A Curious Little Blog

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...

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 ri...

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 ...

 "Donald.  Donald, listen to me!"  He slaps the president across the face. "Do you want to be president next year, Donald?  Because if you do, you have to stop interrupting your opponent." "I know it worked against Hillary.  But you know what?  You didn't do it that much against her.  Besides, people were looking for reasons to vote against Hillary.  They didn't like her, and they liked that you stood up to her." "Guess what, Donald?  People are not looking for reasons to vote against Biden.  They're looking for reasons to vote against you.  That's right.  I know Biden is going senile.  Yes, I know Biden has left a trail of gaffes and outright lies about his personal exploits that would have destroyed a lesser candidate.  Guess what?  If he has survived those things, he is not a lesser candidate.  There is something about him that appeals to people, and VIEWERS DO NOT LIKE TO SEE HIM INTERRUPTED." "If you're...

I disagree with the Black Lives Matter movement on just about everything, but I admire their brilliant choice of a motto.  They've picked something that no one could possibly disgree with.  Of course black lives matter!  But what does that mean?  Well, it was started in reference to police killings of blacks, so it must imply that we have to cut down on that.  But how?  Defund the police?  That doesn't follow, and it's far from something everyone would agree with.  Somehow, however, people who agree that black lives matter find themselves swept up in the defund the police movement.  And since police obviously aren't going to be totally defunded, they start thinking about what else they can do to stay on the right side, the safe side.  That begins by putting "black lives matter" on all their web sites and telling people that we must do more to stop racism -- which is quite a jump from the bland assertion that black lives matter. Saying ...

No one has anything good to say about hypocrisy, but I am going to argue that it is best left out of political debates -- for the most part. Dave Rubin relates a time that he lost patience with an old friend of his.  They were debating a subject over a meal, and his friend insisted that Rubin's motives must be something other than whatever argument he was making.  Rubin stopped him and asked (roughly), "Are you willing to grant that I believe the things that I say with the same sincerity that you believe the things that you say?"  The friend would not concede that, so Rubin walked out of the restaurant and ended their friendship. I have faced similar accusations many times.  Often, friends will phrase it so that it doesn't apply to me directly:  "I believe you," they effectively say, "but I don't believe anyone else who makes the same argument." The tactic of accusing someone of insincerity or hypocrisy is possibly the lowest form of argument. ...

I have every possible sympathy for the protesters in Hong Kong.  In 1997, when Britain returned sovereignty of the island to China (following the expiration of a 99 year lease), I thought Britain was wrong not to grant asylum to every Hong Kong citizen who wanted to immigrate to England.  This could, theoretically, have led to a flood several million non-English speaking people into the United Kingdom, and I can see the problems (not all that difficult to anticipate) if that had happened.  I thought Britain had a responsibility to those people who had been born and raised as British subjects not to turn them over to Chinese despotism.  I wonder how people on the Left would feel about such a situation today.  In general, they seem to support unlimited admission of asylum seekers, although only those who can find their own way into Westerns nations by walking or other means (I haven't seen any suggestions that we should fly those who live in the shadow of poverty ...

Considering how obsessed the Left is with race, one would think they would have a working definition of racism.  But apparently they don't. The lead story on CNN when I checked concerned Trump's weekend tweets.  Here's a section from it: So, telling them to go back to their "totally broken and crime infested placed from which they came" makes very, very little factual sense. But Trump isn't terribly concerned with the facts here. It's the sentiment that matters to him. And that sentiment is racist. Again, this is not an opinion. This is a fact. Trump is telling 4 non-white women that they aren't from here, their views aren't welcome here and they need to get out of here. Rather than staying here, they need to go back to the hellhole countries where they are from. How does that behavior not fit the textbook definition of racism? (That definition, according to Merriam-Webster : "A belief that race is the primary determinant of...

In a recent piece in his journal " Current Affairs ," Nathan Robinson shows that he is a talented writer and debater. He also shows that he is willing to employ his talents to be deceptive; in this case, to claim that Brett Kavanaugh is a "serial liar." Since he makes the argument in such depth and with such a superficial air of plausibility, it is worth spending some time showing why it is wrong. To set up his case, Robinson admits that there is no evidence other than Ford's word to support her case. "S omeone strongly committed to due process," he writes, "might think the allegation extremely weak." But, he continues, prosecuting sexual assault would be almost impossible if we used this standard of evidence; therefore, we have to consider the case based solely on the testimony provided by Ford and Kavanaugh. Robinson has apparently attended law school, so one would expect him to know that rape rarely comes down to a simple ...

According to Elizabether Warren, “It is not enough to have a good heart … we are called to act,” Warren said. ”We are on the moral side of history.”  And Cory Booker is even more emphatic:  “I’m here to call on folks to understand that in a moral moment, there is no neutral. In a moral moment, there is no bystanders,” he said. “You are either complicit in the evil, you are either contributing to the wrong, or you are fighting against it.”  (Quotations cited in The Hill .) What is this great evil?  Genocide?  Slavery?  No, it is the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Are they angry because of the sexual assault that Christine Ford accuses Kavanaugh of?  No, these quotations are from July, long before anyone (other than Dianne Feinstein) was aware of those accusations. Democrats often complain that Republicans inject religion into politics, but if you listen to their language, they are the ones speaking in terms of religion....

I am always willing to have an argument with someone where there is a reasonable point to debate.  However, sometimes a point is so blatantly self-interested that there is no point in discussing it -- it is clearly being made purely for political purposes and not to advance a better understanding.  This happens on both sides, of course.  What astonishes me is how otherwise intelligent people seem to be so unaware of their own biases; how they, in other words, take a completely unreasonable point that their side is making for political purposes and treat it, like everything else coming from their side, as gospel truth to be defended. Perhaps I will soon find a good example among Republicans, but for today I want to discuss a post I read relating to Christine Blasey Ford and her accusations against Brett Kavanaugh.  I'll just put the image here rather than retype the text: Let's start with the details of this assertion and work our way back to the broader point....

Progressive:  "We want to make a colour-blind society." Observer:  "That's a great idea!  I suppose the government will no longer collect information about race then." P:  "No, we still do that." O:  "Oh.  Well, maybe you want the data, but you're not going to make any decisions based off of race, certainly." P:  "Actually, we will.  We need to correct the historical wrongs of racism by active measures." O:  "Hmm, I don't understand...well, at least in society you will downplay racial issues, emphasizing togetherness and the common humanity of all races, and not bring race into an issue unless it is clearly and overtly part of the problem. P:  "Absolutely not!  We must root out all racism, overt and covert, conscious and unconscious, macro and micro.  We scrutinize every action for any hint of racism and force people to apologize if there is the remotest possibility of racist implication, even in actions that...

I spend a fair amount of time wondering whether "ideas" count as real things, as I have written about elsewhere in this blog ( Things and Ideas , Degrees of Being , et al.).  So it was a matter of considerable interest to me to read about the following exchange between Margaret Thatcher and British politician Enoch Powell: On one occasion, just before the Argentines invaded the Falklands, Mrs. Thatcher spoke about the Christian concept of the just war and Western values. "We do not fight for values," said Powell. "I would fight for this country even if it had a Communist government." "Nonsense, Enoch," snapped Maggie. "If I send British troops abroad, it will be to defend our values." Powell stuck to his guns. "No, Prime Minister, values exist in a transcendental realm, beyond space and time. They can neither be fought for, nor destroyed." (From SteynOnline ).  Now, Thatcher is known for having once said, ...

I read a lot about people concerned with our "divisive" political culture in this country (the U.S.).  This is particularly interesting because it is almost always used as a criticism.  One almost never hears someone say that his own party is deepening the political divisions in the country; it is always the other side.  In other words, the problem of divisiveness is used in a divisive way. It may seem natural that people would see the other side as the source of the problem, but compare this to issues like military armament.  It is not difficult to find people urging unilateral disarmament on their own governments, as though the military problem would disappear if one side had no way to defend itself.  On the other hand, I have yet to hear someone urge his party or faction to stop using divisive language even if the other side continues to take advantage of it.  Arguably this was the tack Hilary Clinton was taking in her presidential campaign when she re...

There are roughly two approaches that the Democrats could take to Trump's presidency.  One would be to start attacking him before the inauguration, question the legitimacy of his presidency, and seek to thwart him at every turn.  This has the advantage of keeping him on the defensive and might restrict the amount of things he can get done in the form of legislation and nominations.  If he ever really screws up, the Democrats will be in a position to say "We told you so" and take advantage of the situation to win the mid-term elections, the following presidency, and maybe even get him impeached. One disadvantage to this approach is that it gives the Democrats little extra leverage if Trump does something outrageous but not explicitly illegal.  With their complaints already turned up to maximum volume, they won't be able to distinguish an outrageous act from any other kind (much as they were unable to paint Trump as drastically different from other Republican preside...

Election-night pundits talked a lot about how this presidential election was unique, and it certainly was surprising in many ways.  But Trump, the candidate, was as different from previous presidential candidates as the election itself was from previous elections; not just in his demeanour, but in a host of measurable ways.  (All of the following assume he actually takes office in 2 1/2 months, which seems likely but I feel like I need to cover myself in case some unlikely event prevents him from doing so.) Trump will not be the oldest president to take the inaugural oath, but he will be the oldest to take it for the first time (he is 70, Reagan was 69).  Reagan also beat Trump to become the first divorcé to be president, but Trump has two divorces to Reagan's one.  He is the first billionaire to be elected.  Ironically, however, Hillary Clinton raised twice as much money as Trump did.  This makes him the first person to win an election in spite of raisin...

Everyone wants to know what a president Trump would actually do.  I think the only surprise would be if Trump governed mundanely for four years, not surprising the whole country -- supporters and opponents -- several times.  However, there are some issues that have more urgency than others, so they will be the ones we are most likely to see action on relatively soon. (a) Supreme Court vacancy:  Highly placed Republicans have decided that Trump will safely nominate a conservative to replace Scalia.  If he doesn't, I expect Republicans to begin looking for ways to impeach him soon thereafter.  This is absolutely the main thing that got the support of many Republicans, and it would be a surprise if he changed directions immediately.  (It also makes me sad that the most important thing about the president is that he gets to appoint Supreme Court justices, but that's another matter.) (b) Appointing a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton:  I...

I heard several analysts on Tuesday night saying that Trump was the only one who saw the wave of populism and figured out how to get on it.  I think this is giving Trump way too much credit for being in the right place and time.  I certainly won't say that he deserves no credit for winning the election, but let's think about the populist wave and resentment against Washington. There is always a lot of resentment against the government.  If you don't think so, you probably live in a wealthy section of a big city, because I am sure it is there and I hear it all the time.  In many ways, Reagan's election was the same theme, and there have been many would-be populist candidates in the meantime.  Think about Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, Hermann Cain, Bernie Sanders...They all lacked something.  One thing they lacked is that they never got a major party nomination.  Perot didn't even try.  If he had (and I don't know which party that would have been), I'...

I hear that Hillary Clinton gave a magnanimous concession speech.  Nevertheless, I suspect she is still bitterly disappointed at the moment.  I know I would be.  She might be directing her anger at a lot of people:  Trump, of course; Jim Comey; Julian Assange; maybe Anthony Weiner; maybe a little for Bernie Sanders as well.  But I'll bet that, in the long run, the person she is most angry at is Barack Obama. The 2008 election was hers to lose.  Everybody knew.  Everybody knew that the Republican candidate would face very difficult odds with such an unpopular sitting president.  Hillary Clinton seemed set to be nominated.  There was hardly any opposition.  I'll bet that Obama himself didn't expect to win when he started his candidacy; he was probably laying the groundwork for the future.  And then this thing happened, and he got all this support, and suddenly Hillary was sitting on the sidelines watching him sweep to victory for th...