This is inspirational to me.  It’s encouragement to up my game.  In all truth, my game has never been very good.  I am undisciplined.  I am beset by attacks of traumatic emotion continually.  I get tossed here and there, and I haven’t figured out yet how to make it stop.  But I’m getting close.  I feel it.

And I can’t help do what I do here, and what I’ve done on my other blog.  Thinking, pondering, trying to figure out how humanity survives–or at least creating a plan which is in depth, sensible, and possible–is really all I am capable of doing.  It is, obviously, my obsession.

But his comments on dealing with boredom and isolation, on attention, on being disciplined with time: all highly valuable for what I prefer to call a thought worker.

I actually took a class with Paul Griffiths at the University of Chicago.  Along with the then Assistant Dean there, he is one of two people in my life who, the moment I met them, I could tell were significantly more intelligent than me.  He probably has a 180 IQ and, as I think his letter makes clear, is still reasonably emotionally intelligent as well.

His last comment made me think of Charles Bukowski:

so you want to be a writer?

if it doesn’t come bursting out of you
in spite of everything,
don’t do it.
unless it comes unasked out of your
heart and your mind and your mouth
and your gut,
don’t do it.
if you have to sit for hours
staring at your computer screen
or hunched over your
typewriter
searching for words,
don’t do it.
if you’re doing it for money or
fame,
don’t do it.
if you’re doing it because you want
women in your bed,
don’t do it.
if you have to sit there and
rewrite it again and again,
don’t do it.
if it’s hard work just thinking about doing it,
don’t do it.
if you’re trying to write like somebody
else,
forget about it.


if you have to wait for it to roar out of
you,
then wait patiently.
if it never does roar out of you,
do something else.

if you first have to read it to your wife
or your girlfriend or your boyfriend
or your parents or to anybody at all,
you’re not ready.

don’t be like so many writers,
don’t be like so many thousands of
people who call themselves writers,
don’t be dull and boring and
pretentious, don’t be consumed with self-
love.
the libraries of the world have
yawned themselves to
sleep
over your kind.
don’t add to that.
don’t do it.
unless it comes out of
your soul like a rocket,
unless being still would
drive you to madness or
suicide or murder,
don’t do it.
unless the sun inside you is
burning your gut,
don’t do it.

when it is truly time,
and if you have been chosen,
it will do it by
itself and it will keep on doing it
until you die or it dies in you.

there is no other way.

and there never was.

But perhaps the Syrians WERE using poison gas, and perhaps a missile attack on the gas storage and production facilities was warranted.  It is a limited strike, no boots on the ground, no risk of American lives–if Russia doesn’t attack us–and perhaps it will prevent further such attacks.  Still, I see no real difference between deaths from gas and deaths from bombing or shooting.  Dead is dead, and unless it happens instantly, it seems reasonably clear just about all forms are very unpleasant.

Trump had in the past indicated both that such attacks were useless, and that they required Congressional approval.  Leaving the first question aside, and leaving his apparent change of heart and mind aside for the moment, it does seem OBVIOUS that any action which might get us into a larger war MUST be approved at least by some segment of Congress.  As I have said before, sometimes decisions have to be made quickly.  Some system can be put in place to notify and get the consent from either a majority of Senators, or at least a majority of Senators on a relevant committee.  This would meet the INTENT of the Constitution, which did not want loose cannons inflicting damaging wars on America without being sufficiently popular to gain the public support of a significant portion of our elected representatives.

If the President wants to send in a team of SEAL’s or Rangers to rescue captive Americans somewhere in Africa, fine.  If he wants to send in Green Berets to train some nation facing Islamic insurgency, fine.  But where major powers, like Russia and China and North Korea are concerned–nuclear powers–Congress should be notified and consulted.  Again, some high tech, secure means for doing this quickly can and should be created, and Presidents should be held to this standard.

This brings me to my main point.  I will wonder aloud if the Supreme Court at some point will put an end to the legal abuses of Robert Mueller.  Our system of government is based upon propriety, and upon strict boundaries.  Police are not allowed, per the 4th Amendment, to simply dig into every aspect of any American’s life until they find something prosecutable.  What they have to have, per the Supreme Court, is probable cause.  When they execute a search warrant, it needs to be in relation to a specific crime.

Now, I see no reason to doubt that Mueller and Rosenstein and his enablers at Justice are MOSTLY following something approximating the rule of law, but it seems highly doubtful that they are completely following the law.  It seems obvious that the entire premise which enabled them to appoint Mueller in the first place was not just flawed, but KNOWN to be flawed.  A serious felony, as I understand it, was committed the moment Robert Mueller was appointed.  They knew Trump to be innocent of the charges, but forged ahead anyway.  They knew the Steele Dossier was fabricated, but they went ahead anyway.

Now Mueller is simply on fishing expedition after fishing expedition.  THIS IS NOT HOW OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WAS INTENDED TO WORK.  He has become an Inquisitor, not an investigator operating according to the rules of our system, which were intended to prevent people from becoming the subjects of indefinite and on-going investigations into every last minute aspect of their lives.  That the object of this investigation is the sitting President is relevant, certainly, but that ANY citizen of the United States should be subjected to this should be a matter for the Supreme Court to weigh in on and put a stop to.  Only the Court has the moral authority to do this without contrived and planned mass public outcry.


Now, the Supreme Court has a number of cowards in it–John Roberts, I am speaking to you–as well as de facto Leftists, who think the law should be made to say what they want it to say, rather than what it actually does say, but one can hope that one day their protracted somnolence will end.  They ended the recounts in Florida in 2000.  They can put an end to Rosenstein/Mueller too.

Failing that–and I have little but contempt for most of our “leaders”, because they have shown themselves to be little minded cowards over and over–Trump needs to face up to the possibility of extortion.  One thing he knows, which we speculators must guess about, is what, if anything, he has actually done wrong.  Only he and Cohen and perhaps a few others know what the FBI will find in their stash of ill gotten loot.  I can only assume that–like I would guess most of Congress–there is something in there which would create problems for him. [My God, imagine if the FBI paid this level of attention to the Clinton Foundation, as it would if it were not something very close to fully corrupt].

Given this, his best play is to wait for them to blackmail him, fall on his sword publicly, admit his wrong-doing, then point out that this whole thing has been a political game intended to reverse the results of the 2016 election.

Here is the thing: a sitting President cannot be arrested.  We see this wishful fantasy played out over and over in the lunatic Left’s public imagination, but the framers of our Constitution understood that a trial of a sitting President would make doing his job–in no small measure, protecting our country–impossible.  To be the subject of a criminal trial–and to be arrested–he would have to first be impeached by the House, then the Senate would have to vote to remove him.  Such, in any event, is my understanding.

Now, regardless of what the crimes may be–and with Trump it would most likely be something like tax evasion–the whole thing becomes politicized.  Many Leftists, of course, have welcomed the Mueller Inquisition.  But I also think many ordinary Americans are appalled at the tactics of the Left, and the patent corruption of our legal system which both Hillary’s exoneration with respect to hundreds of serious felonies, and Trump’s problems with respect to non-existent crimes, betray.  It is unmistakable: our Justice Department does not deal in justice, the FBI does not operate honestly, the IRS can be made into a partisan attack dog, and high officials–heads of departments–lie about important matters repeatedly over time with impunity.  Our system is corrupt.  It is broken.  We are being betrayed.  This is why Trump was elected.

From what I read, after Mueller’s raid Trumps level of support went UP, not down.  At some point, even lifelong Democrats have to come to terms with the horrific corruption of their party, at its utter abandonment of principle and the very people it claims to support, such as the American worker.

I find it hard to hope.  There is so much hate, so much reflexive and trained stupidity, so little understanding, or even attempt at understanding.  But one has to hope.  I need to hope.

It likewise occurs to me that–rather, I am tempted to say, without bring sure I believe it–that the core tragedy of blacks in this country has not been racism but, paradoxically, the sheer numbers of whites eager and even desperate to be their saviors.  Racism has been a given in human history forever. So has slavery. The Greeks kept slaves. The Chinese kept slaves. The Jews kept slaves. Most Africans kept slaves. Most Native American tribes kept slaves.

America, of course, exists in continuity with the cultural flow of time, and the sins of everywhere else, and which predates the arrival of white people, existed here too for a time, until we fought s bloody and horrible, and horribly destructive war because a large number of American were both unwilling to sccept slavery, and unwilling to see the Union severed.

But only here, uniquely here, did an organized group realize that they could win elections on the basis of promises they knew they couldn’t keep. Think about what the Democrats do: they make impossible promises, fail, then blame Republicans, such that they are able both to break every explicit and implicit (I will make car payment, she thought she heard Obama say) promise they make over many DECADES, and continue to ask for votes without getting ridden out of town on a pole.

To be sure, in some respect to the civil rights legislations the Republicans passed in the 1950’s–and to a lesser but real extent the more famous legislation passed under Johnson in the 1960’s–were reasonable responses to real problems. Institutional racism was a real problem. Your race mattered for jobs, where you could live, who you could marry, where you could eat, etc.

But large numbers of people, here and abroad, have dealt with racism and won. The Italians, the Jews, the Irish, and many others faced systematic prejudice. What did they do? They banded together as communities, took care of each other, created safe places for them and theirs, worked hard, and eventually became self evidently equal members of the American experiment and dream.

Blacks, uniquely, had large numbers of people outside their race and culture speaking for them nearly from the outset of the “Civil Rights era”. They were flourishing until this happened, relatively. They had high labor participation rates, low unemployment, high rates of two parent homes. But when white people strayed speaking for them, especially after they lost their best leaders in MLK and Malcolm X, all progress stopped, then reversed.

In my view, this is easily shown demographically. You can show where black self destruction began, and it was in my view when they started getting treated like malleable and stupid children.

Would such people blink at mass murder anywhere? Would the shooting in Las Vegas be a problem? Parkland? Of course not. I have no more knowledge of what really DID happen than most, but stating that these things are possible seems an obviously reasonable claim.

It is important to remember that much of the Left in America is of the Sybaritic type: they want to deny the reality of evil. Their lives consist in elaborate fantasies based on the idea that the people MOST amenable to reason and restraint–Conservatives–are in fact the WORST people in the world, and the main or even exclusive cause of all it’s suffering. All they have to do, in this make believe world, is hate us and marginalize us, and everything else will fall in place. There is no other evil. There is no other greed, no other source of violence.

Emotionally, they are children. They are not idealists but idiots. Idealists look at the world as it is, and see what could be. I am an idealist. Imbeciles look at the world and see what they want to see.

And the thing is, when you are emotionally unwilling to see evil, to feel it in you, too, then it can easily grow within you, unnoticed, unchecked. This is how the viciousness we see everywhere today happened. It is also how they are so blind they think that–with a hundred million dead bodies they must claim responsibility for–they are the good ones.

As with any other learning–and emotional intelligence is much
more amenable to training than regular intelligence–you begin by not knowing what you don’t know.

This is why the arrogance of the Left is so damaging: it makes learning and genuine, emotionally intelligent adaptation impossible.

It is astonishing to watch people who are mellow and friendly in every other aspect of their lives turn into werewolves the moment someone crosses a political line.

What this betrays, of course, is that the anger was there all along, and the veneer of kindliness and tolerance a lie. This is obvious, but I think it does lead to the reasonable claim that the Left is more of less characterized by a lack of self knowledge. I would further stipulate that the recalcitrance to introspection, and the pervasiveness of grandiose moralizing, are what make the Left–and Utopianism generally–so attractive to so many ugly people.  The Left won’t ask you who you ARE. They will merely ask you what you are willing to say you believe.

He’s hot. People do irrational things when they are angry. Can I wonder publicly if the two events were in fact coordinated?

There is obviously, within our government, a “Committee to unelect Trump”. Only minimal coordination would be needed to tell Mueller the gas attack was signal for the raid.

All this May of course be vastly more complicated. It may be MUCH more complex and my suppositions ridiculous,

But in principle, based on what we already DO know, is anything off the table?

Is a plan based on challenging Trumps manhood, then creating an immediate and powerful means to respond by proxy ridiculous in principle? We are dealing with highly intelligent people.

Why would we risk a large war to respond to what was likely a CIA backed false flag attack?

Why would we wheel about, after Trumo already decided Syria was not a fit and appropriate place to ask Americans to die, or to sacrifice their time and life energy?

I need to stop reading the news.

That will be s steep abyss for me, but I will survive.

When SHOULD he make waves?  When would be good for them?  Mueller won’t quit without blood.  Is the 1st of Nevuary good for them, since that is always a good time to do the right thing, even when politically unpopular among some?