Gaslighting

I normally don’t do two posts in a day, and I never do a post just to say “go and watch this” — well, there’s a first time for every one.

When people ask why I came out politically though it will (maybe has already) cost me readers I say “so you know you’re not alone.”  And also so that I don’t have to lie to myself, till I think I’m crazy.  This might not seem important.  But it is.  To gaslight an entire society you have to get them to keep silent.  You have to convince people that everyone sane believes what you do.  Those other people?  Oh, those are fringe voices, those are crazy and/or stupid.  The good people are all with us.

(And btw, every time I post against the left orthodoxy some idiot calls me “stupid” — Eh.)

I talk so you know you’re not alone.

And I’ve told you before — before the elections “You are being gaslighted” — the elections I maintain were part of it.  (Yes, I know, some people get very upset, but forget the suppression of the tea-party, forget how hard they fight against voter ID and for unverifiable modes of voting like “vote by mail,” I was there and I tell you it was impossible for as many people to have early voted and “forgotten” it as supposedly did so.  Impossible.  And my precinct was low on that compared to others.  Never mind “there is no vote fraud” you were gaslighted, you’re being gaslighted.)

Beyond the elections?  Our economic numbers.  The only way to know what is really going on in our economy is to read foreign newspapers — and discount their bias.  The only way to know what is going on in our own country is to read foreign newspapers.  Those same newspapers you used to laugh at for being left wing, now sound “right wing” to us — because they’re outside the gaslighting  play we’re trapped in.  How is it possible that everyone you know is worse off, that everywhere you look economic activity is grinding to a halt, and yet you’re told we’re in a “recovery”?  You are being gaslighted.

How is it possible that your new insurance is going to require you to sell off your place, get a cheaper one, that you can’t find your doctor anymore (just FINDING mine, who had to join a group to conform with new regulations was like a game of Where’s Waldo, and frankly, I HATE the new arrangements), that you’re being told your course of treatment is no longer available, etc, but you’re being told everyone “loves” Obamacare?  You are being gaslighted.

The IRS?  Just a few rogue agents in Cincinnati, when we have emails from DC?  Dear, you are being gaslighted.  The bleeding wound in our national honor that is Benghazi?  Just a protest?  You are being gaslighted. (He left them to die alone, the coward.)  The Ukraine?  Most citizens want Russian rule?  You are being gaslighted.  The “Arab Spring”? You are being gaslighted.

The cure for what ails us, higher taxes?  You are being gaslighted.  Global warming, Climate change, Catastrophic weather event our most important crisis?  The government can wish “Green technology” from the ether? The poles are melting? You are being gaslighted.

Israel is the problem in the middle East while surrounded by enemies?  You are being gaslighted.

The money we’re spending doesn’t matter, because we’re just printing it?  And Wall Street is jus’ fine?  You are being gaslighted.

The first ammendment is a “collective right”?  You are being gaslighted.

“War on Women” is going on?  Republican lawmakers want to ban contraception?  Never happened (never could happen.  What kind of supermajority do you think you’d need) but Gosnell and his house of horrors are what we pay to keep abortion “safe” (is that safe?)  You are being gaslighted.

There’s too many humans in the world?  You are being gaslighted.

And suddenly our most important issue is inequality and all the party organs government supporting press is harping on it in the same words? Could it be because they know you feel pinched and they want you to direct your anger at the people who are better off (there is always someone who is better off, no matter by how little) not at the administration?  Could it be that you’re being gaslighted?

And people don’t gaslight you when what they intend for you is good or nice.

This is why I speak.  This is why all those of you who can must speak, and learn to read between the lines, too.  You’re not crazy, and you’re not alone.  If it seems to you the future never changes (it’s always ‘glorious’ and we’re always ‘going to come roaring out of this depression, recession, tepid recovery’ but the past keeps changing because it was a protest because of a movie, a terrorist attack and we always said so, what difference does it make anyway? And we’ve never had summer of recovery one and two and three and four, so you should totally believe us now.  This time, this time, once the bad weather passes, we’ll have recovery. You are being gaslighted.)

Go see this, now.  You are being gaslighted.  These are only the most obvious, verifiable incidents, and even in these, they’re telling you to believe the people in power and not your lying eyes.

You are being gaslighted.  GO WATCH IT.

YOU ARE BEING GASLIGHTED.

268 thoughts on “Gaslighting

  1. Talk about being lit up. When I think of Benghazi, I remember Hill’s ad about the 2 AM phone call. When I saw the approval of the (un) Affordable Care Act, I thought to myself nothing good can come out a 2000+ page document written by committee in such a short time with little debate. When I saw with dismay the Bailout I was not surprised it disappeared without a trace. An the Defence Budget, the gas I smell is about ready to explode!

    1. “We have to pass the bill to see what’s in it…” <-That made alarm bells go off in my head. O_o

  2. I won’t for a moment say you’re wrong, but I want to emphasize one point that is increasingly irritating to me.

    I have listened to Conservatives and Libertarians whine about “Media Bias” for as long as I have paid any attention at all to politics (roughly, since Watergate). Let me make something plain; there is no excuse for this. The news will ALWAYS be biased. Unbiased news is NOT POSSIBLE. Yet Conservatives and Libertarians (not all of the, but too many) have wasted years whining about Leftwing bias instead of starting their own news sources with their OWN bias.

    Hell, plunk the money down, set an editorial policy, and hire people who can frigging WRITE and you should be able to simply bury the NYT and all its clones. They are worse than biased; they’re BORING. H. L. Mencken would spit on them.

    We are being gaslighted because too many people in the opposition wanted to spend money on think tank and third party candidacies that had the chance of a tissue paper dog chasing an asbestos cat through Hell. Buy. Some. Frigging. Newspapers. Buy. A. Network.

    Get OUR Bias Out There, Damnit!

    1. Er… the media ARE biased. It’s not whining. They’re biased, like publishing used to be biased. Gatekeepers hold a political color line. Patrick Richardson, I’m rubbing your lamp here.
      Also, look up journolist.

      1. Besides, it’s why they all hate “Faux” news – even if they’re only middling conservative. Because Fox, and talk radio, ARE the outlets that tell the other side.

        But the big papers (outside of the WashTimes), all but one of the big networks, and oat other cable networks – heh. Even regular entertainment and TV shows: when a topic comes out, you can predict which political side is the “good” guys (the smart kid is a Jimmy Carter fan….), which are the “bad” guys (businessmen again? YAAAYY!?), and depending on the current talking points, what they’re going to say about relevant topics.

        1. Wen Spencer just did this in her latest Elfhome novel. As soon as I read a particular character’s description in her story I knew they’d be some kind of baddie, and it was a bit too blatantly done. It is like she forced it in there She easily could have left the descriptors off and left the personality she was aiming for and left the background to ones imagination and it still would have worked. But no. Outside of that eyeroller, the new book Wood Sprites is pretty good stuff like the rest of the books.
          But this kind of thing is why I tend to never watch any new movies and TV. Too predictable, and well, the science geek in me goes “That is not possible” or “that is not how it happens”.

          1. Oh, I hope not. She’s usually pretty good about including various opposing points of view.

            1. well until this, it was rather ambiguous stuff as backgrounds go. Though like I said, as soon as I read the sentence I knew I was seeing a baddie to come. And if she’d just left the little bit out, the character would still be good for the story line, and actually less of out of place feeling. There is one or two other groaners in there, too. But all are unneeded and feel almost forced (one slightly less so than the others) and I’m trying not to give spoilers out on this so I shall shut it for now.

          2. I highly recommend Marvel’s Agents of Shield. It just finished its first season. It has been renewed for a second season. It’s got its heart in the right place.

              1. Apparently it is sufficiently successful they are attempting another TV series:

                11. Agent Carter
                Set just after the end of World War Two, Marvel’s new creation will see Hayley Atwell reprising her role as Peggy Carter, a character last seen on cinema screens in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. A Marvel release for the show reads like a particularly bleak ad in the jobs column, stating that: “Peggy must balance doing administrative work and going on secret missions for Howard Stark, all while trying to navigate life as a single woman in America, in the wake of losing the love of her life – Steve Rogers.” Hopefully it will be better than Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
                http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10827292/Batman-Broadchurch-and-beyond-20-new-US-TV-shows-to-watch.html

                1. I have… almost zero tolerance for “girl in situation girls wouldn’t have been in”

                  ….

                  K, ‘scuse me, Sky-who-I-don’t-like just made me love her.

        2. The Washington Times? That Moonie paper???? Never mind that the reverend Moon exercised next to know influence over their reporting.

      2. Yes, reporters are human, and are always biased. The problem is that conservatives have left the field to the opposition. This was not always the case. The town were I went to high school had three newspapers: The Democrat, The Republican, and The Advertiser. Those weren’t just names, they were editorial policy.

          1. A marketplace of ideas with products clearly labeled, especially ideas that are potentially dangerous and/or disruptive. Just as we have an FDA to ensure the public is protected from bad foods and bad medicines, it is important that ideas be clearly labeled in order that the public know which are unhealthy.

            That is why some ideas are labeled Fascist, some are labeled Racist, some are labeled Zionist, some are labeled Selfish and Greedy and some are Uncompassionate. After all, some ideas can lead to terrorism, to oppression (don’t you dare call her a lady … or even “her”) to bad, Bad, Bad things happening to good people.

            “These ideas have been sanitized for your protection” — is a label everybody ought be able to get behind.

            Who should determine the labels? Why, that should be obvious …

        1. DO NOT assume they “left the field” — I used to get in a purple rage at people who said “the arts are biased because conservatives aren’t artistic” or “conservatives prefer to make money.” As indie publishing is proving, this was never true. the liberals JUST had to get the hiring authority. The difference? Conservatives don’t hire to color line (still) they hire to “can you do the job.” Liberals, otoh… it’s always politics. And it’s all politics.

          1. I think I understand now. You’re saying conservatives hire competence, liberals hire ideology. In the long run, this leads to an excess of liberals in the field.

            1. This is my experience. I have worked in the media and if you are conservative you don’t let your bias show or you will be out of a job. There really isn’t much room in such an environment to get your viewpoint across to any kind of audience. I do think it’s changing thanks to the profitability of outlets like Fox News but it’s going to take some time before you see change across a broader spectrum.

            2. O’Sullivan’s law applies: any organization that is not explicitly right-wing becomes left wing over time. This is why – hiring for ideology instead of competence.

                1. Funny how, when people are hired for simple reasons like nepotism or appearance these same people get all indignant. Ideology, because it is subject to change without notice, provides a very unreliable sort of employee; nepots at least have hopes of inheritance as incentive to work well.

      3. My point is that they cannot possibly be UNBIASED. No matter what, decisions will have to be made about what stories to run, whichansources to trust, etc.. No news source can possibly give us all the facts about the whole world. And once you introduce the word “relevant” you introduce bias.

        The idea that the news could be unbiased is the biggest lie the Leftwing media ever sold us, and they deserve to have it shoved down their throats. Had I been running FOX I wouldn’t have said “we report, you decide” I’d have said “Because one bias can’t tell you the whole story”

        Can you IMAGINE the squeals of outrage?

        1. “My point is that they cannot possibly be UNBIASED. ”

          But there is a difference between an utterly unbiased outlook, and an utterly dishonest outlook. I worked in the newspaper game for years, and swear to you I have never seen anything like the major mainstream news today in terms of slanted reporting, suppressing the news, lying the American public, heaping scorn on the truth.

          Your comment is that the news cannot be perfect. Maybe that is so and maybe not. Even if it is true, it is irrelevant. An inability to be perfectly objective does not excuse deliberate deception. But the news which is actively cooperating with one political party to deceive the public is not news at all: it is a fraud.

          Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

          1. An inability to be perfectly objective does not excuse deliberate deception. But the news which is actively cooperating with one political party to deceive the public is not news at all: it is a fraud.
            -JCW

            Yes.

            The idea that the news could be unbiased is the biggest lie the Leftwing media ever sold us…
            -CSPS

            Actually, I think the argument you’re making, the argument that “of course there’s bias” is the biggest lie from the left wing. They abandoned any principle of attempted objectivity, any notion or theory that objectivity was a journalistic value and let their political passions obscure and twist any fragment of the truth. When called on it, this argument started cropping up.

            They want to maintain that objectivity is an impossibility (perhaps) and therefore even attempting objectivity is a fool’s game, and it ain’t our fault we’re smart enough to give in to our baser impulses. And all you folks who believe in such are rubes. BS.

            1. They never HAD any principle of attempted objectivity. They sold US on the idea, but they never meant it for a second.

              OK, read H. L. Mencken on his newspaper days (not just that book, but the broad range of his memoirs that deals with his newspaper work). He makes it clear that in most U.S. cities there may have been more than one newspaper, but it was very likely that only one turned a profit. The second was funded by somebody in the “out” party who had ambitions. Everybody in town knew which newspaper backed which party, and either took the paper that conformed to their prejudices, or read both.

              The Modern Media sold us the notion that there were cities smaller than, say, New York, that had two profitable papers. They further sold us on the notion that, as the second papers died, the papers that survived assumed a duty to be “Objective”.

              *snort*

              They didn’t mean it. They kissed the opposition papers goodbye with nary a tear, and gloated that they didn’t have any competition. And they used that lack of competition well. They deposed a President (admittedly not a very good one) for doing (as a Republican) what his (Democrat) predecessors had gotten away with with the implied blessing of the “Objective” media.

              Migod! They actually got a publicly funded news channel started on the basis that it would be a check on the “Objectivity” of the press! A GOVERNMENT FUNDED NEW CHANNEL was going to be “Objective”!

              They probably almost ruptured themselves laughing over THAT one.

              Objectivity os not truly possible. What IS possible is to be open and aboveboard about your point of view. Makes for better reading, too. Mencken never minced words, and even where I disagree with him, I prefer his writing to pretty much anything that hits newsprint these days.

            2. Actually, I think the argument you’re making, the argument that “of course there’s bias” is the biggest lie from the left wing. They abandoned any principle of attempted objectivity, any notion or theory that objectivity was a journalistic value and let their political passions obscure and twist any fragment of the truth.

              *nod*

              Conflating “our views depend on where we’re standing and what we can see” with “we WANT to see this, and we’re going to bend over backwards to look that way, and flat out cover our eyes to avoid seeing this other thing….”

          2. But there is a difference between an utterly unbiased outlook, and an utterly dishonest outlook.

            *nod*

            When you watch Fox’s folks, there’s no question of where they’re coming from.
            There’s a rather wide range, especially if you compare it to CNN, but they’re OPEN about it.
            (Well, as of..um…. about a decade back, when I last OD’d on watching them.)

        2. Of course every news outlet is biased. Many years ago John W. Campbell wrote an editorial on the subject. The example he gave was to send a sports reporter and the society column editor to the same event and see how differently their world views affected their reporting.
          The real problem is that for the most part our current major media do not believe that they are biased, or more precisely they consider their world view main stream and any conservative leanings are fringe at best.
          And the real concern I have is this constant demonization of any news source that does not toe the party line. Fox is marginalized at every turn, forget the viewer numbers, nobody with sense listens to that drivel. And then there are the attempts at instituting a “fairness” doctrine who’s entire purpose was to squelch that nasty talk radio that somehow took root out there in flyover country. You know, all that empty space that no one really cares about except at election time.

          1. The real problem is that for the most part our current major media do not believe that they are biased, or more precisely they consider their world view main stream and any conservative leanings are fringe at best.

            “How we think is normal”.

            *shudder*

            You’re probably right. I’ve slowly been figuring out that a LOT of people take for granted the Christian heritage stuff like “those humans over there are people with the same theoretical rights as me” and “women are people who I cannot treat as property,” etc.

        3. “My point is that they cannot possibly be UNBIASED.”

          They can try. They aren’t even bothering. It’s not News, it’s the Narrative.

          1. You’re right. I give them credit for being just as human (capable of fallibility and of virtue) as I am. If they were honestly trying to hide their bias, The Narrative would at least be more subtle.

            I remember being taught that if your descriptors showed obvious slant, you’d lose half your readers immediately. If you opened up your writing and reported facts with as little bias as you could manage, you were doing okay.

            My only experience of working in the media was editing for a small arts mag in State College (loading newspaper trucks doesn’t count). For news and reporting, well, it’s hearsay and fringes of old research I lean on.

            I remember reading as how there were reporters covering the Allied invasion at Normandy. It seems to me that there’s integrity in that, something that I doubt could be easily repeated today. With the MSM, at least, that is *highly* doubtful. Bias, my teachers in school told me, was to be avoided. Your readers are as intelligent as you, if not more so. Do not belabor a point, let them come to a decision on their own.

            Later I was taught persuasive writing. Pick a topic and convince the reader your view is correct. One of my best teachers made us argue *both* sides of an issue ourselves to see this in action. The national news media seems to have only got half the lesson.

            There is a cost to abdicating one’s integrity and intelligence to further a political point. It’s not just that the internet is eating the paper’s lunch. It’s that they no longer offer a superior product. Advertising money is down, not just with the economy, but with a huge loss of readership. Instead of adapting to changing conditions, they’ve chosen to grow even more extreme. And it’s sickened their business to a largely predictable extent.

      4. As a journalist of long standing I can tell you that I have two flaming liberals in my current newsroom — and I’m the editor. Most newsrooms I’ve worked in have been hard left where there’s just a couple conservatives and we mostly have to keep our heads down.

        I’ve even lost jobs because I let my conservative/libertarian flag fly and piss on MSM

    2. I’ve seen several attempts made, but most of them seem to gravitate toward the easy territory of editorializing or commenting, rather than reporting. The only explicitly “right-wing” reporting I can think of would be Stacy McCain’s shoeleather work, and I haven’t followed him regularly in years, so I’m not sure whether he still does that.
      I know Glenn Reynolds has been plugging the idea of buying cultural mags (fashion, women’s, hobby, tech, etc.) and running them with a conservative/libertarian bent. As long as they focused on their subject, reported it well, and kept it politically influenced rather than being about politics, I think it would be quite successful. So what would it actually take to make that happen? Or to put together an explicitly conservative reporting outfit? I’ve had ideas over the years, but I don’t know the business.
      Paging the Kilted Coon!

      1. Old-school thinking. We don’t need magazines; they’re dying. We have the Intarwebz. What we need to watch out for are attempts to “regulate” online discourse.

        1. News magazines are, but I don’t know what the status of cultural and hobby mags are. My impression from outside the business is that they’ve managed to keep themselves relevant and afloat. And there’s nothing that says you can’t put a magazine on the Web; in fact, I recommend it. The point is to create cultural and political outlets that are well-run and liberty-promoting in the course of producing good content.

            1. Isn’t it? But he’s not the only one. A mutual friend of Kim’s and I quit blogging five (?) years ago, despite my nagging. (That boy doesn’t take nagging. He doesn’t even comment here (or anywhere) though he sends me email commentary.) And I still MISS Doctor Sanity too.

              1. I lost an online friend to quitting the ‘net cold turkey. She felt she was getting too addicted to it. I send her the occasional email (usually Christmas). Every 4th or 5th e-mail she will reply.
                I once had her address, I should try to find it and send her some snail mail.

              2. I miss seeing Kim and Connie writing on the Innerwebz, so it’s always good to see them turn up around the sites that I frequent.

        2. I considered that owning an actual “print” paper at least gave you a 1st amendment fig-leaf that merely running a blog or news -condenser may not automatically have. Until whatever happens. Like a monopoly on newsprint or FCC gets oversight of all news in a determination that “all news impacts broadcast news”.

      2. But see… conservatives or libertarians could *buy* those magazines but unless they *hired* on an ideological basis what good would it do?

        I find that I can advocate buying them… but I have a far harder time advocating hiring by ideology. It just seems wrong to me.

        1. I find that I can advocate buying them… but I have a far harder time advocating hiring by ideology. It just seems wrong to me.

          And that is why we lose.

          The Marquis of Queensbury rules are all very well when one is fighting in a ring with a referee to ensure everyone follows them.

          In a knife fight in an alley, not so much.

          1. O’Sullivan’s Law states that any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time.

            A corollary is that all movements become driven by their extremists, because those are the members most likely to put in the time and to argue everybody else down.

          2. I suppose, but it means leaving the moral high-ground, and maybe the moral high-ground isn’t a winning playing field but at some point you’ve got to consider your soul.

      3. What we need are backers. Someone to help us get the funding. You can’t, or at least shouldn’t, put together an organization in which the writers do not get paid. This crap about “for the exposure” really doesn’t help you. And you really don’t want writers who will write “for the exposure.”

        You get what you pay for. PJM used to be a really good outlet who followed this path, but they’ve gone downhill IMO and I no longer write for them.

        Find me the investors, and the people who understand business. I’ll find you the writers.

        1. I… am probably crazy enough to make that happen, but I’m already building one business, back-burner-ing another, trying to prepare to launch a small one, and have several waiting their turns after that. I don’t know the industry, but I know business and I know people. If we can remember to discuss this again after the current operation is stabilized, I’m willing to abandon/postpone most of the others to make such a thing happen.
          Draw up some plans, name the price, and give me about a year to clear the deck. It’s just crazy enough to work.

          1. Well that’s the problem oh great Oyster of the Range, I don’t KNOW how much it would cost. Web hosting and such is not horribly expensive, but you need a good designer/admin, who can also do some ad network stuff and knows SEO, you need at least one, and preferably two ad reps. One to do outside sales one to do inside sales. You need at least three editors, including the ME, probably a GM/Publisher/Editor-in-Chief whatever you want to call the position and then you need to be able to pay free lancers as well as some administrative staff. And you probably need three to five full time reporter as well.

            Bare bottom? Probably $3 mil a year in capitalization for the first three years would be my guess, but it’s JUST a guess.

            1. Argh! I was trying to avoid particulars to keep the idea brain quiescent. Now you woke it up. *scowls at the raccoon* I wanted to wait until I could spare the brain space for it, now it’s not going to leave me alone. *sigh* Alright, I guess I’ll be adding some research to my To Do pile for the week. In all seriousness, thank you for the input. If ideas are going to plague me, I am profoundly grateful not to have to reinvent fire. Mind if I poke you on FB about this? I’ll have some questions about the publication’s scope and some industry specifics.

            2. Makes me wonder if someone could get a look at the figures for The Blaze. It’s probably easier to do the site without the tv network…

              Or maybe early PJ Media?

              > >

              1. Both the Blaze and PJM are privately held and therefore do not have to publish figures. The Blaze was probably cheaper to create as Beck already had much of the infrastructure complete in advance.

    3. You confuse news, which should be based in facts, with editorial/opinion. To often now days “they” are to busy trying to tell me what to think about things rather than just giving me the facts and letting me figure it out on my own.

      1. You can’t be relied on to figure it out on your own. You would put the wrong interpretation on things, such as thinking that if AA benefits mostly upper-class or middle-class blacks, it should be junked.

          1. We can’t have that! They might shoot the kids!

            Why on earth we allow people to go on teaching kids when only the absence of a gun will prevent them from killing one is beyond me.

  3. The lack of concern over the IRS targeting is blindingly infuriating. How much more blatantly oppressive can the government get?

    1. Don’t tempt them Oh Kilted One. Oppression gets ugly. Let’s not forget the Gulag. It’s also worth mentioning that the first people Hitler put into concentration camps were not Jews, they were political prisoners. Oh, and Jews were the ones who suffered the ultimate in oppression. I’m not a fan of the IRS thing. I’d like to see a bunch of people fired and Zero impeached for it. But keep it in perspective.

      1. Oh, oppression gets a lot uglier, no doubt. But this isn’t really even an attempt to hide it. It’s the lack of shame, and – especially – the subsequent lack of interest from the electorate that’s got me wound up. The government’s job is explicitly to not take sides. This isn’t even Tricky Dick doing things behind closed doors. This is the bureaucracy getting partisan.

      2. Yes, as oppression goes the IRS is small potatoes. But nothing starts big.

      1. Backlash on that has Sun Trust reversing already. Like Insty mentioned… It happened so fast it was over before even he noticed it.

      1. There are no internal passports required yet. There are no gulags yet. There is no rationing of food yet. There have no firing squads yet.

        1. I recommend They Thought They were Free by Milton Sanford Mayer. A German professor, talking to him, said that the slogans they should have considered were “Consider Ends” and “Resist Beginnings.”

        2. Yeah, but…

          When they’ve started internal “immigration” checkpoints on public highways hundreds of miles from any border, and “random” SWAT team stops for “inspections” of private planes on wholly internal flights, things are trending in a direction that is not one that builds confidence.

      2. Reid and Pelosi Go to the Movies [Updated: Is Capitol Screening Illegal?]

        On Tuesday, the Democrats will screen a “documentary” film that attacks Charles and David Koch in the Visitor Center of the United States Capitol. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi plan to attend. Politico reports:

        The two congressional Democratic leaders will appear at a screening in the Capitol of “Koch Brothers Exposed: 2014 Edition” — a documentary that Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-Nev.) participated in. Both Reid and Minority Leader Pelosi (D-Calif.) will participate in a question and answer session as well. …

        The screening will be held on Tuesday evening in the Capitol Visitor Center. The movie is directed by Robert Greenwald and is a midterm update to a 2012 film of the same name.

        Just when you think the Democrats’ Koch addiction can’t get any crazier, they surprise you. As it happens, we know all about “Koch Brothers Exposed,” which Robert Greenwald released in segments in 2011 and then combined into a single internet video. Greenwald is a failed Hollywood director whose most famous film, “Xanadu,” was one of the biggest flops ever. He is now reduced to making far-left propaganda videos, financed by a secret group of rich leftists.
        [MORE: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/reid-and-pelosi-go-to-the-movies.php ]

        1. The Koch Brothers, Masters of Evil, are the largest campaign contributors in the country. The New Yorker says so. Except for Act Blue, the AFSCME, the NEA, AT&T, the National Association of Realtors, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Goldman-Sachs, the UAW, the Carpenters and Joiners Union, the SEIU, the Laborers Union, the American Federation of Teachers, the Communication Workers of America, the Teamsters, JP Morgan, the UFCWU, UPS, Citigroup, the National Auto Dealers Association, Emily’s List, the American Bankers Association, Microsoft, Blue Cross, the National Beer Wholesalers Association, Lockheed, Bank of America, National Association of Letter Carriers, Morgan Stanley, Verizon, Deloitte LLP, Plumbers and Pipefitters Union, the Credit Union National Association, Newsweb Corp, the Operating Engineers Union, Ernst & Young, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the American Hospital Association, Time-Warner, PricewaterhouseCoopers, the Sheet Metal Workers Union, Boeing, the ADA, UBS AG, the Altria Group, Comcast, Northrop Grumman, Honeywell, AFLAC, Pfizer, the ALPA, the NRA, Union Pacific, and the NAIFA. So, 58 others donate more, but that’s close to the top of the top 150. Like, down around a 63% on your report card so your mother will be disappointed rather than screaming mad. I mean, not much difference between Act Blue donating $102 million and Koch Industries donating $18 million. Only a difference of $84 million.

          1. Eh. Who you gonna believe, the MSM or your lying eyes? Remember: they are trained professionals.

            Besides, logic math is a tool of The Patriarchy. The Koch brothers want to deprive you of your right to vote multiple times, deprive women of orgasms and they want to take over the government and force it to leave people alone. Do you know what it is like to be alone, so alone.

            1. That’s what I was referring to above. I saw the headline on Weaselzippers and almost rolled my eyes except that Reid and Pelosi have gotten so flippin’ predictable that it wasn’t worth the effort.

  4. We now live in a society where donating money to make ads criticizing a politician is often illegal, but singing about raping women is protected speech, at least if you’re not white.*

    Where racial preferences and quotas are unthinkable, unless they work against whites and Asians.*

    Where sexual continence is laughed at, but a young man can get expelled from college for rape on the basis of a mere preponderance of evidence, as judged by a “process” that is sorely lacking in the same.

    Tough to keep optimistic sometimes.

    ——————–
    *For the record, it would be just as bad if it was blacks or Hispanics on the wrong side of these preferences.

  5. There was a Jon Stewart show a couple weeks after Benghazi where he actually went after how ridiculous it was that the President wasn’t calling the incident an act of terrorism.

    A week or two later, the debate that Bill Whittle mentioned.

    Following which, Jon Stewart suddenly jumped on the fact that Romney SAID the word terror during the debate (in context obviously meaning terrorism) and, sure enough, there was Obama using the word “terror” (given the repeated denials of “terrorism” that day and in the weeks following, meaning “a terrible act causing fear”, not “an act of terrorism”) – so Romney lost the point and was an idiot.

    So never mind the handful of “Obama screwed up” occasions (followed up by “but look how much stupider the republicans are”). By reversing himself, Jon Stewart displayed his utter intellectual dishonesty.

  6. As for healthcare: can’t afford it, haven’t bought any, won’t pay the fine. Let’s see what happens.

    (I pay cash for routine doctor’s visits, and hope I don’t suffer any traumatic injury.)

    1. Oh, and I pay cash for the couple of regular meds I need for BP and gout. If a drug costs more than $30/month, I don’t take them.

        1. We are on the “Imperial extension” — part of the reason to sell the house. We can’t afford it, when we roll off it. To be fair, we can’t afford it now, but you guys know my health.

            1. When I tried to just get an estimate on the cost of insurance the site signed me up for Medicaid without my consent. Now they send me angry letters every month or so, since my pay is usually above or below what I reported as the average due to holidays, or snow shoveling, or floor waxing, or whatever.

        2. Yep– this includes supplements as well. I also try to keep some extra for emergencies. They seem to happen to often lately.

  7. Forty veterans died waiting for healthcare at the VA hospital. There maybe thousands of veterans waiting for care. I knew a National Guard guy who had to wait three months after his deployment to get care for his shoulder. It was an injury he received in Iraq. I saw the results of the current healthcare three years ago.

        1. Aided and abetted by the 1990s occupant of the white house…

          To reduce the VA budget, they changed some of the paperwork.The “you broke it you bought it” drop-dead date was 180 days of service. It was changed circa 1994 or so to two years. Still nto sure how or why they haven’t been sued over that one (after all, the *contract I signed* says 180 days…)

          1. Yea– I don’t remember what my contract said. We suspect that my disease is caused from those years as an electronics tech in the Navy (handled organic chemicals without good protective devices). I wasn’t diagnosed until ten years later. My military doctors (before I got civilian care) were afraid I would sue. I was too sick then and it is probably too late now.

                1. My uncle was blown up in Vietnam; last year he got a claim for PTSD approved.

                  (It does seem to actually being HELPING, although I don’t know how much of that is that he’s almost definitely not smoking pot anymore.)

                  1. Come now — we all know that smoking marijuana has no deleterious effects, so getting off weed could not possibly have been of any benefit to your uncle.

                    1. Amusingly, my husband has been miserable all weekend.

                      Someone a few houses over had a BIG party, and we could smell it at least a half-block away… and my husband is allergic. He found that out in college, but since joining the Navy hadn’t had to deal with it.

                      We move over to Seattle and he starts having bad allergies during the spring/summer months, we figure it’s mold.

                      Nope, just a lot more pot heads…..

                    2. Actually, for an adult, it might possibly be beneficial for such a thing, if not done to excess (as in, rendering oneself effectively comatose for significant periods of time).

                      It’s good that he’s getting help, either way, though.

                  2. Glad to hear that your uncle is finally being helped. Self-medicating is something you see with Vets who have severe problems. From what I heard there was a lot of self-medicating in Vietnam (drugs and/or alcohol).

                    1. Speaking of self-medicating, I’m expecting a major jump in alcohol abuse as they outlaw pain meds– my parents already do that because it’s so hard to get a prescription if you’re still working.

  8. Okay, the mention of Benghazi tripped something I’ve been trying to bite back for days. A friend on Facebook (he is a friend, despite his political nonsense) recently posted something to the effect of “Any politician who can run his campaign without ever mentioning the word ‘Benghazi’ will be more likely to get my vote.”

    I nearly went full on Red Curtain of Rage.

    To see the abandonment of our men and the pathetic, lawless, and incompetent cover-up that followed treated as if it were some petty, ginned up partisan quibble infuriated me. I do not mean it irritated, annoyed, bothered, upset, or even angered me. It infuriated me. It infuriates me still. They left them to die. They lied about the circumstances. They lied about the cause. They had a man thrown in jail to cover for their incompetent lies. They lied about their actions. They have refused to answer questions about all of those. They have put up the pretense that the whole sordid, disgusting mess is just another political prop for the political opposition. And fools have believed them, and hold me in scorn because I demand that they be held accountable for their cowardice, fraud, lies, and abuses.

    May they reap every grain of the harvest they’ve sown.

    1. My fury has not abated. I suspect it will not. Because I suspect they will never be held accountable, and they don’t have the integrity to feel guilt.

      I meant what I said after the anniversary last year, and I know many current and former military folk who believe those things, whether or not they’re comfortable with the expression. I know of military folk who lived and died by those things.

      And in Benghazi they let them die. I do not have family friendly words for my feelings. But if they think I will forget, if they think “Dude, that was like two years ago!” will lessen my rage. That their mockery or scorn will assuage my feelings… No.

          1. I used up all my words on it here once before. Still mad. Not over it. Not going to get over it.

            Those were our people.

            our people.

            Brutalized. Murdered. Left to die.

            It violates one of the most basic, bone simple principles damn near every swinging Dick and singing Jane I know holds dear: you protect your own.

            Promises un-kept. Lies. *spits* This was not a small thing. The fact that this has been politicized sickens me. That we failed to uphold our honor to the *world* angers me. If we will not protect our own, how stand our allies? Those that depend on us when danger threatens?

            Okay I misspoke. Still mad. Not over it. Still have a few words left.

            1. You’re doing better stringing the words together than I, of late. My fingers shake and my muscles cramp when I dwell long enough to try and discuss it.

              I thought maybe getting it all out on the screen last year would be palliative.

              Nope.

        1. I am admittedly not a wordsmith, but I do not think there are words, family friendly or otherwise, in any language on Earth that truly encapsulate the rage.

      1. “Dude, that was like two years ago!”
        You mean the two years of lying and deliberate obfuscation that Obama and his minion used to MAKE this old news? That two years? Because that’s two years I’d like to tack on to their eternal torment and damnation. Permanent pain, suffering and misery simply won’t be good enough.
        Yeah, I know that sounds angry and bitter. That’s because I AM angry and bitter about Benghazi.

            1. If I ever decided to go on a rampage, I’d certainly enlist like-minded individuals, including you, Sarah. Because why should I have all of the fun?

        1. Contemporary definition of chutzpah: lie, fib, obfuscate, misdirect, stall and obscure the investigation then dismiss it as “old news.”

    2. They get a pass because Bush lied. Never mind that he spoke based on massive intelligence data with the full concurrence of leading Democrats. His WMD statements were incorrect (sorta kinda, but that’s another discussion) so his error a decade past is perfect license for whatever lies and deceptions necessary to further the good fight for peace and harmony world wide. And the re-election of our fearless leader was a critical part of all that.
      What’s that you say? Those same plans have been responsible for death and destruction countless times in the past? Never mind that, the powers that be are ever so much smarter and more competent this time. And when the grand and glorious narrative again fails, well denial ain’t just a river in Egypt. And if you insist on hurling all those facts at them, that simply proves that you are racist, a homophobe, and anti woman. So there!

      1. They knew he didn’t lie! They all agreed with him it was when he was successful they had to bring him down.

      2. “His WMD statements were incorrect (sorta kinda, but that’s another discussion) so his error a decade past is perfect license for whatever lies and deceptions necessary to further the good fight for peace and harmony world wide. ”

        These folks either never had their mothers ask them if they’d jump off a bridge if their friends did so, or weren’t listening at the time.

    3. My fury about Benghazi hasn’t cooled, either. For f**ks sake, an ambassador died, the consulate was overrun, three more Americans died, waiting, waiting, waiting for help, waiting for the cavalry to come over the hill and rescue them …
      and what I take away from it all is that the lives of military and state department personnel can be thrown away like so many used Kleenexes … because actually taking effective action would have ruined the president’s reelection campaign.
      I have my medical care at a primary care clinic on-post at a military base. In the entryway to the building housing the clinic are pictures of all the persons in the chain of command, all the way up to the commander in chief. I about vomit from revulsion every time I walk past that picture. I wonder how many of the military staff and retirees working there, or being seen there feel the same.

    4. At what point in history did embassies cease being considered the sovereign territory of their nation? I fail to see how the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was any different than the attack in New York and Washington, DC on September 11, 2001.

      As a CCW instructor, I tell my students that if they are ever involved in a shooting incident that they should not do anything to alter the scene before the police arrive. That changing anything will be considered tampering with evidence and WILL be viewed as a sign of guilt – guilt for having committed a crime. That tampering will be construed in such a way as to turn a “legal shoot” into them being on trial for murder. Furthermore, anyone assisting in the tampering would, legally, be considered an accomplice, and in the US, an accomplice to a violent felony (like, say the murder of 4 people) is guilty of the same crime that they are an accomplice to.

    5. This is the same party that changed “You are still understandably miffed about our part in secession and the Civil War” to “Quit waving the bloody shirt!” Serious issues must be played down.

    6. I’m Canadian, and Benghazi makes me mad too. The idea that one of the people who lied about it is going to run for president and maybe win makes me madder.

      1. Honest… I don’t think she’ll keep up the energy level necessary to make it so I don’t spend time worrying about it.

    7. “Any politician who can run his campaign without ever mentioning the word ‘Benghazi’ will be more likely to get my vote.

      Sexist.

    8. Sure, the government is our employee, as the people of America. Military personnel and diplomatic staff, for example, are our responsibility, and have been gravely mistreated.

      That is not the thing that specifically stands out to me about Benghazi. We are, after all, talking about Democrats here. To them, as with children, the poor, and the disabled, people in the foreign and military service are the most important things in the world when convenient, and sashimi when not.

      Diplomatic immunity is probably fairly important to negotiations between nations. It is reprisal that makes people give a flip about it when they are thinking of sending an emissary home in pieces.

      1. We didn’t properly carry out reprisal for the murder of an ambassador.
      2. We didn’t admit to things being caused purely by our own incompetence, which is the only just reason not to carry out a reprisal.
      3. Our mysterious course of action only emboldens everyone to disregard the practice of diplomacy.

      Certainly, Obama’s simple inability to match his words to much of anything impairs /our/ diplomatic strength /now/. This is wider.

      I think military force can be very useful, and have little respect for a lot of diplomatic efforts. I think diplomacy has some utility, and that what little it does can be very important.

      If the Ambassador was picked because he played EVE, and also would attempt Goonswarm type stuff in RL, having it out in the open would probably be less damaging.

      If the Ambassador was buggering little boys, and the locals very much wanted that to stop, having that out in the open would probably be less damaging.

  9. I hope you will not take this amiss; I buy your work, but it is your blog posts that I value above all else. The view that you present of America from the perspective of an immigrant is vital to my understanding of my own country, even though my ancestors fought in the Revolution. Thank you for your insights, and keep posting; I’ll keep buying…

      1. Eh. A lot of people can claim that. For which side? is the more critical question.

        And, “On which side would you fight if it happened today?” I doubt any in this Administration nor as much as 20% of the Congress would fight today for Liberty.

        1. Oh. We know the side. His ancestor, the first Daniel was with the Connecticut volunteers on the revolution’s side. The second Daniel fought in the civil war. Dan is the third Daniel. We wonder what his parents WERE thinking?

        2. My Southern maternal grandmother was proud of her Civil War veteran ancestor, had a photo of him on wall. I didn’t tell her that he was wearing a Union uniform …

          1. *chuckle* There’s more than a few like that, especially in the border states like Tennessee and so on. Some, like my family, might have had a few of both.

        3. I don’t think mine did. The Canadians were not recruited to oppose the American invasion and that’s where my ancestors on this continent were when it happened.

          1. I’m ALMOST sure I had no ancestors on the continent at the time. A hundred percent sure… well… no. There’s a reason I have relatives in every country you care to name (though I need mom to locate the more distant ones!) and some went back afterwards, so who knows? The habit of burning all letters and diaries when someone dies means the past is … a mystery.
            Dan’s ancestor is tracked and tagged — his dad went to school with a scholarship from the Daughters of the American Revolution.

          2. I don’t have information on all branches of my ancestors at that time, but it’s entirely possible I had some on both sides of the Civil War. Given that my g-g-grandfather directly up the paternal line had at least one slave*, it’s entirely possible that his son fought on the Union side.

            * DNA test indicates that I’m probably NOT descended from her (the births of two sons were VERY close together when my g-grandfather was born, leading to suspicion that one was hers), as our family stories seemed to indicate was likely – oh, well, one less juicy story to tell

    1. Some say we need another revolution. Others say the democratic processes may yet work. I’d argue instead that the so-called progressives are already revolting. 🙂

      1. Revolting like the canned tuna I found in the back of the fridge. No, I am NOT going to open the baggie/containment vessel to try a sniff test. That the remaining fish is off-gassing is sufficient evidence of putridity, thank you.

  10. I absolutely loathe gaslighting. I’ve struggled with depression and anxiety for years and the thought of someone deliberately trying to drive someone else mad make me ill.
    The administration, the press, all who are involved in perpetuating this lie are evil.

    1. ‘Evil’ seems a little light (though appropriate) these days. I prefer something with some heft. Like reprehensible. And abhorrent.

          1. I try not to let such seep to the level of consciousness. No real need to stoke the flames.

          2. Sometimes my belief in divine justice is all that keeps me from giving into despair at least as far as politics go.

            1. Never despair. At least, not for long. Righteous anger, yes. Determination, unflinching voice of said anger, assuredly. But keep up hope. I can’t speak for the Hereafter, and politics tempts me in that direction as well, but hope is a gift.

              The internet is a wonderful thing, as well. We are not alone, each of us, to suffer the insults to our intelligence alone. Lord knows there are so many smarter and more eloquent than I out there.

              I find that fact comforting.

                1. Some days it is so hard.

                  But — I believe in the future. And I fight my way back to that standard, however dark the way.

                    1. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn’t any Narnia.

                      This one?

                    2. Yes — expressed here by Doctor Who:

                      Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

                2. Oh, you know I take a very dark view about how things are likely to go and it if gets to actual violence the main choice will be what form the tyranny that arises from it will take.

                  But I fight. If I’m going to go down, I’m going to go down swinging.

                  And I do try to take to heart the line from Oliver Cromwell: “I abjure you in the bowels of Christ to consider the possibility you could be mistaken.”

                  Perhaps the horse will learn to sing.

              1. Yeah, finding this blog cheered me up so much after the 2012 election. It’s just really frustrating to see all the things they get away with.

    1. yep. I actually HAVE proof that I’m not stupid. The latest person calling me stupid was when I said that no homophobic beatings don’t take place anywhere but certain ethnic neighborhoods in big cities. His reply was “Hasn’t she heard of Matthew Shepperd?” Well, yes, I have. But even if the people saying it was a drug deal gone wrong are lying THAT WAS TWENTY YEARS AGO. If that’s all he has, I’d say the attacks aren’t “pervasive and constant, as TV shows them.” Something he could have figured out if he’d THOUGHT instead of screaming “Stupid” and eructating the one incident he’d been taught was representative.

      1. I wrote some e-mail where I hit the General Social Survey for information on educational attainment. It showed that we of a conservative/libertarian bent, far from being the uneducated hicks and subhumans that I keep being told we are, are underrepresented among highschool dropouts (-15%), and about on par with leftists for college and graduate attainment. (more for bachelors, -4% for graduate)

        We’re ridiculously underrepresented in academia though – don’t remember the results, but it seems natural scientists employed in the private sector must make up the difference.

        I’m studying freaking *plasma physics*, but I know that there is no time in my career where I won’t be (and here you see the gaslighting split:) viciously shunned/and or pitied for my sad delusions of intelligence and adequacy if I should ever let my true philosophy or worldview show. No amount of real accomplishment or competence will ever substitute for how I will be seen/treated/remembered/associated with by my peers if my politics become known.

        1. PS – Thank you for letting us know that we are not alone. It is important.

          PPS – Hopefully at some point in my career, I won’t be so dependent on being well thought of by my peers and I can do some of the same. When I have any political issues that I’ve been paying enough attention to to have an informed opinion on (I’ve been keeping my head down and trying to ignore the “outrage of the day”).

          PPPS – on that subject: To what extent is being constantly outraged about politics harmful/distracting from more productive pursuits? Don’t get me wrong, what is happening *is* often outrageous. There is some new outrage every day. But I find myself wondering more and more – if it is about things that I have no control over, is being constantly preoccupied and outraged about them doing me harm in the long run? After all, I could be studying advanced math or physics, or working on my programming projects for all the time I’ve sunk into reading political crud that, at the end of the day I can’t do anything about. Knowledge about the outrage of the day, besides providing the feeble solidarity of not allowing someone’s brutal oppression to vanish down the memory hole entirely, still enables me to do precisely squat about it. Furthermore, anger/rage/depression/etc seem to me to be paralyzing. (I start thinking about $outrage, and I’m no longer in the mood for actual productive work.)

            1. Of course you’re getting that feeling. We’ve read this before. We’ve ALL read this before. Everybody has. We’re living in a Trope! We’re just not sure exactly how this one is going to work out . . .

              1. Typical VileProg – plagiarizing the story because they can’t come up with one of their own that works. (No, it won’t work “this time.” I’m a historian and a sci-fi writer and reader. I know how this ends.)

        2. Yeah… I mean, not that I want to set myself up too badly now that I’ve decided to go back for the BS instead of the wimpy BA in Geology because as soon as I open my mouth I’ll end up tanking calculus for a third and final time but…

          This amazing fantasy that conservatives just aren’t very smart… aren’t open to new ideas… that this is proven in “studies”… and then you look at what people are taking at university and the “superior” ones are patting themselves on the back for their Humanities (or worse, Studies!) degrees because, after all, Engineering is HARD…

          Or Economics…

          Or even Business…

          I guess a person has to be extra special super smart to get past simple things like empirical evidence and all the way up to creative interpretations of the ephemeral… or something. Heck, look how brilliant I am! I can find evidence for the oppression of women where none exists and it only took me a PhD to do it! Huzzah!

      2. Several years ago, I read a lengthy article talking about a boy here in the States who was shot and killed by one of his fellow classmates. The kid was gay and dressed in womens clothing. The story, unsurprisingly, headlined that the kid had been the victim of a hate crime.

        Except that when you read enough of the story (which covered the kid’s background) to actually reach the point where the shooter enters into it, you realize that the dead kid had basically been sexually harrassing the shooter. Every single day, the now dead kid would openly and blatantly hit on the shooter, who was straight, and who repeatedly told the dead kid that he wasn’t interested. Finally, when it became clear that the adults wouldn’t intervene (and it appears that one of the faculty members may have been encouraging the dead kid), the shooter got frustrated enough to find his own way to solve the harrassment.

        But, you know, it was obviously an anti-gay hate crime.

      3. To progs, there is no expiration date for whatever “injustice” they will use to preen and pose and pretend how wonderful they are for expressing outrage towards the people they hate.

        1. However, “Dude, that was like two years ago,” and “At this point in time, what difference does that make?”

          On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 8:25 PM, According To Hoyt wrote:

          > Patrick Chester commented: “To progs, there is no expiration date for > whatever “injustice” they will use to preen and pose and pretend how > wonderful they are for expressing outrage towards the people they hate.” >

          1. Oh, their actions have an expiration date, but not something someone else did.

            I’ve had prog trolls use some comment Rush Limbaugh made towards Chelsea Clinton in the early 90s used to “justify” the slurs aimed at Sarah Palin’s children.

            Limbaugh actually apologized for it not long after it happened, and from what I recall of the incident it was actually an accident (an image of Chelsea was put in the wrong place of a sequence of images) but that didn’t mean much to the progs.

            They’re like feral children, though I guess I’m being unfair to feral children since they have an excuse for their behavior.

            1. It was an accident, he reacted exactly like someone who’d be utterly blindsided at the time, the transcript is on his website– somewhere, I found it once– and at least once in the last five years he’s replayed it, apologized again, generally acted like a decent guy who accidentally called a not very attractive kid who has the misfortune of that family a dog.

      4. Fair enough, but how about this case from last year, admittedly in a big city, but not in “certain ethnic neighborhoods” (in fact, in one of the most gay-friendly neighborhoods anywhere, and one which normally has about one murder a year)?

        http://nypost.com/2013/05/18/gay-man-shot-dead-in-village-after-gunman-shouted-homophobic-slurs-authorities/

        Anti-gay attacks probably do happen disproportionately in “certain ethnic neighborhoods”, but so do all other kinds of violent crime.

        1. Yes, indeed — but also because certain ethnicities have a more traditional and homophobic culture. And before you bitch too hard on that, I’m including my own ethnic origins. What I heard in Portugal doesn’t bear repeating, okay — trust me, no American is at that point.
          And yes, sometimes homophobes — though since he shouted homophobic slurs at authorities I think the man was INSANE, not homophobic? — go on a rampage, but the way TV shows make it sound is “no gay man is safe anywhere.” You know as well as I do that’s bullshit, or my gay friends have strongly misinformed me/lived atypical lives.
          Now, should a small, slight guy go out at night unarmed? Oh, for the love of Pete, no. Neither should a small slight woman. Or any woman. Of course NYC is notorious for disarming its citizens, but — know what? — you can carry a knife. Heck, I carry a knife when I jog really early in the morning, and I don’t live in a big city.

          1. In NYFC? Carry a knife? Legally? the knife you can carry might be suitable for… maybe… opening an envelope.

            1. well, you know, I once defended myself with a stilleto shoe. Big hat pins can also be useful.
              But again the fact that yes, sometimes gay people get killed by crazy people doesn’t justify all the gay people murdered in shows and stories just for being gay. Because we’re all at risk of being murdered by crazy people. It’s rare — very rare — but it does happen. Which is why not being able to defend yourself is crazy. (For ex, where I live, one of the safest areas in a safe city, someone was murdered four blocks away as far as we can tell for standing on the street corner waiting for her friends. VERY safe area, college student (and they’re out at all hours) standing under a street lamp. Shot in a drive by shooting as far as we can tell, random. Or two blocks from my house. Hospital worker coming home late, someone knifed her for her (probably empty) purse. Now, does this make the neighborhood not safe? Heck, we’ve hung out on the street with our friends. Yesterday night a group of kids was chatting in front of my bedroom window (grrrr) at two in the morning. Those incidents? the one in my neighborhood four years ago. The other ten years ago. No neighborhood is so safe that NOTHING ever happens. And yeah, some people will target you because you’re gay. Or a woman. Or a guy. Or wearing a red sweater. Or…)

              1. Funny you should mention a need for defense.

                Somebody threw an egg onto our porch and painted “dog” on our driveway. While we were inspecting this, we saw one of our neighbors inspecting their mailbox and when we spoke to them found that they had just installed a “vandal proof” mailbox–heavy duty box with the arm attached to the upright with a swivel so it just swings out of the way if someone hits it.

                Looks like we’re having a vandal problem in the neighborhood.

                And, of course, the police have told our neighbors “there’s nothing we can do” and the “security” hired by the HOA is useless.

                Maybe it’s time to start doing front porch gun cleaning.

              2. well, you know, I once defended myself with a stilleto shoe. Big hat pins can also be useful.

                If I remember the thumbnail layout of how their laws work in practice, if you use something to defend yourself and can’t prove you had a rock solid non-defense reason to pack it, you were armed and will probably be in more trouble than the attacker.

          2. There will be no bitching from me. It’s obvious to anyone willing to look that some cultures, and hence the ethnicities they broadly correspond to, are more homophobic than others, though I don’t know if there are statistics readily available to show whether that translates into members of said ethnicities committing specifically anti-gay crimes disproportionately to other violent crimes. It would make sense, but not everything that seems to make sense turns out to be true. Also, I think it’s clear that this guy was both homophobic and insane, but he doesn’t seem to have shouted slurs at authorities — the headline was “Gay man shot dead in Village after gunman shouted homophobic slurs: authorities”, with the last part meaning “authorities say”, and there’s nothing in the article about him shouting slurs at police.

            Yes, if you avoid relatively few places and kinds of situations, your risk of crime goes way down, no matter who you are, and the media is invested in hyping up crime (in a way that fits its narratives, of course).

  11. Another example: when certain people on Twitter claim that if Heinlein were alive today, he’d be a leftie. Gaslighting!

      1. Ah, but according to Time Magazine, Reagan would be pals with Obama now . . . 😉

        1. According to the White House website, Reagan would be pals with Obama now. Shortly after entering office, Obama’s people made sure to add little notations on the entry for each of the former presidents (except for Nixon 😛 ) – down to around the start of the 20th Century, iirc – about how Obama was like that president. Even Reagan got one. I can’t remember what the details where, but iirc some twisting of the facts was involved.

                1. Just imagine how much worse off we’d be if he were as competent as he thinks he is!

                  On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:26 PM, According To Hoyt wrote:

                  > accordingtohoyt commented: “Carter’s competence! We should be so > lucky.” >

              1. I still say that the strongest parallels are between Barack Obama and Jefferson Davis.

                Difference one is that Davis technically did a worse job than Obama has so far, as his polity was extinguished, and that has yet to happen to the United States.

                Difference two is that Davis might well have been saner, more competent, and more ethical than Obama is.

                  1. Lousy parallel. Caligula had more leadership skills and a better set of Senator acquaintances. 😉

                    1. In fairness, after Caligula’s attack the ocean did withdraw.

                      What is Obama’s “Climate Change” initiative if not an attempt to make the ocean retreat?

                      THE WEST ANTARCTIC ICE SHEET MELT: DEFENDING THE DRAMA
                      POSTED BY ELIZABETH KOLBERT
                      If you hang around climate scientists, you often hear the saying “Uncertainty is not our friend.” It came to mind yesterday, when two teams of scientists released papers that reached the same terrifying conclusion. A significant chunk of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has begun to disintegrate and, owing to the ice sheet’s peculiar topography (much of it lies below sea level), this process, having begun, has now also become unstoppable. “Today we present observational evidence that a large section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has gone into irreversible retreat,” the lead author of one of the papers, Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said at a news conference. “It has passed the point of no return.” Rignot said that melting in the section of West Antarctica that his team had studied could cause global sea levels to rise by four feet over the course of a couple of centuries. Since the disappearance of some of its major glaciers could quite possibly destabilize the entire ice sheet, the ultimate sea level rise from West Antarctica, he said, could be triple that.
                      [ http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/05/the-west-antarctica-ice-sheet-melt-defending-the-drama.html ]

                      SEE ALSO:
                      Watts Up With That?
                      Governor ‘Moonbeam’ beclowns himself over sea level rise at LAX airport
                      Posted on May 13, 2014
                      by Anthony Watts

                1. Jeff Davis actually had a political career, a military career including leading volunteers in the Mexican American war, and a moderately successful business.
                  Davis started the unit that became the Mississippi Rifles, was injured at Buena Vista and served in that war with Grant and Lee. He was also at one time the Son-in-law of Zachary Taylor.
                  Our beloved leader once worked at a Baskins and Robins.

                  1. Does anybody harbor any doubt that Obama, while at Baskin-Robbins, varied the portion size according to his own interpretations of what the customer deserved to receive?

                    1. I was wondering 1) how long that shop stayed in business after he started there and 2) if he resigned to show his solidarity with the proletariat or if he got “invited to pursue other career options.”

        2. Reagan would be pals with Obama because Reagan was a classy guy.

          You know how Clinton and Bush are all chummy… odds on Obama joining that happy fraternity when he leaves office?

          1. Reagan would have been friends with Obama because after twenty-five years in Hollywood, Reagan was accustomed to dealing with well-meaning narcissistic fools who lived surrounded by folks fawningly eager to praise their flatulence fumes.

      2. I always try to remember that it is a mistake to base one’s estimate of a writer’s politics or other true beliefs on their fiction. After all, it’s all lies, on purpose and for effect.
        For a true picture into what our first grand master was about I highly recommend both Tramp Royale and Grumbles From the Grave.

      3. Oh, a spouse. What did she know? She bought into the whole patriarchal oppression of marriage. And lived in fly-over country! And married Heinlein, who everybody knows was totally sexist. Because old, white male or something.

  12. Bias is insufficient to describe when the press is literally owned. When it works as a secret arm of the government doing dirty tricks.
    It’s too far gone to fix or save. Something will replace it. I worry what.
    The little lie won’t serve anymore. The big lies are so extreme now that when people do wake up to how they have been abused there can be no forgiveness.

  13. When people ask why I came out politically though it will (maybe has already) cost me readers I say “so you know you’re not alone.”

    Totally stealing from a friend on facebook:

      1. There is such a thing as a good death. Objectives achieved, whatnot. There are also such things as very, very bad deaths. Those are lavished upon only the special ones.

          1. Topic for a Con panel: “Redshirting and Fan Outreach: Connecting with your Fan Base by Fictionally Killing Off Your Fans”?

  14. The purpose of such gaslighting, as George Orwell pointed out, is to deny people the language to express certain concepts.

    1. They even admitted it when I was in college. The first crop of students subjected to PC regulations, they were such fools that they told it it was to keep us from thinking crimethink.

      “In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

      ― Theodore Dalrymple

      1. “Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”

        I seem to remember reading that somewhere, about 30 years ago…

        1. But it does take a certain bravery to insist “but he has no clothes” when all those around you are claiming the contrary.

          1. Tha’s one reason I don’t say sech things but rather, instead, make comment on what the lack of clothing reveals.

            Eh, who’d a knew ‘e ‘ad sech knobby knees?
            A mite heavy in tha flanks, en ‘e?
            Wha’ a bottum ‘e ‘as — I nae saw anythin’ so flabby and yet so broad!
            Canna say mech fer tha’ willie ‘e’s wagglin’ ‘cept its a no surprise ‘is queen looks lak she were weaned on a sour pickle.

            N.B., ah have been listening to one o Brian Jakes’ Redwall books on me audible an’ I think it’s inflected my speech.

          2. Of course, nowadays, you’re more likely to find people shrieking he has no clothes when he is perfectly clad, and getting — as anyone would anticipate — no harm at all but instead plenty of plaudits.

            “Any man living in complete luxury and security who chooses to write a play or a novel which causes a flutter and exchange of compliments in Chelsea and Chiswick and a faint thrill in Streatham and Surbiton, is described as ‘daring,’ though nobody on earth knows what danger it is that he dares. I speak, of course, of terrestrial dangers; or the only sort of dangers he believes in. To be extravagantly flattered by everybody he considers enlightened, and rather feebly rebuked by everybody he considers dated and dead, does not seem so appalling a peril that a man should be stared at as a heroic warrior and militant martyr because he has had the strength to endure it.” -G. K. Chesterton

            1. I will SO have to go out and read more of G.K. Chesterton. He sounds the perfect bitchy antidote to so many of todays’ so-called public intellectuals …

  15. I have found myself thinking of Ekaterin in Komarr from time to time, regarding this issue.

    1. For her ability to persevere or her ability to bounce the object of her frustration off the ground multiple times with a grav crane while laughing?

      1. Those are good things, but not what I was thinking.

        Perhaps the most concise comment is the ‘Am I crazy?’ description of her marriage, I think in A Civil Campaign.

        1. The proper answer to that probably involves bouncing things with a grav crane. 😉

          1. Heh. When I read the mention of it above, I thought it said “Grav CANE”. I’m imagining someone pointing a cane at someone and making them bounce up and down with it.

              1. Wasn’t compatible with my current sci-fantasy project, but maybe is now. Thanks. Now I have more things to do in that universe. I’ve figured out that aspect of the technology based on magic, so the Grav Lance is only a logical extrapolation.

                I can’t quite convince myself that armored knights on horses have more than very specific applications in spaceship combat.

                1. I can’t quite convince myself that armored knights on horses have more than very specific applications in spaceship combat.

                  They’re mini tanks.

                  Small, armored to the teeth, they can punch through most defenses and survive the punching.

                  In a large group, well– OUCH. You go all Flying Ducks formation with your more agile guys in the V of the Knights.

                  1. The biggest vulnerability, then and now, to armored knights on horseback is the horse, but without one the knight is not mobile enough to matter.

                    Solve the mobility problem and an armored knight with a big nasty grav lance would make a rikkytick spaceship boarding or surface assault asset.

                    1. The killer ap of the Grav Cane was very high g worlds. Its utility for survival preceded the weapons applications, and refinements.

                      I can also see bioengineering equinoids to use magic to avoid death in such an environment. The armored horse warriors are not that far from there.

                      I have two issues. One is my thinking about the setting’s tech common for human space suits, and my initial impression that maybe the food/waste and delicacy issues of horses are enough to severely limit how long they can be kept suited up. The other is that using tech to make my horses universally useful in spaceship combat seems to require changing them into something other than horses, and I don’t really want to do that here.

                      That said, I don’t have the impression that this is the sort of thing where I let that my nitpicking of that level be decisive.

                    2. That’s why you use mules instead of horses, although you might need fairly small mules (and knights) to charge down the interior passages of a space ship.

                      Imagine a charge of dwarves on mules the size of miniature horses, armed with grav lances; in what amounts to a hallway.

  16. Just keep reminding yourself that alot people are still alive only because for now at least it’s illegal (or too much trouble )to kill them – key phrase “for now”.

      1. It’s a bit of a failed threat when everybody’s left wondering who’s supposed to feel threatened, isn’t it?

          1. “Why do you have a plastic barrel full of concrete in your garage?”
            “That’s where I pour the leftovers from all the concrete work I’m doing.”
            “There’s no fresh concrete anywhere on your property.”
            “That’s why I need such a large barrel for the leftovers.”
            (That’s one way to dispose of a body, but it leaves you with the problem of how to dispose of a barrel of concrete.)

              1. There are a number of things not to do. Never wrap the body in logging chains and toss it into the estuary at high tide. Never decide to drop it into the river from a boat-dock since most boat-docks are on back-waters or eddies and the poor thing will bob around all night and never make it down stream. Never ever stuff the body under the floorboards of the house and then set it on fire, people will notice.
                Oregon historical murders are notable for their lack of…well anything including success, really.

                1. The biggest problem with dropping it from an airplane in the middle of the wilderness or the ocean is getting it to the airport unseen. Although getting the thing out of the airplane while you’re flying it is right up there. Easier to just bail out.

                  1. Heh…Not that you’ve worked it through or anything.

                    “No, officer, that’s not an actual body I’m loading into that plane. You, see, I’m a writer…”

                    *and it’s not actually that hard – you just load the body in your car’s trunk, drive into your hangar and close the door, transfer the body, then open the door and fly off for some overwater “sightseeing”. If properly prepositioned, you can just pop open the door and kick the departed out. The biggest problem will likely be the door not closing afterwards, so the flight back will be drafty and cold.

                    1. Hm, an overabundant multiplicity of unspecified doors. If it’s not clear, the last two above belong to the airplane, while the first two belong to the hangar.

                  2. In the Jack Reacher book I just finished, they dropped them in the desert from a private helicopter.

                    Oh wait, they were alive when they dropped them.

                    1. It’s much easier to move the body to the disposal site under its own power, and then kill it.

                      And Sarah, weren’t you complaining about having nonfertile soil that wouldn’t grow flowers? Raised bed flowerbeds would make a suitable disposal site, as long as the body was buried deep enough that the cats wouldn’t uncover it doing what they always do in flower beds.

            1. The smell comes out of it, too.

              Given the whole terrorism thing, docks are pretty much out of the question unless you own your own little boat– put the body in the boat, launch like normal, go waaaay far away from anything that might be viewed as a threat, try to spot if anyone is checkign if you’re littering, and then dump.

              And even then the coast guard would probably catch you. They’ve caught drug runners more than once because they thought they were littering!

Comments are closed.