I'm often amused how journalists get wrapped up on the KKK-topic and they want you to put this topic in your top hundred things to worry about. So this is one of those historical essays I write....to establish some true basis of understanding.
First, the original KKK-concept occurred in the Pulaski, Tenn area, and probably was more tied to a local group of guys (six total), who wanted to make up a Greek 'club' like organization after the Civil War. In some ways, it was like lodge-group....with secrecy tied to it, and some likey hardcore drinking. The first group could be regarded as a weird collection of folks who had a dislike of the Democratic-style politics going on, and influences perceived in 'change'. Their chief problem in that original couple of years, was no central authority and no ability to kick out the rift-raft. Most tend to agree...evolution 1.0 of the KKK ended by 1870.
For the next forty years....KKK-like groups come and go, but none use the name. In some ways, they resemble more the Brown Shirts of Germany or the Black Shirts of Italy, in that period.
So you come to 1915, and version 2 of the KKK, which centered itself around Stone Mountain, Georgia. This group went back to the Greek-like club thrills, the secrecy, and this time....had a central authority.
This second group last for almost thirty years and probably reached near 6-million members toward the end. But their enthusiasm and problems, led onto KKK evolution number three.
For the third era, I tend to argue that this core group went through a massive recruitment spiral, and probably peaked out by the early 1970s. There might have been 10k to 20k members in that era.
So you come to today. You can review various estimations and people put the real number of 'paying members' (with membership) at 3,000 to 8,000 nationally. Proof? There simply isn't a reliable way to suggest the numbers.
Some might still be attracted to the anti-black theme or anti-Jew message. Some might simply see it as some mysterious Greek-like club (especially those who didn't do the college club membership deal).
If you went and tried to get full-up members to show up for some march? I doubt if you'd get more than a quarter of folks to go that far. They like the secrecy, but beyond that.....they don't want the extra thrills.
I think if you went into various communities today, and offered up a modern-day version of the 'Sons of Malta' (another secrecy group but not really into the KKK-type themes), then you'd have a fair number of folks interested and pursuing something like that. People just have a fascination with secret stuff (like the Freemasons).
Fake KKK thugs around? Last week, I was reading a piece of news and the news item seemed to have some suggestion of a fake KKK group. I would take a guess that maybe several fraudulent and fake groups exist....purely for political gathering purposes.
A threat to the nation? The 1915 group might have been a threat. But the original crew and the current existing crew are just not much of a threat.
Thursday, 23 August 2018
Watergate?
I sat there today and watched through about 60 minutes of news coverage over the past three days.....where the term 'Watergate was mentioned at least twenty times. Watergate-this, and Watergate-that.
I admit I am nearing 60 years old and have some memory of the period, the activity, the characters, and downfall of Nixon.
But here's the thing. I suspect that two-thirds of the nation has virtually NO MEMORY of Watergate, and this hype? It'd doing absolutely nothing.
Some folks are probably sitting there and thinking Watergate was some dam structure which collapsed in 1913 in Arkansas, or it was a Detroit car model that was made for one brief year, or that it was a blonde gal from Tulsa who went by the name 'Henny' Watergate and she did some wild topless dancing in the 1970s.
The use of these 1970s journalists? Being dragged out and propped up for some twelve-minute lecture about something that no one really remembers? Well....that's the problem. They might as well be Detroit Lion coaches, Seattle city council members, or famous Mexican comedians.
By the middle of next week...some intellectual guy will meet up with the CNN, NPR, and CBS crowd.....discussing the discovery that the term 'Watergate' really is a mystery to two-thirds of the nation and maybe there needs to be another angle to destroying Trump (maybe connecting him to a UFO theorist group or a Swedish opera singer with Russian family connections).
Here's the funny thing.....more people can name women 'loved' on by Bill Clinton.....than Republican guys who 'fell' during the Watergate era. That ought to worry the Democrats greatly.
I admit I am nearing 60 years old and have some memory of the period, the activity, the characters, and downfall of Nixon.
But here's the thing. I suspect that two-thirds of the nation has virtually NO MEMORY of Watergate, and this hype? It'd doing absolutely nothing.
Some folks are probably sitting there and thinking Watergate was some dam structure which collapsed in 1913 in Arkansas, or it was a Detroit car model that was made for one brief year, or that it was a blonde gal from Tulsa who went by the name 'Henny' Watergate and she did some wild topless dancing in the 1970s.
The use of these 1970s journalists? Being dragged out and propped up for some twelve-minute lecture about something that no one really remembers? Well....that's the problem. They might as well be Detroit Lion coaches, Seattle city council members, or famous Mexican comedians.
By the middle of next week...some intellectual guy will meet up with the CNN, NPR, and CBS crowd.....discussing the discovery that the term 'Watergate' really is a mystery to two-thirds of the nation and maybe there needs to be another angle to destroying Trump (maybe connecting him to a UFO theorist group or a Swedish opera singer with Russian family connections).
Here's the funny thing.....more people can name women 'loved' on by Bill Clinton.....than Republican guys who 'fell' during the Watergate era. That ought to worry the Democrats greatly.
NFL
I should note, I just don't care much for the NFL, and have been that way for a couple of years. The kneeling business simply wrapped up the last bit of enthusiasm I had.
I noticed today that teams are a bit worried over fan numbers and filling seats as the season starts up, and they've gone to a new tactic.....heavily discounting beer and food prices. Course, this cuts into profits but the desperation is starting to show.
If the attendance or viewing numbers don't return to a norm? Most journalists were trying to tell a story in the late fall of 2017 that this was a temp thing, and it would return to normal. Why they choose that wording? Unknown.
The brand? It's in a freefall type situation and no one that you can readily identify for blame. If you were a owner of a billion-dollar club, and your profits were 20-percent off the norm....you'd be upset. You'd like to fire someone. But in this case.....you can't.
The camera guys? They likely have orders to avoid any camera display of empty seats. So every image will be selected carefully and the majority of camera footage will be of the field itself. The fact that 10,000 seats might be empty? It won't be discussed.
Bars that used to make big money off Monday night football? They would likely be looking for an alternate angle now.
At the bottom of this whole thing are college kids looking at the pay-dynamics and realizing that somewhere in the next year or two....there's going to be some shift in pay, and it won't be positive.
I noticed today that teams are a bit worried over fan numbers and filling seats as the season starts up, and they've gone to a new tactic.....heavily discounting beer and food prices. Course, this cuts into profits but the desperation is starting to show.
If the attendance or viewing numbers don't return to a norm? Most journalists were trying to tell a story in the late fall of 2017 that this was a temp thing, and it would return to normal. Why they choose that wording? Unknown.
The brand? It's in a freefall type situation and no one that you can readily identify for blame. If you were a owner of a billion-dollar club, and your profits were 20-percent off the norm....you'd be upset. You'd like to fire someone. But in this case.....you can't.
The camera guys? They likely have orders to avoid any camera display of empty seats. So every image will be selected carefully and the majority of camera footage will be of the field itself. The fact that 10,000 seats might be empty? It won't be discussed.
Bars that used to make big money off Monday night football? They would likely be looking for an alternate angle now.
At the bottom of this whole thing are college kids looking at the pay-dynamics and realizing that somewhere in the next year or two....there's going to be some shift in pay, and it won't be positive.
Tuesday, 21 August 2018
David Hogg and the 22nd District
There's been a piece or two over the past two days about David Hogg (the Parkland High School kid who gets hyped up over gun-control), and he's now said that when he turns 25 years old, he'll run for Representative (one has to assume he means the 22nd district).
I sat and pondered this logic.
First, the district was designed for two decades to be a fairly safe GOP district. That came to an end around before 2012's election (Allen West was pushed out of the district). At that point, the Democrats held a fair lead in normal elections. You can figure from the past three elections, there's a safe barrier of 10 to 15 points here for a Democrat to win. So this ought to be kinda easy for Hogg to win....right?
Second.....well, 2020 is a Census year, and 2026 (the year after he'd turn 25 years old) would be the first election for Hogg to run. You can pretty much bank on the fact that Florida (currently at 27 Representatives) is going to have a larger population and likely gain 2 more seats, which means....YES, a redistrict drawing. They will have in 2022....two additional districts. The odds of Parkland being modified into a plus-five point district for the GOP? I would kinda suspect that it might go that direction.
Third, here's this one odd factor about the 22nd District....the Latinos control 22-percent of the population. Blacks? 16-percent.
It might be time for the GOP to go out and recruit some young Latino upstart (say age 25 to 35), and start talking over funding the guy and symbolizing the 22nd District as a 50-50 district for Latino votes for the GOP.
Fourth, Hogg running on a purely anti-gun message? It won't work. One theme political campaigns typically fail.
I don't really want to discourage from running, but five years into the future, and figuring this redistricting likely to happen.....the odds are against him and his political dreams right now.
I sat and pondered this logic.
First, the district was designed for two decades to be a fairly safe GOP district. That came to an end around before 2012's election (Allen West was pushed out of the district). At that point, the Democrats held a fair lead in normal elections. You can figure from the past three elections, there's a safe barrier of 10 to 15 points here for a Democrat to win. So this ought to be kinda easy for Hogg to win....right?
Second.....well, 2020 is a Census year, and 2026 (the year after he'd turn 25 years old) would be the first election for Hogg to run. You can pretty much bank on the fact that Florida (currently at 27 Representatives) is going to have a larger population and likely gain 2 more seats, which means....YES, a redistrict drawing. They will have in 2022....two additional districts. The odds of Parkland being modified into a plus-five point district for the GOP? I would kinda suspect that it might go that direction.
Third, here's this one odd factor about the 22nd District....the Latinos control 22-percent of the population. Blacks? 16-percent.
It might be time for the GOP to go out and recruit some young Latino upstart (say age 25 to 35), and start talking over funding the guy and symbolizing the 22nd District as a 50-50 district for Latino votes for the GOP.
Fourth, Hogg running on a purely anti-gun message? It won't work. One theme political campaigns typically fail.
I don't really want to discourage from running, but five years into the future, and figuring this redistricting likely to happen.....the odds are against him and his political dreams right now.
Sunday, 19 August 2018
My Second Special Prosecutor Theory
About a month ago, I read through a number of pieces which discussed the idea of a 2nd special prosecutor (a second Mueller-type individual). I've sat and reviewed the discussions and formed this observation:
1. I think President Trump will by-pass 'old-man' Sessions in the spring of 2019, and appoint the second special prosecutor. Why then? Basically, that guy appointed will be 'fishing' during the campaign build-up to the 2020 election, and he'll be able to bring in twenty various characters.
2. Pay-back? By early 2019, I think as virtually all of the 'FBI-cards', the 'dossier-cards', and the 'FISA-abuse-cards' are laid out, you won't help but notice a conspiracy, and as much as the news media might yell about pay-back, it won't work.
3. Brennan in trouble? Based on the lie-to-Congress problem....he probably needs to go spend some money on real attornies and prepare for troubles.
4. McCain? If he's still around and kicking....he will likely face this special prosecutor and have to explain what he paid, and how he got into the dossier business. I think he'll be highly embarrassed and probably try to claim some Senate immunity from this special prosecutor.
5. Pain for the DNC? Public sentiment won't be very positive and it'll make the whole campaign for the Democratic primary period in 2020.....suffer.
6. Sessions? He'll have no authority over the 2nd special prosecutor and will turn into a more or less worthless attorney general (even more so than he is today). January of 2021 will arrive and he'll be the first to be let go. By 2025, no one will remember the guy, and it'll be mostly laughed over for this period that he served as AG.
7. Damage for Hillary Clinton? At some point, the prosecutor will turn and face the donations to the Clinton Foundation. I don't think the Foundation leadership will be able to survive this without one or two of them going off to some prison episode.
All of this will lead to a Senate confrontation in 2020 and 2021. With the public not buying into the news media message, I think the GOP control of the senate will continue on through 2020 and 2022's election period. You might actually see 60 to 65 GOP senators there in the 2nd Trump administration.
Damage-wise? Hundreds of books will be written over this period and the lack of appropriate behavior from dozens of Obama-period characters.
1. I think President Trump will by-pass 'old-man' Sessions in the spring of 2019, and appoint the second special prosecutor. Why then? Basically, that guy appointed will be 'fishing' during the campaign build-up to the 2020 election, and he'll be able to bring in twenty various characters.
2. Pay-back? By early 2019, I think as virtually all of the 'FBI-cards', the 'dossier-cards', and the 'FISA-abuse-cards' are laid out, you won't help but notice a conspiracy, and as much as the news media might yell about pay-back, it won't work.
3. Brennan in trouble? Based on the lie-to-Congress problem....he probably needs to go spend some money on real attornies and prepare for troubles.
4. McCain? If he's still around and kicking....he will likely face this special prosecutor and have to explain what he paid, and how he got into the dossier business. I think he'll be highly embarrassed and probably try to claim some Senate immunity from this special prosecutor.
5. Pain for the DNC? Public sentiment won't be very positive and it'll make the whole campaign for the Democratic primary period in 2020.....suffer.
6. Sessions? He'll have no authority over the 2nd special prosecutor and will turn into a more or less worthless attorney general (even more so than he is today). January of 2021 will arrive and he'll be the first to be let go. By 2025, no one will remember the guy, and it'll be mostly laughed over for this period that he served as AG.
7. Damage for Hillary Clinton? At some point, the prosecutor will turn and face the donations to the Clinton Foundation. I don't think the Foundation leadership will be able to survive this without one or two of them going off to some prison episode.
All of this will lead to a Senate confrontation in 2020 and 2021. With the public not buying into the news media message, I think the GOP control of the senate will continue on through 2020 and 2022's election period. You might actually see 60 to 65 GOP senators there in the 2nd Trump administration.
Damage-wise? Hundreds of books will be written over this period and the lack of appropriate behavior from dozens of Obama-period characters.
Saturday, 18 August 2018
Newspapers, the Anti-Trump Editorials, and the "Vanished' Readers
This past week, it was hyped by the news media that 350-odd newspapers went to a defensive stance on editorials, and 'blasted' President Trump as much as possible for the 'enemies of the people' commentary.
About six years ago, the PEW research folks went out and did a survey....finding that only 29-percent of American adults occasionally read the newspaper (meaning either daily or the weekend edition). That's it. It means that only one out of three is reading the newspapers, and that number may have grown worse over the past six years.
So as these folks mounted their massive 'you gotta love us' stance....it was mostly read by a very small group of people.
First, out of the hundred who have subscriptions....you can figure that roughly half of them read it only for the local news, high school sports, obituaries, state politics, and ad's. From the remaining fifty-percent.....those who are pro-Trump aren't likely to read it (trust me) probably number near half. So you basically had around 25-percent of the readers who might have gone to the editorial page to read through it. The odds that they agree with the summary? Well....that's another problem, because some of those folks will just say it's biased writing.
So what really happened to the "vanished" readers of newspapers?
First, newspapers got into slanted politics and agenda grouping. That was already becoming a problem in the 1970s.
Second, newspapers often got into censorship of embarrassing political stories because it reflected upon their 'favorite children'.
Third, newspapers started cover less and less of city/regional corruption.
Fourth, the editorial page is presently marginalized (I'm suggesting that fewer than 5-percent of subscribers will read it on a daily basis).
Fifth, people don't have 30 minutes to go and read through their local paper. My dad, throughout his entire life, read the paper daily.....but you sum up his review as being strictly the front page, the local news page, crime stuff, and obituaries......a basic 12-minute read. I think most people are that way today.
So I'd go and suggest that the newspapers go back to review how papers were written in the 1890s, and be prepared for shockers. The news was written in an entertaining fashion. Everyone wrote in the style that you'd expect from Hemingway or Steinbeck. Guys would sit on the front porch and quote things, as if it were an opera. Today's news? It's just not much on entertainment value, and the slant/bias just makes you laugh over the behavior demonstrated.
About six years ago, the PEW research folks went out and did a survey....finding that only 29-percent of American adults occasionally read the newspaper (meaning either daily or the weekend edition). That's it. It means that only one out of three is reading the newspapers, and that number may have grown worse over the past six years.
So as these folks mounted their massive 'you gotta love us' stance....it was mostly read by a very small group of people.
First, out of the hundred who have subscriptions....you can figure that roughly half of them read it only for the local news, high school sports, obituaries, state politics, and ad's. From the remaining fifty-percent.....those who are pro-Trump aren't likely to read it (trust me) probably number near half. So you basically had around 25-percent of the readers who might have gone to the editorial page to read through it. The odds that they agree with the summary? Well....that's another problem, because some of those folks will just say it's biased writing.
So what really happened to the "vanished" readers of newspapers?
First, newspapers got into slanted politics and agenda grouping. That was already becoming a problem in the 1970s.
Second, newspapers often got into censorship of embarrassing political stories because it reflected upon their 'favorite children'.
Third, newspapers started cover less and less of city/regional corruption.
Fourth, the editorial page is presently marginalized (I'm suggesting that fewer than 5-percent of subscribers will read it on a daily basis).
Fifth, people don't have 30 minutes to go and read through their local paper. My dad, throughout his entire life, read the paper daily.....but you sum up his review as being strictly the front page, the local news page, crime stuff, and obituaries......a basic 12-minute read. I think most people are that way today.
So I'd go and suggest that the newspapers go back to review how papers were written in the 1890s, and be prepared for shockers. The news was written in an entertaining fashion. Everyone wrote in the style that you'd expect from Hemingway or Steinbeck. Guys would sit on the front porch and quote things, as if it were an opera. Today's news? It's just not much on entertainment value, and the slant/bias just makes you laugh over the behavior demonstrated.
Article 88 the Guy
For 99-percent of us vets who finish up service.....we are done and you can't hold us to some UCMJ (military terms for court activity by a military fixture) situation. For generals and admirals? They oddly are held to UCMJ standards after they retire, and can be brought in for court business.
Over the last day or two, I've sat and read (while on a short trip) various words by Admiral Raven.....backing up his former associate Brennan, and attempting to cast a long shadow toward the President.
Oddly, there exists Article 88 of the UCMJ, which basically says any “contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State”....can be used to drag you into a military court and likely end your retirement situation with a reduction in grade (pension threat).....maybe one step.....maybe two steps.
Some advice for the retired general 'geeks'.....it's best to just retire and go play golf, and not get into heated political chatting. Your pension is absolutely dependent upon that.
Over the last day or two, I've sat and read (while on a short trip) various words by Admiral Raven.....backing up his former associate Brennan, and attempting to cast a long shadow toward the President.
Oddly, there exists Article 88 of the UCMJ, which basically says any “contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State”....can be used to drag you into a military court and likely end your retirement situation with a reduction in grade (pension threat).....maybe one step.....maybe two steps.
Some advice for the retired general 'geeks'.....it's best to just retire and go play golf, and not get into heated political chatting. Your pension is absolutely dependent upon that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)