christian. He’s also a lifer Walmart employee. On the religious angle, he’s confused in trying to mesh his haute couture views with Jesus of Nazareth. As an employee, he’s been in management for at least 20 years, and much of that in corporate management. Somewhere along the line he has absorbed many of the values of a university’s Sociology faculty. It’s a familiar development in the backgrounds of many corporate execs.
Wealthy people in today’s world seem to be attracted to wokeness like a moth to light.
9/11 is the moment to commemorate the victims and those who answered the call and made sacrifices to combat the threat. It is also a reminder of the decline of ardor not long after.
George W. Bush had approvals of 99% and then the bottom fell out. The peaceniks returned with a vengeance – “Bush lied, people died.” The Democratic Party resumed its bash-America stance. The next number of presidential elections cycles produced commanders-in-chief who would spend their tenures repudiating W.
Protesters march in San Francisco Thursday, March 20, 2003. (AP Photo/Noah Berger)
Even Republicans joined in the mudfest. Trump would spend the 2016 campaign bashing the Bushes and continue the pounding in the years after the inaugural. He teeters on the edge of the isolationism rabbit hole.
Not surprisingly, Trump goes through national security people like a pothead does reefers. Remember McMaster, Bolton, Mattis? It’s hard meshing “America first” with obvious national interests that stretch beyond the two oceans. I’ve got to give Trump credit, though, for persistence in forcing that square peg into a round hole. But it’s hard on the worker bees.
Part of the problem in stoking the enthusiasm to keep up the fight against terrorism is disoriented expectations. All conflicts are compared to WWII. It’s the gold standard for wars for the historically illiterate. All American wars, including the Revolution, were divisive affairs, with the lone exception of WWII.
Female delegates to the 1915 Women’s Peace Conference in The Hague, aboard the MS Noordam. April 1915.
WWII is an island in history’s landscape. The evil was easy to identify, had uniformed people to kill, and a capital to conquer. What’s the capital of terrorism? Terrorists don’t fight “fair”, like the 1950’s communist Malay National Liberation Front, the Viet Cong in Vietnam, the Pathet Lao in Laos, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the Castro-inspired killers in Latin America, …. The enemy looks like Malay peasant farmers and Afghan peasant farmers.
Guerrilla forces from North Vietnam’s Vietcong movement cross a river in 1966 during the Vietnam War.
The violence burns for a long time. For our enemies, the strategy is simple: keep it burning and America will eventually quit. Vietnam invited that conclusion. These are likely to be the only kinds of wars that the world’s lone superpower will get. The Iraqi insurgency followed and Afghan Taliban are following the script to a T.
And lo and behold, we get presidents whose endgame is withdrawal. Translation: the enemy wins.
This challenge doesn’t have to end that way. We have to be as relentless as our foes, if we can rediscover fortitude. All the while, never forgetting 9/11.
Below is a video from Mearns Academy, in Aberdeenshire, Scotland, which went viral in June of 2019, of a teacher who removed a student for stating that there are only two genders.
In my mind, the remarkable thing about the incident was the teacher’s frequent reference to “policy”, as in the school’s and government’s policy of recognizing more than two genders settles the issue enough to squash dissent. It’s an approach that seems to be seeping into most areas of public life. In other words, be silent if you disagree with the powers-that-be on an issue that is inherently open to dispute.
Yes, open to dispute. Elementary logic makes it easy to challenge this most modern of contentions. Yet, the enthusiasts for 40 or so genders try to swamp opposing voices with, in essence, a politicized résumé. The tactic is to prepare a list of gullible Ph.D.’s – ones with prejudicial sympathies for the claims – make sure that they occupy powerful positions in the relevant professional associations who have an instinct for political adventurism, and have a fervent activist base – size doesn’t matter, approximation to political power does. In that way, logic and facts get overwhelmed by the loud volume of an intense few. Education is bedeviled by the technique, as I can attest from personal experience.
For an alternative view of transgenderism, go here.
What it comes down to is a person’s self-assertion that he or she (or whatever) is the opposite of his or her (or whatever) chromosomes. Rhetoric, verbal distinctions, and analytical procedures to identify “legitimate” claims are invented to bolster the new “science”. If the purpose of the process is to winnow out the dubious from the genuine, the filter has holes the size of railroad tunnels. If this is science, it is of the sham variety.
We’ve been down this road before with eugenics and racial purity. And we might have to add overwrought “climate change” to the list. So-called “science” is just as vulnerable to fanciful popular trends as hemlines and music.
At the end of the day, what have we done? As is usual in these kinds of things, it’s the young who pay the price for our impulsiveness. They are injected with pharmaceuticals at a young age in preparation for surgery later. The drugs will stunt their development and the surgery is irreversible. But by then, it’s too late. A change of heart just became meaningless. With transgenderism, you might as well repeal the Hippocratic oath.
The problems don’t stop there. Girls’ track, swimming, soccer, etc., or girl’s anything, will have been made nonsensical. The inherent advantage of the transgendered girl over those whose mental state aligns with their chromosomes means that past-boys will dominate present-girls. I wonder about the survival of the longstanding feminist push for sports equity when the boys-now-girls are harvesting the majority of girls’ sports scholarships and dominating the record books. We don’t have to much worry about the process working the other way.
This is what happens when government wades into a controversy in favor of the side obviously lacking in merit but nonetheless having proximity to power. Government diktat overwhelms debate and discourse, and helps to produce viral videos of public employees shaming dissenters even though the dissenters have the stronger case. Is this any way to run a citizen republic?
Do you want an example of pure demagoguery? Well, here it is! Watch Elizabeth Warren appeal to the prejudices and emotions of her crowd.
Her speech is filled with all the lingo in the quiver of any power-hungry firebrand. When democracy becomes a substitute for morality, as it is for Warren, Bernie, and the Squad (AOC and company), such people are free to go out and advocate theft if they can garner a large enough throng. And in this Democratic Party, the rhetoric does. This, the wealth tax, is thievery through the tax code, pure and simple. Her rationale is utterly fantastic and also very frightening. It is frightening not just for its lunacy but for the moral corruption of the masses who buy into it.
Elizabeth Warren addresses a large crowd for an August campaign rally in California. Frederic J. Brown/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
The wealth tax ploy is too easy to take apart, as economists even in the Democratic Party stable (Larry Summers, et al) have done. Fact: you’ll get a small fraction of what you expect. It’s too easy to legally dodge. And if that doesn’t work, simply flee and have your assets electronically transferred to Zurich. Wealth is remarkably portable. Of course, you can attempt to stop the flight with more draconian measures, but then you’re mimicking Maduro, or Lenin, or Stalin, or Mao, or Castro …. Elizabeth, do you really want to go there? Some in the base are certainly hot for it.
Venezuela’s illegal traders have proliferated as grocery stores are fast becoming empty. Credit: Eneas De Troya / Flicker
I’m reminded of other crusades to stick it to the rich, real or imagined. Let’s take a stroll down memory lane to 1929. The story actually begins in 1906. The farsighted Russian Prime Minister, Pyotr Solypin, starting in 1906, uplifted the peasants by giving them land and thus they became property owners. Some were successful and became richer than others. By October of 1917, a revolution for forced “equality” – that’s what communism and Bolshevism are all about – seized power and would spend the next decade trying to eliminate the so-called “kulaks”, or rich peasants. Many were not so much rich as they simply owned their own land. Stalin had enough of peasant resistance. Party activists and armed cadres descended on the countryside to rile the many less-well-off. They seized land, food, crops, livestock, equipment, and herded peasants into state farms and the gulag. That’s the beginning of the Holodomor, the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33.
A dispossessed kulak and his family in front of their home in Udachne village in Donets’ka oblast’, 1930s. (Image credit: Central State Archives of Photo, Audio, and Video Documents of Ukraine named after G. S. Pshenychnyi)A family with starving children during Stalin’s de-kulakization campaign. Wikimedia Commons.
What’s interesting about the episode is the requisition squads left no stone unturned. Peasants resisted by hiding all they had, all to no avail. Everything was taken, even the seed grain for next year’s crop. What does this mean? Famine and 50 years of shortages. Warren will have to follow in the footsteps of the lefty activists of 1930’s Russia to realize her anticipated $2.75 trillion windfall. It’ll be a replay of 1930’s Russia. Capital will be hidden or flee with the same devastating effects on our country. Warren has company of the sort nobody should relish.
As in the October Revolution, Warren and company are offering “equality” through a series of massive wealth transfers. The “equality” will come in the form of freebies offered up to the alleged dispossessed. It’s a promise with a sordid past. Beware America, she plans to revisit the horror on us and our progeny.
