The 'Santa-is-Dead' Syndrome

Viewing the general landscape of America today, I would suggest a new mental health syndrome exists.....which I will call...the 'Santa-is-dead' syndrome. 

There are immature folks....most between the ages of 18 and 30....who believe that on any given moment of the day, that something can be said to unhinge them and cast them into a world of doubt.  So imagine if you went to a six-year-old kid and just told them Santa died this morning (heart-attack from over-eating, or he fell down the steps into the North Pole basement). 

How did this syndrome start?  I think it actually started in the 2000 to 2010 era.  It might have been via some movies, TV programs, or just idle chatter of young kids.  Then along came college professors who motivated the syndrome to advance further, and social media to help turoboize it.

The reality now?  Highly immature kids who seem to have a 'vote', can't handle much pressure or stress in life, and lack common sense. 

 

2020 Senate Race

There are 34 Senator spots up for grabs....the GOP holds 22 of them.  The Democrats hold 12. 

So far, there are only two incumbent Republicans retiring....meaning a higher risk for those two states (

The Alabama race?  It's likely a lose situation for the Democrats, with a plus-up of one seat there.

Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky (Mitch ought to retire but won't), Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wyoming....are all considered safe for the GOP.

Maine's Susan Collins?  She likely loses.  It wouldn't surprise me if she declines to run and annouces this by December.

Colorado and Arizona are both in the 50-50 situation for the GOP. 

For gaining Democratic seats?  Michigan and New Hampshire are the more likely places where the GOP could put effort and time.

The strategy of Trump campaigning in various states?  In the case of Alabama and Michigan....it's the big dynamic and ought to bring the GOP those two seats. 

The 2016 Coup

“I was speaking to the man who had just run for the presidency, and won the election of the presidency, and who might have done so with the aid of Russia, our most formidable adversary on the world stage, and that was something that troubled me greatly,”
-- Andrew McCabe, to 60 Minutes

It's one of those quotes that you read over a dozen times, and try to imagine how this intelligent guy fell into this line of thought, and what sequences occurred over his past twenty years.....to make him this 'stupid'.

I lay a lot of the blame on the news media that evolved out of the 1990s, and worked to convince people of false realities.  Some of the blame ought to go over to both the Democratic and Republican Parties.....for creating a fake reality of politics and theatrical-type 'fears'.  Then you have to go and ask about his education acquired from Duke University (1990), and St Louis University (1993).   Did the professors 'gift' him some marginalized logic or thinking process?

The sad thing here, is that this guy and another wide assortment of characters....were all lining up to conduct a 'coup', and 'save America'.  Never once did anyone in this group stop and think over the consequences.

So you come to the dramatic end of the coup business, where the conspirators and the news media need to stand up and admit their stupidity, and they don't seem to be able to produce that moment of regret.

Here's the obvious left at the end....all of these remarkable and clever individuals....hyped up still....that Russia is the evil one in the room.  In all likelihood.....all of them still believe that today. How much brain-washing was required, to get them to that level, and keep them there....even today?  And these people still linger there, trying to be part of some future in government work? 

Explaining Ineptocracy

Let's say that a deteriorated socialized 'republic' came to exist.  This would be triggered by public discontent, confusing political statements, journalists behaving more as provocateurs, social chaos, and economic events spiraling into various directions. 

In the midst of this chaos, you....the voter...would decide upon radical changes and revolutionary paths to the future.  You would go and vote upon leaders who were in simple terms....the least capable of doing the actual job. Maybe they were good at speeches, but you weren't able to determine their real qualifications.  Perhaps their resume were just four lines, and these were mostly people doing work that they were not qualified for.  Maybe these were gifted bus-drivers, who would quickly progress up the line to be President of Venezuela.  Or perhaps they were medium-level investment portfolio handlers who would invent their own political party and run for President of France. 

In simple terms, they were the least capable leaders, who had the least favorable plan for moving ahead.  But because people were confused, and unable to really get solid answers....the radical path ahead made perfect sense. 

So in the days, weeks and months ahead....the chief act of this government (not just one person, but literally hundreds of the least capable)....was to take, confiscate, and redistribute the wealth....mostly to just enrich themselves or the friends who got them elected.

This form of government?  It's called Ineptocracy. 

Some people have the opinion that we've entered a Ineptocracy in the past two years.  Some people have the opinion that we've been in a Ineptocracy for at least ten years.  Some people believe for the past fifty years or more, we've been in a Ineptocracy.  Some believe that Britain, France, and Germany....are today in a Ineptocracy.

An evil thing? No, Ineptocracy is simply the solution to a rocket-science type problem.  It appeared to you that only one individual in the room looked and behaved like a rocket-scientist, so he or she is the logical person to lead the group.  It's like some corporal coming out of a war situation.....walking into a pub....delivering a five-star speech, and no one asking what they really did prior to the speech (like that moustached Austrian guy at the Hofbrauhaus in Munich). 

In all matters, common sense ought to prevail, but it seems to be in limited or marginal quantities. 

Reading the Green Deal

I sat this morning and read the AOC 'Green Deal'.  You can view it over at the government site.

My observations:

1.  It reads like a first-year college research paper.  There is a question about 20 lines into the paper, which is supposed to lead as a question to a paragraph: "Is getting to a greenhouse gas emissions neutral society in 10 years possible?"  The answer below it.....doesn't explain how to reach the neutral society in ten years....it simply says it's politically possible.

2.  It cites a test poll that says 92-percent of Democrats and 64-percent of GOP voters support the Green Deal.....however, it never says who did the poll, or where it was conducted.

3.  It talks a great deal about expenditures and investments, but doesn't really say where the money slips into actual programs, to what levels, or where success (an end-result) will be.  It does hint that this would all occur in ten years....but why ten?

4.  At some point, it says in very clear and blunt language.....a guarantee will exist (one assumes here a right) to: (1) a job with family-sustaining wages, (2) family and medical leave, (3) vacations, (4) retirement, (5) security, (6)  High-quality education, (7) High-quality health care, (8)  Clean air, (9) Clean water, (10) Healthy food, (11) Safe, affordable, adequate housing, (12) An economic environment free of monopolies, (13) Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work.

I sat and that piece several times....you'd have to make this into a Constitutional piece, and right off the bat....you'd start to ask about the economic security angle to those who were unwilling to work.  If fifty-percent of society chose not to work....what would happen? 

The comment to high-quality health care?  Well....this alone would get into the trillions.

Guaranteeing people a vacation?  Where?  Are we talking about a five-day trip to the Ozarks in a camp-ground?  Are we talking about a Hawaii beach front hotel for $250 a night? 

Healthy food?  Don't we offer via Piggly Wiggly food already?  Are we talking about free food?  Are we suggesting that Potato Chips be banned because it's not a healthy food?

I hate to suggest it, but it reads like some three-page research paper, that was due on Monday and you were starting this on Sunday afternoon while sipping Bombay Sapphire Gin.  It's not really clear where the goals lead onto, how the money really fits into this, and whether or not people would agree to the end-product.   

Real 'Harm' versus Imaginary 'Harm'

I sat and watched a 20-minute video clip this morning, which a intellectual did their best to convince you that they were an intellectual, but by the end of the twenty minutes, you were firmly convinced that the fake intellectual was hopelessly lost. 

The debate of this twenty-minute conversation was real 'harm' versus imaginary 'harm' (I know that wasn't the intention of the intellectual, but you couldn't help but notice this remarkable problem).

In the real world, real 'harm' is mostly represented by literally hundreds of scenarios.  You could be walking in some woods, and find yourself facing a bear.  You could be walking along a Florida canal, and be confronted by an alligator.  You could be driving through the city of Birmingham....having car issues, and realize with a dead-engine that you are in the part of town at 10 PM, facing real 'harm' potential.  You could be jumping off the side of some overhang into a lake....only to find a four feet depth of water. 

Imaginary 'harm'?  This is where someone says something....maybe ten brief words, which set you off and freak you out.  Imaginary 'harm' could include telling a 8-year old kid that Santa doesn't exist, and they spend the next five years talking to some school nurse about this conflict in their life.  Imaginary 'harm' could involve some customer service representative telling you 'no'....your complaint isn't going be resolved, and you spend at least twenty hours over the next month detailing your 'pains and suffering' from the encounter to just about anyone who will listen.  Imaginary 'harm' can include someone who fell for ease of credit, and wakes up eight years later....wanting cry over $300,000 in debt but can't really show any gains or value from the purchases....but now want to spend countless hours dwelling on the terrible financial mess that they are attached to.

Somehow, society has allowed imaginary 'harm' to merge and it's seen as something now to require public attention.  As days go by....fewer folks buy into the imaginary 'harm' chatter.  I would even go to the extent of suggesting that intellectuals (who seem to say they are smart) seem to be the ones who mostly get pumped up for imaginary 'harm'.  People in rural environments or small towns?  They've faced real 'harm' in various ways, and can't really imagine 'harm' of a fake nature.  It doesn't make any sense to them.

Where is this whole discussion going to in the future?  Eventually, the imaginary 'harm' people are going to figure out that two-thirds of society just doesn't give a damn about their woes, sorrows, and suffering.  Some might even reach a point of saying that life in the US has become like some Irish pub in Tralee, Ireland....where a dozen drunk Irish men sit around for hours...giving you some John Steinbeck-classic story over their life, their women, their failures, and their falls from grace.  Eventually, real people get tired of the tales of woe and sorrow, and walk out of the pub.  That will likely be the same scenario in America, where people just turn and face away from the imaginary 'harm' crowd....letting them know that these failures or falls from grace....just aren't worth discussing anymore.   

What If Money Didn't Matter In An Election?

One of the odd features of the 2016 national election is that Hillary Clinton's entire campaign (from her to the PACs) went through $1.2-billion (NY Post numbers).  Donald Trump?  He spent approximately half that amount.

Up until this election, it was accepted that money mattered and the higher spender.....generally won.

So the question to ask....does it now make any difference?

Some people will say that a fair chunk of the money goes to polling....to tell you where the people stand in various states....on various issues.  Yet in the 2016 case, the polling people failed....miserably.

In the 2020 case?  One might look at this campaign as a Trump adviser and suggest that real campaign money be centered on the thirty states that he won, and to a much lesser degree on the next five states where he came fairly close....basically forgetting about California and NY entirely.

So Trump could under-spend again (say fifty-percent of what a Democratic candidate would spend)? Yes, and here is the bolder statement....it's pretty good odds that only marginal candidates will primary against Trump in the GOP primary.....so he won't have to spend more than forty-million flying around the US to speak at a once or twice a week campaign rally during the primary. 

Clinton spent, with her money, DNC money, and PAC month....near $750-million.  I have my doubts that Trump will even spend one-third of that amount in this 2020 election.