Sometimes the guy doesn’t think ahead and that may ultimately be his undoing. For a while, El Bandolero was not surprised that all the MSM periodicals and broadcasters were hammering on about Trump’s government shutdown, never mentioning the fact that Congress is just as responsible for it as he is. In fact, Congress itself shut down and left town instead of taking the President up on his invitations to stay and negotiate. And, of course, none of them mentioned that, not long ago, the Democrats supported the very immigration measures that the President is demanding; they turned 180 degrees because they want to burn Trump, not because they’re opposed in principle (although they claim they are). But, then, one of our compadres pointed out that Mr. Trump told Pelosi and Schumer that he would be proud to own the shutdown; and that he would own the shutdown. So, by his own proclamation, it is his shutdown. Insisting on ownership of it was not such a great idea. We suppose he thought it was the manly thing to do at the time. Kinda think he may regret that stance now, as it makes it sort of difficult to make the “takes two to tango” argument, or most all the other arguments to which the Democrats are so obviously vulnerable. Well. So it goes. We still think he should declare an emergency, but not regarding immigration. He should declare the emergency in regard to the unpaid government workers, and use his powers to pay them for a while. That ought to take the wind out of the Democrats’ sails. Would they really want to go to court to stop him from doing that? We don’t think so.
“How self-centered is man, and how darkly do his own petty interests overshadow the giant things of life. Thrones may totter and fail, monarchs pass to the limbo of memories, whilst we wrestle with an intractable collar-stud.” — Sax Rohmer, The Orchard of Tears
There’s a lot to think about in that quote from the famous author who warned of the Yellow Menace and created its most formidable general and the world’s most insidious pharmacist, the pinnacle of evil, Dr. Fu Manchu. For one thing, what’s a collar-stud? Is it the same thing as a collar stud? For another thing, would it be politically correct, or incorrect, to point out the sexist reference to “man” in the opening phrase? In doing so would we be accused of intimating that women are also self-centered? As we know from popular (or is the proper term “populist”?) teachings, it’s the male that is self-centered. Females are empathetic and polyglotenous. Yet, this observation fails to account for the LGBTQ (Lapdog Globalist Bilingual Testicular Quietude) community or Bandolero’s favorite lunch, the BLT, which is not to be confused with the infamous DC BeLTway.
For another thing, one would expect a throne to totter and fall, not totter and fail. It could fail and totter, in that order. Or it could totter and then fall. But to totter and then fail is incomprehensible, if not just plain non-prehensile.
Which leaves us with the quandary of whether to try to wrap our mind around the notion of wrestling with a collar-stud (which gives rise to the thoroughly incredulous image of a sumo wrestler trying to get a half-nelson on a button) or to grasp the concept of a memory limbo. A memory could be in limbo, we suppose, as could several memories, now that we think about it. But just what is a limbo of memories? Is the word being used along the same line as “pride” when one speaks of a pride of lions? Well, maybe.
Seems like a good time to order another beer. Is there anybody else in the world who recalls that the word “intimate” (rhymes with “mate”) is also a verb that means “suggest”? Or did we just dream that up out of limbo?
El Bandolero was nearly unable to constrain himself while watching el Circo Judicial del Senado de los Estados Unidos the other day. Instead of painting a sign and rushing to the capitol to protest, we have decided to author a rational analysis of the event. At the outset, one is faced with the question of the applicable standard of proof; whether it’s beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of the evidence, or something else that doesn’t have a legal definition (i.e. gut feeling). The next question is who has the burden of proof. Is the burden on the accuser to prove guilt? Or is the burden on the accused to prove innocence? Since it wasn’t a criminal proceeding, Constitutional presumption of innocence with the burden on the accuser to overcome it beyond a reasonable doubt wouldn’t necessarily apply. But, should we turn a blind eye to the principles underlying those precepts?
We could write a lengthy manuscript on the subject, but we’ll just skip ahead and say we concluded that the “preponderance of the evidence” standard should be applied, and found the evidence to rest in favor of the Judge. To reach a verdict in this case, it isn’t necessary to conclude with 100% certainty that “he’s lying” or “she’s lying”. In the absence of a video of an event, it’s rare to reach 100% objective certainty about whose version of an event is accurate. Note the the word “objective” in that sentence. “Objective” means not infused with bias, predisposition or agenda. When stripped of bias, predisposition and agenda, the preponderance of objective and reliable (e.g. credible) evidence left the scales tipped in favor of Judge Kavanaugh.
We should add that we felt a 35 year uncontroverted record of unblemished sterling conduct and reputation was entitled to some weight. Some would argue that no amount of good deeds can erase even one assault such as Ms. Ford described, nor erase lying about it if one knew he was guilty. But that argument has no application to the case unless one presupposes a “guilty verdict” notwithstanding the preponderance of the evidence.
Until objective and reliable evidence to the contrary is presented that tips the preponderance the other way, El Bandolero must support the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States. It remains to be seen what the FBI does or doesn’t come up with in its supplemental investigation. This, however, presents a whole ‘nuther question about whether it’s possible to get objective reliable evidence from the FBI. The Senators repeatedly pointed out that the FBI does not draw conclusions, it only gathers the evidence and reports it. The first image this brought to El Bandolero’s mind was James Comey’s press conference where he announced the FBI’s conclusion that the evidence did not warrant charges against a certain high ranking official who knowingly used a private personal server to send emails containing confidential government information.