The CovCath Kids - What It's Really About

It's been a week and a half since a story went viral about a bunch of white Catholic boys taunting a Native American Elder and Vietnam Veteran but I'm still seeing stuff about it. Even though the story totally fell apart the next day, people are still arguing about it.

Let's get this straight - people don't really care that nasty, racist insult were hurled at the NA in question, Nathan Philips. I know this for an absolute fact and I have proof. The group the Black Hebrew Israelites did exactly that. They shouted terrible, racist and homophobic insults at both the Native American march and the Catholic kids and no one cares. No one is doxing them. No one suggested they should be thrown in a wood chipper. No pretty writers from SNL have offered oral sex to anyone who punches one of them. They have received no death threats. They've barely even been mentioned in news reports.

But people are still hating on the Catholic boys and pronouncing the MAGA hat to be the equivalent of a KKK hood.

It's clear that the whole thing is just an excuse for people to show how much they hate white Catholics who are also Trump supporters. The worst they are guilty of is "smirking while white".

That's why so many conservatives were among the first to pile on the kids. They were never-Trump conservatives and they embraced a chance to prove to the world how terrible Trump supporters are, especially if they are also religious kids from a hick state. The left is even worse. The sight of a white, MAGA-hat wearig kid facing down a person of color is so upsetting to them that they want to eliminate MAGA hats from public spaces altogether. Even a member of Congress has called for a ban on wearing MAGA hats in public "until we figure out what's going on." (Notice the irony here, he used almost identical phrasing to Trump's original pause on Muslim immigration.)

There's a lot of racism going on here and don't tell me that teenagers from Kentucky hold institutional power. There's also some misandry (hatred of men) and anti-Catholic bigotry. And it's all very ugly coming from the side that assures us it stands for inclusion and diversity.

The Catholic Kids and the Mob

The first accounts were terrible - a bunch of teenagers from a Catholic school who were in DC for the Right to Life March and were wearing MAGA hats surrounded a Native American elder who was also a Viet Nam vet and shouted insults at him. Saturday was full of people condemning the kids,

Then further videos came out showing that the the NA elder, Nathan Philips walked into the group of high schoolers. These videos had sound proving that none of the kids were yelling insults, and no one yelled "Build the wall". Conservatives who had condemned the kids fell all over themselves apologizing for believing initial reports. More liberal sources have doubled down. They say that Phillips was trying to defuse a confrontation between the kids and a hostile group known as the Black Hebrew Israelites. Phillips has even given an interview about how he walked between a beast and it's prey. People on the left who had doubts have been quite happy to accept this explanation.

I've watched the video (actually, only the part starting where Phillips arrived). Here's what happened.

After the parade the kids were told they could look around DC but to gather at the Lincoln Memorial by 5:30 to meet the buses. The Black Hebrew group happened to be in the area. They are a black-separatist group and couldn't resist yelling insults at a group of white kids, some of them wearing MAGA hats. Some of the kids responded by doing school cheers.

While this was going on, a third group arrived. This was a Native American protest lead by Phillips. It's possible that Phillips thought he was helping but he didn't waste a second deciding who was right or who started things or trying to separate the groups. He walked straight into the kids, banging on a drum and chanting.

Who in their right minds thinks that's how to resolve a conflict?

At first the kids thought that Phillips was joining them and doing a Washington Redskins "Tomahawk Chop" so they joined in with the chanting for a minute. Yes, this is clueless but these are teenagers and they are usually clueless. Phillips got in the face of one kid who was initially smiling but his expression changed as he realized that something different was going on than he had assumed. That's where the "smirk" came from. The kid stood his ground while Phillips continued to chant and beat a drum in his face. Then things broke up. No one was harmed. Most of the insults were hurled at the kids and they did an excellent job of not throwing insults back.

The incident boils down to a bunch of adults taunted a group of white teenagers, just because they were white teenagers and because some had MAGA hats but the teenagers refused to retaliate in kind. If anyone in the media had bothered to check this then there would have been no story.

Why didn't they check? Because it was too juicy a story. It had everything. It discredited the March For Life, it reflects badly on Catholics (WaPo followed up with a story on the Catholic Church's historic treatment of Indians), It paints anyone in a MAGA hat as an ignorant racist and it allowed pundits and celebrities to insist that Trump himself is directly to blame. People in the media might have known that eventually the full facts would get out but it doesn't matter. Most people will never hear the full story. The MSM continues to report it as if the kids did something terrible. I know people who watched the video and still insist that the kids are somehow to blame.

And there's so much blame. Celebrities are calling for the names of the kids and suggesting violent attacks on them. People are bragging about wanting to punch them. They are being held up as an example of white who are breath in white supremacy and misogyny daily. Not a soul on the left seems to think it's wrong for a black separatist group to start insulting a group of white guys fr being white and no one complains about Phillips assuming the white guys must be the problem.

Lists are being circulated of officials to call to have the kids expelled. Their lives may be ruined because of fake news. And the left will celebrate because it causes people to be wary about wearing MAGA hats in public or attending the Right to Life march. And it gives the left something else to attack President Trump over. This is already being used as evidence that Trump is a racist and encourages racists. Who cares if some innocent kids' lives are ruined when so much "good" can come from it? And they're just white kids, they deserve to have their lives ruined because of Bret Kavanaugh.

About the Gillette Ad

Gillette has a new ad out. Instead of trying to sell "shaving systems" with ever-increasing number of blades, they are lecturing men on how to be better men. You can see it here. Currently it's running 2-1 against with nearly 1,000,000 down votes and around a half million up votes. The ad combines elements of the #MeToo movement with a long line of men at their grills excusing bad actions by saying, "Boys will be boys."

Personally I find the ad offensive.

At its core the ad is based on a stereotype and a misconception. The stereotype is that men constantly engage in bullying and sexist behavior because we don't know any better. It's excused because all men do it and it's almost expected of us.

But this isn't so. I'm in my 60s and I've never heard a boy or man excused from bullying, etc with "boys will be boys". In fact, I've only heard that phrase on TV. If a guy sees a boy beating on another then he'll break it up. If he sees a pack of boys bullying a single boy then he'll step in and stop it (unless he's in personal fear for his own safety). I personally broke up something like that once. Men (and women) know that sort of thing is not allowed and we stop it. That's part of toxic masculinity.

The ad has a quick shot of "mansplaining" where a boss has his hand on a woman's arm while he explains what she "really" meant. I question how often that actually happens. I certainly never saw it. I was in hundreds, maybe thousands of meetings during my career and  never saw anything like that happen. If it had, most of the women I worked with would have bitten the guy's arm off for explaining what she'd just said.

We also knew not to touch female coworkers. Even in the 1980s it was forbidden and, after the Clarence Thomas confirmation in 1991, every man in the country got training telling him not to touch female coworkers.

That's the misconception that's at the heart of the #MeToo. It isn't male privilege that let these men get away with sexual assault. Regular guys would be arrested in a moment for that stuff. And it wasn't white privilege. It was rich guy privilege. Go back and listen to Donald Trump on the hot mic Billy Bush tape. He's saying that he likes to kiss and touch women and they let him because he's rich and famous.

There's an additional element to it, too, though, Progressive Privilege. Look at how many of the men caught in #MeToo have been on the far left. There's a pair of factors at work here. One is a sense of entitlement, "I do so much good that I'm entitled to break some rules." That's reciprocated. Look at the reactions to Bill Clinton's impeachment. Multiple feminists came out and said that they didn't care what he did to individual women in private because he kept abortion legal. There's a related feeling that "He's one of us so he couldn't really have done such a thing." Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen confessed to that attitude in December, admitting that previously he'd dismissed all allegations about Clinton out of hand because "he's one of us."

This is the progressive version of "boys will be boys". Bu tit had nothing to do with ordinary schleps at their grill and no scolding from a "shaving system" company will affect it.

Why Would President Trump Take the Interpreter's Notes?

The New York Times broke a story that President Trump was trying so hard to keep the contents of his private meetings with Russian Premiere Putin secret that he confiscated the interpreter's notes. Why, people ask, would he do that if it was an innocent meeting?

Quick answer: because the WaPo already printed transcripts of his first to calls to foreign heads of state and he didn't trust people not to leak his meeting with Putin.

A President must be able to have frank conversations with foreign leaders without the contents printed and examined by every would-be pundit.

You don't need any further reason than that.

If Trump was actually Putin's puppet then he'd be a lot more pro-Iran (Russia ally) and a lot less pro-Israel and pro-Saudi (Russian opponents) and he'd have refused to give the Ukraine lethal weapons to combat Russian incursions instead of arming them.

Are the Never-Trumpers Happy Now?

Before the election, sort-of-conservatives such as George Will and Conservatives-Turned-Liberal such as Max Boot openly rooted for exactly what we got: a House controlled by Democrats who are "acting as a check on President Trump" and a Republican-controlled Senate to continue to confirm conservative judges (Boot man have wanted the Dems to control both houses).

So here we are. Democrats control the House and refuse to compromise with President Trump on the shutdown over the border wall. They could ask for a DACA deal or something similar but they refuse to. It's all or nothing.

They've also introduced bills to take federal control of election law, outlaw assault guns (including some handguns), impeach the president (two bills), and plans to abolish the terrorism committee and replace it with a committee devoted to investigating the President.

Is all of that really what the never-Trumpers wanted?

Walls Can Be Cut!!!

A widespread story today is that the prototype walls were tested for vulnerabilities and one with steel slats can be cut. Here's the picture:

So, the implication is that the wall is useless. Is that true?

The material obtained through FOIA request had a lot of redactions. Supposedly the bars were cut with "commonly available tools" and the news reports all implied that means a trip to the local hardware store. It's hard to tell the scale from this picture. I'm going to make a wild guess that these bars are made from 1/4" mild steel and filled with concrete. I've cut mild steel by hand before and it's not difficult but it takes a long time. These bars are several inches in diameter which would make them very difficult to cut. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that it would be nearly impossible to cut these with a standard hack saw.

Then there's that center. Let's assume it's concrete. I haven't tried cutting concrete by hand with a hack saw but I know that  it's very hard and abrasive. It would ruin a hack saw blade pretty fast.

So, whatever they used, I doubt it was a hand hack saw. There are a couple of other possibilities. They might have used a saber saw with an extra-long hack saw blade. That would also require a generator and a supply of replacement blades because of the concrete. That could certainly do it but it would take a while. You can get these saws with batteries but you'd have to carry a bunch of spares and a generator would probably be lighter and easier to carry. The saw and generator will probably set you back $500 or so.

There's also the emergency saw. That's gas powered and made to cut through nearly anything. Those cost more but they are easier to transport. They run $700 to $3000.

You'd better carry a sledge hammer, too. It appears that those pieces were knocked out with a hammer after cutting.

Does this count as easily available tools? Yes, I can get them at Lowes. Are these tools that would-be immigrants will want happen to be carrying? Not a chance. Could they carry them for dozens or hundreds of miles? Possibly. Could they surreptitiously cut through the wall with these before being discovered? Probably not. I'm guessing it would take fifteen minutes per cut, minimum and four cuts would be needed. So they'd be cutting for an hour or more and raising a racket.

And that's assuming they can afford the proper tools in the first place. Yes, the coyotes can afford them but they will pass the costs on to the would-be-immigrants.

Also, keep in mind that this prototype does not match the picture that President Trump tweeted out. These were prototypes and the whole purpose was to see what the strengths and weaknesses are of each design and to try to correct them.

A few other silly suggestions about getting past the wall:

Ladders. You'll need at least two 30' ladders, one for each side. Those run around $300 and an extension ladder will be more than 15' long when retracted. That's going to be a lot of fun carrying long distances. You can probably get away with a flexible ladder for the other side. These ladders can only hold one person (two if they are light) so it's going to take a while to get a group over the wall.

Grappling hooks. The schematic the President tweeted didn't show anything for a grappling hook to catch on to. Assuming there is a cross-bar near the top, you'd still have to throw the hook 30' up which is difficult then bat-walk up a smooth wall and rappel down the other side. How many people can do this? Seriously? I doubt if I could. I had enough trouble with a nice thick rope in gym class.

Tunnels. How deep will the steel slats go? Let's assume ten feet. That means you have to dig at least 12 feet deep to get under it. In soft soil that will be tough. In hard, dry dirt it will be very difficult. Remember, once you get under the wall you have to dig back up and someone has to haul out the dirt. And you can't use pick axes or shovels on the other side because you will be digging up so there will be no room. That's an all-day job. Longer tunnels that are harder to find will take a lot longer. We're talking weeks for that. And you have to have a contact on the American side. Tunnels like that already exist but they are used for the drug trade. They are too valuable for smuggling immigrants.

The point here is that, while walls won't stop people who are very determined and have unlimited resources, they will stop people with limited resources and slow incursions enough to detect them before they make it through the wall. That means that the wall would be effective.

Trump and the Obama's Wall

On December 30, 2018, President Trump tweeted: President and Mrs. Obama built/has a ten foot Wall around their D.C. mansion/compound. I agree, totally necessary for their safety and security. The U.S. needs the same thing, slightly larger version!

The fact checkers pounced, quoting neighbors as saying,

It turns out though that the Obamas don't actually have a wall around their home in Washington, D.C. Two of Obamas' neighbors talked to the Washington Post and said that while the home does have some security features that other homes in the area lack, the house itself can be seen from the street. "There's a fence that goes along the front of the house, but it's the same as the other neighbors have," the neighbor said. "It's tastefully done."

When the Obamas purchased the nine-bedroom mansion for $8.1 million in 2017 they added security fencing in front of the home to fulfill the needs of the Secret Service. There is now a guard booth and fencing in the back of the house as well. But hardly a wall. "There is no 10-foot wall in the front, back or sides of the house—and no wall is going up," another neighbor said.

Several things need to be pointed out starting with the fact that the President was making a joke. Yes, it was a pointed joke, but it was a joke. Who fact-checks jokes? President Obama constantly used straw man arguments to score points, ascribing positions to his opponents that no one had taken but he was never fact-checked.

While Trump may have gotten details wrong about the Obama residence, pictures from before they moved in show that a combination brick wall-fence surrounded the entire property except for the front of the house. That wall appears to be in the 6-8 foot range. A reasonable person would say that the property had a wall around it. But we aren't living in reasonable times.

There was an article from TMZ from two years ago showing pillars for additional fencing being built in front of the Obama residence. The Washington Post fact-checker didn't actually go look for himself. He relied on calls from two neighbors and the photographs used are all from before the Obamas moved in. Is it possible that the neighbors lied or stretched the truth in order to embarrass President Trump? Or they might simply be behind the times. The President has amended his request from a solid cement wall to a 30 foot fence of steel slats. The neighbors could be splitting hairs over the Obama house having a steel fence instead of a solid wall. We don't know since no one has provided recent photographs

What we do know is that reporters can't get anywhere near the Obama house to find out. The Daily Caller tried and was turned back by the Secret Service. So the President's tweet is being fact-checked on the basis of hearsay. No bias there.

So why all the fuss? Why even bother fact-checking a joke, even if it's a pointed joke?

Because the point of the joke is valid. If you want to keep someone out you build a wall. All of Trump's opponents who claim that walls don't work are ignoring that a fence or wall is always the first step in a security system. And it's usually the most important part.

So all the sloppy fact-checking is meant to distract us from the President's point. It also enforces the "Trump lies all the time" meme.

An Open Letter to Mitt Romney and John Kasich

Dear Mitt and John,

I regret to say that it's over between us. I voted for both of you for president and I probably will again if it is a choice between one of you and Elizabeth Warren but even then it will be a reluctant vote because I know you'll end up betraying conservative principles.

But the big problem is Trump.

Both of you are enjoying acclaim from the left for your Trump-bashing. You are greeted as the saviors of the Republican Party and the antidote to Trump. But here's the thing, these people will never vote for you, ever. You don't represent them, you represent what they want their opposition to be - moderate and ineffective. You both had your shots at being president. Mitt at least made it to the finals but John, you barely made it out of the starting gate. Neither of you has done anything to endear yourselves to conservatives since then. Yes, Mitt, you won a Senate seat in a can't-loose race but that doesn't give you national credibility and John, you burned through your good-will as governor by spending your second term running for president and appearing on out-of-state talk shows.

Both of you spend a lot of time complaining about Trump not being presidential but neither of you seems to appreciate that the final choice was between Trump and Crooked Hillary. While lionized as  the most-qualified presidential candidate ever (talk to George H W. Bush about that) no one bothered to look at her record. She accomplished nothing as senator and her term as Secretary of State was destructive to world peace. She was responsible for transforming Libya from a prosperous nation ruled by an authoritarian to a poverty-stricken failed state. She supported both sided in Egypt and Syria which eventually caused a coup in Egypt and a civil war in Syria. And she managed to antagonize Putin. To say nothing of Hillary's ability to lose two "hers to loose" presidential races. Do the two of you seriously think that she would be a better president than Trump is?

In your attacks on the President you are showing that you value style over actions. You would be happier with a socialist from an Ivy League college than a coarse billionaire from Queens.

As a conservative, I am judging Trump by his actions instead of his tweets. The economy is doing far better than experts said was possible. The worst authoritarian excesses of the Obama years are being rolled back. The government set a record for the fewest new regulations created in a year (that's supposed to be a good thing). Border security is finally being taken seriously. Yes, that's messy. It's always messy when a law that was ignored for years starts to be enforced. But it needed to be done.

A lot of the messiness of Trump's administration is like that - Obama tried to change the norms and Trump is restoring things to the way they were as recently as 2014. This needed to be done but I don't think either of you has the guts to do it. You'd tut-tut about how Obama exceeded his authority but you'd let things stand rather than upset people. You'd fail to stand up for conservative principles.

And that's why we're through.

I wish the two of you luck in your new endeavors, Mitt in the Senate and John on talk shows that I don't watch. But please don't expect and support from me i the future.

Mark