The big advantage Trump has going into 2020 is that in 2016, the Dems said Trump was racist/the next Hitler/not to be trusted with the nuclear “button.” Four years from now, people will see that there are no pogroms, no concentration camps, no nuclear war, and Trump will have all the advantages that incumbent presidents normally have.
How Trump could lose, besides health problems, is if the repeal of Obamacare becomes a mess and PR disaster, there’s some international crisis that Trump appears not to handle well, or there’s a recession and Trump is unable to deflect blame to the previous administration. Or if Trump’s enemies manage to manufacture some scandal that sticks.
According to CNN, “Six police officers were injured and 217 protesters arrested after they smashed windows, damaged cars and threw rocks at police near Donald Trump’s inauguration ceremony on Friday in Washington.”
Liberals fretted about how Trump supporters would be violent if Trump lost, I guess they were projecting onto Trump supporters how their own people behave.
* * *
prolier than thou writes in a comment:
The dominance of the left-wing media narrative is really frustrating. Because right-wing people tend to be law-abiding, they don’t riot when politicians they dislike enter office. If they did, of course they would have been dismissed as racist thugs. But when it’s Obama supporters then it is proof of how ‘divisive’ Trump is.
The LA Times has updated its anti-adblock popup to defeat even the Brave Browser.
Hard to believe it has finally happened. Trump is the President of the United States, and Obama is just some guy living in a mansion in Kalorama with a newly-built imposing brick wall surrounding it.
The mainstream media didn’t like his speech and said it wasn’t a uniting speech, when in fact the speech was devoid of issues, he didn’t even mention immigration. It was an attack on the Washington establishment, but for 95% of people watching the speech on television who aren’t part of the establishment, whether they are well-off or poor, regardless of their race, could see themselves as among the Americans who Trump promises to help. Trumpism is a big tent in which everyone is welcome except for the mainstream media, Washington politicians and government bureaucrats. Trumpism is far superior to the pre-Trump Republican Party which was a small tent in which you weren’t welcome if you were pro-choice or for various other sins against TruCon orthodoxy.
Many of the museums in New York City are ridiculously crowded. New York is a big tourist destination, and the tourists want to see all of the famous museums, like the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA), or the American Museum of Natural History. If you are looking for a quieter museum, check out the New York Historical Society or the Brooklyn Museum. And the Cloisters, although not undiscovered, are more out of the way and thus less crowded than the main Met.
Other than MoMA ($25) or the Whitney ($22), most museums that have a required admission charge less than the cost of a movie ticket, so visiting museums is very affordable. I highly recommended visiting MoMa on Friday evenings from 4 to 8 when the admission is free.
A big secret for visiting the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), the Metropolitan Museum of Art (including the Cloisters) and the Brooklyn Museum is that they charge suggested donations. I only give a dollar; theoretically you could give a penny or even demand free admission, but that just feels wrong. When I was younger, I used to think that this behavior was really cheap, but now that I’m older and wiser, my feelings about this are (1) serves them right for charging a suggested donation; (2) the person who takes the money doesn’t give a crap about how cheap I am, and if anything I bet that he or she thinks that those paying full price are stupid; and (3) my tax dollars are used to support these institutions, so I’ve already paid my fair share.
Strangely, if you take the time to observe who pays full price and who pays a dollar (or even less), you’ll see a trend in which prole looking people and non-Asian minorities pay full price, while people who look upper-middle-class white (SWPL) and who can presumably better afford the full price will donate a tiny amount. I attribute this to the SWPLs being more in the know. It’s not like there’s a big sign explaining the policy. It’s there in fine print, but for someone who has never done it before, it just seems too good to be true. (Indians, of course, will never pay the full price. They make a big hobby out of getting stuff on the cheap, and no Indian has ever been embarrassed about being cheap.)
What kind of people do you find in Museums? There are basically four categories: (1) SWPLs; (2) tourists (who are as often proles from the Midwest as they are sophisticated Europeans); (3) Indians (for whom the penny-per-person admission is cheap entertainment); (4) at the AMNH on a weekday morning/afternoon there will be a lot of schoolchildren on class trips, and the schoolchildren, unlike the other museum visitors, more closely reflect the racial and economic diversity of the New York metropolitan area.
John Derbyshire once wrote an essay about keeping yourself safe by avoiding places where black people go. Well, you never have to worry about being a victim of violent crime while in a museum. You never see any ghetto-looking people in a museum. This is even true of African-American themed museums located in black neighborhoods. You may get mugged in the parking lot, but once inside most of the people are SWPLs, with a handful of non-ghetto upper-middle-class-looking blacks.
Why should you go to museums? Besides being safe from violence, you get to see objects that can’t be fully appreciated by looking at pictures of them online. And the architecture of the buildings themselves is often pretty impressive.
The downside of museums is that they have been subject to two modern trends. One is the increasing emphasis on audio-visual presentations. As I wrote above, the upside of museums is that you can see objects that can’t be appreciated on a computer monitor. But what’s the point of an audio-visual presentation with a bunch of photos, TV screens, etc.? It’s just reproducing something that could just as easily be presented on a website, or as a documentary on the History Channel. No thanks.
The second bad trend in museums is the increasing political correctness of them. The old exhibits at the AMNH are real dead animals which were shot in Africa, and then preserved and stuffed. But the new exhibits are all models, and they mix in messages about preserving the environment and global warming. It makes me want to puke. My recommendation for visiting the AMNH is to skip the newer galleries and just look at the old-school galleries.
At art museums, nearly all of the art worth looking at was created before World War I. Curators look at any post-WWI art that actually looks skillfully executed as being “kitsch” and not worthy of display. So if you visit a museum specializing in post-WWI art, such as MoMA or the Whitney, you have been warned.
If there’s a photography exhibit, then the secret meaning of the photos will generally be to mock proles. Either that, or they will be photos that gay men find interesting. Which is not to say that gay men don’t have good taste; in fact they have much better taste than feminists and leftist SWPLs.
*Note: this post is a slight edit of a post from six years ago.
This is a pretty good live rendition by Harry Chapin of his song “Taxi.”
The song has some autobiographical facts from Harry’s life mixed in. His name in the song (as in many of his songs) is his real name, Harry. Chapin did have a girlfriend named Sue at Cornell, and he was also a taxi driver for a few months (back in a time when white Americans still drove taxis).
So Harry is driving his taxi and he picks up a woman who turns out to be his ex-girlfriend, Sue. Sue, initially, either pretends not to recognize him or is too uncaring about a taxi driver to pay attention to him. In either case, it’s a snub.
Their relationship ended because Sue presumably moved to Los Angeles to become an actress (although now she’s in San Francisco) and Harry was going to “learn to fly,” which I presume means he wanted to become a pilot, but that obviously never happened, and now he has a loser job as a taxi driver.
The second snub is when “she said we must get together,” but it’s said in a way that means she’s just being polite and has no interest in seeing a loser who drives a cab for a living.
Sue, although apparently not an actress, has more economic resources than Harry based on various hints dropped in the song [as expounded below and in the comments, probably because she married a rich husband]. At the end, for the $2.50 fare, she gives him a $20 bill and tells him to keep the change. Remember that there has been more than 400% inflation since 1972, so that’s like giving him a hundred dollar bill for a $12.50 fare (which is a typical fare for a ride from one location in Manhattan to another and I assume that “Frisco” has similar rates).
Receiving such a huge tip from your ex-girlfriend is emasculating, and that was especially true in 1972 when social customs were more strongly oriented towards the man being the provider and not the woman. Either she’s saying “look how much more successful I am than you,” or she pities him and wants him to have some extra money, but women aren’t romantically interested in men they pity.
Instead of doing the manly thing and returning the tip, Harry puts the bill in his shirt because he needs the money.
Also, the song tells us that Sue is also not happy with her life. The song does not explain why, but maybe it’s because she left a wonderful relationship with Harry in order to try to become an actress? The modern feminist would see that line of reasoning as being Harry’s male-chauvinistic ego. That’s why I like the songs of the 1970s, because they are less politically correct.
Harry sees that she’s not happy because he’s very intuitive, but Sue refuses to admit it. Thus he’s able to cleverly and ironically observe that they both got what they wanted: he’s “flying” in his taxi, and she’s acting happy. These are the kind of deep lyrics you get when Ivy League caliber people write songs.
Harry Chapin also went to Brooklyn Tech High School, back in the late 1950s when Brooklyn Tech was still academically equivalent to Stuyvesant (it no longer is) and the vast majority of students in attendance were smart working-class and middle-class Jews. Although Harry came from a Protestant family, which was rare in New York City public schools where everyone who was white was either Jewish or Catholic.
* * *
Hm. Failed actress in a new town, careless with money. Would it be unkind to speculate that her secret is, she’s an escort?
Or maybe she’s married to someone rich, but that didn’t make her happy because she failed in her dream to be an actress, and she married for the wrong reason (money, not love). That would give Harry a reason to feel that she would have been happier with him, whom she would have loved because he was Harry the sensitive singer-song writer, even though he didn’t have any money.
And he drives her to a “handsome home” with a gate and “fine trimmed lawns” which sounds more like a place where you live when you are married rather than a place where a prostitute would live. Although maybe she’s like a Holly Golightly.
I was wrong to call for a boycott of the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH). What’s the purpose of boycotting AMNH when the admission fee is voluntary? That’s right, you’re allowed to donate only a penny and still be admitted to the museum, because of an old agreement between New York City and the museum that AMNH (and other major museums in NYC) probably regret today.
So you should visit, but only donate a penny, and tell them the reason is because Ms. Mercer is being kicked off the board because she’s a Trump supporter, so if you don’t want to receive donations from the deplorables then you’re not giving any! If enough people do that, the message will funnel up to management.
What a shame that AMNH has become part of HRC’s propaganda wing. It wasn’t always like that. Republican Teddy Roosevelt played a big role in establishing the museum. I guess it’s only a matter of time before the Teddy Roosevelt memorial is replaced with a memorial to a more politically correct woman or minority.
Now, some will say that Ms. Mercer hasn’t been kicked off the Board of Trustees yet, she has only been the subject of a hatchet job in the New York Times, but I think that the New York Times carries immense weight with the kind of people who run the AMNH, and that she’s going to be gone.
* * *
Let’s examine the hatchet job more closely.
The connection of Ms. Mercer, the museum and the Mercer Family Foundation’s donation history came to light during an analysis by The New York Times of activities by cultural leaders who donated to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign.
Why is the New York Times doing this “analysis”? Are they also doing an analysis of people who donated to HRC’s campaign? Very unlikely.
1. The New York Times is looking for some sort of nefarious connection that they can use to delegitimize President Trump.
2. They are looking to punish people who donated money to Trump, and the first person they have decided to punish is Ms. Mercer.
Why is the headline and half of the article about climate change? The headline: “Museum Trustee, a Trump Donor, Supports Groups That Deny Climate Change”
Ms. Mercer is not publicly on the record as being skeptical of climate change (and even though skepticism is part of science, you are considered “anti-science” if you are skeptical), and the NYT hasn’t even uncovered any donations to organizations whose primary mission is to be skeptical of climate change. But because she donated to various conservative think tanks, and among the many activities of the conservative think tanks they are either skeptical of climate change or opposed to excessive environmental regulations, the New York Times has spun this into Ms. Mercer being “anti-science,” which is therefore argued to be in direct opposition to the pro-science mission of the AMNH.
So in addition to punishing people for supporting President Trump, the New York Times is also looking to punish people for having even tenuous connections to climate change skeptics.
* * *
I’ve previously pointed out in my blog that philanthropy is the number one hobby for rich people. Ms. Mercer, the daughter of a billionaire, is very rich. To not be able to participate in philanthropy as a result of this New York Times article is the most horrible punishment for the very rich, third only to losing all their money or being put in prison.
A member of the Board of Trustees of the American Museum of Natural History is going to be kicked out because they discovered she donates money to conservative think tanks.
The liberal thought police is more Nazi than I had previously thought.
We must boycott AMNH.
Based on the Washington Post exclusive, it sounds more and more like Trump plans to replace Obamacare with Trumpcare and not just repeal it, the latter being what Republicans have been bitterly trying to do (in protest) for the last several years.
It still remains to be seen if the final proposal matches the rhetoric. In the past, Trump would say one thing, then conservative hacks would say something else when they posted stuff on his campaign website.
If we do get a Trumpcare proposal, we will see that the vast majority of Republican voters, as well as most Republican legislators, hated Obamacare not because they hated expansion of government, but because they hated Obama.
On the other hand, if Democrats are united in opposition to Trumpcare, even though it has the same goals of Obamacare, because they hate Trump, and a few “principled” Republicans like Rand Paul vote against it, then Trumpcare could have problems getting through Congress.
At press conference, Trump successfully used two anti-Trump memes, "fake news" and "Nazis" in a way that effectively neutralized them.
— Lion (@LionBlogosphere) January 12, 2017
I tweeted that after Trump’s press conference.
I was reading through Scott Adams’ blog this morning, and came across his post about Trump’s use of “Nazis” to describe the intelligence agencies, and I see that he agrees with me, although his blog post is full of mumbo jumbo about “3D persuasion.”
Since Wednesday, in the mainstream media there was outrage about how Trump dared to call our patriotic intelligence agencies “Nazis,” even though liberals themselves used to call the CIA Nazis.
Yes, remember a time when liberals loved Russia and hated the CIA? How that has reversed!
Also, we see that the mainstream media has gone cold turkey on using the term “fake news,” a term they fell in love with two months ago because they thought that by using it they reduced Trump’s legitimacy.
* * *
Hopefully, the next step in Trump’s reframing will be to turn the word “racism” against the liberals.