Hamilton cast theatrics

So the latest buzz, is, of course, the cast of the broadway show Hamilton addressing Vice-President elect Pence after a recent performance, Governor’s Pence tolerating the nonsense with dignity — and President elect Trump calling the cast out for being rude.

First of all — it was rude; meaning depends on context. Had the cast wished to respectfully address Governor Pence, they could have invited him backstage. If you watch the video, the actor takes the time to encourage the New York audience to record and tweet the message; this was a self-indulgent, self-righteous publicity stunt. But the progressive left has succumbed to the fantasy that any behavior is righteous when the cause is just. It doesn’t actually work that way.

Secondly, The Donald did exactly the right thing by firing back. In the Prisoner’s Dilemma game theory scenario, players can either cooperate or be nasty. A famous simulation showed the best performing strategy is neither attack always, or be a patsy, but “Tit for Tat with forgiveness.” Which means if the other player attacks, you attack back, most of the time. “With forgiveness” means you let it go every once in awhile.

So some progressive actors takes a rude potshot at the new VP, and The Donald’s going to fight back. And the social media left is saying, “That’s perfectly fine, and Trump is wrong for retaliating,” and the social media right is saying “That was rude, good job pushing back!” and the country gets or stays acrimoniously divided.



I learned a long time around from my father and writer Robert Heinlein, TANSTAAFL (there ain’t not such thing as a free lunch). Or, in the paraphrased words of Margaret Thatcher, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

All in all, we are a centrist country. We want to provide support to those with unfortunate circumstances while valuing virtues like hard work, honesty, and self-reliance. We respect people who play by the rules.

For the past eight years the country has turned leftward. The result has been of mistruths based on economic and social fantasies.

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

Obama promised a “reset” with Russia, and Russia has invaded parts of Georgia and the Ukraine. He promised a withdraw from the mideast, yet Americans are stilling fighting and dying over there, and Guantanamo Bay remains open.

He, and the Democratic legislature, have treated the Constitution as a an “inconvenient document,” implementing a long string of actions without legislation and bipartisan support in Congress; these include a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that is not funded by Congress, [1] the infamous IRS political prosecution of conservative groups, deciding carbon is an Clean Air Act pollutant, using the power of the law to coerce private business into “settlements,” with the fines going to support pet causes rather than the US Treasury, and so on. Our government turns Western rivers yellow and Michigan drinking water brown — the point here that Government is not inherently better at doing things than private industry. They’ve funded economically unsound business, such as solar and electric, so a few rich people can drive Teslas.

The justification for this is a general “Well, the Republicans are an obstructionist and won’t do the right thing!” the ends justify the means gestalt. The opposition party is supposed to be, well, in opposition. It’s called checks and balances, and it’s supposed to protect the country from the worst impulses of both the right and left — but the Democrats have dishonored the long term by changing the “inconvenient” 60 vote Senate rule [2] and were arrogantly plotting to do so again after the Democrats won the presidency and Senate [3].

He and his party have shown contempt for both the Constitution and many Americans with they’re “they cling to guns or religion” attitude, and Clinton’s cohorts have both disparaged Catholics and plotted to use use Bernie Sander’s faith against him. [4]

She told the American people one thing and her daughter something different about the “At this point, what difference does it make” Benghazi attacks. [5]

She blatantly sought to evade public government transparency laws, and put national security at risk, with the private email server.

She used the Clinton Foundation “charity” to bankroll her cronies and sell access to the Secretary of State.

And so on.

Although socialism and Sanders would have been a disaster for the country, her craven machine use and public lurch leftward (while telling her Wall Street backers something else) showed what little character she has.

I knew Clinton was in trouble when I overhead librarians saying “I don’t trust her.” As a group, librarians are hardly right wing. And I knew she was in real trouble when someone posted a graphic with a recent “I’m a lifelong Cubs fan,” and a late 90s “I’m a lifelong Yankees fan.”

To those of who believe character counts, it became apparent this was woman who only believed that she should be president, and would do and say almost anything to reach that goal. Who may (or may not) have stayed on the side of “legal” in her myriad scandals, but clearly didn’t believe the  spirit of the rules should apply to her.

You reap what you sow.

The nation has elected a crude, scary individual President. And all those imperial presidency, non bipartisan executive orders actions implemented over the last eight years can be undone with the stroke of a pen.

One of the many snide graphics going around the last month referenced “setting the country back 50 years.” Well, if that means going back to when deals were hammered out in Congress — represented bipartisan consensus –, the constitution was respected a bit more, the Supreme Court was less of a super-legislature, and the press was less eager to dish on every human foible of our politicians, I don’t know that that’s necessarily a bad thing.