Snowflake Riot

Some of the people who are on the same political side as the rioters say things, in reference to the rioters, like, "At least they have passion."


See, because no matter what the last president did or didn't do that his opponents disliked--even vehemently--there were no parades of people destroying property, shouting vulgarities, or dressing like the losers of a junior high bet. And not all leftists agree with the tactics of these left-whining vandals, but neither are they knocking each other over to condemn the miscreants.


"They have passion, it's just ... um, misguided."


Sure, go with that.


It's as if passion somehow trumps (ha!) lawfulness, kindness, and good sense. And the left-leaning national news (but I repeat myself) treats them not as vandals but as modern day Boston Tea Partiers.


Even with the news on their side (vacuously and untruthfully though it is), I have to wonder about the motivation(s) of whoever is starting these things. The participants are just morons who want to destroy and have found protection in crowds, but somewhere behind all this there is someone with an end game, a goal.


Under normal circumstances, I would think that the driving force has an idea he/she or they are trying to convert others to. Maybe they do, but who is going to watch knuckleheads on TV turning over cars and setting fire to things and then think, "You know, those idiots make a pretty good point. I wish I could change my vote"?


In fact, the actions of the rioters seem to me to be not only destructive towards property, but towards their own agenda for the likely outcome would be to galvanize the opposition.




P.S. And have you ever noticed that even the non-riot leftist get-togethers--like the post-inaugural Women's March--always leave the grounds where they were held dirtier and more trash-filled than before the conclave, but get-togethers like the recent March for Life actually leave the area cleaner than they found it? And then the people who trashed the park try to claim they're the ones who love the environment.

Political Debates as Kabuki Theater

Watching the political debates, what little I could stomach, anyway, made me think about what I knew was coming:


-- Everyone who already supported him was going to say he won.


-- Everyone who already supported her would say she won.


-- Almost no minds would be changed.


-- The media would spin it the way they were going to spin it no matter what happened within the debate itself.


It's interesting to be a Tuesday morning reader of this stuff, especially to read comments or headlines like, "Trump unquestionably won" or "Clinton the undeniable victor" ... sometimes on the same front page of the same newspaper (do they still print those) or web site.


Not like sports.


We may argue that the referee blew the call and the ball was definitely in the air before the buzzer, or that the umpire should have called that ball a homerun, but the outcome is what it is. This team won and that team lost.


In the real sports, I mean, not those genned-up, fake ones, like pro wrestling or the NFL.


Somewhere, there is probably someone who has created a metric that tells who won a debate, but it hasn't caught on, and probably won't. Our debates aren't even debates. Whoever you thought won the most recent presidential debate (and I'm thinking it was probably Jill Stein, for getting kicked off campus before it even started), neither one of the participants would have even qualified for a high F in a debate class.


It's theatre. It's Show. It's a chance to pretend that the candidates are knowledgeable, acceptable potential leaders of the country. It's a chance for the media to act like they care about both sides of the issue(s).


It is, in this most recent case, anyway, a ratings bonanza.