Sunday, April 23, 2017


Wizard of Id:

The squabbles we have at home in the US pale in comparison to the ones that threaten us from outside.



The Roger Ailes/Bill O’Reilly issue [sexual harassment] in the restructuring of Fox News brings to mind the fact of the ownership of that network. At this time, today, Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a multibillionaire from Australia who has bought his way into the upper strata of news. Mr. Murdoch owns NewsCorp, which is the parent company of Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Sky News (British Fox) and a few other news outlets. NewsCorp’s company holdings represent the high end of the conservative news companies in the English language.

Mr. Murdoch is getting on in years, and will probably retire soon.

As is typical of family businesses which get passed from the founder’s generation to his heirs, NewsCorp will be a legacy to a group of worthless liberals – the sons and daughters of Rupert Murdoch. They have expressed their intention of bringing NewsCorp into line with their thinking, which is somewhere to the left of the New York Times; very far left, indeed.

I don’t know what will come to pass, but the current indication is that the NewsCorp of the future will be a very different entity than what we have now.

Recently, I have been noting that the conservative television that is a welcome respite from the MSM is becoming bastardized with decidedly non-conservative stands on some of the issues being raised, specifically on weekends. This drift to the left is disturbing, but it is typical of what has happened as news outlets seek greater viewership. Their mistaken belief is that most people think that their news needs will be served by another carbon copy of NBC/CBS etc.

Fox News gained the market share that it has because of its contrarian stand on publication of the conservative viewpoint. A move to water that viewpoint down will only damage the network in the eyes of its viewers.


Liberal VS Conservative is the description of the political choice that has been available to us for the past few decades. The issues that we have were forced onto one side or the other by the pundits who placed themselves under one of those two descriptive terms.

Recently the world has decided to divide itself into two camps: People/Things That Work versus People/Things That Appeal to People Who Don’t Want To Work. It’s the old Capitalism VS Socialism divide redux.

I think that’s what we saw in the last presidential election. People that work for the things that they have do not want to give the things they worked for to people who did not.

I have been wondering for months what the new paradigm for government was going to be, and that’s it.

It’s the old class warfare made famous in the 19th century by the Socialists, of all people. It’s Workers of the World, Unite. Except, this time, the united workers will be wage earners and small ‘c’ capitalists. The Leisure Class and the freeloaders are the new aristocrats.


That is what we saw in the last election. No one would call Trump voters Bolsheviks, or the Democrat party apparatchiks, but that’s the way things worked out. The elite and those dependent upon government, including government employees, voted for Hillary; people who have jobs to support families voted for Trump. This is a gross generalization, but it is mostly true.


Borrowing the two terms from historic Russian groups gives us the opportunity to divorce the concepts from the traditionally held, label-based use of those terms but they are essentially thus:

Bolshevik: run-of-the-mill party member (people who work for a living).

Apparatchik: party administrator/part of the apparatus + recipients of government largess.


While dividing these people up, let us continue with our supposition to change the names away from the stereotypical:

            Rename Bolsheviks in honor of Fred Flintstone.

            Rename Apparatchiks in honor of Mr. Slate (Fred’s boss).


We now have a new definition of our political parties:

Flintstones are all the people who go to work, earn money, raise families, pay for their kids college, and do all of the other things that middle-class Americans do. These people currently vote Republican.

Mr. Slates are everyone else, government drones, fat cats, welfare sponges, etc. these people currently vote Democrat.

An interesting dichotomy has arisen. Flintstones VS Slates is roughly parallel to the diverging philosophy that we have now in the electorate. It is also roughly comparable to the groups that came out to vote for Donald Trump versus the ones that came out to vote for Hillary. In that election, it can be said that the number of people who put Donald Trump over the top were traditional Democrats, who aligned themselves with Trump supporters. Many Republicans did not vote for Donald Trump for various reasons.

Flintstones VS Slates is a convenient way of summarizing the new electorate which is now composed of two parties that are a mixture of previous loyalties. The Flintstones include a large number of union members and blue-collar workers who would never classify themselves as Republicans. The Slates have many cultural elites and ne’er-do-wells who now represent the Democrat party.

We may continue to call the two parties of the government of the United States Republican and Democrats, but the makeup of these two disparate groups will be different. On that basis, I propose that we institute new parties: Flintstones VS Slates.

This may be somewhat silly, but a new structure for US politics is evolving rapidly. Last year, before the election, Democrats and the MSM, which should be thought of as one, were predicting the dissolution of the Republican Party.

This was typical of the way that group [Democrat] has been laying off its own shortcomings as a flaw in the opponent. They have been trying to do this for years. Now, though, the flaws in their own party, brought on by their own leadership [Obama] have reached the point that they have nowhere to turn. The Democrat party is beginning to die off, and has to change. At this time they have no young blood waiting in the wings.

No one knows what the outcome will be, but a drastic restructuring will occur.


Note to environmentalists:

Your 'Earth Day' assumptions about the climate and other fashionable concerns were wrong in the 1970s, and they are still wrong. Get over it. Finally.