A Curious Little Blog

You might expect BLM not to have strong opinions on the Kyle Rittenhouse trial.  After all, Rittenhouse shot three white people; there was no racial angle whatever.  And yet, somehow, it is about white supremacy after all : Today’s not-guilty verdict is expected when white supremacy lives and breathes within our institutions. It is a reminder of how our legal systems are deeply rooted in white supremacy. You may be surprised to hear that the Rittenhouse verdict was predetermined:  "It was a set up from the beginning. The police, the judge, the court, mainstream media, and every single system involved all wrapped their arms around Kyle Rittenhouse from the very beginning — from even before the murders he committed." I don't know about you, but I don't think anyone of those had even heard of Kyle Rittenhouse before he shot three people in self-defense. As for what they said after the event, some people did defend Rittenhouse, but hardly all of them.  I wonder if BL

 Since I heard about BLM's curious statement about Jussie Smolett's trial, I had occasion to visit their site and see what other interesting views they hold these days.  One of those views appears a fairly conventional attack on consumerism at Christmas: As we prepare ourselves for the holiday season, we are bombarded with ads that seek to whip us up into a consumerist frenzy. Black Friday sales are being rolled out weeks in advance of Thanksgiving and, at every turn, white-supremacist-capitalism is telling us to spend our money on things that we don’t need, to reap profits for corporations. How does this relate to race?  Well, "Capitalism doesn’t love Black people" they tell us.  No kidding:  capitalism doesn't love anyone.  If you want to fight this trend, you can #BuyBlack .  Because if you're going to spend money on things that you don't need, at least you can spend it at black-owned businesses.  Fight the capitalist system by...continuing to buy

  BLM on the Smollett trial: "In our commitment to abolition, we can never believe police, especially the Chicago Police Department (CPD) over Jussie Smollett." Okay, but his accusers are two black men whom Smollett continues to insist actually attacked him, don't they get any credence?   If you're wondering what abolition the above statement refers to, they later say "Black Lives Matter will continue to work towards the abolition of police."  That's not defunding, mind you, which some people can claim means something other than what it says.  That is abolition of the police.     The statement concludes that "We will continue to love and protect one another, and wrap our arms around those who do the work to usher in Black freedom."  Except, apparently, the freedom of black men wrongly accused by certain other black men, because it's not convenient. https://blacklivesmatter.com/statement-regarding-the-ongoing-trial-of-jussie-smollett/

Did you know that Joe Biden is the oldest person to become president ?  The previous record was held by Ronald Reagan.  Joe Biden was older when he became president than when Reagan's second term ended .  That means that every minute Biden spends in office, he will be setting new records for the oldest president to have served. Does this matter?  It may or it may not.  One thing is for certain:  we would have heard a lot more about it if Biden had been a Republican.  I recall quite a bit about Reagan's being the oldest president when he ran in 1984.  The fact that many people have raised questions about Biden's mental acuity long before the election makes it even more relevant.  I have heard a number of people question whether he will serve out his term, and I think it is a fair question.  He may, of course; but, at his age, it would hardly be shocking if something happened that forced him to resign.

Presumably everyone is aware by now of Biden's comment that lifting mask mandates is the result of "Neanderthal thinking."   It is only marginally surprising to see a Democraic President insult Republican governors in this way.  It would have been more surprising, perhaps shocking, 25 or 50 years ago, but hardly unusual these days.  (Although it may be the first use by a major public official of "Neanderthal" as a pejoritive; at least, I can't recall any others.) What could he have said?  How could Biden have phrased his comments differently to make the same point but without the contemptuous overtones?  It isn't all that hard to come up with something.  "I realize that it is tempting to open up public spaces and get rid of mask mandates as soon as possible," he might have said.  "We do need to get to that point, but I think we aren't there yet.  The dangers of premature opening are too great, and the goal of having universal vaccinati

Are we allowed to manage our borders?  Clearly, the people who support abolishing ICE don't think so.  That includes excluding people for medical reasons; after you get rid of ICE, after all, you won't have any means to keep them out.  That's why I'm confused that I haven't heard pushback against Canada's shutdown of immigration from the U.S.   It seems to me that this should be as off-limits as it would be if America shut out immigrants from Canada (or Mexico, or China) because their country was undergoing a covid epidemic.  I would like someone to explain to me why it's okay for Canada to keep out Americans, but not okay for Americans to keep out anyone; and, if it isn't okay, why don't we hear just as much against Trudeau as we hear against American leaders who support basically identical policies?