Assorted

     I have a heavy schedule for today, so one of the dreaded “Assorted” columns must suffice. Fortunately, I have a fair number of entries in the “Write something about this” folder, so sit back.

---

1. Contempt.

     Beware the impulse to lash out at others. Sometimes the others lash back. However, even when they don’t, expressions of contempt leveled at persons who “aren’t around to defend themselves” says more and worse about the speaker than about any of his targets.

     The impulse can afflict anyone. When it gets into the soul of a writer who has some reason to believe himself intelligent and erudite, the results can be unfortunate:

     ‘Democracy,’ wrote H.L. Mencken, ‘is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.’ Kevin D. Williamson is a man cut very much from Mencken’s cloth. He has the same caustic humor. He has the same contempt for the mob. He has the same respect for the transcendent individual. In his new book The Smallest Minority, Williamson is at his most Menckenesque.

     This is not to say that Williamson is a mere imitator of the sage of Baltimore. For one thing, it is hard to imagine Mencken opening a book by advising the reader that ‘you can’t fuck with a monkey in Delhi.’ Sound advice. Williamson is not just offering a tip to tourists, though, but comparing India’s shit-flinging monkeys to the denizens of social media.

     This is a funny thing about Williamson’s book: he spends pages talking about the importance of culture and the lamentable philistinism of the masses but trades heavily in swear words and toilet humor.

     Quoth Ace of Spades:

     The reviewer notes the central problem with Kevin D. Williamson: He's a would-be elitist who mocks the non-elites for not being smart like the elites.

     But are the elites smart? Does the dumbtasstic shitweasel Kevin D. Williamson [have] anything beyond average intelligence, superior self-regard, and very superior contempt for everyone else?

     A good question that no one has yet deigned to answer.

     “When one man points a finger at another,” Louis Nizer once said, “It behooves him to remember that his other fingers are pointing back at himself.” Apparently Mr. Williamson has forgotten this...if he ever knew it.

---

2. NeverTrump as an indicator of impending suicide.

     Well, perhaps not literal suicide. But columnist Max Boot appears to have intellectual and professional suicide in mind:

     Max Boot, who’s notoriety extends to being so continually wrong about foreign policy that he must be actively trying to fail, was the target of a recent National Review article in which he was called out for fanning the flames of racial hatred. You see, Boot in the post Trump era has done what many other “conservatives” have done. Namely, they’ve decided TV appearances and that sweet, sweet cable news cash outweigh any concern for actual conservative policy wins. These are the people who fancy themselves moral betters in the age of Trump despite the fact that their private lives rarely measure up.

     There’s no fair-use way to excerpt this article without doing it violence. Please read it all, follow the embedded links, and contemplate the species of madness that causes a man, driven insane by his dislike of a more successful individual, to claim “A” while condemning “A” with every word he writes. I could almost feel sorry for Boot, but...naah, not really.

     Got to learn how to admit when you’ve been wrong, Boot baby.

---

3. The Hunt.

     The above-named movie got quite a lot of buzz for a while. If you haven’t read about it, it involved a “Most Dangerous Game” style hunt: specifically, armed liberals hunting Trump supporters kidnapped and turned loose on an island dedicated to such pastimes.

     There was a lot of Sturm und Drang over the movie from the instant news of it reached persons outside Hollywood. The furor caused the producers to withdraw their support from the movie and declare that it would not be released.

     The concept does strike me as obscene. A number of commentators have analogized it to “traditional” horror movies, in which all the victims but one give evidence that they deserved their deaths. Others have insisted that the concept guarantees that the hunted will come off as the good guys. Of course I haven’t seen the movie (and wouldn’t agree to see it if it were released), but the concept itself – one group hunting kidnapped members of another over political differences – is so vile that none of that would matter in the end. The depiction of a murderous hunt predicated on the notion that virtue flows from one’s political posture outweighs all other considerations.

     Whoever took it into his head (and his wallet) to make such a movie has a serious problem. It goes far beyond a mere defect of taste. I hope he finds help, and soon.

---

4. Good Sense On Mass Shootings.

     I’ve lately come to admire the op-ed writing of fiction writer David L. Burkhead. Among other things, he doesn’t shy back from expressing the conclusions he’s reached. Indeed, he’ll hit you right between the eyes with them and leave you to cope with the implications. Time was, this was called being plainspoken. Today it’s almost vanishingly rare.

     Here’s a good example about a subject in our current discourse:

     “How do you propose to end mass shootings then?”

     I hate to tell you this, but you can’t end them. “Gun control” certainly cannot. France’s strict gun control did not prevent Charlie Hebdo nor the 2015 Paris attacks. India’s draconian gun laws did not prevent Mumbai. Norway’s gun laws did not stop the spree shooter there. And so on.

     “Ending” is an unachievable target. No matter what you do, somebody, somewhere, who intends to harm others–particularly if they’re looking at going out in a blaze of “glory” (with “infamy” serving for their purpose)–will find a way to do it. When you use it as a justification for restrictions on the law abiding there is no end to that. No restrictions will ever be enough. So it will always be an excuse for more restrictions. And if at any point anyone objects, you can do then as you do now and say “Don’t you care about the victims of gun crime?”

     Sorry if you don’t like that, but the truth hurts sometimes.

     Please read it all. It’s worth your time, believe me!

---

5. Property Acquisition?

     What would the United States federal government do with Greenland?

     Donald Trump has discussed trying to buy Greenland from Denmark as a way to expand US territory, according to US reports that have drawn scorn in Copenhagen and on the Arctic island.

     The US president's proposal, which was first reported in the Wall Street Journal, has come with “varying degrees of seriousness”, though he has apparently gone as far as seeking the view of the White House counsel.

     Mr. Trump discussed the idea at a dinner last year at which he said he had heard Denmark found the financial support to the territory burdensome, the Journal reported.

     Reuters reported two sources familiar with the situation as saying he had privately discussed the idea with aides and advisers, with the notion laughed off by some as a joke but taken more seriously by others.

     Well, we did get a good deal on Alaska, back when, but real estate prices have gone up since then and anyway, what would we do with an enormous, glacier-covered island that’s almost entirely within the Arctic Circle and is mostly too cold even for tourism?

     If you’re going to make a huge purchase of northern land, I say buy Canada. It’s got lots of good stuff, including the Hockey Hall of Fame, the western oil fields and tar sands, and the people are really nice. Well, yeah, except for the Muslims.

---

     That’s all for today, Gentle Reader. My current novel-project deserves more attention than I’ve been giving it. Also, I have a lawn mower to reassemble...and then to use. See you tomorrow, I hope.