It’s All a Grand Plan (swallow this post after you read it!)

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

So two days ago a friend sent me this “quote”:

“America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within.” – Josef Stalin

It appears it has been all over face book.  It seemed wrong to me. I mean, it appeared on the order of “Ninety percent of quotes on the internet are wrong,” George Washington.

What appeared PARTICUARLY wrong was, so to say, the “psychology” of the quote.  It’s clearly how some Americans view America, but is it how Josef Stalin would see it?

Let’s leave aside the whole question of how much he believed in communism or whether he did.  He was a psychopath, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t dress his wishes in some form of ideology, and if he did it was communism.  If he believed in communism, the idea that America was “moral” is right out.  In fact, we know he had this idea that America just pretty much was promiscuously commercial from his quote about selling us a rope.  (And that one sounds real.)

In any case, whether he believed in communism or not, he would not say that aloud if he believed it.  Think how bad it would be for someone continuously denouncing us for that criminally evil regime – capitalism – to say we were moral.

Besides, children, veddy bad news, but despite our puritan streak, no one in the rest of the world views us as moral.  Mostly because we’re more open at our weirdness than they are.  It’s like a friend tells me the Japanese are in general very straight-laced, which is why their porn is so wild.  But HERE we get the porn and the tentacle anime and… and we assume that Japanese is a seething mass of bizarre and sex.  That’s sort of how the rest of the world sees us.  If you start an internet rumor that a fad of putting goldfish in your ears for sexual satisfaction is spreading in America, they’ll believe it.  And they would probably even more so when murderous uncle Joe was alive.

The “America is a healthy body” is also something he would not say aloud.  Because again, whether he believed communism or not, that was what they were selling to the masses, and in communist doctrine no capitalist country is healthy as such.  (It’s in conflict, in contradiction, just waiting to be transitioned, you might say.)

Then we have “its spiritual life” – oh, BROTHER.  Let alone that communists are atheists, and that there is a good chance Stalin saw his god in front of the shaving mirror every morning…  Even if he subscribed to the idea that a spiritual life of some sort was good, he would look at us and think we had none.

Look, it’s unfair.  It’s like our being the prudes that everyone else thinks are the class sluts, because we wear makeup and our skirt is a bit short (meaning we don’t pretend to be holier than thou) but as much as America is more religious than other Western countries, measurably, statistically, this is NOT how the world sees us.  They see our multitude of religions.  If you’re devout, how can you be friends with people who believe differently?  Clearly, you’re not devout.  They see our crazier manifestations – and that’s mostly what they see there, the snake handling sects, the spiritist sects, and then the fake churches like the idiots who picket soldiers funerals.  It’s mostly what they see because it’s what their media finds “interesting” – and they think of our religion, here in America as somewhere between a carnival and a freak show.

Why would someone viewing that think of it as a strength?  It would be more “Keep those crazy americans busy with their crazy religions, they’re less likely to believe we’re infiltrating.”

Of all of that only patriotism makes sense, since communism is an international creed and us such believes that undermining patriotism is essential to its spread.

So, yes, I went to snopes and the quote is fake.  Or at least “likely fake.”  (Trust me, it’s fake.)

Which bring us to why I spent so much time analyzing it.  No, it’s not to inure you about future bad quotes.  They will go around, and all of us will fall for some of them sometime.

The reason I spent so much time introducing this is that when I went to Snopes, I found this listed under one particular kind of lie.  The “The enemy is so clever” lie.

We’ve seen this with the Russians far too much and all through my life.  “They’re so clever, that they engineered this and that and the other thing.”  “They’re so brilliant, this is happening just according to their plan.”

Guys, take a deep breath, step back.  If this is all according to their plan, it’s the only plan of theirs that ever went right.  I mean, seriously, they couldn’t feed their own homeland with all those five years plans, but they can do a near hundred year plan to take over the rest of the world?

But Sarah, you’ll say, you say we’re still suffering from the effects of Soviet agit prop!

Oh, sure we are, but agit prop is not a careful plan.  Look, communism is very good at proselytizing.  Arguably it’s the one thing it’s good at.  It hits, like all other communitarian doctrines, the part of the human brain that’s both looking for “fair” and longing for a return to childhood, with benevolent overseeing parents.

Put enough agit prop over there (and they put a lot) and some of it is going to hit and corrupt the vision of other countries.  Besides, communism is so tailor made for intellectuals, explaining how things would be better if the intelligentsia ruled us.

BUT that is not a plan.  Not unless it’s in the sense of “we do this, and this just might happen.”  Witness for instance, that a plan would have come to fruition much earlier – like, before the USSR collapsed.  Also, people that good at planning would have made sure that their system worked.  (It is one of the funniest things about communism that they are central planners, but their plans never work.  Okay, funny in a bitter way.  I’m not laughing at the mass graves their delusions have caused.

There is a tendency to look at trends we don’t like in society and things that aid ideologies we don’t approve of, and think that it’s all a fiendish plan.

Both sides do it.  The left looked at the tea parties and panicked, because it doesn’t fit their conceptual universe for people to protest high taxes.  So they invented the boogey man of the Koch brothers (rather libertarian old bachelors whom a friend who worked for them assured me are very nice.)

Soros is not on the same level – because, well, we KNOW he finances all sorts of left causes (and given his history, anyone who thinks he’s one the side of angels and works for causes he endorses, should think again.  Once you sell out your own people as a kid, well… you’re done, morally speaking.  Particularly when you still brag about it as an old man.)  And he has more money than the Kochs ever did.

But does that mean it’s all his “plan”?  Is it all going according to his plan?  Oh, please, guys – OWS.  No, seriously.  OWS.  Yes, we all saw the ads on Craigslist, but nowhere did it say “must poop on police cars” okay?

He’s a man who wants to see the world burn and to that end tosses a lot of money at various disruptive causes.  But he does not have a detailed plan, and everything does not go according to his plan, or you’d be looking at his face in a big screen every morning, while you did your mandated exercises. (Big Soros is watching you.  Ick.)

Here’s the thing and the reason I don’t believe in the “conspiracy theory of history” except in the sense that some humans will look for power, and that the way they do it is always predictable: humans are strange.

No, seriously, humans are strange.  There has never been a satisfactory enough theory to the way the individual human mind works.  Oh, somewhat… but each school of psychology has hold of an end and no one has the full elephant.  Which is why psychology remains a semi-soft science.

This simplifies somewhat when you have a crowd, but it’s still not conclusive.  And when you have something like a country, which is a conglomerate of crowds… well…

History takes sudden turns, precipitated by events and one or two odd individuals in a crowd who don’t react the way you expect.  “Scientific history” is poppycock.  If it weren’t, the United States wouldn’t exist.

Yes, it is all explainable in retrospect, how we came to be. It’s easy to make up just-so stories about the past.

I doubt there’s ever been a human plan that worked, throughout history, and those of us who believe in a divine plan also believe it has taken some weird turns to accommodate us.  Or as grandma would say “G-d writes straight on crooked lines.” (Or for those of you don’t believe, yes, those could be “just so” stories too, but if it’s all the same with you, I’ll throw my lot in with grandma.  You see, I knew her, and I trust her judgement.)

We’re not G-d.  Yes, I know.  Very upsetting.  But we’re not.  This means that any plan that takes more than a generation will take some very weird turns, go sideways, and slide upside down, in the game of telephone that’s multi-generational belief.

Take for instance old Joe’s supposed quote above.  Even if it had been true, could he have predicted the effect of a massive demographic bulge on American culture which did most of the loosening of said culture?  I doubt it. I think the man had a talent for killing and terror, but no demonstrable intelligence otherwise.

Then why are we attributing G-d like intelligence to him?

Well, both because it puts the other side in the light of traitors and because it means we can’t do anything – see how comfortable that is?  We can’t do anything, so why try?  We can be absolute lumps and lecture all our friends still trying to turn things around and save us from a crash with “You fools.  It’s been planned for decades.  There’s nothing you can do.”  Which is very comfortable and morally superior.

I see it all the time, even now, even from respectable thinkers, about the deblacle that is Obama Care.  “They planned this all.  It’s all incredibly smart.  Game over, man.”

Oh, please.  You don’t need to drink their ink.  No one in their right mind could have planned that insanity.  Did they plan for the plan to collapse into single payer?  Surely.  But not by the sheer incompetence of governmental administration.

We’re well outside their plan, guys.  They’re the gang that can’t shoot straight.  No, this doesn’t mean they’re completely ineffective.  They’re very good at destruction and destruction is half of their job.  BUT it means when their plan goes wrong (and it always does) there is an opening for us to come in, to save things, to fix things, to make things work the way we want.

Will it go exactly according to plan for us?  Oh, heck no.  BUT we can push it in the right direction and keep working.

We’re good at working and at building.

This morning, I got up and I cleaned poop from the hallway.  Our geriatric cat is having diarrhea.

Being a conservative/libertarian is sort of like that.  You’re always cleaning poop you didn’t make.  And you don’t want to, because you have no interest in power over others.  But if you just leave it there, someone will slip on it and make a bigger mess.

It’s not a plan.  It’s just that you know where the spray cleaner is, and the paper towels, so you do it.  And you change what would otherwise have happened.

Be of good cheer.  Destruction is not a plan and incompetence is not a destination.

Giving up would be premature and despair is a sin.  In the long run, destroyers always lose, and you always need the person who knows where the cleaner is kept and how to use the paper towels.

Square your shoulders and be alert.  You, those you love, and perhaps the entire country depend on you.  This is not time to go wobbly.

 

 

 

 

301 thoughts on “It’s All a Grand Plan (swallow this post after you read it!)”

  1. I’m always a little baffled at the grand conspiracy folks. Everything is a grand conspiracy. Of the government, of the corporations, of the wealthy, of the aliens. (Well, maybe the alien folks are right.)

    Obamacare is a grand conspiracy? They’ve demonstrated that sort of competence (any sort of competence outside agitation) for you? I must be missing it.

    Maybe Sam Walton wanted to take over the world, some people swear by it. Maybe he even had the chops to get it done. But then he died (we all do), and his kids just ain’t Sam Walton. Seems like that’s the way it goes.

    Like

    1. It is curious that folks who profess faith in free markets fall prey to such conspiracy theories when the analytical tools of market dynamics readily explain the operations of the political sphere.

      For an actor like Soros there is no need to aim when you have a shotgun in hand.

      Like

    2. Well, the other side has said repeatedly that Obamacare is a stalking horse for single-payer. In public.

      A competent conspiracy is another matter.

      Like

      1. Their goal was a system that would slowly degrade the health insurance marketplace making single-payer the only practical option. Their structure instead collapsed of its own weight without bringing down the private insurance market with it.

        They intended to drive it into a ditch and instead went over a cliff.

        Like

          2. No, they have not.

            They were always discredited in “our” eyes.

            In the eyes of THEIR tribe this is somehow Bushes/Congresses/Conservatives fault.

            When the magic works the shaman is all powerful. When it fails it’s usually that the evil (meaning other tribes) shaman is interfering.

            Like

  2. Your last two paragraphs are dead on Sarah. My mother would phrase it differently. She would say that “God hates a coward.” People with convictions who don’t stand up for them are useless.

    The rest of your post brings up a question. With your permission (Thank you for granting it.) I’d like to ask my fellow Guns the following question: Are you willing to let the other side clean up their own mess if we refuse to? That’s the one we should all be asking ourselves.

    Like

        1. A good set of hands around the neck makes for a lovely accessory, on the right person.

          Apologies, it’s lunch time, I’m not thinking clearly.

          Like

      1. Ooh, ooh!!! Sarah Hoyt is inciting violence!!!

        Cover your ears, cover your eyes — you must not listen to her nor read what she says! Unclean! Thought criminal! Unclean! UNCLEAN!

        Like

          1. But you used the word ‘kill’… you know, it’s like pointing a finger. Or maybe like making a joke about bombs while waiting to get into an airplane.

            Like

          2. So you add discrimination to your thought crimes? Do not software programs have rights? Do not software programs yearn to be free?

            Like

                1. Racist! Er, something like that anyway. All individuals need to be given a chance. Maybe it was just raised wrong, and if we talk to it nicely everything will be okay and it can become a productive member of society again.

                  Like

                  1. Speciesist? Discriminating against software is mumble when after all, what are we but software in a meat suit? What is culture if not software?

                    Like

                    1. Moral beings– means we can choose to not follow the programming, and shouldn’t if it violates the…uh… deeper, elemental design in the hardware? But our software can violate our hardware programming.

                      K, the metaphor kinda breaks down.

                      For the ist– Organicist, of course; you bio-bags are are just biased against the inorganic.

                      Like

        2. I think that is actually grounds for being called to the principal’s office for some serious questions these days.

          Like

            1. Well, nothing quite like that here, yet, as far as I know, but some types of censoring do seem to happen. Occasionally I get a few more gray hairs with those newspaper (news, hah…) net version comment threads. Today there was a story about a shooting in USA. Two men get into an argument over bad parking on a parking lot, both carry, end result a shootout of some sorts. No real details were given. The comments were, of course, full of those ‘only in USA’, ‘that’s what you get when you let people carry’ etc and so on and so on. A few scattered ones trying to speak some sense. One of those comments got answered with another commenter demanding links to all that research, the tone being ‘you’re just making that up…’.

              I tried. No links, since on that paper they don’t usually publish anything with links, just some article names you could have used on google. Well, the comments there are checked before publishing. Of course that didn’t get through.

              Well, I did actually try to leave two comments there, and the first one might have been a tad snarky, but the second was just a couple of sentences about the Kates and Mauser pdf, and how to find it, and it didn’t show either. So I suppose it could have been just that they told how to find links, even if they didn’t contains links, and maybe the checker got overzealous (I think with that one it’s actually people, not software, journalist students or something like that) but anyway… or maybe he/she/they assumed the words would leave the poor unsuspecting readers on some American right wing militia pages full of bomb making advice and stuff like that, plus some malware on top of everything else.

              Like

              1. In the US, not only are concealed carry permit holders more law-abiding than the general population but the rate of murder committed by concealed carry permit holders is one-third that of police officers.

                Like

            2. Reason #2711 why my daughter doesn’t go go a federally funded school until she can field strip her AK.

              Which reminds me, I need to get her one.

              Like

    3. I think we’re getting to the point where the “Sons of Martha”, which includes Hoyt’s Huns, are deciding to be pickier about the messes they clean up. That isn’t to say we won’t continue to clean stuff up but we’ll probably look at the chances of the mess repeating and whether it affects us adversely. If it’s going to happen again and we can find a path that means we don’t have to smell / see / step in the mess then we probably won’t bother cleaning it up

      Like

      1. One of the primary rules of parenting is that you sometimes have to let the kids mess up else they will never learn their assumptions are invalid.

        Like

        1. Yup
          Or to put it in (macro)economic terms: If you subsidize somethign you get more of it. A lot of the time “cleanup” is effectively a subsidy becasue the full cost is hidden

          Like

    4. I’m just hoping we won’t have to get out the other spray cleaners. Well we won’t spray and pray but, they will. We will aim our cleansers at them and “get ‘er done”. I really hope to avoid that, many of them ase stupid and misguided but, not evil.

      Like

    5. It seems to me that this mess goes far beyond cat excrement in the foyer. This is more like the carpet got soaked with sewage. It’s bad now, but once it starts to mold, we won’t be able to live in the house with it. You don’t sit back and wait for a group of demonstrated incompetents to clean up the mess they made when the stakes are this high. Just pray it didn’t get into the drywall.

      Like

    6. “Are you willing to let the other side clean up their own mess if we refuse to?”

      Depends. Some messes, if they only affect the ones who made them, no. They made the mess, they can live in it or clean it up. That’s part and parcel of the whole responsibility thing. Most even marginally reasonable people prefer to be clean.

      Unfortunately, their political messes tend to affect everybody. That means, like the neighbor whose house gets so filthy the roaches begin to encroach on *your* property, his mess becomes yours. ACA, education, save the spotted greeble warbler, sensitivity and racial tolerance training…

      Unf*sking these messes is a tremendous job. It can be largely thankless and often regarded with derision. The other side doesn’t even recognize the mess they’ve created. Even on the rare occasions they do, they quite often can’t follow the chain of causation back to see their own part in building the scaffold and tying the rope.

      Dismantling this structure in the face of that opposition is our job, because there’s no one else to do it, and if we don’t, we all hang- either for our actions or our refusal to act correctly in this situation.

      Good men and women will always have a way out, though. It’s usually right through the mess. Driving in and setting things straight alone won’t cut it. We need to educate, live by example (flawed as some of us- me at least- may be), and encourage critical thinking.

      Oh yeah, and vote the b*stards out of office. More importantly, replace them with folks with the will and the determination to set things right. Watch them closely to see that they do. Apply the boot as necessary.

      Like

  3. Ok, I really should not be out in public today. My first response to the title of this post was, “I don’t swallow.”

    My second response was, “That’s what she said!”

    I’m going to go crawl under my desk, now.

    Like

  4. “Be of good cheer. Destruction is not a plan and incompetence is not a destination.”
    Mind if I borrow this for a sig?

    Fabulous, inspiring post. Everyone can do this. We make our future!

    Roll Tide! Human Wave!

    Like

  5. But But Sarah! Communists *aren’t* Real Atheists because Communism is a Religion!!! [Sarcasm]

    Like

      1. I’ve had that discussion a few times. The atheists usually keep insisting that it’s not, not believing is not a faith. I keep insisting that I don’t understand, there is no scientific proof either for or against, and if anything there actually seems to be some mild proof for existence of _something_ after death if not for a deity, so you can’t really say whether there is something or not. Maybe there is. Maybe there isn’t. The case is open as far as modern science is concerned (and likely to remain so for a long, long time since it’s one of those subjects where any research for the evidence of existence of something seems to be toxic as far as successful academic careers are concerned, while anything that casts doubt for that existence tends to be accepted).

        So, as far as I understand atheists seem to _believe_ there is no deity or anything like a soul, while they have no actual proof that there isn’t, and that really does sound like faith to me. Especially since most of them (well, the ones you know are atheists because they make sure you know, I’m sure there are lots of more quiet, mind their own business -ones too, but as usual, the noisy ones are the ones who define the public face of the group) are not as much saying anything like ‘it doesn’t look as if there is’ or ‘there is no good proof for that’, but rather ‘there is not’, often with rather uncompromising finality. They believe.

        After which it always seems to devolve back into ‘but not believing is not a faith’. *sigh*

        They have a couple of times also tried to make me ‘realize’ that I’m actually an atheist myself. Yes, I may be mildly agnostic, I believe but admit that my belief does not mean things are so, but twisting that into ‘Atheist!’ seems like trying to stretch things way past breaking point.

        Like

        1. Agnosticism is a rational expression of skepticism, a sensible reaction to absence of evidence. Atheism reaches its conclusion (as you so eloquently note) in spite of the absence of evidence supporting that conclusion — they go a bridge too far.

          I am often amused at those atheists who justify their faith on the basis that, if there is a G-d, He is a right bastard for allowing us free will (not quite how they phrase it, but that is what it comes down to.) AS IF an omniscient omnipotent multi-dimensional entity owes it to them to be comprehensible by their tiny incompetent brains. Agnosticism, I repeat, is rational, but deciding He doesn’t exist because you don’t like how he runs the universe amounts to naught more than aesthetic criticism.

          Like

          1. All I know is: 1) I am sufficiently convinced by the evidence of the nonexistence of all-powerful deities (note plural) that to prove to me one (or more, for the polytheists) exists would take nothing less than one (or more) to appear right in front of me and prove its power by fixing my myriad physical and psychological defects.

            At which point: 2) I will personally Beat The Ever-Loving Blue-Eyed *FUCK* Out Of It for gratuitously torturing me for four fucking decades.

            That’s Science right there — “for every action, an equal and opposite reaction”….

            Like

            1. That you think it is gratuitous just proves my second point. Those of us who know you generally deem it well-deserved. :-)

              I look forward to your effort to “Beat The Ever-Loving Blue-Eyed *FUCK* Out Of” Thor, Kali, Horus or whichever deity has the CF portfolio.

              Like

            2. That’s like responding to a scientific theory with “there are thousands of theories which are false; so this one must be, as well.” Can’t remember the fallacy, but it is one…..

              At which point: 2) I will personally Beat The Ever-Loving Blue-Eyed *FUCK* Out Of It for gratuitously torturing me for four fucking decades.

              So, powerful enough to be responsible for torturing you for decades, but weak enough to be assaulted?

              Like

    2. yes, that is true, actually, but it is a goddless religion which complicates everything. They THINK they’re atheists.
      Honestly, if they JUST became a religion and spent their time giving away their possessions, organizing communes, preaching against the “god delusion” and living in poverty in the holy house of eternal redistribution, I wouldn’t have anything against them. I would think they were bug-nut crazy, of course, but inoffensive. UNFORTUNATELY they think they’re NOT a religion, but a political system. And they try to impose their beliefs on us.

      Like

  6. Cool, let’s get to it. Here are my main culture-restoring ideas for those of us who aren’t purveyors of media:

    – An underground paper. Really get into the whole aesthetic – wear a mask, have a lot of bold line art, write poetry that actually has good form – drive home that the people who call themselves subversives are just saying that to conceal that they’ve become The Man.

    – Stealth education. You know all the fantasy heroes who were deeply influenced by The Tutor Who Got Sent Away? Be that tutor. Offer homework help, or babysitting, or whatever – and then inspire the children to strive beyond what their school expects of them. History, of course, leaves you all sorts of paths. If it’s math, tell them what Rejewski and Turing accomplished with math skills. If it’s science, tell them of Norman Borlaug. If it’s Language Arts, read them part of an idealistic, adventurous story (The Hobbit, The Egypt Game) and then leave the book with them – the surest path to real literacy I know.

    I’d also suggest we join forces with Bill Whittle, but that guy is way, way more of a slacker than he’s willing to admit.

    Like

        1. I’d think eating Bill would be ultimately counterproductive. I mean, we want him to keep on being a thorn in the side of vile progs everywhere. Some self-control in this case might be recommended.

          Like

        2. Well, you’re impaired. You’re a person a penistude, which predisposes you (though not makes it impossible, mind) not to admire masculine beauty. Frankly Stephen Green is more my taste, but I had to go and become friends with him and his wife, and ruin my own oggling. One doesn’t oggle one’s friends. SIGH. ‘s okay. He’s more fun as a friend than ogglable as a pinup.
          But one thing for sure — self excepted — the right side of the political spectrum has yummier people.

          Like

          1. I am now, and henceforth, a Person of Penistude. I’m gonna see if I can stick that on those eeo forms under the self-identify nonsense.

            Like

            1. You are aware that the short expression for that description is usually listed as “Prick”? The term “Vaginally Challenged” is more appropriate in our contemporary culture.

              Like

              1. It’s been said I could own the appellation “prick” without much disruption of my personality. Seemed like a compliment.

                Like

          2. I’ll vote on Bill being more attractive, but Mr. Green is cute– not quite as adorable as Paul Ryan, though, who reminds me greatly of my husband is just adorable.

            Like

            1. It’s a play on pretty is as pretty does. Which makes it a sexist statement. Obviously you shouldn’t listen to anything your grandma told you, since she was sexist.

              Like

                1. I believe the actual intent of that kind of statement is supposed to be an indication that such a thing feeds back on itself, mental to physical and back, and that a person who does good things will remain attractive, while the person who does not will being to show the ugliness within.

                  It could also be less convoluted and be an implication that someone who does nice (not wimpy attempts at ingratiation, but actually considerate) things will appear more attractive overall than someone who does not.

                  Like

                  2. Most guys know this. Kindness is pretty darned attractive after all. And once you’ve figured out that the beauty in truth does not always mean there’s truth in beauty, you look for other things.

                    Kindness, decency, respect, honor, a sense of humor… These things are quite attractive. If you’re going to pick someone to trust with your life and your children, someone to defend to the death, well, standards usually are going to be a bit higher than “she looks purdy.” *grin*

                    Like

                  3. Of course, the problem is that the truth isn’t as much fun. A more useful definition , since we are getting to real dissection of the metaphor is as follows. Handsome is (lasting attractive qualities) as handsome does (a great personality that is warm and loving and will last longer than a pretty face and 6pack abs)

                    Like

          4. Stephen is definitely the best dressed and best coiffed of the three of them.

            I just wish he’d notice when I tweet at him. It’s usually funny stuff.

            Like

      2. The guy has phenomenal ideas and every intent to pursue them… and then inevitably fizzles out three months later. Ejectia, Declaration Entertainment, the Free Frontier, the Common Sense Resistance… I mean, I’m subscribed to BillWhittle.com, but that’s more because I really want him to succeed than because I actually expect it.

        Like

        1. Yes. Guy could use an efficient and experienced, and preferably rich, mentor or associate. Some old fox business type or something.

          Frankly, that does seem like bit of a problem with the conservative/libertarian side. Lots and lots of good ideas, which tend to get forgotten when the next bright idea comes up. Squirrel!

          While on the lefty side people keep doggedly pursuing even the provably already failed ideas. That, I guess, is one of their strengths. That, and their skill in saying things in an appealing way, one which makes them sound as if they really, really do care, and want to take you on their lap and give you milk and cookies and tell you nice fairy tales. Mommy… a rather permissive one too, if you are a teenager she’s the kind who will buy you alcohol and that slut dress you wanted and let you stay out as long as you like, and then take you back in her embrace when you get hurt because you were stupid instead of lecturing you. What’s there not to like.

          Like

          1. In Internet arguments, I throw people off guard by respecting them and always remembering that they’re probably not the enemy, they’re just miseducated. It seems inconceivable to a lot of Millennial public school victims that a conservative could recognize their essential humanity; once they realize I’m serious, I do actually notice them starting to reconsider a few things.

            Like

              1. It’s how we prove ourselves human, I think. If we’re going to demand respect from others, it behooves us to show some of it, first.

                Like

        2. Seems to be following up on DE just fine but slowly. DE money comes in slowly, Arroyo gets made slowly… talented people in Hollywood aren’t going to work for free. He’s going to need to assemble a team for Aurora and doesn’t seem to realize that if he wants to get the VFX done on a decent schedule its going to require at least ten experienced people. (or a core team of five people and about ten part-timers, depending on how many models need to be built…)

          Like

          1. There are people outside of your country who do work for less pay than the ones in Hollywood, and whose work is as good or very close to it, (Energia Productions, for one, those are the Finns who started their careers with the parody movie Star Wreck, and then Iron sky) but I guess he wants to keep employing Americans. Well, there are people not yet in Hollywood in USA too who might work cheap, but I suppose one problem can be that most of them probably would like to work in Hollywood, and DE sounds like that kind of work experience which might complicate getting into the big leagues (as the big leagues are now…).

            Like

            1. The VFX for Iron Sky were done with the help of by US and Canadian VFX artists, working for Energia in Finland. Read the VFX credits list and note the names that are not Finns- especially the supervisors. (I know several of the guys that worked there… Lightwave community guys who I worked with or know through the community…)

              Yes, you can get it cheaper be working through a decentered, mostly freelance VFX studio. You would ideally ant your supervisors near where the production is based, and the production is obviously going to be based here.

              When applying for VFX work, they wouldn’t care if your previous experience is working for DE or making industrial videos or what, its more about the content of your reel and your capabilities than where your last job was, when you’re breaking in.

              Like

        3. Whew, so I’m not the only one who thinks that. Ejectia struck me as the most pie-in-the-sky of all of them, so he is coming down to earth, but he’s crazy optimistic in the numbers he comes up with.

          It also disturbs me what a terrible spam-hole ejectejecteject.com has become. Tens of THOUSANDS of spambot comments. I wish he would clean it up. His early work is getting sullied this way.

          Like

    2. A news organization which published only the known facts of any case, and does not try to explain what they mean. And makes sure it gets all the facts. Or if it adds speculations they are in a different part, and clearly labeled as speculations. Perhaps it might even be smart to give two sets of speculation, the conservative and the liberal version included, both clearly labeled as such, and encourage the readers to evaluate them against those facts.

      Like

      1. Opposing Viewpoints: The Press Corps! Man, but I did love those books as a teenager. Speaking of, Intelligence Squared is probably the best format for competitive debate ever put to film.

        But in any case – as you’ve probably never heard of IQ2 until now, and there are no liberals reading smart conservative blogs except to pick out the coded racism to their friends on Tumblr – we’re not going to have a market to rely on from the getgo. We’re going to have to seek one out; start by passing out the paper for free in the campus square or whatnot.

        Like

        1. That kind of places – campuses – might be the perfect place to start advertising with freebies. First, people in general, but especially educated people like the idea that they are considered smart enough to make up their own minds. And second, lecturing to somebody who has already made up his mind about something can be self-defeating, but there are lots of people who actually can see if the facts don’t fit the story, or vice versa, when they can also get the undiluted and uncolored facts and compare.

          Like

  7. “Ninety percent of quotes on the internet are wrong”??

    Here is one guaranteed accurate but fully undocumented. In the words of Ulysses S. Grant, “@!#^$&*/!!!”

    Admittedly, he may himself have been quoting some earlier military officer.

    Like

      2. I will have you know that 87% of my statistics are well founded. (I found them at the bottom of a well.)

        As Twain* wrote, “there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics.”

        *It strikes me as contrary to the spirit of this thread to actually confirm that citation, but I note that Twain apparently attributed it to Disraeli even though the phrase appears in none of Disraeli’s writings.

        Like

        1. A line I don’t get to use often enough: “My, that’s a huge statistic. It must have hurt like hell when you pulled it out of your ass.”

          Like

  8. I’ve heard of John Birchers who thought the fall of the Berlin Wall was a Communist plot. (Bit before my time, or I would probably have met them. Now it’s “Agenda 21”, the conspiracy by those paragons of logistics and organization, the UN.)

    Like

    2. Agenda 21 is indeed an evil plan. Whether they’ll be able to put it into operation, when they can’t even run their own cafeteria without outside help, is another matter.

      Like

      1. It is much easier to organize a demolition crew than a construction bunch. That does not mean the demo crew is organized.

        Like

    3. That’s actually one of our strengths. Not the conspiracy but the idea behind it: we had prepared ourselves for the Great Enemy and they tripped on their own shoaces?!? That’s hard to believe…

      We have a tendency to over-estimate our opposition, to assume they’re at least as capable as we are. This remains a strength as long as we refuse to take counsel of our fears and continue to prepare to meet and match the next Great Enemy.

      It starts to weaken us when we buy into our mythology and theirs regarding their competence and our helplessness.

      Like

      1. See: any Republican operative who doesn’t realize that any leading Democrat advising them on how to win the next election is a concern troll.

        Like

      2. Edit the above: shoeLACES, not shoaces. I’m not sure what shoaces are or how to trip on them.

        Though, come to think of it, the communists would have a 5 year plan to avoid tripping that would lead them to inevitably tripping.

        Like

        1. One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine…
          – From a Soviet Junior Lt’s Notebook

          Found that one looking for this one:

          The reason the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices it on a daily basis.

          Like

          1. Hey — if “no plan survives contact with the enemy”, why bother having a plan in the first place beyond “Enemy there — kill him”?

            Like

              1. A. Generals don’t really need to justify their jobs. They order somebody else to do it. B. I like “Good guys here, bad guys there.” as a starting point. C. We can always expand on intent. “Kill those people, and break those things. You can lightly scuff these, and try not to touch that.”

                Offered in jest, not contradiction.

                Like

            3. Because then you have a baseline to make the necessary modifications to.

              And it’s hyperbole anyway. The Battle of Cowpens, for instance, went as planned.

              Like

    2. And I’ve seen critical comments and articles (usually from England) who gripe at us for not getting involved in hot-spots (like the Balkans, or various African hell-holes) and then bitch us out for poking our noses into matters that don’t concern us when we do…

      Like

      2. No wonder the newly-authorized anti-Kony task force is basically designated for on-site slacktivism.

        Like

      3. Those comments and articles are found here all the time here too. Usual theory is oil. Americans never poke their noses for humanitarian reasons only, they are after oil (or occasionally some other resources if there is no oil, and if there are no known resources to be had then it’s some nefarious CIA related reasons). So one can both whine how Americans never do anything, and then whine when they do something because they obviously do it for all the wrong reasons. Clever, yes?

        I do, however, wonder how you guys managed to smuggle all that oil out of Iraq, since by all accounts there should have been a very obvious line of big tankers going to and from that country to yours. Any ideas?

        Like

        2. Stealth tankers.
          You didn’t really think all that “domestic” oil came from some made up process with the silly name “fracking” now did you?

          And this is one of the few places where I would dare write such drivel knowing y’all will take it as the sarcasm it was meant to be. On the other hand, if I ever aspired to a following…
          Daily Kos here I come!!!

          Like

        3. We’re just so incompetent that we somehow manage to always screw up and give all control of the oil over to sovereign government of the country we went into to get it.

          Like

          1. Are you sure there is no big secret plan in there, somewhere? You pretend to leave, but have some sort of hold over the locals you can then use to extort… well, something. A Plan, anyway. Plot. Secret Stratagem (has to be run by somebody else than your president, though. Unless they are all in it, and just pretending to… uh, something. Skulls and Bones? Does Obama belong? Or maybe he has a chip in his brain, and is really being controlled by the Republicans who are trying to use him to make their opponents look bad… er, that doesn’t quite jell either. Suggestions?).

            Like

        4. Actually, I can explain that.

          See, oil is (very nearly) fungible, so we didn’t have to get it out of Iraq, we just arranged for our trading partners to get it out of Iraq and took the stuff they would have bought instead.

          See? BRILLIANT!

          Like

  10. A quote came to mind in reference to the cornucopia of conspiracies, “How come the bad guys are all so clever?”

    Like

    1. So clever and yet so stupid. I was talking with a conspiracy theorist who thought that AIDS was man-made. I said the tech wasn’t up to engineering something like that. He said that they could do anything. I said that in that case, they would have come up with something that didn’t drain so much money.

      Like

      1. There’s a not-terribly-uncommon (at least it didn’t used to be, but I haven’t heard it in a long time) conspiracy theory that AIDS was created by Russia to attack us, since we’re such an amoral society that we couldn’t help but spread it.

        Like

      2. ” I said the tech wasn’t up to engineering something like that. He said that they could do anything. ”

        And they didn’t engineer a cure because they were homophobes, right?

        Like

        2. And they didn’t engineer a cure because they were homophobes, right?

          Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s in the world-domination handbook somewhere – let’s see – here we go:

          Important Note: Never release your regime changing disease unless you have the vaccine in your own hands, it’s been verified in trials, and you have already been inoculated and tested immune.

          Like

        3. Engineer a cure? It would be easier to just refrain from engineering it in the first place.

          Though when he eventually came up with accidental release, I point out that they could have engineered a cure and then released a more effective one.

          Like

  11. Thanks, I needed this. Had an argument with a Liberal and his female cohort last night. Hate-hate-hate, really pooped on the carpet. I held my own- but, that wasn’t the problem. I spent the night mostly sleepless wondering how dumb some people can be. One can lose their faith in humanity associating with them. I came to the conclusion that you just can’t fix stupid. Thank you for showing once again, that there are sane rational people in the world.

    Like

    1. Me too. Went to see “Ender’s Game” Saturday night and got into a discussion with the folks next to us about Heinlein and Starship Troopers. Which was overheard by the waiter taking our orders (Alamo Drafthouse here in Austin. Full service restaurant/bar and movie theater. It’s great!) who responded with “Of course, Heinlein was a fascist” Smirk, Turn and walk away…
      Now, a wise man never gets into an argument with the people who are preparing his queso, but I did manage to get out the “Well, actually, Heinlein started out as…” before it was blatantly obvious that this was nothing more than a bomb-throwing ignoramus who wouldn’t known Heinlein’s writing from a hole in the ground.
      Which is kind of the thing about narratives (calling back to a couple days ago – hey! I’ve been busy!). Most of the narratives that run around today attacking the Founders, the Tea Party, etc., are used as an excuse not to do any intellectual heavy lifting. They make the spouter of them feel intellectually superior without having to do any actual work – essentially the heart of the self-esteem movement.
      Which is why THIS post was so great. Because I have those kind of narratives in MY head about the Left. They’re hyper-competent! They intend on destroying fundamental social institutions! Obamacare was a setup to fall into single-payer.
      NOW, (thanks to our glorious Blogmistress), I remember how important it is to challenge those assumptions that I have about them, while continuing to screw with their heads as I play with their assumptions about…

      Oh…

      Oh that could be a LOT of fun…

      Like

      1. You tipped the jackass anyway, didn’t you?

        That isn’t about the opinion, it is about expressing it in so rude a way. Insulting customers is probably not in his job description.

        Like

            1. Or replacing the tip with a download code for a copy of “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” and a note that says in essence, “Here, friend, arm yourself with knowledge.”

              Like

      2. Don’t get me started. I used to go to grad school in Detroit. I was taking history classes. Historians in general tend to be a Marxist bunch, but Labor historians (which is what you mainly get in the UAW’s are hometown) are worse. Not my first choice as people to study with, but I live here.

        At any rate, I was in a class one night and somehow the subject of SF literature came up. We were all assuredby the prof that all SF authors (spew warning) were racist sexist gun loving bbuffoons. Apparently she had never heard of the SFWA. Her biggest beef was that there were no female protagonists in the books. She had never heard of anyone named Honor Harrington or Athena Hera Sinestra or Cally O’Neal or… You get the idea. I was even asked to document the existence of my SF collection. Easy enough. I have a great pic on my Photobucket. The whole class was flabbergasted. It was fun. So you see… It’s not just Heinlein. We’re ALL Fascists.

        Like

        4. The list of Science Fiction heroines could get rather long, rather fast. More than half of Anne McCaffrey’s MCs were women. Isaac Asimov had a woman protagonist in Foundation and Empire. Some people just have very narrow reading habits.

          Like

          2. It has been a long time since I read them, but didn’t Asimov’s robotic shorts (free shot there) feature a female protagonist? Chief robopsychologist Dr Susan Hobbes, wasn’t it?

            Like

            1. What would a man do with robotic shorts? Or perhaps better to ask what robotic shorts would with a man?

              What? I was told it was free.

              Like

        5. I take it that the prof had never heard of Ursula Le Guin?

          Wow. Talk about clueless. Yeah, there’s a lot more female authors, including some that were writing quite a while back (Anne McCaffrey, for instance). But LeGuin is in a spot all of her own imo for her work on things like “The Left Hand of Darkness” (i.e. what if people switched genders repeatedly during their life?) and “The Dispossessed” (a look at a would-be anarchist utopia).

          Like

          1. For that matter, Catherine Lucille (C.L.) Moore (first published 1933, holder of World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement, Cordwainer Smith Rediscovery Award, Gandalf Grand Master Award) and Leigh Douglass Brackett (first published 1940, Cordwainer Smith Rediscovery Award [2005], Forry Award [1978] winner; nominated for: British Fantasy Awards [2006], Locus Awards [1976 & 2006].)

            Like

          2. I seriously (No, I am NOT kidding) doubt that the damn prof knew who JK Rowling was or that she was female. It’s weird with academics sometimes. They know all kinds of stuff about their specialties. I mean, weird stuff.

            I, having been an aspiring academic at one point, can tell you all kinds of weird stories about the Manhattan Project and vet visits, holes in fences, bracelets made for girlfriends, etc. because that was a paper I did awhile back. I can tell you about the American Army reservists who fought in Russia during the Russian Revolution. I still can’t figure out _WHY_ they were there because I never finished my Master’s Thesis, but they were damn sure there…

            The thing is, most of them are smart enough to know that they don’t know much outside of what they do. Seriously. They’ll tell you who to talk to find out what you need to know inside of their extended specialty (IE if you need to know Russian history and you’re talking to an American history prof they’ll tell you who to talk to) but they KNOW that they don’t know what you’re looking for…

            Outside of what they know though, a lot of them THINK that their intelligence (and most of them are freaking brilliant) makes them an expert on everything. She was a college professor in history therefore she knew EVERYTHING about everything outside of history. This is not uncommon.

            I once had a conversation with a Literature prof at a Phi Alpha Theta (history honor society) Christmas party. She was married to one of the history profs. It’s a tradition for the Oakland U Phi Alpha Theta branch that they always play Trivial Pursuit at these parties. Someone showed up with a newer version. One of the literature questions was about The Davinci Code. The _LITERATURE_ profs reaction to that was profound. “That’s pop culture. Nobody reads _movie_ scripts.” It had to be explained to her that there was a NOVEL first, but hey, that’s academia.

            Like

            1. Rowling would be waved off as a fantasy author, and not a sci-fi author (which is also why I didn’t mention Andre Norton up above, as she’s best known for her Witch World fantasy series – though I believe she’s done some sci-fi stuff as well). In truth, the two topics are heavily intertwined. But people arguing the sorts of things that she’s arguing are always going to pick at nits.

              Of course, that’s one of the (many) reasons why I’m looking forward to Brandon Sanderson’s final planned Mistworld trilogy (which will be trilogy #4, since Alloy of Law just had a second sequel announced), which is supposed to showcase Mistworld’s magic system in a future-tech society.

              :P

              Like

              1. Notice– Andre Norton wrote a lot of sci-fi under other names before she finally started writing fantasy. I think Andrew North was one of her pseudonyms.

                Like

                1. Most of her work was under Andre Norton. Wikipedia only lists 3 books under North, 2 Solar Queens and People of the Crater. I’d guess at least half of the stories are scifi. I actually have most of them. I love that they’re finally coming out as ebooks.

                  Like

                  1. I wrote a whole post and the dang thing disappeared. DANG…
                    What I was trying to say is that Andre Norton first wrote under the name Andrew North because boys read sci-fi (1950s) and not girls although she did write at least one fantasy under Andre Norton.

                    You can find a better list of her books under Andrenorton.org (or something like that). She didn’t start using Andre Norton exclusively until the Witch World series. Even then her gender was ambiguous (I was reading her books in the 60s and 70s.) So Wikipedia is not correct when saying only three books. There was a number of YA books under Andrew North. She had another pen name Allen Weston, I think. Even Andre North was a penname until she changed her name to it (if I remember correctly).

                    It was years before I realized that Andre Norton was a female.

                    Like

                    8. I can only find 3 books under the North name at andrenorton.org. (andrenorton.com redirects to a media site). I tried checking Amazon for original copies of her work to check the name but it’s all collections of things that have fallen into the public domain.

                      Her original name was Alice Mary Norton.

                      Like

                    10. (reply to Emily) I don’t find “Borrowers” anywhere on the list of Andre Norton’s works. I’m pretty sure Mary Norton is someone else.

                      Like

                    11. Mary Norton was another person. At least one place I found for Mary Norton mentions the confusion between her and Andre Norton.

                      Like

                    13. Some of her original writings were reissued under Andre Norton (I think)… anyway I had several of her original books under Andrew North a few years ago, which I sold when I was trying to have enough money for food. Good days. It was a long time ago (in the 80s) so I don’t remember which books.

                      Like

            2. An observation as old as Plato’s Apology, that knowing things makes you arrogant in other arenas.

              Like

            3. I still can’t figure out _WHY_ they were there because I never finished my Master’s Thesis, but they were damn sure there…

              As Duv Galeni so eloquently put it in Captain Vorpatril’s Alliance, “what were those people thinking?” is the hardest question to find answers to in history.

              Like

            2. I heard from one college instructor (who taught a class on sci-fi and fantasy) that there’ve been a lot of people over the years who were upset that Le Guin “only” wrote that silly sci-fi stuff. It probably goes without seeing, but those are the same sorts of people who refuse to science fiction as anything other than fluff only fit for the masses. Somewhat ironic, all things considered, given that science fiction is the best way to tackle many of the hard problems of society in a literary format.

              Like

              1. Ironic indeed. “Fluff for the masses” is what _Shakespeare_ wrote. Whereas SF has a better claim to “literature of important ideas” than any of the modern stuff lauded by Humanities types. :)

                Like

      1. poor girl– I do remember when I was on heavy chemo and the hubby had to make sure I went to the bathroom often… yep I was pretty much not there. I do hope she is doing okay–

        Like

      2. I’m right now keeping my fingers crossed for that old tom I took in a few months ago. He had either an abscess in the root of one tooth, lower left fang – it was pulled and now he’s on antibiotics, which he thankfully does eat mixed in his food – but it could also be cancer, according to the vet. So, new x-rays in a couple of weeks. If the inflammation has started to heal, well, all’s hopefully good then, but if it has started to spread the cancer alternative is more likely, and he will be put down. There are some treatments, but the prognosis would not necessarily be very good and even these two vet visits pretty much will have cleared my reserve funds for this year, and part way into next, and I may still need some for the car, so I just can’t afford that. Plus, the guy is fairly old for a cat. 13 or so.

        Well, if I hadn’t taken him in he might be dead already. Have to say I’m a bit pissed at the people who had him before, he would have needed to get his teeth cleaned of tartar quite a while ago.

        Like

            1. Pixel got run over at 13. We spent the money we’d saved for a car getting him fixed up. I told him he could live till 20 or I’d bury him under a license plate. He lived till 23. (And I still miss him.)

              Like

  13. There is no grand conspiricy, but what there is, however, is commitment to a ideal, a goal, that drives their decision making. Take healthcare (please!): the left wants single-payer. They know that they can’t get it right away, but they keep trying and chipping away and every time their latest hare-brained scheme fails they push a new “solution” that is just a little bit closer. We see the results, but it’s hard to see all the failures and take them into account.

    Like

    1. I would actually prefer single-payer to Obamacare. But – for an actually good option – have you ever heard of Direct Primary Care? They don’t charge for insurance, so you pay pretty much what you’d be paying for insurance because they’re saving all those lawyer and accountant expenses. If those folks get enough patronage, we could have a whole Direct Care industry and save the insurance for, like, cancer and stuff.

      Like

      1. Badly phrased. They don’t COVER insurance, so you’re pretty much paying the equivalent of your copays and post-deductibles.

        Like

        1. I’m getting this mostly from Mark Steyn, who does know. But now you’ve really got me wishing you’d written an article on the topic.

          Like

            1. That is a point Steyn frequently makes.

              Anytime you find yourself thinking longingly of Canada’s single payer scheme remember that they used to use their MRI machines for scans on people’s pets in order to generate the funds to increase the number of human scans performed. The bureaucracy banned the practice as embarrassing without granting funding for increased MRI use.

              Like

            2. Not if Obamacare actually takes off. I read something somewhere today (can’t remember where, though I think it was NRO) that pointed out that the successful implementation of Obamacare would end up killing the cash for medical services trade, which would mean the end of people coming to the US in order to have procedures that they can’t get back in their own home countries.

              Like

              1. The successful implementation of Ocare is like the successful implementation of anti-grav. If it’s managed, it changed everything.
                If you mean the forcible implementation of a non-working system, yep, it will totally kill Canada’s escape valve.

                Like

                    3. Awful hard to rhyme waffled. I couldn’t come up with anything that matched waffle once the ending “d” goes in, so I had to work it hard. After the way I forced that rhyme, you critique the scansion?

                      Probably best to add a syllable at the front: “Because Obama waffled …” but my experience with such chants is that the unwashed like to get the target’s name at the front or back of the line, not in the middle. OTOH, I don’t expect them to comprehend such words as offal.

                      “O-ba-ma waffled, Benghazi turned awful”?

                      Cripes, they’re always underfoot but when you need a poet they’re never around. Yet one more reason they are like cats.

                      Like

                    5. I can think of plenty of things that rhyme with waffled, but none that fit the chant, snuffled, ruffled, muzzled (which Obama should be, but it doesn’t fit) baffled, etc.

                      Like

                2. Oh, it’s a game changer even without successful implementation. At the Wall Street Journal “Breaking News” this popped up about twenty minutes ago:

                  Funding Dries Up for Medical Startups
                  The medical-device industry, struggling to adapt to a thriftier health-care system, is getting squeezed by a venture-capital drought.

                  Geeze, what a terrible turn of events! Who could have anticipated such a thing! Those money-grubbing greedy venture capitalists!!!!

                  Like

          3. The advantage of single payer – and particularly government single payer – is that you the patient don’t have to think about it and, to a large extent neither does the hospital, doctor etc. This works quite well for acute care – car accidents, heart attacks – and works OK for long term low-cost common or garden meds / treatments. It sucks horribly for expensive chronic illnesses and any disease where there’s a barely satisfactory cheap option and a way better very expensive option.

            The main disadvantage of single payer is that patients are not the customer. The customer is the payer (the government) and its army of clipboard wielding bureaucrats. The patient is the work product. That leads to all sorts of extremely dangerous mindsets in the healthcare providers and has resulted in all sorts of scandals where grandpa has been left in faeces covered sheets to die of thirst/starvation in a hospital bed. Or where no one reports that statistcis that show that Surgeon X is actually very bad at doing operation Y until he’s killed / ruined the life of thousands of his patients. Also death panels and very long waiting lists

            Like

            1. The main disadvantage* of single payer — of all third party payer systems — is that they incentivise the second party’s gaming the system. Billing for procedures not performed, allocating costs to maximize returns and other tricks become the norm and the focus of people whose attention would better serve directed to performing their institution’s primary mission.

              Back when Medicare was strictly a cost+ with ceiling structure it was the goal of care providers to maximize the costs billed up to but not over that ceiling. That meant that when Medicare set a reimbursement rate of cost+ 10% up to $100 the care provider had no incentive to provide the service at $50 rather than $99.95 — and thus, for example, every desk in their office had its own laser printer rather than relying on a communal one.

              *This is an expansion upon rather than a challenge of Masgramondou’s point.

              Like

              1. With single payer (government) there is NO incentive to develop new drugs and antibiotics, so as bacteria develop tolerances to our existing antibiotics not only will health care advances come to a halt, they will actually shift into reverse.

                Like

            2. Buy some military folks drinks for a few hours and ask them about how their “free” healthcare went…. You’ll hear about everything from “sprains” that were actually multi-point fractures to getting five PAP smears in a year because they keep losing the paperwork…when you’re not even in the risk group that they put in the once a year screening for. Hopefully, you won’t hear about the wives who die because the military doctor can’t figure out the signs of a fallopian pregnancy, or the children killed because they gave a six month old the adult treatments. (With the exception of the last two surviving because they said screw it and ran to a civilian doctor– against orders, one was actually written up for insubordination for saving his wife’s life– they’re things I know first hand.)

              Like

    3. Why do y’all keep playing along with the f*ing progressives co-opting of language?

      It’s not f*ing single payer, its SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. And when the twits respond “we don’t want socialized medicine, we want single payer” ask them who that “single payer” is, how that is different from “socalized medicine” and why they think you’re a moron.

      If they’re actually smart enough to say that when the government pays the bill, but the doctor is not employed by the state it’s not ‘socialized’ then say “oh, you’re a fascist then…”.

      Like

      1. Basically, because calling someone a “socialist” conjures Joe McCarthy to the low-education voter, but “single-payer” is on the same euphemism treadmill as, say, “special needs”. If you talk about it as though it’s a serious problem – especially when you specify just what the problem is – the exact term is a trifle.

        Like

        1. Of course the low information voter isn’t aware that McCarthy was right far more than he was wrong… because he is low on information.

          Like

  14. I referenced the following in a previous post. It seems appropriate here.

    The Rule of the Little Groups of Paratroopers.
    After the inevitable demise of the best Airborne plan, a most terrifying effect occurs on the battlefield. This effect is known as the rule of the LGOPs. This is, in its purest form, small groups of pissed-off 19 year old American paratroopers. They are well-trained, armed to the teeth and lacking in serious adult supervision. They collectively remember the Commander’s intent as “March to the sound of the guns and kill anyone who is not dressed like you…” or something like that. Happily they go about the day’s work…..

    Richard over at the Belmont club has an article about the problems of plans and complexity.
    http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2013/11/03/why-things-break/

    No plan survives contact with the enemy.
    The proper use of a plan is like the Pirate Code, they more like guidelines.

    Plans are useful for developing capabilities and anticipating needs. But too many people, especially those with a bureaucratic bent, mistakenly believe having a plan make reality instead of just being a thought experiment.

    However.
    From plans, rules are made.
    Bureaucracy, political rule by administrative office, is conducted according to fixed rules to maintain order, maximize efficiency and eliminate favoritism. A bureaucracy is designed to eliminate creativity, thought, and experience in favor of following rules. Politicians love them because they not bound by their rules and can make or suspend the rules as they see fit. Therefore people must curry the favor of politicians to obtain relief from the rules, and that is how politicians derive their power today. Bureaucracies are not adaptable and suffer badly under sudden changes, poorly defined for conflicting rules. Ever well designed rules cause problems because of unexpected application or inherent contradictions between rules.

    Like

    1. Re: The Rule of LGOP.

      Still actively practiced in the best military traditions. One of my company commanders, during a training exercise briefing, embodied this superbly. After the battalion commander’s mission brief the company commanders were expected to give a back-brief illustrating their understanding of the commander’s intent.

      Alpha and Bravo company commanders gave their brief, complete with line items and bullet points. Then Charlie company’s CO (my commander for the exercise) was up:

      Land at LZ Whiskey, un-ass and head East. Kill people and break things. Link up with Bravo at phase line Cowboy and repeat.

      After a brief moment of silence, the battalion commander turned and said, “Delta, you’re up.”

      Like

      1. This reminds me of one theory as to our military charlie foxtrot in Vietnam: helicopters. Command staff in helicopters were able to command our forces directly from their “eyes overhead” position coptering over the battlefield. As a result, their orders didn’t filter down through the chain of command to the non-coms and being converted, in the process, into actually actionable tasks.

        Like

        1. It’s still a problem today, only now they have UAVs and digital communications to make it even worse. A battalion or brigade commander can sit back in a TOC 500 miles away from the firefight and think that he has a good idea about the situation on the ground.

          I’ve long thought that evaluations for every battalion and brigade commander should be based on how well their units perform in an exercise where they don’t have access to anything more advanced than paper maps, field telephones, and portable radios.

          Like

          1. Speaking of drones, I understand our current C-in-C has declared himself “really good at killing people.”

            Head, desk, repeat as necessary.

            Frickin’ cowboy.

            Like

            1. The only thing he is “good” at is taking credit of others’ accomplishments and being “not in the loop” for their failures.

              Like

            3. Cowboys are good at something, so you’re insulting cowboys.

              The godkinglet is more along the lines of “frickin’ braggart,” or “frickin’ moron.”

              Like

              1. Poor phrasing on my part, mea culpa.

                My intent was mockery of the moral cretins who mocked George W. Bush and who would, had be ever said anything so callow, have demanded not just his impeachment but his tarring, feathering, hanging and imprisonment.

                Appalling how many of the “Highly Moral” tend to have their heads up their butts. Probably has something to do with being so evolved they lack a spine.

                Like

            4. He’s not a cowboy, he’s a dude. The guy pretending to be a cowboy, with big shiny boots and spurs. At least on a dude ranch he could have been boosted up on a nice elderly gelding and told to take “the silver stallion” out for a ride.

              Like

          2. “I’ve long thought that evaluations for every battalion and brigade commander should be based on how well their units perform in an exercise where they don’t have access to anything more advanced than paper maps, field telephones, and portable radios.”

            No, the evaluation of a battalion or brigade commander* should be based on how well their units perform in an exercise where said commander gives the battle plan and then is declared dead at the beginning of said exercise.

            *Who has had command of his units for a period of time long enough for his training to have taken effect.

            Like

          3. Being Air Force, I didn’t have a lot of those problems. I got my arse reamed thoroughly once, when my boss overheard me chewing out a junior NCO. I had told him I didn’t care what the regulation said, I wanted to see the job done. When the regulation wouldn’t allow the job to be done right, it better not be the job that’s ignored. My boss asked me where I’d ever gotten such a “stupid” idea. My answer shut him up. I told him the idea had come from my dad, and he’d developed it during WWII during a bit of a CF called Bastogne. They didn’t have anti-tank weapons, just two batteries of 155MM howitzers. Dad said they used them as kinetic weapons — zero elevation, fired from about 70 yards away. The regulations say you’re never supposed to do that, but it worked. What I told my people was, the mission is primary. Doing it according to the regulations is all well and good, and if that’s possible, that’s the way it should be done. HOWEVER, if following the regulations keeps you from accomplishing your mission, and there’s a way to do what you have to do to accomplish your mission, do it. I’ve always found that your boss will go a lot easier on you if you actually do what you need to do, even if you have to twist, bend, fold, spindle or mutilate the regs in the process.

            Like

        2. Er. Um. That’s my pet peeve there actually. . . .

          “Actionable” means “can be sued over,” actually.

          Like

          1. Also: capable of being acted on. Quite popular amongst military and intelligence types who are enamored of buzzwords. I prefer the more direct “Gimme something I can kill. Or kill, then blow up.”

            Like

          2. An interesting thing about the military. Dictionary definitions often get short shrift. On the other hand, words – or word-like agglomerations of letters – that display great dynamism and inherent shininess get abused a great deal. So “actionable” has nothing to do with legal proceedings or the likelihood thereof. Synergies may or may not have anything to do with the way disparate forces combine.

            Like

          3. Are you saying that shooting people and blowing up their property is not cause for legal redress? I seem to recall hearing an awful lot about war crimes back then.
            ;-)

            It is always good to tend one’s pets, so long as they don’t run loose and engender actionable escapades.

            On a more precise* level, I wonder whether the definition you employ is unduly restrictive, as the legal action surely cannot be limited purely to suits? A trespass on my property might not be sufficient cause for bringing a lawsuit but would be “actionable” in that I could call the police on you. The readily-to-hand definitions are not clear on that, but it seems unduly restrictive of the range of legal actions that would qualify.

            *i.e., persnickety. As a fan of William Safire’s “On Language” columns I enjoy examining the entrails of words and phrases and strive to improve my usage (while admitting that it is too often my wont to put a higher value on haste than precision.)

            Like

          4. “Actionable Intelligence” seems to be the root word pairing here – that is, the difference between “OBL is in THAT house? Hmph. OK, then, fetch me some SEALs, please, call the POTUS, and make sure you keep Jarrett out of the loop this time, ” vs. “We have live overhead video showing our remaining folks in Benghazi are still under attack with mortars? At this point, what difference does it make?”

            Like

        3. It’s always a problem. Military leadership invites micro-managers (at least in peace time). That’s why that ‘best military traditions’ is up there. Command (for my part) is best exercised in training. Lots and lots, and then more lots, of training. Such that when the time comes to actually put boot to butt The commander says, “Charlie Co., that hill. Bravo, that road and down to the intersection. Alpha, on Delta’s right, center of town. I wanna eat lunch in the mayor’s courtyard. Dismissed.” And it filters on down in like fashion.

          Suffice it to say I’ve known of commanders who were perfectly willing to detail the placement of the feet of the humblest private during each step of the road march to the objective.

          Like

          1. That is actually a pretty good model for businesses, too. Set reasonable goals, set parameters and let the people “in the field” figure how to reach them. Steve Jobs didn’t need to know how to engineer an iWhatsit, he merely needed to clearly communicate to the engineers what it needed to be.*

            *Single example, picked at random, may not be entirely appropriate and for illustrative purpose only. Substitute alternate example of your choice (I am fond of “Walt Disney was a lousy cartoonist but he knew how to get good cartoonists to do what he wanted” but readers are encouraged to think independently) management not responsible for loss or injury. Other restrictions may apply.

            Like

            1. It’s been my philosophy. But then I did my nymphal management phase in foodservice. Foodservice types aren’t really all that interested in being part of your grand plan. They’re more interested in putting some cash in the pocket and getting gone. You wanna push the issue? Somebody else is always hiring.

              Like

              1. LOL! That’s my second job. As a waiter the hope is that you can either:

                A.) Make a ton of money

                or B.) GTFO early.

                And please oh please don’t let me be stuck closing with the server who didn’t make anything that night.

                Like

                1. Yep. Nobody wants to close on a slow night. And nobody wants to get cut when they’re making good bank. The fun trick is finding the staffing balance on any given day such that regardless of how many people come in every server on shift is making good money and nobody wants to leave.

                  It did my cost cutting mission good to be able to amble up to somebody as the crowd thinned and say: “It’s getting slow, wanna cut out early?” Inevitably, if you’ve been paying attention to who’s been turning enough tables, you get the right response: “Dude, yeah, I got beer in the fridge.”

                  The folks who’ve made their quota cut out for parts unknown, the folks still trying to ring the bell get more tables to turn, and everybody down in their sneaky little soul thinks they’re making off with the golden goose. Including me.

                  Good times.

                  Like

              2. Telling your foodservice types that if any concoction they come up for their own enjoyment, using materials already present and available in the kitchen is found worth adding to the franchise menu and they will get a % of sales bonus. Takes their boredom with eating the same crap stuff every day and melds it to a desire for $$$.

                Like

                1. You been in my kitchen?

                  I’ve been a dishwasher, prep cook, cook, server, trainer, bartender, manager…haven’t been an owner, as of yet. I moved on to other things, but the day may come.

                  As a server I used to make deals with the cooks along the lines of “I’ve got some cool regulars, do me up that appetizer we scarfed the other day, and I’ll get the beers, later.” Some managers were cool with it (the ones that knew how to do accurate pricing on the fly) and others not (rules loving bureaucrats). Either way, I got good tips and the cooks (and I) got frosty cold beers. Foodservice folks know capitalism. Barter, cash, favors…we can make a deal.

                  Like

                2. Management hell is when a waitress asks the cook to make her “something different” The cook does and it can be added by ordering it properly (Grilled cheese on wheat, sub Swiss, add tomato) and it becomes popular on the cooks third shift. The wait calls it Sanford’s Special and management tears a strip off the cook for violating menu policy

                  Like

                  1. Nah, we call that bad manager hell. And it’s encouraged, ’cause bad managers should be in hell.
                    Good managers add it to the unofficial recipe book in the kitchen, stick it in the computer (under Sandford’s Special), then do their best to see if that Begley guy has any friends he wants to bring by…

                    Because I’m a capitalist, and if you want to give me your money I want to take it. And your friend’s money, too. Do they have any friends?

                    Like

    2. That picture at the Belmont Cub blog is the poster for the failure of top down control. Something that big needs self-organizing properties, feed back loops etc. and there aren’t any

      Like

    3. I’ve mentioned this before, but: One of the details _Saving Private Ryan_ got right was “what happened to the US Airborne and glider troops after the drops went wrong”. One of two courses was taken:

      1) The troops found the nearest village, occupied it [ahem >:) ], and waited for relief to show up or sent troops out to find other occupied villages and tie into a proper defensive grid.

      2) The troops found the nearest rally point, hooked up with other troops; and every so often some officer would come along, grab a bunch of troops, and head out to Cause Havoc.

      Contrast this with the German paratroops at the Battle of the Bulge: Immediately upon making landfall, they hid in a ditch, waited for dark, then beat it East as fast as they could goosestep.

      (I do so love pointing this out to the idiots at gaming cons who are convinced the Germans are The Greatest Military Force In Human History. “Um, guys — if that’s the case, HOW THE FUCK HAVE THEY MANAGED TO LOSE EVERY FUCKING WAR THEY FOUGHT IN SINCE UNIFICATION?” Oh, by the way: Bismarck’s Empire didn’t start until after the Franco-PRUSSIAN War ended.)

      Chaos is our metier. (Some of us more than others. >:) )

      Like

  15. I used to remind people that were convinced of the brilliance of the Soviets that they built a fighter (MiG 25) specifically to shoot down a supersonic bomber that the US never built (B70 Valkyrie).

    Like

    1. Um, the US *did* build XB-70s — they just never achieved full production status (hence the “X”): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie .

      Contrariwise: The Soviets never managed to get the Myasishchev Mya-4 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myasishchev_M-4 ] to work properly; so they instead used it as a goad to convince the US to build high-speed high-altitude interceptors to combat it, confident the US would *never* be able to pull it off…. [looks at F-15 model on shelf >:) ]

      Like

    2. …and which, when required to operate at the very high airspeed the MiG-25 would have had to use to attempt to catch said Valkyrie* (or in real life, to overfly Israel and snap photos during the 1973 war), experienced a runaway gas turbine acceleration in both jet engines which in turn did sufficient damage so as to require a complete engine shutdown and deadstick landing at the end of the flight, followed by a complete engine replacement before the next flight.

      * No MiG-25 ever intercepted any SR-71 overflights, so it’s doubtful it could have caught a Valkyrie.

      Like

  16. Agit prop is not a plan, it is essentially similar to providing weapons to insurgents. Easy, relatively low cost/low risk way to cause your opponent headaches and to require them to waste time, money, and energy that they could have otherwise spent combating you. But an extremely difficult way to get anything specific accomplished. You slip some weapons in to an insurgent you sort of trust (at least enough not to shoot you in the back as long as you continue to supply weapons) he in turn passes them out to people he knows, including his second cousin, who hands one to his brother-in-law, who trades it for a couple of lines of coke and blow; then proceeds to poop on a police car to show his solidarity with you. You might chuckle at the looks on the cops faces, but you really don’t want to step up beside him and say, “I stand..er, squat, for all you like Fred here, we must protect the little peoples right to expression.”

    Like

  17. Thanks, I liked the key take-away:
    “Will it go exactly according to plan for us? Oh, heck no. BUT we can push it in the right direction and keep working.”

    Like

  18. “Destroyers always lose.”

    Um, there’s some folks from Somalia who’d like to discuss this point with you…. :P

    Like

  19. My favorite Marx quote:

    “Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog it’s too dark to read.”

    Guess which Marx?

    Like

  20. No, seriously, humans are strange. There has never been a satisfactory enough theory to the way the individual human mind works. Oh, somewhat… but each school of psychology has hold of an end and no one has the full elephant. Which is why psychology remains a semi-soft science.

    Dancing on mailboxes– programmers should know, if something is possible, someone will do it….even if the programmers didn’t know it was possible.

    If it’s being done publicly, and there’s no real cost to it, a lot of people will follow them. (Either because it looks like fun, or because they like to annoy people, or they like attention.)

    Like

      1. I’ve recently decided that many aspects of “idiot proofing” actually produces idiots. When folks lie often enough– sorry, tell “selected truths” to get the desired response– then they’ll ignore actual truths. Tell people to call 911 if they’ve got a hangnail, and that they’ll die by taking one asprin over the limit, and they’ll ignore “do not mix alcohol and sleeping pills.”

        Like

      2. Recently had a disagreement with a coworker (who is somewhat OCD about a number of things), when he heard about a problem at work, and declared that the program wasn’t designed properly, if people didn’t understand it. We tried to explain the above maxim to him, but I think he just stopped arguing, rather than agreeing.

        Like

        1. Heh. I tend to use the word ‘interesting’, both languages, for what I worry about, especially if the situation includes aspects I can’t be sure of or might have to make a decision about. Like if you saw a train coming after your car decided to die right when you were crossing the tracks, and you still have a few moments to wonder it you should abandon it or if it will start on time…

          Like

  22. 1. American nuclear deterrence strategy in the Cold War period was entirely premised on the assumption that the USSR’s leadership was composed of rational, self-interested actors…specifically, of men who, however much they might have hated us, preferred their own lives to our deaths. The world and the human race are still here, ergo the evidence is strongly on the side of that assumption having been correct.

    2. Any Soviet conspiracy powerful enough to effect the destruction of America by subversion (rather than war), would necessarily have been powerful enough to preserve the USSR itself. And a conspiracy among men who preferred their lives to our deaths would naturally treat the preservation of their own regime as a higher priority than the destruction of ours.

    3. The USSR does not exist anymore.

    4. Ergo, the most reasonable conclusion is that whatever Soviet conspiracies existed to undermine the US by subversion, were not actually powerful enough to accomplish the task, and the blame for our present situation must lie elsewhere. Such as, say, our seemingly unlimited willingness to coddle those who irrationally persist in demanding A Free Lunch (which, as Heinlein famously taught, There Ain’t No Such Thing As), and our empowerment of a political class that, despite conspicuously displaying a complete lack of confidence in the average American’s ability to shop for himself, is absolutely determined to make sure that the very people whose life skills it holds in such manifest contempt can all vote.

    Like

    1. Any Soviet conspiracy powerful enough to effect the destruction of America by subversion (rather than war), would necessarily have been powerful enough to preserve the USSR itself. And a conspiracy among men who preferred their lives to our deaths would naturally treat the preservation of their own regime as a higher priority than the destruction of ours.

      Destruction is easier than protection– and they got to where they are with destruction and pretty lies, no?

      Like

          1. Which is one reason I’m a big fan of the admonition to “cleanse the inner vessel first”. Works on a personal level, and can also work on a more… organizational level as well.

            Like

    2. Dang, a rational argument with logical points and reasoned conclusions. /backs up slowly until he reaches the doorway/

      “SAAARAAAH! How’d HE get in here? Make him go away! He’s making the rest of us look bad!”

      Like

  23. Oh, please. You don’t need to drink their ink. No one in their right mind could have planned that insanity.

    Ah but Sarah, what makes you so sure anyone involved was ever in their right mind? ;)

    Like

Comments are closed.