Normally I wouldn’t mirror a whole post from another site. However, Scott Adams has closed his comments section, so it is no longer possible to discuss what he asserts in his latest essay. It is my hope that what he has to say will provoke discussion. Need I say, courteous , thoughtful, and robust discussion, both about Mr. Adams’ contention and about what other readers’ responses may be?
You will notice one main thesis presented and several embedded corollaries. I request that you take them on one at a time so they can be responded to one at a time. After you’ve read his essay, I’ll give you my own opinion regarding the situation and what ought to have occurred. You can take that on also, should you so desire.
My agenda here is to provide a forum for those who have something cogent to say about one of the most dismal situations ever to burden our increasingly diminished “exceptional” nation. In this discussion, I have no doubt we’ll stray into the OT weeds; there are simply too many assumptions present to avoid that effect for anyone who grabs hold of Benghazi.
Hillary Clinton has become our very own Heracleum mantegazzianum especially given the fact that from long before the shooting started and into the coming decades, the sequelae of that hogweed sap will wound all of us, including those who run away by refusing to think about it.
Perhaps the chosen image should have been a nuclear bomb? After some thought, the New York Stinging Hogweed seemed more apropos to sum up the numerous hairy impeccabilities of our former Secretary of State. Thus the immediate reaction and the long-term consequences are perhaps as injurious AS nuclear radiation. Anyone who has brushed, however inadvertently, a Giant Hogweed — ah, what an apt flower symbol for (to change the metaphor) FOR this dung-covered cash cow the Democrats have shoved at us. Anyone who has come within touching or smelling distance can verify the pain. Hogweed damage can take up to six years to heal; for some it causes permanent blindness.
[Edited with better information from Mark Spahn]
You have only to look at her frozen shell-shocked gofer, Huma Mahmood Abedin Weiner, to see what happens even to those devoted to this woman. Perhaps only someone raised as a true believer within the strictures of Islam would be so blind? The choices both women made when they picked their spouses (and stayed with them) is indicative of some deep folie à deux. The next generation of psychohistorians — those far and safely outside the confined consensus of academe — will have their work cut out for them with these two women.
Mr. Adams’ book is linked at the end of this essay. I recommend it in the best way I know how: I bought the Kindle version and found it unable to surrender all the information inside: some of the material (not just his cartoons) are in images I wasn’t able to enlarge. More modern versions of Kindle may have that function, but I stubbornly stick to the original Kindle, sans the annoying touch screen “improvements”.
[Sometimes Amazon and Wal-Mart seem to be offshoots of government: they offer what they want to sell, but not always what you want to buy. Since they haven’t completely taken over yet, one is able to access places like eBay to get the older or less “best-selling” versions of things you think you need. I was able to find an old (but unused) IBM large-screen monitor for the Baron when his old one gave out.]
At any rate, I bought Adams’ book again, this time as a used paperback; I promptly bought copies for my children, too, though I realize my enthusiasms and Road-to-Damascus paradigmatic shifts are not necessarily heritable. Darn. That’s a hard lesson for some of us parents… I always give with the idea they may pass it on to someone else who might find my book gifts more amenable to their own thinking.
Now, on to Mr. Adams’ essay. It is up to you to decide: (a) is this essay straightforward, or (b) is he being tongue-in-cheek [again, maybe?]; (c) are his “facts” correct or is he sneakily trying to trip you up?, and (d) in the case of (a) how would you refute his assertions?
The FBI, Credibility, and Government
The primary goal of government is its own credibility.
That notion needs some explaining.
Governments do many things, including building roads, providing social services, defending the homeland, and more. But no matter what the government is trying to accomplish, its macro-responsibility is to maintain its own credibility. Governments without credibility devolve into chaos. Credibility has to be job one.
Consider all the different government systems around the world, and all the different laws they created. The Chinese government is different from the United States government, which is different from Jordan’s government, which is different from Great Britain. But each of those governments is credible to its own people, and that’s the key. The specific laws and the specific forms of government don’t matter too much, so long as the public views its own local system as credible.
The notion of credibility is why my political preferences don’t align with either of the candidates for president. I look for credibility in government, not for my personal agreement with a particular policy.
For example, I think laws regarding abortion are most credible when they are agreeable to the majority of women, no matter what the majority of men think. Imagine an abortion-related law that was acceptable to 90% of men but only 10% of women. It wouldn’t be credible. Nor should it be.
I take this same thinking to how a president should fill Supreme Court openings. For maximum credibility, we should have eight justices instead of nine, equally divided by liberal versus conservative credentials. That way nothing gets through the Supreme Court unless one of the liberals or one of the conservatives switches sides. That’s how you get credibility. Compare that to a 5-4 court that always votes conservative or always votes liberal. With a biased court, every decision will lack credibility with half of the citizens. That’s a problem.
[From Dymphna: a sidetrack onto a brief history of the Supreme Court. It leaves out much of the real history, but this is enough for our purposes here to let you examine Mr. Adams’ assertion about the best number for Supreme Court justices. This is an example of what I mean by his tongue-in-cheek assertions vs. his desire to ascertain how persuasive he can be, even with a bad idea. As such, it serves as a good lead in to his next theme.]
This gets me to FBI Director James Comey’s decision to drop the case against Hillary Clinton for her e-mail security lapses. To the great puzzlement of everyone in America, and around the world, Comey announced two things: