Happy Leap Day 2020!

(a repeat from 2012, because, y'know, it's still true)

The adjustment known as leap year goes even further than some people know. To be even more precise and keep the earth from gaining or losing too much time, every year that is a multiple of 100 but not a multiple of 400 will not be a leap year. For example, 2100, 2200, and 2300 will not have 366 days, but 2400 will.

Hope everybody made the most of today.

Protect Andy Ngo...Now

By now, you may have seen -- or heard about, if you heeded the warnings of how brutal the footage is -- Antifa's attack on Andy Ngo in Portland, Oregon. The video-journalist for the website Quillette has extensively covered the anarchist group's actions, has been targeted and doxxed by Antifa in the past, and was covering them last weekend when he was outnumbered and assaulted by the group's masked members, being punched, kicked, and (evidently) struck with cupfuls of quick-dry cement. In the hospital, he was diagnosed as having a brain bleed among his injuries. This happened at an event in which awareness was being raised for male victims of sexual abuse. Antifa was there to protest against that. Figure that one out.)

First off, I know others have made this point, but, before I get to talking about innocent people such as Andy Ngo, who has no apparent odious philosophy, let's get this out of the way first:

No, unless they're acting out first, it isn't okay to "punch Nazis." I'm not sure what happened. Just a few years ago, we were all quoting Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I defend to the death your right to say it." This may be getting replaced by "I disapprove of what you say, so I'm going to crack you across the skull with a bike lock."

A hateful ideology, in and of itself, is just hateful. A person has the right to hold views that I may personally find objectionable, or even horrid, without my being able to attack that person physically. If (s)he acts upon that hateful ideology by attacking someone else, or clearly planning to do so, then I may intercede. But if that doesn't happen, then I may not. A proper response to ten marching, Klan jerk-asses is to shun them, or to ignore them, or to ridicule them. But if all they're doing is marching, and you begin throwing rocks, then you're the aggressor, no matter how loathsome they may be. It's the only way. If we begin allowing violence based on what a person thinks, the result will be very bad.

Having said that, let's get to the obvious. Antifa is an organization that believes 1.) it does have the right to punch Nazis and white supremacists, and that, 2.) equally importantly, everyone who disagrees with it as a group is a Nazi and/or a white supremacist. It's a pretty good gig, actually: shouting "Take that, fascist!" while you hit the school crossing guard with a brick because you don't like the colors of his uniform, and it's a get-out-of-jail-free card. Or, at least it has been at least a few times, because people like Portland mayor Ted Wheeler have, in the past, given his police forces (he is also the Police Bureau's commissioner) orders to "stand down" when Antifa is embroiled in a conflict. CNN's Chris Cuomo has defended Antifa's tactics in the past, saying last year that "all punches are not equal morally," again suggesting that (non-self-defense) violence is justified depending on who the target is, and, again, intimating that all of the people Antifa attacks really are the fascist bigots Antifa claims they are. Cuomo's crossover buddy, Don Lemon, expand condescendingly, "It says it right in the name: Antifa. Anti-fascism...". Presumably, if a band of thugs called themselves the Angels of Nice and then put on masks and hoods and beat up random people in the streets, Lemon would be chiding those of us who opposed them, arguing that we must be against nice people. (Twitter is loaded up with such arguments in defense of Antifa.)

Hopefully, this incident will be a turning point in how Antifa is covered by the national media, and how it is dealt with by law-enforcement authorities, but we've had similar hopes fall through before. As for Ngo, you are invited to his gofundme page, the the Protect Andy Ngo Fund, initiated by Michelle Malkin for his medical expenses and future protection while he bravely does his job.

A O-C and the SBD

"We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of f-rting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero." -- direct quotation (except for my striking out of one letter) from the Green New Deal, authored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey (both of the Empire State). 

I used to refer to myself as the "world's youngest curmudgeon." Okay, maybe I wrote that once. I wish I wasn't constantly thinking about age, but I will say that I am old enough when you were not even permitted to say the word "f-rt" on television.

"Fort?"

"No."

"Fyrt?"

"That's not a word."

"It is in Norwegian!"

"Okay."

I don't use much in the way of foul language on this blog, and I usually blot out a letter if I do. I don't think I'll get in trouble or anything; I doubt Blogger is all that strict. This is just my little revolution against the ubiquity of such words, even the relatively tame ones that can now be heard on Nickelodeon. But I'm pretty sure I remember "f-rt" not being said aloud on television. Words like that became their own joke, as shows would try to see how close they could come to saying them or displaying them without getting hammered by the network. "-ss" is another such word. Johnny Carson once appeared as the surprise guest on Dean Martin's show, did a little bit, and then, apropos of nothing, said, "You bet your sweet -ss!" and brought the house down. Martin collapsed on the stage in laughter and disbelief. They cuckooed the word out on TV, and it was remarkable enough that the clip made it on the infomercial for the DVD (which is how I saw it -- I'm not that old). One quick "-ss" and people would be talking about it the next day. Think anyone would even blink today?

This part week, however, may be the first time that the word "f-rting" (present participle or otherwise) has made its way into an official congressional resolution. We'll leave aside, for the moment, the pledge to guarantee an income for people "unable or unwilling to work." I'm just marveling at the bit about the bovines gassy from too much grassy (or, more likely, whatever they're overfed with). This could pave the way for new language in government proposals.

"If Congress does not pledge to limit carbon outputs within the next term, we predict that the sh-t will hit the fan by approximately 2037."

"My esteemed colleague believes that raising marginal tax rates will be able to fund his ambitious health-care proposal, when, in fact, an O.P.B. study indicates that it will prove to be a clusterf-ck for the middle class."

Democrats Now the Ones Facing Charges of "Inciting Violence" (Sound Familiar?)

Approximately twelve hours after James Hodgkinson shot at Republican lawmakers on June 14, John Featherman let us know that Bernie Sanders should not be blamed for the attempted massacre. That much is true, and I did feel for Sanders, who learned that the shooter had previously volunteered for his campaign.

 

I'm wondering, however, if Featherman gave the same warning all the times the left accused Republicans, conservative radio, Sarah Palin, FoxNews, etc., of "fomenting rage." For instance, conservatives were accused of inciting the mass shooting in Tucson in 2011, despite that the shooter turned out not to be a conservative at all. One prominent member of the U.S. Senate even perpetuated this allegation in a fundraising e-mail. His name? Bernie Sanders.

Hopefully, with the bloody shoe on the other foot, Sanders and other Democrats are learning not to be so reckless in branding their opponents as practitioners of "violent rhetoric."

Kathy Griffin, SO Not a Victim

Kathy Griffin's "severed head" statement (I believe it was more of a statement than an attempt at humor) was grotesque and offensive, and I'm not even one of the first thousand people to ask what the reaction would be if someone had made a similar execrable statement about President Obama.

 

I was actually kind of impressed how swift and extensive the response was. The left didn't seem to mind all that much when Snoop Dogg popped a cap in a Trump clown in a video earlier this year, but this time many on the left joined those on the right in its condemnation.

I want to think that Griffin's original apology was sincere, though while performing the stunt in the first place she gleefully mused that she might have to "apologize" for it. Then, you should note that in her apology to her audience (she made absolutely no apology to the president or his family) she said, "I'm sorry; I'm just now seeing the reaction to this." Nothing about taking a look at the photo she helped create and realizing how awful it was, or having second thoughts overnight. She apologized only because of the reaction.

Her press conference, on the other hand, was exquisite. Griffin actually wants America to see HER as a VICTIM in all this.

"A sitting president of the United States, and his grown children, and the first lady, are personally - I feel - personally trying to ruin my life forever," she cried, complaining that she symbolically performed a bloody decapitation of the president of the United States, only to have him and his family solemnly condemn her actions on Twitter. Can you imagine? Here's a free piece of advice, Kat, while we're on the subject: black people don't find "noose" jokes funny (and neither do the rest of us).

Inherent in this is her shock and anger that the Trump family responded at all. When I had an op-ed published in the Washington Times in 2009, some of the commenters disagreed with me in the comments. That's fine; that's their right. But it's my right, too. I was on the message boards, arguing with them. One of them actually complained that I was doing so, as if I weren't permitted to point out where I think my detractors are wrong.

The same happens with famous people. I've completely had it with the "only punch up" crowd who believes that everyone's free to take a shot at the "powerful," but it's somehow beneath the "powerful" to retaliate. I disagree completely. If I, a nobody, criticize someone I don't like, and that person wants to call me out, that's fine. You criticize someone, you're fair game to be criticized. You call someone out; prepared to get called out. The Trump family's response to Griffin has been quite muted, from what I've seen. You wanna hold a mock decapitation, Kathy? Consider yourself evermore in the ring.

Griffin is allegedly receiving death threats for her actions. Okay, not cool. But she seems to have forgotten already that she JUST MADE A PUBLIC DEATH THREAT against the president. Oh, wait! It was "satire," right? If someone on the right had done this towards a Democrat president, we'd have a four-day national conversation about hate, race, civility, you name it. If a leftist does it towards a conservative, it's always "satire." You're too stupid to understand. Just move on.

Tucker Carlson said that the worst thing about was that it just wasn't funny. That seems to be the common thing said when something like this happens. "Sure, it was offensive, but, even more than that, it just wasn't funny." I know why people say that: if you call an offensive comic "offensive," (s)he'll just be pleased as punch to have pissed somebody off. If you say the person is unfunny, then you're cutting that comedian to the core... I don't know how accurate it is, though. If holding up a facsimile of someone's head could possibly be made "funny," wouldn't that make it worse, somehow?

Griffin now believes there is a cabal of older, white males trying to keep her down. Well, this white male is younger than she is, and he'd be pleased if Kathy Griffin would go away. Of course, another part of me hopes that she'll keep on talking, as she's become an embodiment of irresponsible, outrageous leftism that -- until now -- believed that nothing it says about Donald Trump or anyone else it hates is over the line.

He broke you? You broke yourself, girlfriend.

Responses to Jimmy Kimmel's Health-Care Monologue

Two responses from other people who've been through harrowing health scares with their own young children, and thus can sympathize with Jimmy Kimmel -- and yet disagree with his political tie in: from Michelle Malkin and Jonah Goldberg.

BeneGram's 2017 Final Fourcasts

WOMEN: Connecticut, Baylor, Stanford, South Carolina. Connecticut over Stanford in the final.
MEN: Kansas, Villanova, Gonzaga, Butler. Gonzaga over Kansas in the final.

Let's get started!

From Cupid (or Not-Cupid) Past

2009: Just Another February Day
2010: Call to Be Grateful
2011: From 2008: How to Take the Buss

Eight Years Ago Today, "Thank You" to GWB Published in WASHINGTON TIMES

Today is the inauguration of the 45th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump. Most of us didn't see this coming even two years ago, let alone four or eight. As I mentioned a couple of months ago, I didn't vote for him or for any of the other people on the ballot for president, and instead wrote in the name of someone who had dropped out almost a year ago.

Not everyone is happy during an inauguration, no matter who wins. We usually don't see the level of violent opposition that we're seeing today, which reflects more poorly on the violent protestors than it does on the people they're protesting against, but there will always be people on the other side.

I was on the other side eight years ago, as I was displeased at how so many of the nation's ills were wrongly being blamed on President George W. Bush. I was fortunate enough to have this piece published in the Washington Times. It happened to run on the day that President Barack Obama was inaugurated, but the vast majority of what I wrote was a salute to Bush more than criticism of Obama.

Perhaps some of the people protesting today can put down their smoke bombs long enough to read it.

Nat Hentoff

We lost jazz critic and free-speech activist Nat Hentoff this month. He remains one of my stalwart heroes -- a true individual: liberal on many issues, but not afraid to shake up left-wing orthodoxy when he deemed it appropriate. For instance, this pivotal story from 1992 demonstrates that attacks on free speech often come from the left and not the right. In fact, while this story is coming up on a quarter-century old, and yet it foreshadowed what has become all too common on our university campuses (and, we'll probably see, presidential inaugurations), where conservative speakers are regularly shouted down and their would-be audience members physically restrained from entering the venue, all because they hold different opinions.

Hentoff was credited with the phrase, "Free speech for me -- but not for thee," to criticize those who enrobe themselves in the First Amendment while simultaneously attempting to deny that same right for their opponents. Twenty-five years later, the situation's only gotten worse.

Of Lives and Mattering

I've been looking at this post of mine for several months now, resolving to finish it and post it, just waiting for the appropriate time. The obnoxious, fairly maligned MTV video chiding white males (addressed here last week) makes this seem as good a time as any. It's not going to get any better -- my post, I mean.

The phrase "Black Lives Matter" caused a firestorm, and it begat "All Lives Matter," which was met with equal scorn. After police officers in Dallas were gunned down, many "BLM" advocates clarified  that "BLM" in no way implies "ONLY BLM." Seth Meyers, who a while back decided to abandon all pretense of evenhandedness and go the Full Olbermann, made this point while attacking Rudy Giuliani after Dallas.

I do understand that most who say "black lives matter" do believe that other lives matter, as well, but they also believe that African-Americans are being disproportionately targeted by police. One may agree with that assertion. One may disagree. But at least the conversation can begin from there.

But if "BLM" deserves the benefit of the doubt, then the same is true for "ALM." If people should not mentally add "only" to someone else's "Black Lives Matter," then others should not mentally add "Except Black Lives" to someone else's "All Lives Matter."

Then there are the shoddy Internet comparisons. One argues that saying "all lives matter" is like a fire department hosing down all the houses on the street, not just the one burning, because "all houses matter." Or a surgeon operating on every bone in your body, not just the one that is broken, because "all bones matter." But I look at the lives being lost on the news. Folks, it's not just one house on fire. I see many broken bones, and they're not all one color.

The difference between "BLM" and "ALM" is one of emphasis. Never have so many people who seem to be in agreement argued with each other with such ferocity.