Right Wing Fighter

Month: March, 2016

Tom Sietsema: Trump eats like a commoner

In what I consider a bizarre article, Tom Sietsema attacks Trump for…eating at McDonald’s and other fast food joints. Here are a few quotes:

The world is his oyster, but that’s not what he’s consuming. The front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination eats like a teenage boy, inhaling Filets-O-Fish and Big Macs. “It’s great stuff,” he says of his fast-food habit. At a time when growing, cooking and enjoying food in the United States is yooooge, his preferences are surprisingly pedestrian – and passe, as if Alice Waters had never been born and food were fuel (albeit dirty gas as opposed to premium).

So, at a time when we’re all playing the part of cutesy organic self-sufficiency farmer, Trump is eating, *shudder*, passe food! Now, I would usually just write this off as a joke, but this kind of blather continues for several pages. I’ll link to the article at the end, but for now here are some more quotes:

Breakfast is his least favorite meal of the day, and if he indulges, he prefers bacon and eggs, or cornflakes “right out of the fields of Iowa,” […] Lunch might be eaten at his desk. “My big thing is dinner.” That’s when, he has revealed in various Q&As, he likes pasta, second helpings of potatoes au gratin and the aforementioned steak, which, unlike any serious eater, he wants cooked so thoroughly that “it would rock on the plate,” according to what his longtime butler at the Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach told the New York Times.

So in short he eats what ordinary Americans eat, right? And what, exactly, is so bad about that? Pasta, steak, bacon and eggs. Sometimes I wonder if these elitists wandered in from fairy land. Do they think: (A): that the American people actually care about what a candidate eats? (B): that Americans will recoil from Trump in shock to find out he doesn’t eat like some fifth generation patrician?

Trump, like millions of Americans, approaches food as a way to stoke the internal engine, and not much more. Trump eats for fuel, not for the pleasure of consumption. Hence all the protein in his diet: steak, hamburgers, bacon and eggs. Trump is essentially a worker, and work needs fuel. Lolling around a table, sipping wine and trying to wring flavor out of steaks is what artsy people do. Moreover, complaining that other people don’t do those things is also what artsy people do.

Otherwise, his prosaic taste informs his empire. The dining venues within his Trump Tower in Manhattan are less than trumptastic, according to the critics at Eater New York. A bacon cheeseburger from a steam table in the Trump Cafe was reviewed as “way overcooked, real prison food,” while a crepe from the Trump Ice Cream Parlor was finished with Reddi-Wip and Hershey’s chocolate syrup, pedestrian garnishes at odds with “the luxury pretenses of the tower.”

“Prosaic taste,” “pedestrian garnishes,” that’s the lingo of a snob. It’s funny how Trump has brought the snobs out in droves. They used to couch their opinions, but with Trump they show their true scorn for both him and the millions, in this case, of Americans that eat like him. And it’s true of many other cases as well. Now there are writers saying that Trump is illiterate, and so *sigh* are his followers. There are writers saying that Trump is just theater, and his followers are *sigh* just theater goers. I wonder if these pathetic elites ever see themselves in the mirror and see how off base they are. They are out of touch with the world around them. Basically, they are sitting on their own little Mount Olympus, casting down their scorn on we mere mortals that must walk the prosaic steps of ordinary man.

To continue reading the article, here is the link:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0316/trump_food.php3

Advertisements

Strategic Deportation

Strategic deportation is simply deporting the biggest and loudest illegal aliens to send a signal to other illegals. Basically, you deport the loud activists that clamor all day long about their right to be here. Once you do that, you’ve shown that no illegal is above the law, and that they all will be deported. Once that message sinks in, the illegals begin deporting themselves. This makes enforcement much easier.

Voter ID: a ramble

I’d like to take a moment to ramble through the various objections the left has to voter ID laws. I’ll list their objections with an O, and my answers with an A:

O: Voter ID laws disenfranchise voters.
A: How? If a person can get a driver’s license, he has all the ID he needs. If he’s disabled or has some other reason he can’t drive, then he can get a state ID card. In my state, ID cards for voting are free, so even the poorest people can get them in order to vote.

O: Voter ID laws target minorities.
A: Again, how? There is no racial litmus test for an ID card. And since anyone can get an ID card, how can it possible be discriminatory? Answer: it can’t, but a lie gets around the world before the truth gets its pants on.

O: There is no voter fraud, so why make people prove who they are when they vote?
A: It’s a lie to say there is no voter fraud. Everyone with common sense knows it exists and is practiced all across the country. There are hundreds of anecdotes of voter fraud each election. But the leftists like to pretend it doesn’t exist because there are very few legally documented cases of it: i.e., very few people get charged with voter fraud. It is difficult to make a voter fraud charge stick, so for the most part charges aren’t made and the body of people sent to prison for it is small. The left likes to cite this small number as proof that voter fraud doesn’t exist, but it is only proof of the difficulty of enforcing election law.

Trump wins Arizona, Utah still counting

As of this moment, Trump has won Arizona and Utah is still counting votes. Arizona is a winner-take-all state, so all of its 58 delegates go to Trump.

I took a look at Wikipedia’s article on the 2016 Republican Primary, and it looks like the majority of the next primaries are either winner-take-all or winner-take-most. That should favor Trump since he has more popular support. Hopefully he can seal up the nomination before the convention.

The Evils of Globalism

Globalist economics, is an environment of government policies that put very little restriction on commerce. It essentially makes for an economic free-for-all that benefits the most able, whilst leaving weaker people to fend for themselves at a disadvantage. Basic justice requires that the government reject globalism and put in place policies that will protect those weaker members.

The U.S. wasn’t originally economically globalistic. Starting with our first Treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, the U.S. had nationalistic economic policies which protected our industries by placing tariffs on foreign goods. Additionally, we had immigration laws that limited the admission of foreigners to protect our workers from cheap labor. There were changes of course, particularly in immigration laws; but the overall philosophy of the U.S. government for over a century and a half was economic nationalism.

Globalism didn’t really catch hold until the middle of the 20th century, when several presidents sought to use our economy to fight the Soviet Union. The idea, for one, was that by opening our economy to other nations, we could entwine them with us, and thus prevent them from allying with the Soviets. Additionally, in the case of China specifically, Richard Nixon sought to entwine their economy and ours so that we could have sway over them.

The Cold War didn’t cause globalism in the U.S., rather it simply enabled it. Business has always been impatient with regulations, and the Red Threat gave them a pretext to eliminate many of them. By pleading that any regulation would lead to socialism, business was able to get the middle class to back down on regulations which protected it. Even today, business still pleads that any regulation will lead to a top-down economy. This explains why so many free trade and free market think tanks are funded by the very wealthiest people in the country: they are maintaining an army of deregulation advocates to keep their money moving freely.

It may seem curious that nearly thirty years after the end of the Cold War, the middle class has not reversed these policies. These policies are patently destructive to the middle class, so why haven’t they been changed?

It may sound strange, but it is because the middle class is too weak. The middle class makes up the majority of the people. The middle class is praised in song and story, in speeches and in movies, as the ideal social class. For decades politicians have praised middle class values, such as honesty and hard work, as the bedrock of America. Since the middle class is so universally praised, how can they be so powerless? The answer: concentration of strength.

Concentration of strength is an old and true doctrine of success. Unless you can bring sufficient force to a specific point, it is impossible to win. The ancient Romans were able to control millions of people in Europe with an army that never exceeded 400,000 men because their legions were concentrations of incredible strength. The subjugated peoples on the other hand were disorganized and disunited, and thus bore the Roman yoke for centuries. Because the rich can individually bring vast wealth to a very small point, for instance, the congressional campaign of a single candidate by simply writing a check, they have great influence in government. But the middle class would have to band their modest means together to have enough money to influence individual politicians. Until such organization exists, the middle class will be mostly unrepresented in government.

This is one reason why diversity is endlessly advocated. Diversity, despite the propaganda, is weakness and not strength. Oil and water do not mix precisely because they are different; yet oil mixes with oil, and water with water. Things mix with their own kind, and one of the goals of diversity is to keep the middle class divided by creating a mass of foreigners in America that will make organization more difficult and thus less likely. This may sound like something that would require a vast conspiracy, but all it requires is that immigration continues at high numbers. Just keep admission levels high, and the immigrants will bring themselves, no expense required. And since they are largely coming from the non-European third-world, they will serve to divide the country because of their cultural and religious difference from traditional America. Diversity is a tactic to divide and conquer.

Because middle class wealth consists largely of their homes and cars, they are unable to protect themselves from economic troubles like recessions, depressions, and simple slow downs. In any of these cases, the wealthiest can simply shuffle their wealth to different parts of the world, since a great deal of it consists of fluid assets, such as stocks and money. The middle class cannot simply sell their house and car for cash and invest it in Japanese toy manufacturers. They have to use most of their assets for simple everyday living, and thus must whether the economic storms that come.

Additionally, since the chief source of middle class income is their jobs, they are at great risk of bankruptcy if their job sector is outsourced to other countries or under-sold by immigrant labor. For these reasons, a globalist economic model easily can put the middle class in peril because it can cut their sole lifeline. Whatever small investments they may have will be too small to do them any good. Under an economic model that does not guard the middle class, immigration and outsourcing will take their jobs, and thus members of the middle class will be financially destroyed. This is not some prediction of the future. It is already happening in our manufacturing sector, where millions of jobs have gone over seas, and formerly middle class cities like Detroit have become shells of their past selves.

Globalism allows the smartest, the most ingenious, to amass vast fortunes, whilst at the same time it does little to protect the wealth or even the job security of the middle class. Most of the wealthiest in America are either barons of production or barons of investment. Proper regulations to protect the middle class would hamper their economic freedom of movement and inadvertently prevent them from building such vast fortunes, and thus they oppose it. This is why the wealthy are committed to globalism: because under a global economy, the number of consumers vastly increases, and thus those in a position to sell to the consumers of the world have a much broader market to sell in.

Our government should be focused on protecting and growing the middle class, which is the spine and strength of any nation. Making an environment in which the middle class is unprotected so that a small handful can make unimaginable wealth is wrong. The government, by doing so, is betraying the interests of the nation, and of the majority of the people. One of the historic mainstays of the United States has been its large middle class. If it is allowed to wither down, and thus produce a nation of poor people and very rich people, our civic strength, elasticity, and vigor will be sapped, and it will take no strong wind to push us over.

Public Schools should become preparatory schools

Education in this country has become a laughing-stock. We spend billions of dollars on education, so why do we have such lousy results? Because schools are trying to teach too much.

A good school would teach technical skills, reading, writing, mathematics up to algebra 1, solid history of the US with an overview of world history, an overview of science and biology, an overview of geography, and that’s about it. Schools should also be patriotic. There should be no more nonsense about the US being just another country. It should be taught that it is our country and that we have a responsibility to love it.

Many of our schools are failing on even the most basic level: technical skills. They aren’t teaching the three Rs with any real ability, and that is the first thing that must be reformed. Above all else, the three Rs are needed to build knowledge. Without them education is impossible. Schools must make this their first priority.

Second, we must end this stupid doctrine of jamming students with any and all knowledge. We all know that we use a fraction of what we learn in school. Everything else that is learned but unused is a waste of effort and money. Schools should teach only necessary skills, meaning reading, writing, and math, a solid curriculum of American history, and beyond that, more general knowledge of the other topics listed above, like science. School should not be regarded as a professional teach-it-all learning center for life. It should be preparatory only. For specific learning students can go to tech schools, colleges, and the like.

One of the reasons that students hate school is they know they are mostly wasting their time. A student that hates science knows he’ll never pursue a career that is science-dominant. So why jam his head with stuff he’ll never use? He recognizes the stupidity of it, but he just has to go along with it. Students absolutely love to learn what they are interested in, but they hate to learn what they are uninterested in. Since school is universally hated by students, this should give an idea how off base schools are in what they are teaching.

This is not to say that students should be in charge of the curriculum. But education authorities should know that interests don’t change very much with age. What the youth hates, the adult will usually hate too. Since nobody succeeds in a line of work that he hates, and since that line of work is typically avoided, there is no point in teaching what is going to be avoided like the plague.

As I said above, public school should be preparatory. It should give students the tools to learn, plus give them a solid idea of what the world is like. It should not get involved in teaching specific lines of knowledge except history. History is essential to a citizen but generally useless in a job. Thus this is one line of knowledge that the government should ensure is taught, since simple economics wont ensure that it is taught.

But for most every other line of education, like science and biology, public schools should teach them only generally. These lines are essential to, say, a physicist or a doctor. But they are utterly useless to a policeman or a mechanic. These sorts of topics should be taught as part of a career-specific education, and not be part of the common routine of schooling.

There are in fact two reasons for this. First, as noted above, people only use a fraction of what they learn in school. But secondly, people learn much, much more effectively if they have a real world reason to learn. Say a guy wants to become a doctor: he’ll have a real world reason to learn biology. But say another guy wants to be a lawyer. Biology is useless to him, and he’ll have to drag himself through it. Nothing motivates people to learn like a practical, real world goal. Under the present system of jamming facts into unwilling heads, students end up hating most of the process, take much longer to learn, and end up with an education half of which they can’t even use. Most of these kids don’t have any idea what they want to do with their lives, and thus have no motive to learn. They should thus be given a preparatory education like I’ve outlined above. After that, they should be free to pursue what career they will, and to learn the advanced knowledge needed for that career.

This will produce a number of good results. First, the goal of making lifelong learners will have a chance of being attained. Instead of souring people on education by bludgeoning them with facts, they’ll see education as something that they can actually benefit from. Don’t doubt the poisoning effect that this style of schooling has on people. When people learn to hate learning because their school life was so miserable, it sours them on education overall. If you want to talk about ending life long learning, that’ll likely do it.

Second, it makes schooling much more effective. The present model is to teach facts whether or not they’ll be used. By making education career-oriented, it’ll trim the fat and wasted effort off of education. Instead of teaching information with the hope that the students will run into a career that needs those facts, education will be driven by what is actually needed in a given career. This is a big reason why so many people aren’t career ready in this country. Our current public school model can’t hope to teach career specific knowledge, but yet it gobbles up all the years of young adulthood in mostly frivolous teaching. The result is adults who can’t get more than a job flipping burgers without going to college or a tech school. Thus, just when they should be able to step into a career, they have to go back to school again just to be able to work! And what does that involve? Four years at college and thousands of dollars of debt usually. So, once they hit, say, 23, they can start work they could have done at 18 if public schooling hadn’t wasted all that time.

This plan will meet with a lot of opposition of course. First, there will be the teachers whose jobs will be threatened by cutting down how much public schools teach. We’ll have to develop some remedy for them so they can keep working. Perhaps changing the education model will open up new teaching jobs as vocational teachers instead of general knowledge teachers. Perhaps they’ll have to change careers altogether. In that case, we can give them, ironically enough, educational vouchers to help pay for new career training. In anywise, it is not my intention to leave them out in the cold.

Second, there is a group of people that think learning consists of filling the mind with facts. They actually don’t think of education in terms of what you can do with what you’ve learned. Instead, they consider it something of a spiritual exercise in broadening the mind. Of course, some people do derive keen pleasure from gaining knowledge for its own sake. But most people don’t, and education for the majority of people must be shaped to serve the majority. Most people want to learn so they can act, and education must serve that end. In short, it must be career oriented.

Third, some members of the educational establishment have gotten a lot of power from the current system and wouldn’t want it to go away. They are pretty well insulated via cozy relationships with politicians and bureaucrats and thus would get in the way of reform. In short, there are people that get power from the status quo. They’d fight to keep things as they are, raise hosannas to the present system, and all the while work behind the scenes in government to keep reform off the table. So as usual reform would be a grassroots effort. It would take some effort to get a reform movement going, but I think it is perfectly doable. All it really takes is intelligence and the will to keep at it.

Our current system of public schooling is a mess and a failure. It needs to change for the sake of the students themselves, but also for the country generally. We can’t succeed as a country if the individuals that make it up are being poorly taught. We also can’t grow nearly as well if those same individuals dislike education because of their school years. Additionally, we’re waste billions of dollars because of the inefficiency of our current system. With all the debt the states and the federal government have accumulated, we need to cut waste where we find it. Thus not just education, but also state and federal budgets are involved in this too. For all those reasons, and more still that I haven’t listed, we need to change our schooling system.

George Will, Snob, as usual


In yet another of George Will’s forays into voter education, he puts his snobbery front and center in the very first sentence:

“Donald Trump’s distinctive rhetorical style — think of a drunk with a bullhorn reading aloud James Joyce’s “Finnegans Wake” under water — poses an almost insuperable challenge to people whose painful duty is to try to extract clarity from his effusions.”

Ah, “insuperable.” I bet Will felt pretty smart using that word. Of course, I doubt he ever doesn’t feel like he’s smart.

I personally don’t get snobs. Do they think we’ll be overawed by their style of superiority? Or do they just have such contempt for us that they can’t help themselves? Like they view us as such poor, stupid people, that they just can’t bother themselves to make an actual argument? That could be it. They don’t respect us and just try to overawe us.

“Death of the West” and other garbage

There are a lot of people on the alternative right that talk about the death of the west as if it were some kind of certainty or something that has already happened. Part of the problem of this is that they overuse analogies. An analogy can be useful to a point and then begin to be destructive. By treating the West as though it were a person, they imagine that they see a cycle of babbling youth just after the fall of the Roman Empire; chaotic young adulthood in the medieval period; settled middle age during the Renaissance; and finally the senility of old age in the Enlightenment, and subsequent death in our time.

This is baloney because civilizations are not people. Every generation of people that are born represent a refreshening of civilization with new growth. Civilization is an aggregate thing. In short, it is a group. It is a mistake to try to understand groups by treating them as a single person. Groups and individuals are different, and where they differ you will have error.

There is no doubt to me that the West is in trouble. But it is not because of some cycle of life. This is not some period of mandatory death because we’ve gotten too old as a civilization.

Trump can beat Clinton

A lot of Trump’s professional detractors like to cite polls that show Clinton beating The Donald. Polls that are being taken eight months away from an election have no credibility at all. Heck, polls a month before an election are typically meaningless. Remember Romney’s poll bump after his first debate with Obama? It showed him edging out Obama by a point or two. Romney still lost the election by four points.

In Wisconsin, former governor Tommy Thompson ran for senate and was about 11 points ahead of his opponent according to several polls. He lost the election by 5.5%, or a swing of something like 16 points.

Polls are very useful, but must be used with care. They tell you what people are thinking right now, and not what they’ll be thinking  even a few weeks from now. They definitely tell you nothing about what they’ll be thinking eight months from now! These commenters know this of course, but they are trying to shape politics and not accurately comment on it.

New poll: Trump at 49.7% with Republicans

There is a new Reuters poll that has Trump at 49.7% with Republicans. So much for all that “expert” talk about his 25% ceiling, 30% ceiling, and 38% ceiling. As usual, the “experts” weren’t commenting on politics, they were trying to shape it. These guys are mostly either paid shills or in the bag for some ideology. Their opinions on how politics will turn out can’t be trusted most of the time.