This page began as a portion of my “various” page about politics. After several extensions, it was moved to a separate page, but without an attempt to turn the text into a more systematic treatment or a more consistent text.
As of 2024-17-20, the situation is still developing on several counts, including investigations into the failure of the Secret Service and the motivations of the shooter. Correspondingly, further extensions and edits on various sub-topics might follow.
As of 2024-07-15, there are too many question marks for a deeper discussion of the events, including the underlying motivations of the presumed shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks. (For instance, the perpetrator of the last truly significant attempt against a current, former, or candidate-for POTUS, John Hinckley, was mentally ill and famously motivated by a deranged wish to impress Jodie Foster—in a very slightly different reality, the victim would have been Democrat Carter instead of Republican Reagan.)
However, sources in the first few days seem unable to mention Crooks without simultaneously mentioning that he was a “registered Republican” (or some variation on the same theme) with some sources mentioning this repeatedly. (Consider formulations like “Thomas Matthew Crooks, who was a registered Republican”, “registered Republican Thomas Matthew Crooks”, etc.) This is, of course, something worthy of mention, but not, in serious journalism, of such prominent and repeated mention.
I cannot see this as other than agenda pushing—even though I have to admit to being uncertain what that agenda would be. (To name just two examples, consider a benevolent-but-misguided attempt to avoid retaliatory violence against Democrats and malicious attempts to further paint political violence as a “Rightwing” problem, instead of the predominantly Leftwing problem that it actually is.)
In a bigger picture: Such claims must also be taken with a grain of salt, as voter registration does not necessarily reflect political opinions. For instance, political opinions might change without a re-/de-registration having yet taken place. For instance, someone might dishonestly register as a Republican or Democrat in order to affect the results in the primaries. (In contrast, a deeper involvement with a party, if present, would be both more worthy of mention and less in need of that grain of salt. Likewise, the hypothetical publication of a political manifesto.)
However, I stress that I do not claim that this was the case here—the point is merely the need to be cautious with interpretations.
An interesting parallel is how, in the almost simultaneous dismissal of the “documents case” against Trump, media do not tire of pointing out that the judge, Aileen M. Cannon, was a Trump appointee. This, however, is only tangentially relevant—a good judge goes by the law, not appointer or, e.g., political sympathies. (This, especially, as “Republican” judges are much more likely to stick to the law than “Democrat” ones, who, going by past records and in reverse, are much more likely to be partisans and/or judicial activists. Compare Clarence Thomas and Sonya Sotomayor, e.g.) Here the implied message is clear: she only did it to support Trump and with a non-partisan judge Trump would still be on the hook. Not only is there not one shred of proof of this, but it fails to mention that the original prosecution of Trump et al. was virtually certainly politically motivated—something of much greater importance.
Speaking of Hinckley and Reagan: Earlier this year, I read John O’Sullivan’s “The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister”. An early point is how Reagan, John Paul II, and Thatcher all narrowly escaped assassination attempts—and how different, and worse, the world might have been, had one or more of them died in their close calls. We just might at some point look back at the attempted assassination of Trump with a similar feeling. In the current world, sadly, Trump is one of the few hopes left. Certainly, neither Keir Starmer nor Pope Francis are likely to be of much use; at least Starmer is, in fact, likely to do a great deal of damage.
(Generally, this book is a very interesting read that I might come back to later and more extensively.)
In the wake of the attempt, even Trump’s political enemies, and even those who might have much to gain from his death, have virtually universally condemned it.
The opposite would be surprising, as it might result in political suicide to go down the opposite road, and as even remaining silent could be (mis-?)construed as support for the attempt. (And, certainly, the step from e.g. “I wish that he loses the election” to “I wish that he dies” is very large.) However, I suspect that there is another mechanism in play, especially, with an eye at the type of vitriol that Trump has been exposed to and the likely reason for that vitriol:
I have repeatedly expressed the suspicion that much of the anti-Trump sentiment in politics (in general) and from anti-Trump Republican politicians (in particular) stems from the threat that he poses to the power of politicians, “the establishment”, whatnot. In a manner of speaking, Trump is an outsider pissing in, one of “them” in a “us vs. them” view of the world. When Crooks presumed to shot at a politician, however, the perspective temporarily shifted to Crooks pissing in, to Trump being with “us” and Crooks with “them”. If in doubt, if a POLITICIAN can be shot, maybe “I, [insert name of your least favorite politician], am next!”.
I often use the phrase “us vs. them” to point to a particular type of destructive thinking, unusually common on the Left and in Leftist propaganda, as with “we oppressed Xs vs. the oppressing Ys”. The use above is only weakly related and based more in a different type of commonality, similar to how soldiers sometimes take a perspective on the world as divided into the military and the civilian, clergy as divided into the clerical and the secular, etc.
Also note how many journalists react to the killing of a JOURNALIST: Yes, that war has killed thousands, which is bad, by all means, but now they have killed an actual JOURNALIST, which is so much worse.
A particular point of controversy in the days since the attempt has been the performance of the Secret Service, what failures might have preceded the attempt, and what responsibility Kimberly Cheatle, the director of the Secret Service, carries.
True knowledge does not appear to be publicly available (as of 2024-07-20), but there is great risk to fear both an attitude problem and a problem with DIE, which someone did, two others still might, and Trump, himself, came close to doing.
There are, in particular, strong signs that Cheatle was promoted partially for reasons of “gender”. Moreover, she has publicly stated a DIE agenda, including pushing women in the Secret Service to a minimum of 30 percent.
Here we, for the umpteenth time, see matters like the sex of a candidate being valued even when it, as is almost always the case, is an unsound criterion—and even when the stakes are very high and human lives are potentially at risk. Ability and willingness to do the job properly is what counts, not “diversity”. Women should be hired at equal terms with men and whatever percentages result, with those we will have to live—or someone dies.
What those percentages would eventually be for the Secret Service, I do not know—but neither does Cheatle and pushing any fix or minimum number risks a distortion, as the pool of suitable applicants is likely to be dominated by men. Looking at the protective services, which are relevant here, I strongly suspect that men are more interested in these types of job, including the previous jobs that lead to the job. Moreover, both mental and physical attributes more common in men can be critical—up to the point that a larger agent stands a greater chance of blocking a bullet through sheer size. What if, e.g., Tim McCarthy had been much smaller and Reagan had suffered a fatal hit? Or consider the benefit of size when acting as a deterrent, spatial ability when considering risks and attack venues before or during an event, the courage to actually act in the moment, whatnot. (Courage is much trickier in real life than on paper.) Picking candidates based on availability and suitability might then naturally lead to very different proportions from those dictated by “diversity” fanatics.
As discussed elsewhere (TODO find link), however, any quota is likely to cause distortions, even absent greater differences between the groups affected by the quota.
Of course, if a target of 30 percent is reached by just increasing the number of female investigators and pencil pushers, it is just a matter of time until this, too, is considered a diversity problem and demands for greater representation in other roles follow. Moreover, such a lopsided increase would put the number well over 30 in those areas, increasing the negative effects of a quota further.
Then we have Cheatle’s apparent unwillingness to accept true responsibility: At the moment, she pays mouth service to “The buck stops here!” and whatnot, but she rules out a resignation. The right thing to do, would have been to offer said resignation. If she still has the confidence of [whoever would be the decision maker on this count], the resignation can always be turned down with a flattering press release. Failing that a statement like “I will await the results of the investigation of [this-and-that] before making a decision” would have been the minimum.
On or around 23-07-2024, Cheatle did step down—better late than never.
In the mean time, however, sufficiently many question marks have been raised around the lack of security that something more perfidious than mere incompetence might be on the table, be it from Cheatle or some other insider(s) of the Secret Service. This includes a wholesale condemnation by experts of the “slanted roof” excuse to leave the roof used by Crooks unguarded, the revelation of further security issues and poor handling of the situation, and the revelation that calls for more security by the Trump campaign had been rejected. That this rejection was first, apparently, not admitted by Cheatle makes the matter worse and casts further doubts on her and her performance: there is a world of difference between a “we did receive requests, but had to turn them down due to lack of man power [because we did not share the risk assessment, whatnot]” and what amounts to “we never received any requests”.
(But remember Hanlon’s Razor—to not attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere incompetence.)
An interesting twist is that Trump now appears to push a “unification” message, which flips the tables on the grossly dishonest Democrat claims of Trump “being divisive”, “tearing [this-and-that] apart”, whatnot. This could well declaw one of the strongest Leftist convince-the-naive-that-Trump-is-evil arguments and settle the election.
(In reality, of course, it is Biden et al. who have pushed an agenda of divisiveness, “us vs. them”, “we are good; they are evil”, etc., in yet another example that the success of the Left is based on propaganda and manipulation of the naive and/or ignorant—not on reason and factual arguments. Note, likewise, how the Biden regime has had an anti-democratic agenda, including politically motivated per-/prosecution of opponents, restrictions on free speech, etc., while it has not tired of claiming that Trump would be anti-democratic.)
The following is an automatically generated list of other pages linking to this one. These may or may not contain further content relevant to this topic.