I see a lot of bluray collections on reddit and bluray forums that joined the 1000 club. I wished I collected some Criterion discs. I have 9 Criterion movies.
I only have 600 dvds + blurays over 20 years. I have 1500 videogames
and 200 cds. In this Great depression 2, I thought I finish up on the
movie collection, the game collection and music collection. I have 3
shelves double stacked and 10 shelves of videogames. Then I have some
Retropie of 14,000 games consoles and a few with 8000 games consoles.
I’m in good shape going into the Great Depression 2. I have people who
love me, yet are baby boomers. I was watching Jeremiah babe and Epic
economist in 2018. I really liked my videogames and movies. Unsure about
the CDs, I like owning CDs almost as much hearing raves that aren’t on
the Internet. I should have bought less CDs and more videogames. I have
all the important blockbuster videogames of my teens and 20s. I have
every videogame I really wanted by 2022. Nobody knew was into pokemon
trading cards or Magic the Gathering. I own 3050 Magic the Gathering
cards, because it was a big part of the atmosphere.
The neighbors didn’t invite me to Minnesota State Fair, bar/pub
parties, any parties, gatherings. This woman from Roberts say I wasn’t a
part of their community anymore. I was a part of the Toyriffic
community for 15 years until the helicopter parents in my early 30s. It
went bankrupt in 2019. I must’ve bought 25 videogames from that shop.
The Magic the Gathering side of business wasn’t doing well so it went
bankrupt. Roberts Wisconsin was kind of mean streets. If people don’t
need me, I won’t hear from them. The bars were getting dangerous. I
could be punched. Everybody was trigger happy with the Castle doctrine.
Even people were wondering if I carried a gun.
On Myspace, I saw a lot of people go into bars and having parties
because it was Wisconsin. Bars were celebrated in the 20s in Myspace and
first 10 years of Facebook. Then I saw pickups, wites and children on
Facebook in the 2010s. I remember getting banned on Plentyofifsh for 15
years or no dates off Okcupid for 15 years (partly because the A-list
took bank accouwints not gift cards).
Employment is such a rat race and they want me to work without
relationships and with speed, the grind. I be both alone and without
owing anything fun possessions if people had their way. Co-workers
didn’t want to spend time in restaurants or malls or coffee shops. They
seem to be on the social networks however.
In almost every way measurable, millennials in the U.S. at 40 are
doing worse financially than the generations that came before them.
Fewer millennials own homes than their parents did at their age. They
have more debt — especially student debt. They simply aren’t as
wealthy.
Now, if predictions of a long, post-Covid economic boom are to be
believed, this may be the last opportunity an entire generation has to
build wealth before heading off into retirement.
For Kellie Beach, a real-estate attorney who turned 40 in April, that
means starting by aggressively paying down her credit-card debt. Beach
has cycled between periods of carrying balances and paying it all off.
“I stayed afloat with credit cards,” she said. “I was just used to
swiping and overspending.”
The pandemic jolted her into taking a hard look at her habits.
“Now I have this feeling — like this fire — of urgency,” Beach said.
“I’m not going to be in this place again. I can’t wait to get out of
this debt. I can’t wait to save up for my emergency fund and invest
again.”
Wealth Woes
Net worth has declined since 1989 while wages remain
stagnanthttps://www.bloomberg.com/toaster/v2/charts/4aae4bcd197147ed8289ab1cc0a12a03?hideLogo=true&hideTitles=true&web=true&
Source: Federal Reserve
In April, a month after turning 40, Dustin Roberts bought his first
house. He was older than his parents were when they became first-time
homeowners: his mom in her 20s and his dad in his 30s. He wasn’t able to
save more quickly for a down payment because money instead went to his
student loan payments. He has $38,000 remaining in student debt from San
Diego State University.
“My dad had always tried to tell me how important it was to buy a
house, how that was a mode of financial security for him,” said Roberts,
who works in sales at Milwaukee Tool in Savannah, Georgia. “I’m making
more than my dad did, but am I better off? I don’t know that I can say
yes.”
The oldest U.S. millennials — born in 1981 — turn 40 this year. Older members of the generation — mocked recently
as “geriatric millennials” — came of age during a long stretch of
prosperity in the 1990s, the second-longest period of expansion in U.S.
history. Unemployment was steadily falling. If millennials remember a
recession at all from their childhood, it might be a brief one in 1990
in which the economy contracted less than 2%.
But since entering adulthood, they’ve been hit with major recessions
at critical stages in their financial development: They were 27 years
old when Lehman Bros. went bankrupt, and the Great Recession dug in when
they should have been establishing themselves in the workforce. “The
Great Recession knocked everyone for a loop,” said William Gale, senior
fellow in the Economic Studies Program at the Brookings Institution. “It
caused unemployment. It caused slow wage growth. It made it harder to
accumulate wealth.”
Then, as millennials hit the point in their careers where people
traditionally move into higher-paying managerial roles, the pandemic
hit. In 2020, the U.S. economy contracted 3.5%; When the oldest Baby
Boomers turned 40 in 1986, the U.S. economy expanded at a 3.5% rate.
Now the U.S. economy is humming again, with sectors like retail sales
and manufacturing stronger than they were before the pandemic. Stocks
are at record highs, and wealth is swelling — especially for the
wealthiest Americans. It remains to be seen whether jobs and wages will
catch up.
Student debt
Some of the differences in wealth among the generations can be attributed to student debt.
More millennials borrow to pay for college than previous generations,
and the loans are bigger. Millennials, who started college in 1999, paid an average
of $15,604 per year for undergraduate tuition, fees and room and board.
When Gen Xers and Baby Boomers started college, that number — adjusted
for inflation — was about $10,300 for each of them.
Changing Debt Burden
Millennials have more student-loan debt but less mortgage obligations
than their Boomer and Gen X counterparts when they were
40https://www.bloomberg.com/toaster/v2/charts/1af9c014904f427db2c2124a7ed3c401?hideLogo=true&hideTitles=true&web=true&
Source: Federal Reserve
Those costs often follow people for years. Summer Galvez, who turns
40 this month, attended Clark Atlanta University in Georgia for a couple
of semesters but withdrew because she couldn’t afford it. During the
financial crisis, she was laid off from two jobs. Galvez now runs two
successful businesses in Dallas — a marketing firm and a bakery — but
she is still paying student loans 20 years later, even though she didn’t
receive a degree.
Galvez says she relies on her own skills and hustle because big
companies don’t provide job security. “There are always economic factors
that could happen that could just really upend your life,” she said.
Going to college was more important for today’s 40-year-olds.
Millennials with bachelor’s degrees or higher earn 113% more than what
they would have earned with only a high-school diploma. But
college-educated Baby Boomers made only 57% more than their peers with
high school degrees.
“That’s one of the stark evolutions of the job market, where
education has become a greater predictor of success,” said Lowell
Ricketts, data scientist for the Institute for Economic Equity at the
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
Homeownership
Image: Getty(2)
Some economists predicted millennials would avoid buying homes after
the 2008 housing market crash. They haven’t, but their homeownership
rates are lower than previous generations at the same point in their
lives: 61% for older millennials, 68% for middle-age Gen Xers and 66%
for middle-age Boomers.
“The basic way that middle American households build wealth is
through their homes,” said Richard Fry, a senior researcher at Pew
Research Center. “Millennials have been less likely to be homeowners.
Fewer of them have begun the process of building home equity.”
One culprit could be housing prices, which have increased —
especially compared with earnings. Millennials are paying a median of
$328,000 on homes. Baby boomers only had to spend $216,000 — adjusted
for inflation — in 1989. Wages, on the other hand, have only risen 20%.
Soaring Prices
Millennials are paying 50% more for homes now than Boomers were in
1989https://www.bloomberg.com/toaster/v2/charts/ee88b72c3c894010abcbcb0a6b7670e4?hideLogo=true&hideTitles=true&web=true&*Note:
Inflation-adjusted to January 2020 dollars Source: Federal Reserve Bank
of St. Louis
In 2020, 18% of millennial renters said they planned to rent forever,
up for the third consecutive year, according to a report from Apartment
List. Among millennials who do plan to buy a home, 63% have no money
saved for a down payment, the report said.
The share of millennials living with their parents is also
significantly higher than in previous generations. “Conceptually, that
could help their wealth accumulation because they’d be paying less for
rent and they could save more,” said Gale of Brookings, a co-author of
the NBER working paper. “But in practical terms of what happens is it’s
an indicator of lack of economic status.”
Another factor: The housing market right now is ultra-hot, thanks in part to ultra-low mortgage rates.
“That’s great if you’re a homeowner,” Gale said. “But it’s terrible if you’re a renter trying to buy a home.”
Net worth
The typical Baby Boomers had about $113,000 — in today’s dollars — in
wealth in 1989, when they were in their early 40s. Older millennials
had a net worth of just $91,000 in 2019.
The millennial cohort is also more racially diverse than the
generations before it, and because of structural racism, minority
populations often have lower wealth accumulation and wages, which weighs
on net worth averages, Gale said. The median White family has nearly
eight times as much wealth as the median Black family, and more than
five times as much as a Hispanic family.
The pandemic has widened inequalities in the U.S.: The unemployment
rate for Black Americans has recovered slower, and remains much higher,
than the rate for White Americans. Meanwhile, Americans of color are
more likely to be employed in industries that are undergoing rapid
change with automation and e-commerce, including retail and
transportation.
“If we continue to see these inequities, it suggests that we’re
really going to have a hard time achieving financial stability and
upward mobility more broadly among American families,” Ricketts said.
Catching up
: Getty(2)
Because the life expectancy of the American population is on the rise, millennials also receive family inheritances
— if available to them — later in life, which could account for why
people turning 40 today have lower net worth than generations prior.
By then, “it might be too late for them to take advantage of it and
meet some of those mid-life goals that wealth really helps with
achieving,” such as owning a home, investing in the stock market and
paying down debt, Ricketts of the St. Louis Fed said.
For individuals, the first step is figuring out where you are — and
what you need most, whether that means minimizing taxes or expenses, or
generating more income, said Juan G. HernandezAriano, a certified
financial planner and director at WealthCreate, a financial advising
firm in Spring, Texas. Many people would benefit from figuring out a new
payment plan for student debt. In addition, people who have newly hit
middle age have some flexibility their parents didn’t have: more ways to
invest, different car insurance options or the ability to work from
home, for example.
“Bottom line: Are millennials behind? Yes. Can you catch up? Yes,” he
said. “How? First and foremost, defining your goals. Once you define
your goals: build a budget, improve that budget, diversity not only from
an investment perspective but an income perspective.”
Older millennials can move the needle, starting with an emergency
savings account — and even small amounts can help, said Signe-Mary
McKernan, an economist and co-director of the Opportunity and Ownership
initiative at the Urban Institute in Washington. They can then focus on
contributing to retirement accounts, or buying — and keeping — a home.
“I don’t think it’s too late,” she said. “If we set up this stronger
foundation for economic security, if it’s institutionalized for
everyone, then it could make life better for young millennials, for
older millennials, for future generations and for the country as a
whole.”
Employees are preparing to quit their jobs in droves after “falling
out of touch” with their employers during the pandemic – with IT staff
even more likely to walk.
Research by HR software firm Personio found that four in ten
employees (38%) in the UK and Ireland were planning to change roles in
the next six to 12 months or once the economy had stabilized – rising to
55% of 18-34 year olds
The research,
which quizzed 500 HR decision makers and more than 2,000 workers,
warned of a “post-pandemic talent exodus” that could cost businesses up
to £17 billion (US $23.9bn).
Tech workers were even more likely to be eyeing a career change, with
58% of respondents in IT and computing roles saying they were
considering a new role.
Personio also found that, while almost half (45%) of employers were
worried about post-pandemic resignations, few were looking to make
talent retention a priority for their organization – leaving them
“sleepwalking” towards a costly talent exit.
Hanno Renner, co-founder and CEO of Personio, said: “The last year
has been a challenging one for businesses and HR teams who have often
found themselves ‘firefighting’, dealing with multiple new tasks and
concerns. For some, this has caused other areas such as people strategy
to fall to the wayside – but this negligence comes at a cost.
“Falling out of touch with the workforce’s problems and priorities
means that not only could people be more frustrated and ready to resign,
but employers will be poorly prepared to prevent people leaving –
resulting in lost talent and productivity, and damaged employer brand.”
A fraught tech talent market
Mass resignations of top technology talent could be catastrophic for
businesses at a time when many are trying to fast-forward digital
transformation initiatives.
The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked a flurry of competition for developers
and software professionals, with previous research indicating that many
companies will struggle to hire and retain skilled technology staff.
Bev White, CEO of recruiter Harvey Nash Group, said tech
professionals were beginning to weigh up their futures as pandemic
restrictions eased – posing a retention challenge for businesses.
“In the last few weeks, we have not only experienced a surge in new
tech jobs – up over 100% on the previous year – but we are also seeing a
strong demand from a wide range of candidates including those that have
worked for their employer throughout the pandemic, but now have
different priorities,” White told TechRepublic.
Technology remains a predominant theme in the conversation around
remote work, as well as a persistent source of frustration for employees
working from home.
The pandemic may have accelerated the use of digital tools that, in
many ways, have made our lives easier, but the sudden and mandatory
switch to remote working has also had consequences for employee performance and wellbeing .
Almost half (44%) of HR decision makers surveyed by Personio reported
an increase in the number of digital tools they used during the
pandemic. In all, researchers found that companies were using an average
of six different tools for people-related tasks and insights alone –
rising to eight in larger organizations.
Staff have also seen an increase in the number of digital tools
they’re using to carry out day-to-day work, leaving many feeling
overwhelmed. Over a third of employees (37%) said there were “too many
digital tools to use at work”, with 36% reporting a negative impact on
their productivity as a result.
Despite the very real threat of staff leaving for new pastures as the
economy strengthens, Personio researchers found that only 26% of HR
decision makers cited talent retention as a priority for their
organization over the next 12 months.
Aidan Donnelly, director of technology platform at Personio, warned
that employers would feel the sting of resignations more acutely at a
time when tech has rocketed to the top of investment agendas .
“Businesses should be aware that the loss of tech talent and
subsequent need to recruit and onboard new hires is time consuming and
expensive. This can be disruptive to businesses at a time when many are
investing in digital transformation plans, or growing as technology
providers,” Donnelly told TechRepublic.
“To prevent tech talent leaving, and protect their business,
employers need to take time to speak to employees to understand their
challenges and needs – and address these accordingly. Ultimately, this
is the whole business’s responsibility, and management and leaders
should be leading the way in opening these conversations and bridging
any gaps.”
A growing disconnect
The switch to remote working makes managing employees and sustaining workplace culture particularly challenging.
Many employees have been left feeling untethered after spending
months working from home, with progression opportunities and career
development seemingly grinding to a halt.
For employees looking elsewhere, Personio found that the most
influential factors were a lack of career progression opportunities
(29%) and a perceived lack of appreciation for the work they do (29%).
This was followed by poor management (25%), a pay freeze or cut (23%),
and boredom with their job (23%).
The research also identified a disconnect between what employers felt
would cause staff to quit and the reality. In particular, employers
were found to “drastically underestimate” the impact of a toxic
workplace culture on employees’ decisions to leave, with almost twice as
many employees (21%) citing this as a significant push factor than HR
leaders (12%).
HR decision makers also underestimated the influence that a lack of
progression opportunities and a lack of appreciation had on workers’
decisions to quit, with just 17% and 15% identifying these as
significant push factors, respectively.
Personio found that that employers were likely to feel they had
supported teams better than employees felt they had, which it said was
“indicative of a broader disconnect that could be contributing to a lack
of loyalty amongst employees”.
HR leaders were more than twice as likely as staff to rate their
company’s support for career development as ‘good’ (64% vs 30%), and
more likely to view its support for work/life balance (70% vs 53%) and
mental and physical wellbeing (68% vs 44%) favorably.
This optimism amongst employers could be blinding them to a “looming productivity drought”, researchers said.
While some reports have suggested that remote work has led to an uptick in employee productivity
– at least, at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic – Personio found that
the proportion of employees who felt their productivity had increased
over the past year was roughly equal to those who believed their
productivity had fallen.
Again, HR professionals were more likely to be optimistic with their
reporting: 52% said they noticed an increase in staff productivity since
the start of the pandemic, compared to 33% who’d noticed a decrease.
“This optimism could pose a risk; if employers don’t recognise that a
productivity drought is occurring, they’re less likely to take steps to
address it – and this could cost them dearly,” the researchers said.
The value of flexible working
A growing impetus for workers’ career decisions is the offer of flexible-working arrangements.
Harvey Nash’s 2021 Technology and Talent Study revealed that work location and remote working had become one of the top three most important factors for tech professionals when looking for a new job, with strong culture and leadership also ranking highly.
White said that providing a flexible mix of remote working and time
spent in the office could represent “the best of both worlds for
individuals and employers alike,” by helping to foster the strong and
supportive culture that many employees desire following the events of
2020.
“Getting this right could be the key for organisations in retaining
talent under threat – while for hiring managers looking to attract new
people, demonstrating that their business is aligned with the new deal
concept could send out a powerful message that helps them capture the
interest of the tech professionals they need,” said White.
“It’s not surprising that people are looking to move roles as the
economy improves, as many people have stayed put and put job changes on
hold while the labour market was more uncertain,” said Seychell.
“As the economy recovers and people have more confidence in the job
market, not only will people have more opportunity and confidence to
leave their jobs for pastures new, but burnout and frustration with lack
of employer support during the pandemic may push them out the door… At a
time when employees are ready to walk, any change that’s poorly managed
could risk setting off a raft of resignations.”
Let’s face it – the news that former Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo intends to challenge former president Donald Trump in a 2024
primary puts one to mind not of Godzilla v. King Kong, but of Godzilla v. Bambi.
It’s Muhammad Ali stepping into the ring against Don Knotts. Pompeo is
doomed. But we should be glad that he is offering up himself for
sacrifice. Many conservatives are open to a competitive GOP primary,
not because they dislike Trump (they like him) but because they want to
make sure we nominate the strongest candidate in 2024. Moreover, Trump
needs a challenge to prepare him for the real fight in the general. And
he’s not afraid of one.
Will Pompeo really run? Reporters with good sources are saying Pompeo is telling his donors he is.
And I have heard the same thing from inside sources who would know. Of
course, the buried lede is that Pompeo has presidential campaign donors –
well, there’s one born every minute.
Other top-flight
potential GOP candidates are not jumping in. Ron DeSantis is focused on
his family (we’re all pulling for his wife) and winning reelection.
Robert O’Brien, the former (excellent) National Security Advisor, is
busy helping win back the House and intends to endorse the President the
day the President announces. DC establishment darlin’ Nikki Haley, the
Jeb! of 2024, will do whatever she has to do to get ahead, and right now
she thinks that means staying out if Trump gets in.
But will Trump run? I originally did not expect him
to run, but now I do. Between Asterisk’s floundering poll numbers and
Trump’s public words and actions, as well as people who would know
telling me that he’s running, it’s clear he’s leaning that way. He’s
biding his time, and he should. There’s no reason to do anything now but
build up his team for a third campaign – and it seems that’s what he’s doing.
All this is setting up a clash of the titan…and Mike Pompeo.
Now,
to point out that Mike Pompeo’s chances of prevailing in the primary
are about the same as Kamala Harris winning “Border Czar of the Year” is
not to throw shade on him. Pompeo would make a fine president. I have
heard him speak on the Trump Doctrine, the America First foreign policy
that he helped execute and that the current crusty occupant of the White
House’s serial failures have fully vindicated. He was excellent,
demonstrating a deep and thorough understanding of the challenges we
face, which – contrary to our current pseudo-leadership’s view – are not
climate change or systemic racism. He’s very conservative. Despite him
being a West Pointer, should he be nominated we can all give him our
enthusiastic support. And if he is nominated over Trump, we can all ride
on our unicorns to the polling places to vote for him.
Pompeomania is just not a thing and isn’t going to be.
The
best argument for Pompeo is that, unlike Trump, he doesn’t scare the
unsatisfied suburban wine women who make up the Democrat base like Trump
does, but don’t worry – he’ll be literally Hitler
when the time comes. The argument against him is that he’s bland. Trump
oozes charisma (and, to leftists and cruise ship cons, its opposite)
while Mike Pompeo inspires, at best, “Well, I guess he’s okay. Yawn.”
To
want a real primary challenge is not the throw shade on Trump either. A
real campaign will sharpen Trump, hone him, and get him ready for a
real fight, be it against Kamala or someone remotely competent.
This
should not be a coronation. Trump has to earn his right to make his
Grover Cleveland move. That means a real primary with a real challenger,
not a media-driven, toobinesque vanity run by some Never Trump doofus
like Larry Hogan or the Beltway Cowgirl, who will have nothing to do
after being tossed from office next year.
We saw what not having a challenge did to Hillary.
She was out-of-shape, soft, unready, and unprepared. Trump needs to go
into the general with momentum, the momentum one gets from crushing his
primary opponents. And Trump thrives on competition – if you want him to
win the general in 2024, then you want him to spar hard in the primary.
Trump has to work out some kinks in his delivery. As Byron York observed,
at a recent rally he had the crowd rocking when he was roasting
President * over his myriad failures, from the border to Afghanistan to
inflation and beyond. Yet, when Trump started going on and on about 2020
in excruciating detail, the rally got off to a flying stop.
If
his campaign is about relitigating the last one, we lose. We all know
2020 was rigged. I was in Nevada lawyering for the president in the
aftermath, so I saw the traditional fraud, the unlawful rule changes,
the zillionaires’ ”donations” to government election agencies, and the
informal rigging of the media and corporations in 2020. But that’s the
past; the 2020 fight is over. The only thing I want to hear about it is
how Ronna McDaniel is preparing – with lots of lawyers and lots of money
– for the fight in 2024, because her inexcusable failure to prepare for
the legal fights in the half-dozen blue cities where the shenanigans
took place caused that fiasco. The Arizona audit revealed a bunch of
corruption. Great. What is the name of the GOP law firm currently filing
lawsuits in Arizona to fix those issues? Tumbleweeds.
And they are boring tumbleweeds. A boring Trump is a
losing Trump, and talking about 2020 won’t win is a single new voter,
Conversely, the Democrats whining like little female doggies over the
January 6th insignificant “insurrection” is their own losing tangent.
Fix the problems, then talk about how Democrats suck. There’s your
winning strategy.
We also need assurance that Trump has fixed his personnel
problems. The fact that Ronna McDaniel is still around after botching
the election integrity fight for him is unsettling. But the fact that,
towards the end, he hired solid folks, including Mike Pompeo, is
hopeful. It would be good to see Pompeo ask Trump in a debate why he
didn’t fire Tony Fauci and Chris Wray – and for Trump to answer “I
should have, and I learned that lesson. No slack during Trump 2.0!”
Oh, hell to the yeah!
Bringing
up tough questions and having Trump address them is the most important
reason we need a primary challenge, even one that’s relatively hopeless.
We need Trump to confront his mistakes and assure us he’s learned is
lessons. The guy accomplished amazing things even with the entire
establishment against him and despite his self-inflicted wounds. We
can’t assuage the establishment’s fury, but imagine what he will do with
fewer own-goals. And imagine how angry the establishment hacks will be
when he beats them again.
Trump is likely to triumph in
the end, but he also needs to be circumspect. He could crush Pompeo like
a bug if he wished, with the cutting invective that put the gooey likes
of Jeb! away in 2016. But he’s not the outsider this time. Like it or
not, Trump is the insider, the voice of the GOP base, and now he has to
build the movement and reinforce party rather than just lay waste. He
needs to thread the needle and prevail over Pompeo and any other
non-Conservative, Inc., candidates without leaving them smoking craters.
Save the nukes for the Liz Cheneys.
The fact is that
2024 is neither 2016 nor 2020. This third campaign needs to be
different. So, if you want to see Trump win in 2024, bring on the
challengers.
Washington -- Several years ago, while perusing material for my
favorite department of "The American Spectator," the Current Wisdom, I
came across an obvious lie perpetrated by Terry McAuliffe, this season's
Democratic candidate for governor of Virginia. It was a pretty bold
lie, too, and he was quite proud of it as you will see.
The
Current Wisdom is a department of "The American Spectator" that
includes quotations that are obviously foolish but rarely out-and-out
lies. This time the quote in question was an out-and-out lie. It was
also quite foolish, but more to the point it was a lie, and it was
perpetrated by the future governor of the great state of Virginia who
now hopes to serve yet again. His opponent is Glenn Youngkin, and he
better be on his toes with this Democratic opponent who seems to be
getting desperate in his race with Youngkin.
On page 58 of his
2007 memoir, "What A Party! My Life Among Democrats: Presidents,
Candidates, Donors, Activists, Alligators and Other Wild Animals,"
McAuliffe wrote that in past issues, "The American Spectator" published
articles "alleging" that Bill Clinton "ordered the murder of political
opponents." I very politely asked him during a chance encounter in the
green room of MSNBC where I might find the errant quote or quotes. Which
issue was it in? I then followed up with a letter to Terry. (And I
think I might call him Terry. After all, he ended our correspondence
calling me Bob.) Remember, I edit "The American Spectator," and if any
of our aggressive young editors are pulling a fast one on me, I would
want to know. Moreover, murder is a crime even in Arkansas.
By the way, there was another lie in my long-going
correspondence with Terry. On July 11, 2007, he accused us at "The
American Spectator" of taking "under-the-table money from an
ultraconservative named Richard Mellon Scaife and used it to send
reporters out to do just enough digging to give the veneer of truth to
wild, unfounded charges." What nonsense! Seth Lipsky, the founder and
editor of the "New York Sun," has called "The American Spectator"
probably the most thoroughly investigated magazine in the country
(thanks to Terry's friends, the Clintons), and we were never
investigated for taking money "under the table," or for that matter,
murder. He then prattled on about his "homeland of Ireland." Actually,
he was born in Syracuse, and he assumed the posture of a schoolmarm in
lecturing me on the stylistic elements of a paragraph. In as much as I
doubt he even wrote his memoirs, I would not go into such issues of
grammar with me.
For that matter, concerning the outcome of our
investigation with the federal government and Bill's outcome with his
investigation with the federal government, I would caution Terry to
follow another course. At the Spectator, we at least ended the
investigation hearing the word "exoneration" directed at us. That was a
word that the Clintons have never heard directed at them, and Bill ended
up paying tens of thousands of dollars in fines. He had his law license
suspended for five years, and he was impeached before the Senate let
him off the hook.
But back to Terry. Why would a public figure lie about a
matter so easily verified? "The American Spectator" is a magazine easily
accessed in many public libraries, starting with the Library of
Congress. Anyone seeking to verify what we have said about Bill or
Hillary merely has to go to a local library and look up our back issues.
In fact, we provide a yearly index at the back of every bound issue.
Moreover, if we suggested a public figure of Bill Clinton's stature was
ordering murders, I am sure there would be hell to pay. I would think
the Secret Service would have paid me a visit long ago. As I said
before, Terry McAuliffe has obviously lied, but why would he tell such a
whopper?
I think it is because Democrats such as Terry lie all
the time. They trade in a regular discourse of lies, and their
supporters are used to it. They probably believe his lies. So, Glenn
Youngkin had best get used to Terry's lying. I would suggest that every
time Terry tells a lie, Youngkin responds with, "There you go again."
That line has a familiar ring to it, no?
