Stupid Conservatives!

by Jacques Delacroix, PhD

Sunday afternoon, as I was driving from the harbor, I was listening to National Public Radio. (Yes, I am a kind of hero, that way; I do what needs to be done even if it’s repugnant.) A political commentator whose name escaped me was talking with undisguised contempt about his grossly misinformed conservative uncle. As he mentioned that the old guy got his news from Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, I paid attention because, in part, that was me. Or it could be me although I don’t have a liberal nephew with a contemptuous attitude working in pseudo-journalism.

The commentator spoke of the various ways in which dumb conservatives are uninformed, including that Obama was not born in the US  (Kept his good birth certificate out of the public eye for several years; allowed his lit. agent to describe him as a Kenyan when he was young; keeps his undergraduate records closed although, at this point, it’s difficult to think of anyone who would care what his grades were when he was twenty; it does arouse my suspicions). That he is a secret Muslim. (He has an Arabic first name and a classical Muslim middle name; his father was a Muslim – a very bad one – he spent a part of his childhood in a Muslim country – Indonesia – under the partial guardianship of a Muslim stepfather.) Incidentally, I don’t know if Obama is a Muslim and I don’t know how the commentator can be so sure he isn’t. Only Obama knows for sure and, by the way, good Muslims are explicitly allowed to deceive non-Muslims to serve their faith. Again: I don’t know and, I don’t really care.

Then, the commentator asserted something that really piqued my curiosity: He stated that conservatives believe that Barack Obama never published anything in the law review of which he occupied the two top positions, including Chief Editor. First a few words about pertinent facts many people don’t know, followed by a strong opinion.

The law reviews (journals) of prestigious American law schools* are normally in the hands of students with distant faculty supervision, or with zero faculty supervision. The highest posts, including that of Chief Editor are elective. Seeing a student at the head of the Harvard Law Review (and others) does not demonstrate extraordinary achievement; it’s the norm.

Now, an opinion: In the period when Mr Obama was in law school the top law review jobs went to the best looking willing male black students if no black woman was available. That happened through elections by fellow-students eager to demonstrate that they were the right kind.

Publishing in the Harvard Law Review is just about the best thing one can do for one’s future legal career (except having a well-chosen father.) Law students are very eager to get an article published in any law review, especially in the highly visible Harvard Law Review. Most students have two years total to get in there. It’s very competitive.

Now, I am one of those ignorant conservatives. In fact, I have asserted several times on my blog() that Mr Obama had hardly accomplished anything in his life aside from being elected. I always admitted two possible exceptions. First, my lawyer friends ** tell me that he passed the bar exam in Illinois. This is not nothing; it’s an achievement. Second, it’s possible that he actually wrote his two autobiographical books. (I am skeptical even on that one because he does not seem to know English much better than, say, Pres. G. W. Bush). I often took as an example of his low competence the fact that he had never published anything in the Harvard Law Review, not even something heavily co-authored, although he was for two years in a superb position to do so.

Now, I am told point blank by NPR that I was completely wrong, have been for about eight years. This is worth looking into. If nothing else, I need to correct my mistake publicly. If I was wrong, I also need to examine my BS filter. So, I did what people of low skills do with he Internet, I Googled “Barack Obama, Harvard Law Review.” What I found can be read via the link below:


That document causes me to say, ” I was technically a little wrong but I was substantially right: Barack Obama did not accomplish anything on his own, not even in the Harvard Law Review.” (Except, see above. )

I accept that my search may not have been thorough enough. I hope someone else will help. I also expect the several lawyers who read me secretly to correct any technical mistakes I may have made. Thank you in advance.

This is not beating a dead horse: We have had almost eight years of an affirmative action president. He has accomplished nothing except a national health program widely seen as a disaster. He has gone repeatedly around the Constitution for lack of political skills in persuading Congress. He has helped a terrorist state re-arm. He seems to have failed even in his promise to his Left-wing followers to close the Guantanamo Bay military prison in spite of taking big risks freeing terrorists from it. None of this is surprising. The man had accomplished nothing in his life before becoming president; he accomplished nothing afterwards. He was elected in a national spasm of affirmative action. (That’s also how he received the Nobel Peace Prize from senile Norwegian old men.). I will grant him two thing s: He looks good in a suit; his public speaking has improved. Pres. Obama’s lack of presidential achievement should not surprise anyone. Look around: Getting things done is a kind of lifetime virtuous habit. Those who don’t before they are forty-five are unlikely to begin afterwards. And Mrs Bill Clinton’s achievements thus far are : ________?

A large segment of the electorate that is normally rational is going to vote again on an affirmative action basis. I hear it all the time without trying to. They are treating the Presidency, the most powerful office one earth, as if it were a nasty old gulf club denying women membership out of sheer obstinate meanness. No one even bothers to try and make the argument that a woman president would bring something special and needed to the job. (That’s an argument that can be made with respect to the usefulness of female police officers, for example.) It will be a mind-blind vote. It will change this society to a point that we will not recognize it anymore if it happens. It will not be because the President is a woman. It will be because she is a person whose large record of ineffectiveness, of deviousness, of dishonesty, of cheating, of stealing the White House furniture, has been disregarded on purpose.

PS Some of you may wonder about the inclusion of a mention of my academic title at the head of this essay. I have never done it before. It’s just that I am gunning for a job. The Trump party is so full of illiterate, uneducated, low-life deplorables according to the media that, should Trump become president, I think I would stand a good chance for a high position in his administration. It would be because I would be one of his few supporters who can read whole sentences, including long words.

* For my overseas readers: Normally, law schools in America accepts students who are already university graduates. (There is a minute number of exceptions.) Few people in the US become trained lawyers in less than six years after high school.

** I have lawyer friends. I am proud of it. It speaks to my high level of tolerance for evil and deviousness. By the way, do you know how to save a lawyer from drowning? No? You don’t? It’s OK, don’t worry about it.

Posted in Current Events | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Worst Case Scenario for Trump Supporters by Default Like Me



In Part One of this two-part essay, I went over the ambiguities of unwanted sexual advances. (I only considered unwanted sexual advances toward women. If I considered advances toward men, I would only yield to temptation to drift from my topic, and end up being accused of bragging, again. I will do it though, if enough women readers demand it.)

I began by asking the reader to suppose that Trump had really made unwanted advances to 25 women over thirty years (although all evidence is lacking besides the accusations of Democrat women.) This was far in excess of the number of his accusers. Given the continuation of what Mrs Bill Clinton would have called elegantly “a bimbo eruption” in the nineties, * I will change my stance and imagine that Trump made unwanted advances not toward twenty-five but fully toward thirty women in thirty years. (“Bimbo eruption” is an exact quote. I take quote marks seriously.) I remind you that I agree that Trump has a foul mouth. In fact, I would not like to hear him talk in private.

So, the clear viewpoint of the Clinton campaign, supported by the President of the United States, in agreement with almost all the big traditional media, is that candidate Trump’s grossness of speech, and supposedly, of demeanor, would be a danger to the Republic if he were elected. Some call him a “fascist.”

But, I think that the fact that an office seeker sometimes reminds one faintly of Mussolini in front of a mike does not demonstrate “fascism,” except in a childish way, an uncultured, under-informed way. Trump might like to become Mussolini, I don’t know at all. It’s completely obvious by now though that is too disorganized and too spontaneous to do the work to become a dictator. He is no danger. (There is a thought-out description of fascism in general on this blog under “Fascism Explained.” Read it when you have time.)

Here is a brief, applied description of fascist movements. First, fascism is a mass movement (not a dictatorship imposed from above as by a military dictator, for example). It’s a movement that does everything possible to undermine or abrogate normal institutions. That’s as in by-passing the Constitution when signing a treaty with a dangerous country although the Constitution specifies clearly that the Senate must ratify treaties. That’s as in trying to corrupt the national police agency, the FBI, into de-classifying a document under subpoena. (The document was about the Benghazi event where four Americans lost their lives because of Sec. Clinton incompetence according to a significant fraction of the public. A further declassified document showed that exactly such  an attempt at corruption took place.)

To the extent that it gains power, fascism goes around normal judicial restrictions on the power of the executive branch. That’s as in assassinating American citizens abroad. A fascist movement co-opts what media it can’t close. That’s as in the repeated attempts to shut off Rush Limbaugh, the most popular radio host in America. That’s as in the unprecedented fact of a sitting president (Obama) criticizing a national television network by name (Fox News). The bulk of the big traditional media is already domesticated by the Democratic Party, it seems to me. Does anyone disagree? Fortunately, there is the less controlled Internet.

A fascist movement does what it can to silence all political opposition including by relying on illegal and illicit means. That’s as in the Democratic National Committee secretly sabotaging Clinton’s competitor Bernie Sanders. That’s as in paying hoodlums to disrupt the other side’s political events. (See on my FB:…/project-veritas-proof-tha…/ .) That’s as in brutalizing supporters of the other side – including women -on the public way. (Happened on live television in San Jose, California.) That’s as in fire-bombing a Republican campaign headquarters in North Carolina. (Happened around October 17 2016; Reports on the incident were quickly squashed by the big media.)

Mrs Clinton has made no mystery of the fact that her presidency (if any) would be a continuation of Mr Obama’s. His sins are her sins. You can’t have it both ways: I am he but I am not he.

So, we are forced to conclude that his hap-hazard and tiny  sample of Clinton and Democrat misdeeds should be vastly more dangerous to the Republic than Donald Trump’s real and imagined misdeeds, his obscene words, and possibly his gross actions toward women.

Let me summarize the Demo-Clinton view of the world because you won’t remember the details given the avalanche of news and near-news confronting you every day:

Bad manners are worse than pure evil!

The Left-liberal Democratic behavior is not “kind of like fascism” or ” little bit fascist.” We are facing a full, conventional fascist takeover of this country. I can only hope that there will be rational Democrats to notice and follow through.

Two personal notes: First, I may have arthritis but my moral compass is just fine. I know who is speaking for the left-behind and for the voiceless, if anyone is. Second, I have been saying for months that I don’t like Trump although I will vote for him. I have changed my mind a little. His perseverance, his steadfastness under attack are earning my admiration.

Whatever happens, folks, I am not moving to Canada. I am staying here and making trouble.

*Reminder: Former President Bill Clinton was NOT impeached and forbidden to practice law because of what he did in the Oval Office with an intern in her early twenties with whom there was a huge difference of power and social status. These misfortunes struck him either because of a vast right- wing conspiracy (as candidate Clinton declared) or because he impeded justice by lying under oath. You find out if you are a millennial. Great story!

Posted in Current Events | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Worst Case Scenario for Trump Supporters by Default Like Me

Forget the two or three women who come out accusing Trump of various horrors every time there is a new revelation about Mrs Clinton hiding her official government correspondence from the government although she is completely innocent of any wrongdoing. Assume it’s not 5 or 6 or 7 women whom Trump touched inappropriately; suppose it’s 25 in thirty years. (Again we are not discussing his language; it’s foul. Make of it what you will.) I want tot follow two strands of thought: Part One: Inappropriate touching of women by men; Part Two: How it undermines the Republic.

Part One: Groping and Unwanted Advances

Warning: This is going to be crude by neo-Victorian standards. I am trying to cut through the current hypocrisy. Read at your own risk.

Here is a trip through Memory Lane. When I was a young man (or a younger man) and single, in my limited experience and observation, few women ever told a man, “I want your body now. Strip!” Women who were erotically attracted to me would send signals of various levels of subtlety, often so subtle, that I, for one, did not capt them. (I know this from debriefings, sometimes years later.)

Given this general decorous female passivity, for anything to happen, men had to take chances. With an intuition that a woman might be interested, they took steps. In the old days, propositioning a woman verbally was considered the ultimate uncouthness. You had to leave her plausible deniability, let her pretend that carnal knowledge happened nearly without her knowledge. To this end, uninvited physical contact was proper. It could take the form of an attempt to take her hand, or a kiss on the neck when she was rinsing glasses at a party; it could involve an actual body grope. What approach prevailed and what body part was stroked or groped depended largely on the amount of alcohol and/of cannabis involved. If the gesture was ill-received, the woman would just step away or leave the room; no harm done. And then, there was always the possibility that the target of one’s attention was on the cusp, so to speak and that a simple hand on the nape, for instance would tumble her in the right direction.

There is even worse. When I was a teenager, in France but also in the US for a few years, close dancing had not yet been replaced by the absurdly Narcissistic individual gesticulations that came with rock’n’ roll. In principle, in close dancing, a woman could allow exactly as much space as she wished between herself and her partner. Yet, with the fatigue of the evening and (again) with a little booze, bodies would relax, the female partner might slump a little, and some passive rubbing would take place. In my recollection, it was common, very common, for erect penis and clitoris to meet hypocritically across four layers of clothing during the space of a dance or two. Often, usually, this took place in front of many spectators who did not notice or who pretended not to see what was going on. Sometimes, the spectators were parents, as I recount in my book of memoirs: I Used to Be French; an Immature Autobiography (available on Amazon).

If such a contact was unwanted by the woman, she could simply tilt her pelvis a few inches to put an end to it. No words said; no harm done, no scandal; everything back in order in seconds. No complaints filed. Many happy relationships, many marriages began just the way I describe. (I know mine did, another marriage.) The men were thus generally in a position where, on the main, they did not know if physical contact was “unwanted” until they tried.

My point is this: Most of the women who are charging Donald Trump with horrible acts are old enough to remember the good old days. I would expect them to recollect that the kind of practice just described leads to averages. For several unwanted contacts they may have had to suffer, there were probably several wanted ones, some of which led to admirable relationships, including marriage, as I said. On the whole, it’s hypocritical for a woman to avoid admitting that what she wanted was often embedded in behavior she would rather have avoided.

What precedes is not a story of exceptional depravity. It’s a conventional narrative of female mating choice that has been buried under thirty years of pseudo-feminist political correctness. I am describing normalcy, I think. It is not, either, the confession of a super sexual predator – me – far from it. In fact, women who ought to know have often accused me of being “lazy.”

I must confess that I don’t have clear idea of what people who are of early mating age do today. I don’t know how much mating actually takes place. I note with interest that a high percentage of them remain unmarried until an unprecedented age. Maybe the males should learn to touch a little.

I also believe that they should act as if “No” means “No.”It’s the morally prudent policy because some times, it does.

Next: Trump’s Unwanted Groping Threaten the Republic

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Trump; The Small Things Will Trip You!

More amalgam. The media lynching of Donald Trump amplifies. Women who say they have been (lightly) sexually assaulted by Mr Trump keep coming out. Of course, not one of them refers to a recent alleged event. Makes you wonder where they were before Trump ran for office, before he impeded Queen Hillary’s crowning. The narrative is now going overboard. When it comes to assessing truth, it’s the small things that trip you, as every liar will attest.

Mrs Barack Hussein Obama said two days ago that Mr Trump’s crude words are (ARE) sexual assault. I told you a couple of days ago it was going to happen. No, Mrs Obama, calling a man an asshole on the parking lot, on the one hand, and beating him to a pulp, even punching him in the face, on the other hand, are not the same thing. A thousand years of Anglo-American law back me up on this. You have taken one step too many. Madam. Fortunately, I trust that you are able to make the difference because if you are not, you will be morally obligated to ask your husband to order his docile Attorney General to charge a couple of hundred rappers (most of them African American) with sexual assault. I think ridicule sometimes kills. Unfortunately, the media are going to bury quickly the First Lady’s revealing words.

Another woman has now come forward to accuse Trump of groping her on a First Class flight. She even specified that he raised the armrest between them to get a better grip on her. Rush Limbaugh took advantage of his access to a vast audience to ask airline stewardesses their technical opinion. It turns out, there has never been an armrest you could raise in First Class. As I said, the small things will trip you in a lie. (At least, I learned a new word in connection with this alleged event: “octopusing,” many arms and therefore many hands. Wish I had known the word back then when it would have been useful.)

And then, there is the allegation by a People’s Magazine reporter that Trump came on to her during an interview which took place partly in the presence of his wife. The reporter wrote a glowing article anyway (or is it because?) I must say that, with this story, the residual Frenchman in me vacillates. After all, in that situation, he depended on her, not the reverse. He was taking the risk she might have written an assassination in the distinguished, “People.” He supposedly did it during and interview, in full view of his wife? There is a part of me that wishes I had what this takes. (I wonder: Is trying to seduce women still acceptable? Has mating become sexist except between adults of the same sex?)

Major male sports organizations, and now, individual athletes, are falling over one another to give credibility to another one of Mrs Obama’ s silly statements, “I don’t know men who talk like this.” The athletes and athletic economic interests add, “In the locker room? NEVER! The horror!”

The public’s unblinking acceptance of gross lies has become the norm. This goes a long way toward explaining the raised pitchforks of millions of uncouth, ill-educated, ungrammatical supporters of the crude, uncontrolled, undisciplined, poorly informed Donald Trump. They are simply demanding a new elite that will call a cat by its name, “pussy.”

Posted in Current Events, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Words and Deeds of Trump the Horrible


I spent yesterday, Monday October 10th 2016 listening in horrified fascination to the mass media creating a crude amalgam of Trump’s sins in the so-called video, yes, that old video.

Nearly all, the media including, I am afraid the Wall Street Journal, put together, even often mix in the same sentence two elements of Trump’s objectionable aspects: words and possible deeds or actions. The two deserve completely different treatments. There is no excuse for confusing them except a desire to win at all costs.

Words first: Trump referred to women in obscene terms. This is not in dispute. Calling women “pussies” may tell you something about his present character. (Although that happened fifteen years ago, when he was a registered Democrat.) I don’t see what it tells you that’s new. The man is crude. He is crude in precisely the same way that millions of American men are. I am completely innocent of that particular sin myself (because I was raised overseas) but I have several friends who qualify. It’s interesting that they are, by and large, the same male friends I would describe as “pussy-whipped.” (This is another topic, an interesting one I can’t deal with here: Married American men are exceptionally submissive.) I think the brouhaha about Trump’s obscene words is completely hypocritical and massively promoted by media that lost their intellectual self-respect some time ago. Public discourse also stopped being sensitive a long time ago irrespective of what the current neo-Victorians would have you believe: A young woman I have never met except on-line, and only a couple of days earlier, a Clinton supporter, recently invited me on Facebook to “suck my dick!” (She meant her own no-existent appendage.) And then, there are the rappers.

Further, there are Trump actions as revealed on the video. Fact is, the video reveals no, zero, objectionable acts. Instead, it reveals Mr Trump bragging about engaging in sexually assaultive behavior. The report is not a fact. Fake confessions are legion, especially within a bragging context. Donald Trump may have never, not once, done the things he says in the video he does, not even the slightest crotch grab. Now, if he is guilty of this kind of boasting, characteristic of teenage boys everywhere, you may decide he is too immature for the job but he is not (NOT) an unpunished criminal.

A stupid braggart and a rapist are different creatures. If you think they are more or less the same, you are full of shit and we need someone like Trump to clean house, because of you, precisely. You are poison while he, Trump, is only moronic. Moronism is harmless to the body politic no matter how offensive it is.

Let’s focus on various forms of sexual assault. Trump committed some, at least one, or (OR) he did not. There is nothing in between. The function of the amalgam I heard all day  is to spread the credibility of the reports of obscene talk onto the supposition of sexual assault. It’s to make the fact that reports of obscene words being credible reports of sexual assault must also be credible:   It’s true that he referred to women in a sexually crude manner, therefore, (THEREFORE), he must have assaulted women sexually. This kind of verbal ploy sometimes actually works. It works with fools and with fanatics. Reminds me of Goebbels, Hitler’s Propaganda Minister.

Now I imagine I might be on a jury regarding Mr Trump’s sexual assault (s) (one or several). I would not have the option to find him a “little bit guilty,” or “sort of guilty,” or “mostly guilty,” or “no evidence of his being actually guilty perhaps but he might have done it; look how he refers to women.” The only options available are guilty/not guilty. That’s it. For once, judicial conventions correspond well with logic: He did it (any “it”), or (OR) he did not. There are almost an infinity of offenses a person can be charged with so, there is not reason to come up with unclear verdicts. The prosecutor can charge with attempted sexual battery, sexual battery, aggravated sexual battery, different kinds of rape, etc exactly so a clean verdict is possible without violating factual evidence. Those who do not know this to be true don’t understand either the US Constitution nor basic fairness. They are temperamentally fascists. (There are other forms of fascism on the Clinton side, following Mr Obama.)

What we see right now, is a massive and concerted display of hypocrisy on the part of the bulk of the kind-of-educated class, beginning with the media. It’s so obvious that I think that if Jesus were around today, He would be for Trump. Fact is, there is no record of his speaking up against obscenity while he repeatedly and vehemently attacked hypocrisy.

PS I am wavering in my support of Trump. It’s not because Clinton has become less than a total horror but because he falls too easily into her traps. It bothers me.

Posted in Current Events | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Another Race Riot

Note: This is written for my overseas readers mainly. If you live in the US, you will probably find that you already know most of what I am writing about.

A couple of days ago, a police officer shot to death a black man in full daylight in Charlotte, North Carolina, very much the Old South, former home of abject slavery.

This is happening in the last months of the second administration of the first black American president, after more than seven years of his being in charge. “Being in charge” is an exaggeration of sorts though. The President of the United States exercises no constitutional authority over local police forces (or state police forces). His federal Department of Justice only has jurisdiction when a violation of civil rights is at stake and only over that specific putative violation. Homicide is not in itself a civil rights violation. It’s true that Pres. Obama cannot pick up the phone and tell the Charlotte police what to do or how. Yet, Mr Obama is responsible to some extent although indirectly for the violence, an idea I will develop below

Cop kills black man: familiar story, right?

I forgot to give you important information. The police officer who did the shooting is black. She answers to a black police chief. He is squarely in charge of training officers and making rules for their behavior, including their use of firearms. The Chief of Police is appointed and answers to the mayor of Charlotte. The mayor is a white woman and a prominent Democrat. She is assisted by a city council of eleven, four or whom are black. As far as I can tell, there are zero, or one, or two Republican city councilors. The rest are Democrats.

The police says the victim had a gun. His family says in was sitting in his car reading a book while waiting for his child to come out of school. Disturbingly different stories, for sure.

There have been three nights or protests in Charlotte, that quickly became riots, with demonstrators throwing heavy objects at police officers and much destruction of property. One demonstrator was shot, apparently not by a police officer. And, of course, there was much looting of stores. It’s nearly always like this: One young black man dies, fifteen young black men acquire brand new mountain bikes.

Watching the riots on TV, I notice something that television channels and printed press journalist don’t comment on: Some of the most aggressive rioters are young white men who seem to me to know what they are doing and who are not distracted by broken store windows. I should use the word cautiously but they seem to me almost professional in their approach to rioting. The white young rioters are not mentioned I think because they cannot be fitted in the prevailing liberal narrative: It’s a race riot, it’s a demonstration against racial injustice by black people who have just had enough. How about the young white guys? Irrelevant, they are just lovers of justice who happen to be there. Yet, I can’t claim that I recognize any of them on TV but there are young white men just like them in every race riot I have watched in the past two years. If they are absent the first day, they are plainly present the second day and the next few days.

The show on my TV looks a bit like a movie because it’s not well connected to reality, the reality that everyone knows: On the whole, young black men don’t die because cops shoot them, they die because other young black men kill them. They also kill the occasional child and lately, even a young mother pushing her baby carriage. The percentage of violent deaths of black men at police hands that are legally unjustified, must be minuscule. No one in Chicago demonstrates against this continuing mass killing by African-Americans. I think blacks and whites alike don’t because it would contradict the main, tired old liberal narrative: Injustice and racial oppression are the source of all evils in American society.

Young black men kill one another in gang wars for turf (for possession of a piece of ground.) The turf, the ground, is an important asset in the retail sale of illegal drugs. I would be curious of what would happen if Congress decriminalized all drug sales to adults and if a rational president signed the bill into law. I would bet that young black men’s death rate would plummet by 90% in a few weeks. I have no explanation as to why this is not done. It’s not as if the 40-year old so-called “War on Drugs” were working in reducing drug use!

After seven+ years of Obama, the economic gap between whites and blacks, -however you measure it – has increased. African-Americans are worse off in relative terms than they were under Pres. Bush. This is no surprise to me. It’s a Democratic administration. The worst place for a black man to live in America is in Democratic-ruled big cities. It begins with Chicago, a Democratic city for 85 years. And then, there is Detroit, a war zone with no war. All this being said, we must not forget that most African-Americans lead lives that are both normal and peaceful, in crying contradiction to the narrative of continued racial oppression. There is a large minority of young black men however who have never had a job, who don’t look for one, who may have never known a person with a job except teachers and cops.

Democratic politicians have been promising salvation in the form of “social programs” paid for by those who do work. Hey have done so for fifty years. They have not implemented them or the program have done little good, or even worse. It’s time for a revolutionary new idea, one that’s very old, in fact. When there is rapid economic growth, employers compete for labor, even for the labor of the inexperienced, even for the labor of those usually seen as unemployable. Black Americans in ghettos need the same thing that all Americans need: vigorous and fast economic growth. This may be hard to believe but the United States has few problems that could not be solved by ten years of 3.5% annual GDP growth.

There is no sign of a search for economic development in the Democratic presidential candidate’s program. Donald Trump, by contrast, promises to reduce taxes and to rid business of many regulations. Historically, it’s usually enough to produce growth. Black Americans need less some abstract “justice” than they need a fair chance. The left wing of the Democratic Party hates the very idea.

Note: In an earlier draft, I had described the Charlotte police officer who shot the victim as a woman. That is wrong. The shooter is a black man. I regret this error of fact due to inattention on my part.

Posted in Current Events, Stories and poems in French, Uncategorized | 2 Comments

September 11th 2016

Fifteen years ago, the American people and the whole world became aware of the fact that violent jihadists were are war with us and with it. The war had been going on a for a while but we were not really paying attention. Before I go any further, let me acknowledge the fact that most victims of jihadism have been Muslims. It’s a hallmark of totalitarianism that it hurts first those closest to its center and brothers perceived as traitorous. (Remember Stalin?)

After fifteen years of war, we are not winning. Although the US proper has been comparatively safe, the enemies of civilization are causing destruction and suffering on a scale that would have been unimaginable on September 12th 2001. Here, in the United States, our lives have been changed forever. We have become security conscious and, I think, cowardly. That’s what bullying does to you: If you don’t smash the bully he makes you feel nervous all the time. It’s also arguable whether this society ever recovered economically from the massive blow.

It’s as if we had the luxury to feel tired of this war already. But some wars last a hundred years or more. There is no reason to expect a quick end to the war against terrorist islamism. The failed Muslim societies provide an endless supply of potential terrorist who would rather die in a burst of glory fire than live mediocre, meaningless lives. And you would have to be a fool to deny that they find sturdy inspiration in what they think is their sacred tradition, given by a leader who was a sucessful war chieftain and an occasional terrorist. (Ask me.) Incidentally, I don’t know what’s the real Islam, who is a real Muslim and who isn’t. Unlike Pres. Obama and Sec. Kerry, I am not a theologian. I am not even sure the question has any meaning.

Moral ambiguity and intellectual confusion don’t help in the struggle. There are still Americans who are making excuses for the mass murder of 9/11. I meet them on the Internet frequently. Many are leftists; a surprising number present themselves as libertarians. Many Americans also don’t understand and pretend to not understand that when an entity kills your people and promises loudly to kill more, when the same entity expresses clearly its loathing for what you love (democratic elections, separation of church and state) then, you are at war. It does not matter whether anyone “declares war.” A state a war existed between Japan and the US one hour after the attack on Pearl Harbor – which killed fewer Americans than 9/11 – with or without words to that effect.

Plain ignorance feeds intellectual confusion. Americans who are thirty now were fifteen in 2001. Those who are 25 were ten. It’s not obvious how many know that the US invaded Afghanistan to remove the Taliban government there that had sheltered Bin Laden, the self-proclaimed organizer of the mass murder of 9/11. I think even fewer know that the US gave the Taliban the option to turn over Bin Laden for trial. Fourteen years later, under a confused, simple-minded, vaguely anti-American American president, we are about to abandon Afghanistan, with a serious likelihood that the same Taliban will return to power there. Those are the same Taliban who used to shoot “adulterous” women on soccer fields during intermission. We ought to be proud of ourselves!

But we can’t be the policeman of the world, says our spineless Left, accompanied by most libertarians. But the US was, for many years. It did a good job of it. It kept the massive barbary of communism at bay and, in the end, beat it down. When the US ceases to be the policeman of the world, as they say, more reasonable, purer hearted people, like the Dutch, or, my favorites, the Finns, don’t step in. Instead people are burned alive and drowned in cages, and little girls are sold into sex slavery. It’s hard not to think of ourselves as pathetic, when you think about it, is it?

Posted in Socio-Political Essays | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments