What Are They Doing to Our Soldiers? What Are They Doing to Our Children?

See the source image
Eau Claire Area School District Administration Building, Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
See the source image
Naval War College, Newport, R.I., and near Barrington, R.I.

What are they doing to our soldiers?  Indeed, what are they doing to our children?  The “they”?  They go by various titles: “cultural curators (Salena Zito), “cultural commanding heights” (mine), “elites”, “limousine liberals”, “establishment”, “progressives”, “blue-check Twitter”, alongside a host of disparaging terms for anyone outside these tightly-packed super zip codes in the cartography of America.  A tell-tale sign is glaringly evident in almost any place with a college of extortionate social and economic (and by extension political) influence.  Three recent incidents are case studies of their baleful clout.

Who’s educating our children?  It might be the same people like the staff of University of Wisconsin Eau Claire’s Gender & Sexuality Research Center (GSRC) who conducted a teacher training session for the Eau Claire Area School District in late February on the whole gamut of woke ideology.  Safe spaces, the evils of heteronormativity and meritocracy and systemic racism and white privilege, and the need to freeze parents out of their children’s gender identity issues were taught as unassailable truths to the government employees who have the residents’ children under their control for 6-8 hours per weekday.  The whole thing might have flown under the residents’ radar, pre-pandemic, but parent groups, post-pandemic, were tipped off.

Thankfully, word got out.  Parents learned that teachers were told in power-point slides,

“. . . parents are not entitled to know their kids’ identities. That knowledge must be earned. Teachers are often straddling this complex situation. In ECASD, our priority is supporting the student.”

In essence, the area’s children were treated as property of the school district.  The arrogance is startling.  Chris Jorgenson, the director of the GSRC, was impertinent enough to declare to the throng of teachers, “But much like we wouldn’t act as stand-ins for abuse in other circumstances, we cannot let parents’ rejection of their children guide teachers’ reactions and actions and advocacy for our students.”  If you can make sense of the word salad, the presentation of gender-identity ideology – sometimes referred to as transgenderism – makes an enemy of parents who understandably reject the ideology by calling the repudiation parental “child abuse”.  The whole falderol was sanctioned by the district’s superintendent, Michael Johnson, in classic bureaucratese when he said the district “prides itself on being a school district that makes all students feel welcome and safe in our schools.”  The effrontery of our cultural curators was on full display.

May be an image of 1 person, beard, standing and indoor
Culprit #1: Chris Jorgenson, director of UW Eau Claire’s Gender & Sexuality Research Center

It doesn’t end there.  Barrington, R.I., is home for many veterans and staff of the Naval War College (NWC), and what we see in the faculty lounge of UW Eau Claire is clearly evident among its professoriate, and it spills over into the town of Barrington.  Don’t forget, the NWC educates the officer corps of one of the institutions that is assigned the sole task of protecting us from foreign aggressors who wish to inflict abject harm on us.  The first decades of this century have made the threat abundantly clear.

Instead, like the teachers and children of Eau Claire, Marine and Naval officers are being indoctrinated with the same ideology of self-flagellation.  Think about it: what effect will it have on morale in the ranks? General George C. Marshal warned us in the tumultuous days of World War II, “It is not enough to fight. It is the spirit we bring to the fight that decides the issue. It is morale that wins the victory.”  Who would want to defend a nation that has been characterized barely this side of Nazi Germany?

At issue in Barrington is the sponsorship of this year’s Memorial Day activities.  For the past number of years, it was the Barrington United Veterans Coalition (BUVC).  Well, not this year.  The town’s Master of Ceremonies will not be the head of BUVC but the role will be turned over to a NWC professor, Frank Douglas, who previously spoke in favor of flying the Black Lives Matter flag at city hall.  The Veterans Coalition had opposed the proposal to grant BLM the same honor as the POW-MIA banner.  Douglas, according to town council minutes, played the trite “diversity” card when he said, “… there is diversity in the veteran community because they [BUVC] do not speak for all veterans.”

The Black Lives Matter flag flies on the pole outside Barrington Town Hall.

May be an image of 1 person
Culprit #2: Frank Douglas, Naval War College professor

Our intrepid NWC prof, Frank Douglas, is probably confusing the neologism BLM as a concept with the group.  But flying a flag is quite different from simply endorsing the obvious truth that black lives matter.  A flag denotes a group, and the BLM group is a scandal in belief and practice.  A person who isn’t aware of the group’s neo-Marxist program has been living in a closet.  Ditto for the bookkeeping shenanigans.  Flying the BLM flag isn’t much different from flying the Viet Cong flag.

I’m not surprised.  Douglas’s resume’ reads like a travelogue through academic bubbles – Georgetown U. (BSFS, Int. Affairs, 1993), Johns Hopkins U. (MA, Int. Relations, 1997), Harriman Institute (M.Phil., PoliSci, 2001), and Columbia U. (PhD, PoliSci, 2005).  Clearly, this guy has the impression that some form of wisdom and competence is granted to someone with a litany of letters after their name . . . or it simply could be the desire for a cushy job.

As for his uniformed experience – he’s a commissioned officer in the Naval Reserve – his bio on the NWC’s website lists staff jobs in and out of theater from 2004 to 2018.  Actual combat experience isn’t evident. I could be wrong but he appears to be a desk jockey.  He might be the military’s version of a teacher quickly transitioning to administration.  The old saying in education has a ring of truth: If you can’t teach, administrate.  In the social ecosystem of the Pentagon, if you find the life of the grunt personally repellant, cram your resume’ with academic honors and be above the grime of actual combat, and, while you’re at it, engorge yourself on the thought-fads of academia.

If I’ve got it wrong, Douglas, please tell me.

The staff overhead of the Pentagon and its academic appurtenances frequently show the very same neo-Marxist influence as in Eau Claire Area School District’s headquarters.  Who can forget General Mark Milley’s (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) statement before the House Armed Services Committee in June of 2021: “I want to understand white rage, and I’m white”? The pinning of “white rage” on the January 6 rioters and protesters sounds like The Squad’s camera-hogging howls.  The lunch room at the Pentagon may not be much different from the UW Eau Claire’s faculty lounge.

May be an illustration of one or more people and text

May be an image of 1 person
Culprit #3: Pauline Shanks Kaurin, Naval War College professor

Back to the NWC, another prof, Pauline Shanks Kaurin, delivered a lecture to sailors in June of 2021 that treated Meghan Markle’s fully unsubstantiated accusations of racism in the royal family as analogous to the alleged systemic racism in American society.  She went further in slamming classical liberalism in its focus on the individual.  If you want more of the mental gobbledygook, she continued to ineptly wax as follows:

“… [racism] is not a case of a few bad apples. This is, as the Duchess of Sussex said, she said, racism, racist is not rude….

This is not a matter of people who are being mean or rude or ignorant individuals. We tend to think of racism or sexism as, ‘this is a problem with individuals’. It’s not a problem with individuals. It’s not a problem with individuals only, it’s a problem of individuals within a structure, within a society, within a system.”

This is the stuff promulgated to the people trained to kill.  Those in charge should be held accountable for wrongly presenting this bombast.  And if they won’t be responsible, keep it out entirely.  The nonsense should be treated as the bone of contention that it is.  That means that you don’t deliver it from a lectern, as from a pulpit, even if discussion is permitted. The setting grants to the presenter the power to frame the discussion.  Rather, it only deserves the full debate treatment: two sides cognitively armed to argue the merits, or lack thereof.

If not, keep it away from our troops, and keep it away from our children.  It’s noxious neo-Marxism whether flying under the BLM banner or anti-racism ideology in teacher training, and needs to be confronted, and not in any way presented as truth.  Our men and women in uniform and school-age children merit better.  Schooling should not be a national suicide pill.

See the source image

RogerG

The Death of the Personal

See the source image

Ask yourself a couple of simple questions.  How could a governor coldly announce the end of the internal combustion in 15 years without any recognition of the upheaval – i.e., human cost – that it’ll create?  In September of 2020, Governor Newson of California did:

“In the next 15 years we will eliminate in the state of California the sales of internal combustion engines.  We will move forward to green and decarbonize our vehicle fleet … substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well as oxide nitrogen, in so doing, we’ll improve air quality and improve the economic climate here in the state of California.”

See the source image
Governor Gavin Newsom announces an end to the sale of the cars with internal combustion engines.

How could Black Lives Matter declare economic war on white-owned businesses?  Oh, but they did on Twitter in December 2021:

“Time to: #BuildBlack – Support Black-led-Black-serving organizations.  #BuyBlack – Skip the Black Friday sales and buy exclusively from Black-owned businesses.  #BankBlack – Move your money out of white-corporate banks that finance our oppression and open accounts with Black-owned banks. . . .  White-supremacist-capitalism uses policing to protect profits and steal Black life. . . .  Let’s use every tool in our toolbox…including our dollars…to end white-supremacist-capitalism.”

When not announcing an end to the traditional family, calling for the death of cops (“fry ‘em like bacon”), or excusing riots and murder in our cities, they applied the same old tired rhetoric in declaring their own version of apartheid nirvana.

Businesses torched in downtown Minneapolis during the George Floyd riots of 2020.

What’s happening?  Well, it’s what happens when a person becomes incapable of examining their own assumptions.  They blindly accept a set of propositions and then act upon them.

Something is missing from their mental comportment.  The thing that is absent is the life of the personal. The life of the personal – also referred to as interiority – involves reflection, comprehension, and the private space to do it.  For these avatars of a new world order, no time for that.  That private space is to be treated as suspicious pods of conspiracy to stop them.  The personal life is branded “counterrevolutionary”.  For them, it’s time to light up the Molotov cocktails and torch the entire civilization and end the life of the personal.

However, it’s out of the life of the personal that arises all those things that we call private.  You know, the private sector, private property, civil society, church.  The life of the personal is more than emotions and the arts, even though it certainly encompasses them.  It incorporates our tendency to gravitate to form family, a deeper form of intimacy than mere eroticism can satisfy.  It includes our personal choices to make a living, whether to follow in the footsteps of mom and dad or not.  It encompasses the natural inclination to acquire things unto ourselves – private property, private enterprise.  It embraces the grappling to understand the nature of things, which includes the spiritual.  Thus, churches arise.

All these things lie outside the revolution, because revolution is what these people are all about.  They’re not into deep private reflection.  They are consumed by ends (a complete revolution) sanctioning means (unbridled callousness).  They desire to let loose an eruption to overturn nearly everything to make life conform to their unexamined vision.

No better illustration can be found than in a clip from director David Lean’s film from 1965, “Dr. Zhivago”, based on Boris Pasternak’s novel.  In the scene, Dr. Yuri Zhivago is brought before the revolutionary commander Strelnikov in the heady days of the Bolshevik Revolution and Civil War (Whites vs. Reds).  They met earlier before the Revolution but only briefly.  The exchange is enlightening.  Please watch the clip.

RogerG

Ukraine and Hidden Agendas

See the source image

While ruminating on the latest thought-fad emanating from the Left, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), I was reminded of the tendency of people to hide their real intentions behind a flurry of academic jargon.  Thus, the convoluted and incoherent MMT.  Economists – left, right and center – have dubbed it “Calvinball” (Paul Krugman), “not ready for primetime” (Scott Summer), “sounded like lunacy” (Michael Strain), and “a political [not economic] manifesto” (report for France’s central bank).  Frankly, MMT boils down to this: if the government wants to do something, go ahead and print the money and do it.  No problem, the MMT priesthood would sing in chorus.  Everything will be hunky-dory.

But what are they really after?  Pure and simple, they want a humongous government with the power to tax, regulate, and spend at will; no restraints; socialism.  MMT is just another tangled oratorical path to get there.  Please, fans of socialism, cut the crap.

See the source image

The same mental gymnastics are at work on the right.  Events in Ukraine have exposed a segment of the right’s own rhetorical curtain.  Tucker Carlson babbles on about “just asking questions”, “neocons”, “Ukrainian corruption”, “World War III”, “Americans dying”, and “America first”.  Laura Ingraham joins the chorus.  What are they really after?

See the source image

The normally sensible Mollie Hemingway also seems to practice this form of mental subterfuge when talking about Ukraine.  In a recent interview on the Hugh Hewitt show, she incessantly rambled about “knowing the risks” of US support for Ukraine, as if the thought was original to her; nobody but her is aware of it.  But everybody intuitively does it when doing simple things like deciding to go to an ATM in crime-ridden LA under DA Gascon or proposing to prick the nose of the CCP with tariffs (they’ve got nukes too).

See the source image

What’s up?  Two motivations lie buried in the verbiage: they are paralyzed in fear of Russia and have a hankering for a “fortress America” national defense strategy.  Goatherders with boxcutters (9/11) proved the latter to be foolish.  On the former, I fail to understand the gripping dread of Putin’s nukes over, say, those of Chairman Xi.  Tucker, Laura, and Mollie are gung-ho in respect to China and have said so ad nauseam, but can’t bring themselves to support actions to forestall a mauling by a power wishing to resuscitate the Soviet empire on a continent historically beset by world-shattering aggressors.  Speaking of spent blood and treasure to put thugs back in the box, recall WWI and WWII?

Hardly does an episode go by without two straw-man choices to bolster the cognitive inanity.  Tucker presents the choices as either staying out, completely out, or body bags/nuked American cities. What happened to simply arming our friends?  Putin and Xi do it regularly, and American soldiers have paid the price in such disparate places as Syria, Fellujah, and the Hindu-Kush.  The Tucker-to-Laura axis’s response would be “no more forever-wars” or run and hide after, as Mollie would have it, tortuously “assessing the risks”.

See the source image

The thinking boggles the mind.  They are quick to “assess the risks” of a bungled Afghan bugout but have no desire to “assess the risks” of a bludgeoned Ukraine, and possible defeat, as we sit idly by, safe in our “fortress America”.

Which brings to mind another hidden motive: pure cult-of-personality politics.  Trump-love could be clouding their eyesight and mind.  Biden, who defeated their master, did the Afghan bugout and is at the helm when Putin unleashed his doddering Wehrmacht on the Ukraine.  They’re quick to blame Biden’s Afghanistan-appeasement for Putin’s invasion – and they’d be right – while at the same time they hawk appeasement in regards to Ukraine.  Putin saw Kabul airport and Xi is watching Ukraine.  A failure to stop Putin at the borders of the Ukraine could lead to a failure to stop Xi at the shores of Taiwan.  If so, we’ll be really forced into “fortress America”.  A self-fulfilled prophecy anyone, one not likely to be satisfying to most Americans?

I wish that they’d get their appeasement angles straight before they blather to us.

See the source image

The modern punditry class is a disgrace.  Previously, most of the sensible among us had no recourse in legacy media.  The networks, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, AP are mostly lefty propaganda organs.  Now, it turns out, the primetime lineup on Fox News can’t be trusted.  All of them prove that human fallibility is evident everywhere and academic degrees, party registration, ideology, race, gender, age, and telegenic qualities accord no fix.  Fact.

Really, Tucker, Laura, and Mollie, tell us what actually lurks behind your wordiness.  If it’s abject fear of Putin, say it.  If it’s a sincere belief in the veracity of Russian propaganda, say it.  If it’s a derivative of knee-jerk Trump-love, say it.  If it’s an undying faith in oceans as our best defense, say it.  If it’s a secret admiration of Putin as a fellow nationalist-populist, say it.  If it’s the fright of “forever wars” trumping all other thoughts, say it.  And, by all means, cut the crap.

RogerG

More from “My Fair Lady”

See the source image

My previous post (see below) contained my explanation for the devolution of the cinematic musical.  The same commentary could apply to Hollywood in general.  Another DC/Marvel regurgitation, rich in CGI visuals and not much else, is today’s theatrical high point.  Sad.

To get a sense of the sublime that Hollywood was capable of producing, watch this scene from “My Fair Lady” of Audrey Hepburn and cast performing “I Could Have Danced All Night” (Hepburn’s voice is dubbed, but nonetheless….).

Once again, if you can, run it through a set of speakers.

RogerG

What a Great Musical Looks and Sounds Like: My Fair Lady

See the source image

Is our culture exhausted?  I’m of two minds, but there are signs of fatigue, if not decline.  Last night, I finished watching “My Fair Lady” on Netflix in HD and through my stereo system, as close as I can get to a theater experience for a film from 1964.  It was magnificent and got me to wondering why we seem incapable of producing such cinematic grandeur today.

Not that there haven’t been attempts, but for me, they don’t measure up.  Sorry, “La La Land” and “Chicago”, the two most recent endeavors to capture the magic, are poor knock-offs.  The material elements are present in the physical choreography and vocalizations, and, yet, the whole package appears as a cheap imitation.

One factor for the debasement might have something to do with Hollywood’s zeal to be edgy.  By edgy, I mean norm-busting: the unrelenting pressure to be a challenge to what used to be considered wholesome.  It’s oft-putting and takes away from the synergistic combination of artistry, craftsmanship, and cinematography.

The zenith of the musical probably was the 1950s-60s.  After that, it’s all downhill to the CGI/rapid-imagery, stale scripts, and unremarkable and uninspiring music of today.  It’s so bad that the downfall of the musical coincides with the downfall of the Oscars.  Who cares, except for the old stuff?

Please watch this performance of the wonderful song “On the Street Where You Live” from “My Fair Lady”.  If you can, run it through a set of good speakers.  Nothing from Hollywood’s current repertoire compares.

RogerG

Zora Neale Hurston and Stewardship Properly Understood

Zora Neal Hurston
Zora Neal Hurston

Lest we find ourselves distracted by all things Ukraine at the moment, we should not suffer temporary blindness to the ongoing threats closer to home.  If you’ll recall, we are engaged in a wholesale demolition of our cultural inheritance under the guise of a landslide of hackneyed buzzwords: diversity, equity, inclusion (curiously in that order to avoid the acronym DIE), social justice, systemic racism, white supremacy, et al.  An older but truer meaning of the word stewardship comes to mind.

See 1 Peter 4:10:
“As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.”

See Genisis 2:15:
“The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.”

The ransacking of the legacy flies in the face of the obvious meaning of stewardship.  Throughout the Bible it is used to remind us that God is the ultimate source of all gifts (broadly defined) and His expectation that we are to wisely use these favors.  It is not a cover for political enthusiasms such as recycling regimes, anti-plastic crusades, climate-change manias, the assault on fossil fuels, government handouts for windmills and solar panels, the punishment of workers in certain commodity industries, the promotion of guilt-trips for owning an SUV, the policies of herding families en masse into cramped apartments, the demonization of single-family-residential, and the relegation of the public lands to mere hikers’ paradises and no one else need enter.  God’s gifts are conferred on a businessman exercising property rights to extract mineral wealth from the earth as they are for white collar public employees wealthy and organized enough to politically force everyone else to live according to their preferences.  At present, there the mutilated corpse of stewardship lies.

If I hear another clergyman spout from the pulpit stewardship as the guise for greenie agendas, I’ll scream.

The insipid mangling of stewardship has manifested beyond Green New Deals and into a frenzy for an inflated race-consciousness.  Hyper-sensitive race-awareness tars everything to the point of a wholesale dismantlement of our grand cultural inheritance.  Statue-toppling, the insidious doctrines of race-obsessiveness in instruction to the young, the rantings and bullying in social media, the loud advocacy of the extinction of personal freedoms in free markets, and the espousal of life under massively intrusive government commands will mean the death knell for God’s gifts.  “Stewardship” undermining stewardship.  Go figure.

A rereading of the writings of Zora Neale Hurston are the antidote to what she referred to as the “race man”, the carnival barkers for perpetual race-victimhood, people like the barely coherent Ibram X. Kendi or the insufferable Maxine Waters.

See the source image
Ibram X. Kendi
See the source image
Maxine Waters

Check out this gem from Hurston’s essay “Art and Such”, wherein she decries the tendency of the “race man” to reduce the entire black experience to oppression and sorrow:

“Can the black poet sing a song to the morning?  Upsprings the song to his lips but it is fought back. He says to himself, . . .  ‘Ought I not to be singing of our sorrows?  That is what is expected of me and . . . if I do not some will even call me a coward.  The one subject for a Negro is the Race and its sufferings and so the song of the morning must be choked back.  I will write of a lynching instead.’  So the same old theme, the same old phrases get done again. . . .  The writer thinks that he has been brave in following in the groove of the Race champions, when the truth is, it is the line of least resistance and least originality.”

Zora sets the record straight.  This latest campaign to ravage our inheritance is absolutely mind-numbing.  The soul-destroying dogmas reduce thought to mindless chants.  These people aren’t capable of originality and can add nothing to our inheritance.  They only pillage.  A painter’s palette is replaced by a sledge hammer.

So much for the stewardship in 1 Peter 4:10.

See the source image

RogerG

A Middle-Class Betrayal

A Sierra Club sponsored outing.

In 2001, upon meeting Russia’s Vladimir Putin for the first time in Slovenia, Pres. George W. Bush famously said that he looked into Putin’s eyes and “was able to get a sense of his soul.”  Apparently, Bush was bromanced by a heartrending Putin tale from his youth of his mother giving him a cross that survived a fire at the family dacha.  Later, Vice-President Cheney chortled that when he saw Putin, “I think KGB, KGB, KGB”.  Bush’s outpourings of sympathy were corrected by Cheney’s blunt realism.

We need more of Cheney’s therapeutic realism regarding all sorts of misguided beliefs that are eviscerating our country.  One such assemblage of mind-junk running amok is environmentalism.  This thing is an “ism” and not to be confused with its root, the environment.  It’s a vast social engineering project that rivals anything bursting forth from the mind of Karl Marx, for whom it is related.  After decades of persistent persuasion throughout the culture, it has settled into our myopic but comfortable middle class.  We are willing our own demise, and the historical corrective in the form of a sober middle class has checked out of prudence and into folly, or so it seems.

Though, be mindful of the universal caveat: to be certain, not all of the middle class, but a sizeable chunk in varying degrees. One must avoid the sophistry of the woke in assuming a homogeneity of thought in a group arbitrarily defined by some external, physical factor (income, race, ethnicity, gender, etc., etc.).

The ”ism” is an example of a belief system every bit as straitjacketing as anything found in The Communist Manifesto, a kind of theology without an afterlife.  Instead, the surrogate afterlife is a materialist utopia, a pie in the sky.  The grand scheme begins with the acolytes’ favorite diagnosis of what ails us in the form of human eco-disruptions that have allegedly damaged our entire existence, us personally, and all our surroundings.  The prescription requires the true believers to take control of the state to engineer a better human being for a better world.  Devastation, though, is history’s likeliest verdict.

Climate change doctrines are the latest infatuation which has been used, for instance, to wreck our domestic energy industry and begin the coercive reengineering of our existence.  Fact: no reliable energy, welcome to the stone age.  And solar panels and windmills won’t cut it, so don’t go there.  The eco-fanatics’ dream, however, will translate into the reality of dependence on Saudi monarchs, Iran’s mullahs, Putin, and Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro.  Welcome to national subservience to imperial thugs and welcome to chronic retreat and defeat.  President Biden is the latest figurehead trying to lead us into this new catastrophe.

Events in Eastern Europe – Ukraine in particular – have exposed the problem.  We are in the midst of a massive federal, state, and local effort, led by the feds, to turn topsy-turvy our way of life in pursuit of almost anything labeled “sustainable” in 2,000-page Green New Deals (GND) while at the same time we are beset with the aggressions of Russia and Red China who are threatening to tear apart our alliances and trade relationships.  We are pulled toward the amateurish visions of AOC as we are stretched in the opposite direction to stand up to tyrannical aggressions.  It’s a two-fer for a beating.  Lincoln’s “house divided against itself cannot stand” should ring in our ears.

See the source image

The fact that the middle class, mostly white collar, has largely bought into this secular faith is evident everywhere.  It can be heard from the pulpit to the classroom.

Groups who are the zealous spearhead of the movement notice their narrow demographic appeal in the white collar, urban/suburban/exurban, middle to super-rich cluster. The Sierra Club, Wisconsin chapter, admits it: “The lack of diversity and inclusion amongst staff and members of environmental organizations is a key component to their difficulty in effectively combating environmental justice issues.”  In 2015, the group’s national governing body felt compelled to kneel before the cliché of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” to paper over the obvious truth of the group’s cramped attractiveness (sierra club 2015 diversity equity and inclusion pdf).

Pew Research points to the same constricted demography.  Using Dem/Rep breakdowns as the metric – since GNDs aren’t in the Republican playbook – we get a sense of who’s rallying to the flag of the firebrands.  The Democratic Party is, after all, their institutional home.  Democrat strength has been rising in the same demographic wherein eco-activists draw their legions: white, college educated, and urban/suburban.  These aren’t any kind of Caucasoids; they are whites of the other two characteristics.

For blue collars to join, they must either be confused or suicidal.

This isn’t your grandpa’s middle class.  For a sizeable portion of them, they see the world as an urban park due to their unfamiliarity with anything else.  Ensconced in their suburban bungalow, or coastal dwelling, or exclusive condo, or gentrified brownstone, they are far removed from the kind of people who make the stuff of their life possible.  Distance culturally, morally, socially, geographically, and economically, sometimes over multiple generations, colors both their perspectives and profound ignorance.  It’s easy for them to complain of the high price of housing but then support environmental policies that jack up the price of construction materials and strangle the supply of homes.  To them, the national forests are a park, not a possible source of 2X4 studs, and the more land under the control of the Nature Conservancy the better in their mind.  The monumental incongruency is startling.

Environmental activists protest outside of the Harvard Club where Trump’s EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt was scheduled to speak, June 20, 2017 in New York City.

Do you think the nations who wish us harm – yes, we do have them – are oblivious to the presence of a demographic fifth column in our midst?  As Biden would say, “Come on, man!”  In the 1970s and 80s, we called Soviet morale-busting campaigns disinformation.  They called it dezinformatsiya which The Great Soviet Dictionary of the era defined as “false information with the intention to deceive public opinion.”  The 1980’s Operation Infektion attempted to convince the world and us that our government invented HIV/AIDS in order to sap our will to resist them.  President Reagan got a full blast of it when he countered a Soviet military buildup in Europe and resisted Soviet adventurism around the world.

Today’s Kremlin wouldn’t be continuing the practice if there wasn’t an audience for it, as there was for the Nuclear Freeze and peace movements 40 years ago.  Former Soviet KGB apparatchik Vladimir Putin would be very familiar with this staple of Soviet war-by-other-means and is evidently using it.  One of the biggest foreign boosters of John Kerry’s climate change hucksterism is Nikolai Patrushev, the head of Russia’s Security Council.  Patrushev goes further in hawking American woke capitalism. Is he doing it out of pure altruism?  Quoting Biden again, “Come on, man!”  He knows, and we should know, that climate-change apocalyptics and social justice flimflammery only cripples us.  What better way to advance Putin’s national interests than to cheer John Kerry’s galivanting escapades and The Squad’s congressional agenda?  Weaken your adversary and warm up the tanks is a well-worn tactic.

See the source image
Nikolai Patrushev

The Kremlin gets traction with the hooey because many white collars are habitually open to the jive.  When will these urbanistas realize that they can’t have a safe and prosperous country alongside blackouts and escalating utility bills?  Electric cars, or electric anything, isn’t going to deliver 45,000 pounds of produce to their favorite Whole Foods outlet.  Their Beemers and Subarus can’t be made without the liquid residue of primordial jungles.  The stuff of fossil fuels surrounds them at a time when they are trying to kill it off.  It’s one of the purest examples of economic self-negation imaginable.

We have more than a Left problem.  We have a middle-class problem.  The two intersect at environmentalism and ensure the atrophy of our economy, our national resolve, and compromise the defense of our national interests.  No better word is available than “betrayal” . . . or maybe stupidity.

See the source image

RogerG

Do We Really Want a Restoration of the Soviet Union? Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham Seem to be Saying, Not a Problem.

See the source image

2/24/22 UPDATE:  It has begun.  Russia has initiated a full-scale assault on Ukraine from the east, south, and north.  The following is my synopsis of the contributions of two Fox News celebrities to the broad sense of confusion and myopia in America regarding Russia and the Ukraine.

*************

If you haven’t noticed, Putin is at it again, and our hapless president is bewildered and stumbling toward appeasement, or maybe just plain impotence.  Now, here’s the kicker: some on the right are also ambivalent and would be, quite honestly, content with the results of Biden’s passivity.  Fox News’s Neville Carlson (alias Tucker Chamberlain) is exhibit #1.  He’s Fox News’s #1 offering and it shows.  If you turn at least a casual ear to talk radio you’ll hear the occasional caller spout the latest lines, almost word for word, from Carlson about “neocons”, Ukrainian corruption, our undefended southern border vetoing any efforts to assist our allies, Carlson’s adaptation of Code Pink’s “no blood for oil” chant, and other reformulations of old rhetorical handles.

Sadly, he’s not alone on my side of the political ledger, the right.  On Tuesday (2/22/22), he was joined by Laura Ingraham in a tag-team revitalization of Lindbergh’s America First Committee, which by the way in its initial form died over the burning hulks of the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor.  If you’re interested, here’s a good dose of Tucker-thought on Russia-Ukraine.  It’s entertaining but incoherent bombast.

Carlson repeatedly asks, “. . . how does intervening in Ukraine help the core interests of the United States?”  Honestly, substitute Ukraine for any number of different countries and you’ll probably get any number of answers to his query.  And prevalent answers would be different depending on the era.  One answer would prevail in a time when long-distance travel was a death-defying journey, and before the harnessing of electricity and artificial power and Adam Smith’s depiction of the glories of free trade.  George Washington could understandably advise the young nation “to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world.”  But two-month delivery times for a letter across the Atlantic is an alien experience for today.  Things move quickly – sometimes instantaneously – and their impacts travel at the same speed.  Missiles, hijacked airliners turned into missiles, cyber-attacks, blue-water navies, strategic bombers, and international supply chains make the point.

Let’s ask Tucker’s question in 1931 before Japan’s invasion of China; instead of the Donbas, it’s Manchuria.  Oh, what about Mussolini’s 1935 “minor incursion” into Ethiopia?  Lest I forget, we could level the question at the “little corporal’s” swallowing up of Czechoslovakia, and furthermore Poland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France.  That takes up the Axis connection to Tuckers’ question.  405,000 US deaths later (75-80 million worldwide), we had peace that didn’t last long.  And then we’re back to mankind’s annoyingly familiar flawed nature.

Moving forward in time, what core interest did we have in Korea?  Or, for that matter, West Berlin?  Cuba?  Nicaragua?  Grenada?  Kuwait?  The profusion of instances answers the question.  It’s an interrelated world of multifaceted interests and impacts.  A leading statesman has to pick and choose, not ignore and hide.

To remind you of what a statesman sounds like, President Ronald Reagan’s “Evil Empire” speech of 1983 provides an educational contrast.  Tucker no doubt would refer to him as a “neocon”.

Regarding Ukraine, is it in America’s interest to stand pat as the Soviet Union is revived?  Ukraine is the vital piece in Putin’s reconstruction project.  It was the breadbasket for the empire yet also distinct, so much so that Russification, the policy of transplanting millions of Russians in the country, was active for a couple of centuries or more.  For Russia, if they can’t make Ukrainians Russian, they’ll make Ukraine Russian. First-language Russian speakers (14% of the population) are a product of this ethnic imperialism.  They’re also the leverage for Putin to use tanks to complete the task that was interrupted by the USSR’s implosion.

The CCP is taking a page out of this dog-eared book by injecting Han Chinese into Xinjiang.

You’ll notice that I didn’t mention Vietnam in the litany of US interventions.  It’s a sore spot, or embarrassment, for most Americans since we are said to have lost.  But losing was a choice, not inevitable.  Many decisions were made to draw out the war, allow North Vietnam to stay in the fight, and prohibit US assistance to Saigon by Congressional order at the moment Hanoi’s tanks headed south.  We saw similar choices throughout the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Obama yanked US forces out of Iraq and we got ISIS.  Biden yanked them out Afghanistan and we got Kabul airport and a descent into the 7th century and more terrorist sanctuaries.  Choices, horrible choices, and not the only ones available.

See the source image
ISIS mass executions in Syria, 2014.

Each time that we choose a new defeat, we’ll go through a period of national PTSD.  It’s no different post-Iraq War (W’s edition) and Afghanistan.  This time, it’s more than a revival of a McGovernite wing in the donkey party.  The right has correspondingly rediscovered its inner-Robert Taft/Charles Lindbergh.  Tucker and Ingraham speak in the manner of Lindbergh’s isolationism and Taft’s fear of internationalism.  Lindbergh combined a retreat to fortress America and an extreme naivete about the character of the Reich Chancellery.  Taft bristled at anything that smacked of a loss of US sovereignty, real or imagined.  He found NATO troubling.

Ohio Senator Robert Taft speaks at Arlington National Cemetery in 1939. (Library of Congress)

Still, a catalyst was necessary to provoke a 180-degree turn for the mediagenic stars of Fox News who were past boosters of the War of Terror.  To be fair, I’m not aware of Tucker’s stance at the time of Bush’s invasion of Iraq but we have Laura’s confession.  She got a whiff of populism, Trump style, and was intoxicated.  Trump had no statesmanlike competence to exhibit on the debate stage in 2016 so he resorted to insults and boilerplate attacks on Jeb Bush that drew from the worst of the Bush-lied-people-died period of Democrat demagoguery.  Everyone pre-invasion assumed Saddam had WMD, including the dictator himself, or so he said.  Trump refashioned the canard in the language of illicit “forever wars” as a campaign slogan and cudgel against Jeb Bush and his new bogeyman of “the establishment” (synonymous with anyone in opposition to Trump).  It’s a familiar feature in the Trump Brigades’ talking points.

See the source image

And the slogans thrived, going so far as to mutilate any original meaning.  RHINO morphed from liberal Republican to anyone opposing Trump.  Neocon changed from the architects of Reagan’s foreign policy to, again, anyone antagonistic to Trump.  “Forever wars” came out of Trump’s mouth as easily as it did any Democrat sealing the doom of South Vietnam.  A person’s stance on Trump became the arbiter of meaning in our political lingua franca.

From the time of Trump’s ascension, Trump and the Fox News primetime lineup trundled in unison into a fixation on getting out, and staying out.  Trump, with Ingraham and Carlson in tow, tried a pullout in Iraq but he’s got an ISIS problem.  The complication of ISIS extended into Syria so he’ll have to eradicate these blood-thirsty savages even as he tries to abandon the Kurds to Erdogan’s new Ottoman Empire.  Trump detours and his fits and starts abound.  Assad gasses his own people and Trump orders missile attacks.  It’s a messy world, but he’s determined to get out of Afghanistan with nothing but cheerleading from Tucker and Laura.

Trump’s Doha Agreement (signed Feb. 29, 2020) was minted in the same manner as the previous negotiated sellouts: the victims were absent from the room.  Chamberlain/Daladier cut a deal with Hitler on Czechoslovakia that excluded the Czechs.  Nixon/Kissinger reached agreement with the North Vietnamese with only a perfunctory role for the South.  The Kabul government was at most a wall flower to Pompeo and the Taliban.  The kink in the grand diplomatic design was that Trump wouldn’t be around to see it through.  Biden was elected and, true to form, he flubbed the flight out of the country.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with Head of Taliban’s Political office in Qatar Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar on the sidelines of the opening ceremony of the Afghanistan Peace Negotiations in Doha, 2020.

Remember that Trump and Biden were united in their enthusiasm for getting out and not in the least worried about its return to terrorist sanctuary and the loss of a strategic asset.

Now it’s Ukraine’s turn.  The same “forever wars” vitriol that our Fox News celebrities and Trump retroactively aimed at W and his people would be directed at anyone wanting to stop Putin.  Epithets are summoned to smear the object of our sympathies.  Ukraine is vilified as corrupt and not a democracy.  Well, yes, Ukraine is corrupt, like the rest of the old USSR post-breakup, but is it more corrupt than, say, our politicians who enter office middle class but leave oligarch-rich?  Pelosi, can we examine your account books?

Tucker is fond of saying that the country is an affront to democracy because it banned political parties and jails the opposition.  He’s only half right.  The other half is the existence of the country under the pall of Russian domination.  After the fall of the Soviet empire, “Russian interference” was a recurring feature of the Ukrainian political scene; and before it, Stalin’s Holodomor (1932-3) was as much genocide as it was a byproduct of central planning.  Ukrainian elections were continually beset by massive Russian intrusions.  Ukraine’s Orange Revolution (2004) was a popular uprising to throw out a Putin puppet in the presidency.  It was followed in 2013 by the Euromaidan protests to force a realignment away from Russia and toward the West.  All throughout, Putin’s operatives were active with money and guidance to contort elections.  Russia’s $40,000 in Facebook ads in 2016 in our country pale in significance.  The country has been in a near continuous struggle to be independent of Russia.  Life under nonstop foreign pressure isn’t healthy for the fragile elements of democracy.

Ukraine Separatist Rebels
Combatants walk in a procession as they attend the memorial service and the funeral of Aleksey Mozgovoi, a militant leader of the separatist self-proclaimed Luhansk People’s Republic, and his subordinates in the town of Alchevsk in Luhansk region, Ukraine, May 27, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

Anyway, Ukraine isn’t in the same league with Putin’s Russia when it comes to sheer political ghoulishness.  Enterprising but critical journalists disappear at an amazing clip.  Anna Politkovskaya (2006) and Natalia Estemirova (2009) are two of many of Putin’s victims.  The list of the murdered for being so impetuous as to stand athwart Putin is so long that the Russian human rights group Memorial (now illegal) maintains a catalogue called “Last Address”.  Political homicides aren’t limited to Russia as the spate of overseas poisonings illustrates.  Exile is no refuge from the guy.

Do you think Carlson is cognizant of these realities?  It’s hard to say.  I certainly don’t hear any pushback on the torrent of claims coming out of the Kremlin.  Putin believes that the Ukraine is an illegitimate country.  Does Carlson?  It has more legitimacy than Russia’s claim on it.  Russia’s control over most if it didn’t happen till Peter the Great in the 18th century.  Prior to that, the nation shape shifted under the control of the Duchy of Lithuania, Poland, Austria-Hungary, and the Golden Horde (Tartars), Russia arriving on the scene later.  If not for Russia, the country might have joined the family of eastern European nations much earlier.

Laura’s stance was obvious when she became euphoric from the fumes of Trump’s populism.  Right now, another scent is in the air.  It is the whiff of 1938 Czechoslovakia and later Poland.  Both were creatures of the Versailles Treaty and thusly held in ill-repute by an ascending German leader in much the same manner as Putin holds Ukraine.  The two eastern European countries were just stepping stones on the way to lebensraum.  In like manner, the Ukraine is an important cog on the path to reassembling the USSR, or Russian Empire, or whatever label you wish to apply to Putin’s Slavic lebensraum.  Laura, is lebensraum an appropriate tool for satisfying territorial appetites?

Seriously, are a country’s borders to be decided by the ambitions of dictators?  If so, say goodbye to Taiwan and South Korea.  Welcome to the Palestinian Caliphate, a gift of Iran’s mullahs.  So, what’s our interest in the Ukraine?  It’s to prevent the resuscitation of imperial ambitions in a region critical to our well-being, Europe.  If we stood up to this thug, we might have more going for us in confronting Xi than a pell-mell run for the hills in Afghanistan and the Ukraine scalp for Putin.

The next shoe to drop: Taiwan.  Partially, America’s fatigue in the Middle East gave us Trump, who gave us Doha.  America’s fatigue with Trump gave us Biden which led to the Afghanistan bugout, and much else that plagues us.  It didn’t take Putin long (5 months) to initiate the largest land invasion in Europe since World War II.  Xi’s been watching, and has a checklist with Hong Kong marked and followed by the Senkaku Islands, the South China Sea, Taiwan, and worldwide hegemony.  Debacles unleash tyrants, and so will a retreat into fortress America and a handwringing paralysis every time there’s talk of a venture beyond our shores.

Tucker and Laura didn’t get the email.

The Better to Keep Peace with My Dear . . .

RogerG

Breakup D.C.

The Washington, D.C., swamp

The French poet Alain de Lille wrote in 1175 AD, “. . . a thousand roads lead a man forever toward Rome.”  In modern usage, “All roads lead to Rome” is meant to convey the center of something.  Rome was the center of gravity for the classical Mediterranean world. Washington, D.C., has arisen as our Rome, for good or ill.

Durham’s indictment of Michael Sussman, Perkins Coie law partner and DNC lawyer, brought to mind the trope.  If one cares to look closely at it, Sussman’s world is DC, a socio-politically incestuous pit of vipers that resists accountability.  Don’t be surprised if Sussman and the DC network of Democratic Party swamp denizens never face justice for fabricating the Trump-Russia humbug.  The swamp can get a Nixon (Watergate) but try and make them answer for their behavior?  I’m skeptical.  The Gordian Knot of intertwining relationships protects them.

John Durham, Special Counsel, and Michael Sussman

We’d be better served if all roads didn’t lead to DC. How?  Breakup DC, scatter its federal departments, agencies, and the bulk of its employees to the far corners of the country.  If any political chicanery were to take place, investigation and judgment would take place outside the shield of this cripplingly I-got-your-back web.

The Sussman case illustrates the outlines of this tightly knit socio-political hive.  All the principal parties in the story, with the exception of Durham, are cozy with each other.  According to Durham, Sussman is the man who peddled Trump-Russia collusion to his pals in the Obama administration.  Enlisting the preexisting army of federal government operatives to cripple your political opponent is the queen on the political chessboard.  It’s exactly what Sussman did in meeting with his old pal James Baker, FBI general counsel, to enroll the DOJ in placing a politically useful moral cloud on the Trump campaign.  Trump was hounded throughout 2016 and into most of his presidency.

See the source image
James Baker, FBI General Counsel

Don’t forget, later, Mueller and his cadre of Democrat henchmen spent two years (2017-2019) and $32 million to probe Trump-Russia and found . . . nothing!

See the source image
Robert Mueller in testimony before the House Judicial and Intelligence Committees in July 2019.

The connections extend beyond Sussman and Baker.  The trial court judge overseeing the case is Judge Christopher R. “Casey” Cooper, Obama appointee and long protégé of Democrat power-broking legal eagles in the Clinton and Obama administrations.  Cooper, Baker, and Sussman were veterans of the Clinton DOJ – and many would later move into the Obama regime – and frequently interacted socially and professionally.

See the source image

Judge Christopher R. “Casey” Cooper

See the source image
Amy Jeffress, DC lawyer and wife of Judge Cooper.

It doesn’t end there. Remember Lisa Page of “smelly Walmart shopper” fame?  Her lawyer is Judge Cooper’s wife, Amy Jeffress, who was previously employed as national security adviser to Eric Holder, Obama’s AG.  No accusation of conspiracy here, but instead there exists the network of friendships and mutually beneficial relationships that can last a lifetime.

Quite logically, conflicts of interest abound.  If this was an honest world, recusals would be the most common feature surrounding the Sussman case, or any case with a partisan in the dock in the snake pit of DC, up to the city’s totality.  This rabidly anti-Republican population (Republicans are 6% of registered voters) screams change of venue for any defendant who’ll be helped or harmed by a partisan reputation.

See the source image
Washington, D.C., mayor Muriel Bowser has Black Lives Matter painted on street to the White House, then occupied by Donald Trump.

DC’s deeply embedded partisan hostility is just one reason for moving things out of the city.  More threateningly, our government no longer represents us, the “us” being anyone whose experience with the country doesn’t emanate from an Ivy League campus, or from 35,000 feet, or passing through on the Acela.  If we are to have rule by expertocracy, let’s move them closer to the plebes.  For instance, pick any small-to-medium sized city in Kansas to headquarter the Agricultural Department.  Say, move the Department of Justice to Lubbock – or any town with a strong commitment to the Second Amendment – if the town will have them.  Commerce could head to Tampa or Mobile, since California is out of the running because it is determined to destroy its ports.  Move the Pentagon to Camp Lejeune.  Dynamite the five-sided edifice in Arlington for more breakwaters on the Chesapeake.  HHS could benefit from small town values so place it in any small census tract away from a college campus and between the Rockies and Appalachians.  DHS, the homeland security Borg, would benefit from a location like El Paso, Tx., to be closer to a porous border.  The same is true for the rest of the cabinet.

See the source image
Illegal immigrant caravan moving through Mexico on its way to our southern border, 2021.

Don’t worry, they don’t need to be within spitting distance of each other to fulfill their job descriptions.  After all, if it was such a great idea to Zoom our kids’ education, they ought to phone it in too – or more accurately broadband it in – from a long way away.

As for the entangled web of regulatory agencies, find the most aesthetically unpleasant locations in this transcontinental nation.  No coastal views or beautiful mountain vistas.  We’ve got close to 4 million square miles to work with.  The idea is to make these people want to cut short their stays in jobs telling us what to do.  Brown and barren hills, blistering cold winters, and 110-degree summers would work wonders.  They might want to get real jobs.

A portion of flat Wyoming.
See the source image
A federal minimum-security prison

But herein lies a danger: scattering the hive to the winds might infect more locations with their socio-political-cultural decrepitude.  An answer might be found in treating federal government employment as a form of minimum-security imprisonment.  Workplaces and housing ought to be separated from the surrounding area behind secure fencing with ingress and egress carefully monitored.  It might contribute to the impetus to end their incarceration and join the real world.

The above has zero chance of enactment but establishes a preferable end state to work toward.  The idea is to avoid the nomenklatura-problem.  No doubt, we have made great strides over the past 90 years in Sovietizing our existence.  A large and overweening class of apparatchiks, insulated and living a world apart, must be brought to heel before they sabotage our civilization.

All roads should lead to Akron, Peoria, Lubbock, Wichita, Duluth, . . . .

RogerG

*Read Andrew C. McCarthy’s article, “Welcome to the Swamp, Mr. Durham”, National Review Online, February 19, 2022.

A Visit to the Blue Bubble: Hugh Hewitt’s Interview with Scott Lehigh of the Boston Globe

 

See the source image

This (above) caught my ear.  Hugh Hewitt’s conversation with Scott Lehigh, Boston Globe columnist, brought to light the habits of mind that help define what it means to live in a blue bubble.  The bubble exists as an insular group of like-minded individuals in metropolitan centers – the “chattering classes” in the words of Auberon Waugh – who rarely have exposure to anyone outside their tightly-knit claque of people with the same mutually reinforcing opinions.  It leans left and exudes arrogance, and tries to act as gatekeeper of “truth”.

See the source image
Hugh Hewitt on his radio show, The Hugh Hewitt Show
See the source image
Scott Lehigh of the Boston Globe

Hewitt initiated the interview because he was rankled by Lehigh’s mischaracterization of a previous Hewitt statement about the January 6 Committee and invited Lehigh to explain.  The interchange about the particulars of January 6 mattered less than Lehigh’s mode of thinking.  The lack of detail and rigorous thought was clearly evident, probably a product of exclusive interaction with those of a similar mind.  A person can get away with generalities and shallow thinking in this environment of no pushback.  As such, the muscles of mental agility atrophy.  It showed in the interview.

For example, Lehigh had trouble grasping the legal principle of due process, probably because he hadn’t confronted it in his social circle.  Hewitt tried to pry out of him some recognition of the necessity of the idea in government procedures, but Lehigh was having none of it.

He kept falling back on what amounts to ends-justify-means.  The simple idea that the congressional minority should have effective representation on a House committee escaped him.  He even refused to accept the truth of the one-sided nature of Pelosi’s January 6 Committee and kept falling back on the vileness of Trump.  In his mind, and probably in the mind of everyone around him, the ends of getting Trump justified trampling the rights of the other side in public proceedings.  Hugh’s parallel of mutual representation for plaintiff and defendant in court proceedings was ignored by Lehigh without any explanation.

Similarly, the concept of legitimacy blew over his head.  Legitimacy is a product of due process and has much to do with broad public acceptance of any findings.  Violate the widely-accepted basics of fair play (due process) and watch rejection and turmoil intensify.  Whatever “facts” are uncovered will be quickly dismissed.  The possibility escaped Lehigh.

It was clear that Lehigh wasn’t prepared when he wrote his column and when he faced Hewitt.  Running the column past someone who disagrees would work wonders, if such a person could be found in his regular circle of friends and acquaintances.  My guess is that there are none.

Listen for yourself. The episode can be found here.

See the source image

RogerG