Come to think of it, nothing!

Andrew Sullivan: What I got wrong about Trump 

Conclusions are often reached -- with a jump, sometimes a leap.

I've read some of Andrew's considerable punditry over the decades. Born in the UK, he was a Gay supporter of the 1980s Super Conservative, Magaret Thatcher -- a rather select demographic in the USA, but the Labor Party had screwed up so badly in the 60s and 70s (with help from a rather timid Tory establishment) that he may have had considerable company at Oxford. After his move to America, he joined The New Republic -- a not-quite far-left magazine -- and branded himself a "gay conservative" who was also a principled anti-communist (The Cold War was still on). But when you live among progressives, it's easy to think you are a conservative. Progressives have a two-step program: 1) Give Us Power! 2) Wonderful Things Happen!

Conservative Progressives also have a two-step program. 1) Give Us Power...2) Wonderful things happen? If you change the exclamation mark into a question mark, while sounding a bit less sure of yourself, you have the difference. Don't ask too many questions, though, because the answers might make you an actual, Constitutional Conservative. Defending constitutional interpretations that help your political movement doesn't count (Trump's an Insurrectionist, yay! So take their guns away!).

In 2016, I told progressive friends, who seemed too confident about Hillary Clinton's chances, to watch a Trump rally on YouTube rather than just repeat a Trump "quote" ad infinitum. Rather than making a prepared speech, he spoke extemporaneously. He would wander off-topic for a few minutes and then, almost magically, pick up where he left off. Often the "quote" was a spontaneous remark that got twisted by a Trusted Commentator with Reliable Sources (certified by The Political Commentator Cartel). It is like taking a vaguely complimentary remark Trump made about Vladimir Putin and using it to prove he's a Russian Spy (oh, wait, they did that). But as you watched Trump at his rallies, you actually felt like you knew him. He certainly was not trying to fool anyone.

I feared Trump would leave a lot of Obama's people in place and they would undermine his presidency, which is what happened (he left office with a dozen knives in his back). As a businessman, he assumed the people would do their jobs and not do him dirty. Obama put ideologues in place, and they were loyal to the movement, and their knives were out. The bureaucracy voted 97 percent for Hillary (some voted for the Green Party), so thinking Trump could become a dictator is delusional. When I watched Trump rallies, I didn't get those Mussolini vibes (who was, by the way, a socialist). 

Trump was immediately framed as a Russian spy by the Clinton Campaign and Democrats in the bureaucracy and Congress (OK, some were pretending to be Republicans). Somehow, that doesn't make Congressman Adam Schiff, who lied daily to the voters about Trump's supposed "Russian Connections," a threat to Democracy.  Indeed, the Democrats think that qualifies him for the Senate.

After these efforts fizzled, Nancy Pelosi impeached Trump because he wanted to investigate obvious Biden family corruption in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the Biden family took millions from Ukraine, and are now giving billions back -- but that's no reason to question their motives.

Trump deported thousands of ruthless gang members here illegally, who no doubt promptly returned when Biden opened the border. Who cares more about actual minority Americans?

If Andrew really worries about Dictatorship he would worry about the Democrats who went after Trump supporters and locked people up without trial. The DC Dems are actively defending their Democracy by destroying America's.

Will Trump's assuming office in 2025 entail risks? Of course. But endorsing the course the Statist Democrats have set, with their fake frame jobs and divide and conquer tactics, entails much greater risks. So, on balance, I'll go with the Donald.

He could have implicated Tucker, too

I recommend watching Taras Bulba, the 1962 movie based on Gogol's novel, before watching Vladimir Putin's interview with Tucker Carlson. He begins with a History lesson that is more of a his-story lesson. The movie is more entertaining and only a little longer. Tony Curtis plays a Cossack who grew up in Brooklyn, New York. 

Illustration for the novel by Pyotr Sokolov, 1861

Das Flick

Here is how Vladimir should have started his presentation:

"Tucker, Donald Trump really is my puppet in the USA. Unfortunately, he lost his value due to the heroic efforts of Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration, and the New York Times. We recruited him in High School, and our entire investment in him went down the drain!

"Also, I want to thank you, Tucker, personally, for your help in our massive disinformation campaigns. You are worth your weight in gold, my friend. But instead of gold, you'll get rubles. I hear the Chinese like them."

What a missed opportunity! If he gave that little speech, he would be hailed as a great truth-teller. Then the Davos crowd would give him Ukraine, they'd be so happy. Oh, well.

Under the Leadership of Comrade Stalin...

Don't Know Much about History

I attended a "Renaissance Weekend Lite" in 1970 sponsored by young progressives for the benefit of some idealistic young folk from our Steel Town. The presentation included a panel of Stalinists -- followers of the infamous Communist Dictator. They self-identified as Stalinists, proudly out-of-the-closet (if they were ever in). Their predictable presentation left me unsurprised and unimpressed. I thought we'd all listen politely and pass on. Instead, I was amazed by the questions from the crowd.

It was Social Justice Warrior softball stuff. The answers were ripped from the pages of Pravda circa 1952, prefaced with "Under the Leadership of Comrade Stalin." Yep, all sorts of wonderful things were achieved in the USSR for the workers or the environment or racial tolerance, which pleased almost everyone but...me. I raised my hand and said, "I can't believe what I'm hearing here..." followed by a brief summary of, you know, what actually occurred (including a dead Caspian Sea as well as a lot of dead Ukrainians).  My little rant brought a hostile frown to the face of the panel and immediately ended the questioning period. I guess I pooped The Party.

Later the organizers told me they were quite impressed by what I said. They explained they wanted to provide a variety of viewpoints. I said, "Did I miss the Young Republicans?" I guess I came mighty close to being one because they never invited me back.

The Prisoner of Zenda Election

 If Trump Is Convicted of a Crime, How Much, If Any, Support Would He Lose?

Up to 55 percent, apparently.

In 2015 I wasn't a Trump supporter and told those who were that the Media went after Trump to increase his support in the Republican base (who dislike the media for good reason) and assure his nomination, while driving away the middle, resulting in a huge win for Progressives. They probably had polls showing this.

Obviously, the progressive's use of the MSM to defeat Trump didn't work. The use of the Justice system in 2024 could have a similar result, elevating the Democrats' abuse of the courts to a major campaign issue that could significantly damage the Party's reputation. They convinced a lot of people that the Justice system was unfair and ripe with abuse in 2020. They've convinced a lot more since -- making it an issue most Americans can agree on.

The Democrats focus-group everything. I'm sure their focus groups on Impeaching Trump brought them great Joy. In the end, having to stand on the stage with Dr. Anthony Fauci may have hurt him more.

Who is that masked Beauracrat?

If Trump's polls are running high in the run-up to the election, we'll hear how Hitler also spent time in jail (but nothing about Nelson Mandela).

When They Ain't Failing You, They're Flailing You

 Why Hollywood is FAILING - The Devil's in The DEI

As a steelworker in the 1970s, some progressive friends convinced me to attend union meetings with them because they needed the vote. At first, I voted the way I was told. Basically, they wanted to take over so they could do good. After the meeting, we would stop for pizza and beer and talk politics. I realized they were more interested in the "world revolution" than what was happening in the rolling mill.  As much as I liked my friends, I had to ask myself: Do I want them fixing my car or running my Uion? Ah, no. So I stopped voting with them and they no longer wanted me to attend the meetings.

One of my friends, Mike, was a follower of Joseph Stalin -- the infamous dictator of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (That's the failed USSR that Vladimir Putin loves). A Soviet is, supposedly, a workers' collective. The workers collectively do what they are told. The DEI-infused Writers Guild of America qualifies. Mike took tours of the USSR and thought things were going just fine until that a-hole Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev showed up. My friend took the slogan "Forward" quite seriously. For him, it was all about the journey, not the destination.  

Not the Soviet Savior 

The far left wants to create a disciplined and committed militant core -- the vanguard of revolution. It's about grabbing power, not doing good. They will champion bizarre causes and deploy underhanded tactics because that helps them recruit passionate and unquestioning people (pseudo-intellectuals, useful idiots, and opportunists flock to the banner). They become members of an activist movement the Vanguard leads. Societal upheaval helps the Vanguard to recruit. Societal collapse helps them take power. That's a disaster for the rest of society. But it is a disaster for members of the movement as well. Regardless of the announced idealistic aims, Sociopaths -- who love to ruthlessly manipulate others -- take over that core group and will, one way or another, eliminate anyone who actually believes in "Social Justice," whatever that is.

If I may paraphrase Barak Obama, "The Arc of Progressivism bends towards shortages and famine." You can take that to the state-run bank and put it with the funny money.

It's all that Stuff They Did Before

The Real Reason China’s Economy Is In Crisis

When Tom Friedman at the New York Times praised the "China Model," I took it as a leading indicator that its economy would hit the wall in a decade or so. He was orgasmic over all those High-Speed Electric Trains! But after getting the State Run Railway to start building them, getting them to stop proved even harder. Now they're riding the High-Speed rail to nowhere. But what's an extra Trillion Dollars or so of debt? Certainly, the U.S. Congress would agree.

Similarly, getting them to stop building buildings (they could house half the planet) proved harder than convicting Donald Trump of something.

A centralized "Industrial Policy" can work well in the "catch-up" phase of economic development. If it proceeds too long -- which it almost always does -- it becomes the "ketchup phase," with lots of blood on the market floors as various bubbles burst.

In the 1980s I thought Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI -- 1949-2001, RIP) was going to prove me wrong until, quite suddenly, it didn't. Currently, Japan's stock market approaches the high set in...1989. And that's thanks to the capital fleeing China and looking for a home.

As a result of the Cultural Revolution, the CCP was on its back in 1980. That is a big reason why "Socialism with Chinese Crony-Capitalism Characteristics" could succeed as long as it did -- with a big helping hand from Walmart, Amazon, and Wall Street. Now that the Giant has awakened, they need to knock it over the head again if they want to get back on the growth track.

I'll Take that One-in-a-Million Chance!

New documents strengthen—perhaps conclusively—the lab-leak hypothesis of Covid-19’s origins.

Gee, who knew.

I used to tell people that the Wuhan China Lab-Leak conspiracy theory started in the Wuhan lab. I wonder if the original conspiracy theorists became involuntary organ donors. The "they doth protest too much" reaction of Officially-Designate-Scientific Opinion everywhere suggested an embarrassing level of American involvement at the lab, if not in the specific research that may have resulted in the COVID-19 pandemic. It was the sort of experimentation that was banned in the US.

And now I read:

The DEFUSE proposal was authored by Peter Daszak, head of the EcoHealth Alliance in New York, with partners including Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology and Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina. The grant proposed to “introduce appropriate human-specific cleavage sites” into SARS-related viruses, a procedure that could have led to the creation of SARS2, with its distinctive furin cleavage site, depending on the starting virus used for the manipulation.

Oh, OK. Of course, there is still that one-in-a-million chance it originated "in nature" in a cave 500 miles from Wuhan, so don't believe everything you read.

Lab-Leak Leak Links Lab to Lab-Leak