J.K. Rowling’s Bizarre Leadership Of The Unhinged Anti-Trump Left.

I am not sure which one of J.K. Rowling’s handlers told her it was a good look for her to become a 24/7 anti-Trump Jumbotron, but nevertheless there she is. Her Twitter feed has become a cascading avalanche of negative sentiment about the president of the United States. This is grating. It’s not Trump doesn’t deserve criticism, for surely he does, but it is needling to have one’s president criticized by a foreigner whose government condemns innocent baby boys to death-by-bureaucracy. For all its notable flaws, the United States does not, as a matter of public policy, do that.

Yet ultimately Rowling is not really the problem but a symptom of the problem: she is a perfect emblem for the spiraling, crazy hysteria that has overtaken liberalism in the Age of Trump.

The Special-Needs Snub That Wasn’t

Case in point: last week Rowling took to Twitter to inform her 11.4 million followers that President Trump had cruelly snubbed a wheelchair-bound boy’s offer of a handshake at a recent White House function. Suggesting that Trump was “frightened he might catch [the disabled boy’s] condition,” Rowling wrote: “How stunning, and how horrible, that Trump cannot bring himself to shake the hand of a small boy who only wanted to touch the President.”

Rowling’s initial tweet that kicked off the thread received (at the time of this writing) a mind-boggling 75,000 retweets. The entire thread racked up around 107,000 retweets. There was, however, just one small problem with Rowling’s claim that Trump “[could not] bring himself” to shake the disabled boy’s hand: it was grossly incorrect and utterly divorced from reality.

Yes, a video clip accurately shows that Trump passed over the boy’s outstretched hand while shaking the hands of other attendees at the event. But another video clip taken just a short while beforehand shows Trump engaging with the young man for a rather long moment, squatting down to his level, apparently shaking his hand, and—from the looks of it—enjoying a friendly exchange. Indeed, before he spoke to anyone else at the event, Trump zeroed in on the disabled boy and evidently spoke to him at some length.

No matter: cue the hysteria, the frantic retweets, the loud moral grandstanding, the constant cacophony of histrionic outrage, the imperviousness to facts. The proper context of Trump’s exchange with the little boy was widely reported, and many of Rowling’s followers pointed this out to her. It apparently made no difference. This is liberalism in the Trump Era. And it is getting worse.

 Not Helping People Into Police Cars Isn’t Death Camps. Yet another case in point, also from last week: a rolling wave of anger swept across the Internet when Trump allegedly encouraged law enforcement officers to engage in “police brutality.” Luminaries like Peter Daou and Ryan J. Reilly echoed this accusation; New York Times editor Jessica Lustig did as well; Keith Olbermann, meanwhile, did them one better and claimed that Trump would eventually impose “mass detention camps” on the country, as Democrat Franklin Roosevelt did during World War II.

Sounds like Trump really stepped in it this time. Well, what did he actually say?

[W]hen you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon — you just see them thrown in, rough — I said, please don’t be too nice. Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over? Like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody — don’t hit their head. I said, you can take the hand away, okay.

From this, Olbermann—a grown man who is looked upon by at least some people as a reliable source of political wisdom—concluded that we are headed for “mass detention camps”!

It is not clear how we are supposed to respond to this type of political delirium. Was Trump’s jocular suggestion good advice? No, it wasn’t. Police should always be careful when handling and transporting suspected criminals, for the safety of both the suspects and the police. Was it in line with what we know of Trump’s behavior? Of course. He is brash, crude, darkly funny at times but largely unable to control his own thought-to-mouth process. Should he have said this? No, he shouldn’t have.

But “police brutality”? “Detention camps”? Is this really the kind of political discourse to which we’ve been reduced—a shrieking mania that cannot engage with the president except in the most unhinged and anti-rational fashion?

Maybe so, at least for the foreseeable future. And this is not just a political problem. Liberals are increasingly allowing their Trump hatred to spill over into their personal lives. A recent Pew Research poll, for instance, found that “almost half of liberal Democrats — 47 percent — say that if a friend supported Trump, it would actually put a strain on their friendship. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters more broadly, the number is 35 percent.”

 It does not bode well for our civic fabric when a large segment of the body politic is growing less capable of processing its political gripes in a healthy manner. A political faction that endlessly repeats falsehoods and histrionic hyperboles with no regard for the facts, while growing more intolerant of anyone who thinks differently, is not a good sign for what’s to come.

The new insurance industry for suicide bombers and Shaheeds of all deeds .

From The NY Post editorial board, July 28, 2017.

“Your tax dollars at work: The Palestinian Authority is now using half of its foreign aid to reward terrorism. The new PA budget boosts support to terrorists in prison by 13 percent and aid for the families of those killed ‘in the struggle against Zion’ 4 percent, reports the Institute for Contemporary Affairs.  The total, $344 million, equals 49.6 percent of all foreign aid to the PA. In other words, cash from Uncle Sam, Europe and even Israel is subsidizing ‘welfare for terrorists.’ The PA sends a salary to each Palestinian imprisoned for an attack on Israelis, hitting over $3,000 a month after 30 years. Other stipends go to families of ‘martyrs’ killed in the act. That’s $344 million for 2017 that’s not going to build roads or hospitals. Knowing that you or your family will be taken care of is a clear incentive to kill.”

This is not welfare, it’s the suicide bomber “life insurance” policy. The term “life insurance” itself is a misnomer. While someone’s life is insured, the policy only pays off in the event of the death of the person insured (the insured). But the major tenets of traditional “life insurance” are turned upside down, just like the “logic” of the killer-Islamists, or Shaheeds. I use that term, k-I, to denote all those who claim to kill and destroy in the name of Allah, the “all merciful” , which seems to be the last name of their particular deity.

“Merciful to whom” is a question beyond the scope of my humble treatise, but my use of k-I will hopefully forestall my being called Islamophobic, though I willingly accept the appellation k-Iophobic or shaheedophobic. Shaheed, by the way, is the appellation given to these heroes of martyrdom. If you aren’t Shaheedophobic, you either have a death wish, or are not in the vicinity of their bomb radius. Not all Shaheeds use bombs–some use guns, knives, vehicles or their body odor to kill. The only requirement is that they be killed as a consequence of their taking of other lives.

Traditional life insurance requires at least the following conditions, the better to protect not only one policyholder but the insurance company itself, which protects all of it’s policyholders.

1. Insurable interest: Means that the beneficiary of the policy–the person or entity to which the pays on the death of the insured–must be either economically or emotionally injured by that death.

2. Suicide clause: Establishes a period, usually 2 years, during which the policy won’t pay out if the insured commits suicide.  Pretty obvious need for that one.

3. Premium paid by policy owner to the insurance company for accepting the financial risk of the insured’s death.  The policy will lapse for non-payment.

4. The policy, a legally enforceable contract guaranteeing that the company will pay the “death benefit”, the amount agreed upon by contract.

5. Statistically verifiable mortality tables, since the insurance company is accepting a very small premium for guaranteeing a very large payout to every policyholder. The policyholder is transferring the financial risk of their death to the insurance company, which then spreads the risk among thousands or millions of other policyholders. The “law of large numbers” allows the company to do that.

Suicide bomber life insurance should properly be called Shaheed insurance, since not all of the dead murderers used bombs. Shaheed insurance violates all of the tenets of life insurance and many more.

1. Insurable interest is supposed to prevent someone insuring your life and then killing you for the insurance money, for profit. Since the beneficiaries of suicide bombers often encourage their death–though more for reasons of ideology than profit–or so we assume, giving the survivors money adds a profit motive and an additional incentive for the killing. It’s safe to say that Shaheed insurance encourages more killing, while insurable interest reduces the incentive to kill.

2. Shaheed insurance  only pays for suicide, traditional life insurance won’t pay for it for at least 2 years.

3. The payers of Shaheed insurance are essentially being duped, intending the money to benefit families and children, rather than it being used to kill their children. The money comes from third parties (governments, NGO’s, the U.N.) who do not generally intend it to encourage killing.

4. The legally enforceable life insurance contract makes sure that each party honors their obligations. Shaheed insurance is theft under false pretenses.

5. Since the mortality of suicide bombers is 100% by definition, because the policy doesn’t pay until he or she is dead, mortality tables are, in the understatement of all times, superfluous.

Allow me to propose an alternative.

Since practically all the money for Shaheed insurance comes from the U.N., or countries sympathetic to Palestinians, or countries too stupid and unaccountable to keep track of how the money is used (I count the U.S.A. among them), my humble suggestion is for every bureaucrat that dispenses that money: use some of it to buy a gun and bullets, and shoot yourself in the head. That should reduce the overall death toll, or at least the toll among innocent bystanders.