Sarah Hoyt — Perv Or Political Menace?

Another post in a couple of hours, but it’s been born in upon me that I should do a little promo for A Few Good Men, which, as far as I can tell has a hard release date: today!

So…

A Few Good Men is the third book set in the Darkship continuum, but it’s not in the sequence.  As a main, voice, character, it has the — er — older brother of Max Keeva, who is killed in Darkship Thieves.

It can be read as a stand alone, and in fact I made sure some of my betas had not read Darkship.

Some men are born revolutionaries; some have revolution thrust upon them; and some find themselves becoming the pivot of long-simmering resistance and rebellion and joining the greater cause for the sake of those they must protect.
In a world in which “Good Man” means totalitarian ruler, no one could be less prepared for the position than Lucius Keeva. Unexpectedly released from prison after more than a decade imprisonment, he finds himself at risk from both his own class and the forces that would overthrow them. His only hope of survival lies with a notoriously unstable character, Nat Remy, and the organization he belongs to. Lucius Keeva would much rather not involve himself with the armed rabble that are The Sons of Liberty, much less the mystical and strange Usaian religion to which they belong. But they and the revolution they dream of are his only hope of protecting himself and the people entrusted to him.
It had a good review at Gay Patriot (though there’s some spoilering in it — it’s almost impossible to do a review without some spoilering.)
This book will be followed up by a series of sequels in different voices, which tell the story of the various revolutions around the Earth, to end twenty five years later (probably) as things start to stabilize.  The next book is Through Fire, told by the lovely Zen(obia) Sienna, who appears in Darkship Renegades.  The next book of Darkships is Darkship Revenge, which the lovely (and rather scary) Athena Hera Sinistra has started dictating in my mind (and she’s not patient at all.)
In those panels twenty years after my death that ask Sarah A. Hoyt, threat or menace? this is the book they’ll say started their horrible suspicions of me.  Shouldn’t you start studying for the panels?
afewgoodmenbookmark

141 responses to “Sarah Hoyt — Perv Or Political Menace?

  1. BobtheRegisterredFool

    I can assure you, I’ve long had the information needed to build that case against you. I only needed you to ask.

    In summary:
    a) I am a jerk.
    b) I am a jerk.

    Always glad to help.

    That said, it isn’t at all clear that I will survive you by that long, much less have the energy to be that active.

  2. No, I will do as Heinlein’s detractors do and make stuff up — except for the things I pull out of context or Dowdify.

  3. Why can’t you be both? Or invent a third way, political perversion. The campaign season would be MUCH improved with ball gags, in my opinion.

    • Well, I suspect the answer WOULD be “yes.”

    • Wayne Blackburn

      And floggers.

      • Fifty Shades of Politics.

        I LIKE it.

        • All right, but what’s the safe word?

          • That is what is wrong with politics– there is NO safe word.

          • Used to be “I’m voting you bastages out. Now, I think, due to fraud, there is NO safe word.

            • BobtheRegisterredFool

              Four boxes.

              I’d note that historically, the United States has survived such levels of fraud in some portions of the country. Take a look at the Electoral Votes for JFK< FDR, and WW. It is not clear to me that the currect case id necessarily significantly different.

              • It’s not “in certain areas.”

                • Fraud was seen in almost every State by citizens, but it wasn’t investigated so by their lights, it didn’t happen.

                  • BobtheRegisterredFool

                    I don’t see much difference between drawing one big box around the south, and drawing a bunch of smaller boxes around the big cities.

                    Either way, you can only hope to be able to trust your own local vote, if and only if, you’ve made the effort to ensure that it is honest, and you know that this effort was successful.

                    Democrats will be Democrats. The Leopard’s spots may be the same.

                    • Bob
                      I don’t live in a big city. The fraud HERE was massive.

                    • I don’t live in a BIG city either– we do have around 50,000 people, but I don’t consider that big after living in cities with a half million to a million.

                    • I thought you lived in Colorado Springs? I always thought that was big, what is the population?

                    • Um… I don’t remember the last count, but it’s not a “big city” enough for corruption. I think the count is something like 150k people — and most of them are military.

                    • BobtheRegisterredFool

                      Sarah,
                      Didn’t you say that the Druggie faction is fairly big in your area? I’d expect them to end up objectively pro-Democrat. (They are kind of natural allies. The Democrats might provide leaning on law enforcement services, and the Druggies providing anything for a fix. Neglecting issues of outright mental impairment.)
                      Cyn,
                      I’d suggest, assuming my memories of you being in the South are correct, that it is possible that the political technicians in your area might have organizational continuity with the era when they were supporting Night Rides, and so forth.
                      More generally, the factions of the political technicians are important. (I’m talking about the ‘middle managers’, movers and shakers, and hardcore loyalist party members who carry out campaigns.) If a single local faction has a monopoly, or if the factions can set up a trust, you get fixed elections. If you don’t know their political ancestry, you cannot entirely judge the political factions they form. Sometimes the ancestry mirrors blood, and sometimes it is a lineage from master to apprentice.
                      Ideally, there are two healthy parties, equally attractive to the locals, and they split the local factions between them. Then, if one pays close attention, one can hope, as a voter, to keep the factions fighting too much to get up to much mischief.
                      Clean elections start at the local level. So do dirty ones. If the consensus of the local balance of power is for fixing the election, it will be fixed. See all the confederate veterans after the Feds pulled out, and they’d run off or murdered everyone who wanted to make waves.

                    • No, I am from the West — Nevada. Plus one party is more organized than the other party. Also, we use electronic voting machines. I believe we need to go back to paper ballots (not punch cards) because I can see at least two or three ways to screw up the votes with a machine — In LV many voters claimed they voted for one candidate (R), but it kept resetting to the other candidate (D). When they asked for help, they were told that it was all in their heads. The specific voter demanded another machine– so if you weren’t checking your votes (three times to do it), you could be voting for the opposite of what you wanted. By the way the software was not handled by both parties… I think (I could be wrong) that it was handled by a technician that services the machines.

                    • She’s not in the South.
                      The druggie population is big in MANITOU SPRINGS, where I used to live — pop about 5k people.

                      Colorado Springs is “Solid republican.”

                      Look, let’s not kid ourselves. One in four people coming in to vote was told they’d already voted by mail. Some said they’d never asked for mail-in ballot. Others had but said they hadn’t received it. SOME were allowed to vote Provisionally, but those aren’t even opened unless it shows that you didn’t vote. And if someone voted for you — you voted.

                      People poll watching in Denver said those proportions were reversed.

                      The fraud was unspeakably massive and widespread. SORRY. It is what it is. Nothing we can do, now. The machine is in place. Clinton 16 is a shoe in.

                      Unless the unspeakable happens.

                    • Wayne Blackburn

                      And the RNC keeps honoring an agreement they signed something like 20 years ago NOT to present accusations of vote fraud. O.M.F.G.

                    • OMFG is right– I try not to talk about it too much because it gets me raging mad. Not good for my health.

                    • Right beside you Cyn. And getting both of us raging mad at the same time is oh, so bad.

                    • You made me laugh–

                    • Oh and Bob? A few of the Southerners after the Civil War did come to NV. But they were isolationists — they wanted nothing to do with the government of that time.

                    • I would consider 50K big, there are only 5 cities in my entire state over 50K, and the closest one to me is 8 hours away. My entire COUNTY has less than 50K in it.

                    • BobtheRegisterredFool

                      If the State government is particularly crooked, it can be pretty easy to mess with your local election system if you aren’t right on top of it.

                      All I know is that the elections in my state, looked fairly clean to me.

                      It is quite possible that there was fixing, just that I haven’t been paying attention well enough to catch it. Between my state government’s historical complicity in political murders, and and the apparent strong degree of continuity in the state Democratic party between that period and now, I do not have the highest degree of trust in them.

                      I don’t fully trust state and local Republican organizations either. I do recognize that my reluctance to favor other organizations gives me little leverage over them, and that this is a bad thing as far as keeping them honest goes.

                      Corruption is a human systems thing, and despite my longstanding interest in human systems, I am probably quite poor at following such things.

                      Clinton 2016 is more likely to end up Pat Buckman 2020.

                      Cyn,
                      I would guess that some of those would have been those referred to as scalawags. Those who were run off for not complying.
                      Hmm… I’ve heard from various places that the development of Las Vegas was heavily influenced by organized crime. If so, it could’ve easily picked up a problematic culture of political technicians from some of the big northern cities by way of the mob. (Especially considering the apparent organized crime affinity/portfolio of the Democrat Party.)

                    • Bob– Actually the mob were very strict at keeping the peace in conjunction with the Sheriff. (I met the granddaughter of that Sheriff–she was of all things a professor of history and her aspect was Nevada). Las Vegas was a part of the Arizona territory until Nevada became a State– (1864–battleborn state). Anyway, a lot of the rurals are still unhappy about LV becoming a part of the State.

                      During Mob rule, you were never rude, you didn’t touch the girls, and you didn’t try to cheat or steal. If you did the Sheriff might find you in the desert dead with your legs broken. Or you would be on the next train with a do-not-come-back. They didn’t try to influence the votes. BTW brothels and gambling were already legal in NV before Bugsy became the center of mob activity in LV, which is why he had headquarters in Los Angeles and Las Vegas. ;-)

                      No, the machine today is the Chicago Democratic machine imported from Chicago Obama’s machine. We have a lot of illegals, mostly in the cities– LV, Reno, and Carson City. The same community organizers (I think ACORN) that pushed Obama were being prosecuted before 2008 for illegal vote registration in LV. They changed tactics by getting one of their organizers to start a non-profit community organizer group in LV. The whole thing was forgotten– sadly.

                      Just a few years ago (about ten –maybe 2001) the governor tried to push through a budget that would add more taxes to corporations and the people. He was stopped by the legislature. The outrage across the State happened when he walked it to the State Supreme Court and overturned the legislature’s vote. The Supreme Court in our part of the world is NOT appointed. They were voted out one by one. Only one stayed because he recanted his decision. That one recant changed the decision.

                      So what is so different seven years later? Seven years of illegal immigration of people who are not getting language or civic lessons and who are illegally registered for voting by ACORN and its affiliates.

                    • Plus do not believe Harry Reid’s biography. I have been in that little town (Stagecouch). There is no way in hell that he thumbed a ride from there to LV to go to school every day. It is too far, too isolated, and too hot. The temps there can get up to 110 degrees in the summer. Also, there have been accusations of police corruption when he was a police officer in LV. Actually to be fair, Clark County– when I was there the police forces in the valley were Clark County, Henderson, and North LV. (not counting NHP). Anyway– Clark County and North LV police are still being charged of corruption. Henderson tries to keep their image very very clean.

                    • Bob,
                      Organized crime and Harry Reid, how could you possibly believe they are related?

                      The elections in my state were fairly clean also (although there were murmurs of fraud in 2010 primaries in my COUNTY), but then it swings so hard Republican that fraud would have to be so MASSIVE as to be ridiculous to make a difference. Quick rule of thumb, if there is over a thirty point margin between candidates fraud isn’t really feasable on a statewide level.(actually the margin would have to be much lower than this for it to be feasable) At least two of the neighboring states however (Washington and Nevada) had very BLATANT voter fraud, so much so that the elected benefieciaries of it are so arrogant as to only give a pro forma denial, not even attempting to make their supporters much less thier detractors believe ‘it ain’t so.’

            • Even before that, it was “Listen to us, the people, or the next time you show up, we’ll hang you from the sycamore tree.”, but we haven’t done that in a hundred years. Coincidentally, our country has been going to h*ll for a hundred years…

    • Choke, Gasp, Splutter!

      Motion seconded!

  4. I should be receiving this book on the 7th of March, which means I won’t be writing while reading this book. ;-) Dang it– I need excuses to write, not excuses not to write.

  5. Did you realize you have been declared a minority Hispanic? I read it on Ace of Spades. Please write something on what you think of that. I have Spanish roots (however, I do not claim to be Hispanic) but I thought Portugal and Spain had a little anti-each other thing going on. Am I wrong, or was that just in the 1500’s?

    • Your not wrong, and she has written about it multiple times if you browse some of her back posts (possibly more in comments than the actual posts).

      I believe it was even mentioned in the comments yesterday.

    • Oh no. Spaniards — except my friends, of course — are the scum of the Earth. Every Portuguese is born knowing that.

      I will do a post about it some time. First of all, it’s funny how we’re now classing cultures as races.

      As culture — much as I hate to admit it — Portugal is no more different than some regions of Spain from “Standard Spanish culture.” So, if you’re going to do that, this is “sensible” — note I’m not saying to do that.

      Portuguese have always been considered “Latino” if not Hispanic, hence the protests that wasshername (un)Wise Latina is NOT the first Latino on the court, but it was Cardozo, a Portuguese of Jewish ancestry.

      Now, onto the part where this edges into race: my kids are often mistaken for… Mexican. This is mind boggling considering that younger son looks IF ANYTHING like a refugee from a Yeshiva (yesterday he was wearing a Fedora because of the snow, and it just accentuated the look) and older son looks like a Neanderthal. What neither of them looks like is Mexican.

      On the other hand, both tan rather easily and darker than I do, and older son has straight hair (actually wavy, but at the level he cuts it, it looks straight) that is darker than either his father’s or mine. HOWEVER their tan-color is Mediterranean/olive NOT the tone of the Mexicans we get in this region.

      What this means: people are starting to fracture ever finer, the result of privileging minute differences. So we’re going back to eighteenth century BRITISH standards, where anyone who could tan was a different “race”: Portuguese, Spaniards, Greeks, Italians…

      Of course, from making people another “race” to determining they’re inferior and should be eliminated, it’s a very small step.

      It might SEEM like right now privileging “darker skin” is good for those of us who’ve been working on a tan for generations. But in the end, this always turns against one.

      • I was in a jury pool just yesterday. The defendant was the only black in the room (rural Texas). Before I found out the defendant was black, I put down my race as “human”. Dunno if that was why I wasn’t chosen or if it was because someone with my same last name had voted “not guilty” on a non-violent non-crime a couple years ago, but I obviously wasn’t chosen.

        • I used to put down human. Drove school administrators INSANE. And a census worker actually started crying…

          • More and more, I’m coming to see “race” as a non-sensical category. The biological definition of race is individuals that can interbreed. Anything at a finer level than that is just stupid. Now, culture is a category that makes a lot more sense to me, but you can’t just look at someone and see their culture…even a last name isn’t going to tell you much for certain, since someone can be 1/32 some heritage and have the last name.

            My sister and I both went to a very international college, and she had a couple of good friends who were black but from France. Their French heritage was far more significant than their skin color.

            I wish people would just start refusing to play the government’s race game. They’re only perpetuating the past, not ameliorating it.

            • Joel, as long as there are rents to seek some people will always play.

            • BobtheRegisterredFool

              I’m half tempted to fill out the race or ethnic Identification thing as ‘Citizen of This Great Republic’, because that is as close to fitting as anything.

              Past Great Republics, like the Senate and People of Rome, before they screwed things up, and the Most Serene Republic of Venice, who I suspect also screwed up at some point, are part of my cultural heritage.

              Main reason I won’t is that I have protective desires towards citizens and lawful residents of This Great Republic, and I don’t want to conflate race with any of that, to any degree. I prefer keeping race as something I don’t care about to any great extant.

              • Middle school, Robert invited a friend to come over and spend the day. He told me all about this kid: what he read, what he liked to eat, that he was a great chess player, etc…

                What didn’t he tell me? That the kid was black. Apparently kid (who remained his friend until he moved from the area) also didn’t think race was something to mention to his mom.

                I’m going to guess they were right, except at the moment I opened the door, the two adults looked at each other like “oh.” and then we both grinned and shook our heads.

                Kids played at each other’s house for … three? years. My son still thinks this kid’s mom and I were crazy for being surprised at their not mentioning it. “So? Do I tell you if my friends are blond, too?”

                That’s about how much attention he pays to race. And that’s about right.

                (Except when younger son describes some friend I’m supposed to meet somewhere to give a book/collect a book while kid is in class and tells me EVERYTHING except race. I mean, seriously.)

                • (Except when younger son describes some friend I’m supposed to meet somewhere to give a book/collect a book while kid is in class and tells me EVERYTHING except race. I mean, seriously.)

                  I suspect this could possibly a detrimental sideeffect of the PC crap we have shoved down our throats every day. It’s not acceptable to identify somebody by their race Unless of course you are identifying yourself as being of the same race, that race isn’t white, and regardless of how many of your ancestors were NOT of that race.

                • Wayne Blackburn

                  Now, it’s entirely possible I would do the same thing, but more because I would forget that the person I was giving a description to had not seen the person I was describing. Even while describing them.
                  Them: “You didn’t tell me he was black.”
                  Me: “Oh, duh. I forgot the ‘what they look like’ part.”

                  • Oh, I’ll get the “He’s tall, and has curly hair.”
                    I don’t think it’s political correctness, partly because… well… the same reason if there’s two detergents in same price range and one says “green” or “Eco-conscious” or “Earth-friendly” we buy THE OTHER ONE. My kids grew up with this stuff and kneejerk the other way (sometimes very jerk.)

                    It’s more they HONESTLY don’t think about it. Being considered Hispanic (and Robert, briefly, black — you don’t want to know) by their classmates when they’re not Mexican (which is what they mean by Hispanic here, most of the time) just made them less likely to notice race.

                    • Wayne Blackburn

                      Thing is, growing up, I could count on my fingers the number of black people I knew, and my parents knew all of them first, so there was no chance that I would think it was necessary.

                      This is also why I know that it’s the culture that matters, and not the race. The absolute WORST of the ones I knew, I would trust my children with any day (one of them, maybe not my money – he was a drunk). After I met people from slum-like areas, I found out how different people can be, and what kinds of attitudes they can cultivate when raised to think certain types of people are hateful.

                      The above jumbled paragraph brought to you by the state of confusion. If you can decipher it, please seek counseling. :-)

                    • In re: Your middle paragraph

                      Black Rednecks and White Liberals is a collection of six essays by Thomas Sowell. The collection, published in 2005, explores various aspects of race and culture, both in the United States and abroad.

                      [SNIP]

                      The title essay is based on Sowell’s thesis about the origins of the “black ghetto” culture.

                      Sowell argues that the black ghetto culture, which is claimed to be “authentic black culture”, is historically neither authentic nor black in origin. Instead, Sowell argues that the black ghetto culture is in fact a relic of a highly dysfunctional white southern redneck culture which existed during the antebellum South. This culture came, in turn, from the “Cracker culture” of the North Britons and Scots-Irish who migrated from the generally lawless border regions of Britain.

                      Sowell gives a number of examples that he regards as supporting the lineage, e.g.,

                      an aversion to work, proneness to violence, neglect of education, sexual promiscuity, improvidence, drunkenness, lack of entrepreneurship,… and a style of religious oratory marked by strident rhetoric, unbridled emotions, and flamboyant imagery.

                      Sowell further argues that this “culture” did not exist uniformly among blacks, especially those considered “free persons of color”, those trained in schools operated by people immersed in New England culture (who were, in turn, passing that culture to black students, specifically the need for a strong work ethic), and black immigrants from Caribbean islands (where slavery also existed). His essay argues that, among those groups, educational statistics were on par with similarly-trained whites (and higher than southern whites in general), and continued on an upward trend until the advent of multiculturalism.
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Rednecks_and_White_Liberals

                    • Apparently I need counseling, because it made perfect sense to me. ;)

          • I put down “American.”

          • I’ve heard that if you put down human, they just put you down as whatever your neighbors are.

            • In Manitou Springs????

              Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s official, the census lists me as “Nuts.”

              • LOL!!! Well, it’s not like you live in Boulder, fercryinoutloud. There’s a little “town” in New Mexico, about 10 miles from Alamogordo called “La Luz” that is filled mostly with 1940’s travel trailers. It is home to more certifiable people than Roswell and Alamogordo combined. It doesn’t cause anyone else trouble, but having an address in La Luz will guarantee you can’t get a job at the local bank… 8^)

        • You know you cannot buy a new gun without stating your race? That is one of the questions on the form you are required to fill out by federal law, and a FFL is prohibited from selling you a gun if you do not.

          • So claim you are Cherokee, or black, or whatever. How, exactly, will they prove you wrong?

            • I have a CCW, so I don’t have to fill out all the paperwork everytime, but yes if they go back through past forms they would find multiple races claimed :)

            • I just have problems with those in the government calling others racist, and then turning around and requiring to know your race before you can buy something.

      • Shouldn’t that have been “If I were still Portuguese I would say, “. Spaniards — except my friends, of course — are the scum of the Earth. Every Portuguese is born knowing that.””

        • Well, it was early indoctrination which is hard to avoid. For instance, I DO hate the sound of Spanish… ;) a) it’s not a real language. b)They mispronounce Portuguese even worse than Italians do. :D

          • The fun thing about Spanish is that: a) if you include all the common words that are only common in certain Spanish-speaking countries, the language suddenly balloons to almost as many vocabulary items as English, and b) you can’t get all those extra vocab items without buying slang dictionaries or running a Google search, because all the dictionaries in this country are marketed toward kids taking Spanish classes.

            Also, if you can’t figure out what the word means from the Latin root (either by way of worn-down Camp Latin or borrowed French), it’s probably derived from Arabic or Visigothic words, with the odd helping of Basque. Which is why Spanish also reminds me a lot of English. Unfortunately, Spanish teachers don’t tend to let you know these things, and it’s hard (in this country) to get an etymological dictionary of any language that’s not English.

            But Portuguese seems lots of fun too, albeit I don’t have much occasion to run across it (except when I’m using Google Brazil to get around our localized Google Books’ limitations).

            • My second-year Spanish teacher in college had such a lisp it was hard to understand her when she spoke English. That lisp totally disappeared when she spoke Spanish. Puzzle!

              • THAT is weird, because Castellano Spanish IS lispy.

                OTOH I stutter in Italian. ONLY in Italian. Go figure.

                • That is very interesting. My granddaughter is studying neuroscience because she learned started learning ASL in 4th grade and in high school she wanted to be an MD so she was doing rounds at a San Antonio hospital and did some translating for patients to docs. She realized she used a different section of her brain while doing that than she did just doing the ASL so she wants to find out what is going on with that. Stuttering in a different language would be a good study also.

                • Probably because you are sitting on your hands ;-)

                • accordingtohoyt | March 5, 2013 at 6:53 pm | Reply
                  > THAT is weird, because Castellano Spanish IS lispy.

                  Indeed — motorcycle racer Jorge Lorenzo’s name is apparently pronounced “HOR-hay LORE-en-tho”.

                  If I ever meet him, I want to see how he responds to being called “George”. :)

              • BobtheRegisterredFool

                Obnoxious language questions:

                Can I use the ‘e’ word for people with more than one surname in Portuguese? Like, ‘Bob Fool e Jerk’? Or ‘Jimmy Huissain e Tikrit?’

                Secondly, any pointers to some online dictionaries and grammars for Spanish and Portuguese? I don’t need excellent, the project/s in question want bastardized to mangled versions of the languages. Main things I’m interested in are free, and can pull off the internet rather than digging out of a library.

                I’ve studied Latin some, so I have a bit of a grasp of that sort of grammar.

                Thirdly, what sort of speaker would be the sort to object strongly to such bastardized versions of the languages. More or less without thinking, I’ve guessed some sort of blue blooded Castilian.

                • Um… you can, but it’s archaic, and usually only used in names that have become “ossified” as one name like that. For that reason, it’s usually an y. Mom is de Sousa y Silva.
                  The more common particle is de or da. My original name was Alice Maria da Silva Marques de Almeida. So, why change my first name? Because I hated it with a burning passion. It never felt like “mine” — also, frankly, it’s pronounced Uh-lease and I wasn’t ready to go by “Alice” pronounced in English. So I defaulted to the name I’d used for myself since 14. And dropped the da Silva pour cause.

                  Most Portuguese are insanely flattered that you try to speak Portuguese at all (at least on the continent.)

                  Sorry, no idea of courses. I’m teaching older son, but I’m doing it, myself.

                  Spaniards in general have trouble understanding non standard pronunciation or vocabulary. I used to think it was being stuck up, but it seems to be real — they just don’t “get” it unless properly spoken.

                  • BobtheRegisterredFool

                    The project is an extremely soft ‘alternate history’.

                    Back in day, the colonies had a vote on the official language. English won.

                    (Number two was German. I’ve wondered if this would have meant coming in on the side of the Germans in WWI, if it had won.)

                    Postulate that Spanish or Portuguese somehow wins, that the USA is formed and goes on to be a world power, and gets the chosen language spread.

                    Anyway, I’m currently thinking that my OCD tendencies would be happier if I studied the language a little, rather than google translate word salading things. Small irregularities can be language drift, and exposure to an extremely mutagenic environment. (I think that a dictionary and a grammar would be enough for the OCD. Google translate seems less useless than last time, and is saying de and da are of.)

                    Anyway, I have a person S, who was born into the Abel family. A series of adoptions, some irregular, results in also being a member of the Baker, Charlie and Delta families. For S, Portuguese is a prestige language coming from the America cognate. So, I can at least halfway justify S n Abel n Baker n Carlie n Delta with whichever permutation of blank, y, e, de or da for n strikes my fancy?

                    Thanks.

                    • No. You can’t. Sorry, the long names are usually through keeping the maternal names in the line Silva is mom’s, for me, and Marques is paternal grandmother.

                      If you’re looking for “belongs to” like al tikriti or whatever, you’d have “do” (belonging to for male “owning line” — i.e. finishing in an o or e) of da or o or a
                      For instance my dad’s name is Marques de Almeida, but the way he was known in the area was da Batateira (his great great grandmother sold potatoes.) And while my brother is Alvarim which is a rare name in Portugal (no, not a cognate of Alvaro, that’s Alvarinho. As far as I can tell it’s a cognate of Abraham, like Avrim. In fact it’s pronounced similarly) there was another Alvarim Almeida in the village (who, from build, etc, was likely a distant relative. Also, the village drunk, but that’s not germane) Therefore my brother was Alvarim Almeida, o Grande (the big one.)

                      I could see if you belonged to a family sideways being “dos” so and so, but not as a formal name. At least not if you’re keeping the culture semi-intact.

                    • “(Number two was German. I’ve wondered if this would have meant coming in on the side of the Germans in WWI, if it had won.)”

                      There was strong support for Germany within the German comunities with in the US, but Woodrow Wilson had other ideas ran on a platform of keeping us out of WWI then immediately got us into it. Espionage Act of 1917 was to squash descent.

  6. I have this friend who has one lesbian sister and loves stories with gay characters. She is also very liberal (big government and lots of rules all the way, as long as the rules are what she likes).

    I’m going to get her that book. She may buy it herself, on the strength of ‘gay hero’, but if she doesn’t I will give it to her. No guarantees she will read it, but it will be interesting to see what she will say if she does.

    • By the way, I am actually a bit worried about that plan. I have not tried to talk politics with her since Katrina and the New Orleans gun confiscation – she was very, very sure it was the only right thing to do. She is just too sure she’s on the side of the angels, I hate the idea of fighting with friends, and, as said, I don’t argue well since I get too angry too fast. And judging from the times our conversations have skirted these things, she does seem to have the usual views of people who do not think the way she does. We are uninformed and so forth… and she is a nice lady to have as a friend apart from this one issue, I would not like to lose her. I’m afraid I’m a coward when it comes to this. I’ll talk, but usually only with people who don’t seem to be particularly strongly positioned when it comes to their political opinions, those ones who don’t seem likely to condemn you, at least not totally, when they find you are actually one of their bad guys.

      But I guess I will do it anyway. The biggest risk is probably she will wander here if she reads the book and start following your blog, at least for a while, at which point it may be inevitable she will start to argue politics with me. Possibly here too.

      • BobtheRegisterredFool

        Well, you could always give her the spiel on why some Americans would think she was a white supremacist.

        • Might not go over very well :)

          Frankly, I think she’s one of those people who can’t be reached, at least not easily. She seems too comfortable with her world. Occasionally I do get the urge to try, at least a little, just to see if it’s possible, but since I do not have much faith it can be done I usually give up pretty fast. She is good company as long as we stay away from politics.

          It’s just one of those things I don’t understand, being wedded to some specific worldview so strongly one seems to reject all evidence against it, or even refuses to take an actual look at that evidence, and instead seems to try to force it on the world, whether it fits reality or not. I can see it in people, but I just plain don’t understand it. I theorize, but I don’t understand.

          • BobtheRegisterredFool

            Whereas I am a jerk.

            The ‘gun control is white supremacist’, and the whole ‘As an American, I can claim that my cultural background predisposes me to understanding Europe’s gun control policies as being code word white supremacist, and favoring the murder of minorities, and thus allows me to pretend confusion as to whether or not Europeans are mostly Nazis’ ideas are new to me. So, like a toddler with a new toy, I want to play with them all the time, regardless of how appropriate they are. Or when and where they are appropriate.

            I think I can explain a example from my own life that might help your research. My emotional baggage prevents me from seeing any utility in recreational drug use. There are many cleaner ways of killing myself. Like carefully setting myself on fire just enough to ensure death, but no so much as for it to be likely a fast one. I am deeply and fundamentally opposed to suicide anyway. There are many ways of maiming myself that I consider less crippling, not that I have any interest in that either. These perceptions are why I am unable contemplate the idea without distress, and am entirely incapable of of having my mind changed. As far as inflicting my worldview on others goes, I am happier and sleep better when I am able to forget that people use drugs recreationally.

            • I understand the allure of it… but not for me. I don’t like being out of control of my mind. I don’t even take drugs when prescribed — I don’t mean stuff like antibiotics, but I’d rather be in pain if endurable than take pain killers. Anti-estamines (sp) also have weird effects on me, like turning off the writing. So, I tend to pass on them too.

              But I do understand if people need them. And with illegal drugs, even, sometimes people are self medicating. I don’t like it, but I don’t have to like it. I’m not them.

            • I’m somewhat ambivalent to the issue of recreational drugs. On the one hand I’m of the libertarian mind set of ‘do whatever you want, as long as you leave me alone to do what I want.’ On the other hand I did most of them in my late teens, and know how detrimental they are and do believe society would be much better off without anybody using them. On the third hand obviously outlawing them isn’t very effective at getting rid of them. Then on the fourth hand those that argue we wouldn’t have drug related crime if drugs were legalized have been smoking something pretty potent. And… I think I’m officially out of hands now, so I’ll shut up.

              • Yep, there are those issues. My take is that if outlawing something doesn’t seem to work, you shouldn’t. People will seem to use drugs anyway, so trying to control them by making them illegal will just cost a lot of money, and make them seem alluring to those people who like to think they are rebelling against the society or something. Keep them legal, do the same which has been done to tobacco – which seems to have been working to an extent – keep pointing out the bad health effects, have some restrictions which protect those who don’t use (I remember the time when people smoked completely freely everywhere, and sorry, while I think people who want to do it should be allowed to do it I also really do like having some rules against doing it in public spaces, for one thing I rather enjoy being able to do something like use a bus without my eyes stinging and feeling kind of sick) and try to make them seem very, very uncool, something only losers use.

                Try different ways. Don’t keep on obstinately just trying harder when something doesn’t work.

                • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                  Grumble Grumble

                  So since “outlawing something that still happens is bad”, let’s just make murder legal. [Frown]

                  • Just ask them nicely not to kill you.

                    On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:17 AM, According To Hoyt wrote:

                    > ** > Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard commented: “Grumble Grumble So since > “outlawing something that still happens is bad”, let’s just make murder > legal. [Frown]” >

                  • I HAVE suggested this before.

                    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                      Yep, we all have lists of people we’d like to “put out of our misery”. [Wink]

                      However, in my thinking, society “outlaws” something because it thinks that the something is bad but nobody within the society thinks that “just outlawing it” will stop it from happening.

                      IMO to say that “outlawing it doesn’t work so let’s make it legal” is slopping thinking.

                      There may be better ways to handle a problem but *just* making it legal doesn’t make it “not a problem”.

                      IMO most “illegal” drugs are a problem for society, the users, and for people who are related/close to the users.

                      The “better ways” to handle the problem may well need the government saying “you will do this or else”.

                      How many times have we heard about crazy people causing problems because they stopped taking the meds that allowed them to function in society?

                      Sometimes society needs somebody to be told “take your meds or else”.

                    • No. Drugs is something the government is SINGULARLY ill suited to solve.
                      Look, most of the time the victim is the person doing drugs.
                      Forbidding drugs is closer to forbidding alcohol and let me tell you that did NOT work.
                      Marja is in the right of it. There is a secondary “hurts others” with drugs (and alcohol) in “while under the influence” but that’s best combated when the vice is in the open.
                      Murder there is no “secondary” it’s a primary issue.

                      And Heinlein talked of some Latin American country (don’t remember where. Grumbles?) that supposedly didn’t criminalize murder. THIS might even be preferable if your police work TRULY sucks — i.e. if the “doesn’t work” is massive. How much worse could Chicago get, for instance?

                      Anyway, murder was kept in check because of vengeance and blood feuds but also civil law suits for damages.

                    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                      Sarah, as a pipe smoker, I get seriously annoyed when I’m told that my smoking is worse than heroin usage for society.

                      Sorry but I’ve been involved in these “legalize hard drug” conversations before and too many want to ignore the real problems (for families of the users, and for society) of usage of hard drugs.

                      In a day of “anything goes morality”, the problems caused by usage of hard drugs won’t be solved by making them legal.

                      Too many morons (none here) will hamper any other way of dealing with the problem.

                    • Law and morality don’t meet. Sorry. At the extreme of that road lies Sharia. Law should JUST apply to what affects a significant number of other people. Abusing yourself is stupid. Abusing others is wrong.

                      BTW — tobacco… argh. Second hand smoke is a boondoogle. I suspect Marja has the same issues I have in that I genuinely have issues with smoke, but we’re a tiny minority. And even I went to college in classrooms where everyone smoked, at the same time, and it didn’t come close to killing me.

                      Even the dangers of FIRST hand tobacco use are greatly exaggerated — and that’s me speaking, who had to stop after a year, because I got pneumonia that wouldn’t quit. Unless you have a pre-existing condition and/or smoke the world (and some people try) you’re fine.

                      I’ve talked to speaker, and I do know that even pot is miles worse than tobacco. But Drak — it’s not just “we can’t stop it” it’s that despite the inordinate violations of civil rights, etc, to try to stop it, it was considered “normal” by my generation, let alone the ones after. (And no, never smoked it. Again, I like to know who’s driving this mind.)

                      I think we should legalize tobacco too… If a restaurant wants to allow smoking, then they should. These anti-smoking ordinances are for the birds. But then I think if you’re a legal adult, you should be allowed to drink. H*ll those dangers TOO are greatly exaggerated. I grew up in a country where everyone drank, usually from childhood (though my parents have retroactively re-written that. Never mind) and the number of alcoholics was no higher than here, and might be lower.

                    • I might make an Anarcho-Capitalist let. ;-)

                    • The problem with that Drak is that there are plenty of people in society that seem to think “just outlawing it,” will stop it from happening. Of course they usually think this of things that are still legal, not having the logical reasoning powers to deduce that since there are people who still do everything else that is outlawed, there will still be people willing to do whatever they want outlawed, after it is outlawed.

                    • I do find it somewhat contradictory that we are trying to legalize drugs, at the same time we are trying restrict tobacco use. I don’t smoke and don’t particularly like breathing secondhand smoke, and wouldn’t really have a problem with forbidding smoking in public places. IF ‘public places’ wasn’t used to describe all private businesses such as restuarants and bars, and forbidding smoking within X number of feet of the outside of such buildings is ridiculous. A lot of people like to smoke while they are drinking, for example, and outlawing smoking in bars can be detrimental to business. If as a bar owner I want to allow or not allow smoking in my establishment, that should be my choice, it is after all my business, and no one is required to patronize it, regardless of my decision.

                      You want to forbid smoking in courthouses, town halls, county jails, USFS Ranger Dist. admin. buildings, etc.; fine, they are government owned and truly public. Many of these people are required to enter, it is not an option, but leave the private sector to make their own individual decisions.

                    • BobtheRegisterredFool

                      One could argue that the real issue is the government insisting that the people in question are mentally competent.

                      If I become heated beyond the capacity for speech, which happens easily for this issue, that might go to ‘it is because the government won’t open zombie season.’ (Yes, Yes, I am very aware of just about every reason why this is a terrible idea. There is a reason the solutions I favor more are ones that I would describe as flawed compromises.)

                      My values on this seem to be way outside the norms for my society. ‘What I would want to happen, if it were me’ produces results that are not exactly viable plans that society would be willing to implement.

                  • Wayne Blackburn

                    I think there’s a case to be made that, in the case of drugs, making them illegal actually makes the problem worse, therefore, some other approach is needed.

                    Some areas have had some success by making PSAs that show the long-term effects of meth. There are probably other messages that would be effective, too.

                  • Heh. Keep that just to those parts which directly affect others (and actual laws preferentially mostly to the biggies). As said, I do like the fact that I can go out without having to endure tobacco smoke everywhere.

                    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                      Yep, “tobacco smoke” is EVIL. Hard drugs aren’t. [Sarcasm]

                      Sorry but as a pipe smoker, I try to be polite about my smoking *but* I get seriously annoyed at the idiots who seem to think “tobacco smoking” is so terrible while taking about legalizing hard drugs.

                      I suspect that any realistic study would show that usage of hard drugs like crack or heroin *even if legal* is a bigger problem for society than tobacco smoking.

                    • Wayne Blackburn

                      I suspect that any realistic study would show that usage of hard drugs like crack or heroin *even if legal* is a bigger problem for society than tobacco smoking.

                      See, the problem with that is that it’s going to be a bigger problem whether it’s legal or illegal. But there’s no reason to make the use of the drugs, in itself, illegal. Making it illegal to drive under the influence, making it an aggravating factor in other crimes, and workplaces banning the use of or coming to work under the influence of, is fine. But right now, all they are doing is enriching the police, often at the expense of people who are not actually involved (such as vehicle seizures from people who didn’t know that their passenger was carrying a roach in their wallet), and putting people in prison who were not doing anything to harm another person.

                      Without the activity itself being illegal, and licensing the sellers, a lot of secondary crime is reduced, as well. Add effective PSAs, and the overall damage can be significantly reduced.

                    • Yep. Exactly. Like, you know, hard drinking is much more of a problem than either tobacco or pot — but making it illegal just enriched the mob.

                    • Yep, but frankly, I don’t care much if you kill yourself by hard drugs next door provided you don’t end up doing something like burning the whole house down, or do anything else which directly affects me and my right to feel safe and (at least mostly) undisturbed in my home while doing so. But I was a child during the 60’s, and I remember hating, passionately, places with lots of cigarette smoke because it made me feel miserable, and back then it included everywhere so yes, I do think it was an actual problem because those smokers didn’t care about me or other people who did suffer from it. When it comes to smoking I do oppose the more strict rules being pushed now, people should have the right to smoke in their homes or anywhere else where that doesn’t mean I have to breathe the stuff – and I mean those times and places where I’d have to, if I need to do something like use public transportation in order to get to my job free smoking in them would mean I have to, whether I want to or not, or we worked in the same space and I would not be able to get away from it unless you stop smoking or I quit the job, but if you smoke somewhere I can choose to either enter or not, that’s your right.

                      I don’t see much point for putting somebody in jail from having something they use themselves, or share with a bunch of other addicts. Put them in jail if they do something because of it which would be punishable in any case, and keep the right to forbid them using, or to restrict their access or remove them from those places where other people would have to suffer from it. I guess when to do use that right I’d leave to be decided by the owners of those places, or by vote if we are talking about something like a town. Not the perfect solution, as far as I understand places like Freetown Christiania have given some problems to people living close to it, but nothing is perfect and since the current system really does not seem to work very well I think it would be about time to try something else.

                    • and that yep, but answer was to Drak…

                    • And to clarify, yes, I am a member of that minority whom tobacco smoke does make feel physically ill, at least if there is a lot of it. Kind of like a (mild, admittedly) hangover, combined with watering eyes and sometimes with some mild breathing problems.

                    • I just wanted to mention that cigarette smoke makes me ill. My hubby smoked for half of our marriage until I became ill and he stopped. I breath much better now.

                      He would smoke outside, but just having the smoke that close to me for long periods was hard. But, he tried to quit a few times and it was really hard for him to stop. He had been smoking since 18 (I suspect much longer than that).

                      When I was living in the barracks (in Pensacola– going to C school), one of my roommates dumped her ash tray under my pillow. I slept on it, and woke up with my eyes watering, my nose running, and feeling like I hadn’t slept at all. (We lived in a non-smoking room and she insisted on smoking in it. After a confrontation and she told me I couldn’t do anything. I explained what I could do using the UCMJ –I was mean. Anyway, this was her revenge.) Anway, I found the ashes and cigarettes and she was snickering.

                      I didn’t say anything but marched back down to the office and told them that she was smoking in the room and that she had put her ashes under my pillow. Also they had better move her out of the room– She was gone the next day. When I get a certain look on my face, people are really helpful. ;-)

                  • BobtheRegisterredFool

                    I’d argue that of the capital felonies, rape, arson and kidnapping are a better analogy than murder. With the first three, one could pretend to be stupid enough to think that the killings that often accompany the crime are committed only to avoid punishment, and that legalization would thereby prevent the killings.

                    More seriously, I would argue that a relaxation of law enforcement penalties for drug use would work out significantly better if rules on killing are also relaxed at the same time.

                    I think Paul may have seen how wild I can get on the subject of legalization, from my rants in politics back in the day.

                    • First off rape should be more stringently defined, ie going out and getting so drunk you don’t remember sleeping with the guy until you wake up in his bed the next morning is not rape, it is your own stupidity. Then with the exception of statuatory rape, it should carry a mandatory death sentence. (I would be willing to compromise on this and settle for mandatory castration, except I’m not sure how this would be applied to female rapists).

                      This could also be applied to killing someone, we already have a whole host of different categories of this; first-degree murder, second-degree murder, pre-meditated, aggravated homicide, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, etc. Justifiable homicide’s definition needs to be expanded greatly, all state’s should have laws like Texas where it is legal to kill someone who is stealing your property, etc. The for once I agree on the different degrees (although not always the definition of each degree) I agree that someone who walks in on their spouse in bed with someone else and kills one or both of them shouldn’t get the death penalty (whether they should be punished at all or this is justifiable homicide is up for debate) but I believe the serious out and out murders should carry a mandatory death sentence, and not 20 years on death row before it is carried out either.

              • We wouldn’t have drug use be a crime, of course… if it’s legalized ;)
                What I think is that we should treat it as alcohol. Stuff under the influence is still an issue.
                I don’t want them legalized NOW because I think a lot more young people will fall into addiction, since there’s nothing else for them.However, get the economy going and legalize them? No problem.

                (On a lot more young people — Portugal legalized in a slump. It’s bad.)

  7. Your books in this series are next on my reading list. So looking forward to a good read.

    I guess we all have our particular dislikes and/or disconnects from other groups of people, even within our own “culture.” Having lived all over the world, and traveled the rest of it (except for some communist countries and places that are dangerous because I am white skinned and female), I pretty much see people as, well, people. Some are great, some I wouldn’t spit on if they were on fire. The exception being, of course, those who would harm me and mine just for living. After all, I had nothing to do with being born who I am. Talk to God and my parents about that.

    I have never really understood the kind of hatred I see oozing out of humanity at the moment. I recognize it as a deeply imbeded tribal urge, but I don’t understand it. Probably because I tend to be a loner and prefer not to deal with people who either annoy me, bore me, or make me feel smothered by their neediness. (Shudder) I imagine, if I were in a science fiction or fantasy novel, I would be the crusty old character that lives alone some place uninhabitable so no one would come to visit.

    • In case it’s not obvious, it was a joke about Spaniards. While I will of course say things like “Being Portuguese Born, I’m REQUIRED to hate Spaniards” I have a lot of friends of Spanish descent (as I do of just about every other descent.)

    • Karron | March 5, 2013 at 1:08 pm | Reply
      >I have never really understood the kind of hatred I see oozing out of humanity at the moment.

      It’s the Internet.

      I’m serious.

      Used to be: The only people one could deal with were those within line-of-sight; if they didn’t agree with one, one had to learn to live with it (try being a fan of country music and auto racing in 1970s-80s Los Angeles…). Now, thanks to Teh Intertoobz, it is possible for one to only ever interact with people who are for all practical purposes identical to oneself — and anyone expressing a dissenting view can be easily dispatched to the land of Ghosts and Shadows by invoking the Magic Word Of The Internet: “Troll”.

      Gee — who knew that something beloved of the Left would serve mostly as a tool for creating and reinforcing Hate? >:)

      • I can see where you are coming from, especially for those who mindlessly follow whatever guru of hate they choose blindly. Group think, herd mentality, paranoia . . . sigh.

  8. I doubt you had to say that, it is obvious as you have VERY intelligent readers. And I really put that up because it just made me angry that THEY are playing with our minds again and naming people into tribes, big ones or little ones, I don’t like that. I prefer “other” when asked about ethnicity. I guess it is because I am definitely a Heinz 57 and also a hermit living in the wilderness because we don’t like subdivisions.
    And I do have a Portuguese ancestor from the 1500’s, so we can be sisters under the skin.

    • If you have a bunch of other European ancestors. It’s hard to know for sure, but I can guarantee I have a massive dose of English, a good bit of Scottish, a bit of French… then there is Green, Roman and the inevitable Spaniard…

      Oh, heck, if you have ANCESTORS — my family was a traveling family and men in my family share one taste “exotic”. My husband and I were joking about getting the cheek swab national geographic thing, because a medical problem of older boy indicates that my husband (presumably) has a lot more Native American ancestry than genealogy would indicate. My husband said “Well, it can’t be on your side.” And I said “Watch it be PRECISELY on my side. Someone came to the new world and brought back something exotic…” It wouldn’t even surprise either of us.

      • Well, umm, I think the men in my family were into exotic too– All you have to do is look at the difference skin tones in the children (we have light, light and olive skin –you might call Mediterranean). ;-) Those pesky Vikings.

      • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

        Based on “family names”, I have English, Welsh and German (Pennsylvania Dutch) blood. Mind you, Dad couldn’t trace the Howard line too far back as one of the greats may not have been a Howard when he left “where ever he came from”. Dad could not find a trace of him where he (the great-great) said he was from.

        • There are Howards in the Weatherford family tree, also. Depending on where your ancestors lived, there could also be quite a bit of Native American blood mixed in. One of the Howards that married a Weatherford was considered to be 1/4 Caddo, one of the mound-building tribes in Louisiana.

          The Weatherford family I’m descended from originated in Scotland and the islands to the west. G_d only knows who or what else is mixed in, but certainly Celt and Pict. Later, the Thornhills from Normandy to England joined the family. There’s a lot of Creek ancestry, and probably a little black as well (the Creeks weren’t as Anglocentric as the white settlers). I refuse to even speculate on whatever else might be part of “me”.

          • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

            I forget how far back Dad traced the Howard line but the furthest Howard he knew about came to Southern Indiana (IIRC) pre-Civil War. IIRC that Howard claimed to come from some place in Kentucky but Dad (as I said) never found a trace of him in Kentucky. Dad joked that he might not have been a Howard when he left where-ever he came from. [Wink]

  9. Speaking of Steve Green, any thoughts on the shakeup over on PJTV?
    I can’t help feel a strong hint of coup de West is in play.

  10. SPOILER ALERT!!!!

    Some of us (me) haven’t been smart enought to read your work yet.

    Now I have to go by the books, so you don’t ruinate them for me. ;-)

  11. Daniel Neely

    While you’re promoting stuff, a mention of Raygun Chronicles before the Kickstarter times out might help it over the top.

    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/601968027/raygun-chronicles-space-opera-science-fiction-anth

  12. Yup yup – Amazon let me know it shipped today. xD Exciting. Though I may or may not be in Atlanta when it arrives. (If I go, I’m taking S&B. If I don’t, it may have to wait a little longer before I get to dig in.)

  13. Anyone who saw how The Lady Hoyt was dressed for the Prometheus Awards at Renovation in 2011 knows the answer is:

    [Kosh] “Yes.” [/Kosh] >;)

  14. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

    This my last comment on “legalizing hard drugs”.

    I lack faith in the idea that “after we legalize hard drugs, we’ll use other means of solving the problem”.

    IMO after hard drugs are legalized, the mind-set will be “well we’ve solved the problem so we won’t have to do anything else” or at least the other programs won’t be funded enough to do anything.

    • Paul — Gin. Seriously. Is Gin a serious problem among youth? Do youth do a lot of hard drinking?
      Compared to the prohibition? Nope.
      Read bios from that era. TRUST me on this. The effects become really obvious.
      There’s also, of course, a certain weeding out of the gene pool.

      • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

        And the “oh those poor people, they need our help” Liberals will allow the “weeding out of the gene pool”?

        Sorry Sarah, in an “anything goes Nanny State”, legalizing drugs won’t solve the problems.

        First get rid of the “Nanny State Liberals” and then get back to me about legalizing hard drugs.

        • “Sorry Sarah, in an “anything goes Nanny State”, legalizing drugs won’t solve the problems.

          First get rid of the “Nanny State Liberals” and then get back to me about legalizing hard drugs.”

          You do have an excellent point here, but I believe Sarah actually addresses this in a roundabout way when she says she doesn’t want them legalized now, when we are in a slump. The only way we are truly going to get out of that slump is to get rid of the Nanny State.

          Legalizing drugs is an interesting arguement, but like I said earlier, I am somewhat ambivalent on the topic, I can argue either side of the issue. I just like a good arguement ;)

        • “First get rid of the “Nanny State Liberals” and then get back to me about legalizing hard drugs.”

          My position on immigration runs into the same sort of problem: I’m fine with open borders, but that is unfeasible with the existence of the welfare state. We have to eliminate the one before we can liberalize the other. In either direction.

      • BobtheRegisterredFool

        I’d suggest that many of the issues predated prohibition.

        It wasn’t deus ex machina that gave the Anti-Saloon League the means to win over their opponents, and the leverage to attempt their solution.

        A confounding factor. These days, child labor laws mean that youth generally do not have enough legal income of their own to afford much in the way of hard drink. This was not the case prior to and maybe during prohibition. Illegal income means that one might just as well use illegal sources, free of the price fixing the legal sources have, that is meant to meddle with the supply demand curve. (Note that the depression and the dislocations of the War might well have also had a distorting effect on things.)

        I tend to think that Paul is more moderate and even tempered than I on this issue. I’d probably better bow out of further discussion of this subject today, for the sake of being able to sleep tonight.

  15. Re: the title – is it too late for me to vote?

    • It is never too late to vote. Too late for the vote to be counted … perhaps … except in certain precincts if voting for the approved choice.

  16. Pingback: » Investments, betting & the what I am doing