Watching the liberal meltdown over Donald Trump's election
The liberal Democratic meltdown continues: the whining, the weeping, the blaming of Hillary Clinton, the gnashing of teeth and those heartbreaking, sighing questions about whether life is worth living anymore.
And that's not just in America's newsrooms, either, but in many other places too.
Outside newsrooms, half the country is in political mourning, the other half is still relishing the election.
And if they don't relish the elevation of Donald Trump to the presidency exactly, they're at least celebrating those videos shared on social media, of precious TV talking heads and pundits laughing hysterically while mocking the "uneducated" and the "deplorables" who didn't have the wits to deny Hillary her Restoration.
But they did, and it's over. So what to look at now?
•Democrats pushing for an end to the Electoral College, reminding me of the story of those two wolves and the lamb voting on what's for dinner.
•The fight over whether Clinton should be charged with a crime, and if she is, should she expect a pardon?
•And what about those safety pins?
The safety pins are becoming symbols of solidarity for the young on the left who oppose Trump. And they're quite the fashion accessory. But don't criticize the kids. I've realized that those who criticize the young anti-Trump protesters are just as blind as liberal pundits, unable to see through their partisanship.
The anti-Trump protests aren't exactly spontaneous, are they? They're organized, perhaps with George Soros' cash. But here's the thing. The protests allow the hard left to send a message to Democrats:
Don't stray. We're here, on the left. We're watching you.
My only complaints are those primal scream parties on campus and students who asked for postelection counseling. These are the signs of weak children born to a diseased establishment that's been overturned. In every age, history is full of such poignant teeth gnashing.
Yet whatever their politics, and as a dad with college tuition bills, skipping midterms for the sake of political tribalism is foolish. That's where the safety pins come in.
A safety pin on your clothing demonstrates solidarity with the anti-Trumpsters, and a shield from shaming. But there's a problem with the pins. The irony of it all.
I thought irony died decades ago, but it insists on reanimating itself.
They're safety pins! S-a-f-e-t-y Pins.
Safe space, safe pins, get it? Safety pins were once used to secure cloth diapers so baby bottoms wouldn't get pricked.
I had hoped they'd wear something a bit tougher, like a needle, or a bloody "Game of Thrones" spike. Can't they find some symbolism just a tad less baby-bottomish?
"These pins — not the wearing of them or the pictures posted of folks wearing them — are not about safe spaces," wrote Trump critic Demetria Lucas D'Oyley in an article headlined "Come On, White People: We Need More Than Safety Pins to Make Us Feel Safe" that appeared in The Root.
"They're about not wanting to be perceived as a racist. Like, 'I might be white, but I'm not like them, over there. I'm enlightened.' No, you're not. You're trendy."
Now, on to Hillary.
She's still whining about FBI Director James Comey and all the political wrongs done to her, but she was the face of a discredited establishment in a year of political insurgency.
And she had that home-brew email server to shield her connection with her massive Clinton Foundation when she was secretary of state. Comey said a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't press charges related to endangering national security (even though she'd done just that), but there is another issue that has to be fully examined, publicly, before letting the Clintons drift off into retirement.
In all that inside dealing and influence peddling, was there a racketeering conspiracy going on under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO?
There is an investigation. But no charges. And I think all the details should be put before the people. Barack Obama won't like it. The Clintons won't like it.
But a country facing a two-tiered system of justice, one for nobles and one for you and me, is a prescription for disaster.
"I used to do this for a living," said former federal prosecutor Pat Brady during a taping of "The Chicago Way" podcast. "To me the (Clinton) Foundation was one big fat RICO, the server was just one of the acts of the furtherance of a conspiracy. It was set up as an enterprise for the Clintons to make money, leveraging their relationships within the government, including the (office of) secretary of state."
And if all this makes you hungry, consider the hungry panic induced by retiring California Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer. She issued a ridiculous long-shot bill to amend the Constitution and get rid of the Electoral College.
Democrats are upset because Clinton won the popular vote. But Trump won more states and electoral votes. In a recent column I argued that abolishing the Electoral College to satisfy a party's power demands would usher in "The Hunger Games."
Getting rid of the Electoral College would provide pure "majority rules" democracy, but not freedom. And minority rights as protected by our republic would disappear.
I've been reminded of the famous anecdote of the two wolves and the lamb voting on what to have for dinner. The wolves had the votes.
"What do you think you're doing?" cried the lamb. "What of minority rights?"
"Majority rules," said one wolf.
"We're hungry," said the other wolf. "I mean, I could eat a horse, but I'll settle for lamb."
The liberal Democratic meltdown continues: the whining, the weeping, the blaming of Hillary Clinton, the gnashing of teeth and those heartbreaking, sighing questions about whether life is worth living anymore.
And that's not just in America's newsrooms, either, but in many other places too.
Outside newsrooms, half the country is in political mourning, the other half is still relishing the election.
And if they don't relish the elevation of Donald Trump to the presidency exactly, they're at least celebrating those videos shared on social media, of precious TV talking heads and pundits laughing hysterically while mocking the "uneducated" and the "deplorables" who didn't have the wits to deny Hillary her Restoration.
But they did, and it's over. So what to look at now?
•Democrats pushing for an end to the Electoral College, reminding me of the story of those two wolves and the lamb voting on what's for dinner.
•The fight over whether Clinton should be charged with a crime, and if she is, should she expect a pardon?
•And what about those safety pins?
The safety pins are becoming symbols of solidarity for the young on the left who oppose Trump. And they're quite the fashion accessory. But don't criticize the kids. I've realized that those who criticize the young anti-Trump protesters are just as blind as liberal pundits, unable to see through their partisanship.
The anti-Trump protests aren't exactly spontaneous, are they? They're organized, perhaps with George Soros' cash. But here's the thing. The protests allow the hard left to send a message to Democrats:
Don't stray. We're here, on the left. We're watching you.
My only complaints are those primal scream parties on campus and students who asked for postelection counseling. These are the signs of weak children born to a diseased establishment that's been overturned. In every age, history is full of such poignant teeth gnashing.
Yet whatever their politics, and as a dad with college tuition bills, skipping midterms for the sake of political tribalism is foolish. That's where the safety pins come in.
A safety pin on your clothing demonstrates solidarity with the anti-Trumpsters, and a shield from shaming. But there's a problem with the pins. The irony of it all.
I thought irony died decades ago, but it insists on reanimating itself.
They're safety pins! S-a-f-e-t-y Pins.
Safe space, safe pins, get it? Safety pins were once used to secure cloth diapers so baby bottoms wouldn't get pricked.
I had hoped they'd wear something a bit tougher, like a needle, or a bloody "Game of Thrones" spike. Can't they find some symbolism just a tad less baby-bottomish?
"These pins — not the wearing of them or the pictures posted of folks wearing them — are not about safe spaces," wrote Trump critic Demetria Lucas D'Oyley in an article headlined "Come On, White People: We Need More Than Safety Pins to Make Us Feel Safe" that appeared in The Root.
"They're about not wanting to be perceived as a racist. Like, 'I might be white, but I'm not like them, over there. I'm enlightened.' No, you're not. You're trendy."
Now, on to Hillary.
She's still whining about FBI Director James Comey and all the political wrongs done to her, but she was the face of a discredited establishment in a year of political insurgency.
And she had that home-brew email server to shield her connection with her massive Clinton Foundation when she was secretary of state. Comey said a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't press charges related to endangering national security (even though she'd done just that), but there is another issue that has to be fully examined, publicly, before letting the Clintons drift off into retirement.
In all that inside dealing and influence peddling, was there a racketeering conspiracy going on under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly known as RICO?
There is an investigation. But no charges. And I think all the details should be put before the people. Barack Obama won't like it. The Clintons won't like it.
But a country facing a two-tiered system of justice, one for nobles and one for you and me, is a prescription for disaster.
"I used to do this for a living," said former federal prosecutor Pat Brady during a taping of "The Chicago Way" podcast. "To me the (Clinton) Foundation was one big fat RICO, the server was just one of the acts of the furtherance of a conspiracy. It was set up as an enterprise for the Clintons to make money, leveraging their relationships within the government, including the (office of) secretary of state."
And if all this makes you hungry, consider the hungry panic induced by retiring California Democrat Sen. Barbara Boxer. She issued a ridiculous long-shot bill to amend the Constitution and get rid of the Electoral College.
Democrats are upset because Clinton won the popular vote. But Trump won more states and electoral votes. In a recent column I argued that abolishing the Electoral College to satisfy a party's power demands would usher in "The Hunger Games."
Getting rid of the Electoral College would provide pure "majority rules" democracy, but not freedom. And minority rights as protected by our republic would disappear.
I've been reminded of the famous anecdote of the two wolves and the lamb voting on what to have for dinner. The wolves had the votes.
"What do you think you're doing?" cried the lamb. "What of minority rights?"
"Majority rules," said one wolf.
"We're hungry," said the other wolf. "I mean, I could eat a horse, but I'll settle for lamb."
