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?

Calls to boycott the 2022 Olympics in China have been increasing recently.  China's human rights record continues to be deplorable, but I don't think the Olympics are the appropriate place to express our dissatisfaction.  The whole point of the Olympics, it seems to me, is to be a place where countries of the world can come together regardless of political differences.  Even though China's actions toward the Uyghurs are reprehensible, I question whether they are so much beyond the pale that it is worth turning the Olympics political over them. I say that because I do leave open the possibility that a country could do something so egregious that it would seem to be tacit acceptance to participate in an international event that it hosts.  I would expect most human rights issues to be addressed when deciding on the host country, however.  China's treatment of Uyghurs may have gotten worse recently, but their record has been bad going back at least 30 years and probably as

I have many opinions on politics, but one of my firmest principles is that language should not be abused.  You may be aware of George Orwell's famous essay, " Politics and the English Language ," in which he argued that people use language to obscure political realities more than to clarify them.  I can't speak for his day, but it is certainly common now, when you commonly hear "speech" equated with "violence" and violence (by the correct side) equated with legitimate protest. This morning, I was eating breakfast in a hotel and I saw a segment on CNN about the Capitol "insurrectionists" on January 6th.  (I can't find an article that uses that word in the headline as the news story did, but there are many articles on CNN that make liberal use of that word, e.g. this one .)  CNN has put a lot of effort into maximizing the potential danger from the riot that day, but I don't think any amount of rationalizing would equate what happene

Someone posted the following to Twitter recently:  As a social psychologist, I understand why using women’s sports to argue against transgender rights works. But it is tough to imagine a more morally bankrupt position: ‘I’m going to make you sit in a gender that doesn’t fit you so my daughter can win her soccer game.’ When it comes to moral bankruptcy, it’s hard to beat “All of society needs to treat delusional individuals as a different sex than they actually are, to the detriment of people actually of that sex.”

Biden has now rejoined the Paris climate accords.  Back when Trump withdrew from them, there was a lot of talk about how there was no need to withdraw since all the targets were voluntary anyway.  (One wonders what the point of being party to the agreement is in that case, but we'll leave that aside.)  In what I believe to be an unprecedented developement, private organizations in France sued the national government for failing to live up to its commitments under the agreement and actually won in court.  This is unusual on multiple levels.  For one, I'm not sure what standing any group could possibly have to sue its government over an international treaty.  Perhaps that is a nicety of common law as opposed to Roman law; I don't know enough to say.  For another, it is hard to see exactly what this suit achieves for the plaintiffs.  The court ordered the government to pay one franc as a fine, and I don't see any other remedies included, so it is difficult to tell if the

I have mixed feelings about whether Biden should have taken China to task for its treatment of the Uighurs (and Hong Kong) in his first talk with president Xi Jinping .  I do not have mixed feelings about how he explained his failure to do so in a town hall:  his responses are reprehensible.  “Culturally there are different norms that each country and their leaders are expected to follow,” Biden said.  Yes, we are aware that China has no respect for human life and this is normal for their government, but that is emphatically not a justification for their actions. Biden made it sound like China's human rights abuses are just a natural extension of their history of trying to stay strong and unified.  There is some truth in that, but historical continuity is never considered exculpatory, or even a mitigating circumstance, among Americans ready to denounce human rights abuses in other countries.  I don't always agree with the human rights gadflies, but in this case, I do:  China

 I am sick of wearing a mask, and sick of shutdowns and everything that goes with them.  It is obvious now that there is no danger of covid killing large numbers of the population under the age of 60, and the younger one is, the less vulnerable one is.  That's not to say that young people haven't died, and won't die in the future.  People die of all kinds of things, but rightly pay little attention to the things with a very low chance of causing death.  Even if you tried to protect yourself against every possible cause of death, you would still die, and you would lead a miserable existence in the meantime.  That's why I think we should focus on protecting the most vulnerable, and letting the rest of us judge our own need for safety and willingness to take risks. When we are finally free of these covid restrictions, we should declare a second national independence day, and we should declare that we will not allow ourselves to be restricted like this in the future in the

 In these divisive times, it is import to cherish moments when we agree with those on the other side of the aisle.  This is such a time.

 Outside of Minneapolis and conservative news outlets, you won't see much about this.  Most of the top hits I got searching for "Minneapolis police funding" were about the money they cut last year, not the most recent news. Minneapolis to spend $6.4 million to hire more police  

Remember, right-wing violence is the major threat to the US.    Violent BLM protest in NYC leaves two NYPD cops injured, 11 arrested     (Edit:  is this reported on any MSM site?  I can't find it on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or other.  I'm not saying it isn't there, but I would appreciate it if anyone can find it they would post links.)

This is brilliant.  Everyone on the Right has been listening to aggressive rhetoric from the Left for years and can see the absurdity of charging Trump with inciting violence.  This is the best answer.

I understand the Democrats made a lot of use of video from the Capitol riot while making their case for removal.  It should go without saying, but apparently it doesn't:  no amount of video evidence of the damage done by rioters counts at all against Trump.  The gist of the case is to show that Trump incited the riot, and even if the rioters burned down the Capitol and everyone in it, it would not have the slightest bearing on whether he did or not. They have also used evidence from some of the rioters who said that they were following Trump's instructions.  From what I have read here , those instructions consisted of marching to the Capitol.  Well, there is no doubt that Trump encouraged his supporters to do that.  It should be needless to say, but, again, here it is:  marching to the Capitol is not the same as attacking the Capitol.  If it were, practically every Democrat who ever led a protest would be guilty.  It doesn't even matter if rioters thought Trump wanted them

I was surprised to hear Joe Biden making the following comments during the swearing in of his new staff: I'm not joking when I say this: If you're ever working with me and I hear you treat another with disrespect, talk down to someone, I promise you I will fire you on the spot On the spot. No if, ands, or buts...And it's not hyperbole. The only thing I expect with absolute certitude is honesty and decency. Let's leave aside the irony that Biden himself has repeatedly insulted people while campaigning and has a history of dishonesty . The thing that strikes me about this is that it is illegal. You cannot fire someone on the spot like that. It is possible that, because we're dealing with political staff, Biden is exempt from the usual federal rules regarding employment, but still. It might sound nice to promise to fire people who "talk down" to other people, but that's a pretty vague standard. Even if the case is obvious, it is still hardly