Tag Archives: politics

Summing up politics in America in the 1830s

Henry hates John. John abhors Henry. Andrew can’t stand Henry or John—and neither of them have any use for Andrew.”

The Players
Henry is Henry Clay, Speaker of the House for decades. John is John C. Calhoun, a proud southerner who developed the idea of nullification. And Andrew is Andrew Jackson, war hero and eventual president of the United States.

I discovered this incredible summation of affairs in the book Distory: A Treasury of Historical Insults by a man named Schnakenberg.

ajh

Advice from Old Fritz on war, politics & humanity

frederick-the-greatFrederick the Great wrote a book, published in 1740, the very year he acceded to the throne, in response to Machiavelli’s The Prince, a cynical and jaded view of realpolitik. In it, Old Fritz provides a more responsible and humanitarian view of governing, particularly when it comes to life and death decisions such as war.

War is so full of misfortune, its outcome is so uncertain, and its consequences so ruinous for a country that sovereigns should think twice before undertaking it. . . . princes who wage unjust wars are more cruel and cold-blooded than any tyrant ever was. They sacrifice to their impetuous passions the well-being of an infinity of men whom they are duty-bound to protect.”

Republicans, Democrats, Left and Right — everyone — would do well to heed such advice.

It is odd to think that I knew of Machiavelli and his Prince, yet did not learn of Frederick’s reply, Against Machiavelli, until today. The Prince was required reading in one of my high school lit classes. Perhaps Frederick the Great should be, too.

ajh

“It’s a total utter lie that police shootings are a major cause of black deaths.” — Ben Stein

The police are the heroes

Ben Stein writing at the American Spectator gives us some perspective and numbers on the police and the state of black culture in America.

“It’s a total utter lie that police shootings are a major cause of black deaths.”

Most are suicides, sadly.

“The huge majority of the rest are black-on-black gang and drug related shootings.”

That’s the major, underlying issue here: the lack of courage within the black community to confront what really plagues their neighborhoods. It’s the crime, the violence, the drugs.

“The Obama clique makes no effort at all to rein in these gangs. The gangs kill and no one proposes any laws about it at all.”

President Obama has been much a president. Sure, he’s won two elections. He’s held the office. But he has been everything but presidential. He has shown virtually no leadership on these and other critical issues.

“There is a giant super crisis among blacks: Violence. Drugs. The collapse of the family. Pitiful education. Low participation in the labor force. None of this is caused by the police.”

Federal, state and local leaders must begin to address the collapse of the black family and their communities.

ajh

 

The Notorious RBG

tumblr_inline_nmijx1iYow1s3uo67_500In two recent interviews, one with the Associated Press and another with The New York Times the next day where she doubled-down, Ruth Bader Ginsburg officially waded into the politic arena, despite years of precedence otherwise. Of course, when did decades of precedence stop a Supreme Court justice?

“No wonder they call her Notorious RBG. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has just declared war against Donald Trump . . . ”

I remember reading about the Notorious RBG. Fans of the activist, who landed on the Supreme Court during a time of notorious activism thanks to supplicant Republicans, gave her the nickname years ago. It’s a play on a rapper, The Notorious B.I.G., who was gunned down in 1997 on the streets of Los Angeles.

A book  with the moniker, a fawning biography of Ginsburg, was published a few years back. It was popular throughout the mainstream media, with numerous interviews of the authors on everything from NPR to MSNBC.

The writer of the second interview, employed by The New York Times, both notable allies of the Notorious RBG, was “so astounded that he warned his readers before he reported her comments that normally justices ‘diligently avoid political topics.’”

As she attacked Trump, “she was smiling ‘ruefully’.”

“It wasn’t the only line she crossed in the interview. Ginsburg also daydreamed out loud about overturning the gun-rights case known as Heller. The Times even seemed to want to protect Ginsburg from the fallout from this error of judgment, deleting it from the article until sharp-eyed readers called out the paper and the lines were restored.”

What would happen if Clarence Thomas or any other justice had spoken out against Obama? Or Hillary?

“Imagine if one of the conservative justices had said such a thing about the prospect of, say, a President Hillary Clinton. There’d be a cacophony of calls for impeachment.”

Of course, no one among her friends, no one at The New York Times — not a single, lonely soul on the Left — has said a damn thing about Ginsburg’s big mouth. They never let Scalia say anything without a bunch of snide remarks.

“So far, Ginsburg’s electioneering hasn’t been met with even a peep of protest from the editorial board of the Times — or any other Democratic Party-aligned paper. Then again, she’s a liberal.”

ajh

 

 

Ginsburg has just been telling us what we already know. Jurists are as partisan & opinionated as everyone else.

This long-standing tradition among many that judges, and in particular the Supreme Court, is holier than thou, a place of sacrosanct American jurisprudence, is, of course, a bunch of horse manure. Partisanship has always been a part of the courts. People just didn’t want to admit it. And Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent denunciations of Donald Trump prove what a farce the system is.

ajh

Professor at Iowa State is sad because Brazil says ‘Adios’ to socialist prez

A professor at Iowa State is sad because Brazil’s socialist president overreached and is about to be thrown out of office.

What’s sad is this gal is a professor teaching political science. She doesn’t seem to know much of anything.

Smith says what’s happening in Brazil reflects a fundamental misunderstanding by many lawmakers of how the country’s democratic institutions work.”

Oh, academics in their ivory towers.

Umm, isn’t impeachment part of Brazil’s constitution? Isn’t this really up to the legislators, who are, after all, elected themselves?

Checks and balances, including the right to impeach and remove leaders, is essential to representative government. It’s an important part of the framework of any government.

“This is a moment in which those of us who care about Brazilian democracy should be sad.”

It’s up to the legislature to determine, not a nosy assistant professor half a world away.

“In my opinion, the way many deputies who voted for impeachment celebrated the vote was unseemly. Even if a president deserves impeachment, one should treat the matter with dignity and gravitas.”

Her political opponents won and celebrated the victory. Big deal! Get over it, Smith! Too bad we can’t impeach preachy professors with no real world experience.

ajh