A Plausible Explanation

Like most of us I have been aware of the Dilbert cartoon series for a long time. I have read it occasionally and, for the most part, have not understood its appeal or even its point.

Thanks to the Instapundit I have been treated to a series of links to the web site of Dilbert's creator, Scott Adams, since President Trump began his run for office. I have linked to him before.

His explanations of how Trump accomplished his amazing political feat have been fascinating to me.

I watched the President's press conference on Thursday for a little while. I was mostly impressed. I stopped watching at the point that he said, and I paraphrase, "No matter what I say today all the news tomorrow will be about me ranting and raving. I am not ranting." Taking his bait, as usual, this was Friday's Huffington Post cover for their reporting.





I mentioned above Mr. Adams fascinating explanation of Trump's success. In this post Mr. Adams provides a plausible explanation for another phenomenon, that apparently sane and intelligent people people can come away from the same experience with two completely different interpretations of what occurred.

With reference to HP's complete failure to predict Trump's success and the fact that they saw an entirely different press conference than I did he writes:

"When reality violates your ego that rudely, you either have to rewrite the movie in your head to recast yourself as an idiot, or you rewrite the movie to make yourself the hero who could see what others missed".

Read the whole thing.

About That Travel "Ban"

As I read all the hysteria regarding the temporary ban on US entry for people (mostly Muslim) from seven countries with serious Islamic terror issues, I notice that those objecting most loudly are actually missing the point.

Some, like Charles C.W. Cooke, a writer at National Review, are green card holders. I think he is from England (I can't find the link to his piece on the subject, sorry.) He describes the excruciating process one must follow to get a green card. He is correct. I remember it well even though I went through it over thirty years ago.

The implication of his piece is that green card holders have been thoroughly vetted and enough is enough.

Here is the problem as I see it. The people being targeted are not from England or Canada (like me) but from wildly unstable places with very uncertain record keeping regimes and notoriously corrupt governments. Our government has, in my opinion, no credibility on the subject of the admission of Muslims to this country.

I am sure the victims of the Boston Bombers and the San Bernadino shooter don't find the government credible. I know I don't. Trump made it plain during the campaign that he certainly doesn't. Those events, among others, would never have happened had the vetting agencies done their jobs in any competent way. People died, people were physically maimed for life. I can't imagine the psychological impact of having been a survivor of such catastrophes.

This is a temporary pause to fix our systems. That it temporarily inconveniences some people is unfortunate. One thing is certain. The one or two or three people coming here with bad intentions will not be here anytime soon. I never did agree with Obama's suggestion that we can absorb a few hits in the interest of political correctness, as he wanders about in armored cars surrounded by heavily armed people dedicated to his survival. What a pompous coward.

There are a lot of people complaining that the roll out of the policy was botched. Maybe, I don't know. I find I don't actually "hear" most of the critics, the din is so constant and loud.

Of course, that may just be exactly what Trump had in mind.

Scott Adams the creator of Dilbert, among other things, has demonstrated great insight into Trump's thinking over the last 2 years or so. I invite you to read this.