"Of course, that hope pre-supposes that Republicans will do the right thing if they control the Executive and both legislative branches of government. "
I struggle with this, if I understand your meaning.
It's always expected that the conservatives maintain the "high road" and begin to heal the standards and norms after Democrats keep busting through them. It's a thankless task, and the Democrats end up winning again when they fool the public into thinking that everything is Republican's faults anyway.
Why should we even attempt this? My feeling is that we need to weaponize the government exactly as Democrats have, and more. Making an example of Democrats and showing them what lawfare can be against them, showing them what OUR executive orders will do, and so on. Don't even bother with "Constitutionalist" judges, but appoint the most right-wing ones you can find, if there is even such a thing.
As your article finely points out, Democrats have no moral tether, whatsoever, and for them EVERYTHING is acceptable as a means to their ends.
You have to fight fire with fire, and I'm hoping that Republicans (including Trump) go after every Democrat they can. I want an AG that hates Democrats.
It's war and the only way to stop a bully is to bully the crap out of them back.
This 1000%. Call it “weaponized for freedom and liberty”. We already have our roadmap, and it’s very simple. The federal system can be fixed, the country healed, and freedom and liberty expanded through strict enforcement of the 10th Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
This amendment is the basis for the recent abortion ruling, and needs to be applied to EVERYTHING the federal government does. It is one of the simplest amendments and has a clear unambiguous meaning. Going forward everything the federal government does needs to pass a 10th Amendment test. Not much will be left, as the framers intended. The other result will be migration out of blue states at even higher levels than now. These states will hit rock bottom which is also a necessary step in fixing the country.
I think we're almost going to have to, if we want to get rid of the debt we have.
I would rather be free and get nothing from the government than be enslaved by it. I'm not so sure our current culture has enough people that also believe that to have a critical mass. Hence why we keep adding on to the federal government's list of responsibilities and entitlements.
We need to do what Milei is doing in Argentina, and with his passion. I love his interviews, because he calls out the leftist oppressors for what they are.
Yupppp, Jan Schakowsky hates you so much, she calls you a "Tenther" https://archive.nytimes.com/schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/tenthers/ She and others like her would lock us up in rep-education camps. When I hear people scream breathlessly that we'd repeal the "New Deal" I say "Yes, that's the best outcome."
The only problem with the above two comments is I couldn’t hit the ‘like’ button 10 more times each.
I completely agree with the ‘fighting fire with fire’ sentiment.
Payback is the only way these arrogant lefty lawfare asswipes will get the message. ‘You put one of mine in the hospital, we put 10 of yours in the morgue.’
And then, when they want to stop with the all their bullshit, here’s the deal: adhere to the 10th Amendment. Take it or leave it.
Pretty sure the McKinsey study was fundamentally flawed. If you have a successful business, you can take risks on hiring people without out regard to their business qualifications. If you don't you are scraping together friends and family to work for you, and just trying to stay above water. So a successful business can put together a 'great' DEI program, then still go bankrupt like Washington Mutual, when the DEI people are allowed to manage the business rather than spout of political slogans.
the other thing I didn't mention is they might have looked at data backward. 3M was a successful company. It added a black board member and a woman. It was still a successful company. Was it the "diversity on the board" that made it successful or the fact it already was successful?
Take a look at the example of Silicon Valley Bank. They were drenched in wokeness, DEI and assorted social justice sophistries.
There's an overall problem with studies coming from McKinsey--they're nearly entirely produced for marketing, to new and existing retainer-paying clients, while also pushing an agenda. And that agenda is about polishing their public image for capturing more paying clients. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Deep, substantive, critical assessments they are not. Such as that you'll find in private engagements whose results are for internal consumption only and are unlikely to see the light of day.
Irrespective of the issue as a state-regulated, rather than federal-regulated bank, they obviously never stress-tested their balance sheet for liquidity, term structure, asset-liability mismatch--or other basics for managing a banking institution. If they did, they didn't understand how to do it, or didn't understand the risks identified. In other words, they were wholly distracted from operating as a bank, bathed in feel-good fantasies.
I really wonder who paid Kinsey for that study. I heard it cited incessantly in the last few year before I retired. I'd just smile at the people citing it (the workplace version of 'bless your heart') and go on about my business.
The definition of the 'elite 1%' is a little strange: "people having at least one
post-graduate degree, earning at least $150,000 annually, and living in high-population density areas (more than 10,000 people per square mile in their zip code)" So you can be a wealthy member of Congress, or a business owner worth $15MM, and you're still not counted as Elite if you don't have that advanced degree (like a Phd in Education?) AND live in an urban area.
The way the pollsters developed that category was *not* from up-front categorization: they noticed that there were certain people whose beliefs were pretty extreme outliers and *then* looked to see what the common characteristics were.
Yes, that is a weird definition of the elite 1%, but the revealing part--accounting for that definition--is that 39% are ready to cheat to win, i.e., By. Any. Means. Necessary. We're inculcating a class of fellow citizens who lack an ethical foundation of integrity, moral probity, and honesty. And quite possibly these are character traits and habits of mind assimilated to by a conformity and obedience to the behavior of their "crowd"--similarly situated contemporaries and their social, cultural, and professional icons and leaders. Not a good look.
The biggest flaw with McKinsey, and unfortunately, so many assessments of studies, especially when cited by Democrats and many others on the left, is they think reverse logic applies. They failed to give credit to the intelligence of those companies for recognizing changes have taken place in the American landscape, where minorities have been given many more opportunities for better education and learned how to conduct themselves in a corporate environment and that was recognized earlier by successful companies than unsuccessful companies, who held on to old attitudes.
The unwillingness on the left to recognize that having better people who are open-minded at the top resulted in the hiring of qualified minorities is the fatal flaw in that study.
That is the absolute mindset of so many on the left who failed to recognize they're practicing discrimination by erroneously assuming that a minority must need more help than a non-minority to achieve similar success. While in some cases that remains true, it is quite rare, certainly compared to decades ago, when quotas and antidiscrimination laws made a huge difference in the 1960s and '70s. Like so many other things Democrats fail to realize, and there are some Republicans who are the same way, too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing and you have to take into account the dramatic effect over a few decades time of useful policies which changed the landscape. If you ignore that, then why would you bother pushing the same policy that was ineffective? The fact is, it's much like unions and I've said this in a recent comment, that they were beneficial and useful and served a great purpose for decades, but became almost a victim of their own success, because reality kicked in and employers realized treating your people better will get you better results. It's important to realize the only constant in life is change and to ignore that is to ignore reality.
Last but not least, anybody who's ever worked in healthcare recognizes "Sundowner Syndrome" in Joe Biden, where he can have many moments of lucidity and even semi effectiveness during the daytime, but after the sun goes down and the later it gets in the day, the worse he gets and that is very common in Alzheimer dementia patients. Most who have lived with a relative with those conditions has experienced this. It is glaringly obvious to anyone and now that the far left has finally admitted it, they are in a panic.
The curious aspect of the McKinsey "race and gender diversity leads to superior performance" study is that activists with an agenda wanted it to be true. But anyone with a modicum of experience in the world of big business knows that race and gender are superficial characteristics. People come in all shapes and sizes, but their disciple, diligence, cognitive capabilities, inherent skills and talents, etc., are revealed in their doing, not by a visual appraisal of their superficial appearance.
To believe race and gender reveal other characteristic traits of a race or gender that can be visually gleaned from mere appearance is magical thinking. It is literally seeing something that is not present.
To use race or gender is to use a stereotype that the woke/prog/left constantly battles against. To use race or gender are the very "social constructs" that the woke/prog/left declares are useless impositions.
So, here we have magical thinking that superficial traits are revealing, and at the same time they are stereotypes and social constructs that are useless.
The contradictions write themselves.
The final caveat is that there are regularly exceptions to broad generalities--but they more often confirm the generality, than overturn it.
Couldn’t you say: “Trump will gaslight and repeat lie after lie just to win?” His performance, in many instances, was not what you would call truth worthy….
Biden lies constantly, and lies about significant things (e.g. his corruption of the "family business," which is nothing more than taking bribes for changing government policy) that actually matter to the running of the government.
Democrats think they can fool people into thinking they "are the honest ones."
Sure Trump lies. All politicians and businessmen (and he is both) lie. If you make that your criteria, you won't vote often.
Robert Heinlein said it best - "f you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for, but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against." I have always followed that dictum. The time to search for better is between elections.
If Trump is gaslighting, then I think we need a new word to describe what the Democratic leaders, Biden administration, and media are doing hiding Biden’s dementia. But at least it’s officially no longer hidden.
Let me guess, by your eye, Trump lied by implying that his 34 count felony conviction for bookkeeping entries was politically motivated. Come on, man, the poor fellow is delusional, right? Happens everyday!
Trump could have said nothing but 'yes sir' going against an opponent who has lost his ability to speak coherently. Hard to accept, I know, but you'll eventually get there.
"Of course, that hope pre-supposes that Republicans will do the right thing if they control the Executive and both legislative branches of government. "
I struggle with this, if I understand your meaning.
It's always expected that the conservatives maintain the "high road" and begin to heal the standards and norms after Democrats keep busting through them. It's a thankless task, and the Democrats end up winning again when they fool the public into thinking that everything is Republican's faults anyway.
Why should we even attempt this? My feeling is that we need to weaponize the government exactly as Democrats have, and more. Making an example of Democrats and showing them what lawfare can be against them, showing them what OUR executive orders will do, and so on. Don't even bother with "Constitutionalist" judges, but appoint the most right-wing ones you can find, if there is even such a thing.
As your article finely points out, Democrats have no moral tether, whatsoever, and for them EVERYTHING is acceptable as a means to their ends.
You have to fight fire with fire, and I'm hoping that Republicans (including Trump) go after every Democrat they can. I want an AG that hates Democrats.
It's war and the only way to stop a bully is to bully the crap out of them back.
This 1000%. Call it “weaponized for freedom and liberty”. We already have our roadmap, and it’s very simple. The federal system can be fixed, the country healed, and freedom and liberty expanded through strict enforcement of the 10th Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
This amendment is the basis for the recent abortion ruling, and needs to be applied to EVERYTHING the federal government does. It is one of the simplest amendments and has a clear unambiguous meaning. Going forward everything the federal government does needs to pass a 10th Amendment test. Not much will be left, as the framers intended. The other result will be migration out of blue states at even higher levels than now. These states will hit rock bottom which is also a necessary step in fixing the country.
I am all for decentralizing the government.
I think we're almost going to have to, if we want to get rid of the debt we have.
I would rather be free and get nothing from the government than be enslaved by it. I'm not so sure our current culture has enough people that also believe that to have a critical mass. Hence why we keep adding on to the federal government's list of responsibilities and entitlements.
We need to do what Milei is doing in Argentina, and with his passion. I love his interviews, because he calls out the leftist oppressors for what they are.
Yupppp, Jan Schakowsky hates you so much, she calls you a "Tenther" https://archive.nytimes.com/schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/tenthers/ She and others like her would lock us up in rep-education camps. When I hear people scream breathlessly that we'd repeal the "New Deal" I say "Yes, that's the best outcome."
Ha ha ha! I will gladly be called a Tenther as long as I can call her a Marxist. I would even get a TENTHER license plate for my car.
And by the way Jan, is your husband still allowed to use the family checkbook?
Were the Japanese internment camps part of the New Deal?
The only problem with the above two comments is I couldn’t hit the ‘like’ button 10 more times each.
I completely agree with the ‘fighting fire with fire’ sentiment.
Payback is the only way these arrogant lefty lawfare asswipes will get the message. ‘You put one of mine in the hospital, we put 10 of yours in the morgue.’
And then, when they want to stop with the all their bullshit, here’s the deal: adhere to the 10th Amendment. Take it or leave it.
Love it. I do believe it's the only way.
"The only problem with the above two comments is I couldn’t hit the ‘like’ button 10 more times each"
Brilliant!
Well said!
Pretty sure the McKinsey study was fundamentally flawed. If you have a successful business, you can take risks on hiring people without out regard to their business qualifications. If you don't you are scraping together friends and family to work for you, and just trying to stay above water. So a successful business can put together a 'great' DEI program, then still go bankrupt like Washington Mutual, when the DEI people are allowed to manage the business rather than spout of political slogans.
the other thing I didn't mention is they might have looked at data backward. 3M was a successful company. It added a black board member and a woman. It was still a successful company. Was it the "diversity on the board" that made it successful or the fact it already was successful?
Take a look at the example of Silicon Valley Bank. They were drenched in wokeness, DEI and assorted social justice sophistries.
There's an overall problem with studies coming from McKinsey--they're nearly entirely produced for marketing, to new and existing retainer-paying clients, while also pushing an agenda. And that agenda is about polishing their public image for capturing more paying clients. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Deep, substantive, critical assessments they are not. Such as that you'll find in private engagements whose results are for internal consumption only and are unlikely to see the light of day.
We don't need to hedge our interest rates. We can't lose, guaranteed to get 3% for the next ten years.--->famous last words.
Irrespective of the issue as a state-regulated, rather than federal-regulated bank, they obviously never stress-tested their balance sheet for liquidity, term structure, asset-liability mismatch--or other basics for managing a banking institution. If they did, they didn't understand how to do it, or didn't understand the risks identified. In other words, they were wholly distracted from operating as a bank, bathed in feel-good fantasies.
I really wonder who paid Kinsey for that study. I heard it cited incessantly in the last few year before I retired. I'd just smile at the people citing it (the workplace version of 'bless your heart') and go on about my business.
The definition of the 'elite 1%' is a little strange: "people having at least one
post-graduate degree, earning at least $150,000 annually, and living in high-population density areas (more than 10,000 people per square mile in their zip code)" So you can be a wealthy member of Congress, or a business owner worth $15MM, and you're still not counted as Elite if you don't have that advanced degree (like a Phd in Education?) AND live in an urban area.
The way the pollsters developed that category was *not* from up-front categorization: they noticed that there were certain people whose beliefs were pretty extreme outliers and *then* looked to see what the common characteristics were.
Yes, that is a weird definition of the elite 1%, but the revealing part--accounting for that definition--is that 39% are ready to cheat to win, i.e., By. Any. Means. Necessary. We're inculcating a class of fellow citizens who lack an ethical foundation of integrity, moral probity, and honesty. And quite possibly these are character traits and habits of mind assimilated to by a conformity and obedience to the behavior of their "crowd"--similarly situated contemporaries and their social, cultural, and professional icons and leaders. Not a good look.
The biggest flaw with McKinsey, and unfortunately, so many assessments of studies, especially when cited by Democrats and many others on the left, is they think reverse logic applies. They failed to give credit to the intelligence of those companies for recognizing changes have taken place in the American landscape, where minorities have been given many more opportunities for better education and learned how to conduct themselves in a corporate environment and that was recognized earlier by successful companies than unsuccessful companies, who held on to old attitudes.
The unwillingness on the left to recognize that having better people who are open-minded at the top resulted in the hiring of qualified minorities is the fatal flaw in that study.
That is the absolute mindset of so many on the left who failed to recognize they're practicing discrimination by erroneously assuming that a minority must need more help than a non-minority to achieve similar success. While in some cases that remains true, it is quite rare, certainly compared to decades ago, when quotas and antidiscrimination laws made a huge difference in the 1960s and '70s. Like so many other things Democrats fail to realize, and there are some Republicans who are the same way, too much of a good thing becomes a bad thing and you have to take into account the dramatic effect over a few decades time of useful policies which changed the landscape. If you ignore that, then why would you bother pushing the same policy that was ineffective? The fact is, it's much like unions and I've said this in a recent comment, that they were beneficial and useful and served a great purpose for decades, but became almost a victim of their own success, because reality kicked in and employers realized treating your people better will get you better results. It's important to realize the only constant in life is change and to ignore that is to ignore reality.
Last but not least, anybody who's ever worked in healthcare recognizes "Sundowner Syndrome" in Joe Biden, where he can have many moments of lucidity and even semi effectiveness during the daytime, but after the sun goes down and the later it gets in the day, the worse he gets and that is very common in Alzheimer dementia patients. Most who have lived with a relative with those conditions has experienced this. It is glaringly obvious to anyone and now that the far left has finally admitted it, they are in a panic.
The curious aspect of the McKinsey "race and gender diversity leads to superior performance" study is that activists with an agenda wanted it to be true. But anyone with a modicum of experience in the world of big business knows that race and gender are superficial characteristics. People come in all shapes and sizes, but their disciple, diligence, cognitive capabilities, inherent skills and talents, etc., are revealed in their doing, not by a visual appraisal of their superficial appearance.
To believe race and gender reveal other characteristic traits of a race or gender that can be visually gleaned from mere appearance is magical thinking. It is literally seeing something that is not present.
To use race or gender is to use a stereotype that the woke/prog/left constantly battles against. To use race or gender are the very "social constructs" that the woke/prog/left declares are useless impositions.
So, here we have magical thinking that superficial traits are revealing, and at the same time they are stereotypes and social constructs that are useless.
The contradictions write themselves.
The final caveat is that there are regularly exceptions to broad generalities--but they more often confirm the generality, than overturn it.
Couldn’t you say: “Trump will gaslight and repeat lie after lie just to win?” His performance, in many instances, was not what you would call truth worthy….
Please, instead of saying "lies", substantiate it. What lie did Trump tell in the debate that was truly a lie?
Joe Biden had a hundred of them in 90 minutes. Soldiers not dying, border patrol loving him not to mention every economic stat.
Biden lies constantly, and lies about significant things (e.g. his corruption of the "family business," which is nothing more than taking bribes for changing government policy) that actually matter to the running of the government.
Democrats think they can fool people into thinking they "are the honest ones."
No, sorry, not going for that.
Sure Trump lies. All politicians and businessmen (and he is both) lie. If you make that your criteria, you won't vote often.
Robert Heinlein said it best - "f you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for, but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against." I have always followed that dictum. The time to search for better is between elections.
If Trump is gaslighting, then I think we need a new word to describe what the Democratic leaders, Biden administration, and media are doing hiding Biden’s dementia. But at least it’s officially no longer hidden.
I used to call Obama "The Bullshitter-in-Chief". The guy was good at it, and they loved him for it.
But I smelled that "Chicago Way" on him long before he even ran for President.
Well said! His "career" in Illinois politics is proof of that!
Let me guess, by your eye, Trump lied by implying that his 34 count felony conviction for bookkeeping entries was politically motivated. Come on, man, the poor fellow is delusional, right? Happens everyday!
Trump could have said nothing but 'yes sir' going against an opponent who has lost his ability to speak coherently. Hard to accept, I know, but you'll eventually get there.