Tag: conservatives

By on

I try not to talk about Donald Trump too much. It is a nearly impossible task as he is president of the United States and is always inserting himself into everything. So I apologize for yet another Donald Trump post and, after some consideration this more about Donald Trump’s apologists who, instead of trying to right Trump’s direction, just go along with him come Hell or high water.

I took a photo (see below)of an Instapundit post because Instapundit doesn’t provide a direct link to their post so this was the only way I could figure out how to get you the post in question without you paging through the whole blog which would leave you disheartened from the slavish loyalty to Donald Trump. It is a dirty job and I am willing to do it.

Trumps threat in this post, although a bit tamer than the one where he wants to bomb Iran back to the stone age one, is about annihilating a whole country. Instapundit’s defense is to point out that the Islamic aspect of Iranian civilization is actually a colonist civilization and is separate from actual Persian civilization. So, I am gathering, destroying Iran now is perfectly OK because it is Islamic and not in fact Persian.

Well OK thanks. I guess but that has nothing to do with the point Piers Morgan was making. Trump is talking about destroying an entire civilization because they won’t do what he wants. Maybe Trump has a less deadly idea of what destroying a civilization is but my interpretation is that all the Iranian people would be dead along with all buildings and all infrastructure. There would just be a pile of rubble after the Tuesday deadline. This is what Trump is threatening. The distinction between Islamic and Persian here is meaningless. Islamic rubble and Persian rubble are pretty much the same thing. Rubble.

Trump’s tone and Instapundit’s unwavering support are unhelpful in bringing about peace for the following reasons:

  1. The US does not have the fire power to flatten Iran. It would take nuclear bombs to accomplish total destruction and, call me naive, I am assuming nuclear is off the table. We could maybe level the center city of a few major cities but the rest of Iran would still be standing. Threatening annihilation is an idle threat and everybody knows it.
  2. It is also nearly impossible, at least in the short term, to destroy a civilization. Both Japan and Germany recovered quite nicely after World War II which was the last time we experimented with total annihilation. There were a lot of dead people and burned out buildings but both nations recovered. So, even, if the worst were to happen (see point 1) the Iranian people and their civilization will survive. The hated Iranian government might even survive.
  3. It does not help that Trump at numerous times have told us that the Iranian military and the nuclear capability has been destroyed while also threatening to destroy Iranian military capabilities. Sometimes even in the same statement. Which begs the question, what is left to destroy?
  4. The snarkiness about Muslim culture might feel good in the moment but keep in mind we are depending on some Muslim allies in the region for bases in which to wage the Iranian war. They are already taking missiles for us, they may feel a little less inclined to assist if they think we are antagonistic to Islam.
  5. If Trump wants to help the Iranian people, he might try to co-ordinate his war making with Iranian critics in Iran. He may be doing that but his tone suggests he is not. What reasonable Iranian ally would want to see the total destruction of their civilization?

Trump’s go to tone is the aggressive attacking of his opponents and then when you are done attacking them, go back and attack them again. It has worked well for him in the past but is wrong for this moment. He might even consider just keeping his trap shut for a few days just to see if people are more amenable to what he is trying to do. It is worth a try.

And, if he can’t see his way into keeping his trap shut, this is the time for his allies and supporters to tell him to do so. They are failing miserably in their responsibility here. Pissing off half the nation and our allies is a terrible strategy for winning a war. But, hey ho, at least I learned the difference between Muslim Iranian culture and Persian culture. Very helpful that.

By on

DEI is responsible for the Los Angeles fires now on going or so many conservatives believe.

I’m not sure why they believe this. There hasn’t been any evidence that women or people of color firefighters have failed during this fire. The critics keep coming back to an insanely stupid reply from a lesbian firefighter about carrying a big man out of burning building.

I mention that she is a lesbian because I think it added to the animus of the linked article. Hank Berrien, the author, made this ever so innocent statement about the firefighter’s involvement with Girl’s Fire Camps. Right. Important information. I don’t want to besmirch Berrien’s good name here but it was a gratuitous fact that had little to do with the rest of the article. What did her work with girls have to do with his point regarding DEI? Nothing, right. Lesbians. Working with children. Female children. I am not saying anything is wrong with that. Just noting this because it might interest our readers. With his little nudge he effectively lets everyone know she is both a terrible fire fighter and might possibly be a terrible person to boot.

On the other hand, the firefighter was asked a valid question and she botched her response. This hardly condemns DEI as a consideration in hiring as the LAFD is still primarily male, particularly in the fire houses. Males make up 97% of the department. How has DEI made Los Angeles less safe when the numbers reflect a mostly male fire department? All apparently strong enough to carry out a heavier man? Have there been complaints about women failing in their responsibilities? There is remarkably little evidence that there is a problem in this mostly male half white fire department.

No matter what, they focus on DEI as responsible for the catastrophe happening in Los Angeles now. Not 100 winds. Not lack of rainfall. Not unusually large amount of dried vegetation due to a really wet winter. Not that the fire ignited outside of the normal fire season. And, of course, the never mentioned climate change problem which isn’t a problem and no amount of evidence can change their minds. None of the these merit mentioning as causes.

Yet one female firefighter’s inability to give a good answer to a hypothetical question is the problem.