As IF Times

Source: Michelle Obama says America is entering a time of hopelessness – Women in the World in Association with The New York Times – WITW

It may be odd that a discussion about hopelessness is being carried on by two of the most privileged people living not just in America, but on the planet.  When one of those people declares that ‘now we know what lack of hope is’, it’s either the height of arrogance and entitlement or the depths of delusion.  To pontificate about hopelessness given the influence that they wield means they are operating with their check engine lights on.

“We” must mean the “royal we” because if one cared to ponder which group of “we” no longer has any hope, it’s unclear which constituency that might be.  Neither of these two women will ever have to hope for their next meal or worry about their next mortgage payment, so it’s not their personal financial circumstances that concerns them.  Naturally, this also applies to their circle of friends, who must face first world problems such as which of the Hawaiian islands has the best beaches.

If they are in angst on behalf of those not so fortunate as themselves, then it’s non-sensical since the trend of poverty has been on an incline during the last 8 years of the present administration as measured by people unemployed and whom are dependent on food stamps.  This is a direct result of her husband’s policies. Do they think that for those people, hope meant anything more than a campaign slogan? If they think incoming President Trump’s vows to turn hope into change equals hopelessness, then let’s put that in their delusional column.

If they are in angst on behalf of the subset of society which are women, then this can also be classified as delusional, since the incoming administration has already appointed more qualified females to positions of influence than the outgoing one…if you don’t include singers and rappers.

If they are in angst on behalf of the subset of society which are minorities, again this also falls into the delusional column since they are represented at the highest levels of government, commerce, education, entertainment, sports and culture and have been for a generation at least.  The entire narrative of institutionalized discrimination because of sex, race or gender is a straw argument that appeals only to the disinformed.

If they are in angst on behalf of the subset of society which are self-described liberals, well there you may have something.  This is that segment of society that has foisted increasing levels of preposterous views and turned them into sanctioned public policy under the Orwellian claims of tolerance and inclusion.  If this is the reference, then Michelle Obama’s fears are valid.  And a Happy New Year it may be.

Source: Trump wants to dump the Paris climate deal, but 71 percent of Americans support it, survey finds – The Washington Post

One of the unforeseen benefits of the last election is the enormous favor conferred upon people by the outing of most of the popular media outlets. The already stretched credibility of the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, among others, visibly snapped as their blatantly partisan reportage blew up in their faces like a prank cigar.

The great favor to which I refer is the time that will be saved by the public totally ignoring any articles with their bylines.  When you visit the most popular news aggregator, Google News, the majority of the linked articles are from the above mentioned sources. Once you bypass all of the detritus, spurious spin and manufactured hysteria concocted by these media outlets, taking in the day’s real news should only take 5 minutes.

Now that the initial shell shock of the loss by their favored candidate has subsided, their focus is now on the devastating effect that an incoming Voldemort administration will have on a naïve public.  Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

The surprising shock (to them) of  electoral defeat is mainly attributed to favorable polls, which up until decision day, were convincingly pointing to a Clinton victory.  You can imagine the outraged customers of the pollsters demanding refunds as if they were at Macy’s on the day after Christmas.

Pollsters haven’t had a good time of it over the past while, with the failure to predict the Brexit vote another recent yuuge failure.  Legitimate sampling is an effective statistical analysis tool and properly employed is the basis for many decisions in all industries.  In the case of recent political polling, I suspect that samples were taken from homogenous groups which were likely skewed towards a given response.   I also suspect that the same people were tired of the same pollsters asking the same questions.  After the 10th time, none of your damn business would be the box ticked.

It’s amusing then that in the linked story, a survey of 2000 people, from Chicago, was offered as proof that Americans ‘favored’ the Paris climate deal even as Trump was skeptical of it.

Chicago.  To ask a question of that type to that pool of respondents is like asking frat boys on their opinion of bikinis vs burkas.  The article is essentially worthless.  But rather than having to read the entire story, people can make more efficient use of their time by noticing the source of the story, which in this case is, surprise, The Washington Post.  As noted earlier, they can simply ignore the story and go directly to the football scores.