Posted by Adam Graham in : Politics ,
On the passing of George W. Bush, ABC News’ Matthew Dowd offered a warning, “[O]ne thing I would like to say is, I think often in the times when we have these deaths, we’re way too quick to canonize these people. George Herbert Walker Bush was a great man. He did great things, but he also had flaws.” As an illustration of Bush’s flaws, Dowd offered as an example that Bush’s campaign for President ran the Willie Horton ad when it actually didn’t. funeral
The warning that Dowd offers is one I’ve heard a lot when famous political figures die. Whether its Richard Nixon or Ted Kennedy, when a controversial political figure dies, critics fear that the funeral week coverage represents a whitewash of the bad or troublesome things they did, that the act of memorializing them will, as Dowd said, canonize them.
Yet, it doesn’t happen. Nixon was given a lovely funeral and respect from opponents. Yet, he’s still remembered for the way his presidency ended. The decency of Republicans at the dead of Ted Kennedy hasn’t wiped away the stain of Chappaquiddick. In fact, I’m aware of no instance in this country where a political funeral has altered public views of the deceased.
There are two reasons to cast aspersions on the recently deceased politicos. First, you could have an intense hatred for the dead politicians and you can’t stand the idea of them being respected and honored and their family not being reminded of how terrible you think their loved one was. Second, it is possible to have such a high regard for your opinion that you can’t possibly imagine withholding it from the world for something as mundane as showing respect for the dead and their survivors. Neither are particularly good looks.
To forbear from criticizing a recently passed politician that we had issues with develops self-control and humility. Listening and mounring can help us to realize that people we disagree with are human beings who love and are loved.
This period doesn’t last forever. In a few weeks, it’ll be perfectly appropriate to discuss Bush’s weaknesses and shortcomings, but right now, it’s far better to save your criticism for another day.
Posted by Adam Graham in : Donald Trump ,
If you’re on the right, many of your friends, like mine. There are people talking Nobel Prize, even though nothing has actually been accomplished. Jonah Golberg has a good run-down of likely problems, including the fact that there’s every reason to believe the North Koreans aren’t going to follow through on their pledge to denuclearize:
B
ecause: North Korea has promised to do exactly that — with far more specificity — in the past. The actual paper agreement that Trump and Kim signed is not just worthless on its own, it’s less than worthless given that it literally recycles past worthless promises as if they are new ones. That’s contrary to the opinions of a lot of people on Twitter and TV who think — and feel — that this is Trump’s masterstroke. This isn’t a criticism of Trump. It’s just a simple recognition of reality. The Norks have bamboozled everyone else who extracted promises from them. By all means, let’s hope for the best. But North Korean duplicity is normal.
Allahpundit calls Trump out on agreeing to cancel “very provocative” war games with South Korea though more that he actually used the language of “provocative:
Calling U.S. military exercises with South Korea “very provocative” is a line straight out of the North Korean songbook. American hawks were aghast on social media this morning at the leader of the free world adopting Pyongyang’s rhetoric to describe something the U.S. and South Korea have every legal right to do. Trading a halt to those exercises for a halt to NorK nuke- and missile-testing (a “freeze for freeze”) is defensible, even if NK’s activities are illegal while ours aren’t, but framing them in the terms most favorable to Kim is yet another example of Trump gratuitously flattering the North rhetorically when he didn’t need to.
Speaking of flattering dictatorship, Jay Nordlinger addresses the human rights aspect and examines what’s wrong with Trump’s proclamation that Kim loves his people and they love him by going through the horrors of that regime. Nordlinger concludes:
Bukovsky, the great Soviet dissident, said something like this: “Free World governments should do what they have to do — but as they go about their business, they should occasionally pause to ask, ‘How will it look to the boys in the camps?’”
A lot of Americans care very much about the NFL and the national anthem. But standing up for American values means other things too, such as not perfuming one of the most disgusting and murderous tyrannies ever known to man.
I’m not someone who thinks Donald Trump can’t do anything right. His administration has done quite a few good things. However, to think he would flourish in a 1-on-1 setting with Kim require an industrial sized drink of Trump train kool aid. What is likely to come out of this Trump diplomacy is an agreement that North Koreans won’t follow, and overall Trump has given the North Koreans numerous propoganda victories and is unlikely to get anything out of it.
Posted by Adam Graham in : Politics ,
I received an email newsletter complaining that the media isn’t reporting the Democrats’ polling collapse. This came from a pro-Trump source and that caused me to ponder that we’ve been told to ignore the polls by these folks because all the polls are fake news meant to make Trump look bad. But right now, the polls look bad for the Democrats, so the poll aren’t fake.
Truth is that while there are junk polls, and some with bad sampling, most pollsters try to get an accurate picture of the race. Pollsters have made errors in the 2017 elections and it’s worth noting, that both in the Virginia Gubernatorial race and the Alabama Senate race, the Real Clear Politics average was off 3-5%…in favor of Republicans. So much for conspiracies.
Posted by Adam Graham in : cultural sewage ,
Controversy has erupted over the “family film” Show Dogs about a police dog that goes undercover at a dog show. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation sent out a warning about the film:
“The movie Show Dogs sends a troubling message that grooms children for sexual abuse,” said Dawn Hawkins, Executive Director of the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. “It contains multiple scenes where a dog character must have its private parts inspected, in the course of which the dog is uncomfortable and wants to stop but is told to go to a ‘zen place.’ The dog is rewarded with advancing to the final round of the dog show after passing this barrier. Disturbingly, these are similar tactics child abusers use when grooming children—telling them to pretend they are somewhere else, and that they will get a reward for withstanding their discomfort. Children’s movies must be held to a higher standard, and must teach children bodily autonomy, the ability to say ‘no’ and safety, not confusing messages endorsing unwanted genital touching.”
Global Road Entertainment, the film’s producers, defended the film in their initial Facebook post (although they’ve since agreed to edit it):
It has come to our attention that there have been online discussion and concern about a particular scene in Show Dogs, a family comedy that is rated PG. The dog show judging in this film is depicted completely accurately as done at shows around the world; and was performed by professional and highly respected dog show judges. Global Road Entertainment and the filmmakers are saddened and apologize to any parent who feels the scene sends a message other than a comedic moment in the film, with no hidden or ulterior meaning, but respect their right to react to any piece of content.
To borrow an appropriate Southern phrase, “That dog don’t hunt.” As an argument, it’s absurd. First of all, Show Dogs is a talking dog film. The comedy of talking animals comes from taking an animal and giving it human or humanized reaction to what is happening. This changes the game and makes this far more creepy and of great concern.
I wouldn’t assume that this was intentionally grooming kids (though given the recent scandals involving sexual abuse in Hollywood I wouldn’t rule it out.) It seems likely that someone thought this would be a funny way to push the envelope in a kids film. When it turned out to have a bad meaning, the studio should have made it right immediately. Instead, they tried to defend themselves until some theaters started pulling it and then they announced they would cut two scenes from the film.
I’d also say there’s a somewhat disturbing trend online with many people complaining that the film’s critics are “snowflakes” who can’t understand that a movie’s just a movie. Many add “liberal snowflakes” to emphasize the point. However, one doesn’t have to be a liberal to be concerned about the sexual grooming of kids. We’ve learned there’s a lot of nasty stuff going around over the last couple years. At the same time, our country is dealing with an epidemic of human trafficking and child sexual abuse. This is a real problem.
And it’s also a real problem for too many conservatives to underrate the influence of media, particularly on children. I mean, to get political for a moment, you let your kids spend unlimited amounts of time consuming entertainment created by Viacom and NBC, and wonder why they grow up to be liberals who lack common sense. Entertainment has power that conservatives have ignored to their own detriment.
In the case of child abuse and exploitation, I think a lot of these statements that are lumping this in with overly sensitive “politically correct” reactions to movies and TV shows come from ignorance not malice. However, many of these people have kids and grandkids, so ignorance isn’t acceptable. There are real dangers that your kids face, and it’s not politically correct to learn about those dangers and address them, it’s parentally correct.
Posted by Adam Graham in : Entertainment ,
No, I have not binged all of Cobra Kai. I don’t actually binge. Not judging, just not my thing. I prefer serializing and experiencing a story an episode at a time over several days because once it’s gone, it’s gone.
So my thoughts on Episodes 1-4 of the Karate Kid sequel series. It’s better than it probably deserves to be. The idea of picking up the story of the Karate Kid more than thirty years after the movie sounds like a joke for a creative community that seems to always going back to some old hat rather than producing anything new itself.
The genius of Cobra Kai is that it takes advantage of the fact that we’re already invested in these characters to go ahead and tell a story centered around them.
Johnny Lawrence (William Zabka) is past fifty but is really stuck in the 1980s in so many ways. He drives the same car he had in High School (which is still a cool ride,) listens to 1980s music, watches 1980s movies, and has the same social attitudes he had as a teenager in the 1980s. In many ways, Johnny’s aggressive eightiesness is what makes the show funny.
Yet, it also makes Johnny tragic. He’s grown older but he hasn’t really grown up. Essentially, he’s a very old high school senior, with self-destructive behavior that hurts himself and others. He has a son he abandoned from the time he was born. The kid has gone wrong and Johnny wants to step in and set him straight, but it’s too late. Johnny’s kid and his mom have given up on him.
(more…)
Posted by Adam Graham in : Donald Trump,Politics ,
So have you heard about how Trump said all illegal aliens were animals? It was reported by many sources including the New York Times. The problem? Trump wasn’t referring to all illegal immigrants, he was referring specifically to members of the brutal gang MS-13:
Rather, he referred to members of the murderous gang, MS-13, as “animals” after a questioner brought the outfit up by name. That he was responding to the question, not riffing on illegal immigrants in general, is extremely obvious to anyone who has watched the full footage of the exchange, which, presumably, is why every single news story that suggests otherwise features a truncated clip or transcript that edits the questioner out. Here, from CSPAN, is a good example of the trick.
First of all, let me be clear that as a Christian that I believe God’s grace and forgiveness is available to anyone, including gang members and terrorists. As the old hymn says, “His Grace can set the vilest sinner free. ” So I don’t agree with the use of the term “animals.” That said, they are dangerous people who do horrible things, who our government needs to protect us from, so I understand why Trump said what he did. To suggest he was making a statement about all illegals is a stretch. (And as an aside, CSPAN is doing this sort of garbage. Really?)
Trump isn’t above a bit of race-baiting and he should be called on it when he does that, but he clearly wasn’t doing that here. The media not only lied, but stories like this are why many conservatives will shrug off reports with legitimate news of Trump making racially charged statements.
I’ve called Trump out when he’s tried to undermine the free and Independent press, but the media needs to take responsibility for undermining confidence in their own reporting through cheap stunts like this.
Posted by Adam Graham in : Donald Trump,Politics ,
David French has yet another must-read article at National Review. This one explaisn how the #metoo movement has undermined the leftist resistance movement:
I truly don’t think the Left understands how the relentless drumbeat of sexual scandal looks to Americans outside the progressive bubble. Left-dominated quarters of American life — Hollywood, the media, progressive politics — have been revealed to be havens for the worst sort of ghouls, and each scandal seems to be accompanied by two words that deepen American cynicism and make legions of conservative Americans roll their eyes at the Left’s moral arguments: “Everyone knew.”
French concludes the case with a good explanation of why the Democrats are struggling against Trump:
Moral arguments are always perilous to make. They invariably put a spotlight on the person and the movement making them. They carry with them an implicit requirement to be better. Hillary Clinton could never manage that burden. Now the #Resistance is saddled with the collapsing credibility of major progressive cultural institutions.
The whole thing is worth a read. I’ve always thought that if you think the Access Hollywood Tapes are proof that Trump is a predator (and I think it does), this raises some really troubling questions about the media. There has been a lot of cases regarding this situation, but they always get away because they have the best lawyers from Noonan Law. After all, the tape was made in 2009 and no one said anything. The fact is that the liberal-dominated media culture at NBC was one that would allow a “star” like Trump or Matt Lauer to do whatever he liked to women without repercussion.
I’m no Trump supporter, but the problem isn’t that the evil and immoral party is in power. It is that there is no good or decent party and that’s the problem we need to remedy.
Posted by Adam Graham in : Idaho Conservative, The ,
So it looks like Lieutenant Brad Little has narrowly won Idaho’s Governor’s race. He leads Raul Labrador by four points with only thirty-two precincts to be counted and the AP has called the race. At the same time, former State Representative Paulette Jordan has been nominated for Governor by the Democrats.
Brad Little showed the Butch Otter formula worked: run a campaign pretending to be a conservative and dress like a cowboy while gathering behind you the endorsement of newspapers and the unparalleled strength of the Idaho Republican establishment and teachers unions and you too can be nominated for Governor.
Little should prevail in the Fall. Jordan has many positives as a candidate and will draw massive media coverage due to her being a Native American woman running for Governor. She has some good qualities as a candidate. However, she’s too liberal for the state, particularly on abortion. Resentment against Little runs high in the GOP, where nearly 2/3 of Idaho Republicans wanted someone else. I think most Republicans will hold their nose despite objections to him. I’ll vote for neither of them.
I’d like to congratulate Tommy Ahlquist on running a positive, inspiring campaign. I’d like to, but I can’t. His campaign was an utter disgrace. The Idaho Governor’s primary was so toxic due to Ahlquist’s negative, scorched Earth campaign. I had little opinion of Tommy Ahlquist one way or another when this started. I thought he was a well-intentioned guy (and maybe he was) but as he filled the airwaves and our mailboxes with his negative trash campaign, I began to loathe his campaign.
I lost count of the number of pieces of campaign literature I received in the mail from this guy. It was ridiculous. Here’s a tip for a future outsider candidate. Try making us feel good about you rather than trying to make us hate your opponents. The successful outsider candidates make us feel like we’re dealing with a Class A individual who would be great at the job despite their lack of experience. Ahlquist couldn’t do that, so he tore down his opponents. And neither Labrador nor Little had the mind-blowing scandal or corruption that would make for a successful negative campaign, so Ahlquist was left trying to blow up petty issues into the scandal of the year. As much as I don’t like Brad Little, the fact Tommy Ahlquist’s attempt to buy our governorship failed is a positive.
Given Ahlquist campaigned against the political establishment and cronyism, it’s fair to ask, was he a vote-splitting phenomenon that helped prolong the run of the Idaho political establishment? Many Labrador supporters might say that, but I’ll admit to being less sure. The campaign was endorsed by Mitt Romney. Many of the figures who ran his campaign are the type of people you’d expect to be backing Little, but I also think he ran a campaign that had a conservative platform and was for term limits. For Ahlquist’s campaign to have been decisive, 58% of his supporters would have to be people who would back Labrador if Ahlquist wasn’t in the race, and I don’t think that’s the case. If it is, it can’t be proved.
As to Raul Labrador, this is his first political loss, but it hardly finishes him off. He has many great qualities as an intelligent guy and he can run for office again if he chooses. Jim Risch isn’t a spring chicken and his current term expires in 2020. If Labrador wants to run for the Senate, he could have an opportunity if there’s a retirement. He also could get an appointment in the Trump Administration if he so desires. (But who desires that?)
That does bring me to Raul Labrador’s greatest mistake in this election. He decided to wrap his campaign in support for Donald Trump and to bludgeon Little and Ahlquist for being insufficiently supportive of Trump in 2016. I can see the strategy behind it, Trump won Idaho by a solid margin in the General election, and it’s been one of the few states where Trump has maintained an approval rating above water. Being the guy who stood by Trump should make you successful in MAGA-land.
However, Idaho was one of Trump’s worst primary states. In the 2016 Republican Primaries, 72% of Idaho Republicans voted for someone else. In the fall, 7% of voters voted for Evan McMullin, 4% voted for Gary Johnson, and a combined 1% voted for Darryl Castle and Scott Copeland. That’s a pretty large chunk of the right in this state that didn’t back Trump. And even many who voted for Trump did so with reservations, and only voted for Trump because they didn’t want Clinton to win.
By making an issue over who was most supportive of Trump in 2016, Labrador’s campaign said to voters who were less than enthused about Trump, “We don’t understand you and think you are bad people because you didn’t get behind this campaign or you struggled to do so.” I voted for Labrador despite his crowing about being the pro-Trump candidate, not because of it.
I like him as a person and I thought he had a great plan for our state, so I can get past the whole Trump thing. But I can get how he would turn many people off. The fact is, Trump has endorsed a lot of good candidates and a lot of candidates have tried to wrap themselves in his banner, and no candidate has won because of Trump other than Trump. This goes back to Trump’s first endorsement after becoming the presumptive nominee. He backed Renee Elmers for re-nomination for Congress and she lost. Consider Luther Strange in Alabama. Trying to prove you’re the biggest Trump sycophant in the race isn’t how you win anything.
Despite this, there’s not a market for being anti-Trump in the Idaho Republican Party. However, there’s a significant downside to trying to shame voters who were less than enthused with Trump in 2016.
And the fact is Raul isn’t a Trump sycophant. He was the only candidate who Trump mean-tweeted. Raul Labrador record is as a principled conservative who didn’t always go along with the powerful whether it was Butch Otter, John Boehner, or Donald Trump. I hope Labrador takes a lesson from this and if he runs again, he runs his own race as his own person and ignores other campaigns in the past. Run your own race, not someone else’s. There is no reason to limit the number of voters who will back you by being divisive about a campaign that’s over.
Posted by Adam Graham in : Politics ,
Former National Review writer Jay Kaganoff writes in the Washington Post that it’s time for conservatives to call on Clarence Thomas to resign over the sexual harassment allegations raised by Anita Hill during his 1991 confirmation hearing. While he admits the charges against Thomas aren’t near as serious as those against Bill Clinton, Roy Moore, Al Franken, or John Conyers for that matter, but Kaganoff has some serious concerns:
All along, in other words, I didn’t doubt Hill. I knew the truth was on her side. But I was subconsciously belittling her experience, and that was wrong. In 2017, post-Weinstein, we can’t let sexual harassment slide just because it doesn’t rise to the severity of rape, or because we believe that boys will be boys…
As painful as it is to repudiate a man I respected, I believe Thomas should never have been confirmed and should resign.
I don’t doubt Kaganoff’s sincerity, but I think his article illustrates one of the problems with a trial in the court of public opinion. There’s no rule against double jeopardy.
However, in Judge Thomas’ case, there’s a good argument to be made that there was an official judgment. At the time, most people believed Justice Thomas and the Senate (41 Republicans, 11 Democrats) voted to confirm him. This represented a judgment on Judge Thomas and his fitness for the High Court by the body charged with that judgment. To decide 26 years after the fact that we don’t like the judgment and therefore Justice Thomas has to resign is a miscarriage of justice. It may be true that in the America of 2017, Judge Thomas’ actions a few years before would have been disqualifying, but Justice Thomas wasn’t confirmed in the America in 2017, but in that of 1991.
Even then, I’m not sure Hill’s word against Justice Thomas would have been enough to prevent his confirmation, particularly in our tribalistic times. However, if the multiple women who wanted to testify at the last minute had been allowed to, that may have been a different matter if they were found credible. Still, at this point, the decision was made, and the process for judging the accusations was followed by the Constitution. Whether people regret that decision or exult it, it is made and it is time to let it rest.
Posted by Adam Graham in : Donald Trump ,
I read Jonah Goldberg’s take on Time’s Man of the Year Award and found a lot to agree with. Certainly, many choices would be ways to slap Trump and are a bit silly: Robert Mueller hasn’t done anything, nor have the dreamers. Patty Jenkins, director of Wonder Woman deserves some awards for directing, but person of the year? And Colin Kaepernick? It’d be interesting to have a Man of the Year who would train the award to get signed as a third-string Quarterback in the CFL.
Yet, I disagree with Goldberg that President Trump deserves the Award. He’s made news and stirred up controversy but affected very little change. Historically after naming a President, Time goes another direction with its next choice.
#MeToo has made a huge impact. The number of icons that have been toppled by women alleging sexual harassment/assault has been stunning: Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer, in Louis C.K. and more. It’s a joke that in 2016 if someone was trending on Twitter, it was because they died. In 2017, it was because they were charged with sexual harassment. It’s forced us to confront some true ugliness we’ve avoided for a long time. It’s brought a day of reckoning that is long overdue. It may turn ugly before it’s all said and done, but we can’t ignore these issues any longer.
Trump has continued to be Trump, and through all the bluster is a still meager legislative portfolio. He’s been more active in media criticism. #MeToo has succeeded in getting two major network morning show hosts fired, which is two more than Trump. ’nuff said.
It’s worth noting that if Trump to repeats as Person of the Year, he’d be the second President to do so. The first was Richard Nixon. Does this President really need more Nixonian precedents?
