Category Archives: Society

When the Looting Starts

A few days ago there was a social maelstrom when the President of the United States posted a tweet that said, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Multitudes of pundits,  talking heads, commentators, so-called journalists, Hollywood celebrities, sports figures and, of course, minority “leaders”, condemned the President’s tweet as a call to violence and a racist dog whistle calling his base to action.

Say what? ¿Dice qué? ¿Cómo?

What makes that remark racial? What makes it an incitement to violence? It appears to be an observation, maybe a statement of the obvious, and perhaps a warning to everybody. If he had said, “When the looting starts, it’ll be the minorities doing it and they should be shot” or if he had said, “When the looting starts, people should start shooting black protesters” then they’d have a valid point.

Maybe he could have said, “If looting starts, people could get shot, and we certainly don’t want that to happen.” No doubt they’d  infer something sinister in that, as well. They’d say, “It’s Trump! It’s code to his base! We know what he meant!”

That’s a big part of how we got a divided country; talking heads who have the public believing that they have such insight that they can tell us what a person meant even though what they said or did pretty well spoke for itself, to anyone with common sense.

Bandolero lays his sombrero on the grass in the cool shade of a cyprus tree where he’s settled for a rest after several hours in the saddle. He lights a cigar, leans back against the tree trunk, gazes across the landscape, and wonders, “¿Es el público realmente tan estúpido?” Receiving no answer after several minutes, he stands and walks to the edge of a nearby canyon. His keen eyes spot an eagle soaring easily in the updrafts, gliding gracefully in wide circles searching for truth. Bandolero cups his hands to his mouth and shouts, “¿Es el público realmente tan estúpido?” He waits anxiously and, after a few seconds, the answer echoes back to his breathless ears.

¡Claro que si!

 

Different Kind of Shutdown

We were re-reading our last post and had to think a bit to remember that the shutdown being discussed at the time was a government shutdown for want of a spending bill to keep government offices open. While that was occupying the media’s attention and the politicians’ minds, COVID-19 was already in the wind and getting ready to precipitate a whole different kind of shutdown.

The media and most talking heads have been pretty slow to talk about where we’re headed with this COVID-19 shutdown. Back at the beginning, when people were stocking up on toilet paper and disinfectant, Bandolero suggested that what we really needed to stock up on was ammo. Sure enough, various Democrat/Liberal executives took advantage of the “emergency” to issue orders banning the sale or transfer of firearms and/or ammunition. Kansas, to its credit, passed legislation specifically banning the banning of firearms and ammunition. But it’s not just the Second Amendment that’s in peril. The First Amendment has also been suspended. It guarantees that the government shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion, and shall not  abridge the right of the people to assemble peaceably. Nevertheless, it’s been done by “executive orders”. Some have pointed out that Constitutional rights have always been held by the Supreme Court to be subject to reasonable restrictions, and that the current “emergency” justifies the restrictions that have been ordered. Bandolero would argue that a suspension of Constitutional rights is not the same thing as a reasonable restriction. We suppose scholars can debate that, but far more disconcerting than the enactment of such suspensions (or restrictions) is the ease with which they were done and the blithe acceptance of them by the vast majority of the populace and its leaders and the media which purports to be the government watch dog.

We once saw a list of things you have to believe in order to be a good Democrat. One of them was: “The reason socialism hasn’t worked in the past is because the right people weren’t in charge”. The Democrats have been working hard to convince us that it will work fine if they’re in charge. They are willing to do anything to win the argument, including lying, cheating, and abusing legal process. And they’re winning. Incredibly, they’re winning. Why? We hesitate to denigrate the intelligence of the electorate but, frankly, it isn’t really their fault. The Democrats and liberals have been in charge of public education for decades, and we have at least a couple of generations now who don’t know much, if anything, about the reasons that gave rise to the principles expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights; and who don’t appreciate the blood that was shed, or why those who shed it were willing to do so, to give it birth and then nurture it for two centuries.

At this point it appears inevitable that the United States is headed for socialism. To save the economy the government will decide it has no choice but to nationalize certain companies and industries. And to take care of those who don’t get jobs we’ll all get at least a “living wage” from the government; social security that starts at 18 instead of 65, and further provides free health care, especially for abortions **. Mark Bandolero’s words! This pandemic will not only be the death of thousands, but the death of the greatest republic the world had seen. The shutdown of the United States of America will be to the great glee of the Chinese, and the Russians, too, who don’t realize they’ll be next. But, it will be interesting to see if the Democrats end up being surprised. It may not be them who is in charge but, rather… the Scientists! The suspension of Constitutional rights hasn’t been the action of elected representatives following the will of We the People, but politicians following the dictates of “experts” whose pronouncements are deemed to be validated by “science”. And who would dare argue with science? Just look at what it has told us about global warming!

** At the rate sperm count has been decreasing, it won’t be long ’til abortion is no longer a social issue.

 

Intimate

“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?