Author: Tom Fitzpatrick

Life

By on

How Ya Gonna Keep ’em Down on the Farm (After They’ve Seen Paree?)

Whenever I think of immigration, I, at some point, think about our ancient ancestors who left Africa and then walked out of there to every other continent on the planet. Over the course of thousands of years, they wandered into Asia and Europe, eventually, finding North American and then making the 14,000 mile journey to the end of South America. Presumably these ancestors were looking for a better life and not a quick vacation getaway.

Since immigration is in the human DNA as a way to improve your life, I am baffled at how to stop it. This is how human beings have been behaving for thousands of years.

After people became settled this was more problematic for the immigrant. The Roman Empire fell because unwanted immigrants (Barbarians and Goths) decided to move into the Empire without first asking the Romans. The end result was the formation of modern Europe.

There is a long historical record of this phenomena. Mongols into China. Mongols into Europe. Europeans into the Americas. Europeans into Australia. If you have a group of unhappy humans in one place, there is a very good chance that they will decide to move to another place.

The problem is poverty. People want what they can’t have where they are. Now they can wait around and hope things change or they can move. This earthly life is short. Waiting around for things to change doesn’t make much sense. So move it is.

While most of the people who come are good people, some are just wretched people.These wretched people cause problems for both the settled population and the other immigrants. They tar the good immigrants with an undeserved reputation which scare the natives who then tar every other immigrant and not just the malcontents. There is a reason we call a group of uncouth people Barbarians and it isn’t because the Romans liked them.

Which brings me to our present problem. Many in the West feel under siege from immigrants looking for a better life. They feel that the world their ancestors built will be irreversibly changed and they will be correct. New people bring change both to the native population and to the immigrants.

What exactly do you want to preserve is then the question. If you want to see only white faces going to Christian churches, I hate to tell you but that ship has sailed. The West is a multi-racial hodgepodge of Black, Brown, White and Mixed Race peoples. If you are talking about freedom of speech, religion and democratic elections, I am with you 100%.

What worries me is the increasingly heard notion of keeping out all immigrants. Or, worse still, letting in White immigrants because they are seen as good immigrants and preventing Black and Brown immigrants from coming in because they are perceived as all bad. If a White South African immigrant goes on a rampage, you don’t hear people saying keep out all White South African immigrants. Black and Brown immigrants are afforded the same courtesy. That is a big problem.

By on

Winning primaries is a much easier task for Democratic Socialists because the Democratic Party is the left wing party in the American two party system. There is a disproportionate number of left wingers. It makes sense but it doesn’t answer the question about can these left leaning people win general elections.

Winning the general election should be on every Democrat’s mind because Donald Trump is a menace and the only thing that can stop him now is vigorous opposition coming from the legislative branch of government. Democrats need to win elections in order to tame Trump.

Now if we were talking about your garden variety Republican, someone like George Bush, I might be more willing to gamble on Democratic Socialists. Their thinking happen to align more with my own thinking.

On the other hand, it is more important for the Republicans to be defeated. Much more important. A half of a loaf of bread is better than no loaf at all.

That Democratic Socialists can win in a place like New York City is great news but unsurprising. New York City is much more liberal than the rest of the country. Can these Democratic Socialists win in places like Wisconsin and Michigan, states that even more moderate Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris barely and painfully lost — leaving us with Donald Trump as president.

I have been told many times that all the American people need is to hear a true candidate of the left and they will magically cast their votes for the left wing candidate. Well, tell that to President George McGovern, President Jesse Jackson, President Howard Dean, President Bernie Sanders. I have supported an array of left wing candidates who never held power.

Americans are suspicious of big government. I happen to disagree with them but then that doesn’t change any minds, does it? The polling for James Talarico in Texas and Jon Ossoff in Georgia shows a more plausible way forward the Democrats. Are they perfect? Of course not. But can they win in states where Democrats have difficult time getting elected. Absolutely.

My fear is that very winnable races will be lost by candidates who are wasting their time on having to define what a biological woman is or what personal pronouns to use because these are the issues the Republican party will raise in these close races.

In the 1990’s most Democrats opposed Gay Marriage — not because they actually opposed it but because they knew it would sink their potential election. Gay people largely understood this and bided their time until the public perception (with a grand assist from the Supreme Court) of Gay Marriage changed.

The same thing can be said for Capital Punishment. I don’t think very many Democrats actually support Capital Punishment but the American public do. Until minds are changed, it is irresponsible for Democrats to lose elections on an issue where the public has a firm commitment.

The world is imperfect. This will always be the case. This means that we will elect imperfect people who hold imperfect positions in an imperfect government. In order to get things done, we have to accept reality and imperfection.

I hope that the Democratic Socialists do well however my bigger concern is that they don’t torpedo potential Democratic victories in the election. Ideological perfection is all well and good but if we have learned anything during the Trump years is that the people who hold the power make the rules. This means winning elections.

By on

Apparently Troy Jackson, the Democrat’s new candidate for the Maine seat in the U.S, Senate, had sexual relations with his second cousin. This is news for some reason. There is nothing illegal or wrong about it. Maybe a little weird for some people but nothing that would stop me from voting for someone.

What I object to is the waste of space in the media to pursue this non-story. There is a better use of this space given the state of the world than investigating second cousin sexual relationships. Give me a break.

By on

One of the continuing irritations with the present medical system is the administrative confusion that arises when it is time to pay the bill. For some reason, the provider and the insurance company make me the middle man in their struggle for payment or for non-payment as it were. Now the only value, to use corporate speak, that I bring to the argument is I don’t want to pay the bill.

Nonetheless I am continually being dragged into these discussions where my growing irritation is the only clear relevance I am bringing to the debate.

My participation usually begins when the provider, after numerous attempts, has failed to get payment from the insurance companies. They then decide to bill the patient which seems fair and reasonable as the patient ultimately received the service.

Let’s stop here for just a moment. I thought that this was a service that was paid for by my insurance company. I never expected to be billed more than the co-pay. All I can add to the discussion is I didn’t expect to be billed. The provider, rather cleverly, has pulled me into the argument.

But why? I don’t know the arrangement between the provider and the insurance companies. I don’t know how the provider is supposed to code their bills in order to get payment. All I can do is complain to the provider for billing me which is where the provider explains their dilemma — the insurance company won’t pay.

Apparently the ire of the patient helps the insurance company to do the right thing. I grudgingly can accept this tactic although I am baffled why the provider can’t just work it out with the insurance company without involving me. I suspect it is based in confrontation avoidance of the young office workers tasked with resolving these matters. For some reason, they would rather piss off me over pissing off the insurance companies.

Any way, this is where things get truly irritating. The provider wants me to contact the insurance company in order to get payment. WTF. Why am I the one calling the insurance company? Why can’t the provider call them? I am embarrassed to say I fell for this little gambit numerous times mostly because I fear having to pay a large dollar amount bill.

So, I would call the insurance company who then tries to explain to me what the provider needs to do in order to get payment. I am not the one who needs this information. I am not billing them. I don’t care what the provider needs to do, the provider does. At this point I suggest that the insurance company calls the provider to explain. This is usually greeted with mumbles and vague promises to contact the provider. Speaking from personal experience this rarely happens.

Because the insurance company has provided me with some useful information that might help the provider get their money, I try to pass that on to the provider the best I can with the suggestion that they themselves might themselves call the insurance company to ensure I have my information straight. More mumbles and more promises. Speaking from personal experience this rarely happens. I know I repeat myself.

The good news is I have came up with a new strategy that sometimes works. I don’t pay the bill and you know the provider and the insurance company seem to find a resolution without involving me. It sometimes takes awhile but they eventually work it out without me paying a thing or becoming the middle man.

By on

I avoid talking about Donald Trump because, him being a narcissist, it doesn’t matter if it is good or bad — as long as you are talking about him. So anytime anyone talks about him — it is a win in his eyes.

Sometimes, however, I must comment on the antics of our president. This is one of them.

Let’s stop for a moment and review what is going on in the world — there are wars in the Ukraine, Iran and Gaza. These wars have affected gas prices which creates a cascading effect on all prices which use transportation — which is everything — so inflation on the horizon for the whole damn world. The President’s party will be standing for election in November which, if the present polls are correct, they are running significantly behind. Not to mention the wading pool and the chaos on the White House lawn.

This would seem like a fairly full plate for the President to be dealing with it. He must be working tirelessly to address all of this. Surprisingly, he doesn’t seem much bothered by any of this because he spent the weekend creating silly memes attacking his “enemies” and making himself heroic.

Now, in a way, as someone who worries about how Trump acts as president, I actually prefer him spending his time on silly memes as this way he will have less time to start an unnecessary war or spouting off about something he knows nothing about which, in turn, unintentionally irritates our allies. Let him cut and paste like a kindergartner at playtime. Very interesting Donald, a good use of the cut and paste feature, lets see if you can make one about Kaitlin Collins’ looks.

But really. I mean really, the most powerful man in the world spending his precious time figuring out how to put George Washington into a meme seems like a waste of his precious time. Doesn’t he have better things to do with his time? I mean like lead the Western World or something that, at least, falls into his job description.

By on

Elon Musk is pissed off about Christoper Nolan’s version of the Odyssey. From what I can tell, it boils down to casting a Black woman, Lupita Nyong’o, as a Ancient Greek woman in a fictional story. He is so pissed off about it that he is willing to give $100 million to Mel Gibson to remake the film that is more faithful to Homer’s original.

So much here to consider.

Let me start with the thing that pisses off Musk so much that he is willing to pay $100 million to remake another version. It is a fucking movie Elon. Get a grip. He is free to criticize the movie and because he is a trillionaire people actually will give him media space to vent his spleen. A remake to a more pleasing version seems like a bit of an over reaction.

Next, and more importantly, a disagreeable version of a movie has made him so mad that he is willing to drop $100 million to correct it. A movie. Wars in the Ukraine, Iran, and Gaza, people starving all over the world and what really moves him to shell out his hard earned cash is a Black Helen of Troy.

If he really wanted to make the world a better place, donate the $100 million to bring down the prices of oil. It would do two things — help real people with an actual problem and it would make him a hero for doing it.

But no a Black Helen of Troy is to big of a problem for Musk which, lets face it, makes him look like an asshole. I know, I know, he already looks like an asshole but now he looks like a racist asshole. He is only making himself look worse.

Taking that $100 million and spending it on anything else, and I am talking drunken orgies on Skid Row, would be better spent and it would do wonder for his damaged image. I mean if you can’t bring yourself to think about actual poor people, think of poor Elon Musk. He needs all the image repair he can find. I call that a win/win.

By on

The Guardian headline reads: Most people arrested during Henry Nowak protests had been reported for domestic abuse.

Vickrum Digwa, a Sikh man, murdered Henry Nowak, a White man, in Southampton. Some people in the UK believe the police’s behavior shows an anti-White bias among the British cops. As with any controversial issue, people used their right to peaceful assembly to make their position on the matter known. Thirty-seven people were arrested due to their violent behavior.

Unsurprisingly many of the people arrested also have a history of violent behavior. It makes sense to me that people who have had trouble in the past controlling their violent impulses might again lose control of themselves and behave badly. The Guardian article even admits as much “two out of every five arrested for participating in riots in 2024 had been the subject of a domestic abuse report before their involvement, with one in five subsequently being reported for domestic abuse.”

The phrase “participating in riots in 2024” is both interesting and vague. Does the Guardian mean only anti-immigrant rioters or all rioters? They don’t clarify who they mean by rioters. It could mean any violent behavior — say the anger from the losing fans of a football team. Although I don’t advise the Guardian doing this, a better use of their time (although not great) might be to compare the rioters from different groups say anti-Israel demonstrations, losing football fans and anti-immigrant demonstrations and stack them up against each other.

I am betting that past violent arrests might match up significantly for each group. But how is this helpful? The Guardian article leaves me with the impression that people who are concerned about Henry Nowak are actually prone to violence while providing absolutely no evidence about the rest of the crowd and thus pointless.

People prone to past violent behavior are more likely act violently when given an opportunity to do so again. This says nothing, though, about all the people who didn’t get arrested — which is a much better measurement of the character of the people who attended the demonstration.

So what was the point of this screaming headline? What an utter waste of time. The Guardian sent out reporters to find out the obvious — people with a violent past continue to behave badly? So what?

It is a surreptitious way of painting all of the Henry Nowak demonstrators as violent instead of the few who were actually arrested for violence. There is a difference which the Guardian failed utterly to point out.

By on

And I mean it.

I still am pretty worked up over this post from Katharine Birbalsingh — Britain’s strictest Head Mistress. I wrote a post yesterday but I am still mad about it because she is so irritatingly wrong. Her basic premise is that people used to be better because they taught their kids traditional values. My point was that maybe traditional values also supported a Racist, Sexist, and Homophobic society. So really how good were these traditional values? They certainly didn’t stop people from being mean-spirited to the people they didn’t like.

After thinking about it more, I am inclined to say that Birbalsingh should fold it four ways and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Pardon my untraditional approach here. She uncritically praises the past while dumping on, to me, the much better world of today. How can she praise traditional values when they so clearly failed so many people. The pregnant teenager sent to a horrible workhouse where her baby was stolen. The gay people forced out of their jobs because they were caught in a police raid. The People of Color who were denied entry into jobs and education because they were the wrong color.

The past wasn’t so sunny as she makes out and a lot of it was due to strict enforcement of these traditional values. I ask her would she rather live in the modern world in which Racism, Sexism and Homophobia is seen as wrong or in a traditional society where they are tolerated and supported? I would hope that she would embrace the progress we made and work to make this new foundation a better arrangement. Nothing is perfect.

But until then fie on traditional values.

By on

Katharine Birbalsingh, Britain’s strictest Head Mistress bemoans the missing morality lessons of the good old days. Parents raised their kids to take personal responsibility. Things were so much better than they are today.

I am not sure what planet Birbalsingh is visiting from but she certainly missed Earth for the past 10,000 years where human beings have been pretty beastly towards one another. If people were so damned good in the past, why do we have to teach children about Hitler, Slavery and Civil Rights. Well, because people in the past weren’t so good and moral. We wouldn’t have to teach children about racism if society had not been racist in the past. Is this the morality she misses?

She talks about the man who was so proud of his 50 years at one company. Bully for him but his moral purity might be overshadowed by also teaching his grandchildren that Blacks are inferior and you shouldn’t live next door to them. Or women should be paid less than men. Or Gay men are perverts and deserve social ostracism. He may have also beaten his grandson from time to time if he felt the child was out of line. If the man was a man of his times, would it be surprising that he would hold those views as well and, I might add, a far cry from being morally superior man.

Hence why people are now teaching about Hitler, Slavery and Civil Rights.

People held much more horrible beliefs in the past than they do today and we are all better for being free from them. Can we be better people? Of course, we can. The answer to our problems will not be found in the past but in incorporating the lessons from our past failures and moving forward from there.

By on

Palm Beach recently renamed their airport after Donald Trump. In response, some travelers are opting to reroute their trips so they don’t have to use the airport with the president’s name so brazenly displayed.

The thing is Palm Beach seems like a niche airport. I never even heard of it before this and, I am guessing, will hear about the same amount now that it has been renamed. I doubt very many travelers have to suffer the journey to it. So me joining the boycott will have absolutely no effect on anything.

This is kind of a silly protest that will have absolutely no effect on Trump and will only inconvenience the people who need to use the airport. For what? It is virtue signalling at it’s worst. I hate Trump so much that I won’t even allow myself to use an airport with his name on it. That is how important my hatred is.

Well, bully for you. I am so proud of you making this very important, and surely difficult, decision.

But, I for one, am not making my life more difficult for this bull shit. If I ever have the misfortune to have to travel through Palm Beach Airport I will do a quick sign of the cross and hope for the best.

Since I rarely go to Florida and, for the life of me, can’t ever recall go through this airport, I can safely join in solidarity with those who are boycotting. That will teach him.