Saturday, April 22, 2017

O'Reilly the Loser

The big news Internet-wise is the canning of Bill O’Reilly by Fox News, the most watched cable-network, with O’Reilly’s “show” by far the most watched and profitable. The cancellation by scores of advertisers that made his “show” the most watched, most profitable enterprise forced this action. News/commentary is not the primary interest in the Fox-owned empire of Rupert Murdoch but profits are.

Accompanying this surprising affair is a tumultuous shakeup in the Fox News prime-time schedule, with long-time commentators doing the musical changing-chairs game, obviously an effort to maintain the audience by keeping the familiar faces in view, though it’s doubtful that any new/old face (in this case, Tucker Carlson for O’Reilly) will have the “O’Reilly impact,” often rude but informative as well.

I have not been an O’Reilly fan except for catching the first few minutes of his “show,” the monologue about world/domestic subjects, always biting but always fair and square. O’Reilly was not a good interviewer because he inevitably wound up arguing with his guests, often simply talking over their remarks, sometimes obviously losing his temper, especially if his opposition-presenter was highly intelligent and articulate, someone like Charles Krauthammer or Karl Rove. He seemed disposed toward competing rather than discussing and when “out-talked” was not a graceful loser.

O’Reilly sort of followed in the footsteps of former Fox News head honcho Roger Ailes, who was canned last year account allegations of sexual harassment made by several women in the Fox lineup, who, whether ordered to or not, showed as much of their natural assets as possible for the cameras—much cleavage, thigh, and upper body—bare shoulders, etc., sort of “ladies of the night” style.

This obvious cheesecake feature diminished the seriousness of anything they had to say. The men, contrarily, dress to the nines, Adams-apple to the feet. I will be accused of some kind of bigotry or gender-hate for saying this but it’s true and applies to other networks as well.

Fox had paid out enough in dollars and reputation for the alleged improprieties of Ailes and O’Reilly but seems to have a dress-code that invites the leer and the gawking. I refer to these talking-head programs as “shows” rather than information-centers because of this approach, actually demeaning to women since it indicates that wit is less important than sexy attention-getters. By far the best of the “shows” in this venue is CNN’s Smerconish, who never overbooks and lets people actually talk.

Regarding politics, Fox is the lone TV-outfit making the case for the conservatives (republicans), though it’s fair to say it lives up to its claim of being fair and balanced. The other biggies—MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS—are unabashedly “progressive” (used to be “liberal”) and were/are virtual PR outlets for the democrats, demonstrated most recently in the handling of the presidential campaigns. CNN even furnished Clinton a list of the questions she would be asked in its “debate” fiasco, becoming an object of ridicule in the process.

The CNN apparatchik in this affair was Donna Brazile, who surprisingly but unavoidably was fired and immediately installed—unsurprisingly—by the DNC as its chairperson, which office she doesn’t now hold. The talking-head “shows” on all the networks are entirely predictable, a couple or three interviews conducted by some overpaid anchor with a government official, followed by panels of the self-appointed experts to explain what was said and why.

Both Ailes and O’Reilly (golden parachutes of $40,000 and $25,000, respectively) deserved to be canned if they were actually guilty of harassment. Showmen/newsmen in the public eye have a responsibility to invoke trust due to decency, a vital attribute to being credible in any other way.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

March to Nowhere

Ladies' Day Out, Bigtime

The big news of the weekend, besides the inauguration, was the women’s march on Washington on Saturday, the 21st.  There were similar marches throughout the country and reportedly throughout the world, according to media, although that’s a bit of a stretch.  The U.S. march was led by some foul-mouthed female entertainers, who have been anything but oppressed as they’ve basked in their millions, some mostly just by being naughty and nude. Actress Ashley Judd performed hysterically.  

I surfed to it for maybe a total of ten minutes or less and caught Gloria Steinmen, the arch-feminist, do her screech.  Some ladies of the Congress participated, no doubt to show how they’ve been mistreated by the voters by landing them in Congress, where, despite their participation in this silly “girls day out,” will still be treated as serious.  

I suspect the verbiage was all about equal pay, equal rights…the usual stuff about the glass ceiling, but the only issue that mattered had to do with abortion.  The girls are desperately afraid that the right of abortion-on-demand will slip away somehow even though it’s that proverbial “settled law.”  The irony is sorta cruel, protesting to save the “right” that allows for the murder of vulnerable infants before they’re born.

In some nations women have a legitimate reason for protesting (any Muslim country, for instance), but not in the U.S., where there are 27 female CEOs listed in the S&P 500 companies. That's only 5.4% of the total but it represents the fact that women can compete successfully with the evil men, who besides not denying women the opportunity simply are more successful at working all the angles for the big-money jobs.

The CEO of General Motors is a woman, Mary Barra. Unsuccessful presidential candidate Carly Fiorina was CEO of massive Hewlett-Packard and even joined male CEOs in being fired, with a great golden parachute ($40 million), but the protesting gals' goals are that these positions should be handed to women just because they're women.

Before leaving office, Obama made sure women are eligible now for combat roles in the military, even allowing that they should become Navy SEALS. People with common sense know this is nutty, something not earned but awarded anyway, thus endangering the actual SEALs, who must perform at physical and emotional levels far beyond those of women but whose main concern would be protecting women-colleagues instead of accomplishing their missions, which are designed to break things and kill or rescue people.  

In the U.S., women are gradually taking over the court systems, enrolling in colleges and universities in numbers greater than men, and achieving parity in enrollments in both medical and law schools. They are anything but deprived in the matter of heading for the big-green.

So...the issue of the protest, besides ginning up support for Hillary's next foray into politics after not shattering the prized presidential glass-ceiling, is abortion, pure and simple. They call it privacy rights and the SCOTUS adhered to that privacy, whether or not in the Constitution, in Roe/Wade in 1973.

According to U.S. Data & Trends, there have been 58,586,256 U.S. abortions since 1973. Over the 40+ years since then, the earlier murdered fetuses would have had children and grandchildren, so the actual effect on population could be close to minus-75,000,000...but who knows? Murdered fetuses create no birth records.

The whole nine yards resulted from the election of Trump, and the ladies, as well as the mainstream and mostly discredited media, have as a main goal somehow squeezing Trump out of office but lacking the power of impeachment, much less charging criminal activity. The ladies have latched on parasitically to other victim-movements such as “black lives matter” to prove their point even though they form more than half the populace but consider themselves a protected minority, which automatically admits to denigrating themselves, the most poignant observation concerning the grand march to nowhere.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Congressman Lewis & Inaugurations

Congressman John Lewis announced the other day that for the first time he would not attend the inauguration because he considered Trump an illegitimate president. He lied. He also skipped the Bush-43 Inauguration in 2001 because...yep...he considered Bush illegitimately elected. Both Bush and Trump were elected according to the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. He has been joined in his attention-grab by some 35 or so House colleagues, all of whom have become big news in the mainstream media...that 15-minutes-of-fame thing, or maybe they just didn't want to fight the cold weather. Who knows?

Lewis, along with Senator Booker (black democrat, NJ) and House black caucus leader Cedric Richmond, were given the privilege of addressing the Senate hearing after the official hearing was concluded in order to express their opposition to Jeff Sessions, the AG nominee, something the media said was unprecedented. They heaped humongous vitriol upon Sessions, not that it mattered for anything but exposing them for the racists-in-reverse that they are. Only whites are actual racists, of course.

Their performance was by way of piling more guilt-trip upon white citizens account slavery, as if any white person living now or for generations past had anything to do with it. Lewis, as usual, brought up Selma, where he was unjustifiably beaten in 1965 but Sessions was just a 19-year-old college kid then, so the connection is nonexistent, except that Sessions is white and therefore fair game for racists-in-reverse.

I resent this constant victimization approach of Jackson and Sharpton not least because my great-grandfather and two great-uncles fought in the Union Army and, perhaps miraculously, survived though great-grandfather was wounded once and nearly died of disease once. No Lewis bio I’ve seen indicates that he ever served in the military, though he was draft-age during the Vietnam era as well as in the late 1950s. Notwithstanding that, the navy will name a ship (construction to be started in 2018) for Lewis. Perhaps he was 4-F or had deferments of some sort, the same as Trump.

Predictably, the media has gone ape over the fact that Trump has tweeted a not-too-complimentary response to Lewis’s charge of illegitimacy, which actually meant that Trump is a fraud. Categorizing Lewis as an “icon,” the liberal gurus (nearly all of the media) have castigated Trump for having the audacity to challenge the insult to himself or lack-of-worship of such an icon, but do not mention that Lewis began the whole affair with a public temper-tantrum, a profound insult vis-à-vis the voters, whom he implied as dumber than the Russians…the deplorables like me.

Lewis represents the culmination of the Obama terms, to wit, deepening the chasms among different racial groups, all in the name of diversity. This represents the penultimate oxymoron, making the nation a one-people thing by constantly remarking how they are different, the definition of diversity. Obama has approached everything within the context of race, even to the point of having his attorney general expend tremendous resources and manpower in a futile attempt to crucify an innocent policeman in Missouri.

Perhaps the saddest thing in the whole “Lewis matter” is the exposure of the degree of hatred the liberal establishment had/has not only for Trump but for the “ignorant deplorables” who voted their consciences, just as the liberals insist they did. A sad thing, also, is the fact that the first black to be elected by a vast majority of whites has wallowed in a sort of mediocrity when he could actually have made a difference. He has presided over the Divided States of America, whether through intent or incompetence.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Intel Flap

I watched Senator McCain’s Intel hearing the other day involving the top honchos connected to the DNI.  McCain considers the Russian hacking (assuming it took place) as an act of war, never mind that such an act could be answered with military means, not just counter-cyber activity.   

DNI Director Clapper made it clear that he considers the hacking (if it took place) as an act of espionage and mentioned that it’s dangerous to throw rocks if one lives in a glass house, i.e., that the U.S does the same thing regarding hacking into anything it can worldwide.  The point was made, apparently more or less consensually, that any hacking had nothing to do with the election.   

The hacking that took place, whether from Russia or anywhere else, affected the DNC in exposing its corruption, which, of course, had to do with stacking the deck against Bernie Sanders in favor of guaranteeing that Hillary would crack the glass ceiling. Just the possibility of that happening is chilling if not scary.   

Clapper, a former general, also indicated that it would be well for the U.S. and Russia to find “mutual interests,” another way of saying he agrees with Trump in establishing a friendship with Russia, opposite a strictly adversarial arrangement, which has been the Obama/Clinton position even to the extent of Hillary meddling in the Russian election involving Putin’s presidency.  This is not to say that governments must not meddle in the elections in other countries when their own interests are involved.  This world is not Camelot and all governments do not play by the same rules, meaning that taking the the low road (if that can be defined internationally) is always a possibility.  

McCain’s position is hypocritical, of course, in that he, along with Senators Graham and Lieberman, fomented the unprovoked U.S. unilateral attack (NATO not a significant factor) against Libya, totally unauthorized either legally or Constitutionally.  It was a monstrous war-crime that cost thousands of lives over a seven-month period.  McCain and Graham also tried to get Obama to attack Syria, which he almost did, though he provided weaponry against both of those sovereign nations, meddling in their civil wars.   

Putin saved Obama's bacon (those silly red lines) when he took over the affairs of the Middle East, essentially telling Obama to bug out, which he did, and wisely so.  So, when McCain complains about the actual espionage as an act of war, he condemns himself and his position by his own actions, which, as opposed to espionage, actually did involve acts of war.  

A large segment of the current issue of TIME magazine is devoted to this subject, probably because of all the ballyhoo generated by democrats to make a big deal out of nothing.  Supposedly, WikiLeaks guru Julian Assange received hacker-info from the Russians and made it public, thus somehow hurting Clinton's campaign, which she deep-sixed herself account just opening her mouth and posturing, especially as a woman whose time had come.  Assange disavows any Russian connection and folks may believe him or not.  

On page 26 of TIME is a description of this country's efforts to ferret out the private actors linked to the Russian hacking, in which is this phrase: “...which the U.S. spies believed was the main organization behind the influence operation.”  The obvious inference is that the CIA and perhaps the NSA participate in clandestine cyber-activity all the time, not just the Russians.  One hopes this is true and that U.S. intel agencies know even more about Russian secrets than the Russkies know about those of the U.S.  

In the Senate hearing on 11 January of Rex Tillerson as the next State Secretary, the democrats came out with fangs bared, some especially concerned about the Russian hacking, particularly relative to Putin’s authorization of it, as if Tillerson knows more than anyone else or could do much about what the current administration as well as Clinton’s private server-operators were not able to do, though the president said in a recent press conference that he told Putin to “cut it out.”  

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Professor Introduces Fourth Reich

Hitler Reincarnated as Trump

The far-left-fringe of the Democrat Party remains in meltdown following the election, the latest op-ed in the Herald-Leader by retired Berea College professor Mike Rivage-Seul using the customary resort to condemn somebody or something unquestionably bad, i.e., equating same with Hitler and the Third Reich. In his screed of 26 December, he uses Trump EPA-head nominee Scott Pruitt as the fomenter of an American “revolution” account his threatening to destroy the nation (actually the world) by changing the climate.   

Pruitt, Oklahoma attorney general, believes in states-rights, taking issue with Obama, who declared that he would shut down the electricity-furnishing companies and make every user’s costs “skyrocket,” besides saving the planet in the process. He's largely succeeded with the former, not the latter. Rivage-Seul repeats the totally false claim that virtually all scientists believe man is making the world intolerably hotter by emitting most of the carbon dioxide that enters the atmosphere.

Predictably, Rivage-Seul noted that Clinton got a plurality of the vote but didn't mention that the differential just in California (some 4.3 million votes) was more than the national differential-figure. This is why the founders instituted the electoral college guaranteeing that no one state could so domineer an election that it could by itself virtually choose the president.

The professor quoted Jefferson regarding the “unalienable right to life,” claiming Pruitt (actually Trump) will be guilty of something like monarchic power since his making the earth hotter would destroy life (“genocide far worse than Adolf Hitler's,” his exact wording), ergo, the responsibility of the people to rise up against a government not guaranteeing that life-right.

More to the point is the arrogance of the alarmists, who, despite no significant success in connecting CO2, man-made or otherwise, to climate change, are determined to force the U.S. into even more regulations.  Their ability to make measurements, charts and demonstrably proven inaccurate computer models does not deter them. 

The far saner reasons for climate-change are the variance in numbers of sun-spots (holes) in the sun's surface in given eras and the overwhelming influence of the oceans covering 74% of the earth's surface. These oceans sequester CO2 gained from land foliage and runoff, for instance, then release or withhold it automatically as a natural phenomenon to stabilize temperature. Man's pitifully small contribution means little.

The fact that climate has changed sometimes radically throughout history under diverse conditions (industrialization or not, for instance), means that outside forces, not men’s forces, change earth’s fundamental conditions.  This is why the sunspot/ocean theory is eminently superior to the man-made stuff regarding the climate.

The earth is part of the cosmos, mysteriously designed/inculcated with incomprehensible relationships among the suns/planets/stars, and no one can explain how that fact affects earth's climate. The experts claim that the Ohio River was gouged out by a withdrawing glacier during one of the ice-ages, for instance, without any help from man.

Man can deal with local atmosphere, ridding it of acid rain, for instance, or fossil-fuel emissions. The diameter of the earth is 7,926 miles at the equator (40 less pole to pole), but the deepest hole ever drilled (Kola Peninsula—Russia) went down 7.6 miles, a distance so miniscule by comparison that man has no idea what the earth-interior comprises, whether tectonic plates or anything else, much less can conjecture how this (earth's inner temps/configuration) affects climate.

The accidental self-exposed hoax (emails by UN scientists who cooked the books in 2009) proved the political aspect of this matter – cap-and-trade. Men of science are lucky to accurately predict weather four days in advance, much less presume to decipher the grand design, however they deem its origination. For people of faith, God created the cosmos according to his design, which indicates that God and not man controls the sun’s locus and sphere of influence, including the earth, the clearer implication being that God, not man, controls the cosmos and the earth, including its climate.

So...the sky is not falling nor has the global temperature warmed in the last 20 years or so, thus threatening that unalienable right.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Professor Excoriates Trump

Exemplifies Safe-Space College Campuses

The regularly featured words of wisdom delivered in the Lexington Herald-Leader from the halls of academia spewed forth on 18 December from Benjamin Knoll, a professor at Centre College, who began his op-ed thusly: “Not kidding around,” as if one, after reading his piece, might accidentally dissolve into laughter.  Actually, I did.  

The professor then points out seven areas in which, “Donald Trump is actively threatening to weaken American democracy.”  One wonders at the difference between actively threatening and just plain threatening, but why torture the semantics?  One suspects the professor actually meant maliciously threatening, but didn’t want to be accused of micro-aggression, currently academia’s boogie-bear, a definite no-no, almost as sacrosanct as not raping drunk/doped coeds at frat parties they attend to become drunk or doped or both.  

Knoll accused Trump of attempting to foreclose free speech by threatening the revocation of citizenship account flag-burning, apparently not understanding that legislation/referendums amend the Constitution, not individuals. He accused Trump of attempting to interfere with non-violent protests planned for inauguration weekend in D.C., though I suspect the D.C. police are gearing up for the non-violence, especially since the protesters that need watching will be the usual professionals that burned up Ferguson, Missouri, twice and Baltimore once.

The puzzler: Knoll cited the Trump campaign for promising to impose a ban on Muslim-immigration in violation of “First Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion,” apparently not realizing that the amendment applies only to U.S. citizens, not to Muslims from the desert or anyone else. In any case, Trump only reflected the thinking of Hillary Clinton's “basket of deplorables,” the great unwashed “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic” folks, and irredeemably so…hopeless cases like me.

Inviting potential/actual suicide/homicide bombers into the country seems rather dim-witted but warm-fuzzy, hugs-all-around elitist academics see the larger perspective, the protection of these non-citizen-butchers' right to practice their murderous religion in the U.S. They practiced that right in Cairo the other day, wasting 25 in a Catholic Church bombing. Or...remember gay Paree – that theater as well as Charlie Hebdo, Nice and now Berlin (trucks as weapons), Boston, etc. Awarding this “religious right” is like inviting cancer into one's body...stupid.  

Knoll accused Trump of defiling the press by “bullying and criticizing news reporters,” notwithstanding that all the top media except Fox News openly and unashamedly promoted Clinton, a basket-case herself as far as making sense is concerned. The professor then accused Trump of trying to silence critics through intimidation on Twitter but doesn't mention that he tweets, too, one of his latest being “I suppose it's possible that a war with China will help make America great again. I'll admit I'm befuddled, though. Can anyone help clarify?” Egad! One hopes Knoll forgot and was just “kidding around.”

Knoll accused Trump of falsely claiming widespread voter-fraud. Just the current attempts of Clinton-worshipers to defame the Constitutional electoral college provision is all that's needed to prove Trump's point.

Knoll continued the ninth-grade civics lesson by accusing Trump of “attempting to weaken American institutions by siding with a foreign government over the U.S. intelligence community about Russian interference with our electoral process.” Okay...the Russkies (definitely not Trump) are accused of hacking into the Democratic National Committee, where they discovered that then-head honcho Wasserman Schultz, Podesta and their partners in crime blew off democrat Hillary-challenger Bernie Sanders, and Donna Brazile (currently rewarded as Schultz's replacement) fed debate info to Hillary's apparatchiks, though it didn't help the empty pants-suit.

Knoll didn't explain how this affected the election unless he wondered WWPD (what would Putin do) as the deciding factor while voting. Unbelievably (well...okay...academia-speak excused), Knoll finished with this gem: “Now is the time for the American people to show that they deserve the democracy they have inherited...”. Absolutely not! They do not deserve the democracy they have inherited from Obama/Clinton. They deserve much better than that and hopefully Trump will help deliver it. If not, God help us!

And so it goes.
Jim Clark

Monday, December 12, 2016

Trump & the CIA/FBI

CNN talk-radio host Smerconish is my favorite not because I agree with him most of the time—I don’t—but because he allows his interviewees sufficient time to state their opinions and seldom interrupts no matter how profoundly he may disagree with them…he doesn’t lose his cool.  He almost lost it, though, in his 10 December segment involving Trump communications director, Sean Spicer, and came out looking so bad he admitted he forgot his place in the programming.  

Smerconish tried to make the point that Trump doesn’t trust his own CIA with respect to whether or not the agency is right in accusing the Russians of hacking into the U.S. election in some way or other, noting that some entity DID hack into the DNC apparatus during the campaign and that it has been alleged that the Russians hacked into the RNC outfit, as well, with the resulting information concerning only the DNC being made public…supposedly unfair in favor of Trump. The info (allegedly via WickiLeaks) did culminate in the firing of then-DNC head honcho Wasserman just as she was to initiate the July convention.  

Much was also made of the fact that Trump does not indulge in the daily briefings that allegedly Obama receives.  It’s doubtful that anyone knows how diligently or seriously Obama takes the briefings, either.  As to Trump’s possible distrust of the CIA (anathema to Smerconish), Spicer ate Smerconish’s lunch in a lengthy back-and-forth in which Spicer had his ducks in a row and Smerconish did not.  The upshot was/is that no one actually knows what if anything the Russians did but Spicer made it very clear that the electoral college victory depended not at all on whatever hacking did or did not take place.  

Trump, if he does not trust the CIA, possibly remembers that the CIA reported allegedly false info (WMD in Iraq) that resulted in that wasteful and ineffective war.  I disagree because the intel agencies of a number of developed nations made the same claim, and I believe that Saddam moved the WMD probably to his neighbor Syria probably at night between September 2002 and March 2003.  This is the subject of my novel The Biggest Con.  

It is politically incorrect to say it but the truth is that the head of the CIA, John Brennan, is alleged to be a Muslim, as is Obama’s top aide, Valerie Jarrette, but not because of whatever religion may be involved for them. I believe Islam is a cult, not a religion, and therefore distrust the Islamic movement (caliphate) centered on ruling the world and killing “infidels” (especially Christians/Americans) and Jews.  Trump could feel the same way. The “Cairo Massacre” in Cairo, Egypt, on 12 December is instructive. The homicide/suicide bomber blew up a Catholic church and killed at least 25.  

It doesn’t help that FBI Director Comey and Attorney General Lynch, after Comey outlined an airtight case against Hillary Clinton, while She was State Secretary, on the bases of flagrant negligence allowing any hacker to access the nation’s secrets and indisputable perjury concerning same, brought no charges of any kind against her.  Under oath himself, Comey indicated her perjury in a Congressional hearing.  

So…it’s not surprising that Trump might view any of Obama-controlled agencies as objects of suspicion and even distrust, especially those that involve national security and law-enforcement, Smerconish’s insistence otherwise notwithstanding. When he takes office, the taint of Obama, Jarrette, Lynch, Brennan and perhaps Comey will be gone. Trump has already picked a CIA chief, national security adviser, defense secretary and attorney general and will then have confidence in what he hears. National Security Adviser Susan Rice (remember the lies she told five networks regarding the Benghazi Massacre) will also be gone, thus ridding the nation of incompetence and outright corruption in the highest offices.

The vote has displeased the progressives (Hillary's term, not just democrats anymore) so the effort is now to somehow invalidate an election Constitutionally conducted by claiming its outcome was determined not by Americans but by Putin, though there is absolutely no proof offered to that effect. Weird but true!

Ironically, even if some electors betrayed their trust on 19 December when the votes of the electors are counted, the election would be decided in the House, which is by a substantial margin republican.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark