Friday, October 21, 2016

Casual Friday: MacArthur Park

Just two working days til Monday!

"More than seven minutes long, sung by a man who couldn't really sing, MacArthur Park is among the most baffling hits in the history of pop music. One thing's for sure: As soon as a 45 containing the lyrics, "Someone left the cake out in the rain, I don't think that I can make it, cause it took so long to bake it, and I'll never find that recipe again" made it all the way to No 2 on the charts, Richard Nixon's triumph in the 1968 presidential election was assured. In the eyes of Middle America, far too many drugs were being consumed out there; it was time to try another recipe." ~ Joe Queenan

Why they hate The Donald's wall

 A wall of money. Follow it.
So much can be explained by following the money, especially if the Clintons are involved. The firestorm prompted by the Donald's talk of a wall on the Mexican border is the result of pocket book issues. Michael Bargo Jr. explains.
When GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump first talked about building a “big, beautiful wall” at the southern border of the U.S. he was met with fierce resistance. 
Given the facts that the southern border is the main route used by drug smugglers and criminal illegal immigrants (all persons who cross the border illegal commit a Federal misdemeanor the first time, a felony the second time) there would not seem to be a good reason to resist lawful regulation of border entry. As usual, the answer may be in who gains from the absence of a Wall, and what they gain. The best way to get the answer is to follow the money. 
Right now the transfer of money from persons working in the U.S. to Mexico, called “personal remittances” are a major source of Mexican revenue. The growth of remittance revenue is a recent development. Mexico seized the assets of nearly all foreign oil companies operating in Mexico in 1938. But as American sanctuary cities flouted Federal law and encouraged illegal immigration after 1980, those working in the U.S. started to wire transfer money back to their families in amounts that became so large that by the late 1990s remittances to Mexico were the second largest source of foreign revenues, second only to oil revenues. 
According to the World Bank, in 2015 the world’s top remittance corridor was from the United States to Mexico. As much as $25.2 billion dollars was sent back to Mexico from people working in the U.S. Remittances are a great source of revenue for Mexico and are more stable than all other flows such as oil. 
In 1979 the Police Chief of Los Angeles publicly stated that he would not enforce immigration law. Following this announcement, which was the effective beginning of Los Angeles as a sanctuary city, remittances to Mexico from the U.S. grew very rapidly from only $177 million in 1979 to $26.9 billion in 2007, following the growth of those sectors of the economy such as construction where illegal immigrants worked. After the 2007 economic peak there was a drop in 2009 to $22 billion. But in 2015 the amount of remittances climbed back to $26.2 billion, according to the World Bank. Ninety-eight percent of all remittances sent to Mexico come from the U.S. 
It is no coincidence that the most rapid growth occurred from 2000 to 2008 when Vincente Fox was the president of Mexico. This is why the most emotional and energetic resistance to the Wall came from Vincente Fox, who used abusive language toward Trump. His statement were cloaked in emotion and anger, a skillfully crafted disguise for the real reason for his concern: money. 
One in every eleven persons born in Mexico has gone to the U.S. The National Review reported that in 2014 $1.87 billion was spent on incarcerating illegal immigrant criminals. 
Since the political economy of Los Angeles depends so heavily on the Federal and state program money that supports illegal immigration, the Los Angeles Times still defends Special Order 40 as essential to, paradoxically, law and order. It’s also essential to the economy of Los Angeles but somehow the Times doesn’t mention that fact. 
One may ask why the Federal government chooses to spend so much money on the incarceration of criminal aliens by defying the Federal 1996 Immigration Act. But it’s important to keep in mind the benefits the Federal government, particularly the Democrat Party, the party of government sector teacher unions, obtains from illegal immigration. After all, their four biggest campaign contributors, the Service Employees International Union, the National Education Association, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and American Federation of Teachers are four of the top six contributors from 1989 to present. And they give over 99% of their contributors to Democrats. Today sixty five percent of public school students in Los Angeles County are Hispanic. In Chicago 46% are Hispanic. 
Democrats, who have dominated almost all large metropolitan areas since FDR, are heavily dependent on illegal immigrants and their children. Should Trump build an effective wall, he would disrupt the flow of illegal immigrants, public school students, teacher union donations and block grant money to all their most important bases of electoral and demographic support. Trump’s wall is the major threat to what they see as their party’s long term goal of maintaining control of state governments as well as the national government. 
Multimillionaire Jorge Ramos of Univision has criticized Trump aggressively. While Univision may have no obvious direct financial interest in remittances, their TV network certainly stands to profit from increases in Hispanic viewership, increases that are totally dependent on the growth of the Hispanic populations in cities they serve. 
In short, everything that matters to Hillary and her Democrat Party is existentially threatened by Trump’s wall. And as a personal matter, Hillary’s multi-million dollar speech income from Wall Street contributors is also threatened: the banks make money from the wire transfers. Every time someone in the U.S. wires money to Mexico, the banks, currency exchanges, and other providers of wire transfer services make easy money. And the loss of low paying jobs to teenagers and seniors to illegal immigrants also contributes to the recession. Hillary and her party supporters desperately need illegal immigrants: Hillary is bought and paid for. 
We now know that the big Wall Street banks bought her and you are paying for it in many ways. Hillary will not reveal what she has said to big bank contributors, but it is not unlikely that she reassured them that she will allow an open border to exist on the Southern part of the U.S. Recent email leaks have confirmed that she believes in open borders. 
And then there’s the humanitarian issue. After all, the rationalization for allowing illegal immigration is that we need people to do “low paid jobs no one else will do.” This is a racist, humiliating characterization of Hispanics from Mexico and other Central American countries. America’s most shameful chapter in its history was its promotion of the institution of slavery, the importation of blacks from Africa to do “low paid jobs no one else will do.” It is hard to understand how anyone with sensitivity toward racial minorities can now bring up another generation of low paid workers. Vincente Fox never discusses this abuse, or the rape trees human smugglers construct as monuments to their criminal rape of young Hispanic women illegally crossing the border from the South. 
Those following the money trail would say this follows the pattern perfectly: that Hillary allows illegal immigrants to be exploited by cartels and rapists in order for the banks she protects to collect their remittance transfer money. Somehow these humanitarian topics are avoided. We know that Wall Street investment banks gave tens of millions to support Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. These same banks make easy profits from of illegal immigrant bank transfer fees as well as high interest rate home loans and car loans targeted to Hispanics. 
Hillary’s lack of humanitarian concern is accompanied by a silence toward the issue of money.
The moral spewing from The Left always has a more realistic explanation.

Morning Rush: Women are more prone to road rage, and more

Here and there on the Web this Friday, October 21, 2016:

Here come the Orionids meteors

A brief history of the Ouija Board

Women more given to road rage

The NSA is listening to you

Barack has his own email issues

The bipolar / alcohol connection

The gold mine in old phones

So this is Obamacare

Study, then run like crazy

They're coming for your election

Oh boy, now there's a mystery planet

Keep your kids out of public schools

Here come the science police

How To: cut string with bare hands

Apps: Those chargers on Amazon are fake

Today's Word: fallibility, perishability, impermanence

Hahaha: Government to build runways everywhere

The Talkies: Protect yourself from cyclists:

William Faulkner: comparisons

"Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself."

Thursday, October 20, 2016

About that 3 a.m. phone call

"Go this way, Hillary."
Hillary Clinton, lecturing Donald Trump: "The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There's about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so."

Secret Service agent, when Hillary fell and broke her elbow: “We sort of got the last laugh. It was kind of like payback: You’re treating us like s–t. Hey karma is a bitch! We were smiling to ourselves,”

Longtime Clinton confidante Neera Tanden: "It worries me more that she doesn’t seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment."

Longtime aide Huma Abedin: "She's often confused."

Hillary Clinton TV spot in 2008: Hillary Clinton’s most lasting contribution to political advertising was her famous spot that depicted children sleeping soundly in their beds late at night with a voiceover saying that, at that moment, “something is happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call.” 


The art of failure

Nobody likes Richard Nixon these days, but there is much to learn from him. Allan Massie, an author and journalist, notes:
After eight years as Eisenhower’s vice president, he lost the 1960 presidential election narrowly to Jack Kennedy. Two years later he failed in a bid to be elected governor of California. In a resentful press conference he told journalists they wouldn’t have him to kick around anymore. Most people thought that was the end of Nixon. Some rejoiced. 
But Nixon, whatever his other failings, had grit. He won the Republican nomination again and was elected president in 1968 and again in 1972. In most respects he was a better president than his enemies allowed. The man who had made his reputation as a scourge of Communism—a “Red-baiter”—went to China and ended China’s isolation. 
Watergate brought his presidency to an end; Nixon was now disgraced. Yet he didn’t disappear. He continued to work, read, and write. In his last years he repaired his reputation as an authority on international affairs, consulted by other world leaders. Like him or loathe him, you have to admit that the old Nixon, bruised and battered by failure, was a wiser man than the strident Cold Warrior he had been in his youth.
Massie makes the same observation about other leaders, including Winston Churchill and Charle de Gaulle.

You probably know people of similar grit. It's not granted to the famous only.

Neutron bombing the DC establishment

Things won't be the same after this election. If The Donald wins, what happens to the empty suit of the Republican Party? What happens to the thoroughly disgraced media? 

Among other honors, Victor Davis Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and Military History at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a professor of Classics Emeritus at California State University, Fresno, and a nationally syndicated columnist for Tribune Media Services.

Here is his take. I run it in its entirety. It's worth the time.
The shells of our institutions maybe survive the 2016 campaign, but they will be mere husks. 
The infamous neutron bomb was designed to melt human flesh without damaging infrastructure. 
Something like it has blown up lots of people in the 2016 election and left behind empty institutions. 
After the current campaign — the maverick Trump candidacy, the Access Hollywood Trump tape, the FBI scandal, the Freedom of Information Act revelations, the WikiLeaks insider scoops on the Clinton campaign, the hacked e-mails, the fraudulent pay-for-play culture of the Clinton Foundation — the nuked political infrastructure may look the same. But almost everyone involved in the election has been neutroned. 
In theory, there are nominally still such things as a D.C. establishment, the Republican party, still abstractions known as “fact-checking,” still something in theory called “debate moderators,” still ex-presidents’ “foundations.” But, in fact, after this campaign, these are now mere radiated shells. 
Who are the big losers of 2016, besides the two candidates themselves? 
The D.C. ‘establishment’ and its ‘elites’
Collate the Podesta e-mails. Read Colin Powell’s hacked communications. Review Hillary’s Wall Street speeches and the electronic exchanges between the media, the administration, and the Clinton campaign. The conclusion is an incestuous world of hypocrisy, tsk-tsking condescension, sanitized shake-downs, inside profiteering, snobby high entertainment — and often crimes that would put anyone else in jail.
The players are also quite boring and predictable. 
They live in a confined coastal cocoon. They went largely to the same schools, intermarried, traveled back and forth between big government, big banks, big military, big Wall Street, and big media — and sound quite clever without being especially bright, attuned to social justice but without character. Their religion is not so much progressivism, as appearing cool and hip and “right” on the issues. 
In this private world, off the record, Latinos are laughed off as “needy”; Catholics are derided as near medieval and in need of progressive tutoring on gay issues. Hillary is deemed a grifter — but only for greedily draining the cash pools of the elite speaker circuit to the detriment of her emulators. 
Money — Podesta’s Putin oil stocks, Russian autocrats’ huge donations in exchange for deference from the Department of State, Gulf-oil-state-supplied free jet travel, Hillary’s speaking fees — is the lubricant that makes the joints of these rusted people move. A good Ph.D. thesis could chart the number of Washington, D.C., insider flunkies who ended up working for Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or Goldman Sachs — the dumping grounds of the well-connected and mediocre.
In this world, there are Bill and Hillary, the Podesta brothers, Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner, Christiane Amanpour and Jamie Rubin, Samantha Power and Cass Sunstein, Andrea Mitchell and Alan Greenspan, and on and on. Jorge Ramos goes after Trump; his daughter works for Hillary; and his boss at Univision badgers the Clinton campaign to stay lax on open borders — the lifeblood that nourishes his non-English-speaking money machine. George Stephanopoulos, who helped run the Clinton campaign and White House, and who as a debate moderator obsessed over Mitt Romney’s answers to abortion hypotheticals, is the disinterested ABC News chief anchor. 
CNN vice president Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clinton’s former deputy secretary at the State Department Tom Nides (now of Morgan Stanley) — suggesting “The Clinton News Network” is not really a right-wing joke. 
Former ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, a — pre-Benghazi — regular on the Sunday talk shows. 
CBS president David Rhodes is the sibling of aspiring novelist Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser for “strategic communications and Speechwriting,” whatever that fictive title means. 
ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman married former White House press secretary Jay Carney (now senior vice president for “worldwide corporate affairs” at Amazon: not just “corporate affairs” or “worldwide affairs” but “worldwide corporate affairs”). And on and on. Is there a rule somewhere that requires a media kingpin to be married to a political operative or government official or like kind? 
These nice people report on each other. They praise each other, award each other, make money together, and bristle with each other when they are collectively and pejoratively dubbed the “elites.” They write and sound off about the buffoon Trump and preen in sanctimonious moral outrage, as the rest of the country sees this supposedly lavishly robed imperial class as embarrassingly naked. If our version of El Escorial continues, something like the prognathic Habsburg jaw may begin to appear as an elite D.C. marker.
As administration officials go in and out of lucrative banking, foundations, academia, and Wall Street posts, the idea of a permanent New York or Washington “power couple” or “power family” becomes more banal. 
Is there a rule somewhere that requires a media kingpin to be married to a political operative or government official or like kind? Can an opinion journalist not be actively involved, whether overtly or stealthily, in an ongoing campaign or married to a consultant who is? Is there a retiring high official who just goes home and calls it quits after his public service? Is Nebraska, Carson City, or Mississippi such an awful place after Chevy Chase, Georgetown, or Dupont Circle? 
The Republican Party 
What exactly is the Republican party? Has it any coherence or unity or shared ideas? Is it for legally enforced borders or “let the market adjudicate” free passage of inexpensive labor between countries? Fair or free trade? Assimilation and integration, or identity-politics lite? Cashing in on government service or against emeriti lobbying? Does it embrace traditional values or a slight slowing of the descent of popular culture? Does it want to reverse big government or ratchet it down somewhat? 
  • Is it against $1 trillion deficits, but okay with $500 million ones? 
  • Does it believe losing the presidential election nobly is preferable to winning it ugly? Does Obamacare need a tweak or two? 
  • Is it for a Jacksonian, don’t tread-on-me foreign policy, or isolationism, or neocon nation building — all, some, or none? 
  • Are Trump’s private boorishness and crudity worse for Republicans than Clinton’s now quite public corruption and dishonesty? 
Atheist free-market conservatives seem to despise Trump’s vulgarity more than do Christian Evangelicals — not necessarily on the grounds that they are less likely to say such Trumpian things in their own private lives than are fundamentalists, but because they find him so very gauche. 
No one quite knows what the party will become after Donald Trump sprinted away with the Republican nomination and then discovered that most of the Republican establishment, implicitly and explicitly, would rather lose to Hillary Clinton than win with him. 
Many said they quit the Republican party when Trump was nominated, as many perhaps will quietly quit when it returns to normalcy. 
After the election, don’t expect a rapid reconciliation. The Trump base, often in nihilistic fashion, does not wish to be part of Paul Ryan’s pragmatic world; and those who identify with the culture of the Wall Street Journal and the Chamber of Commerce have no desire to be seen with the NASCAR and tea-party crowd. For fleeting moments in the primaries a Marco Rubio or Scott Walker posed as a Reaganesque uniter, only to implode under national scrutiny and candidate infighting. 
The Presidential ‘Foundation’ 
The presidential foundation is now a parody of itself. 
The Clinton Foundation Syndicate served largely as a sinecure for Clinton hangers-on between elections who were apparently otherwise unemployable. It offered free jet travel for the Clinton family. It oiled pay-for-play donations that would spin off into private speaking and consulting gigs for the insatiable Bill and Hillary. Oil profits — from Russia, the Persian Gulf, and the autocracies of the former Soviet Union — fueled the Clinton cash nexus. (How odd to oppose domestic fracking but to welcome carbon cash from medieval foreign petro-nations.) 
Many Republicans damn conservatives who would hold their nose and vote Trump in hopes of saving the Supreme Court or stopping the socialization of the federal government. They should spend a quarter of their time writing about the Clinton Foundation. 
In the past 50 years, have we ever seen anything quite like the listing of VIP foundation donors by name so they could cash in on Haitian relief contracts to pick over the carcass of a ravaged, impoverished nation — or blatant requests to medieval sheikdoms to send million-dollar presents or free jet service to the ex-president, the message routed by way of his secretary of state spouse? Dick Nixon would not have found a way to enrich himself on the backs of the Haitian refugees or think out loud about assassinating a troublesome political opponent. 
There are three models for ex-presidents and their foundations. One is Jimmy Carter’s sanctimonious progressivism — of setting up a quite legitimate “center,” staying active in politics, and assuming a (sometimes tiring) role as senior citizen of the world who globetrots and editorializes on how humanity has disappointed him. 
A second is more or less genuine retirement in the fashion of George H. W. and George W. Bush; their respective foundations and libraries are largely apolitical. Neither comments much on contemporary politics, nor do they trash their successors. Painting or sky-diving is preferable to returning to the campaign trail or slicing Obama.
The third is the Bill/Hillary Clinton paradigm of non-stop electioneering, tawdry enrichment, and massaging the office of president emeritus and a presidential foundation to feather one’s nest. 
Barack Obama will choose one of these three models, but it is likely that the most lucrative Clinton paradigm is now utterly discredited. 
Few any longer believe in fact-checking, largely because it was exposed as an arm of progressive campaigns. 
The embarrassing recent statements of Dean Baquet, executive editor of the New York Times, were a frightening synopsis of rank bias defined up as disinterested audit. So were the obsequious check-ins by toady journalists with the Clinton campaign to remind Podesta, Inc. of their own lack of ethics. 
Fact-checkers inordinately go after conservatives. Or they make up rules about what constitute “facts” as they go along, providing context and supposed noble intent to water down progressive inaccuracies. Or they use adverbs like “mostly” to suggest that false liberal assertions are “mostly” true and other accurate statements of non-liberals are “mostly” false. Fact-checking is postmodern truth that depends on who says something and for what purpose. 
When Hillary Clinton in the second debate directed the audience to her own website to “fact-check” Trump, we came full circle from naiveté to farce. 
Fact-checking might have been a neutral concept, not inherently better or worse than the original “facts” themselves — given that it is entirely predicated on the character and ability of those who fact-check (who, as we see from WikiLeaks, can be just as sanctimonious and deceitful as the politicians they audit). Fact-checking in the age of the Internet arena will go the way of America Online or Myspace. 
Debate Moderators 
There are no such persons any longer as “debate moderators.” The enterprise has devolved into artifice, in which the moderator is supposed to argue with the conservative candidate, “fact-check” him or her in mediis rebus, while being deferential to the like-minded progressive candidate. 
Debate moderators follow assumed premises: an Anderson Cooper, Candy Crawley, Lester Holt, or Martha Raddatz envision themselves as crusaders hammering away at selfish and dangerous conservatives, in behalf of an ignorant audience that needs their enlightened help to avoid being duped. In a few of the worst cases, a scheduled debate question is leaked to the liberal candidate to ensure she is not embarrassed. 
If a conservative candidate seems to have tied his opponent, the liberal moderator — witness a Matt Lauer — is considered a sell-out, soon to be shunned by the right people. Most are thus deterred from moderating “incorrectly.” 
After 2016, we should either let the candidates go at it, or, better yet, let robot time keepers run things. The 2016 campaign is not quite over, and there are a few neutron bombs left to go off — but for many of our accustomed fixtures it is too late. They are nuked, and nothing remains but their shells.
The Donald perceived all this and had the cojones to challenge it. And the people not in the inner circle responded.

Morning Rush: Just don't forget to exercise, and more

Here and there on the Web this Thursday, October 20, 2016:

A really old rock thing.
Is this the world's oldest observatory?

A brief history of VHS cassettes

Regular exercise vs memory loss

Where depression lives in your brain

Things strong people don't do

Still watching CNN?

Hillary and her bus think alike

Michelle, we hardly knew ye

Will this toothpaste save your life?

You mean boys have feelings, too?

White woman speak with forked tongue

We should all be illegal aliens

Take your kid out of public schools

And this is one reason why

Why this sad little man lost

There may be more to Lyme Disease

Today's Word: to write or compose

Hahaha: Dylan things Nobel is gas bill

The Talkies: Here come automated garages:

Aaron Rose: extraordinary

"In the right light, at the right time, everything is extraordinary."

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

The secret of our space program

Gotta light?
"America became great with men eating bacon and eggs and beef and potatoes. And smoking and nicotine.

"Almost every famous person you've ever heard of (and most you haven't heard of) lived on this kind of diet. And they drank stuff too. They launched missiles into space and to the moon. Every console in the LCC had an ashtray. KSC was full of cigarette smoke everyday all of the time while men were going to the moon. 

"Women were secretaries and men were engineers. And engineers eat bacon and eggs for breakfast. How do I know? I was there. They built ships, big ships. They built bridges. They got out and did stuff. Everyday. 

"After having bacon and eggs for breakfast, leftover meatloaf sandwiches for lunch and roast beef and mashed potatoes for dinner. Mashed potatoes and rolls with gravy and real butter. It's possible that a few of them did not live as long as some of the vegan flowers but they lived more glory in one Apollo launch than any vegan flower or SJW will live their entire, sad, pitiable lives. 

"There were no safe places in engineering. Only constant, grueling, never ending math problems. That most of them only mastered after long, grueling, constant application and study. And they didn't go out drinking on Friday night because they sat all week in a classroom full of sissies talking about feelings. 

"After Friday night drinking and several hamburgers and sleeping in Saturday they spent the rest of Saturday and Sunday doing math. Then they went into the chem lab Monday and blew stuff up. Then they became rocket scientists, engineers, jet pilots, astronauts, technicians, electricians and plumbers. Then worked their butts off for 40 years. There ain't no rocket scientists who subsist on lettuce."

(American Digest)

Isn't some of this illegal?

Or do we speak in such terms anymore?

Seems that The Donald is running against the entire federal government.

Barack Hussein Obama has thrown his politicized agencies behind Hillary's election. My theory is that when Bill Clinton met with Obama's attorney general on the tarmac he revealed to her what the Clintons know about Obama, and that was enough to scuttle whatever investigation was underway.

I also think Obama is motivated by the desire to prevent a different attorney general from probing his eight years of subversion. Remember how Hillary promised to keep Loretta Lynch on as attorney general? What do you think that was all about? Loretta's brilliant career?

So let's check in on the federal agencies that have been dispatched to do election work.

The U.S. Department of Defense is sponsoring articles urging Americans abroad to vote in the presidential election, on a website simultaneously running articles by a Democrat Party activist instructing the same ex-pats to “vote for Hillary Clinton in November” to help “stop Trump.”

Concerns about Russian hacking into the November 8 election have now reached the Pentagon where the military's top cyber official has outlined a plan to help the FBI and Department of Homeland Security to track an election altering attack.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson's suggestion that state and local voting systems be designated as “pieces of critical infrastructure” so that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can protect them from hackers is unconstitutional and would create a dangerous precedent, legal experts said. “The Department of Homeland Security does not have the legal authority to interfere with states’ election systems without their permission,” University of California/Berkeley School of Law Professor John Yoo told

Several well-funded organizations — including the League of Women Voters and the NAACP — are fighting efforts to prevent non-citizens from voting illegally in the upcoming presidential election. And the United States Department of Justice, under the direction of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, is helping them.  

The Voting Section of the DOJ Civil Rights Division has become one of the most controversial and ideological components in the entire U.S. government. It is the same cadre of lawyers that dismissed a voter-intimidation charge against members of the New Black Panther Party who physically threatened voters in Philadelphia to help President Barack Obama get elected in 2008; that has waged a war on voter ID and other election-integrity measures; and that has refused to enforce the Voting Rights Act in a race-neutral manner as called for by the plain text of the statute.

The IRS is refusing to recant the targeting criteria it used to single out tea party groups for intrusive scrutiny, according to court filings made public Wednesday that show the tax agency still struggling with the fallout from the scandal.

The vast majority of Hillary Clinton’s emails the FBI recovered during its investigation into Hillary's use of a private email server as secretary of state will not be released until after Election Day. Judge James Boasberg, appointed by president Obama, on Friday ordered the State Department to finish processing and release only 1,050 pages of what could be as many as 10,000 pages material for release by Nov. 4. Judge Boasberg, after "acknowledging" or buying into the State Department's excuses set a new timetable. The Judge's new, Hillary-helping schedule, pushes the release of most of the recovered emails past Election Day.

Lee E. Goodman, one of three Republican commissioners on the Federal Election Commission, said at a public meeting that he tallied up the political leanings of groups investigated by the agency for possible campaign violations and found what he said was a system tilted to inquiries of conservative groups.

If there are agencies not involved in the election, I would be surprised.

Why this election is so stressful

Saving the planet.
Chris Taylor, an author and illustrator, explains why we're all stressed out over this election.
We are in a time in America where everyone is massively divided on politics, to the point of tooth-gnashing rage over every single issue and candidate. Not just divided like two friends, but turning into enemies with furious bitterness. 
The last time this happened, we erupted into the bloodiest and most ghastly war in American history. And I know the cause. Its not "heated rhetoric" or the internet, or radicalism in candidates or culture wars, although all that contributes. 
The cause is power. 
The federal, state, and local governments have gotten so much power over every aspect of our lives that instead of being a contest over which fellow will waste our time and smoke cigars in office, they affect us in critical, absolute ways. The bloat and expansion of the government at all levels, particularly federal means that there's too much at stake every election. We're not voting for representatives. We're voting for our future, desperate to control what the state can and will do. 
A smaller government would have so much less impact on your life and influence your liberty and day to day behavior that elections would have significantly less import. 150 years ago, the government was so much smaller and weaker it had little impact on most people's lives. You could go weeks, months, even years without even being aware there was a federal government -- there wasn't even a yearly federal income tax to pay. 
Even just thirty years ago nobody seriously believed the government would monitor all our phonecalls and drag people off to prison. Nobody seriously believed that you could be arrested for how the dust blew off your property when you plowed a field or where you smoked. Nobody believed you could be fined or jailed for who you baked a cake for or didn't. And already by that time the federal government was far too vast. 
Now its even bigger, exponentially, like the Blob. Its eating everything. And that means every election everything is at stake. The last 8 years of President Obama has seen a deliberate, systematic, and overwhelming drive from the top down to totally change the culture and throw everything that we know and became in America away for something radical and new. 
Even if you believe this is a good change, its so fast and so dominating and so top-down that it is incredibly disruptive to culture and our identity as a nation, not to mention the function and identity of the nation in the world at large. 
And that is something people do not take lightly or go through easily, even if they aren't really aware of what's happening. This complicates matters, making people especially uneasy as life is unstable and unpredictable, but its also an example of how power is being exercised at an even greater rate and with even greater force, making each election more dire and important. 
Every election becomes ever more important and the stakes get ever higher, because every election the federal government has spread further like a cancer devouring more and more freedom, power, and influence. Each election is a desperate bid to control that power, because of how it can and will be used. 
And as each presidency goes by, we see that power used for more and more extreme and expansive things -- in the name of doing good and helping out of course -- but used either way. So each election is more horrifying and important. The stakes have gotten so high that I fear there will be blood on the streets before the next one. 
And there's only one way out of this: for the monster to be cut back, for the government to shrink. And I see no possible way for that to happen within the system and within the boundaries of law. And that's an outcome we all should fear and pray God does not happen.
As evidence of all this, I've been fighting with my new federally mandated, planet-saving toilets for more than a week. They don't work. They don't get rid of the stuff or the stink. I only hope that this election gets rid of the stuff and stink in Washington.

Morning Rush: Try walking after you eat, and more

Here and there on the Web this Wednesday, October 19, 2016:

175 tons of jade.
For your special someone's ring

A brief history of frankincense

State / FBI collusion for Hillary

Diabetic? Try walking after eating

Oh that voter fraud

Your CDC hard at work

Is this a better speech transcription?

Hillary, the kleptomaniac

Ice or heat for aches and pains?

They're coming for your cash

How to get a good job reference

AI comes to traffic signals

Why Hillary doesn't want a wall

Can being really cold make you sick?

Today's Word: a false claim intended to harm

Hahaha: Boss makes staff admission

The Talkies: Delivering blood with drones:

Martha Graham: energy

"There is a vitality, a life force, an energy, a quickening, that is translated through you into action, and because there is only one of you in all time, this expression is unique. And if you block it, it will never exist through any other medium and will be lost."

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Here's looking at ya

Not on my phone.
You know those teevee shows in which some secret government agency finds people they're looking for out on a sidewalk somewhere using face recognition technology?

A friend was showing me his new iPhone. He found a photo of me on the phone, pushed a button, and the phone found every photo of me he had -- dozens -- and lined them up in a slideshow.

The photos didn't have to be full face. I could be in the corner of the photo, looking sideways, and the phone found me.


The new Photos system is a less cloud-heavy version of the system Google Photos first unveiled last May, which in turn drew heavily on Facebook’s long-standing system of auto-tagging photos and cataloging them by person. It’s a popular feature, one that Apple couldn’t resist building into the iPhone.

Even more spooky. Now comes this.
Half of all American adults are already in some sort of facial recognition network accessible to law enforcement, according to a comprehensive new study.
That so many American adults are in at least one facial recognition database is largely due to the fact that at least 26 states, and likely more, share their Department of Motor Vehicles databases with the FBI, state police, or other law enforcement agencies.
And you thought the DMV was boring.

Please patronize our new sponsor ...

If you will patronize our sponsors, we will patronize you.

In an age of fakery, you can protest by adorning your car with realistic bumper stickers!

Grass Valley, CA — The former owner of a local printing business and the father of two very average children has decided to head back into shop and create bumper stickers that most Americans can relate to: your children are average and occasional failures. And according to insiders in the bumper sticker business, this is a vast, untapped market.
“I was getting so sick of driving around seeing all the bumper stickers on others cars saying how smart their kids were,” said James Laster of Grass Valley. “And I thought, ‘Statistically speaking, there are many more average people on Earth than exceptional ones.’ So that’s when the idea struck me: I’m gonna makebumper stickers for the rest of us.”
Mr. Laster is calling his new business Realistic Slogans, and will initially target parents with average, C-grade-level students. In the future he plans to offer a service where people can create their own bumperstickers.

“Yeah, you know those minivans that have the 14 kids, the two parents and a dog on the back,” continued Mr. Laster. “Well, I want to have more realistic versions of that. You know, with the kids fighting and the parents yelling at the kids to sit down and be quiet.”

Oh James, we hardly knew ye

Hillary and I are rich. You're not.
I was going to do a little digging to see if there was some relationship between FBI Director James Comey and Hillary Clinton, who got a pass from the FBI on her illegal email dealings.

Turns out I didn't have to dig at all. Someone has done the legwork. This is just too easy. It's all out there in the public domain.

Kyle Becker at the Independent Journal Review reported this about Comey, who refused to say anything to Congressional investigators about the Clinton Foundation.
It has been learned since his Congressional testimony that a complex web of relationships ties James Comey to the Clinton Foundation.
The first thing to know about James Comey is that before he became the FBI Director in 2013, he was a top executive at Lockheed Martin from October, 2005 until July 2, 2010. 
As former general counsel and vice president of Lockheed Martin, the defense contractor benefited under Comey's leadership from a number of contracts awarded by Hillary Clinton's State Department. 
Lockheed Martin has been one of the top defense contributors to the Clinton Foundation:
The International Business Times published an extensive investigation of ties between defense contractors who donated to the Clinton Foundation and actions approved by Hillary Clinton's State Department.

One entry involves a $250,000 payment to Bill Clinton for a speech, just three days before a weapons-export contract was awarded to Lockheed.

Lockheed Martin would become a member of the Clinton Global Initiative in 2010. But it's not the only company that had extensive ties with the Clinton Foundation in Comey's background.
Read the article to learn about the HSBC connection and yet another involving Comey's brother.

Follow the money, boys and girls.

When a fly landed on Hillary

You know what flies are attracted to.
During the second presidential debate a fly suddenly landed on Hillary Clinton's face. Daniel Greenfield, a distinguished journalist, probes the deeper meaning.
“Let me just start out by saying that so much of what he just said is not right,” Hillary began.

And then while 63 million people watched, a member of Musca domestica, or the common housefly, landed and perched near her eye. 
Trump had just wrapped up a thorough takedown of the Clintons and their abuse of women. “There’s never been anybody in the history politics in this nation that’s been so abusive to women,” he said. The camera cut to a stone-faced Bill Clinton sitting unmoving in the VIP box.

“Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously. Four of them here tonight. One of the women, who is a wonderful woman, at 12 years old, was raped at 12. Her client she represented got him off, and she’s seen laughing on two separate occasions, laughing at the girl who was raped. Kathy Shelton, that young woman is here with us tonight,” he said.

Kathy Shelton had been beaten and raped into a coma by Hillary’s client. On tape, Hillary could be heard laughing as she recalled how she had gotten her rapist off while accusing Kathy of making it all up.

“I think she should be ashamed of herself,” Trump concluded. The audience applauded. ABC’s Martha Raddatz, Hillary’s venomous proxy among the debate moderators, sourly told the audience to shut up.

With her patented false chuckle, Hillary launched into her rebuttal as the fly perched on her.

The media, which can take a story about Hillary laughing about the rape of a 12-year-old girl (Vox: She did it for the Constitution) or leaving Americans to die at the hands of her Muslim terrorists in Benghazi and then lying about (The New York Times: It was a spontaneous protest) jumped into action.

CBS dug deep into its vault of stupid and declared that the fly was really a Native American totem “delivering a unique message” to help her “steady her emotions” after Trump’s attack. The “Tiffany Network” based this on a source which claims to have “life-long abilities” connecting with people, through “telepathy, energy awareness, clairvoyance and clairsentience”.

“Was it nature’s way of delivering a message to the Democratic nominee?” CBS asked.

In the bleary eyes of the press, even the fly landing on Hillary was the universe’s way of helping her against Trump. One might even say that the fly was an honorary member of the mainstream media trying to convey messages of reassurances from the media’s posh dungheap.

A quote from a less New Age source that went viral on social media however came from the Talmud; “The evil spirit is like a fly that lies at the door of the human heart.” Rav, the Talmudic scholar, used Ecclesiastes 10:1 as his source, "Dead flies make the ointment of the perfumer fetid and putrid".

King Solomon went on to write, "Dead flies make the ointment of the perfumer fetid and putrid; so doth a little folly outweigh wisdom and honor. A wise man's understanding is at his right hand; but a fool's understanding at his left.” Underneath Hillary’s favorite perfume (“Angel” by Thierry Mugle) is the smell of putrefaction that attracts flies. Her understanding is that of the left and the left is an evil foolishness.

The 15th century Spanish Jewish scholar, Rabbi Arama, wrote in the Akeidas Yitzchak, that, “He who prefers the rewards that originate from the left side is foolish” because they provide only “transient values”. Transient values are mortal. Unlike wisdom and honor, they perish swiftly.

The folly of the Clintons has outweighed any wisdom and honor they might have had. They have gained enormous wealth and prestige, yet even their own supporters despise their rottenness.

The only creature attracted to them is the fly.

The fly is a carrion symbol. It is drawn to dead and dying things. Even in the Native American legends that CBS desperately tried to invoke to turn the fly into a positive symbol it is the creature that brought death into the world. Putrefaction is what the Clintons brought to America. The fly is their perfect symbol. They are greedy creatures of rot, surrounded by filth and wallowing in their own vileness.

Hillary Clinton has presided over massive theft, corruption and the complete collapse of our foreign policy. From her modest days of turning $1,000 in cattle futures back in Arkansas into $100,000 with a little help from some key influential friends, she moved up to delivering six figure speeches to anyone willing to invest in Clinton futures in Washington D.C.

The Clintons raked in $153 million in speaking fees alone. Is there anyone who has sat through a Hillary speech this election season and thought that it was worth 50 cents, let alone the $280,000 paid by Germany’s Deutsche Bank, the $335,000 paid by the Biotechnology Industry Organization or the $325,000 paid by the National Automobile Dealers Association?

Those weren’t speaking fees. They were illegal campaign contributions.

And then there’s the Clinton Foundation, a gargantuan organization where the revenues run to $149 million a year, and whose real mission was to function as a slush fund for the Clinton campaign. As a charity, the Clinton Foundation was incredibly useless. It spent a small percentage of its loot on anything resembling charity. Much of the money went to employing key Clinton people like Huma Abedin.

Even when the Clinton Foundation tried to perform its good deed for the year, it cut corners on charity to keep up its core mission of getting Hillary into the White House. It shipped AIDS medicines that had been banned in the United States to the Third World. Haitians protested outside Hillary’s office over the millions that had been raised for Haiti, but got funneled to Hillary pals like Warren Buffett instead.

As Secretary of State, she presided over the complete collapse of national power and influence. When she took office, America was taken seriously around the world. When she left office, we were a joke.

Russia and China had succeeded in smacking around our allies and expanding their territory. They escalated their hacking campaigns into cyberwarfare attacks that stole our most vital secrets. Islamic terrorists took control of much of the Middle East. They murdered one of our ambassadors and attacked our embassies and missions. And the Clintons kept on getting richer from their dirty deals.

While the People’s Republic of China pushed aggressively into the South China Sea and launched cyberwarfare attacks against us, Bill Clinton took home $200,000 from its organs, including the Chinese Ministry of Information Industry. The Ministry is believed to have played a role in PRC hacking attacks. 
Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Clintons and their shell Foundation had pocketed $145 million from them. Bill Clinton was paid $500K for a speech by a bank linked to the FSB, the secret organization formerly known as the KGB. It was quite a Moscow comeback for Bill from his original trip there that had also been conducted under the auspices of individuals and groups linked to the KGB.

The Clintons are attracted to corruption the way that flies are drawn to offal. The media can spot no flies on Hillary. Its fact checkers excuse every scandal. They even invent a positive spin for a fly landing on her. The ordinary fly visiting Hillary may hold no special meaning. But flies are notoriously attracted to rotting things. And no political figures in this country are as rotten to the core as the Clintons.

The media may not be able to scent the rot of the Clintons, but a humble housefly can.
You can catch a fly with honey, a Clinton with money.

Morning Rush: You can't shake garlic breath, and more

Here and there on the Web this Tuesday, October 18, 2016:

Not in my backyard.
Strange things seen on Google Earth

A brief history of the Blackberry

Why garlic breath stays with you

Exercise vs diabetes

What's a hurricane among friends?

What's a race among friends?

Tasmanian devil milk may save you

Oh, that voter fraud

Time to quit watching the NFL?

The most explosive emails -- so far

Shut up, they explained

Not good: nuclear power under attack

The man who stood up to Facebook

This ain't your father's Planned Parenthood

EMP: This is worth worrying about

Still reading Politico?

Today's Word: possible together

Hahaha: Presbyterian motion detector lights turn off

The Talkies: What immigration has done to Paris:

Ann Radcliffe: actions

"I never trust people's assertions, I always judge of them by their actions."

Monday, October 17, 2016

This just in ...

Clinton delivers rousing speech in morgue

LARAMIE, Wyo. — Vying for the support of a quiet but ever-growing voter demographic, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton delivered a campaign speech on Monday to residents of a morgue in this sleepy Rocky Mountain town.

“In all of his 494 appearances on network television, my opponent Donald Trump has not once mentioned you, and that’s because he doesn’t even know you’re alive,” Clinton told an estimated 24 unanimated voters who were wheeled into a refrigerated vault for the event. “He’s more concerned with chasing hot asses than reaching out to frigid hands.”

Clinton went on to explain that she shares many affinities with those in attendance, pointing out that in 1998, at the height the Monica Lewinsky scandal, she went 17 days straight without taking a single breath.

“You may not know this, but we have a lot in common,” she said. “Proclivity for stiffness, absent or weak pulse, a tendency to look blankly at the wall when confronted with physical contact.”

Laramie bartender Frank Tadwick, 54, whose uncle Ronald passed away last week at the age of 89, says that Hillary Clinton is the only candidate with a body temperature his uncle can relate to.

“Donald Trump struts around in the winter wearing a $1500 Brooks Brothers overcoat, shivering like any other jerk with a functioning hypothalamus,” Tadwick said. “Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton could go days locked in a cold storage unit, and that’s important for Uncle Ronnie.”

Francesca Hernandez, 42, chief mortician at South Wyoming Medical Center and organizer of the event, believes that the former senator and secretary of state had the requisite temperament to stand firm in the arena of international conflicts.

“In a staring match with Vladimir Putin, Hillary Clinton will never blink first,” Hernandez says. “And that’s because Secretary Clinton doesn’t blink at all.”

Among other promises designed to win the deceased vote, Clinton says that she’ll push for free headstone upgrades for every late American regardless of citizenship status, and that she’ll order the Department of the Interior to take over the maintenance of all cemetery grounds.

“You might not be able to speak,” Clinton said to stifled applause. “But I can still hear you.”

You could remember to say thank you

I have two friends who know how to say thank you. The day after an evening at our house she will call to say how much she enjoyed it. If he receives something he appreciates, he'll take up a pen and write a thank you note on paper.

These are very busy people. They have lots of other things to do.

I was reminded of them by this instruction at The Art of Manliness.
1. Send a thank you text when you get home from a nice party/date. In my opinion, this is the #1 easiest and best way to be a more charming texter. Yet almost no one does it. When someone has you over for dinner, or you take someone out on a date, once you part ways, they typically worry a bit as to whether or not you had a good time. And a party host wants to know their effort to throw the shindig was appreciated. So even if you thank your date/host in person at the end of the evening, once you get home, shoot them a confirming text saying, “Thanks again for the delicious dinner. We had such a good time!” Trust me on this, it’s stupidly, stupidly charming. 
2. Write handwritten thank you notes, always and often. When an occasion was especially nice, instead of sending a text, write the person a handwritten thank you note and stick it in the mail. And send handwritten thank you notes for anything and everything else. Received a gift? Thank you note. Job interview? Thank you note. Someone helped you move? Thank you note. Someone went to bat for you at work? Thank you note. 
Thank you note writing has become such a lost art, and receiving snail mail is so delightful, that sending handwritten appreciation has become one of the most effective ways to set yourself apart from the pack.
Let me suggest that you first have to have some appropriate thank you note paper thingies. Order some here.

You can't believe the polls

It's science.
Do you really believe that the big media companies, which are doing everything they can to elect Hillary Clinton, suddenly become objective when they do a poll?

Really? You believe that?

Take this Washington Post/ABC News poll, which showed Hillary ahead by four points. Among likely voters, 47 percent said they would vote for Hillary, 43 percent for Donald. If you scroll to the bottom of the data, you learn that 33 percent of the respondents identified as independents, 33 percent as Democrats, and 25 percent as Republicans.

Here's the national breakdown according to Gallup: 42% identify as independents, 29% as Democrats, and 26% as Republicans. So in the Washington Post poll, we have more democrats than is true nationally and fewer republicans. If they had cooked the results to correct for this, they would have told us, because it would make Hillary's lead all the more dramatic.

The national sample in this poll was 1,152 adults reached on cellular and landline phones. The margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus three percentage points; the margin of error is 3.5 points among the sample of 920 registered voters and four points among the sample of 740 likely voters.
Do you want to believe the conclusion of this poll? Here's how the Washington Post began its article on the poll:
With three weeks until Election Day, Hillary Clinton holds a four-point lead over Donald Trump in the race for the White House, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, with the Republican nominee hobbled by persistent perceptions that he is not qualified to be president. 
The poll was conducted during one of the most tumultuous periods of Trump’s candidacy, after the release of a video in which he spoke about taking sexual advantage of women and during a time when numerous women have accused him of sexual misconduct.
What do you see there? Sounds like an unbiased writer to me.

Here's an interesting article in Slate, which is not a Republican rag. It discusses differences in party affiliation in polling samples. Some on the left have criticized Fox for coming up with more Republicans, but this article nixes that charge. It also notes:
If you don’t trust the Fox poll, look at the nearly simultaneous CBS News/New York Times survey. The Times methodology statement says its “sample was adjusted to reflect the percentage of the population residing in mostly Democratic counties [and] mostly Republican counties.” Sure enough, Clinton wins that poll, 47 percent to 41 percent. But if you dig up the detailed tables—not available at or but posted by the CBS News political team at Scribd—you’ll find something that the Times didn’t report or include in its data sheet. Question 9 of the poll asked: “Compared to past presidential elections, how would you describe your level of enthusiasm about voting in the 2016 presidential election this year—are you more enthusiastic than usual, less enthusiastic, or about the same as usual?” Republicans were evenly split: 36 percent more enthusiastic, 36 percent less. But Democrats were more likely to say their enthusiasm was down (39 percent) than up (30 percent).

That’s a warning. When the Times “adjusts” its sample based on “the percentage of the population residing in mostly Democratic counties,” it’s betting that a partisan enthusiasm gap, such as the one detected in its own survey, won’t significantly change the balance of turnout between Republican and Democratic counties. That “adjustment” is prognostication disguised as polling.
We're deep in the woods now. So let me conclude by asking you: When is the last time you answered a call from a pollster?

Where are you in our 1.3 party system?

One of my favorite bloggers goes by the name The Z Man. I don't know who he is, but from his writing I'm sure he's an old Washington hand, and a well-educated one.

He has a keen eye for what I call "us vs them," the rise of the self-anointed elites, and the pushback from what they call the "deplorables." That's the defining characteristic of this election.

Here he discusses our current political dilemma, with an emphasis on the fractured Republican Party.
Hey, I gotta nice office.
One of the many things that has been exposed by the Trump campaign is that America does not have a two-party political system. It has a 1.3 party system. A good example of this is how Paul Ryan probably had one of his cronies leak that lewd tape to embarrass the party nominee. 
Whether or not he orchestrated it is immaterial, as he clearly had foreknowledge and was prepared to pile on as soon as it was released. In fact, it looked like he was coordinating a revolt against the nominee until it became clear it was going to backfire
This is not the normal functioning of a political party. Hillary Clinton could be caught on video, strangling a baby, and the party would rally to her side. The media would celebrate baby strangling for a week. Just look at how hard they tried to hide her severe health problems from the public. That’s how political parties are supposed to work. The role of the party is to advance all of its candidates, even the ones they don’t like all that much. John McCain is an obnoxious nutjob, but the party fully supported his candidacy.
The truth is that about a third of elected Republicans would prefer to be Democrats. 
 Within living memory, guys like Paul Ryan would have been moderate Democrats or possibly liberal Republicans. The distance between Clinton and Ryan on the main issues of the day is tiny. Ryan and most of the party leadership are post-national globalists, just like the Democrats. Ryan would prefer to be a bit more tightfisted on some spending items than Clinton, but he has made it known, time and again, that he will not fight over these things.
There is another third or more of the party that is not interested in rocking the boat. They just like the good life and generally think the status quo is pretty good, at least for them. 
In another age, many would have been seat warmers in the Democrat Party, but time and circumstance put them in the GOP. A guy like John Boehner, for example, would have been in the Democrat party in the 1970’s. He’s the sort of guy union boys would like as he is unpretentious and likes talking about bread and butter issues more than philosophy. 
That leaves a small fraction of the party’s elected officials in Washington that are dedicated to opposing the dominant orthodoxy and its political party. The result is a guy like Jeff Sessions getting grief from his own party, because he is standing by the party’s nominee. The weirdness of this goes unnoticed in official Washington as the majority of the Imperial Capital thinks guys like Sessions are a nuisance. There are just 40 members of the House that can be described as traditional American conservatives. That’s 16% of the caucus. 
Get them some big boy pants.
Now, Gallup has been polling on ideological self-identification for a long time. The portion of the country that self-identifies as liberal is around 20% and the portion that identifies as conservative sticks around 40%. The rest are low-tax liberals and conservatives that live in liberal states. In all probability, this group of “moderates” breaks 2-to-1 to traditional American conservatism. At least, if they are given the choice between a Reagan and an Obama, for example, they would break toward Reagan. 
The math suggests that about half the country has no party representing their interests. At best they have a third of one party, which happens to be controlled by the other party. The other 5/6ths of the political class speaks loudly and aggressively for the 20% of the public that identifies as liberal. As guys like Paul Ryan have made clear, they have zero interest in listening to the pleas of their conservative members. The House leadership has made it clear that the troublesome right wingers are to remain quiet and out of the way or else. 
It’s why a rather poor politician like Trump has rocketed to the brink of winning the presidency. For the first time in decades, one party has put up someone that talks about issues important to the bulk of the the country in a way that is familiar to close to half, maybe more than half, of the voters. It’s also why Trump finds himself running against the leadership of his own party, the so-called conservative media and the full army of the Progressive establishment. Trump is essentially running as an independent. 
Popular government cannot work when it is not popular. By that I mean the public must think their interests are being represented in the halls of power. Otherwise, it is just another form of despotism in the eyes of that portion of the public that feels excluded. What’s happening now may be a modern American version of the Conflict of the Orders. An unrepresented portion of the public is demanding to be represented and using the tools at its disposal to force reform on the established order. 
Perhaps this election is a modern American version of the Day of the Tiles. Instead of throwing roof tiles at the agents of the state, the people are using the blunt weapon that is Donald Trump. In isolation it will just feel like a wacky event that means nothing, but in the fullness of time it will be viewed as a pivotal event. It’s hard to know, but what is known is that this system has lost its legitimacy because a swelling portion of the public is no longer represented by either party. That cannot last and it will not last.
I think it's correct to view the election through this lens. Once you see it, it's hard to see it any other way.