Beyoncé at the Super Bowl? I prefer the anti-racists of Millwall

thHeh, who are the racists here?

[…]It’s not just Millwall, mind — football has done extraordinarily well in accustoming the white folks to divest themselves of racial prejudice. It is still the focus of anti-racist odium from the middle-class liberal left, of course, which despises what it sees as a lowbrow white working-class leisure pursuit. And yet there were more black players on Millwall’s books in 1975 than there were black journalists on the Guardian’s staff. A greater proportion of black footballers then and now than black academics, black lawyers, black MPs, black educationalists, black social workers — name your middle-class profession and the answer will be the same. And black Britons thrived in the same trades as those working-class supporters on the terraces — as electricians, plumbers, labourers. […]

And the story is much the same in the USA. This week the hugely irritating singer Beyoncé performed at half time during the Super Bowl and, in a display of outstandingly self-obsessed virtue-signalling, devoted her routine to Black Power. Her dancers referenced both Malcolm X and the Black Panthers. Malcolm was, for almost all of his adult life, an uncompromising racist who believed in complete segregation of the races and that white people were devils who would soon be obliterated. He recanted on these loathsome views only a year or so before he was murdered by a former fellow traveller from the unspeakably vile Nation of Islam, which thought he had got too big for his boots. The Black Panthers, meanwhile, were a bedraggled and asinine collection of gun-toting Maoist halfwits.

If Beyoncé had wished to champion the cause of racial equality and proper integration, she would have been better off paying homage to the players on the field and those redneck supporters in the stands. At the same time that Malcolm X was advocating separation for blacks from white America, on account of its irrevocably racist agenda, the National Football League was showing the way: almost one third of American football players in the 1960s were black. Today that figure is more than two thirds.

Where is the real racism within our societies, do you think? Among the ordinary white working-class folk — or a little higher up the social ladder? Trevor Lee and many others could give you an answer.

via Beyoncé at the Super Bowl? I prefer the anti-racists of Millwall.

It’s the same the whole world over

Lawless America

I was watching the dramatisation of the Nuremberg Tribunal (the one with Alec Baldwin) last night, and it made me think.

First, with the immigration status, and such, how far is Germany again from the maelstrom that existed under Weimar? And what will happen this time? We know history doesn’t repeat, exactly, but it does rhyme. Something to think about, for us all.

But my stronger feeling was that America may be circling that same drain, for all the reasons that Bob Livingston writes of here. It doesn’t mean that it has to happen, or that it has to happen this way, but it means that we have a serious problem with this, and we’d best be thinking about a solution.

America is a nation of thousands if not millions of laws, yet it is a lawless nation.

A lawless nation is no nation at all. It is merely a Third-world backwater where those in power who lord over the people and abuse them for their own gain, for the gain of the bureaucrat class, and for the benefit of the banksters and the crony corporations who fund the charade elections every two or four years.

So those thousands or millions of laws written “for our benefit” – at least that’s what we’re told each time another edict from the District of Criminals becomes “law” – are employed against us while those in power are given a pass on them. Beyond that, those in power make the laws arbitrary by enforcing them or not enforcing them on a whim.

Last week, Brandon Judd of the National Border Patrol Council told  a House Judiciary Committee that the Barack Obama Department of Homeland Security had instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents to release illegal immigrants and no longer order them to appear at deportation hearings. The stand down order includes a requirement that the whereabouts of illegals not be tracked, the Washington Examiner reported.

Judd said the new policy was implemented because only about 40 percent of illegal aliens apprehended and given a Notice to Appear (NTA) before an immigration judge actually show up. The process became so farcical that Border Patrol agents began calling them Notices to Disappear.

So in order to avoid the embarrassment of admitting that 60 percent of all illegals apprehended fail to appear before an immigration judge as required, the DHS and the Attorneys from the Department of Just(us) decided that any illegals apprehended who had no felony convictions and who claim to have been in the U.S. since January 2014 are to be released without an NTA.

Judd further testified:

Not only do we release these individuals that by law are subject to removal proceedings, we do it without any means of tracking their whereabouts. Agents believe this exploitable policy was set in place because DHS was embarrassed at the sheer number of those who choose not to follow the law by showing up for their court appearances. In essence, we pull these persons out of the shadows and into the light just to release them right back to those same shadows from whence they came.

Let me give you an example from my sector in Montana. Several months ago we arrested an illegal alien with a felony domestic violence arrest from another state. He was released because his trial had not occurred and therefore had not been convicted. Mind you he had not been acquitted either but we had to let him go all the same.

Under the law he should have been set up for removal proceedings, but under the policy he was let go. And he was let go even though he first proved that he cared so little about our laws that he entered the United States illegally, and once here, he proved further disdain by getting arrested for a serious violent act against another. What did we teach him and everyone else he undoubtedly told about his experience? We taught him our laws mean very little, but policies mean everything.

via Lawless America – Personal Liberty®.

Answers? I’m not sure I have any, but until we define the problems that doesn’t matter, so let’s get to defining!

Of Super Bowls and Common Markets

Well, I did end up watching the Super Bowl, and enjoying it. It was my sort of game, but then long ago, I was a defensive tackle, who loved to see quarterbacks sacked, sometimes including our own (his ego was pretty much outsized!)

But in truth what I liked was that both teams, but especially Denver, are teams, not a few stars with a supporting cast of thousands. And that is what football is so good at teaching–that when we subsume ourselves in a team, the team can accomplish amazing things. So it was last night.

On the other hand, if we look at politics, we nearly always see so-called stars and their unknown supporters, and I’m inclined to think that sacking the quarterback a few (dozen) times might improve their attitude. And from what I hear from Americans, I don’t think I’m alone, and that a majority of Americans, in either party, or none, think the same thing. As always, football teaches life lessons.

In particular, I’ve been watching Cameron’s EU sell-out. Maybe Americans are particularly sensitive to our sovereignty–after all, that was the reason that we didn’t ratify the Treaty of Versailles after World War 1. But the real reason was that we realized that we had built something very special here, and we meant to protect it. Many of us still do.

The same is true for the people who live in Great Britain. After all, most of the sources of the American Experiment are British, as our founders were proud to be. So we watch in sadness, as the cousins increasingly turn their backs on our common heritage to become just more European trash. Suzanne Evans had something to say the other day about Call me Dave’s simple dishonesty in presenting the choice.

So, we finally get to see Dave’s ‘EU reform’ package, and it’s not exactly huge, is it? He promised to go to Brussels and ask for a Bentley, but actually asked for a Suzuki Alto. What he’s come back with are the seat covers for a battered second-hand Trabant, and even those are only on the promise of a loan.

Failure, farce, or both? Let’s face it: Dave didn’t ever even intend to try to win significant reform. To me, the most astonishing feature of his statement to the House yesterday was his ability to tell the most incredible porkies about the ‘strong and powerful’ success he’d achieved, while keeping a straight face.

Two years ago, when Ukip was rising quickly in the polls and Tories nationwide were leaving Dave for Nigel, Dave made a big speech on the future of the EU at Bloomberg and promised an in-out referendum. “Nothing should be off the table,” he said, and laid out reforms he said were necessary, on migrant jobs and benefits, immigration, justice and human rights, and returning laws on energy, environment, crime, social affairs business and employment, so the UK parliament had the last say. The sensible and honest among us shook our heads, knowing he didn’t stand a chance of getting even this, which still left out a whole swathe of issues in which we are in hock to Brussels, not least farming, fishing and financial services.

But on went the charade. Slowly the big issues he’d pledged to tackle were dropped.

 

via Suzanne Evans: Dave’s European pantomime. A straight lift from slippery Harold Wilson’s playbook – The Conservative Woman.

And that’s part of what really irritates me here: The sheer ignorance of thinking his electorate is so stupid as to follow his self-servicing lies at all, let alone willingly and enthusiastically.

Time for our British friends to sack the quarterback, I think.

Playing the political game

George-Washington

Part of the problem with politics, highlighted in Neo’s posts this week, is that frankly most decent people don’t want to touch it, and those that do tend to be tarred by the pitch they have touched. It takes a very strong character to resist the temptation, a thick skin to bear the slings and arrows, and the patience of a saint to deal with your fellow politicians. Such men, and women, come along infrequently. To my mind George Washington, despite sniping from various historians, fits the bill to a tremendous degree. He could quite easily have become king, or at least president for life, instead he retired to Mt Vernon. He was the American Cincinnatus. In their positions, most men would have held on to absolute power; they did not. The American Constitution, knowing that it is too much to hope for another Washington, wisely imposes term limits on the President; it is more than time to do the same for the Senate. Two terms are more than enough to do any good a Senator is going to do. Congressmen might also benefit from the same system, as would Governors. The fact is that power does, as Lord Acton wrote, tend to corrupt.

By that, Acton was not just meaning what we tend to mean – graft, peculation and monetary misdeeds, he was also referring to the subtle corruption of the character. Surround a man, or woman, with people whose self-interest lies in telling them what they want to hear, and they will soon lose their natural judgment. Politicians are even worse than the rest of us for thinking they are right, so tell them that and their big heads get even more swollen. Now there is the fame thing. Harry S Truman could walk down the street in DC and most people wouldn’t even have recognised him, he and Mrs T could dine at a restaurant without being bothered by the media. That all changed with TV and JFK, and now POTUS is a ‘celeb’. This is not good for the ego or the character.

Then there is the art of winning elections. There is no reason elections have to cost so much, and in the UK we have a limit of £18,000 (about $26,000) per MP per campaign. The main parties can spend whatever they can raise, and it would be better for them, and for the trees, if they were similarly limited. We all know most of it is ‘spin’, which is weasel-speak for telling lies. It encourages politicians to treat the process like a game, the objective of which is to get elected – at literally any cost. We fall for this time and again, but like a drunk the morning after, wake with a hangover proclaiming ‘never again’ – until the next time.

It’s easy to romanticise the past. Politics was in one sense cleaner when it was an affair of landed gentlemen arguing over power – men too wealthy to be ‘bought’. Democratic politics has always tended to be ‘down and dirty’. Neo was right earlier in the week when he reminded us of the importance of character. Viewed from my side of the Atlantic, Hillary looks to me like a bridesmaid determined to be the bride – no idea what she’s do if she was, but thinks it’s her turn now; you can see why, it would make all that putting up with the public humiliation from Bill sort of worth it. Bernie Sanders is a familiar type to us in the UK – an impractical socialist who wins easy support from the young by promising free stuff and who will get nowhere. As for ‘The Donald”, straight out of ‘Citizen Kane’, but souped up for the modern era. He’s a Republican? Really? Last time I looked (which was admittedly a few years back) he was still a Democrat. Rubio’s a good-looking boy put up to stop Cruz, because Cruz is dangerous – he seems to believe what he says, and we can’t be having that!

Not long now till Super Tuesday and these things get sorted – but I can’t be the only one to think that America ought to be able to find better than this?

Is It Time To Admit Character Doesn’t Matter?

Sadly, this is pretty much true. In some ways, we have been lying to ourselves all my life, and likely much longer.

[…] Maybe we vote largely on policy or, as they say, an assessment as to which candidate is best for our wallet, but character is a deal-breaker. Bad character equals no vote, it is thought. Hence: Unleash the dogs of investigative journalism and lay bare as many foibles, peccadilloes, and bad grade-school report cards you can unearth. It goes to character.

How much more do we need to see to know this notion is entirely preposterous? The only character issues most voters care about are the ones associated with the candidates they have no intention of voting for: Yes, those character flaws they care about. A lot. […]

Three presidents, [Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton] all men of very questionable “character,” as that term is customarily (and rather incessantly) applied in the context of presidential political gymnastics. No, that’s not all they were, but it is certainly part of what they were.

All three were given a pass by the majority of the electorate, and they were given that pass for the same reason and in the same way Hillary and Donald are currently being given a “character” pass.

That Brings Us to Hillary and Donald

Does anyone—other than Hillary supporters—have the ability to un-see the completely obvious corruption, insider finagling, roaring personal ambition, arrogance, phony-baloney pandering, and habitual prevarication (okay, call it “Clintonian Parsing”) that has draped her entire career, a level of broad-based malfeasance that would not only disqualify anyone else for any public office, but most likely land him in the pokey?

He is a guy willing to cut off the health insurance of a deathly ill infant nephew if it suits his purposes.

Does anyone—other than Trump supporters—not understand that he has made his fortune by cynically buying off politicians to get them to put their thumbs on the scale, his scale; that, over and over he has shown a willingness to say or do anything to further his own personal interests, happy to roll over anyone or anything that stands in his way; that at his own father’s funeral all he could talk about was himself, that he is a guy willing to cut off the health insuranceof a deathly ill infant nephew if it suits his purposes; that he is a nasty, mean-spirited bully obsessed with self-aggrandizement so rampaging that it is possible to imagine him doing just about anything, changing any position at any time, in order to get his next magazine cover; and that his level of debate discourse rises only insignificantly above “Your mother wears combat boots”?

They don’t care. Or, more accurately, character only counts if it’s the other guy we’re talking about, and, even then, it only counts with people already inclined against the candidate, serving to deepen their antipathy, not create it.

via Is It Time To Admit Character Doesn’t Matter?.

I’d say it is, or it’s time to get over our prejudices and make it matter again.

Cruzing: and Trumpery

English: Seal of the President of the United S...

English: Seal of the President of the United States Español: Escudo del Presidente de los Estados Unidos Македонски: Печат на Претседателот на Соединетите Американски Држави. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, Iowa had its caucuses last night. There were some surprises.

Ted Cruz won, quite handily. That can be attributed to a few things: 1) superb organization on the ground, 2) his overt Christianity, and, 3) anybody but Trump. Don’t know about you, but all three would have motivated me. Not to mention that he is the real deal, a conservative who walks (and votes) as he talks, and doesn’t back down, not even in Iowa on corn subsidies. Of the viable candidates as it looks now, anyway, he’s likely my choice. His victory speech is too long, and wanders a bit but, it also tells us much of the man. I think he’s a formidable opponent for the statists, maybe the only real one.

Then there is Trump and his trumpery. He’s a past master at pulling wool over eyes. He’s managed to get a fair amount of support from evangelicals and conservatives/libertarians, simply because he’s a politically incorrect blowhard, who does understand why we’re so unhappy. The biggest problem for me is that, like Obama, he’s mostly a statist, and his candidacy is more of a cult of personality than anything else.

Rubio, is pretty far from ideal, I think, a bit of an egoist, and much too much of an establishment darling. All that said, he’s better than Trump, a low bar, obviously! I can live with him, but don’t think he’s the best.

As for the Democrats, well, nobody knows yet. That’s a win for Bernie. And there’s this, for all that he’s an economic idiot, who actually thinks socialism is viable, which is risable. At least he’s personally an honest man, which makes him a better choice than Hillary!. He’s also honestly against the crony-capitalist pork fest that Washington has become. So he’s a far better choice than Clinton is, which is damning with very faint praise.

Overall, what struck me is that 50% of the Republican votes AND 50% of the Democratic votes were for anti-establishment candidates. That strikes me as something of a record.

What’s it mean? This:

%d bloggers like this: