According To Hoyt

New Deal, Same as the Old Deal by Thomas Kendall

I read Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal“. It was a heck of an experience. I daresay I’ve characterized a brand new psychological phenomenon on the basis of same. Here, quick. Look at the image below.

Figure 1: A tale of two stupids.

Okay, now I know this will come as a huge shock, but believe it or not, both of the two words pictured above are the word “stupid”. I appreciate that one is green. Being green does not magically remove the fact that it is, in fact, the word “stupid”. It’s almost like associating something with the concept “green”, in general, in no way alters the fundamental nature of the thing in question. Are we good on this concept?

I have to conclude that this is all but a magical optical illusion to ¡Ocasio’s! supporters because wow, does their golden girl ever seem to enjoy sloshing ¡verde! over her 2-second thought seizures and calling it a policy proposal (BTW, did anyone else notice she cribbed Jeb! Bush’s schtick? Because she definitely did. I mean she took it South of the border—or maybe she just liked the kismet of starting even her logo with something that’s been arranged top-down— but it’s still the same damned thing.). This is so dumb, I’ve invented the Ocasio-Cortez drinking game. Every time she proposes something that would utterly destroy some fundamental part of the US—the economy, civil liberties, the well-being of the citizenry, whatever—take a shot. You’ll find it makes it easier to read her other policy proposals, since she, like  ¡Bernie!, is something of a one-note person and she sings in the key of Bolshevik. Just don’t get too hammered to vote against her and anything like her, that’s all I ask.

Where to begin?

In the link above, parts 1-5 are mostly just the stuff to establish a committee to pursue this tragicomedy. I’d just call out from that portion that, A) just remember she wants all this crap in 10 years, and B) that’s starting from March 2020. If the timing seems suspicious, the Washington Free Beacon agrees. “It is entirely possible that Ocasio-Cortez knows her proposal is both light on details and pie-in-the-sky; recent reporting indicates that the real goal of the committee would be to produce a campaign document for Democrats, rather than an actual policy proposal.” Remember that. It’s totally possible they’re going to want to hang their campaign against Trump on this. This is the strong card in their deck, they think.

Part 6 is where the meat is. And I am going to quote some highlights of this. Right away, ¡Ocasio! isn’t screwing around. 6-A lists the policy objectives.

“i-Dramatically expand existing renewable power sources and deploy new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources”

Ha ha! How reasonable! Take a shot.

First, as the Washington Free Beacon points out above, this isn’t even remotely feasible. No, not even with a lot of ¡dineros!, because money (please sit down as I reveal this shocking message) does not magically turn the impossible into the possible. That’s why Trump hasn’t been giving addresses from the back of a golden dragon for the last two years, metal though that would be. And why no Uncle Sam of Oz can possibly give ¡Ocasio! the brain she so desperately needs, but I digress. Second, as The American Thinker points out, first, this would destroy millions of jobs. We’re not even talking oil and gas jobs. We’re talking “jobs that require electricity”, so unless we’re planning to power to global victory on the back of the Amish population, we’ve got a problem. Second, since our global competitors would not be following us down this particular path to perdition, we’d pretty much instantly fall so far behind economically if we tried to do this it wouldn’t even be funny. That’s assuming we even make it to the end of this green-tinted acid trip. My guess is we’d get invaded by one or more of our opponents while we were busy giving them a hand-engraved opportunity by shooting ourselves in the foot. But hey, maybe that’s the point. How long has the bug-eyed Bolshy been colluding with ¡Russia!? That’s what we really need to know right now. Oh, and by the way, in case you missed this part of it: last I checked, “renewable” sources means exclusively things there’s basically an infinite supply of. So this doesn’t just nix coal, gas, and oil. It nixes nuclear too. In case you felt it wasn’t impossible enough.

“ii. building a national, energy-efficient, “smart” grid;”

Take a shot. This would be stupidly expensive, of course, but hey, clearly we’re in the land of play money. And as the Washington free beacon points out above, it’s also incompatible with (i), since 100% renewable energy sources wouldn’t make any production peaks to level the supply troughs anywhere else. But more to the point, the problem with a national system that dynamically reroutes power to where it’s most needed is that it’s A) almost certainly run by a computer, and B) since it functions at the interstate level by definition, it’s in the jurisdiction of the federal government. So beyond the fact that we can’t afford it, and it wouldn’t work, there’s this nice cherry on top—it would likely give the feds the ability to shut down power to any area of the country they felt was, ahem, uncooperative. Whee!

“iii. upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety”

¡Aye caramba! Just so we understand how retarded that is, I had to look this up for scale. In 2017 the United States had about 136 million housing units. The mean square footage of a house in 2017 was about 2500 square feet (rounding down). I’ll tell you why I’m telling you that in a moment. In 2012 there were a mere 5.6 million commercial buildings. Since the same site goes on to note that these had 87 billion square feet of floor space, my Windows calculator shows that the average floor space of a commercial building is about 15,500 square feet. So, in those terms, since we know the square footage of a house, we can infer that a commercial building is a little over 6 times larger. Which means that, yes, to make our math easier, we’re just gonna assume that museums, warehouses, and factories, have the same ceiling height as your house. If some helpful in the comments wants to explain how much I underestimated by, fine. Speaking of fudge, being totally fair, about 5% of that 5.6 million was noted to be in lodging, which would overlap the housing units. But also being fair, in 2012 the report showed a “14% increase in the number of buildings and a 21% increase in floorspace since 2003”. Given that we gave Obama the boot two years ago— to the relief of the average businessman, I would bet— we’ve probably kept on growing. So we’ll take the number as is. I’ll update if someone can give solid evidence we’ve grown less than that in 6 years.

So—how much do you think upgrading every residential and industrial building would cost? Just from an order of magnitude perspective, I’m thinking $1,000 is probably a bit conservative. $100,000 might be too high—might, though it depends on how you define “state of the art” energy efficiency. Heck, it depends on how you define “state of the art” comfort. Maybe she wants to make every house in the projects look like a penthouse in Dubai. Who the Hell knows? Trying to make sense out of her “plans” is like discussing philosophy with a schizophrenic. I’m just doing my best, here. And therefore I’m assuming she’s taken the more “realistic” path, and defined “comfort” the way socialists usually do—tiresome discomfort compensated by the smug knowledge that you, personally, are saving the planet. So let’s say that this costs about 10,000 bucks for an average home. That estimate— which, frankly, for a full remodel of an average 2,500 square foot home to state-of-the-art anything is still probably small— would put the cost of this project at 1.36 trillion dollars. Oh, plus another 336 billion dollars if we assume renovating commercial buildings costs only about 6 times as much, per building, as private homes. Or, for convenient reference, a bit more than the 1.688 trillion the government is expected to make in personal income taxes. Again, by fairly conservative estimates. This could be way higher.

That’s ignoring that this is going to essentially force on you the lifestyle those “green” friends of yours always have. You know. The glamorous world of appliances that don’t work. And heating and air conditioning that neither effectively heat, nor condition the air, so that they’re constantly adding and removing layers like mutant onions. And rooftop solar panels that can charge a whole D-Cell battery on a sunny day and cost as much as a family car to replace if you get a hailstorm. Not that you’ll pay for that, you loyal party member, you. Well, not directly. We’ll take the money, take it for an office tour amongst the bureaucrats who will nab a bunch of it, then give it back to you in a smaller quantity, and require you to purchase a specific thing with it. ¡Arriba!

All that—and that’s one bullet point. Jesus.

Take a shot.

“iv. eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country;

1. eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water;”

Oh, my dear and fluffy lord.

Okay, um. Take—I dunno, 5 or 6 shots. She didn’t even say “balancing”, remember. This isn’t even about net carbon. She said “eliminating”. That means factories largely get the nix, but we knew that anyway because we haven’t had the power for them since (i). Interpreted literally, this also essentially means no livestock. Certainly no cows, those being a big source of greenhouse emissions, but probably no animals at all since pretty much all carbon-based things with digestive tracts emit greenhouse gases. And her “solution”—is the most Millennial thing I have ever read in my life, and I appreciate the irony of my saying that (I know, I know. A Millennial appreciate irony? It’ll never ‘appen!). “Local-scale agriculture” is a phrase used by someone who drinks hydroponically farmed wheatgrass in her smoothie in the morning and wonders why the world can’t share her ecstasy. So, at best, she wants to break up giant agriculture conglomerates, which means the efficiency of these mass farming operations, and the R and D they invest in improving crop yield, go out the window. Which actually might lead to starvation if we really did that, but damn it, it’s organic, locally grown starvation. At worst—and it fits the wording just as well—she wants us to roll over to subsistence farming. Which we’ll do by ourselves, actually, if she gets a crack at running the economy, methinks. But I doubt that the people in Chicago and Brooklyn will find that lifestyle change as convenient. Self correcting problem?

Oh, but shit, son. I forgot all about bullet point 2, electric boogaloo. Now, it’s difficult to tell from the wording whether she means to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from transportation infrastructure, plus other infrastructure, or whether she means to include transportation in general in the infrastructure from which we will eliminate greenhouse gases. Socialists have a funny idea about ownership—see: defining tax cuts as “tax expenditures”— and that makes it tricky when we talk about transportation, since most transportation is privately owned. The things that come to mind immediately when I think “transportation infrastructure”—highways, airports—don’t really release a lot of greenhouse gasses. You might have noticed how concrete is very green in that respect. She may also mean Tesla buses, and all-electric trains. Since pretty much all the places where that’s economically feasible are already using that technology, you can guess the implications. “♪ socialist choo-choo, won’t you choo choo me—nowhere at all because of union strikes, leading ultimately to me to having to walk—home! ♫”. I’ll work on making it scan. If it actually becomes law I’ll have lots of time while I’m waiting. But then again—in the same document that wants us to meet “100% of the national power demand through renewable sources”— I cannot bring myself to rule out that this falls in the same area as turning the housing projects into mini-millionaire’s row. So this could also mean electric cars for everybody. Oh. And basically no airplanes. The battery-pack-weight-to-power-produced ratio is ¡muy grande!. Dagny Taggart, call your office.

“vi. funding massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases”

I’m just going to say this. None of the multi-trillion dollar bullet points up until now warranted the disclaimer that they would take massive investment.

Just let that sink in.

Invest in a massive shot.

“Vii. making “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal.”

Apart from being roughly as coherent a plan as this, it’s hard to even guess the expense or impact of this because neither I, nor anybody else, has any idea what it looks like. I can say that if Solyndra taught us anything, it’s that putting tons of taxpayer money into green companies that couldn’t get private investment because they weren’t economically feasible otherwise is really great. Just the best. But that’s just because my personal fetish is messy corporate bankruptcy. I have a bespoke bootleg blueray of “Big Beautiful Bankrupt Boondoggle Booties” in my sock drawer. I also enjoy alliteration.

Look, the issue here is that government doesn’t make things. It directs, it controls, and it makes stuff that facilitates things being made. In the second category, the public usually invents it, and the government facilitates making it on a grand scale if—like roads or electricity—we can generally agree that pretty much everyone needs and wants it (that’s assuming certain basic preconditions, like that the project doesn’t involve nationalizing the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of private workers, reducing them to effective slavery, but oh, we’ll get to that). Almost by definition, massive “investments” into things that aren’t profitable right now means using money inefficiently (which is why I use quote marks—it’s just hard for me to call something we basically know will lose money an investment. It’s like how using a flamethrower on my lawn is hard to define as watering.). Ask Trabant owners what it’s like when the government decides it’s going to invent things instead of wait for the market to figure out what’s efficient and economically feasible. You get a 2-stroke car with 26 horsepower, cotton body panels, and a 10 year waiting list because they can’t even produce it reliably. Or, at the more successful end of the scale, you get the Apollo program. Which may look photogenic, but as public transport goes, the average Joe may as well plan to swim to the moon—and that may explain why the moon has so few job offers.

Also, not to rain on her parade, but isn’t “bringing about a global Green New Deal” cultural imperialism? What if other countries don’t want to be green? No, better yet, look at the Paris Accord. China and India don’t want to be green. Sounds like she needs to check her privilege.

“B. The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall recognize that a national, industrial, economic mobilization of this scope and scale is a historic opportunity to virtually eliminate poverty in the United States and to make prosperity, wealth and economic security available to everyone participating in the transformation.”

We’ve gotten as far as section 6 B! B stands for bullshit, as you’ll soon see. “Historic” is certainly a good choice of words. A country actually trying this would be history. Also, try this fun experiment at home—substitute “Great Leap Forward” for “Green New Deal”, and “China” for “the United States”. Spooky, no? So, which eggs will be going into the societal omelet at ¡Ocasio’s! Marxist Diner?

“i. provide all members of our society, across all regions and all communities, the opportunity, training and education to be a full and equal participant in the transition, including through a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one

1. diversify local and regional economies, with a particular focus on communities where the fossil fuel industry holds significant control over the labor market, to ensure workers have the necessary tools, opportunities, and economic assistance to succeed during the energy transition; “

Ooh. The 370 million egg omelet comes with jobs. Jobs ¡con carne!. “Diversify” is Spanish for “destroy”, I assume. So sorry, but you’re not “diversifying” a market you committed to removing in its entirety in your first bullet point in section A. Take a diverse shot. Also, we’re using monopoly money again. In 2015 about 1,390,000 people were working in oil and gas. All of them would be unemployed now. She’s up front about that. Add that to the roughly 6 million unemployed people now. At a 15 dollar minimum wage, assuming 8 hour workdays, 5 days a week, 50 weeks of the year (2 weeks of vacation), that’s 30 K per job. So at minimum, call that, oh, a mere 221 billion dollars of expenses per year. This is assuming that the fact that we no longer have sufficient electricity for anything, and are living under a government that has precipitously increased its power to that of the USSR in its heyday, does not increase unemployment relative to the best-performing US economy in decades, which is what we currently have under Trump. Of course, if you don’t want a living wage, I guess you don’t have to be a full and equal participant in the transition. Not that that sounds like a veiled threat of any kind. Nosiree.

We’re going to have to skip ahead a bit, because at this point things become dense and almost content-free at the same time. Let me give you some Cliff’s notes on the next few.

B-iii—Muh Unions

B-iv— “low-income communities, communities of color, indigenous communities, rural and urban communities” need some sweet greenifying before the big bad oil pisses off the sea goddess and she eats whole coastlines in her rage.

B-v—Muh Indians

B-vi— Oh, crap, okay, this one I can’t just gloss.

“vi. mitigate deeply entrenched racial, regional and gender-based inequalities in income and wealth (including, without limitation, ensuring that federal and other investment will be equitably distributed to historically impoverished, low income, deindustrialized or other marginalized communities in such a way that builds wealth and ownership at the community level);”

Huh. So, she wants to “mitigate” “inequalities in income and wealth”, by “equitably” distributing federal and “other investment” (I’m gonna say, if the investment doesn’t get to distribute itself, it’s all federal investment), to the “historically impoverished”. Given that by this point in the document the federal government is the pre-eminent master and funder of basically everything, I think that’s just communism at this point. No, seriously. If the government has all-but-intentionally destroyed the whole support structure of its current economy down to the roots, and is replacing said collapsed economy with massive dump-trucks of money from one big central garage, which it is using to “mitigate” “inequalities”— really that’s just her using a thesaurus to sell us on redistributing the wealth. She either steals the money from rich people or she runs it up on the credit card, devalues the currency into worthlessness, and steals it from everybody. Although in that case, poor people are more likely to starve. Partially because it’s harder for them to run away.

Take a shot. From your neighbor’s liquor cabinet.

“vii. include additional measures such as basic income programs, universal health care programs and any others as the select committee may deem appropriate to promote economic security, labor market flexibility and entrepreneurism”

¡Muy caliente! I’m sorry, apparently the legislation wasn’t bloated enough. You know what I love about basic income programs? How green they are. They’re environmentally friendly! Certainly not a flimsy excuse for cramming maximum quantities of socialism down our throats. Reason being, if, as many Soviet citizens found, you disagree with them too loudly, the government composts you. Or enslaves you. Hi, doctors! I’m sorry, did you feel you had a right to practice your skills for a fair amount of money? Oh, you poor dears. Uncle Sam owns you now. You will treat any and all for as long as we tell you! Greenly! And ah, what is a little government pork without a blank check to the pig farm thrown in for good measure? Because in ten seconds, she couldn’t think of every pony she wants daddy to buy her, but damn it, she knows she’s going to want a diversified set of indigenous gender-equitable free-range LGBTQRSUVOMGWTFBBQ ponies at some unspecified date. Given that the nation was founded explicitly on hard limits on government power, apart from anything else, this effectively writes the 9th and 10th amendment out of existence. Making it—let me look up the technical legal terms, here— “illegal as balls”. Take two shots, and any others as you may deem appropriate to promote not choking socialists.

“viii—deeply involve national and local labor unions to take a leadership role in the process of job training and worker deployment.”

Unionize ¡todo!. Take a shot, but only if your union boss approved it.

And finally—because by now there might be a single vertebrae somewhere at the base of your spine that hasn’t had a chill through it, may I present section C, which I assume was Ocasio-Cortez’s grade in macroeconomics (I kid, of course. Her teacher was probably a communist. Most of them are, these days. She got an A, which was immediately divided up and redistributed to someone who was failing. Unless they were Republican, of course, because otherwise it wouldn’t be equitable.).

“The Plan for a Green New Deal (and the draft legislation) shall recognize that innovative public and other financing structures are a crucial component in achieving and furthering the goals and guidelines relating to social, economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality and cooperative and public ownership set forth in paragraphs (2)(A)(i) and (6)(B).”

“Innovative”. “Innovative” financing structures. She literally wrote this. This isn’t me pulling your leg. So at this point I’m sure you want to know, what kind of innovation? Because when I think of innovative financing, for some reason the image of burly Italian men in pinstriped suits and sunglasses begins forming in my mind. Well, I’m glad you asked. Here’s your outline:

“The Plan (and the draft legislation) shall, accordingly, ensure that the majority of financing of the Plan shall be accomplished by the federal government, using a combination of”—

A- “the Federal Reserve” – because the Fed hasn’t caused enough problems already.

B-“A new public bank or system of regional and specialized public banks” – Well, that certainly is innovative. Who needs one giant institution causing economic roller coasters when you can put it through mitosis? Double, double, money bubble. Because realistically, the Fed might not print money quickly or conveniently enough for ¡Ocasio!-Cortez’s tastes.

C-“Public venture funds” – which we wish to emphasize will be totally voluntary and in no way coerced from people at gunpoint.

D-“Such other vehicles or structures that the select committee deems appropriate”— love me some blank checks. What other vehicles or structures? Doth the “T” word wait in the wings? Ah, damn, I forgot. If Obamacare taught us anything, it’s that there are no taxes unless it’s convenient. Or I should say, perhaps you’ll have to pay your green “penalty” for being insufficiently environmentally friendly.

Whew. ¡Aye aye aye! Well, that was fun!

Now, I want you to remember what I said at the start. On the basis of the timing, there’s even odds they plan to use this as a campaign document in 2020. Just look back over that, and really take that in. There are even odds that this is the future of the Democratic party. You like what you see? This is why we need to pay more attention to ¡Ocasio!. You’re wrong if you think of her as a lone nut. She’s not. She’s version 2.0 of what I personally think the Democrats barely knew they had market for until Bernie almost de-throned the queen at her own coronation. If you think the fact that she is laughably extremist is a check against her getting shunted into the fast lane, you’re dead wrong. The Democrats took exactly the wrong lessons from 2016, and worse, they’re applying them. They want extremists. We may not all be socialists now, but the Democrats? Don’t be so sure.

And she’s just their type. She’s certifiably ethnic, and female, and young. Basically, if she starts identifying as a man, she’ll be  their wet-dream. She’s also stupider than a hammer full of nitroglycerine, which party elders may flatter themselves makes her easier to direct, though I think she may even be too dumb to take direction. She’s already butting heads with Pelosi. Our best-case scenario is that Pelosi, out of self-interest, takes her down a peg or ninety. But don’t bet that it will be so simple. Some feel, like PJ O’Rourke, that “Age and Guile Beat Youth, Ignorance, and a Bad Haircut”. I usually agree, but I don’t have that kind of faith on this. I think people miss that true believers like her are exactly what the Left grooms Millennials to be. They’ve asked for this in spades. What went around is coming around.

And being more serious for a moment, that’s the bad news I’m really here to deliver. I’m sorry, but ¡Ocasio! isn’t an anomaly. It’s true what people say—if only Millenials voted, Hillary still wouldn’t be president, but Bernie Sanders would be. ¡Ocasio! is the leading wave of a group of people who have been pissing me off all my life because I’ve had to go to school with them. And the only thing that’s different about her versus them is that she’s more famous. They’re true believers. They’ve never heard anything different, and now, thanks to social media and extremely stilted mainstream media, they’re still not hearing anything more meaningful than #OrangeManBad. They’re either shielded from the economy by their parents or in at the bottom, so economic improvements mean little to them. And Pelosi can politic all she likes, but she’d best make the most of it. Unless she takes the Clinton-esque step of actually killing the idiot, ¡Ocasio! is only going to become a bigger problem, because she’s the vanguard. I would guess that the reinforcements will start arriving probably by the end of Trump’s second term, assuming we can stop the cheating enough to get one. And if we don’t have a good head start on picking ¡Ocasio! apart by then, she’s going to be the elder statesman of the (H/T to a friend) “kindercaucus”, and being used as a punching bag by her party’s seniors will be a badge of honor. And dumb as she is, trust me, she knows it. Hell, she’s almost counting on it, I think.

So pay attention. And take some friendly advice— stop her before she grows.

All of you kids under forty — who definitely should get off my lawn, btw — have no idea what it was like to grow up — to quote Queen — waiting for the hammer to fall.

Seriously, the sane assumption, the assumption anyone with any knowledge of the world made was that we, born in the sixties, would never get to grow up.  Or if we grew up, it would be in a bombed out wasteland.

Even in tiny and relatively unimportant Portugal, though we expected we wouldn’t catch a bomb, (unless it went way off course) we thought the coasts would be so thoroughly poisoned we’d all die.  (There is reason to think this was bullshit, but I’m glad we never got to test it.)

Then there was nuclear winter (also likely complete bullshit.)

Even our entertainment, hard in the pockets of the disarmament mafia (unilateral disarmament is also known as surrender, kids, remember that.) talked about how it was unconscionable to build up arsenals to fight a war that would kill the species and the world.

Even sane authors like Heinlein thought that after we had nukes there was no way we didn’t use them.

Well… we didn’t use them.  Now knowing “Russian Technology” there was a good chance they couldn’t use them with any effectiveness.

Also judging from cities that were nuked, even if it had happened it was probably never going to be the end of the world.

But we grew up in fear of it, and many of the people who are now hard left first surrendered because they were hard core cowards, no matter how they pretty that up in their minds.  They wanted to be the last eaten, when the Soviets came.

I want them to contemplate my middle fingers.

To paraphrase Heinlein: It’s always better to be a live lion.  It’s often easier too. (Than being a live lamb.)

And it turns out that peace really came through superior firepower.

Don’t let the kids forget it.  And if they have, remind them.

Live free or die is not a cry of defiance. Looking at the death toll of communism, it is simply a law of nature.

Stay free.

Well… perhaps not so great, but it is helping me cut down on the clutter around here.

I know I promised an update Tuesday night, but here’s the thing: living as an almost hermit, it seems like if I go out and meet anyone at all, even half a dozen people, I catch SOMETHING.

Also this still being my house and my family, we’re… in a perpetual state of chaos.

I have found some of Night Shifters (which honestly is not my main cache, which I’d guess is still in boxes.)  I also found some of Darkship Renegades, which I thought I was out of.

So I’m still low on some books, but to the best of my ability here is what I have right now:

So, these are the books we have at least some number of:

Shifter series:

Which is an omnibus consisting of Draw One In The Dark and Gentleman Takes a Chance. Mass Market Paperback, but THICK. Price above.

Gentleman Takes a Chance, the second of the Shifter’s books.  Hard cover (tpb price).

Third of the Shifter’s Series. Trade Paper Back.

First of the Darkship Books. Prometheus Award Winner. Trade Paperback.

Second of the Darkship books, trade paperback.

Third of the Darkship Thieves Saga, first of the subseries on the Earth Revolution.  Both Trade Paperback and Mass Market Paperback.  (I’d prefer if the mmpb is part of an order of tpb, just for shipping, really.)

Fourth in the Darkship Saga, second in subseries on Earth revolution.  Trade paperback.

Fifth in Darkship Thieves saga.  Trade Paper Back.

Other books I have:

I have a couple TPBs of Witchfinder, let’s call that $17 just because it’s heavy and thick.

I have mass market paperbacks of the last two of the refinishing mysteries but none of the first (which should be available TPB on Amazon from Goldport Press.)

So, that’s A French Polished Murder and a Fatal Stain.

I probably have mass markets of the entire DST series, but only ones I’ve found so far is for Darkship Renegades and A Few Good Men.

Mass Market Paperbacks are $5 each, but if you’re only ordering mmpbs, would you kick in an extra $2 or $3? Shipping is going to eat all the profit on those, and I still have to take time to package and sign.  (Son might or might not be able to help tomorrow.)

I have hard cover, Ace edition All Night Awake (Second of the Shakespeare books.)  I MIGHT have the rest of that series, but it will take ransaking the pile of 40 boxes.  So… might or might not happen in the next few days.

IF YOU NEED THE BOOKS FOR CHRISTMAS, YOU’LL HAVE TO PAY SHIPPING FOR EXPRESS (At this point I don’t guarantee first class will get there in time.)

So, real post later, but for now this is the ongoing sale stuff.

BEFORE YOU SEND ME ANY MONEY, EMAIL ME AT GOLDPORT PRESS AT GMAIL DOT COM.  Because some of these are limited, and I get a dozen orders in, and the last people will get nothing.

The Latest on the Double-Dynamo Solar Model, and Dr. Zharkova’s Predictions of a Grand Minimum By Stephanie Osborn

http://www.stephanie-osborn.com/

A couple of weeks back, Michael Z. Williamson tagged me on Facebook with a link to a poorly-explained article (http://electroverse.net/professor-valentina-zharkova-breaks-her-silence-and-confirms-super-grand-solar-minimum/?fbclid=IwAR17eDkqZclMhetyoIZFrfgryD2tV4uxzpxbzq2-VWNVZEuU9Wi4PpDL13w ) discussing Dr. Valentina Zharkova’s latest presentation for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a more balanced climate-discussion group. Unfortunately, there were many misconceptions in the original report, and it was confusing and frightening a great many people (e.g. the report claimed that she said the next extended minimum would run 400 years instead of about 30). So here’s a link to JUST her presentation: https://www.thegwpf.org/professor-valentina-zharkova-the-solar-magnetic-field-and-the-terrestrial-climate/ As a consequence of all the confusion, however, I made an offer to dig through her most recent work and try to properly explain what Zharkova was proposing. This is essentially that explanation.

Dr. Zharkova et al. are responsible for the new double-dynamo model of solar activity that came out in 2015. That basic model alone was excellently done, replicating some 97% of what was seen in the actual solar cycle data. Unfortunately, it failed at that remaining 3%, and that included a good many of the extended minima in recorded solar history. In the intervening couple of years, it seems she has been hard at work expanding on the model. Here’s one of the intervening papers, where her team adds onto the original model (which I’d said at the time needed doing, to more adequately pick up on the extended minima): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316950696_On_a_role_of_quadruple_component_of_magnetic_field_in_defining_solar_activity_in_grand_cycles?fbclid=IwAR0ny1-gtT78Y8tZXEUdXU7HiiKyoNTT3_NgvIiar4Ud1VkQ_T3ft64jL5s

Now Dr. Zharkova has come out with more information and an enhanced solar dynamo model. Her team proposed the aforementioned double-dynamo solar model back in 2015, a model which contained one dynamo in the upper layers of the Sun, and another in the deeper layers. Each one of these was a basic magnetic dipole, but we knew at the time it was not a perfect fit to observations, and I remember discussions in which I said it was good, but there would be more components needed before the model would adequately ‘predict’ all the known extended solar minima. Zharkova has now done so, by incorporating an additional quadrupole magnetic component, likely arising out of the Coriolis-affected convection currents within the Sun, which would generate a kind of toroidal (doughnut-shaped) structure in the convection zone. This updated model now predicts extended minima rather well, and it is becoming obvious that there are several periodicities of variability, which sometimes ‘interfere’ constructively, and sometimes destructively, generating ‘beat’ modes. It is during the destructive interference that the extended minima occur.

There have been many periodicities suggested over the years, but Zharkova’s research confirms what appear to be three principal periods. They are as follows:

• The standard magnetic cycle = ~22 yrs;
• The Gleissberg cycle = ~90-110 yrs, avg. 100 yrs;
• The ‘Grand’ cycle = ~350-400 yrs.

(NOTE: the typical 11-year sunspot cycle is actually only half of the full cycle; sunspots are magnetic and usually dipolar in nature. They often occur in pairs, with one spot the north pole, the other the south; even when only a single spot occurs, one side will be N, the other S. The polarity is reversed in the southern hemisphere relative to the northern, and at the end of a single sunspot cycle, the sunspot polarity – as well as that of the whole Sun – flips, often in a very convoluted fashion. It therefore takes two full sunspot cycles before the magnetic field is back in the same orientation, and thus the true period is 22 years.)

As for a quick explanation of quadrupoles, it’s a hard concept to grasp for anybody, even people trained in the subject. But FWIW, let’s try this, by way of building an image for you:

The Earth’s magnetic field is a dipole — two poles, N/S. This is because Earth is largely a rigid body. You got a semi-solid nickel-iron core that’s already magnetized and rotating, so you get a dipole, and that’s just sorta the way it falls out — hard and fast and simple. Big bar magnet.

The Sun, on the other hand, is a big ball of plasma, rotating on its axis. Now ‘plasma’ is just a fancy way of saying ‘ionized gas.’ Which means that it is effectively a current, since it’s rotating. And currents generate magnetic fields.

BUT, because it’s NOT a rigid body, each one of those gas particles follows Kepler’s Laws of orbital motion independently of all the other gas particles, resulting in something scientists call “differential rotation.” This means that the particles deep inside don’t rotate at the same speed as those near the “surface,” and the particles near the poles don’t rotate at the same speed as those near the equator.

This in turn means that those magnetic fields get all hosed up pretty quick. In fact, a simple way of explaining a sunspot is that they’re “snarls” in the magnetic field lines that have gradually worked their way to the surface.

So if you think of all those snarled lines of magnetic force, and realize that one end of each line is a N pole and the other end of each line is a S pole, then you can have a lotta ends, and a lotta poles.

Anyway, here’s a link to the Wikipedia article, which has some relatively easy-to-grasp images: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrupole#Magnetic_quadrupole

So. Back to the overall solar model. Two dipole dynamos, and a quadrupole toroidal component.

This means that we have two slightly out-of-phase dipole dynamos, with periods around 22 years (but they do not have the SAME periods, which means that they slowly move in and out of phase over time, like windshield wiper blades that are out of synch), PLUS a quadrupole wave arising from the inner dipole dynamo (and the Coriolis’ed convection current gyres coming from it) generating a roughly 100-year periodicity. Combining the beat effect from these three results in the ‘Grand’ period of ~350-400 yrs.

Zharkova’s model is supported not only by sunspot numbers and solar activity, but by other solar-studies fields: magnetohydrodynamics and helioseismology. In fact, the resulting data plots from these fields are so close to Zharkova’s model predictions, that the model could as well be based on either of those. So this model is not functioning in isolation from related science, but is in fact harmonizing quite well with it.

The Dalton extended minimum (1790-1830) is evidently an example of a Gleissberg minimum, while the deep and protracted Maunder minimum (1645-1715) was the previous ‘Grand’ minimum. It has been roughly 350 years since the onset of the Maunder minimum, and a bit over 200 years since the Dalton minimum began. Zharkova et al. also noted a moderate Gleissberg minimum in the earliest part of the 20^th century, as well, so the periodicity for that cycle seems to be holding.

The gist of the matter is that all three main cycles are entering minimum phase, beginning with the end of this current solar cycle (Cycle 24). Cycle 25 will be even lower than 24, with 26 being very nearly flat-lined. Cycle 27 will begin to show a few signs of life, then there will be a gradual rise to full activity over several more solar cycles, even as the last three cycles have slowly decreased in levels. This means that the bottom of the extended, or ‘Grand’ minimum (to use Zharkova’s terminology), should run from ~2020 to ~2053. (NO, it will NOT last 400 years like some are reporting – that is the overall length of the Grand cycle, not the predicted length of the minimum.)

In terms of atmospheric interaction, certainly the majority of the solar radiation peaks in the visible range, and that changes little, and the atmosphere is largely transparent to it. Once it strikes a solid object, however, the photon’s energy is absorbed, and later re-radiated as infrared (IR), which the atmosphere largely blocks (at least in certain frequency windows), so it does not all radiate off into space at night. This is why things like rocks and masonry tend to feel warmer at night, and what helps drive the trade winds along shorelines – the temperature differential arising from the differing light absorption/IR re-radiation of water versus land.

But it turns out that, unlike visible light, higher-energy photons have a fairly strong correlation with the solar cycle; this includes ultraviolet (UV) and X-ray, most notably extreme UV or EUV, which borders the X-ray regime. Much of this photonic radiation is generated in the inner solar corona, because the corona’s activity strongly follows overall solar activity; much of the rest is produced during solar flares – which are PART OF solar activity. More, unlike visible light, this frequency regime is ENTIRELY absorbed in the upper atmosphere (exosphere, thermosphere, ionosphere). So during high solar activity, the EUV and X-ray radiation hitting Earth has 100% of its energy injected into the atmosphere. During low solar activity, there is considerably less energy from this high-frequency regime being injected into the atmosphere – according to NASA research I dug up in the course of researching her papers and presentation, it may completely bottom out – as in, essentially zero energy from EUV etc.

But that isn’t the only way this might affect Earth’s atmosphere. It turns out that the solar wind/corona effects shield the inner solar system from cosmic rays, which are very high energy particles coming in from cosmological sources, such as supernovae, quasars, pulsars, etc. As solar activity diminishes, the solar wind decreases in effect, and the cosmic ray flux (‘flux’ is a measure of number of units per square area, e.g. number of cosmic ray particles per square meter) increases. BUT we know that cosmic rays tend to hit atmosphere and ‘cascade’ – generate a shower of particles, rather like a branching domino effect – and this, in turn, tends to create condensation nuclei around which clouds can form. (In fact, our first cosmic ray detectors were so-called ‘cloud chambers’ where the formation of condensation clouds depicts the track of the particle.) As a result, increasing cosmic ray fluxes are apt to generate increased cloud cover; increased cloud cover will then block visible light from reaching Earth’s surface and adding energy to the overall system. And cosmic ray flux can vary by as much as 50% with solar variation.

Well, then. So. What effects are being seen as a result of these two items?

Well, the undeniable INCREASE in cosmic ray flux has been followed for some years. And it’s pretty much worldwide. (http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=28&month=01&year=2016)

And the outer layers of the atmosphere have already cooled, according to researchers at NASA’s Langley Research Center. (http://spaceweather.com/archive.php?view=1&day=28&month=09&year=2018&fbclid=IwAR2reJ3fcqgouxL5Fp82hf2u_LpcDEEC99vqQisuumYik_MCZC8SAGO18Og) (Original journal article: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324366650_Thermosphere_climate_indexes_Percentile_ranges_and_adjectival_descriptors?fbclid=IwAR3S_u10rOWfPqvAms-Ikf8zKJUECYn1je06Kg_7iXQi9HGiVpI5QNmYQ7o) According to Langley researchers, we are on the verge of seeing “a Space Age record” for a cold thermosphere (though possibly they don’t expect it to be connected to the rest of the atmosphere, according to some reports?).

So far, Zharkova appears to be batting 1.000.

According to her research of the correlation with the Maunder minimum (the previous Grand minimum), temperatures dropped by about 0.1%, or about 1.3°C, or some 2.34°F. Granted, the Maunder minimum lasted about 70-80 years, as opposed to the estimated 30-some-odd that Zharkova is predicting, so it might not be THAT deep a delta. But if it really drops a significant amount (and remember, we’ve had that annoying ‘warming plateau’ going on through the last couple of solar cycles, which cycles have been steadily decreasing in activity; certain groups want really bad for THAT to go away), then it WILL still be noticeable. And possibly unpleasant.

There’s one other factor that she looks at in her presentation, that isn’t related to the dynamos inside the Sun but DOES affect the solar irradiance (power per unit area coming from the Sun). The irradiance is following the Zharkova team’s curves, regardless of what the human civilization does – it’s falling out completely separately. And it is varying.

NOTE: solar irradiance used to be called the ‘solar constant.’ But astronomers discovered it was NOT constant, and stopped using the term. Climate models often still use it, however, and do not take into account the variability of the solar irradiance, which is small, but distinct and measurable. Instead, they use a fixed value – a true constant. So of course their models do not have any effects of solar variability.

That ‘other factor’ which affects solar irradiance is what might be termed ‘barycentric wobble,’ and appears to be one of the things confusing many of the reporters, who are interpreting it as a change in orbit of either the Earth or the Sun…when it is neither.

See, one of the ways we look for exoplanets in other stellar systems is to look for the very small wobble in proper motion (aka movement through the galaxy) of the star, which is caused by the gravitational tug of the orbiting planet(s). And our planets do the same thing to the Sun. (The barycenter is the effective center of mass of two co-orbiting objects – a binary system – and it is the point about which those objects orbit, no matter how big the objects. The barycenter itself remains essentially stationary relative to the objects, however; in the case of a translating system, the barycenter travels in a straight line, with the objects orbiting around it.) In the case of most of the inner planets, the barycenter lies deep inside the Sun. But Jupiter is massive enough that the barycenter lies roughly 50,000km (~31,000mi) above the photosphere, and the other gas giant planets would have barycenters with the Sun that are substantially displaced from the center of the Sun, too. So the Sun has a reasonably-sized ‘wobble,’ and this movement can bring it marginally closer to Earth at certain points in the orbit.

As a consequence, if in orbiting the barycenter, the Sun moves closer to Earth’s perihelion (closest approach to the Sun in our elliptical orbit), then we would expect to be ever so slightly warmer near perihelion, and cooler near aphelion (farthest distance from the Sun in orbit). It so happens that the perihelion occurs about 2 weeks after the Northern Hemisphere winter solstice, and aphelion occurs about 2 weeks after the Northern Hemisphere summer solstice. This would mean that the Northern Hemisphere’s summers would be marginally warmer than ‘normal,’ and likewise the Southern Hemisphere’s winters would be marginally less cold. Six months later, the Northern Hemisphere’s winters would be slightly cooler, and the Southern Hemisphere’s summers would also be slightly less hot. Then, as the wobble finishes its cycle, the Sun would move away from the perihelion region and closer to the aphelion region, and the opposite would occur. And this is all a function of orbital mechanics, and has nothing to do at all with anything humanity may or may not do. It is not a large factor, and it is vastly outweighed by the overall magnetic cycle variability (it’s something like only 0.05 times the magnetic cycle variability effects), but it is there, and it is apparently showing up in the irradiance data.

This is NOT, let me reiterate, a change in Earth’s orbit, nor is it a change in the Sun’s motion – this has been going on ever since the solar system has been here. But we are only now getting good enough with our observations and modeling to observe its effects and take them into account.

Zharkova indicates she is not done with the dynamo model; she intends to continue refining it, adding terms to the mathematical model as needed as she and her team explore additional non-visible light regimes (notably X-ray, gamma ray, infrared, microwave, and radio). This will likely result in an excellent solar activity predictive tool. It all makes a great deal of sense to me, and it is the first time that a model has ever accurately predicted such long-range activity. I plan on catching up on her publications to this point, and keeping an eye out for future papers updating the model; I fully expect that she is onto something very important. I’m looking forward to seeing what she comes up with next.

(For background information on solar activity and its variability, which is the basis of this little guest blog, let me recommend an ebook I wrote a couple of years ago, called The Weather Out There Is Frightful: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008JA00D0/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0 )

~ Stephanie Osborn

http://www.stephanie-osborn.com/

The other day husband and I were in front of the computer that’s used as a TV, and he was looking at trailers (I think I was writing, but I might have been painting something.)   After about the third “science fiction” movie trailer, my husband said “Do they realize all these futures are essentially Maoist?  They all dress alike, they’re addressed by their rank in society, they have completely scripted lives?”

And I realized he’s right and it’s not just the dystopias, even.  In all imagined SF futures, STILL, everyone dresses alike and is some kind of cog in a big machine.

Okay, I give Star Trek a pass, as what we’re seeing is more or less the military in this society.  (Or perhaps the Peace Corps. Or yes. I never figured it out, fully.) But even then you have a feeling private citizens live pretty similar lives.

Why?

Well, movies are downstream from written SF and also tend to ossify more, because after a while viewers look for a certain “look” in SF/F (which is why even I in sf/f covers use the full body-suit thing because in people’s minds THAT is science fiction.

And when I started reading science fiction the “citizen 54, report” type of SF was normal — and please keep in mind that I read very bad European (mostly French) science fiction that my friends were reading (one of which I’m sure was a science fiction romance, as the only even vaguely original scenes were the sex scenes.  Which means at fourteen I was both bored AND bewildered and wondered why my otherwise sensible friend like this.  In retrospect, I think Mr. Hormone had just called on her earlier than on me.  I mean, the main character had a robot who–  never mind.) as well as Argonauta, which was mostly US sf, a lot of it alas award winners, which even then meant a lot of it was … odd.

A lot of it seemed to be based on the idea that Brave New World was inevitable, so, therefore, we could only write variations of it.

The idea that in the future we were all addressed by rank and number was so built into those books that this was the default setting.  you were — even outside the military — engineer 459 or architect 890 or whatever.

It was tied in with the overpopulation idea.  My brother with whom I discussed this, said of course in the future some number would be part of your name (if not your full name.) Just because there would be so many of you, and a computer would need to administer everything.

Oh, and I can’t emphasize that enough.  In the seventies and even early eighties, mostly because people believed the lies from the Soviet Union, it was assumed as a default that of COURSE central control and administration was not only more efficient, but the future that waited us all.  The future was vaguely human ants working and living for the good of the colony, administered by the best people and of course computers.

Remember that a lot of people on both sides of the isle grew up with this idea, and that science fiction ideas shape even “mundane” society.  A lot of the internationalists f*cking up the world are doing so under the assumption that the one-world-government administered by “smart people” and computers is not only inevitable, but the best possible in an imperfect world. They refuse to see the true results of central control because they can’t. Their entire life narrative would collapse.  That “people want to be part of something greater” means they’re invested heart and soul in bringing this about because the books and movies they read and saw as kids sold it to them.

Me? I’d probably have wandered off sf if I hadn’t found Simak — yes, depressing, but his people were people — and Heinlein who didn’t sing in THAT choir.

But in truth, we’ve moved past that narrative, and even the supposedly non dystopias set in “everyone wears same clothes and is directed by voices from the wall” world feel vaguely creepy and scary now.

Because that dream was a nightmare, and thank heavens we’ve awakened from it.

However the future will be, it won’t be Maoist.  Sure, there will be disgusting periods in future history — as there were in the past — but whatever lies in future for us long term is not the “perfect” centralized state, with or without computers.

I’m an individual, not a number.  And so, gentle reader, are you.

For which I’m very glad.

(UPDATE ON THE GREAT BOOK SALE: New list tomorrow, probably close to noon.  Sorry, I’m combating either a bug or my thyroid going low again (yes, I AM having tests) and last night I was too tired to box.  I also need to do a more careful turn-over on the library to figure out if I can locate that series of Night Shifters. I will, probably, in the process, find other things, like probably older books/copies.)

One can’t read science fiction — old or new — without taking away the idea that “there are just too many darn people.”

Now part of this is because humans are really good at scaring themselves with numbers.  Starting with Malthus, and on through the early 70s, or so, everyone was plugging the growth numbers for the population since the beginning of the industrial age and extrapolating them ad infinitum.

Which, btw, by now would have us as some truly impossible number.

Of course Malthus — misanthropy in math — was wrong.  Not just a little bit too.  It apparently never occurred to him that given women (families in general really) being able to count on more kids surviving, they would no longer have six or seven or however many in batch lots.  I mean, sure, without contraception, humans would still have more children than we do now, but even then… The population growth was already falling by the early twentieth century due to the old ways of making population fall: later marriage, some timing control of sex in married life.  Sure, it doesn’t work for everyone (wouldn’t work for me, part of my problem being odd times for ovulation, which caused us the opposite problem of too many children (!) but it still modulates population growth, so it’s not uncontrolled.)

As you guys know, I don’t think we’re 7 billion or whatever number the UN claims, and frankly I can’t understand why ANYONE believes the UN on this. They can’t be trusted on anything else, pretty much taking the word of dictators and totalitarians for proven facts, but you trust them on this? Really?  And you’re sure that countries that can barely keep commerce going (and sometimes can’t) are really sending out census forms and getting accurate counts?  Or do you think such countries are taking to bush and hinterlands and isolated villages in the middle of nowhere and counting “peasants” person by person?  If you do you probably also think that Juan Valdez picks coffee bean by bean.  Not to mention that it’s just a coincidence, I’m sure, that countries that are net recipients of international aid PER CAPITA have the highest population growth.  I’m sure.

But more importantly, what the heck is “overpopulation?”  Like “Global warming” it seems to be a case of finding a problem in “too much of a good thing.”

I mean, humans thrive when the Earth warms, and human progress and well-being (yeah, and population too) dives when the Earth cools.  We want the Earth cooler, because?  And please, don’t say we’ll become Mars or some such arrant nonsense.  There are reasons Mars is the way it is and they don’t apply to Earth, no matter how many times Scientific American (I remember a nineties article.  Not the first to make me lose all respect for SA, but close to the last) screams that they do.

In the same way what is “overpopulation?”  At what do we set it?

Americans don’t realize how much closer populated Europe is.  And Europeans don’t realize how UNPOPULATED the US is.  Just watching a movie the other day — one of those endless saving Christmas movies, because husband was watching it while I did something in sight of the TV — I was amused by images of “going all over the US” including the west, including Denver, but the shots were all NYC dense and high.  But having grown up in Europe I can tell you that’s what Europeans think all of America is like, all high rises coast to coast.  So, yeah, they think we’re overpopulated.

But you know, as tightly packed together as Europe is — to us — they’re still not overpopulated.  Their population density (mostly near highways) works, and makes for (mostly) walkable communities. (No,I don’t want to import it here.  But it works for them.)  And if you ask, they might wax poetical about unspoiled meadows and forests, but they don’t consider themselves overpopulated.

We’re certainly nowhere at maximum capacity the Earth can support, either in space or food.  Most famines in the world today are not caused by scarcity but by kleptocracy.

Sure, you can claim that we’re injuring the environment, destroying species or whatever the heck, but the truth is that the US is more forested now than when the pilgrims arrived, and as for rare species: species have been arising and dying since there has been life on Earth.  Also given the ridiculous way species are considered as separate for the sake of making something a protected environment, I’m not even sure we have a true picture of that.  Beyond the fact that we also have no clue “what is minimum species diversity?”

Take it as read that people like looking at the pretty animals and plants, and wealthy people — which humans now are, by and large compared to historical norm — put a priority on this.  What priority is it? How important? And are we really hurting anything, or is the fact that species encroach on suburbs (not the other way around. Check) just a show of the wildlife doing better.  Also, when should we intervene when one species threatens another?

If your entire job is screaming about humans doing this or that, you’re not an environmentalist.  You’re a sad freak who hates your own species, probably because he hates himself.  Species encroach on and hurt each other’s number or habitats all the time.  If you took “species diversity”seriously, you’d care about those TOO.

Oh, yeah, contributing to fears of overpopulation was Calhoun’s mouse experiment.  People look at how the wheels came off as the number of mice climbed and keep seeing parallels with our own society.  It would be more accurate to see the mouse experiment as a prison population or perhaps as the results of socialism.

First of all, humans aren’t rodentia.  Second the Earth is not and never will be an absolutely enclosed space.  Third, to get to the level of “overpopulation” he had, we’d need to… well…. we’d need to be denser than the densest city on Earth ALL OVER THE EARTH. Fourth, the main problem was the “loss of role” of the population.  Which had more to do with the fact they were being fed “for nothing” than actually striving for their daily bread.  And if you consider what happened, it closely resembles the behavior of humans under the “soft” version of socialism, aka European socialism than anything having to do with overpopulation.

People are still terrified of overpopulation, though, even though we demonstrably are nowhere near the world say of Logan’s Run.

Why?  I have this theory that it is because subconsciously we think our environment is a lot more densely populated than it is.  I know that there was an experiment semi-recently in which people apparently say they have a lot more neighbors/friends than they do, because seeing people on TV, etc. subconsciously convinces people they live in a vast tribe.  Our brains aren’t equipped for modernity.

I think this fear we’re overpopulated plugs in that.

But we’re not.  Relax.  Okay, you’re allowed to point and laugh, particularly when some sample of cognoscenti says we should all live in super high rises because mah overpopulation and leave the world to the plants and the little animals.

Pfui.

This is just hatred of their own species set to music. (Or in this case, to fashion.) And it’s arrant nonsense.

Sure, I think we should spread to the stars, because a diversified environment is better for a species, and I happen to like humans, but we’re not even close to being “too many” for the Earth.

Also no one knows what too many is.

That fear didn’t come to pass.  In fact the opposite might be true.

So when the peddlers of nightmares try to encroach on you or prescribe (somehow they always do) socialism for “overpopulation” just laugh and make duck noises.  Then ignore them, and go your own way.

And if they persist, tell them to go forth and multiply. Only not so politely.

UPDATE: On the great booksale of 2018 — new post tomorrow, but… —

I CAN’T FOR THE LIFE OF ME FIND NIGHT SHIFTERS.  I know I have them and remember unpacking them, but I think I put them in “a safe place.”  I’ve remedied the people who had ordered, but let’s assume I can’t find them in the next week.

Darkship Renegades MIGHT be sold out.  I’m going to package extant orders (those people to whom I’ve given the go ahead) tonight and will let you know.  I might have one or two copies left of the appalling (horrendous, no good) hardcover of Draw One In The Dark. (it’s in good condition.  The cover just sucks.)
I found an entire box of hardcovers of All Night Awake (Shakespeare books).  There might be other hard covers down there, in boxes, so I’ll try to have a count tomorrow morning.  For now, on those too, let’s call hardcovers $18, okay? (mostly because extra weight.)  And for the horrible and probably collectible cover of DOITD, first come first serve.

I have a couple of Dipped Stripped and Dead (under Elise Hyatt) and a few more of each of the subsequent ones.  Let’s call those $5 each if buying more than one.  ($7 otherwise?)

I have a Goldport Press TPB of Death of a musketeer (call it $12 with other books.) and a few others I’ll tally tonight.

Oh, yeah, I have TPB copies of No Will But His and a few of Plain Jane (the later under Elise Hyatt.)  Again, I’ll see how many I have tomorrow and whether it’s an “urgent” thing.

I’ll give you a new list tomorrow.  Promise.

Vignettes by Luke, Mary Catelli and ‘Nother Mike

So what’s a vignette? You might know them as flash fiction, or even just sketches. We will provide a prompt each Sunday that you can use directly (including it in your work) or just as an inspiration. You, in turn, will write about 50 words (yes, we are going for short shorts! Not even a Drabble 100 words, just half that!). Then post it! For an additional challenge, you can aim to make it exactly 50 words, if you like.

We recommend that if you have an original vignette, you post that as a new reply. If you are commenting on someone’s vignette, then post that as a reply to the vignette. Comments — this is writing practice, so comments should be aimed at helping someone be a better writer, not at crushing them. And since these are likely to be drafts, don’t jump up and down too hard on typos and grammar.

If you have questions, feel free to ask.

Your writing prompt this week is: Assorted.

Paper Books for Sale

Okay, so I couldn’t get the bookplates going (though I might give it one more try.  Will let you know if I can.  It’s mostly a matter of making it fit the labels for printing) but I have paper back books for sale.  The number of copies is indeterminate, as we keep finding boxes I stowed a way in weird(er than normal) places as well as finding boxes we thought were copies of one of the books are something else entirely.  I’m taking the rest of the day to figure out precisely what we have, but you kind of need this earlier.

So we’re going first come first serve and I’ll post here when I run out. I promise to get books in mail by Wednesday if ordered before then.  Keep in mind Media Mail might not get there for Christmas.  Proceed accordingly.

Trade paperbacks, signed (if you want it personalized, PLEASE tell me) are $15, unless you’re ordering more than 2, in which case they’re $12 each.  SHIPPING VIA MEDIA MAIL INCLUDED IN THE US.  SURCHARGE WILL APPLY FOR ANY INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING.  If you need them express to make sure you have them there for Christmas, please let me know and then when you pay add the price of shipping express from 80206 to your address.  We’ll ship them ASAP, but probably only Wednesdays and Fridays, (for reasons of my work time) so beware of that.

Mass Market Paperbacks are $6, except Night Shifters which is $10 (it’s massive.  Also shipping it will be expensive even media mail.)

Because I’m uncertain how many I have, (some a ton, some like half a dozen) and need to go to library downstairs and count some, the procedure is this: send me an email indicating the book or books you want.  Send it to Goldport Press At Gmail dot com.  (No spaces, and substitute at and dot, of course.)

I will answer each day, verify we have what you want and give you the paypal to send the money to.  I can also give you an address to send a check to, but that will slow down the whole process, so probably will make it difficult to have books for Christmas.

So, these are the books we have at least some number of:

Shifter series:

Which is an omnibus consisting of Draw One In The Dark and Gentleman Takes a Chance. Mass Market Paperback, but THICK. Price above.

Gentleman Takes a Chance, the second of the Shifter’s books.  Trade Paper Back.

Third of the Shifter’s Series. Trade Paper Back.

First of the Darkship Books. Prometheus Award Winner. Trade Paperback.

Second of the Darkship books, trade paperback.

Third of the Darkship Thieves Saga, first of the subseries on the Earth Revolution.  Both Trade Paperback and Mass Market Paperback.  (I’d prefer if the mmpb is part of an order of tpb, just for shipping, really.)

Fourth in the Darkship Saga, second in subseries on Earth revolution.  Trade paperback.

Fifth in Darkship Thieves saga.  Trade Paper Back.

Please note these are all I’m sure I have at least a couple of. When I have a chance to explore in the basement (don’t ask) I’ll list the others I might have some of.  I think I’m all out of Shakespeare trilogy, but I might have one or two besides the two copies husband likes to keep on hand.  Ditto Magical British empire, though I might have two or three of each.  Don’t even ask what I have in Musketeer mysteries until I figure out where they went.  I THINK I might have half a dozen of furniture refinishing mysteries, but ditto.

Note that some of those others not on this page have collectible value (as a regular reported he can’t find one cheaper than $50) and I’ll have to figure that out before I price, of course.  Because not totally daft.  So, keep that in mind. Will add to this and do another post, probably Tuesday.

Sunday Book Promo

FROM CYN BAGLEY (yay, she’s writing again):  Hero of Corsindor: Revised and Updated Edition

In the kingdom of Corsindor, the prince is lost, the king is dead, and the queen is holding the reins of government against disloyal nobles. They want a puppet to consolidate their power over the land. The queen has only one ally, who is not human.

There are rumors that the borders have been closed. Plus the long-lost prince, who knows nothing of ruling, is returning. Corsindor is being attacked from within and without by nightstalkers.

Shira, a foundling, trained by the Ahrah, Corsindor’s neighbors, is sent find out the conditions in Corsindor. Warrior and child of another world – her job is to confront the demons and reduce the chaos in the world. Will she survive?

Will she be tempted to take it all?