Changing Tide

I have to admit that I’m starting to lean this way myself:

Donald Trump is being largely blamed for the midterm red wave that never happened, with Republican strategists pinning the party’s underwhelming performance in the 2022 midterms on his selection of ‘flawed’ candidates. 

Trump endorsed some 300 candidates, held 30 rallies and raised millions of dollars for his ‘army’ of candidates. It was supposed to be the amuse-bouche for a Presidential run, intended to set him up for a sweeping 2024 success.  

But overnight, many of Trump’s chosen candidates crashed and burned.

It seems to me that Trump is becoming like Her Filthiness Hillary Ciinton, the “broken glass” candidate (in that people would crawl over broken glass to vote against them).

Where there was previously no strong candidate to back in the fight against socialism, Trump was the default because all the Stupid Party could bring to the [ahem] party were candidates of the Romney/Mitch McConnell stripe — establishment GOPe drones.

Thanks to Trump, however, we have more radical leaders like Kristi Noem and of course Ron DeSantis around who, provided we could actually vote them into power, might continue or even improve upon the works of President Trump.

And let’s be honest:  another Trump similarity to Hillary is age:  in 2024 he will be 78, and if Biden is anything to go by, we do not need another octogenarian in the White House, no matter how energetic he may seem at the moment.  (A depressing thing about advanced age — ask me how I know this — is that two, three or four years has a far more radical effect upon one’s physical- and mental capabilities at 65+ years than they had at age 40 or even 50.)  Trump would be 79 if he were to win the next election, but 81 by the next mid-term election.  Could he still be as effective?  Hell, given the obstacles the Swamp would throw at him, could he be effective at all?

I have no problem with Trump continuing to hold rallies all over the place, as long as they support the MAGA philosophy and not his candidacy.  But that ain’t gonna happen.

And given that the supposed “red tsunami” turned out to be more of a pinkish trickle (a topic for another time), there’s no guarantee that even a conservative maestro like Ron DeSantis would be successfully elected.

Is it too early for a second gin?  I think not.

Perspective

From yesterday’s Comments:

“More than three million (and counting) “Texans” voted for Beto.”

Just remember that if all three million had voted in the same place, he wouldn’t even have carried Houston, let alone the whole state.

In fact, given that the Lone Star’s voting population numbers about 19 million, and at least ten percent of any given population are retarded assholes*, Beto’s vote count is not even double that number.


*Assuming that all retarded assholes would vote for Beto, that is, but there’s a limit even to asshole retardation.

Evolution

In my innocence, I always imagined that evolution was a Good Thing, in that v.2.0 would always be an improved version of v.1.9.9, and so on.  (Of course, that belief has been massively degraded by having to deal with software companies, but that’s for another time.)

I understand, therefore, that evolution is not necessarily an improvement, but by and large it has proven to be so — a 2021 Corvette is a much better car than its 1961 ancestor, at least mechanically speaking.  As for its shape?  I’ll let you decide:

Regardless of the shape change (ugh), I think we can agree that the 2021 model performs much better than the 1961 model, mechanically speaking, because let’s be honest, engine technology, materials and things like suspension- and brake technology are better now than they were sixty years ago.  And even the modern shape is no doubt far more efficient in terms of air management than the older one, so at least there’s that.

Now let’s talk about guns.  Here we have a situation where the technology has hardly changed at all, materials have improved somewhat, but (say) a .22 pistol’s operation and efficiency have stayed pretty much the same.

So sixty-odd years ago we had .22 pistols that looked like the High Standard and Beretta:

 

…which, I think we can all agree, did an excellent job of putting the boolet into its intended destination.  Modern pistols, of course, do just as good a job of that — pistols like the FN and SIG:

 

…but for all their improved technology and materials, they somehow end up looking like a dog’s ass.

To return to the cars for a moment, it’s as though the Corvette:

…somehow ended up looking like this:

I know, I can hear y’all now:  “The old fart’s lost it again, jabbering about the Good Ole Days.”

Yeah, maybe.

But I’d still rather own a Beretta 101 than any of the current crop of .22 hand-bricks.

And to wrap this whole train of thought up, I want somebody to explain how ideals of female beauty like this:

…have somehow evolved into this:

Same form, same basic functions between the two models… but ugh.  No thank you.

Baby Talk

Then we have this silliness:

If I were put in charge of a business today, probably one of the first things I would do is make the use of all “emojis” in corporate communications a cause for immediate termination — whether in internal emails or texts, and certainly in client communication.

Why?  Because a business is a serious thing — there are profits to be made, customer- and client relationships to be forged, and decisions made can have long-term implications and outcomes.

And serious business requires serious communication, not fucking chat-speak shorthand (and by extension, the same goes for acronyms like “AFAIK” and “IMHO”).

There’s no excuse for using any of the above.  “But it expresses what I mean much more quickly and efficiently”  is the common whine in their defense, which tells me that you are a) lazy and b) unable to write / communicate properly.  Neither of those shortcomings is likely to endear you to me, the boss.

I think that this foolishness is in keeping with the modern yoot’s belief that work isn’t serious, that employers have to make employees’ lives easier — safe, yes;  easy, not so much — and it all feeds into the scenario that today’s workers feel that they’re entitled to a job that has few rules, few restrictions on their behavior, and few demands on their intellect (such as it is).

This “work from home” nonsense is another flea on the corporate body.  I once had a job where I worked from home, but only because the (start-up) company was based in Florida and couldn’t afford to relocate me.  Even so, I made a point of spending a full week each month in Florida to meet with other executives and employees, and most especially to justify my continued employment to management.

The way I see it is that if you live closer than twenty miles from the corporate office, you should come in to work every day.

“But I’m just as efficient working from home as from the office!”  (which is a total lie, and everyone knows it) which carries the implication that the employee and not management can set the standard for efficiency.

“But I don’t have to be in the office to work!”  comes the next wail, as though management should have to justify the company’s employment requirements to the employees.  I decide the working conditions — and if I say you have to work in an office, then you’ll work in an office.  Otherwise, hit the road.”  (or “FIFO” — hah!)

I think it’s the insufferable arrogance that all the above demonstrate that makes me want to walk around with a cane, lightly swatting people who offend me with their attitude and laziness.  (I know, that’s assault — another fucking example of corrective action turned into a criminal misdeed, don’t get me started.)

Long ago, I interviewed a kid for a junior executive position, and was completely floored when he asked me how much access he’d have to senior management, to communicate (as he put it) his “ideas” for improvement.  He was equally taken aback by my response:  “What makes you think that your inexperience qualifies you for such access?”  I then got the “fresh eyes” spiel, whereupon I pointed out that he shouldn’t be so arrogant as to assume that his fresh young eyes were the first such that had ever started work at the company.

Of course, he didn’t get the job — and was somewhat hurt when I told him why I’d made that decision.  (In those days, one actually communicated with applicants when turning them down, instead of ghosting them.  Don’t get me started on this little example of corporate / individual cowardice.)

Elephant herds tend to survive (and thrive) because the older bulls keep the adolescents in line.  In today’s culture, adolescents demand that they should run the show, even though history shows that uninformed opinion and little experience ends up in disaster. One of my favorite movie storylines is that of Big (1988), where Tom Hanks is miraculously transformed into an adult, and whose idea for a toy company makes him a corporate hero.  However, his next idea is terrible, and had he not reverted to childhood, catastrophic failure would have been inevitable.

Never mind history (all that old stuff);  one has only to look at today’s White House and its Cabinet of lightweights like Harris, Buttigieg, Granholm and Raimondo  to see the consequences of such folly.

The business world is no different, by the way, as witnessed by the ineptness and uncaring attitude of adolescent children like Zuckerberg and the twerps at Google, whose “life is just like a game, dude” perspective is equally catastrophic for society.  Great ideas for a start-up, but not so good (okay, terrible) for the long term.

Unfortunately, unlike with Tom Hanks’s Big character, there’s no easy way out for the rest of us who have to live with the Bidenesque- and Metaversal catastrophes.

And while these twerps, insulated from looming catastrophe by age (Biden) and wealth (Zuckerberg), might say “BFD, dude”, the same is not true for the rest of us.

It IS a Big Fucking Deal.