30 March 2024



A few months ago Biden proudly proffered yet another “first” in the person of the first woman to head the US Navy, despite resistance from his own officials. This individual might well be qualified, but we’ll never know. For as with all such appointments, being selected in this way creates a lasting stigma. Due to blatant and unashamed policies being served up  based upon attributes rather than competence, any pretense of a merit system, fundamental to our way of life, no longer exists. 

But the consequences of this kind of policy are disastrous not just in performance of duties but in recruitment as well. There are good reasons why white men are not signing up for the military in ways they traditionally have.The message is clear to them, and it would be folly to join under this regime. Why does that matter?  War casualties and deaths have disproportionately been white. These tend to be people from small towns and suburbs still imbued with an older patriotism, who sign up for frontline duty and hazardous assignments in significantly higher numbers than any other group. If you don’t have frontline troops in sufficient numbers you can’t win a war, and pray that we don’t wind up in one under this government. 


That may finally begin to change, as Joe Biden, Maker of Firsts, has really outdone himself this time. Incredibly, he has proclaimed this Sunday, Easter Sunday of all days, as “Trans Day of Visibility,” complete with color displays on national monuments. Buildings once adorned with crosses for Easter will instead now be adorned with this identity display. This tone deafness isn’t satire. It is real. Insanity is now official policy. 

Democrats are expert in demography. They are a transactional party, with the message being, vote for us and we’ll give you stuff. They create and combine interest groups into “coalitions” that can win elections. But what have they done here? Church attendance and formal religion may be in relative decline, but this is still a country that has an overwhelming Christian majority. Like others who aren’t very religious I find this highly offensive as well. Throwing Christians under the bus in favor of Trans people has to be one of the dumbest missteps of all time. This is what happens when radical ideologues control the institutions and set the agenda. 

Trans people, on the other hand, are a tiny minority the left is obsessed with. I recall an early Trump State of the Union speech in which he touted economic progress and things that matter to ordinary people. The Democratic response at that time was to put up a goofy Kennedy kid who began talking about the problems of trans children, and so forth. This left a lot of the audience scratching their heads and wondering what the hell he was talking about. 

Now however, having been subject to constant bombardment from the establishment, the public is more aware and not at all happy with it. How on earth can a party that stresses “women’s issues” be so bent on destroying women’s sports? This ideology represents no one, yet the rotten elite across the board are all in with it. Repression and fear are the tools that keep hapless institutional employees from expressing themselves, but many are chafing under this regime and may yet express it at the ballot box. That’s assuming, of course, that opposition has the presence of mind  to connect the Democratic Party directly with what they have wrought. Where are all the rational liberals, people who should know better but have allowed themselves to be steamrolled by radicals? 

I truly loathe dividing us into phony groups but that is what the Democrats have done with incessant identity politics. Yet despite the high level of unpopularity of “woke” policies, they have paid no price and gotten away with it. That is because most of the public has not connected all the weirdness directly to the Democrats. The left loves things like “consciousness raising,” and have done quite a job of it here, only not the way they intended. They have in fact primarily raised the consciousness of people who find these things objectionable and are reacting accordingly. If this carries over to the ballot box the Democrats are in big trouble, and deservedly so. 

08 March 2024


Our government is a national embarrassment, across the board, and beyond partisanship. This ought to be apparent to anyone with any sense of decorum or dignity who watched the State of the Union address tonight. It came across in a circus atmosphere complete with your elected officials taking selfies like tourists in the place where they supposedly work. They jostle to get into pictures with bigger fish in front of the television cameras, and walk away beaming if, say their president, deigns to momentarily chat with them. 

He in turn walks down the aisle like the highest potentate in the world, giving and withholding acknowledgements as he sees fit. You have Democratic women again behaving ridiculously in common white dress, while a few on the other side engage in “colorful” political theater as well. The President gets to the podium, having been juiced with something to make him appear sufficiently aware so as to be able to make a forceful speech, which he does with a little too much force in an effort to prove he still a virile, vigorous leader. He has accomplished that much of his goal insofar as his party acolytes and the media are reassured that he is fully in command, but coming across as a kind of angry old man to most other people, I suspect. 

What is disturbing about all of this, regardless of who is playing the role, is the fact that the scene much too closely echoes that of the collapsing Roman Republic and the rise of Caesarism. He says “I” an inordinate number of times; how “I” have given you this, “I” am going to do this, “I” am the one holding all the cards, and “I” am the one who will dispense benefits to you from my unlimited resources. The problem is that this is not, in fact, a king, not an emperor with command of vast resources, but rather a very ordinary man purporting to “give” you things that are paid for by you in the first place; in other words with your own money.

Would you not rather be able to spend your money the way you want rather than the way someone else thinks it should be spent, based upon the notion that they reflect the public interest and know better how to appropriate it?But they don’t know better. They know far less than they claim to, which is why their best efforts usually wind up making everything worse. 

But even with this imperial spectacle they have to provide a “common” touch for ordinary people, so we have the usual gallery of special guests that are pointed to in the course of the speech. I truly wish Reagan had never started this, or at least that it didn’t get picked up by less gifted people going forward as a new tradition akin to pardoning turkeys. I think it diminishes the seriousness and solemnity of purpose that ought to accompany such events. 

Yet, then again, these are not serious people.They are like children playing musical chairs and jockeying for position. The problem is that they are charged with serious matters that entail enormous power. This effects the lives of everyone else, but they are simply and chronically not very good at it. That is why things seldom work well, or worse, are totally dysfunctional. This is what happens when you assign great power without the equivalent wisdom, restraint, humility, and competence that must come with it. That is why power should be located primarily in the the most basic simple social units, beginning with the individual and family, then the community, the county or city, the state, and lastly the federal government. Not top down but bottom up, but today that pyramid has been inverted, if not perverted. 

It was not always so. This began as a deliberately modest republic, where humility and probity were prized, and where men at least formally aspired to the highest level of virtue in serving the public. They didn’t always achieve it, but they did take it so much further than their descendants that they come across almost as god-like giants followed by increasingly diminished men, eventually yielding us the mediocre midgets of today. They never presumed to legitimate vast power in the hands of a few over the many. If Washington could so gracefully surrender power, ever cognizant of its potential abuse, how can we now bestow so much on the lesser people who now occupy the city bearing his name? 

16 February 2024


There was zero chance that Donald Trump could possibly get a fair trial in Manhattan, which not only is out of touch with the rest of the country, but the rest of the city as well, never mind the state.  Zero chance he could be treated fairly by a Manhattan jury, which voted over 80% for Biden and where there is not a single Republican elected official left. Top that off with radical prosecutors who campaigned on getting Trump as one of their main objectives. Add to that a vicious partisan judge seething with hatred for the man. It almost doesn’t matter what the charges and rulings are because of these conditions. They cannot be taken seriously by anyone, even those who intensely dislike Trump, if they have any decency, honesty and scruples left. This is a political victory they can enjoy but may learn to regret as they further de-legitimize the “justice” system in this country, which is only going to lead to black chasm that will eventually envelope them as well. 

Each of the cases are ridiculous and blatantly political. They would never have happened if he wasn’t President Trump and running for office. The charges are so far-fetched and the dollar amounts so outrageous, whether it be a supposed rape and libel from decades ago suddenly turning up, or more seriously, a clear attempt to not just “get” the man, but to completely destroy him,  his business  and his family, and further to even prevent them from doing business where they are based.  On top of that this thieving judicial system is further going to appoint their political lackeys to “monitor” the Trumps and force them to pay for it. It is blatant persecution, especially when no one complained, no one was defrauded, and all were paid back, and the very statute invoked actually applies to consumer, not business fraud anyway. There was no fraud, but none of that would matter to a partisan Manhattan jury. 

I have lived here all my life and am sickened by the serious decline of New York due to rotten, corrupt officials and legislative bodies. It didn’t have to be this way, and mind you much of this has been brought about by “progressive reformers,” with a consistently dismal record of accomplishment, and worse, thoughtless destruction. I can say without a doubt that the old-line Democrat machine bosses, whatever their faults, did a hell of a lot better job at running things than these fools. They were practical people who could care less about ideology, but they got things done. That is also where Trump’s talents lie; cutting to the chase and getting things done. This was evidenced by projects he undertook that city officials said were impossible and would take years to complete. He said he could get it done in six months and he did. 

He never did anything harmful to New York and in fact did a lot to make it better, something that is now conveniently forgotten by the very same scoundrels that used to sing his praises or take his money. But it’s not just Trump. This rotten, corrupt system is an offense and burden for many others, and will be even more so in the future, barring radical change, as the population hemorrhage accelerates. 

Apart from the alleged legal aspects, the amounts charged, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, are so over the top their intention is obvious. But the city has also changed; where some would look down on a place like Mississippi for exorbitant payouts, those are trivial alongside of preposterous, grossly excessive rewards that regularly pour out now from New York courts. The worst of them are often at the expense of the city itself, so that anyone with a lawsuit against the city basically has hit the jackpot. Lawyers love New York and big law firms are one of the few thriving institutions left in the city.. This is the same rotten system that has deliberately foisted harm on numerous residents by continuously releasing criminals back into the population, with no regard for law-abiding citizens. 

As it stands now, none of these purloined decisions, and the system that enabled them, have any legitimacy left. 

One way or another these blatant injustices may be reversed, but that alone is not enough. The perpetrators  of this travesty, who have so badly damaged any remaining semblance of a justice system, must be pursued and punished for their misdeeds. Only then may they learn that the pendulum swings back and forth. and when they are sanctioned they will better understand the consequences of their misdeeds. 


There was a great deal of hissy hysterics across the western world with regard to Tucker Carlson’s interview with Vladimir Putin. However, you don’t have to be.a fan of either man in order to find some real value in what was presented if you look at it objectively. Would there have been such n outcry if ,say, Barbara Walters had done the interview?  It doesn’t matter how salient the questions were, friendly or hostile, probing or softball, or any other “performance” criteria that stupid media are focused on. For what we very clearly saw was a fairly deep, unfiltered glimpse into the mind of an adversary, How much was truthful and how much misleading, self-serving, or completely false ought to be secondary to what was revealed in spite of those things. 

We got a pretty clear idea of what Putin’s thinking is on a wide range of topics, what his feelings are, and what motivates him. That is far more enlightening than any misleading statements he might have made, or how some claims might be factually incorrect, or merely disputable. Anyone observing this with an open mind would have learned a great deal about where he is coming from, and even if you consider him an outright enemy, it is clearly valuable information to possess. His history lesson was shaded by a sentimental and prejudicial perspective, as would be the same from another side, but overall it was not historically incorrect. 

When it comes to the west and NATO he revealed a good deal of resentment and hurt due to what he sees as rejection from the west, and his viewpoint does deserve some consideration based upon the way things evolved that could have turned out differently. When he says that Russia and Yeltsin were seeking to join the west and were rebuffed there is enough truth to it to question some of perceptions and policies instituted in our name. Clearly policy makers discounted the very real differences between the Soviet Union and Russia, the latter of which they wanted to contain and reduce as though it were still run by aggressive communists (rather than committed anti-communists). When he points to NATO expansion despite assurances that wouldn’t happen, he is historically correct, but would clearly have been acceptable if Russia had been allowed to become part of it along with all the rest. This does not negate Russian duplicity regarding other matters regarding Ukraine, etc.or breaking agreements,  but there is enough historical reality here to be considered thoughtfully, and free of our own biases and ideological sentiments. *

But the ideological propagandists that control the media don’t want you to be able to make your own judgement, because they “know better” and believe  you are too stupid or gullible enough to make a sound judgement on your own. However, their dishonesty is only verified by the fact that they don’t even want you to hear anything they don’t like or that might be contrary to their worldview. They want to suppress information rather than allowing its free flow, which is absolutely contrary to everything we stand for in the west. 

In current reading it is easy to find numerous instances of this malignant perspective. In The New Republic, (which used to be a thoughtful, serious publication I used to subscribe to until they descended into progressive leftism) they are still writing about ways to get rid of Fox News, to literally shut them down because they don’t like its content. It is telling that people who used to feign open-mindedness cannot abide even one outlet that has different viewpoint than the media cartel, and are apoplectic because of its dominant audience statistics. Then you have the current issue of The Atlantic, that once made at least some effort at fairness, devoting an entire issue to nothing besides anti-Trump articles that are more revealing of their own paranoia and ideological limitations than anything meaningful we don’t already know. 

But at the pinnacle of the toxic garbage heap is the New York Times, due to the extent to which  it still dominates the media cartel. Yesterday they ran a really juvenile article purporting to show how the Republican party is “racist,” based upon a handful of fairly innocuous comments, so beneath journalistic standards it is only comprehensible when you do a careful reading of at least half of all articles in the Times every day. They constantly and consistently view everything through race-based ideological blinders even when the topic has little or nothing to do with race. This in turn leads to defining people in identity boxes that are then ideologically interpreted to portray individuals and populations that simply don’t exist in the real world. I’m not even going to bother with all the factual errors and conceits in this case, if only because the practice is so continuously widespread in the Times. 

For a broader view on this topic and its implications see  Russia, the West and the World following this. 

09 February 2024


Two events of this day in Washington will resonate for years to come. One was unexpectedly reassuring  for anyone concerned about the state of our political institutions. The other was, unfortunately, depressing and potentially disastrous.

Listening to the Supreme Court justices question the man trying to defend Colorado’s (and for that matter other states) arbitrary removal of a presidential candidate from the ballot was informative, even enlightening and inspiring. All of the justices asked cogent questions, and postulated “what-ifs” were this kind of action was to be allowed. Needless to say other states could then go their own way on balloting as well. 

They all were clearly being detached and objective in their statements, and devoid of any political or ideological blinders. I was pleasantly surprised to see both the liberal and conservative justices mostly consonant in their queries, and treating the subject at hand as a matter of law and justice without regard to the particular political context. It certainly reassuring to see this level of professionalism in our justice system, at least at the highest level. There is clearly a lot more to be done to restore confidence in lower levels where power has been abused, or inconsistently applied. 

Attempts to alter or restructure the court because some people are upset about a particular decision, is ill-advised. You don’t upend the overall constitutional design because a case didn’t go your way. Now, more than ever, we can see the value of the wisdom of our founders in making these lifetime appointments. That is the only way to assure that personal interests or beliefs are set aside when external pressure manifests itself, because the justices cannot be easily threatened with a ruined career. That is what enables them to step back and see things from a broader, long-term standpoint.

This is clear in the way the court deliberates. They necessarily must see things from the position of how it effects the overall process, rather than the particulars of a case. For the pendulum often swings from one side to another. Even though a particular case outcome may be perceived to be detrimental to a particular heated stance, the justices know that things can change over time, so that the roles of the disputants can be completely reversed over time. 

Consider where this particular case positions each side. There is a clear ideological anomaly. The Democrats are essentially arguing for state’s rights vis a vis the federal government, which they usually oppose,  while Republicans are arguing for federal primacy in this instance, which is inconsistent with their usual position. Only the Supreme Court can be detached enough to see this in a broader, constitutional context. The court took a major step today in demonstrating how the system should work, and though a decision is still pending, the overall sentiment of the justices is fairly clear.

The other item, the report of the Special Counsel on President Biden’s handling of classified documents, is far more disturbing. It is not the particulars of the documents that is troubling, but rather the devastating conclusions regarding his mental health and competency.  It was only further compounded by his blustering press conference this evening. My own sense is that his handlers couldn’t control him this time because of how angry he was, so he ignored their advice and decided to storm out to the podium. But rather than setting the record straight the way he thought he would, his dismal performance  only made things worse by confirming the efficacy of the observations made in the report. 

It isn’t necessary to deliberate how precarious he has made things, not just for the USA, but for the entire world. It is compounded by the fact that we really don’t know who is running the country now, or perhaps even for much of his term. What he did do was enable what effectively has been a radical coup over the Democratic Party, with disastrous policy consequences that have seriously alienated a solid majority of the country. This is all on the leadership of that party for failing to address this problem, and especially on his selfish handlers, for hiding the truth and propping him up in order to maintain their own grip on power. 

There were already ample conditions based on his action or inaction in maintaining the territorial integrity of the country, but the votes aren’t there for impeachment. However, they should at least see this crisis as an opportunity to now deal with a very serious problem. If they instead go about attacking the prosecutor, (who was appointed by his own justice department) in an effort to delegitimize his report, or attempt to ride it out, relying on a pliable media to make it disappear, it won’t work. They will not only seriously erode their own prospects, but also make them culpable in this disaster. 

Even if you loathe Donald Trump, who by no means is empowered by these conditions, that is not the real choice that has to be made. Indeed it is conceivable, if not likely, that neither man will be on the ballot by November. The problem is more fundamental, and apolitical. We have a President who clearly lacks the cognitive competence to remain in office. We see him further deteriorating before our eyes, as does the entire world, including a number of powerful bad actors. They would be foolish not to seize the opportunity afforded them by a dysfunctional government, and worse, if they do act, we are not in a position to do a damn thing about it. We may further stumble into a war that no one wants, and which we are simply not prepared for. If this situation is not ameliorated soon, there are surely darker days ahead. 


 The likelihood of different presidential candidates in November is increasing. If Biden stetps down and the Supreme Court refuses to consider Trump's immunity claim it all may change.

04 February 2024


 I’ve just gotten back from Aruba, after several days, for the seventh time, because the weather is always perfect there. But as with airline tripS these days, getting to and from any destination is consistently awful. What really infuriated me this time is that I am TSA pre-cleared, paid more for better seats, had lounge access and whatever other insulating perk there are, and still wound up basically enduring  the same lousy experience as everyone else anyway. 

Years ago it used to be pleasant and simple. For example one time I was late for a flight to Chicago on American Airlines, but was able to easily walk over to United Airlines and catch another flight with the same ticket and no fuss. You could go up to a counter anywhere and still get a ticket for an imminently departing flight. There was a lot more comfort and space without any extra charges. There was a time when you could even go to the top of the Pan Am building in New York City and take a New York Airways helicopter flight straight to the airport. Those days are long gone now,  compounded by the massive security apparatus now in place. 

 After countless billions poured into the ridiculously named “Homeland Security” department, It would be one thing if all of the convoluted processes involved actually improved anything, but they clearly don’t. I’m not talking about the non-existent border here, but  just basic safe and convenient travel. This really struck home when I opened my luggage at my hotel and found a box-cutter I’d forgotten about in my carry-on luggage. That should have been readily spotted with all the machinery and personnel deployed, but it wasn’t. Given that was the instrument of of choice for the 9/11 monsters and how much they were able to get away with, I am left wondering if anything works right anymore. What is the point of having to arrive hours before your flight, stand on line to pass through a series of security checkpoints, if in the end it  still can simply be  breached anyway? 

As with so many other aspects of our lives, we have surrendered a significant amount of our personal liberty over the years based upon false promises. Of course we need security, but how about some smart security, with better equipment, that doesn’t require an army of personnel controlling everyone? Security is important, but it is only one consideration among many that could so easily improve this process. Most other businesses strive to maintain good customer satisfaction. Not here. How little attempt has been made to increase comfort and convenience. 

It’s as though passengers are just an afterthought, a given, and without any other real options. Arranging seating to maximize the number of people that can be squeezed into uncomfortable seats shows no consideration for human beings at all. Of course, if you don’t like that you can shell out more money for basically the same seat with just a few more inches of legroom. Worse, how about significant differences in price for passengers purchasing the same seats? 

It’s past time to put together something that could evaluate the system from the standpoint of people first. I’m still astonished at what I thought the future of aviation was going to look like fifty years ago. It should have been indescribably better, but instead it is sadly far worse than we could possibly have imagined.  

20 January 2024


After a couple of relatively mild winters, cold and snow have returned here to the mid-Atlantic USA. People in other places, particularly Europe, and for that matter California, simply don’t grasp how severe weather conditions are in much of this country, and hence how important SUV’s are to a good segment of the population. Or worse, how the present regime doesn’t care and wants to punish people for the rational choices they make thanks to their prevailing ideological lunacy. 

As a result we have been forced to provide billions of dollars in subsidies for wealthier people to purchase electric cars that are virtually useless in these kinds of weather conditions, and will be so for the foreseeable future. Our tax dollars have been further diverted to enrich their green, crony capitalist supporters and at the same time to attack and undermine the basic natural resource industries that created much of the wealth in this country.  Our greatest advantage is our abundance of these materials, which they have done everything possible to discourage and raise the cost of. They are happy with the increased cost of oil even though it permeates our economy and is the most important driver of inflation apart from out-of-control government deficit spending. 

How much more will it take before people fully realize how wrong these charlatans have been and the extent to which their claim to know far more than they actually do know has caused so much needless pain among ordinary people?

In a rational world if a climate problem were perceived and it was decided to “transition” away from fossil fuels that power everything, would it not make sense to do so only when the technology was easily and widely available at minimum additional cost? Would it not make sense to have instead focused on encouraging a truly transitional technology, like hybrids, that are far less disruptive, inconvenient, or costly for people who live in the present world? Would it not make sense to encourage, but not subsidize the development of electric vehicles that simply are not ready for the day to day reality people live with now, and before they are anywhere near as cost-efficient as gas powered vehicles? Is it not possible that in the not -too-distant future even better alternatives may be found, given constant technological change? 

The government has essentially taken control of the American auto industry for years now with disastrous results for those once great companies. Great change only makes sense, and only works if it is developed organically in response to an actual need of the user population. In other words, if something comes along that can run more efficiently, more economically, and less costly than the present mode of transportation it makes sense and is to be welcomed. But when it is something that costs more, not less, provides no real benefit to anyone other than those receiving government funds, and on top of that doesn’t even work as promised it is utter lunacy, and as wrong-headed as every other policy of the current regime.