Fun with words and words for fun

Tag Archives: Opinion


Unless you’ve been in the sights of the big powers out there, any big power, you don’t really know the force of the powers that be. And if you’re one of those people who have never been in the crosshairs, you’re likely to scoff at the idea of the notion that the powers out there even have crosshairs. That’s why this blog featured a series of entries entitled Which Shoes Do You Wear. That series simply says that depending upon which shoes you wear, that’s how you see the world.

Now in the scope of things that’s probably not a tremendously profound statement, but in the reality of the world today it speaks to whether you are one to believe the antics of either side of our government or one to be skeptical about them both. Ultimately, the choice is yours.

So I started by telling the story of the Ohio State University riots circa 1970 where more than 600 people were arrested.  Most of the arrests at Ohio State that day were thrown out of court when it was discovered that the riots were started by undercover FBI and undercover policeman who were waiting to beat up and arrest demonstrators.  That series of riots led to the Kent State shootings where four students were shot by National Guardsmen.  And so it went.

That I was in the crosshairs there and saw it firsthand, experienced it firsthand because I was the first one arrested at Ohio State, only goes to show that I can attest to the fact that the crosshairs of the powers that be truly do exist.

Shoot forward to today. Ask Michael Flynn about the crosshairs. Ask any of the organizations earmarked by the Obama IRS for not getting tax-exempt status about the crosshairs. Ask the policeman in Baltimore, those six who were eventually acquitted, about the crosshairs.

I could go on and on and on and on. Ask Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters and Elizabeth Warren who’s in their crosshairs. And just to be fair, ask President Trump who’s in his.

Truth is, the crosshairs exist. People are targeted all the time. Before the civil rights movement you might say it was the blacks in the crosshairs. Today, you might say it’s the whites, particularly white males. That’s depending upon which shoes you wear, of course.

One thing is sure, once you’re targeted by any one of the big powers out there, your life as you once knew it is pretty much over.

Some truly diabolical things are going on and have been going on for a long time in this country but more so since the Obama presidency. When Obama began his run for president the media showed their true colors, how in the tank they were for the liberal cause. Now in and of itself, there’s nothing wrong with the media supporting a side. However it is very dangerous when a biased media portrays itself as a free press and enjoys the protections saved for the free press despite the fact that it is not acting in good faith as a free press.

Crosshairs! We’ve come to the point where we’ve thrown reason into the garbage and have split into two sides with each side holding the other in its crosshairs. What’s next, another Civil War?

Pick up a copy of my published works here: 

Books by Peter Weiss.


disfluency_logoSo an Orthodox Rabbi was asked how Orthodox Judaism had managed to survive all these years without changing any. The answer came amazingly quickly and was stunningly simple.

“If you don’t want anything to change, you don’t change anything,” he said.


In our society we have this discussion all the time. You can see it on the news every day. It’s generally a question of where you draw the line. In fact, in today’s world, one of the most dramatic examples of this involves free speech. If it’s okay for a leftist activist to speak at a university, how can it not be okay for a right-wing conservative to speak at the same university? Or, where do you draw the line?

Common sense says either you allow both to speak, or you allow neither one to speak. But if you don’t want the right to free speech to break down in America, you can’t pick a side according to an agenda.

Orthodox Judaism has made some adaptations. With the advent of electricity came non-stop elevators in high rise buildings so an Orthodox Jew can now live on the forty-fifth floor of an apartment building in New York and go out to synagogue on Sabbath since it is not considered riding (like riding in a car) and it isn’t considered work (since one doesn’t have to push a button to pick the floor to stop on). Similarly, slow cookers and crock pots allow food to stay warm all Sabbath long without one actually cooking.

Adaptation is okay. After all, it is how the human race (should we call it hu-people?) has come about and gotten to where we’ve gotten. But… when it starts to go against reasoning that’s a different matter.

English Language Learners (ELLs) have caused a dramatic breakdown in our language. More precisely, allowing multiple languages to be spoken by offering accommodations to people living in America such that they don’t have to learn the language is what has done so.  Again, reasonable adaptations to the language are expected, but out and out grammatical breakdowns and misinterpretations are not acceptable.

ELLs are not to blame, of course. But the global nature of things has magnified the effects of multi-languages being spoken in America on dysfluency. So, for example, when you call your credit card company and someone in India answers the phone to handle your customer service issue, you may not only not understand him/her due to his/her accent, but you may also be subjected to a host of incorrect English speaking, misunderstandings, non-understandings and even, perhaps, confusion. Sooner or later, the language breaks down. It breaks down much more rapidly under these conditions.

The internet is another way this happens, again because the person writing the text you are reading may have extremely limited English language skills and, after all, the work is being outsourced since it is less expensive. The company doing the text might be located anywhere in the world, but usually of course they are in countries where the labor rate is much lower than here. There’s no guarantee that the editor, if there is one, will pick up any errors.

The sum effect of this, over time, is a breakdown in the language. With errors occurring being overlooked, sooner or later an error occurs in an area where it actually affects meaning and/or interpretation of the wording.

Bingo! Then it depends upon what the definition of is is.

Once again, what is most germane in this discussion of the breakdown of language and reasoning is who benefits from it. If one can say nonsensical things and not be called out for them and one can put forth wholly illogical arguments without being shot down for them, language and reasoning go into a free-fall, which is kind of like where they are now.

You have to ask: who benefits from this?

Pick up a copy of  my  published works here: 

Books by Peter Weiss.

social DarwinismOn some level, it doesn’t matter all that much if private corporations succumb to Social Darwinism by making profit their bottom line. That’s capitalism! Of course the product must not be compromised and the employees must not be abused. Work conditions and wages must be appropriate. But there are always decisions to be made and very often there are trade offs. For example, sometimes everyone must make a sacrifice for the sake of a business to remain in existence. Sometimes it’s better to make a small sacrifice and remain employed than refuse to do so and become unemployed.

In the private sector, unions can only get away with what the market will bear. Through the union era, labor unions pushed for wages and benefits. When demands became too great, businesses pushed back, very often threatening to close and reorganize while protected under bankruptcy laws. Obama’s seizure of the auto industry short-circuited this process, not for the better since taxpayers were burdened where they shouldn’t have been and non-favored, perhaps not-paying-off businesses, were forced under. Left to its own devices, Ford survived wholly on its own, surely making a mockery of Obama’s claim of saving the industry and underscoring the fact that when government intervenes in the free market both the market and the taxpayers suffer.

Public service unions whose contracts are with governments are different animals. Governments do not go bankrupt, though perhaps they should. Their funds are unlimited and the unions know this, the politicians know this, and the taxpayers know this since it is always their money that is taken. Unions in this sector continually demand, politicians promise, and governments routinely borrow to meet the demands. In big cities like New York, the government is held hostage by the sanitation workers union in the hot summer when their contract expires. Ever wonder why their contract expires in the summer? Garbage not picked up for a few weeks doesn’t really stink in the freezing winter. But it’s pretty gross in the summer swelter. Some genius union leader got really smart.

Overall, private sector union membership has significantly decline since the 1980s but currently public service union membership is approximately five times that of private sector union membership. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, union membership is nearly half what it was in the 80s. In 2015 total union membership rate was 11.1 percent. It was 20.1 percent in 1983 when records started being kept. Currently, private sector membership is about 6.5 percent while public sector membership is over 35 percent. BLS News Release 1/2016.

This is all part of Social Darwinism. The primary purpose of unions originally was to protect the worker. Now, in an era where unions are somewhat outdated and even extraneous, the unions’ key goal is survival. Following sanitation’s lead, generally the police and fire unions get quid pro quo. Often, the teachers get less since in America teachers are considered tantamount to babysitters. But the teachers went national and have grown to epic proportions. Today, the AFT is a key player in elections, national and local, and in similar form so are the police and firefighters.

National municipal unions in today’s America do very little to protect and serve their rank and file. We hear about the high profile cases but seldom see the routine and mundane lack of services provided the general membership. Continual expansion, collecting dues and supporting political candidates for the purposes of union survival is now the primary function of public service unions. About 900 million dollars of union money went to, you guessed it, Democrats in 2004. That was to swell the size of government or increase union dues base. More than that went out in 2011 and 2016 is a municipal back-Hillary priority for the same purpose.

Public service employees must join their unions and must pay dues. They have no say where their union donates, so union members very often contribute to a candidate not of their choice. More important, the unions no longer exist to serve the rank and file. Having succumbed to Social Darwinism, they now exist to exert political capital to expand their membership base through swelling government. This is with no concern whatsoever for whether expanding government is beneficial or detrimental to the union members and the clientele they serve.

Survival at any cost has usurped their original purpose. Survival, not benefiting the people they are supposed to serve or even their clientele, is now their prime directive. They have succumbed to Social Darwinism.

Pick up a copy of all my  published works here: 

Books by Peter Weiss.

(Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

By Bernard Kerik
Tuesday, 31 July 2018 12:32 PMCurrent | Bio | Archive

Read Newsmax: Mueller’s Weaponized Justice System Should Scare All Americans |

Last night I came across a   tweet   by former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in which he said, “I wish we had Lt. Columbo right now, to walk into the special counsel’s office and say, ‘You know, there’s something about this that bothers me…'”

He also attached an article, titled: “A Look at Manafort and Cohen, as Manafort Trial Starts.”

His focus and rightfully so, is on Manafort and Cohen’s distinctively different approaches on how they’re dealing with being selectively and politically targeted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the U.S. Justice Department.

Manafort appears determined to fight it out and defend himself from charges that would have never been brought had he not supported and worked for a short period of time on the president’s political campaign. Apparently he has the money to do so… at least for the time being, as the prosecutors have an endless amount of money to spend in their quest for victory and are accountable to no one, as to how they spend it, or why.

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn started out the same way, wrongfully assuming what most Americans once did, that if you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide, and your cooperation is your best bet.

Unfortunately, he learned the hard way, that politically motivated prosecutors aren’t concerned with the truth, or give a damn about your service to our country, or how devastating their pursuit for a conviction can be — personally, financially, or professionally, annihilating you. For years, prosecutors have compelled guilty pleas of innocent people by pressuring their families, or extorting false witness testimony to obtain their convictions, it took this, the Manafort, Cohen and Flynn cases, for the public and press to pay any attention to it. In Flynn’s case, he pled guilty to making a false statement, but had he not, the government would have targeted his family, and bankrupted him, so he had no choice.

The Michael Cohen case is no different in the sense that he was politically targeted, but has revelations that are completely baffling.

I was outraged, as I’m sure was the president, that Cohen too, was targeted by the Special Counsel’s office, another victim, who would have never been in their crosshairs had he not worked for President Trump.

I was also stunned when the government raided his home, office, and hotel room, seizing his personal and professional records. This action was above and beyond the norm, but done for a purpose: to create a conflict between the president and his former counsel, and to insure that Cohen and president couldn’t communicate, and then to apply pressure on Cohen, like Flynn and Manafort, to flip on the president — in this case his own client.

Although I didn’t know Cohen personally, we had many mutual friends and just about every one of them described him as an extremely loyal and tough guy. In my eyes he turned out to be neither.

As someone that’s been through this nightmare and known many others that have, I can tell you that the personal pressures are enough to drive you into a manic depression, with thoughts of suicide. It kills or cripples you, or makes you stronger, and I personally feel bad for Cohen, because he is definitely not as tough as everyone thought.

What baffles me more, is his conduct before this all began, when he secretly taped private conversations between him and his client, Donald Trump. That raises serious questions about his motives, character, and credibility. There’s no logical answer as to why Cohen secretly taped his client, which creates the blatant perception that his motives were sleazy and ill intended.

Strangely, now he’s put himself in a position where the one and only person that could ever help him has realized his true character; and his chances of cooperating with the government have been diminished substantially due to his credibility, motives, and who knows what else. In the meantime, all the president’s critics have become his new best friends, milling about like hyenas in “The Lion King,” at least until they determine his usefulness. Then he’ll have no one.

All of this makes for great headlines and intrigue, but what bothers me more than anything, is that it doesn’t bother many members of Congress, or the ACLU, or the criminal justice reform advocates — like dozens, maybe hundreds of them.

Groups that rake in millions of tax dollars, calling for justice and pushing out messages on prosecutorial misconduct, over-criminalization, prosecutorial discretion, and selective targeting and prosecutions. There’s never been a greater public demonstration of all of this than these prosecutions, but because the intended target is Donald Trump, they’re eerily silent.

Last night Alan Dershowitz said that, “Special Counsel Robert Mueller is hoping that Paul Manafort will opt to testify against the president, rather than face a lengthy prison sentence.”

Doesn’t that bother the members of Congress sitting on the House and Senate Judiciary Committees? That our government weaponized its criminal justice system to specifically target the president and in the process, are destroying American citizens for selective and political reasons.

Perhaps because they’ve never been through it, or never known anyone that has. Perhaps they don’t give a damn as long as it suits their political needs and agenda?

Cohen, Flynn, and Manafort were targeted for political reasons, and that should scare the hell out of every American in our country, no matter what color you are, how you vote, or how wealthy you are, and something must be done to stop it.

It’s time for the U.S. Attorney General to stop this madness, and create internal policies to prevent it from happening in the future, and if for some reason, he cannot get the job done, that the president must find someone that can.

As New York City’s 40th Police Commissioner, Bernard Kerik was in command of the NYPD on September 11, 2001, and responsible for the city’s response, rescue, recovery, and the investigative efforts of the most substantial terror attack in world history. His 35-year career has been recognized in more than 100 awards for meritorious and heroic service, including a presidential commendation for heroism by President Ronald Reagan, two Distinguished Service Awards from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, The Ellis Island Medal of Honor, and an appointment as Honorary Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.

kabuki 1So Comey went  before Congress again. And again we got Kabuki Theater. His latest performance, like all the previous appearances, confirms that we, the American people are being duped. We are being duped, and worse, we are being played for suckers.

Then came Clapper and Sally Yates. Now there’s two true bastions of unbiased honesty. More Kabuki Theater!

We have reached a dangerous time in America. There are real external threats like Iran, North Korea and Russia. We are in the midst of a religious war being conducted by Radical Islamist Extremists. If they have their way, they will control us all. They will obliterate Jews, Catholics and Christians and enslave moderate Muslims whose most grave error is not standing up to the radical few who would force them to do that to which they do not ascribe.

But much worse than all of the external threats is that our leaders no longer give us truth. Instead, they present us with   Kabuki Theater, a show, folks, and nothing more. The left blames Trump for everything, stooping to unheard of personal lows in its rhetoric. The right is derelict in its duties. It had seven years to write a health care bill and did nothing. It can’t get its own act together and continually proves personal interests supersede the interests of the people it  represents.

Make no mistake about it.   Follow the money. It is all about money. The lefties fund certain organizations and programs. The righties do too, but their organizations and programs are different ones. With the advent of super pacs and lobbyists, the flow of money and the amounts are more hidden than ever. The amounts are up there in the fortunes, millions, billions. Ask yourself: how much money did Hillary get and spend for her campaign? How much did the Dems raise and where did they get it from? Who are they beholden to? You could ask the same about many of the Republicans in Congress and the Senate. Who are they beholden to? Where did they get their money from?

Then, like the proverbial onion, the layer over all the things that are really going on is the play our leaders continually put on for us.   Kabuki Theater. They are all postured and made up and costumed. They go on and on, preaching to us about truth and justice and equality. And we are…being duped.

One of the important lessons in teaching rhetoric is the distinction between observation and inference, which boils down to differentiating between fact and opinion. My computer CPU is running at 59°C. That is a fact based upon the program running that lists the CPU temps. My computer is running hot is an opinion. The fact is undeniable, real, observable. The opinion, the inference in this case, is a judgment, subjective and not a fact.

The Kabuki Theater is dangerous. That’s an opinion, by the way. It is dangerous because it purports to be real but is not and it masks the truth. For example, all that talk about how good and wonderful Obamacare was way back when it was first passed was   Kabuki Theater. If Obamacare was so wonderful for us all, why did Congress pass itself the exemption from it (at the very last minute and in the dark of night)?

The point is our leaders have found their way to the stage but they have lost their way to the truth.   In losing their way to the truth, they have lost the ability to lead us and to govern us. We are looking at a modern day   Clash of the Titans, where the gods of our Senate and Congress are engaged in a power war wreaking destruction upon us, the American People, with total disregard for our safety and well-being, which is the sole reason for which government exists.

Kabuki Theater:      Watch it today on any of the fake news media outlets.

(Originally posted May 31, 2017)

Pick up a copy of  my  published works here: 

Books by Peter Weiss.


Judging people and things back then by today’s standards is only one disintegration of reasoning and language. There are many.  Many!   There are many ways our language and reasoning have been and continue to be eroded.

A second major beginning of the breakdown of language and reasoning goes back to the eighties once again. That’s when, so far as generally accepted in the timeline, the gender issue in pronouns became   an issue  and when the language began shifting, moving into what became a most awkward period. The actual issue of gender consideration in language is much more longstanding. But the changing of the language, that is a serious matter whose effects must be understood in the context of what we end up doing as a people in our history.

Seat belts. When the first seat belt regulations came into play and the first seat belt laws came into effect, we were assured, even promised, that we wouldn’t be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt. Now, some years later, we see that that promise was pure BS.

E-ZPass. The advent of E-ZPass was a great convenience and time saver. But we were afraid  electronic tracking would compromise our privacy. So we were assured that E-ZPass records would be kept private, that they would never be used in court. Then along came that first clever lawyer with the great idea of using those supposed-be-to private records to prove marital infidelity, and lo and behold E-ZPass caved to the subpoena. Now E-ZPass records are pretty non-private, or they are easily used in courts.

History shows that first and foremost money talks and BS walks, no credit for that saying taken here. It also shows that government can’t be trusted to stay to where its rightful place is, which is protecting its citizens. The two examples above show the progression of things when left in the hands of our leaders, all of them, but primarily those who adhere to and preach the progressive narratives.

Gender-Specific Pronouns! So in the eighties these became an issue. At first the linguists looked at them in terms of messiness and discomfort. The language no longer  had the wherewithal to suit our needs if we wanted to be gender-fair and considerate. Language is our tool, they thought. If it no longer met our needs in regard to gender-specific pronouns, it would fix itself to do so. They thought language would adjust to compensate for equalizing or neutralizing gender references.

But as with the two examples above, that wasn’t quite what happened.

What happened was, like with the seat belt and E-ZPass examples, legislation and regulation. The progression that was supposed to be toward gender equality or gender neutrality in language so as to match what was perceived as happening in our society turned toward control. Or, to be more precise, it turned to control for the purpose of extracting money in the form of fines. Today, in certain states one can be arrested, jailed, fined or all three for incorrect use of gender pronouns.

What has this breakdown in language and reasoning wrought upon us? Or, from what was supposed to have been a move to empower and equalize the genders (he and she), or at the very least to neutralize them within the language and thereby equalize them, what has the erosion of language brought us?

Those same people who have led us at every turn to being controlled through fear of prosecution can now prosecute us for using an incorrect gender reference. And with some thirty-something genders now, another result of the breakdown of our language and reasoning skills,  how would one know if one’s gender-pronoun usage is correct?

We have been led to confusion and dis-empowerment because the aim behind the breakdown of language and reasoning as mostly articulated by the progressive narrative is control and domination.

Pick up a copy of my published works here: Books by Peter Weiss.


Go on. Just call me racist up front and get it over with. As was said in And the Winner Is, that word, the R word, is now applied so often and used so callously that its meaning is quickly dissipating. Like the Deplorable label, it becomes a badge of honor when one is called it for saying something true simply because one is speaking about a person or persons of color.

For example, merely saying that Al Sharpton didn’t pay taxes and helped publicly frame Steven Pagones in the Tawana Brawley case would make one a “racist” by today’s standards of the word even though there is no racial implication in the factual statement. That speaks to the breakdown of our language and our reasoning, both of which are different issues altogether though very essential ones and ones of course tied to the bundle of what’s going on with Obama being the big winner and what’s going on in America.

The argument goes like this: why are you picking on Al Sharpton? Lots of whites did a lot worse to blacks. Pick on them! Picking on Al Sharpton is racist. You are a racist.

Similarly, to say anything about Hillary Clinton causes one to be called a misogynist. The argument: Lots of men did a lot worse to women than anything Hillary has done altogether. Pick on them! Picking on Hillary makes you a misogynist. (And we all know that the reason she lost was because of misogyny and chauvinism.) You are a misogynist.

So, a little about the breakdown of our language and reasoning.

Way back (in the eighties), when studying literature in graduate school we were taught that an author who wrote in the forties should not be called a racist in the eighties for referring to a black man as a Negro because that was the correct term of reference at the time the writer wrote. Or, forty years later, in the eighties, calling the author a racist or saying he/she was being derogatory back then is incorrect. It is logically flawed thinking. More important, however, doing so then was indicative of the beginnings of a breakdown in our reasoning and language that was being driven by a progressive narrative.

This type of breakdown in language and reasoning is evidenced all the time now and it leads to the revisionist history we are seeing today. It is the logical progression of that progressive narrative we are being force fed, and it is the danger within America. 

As an example, consider slave owners during legal slavery times. Being a slave owner did not necessarily make one a bad person or one who should be erased from our history due to being judged by today’s standards of morality and right or wrong, which in and of themselves are quite questionable.

History shows there were many slave owners back then who were anti-slavery and kept their slaves because they knew that if they freed them other slave owners would gobble them up and mistreat them horribly. These “good” slave owners (I know, by any sensibilities it sounds like a contradiction in terms) treated their slaves humanely. They utilized them as workers, allowed them a decent standard of living, did not abuse or molest them, allowed them marriage of their choice amongst themselves and to stay in the families they themselves created. They did not sell off their children for profits.

As messed up as it may seem today, this was in many circumstances the moral thing to do back then. Not only was it moral, but it was courageous, for those who did it were going against the social and economic norms of the times. If found out, they were ostracized and boycotted economically such that they lost their businesses.

Judging people and things back then by today’s standards is clearly a breakdown in reasoning and language skills, not to mention it being nonsensical. Doing so ignores the concepts of time, context and knowledge, not to mention the differences between the accepted morays of the society back then as compared to now. Furthermore it denies rational logic.

The absence of logic in today’s discourse and the general breakdown of our language and language skills is a true danger to America.

Pick up a copy of all my  published works here: 

Books by Peter Weiss.