One-Sided Fact Checking

During the debate, the moderators were Johnny on the spot to offer corrections to Trump but somehow never had any corrections for Harris.  Obviously, Harris didn't say anything that needed fact checking.  Right.  Interestingly, the moderators had some facts on hand for some of Trump's claims, showing they had done their research.  For instance, when Trump brought up the cats being eaten by Haitian immigrants in Ohio, David Muir revealed that ABC had contacted the city manager and could not confirm the claims.  Wow, that's an obscure fact to have already checked.  Impressive.  But then Harris brought up Charlottesville, stating that Trump viewed Neo-Nazis as "very fine people."  Neither David Muir nor Linsey Davis challenged the claim.  So it is true?

No, even Snopes, not known to be a right-wing organization, rated this false.  This is a 7-year-old story where you can watch the video or read the transcript.  It is clear that Trump was stating that the fine people were those who wanted to keep Robert E. Lee's statue and those who wanted to remove it.  He specifically condemned Neo-Nazis:

I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.

Trump offered this clarification in the same response where he said "very fine people, on both sides."  Yet somehow, 7 years after the event, this is still unknown.  The news does not inform, it propagandizes.  The Fine People Hoax was debunked as soon as it was reported, but somehow Muir and Davis didn't have this fact check ready.

Muir himself had questioned Kamala in the 2020 primaries about gun control.  She was in favor of it.  While Biden was saying her executive order plan wasn't constitutional, she suggested he say "Yes we can."  Now, she says no one is coming for your guns.  Muir didn't need to research since he was moderating when she said it.  Silence.

Joe's Endorsement?

When I first saw this picture, I thought it was a phony.  Someone used photoshop to put a Trump hat on President Biden.  No, it turned out it was real.  So, then I thought he was so confused and out of it that he unwittingly wore the hat.  Wrong again.  Biden requested the hat from the man who was wearing it, placed it on top of the baseball cap he was wearing, smiled to the camera, then returned the Trump hat to the original wearer.  Wow, is someone maybe a bit miffed by how his party has treated him?  Coming after Trump stated in the debate that Biden hated Harris, the timing could hardly be worse.  Luckily, this incident won't get much play.  If it does, it will just be Joe Biden joking around.

The Debate

Strangely, it often seemed as though Kamala was the challenger and Trump the incumbent.  She repeatedly said she had a plan for this or a plan for that.  She is part of the current administration.  President Biden is not really the president.  She is second in command, right?  Why doesn't she institute some of these plans now?

That aside, Kamala was much stronger than I expected.  She had been very weak against Pence in 2020, but proved to be quite good here.  Of course, I disagreed with almost everything she said but she delivered well and offered good counterpoints.  Her attacks on Trump landed quite often. In fact, she put him on the defensive more often than he put her on the defensive.  She wisely offered only brief rebuttals to his attacks and immediately shifted to the attack.  By contrast, Trump spent more time countering her attacks which limited his own offense.  Kamala was better practiced and focused.  Trump had some points that he hit repeatedly but was usually unfocused.

The moderators were on Kamala's side.  There were hard questions for Trump and attacks on Trump queued up as questions for Kamala.  The hardest questions against Kamala were about her changing positions.  By contrast, the questions for Trump were along the line of 'Are you a bad person or a horrible person?'  The moderators eagerly jumped in to dispute Trump claims and repeatedly fact-checked him, but let Kamala get away with the fully debunked (even by Snopes) "Fine People" Hoax.  Nor did they have a follow up for Kamala about how she lobbied for bail money for Minneapolis rioters.  It was a three on one debate, which Trump should have expected and been better prepared to counter.  It reminded me of the debate between Trump and Clinton back in 2016.

Overall, it was a wash.  If you are for Trump, Trump won.  If you are for Kamala, Kamala won.  It is unlikely this debate will shift any views.  Where Biden shattered Democrat voters' confidence in the last debate, Kamala reassured them that she's not the incoherent cackler that she has been accused of being.  This will probably do her more good than it will do Trump.

The Cheney Endorsement

In much the way that President Obama's frequent calls for gun control caused gun sales to skyrocket, I suspect that former VP Dick Cheney's endorsement of Kamala is likely to have the opposite result of what he hopes.  From the very start of the George W Bush presidency, Cheney was viewed as the brains behind the administration.  After Bush picked him for VP, the word was that he brought 'gravitas' to the ticket.  Yeah, because George W Bush is not the most eloquent guy.  The Democrats heaped nearly as much blame on Cheney as Bush for the Bush Era.  Cheney spent 8 years as a prime Democrat boogieman, a villain beyond redemption, a former CEO of Halliburton!  Whatever he said was wrong or a lie.  Today, voters should listen to him about who should be president.  Really?

The Bush Administration got the US involved in Middle Eastern wars in a big way with Afghanistan and Iraq.  Though the Biden Administration pulls us out of Afghanistan, it has gotten us entangled in a far more dangerous war between Ukraine and Russia.  Trump wants to stop the war; Cheney endorses Kamala.  Coincidence?  You remember when the Democrats were anti-war?

If a Democrat from 2005 heard that Dick Cheney was endorsing a candidate, the Democrat would vote for the opposition.  Has the party drifted so far that Cheney is now a good guy?  Oddly, I am reminded of FBI Director Comey.  Throughout the 2016 Campaign, he was a hated villain for his pursuit of Hillary and her email server.  There was a natural distaste for him among Democrats.  On one of those late night shows (Colbert or Maher, I think), it was mentioned that Trump fired Comey.  The audience cheered.  They weren't supposed to cheer.  You see, Comey was undermining Trump, so he was a good guy now.  You bumpkins need to keep up with the times.

Topsy Turvy!

Topsy Turvy

The current election is seeing a realignment of the parties.  We have Republicans for Democrats and Democrats for Republicans, unions for Republicans and rich industrialists for Democrats.  It's going topsy turvy.  Here are a few highlights:

1. Former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney has endorsed Kamala Harris for president.  He is following his daughter, Liz Cheney (R), in this.  She was one of 2 Republicans on the J6 Select Committee that put all the blame on Trump, ignoring that he had offered to call up the National Guard beforehand.

2. Congressman Robert F Kennedy Jr. (D) suspended his independent run for the presidency and has endorsed Donald Trump.  The Kennedys are Democratic Party royalty, so this is more significant than the Cheneys going to Harris.

3. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D), who ran for president in 2020, has endorsed Donald Trump.

4. Elon Musk voted for Biden in 2020, but is now endorsing Donald Trump.

5. Alan Dershowitz has declared "I am no longer a Democrat."  That doesn't mean he is voting for Trump, but he probably isn't voting for Kamala either.

When I was a youth, the Democrats were the party of free speech and the Republicans were the ones who wanted to put warnings on music lyrics, video games, and so forth.  Now, the Democrats are the party of censorship and the Republicans are the party of free speech.  How did that happen?  In the 1990s, the Democrats wanted to stem the tide of illegal immigration to protect American workers from low wage competition.  Today, the Democrats have opened the floodgates, and the country is awash in illegal immigrants.  What happened there?  I remember when the Democrats were the anti-war party, but now Trump is the anti-war candidate.  What explains that shift?

A realignment is underway in the United States and around the world.  The world order that was created in the wake of World War II is undergoing dramatic changes, breaking old party alliances and creating new ones.  That some prominent Republicans have thrown their support to Harris and Democrats have backed Trump just shows how upside down the world is at the moment.

Who Decides?

He [Musk] has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. ... There has to be a responsibility placed on these social media sites to understand their power. ...  They are speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation.  That has to stop.

Kamala Harris

VP Harris spoke out against X/Twitter.  From her perspective, Free Speech is a privilege, not a right.  Musk has lost that privilege according to the would-be president.  What could he do to regain his privileges?  She wants oversight and regulation.  Right.  Who decides?  Who are these regulators and overseers who will make sure that social media understands its power and uses it responsibly?  Is her definition of responsible use the same as my definition of responsible use?  She is using the words oversight and regulation when she really means censorship.  What else could it be?  Proper grammar and punctuation?  No, the people have access to information (maybe misinformation) that the government would rather they didn't.  The government doesn't want to fight 'misinformation' with facts; they want to censor it.  The censors are always the bad guys.

France recently arrested a social media mogul for failing to properly regulate and oversee information.  Free speech must be restricted.  To allow the government to restrict it without admitting they are abridging free speech, they come up with terms like hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, and so forth.  Really, our censoring this is for your own good.  Honest.

The Day of the Jackal (1973)

In the early 1960s, many French were furious that DeGaulle had abandoned Algeria.  Some former legionnaires attempted to assassinate him.  The efforts had all failed and the Secret Army Organization (OAS) is too infiltrated with spies and turncoats to launch another attempt.  Thus, they decided to hire an outsider.  The Jackal (Edward Fox) has a brief meeting with the top men of the OAS and agrees to assassinate DeGaulle for $500,000, half in advance.  They accept.  The Jackal immediately sets about planning the assassination.  He gets a passport in a different name, he has a gunsmith make a special rifle that can be smuggled across the border, he scouts potential locations where he can take his shot.

Meanwhile, the French authorities know something is up.  The OAS has taken to robbing banks.  Why do they need the money?  None of those captured know, only that it was ordered.  Then there is the oddity that the commanders are all in hiding, protected by layers of bodyguards.  The interrogation of the one man who connects the leaders to the outside world gains precious little other than "Jackal" and foreigner.  From this tiny clue, Deputy Commissioner Claude Lebel (Michael Lonsdale) gets on the trail of the Jackal.

The Jackal has made extensive preparations.  He has additional passports to change identity.  In this pre-computer world, it took a small army to sort through the paperwork housed at government offices.  Of course, the Jackal also has sources.  There was a leak at the French Ministry and the Jackal knew his cover was blown and he needed to move and change identities.  Lebel was mere hours behind him now.  Despite the dire circumstances, DeGaulle refused to change his schedule.

An excellent thriller that feels very real.  Though the Jackal and Lebel are the central figures, the cast of characters is vast.  Even so, it is a tight story that keeps the focus.  Fred Zinnemann also directed such greats as High Noon (1952), From Here to Eternity (1953), and A Man for All Seasons (1966).

Highly recommended.