Cyberherbalist's Blog

Greta “How dare you?” Thunberg recently came into criticism by President Donald Trump, in which he tweeted:

And of course he was instantly vilified.

This is “bullying”?  Don’t think so.

Remember the uproar over the Covington kid who got vilified by media and politicians just because he stood smiling uncertainly at a native American “elder” who was beating a drum in his face for no reason that the teenager could determine at the time?  All those Democrat politicians had no problem whatsoever bullying a teenager who hadn’t gone searching for the limelight, who wasn’t even an activist, and whose only offense was to stand there?  Now THAT was bullying.  Joe Biden needs to look up the meaning of the word.  And apparently so do a number of other self-serving politicians and media hacks.

An acquaintance of mine posted on Facebook:

Whether or not you agree with Trump or Greta Thunberg, for the president of the United States to attack a 16 girl (who can’t even vote in the US) is really inappropriate.

I tried to refrain from responding, but I couldn’t help myself. So I wrote:

Yeah I read his tweets. Calling those “attacks” kind of stretches the definition past sensibility. And Greta didn’t mind, apparently. She incorporated his tweets into her Twitter bio. Which is kind of classy of her, IMHO.

To which he responded:

So, that makes it all OK?

And I say:

Of course it does. If she were some high school child writing a letter to the President of the United States (or some other head of state) expressing her opinion, however well- or ill-informed, she would and should expect nothing more than a respectful “thank you for your thoughts” letter back. But that’s not what is happening here. However sincere she is about what she is being induced to say, this is not just Greta Thunberg expressing her personal opinion. This is a well-financed and highly organized political campaign — and Greta is being used by her parents and others as a front person for a point of view.

She does not get to stand in front of the world shouting “How dare you!?” and then expect immunity from response. And Trump’s response was extremely mild. I would have responded “No, how dare YOU?! Go home, finish growing up, and come back when you have something of your own to say and not what others are whispering in your ear.”

Do you know what people have told me, a nearly 70-year old college educated man, when I have expressed an opinion on anthropogenic climate change? “Shut up, you don’t know what you’re talking about.” And yet a 16 year old girl who hasn’t even finished high school gets to shout “How dare you!” to the world and everyone is expected to say “Oh, isn’t that sweet!” I don’t think so.

While she has every right to speak up in public in the manner she has spoken, by doing so she has shed the anonymity and the shield of tolerance for youth that she would otherwise have rightly expected. But I don’t think she expects complacency in response to her remarks. By the evidence, she expects and welcomes criticism. And that is totally appropriate.

I do think that Greta is being shamefully used by people who do not have her best interests at heart. If I had a child who suffered from Asperger syndrome, I would not be tossing her out into the tensions of global discourse like they have at such a young age. It is at least borderline child abuse, in my opinion.

In one news source, The Guardian, there appears the following about the leaked Hillary Clinton emails:

The releases were highly damaging to Clinton, and US intelligence officials now believe they were hacked by Russia and passed to WikiLeaks to boost Trump’s bid for the White House. Assange has repeatedly declined to be drawn on the source of the hacked emails he published.

Roger Stone, a longtime Republican operative and associate of Trump, said in August that he had been in communication with Assange over an “October surprise” to foil Clinton. WikiLeaks began publishing emails hacked from the Democratic National Committee and the email account of Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, in October.

It is impossible to know how much the email disclosures affected the outcome of the race, but there is little doubt the revelations harmed Clinton’s prospects during the crucial last weeks of the campaign.

Well, boo hoo.  I happen to believe that the emails made no material difference in the final outcome, but what if they had?

What would rather have, an elected President who had come to the office through dealing illegitimately with an opponent, or knowledge that revealed her venality and that contributed to her loss?  The Democrats are whining like nobody’s business over the leaks, and blaming them for the loss, but why the hell are they doing that instead of doing what they should be doing?  Ask yourself if they are more disturbed over their bad behavior, or disturbed that their bad behavior was found out.  Trust me, it’s the latter, not the former.  They are not in the least ashamed of their behavior.

Now go tell me that Trump is deplorable.  At least he has the grace to let it all hang out so that everyone knows what he thinks, warts and all.  Thank goodness nobody has managed to pry his Twitter account out of his hands.

Mind you, I still think that the FBI and CIA or whatever alphabet soup agency is in charge of such things will thoroughly investigate how the Russians managed to hack Clinton’s emails.  And I’d like to know what Roger Stone had been talking to Mr. Assange about, and if he had been involved in the hacking or merely knew about it.  But I can pretty much guarantee you that the reason the Russians could provide the emails to WikiLeaks is because of Clinton’s own nonchalant and incompetent disregard for security in her email servers.  Which is another good reason to regard her as too much of a security risk to be President.