Some Things I Don't Get

I don't get why we -- and the Europeans -- are holding the hands of the Iran regime. To do what? To put off its acquisition of nuclear weapons by a couple of years? To help it get more money for its military adventures in southern Arabia and in Syria and Lebanon? What's the point of that?

Is there something I am missing? I've had my antennae out for a while, hoping to catch a careless word from one of the actors that will tell me what is going on.

Otherwise, I suspect that we will eventually discover that the whole thing was a cluster you-know-what. That it goes back to some action made back in the 1970s. Maybe it even goes back to the left's opposition to the Shah and his notorious SAVAK secret police? Or something the Carter administration thought it was doing in the months before the mullah regime attacked the US embassy in 1979?

I don't get why the Democrats are still advocating big-time immigration. I understand the notion of "replacement" of the ordinary white American people with Democrat-voting immigrants. I understand the lordly notion of being above nationalism and racism. But surely, our Democratic friends must care a little about the lower wages that must inevitably paid to native-born Americans, particularly black Americans, if immigration numbers continue. And there is the question of what happens, a decade or two down the road. I recall reading a few years ago that the Tony Blair government of 1997 opted for increased immigration to teach the Tories a lesson, to stick 'em in the ribs. Really?

I don't understand why we are getting involved in Ukraine vs. Russia. I can see the idea of helping the little guy against the big bully Russia. But really, what do we know about the whole mixture of eastern Europe, from the Baltics to Belarus to Ukraine? Not to mention Romania, Bulgaria, the various fragments of Yugoslavia. I just think that the potential for doing something really stupid is really high. And I don't have much confidence that our noble and worthy foreign policy experts have a clue.

And then there are BLM and Antifa. I wonder if our worthy rulers really know what they are doing by turning a blind eye to the rioting and looting of their street thugs. The whole point of city policing and due process is that, in the famous icon, justice is blind. I understand the position of the activists: their religion requires that they find and advocate for helpless victims. But I have this idea that the adults in the room, the Democratic Party leaders, understand that street action should be kept down to a dull roar.

But that's not the message we are getting from the Democratic Party leaders. What does that mean? Does it mean that the activists run the show, and that the wise heads in the corridors of power know that they must accommodate the activists?

I don't understand why the Democrats, with a 51-49 Congress, are pushing the pedal to the metal and imposing their agenda on the nation as though they had 70-30 support -- and then lying about what they are about, saying that their Green New Deal policies and loot-and-plunder for every liberal activist group is "public health" and "infrastructure." And then pushing gigantic multi-trillion spending bills.

I just don't get what the bigger picture is supposed to be. And I don't know what the strategy is for the inevitable inflation and economic cock-up. Of course, it is easy to say "modern monetary theory" and say that deficits don't matter for "governments that control their own currency." That's what Keynesianism was all about. Keynesianism, as I recall, came a cropper in the "stagflation" of the 1970s. And so did a lot of Americans.

Of course, this could all be explained by the notion that our rulers are idiots and can't think beyond the current crisis, and do whatever it takes to win the next election, and spend whatever they can get away with. This week.

But I'd rather not think that. So I'm still confused. I just don't get it.