Well, I thought to myself this morning, maybe I should take a look at the on-line version of The New York Times to see their take on the "Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation" by DOJ Inspector General Horowitz. Imagine my surprise: nothing on the report, but a piece about impeachment in the House.
OK, I said. Whatabout the Opinion section? Nothing.
Then I went to my Tuesday yoga class where the instructor, Jim, usually has the day's NYT/Atlantic/New Yorker talking point. I was all ready with my counter points (you have to be ready with the one-liners, because l'esprit d'escalier). But guess what: bupkis from Jim on politics today.
So I realized why the Democrats in the House had to start formal impeachment today. To take the Horowitz report off the front pages.
All in all I think we can take it as read that our Democratic friends are feeling a bit flat-footed today. I think that Instapundit pretty well covered it with this post:
"51 violations and 9 false statements".
So why is Lt. Gen. Flynn being criminally pursued for "false statements?"
"Fusion Co-Founders Glenn Simpson and Jonathan Winer Refused to Talk to IG; James Comey and Former FBI Attorney James Baker Also Avoided Fully Testifying."
Well I Never! What shrinking violets we have these days in the Deep State.
"If you have 17 FBI "mistakes" and 100% of those mistakes favor the party in power against the candidate, those aren't mistakes."
But do 97% of statistics scientists establish a consensus on this?
"IG Report Reveals Comey Did Brief Obama on Trump Campaign Investigation."
But it would be racist to investigate this.
As you may know, I believe that the fundamental problem here is that our ruling-class and its gentry-liberal supporters have forgotten the basic idea of democracy: that parties respect the results of elections, and peaceably leave power when they lose an election after a couple of terms in power.
In other words, it is the job of the defeated presidential candidate to concede defeat, wish the winner well, and tell the supporters "wait until next time." Al Gore did not do this in 2000; Hillary Clinton did not do this in 2016 (but hey, she was probably drunk on election night). When the defeated candidate fails to concede, and fails to tell their supporters to go home, then they are putting the peace of our nation at risk. Yes, "Peace," dear liberals. Because politics is civil war by other means, and a lot better than real civil war.
Look, I get it, that the left represents a Great Reaction against the modern era and its notion to lift and separate -- I mean limit and separate -- political and other powers. And I get that the left represents a religious movement that has raised politics into a holy sacrament. And so we are likely to get, about once a generation, a cult-like prophetic movement out of the left announcing that this time they are going to save the world with their politics.
In the US, the Civil War was one such movement, with the anti-slavery Republican Party determined to teach Democrats and the South a lesson.
Then the New Deal was going to fundamentally transform America, but merely extended the Great Depression until FDR took the fetters off private business in order to fight his two-front war.
Then the Sixties was going to save America from the dull suburban conformism of the Fifties. Only the commoners all voted for Nixon. And then Reagan.
Now we have the Woke Years, with a new enthusiasm for Democratic Socialism, in violation of my Four Laws, that:
All this woke and #Resistance nonsense is very annoying, but maybe it is all for the best. The story of the last 200 years is the story of successive gentry enthusiasms, led by educated rich kids. But each time the enthusiasm has run up against a brick wall, usually the brick wall of the commoners. So it was in the Sixties, and so it may be in the Woke Years.
But there is the problem. If educated youth is not running around getting Woke, what other mischief will they get up to?
OK, I said. Whatabout the Opinion section? Nothing.
Then I went to my Tuesday yoga class where the instructor, Jim, usually has the day's NYT/Atlantic/New Yorker talking point. I was all ready with my counter points (you have to be ready with the one-liners, because l'esprit d'escalier). But guess what: bupkis from Jim on politics today.
So I realized why the Democrats in the House had to start formal impeachment today. To take the Horowitz report off the front pages.
All in all I think we can take it as read that our Democratic friends are feeling a bit flat-footed today. I think that Instapundit pretty well covered it with this post:
"51 violations and 9 false statements".
So why is Lt. Gen. Flynn being criminally pursued for "false statements?"
"Fusion Co-Founders Glenn Simpson and Jonathan Winer Refused to Talk to IG; James Comey and Former FBI Attorney James Baker Also Avoided Fully Testifying."
Well I Never! What shrinking violets we have these days in the Deep State.
"If you have 17 FBI "mistakes" and 100% of those mistakes favor the party in power against the candidate, those aren't mistakes."
But do 97% of statistics scientists establish a consensus on this?
"IG Report Reveals Comey Did Brief Obama on Trump Campaign Investigation."
But it would be racist to investigate this.
As you may know, I believe that the fundamental problem here is that our ruling-class and its gentry-liberal supporters have forgotten the basic idea of democracy: that parties respect the results of elections, and peaceably leave power when they lose an election after a couple of terms in power.
In other words, it is the job of the defeated presidential candidate to concede defeat, wish the winner well, and tell the supporters "wait until next time." Al Gore did not do this in 2000; Hillary Clinton did not do this in 2016 (but hey, she was probably drunk on election night). When the defeated candidate fails to concede, and fails to tell their supporters to go home, then they are putting the peace of our nation at risk. Yes, "Peace," dear liberals. Because politics is civil war by other means, and a lot better than real civil war.
Look, I get it, that the left represents a Great Reaction against the modern era and its notion to lift and separate -- I mean limit and separate -- political and other powers. And I get that the left represents a religious movement that has raised politics into a holy sacrament. And so we are likely to get, about once a generation, a cult-like prophetic movement out of the left announcing that this time they are going to save the world with their politics.
In the US, the Civil War was one such movement, with the anti-slavery Republican Party determined to teach Democrats and the South a lesson.
Then the New Deal was going to fundamentally transform America, but merely extended the Great Depression until FDR took the fetters off private business in order to fight his two-front war.
Then the Sixties was going to save America from the dull suburban conformism of the Fifties. Only the commoners all voted for Nixon. And then Reagan.
Now we have the Woke Years, with a new enthusiasm for Democratic Socialism, in violation of my Four Laws, that:
- Socialism cannot work because it cannot compute prices.
- Administrative government cannot work because thousands of bureacrats cannot outperform millions of producers and consumers.
- Regulation cannot work because of "regulatory capture" of the regulators by the regulated.
- Government programs cannot work because the people will not allow them to be reformed.
All this woke and #Resistance nonsense is very annoying, but maybe it is all for the best. The story of the last 200 years is the story of successive gentry enthusiasms, led by educated rich kids. But each time the enthusiasm has run up against a brick wall, usually the brick wall of the commoners. So it was in the Sixties, and so it may be in the Woke Years.
But there is the problem. If educated youth is not running around getting Woke, what other mischief will they get up to?
No comments:
Post a Comment