Rumor and Innuendo, Alarums and Excursions

Did you hear about the snake-headed baby born to the woman in the next village? What about the three-legged centaur born to the woman a village over? No? You know those people over there, with whom you don’t interact are always having monstrous children and, what’s worse, they eat them too.

You’re reading that paragraph again and wondering if I lost my mind.

Last night, I found myself wondering if the field as a whole has lost its mind.

A colleague, a midlister with a decent reputation and okay writing, posted a recommendation of one of Larry’s books. The comments were immediately assailed by people informing her that he was the evil lord of evil and she was evil for promoting him.

I considered jumping in, and while I was deciding, she erased the post, then put up another saying that, well, she’d liked his books, but since he was an unsavory homophobe and all around evil in the matter of gay rights, she would never read him again, and she would now recommend a female from a small press.

This – this leap from rumor and innuendo to “since he is” pushed me over the edge. Yes, I do know some of you are saying that it’s a short road and an easy drive, but really, what kind of insanity is this?

I posted that Larry is no more homophobic than I am. For all I know he does oppose gay marriage (I don’t know. Never asked. Not particularly interested. Some of my best friends oppose it. I don’t. We have discussed it. They see my reasons, I see theirs. Neither will change. Doesn’t matter. They’re friends, not members of my hive mind. We can disagree on a lot and still be friends.) However, I’ve never seen him treat gay people differently or espouse the view that we should pull walls down on them or hang them from cranes, or that they’re worth less than the rest of humanity.

My comment was deleted, then the post was deleted, and meanwhile I blew up in the facebook diner, but all of this left me feeling furious.

Look, what idiocy is this? Are we people in the age of reason, taught to look for fact and evidence? Are we humans grown in a land of law where you get to confront your accuser? Or are we savages in a little village who believe all the bad things said of the people in the next village?

Humans are tribal and tend to believe the worst of strangers. The left has used this tactic for a long time.

As someone mentioned in the comments, a lot of (stupid) people constantly repeat “there’s no smoke without fire” without considering that sometimes the smoke is deliberate and special effects.

There is a tendency, particularly on the right, where we pride ourselves on being morally upright (by which I mean neither prudes nor judgmental, should any leftist be reading this. Most people on the right that I associate with pride themselves on being as moral as they can in their own conduct) we tend to immediately distance ourselves from someone we perceive as having some taint. This explains why they’re trying nonsense like the Perry indictment. It worked with all the minor figures of the Bush administration. Indict them of something stupid and everyone in the country would know they’re “criminals.” They might have stepped too far on that one.

And there is a tendency in the soft right and the center to distance ourselves from someone perceived to have committed the unforgivable crime of our age: being a bigot.

The left knows this. It is not for no reason that they fling around words like sexist and racist. (The Fascist MIGHT just be because they get carried around with rhymes. I keed, I keed. It’s because they have no clue what it means.)

So they start a whisper campaign and after three or four times of hearing the same thing repeated, the mush heads who never verify anything for themselves will believe “there’s no smoke without fire.” And never mind the fake smoke blowing from beside the stage.

This is nonsense and I’ve had enough of it.

Dave Freer, who is a better man than I am, unfriended the writer who posted the nonsense about Larry. I didn’t. Unless she unfriends me, I intend to bring down the rod of correction every time she does idiotic stuff like that.

Look, the hard left is lost. They employ these tactics because they know they’ll work. The mushy left, the mushy right and the mush-headed center just runs scared, afraid of being mistaken for a bigot or of being seen with the people the left is reviling.


I have had enough of this. They’re like a puppy piddling on the rug, and you wipe it up and don’t say anything because the puppy is young and doesn’t know what he did.

It does great credit to our soft hearts and none at all to our soft heads.

From now on, when the mush-heads go along and get stampeded by the smoke blowers, I’m intervening.

Yeah, I have the clean up bottle. But I also have a newspaper. I’m going to rub their noses in their own messes.

And if that doesn’t work, I’m going to ask them to explain why they gave birth to snake headed babies.

Bet I can find more proof of THAT than they can of Larry holding any of the opinions they attribute to him.

Can I make them abandon this tactic? On my own? No. If all of us do it? Probably. The matter, be it with leftists or puppies, is to make it too painful for them to crap on the rug of society.

I suggest we start doing so. The carpet was too expensive to throw out or burn. Let’s house-break them.

683 thoughts on “Rumor and Innuendo, Alarums and Excursions

  1. Growl. Larry is, in the rank of decent human beings, very highly placed in my ordering. I know he’s had the most vile and completely imaginary accusations – of which there is no trace of evidence, made up crap that people who are lower than snake-shit (and that’s underground) chose to slander him with, for their most unbelievably petty reason – the power to dominate a trivial award which they’ve managed to destroy the value of. These are people who use these blatant lies to tarnish and possibly destroy good men. I’ll spare you my pithy description of them, because I’d probably be banned from the internet let alone this site altogether. Anyway, I’d already had one drive-by jackass on Mad Genius Club this morning, and that had used up all the patience with suffering fools gladly that I have. So her timing was just bad as well as her actions.

    1. His wife has gotten calls from acquaintances wondering if “everything was all right at home” after reading lies people have written about Larry on the Internet. That really steams me.

      1. Yeah, I said that pissed me off too because that’s seriously stepping over a line. It seems to be one of the things that had him thinking of suing Damien for outright slander, enough to look into doing so and deciding it wasn’t worth the cost of litigation. He was still mad about it and may still be.

        The best part was the calls came from acquaintances and folk she hadn’t heard from in a long time, if I recall the story. Rawr…..!

        1. Yes, and while I get the circumlocutive (is totally a word, says Circum-Locutus of Borg) nature of such inquiries, the feeling of pussy-footing around the subject of a rather mountainous man abusing wife and children turns my stomach. Of course, Larry isn’t the Correia you should fear…

          1. Nooo, I imagine the Lady Correia was not happy, and I don’t think her ire was directed at the husband.

            But false accusations seem to be the bread and butter of the SJWs. There’s a reason why I snarl about the (ab)use of child services and SWATTing. They’re dishonorable scum.

                1. Then it’s in the same category as contract killings, except the killers may not realize they’re being manipulated.

                2. No it doesn’t. When the police arrest someone who tried to hire a contract killer (fortunately an undercover policeman), they get charged with attempted murder.

                    1. I posit that those who SWAT be subjected to the same charge. Murder in the First Degree if there is a fatality, as is likely. Automatic weapons, poor training, and high adrenaline almost guarantee the it will happen.

                    2. In what way is calling the cops different? After all it would be attempted murder if someone called the contract killer.

                    3. Attempted hiring of a contract killer is itself an illegal act for which the actor risks being charged and convicted. SWAT-ing entails no real risk — it is thus a profoundly cowardly act, one which endanger both its target and the police.

                    4. Filing a false police report isn’t a crime? I was under the impression that it was, for the very reason being discussed here. It endangers the lives and property of innocent people, as well as wasting taxpayer resources.

                    5. Said nothing about crime, was addressing issue of risk. On a scale of 1 to 100, how would you evaluate the risks of being identified, prosecuted and convicted for the crime you cite?

                      Offhand I would put it about 12%, 7% and 5% — you take greater risks jaywalking (which is also a crime in most jurisdictions.)

                    6. That’s a good question. Swatters do get caught and get pretty long sentences when they do. I think your numbers are low but I can’t disprove them. I suspect catching and convicting a serial swatter is easier than getting a random serial killer.

                      Also, I think swatting is crime that is going to decrease rather than become more of a problem as police forces start taking into account its possibility during responses and begin instituting tech fixes.

                    7. Any fan of Criminal Minds knows there is no such thing as “random” serial killers. Take that with appropriate measures of salt.

                      SWATing, as a tactic of political intimidation, judiciously employed, seems likely to carry very little actual risk. That some practitioners get caught and convicted indicates incompetence on their part more than it does actual risk.

                      Off the top of my head I can think of several ploys which would allow a group of SWATers to act with near impunity but, for (what I trust are) obvious reasons I will not entertain them in this (semi-)public forum.

                      While you have no right to falsely shout “FIRE!” in a darkened theatre, the actual risk of conviction for doing so is small.

                    8. On the subject of SWATting, I got curious and asked the lads – one of whom has been involved with police procedures and helped them as part of his job – if SWATting were probable in Australia. The response was ‘no’. Any triple-zero call is immediately geo-locced, there is no anonymity in calling triple zero (ergo, triple zero will record who you are as well as the call, the info is not open to general public), and the police will always politely knock first, and ask about the emergency call being made there. Has happened a few times in the past that a child playing with the phone has accidentally dialed it, put it down and crawled away… The thing is, dialing the number and not responding to the operator will still result in the cops visiting to check because it’s part of proper procedure (person who made the call can’t talk/is unable to communicate / may have passed out in the meantime…) Also, phone numbers can’t be spoofed here. All the phone lines belong to Telstra, and they’re pretty huge on security.

                    9. ” Also, phone numbers can’t be spoofed here.”

                      Pay phones? Burner phones? Calling from a public place? Calling from someone you don’t like’s house?

                      There are lots of ways to spoof the cops, some of those I mentioned off the top of my head my not work in Australia (for example, I have no idea if you have Walmart equivalents that sell burner phones) but I’m sure some would, and you could think of other ways to fool the cops with very little imagination.

                    10. Yes. I believe the primary method of SWATting is to call in and report something going on in anther location, as if the person calling was a witness to it.

                    11. I’m told: You can’t obtain even pre-paid sim cards or cellphones without valid ID here – even at the supermarket. Most phones are locked to provider. There are nearly no public phones left and the ones that are left are in places where there are CCTV cameras able to view the booth/public phone.

                      If you somehow enter the house of someone you don’t like, and try to ring in a SWATting attempt, there’s a bunch of questions which the 000 responders have to make, such as ‘are you at the location of the scene’ and if your phone /loc doesn’t match your supposed location, you’re more likely to get the cops heading to your actual location. If you’re at a location that’s too far away from the claimed scene of crime or event, you will get asked ‘how do you know this is going on’, and so on and so forth.

                      Also, methods of SWATting and false reports are constantly being reviewed. The cases over in the US are being paid attention to by local authorities and steps basically were taken to prevent such murder-by-cop. They’ve even taken steps against hired killers being used (interestingly, they became particularly popular in use by local Muslim crime gangs against each other.)

                      I won’t be so crass as to say the methods used here are perfect or would work in the US (as I mentioned earlier, Telstra pretty much owns all communications lines and infrastructure here) but from what I understand steps were taken to try prevent such and have worked.

                      Housemate’s related a few incidences where accident-prone him got his parents investigated by child services (and a total failure to cross the room without hurting himself helped exonerate his parents). Rhys and I occasionally say “Do you know you’re bleeding?” (Housemate doesn’t often feel it when he gets cut or if he’s bruised. He’s recently electrocuted himself about 6 times in the last week alone.)

                      Then Housemate went on to relate about a schoolmate who was so much worse than he, the parents were on first name basis with the emergency room staff and the school, having witnessed the kid bump, trip into and onto, fall off and onto, crash into… well, practically anything and everything, never ever doubted how the kid got hurt. (His transfer to a new school of course, meant the parents were looked at but after a little observation of how much of a klutz the guy was, neither the cops or the doctor could fault the parents! This was a guy who could hurt himself sharpening his own finger.)

                    12. –Also, methods of SWATting and false reports are constantly being reviewed. —

                      I imagine the same thing is being done in the US. SWATing isn’t something I follow that strongly but the last high profile case I remember is probably getting close to two years old. There was a spat of them and then they seemed to die off.

                    13. Bearcat,

                      You guys might. actually want to review current 911 policies on what & how to deal with calls you can’t verify their location electronically. They will send a car for drive by then a knock on the door to very. Most SWAT teams have learned their lesson.

                      Bearcat those ways might hide your identity, but do not hide the location of the phone.

                    14. While Wayne pointed out the primary method is to call from one location claiming to be a witness of an action at another location, when I suggested calling from someone’s house you don’t like, I was implying to suggest the crime was happening there, then simply walking out the door when you hung up rather than waiting for the cops to arrive. While somewhat more dangerous (due to witnesses who could give the cops a description of you) if you entered a bar/store or asked someone on the street, most people would gladly allow you to use their phone to call the cops in ‘an emergency.’ Sure they can trace the phone and find out where you called from, but you are long gone and as long as you took precautions to disguise yourself somewhat, well it isn’t going to do the authorities much good know you used the phone behind the bar at the Dew Drop Inn.

                    15. Ah, that clarifies a bit. But how the heck would the person making the SWATting call enter the house of the person s/he doesn’t like? In the case of an apartment building, the cops are likely to communicate with the landlord before going to the target’s apartment building and knocking on the door.

                      In the case of the neighbor’s phone / local public bar phone being used to call, they’ll actually tend to listen in, and again, it’ll still be a doorknock initial response. Also there would be the ‘you are calling from a different location’ response, ‘how do you know this is occurring.’

                      Oh addendum – apparently all ATMs and ALL public phone booths have recording devices by law.

                    16. The “doorknock initial response” is probably the single most effective tool at preventing the kinds of things that have happened here. Unfortunately, likely for multiple reasons, the teams for responding to such calls have decided that surprise invasion is the best way to deal with the situation.

                      I’m not going to speculate on those reasons, because I am not familiar enough, but it seems that “no-knock” raids have been increasing in frequency over the past several years.

                    17. To be fair, the doorknock initial response is required – and has admittedly gotten cops killed. Not very often, but some. And the folks I live with admit that they’re not sure that the way things are handled here would work or can be applied over there.

                      From what I’ve read on and off over the years the doorknock initial response has dribbled off because criminals over there are basically getting better armed – especially if they’re connected with drugs.

                    18. Shadow,
                      I don’t really follow SWATing that closely, but assume that many of the perpetrators are juveniles which makes it much more likely that they are in the residence of someone they dislike (and less likely to be able to use the bar phone example) or they are ex-boyfriend/girlfriends (or soon to be exes).

                      But the main thing is you have A LOT more confidence in the discretion of the authorities than I do. If they used a knock-first policy (and there are instances where this is a very bad idea, it does need to be open to discretion) SWATing wouldn’t be effective, but relying on that involves the police doing the proper thing. And even if they do the right thing 9 times out of 10, that tenth time is the one that is remembered, because the others don’t create a scene. Kind of like mortar fire, a hundred mortars can miss your foxhole, but if one hits it, it doesn’t really matter to you how many missed.

                    19. Bearcat –
                      In this instance we’re talking less about SWATing as juvenile prank (bad enough) but as a tool of political intimidation. Read Patterico’s tale of a SWAT attack on him [ ] or just put Kimberlin & Swat into your search engine.

                      Yes, it has (apparently) diminished of late. Does that mean it has been effectively discouraged or that the folks willing to deploy such tactics have it stored away in their tool box for later deployment?

                      SWATing is only a degree greater type of harassment that consists of libel and slander and is intended to destroy a person’s ability to participate in civic life. It can be as mild as complaints to an employer about poor service, rudeness and disruptive workplace behaviour, scaling up to such false and defamatory calls to police as we’ve discussed. It can be very difficult and exhausting to counteract.

                      And I might as well go ahead and say this: it is also very p-ssy. It is an escalation of the kind of whispering campaign employed by adolescent girls of all ages and genders. By its nature it denies its victims a tangible opponent to strike back against.

                    20. Yes, it has (apparently) diminished of late. Does that mean it has been effectively discouraged or that the folks willing to deploy such tactics have it stored away in their tool box for later deployment?

                      Or it hasn’t resulted in deaths recently, or wasn’t aimed at relatively high profile people, or they’ve figured out that “he’s got his wife at gun point” doesn’t work as well as something a bit more subtle.

                    21. (part 2)

                      The first incident of SWATting that I’d read about was for political reasons though soon after the crime was soon being directed at various celebrities. Originally though it was aimed largely at conservative bloggers. Patterico’s Pontifications talked about it in length while it was happening.* I won’t go into it in length because he does. The use of SWATting seems to be on the rise again, involving gaming and hackers and is now dispersed to being one of the modes of harassment the filth of the Internet and the self-absorbed entitlement jerkasses of the world – now mostly juveniles. However, as I noticed since I started to type this as RES has pointed out, this hasn’t stopped it from becoming a tool of harassment and indirect murder – the ‘can’t blame me! It’s the cops’ fault!’ aspect would appeal greatly to many a rabid progtrog out there.

                      In Patterico’s case, the cops did the right thing – they weren’t trigger happy, they didn’t shoot him the moment he complied and opened the door. The SWATTing incident of Aaron Walker and the subsequent lawfare that Walker later continued to face were one of the things that alerted conservative and non-Left political bloggers that the law could, and would be used against them. I don’t believe there’s been any resolution to the Patterico and Walker cases. I had to stop following it because I got very busy soon after – settling in Australia and simultaneously preparing for Rhys’ deployment to Afghanistan.


                      The comment thread in that link is… interesting.

                      The most chilling thing about the whole thing is that it’s basically being treated still as ‘online only’ instead of something that’s crossed over into ‘meatspace’. (Incidentally, Neal Rauhauser is very much like Clamps in his obsessions and stalking proclivities, and was one of the reasons why I delved into this very deeply back in the day. At the time, the blogging group I was very active in discovered about some of his past activities, and they were very close to SWATting. It was a cause of concern because this was something we figured would be right up Clamps’ alley, and he’d already displayed a number of disturbing, threatening behaviors.)

                      *Link removed because RES already kindly linked it for me.

          1. Oh, no. I meant it also makes me mad.
            Though the SJWs are convinced Dan abuses me and that’s why I’m “anti-feminist”. I’m downtrodden, you see. Sniffle. Don’t have a mind of my own.
            To be fair both my mother and his ALSO think that. It’s the only explanation for my not doing what they want.
            (Why do strong women assume other women have no brain/will power.)

            1. I believe this is how it plays out:

              Because a woman is not making the enlightened life choices they think she should, she is either abused or stupid. (Or maybe even both.)

              Screwy as it may be, they would rather contemplate a senerio that has their son/son-in-law as an abusive louse than that a woman wouldn’t choose what they believe is correct.

              1. Of course. The alternative is that it is possible that their views are not self-evidently correct. The horror! The horror!

              2. Or they read an account of some Muslim power forcing a not-100%-supporting-Sharia person to divorce his or her spouse and went, ooohhh, neat, maybe we can do something like that!

            2. I am a member of the White Male Patriarchy. I have places to go, and women and minorities to oppress.


                1. Proposed: T-shirts with the slogan: I am a member of the White Male Patriarchy. I have places to go, and women and minorities to oppress.

                  Suggestion: They could also be sent as ‘awards’ to worthy politicians. For example: the majority leader of the Senate after his performance at the Los Vegas Asian Chamber of Commerce Thursday. (And the jokes weren’t even particularly good…)

              1. Hey, I am The Man™! It’s my job to keep the bruthas and uppity women down. So back off my turf!
                Although my job did get a lot easier once I convinced the bruthas to keep themselves down. So now I have more time to read good science fiction.

            3. Basic tenet of woman lib theology – ‘Man bad, Woman good”. If anything is wrong, it is somehow the fault of a man. Ergo – Dan…

              1. But Woman Dumb If Not Obedient.

                Those who cite a woman socialized to be complaint in discussions of harassment are indulging in wish fulfillment fantasy: the women must be obeying the men as the speaker wishes them to obey HER.

            4. (Why do strong women assume other women have no brain/will power.)

              I make no such assumption. I only make that observation known after I’ve observed some women actively display no brain or will power. That is not an observation I would make of any of the women here.

              1. Because they are not strong women, they are “strong” women.

                Like crediting Hillary as a high achieving woman while ignoring the fact that all her achievements are attributable to her husband.

      2. My husband got this just for taking me to the hospital for a broken wrist. It wasn’t his fault I can’t roller blade but the medical staff still gave him the “hairy eyeball” because of course if I was injured he must have done it.

          1. My daughter had a bruise on her hip. (She’s an active girl. She ran into something. No idea what.)

            Day care called child protective services about it.

            By the time we were called in and “interviewed”, the bruise was gone. So verdict was “not proven”. (You’re never “innocent” with CPS–it’s just that they can’t prove it . . . this time.)

                1. It seems to be the official position of CPS that only foster families may be allowed to neglect and abuse children.

                  Necessary disclaimer: many foster families are noble, charitable people — and those typically are the ones CPS cracks down on.

              1. “If you think violence won’t solve your problem, you’re probably just not willing to apply enough.”
                -Schlock Mercenary

            1. A friend of mine recently had CPS called on her (due to a serious violation of patient privacy, no less), and the visit ended with the caseworker saying she was obviously a good mom, the people who called were out of line.

              So there can be CPS workers who see reason.

                1. Many social workers were abused children. That is, they have no idea what a healthy family looks like.

            2. In our city a little girl named Faith was, as a punishment for wetting the bed, forced to drink so water at one time by her mother’s boyfriend that she died as a result. The records showed that Child Protection Services had been aware of the child previously for various issues, including cigarette burns on her body. Somehow they never found the need to remove the child.

              Another mother became involved with CPS when her ex and their son got into a fight. One afternoon a worker was doing a home visit. The son came in to ask if he could go out with his friend. He openly said that they were planning on going to a place for which he was underage. The CPS worker threatened to have the teenage son taken out of the house because the mother refused to let him go.

              Does this make sense?

                    1. Yeah, if you’re going to haul them all the way up, just leave ’em there. In a degrading orbit.

        1. The Grumpy Literature Professor told about taking her 10 year old daughter to the ER for a broken arm (fell out of a tree). Finally she heard an angry child’s voice from the examination cubby exclaim, “I’ve told you six times, I fell out of a tree! Damn it, don’t any of you people listen?” Apparently one too many people tried to git the kidlet to say it was child abuse.

          1. My wife had the experience taking our younger son to the ER for spilling some hot tea on himself…good thing I was home taking care of the other child…

            1. Older son pulled a dolly loaded with boxes on himself while movers were packing and he was one and a half. If mover hadn’t seen and stopped full impact, we’d have lost kid. (After that he was tied in high chair, screaming, while they finished loading. He routinely escaped play pen which is what he’d done first out.) So, we moved to a new town as his face was turning black and blue. You wouldn’t believe the looks.

              1. When mother-in-law accused us, a couple of bruises and scratches were enough to get social worker visits for a year, and having to sign an agreement to no physical discipline ever for our kids.

                1. y’know, these people never think of the unintended consequences – that good parents may be taught thereby to avoid emergency rooms as much as possible, for instance.

                  1. Maybe, but there was no doctor visit involved. We dropped him off to stay with her overnight, and the next morning we had CPS at our door telling us we were accused of abuse.

                  2. My mother in law threatened to have Robert taken away if I wouldn’t put him in leg braces. Robert was one and a half and walking fine. It’s just his left foot casts slightly sideways, a thing that runs in males (and me. Sigh) in my family. I told her try it, just try it, if she wanted to know the meaning of “never ending war.” She dropped it.

                  3. My wife and I were therapeutic foster-parents for emotionally disturbed children for four years in the late ’70s. Many of these kids would self-inflict all kinds of damage to themselves. Luckily we had a pediatrician that not only knew US, but also understood what kind of children we were caring for. He was the same pediatrician that prescribed the whiskey/honey/lemon treatment for colds, and HATED Dr. Spock for “destroying” a generation of children (his words). My kids all had the usual bruises and scrapes, but we never got threatened by Social Services. I do hate being asked, every time I see a new doctor, if I “feel safe at home”.

                2. My mother and I were looking at some old family pictures yesterday while working on Mom’s book about raising five children on a homestead in Alaska. One of the pictures was of my younger brother Mark, aged about eighteen months, sitting on a chair and grinning at the camera with nothing on but his diaper. He had a black eye (no idea how he got that), a burn on his hand (from the wood stove), chicken pox, and scratches on his legs, probably from crawling around on our rough wood floor. Mark was very active from before birth, always into mischief (and his oldest son turned out just like him, LOL!). Mom commented that nowadays, that picture would probably get all her children taken away.

                3. Such will always be the case where false (and malicious) accusations bear no cost.

                  Not saying your mother-in-law was malicious, but in the absence of costs there will inevitable be some accusers who are.

                  See also: Rape Culture

                  1. Since she died, my younger son has suggested that she had a split personality. He was looking at her journals and says there are two distinct writing styles, which switch back and forth, sometimes on the same page.

                    While it’s unusual (at least, my Psychology classes said so) for a personality to only split in two, this would match with some other observations, such as being overly sugary-sweet and lovey until she got frustrated, then turning into a raging lunatic bitch of the first water.

              2. I once had my legs COVERED with bruises my mother had inflicted — hauling me out of my high chair because someone had given me a plum without removing the pit, and she needed to administer the Heimlich maneuver THEN.

                1. oh, yeah. Did that to older son, too. Ice cube. He’d removed it from the cup, and yep. What was funny is my friend Charles and I didn’t even exchange a word. We were having tea at the table, saw Robert choke. Next thing you know, each of us was holding a foot, and the kid was upside down while I smacked his back. The ice dislodged before full Heimlich.

              3. Youngest brother had this thing of grabbing tablecloths to haul himself upright as a wee tot while we lived in East Berlin (he was born there) and would often pull down the cloth AND the cups of coffee on it. Soon after that we stopped having tablecloths set out (and to this day we stopped using them except for special occasions). One afternoon, while the nanny was doing some ironing, my wheelchair bound grandmother called for her. The nanny put the iron down in the ironing table’s holder, bent over, picked up my brother who was playing with some toys near her, and turned toward the door – swiping by accident one chubby little thigh against the edge of the still hot iron.

                We had an investigator stay with us for a while observing us.

                1. Chuckle Chuckle

                  Travis Taylor wrote a short story about a woman who had a pet monkey in a space station (Earth orbit, near future).

                  Actually she had a series of pet monkeys as each monkey got itself killed and a new monkey was sent up after the station was “monkey-proofed” after each death.

                  It turns out that there was a serious reason for sending the monkeys up.

                  The people behind the “monkey trials” was thinking ahead to when people started having children on the station. [Very Big Grin]

                  1. The people behind the “monkey trials” was thinking ahead to when people started having children on the station. [Very Big Grin]

                    Oh, I like that. Where can I find this story?

                    1. It was in Cosmic Tales – Adventures in Sol System edited by T.K.F. Weisskopf, but it was set on the Moon and by Wen Spencer. The title was “Moon Monkeys”. Oh, it was a Baen eBook and may still be available in the Baen eBook store.

                  2. Yes, the concept of child proof makes me chortle.

                    The Daughter was a wizz at removing those little plug covers. And the metal door latches? We kept them, because they slowed her down a wee bit. (I vaguely recall that they turned out to be Mother-in-law proof, but that is another story.) Then there was the child safety seat in the car: I believe the sound I made at discovering she was standing on the hump in the back convinced her not to ever let herself out as we hurtled down the highway again.

                    Before The Daughter was pulled to home school she had a fellow class mate who was a climber. The PTA at her elementary school had raised money and put in a set of all new state of the art certified safe play ground equipment. They semester had barely started when the climber found his way to the top of it, fell off and broke a limb.

                    1. Child proof usually means you have to get a child to open it, if I had a dollar for every time I have heard a grandparent mention that they had to get their grandchild to open their arthritis medicine… well I would still have to work, but I could take a gal out to a really nice dinner at a fancy restaurant and not have to worry when there wasn’t prices on the menu.

            2. One of my favorite stories to tell about my kids is the time I accidentally sent Minion One (then four years old) to the emergency room using a huge stuffed frog. Four stitches, IIRC, and blood everywhere. Yes, with a big plush amphibian. Spent the whole time they were at the hospital pacing, convinced that they’d never believe what happened and that the police were going to show up any time. It’s funny now

          2. I was ironing one morning, and my daughter – about eight months old then – was fooling around in her walker at my feet. I didn’t realize that she had caught ahold of the iron cord, and when I set the iron down, she gave the cord a yank and pulled the hot iron down on herself and the tray of the walker. I grabbed the iron away, but she still had a little red mark on her arm from it – which soon became a blister. Emergency room, of course. I wound up explaining exactly what happened about six times then, and about three times thereafter when I took her to the pediatric clinic to have the burn examined and redressed. I don’t think the child abuse authorities ever got involved (this was in 1980 and at an overseas base) but yes, I knew darned well they would have, if my account of the incident had been inconsistent.

          3. On my second day in second grade, at a new school, I was so excited I ran off to bed and turned a corner a little too soon. Bam! Black eye and big bruise on my forehead. (I actually still have a dent in my skull there—not really visible but it can be felt as a vertical indent.) Mom kept me home from school the next day and sent me in the day after in “a little sleeveless dress” to show off my unmarked arms. She was surprised that CPS didn’t get called on that one, but what happened is my teacher had me do show-and-tell about my bruise, and I figured out (much) later that second-graders just don’t lie that well, so having an animated blow-by-blow description of exactly what happened, told with enthusiasm, just didn’t seem to be abuse.

            Mind you, one of my brothers had an encounter with a bully around that time period, and one of my sisters took a header off her bike, so there were black eyes all around. I can see why my mother was worried.

            1. I can’t remember a year during the time when I was in school that I didn’t end up getting stitches at least once. Many of them were small cuts, and the majority of them actually happened IN school, so the teachers knew how they occurred. It also helped that this was in the ’50s and early ’60s, and the Social Services demon hadn’t been fully released yet.

              1. My mother worked for a time as a Court Appointed Special Advocate, which is like a volunteer social worker for just one kid, taking them through the court system and also doing Big Brother/Big Sister stuff with them. Because of her training, I know what a lot of the signifiers of actual abuse are, and lots of cuts and bruises don’t necessarily show abuse. Anything on a normal contact point (knees, elbows, the front of the shins, for example) is pretty common (though if someone bruises easily, it’s worth checking out medically for things such as iron deficiency.) But if you have bruises on the underside of the arms, or with fingerprint spacing, you’ll want to check that out. And of course small burns such as cigarette size are good to look at as well.

                I figure a good test to see if a small child is abused is to flip a hand up in front of them. A normal child won’t flinch and might give you a high five. But flinching? Flinching could be bad…

                1. Not to belittle your assessment, but the flinching could simply indicate that they don’t react well to rapid movement nearby. Too close (not as close as you would think), and I flinch when someone does that. In fact, I have been teased for flinching so easily. Yet I guarantee it’s not a learned reaction.

                  The difficult part is that this is one of those things for which there are no hard and fast rules. What are danger signals in one child may simply be natural reactions in another, and most of the time, the system does not recognize this.

                  1. Your father didn’t train that out of you at a young age? How did you ever learn to weld?

                    1. Actually, that would be a different situation for me (if I had ever learned to weld – still want to), because it would be part of the activity. I flinch when something moves quickly nearby in an unexpected manner.

                      I also am one of those people who will jump when someone walks up and says “Hi” while I’m concentrating on something.

                  2. The Daughter is one of those who has a very decided sense of personal space and does not react well to unexpected intrusions at all.

                    I volunteer tutored at risk kindergartners for a couple of years. I had one young man who was very distractible. One day I put my hand up to shield his range of view. I did not move suddenly. Still the young man flinched and pulled away like a proverbial scalded cat. Maybe he was just sensitive, but with the rest of what I had observed of his demeanor, I didn’t think so.

                  3. It’s not just my family?

                    Thank goodness– I’ve actually been going nuts, because I know that I flinch easily– I regularly almost chuck stuff at my husband because he startles me, and my spider killing reactions (with “battle cry”) are a running joke– but I thought that was mostly because I’m kind of a klutz and have glasses. The kids all have the same “quick movement– COVER EYES!” response and I’ve been trying to figure out what I do wrong…..

                    1. I startle VERY badly if I’m sunk deep in my concentration ‘zone’. Think scream and jolt. Nearly fling Cintiq stylus at hubby/housemate if they startle me. We haven’t figured out how to stop that or approach me so I don’t get freaked out.

                      So it’s not just you.

                    2. It’s not just your family. My family is nearly as bad. It is considered a duty of fathers and older brothers to stimulate this response in order help the young ones learn control.

                    3. Going on 30 years of classmates and co-workers that thought it was hilarious– at least until they almost got hurt for doing it when I had something in my hands– to get me to be “scared.”

                      Hasn’t been trained out yet.

                2. COULD. Both my sons are convinced you’re going to kill them. I think they got it from the cats. I never spanked much after we could use other methods like take away a computer, and I’m going to guess the last time I hit them (other than a joke-smack to the back of the head, which they expect and set up for, and I pull) was a smack on the butt, Robert… 15? years ago? And even that was half joking, to get him out of my kitchen. (He was arguing with me over what I was cooking.) And yet, ANYONE raises a hand, they both dive for cover. Cats. Has to be.

                3. You might want to watch that, I know at least my instinctual reaction is to swing at something flipped up in front of my face. It could be a good way to get yourself punched.

                  I know in high school I layed a crescent wrench across a guys face, because he thought it was funny to stick an air hose in peoples faces unexpectedly and squirt them with air, just to watch them flinch and jerk out of the way. My instinctual reaction was to block and knock away this thing unexpectedly shoved in my face, since I had a crescent wrench in my hand at the time, and his face was on the other side of it… well he had a rather impressive lump on his cheekbone for some time, and I don’t recall him ever shoving something in someone’s face unexpectedly, again.

        2. I used to get the hairy eyeball for the kids, now I get them for my elderly mother. She’s on blood thinners, which means many lovely and extensive bruises, and yes, the moment she and concerned medical professional are out of my hearing, she’s asked about them.

          I continue to thank God she’s never let that evil sense of humor of hers out on those occasions.

          1. Last Friday I slipped on water in my kitchen and bent my knee the wrong way. Looking at my very strange presenting knee-cap later that night, Robert said, “Mom, I’m not a doctor. You should go to Emergency.”
            I told him, “I can’t.” I couldn’t because my body is covered in bruises from cleaning the garage. (I’m clumsy. Boxes fall on me, stuff tilts the wrong way, etc.) They would think Dan did it, and I’m tired of it.
            The knee de-swelled (totally a word) and only hurts going DOWN stairs right now.

            1. I can only imagine what would have been the result had my wife hurt her arm like I did mine, if she went to the hospital (which I was dumb enough not to do). No visible bruising, though she likely would have, but so damaged that there was no direction I could move it without excruciating pain (probably a torn rotator cuff, and possibly partially torn bicep – I still have motions I cannot do due to pain). I can imagine them claiming that I had done something like grab her arm and yank her around by it.

          2. I worry about taking my mentally handicapped daughter to the doctor — she isn’t on blood thinners, but she does have a tendency to come up with some real doozies of bruises. I have no idea how she gets them — I certainly didn’t hit her! But how would I explain that to a doctor? And she can’t communicate well enough to help the situation.

        3. All I had to do was to be in the same county after my fiancée (now wife of 41+ years) had her wisdom teeth extracted.

          It seems that she has a spectacular tendency to bruise. And the bruises from that sort of drifted southward after a few days.

          And if looks could kill, I’d have been multiply (wait, is that spelled right?) excessively dead from a number of female students at the college we were then attending.

        4. First time I have commented here, but I have lurked for a long time. I just HAVE to tell this story: I and two friends, Chris (female) and Mike go scuba diving in the Florida Keys each summer. Once (and only once) we scheduled our trip for Mini-season. This is two days in July, before the opening of commercial lobster season, when anyone can hunt lobster. I think the maximum number is 25. This means that everyone in south Florida and his brother are in the keys hunting lobster. One such ran a speedboat at high speed very near to our dive charter boat while Chris was on the ladder, getting out of the water. The wake was huge. She grabbed the ladder, and was slammed against the transom of the boat. While wearing all her dive gear, weights and tank and all. She was horribly bruised from neck to hip. We took her to the ER once we docked, and the personnel kept giving Mike the Evil Eye ™.

          I went into the treatment room with Chris, and their first question was, “Ma’am, did your husband do this to you?”. She looked at them cock-eyed and said, “My husband is in Dayton, Ohio.” The nurse was confused, and said, “But-” And I said, “He’s MY boyfriend.! He didn’t do it, she was on a dive boat ladder when some idiot caused a wake and slammed her against the ladder.”
          And the doctor came in and said, “Oh, mini-season’s first casualty!”

          As it turned out, they had called police and had two officers in the waiting room, giving Mike Evil Eyes ™ of their own. The doctor stepped out and told them “Mini-season,” and they went grinned and left. Poor Mike was sooo confused.

        5. I once had a girlfriend have a seizure whilst we were”in flagrante delicto”. I was handcuffed to a chair and interrogated until she woke. This was some hours later

            1. No, thank you. I don’t watch such drek and really don’t want to be on it. Its not like we were doing anything strenuous. Basic missionary no frills as I had come off a ten hour shift. Supposed to be a quickie and then sleep. Just to reassure her that I still cared. Silly girl didn’t grasp that the 80+ hour weeks were so that she and her daughter had everything they needed. Still don’t know what triggered it.

        6. You don’t want to know how far they are willing to go with this “All men are monsters” idea:

          Domestic violence: ‘Controlling behavior is abuse and it’s time we criminalised it’

          Today, Theresa May announced a consultation to look at strengthening the law against psychological abuse. Polly Neate, chief executive of Women’s Aid, welcomes the move – and says we need to help women get justice for mental, as well as physical, harm


          The police simply cannot take legal action against ongoing mental control and psychological abuse. In such cases, prosecutions are often dropped – if they are ever started. Many more women don’t have the option of going to the police in the first place because the psychological abuse they experience is not illegal, despite the enormous harm it does.

          That is why we have been campaigning with the Sara Charlton Charitable Foundation and Paladin to have these patterns of coercive control and psychological abuse criminalised; to ensure that the criminal justice system can respond to the reality of domestic violence as women experience it. Our own research suggests that 98 per cent of survivors of domestic violence, and 97 percent of the professionals who work with them, want to see this change.

          When I was little me Mum and Da used controlling behaviour and even physical viiolence against me!! I haz bin damniged!

            1. Yes, this process opens the most intimate family relations to intrusive ill-defined interventions by authorities. See recent discussions hereabouts in re: CPS and potential Spousal Abuse (physical) investigations. This would constitue a Passive-Aggressive paradise.

        7. Several years ago my wife was painting a wall while I was at work and stepped back- forgetting she was one step up on a two step stepladder. Fell and broke her wrist. I hurried home, drove her to the ER, where they promptly seperated us and tried to get her to admit that I had abused her and broken her wrist.

    2. How many pieces did you leave the corpse in? (Can’t access Mad Genius on my work computer, but According To Hoyt is wide open. Go Figure.)

      Loved ‘Rats, Bats, and Vats’, BTW. And Stardogs. And Pyramid Scheme.

              1. Funny you say this. I’m operating on about 6 hours sleep over the last two nights. Something had to give, and reading wasn’t and neither was writing. 🙂

                1. I’m the same way. Used to be able to do 4-5 hours a night for several months at a time, but then had to crash for a whole day once or twice a year, but now, going three days without at least 6 hours makes me miserable.

                1. Eh, I’m a wimp. I chose sleep first, mainly because a healthy, well-rested wimpy brain allows me to function on the day job. You know, the one that actually pays my mortgage and educates my kids.

                2. I’m pretty sure you “borrowed” that from MZM, unless you can name where he “borrowed” it from. (I like it, and use it on occasion.)
                  I don’t care what Them Other Girls say, you’re alright! 🙂

                  1. Generations of Marines, and through them Sailors, at least. (I know it was in use for the second world war, not sure of the first.)

              2. Except, when I’m tired, I hurt more, and it’s harder to concentrate. Eight hours isn’t enough. Afternoon naps are wasted on young children…

                1. Afternoon naps for young children are also, if not more, for the sake of their keepers… 😉

              1. Glad you liked it! If you think it worthy, could I get a review?

                (And book three (not yet published) is where things really start going off the rails…)

                1. I’ll try Jerry even though I really really hate writing. When is number 3 coming out? I really like that you give background and a little story to walk on characters.

                  1. Anything would help – even a ‘This was fun! Looking forward to the next book!’ sort of thing. As Sarah’s pointed out, the more reviews you have, the better your ranking in the ‘you might also like’ lists on Amazon.

                    (Well, positive reviews. 3 stars? 4? Please? – (insert pleading puppy face here…)

                    I’m working on Chapter 6 of the 3rd book now – it’s the least done of the eight. Maybe a couple of weeks, maybe a month… I’ll finish the book, go through and make sure all the names are spelled right, expand as necessary, then go through it again on punctuation and phrasing, then go through it again to see how it flows, spackle and paint the glaring holes in the narrative… and then I’ll have to do a cover. (Least favorite part…)

                    Yeah, maybe a month.

                    Quick question – what ‘iconic’ movie posters from 1980 to 2000 would best be improved (for certain values of ‘improved’) with a face change from the star of the film to either Grumpy Cat or… someone who looks like Joe Biden with a bad case of constipation?

                    (Turns out the Prof who came up with the project in the first place had NO sense of humor at all, and was rather controlling as to what went on the phone. So they set up a lot of easter eggs in one of the books. Heh. He looks REALLY good as ‘Barbarella!’)

                    1. My comments/rating went live on Amazon a few hours ago. I can’t remember If I gave 4 or 5 stars to your books.

                  2. Thank you! I really appreciate it. Would you like to be a walk-on in the next book? (What? Redshirting for reviews? Would I do something like that?) (After lengthy consideration, yes… yes, I would. 🙂 )

                    1. Sure! Maybe in the Library? I’ll do more reviews if you put Hubby in. His first name is Steve. He’s an IT guy.

                    2. This is from RES — these are not my words but his —
                      Folks — I think a line is crossed when you openly exchange red-shirting for reviews.

                      I am fine with red-shirting fans, I am fine with (am a frequent encourager of) reviews as a fan obligation* (possibly exceeding actual payment for stories), but open quid pro quo exchanges seem … problematic.

                      *Certainly there is a duty to post a review when you can review it favorably, especially if the story was on sale — the author is discounting the price in part to promote the book. The fan’s publicizing their endorsement of the work furthers the authors purpose and represents compensation paid.

                      There is never obligation to post an unfavorable review. When your non-liking of a story is idiosyncratic any review should indicate as much while acknowledging technical competency (or lack thereof) in such matters as spelling, grammar and word usage.

                      It might be an idea to have a post/forum on the ethics of reviews. It is an issue somewhat neglected, yet it is of vital importance to Indie authors and thus their fans.

                    3. Got it. A bit early for IT – but… how would you feel about a brief snippet where the Soviet researcher is trying to find a particular book, and happens upon a librarian and a copier repairman (High-tech for the time!) talking about a date back in the stacks?

                    4. Well, it was never been my intention to bother anyone here, and I regret doing so.

                      This is a warm and welcoming community, and I appreciate the support, guidance, knowledge, and warped senses of humor of everyone. ‘Cause if it hadn’t been for y’all (Dang, been in the South and it’s rubbing off…) I likely would never have attempted the KDP thing in the first place.


                    5. I was not exactly bothered by it — but I think it might undercut the benefits of freely given reviews if they become perceived as quid pro quo exchanges.

                      Which is why I moved so quickly to ask Sarah post my questioning of the practice.

                      Buying a girl a drink is fine. Giving a guy a goodnight smooch is fine. But when one seems to be predicated on another, things get squicky quickly.

                      Perhaps the solution is to offer to red shirt ALL reviewers, positive or negative. Nobody would object you were “buying” favourable reviews, and I doubt anybody would object if negative reviewers meet especially unpleasant demises. (In fact, that might invite such reviews.)

                    6. Res:

                      “Perhaps the solution is to offer to red shirt ALL reviewers, positive or negative. Nobody would object you were “buying” favourable reviews, and I doubt anybody would object if negative reviewers meet especially unpleasant demises. (In fact, that might invite such reviews.)”

                      Honest feedback is a wonderful thing, and I appreciate it greatly (since I’m not sure my family and friends would provide such – except maybe my sister-in-law, she’s always been a bit on the critical side…) – and I find your solution to be an excellent one.

                      If someone leaves a review and lets me know, I’ll gladly red-shirt them for positive OR negative reviews! (And I might not even Buckley the negative ones, if there’s good feedback!)

            1. Yes, but you need the second one before you start the first. That will prevent the wailing and gnashing of teeth after finishing the first.

              1. Rather like Ursula K. LeGuin was on the doorstep of her library when it opened the morning after she had taken out Fellowship of the Ring and not the rest of the trilogy.

      1. Jerry, thank you. Oddly enough I liked them too 🙂 I tried patience, logic and politeness. I got the liberal internet arguing checklist. So I responded with this:
        — let me make something clear. This is not a public forum, it’s our group blog, and this is my post on it. When I say this:
        “Before you post a reply again, here is a direct question which will take some research from you and a venture into probability maths… Come back when you have a figure for how probable yet another radical left-wing pure chance is. ”

        I mean precisely that. Post again without acknowledging first the Hugo nominee slate (without the sad puppies) as as having several million to one against chance of being there sans bias, and I’ll delete it if you’re lucky, or add your post into Askimet spam list if you’re unlucky. This is your one and final warning.

        Secondly I am going move your goalposts a little bit more. You’re libeling Larry Correia. Look up ‘Ballot stuffing’. Your second statement will be a full apology for falsely accusing him of fraud. Got it?

        Thirdly you will post no further unsubstantiated statements about Larry. If you want say ‘he rigged’ produce evidence, and choose your language very carefully.

        Which is still me being very restrained. But there are definite rumblings from the volcano.

        1. Which is still me being very restrained. But there are definite rumblings from the volcano.

          Those attentive to their environment felt a little chill. Unfortunately, I received no indication that the target of your irritation was particularly aware.

        2. No matter how the volcano rumbles, the villagers will not move off the slope. They will, on the other hand, weep and wail when the lava flows.

        3. Well, the way SF is going has burned out a lot of Analog readers. In the ’80s, their circulation was around 180-200 thousand. Now, they’re doing good to hit 25k.

          And frankly, as a long time reader I’m about ready to dump ’em myself. Seems like each issue has some sort of story where there’s a creative ‘noble sacrifice’ where the protagonist has to die to achieve something that can barely even be called a ‘victory’.

          It’s depressing. There’s no ‘wonder’ in it any more. It’s a flippin’ pulp magazine, not serious lit-er-a-chure – let’s have some FUN!

          (Like your stuff! LOL…)

          1. I dropped my sub to Analog sometime in the ’90s. I even described your books to my husband as something you would’ve seen in Analog in the ’80s.

              1. It’s varied over the last few decades, I’ve got to admit. But if they don’t get off this idea that the SF they publish has to be pleasingly PC and inoffensibly acceptable to the GHH and SJW crowd, I don’t see them lasting out the decade unless it’s bought by someone else. Right now, you can’t even find it in the two local B&N stores. How do you sell a magazine that isn’t even consistently stocked by the biggest brick and mortar retailer?

                It almost seems like they’d rather fail while getting awards from the GHH/SJWs, than prosper without their acceptance.

                Frankly, I’ve fantasized at times about winning the lottery and buying the magazine and trying to turn it around, with ’80s-style fiction. Then again, you can imagine the screams about how horrible and sexist/racist/specie-ist it would be…

    3. Dave, you have to admit that Pseudo-Larry is a really nasty character. Frankly, he isn’t a very good author either. I never read anything good written by him. In fact, I’ve never read anything at all written by him.

      There is a good author by the same name, Larry Correia, that I highly recommend. AFAIK, the two share a first name, a last name, and, I think, a species. That seems to be enough for some people to conflate them.

      This kind of confusion is a well known cultural phenomenon. There were apparently two books of Isaiah, which got pasted together so that chapters 1-39 of the book we have are one and 40-55 are the other.

      1. Oh, Straw Larry! Yeah, that guy’s a dick. I’ve never known whether the “Straw” part of his moniker is a nod to his profession (scarecrow? drink paraphernalia manufacturer? about all I can come up with) or something more to do with his tendency to fold when confronted with his own horribility. Because, yeah, that guy’s a dick.

        1. I think the common theory is that there were three of them. Oops for not remembering this.

      1. Karl’s kind of the crazy uncle of the philosophy world. Well, one of. Turns out lots of philosophers were nutty bachelors, regardless of marital status. I mean, Descartes used to never get out of bed before noon. Kant never went more than a few miles from the spot he was born and the village matrons used to set their clocks by his daily constitutional. You can’t tell me that’s the habit of a sound mind. But St. Karl? It beggars the imagina- well, it doesn’t but I need to mull it a bit; might turn into a story kernel.

          1. If you are going to quote him just remember, around these parts it is not safe to drop the ‘G’.

        1. I bet it would irritate some people who already think of Marx in such similar, though secular terms, to have him declared a saint of the Church, they would really have to go into a whole new line of contortions.

        2. Descartes used to never get out of bed before noon.

          So you’re saying that Descartes was never out before de horse? (Runs)

        3. My Father always maintained that he didn’t understand Marx until he has cause to do research in the British Museum. After that it was obvious; the man froze hiis brain solid working tere one winter.

        4. Karl was the fifth Marx brother and millions have died because they didn’t get the joke.

          1. Just a note: Mini had five boys. Gummo, the eldest, was at some point replaced in the act by Zeppo, the youngest.

      2. Would it get me banned to wish more of Marx’s successors had at least one of the qualifications for Catholic canonization?

          1. Well, when you’re stuck for a topic, we’d love to hear your take on Liberation Theology.

            Just give us enough warning that we can reach the bunker.

              1. Don’t worry, we’re going to have to talk about it. The Pope (known in his home country for being rightist and against liberation theology, much like Romero was) mentioned the status of the Romero cause for beatification (which has been progressing in its own little Curia way since the 1980’s) and talked about how, in non-Romero cases that weren’t clearly martyrdom for hatred of the faith, the Curia crowd are looking into whether they can have more “martyrs for charity” (like St. Maximilian Kolbe and a few other WWII folks).

                So of course the NYT had it that the Pope said liberation theology was great, the Pope had overcome opposition and would make Romero a saint tomorrow, and he’d be named a martyr for charity.

                Admittedly, the way this pope talks (very informally, and always assuming you know what all his pronouns refer to) lends itself to this, but Pope Benedict was very precise in his word choices and they did the same thing. It’s like that old Far Side cartoon about how dogs understand human speech.

                1. Heh, I like the current Pope. My mum and I knew we were in for an interesting Papacy when he climbed back onto the bus that would take the cardinals back to their apartment/dorm building thing and sat there til the bus driver decided to just take them all back. I don’t know if he even uses the papal domicile now. I’ll have to ask my mum; she’s the one who keeps me informed on such things.

                  And I never, ever could remember Ratzinger’s papal name. I’m always subtitling my mental notecard for him as “Pope Palpatine,” which seems a bit mean since he is, IMO, while strict, a well spoken, well read, good man.

                  1. I much favor the prior one, because he’s a straight-up geek. 😀 Love how a reporter noticed him sneaking out of the Vatican and thought he had a girlfriend or something, followed him, and “caught” him at a cat house alright– as in kitty cats. They didn’t allow cats in the Official Quarters, so he was sneaking out to get a cat fix.

                    1. I saw a photo of him playing the piano and there was also a cat in the photo. I fell in love at that moment …

                    1. I don’t turn to the Pope for economic understanding for the same reason I don’t turn to Celebrities (Actors, Rock Stars, Kardashians) for moral guidance. I view such useful insights as occur from such sources with the same attitude as Samuel Johnson expressed towards dogs walking on two feet.

                    2. RES noted the part about the Pope and economics, but yes, he is quite a personality otherwise.

                      We can thank John Paul II for this progressive attitude in the (slow, but ongoing) hopefully building of bridges between the Christian sects. I am not sure if he started it, but he made it more… popular, I believe.

                    3. I may not like the current Pope’s lack of economic understanding, but I do find him otherwise impressive.

                      I think some of the economic comments are designed to be along the lines of “afflicting the comfortable” and making sure Catholics don’t make an economic system an idol. Also, I think distorted reporting by socialist journalist is also involved.

                      Greed is bad and “capitalism” when it is the crony type is really no different that socialism. Our richest, with a few exceptions, lean strongly to the Dems.

                    4. Beware the reporters. On top of remembering always the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect, you should also note that the presence of religion tends to make their IQs drop 50 points.

        1. As long as that qualification was “being dead”, no, not at all. In fact, I think we all feel that way.

          1. That was the one I thought about, but I would be just as happy if they were to renounce Marxism and become Catholics (as long as they were the real kind, not the Liberation Theology kind).

            As long as we kill Marxism, I’m fine with leaving former carriers alive.

              1. Remember that those who have been cured have excellent anti-bodies againt the cause. Some of our most eleoquent speakers against Marxism were raised as red/pink-diaper babies.

      3. I kind of like the idea of cannonizing Marx. Should have been done when he was still alive and kicking. Big cannon, strap him across the muzzle, slow fuze so he could have time to contemplate the error of his evil ways.

        Oh, I guess that word does not mean what I thought it meant, does it.
        Never mind.

          1. It’s been done. For examples, please see the Indian Mutiny of 1857-8.

            If I remember rightly, it was commonly applied to the leadership of the mutineers, or specific responsible parties among them. Marx and company would have been perfect subjects, but I wish it had been applied to them before they started writing their pernicious screeds.

            It never ceases to amaze me how such total failures at life such as Marx and Engels, who were also personally utter bastards, can become sanctified by the Left. Che Guevara was neither the first, nor the last asshole they’ve deified. I honestly can’t think of a single one of these sanctified jackasses they worship who led an exemplary life, or did anything really worth emulating in their personal lives. They’re all Pol Pots, or Mao Tse Tung, even if only on a minor scale.

            Honestly–Can anyone point to a single “great man” of the Left that you’d like to have as a neighbor? I sure as hell can’t.

      4. Canonization: having someone shot out out of a cannon. Possibly towards Poland.

        Why shouldn’t we canonize Marx? Aside from the icky bits of having to dig up the body?

      5. (chuckle) I always have to laugh when I hear a certain officer our acquaintance of whom I am quite fond, being ‘pithy’ (which seems to largely consist of f… – which is mere common punctuation in many circles I’ve moved through.) and expecting me to be impressed. I was a boarding-school boy, who spent much of his holidays in a commercial fishing boat, I was an army NCO. I spent a fair amount of time in dockyards, where not hearing the whores talk would have required deafness. I ended up working in fish-factories, shark processing plants. Everything you have ever heard about fishwives is an understatement. As graduate of all these fine language courses entering this finishing school, I was as naive as a retiring spinster who has worked in a condom factory for forty years thinking she was making waterproof sleeping-bags for white mice. Which is why I always laugh when people get protective, because I am polite. I am that by choice, and by conviction, not necessity :-).

        St Marx of the etterse poeslap? The patron of promiscuity acquired tertiary siphillis sufferers?

    4. I got to meet Larry in Omaha a few weeks ago. Even though he posed for a pic with both of us trying to look intimidating (I’m a couple inches shorter, but of a similar build), both of us had a hard time frowning (okay, I was trying not to cackle with glee). Larry really is a very nice guy and you only have to spend a couple of minutes with him to see that. And note, I teach concealed carry, so I’m not exactly completely oblivious to threats and threatening people. Since Larry was on a panel about maintaining professionalism in the face of adversity at that con, the little matter of people calling his wife came up. He shared with us that he is convinced his wife would have shot him if he’d ever done any of the things he’s been accused of. That is a personality trait that I actually look for in women, or at least the capacity to learn it.

      1. *laughs* One of the things that seemed to reassure Rhys shortly after we moved here is my tendency to take a kitchen knife with me when I hear a noise near the door. It could be him coming home. It could be the wind blowing the curtain blind things in the living room. It’s ridiculously quiet here in Australia, an order of magnitude quieter than I was used to and it made me very jumpy. By general agreement we have a method of announcing we’re home, and it’s not ‘I’m home!’

    5. Was that Berkley Brad? Just remember that he was a Clinton administration economist, unrepentant Keynesian and so has a rather loose grip with numbers that reflect reality.

  2. I’m sorry, but the age of reason is experiencing technical difficulties. Please try again later.

    Seriously, though, good luck on your quest to keep the bad dogs from piddling on everything. I think you’re battling less the uneducated puppies than the willfully ignorant orangutan who flings his poo as both entertainment and defense mechanism. Not that I don’t think the battle is necessary. I’d join you if the wasted years in my youth where I already tried to teach pigs to dance didn’t leave me tired and battle-weary. Keep up the good fight. (Sorry for mixing metaphors all over the place, but it’s early.)

      1. I _once_ bought a puppy from a very reputable breeder. Having been raised in a kennel, with no potty training what-so-ever, the four month old pup was very nearly impossible to house break.

        The GHH’s rather remind me of him. Having apparently grown up with no exposure to manners, morals, honesty or honor, I think training them is going to be really tough.

        1. Pretty much what I was going to say, Pam. And just consider that our public ‘education’ system is valiantly churning out as many more of the same as they can possibly brainwash. Please homeschool your children, people, if you value them and our fast-disappearing culture!

              1. unfortunately I only realized this when only second son was in school and he chose to continue in school — to be fair in a dual highschool/college program, studying engineering because he was bound to engine or something….

  3. By the time you posted on FB last night, I had already run through my outrage quota of the day, or I might have said something.

  4. My neighbors over on Olympus are bringing down the property values.

    Coming from the right, I can find a minor point of disagreement with Larry. This justifies me using any and all tactics against him?

  5. Slightly OT but, I think, a related madness.

    Kid in the county next door apparently gets arrested for writing about killing his neighbors pet dinosaur – and how he “bought a gun to take care of the business” (seriously – no one saw jurassic park? Even the smaller ones really need a gun to dispose of safely…)

    One commentor had the point that it’s newsworthy because its so ridiculous. Granted. That said, how many people at the school had to have NO common sense for it to get to the point of calling in the police? This is not one isolated nut job, and stories like this are hardly new.

    Makes me believe a teacher I knew was right when he said that they can’t be trusted to make life or death decisions and carry weapons…. (so why do we trust our kids minds to them?)

    We teach our kids this kind of bulls**t, and via this kind of nuts abuse, to NOT do the right thing, and just follow along, that anyone who believes as we do on many common points is a criminal worthy of arrest for even the most innocent reasons, and stuff like larry (and Vox), and Brendan Eich, and whatshisname over at the Rooster agency in NY, get their lives ruined or at least under vicious attack, because “badthink”

        1. Nope, they’re all dead not endangered. Thank goodness. [Very Big Grin]

            1. I had heard that at least one State had put them on their State lists, but I can’t find a confirmation in a 5-minute search. However, it HAS been proposed. But get someone talking about dinosaurs that way and someone will be trying to get them on it, too.

          1. Anybody know what it would involve to get the US Dollar on the endangered specie list? The way it has gotten bloated while still losing weight has me concerned over its viability.

            1. The problem isn’t with it going extinct, but the Fed encouraging excessive reproduction.

          2. ….not a “harrassed by sociopathic college kids in Jack Link commericals” list?

            1. I’d really like to see a version where they get bounced around the forest for a while.

              1. Not that that’s because I’ve ever been compared to a Sasquatch. Oh, no, definitely not. 🙂

              2. Well, in some of the commercials Sasquatch does get his vengeance. Or starts on it. Perhaps that can be sooner or maybe one can start up with him hunting down the miscreants and beating them up or something?

                1. Oh, wait – here we go: Sasquatch pulls the same stunt on them, but when they go looking around for the prankster, they run into him…

                  1. There’s a Sasquatch who shows up in three Harry Dresden short works. He’s a nice guy and a being of very old magic. He hires Harry to investigate things that are happening to his son by a human woman. In one of these stories, Harry has joined a research team that’s looking for “Bigfoot” in order to meet up with the Sasquatch. Well, Harry’s sitting a part from the research time and lets out a scream. The research team runs away and the Sasquatch shows up commenting on Harry’s sense of humor. [Very Big Evil Grin]

                    1. Ahhh, that’s several anthologies I don’t have. I’ll have to wait till the tentatively titled ‘Brief Cases’ comes out. I do have Dangerous Women though; and some of the stories in it have me puzzled in attempts to read them. In the “I’m not quite sure what’s going on here” manner.

    1. Cops didn’t get called but my parents were called for something similar in grade school. iirc it was a vocab assignment and I said something like “I pledged I’d kill him to avenge my brother”. My parents were so mad at the teacher for that.

      1. We got called for a meeting with the school psychologist because older son used “I am not crazy” in an essay in ninth grade. “You might think I’m crazy, but I’m not” was the opening line to stuff about elves and gnomes. “BUT WHY would he think anyone would think he was crazy?” The psychologist laughed in their faces.
        Then there was the incident when IN SUMMER between 9 th and 10th (with him going to another school that year, because yeah) he posted blues lyrics on facebook WITH ATTRIBUTION and explaining he’d been on a blues kick, and wasn’t this over the top, and we got a phone call telling us he was suicidal and the fucking pardon my French bitch teacher who’d been TOLD about the lyrics threatened us with social services if we didn’t take him to counseling. The call came in while our son was in our room trying to convince us to go out for burgers and joking around. We laughed at her.

  6. You’re right the BS needs to be called and their faces shoved into it HARD! I’ve interacted with Larry for probably 10 years via the net, and met him in meat space. He IS a nice guy/conservative. That is what the left hates, a successful MOR white guy who doesn’t pander… I know I’m a very little fish, but I’ll go what I can to help. ELoE my ass… They just better be glad Larry thinks it’s funny… Because if he didn’t he has enough ‘other’ friends that will back him up and stand beside him to whatever is necessary to take the idjits down, and I’m one of them.

    1. I’ve never met the man. Would like to, but I don’t get out much… Still, if it came to that, I’d gladly take up arms and stand beside him. I know several heavily-armed people around here who have the intelligence of a sand flea and the morals of a dog in heat that can supply me, whether they are willing or not. Frankly, in the end, I think it’s going to come to that — either we stand up and beat them down or the idiots overwhelm us.

  7. From what I remember vaguely seeing on a few of Larry’s posts, he doesn’t apparently oppose gays or gay marriage.

    I support the principle of gay marriage (on the basis of my own beliefs in equal rights and tolerance that recognizes limitations,) but I cannot support the current execution or attempts to execute (for the same reasons above). That distinction apparently makes me a ‘bigot,’ according to the SJWs, so if those on the right perceive me as such all I can do is shrug and carry on anyway.

    1. I’d put it my view as: “I’d support gay marriage if that was what was being proposed instead of the current trend of using it as an excuse to destroy people because ‘shut up, h8r’.”

        1. I don’t support or oppose gay marriage (or any marriage) as much as think that it’s none of my business, or the state’s. What kind of cohabitation contracts people want to make should be up to them, and whether the contract gets religious sanction or not should be up to them and their church (if any). The state’s role in the matter should be limited to recording the contract and providing a court system to resolve disputes.

          I got mobbed on a conservative site for suggesting that the Founders would have been horrified at the idea of a federal law regulating marriage (the ill-advised “Defense of Marriage Act”). None of them seemed to understand that letting the feds regulate such a personal matter is a Bad Idea, even when I pointed out that if you grant this authority to the state you’re opening the door to future “definitions of marriage” that may not match your personal preferences quite so well.

          1. Of course, as a corollary to that, people should be allow to draw up contracts that permit legal separation but no divorce, or require fault for divorce.

            1. It’s their contract their rules. I’d still make exceptions in case one of the two goes mad or becomes PROVABLY abusive because people change, but that should be on a case by case and why we have courts. Hard cases make bad law.

                1. yes. BUT a private contract should not be interfered with or broken by the state without major cause, such as “one of them didn’t enter into it — PROVABLY — of free will.”
                  It will still be abused. Humans. BUT.

          2. I think the best way to look at the issue is this: Civil marriage should be open to any and all, within certain boundaries. As in “Look, if you want to “marry” that bridge over there…? Well, for one, the damn thing is inanimate, thus unable to be a party to a contract, and it is public property, to boot. So, no… You ain’t executing an official marriage contract with it…”. Anything else? Contract law, civil affair, not our business past the normal enforcement structure for such things. And, ohbytheway, your contract had better address such things as dissolution, child care, and whatever else civil law finds necessary for such things. Such arrangements and contracts to be totally separate from religious ritual. No contract? Don’t come to the state with issues like child support and/or dissolution problems. No tickee, no laundry.

            Now, marriage in a church? Not our business, not our problem. You do whatever the hell you like, under the First Amendment, and we’ll keep our opinions to ourself. And, if your faith says “Men marrying men… Not OK…”, then that only becomes state business when you start burning them at the stake or stoning them. Whatever you’re doing for religion, the state stays the hell out of it. And, ohbytheway, there is or should be an out for you not to be forced to violate the standards of your religion by the state, so long as you’re not bringing harm to others.

            Consensual human sacrifice? Dunno about that one, but I suppose if the sacrificee is really consensual with the whole thing, it’d have to be allowed in the name of consistency. Hate to see the test that would have to be worked out for that one, though… Horrendous case law, that: “Judge, my client wishes to be sacrificed on the altar this spring solstice, in accordance with the restored faith of Aztlan…”. Being the judge on that one would really justify the “big bucks”, though.

          1. Y’know, I realized somewhat late that “I support gay marriage. I don’t support the left or its tactics” is pretty much the condensed 1-sentence summary of what I think.

            I can only apologize, because this damnable fugue of icky sick really has me in a thick soup of mental fog.

        2. I started a topic in Baen’s Truth vs Pravda conference about “when is it forcing your beliefs onto others” and one poor soul couldn’t talk about that subject without bringing in SSM. True Believers can’t talk about anything without bringing in their “pet peeve”. [Sad Smile]

        3. Gay marriage is meh to me, but the trashing of the US legal system to promote it is extremely objectionable to me, as a citizen and as an attorney.

          1. another lawyer? Good heavens. How much does that make for this blog? Five? I think they’re second only to military vets.
            We present well defended, my friends!

      1. I support the right of people who are not seeking to hurt others or cause pointless disruption in their live to be left alone.. OTOH, I kind of wonder why gay marriage advocates restrict eligibility for benefits to sexual activity when making their case. What if a father wanted to “marry” his son or two old widower fishing buddies wanted to “marry”? Why should they be discriminated against?

        My view is that civil marriage is actually founded on the assumption that sacrificial love is not involved in a particular relationship but that biological consequences must be accounted for necessary social order.

        I kind of think that’s how it should remain.

            1. It’s that butt wiggle. The way you do it — well, it’s hard to keep everybody focused.

                1. I think it’s the creaking that really puts some people over the edge.

                  Squeaky chair’s got nothing on him.

                  1. You’ve been peeking again, haven’t you? And listening. Although how you could put up with all the creaking, groaning, popping and snapping is beyond me…

                2. Maybe he just needs some coaching. Here’s an instructional video from Phineas and Ferb:

            1. I love cats. Besides, they taste terrible! Squirrel, well-basted and served over rice — now that’s better! With or without hot sauce (and there’s only ONE hot sauce for folks from Louisiana — MacIlhenny’s Tabasco sauce).

        1. The language of these opinions leaves polygamy, incest, and every other abomination wide open as options…polygamy prosecutions have already been dismissed on that basis.

          1. Pretty much. Who is to judge if a father marries his 18 year old daughter — or 15 if they are Hawaiian residents with father’s permission of course?

          2. And the same-sex-marriage crew has vapors about that argument — possibly because they don’t have a counter-argument.

            Most try to argue that being attracted only to members of your own sex is categorically different from the others, because in theory the others could marry someone else. As if many homosexuals throughout the ages had not married members of the opposite sexe.

      2. Which is my reason for supporting a civil contract for all. Churches can have a marriage ceremony on their own, with choice of gender on their own. You never hear of a church deciding a divorce or annulment agreement. Everything in a relationship, is contractile and should be handled that way. As it is, everything is mixed up because ‘marriage’ and divorce is rarely fair for either party. It needs to be clear in responsibility and execution and it won’t be as long as we use traditional marriage as a base.

        1. IMO as long as there are Churches that believe that homosexual activities is sinful, the gay activists will attack those Churches and attempt to have religious SSM ceremonies in those Churches.

          Gay Activists (and other Lefties) need to be taught that Tolerance works both ways.

          If not, then there will be a backlash and innocents will suffer.

          Hey! Where did this soapbox come from?????

          1. Oh, there’s my soap box I’ve been looking for it.

            Paul, Thanks for keeping it warm for me.


        2. Churches already had their own ceremonies. Twenty years ago I knew lesbians who were “married” that way.

          The gov’t one was making a framework for the household formation type that tends to result in children. (Even with contraception and zero desire to have kids, it tends to result in children.)

          Kids are what made the gov’t get involved in marriages in the first place.

          1. Government “marriage” is primarily concerned with taxes and property ownership; and yes in our screwed up tax system kids are a huge factor. They were also traditionally considered property until they came of age, so yes they were a major factor in why governments got involved in marriage. Not the only factor, even leaving out the governments propensity to stick its nose anywhere it can without it being bitten off, but I’ll agree with it being the largest factor.

            Government sanctioned gay marriage on the other hand wants all the tax and property ownership benefits of traditional marriage (and I don’t really have a problem with the property ownership side) without factoring in the improbability of progeny resulting (leaving out the gay adoption issue).

            In short my solution to the problem wouldn’t really address this issue, I recommend NO government sanctioned marriages, the government has no business in marriage, they can perform civil unions for all those who wish to have them, since enforcing and validating contracts is in their job definition. But they shouldn’t be involved in marriage, and those performing the marriage (I would say the religious institution, but of course there will be atheists that wish to get married and perform marriages, while insisting THEY ARE NOT A RELIGION, even though they meet the definition of one) can decide who they will and will not marry.

            1. The households that produce children will still make children, and break up– by the death of the parents, if nothing else– and the gov’t will have to rule on those, and we’ll end up with “civil marriage” again bit by slow bit.

              That is how gov’t got involved in a religious thing in the first place.

              I really hope James of England hurries up and gets his article republished, he traced it back with citations.

              1. Since simple paternity carries legal responsibilities we have a model from which to work.

                Whether or not the parents have a contractual relationship, the state could develop a system regarding the legal status of and responsibility for children. The biological parents, married or not, would carry a defined set of rights and responsibilities for any progeny they produce. Adoptive parents would likewise gain a defined set of rights and responsibilities for the children they have adopted. Certain rights would be legally forfeit under circumstances, such as proven abandonment. Certain rights could legally be surrendered, such as when a child is given up for adoption.

                1. Except we don’t have proof of paternity– just very high probability– and we already know that the system of “find the guy who fathered the kid and try to make him take responsibility for his children” is expensive and ineffective.

                  It also biases the system against marriages, unless there’s going to be some sort of pregnancy cludge added.

                  All of which gives the state a lot of power to decide who is actually a parent, needing to be decided in each specific case…..

                  1. Didn’t say perfect. DNA testing is available, yes, it is not perfect, but very high probability. Perfect would be no unstable and/or collapsing relationships and no children caught in the mess of the adults around them. Perfect is not of this world.

                    1. So we’ve got an imperfect existing framework that gives little individual power (by putting out a blanket rule) and protects the formation of stable homes, vs a known imperfect system that costs a lot in every instance and does not do so, while giving gov’t a lot more power.

                      Add in a kludge to let people claim paternity without a test and you’ve just remade the existing marriage system but backwards– by assuming that no children are the fruit of a stable relationship, let alone a loyal marriage.

                    2. Excuse me. I truly prefer the idea of children being raised in stable long term committed relationships. The world is doing a terrible job at conforming to my preferences. You cannot legislate loyal marriage. Children are being produced outside of stable relationships.

                      I agree that, for various reasons, we will have government intrusion one way or another. I was simply suggesting one of the ways it could occur — not necessarily endorsing it.

                    3. 1) I didn’t say you didn’t
                      2) doesn’t matter for designing a system
                      3) didn’t say it was possible
                      4) Yeah, noticed, has no bearing in which we act like is the expected method.

                      I was pointing out problems with the suggested alternative method.

                      It’s kinda like the long ‘get rid of gov’t’ argument a while back.

                    4. You see problems, I see opportunities.

                      Let the State (or Church) claim all new borns and raise them in a creche according to the latest and best pedagogical theories. Nobody wants their daughters “punished with a baby” as one notable Community Disorganizer has said. As we can see from the studies of Head Start and other such programs, a good start is important in this world.

                      At an appropriate age the children can be auctioned off to suitable purchasers. You want a kid who is a star athlete or a violin prodigy? Why play genetic roulette when you can shop for demonstrated quality!

                      In the meantime, everybody is taxed for this child protection service, regardless of whether or not they’ve produced progeny because it takes a village and children are, as prominent pheminists have avowed, community property.

                      Sure, there are wrinkles to be ironed out but omelets, eggs, right?

                      Just a modest little proposal.

                    5. For some reason Foxfire’s reply did not show up in my mailbox. I agree, it would be humorous but for the fear that this is what we will have to argue against in the next decade or so. The powers that be are already instituting four and three year old kindergarten.

                      I am sure it will not be much longer before some will seriously propose full early care to make sure all children will receive proper nutrition, be free from indoctrination and get the opportunity to learn all the things they consider necessary. (Yes, I know, from another point of view this would be translated to properly indoctrinated…but you see they will be doing it for the children and only have their best interests at heart…)

              2. Foxfier,


                It wasn’t until the 6th century that ‘the church’ started to involve itself in the institution of marriage. By the 12th it had taken over. Durring the Protestant Reformation to loosen the churches hold on marriage a lot of it’s administration was returned to government.

                This has lead to a duality of what marriage is; social contract, sanctified institution, or both.


                Stephanie Coontz, “Marriage, A History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage”

                1. Josh… have you considered for a few moments the life of Jesus, starting from His mother? And that it’s not exactly silent on the subject after that?

                  As well as, if the claim were true, then it’s claiming the Jewish faith had no involvement in marriage?

                  I have no idea if that’s supposed to be satire as the link suggests, but it’s even more ludicrous than the “marriage licenses were introduced to prevent interracial marriage” claim.

      3. Simply put I cannot support the current push for it because it is not equality. Telling me to support it because there’s nothing better or for the principle of the thing is no better than saying I should be pro-illegal immigration because I legally migrated to Australia.

    2. I was going to say the same thing. He’s actually fine with the idea of two people of the same gender getting married. He’s said it before.

      That is irrelevant though. Since it doesn’t fit the preferred narrative, it is simply ignored. That’s kind of how it works.

    1. Correction: “then the truth becomes widely doubted and the lie becomes widely believed.” STILL doesn’t make it actually true.

      Pretty sure you know that and were just being tongue-in-cheek / sarcastic with your comment, but wanted to register my strong objection to the sentiment anyway.

      1. Exactly, falls under the attributed to Abraham Lincoln catagory:

        If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? … Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.

  8. Quick stop before I head out to my allergy shots but….

    On the way taking my daughter to school, the radio was playing some “news”. People apparently are ranting about a new Taylor Swift video being “Racist.”

    Now, I don’t care about Ms. Swifts music, not in the slightest, but one of the comments was somebody on twitter saying that they hadn’t seen the video and didn’t need to see it to know that it was offensive and ultimately harmful.

    So, yeah, people just make things up and then use what they made up as “evidence” for wrongdoing. A complete world of *ism with no connection to reality whatsoever.

    1. Taylor is almost as evil as Larry C. After all, she’s white, she’s rich, she’s talented. If only she were male she’d be the poster child for white American privilege.
      Saw the video. Not her best tune, I like some of her earlier work much better. All I really remember is that she ran through about a gazillion different costumes in about 4 minutes.
      Remind me, didn’t some second rate two bit creep disrupt an awards ceremony a while back when she was being presented with some award? As I recall he came up on stage, took over the mike, and pitched a bitch about how his bud, a black female entertainer, was so much more deserving of the honor. Total A-hole move, but very typical of leftist behavior.
      And yes, I do know said A-hole’s name, but refuse to dignify him by writing it here.

      1. don’t know about the talent portion … other than one for navigating the music biz. The few times I have heard her sing she was rather off key. She is easy on the eyes though. But, as the songs I heard were certainly not high on my list of types of stuff I prefer to listen to, the off key was grating (This is from appearances on Later With Jools Holland)

        1. I rather like Taylor Swift myself, but she is IMHO a bit more of a studio artist who sounds better in studio than live. /ducks and looks around for any Swift fans/

          I very much doubt that calling her a racist is going to affect her fan base much at all, at least not in the way those calling her a racist wish. She has one of the most rabidly loyal fanbases out there today (possibly by doing such things as standing in line for twenty hours straight signing autographs, holding huge free concerts for her fans, and randomly flying across the country to show up at a fans bridal shower Somehow I think their reaction is NOT going to be to immediately quit listening to Taylor Swift and condemn her as a h8er.

      2. The kicker to that incident being that the other singer won the more significant award in the same general category later that evening, and therefore, by the rules of those awards, could not also receive the one Taylor Swift received that night.

        1. Making it even better was that said music video by the significant other was basically her and two other women running around in unitards in a white room while singing the song.
          So, not only was he a jerk, he also has lousy taste.

    2. I can recall many a moment of Leftist derision for the various Morality Mavens of the “Right” who denounce as immoral a work (e.g., Last Temptation of Christ) which they haven’t seen and know nothing about.

      How many times have the Progs snorted about the warnings from Donald Wildmon, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, etc.

      So, it ain’t the principle they find objectionable, it’s merely a matter of who gets to use that particular bludgeon.

      Which points out the direction for response.

      Tell them “Rev. So-and-So” has denounced the Movie/TV Show/Song as promoting [Left-wing cause de jour] and has never even seen/heard it! Can you believe anybody being so dumb and hateful?

      Lead them into a five-minute hate for people who denounce art they’ve never seen.

      Hold up the mirror.

      Also: any author who endorses shunning other authors for being non-people needs their name taken and publicized. They cannot reject the tactic, right? Sauce for the goose and all that.

  9. Yesterday I posted a Disqus comment on Matt Zoller Seitz’s column at regarding “white privilege” and a conversation he allegedly overheard about a black mom telling her son about why he should be afraid of policemen.

    My comment was something along the lines of “well, if she’d just tell him to move to the sidewalk when a cop asks him to get out of the street and don’t try to take his gun, he wouldn’t have to be afraid of cops.”

    It was the first time in a long time that I remember having a comment modded then deleted during a general discussion about current events on any site liberal, conservative, in between.

    It didn’t bother me a bit. I just shook my head in bemused amazement. I guess it has finally and truly been inculcated in me that they are of lesser minds whose opinion I hold cheap and whose company I have no desire.

  10. When you go in with the rolled-up rewspaper, remember that they’re only saying those things about Larry because he’s a successful Hispanic.

            1. In the summer, if I’ve been gardening a lot, *I’m* darker than Larry, and my ancestors came from the marshes of northern Germany. It would be my ticket to fame and fortune if I could just write delicate, poignant character studies that gave insight into the terrors of our current culture.

                1. According to family legend, Great grandfather Rudolf shook the mud of the homeland off his feet with great enthusiasm. Especially since it had just turned into Prussian mud, complete with Prussian taxes and Prussian compulsory military service. If I lamented *that*, he’d come back from the grave and haunt me.

                  1. No, what you do is lament the advent of Prussianism. The problem is, so much of our welfare state is ripped off from them — but they are historically ignorant and might not realize that.

            2. He and MadMike noted over on his blog that Mike is darker than he is.

              Mr. Williamson has been getting some sun.

              1. My son is darker –younger son — and of course completely different ancestry, unless madMike has a Portuguese in the wood pile (not unlikely being from the British isles.) BUT what struck me recently is that the boy looks like Mike. And no, no reason I know. He also looks like my dad. Eh. Humans, right?

                1. “a Portuguese in the wood pile”
                  “Evil Ones are afoot in the lands, and danger is abroad. Strange things are stirring in the East. Doom is walking the High Road. There is a dog in the manger. A fly in the ointment. There’s a Balrog in the Woodpile!”

                  1. Would you really be _surprised_ if it turned out you and Williamson were cousins a zillion times removed?

                    Around here, it’s pretty normal for somebody to get a job at a new company and find out that so and so is actually a remote cousin, if your family comes from here or any neighboring state. It’s not everybody, but it’s always somebody in the office. Kinda eerie.

                    1. I think you meant to reply to a different comment…but I wouldn’t be surprised if I were related to Mad Mike: We both do have quirky senses of humor, albeit not identical.

                    2. “A zillion times removed” isn’t actually that big of a deal. Go back just a few generations and you’re related to an awful lot of people. iirc, something like a quarter of the planet is supposedly descended from Genghis Khan.

                  2. “You walk a strange road.” “Doom follows upon you.” “Your enemies are many and powerful.” “You leave at dawn.”

                    (Apologies for the mangled quote, my copy is in a Book Box that has yet to be unpacked.)

              2. I’d never thought to compare before, but my recollection is he’s right about that.

        1. It is disturbing how quickly many liberal hispanics were willing to attack their own because of a lighter skin tone. Their conditioning to hate without any consideration of the target is impressive and more than a little frightening.

          1. I’ve been considering getting involved with a Latin conservative group, but it’s in Denver AND I’m afraid they’ll bring up immigration, and then I start foaming at the mouth and screaming the problem is minimum wage laws and that free immigration means abolishing the USA and… well… (Shrug.)

            1. Thomas Sowell had given a few great interviews about the negative effects of minimum wage.

          2. Older son jokingly says I should run for office and use the slogan of an anti-immigration Irishman at the turn of the century. “America for the Americans, Begorrah”
            But I’m not anti-immigration. I just think immigration needs to be considered, carefully controlled, and that ASSIMILATION should be enforced.

                  1. “You will be assimilated… then left alone to do what you wish.”

                    Hm. Doesn’t have that great a ring to it…

            1. But I’m not anti-immigration. I just think immigration needs to be considered, carefully controlled, and that ASSIMILATION should be enforced.

              As I have often said, I think America should be for Americans. But my definition of “American” does not require that they be born here and is pretty close to your USAians.

            2. Practically speaking, that can’t work; media sob stories will let politicians end run your conditions. The only thing that can work is a total ban, or a ban with very difficult exceptions, as many countries have, such as investing $1 million in the country and hiring x employees.

            3. Assimilation??!!! Heck, start demanding that and a third of native-borns will have to leave.

              1. We really need to set up missions to teach the Usaian way. Teach proper respect for the Holy scripture. I’m not kidding. If we can’t export this culture to our neighbors legal or otherwise we will be dust on the ashheap of history.

                BTW Mrs. Hoyt, I am working an essay on government as a religion. When I have finished, I would like to send it to you for review and/or distribution. I will of course sign all copyright over to you. Please send me an email if this is satisfactory.

                  1. There were discussions the other day about how authors must be careful of unsolicited manuscripts. Who knows, if it’s good enough and on target you may have uses for it.

          3. It isn’t really a matter of skin tone (nor plumbing preferences) that they get riled over. It is failure to don the entire suit of the culture they imagine, which is how Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain get condemned as not truly “Black” and Sarah Palin could become featured on bumper stickers declaring Sarah Palin Is Not A Woman, She’s A Republican.

  11. It’s just astonishing how people rely on the sixth-hand word of people on the internet for their information. So many of the ludicrous claims about Larry could be deflated by spending five minutes checking out his blog. But no, that would be too much effort. Instead, for years to come, he’s going to be painted as an evil, homophobic white supremacist who ballot-stuffs because he really, really lusts after a Hugo. Gah.

      1. All you need to know about Emmanuel Goldstein is that he’s evil, and that you hate him.
        Anything more, would complicate things.

        1. Except the progs seem to have an entire legion of Emmanuel (and Emmanuelle) Goldsteins to hate.

    1. Oh, you can’t trust him to write the truth on his blog: he’s a self-hating white Hispanic. What’s worse, he’s outspokenly conservative. And religious! And he LIKE GUNS! And revels in the unfortunately necessary labels of cismale gendernormative fascist and International Lord of Hate! what kind of a caring, decent human being would do that? Also, I hear he has something like eighty-bajillion children, and is single-handedly responsible for a .000001329 inch rise in sea level!

      1. He uses big words and writes in complex sentences…thus making it difficult to read his work, and therefore left undone.

        1. If they think that, they need to avoid John C. Wright’s writings. It is with nothing less than the utmost respect and admiration that I say that.

          1. Ooooh, worst internet fight I’ve been in recently was for sharing one of Mr. Wright’s articles on Facebook.
            Yeah, okay, sure, it was the one on how the Left destroys beauty. So?

            1. Mr. Wright really pisses off a lot of folks, because he’s a traitor and actually says the stuff that the little voice in them is whispering…..

                1. I think I lost half a day or more bouncing around reading his posts yesterday, after clicking on that link…

                  About as bad as TVTropes in addictiveness of reading! (And that’s not a bad thing! Except when you’re trying to be productive.)

            2. “it was the one on how the Left destroys beauty.”

              Funny you should mention that! The bank where I’ve had my accounts for the last twelve years (I’m in the process of switching to another bank, finally, but that’s a different story) used to have hanging on their walls several really nice paintings of boats — sail boats, row boats, beautiful work. I would have loved to have them hanging in my house, if I had any walls large enough! However, recently the bank switched owners (for the third time since I’ve been banking there, which is part of the reason why I’m finally switching banks!), and all the beautiful paintings have disappeared, to be replaced by a mural that looks like it was designed in Communist USSR. Yuck. I’ve mentioned that to a couple of the tellers, and they had no clue what I was talking about, re: Communist-style art.

              I wonder what they did with the beautiful paintings?!?

        2. “Cracked” has a neat column today about writers who dissed other writers. Faulkner dissed Hemingway’s simpleton sentences and third-grade vocabulary, Hemingway dissed Faulkner for making people run to the dictionary. Now that was a giveaway, I don’t recall using the dictionary while reading “Old Man.”

      2. Complete tangent… I wonder what they’d do if they knew Geologist were currently looking for around 30 meters of sea level. as in, the math says Sea level should be 30 meters higher than it is.

          1. I suspect we’ll find the missing sea level next to the missing heat. But not in Scotland or northern Europe this weekend.

            1. Eh, this one isn’t that kind, at least not from what I got from Dr. Simms. I need to do dome article diving, but the general reaction of the geology community has been ‘That’s weird… more research!’. there’s a group going over the math, or was last I heard, it’s been a while, but the keep getting the same answer within appropriate margins of error. Current hypothesis is not as much ice came out if ice age melt back into liquid water as they thought, but that means they need to re evaluate land based glacial mass an a few other things. Hence the Antarctica trip.

              1. I was teasing a little. I probably should have been clearer, because there’s been a running joke in the comments sections over at WattsUpWithThat about where the (in)famous missing atmospheric and oceanic heat is.

              2. I’d lay good money that the “missing water” is likely bound up chemically somewhere in the crust, or stored in the deeper aquifers that had no way of recharging with ice on top of them.

                That’s the one thing I’ve never seen anyone ask the question about: How did things like the Ogallala aquifer recharge, with miles of ice on top of them? I get the whole “defrost and percolate” thing that probably happened during the ending of the ice age, but what the hell kept them filled during the period during which the percolation fields were covered with with ice? Magic?

                There’s got to be a bunch of water bound up in that stuff, on a continental scale. Enough to account for the missing water? Dunno. But, I’ll bet it is a factor.

                1. It’s a possibility, though some of the recharge came from friction melting and seasonal melt. Glacial advances are not a single relentless advance forward, it just means more ice us being added than melting off, modernly measured in annual cycles. For ice ages, it tends to be the bulk of the motion rather than the smaller cycles. Liquid water and glacial ice often coexisted.

                  Example, there was a large Lake right about where the great Lakes are now that was bigger than all of them put together… the bottom retaining layer was the glacial ice sheet, and it was restrained by an ice dam. Water is weird like that, and glacial ice is very dense so melts slowly. (Side note, the bursting of that ice bridge is what likely carved the majority of the original of the St. Lawrence water way). To get less speculative I’ll have to do some more in depth digging. I’d prefer not to answer and fond out I remembered something wrong!

                  Secondary side note. Sorry for not responding well to everyone, I’m back in an office with no Internet, so doing this all by phone, which limits both what resources I can pass along and how much patience I have for typing long posts. I’ll get to the stuff I’ve skipped when I get off work.

                  1. A similar sort of thing happened with the glacial lake that covered Montana. When the ice dam floated/broke (right near Couer d’Alene, Idaho), the force of the water carved the Columbia River Gorge in a matter of days.

            1. I’ll see if I can find one. He spent most of the lecture that day talking about it which is my primary source. There should be articles, though how accessible they are outside a research library I don’t know. Let me get home tonight and dig?

                1. He was taking measurements. He didn’t notice them beyond a vague ‘oh penguins over there.’. It didn’t help that when he did notice the penguins that had gotten close (I think they were a scouting party for the larger group that was keeping their distance) he slipped, fell flat on his butt, which startled the penguins who went into ‘fluff up and make it go away.’ I may have to way back his blog to find the pics. No one was hurt, save for bruised egos.

        1. Thought I read an article a few weeks back that proposed a weird layer of subsurface water below the crust. It was odd, but very interesting. I’ll look to see if I can find that article again…but I’ve had bad luck with that in the past, so don’t hold your breath! 🙂

        2. tl; dr Modeling/measurement error. 🙂

          Over what time period?

          This spring when I was doing some half-hearted checking into the matter, I recall reading that water is pretty far down as far as what we can directly measure is concerned.

          I haven’t checked that the density/chemistry/etc of this makes sense numerically. Are we talking long enough that surface water could have sunk down, displacing fossil fuels which rose to the surface and burned?

          I’ve a vague feeling that we may know enough about prehistoric air pressure and composition that the necessary water vapor from combustion would be too much of a conflicting factor.

          1. I’m trying to remember the exact time period. A lot of it centered around the brief resurgence after the glacial maximum iirc around 13 kya. Humanity was more worried about their various prey animals than industrial complexes in most of the world at the time. Definitely an issue with the model, but at the time of my information they weren’t sure where the issue was, so they were digging for more details. Did they missestimate glacial volume? Melting rates? What? The industrial revolution may have obscured some things, but not everything. Given the geology of most hydrocarbon reservoirs, I doubt that they would be sufficient to explain the differential. Unfortunately, I can only get so far from memory. 😦 since folk are interested I will do some more substantial digging sooner rather than later.

            1. Okay, 13k back sounds too recent for undiscovered really deep really ancient petroleum reserves forced to the surface by denser water seeping in.

              Let’s try another. Suppose there is another side of the water cycle, at least I didn’t hear about it in gradeschool. We can imagine some cavities deep beneath the earth. Perhaps think of them as something like a capillary or a still running through a good chunk of depth.

              At one temperature, they are kept boiled dry by the heat caused by the planet’s radioactivity. If the overall temperature gradient is cool enough, they are filled with water. In between, maybe at the top the gradient is cool enough that liquid water fills the pores, while at the bottom is vapor at a pressure high enough to hold up the slug of water. Idea being that a decrease in radiation cools the thing, pulling more water deeper.

              The most questionable bit seems to be whether water in porous rock can have the surface tension to avoid mixing with steam.

              Being creative solving technical problems tends to mean producing many ideas that turn out to be idiotic when examined. So does doing so while being active stupid. 🙂

              At least I’ve found a new-to-me gimmick for a sci fi story.

            2. We always think in terms of isostatic rebound, the continents rising slightly as the mass of ice melts off. But what about the oceanic crust? The end of the ice age added what, 600 ft of water to what was already there?

              And then there’s the water in biomass. All the forests moved north and expanded. IIRC, even the equatorial rain forest belt widened. Deserts blossomed and all the world was gre . . . Cough, sorry, got carried away. But an ice age, with less surface area of ocean and colder water makes for a big drought.

      3. But don’t forget, he plays with dolls.
        Everybody knows what that means, so maybe there’s hope for him yet.

        1. OH!! So he’s a closeted, self-hating homosexual. Everything makes so much sense now!!! I’m going to keep using exclamation points!!! Because they confer legitimacy!!!!! I CARE! SO!! VERY!!! MUCH!!!!

            1. One thing that the computer does not convey is his ability to generate a wicked twinkle in his eyes…

        2. But what kind of dolls does he play with? I suspect he is a Mormon voodooist, who practices on homosexual dolls.

      4. A rise in sea level ey? With 85 wpm type speed perhaps being blamed for his burning holes in their fragile sensibilities, thus adding to the holes in the ozone layer? Oh and the ‘kills puppies’ because some nitwit with two brain cells to rub together took Sad Puppies literally.

    2. Controversy can be a cheep way to drum up publicity. When was the last time this much interest was shown in the Hugos?

      And, um, he really, really lusts after a Hugo? Isn’t that tempting fate in this crowd.

        1. Oh, I think this needs to happen. He could do it for charity. MHI paintjob, climb in and drive it around an obstacle course, sign it. Auction it off.

          Really, I just want to see Larry in a Yugo. And I think the “Larry gets a Yugo!” tie-ins could be hilarious.


            1. Instead of “Will it Blend?” you could label it “Will he bend?” (or get stuck and we’ll have to cut the roof of the car off, which could also be funny in a warped, MHIish, Hunnish sort of way.

              1. If it just has to be a small car, we could use a triumph. Call it “The Triumph of the Evil Lord™.”

                  1. Anything but a pinto. A pinto would spontaneously combust like a SJW when faced with Larry

                  1. I have seen ones that ran (more than 15 years ago, I think) but I wouldn’t call it consistent. There is a guy down the road that drives an AMC Eagle regularly; of course he has a couple of others in his yard that are there primarily to scavenge to keep one running.

                  2. Actually there is a lime green Pacer living the good life down here in Dunnellon(pop~1800) FL. It hangs out in the Winn Dixie parking lot.

                1. And some lunatic wants them to drive a ’76 Pacer from the coast of Oregon to Conneticut, so they can buy it!

        1. I would never…

          Especially since you probably have his phone number and he doesn’t know me from any other random dude.

  12. “He’s a French model.”
    “How do you know?”
    “I read it on the Internet.”

  13. While I get furious about the libelous claims thrown at Larry, there’s something to keep in mind. If he were a nobody? They wouldn’t bother. They libel him because he scares the hell out of them. He’s popular, a good writer, and won’t sit down and be quiet. So, they do what they must, which is take anything they can out of context and, failing that, make crap up to paint him as an evil person.

    Luckily, “our side” tends to recognize this these days. Some will buy books by authors they know nothing about simply because some SJW said they were evil. Honestly, with the new book not selling quite as well as I thought it would, I’d love for them to take a few shots at me. Of course, as I told Larry in a private message, my book does have an audition for the Evil League of Evil. 🙂

    1. I wonder how much pressure is brought to bear on Bronson Pinchot for reading the books for Audible. Doesn’t he realize he is helping such a evil, evil evilness of and evil overlord of evil!

  14. When I know it won’t completely tank a relationship (usually a one off from the target) I try and call liberals on their puppy piddles. The results are usually what you’d expect. The one I had with an old high school class mate over Gaza was typical. “Would this have happened if Hamas had accepted Israel’s first cease fire?” “But! But! But dead civilians!”

    Besides their own fevered imaginings, where did liberals get that Larry was homophobic? Or is it just “Conservative = Homophobe = Evil = ATTACK!”?

    1. consider that I have been accused of being homophobic because a REGENCY character did not immediately and gleefully accept that two characters were (she thought) gay. These people have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

      1. They expect everyone to give their stories The Patriot Treatment.

        For those who are unfamiliar, that’s when Hollywood creates a character from a time and location in history, yet give him more modern sensibilities so as to not offend modern audiences. Mel Gibson’s character, Benjamin Martin owned a plantation in South Carolina, but staffed it completely with free men who were paid a wage. Of course, the historical validity of that is unimportant. What’s important is that the characters of a bygone era reflect modern sensibilities regarding whatever the cause may be.

        So, people expect regency characters to support gay rights. They expect Mayan books to be filled with characters who abhor human sacrifice. They expect history to be ignored, and for the writer to produce a work of fiction that mimics the modern times in thinking with merely historical trappings. It’s kind of the same reasoning as to why so many modern regency romance stories have the heroine hopping in bed with so many men, despite how rare it was back in the day.

        1. They know little of history, and take offense at anything which reminds them of their ignorance.
          It’s a defense mechanism. Their conception of themselves precludes them having any level of incompetence in any field.

          This is clearly on display in the Global Warming fraud. I’m tired of being told I’m “against Science” by people who barely passed 101 level courses.

        2. The fun part is even when the views you want are acceptable at a time, the writer doesn’t know how to phrase them. When in Arcadia, one man abuses women in general, and a second goes to chastise him, he points out how silly it is assert that there are no noble women when there are noble men, and no sane person would breed his horse or his hawk with regard only to the sire; he knows that the dam will also influence the character of the result.

          Meanwhile, I’ve just got, revising, to the section of the story where the heroine reaches the slave market. Next step: buying a slave.

          1. I reminded of a book I enjoyed as a child and adult. The main character is a Roman Centurion who medically retires. I think the author pushed the boundaries of the period to make things more suitable for a decades back YA audience. As an adult who had studied the Romans a bit more, I realized the character’s lack of interest in spectator blood sports and other aspects were not at all typical.

            Compare to another book I read part of, with I think another Roman Centurian MC. Roman soldier commanding his men in the field against bandits captures the bandits alive, sends them to prison, and finds out they were released to pillage again. I never found out how the book rates as Christian fiction about Christ’s times, because I was so disgusted with the apparent projection of modern times and values.

            1. Well, there were people who didn’t go to the games and didn’t like them, or who like chariot racing or plays or mimes or athletics a lot more. But it was much more typical to think they were good for you and patriotic and often free, so you should go. Augustine’s buddy who was seriously addicted to them was a lot more typical. Even after the Empire became Christian, they didn’t end until some monk jumped onto the field and got himself killed to show how stupid it was.

              And even then, a lot of the stupidity got transferred onto horse and chariot racing, with the factions and the riots and the crashes.

              1. I thought him a strange Roman, but still plausible as a Roman.

                As for the other guy, that story didn’t work as military fiction. It seemed like a naval officer, from a military that massacres and enslaves people, writing a pirate a citation. Not because the pirates have ties to their superiors, who make them look the other way, but because their SOP somehow comes from a non military modern who gets their information from the news and may even be some sort of pinko pacifist.

                As someone who has a little history, and dislikes riots, I remember the Nika riots.

              2. Got into the “theater” type stuff too, didn’t it? Vaguely remember that was the start of the “Christians think acting is a sin” thing. (Along with the whole prostitution side-business.)

                1. Aaaand now I’m musing on how so much modern fiction will fixate on “So and so thought this group was immoral!” without bothering to ask “well…. were they?”

                  Example, Gypsies in fiction. Somehow even the ones that say they steal anything not nailed down– and if you can pry it up, it’s not nailed down– and put them in a location where the folks they’re stealing from don’t have anything to spare are supposed to be sympathetic because everybody hates them.
                  Well, no freaking kidding they hate the guys who come through and steal the stuff they need to survive!

                  1. Also, they (the Gypsies) really did steal children. They tried to steal my Great-great Grandmother when she was four years old, living just outside of London — if her father hadn’t been a London Bobbie, and knew that the Gypsy camp was there near where they lived, and happened to check their camp looking for his missing daughter (as the Gypsies were nearly packed up to leave), she would probably have just disappeared. They had her hidden inside the one tent that was still up, with a Gypsy lady playing with her to keep her quiet. So that’s not a myth, either.

                2. What’s odd is that the start of modern theater (which does not have a direct line to Greek or Roman theater, something about the fall of Rome and survival taking precedence over the arts) comes directly from the Church—miracle plays and the Everyman play were attempts by the Church to show the non-Latin-speaking peasantry what was going on. Somewhere along the line it escaped to the secular world and, well, I guess things went downhill from there.

                  I have a much-beloved CD of one of Oregon Shakespeare Festival’s Green Shows, called Kabaret Everyman. It’s the Everyman play done as a cabaret show, and is lovely music with hilariously pointed lyrics.

                  1. *nod* Sounds right, I was poking around at it a few weeks back and there was a lot of quotes from the before-500-AD folks about the Theater being horrible… and a couple of folks explaining that it was a cultural thing, even citing the Summa to explain it was the culture, not the acting. (Which kinda reminds me of when I talk about how I love watching anime with my kids, to someone who thinks it’s all, er, really odd pr0n.)

                    1. 1. Of course a lot of Greek and Roman theater was explicitly dedicated to the gods, performed in temples or as religious catharsis, etc. Even public amphitheaters had a lot of god statues and religious ceremonies included, IIRC. When you see early Christians talking about it being a demon thing – well, it was pagan gods everywhere. They weren’t wrong.

                      2. Roman drama and comedy were often integrated in a single presentation with circus acts, dancing, and prostitutes for hire/slaves for sale.

                      3. Roman mime plays were performed on the street, were less tied to pagan worship (although some people think they also did the pagan funerals with the family masks), and were generally considered to be earthier and less refined, but also were sometimes cleaner. (Probably because Grandma and the kids were more likely to be there.) Publilius Syrus is the mime playwright whose sayings from plays survived in tons of medieval copies; he started out as a slave.

                      4. As we all know, the monks and nuns, east and west, did make lots of copies of pagan dramas and a few pagan comedies, as well as preserving many lines in maxim books or in grammar books (as examples of figures of speech, etc.). Studying these “spoils of the Egyptians” did lead to a lot of monasteries writing up little skits and sometimes even performing longer works. But it was the miracle plays that brought back theater (and by then, there was enough spare time and money to support theater troupes).

              3. *looks at American football, and then at the world soccer obsession, Aussie rules football (I can never watch that without wincing, it’s seriously more hardcore than US football, sorry) and rugby, lacrosse, polo, etc…*

                We ‘replaced’ it with sports, perhaps? Or would ‘continue’ be better?

          2. Yes. Bette Davis, as Julie Marsden in the 1938 film Jezebel:

            This is 1852 dumplin’, 1852, not the Dark Ages. Girls don’t have to simper around in white just because they’re not married.

        3. It’s called “presentism” – and in my mind it is an unforgivable authorial sin, when writing historical fiction. The past is a foreign country, and it is illegal to transport modern sensibilities and opinions there.

            1. It makes for damned borning books, too. Why bother reading, when the characters are just modern people dressed up in costumes, like for an SCA weekend or something. If you’re going to go back to another time, make the journey worthwhile for the reader. Show them the past, not the pretty-people-in-quaint-costume version.

              1. Show them the past, not the pretty-people-in-quaint-costume version.

                *points at multiculturalism, where all the REAL people think just like them but have quaint costumes and interesting food*

                It’s a world-view thing.

                They wanna write about real people back then, so…..

                1. It’s a small world after all
                  It’s a small world after all
                  It’s a small world after all…

                  They think it is diversity. They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

            2. How about a story in which illegal Time Travelers, by just such tell-tales, are caught by the Time Police.

              “Of course he wasn’t from the 16th Century — he dressed the injury to his woman before dressing the horse’s injury!

              “Sure, plenty men of this era express such thoughts, but never in that way. There was nothing in his argument addressing issues of honor, nor fealty to God and King!”

              I s’pose the illegal Time Travellers (iTTs?) might be looking to “get rich quick” by introducing inventions (assembly line with interchangeable parts, a more efficient form of distilling) prematurely, or hiding out after committing terrible crimes in “the Present.” … Stalin uses a Time Portal to escape …

              1. I s’pose the illegal Time Travellers (iTTs?) might be looking to “get rich quick” by introducing inventions (assembly line with interchangeable parts, a more efficient form of distilling) prematurely

                That’s too much like work. My plan for using time travel to get rich is to wait until the next big PowerBall lottery, write down the numbers, and then go back to the day before to buy the winning ticket.

                1. Well, depending on whether your time machine proves the many-worlds theorem or the single-stream-of-time theorem, you might go back and convince your-then-self to buy the winning number ticket, but not bring it back with you so the chain-of-custody is all tidy, but then when you pop back home the split you introduced may leave that ticket the earlier-you bought in the other time stream.

                  If you bring it with you and there’s a split, you might end up with a duplicate of the winning ticket but no record on the PowerBall system of it having been bought in your locale, leaving you in jail for attempted forgery.

                  On the other hand, if the self-correcting-single-time-stream variant is the correct one, when you step out of the time machine you will be hit by a falling 75lb hailstone, which coincidentally destroys the ticket as well as you, correcting your disturbance of the stream.

                  Complications such as this are just why the TARDIS has such a confusing control panel.

            1. Well, there are the odd ducks, historically speaking, who often have a rather more modern idea, or two. But they are outliers, and in the main it is best to make it clear, and to offer some explanation for being a little out of step with the commoner opinions.

              Indeed, I often have quite a lot of fun, having characters blithely and unashamedly voice contemporary opinions and assumptions, which are very much not PC for the 21st century. It can feel like giving political correctness and the social justice warriors a swift kick in the nuts as I dash past.

              I defend myself when tasked on this by widening my eyes innocently and saying, “But it’s historically accurate to have them say or believe so!”

              1. Nasty! [Very Big Evil Grin]

                I read one historical novel set in Ancient Egypt. The story was said to have been based on a manuscript found in a historical character’s tomb and was his life story.

                Unfortunately, for my reading enjoyment, the author had the historical character stop and defend slavery to the possible readers of his life story.

                Now why would a man living in a time when nobody questioned the existence of slavery defend slavery to possible future readers?

                Answer, the author couldn’t make the historical character anti-slavery but wanted something to tell modern readers that the character’s views on slavery was ‘historical’.

                1. Oh yes. It is very dangerous to include explanations that make it clear the in-story character know who the reading audience is. . . .

                  I got love Operation Chaos, where the narrator urges patience, even if we know who won World War II, better too much than too little. then we are in the story and we don’t know who fought in World War II, where, and with what weaponry.

              2. And I applaud you for it.

                I don’t write historical fiction, despite being a history buff, but I do enjoy reading it and love it when someone does that kind of thing. 🙂

                1. Thanks! In one of my books, I have a woman character who occasionally and daringly smokes cigarettes (in 1876 Texas, where she would likely have observed Tejano ladies smoking little cigarillos) and she explains that it it is only a harmless little habit, doctors say that it is healthy for the lungs, and the men have their pipes and cigars – so why shouldn’t she?
                  I don’t smoke – never have, and hate the smell of it – but it felt darned good to tweak the anti-smoking zealots.

                  1. One reason for smoking tobacco was that it was an effective mosquito (and other insect) repellent. People were probably at greater risk from insect-borne illness than tobacco-related diseases that require decades to present.

                    1. If it presents at all. Correlation in studies does not equal causation. Otherwise, leftist political speeches cause colorectal cancer. As everyone who develops colorectal cancer has heard a leftist speak. 100% correlation thus 100% causation.

                    2. Also, it’s an anti-depressant. A fact they didn’t bother to discover until people testing a new one mentioned that oh, yeah, they gave up smoking.

                    3. “I’ve seen at least one study that suggested that smoking was of benefit with respect to tuberculosis.”

                      Fun fact: TB patients benefit from blood-letting. First it lessens the blood volume; then, as the blood recovers, the liquidy part recovers first, then the solidy part, which means it’s less viscous. Both reduce strain on the heart.

              3. And they have to phrase it in terms of the era. . . .yes, there were people who argued for religious freedom in Tudor England. They didn’t use the arguments we would, and when they did, they argued in different language.

        4. But people have always eaten people,
          What else is there to eat?
          If the Juju had meant us not to eat people,
          He wouldn’t have made us of meat!

    2. All Libertarians/Conservatives are sexist/racist/homophobic by default. Actual opinions mean nothing.

        1. Irony: Cheney is pro-gay marriage, with a gay daughter. A fact that won him absolutely no brownie points from the leftoids.

          1. And actually got him attacked by Edwards in 2004.

            What a sleaze-bag Edwards was.

            Fortunately, unlike Billy Bob, John Boy’s affair destroyed his political career. Of course, it also helped that his recently deceased wife left behind a recording indicating that she did *not* forgive him for his most recent indiscretion.

          2. No actual irony involved — the gay marriage issue is comouflage for the issue (the only issue) that really matters to them. Cheney thinks there is something more important than their feelings, and that is why they hate him.

    3. Recently lost a facebook use-to-be-meatspace-acquaintance type friend over Israel.

      She agreed that them being attacked was bad, but insisted the situation in the middle east wasn’t as bad as, say, current discrimination against neopagans in the US because of The Burning Times. (I wish, wish, WISH I was making this up.)

      Attempted genocide is not as bad as people snickering, because of a mid-60s myth. *headdesk*

      1. Of course the religion of peace would NEVER discriminate against the neopagans. Or at least they would only do something as bad as paganacide (it’s a word if I say so) never anything nearly so bad as snickering.

        1. Ah no, I believe that certain subsets of the religion of peace hold to a policy of an equal opportunity for all un-like believers to find out sooner, rather than later, if there is an afterlife and, if so, the nature thereof.

  15. Modern Leftists seem to actually believe in nothing. They can’t articulate any ideological idea in any detail greater than the length of a bumper sticker.

    Today, the modern Leftist demonstrates their loyalty to the hive in one way, collecting the correct list of Enemies of the People to hate. Its like a collectable card game except without the fun.

    1. Nah, modern leftists do believe one thing. They believe that people with conservative values are racist, sexist, and homophobic.

      1. Modern leftists believe in one thing. They believe as an absolute truth that there are no such things as absolute truths. The fact that this is a self-refuting assertion makes no never-mind to them.

  16. As frustrating as the pinkshirt’s stuff is, its obvious that a lot of the pushback is working. Something that didn’t happen five years ago.
    He who’s name is not mentioned here is pointing out some of Scalzi’s recent twitter writings, and it does appear that Scalzi’s retreating a bit.

    Reasoned facts do in reality trump b*llsh#t. It just takes time.

    1. Yeah, it looks like Scalzi is claiming there are Conservatives he likes and Liberals he doesn’t . . . without providing examples. I guess he must have gotten some blowback from the Great Scazli Hategasm of ’14.

        1. Why am I suddenly reminded of Rick Perry in the 2012 Republican Presidential Debates?


        2. It is likely that all of the people named will be deceased. I have noticed that nothing so endears a conservative to Liberals as being dead. LibProgs were voluminous in their praise of Goldwater, Reagan and William F Buckley, Jr. once those warriors were history.

          Of course, their praise mostly consists of saying things like “W is nothing like Reagan for civility and reaching across the aisle.”

          It is almost as if the Progs’ motto is “The only good Conservatives are dead Conservatives.”

          1. Judging from some of the crap black conservatives get from progs, that might get used in a lame attempt at defense by one of them. 🙂

            1. Yeah, but it’s not the one Scalzi was making. (Also, conservative would be wrong; it would have to be a noun and so plural.)

              Let’s see if this will work.

              “Some of my best friends are black conservative.

  17. At every turn challenge the left with facts, hit them with a fast cold dose of reality. They will whine, complain, accuse us of being unfair and racist and evil. And when we meet their attacks toe to toe they will cower and slink away to hide in the shadows and nurse their wounds.
    But don’t fear, they always come back. There is always some new imagined hurt or violation of imagined correctness for them to twist to some advantage.
    So it is our duty and honor to deny them the high ground, beat them back, and force them to retreat in disarray.
    I think a t-shirt is in order “Make today count! Bitchslap a leftist!”

    1. Too many of them so love the warm squishiness of sitting in their unearned moral superiority to ever even think of changing that diaper.

      1. That usually involves a loooooooooootttt of twisting truth and shoehorning things to claim they’re “left” ideas even when they aren’t.

        Like that “Liberals Won” meme that was parroted over and over again on the web here and there. (Or maybe still is?)

        1. Well, if they try to claim that history always moves in a leftward direction, point out that’s because the Ministry of Truth rewrites history to make the failures non-left. Prohibition, segregation, and involuntary eugenic sterilization have been censored of their political affiliation.

  18. I disagree with the optimists–evidence is that the Hive-mind is only getting more intolerant, more determined to destroy anyone who does not agree with their insane twaddle. Latest victims, Gavin McInnes and thousands of 4chan employees. And women are the most vulnerable to this pressure, since they are inherently compromisers. We all need to draw the line and blast anyone who steps over it….

    1. One of the big problems today is the lack of critical thinking skills. It’s likely always been a problem, but it seems to be a greater problem today.

      I remember an experiment that the high school I went to tried. It was called a “Liberal Arts” class while was a senior. The name was a little deceiving, because it really wasn’t all that liberal.

      Each quarter you would have a different instructor and a different line of instruction. The key to it was to force the student to think. Not group-think, but actually think on your own. There was some very interesting discussions, and very interesting papers done at the end of each quarter.

      You don’t see anything like that today.

      1. There was a psych experiment in which the professor drew two lines of different length on the board, insisted they were the same and mocked all who disagreed. The vast majority of the students ended up conceding they were the same. I think public school has become that and Common Core is only going to make things worse.

        1. This is why my kids started getting “disagreeing with authority” training at two. It started with “you are a cat”, and went on from there.

        2. I remember a story of a psych professor to got the tables turned – class decided to sit up and pay attention when he wrote on one side of the board, appear to doze when he wrote on the other. By end of quarter, his board scribbles were confined to a very small space on the one side only! Conditioning, using approval as reward, works well.

        3. This sounds like the Asch conformity experiments, although it didn’t go exactly the way you mentioned — it was done with groups of eight, but the other seven were confederates, insisting on a wrong answer to the question of “which of these three clearly different lines is the same length as this other line?” In the control group (no confederates to give wrong answers), the error rate was less than 1%, while in the experimental groups it was 33%, with 75% of participants answering wrong at least once, according to Wikipedia.

          1. The Asch experiments were from the 1950s, by the way. I have to wonder if the results would be different today, and in which direction.

          2. Thanks. I didn’t think I had it exactly right.

            I think what was learned from Asch has been put into widespread practice with great effect. The millennials are most non-thinking and conformist generation that I can remember. You make one question their claims they either look at you with wide eyes and make aquarium fish motions with their mouth or express faux OUTRAGE that bears a weird similarity to things you dimly remember from some TV program or movie where a spunky character stands up to The Man.

            1. The millennials are most non-thinking and conformist generation that I can remember.

              *shakes head*
              Only those of us who are willing to speak up.

              We’re now three or four generations into being on the receiving end of the same nuts who gave us Woodstock (and manage to ignore that the only reason it didn’t have a large death count was the massive number of “squares” who took care of the young idiots, from Catholic and Jewish Lady’s Groups to volinteering nurses and doctors) and show SFWA’s lovely tolerance for those who disagree.

              “Just nod and smile, and do what you would’ve anyway” is an entire way of life– and we have been victim of more than a few “make them question their claims” types who were actually checking for insufficient outrage in response. Unless you manage to establish yourself solidly as really thinking what you claim to be thinking, and are interacting privately, there’s a good chance they’re trying to avoid pissing off teh folks who get pissed off at everything and WILL strike out at those who displease them.

              It drives me nuts! I try to talk, not “signal”!

              1. I once read Ayn Rand’s “Apollo and Dionysus”. It was certainly amusing to see Woodstock given the gimlet eye.

              2. “Just nod and smile, and do what you would’ve anyway” is an entire way of life– and we have been victim of more than a few “make them question their claims” types who were actually checking for insufficient outrage in response.

                Just waitn’ for the world to change?

                It will but not how you want it unless you are willing to get a little confrontational or at least be unafraid to articulate what you believe in to someone who might not want to hear it. You don’t have to be rude about it.

                Why would you be afraid of them?

                1. Why would you be afraid of them?

                  You mean other than SWATing, calling up employers to lie about those who offend them, filing false reports of criminal activity from rape to child abuse to theft, destroying property, physical assault, vandalism, hacking any accounts they can find, and attacking our families in all those ways?

                  Gee. Why on EARTH would my generation think that there’s something to fear from drawing fire by publicly opposing thugs and bullies?

                  Just waitn’ for the world to change?

                  Because talking about it to YOU is the same as actually doing something?
                  Don’t conflate what folks talk about with what they actually do.

                  1. You mean other than SWATing, calling up employers to lie about those who offend them, filing false reports of criminal activity from rape to child abuse to theft, destroying property, physical assault, vandalism, hacking any accounts they can find, and attacking our families in all those ways?

                    It hasn’t stopped me.

                    1. No, just IRS audits and death threats.

                      OK, some minor vandalism too.

                      OK, a false rape claim but that wasn’t about politics and she wasn’t that serious.

                    2. Ah thank you for that. May I ask how you dealt with those? It’s the ‘dealing with such’ that has a good deal of us worried.

                      And, I apologize if I came across as sarcastic or rude in asking. I only realized that just now, and I would like to say I only was looking for clarification from you saying ‘it hasn’t stopped’ you. I didn’t mean to be rude.

                    3. The IRS thing we dumped on our accountants and fortunately we were squeaky clean. By we I mean my partners and I. This was small newspaper of which I was part owner and the audit came after something I wrote about the IRS.

                      We still ended up coughing up about $3G (1994 dollars).

                      The threats I’ve ignored/laughed off/screamed back.

                      You can point out that maybe they weren’t serious and you’d be right albeit it is still never pleasant.

                      The point is that if everybody backs down at the first sign of trouble the bullies win.

                      And, yes, sometimes this is a cost to pay. I had a very courageous reporter who experienced a lot of what you described and it did hurt her. She’s still fighting though. Frankly, I think she’d of had it easier (and been more effective) if she didn’t keep running headfirst into every fight but she is one of my favorite people.

                      Those who want to rule us know that intimidation doesn’t need to be overt or direct but actually works better if its in the shadows.

                      I don’t think you were being rude.

                    4. Such tactics are not deployed simply (possibly not even primarily) to stop the offending party. The purpose is at least as much to discourage others from speaking up or otherwise challenging the powers that be. The idea is less to discourage the sheepdog from acting than it is to remind the sheep that they’re sheep.

                      Any force capable of rallying the opposition must be shot to encourage others to keep their !@# heads down.

                    5. I’ve had some experience of what Foxfier is talking about – it hasn’t crossed into RL yet, but there’s hints that there have been attempts to do so.

                      And I’ve seen what these tactics have done to other people – and the worst part is, this may have nothing to do with politics at all, but something as simple as vengeful angry female gamer out to ruin a hook/sugar daddy who got away. One of the cases I was on the periphery of, she didn’t just target him, she targeted friends of his RL, and harassed co-workers so much that it was easier for the company to let the hook/guy go than try for litigation.

                      In terms of legal action I don’t think the laws have really caught up to the sheer viciousness of what people are capable of, especially in the rise of the Internet.

                    6. But how much of this is related to expressing a political view and how much was old fashioned jealousy related to personal matters?

                      My fear is that there is a generation petrified to express an unauthorized opinion in a way that might have an effect.

                      I totally agree that discretion is appropriate at times and rudeness should always be avoided, but the groupthink of the present young kind of scares me.

                      The post that started this concerned a psych experiment, and yes I think it has been put into effect in our culture.

                    7. In my case, it’s entirely due to politics. The dragging in of everything else is secondary. I’m just fortunate none of the tactics that work over there apparently will not work here in Australia.

                      As explained, I’ve seen the same tactic applied to others for entirely non-political reasons, and it was quite successful in making the target’s life – and those around that person – quite miserable, if not outright destroy livelihood and lives. I honestly and truly doubt most of us would have the ability or resources to fight out lengthy legal battles.

                    8. One of the great successes of the left is that in many cases they’ve made it that you are the one that gets stuck with legal costs.

                      I don’t think I’m a great Christian but I believe. I know that there comes a point where you have to speak up even when you know it’s going to hurt and make your life harder. I guess the thing to do is to do it as gently as possible and with as much love and with as little anger and hate that you can.

                    9. As explained, I’ve seen the same tactic applied to others for entirely non-political reasons, and it was quite successful in making the target’s life – and those around that person – quite miserable, if not outright destroy livelihood and lives. I honestly and truly doubt most of us would have the ability or resources to fight out lengthy legal battles.

                      Part of the problem is that those who use those tactics don’t expect to be on the receiving end of them. Indeed, they count on it. And, for the most part, they’re right.

                      That is a tactical weakness that folk who still have a moral compass beyond “ideology uber alles” face. Not sure what solution there might be besides becoming the very monsters we fight.

                    10. One important thing to do is give aid and comfort to those on the receiving end of the attacks, and vocally stand by them.

                      Other than I think the monsters are going to end up eating each other and we don’t have to join in.

                      Exposing and condemning the perps don’t count as being monstrous.

                    11. Yeah, we still value our souls. Not all of us can make like Chopper Reed and become a serial killer who hunts drug dealers. Or make like Dexter.

                      The funny thing is, I’ve actually been told by friends that if I ever lost my sense of restraint, I’d probably make like Dexter. Personally, I doubt that – even with tools to take apart dead bodies, they’re… heavy. The description ‘dead weight’ exists for a reason. (Family funerals in case anyone is wondering. Had to straighten out limbs prior to cremation and I found myself surprised with how heavy they felt. Imagine the rest of the body…)

                      Ultimately though, the ones who don’t have ‘ideology uber alles’ still have attachments, responsibilities and duties of Every Day that the professional protesters don’t. Keating was right when he snarked at them to ‘get a real job.’ Ideology Uber Alles people have nothing in their lives except that jihad – which makes them very much like disposable tissue paper to their handlers.

                    12. It’s funny, those who hold tightest to civility are most often those who know the depth of the darkness within.

                    13. I just realized something, and it makes me feel puzzled… curious. The interesting thing is, those comments

                      “Shame. I’d like to see you kill someone. Anyone you decided was worth killing would really be worth killing…”

                      “If you had less sense of restraint, you’d be like House”

                      “If you ever decided to throw aside the law you’d be like Dexter,”

                      … the concept that I would – am capable of – becoming a monster that would hunt monsters… were all meant as great compliments. That if given enough cause and reason, I’d have it in me to kill, and yet not go after innocent people.

                      Mind, I know that I could – especially in defence – but it strikes me as interesting that the ones paying me that compliment, making that assessment of me, are also saying ‘I trust you to still be good.’

                      It’s … interesting. I’m probably phrasing all this rather badly because I don’t have the words to suit concept/feelings right now.

                    14. I sometimes worry for the second after we, and those like us, get pushed beyond the point of ” weapons free”

                    15. The second…? Amendment? (Sorry, looking for clarification.)

                      My second example was people think I’d be like House – snarky, sarcastic, don’t care about authority, results matter, not the procedure nor the rules, all in the name of ‘puzzle solved/patient may survive.’ (Hence puzzlement)

                    16. The second, as in one second after. Like time. The second after we go weapons hot a conflagration will ignite the likes of which the world has not seen.

                    17. Oh. Yeah. And there will be lines drawn.

                      The sad thing is the people who are constantly bleating about tolerance and acceptance don’t understand that those two have limits, and must have limits, for the existence of the two concepts to continue.

                      Or perhaps they do, but they continue to underestimate what will be unleashed if they push too far.

                    18. They presume upon our manners too much I think. They confuse kindness for weakness and civility for submission. Lines are already drawn amongst a significant portion of the population. This was illustrated at the Bundy Ranch. The lesson didn’t take I think.

                    19. *shrug* They mistake silence for agreement, too, then get shocked when not everyone agrees with what they were insisting on pain of getting their attentions.

                    20. …those who know the depth of the darkness within.

                      I replied to ^this^ with my one word “yep” and then figured out how it actually fell on the thread. And — decided “yep” still works for what’s between there and here.

                      Moving on.

                    1. You’re the one that felt the need to slam those born since 1980. Just because you don’t like finding out some reasons why they don’t do what you think is proper isn’t my problem.

                      Rather odd that you “not being stopped” by the long list of reasons people wouldn’t draw fire hasn’t magically made a world where the current youngest generation is up to your standards.

                    2. You’re the one that felt the need to slam those born since 1980. Just because you don’t like finding out some reasons why they don’t do what you think is proper isn’t my problem.

                      My experience has been that millennials are pretty touchy.

                      Rather odd that you “not being stopped” by the long list of reasons people wouldn’t draw fire hasn’t magically made a world where the current youngest generation is up to your standards.

                      But, it is a lot better than it was in 1980.

                      I fear, however, it is really going to suck in 2048 unless you millennials get on the ball, learn to articulate your thoughts and stop being such wusses.

                    3. My experience has been that millennials are pretty touchy.

                      My experience has been that those who think being passive aggressive is clever are a waste of time, and will project their shortcomings on those who don’t agree with them loudly enough.

                    4. Well you are starting to be a little less touchy albeit you still sneaked in a couple of persona digs.

                      Could you do the same to an Obama supporter of your cohort? How about with someone who demands that Israel lay down its arms?

                      Question two: Why should I expect (much less demand) you agree with me regarding millennials loudly or not?

                    5. Could you do the same to an Obama supporter of your cohort? How about with someone who demands that Israel lay down its arms?

                      It’s becoming very clear why you haven’t managed to find many of my generation who don’t confirm your notions, since you’re so very wedded to them– even when a tiny bit of looking, rather than deciding what you expect is what is there, would give you cause to doubt them.

                      Means I left out a reason you haven’t met many millennials who do what you claim to want: we listen to you and then decide it’s not worth the time and probably wasted effort to try to change your notions.

                    6. You can certainly aim a good rant in my direction.

                      Why do you think I don’t want to find millennials who aren’t conformist or who can slice and dice an opposing argument?

                    7. Look, Bill, Foxfier is NOT a retiring violet and she’s quite open on her politics. So am I. Now. At her age I wasn’t, because I knew if I wanted to get published I couldn’t be. Foxfier can do it because she is not in the arts, etc. In the end Baby needs shoes trumps political speech for most people, period.
                      I’m a strong advocate of speaking out, but I don’t think we can judge those who can’t.
                      And btw, if things are better now than in the 80s, it’s thanks to the sons of Martha and tech. NOT to speaking out. So…

                    8. I’m really needling her more about her generation than picking on her as a person.

                      It’s not even an argument I care much about winning. But I did make an observation about millennials (with some personal specifics in mind) and it did strike a nerve with her. So I apologize.

                      I’m sure she’s one of the good gals.

                      I disagree with you about not speaking out.

                      Improvement since the ’80s had much to do with not ceding the field and there was a lot of intragenerational conflict and debate. There were people my age who mocked Reagan every chance they got and there were a lot of others who waved American flags at rock concerts, booed Soviet performers, went to pro life rallies and praised Red Dawn just to tweak snobs. It made a difference. And this was when the left controlled just about every media outlet.

    2. I disagree with the optimists–evidence is that the Hive-mind is only getting more intolerant, more determined to destroy anyone who does not agree with their insane twaddle.


      That will only hurt them– women compromise when they think that both sides are reasonably equal, and (I don’t know why) tend to have sympathy for emotional outbursts.

      However, the ROI on the “throw a fit” keeps getting lower the longer it goes on, and if someone keeps throwing a bigger one it eventually hits the “oh, they’re a drama queen” tipping point, which will cause women to violently reject the now-identified dramaqueen, to the point of thoughtlessly opposing them.

      It’s different for each person, but the HIve-Mind doesn’t have a bottomless pit of good will, and they’re slowly chipping away at their own “everybody” claim. The more folks oppose them, the more obvious this is, and the more frantic they are.


      Something a lot of guys forget is that, without a lot of psychological manipulation, a woman will go along and go along until you hit too close something she cares about.
      A man will have a baseline resistance plus additional that scales up and down as he guesses folks are going towards something he cares about.
      This results in a lot of crossed signals where guys get pissed because the gal didn’t “warn” them that she wasn’t going to do everything she wanted, while the gals get pissed because the guy just just contrary about everything.
      Sliding scale, obviously, and there’s a lot of attempts to teach one sex to behave like the other that goes over the top of the individual tendencies. People: we can make a mess out of ANYTHING!

    3. I find it very difficult to call people who work for 4chan “victims.” It’s a wretched hive of scum and villainy the likes of which makes Mos Eisley look like Lancaster County, PA.

  19. This bubbles up frequently, and I get so irritated at the distorted cardboard caricature held up so a bunch of twits can sling their mud…

    I think what really squeezes my vasculature though, is the smug condescension. Larry’s recent fisk of a GenCon review bemoaning the inherent racism sparked fine examples. Dissenting opinions are, of a certainty, being moderated/deleted with the righteous caveat that such bigotry and phobia is not allowed here. Tagged under a post accusing 50,000 innocent con attendees of racism because they didn’t notice the whiner’s race.

    I am tired of bigots accusing me of their bigotry. I have short words for them.

    1. Amen. It’s really an attack on the culture, conflating racism and Marxism, otherwise people should be shocked and horrified at the way people talk about, oh, I dunno… Clarence Thomas.

      1. Heck, imagine if a thousand and one “editorial” cartoons of Condi Rice were relabeled for Michele …

  20. I think that a fundamental problem with much of the haterati is a disturbing lack of emotional maturity. They’ve been indoctrinated for so long into believing a certain view while simultaneously not being allowed to experience anything in opposition, that they instinctively attack anything outside of their bubble. It looks like some sort of emotional protection mechanism.

    After all how many liberals can actually be students of Alinsky? I think just a few of the troublemakers are using Alinsky’s tactics and rousing up the ignorant in the same way that so many Muslim clerics are in the Middle East. “Look,” they exclaim! “Someone is threatening to cloud your shiny worldview! Defend your inner unicorns and rainbows!”

    It saddens me that so many aspiring writers and genre fans can behave like barbarians, doing so gleefully and without remorse. Further, they have appointed themselves as an opposing faction, declaring war on anything they disagree with. Their behavior in any forum is, to repeat myself, barbaric. And they actively work to subvert organizations and marginalize conservatives until the conservatives flee, are expelled, or cower quietly. Then they do it again.

    And we let them do it over and over because, the liberals are obviously crazy, it’s not like they can accomplish anything… right? Except that they do and continue to. And we let them do it because who wants that kind of hate that Correia gets directed at them?

    But we need to draw a line and put some trenches behind it. I think conservative sci-fi writers still hold a majority, but we’ve all seen how a loud minority can overcome the quiet majority in things political. What do you think this environment will be like when the barbarians outnumber the conservatives? And they will. Take a look at all of the paranormal romance books trying to pass themselves off as urban fantasy. And those books are getting front paged on the iBooks store and Amazon. Don’t hate on the Twilight Saga for the horrible prose and 2 dimensional characters, hate on it because it’s attracting the Horde to what I used to consider the genre for mature storytelling.

    Larry Correia, being an author, would probably appreciate that he is spearheading the development of a heroine’s journey template onto the barbarians. We need to reinforce and support that effort to strip the coping mechanisms away from our barbaric drama queens so the horde can finally mature into decent people, writers, and fans.

    I ran a political blog for a short while until endless hours at work pushed it to the side. I’m going to resurrect the site and add a literature section that no only objectively reviews the books I’m reading, but (similar to Correia and Hoyt’s recommendations), expands an awareness of talented civilized writers.

  21. “Unless she unfriends me, I intend to bring down the rod of correction every time she does idiotic stuff like that.”

    I hope that correction comes with large doses of mockery.

  22. Look, what idiocy is this? Are we people in the age of reason, taught to look for fact and evidence?

    Well, yes; thing is, this doesn’t mean we actually respect reason, it means that we post memes with some pop culture icon it’s cool to sneer at on one side, two or three iconic scientists and some pop science talking heads on the other, and make nasty comments about how if you recognize one on sight but not the others then you are everything that’s wrong with the world.

    Or we do “skeptic” podcasts that consist of well poisoning and appeal to authority, even when it’s something that would be easy to scientifically counter, or at least make a logical argument against.


    (Sounds like your week has been like mine.)

    1. The degree to which snark has replaced logic… or discussion… or courtesy… or even the acknowledgment of the humanity of the person on the other end of the conversation… or, well, even conversation… is distressing.

      1. I know some of it is just folks looking at what they think is the point, and ignoring the way it’s made, but…. I REALLY got pissed at seeing the “Oh, look, I know what Sagan and Degrasse look like, I am superior to those who know who this hot lady over here is! In fact, if you recognize someone whose entire business is visual identification, you are part of Everything Wrong– while if you recognize folks that are supposed to be respected for having ACTUALLY DONE SOMETHING, or at least talking about folks who DID something, you’re superior.”

        (I really dislike NDT; the first time I tuned into “startalk” it took about 30 seconds for him to repeat some incredibly ignorant bit of falsehood. I think it was related to religious history, but I can’t really remember– it was the kind of thing that ten seconds on google would’ve told him was wrong.)

        1. The bit on the first episode of the New Cosmos about a monk being imprisoned for believing in the helio-centric universe threw me out completely. Um, dude, the monk got in trouble for denying the Trinity and the efficacy of the Sacraments, as well as more worldly bits of corruption (theft, seduction).

          1. Girodano Bruno was the guy’s name. Oh, and he also questioned the virginity of the Virgin Mary. And all of it loudly. Tactlessly. Not a great way to stay out of trouble, and totally unrelated to science, astronomical or otherwise.

            1. He was also involved in occult societies of the time. The idea that he was some kind of martyr for science was one of the 1st things that put me off on Sagan’s Cosmos. The man knew as little about history as he did religion.

            2. He’s actually a pretty good example of a “victim” of the under-Church-authority inquisition*– a religious official who went out of his way to violate obligations like not spreading false teachings, or breaking vows of chastity.

              * I just turned in an article for Catholic Stand about this; I knew the Spanish Inquisition was under State not Church, but didn’t know that this was a know big problem waaaaay before that, which the Church was trying to correct. And failing. Massively.

                1. He was not a diplomat

                  …. You’re TRYING for the golden understatement, aren’t you?
                  (Super Special hint for us Odds: even if you’re friends with the Pope, don’t have a character named “idiot” saying stuff he said, even if you are mad that people want you to support your theory by something besides assertion….)

                2. The “fun” part is that Urban was Galileo’s patron. IE Urban paid Galileo’s bills. So not only did Galileo insult the Pope, he “bit the hand that fed him”. [Evil Grin]

                    1. Calling your boss an idiot, rudely, repeatedly and publically; is STILL generally considered career suicide.

            3. And here’s the real fun one: He denied that blacks belong to the same human race as the rest of us.

        2. The Establishment Left is so sure they know everything that they seldom if ever do even rudimentary research. One of my “favorite” examples came from the Marvel Comics “Ultimate Avengers” series; when Captain America’s frozen body is recovered and revived, he reacts to meeting Colonel Nick Fury (who is black) by jumping to the conclusion that he is being lied to because “there aren’t any black Colonels in the Army” (when he was frozen, circa 1945).

          A search on “first black Colonel” returns a wikipedia article about Charles Young, who was promoted to Lt. Colonel in 1916 ( A search on “first black General” returns a wikipedia article about Benjamin O. Davis Sr., who was promoted to Brigadier General in 1940.

          This isn’t obscure stuff. It only takes the slightest tinge of curiosity to find it.

          And they expect me to take their word about complex stuff like Global Warming, or the causes of Terrorism!

          1. Yes, but then British writer Mark Millar can’t make Captain America look like an ignorant, jingoistic racist, you see.

  23. The next few years are going to be uncomfortable for the conflict avoidant. The illusion that there is some “correct” opinion they can surrender to and be safe from disagreement is going to be shattered. But with time the best of them will learn to think for themselves.

    1. I’m reminded of the videos of Stalin’s speeches, where everyone was desperately trying to clap the most enthusiastically. At some point these lefty barbarians will get bored with attacking the visible conservatives and start looking to see who isn’t clapping hard enough.

      1. I have heard (but have no first-hand knowledge) that when Stalin’s speeches were issued on phonograph records there’d be one or two records of the actual speech, then twenty or so records of applause.

  24. Unless she unfriends me, I intend to bring down the rod of correction every time she does idiotic stuff like that.

    You mean Until, don’t you?

    Where’s the over/under pool on how long that takes, and what is the ante?

  25. And to answer the obvious question: the confining pen in the photo is a temporary vet examination pen.

  26. I’m amazed you haven’t erased and rewritten this post multiple times today. Really, seriously, who feels strongly enough about something to write a whole post about it, and then as soon as someone disagrees with them erases the post and all comments? Then writes another post repudiating the one they just erased (which of course draws attention to the fact that they not only did a 180, but erased their former opinion, so no one can actually see what they are repudiating), then erases it and all comments when someone disagrees with it?

    Maybe the 18 1/2 hour work day today fried my brain, but I just can’t see bothering to read someone who erases anything that isn’t so bland that NO ONE can disagree with it. If they treated their fiction that way, by the time it went through beta readers and editors there wouldn’t be anything left but a blank page.

  27. Sara Hoyt asked “Look, what idiocy is this? Are we people in the age of reason, taught to look for fact and evidence?”

    If you had taken even a second to soberly reflect on these two questions, and given the issues you and your son have had with the “educational system” such as it is, you would clearly understand that the answer to this is “emphatically no.” There are no end of accounts of stupidity by teachers and school administrtors, right up to the latest of a student getting kicked out of school for writing a story about hunting dinosaurs with a gun in it (although I don’t think it was as good as Ray Bradbury’s), and getting arrested for mouthing off to the cops who were called to the school. Plenty of stupidity on both sides, actually, criminal stupidity on the side of the teachers and cops, but that’s who are raising the children these days, and that’s why they react with hate and venom to the slightest disturbance of their world. They’re trained to, they’re definitely not taught to reason, or to look at facts or evidence.

  28. As a racist, homophobic, anti-choice, divisive denier I have much regretted friending certain people years ago. To the point that I mostly just go on Facebook to look a pics of my grandbaby because constantly I just want to ask “Were you born stupid or did you have to work at it?” I’ve thought of correcting folks, but I figure that after they get angry they’ll just unfriend me anyway because speaking facts obviously makes me a racist, homophobic, well, you know.

            1. Every so often, I want to live down to their expectations. Do you think they’d shut up if every straight white man goes out of discipline for 14 days and did everything we’re accused of? Really just let the beast run. A little taste of my backhand for the lippy feminist, a brief introduction to the cat for race hustlers like Jackson. Not pretty but sometimes I think that they need to see the real thing, red of tooth and claw, before they figure out how sweet they really have it.

              No worries, it’s just my frustration talking. I do grow so weary of the libel and slander.

          1. …this is like the “What did the Romans ever bring us?” scene from Monty Python’s Life of Brian, right? 😉

  29. Reigniting this discussion:

    Bill Lawrence | August 23, 2014 at 1:57 pm |
    Yup. Of course in 1994, this backfired, albeit the victory wasn’t as deep as was hoped.

    And there are also false sheepdogs (aka RINOs) intended to rally opposition for easier identification of which rams need to become mutton.

    Any doubts that pictures were taken of those showing up in support of the Cliven Ranch?

    Even anti-state movies (Bourne Again) can serve to remind the sheep of their relative powerlessness.

    As for 1994 (or the Reagan Revolution) those are but hiccoughs to the Administrative State, last bursts from the dying bull as yet another lance from el picadores sinks in.

    Resistance is futile is the Devil’s ever-present lie.

    1. 1994 wasn’t the Reagan Revolution but the Gingrich Revolution 🙂

      You make a good point regarding cultural things that show some centralized authority, evil or not, to be all powerful and will be the ultimate victor as being demoralizing.

      It isn’t and you can’t be afraid to confront it.

      1. I know — I saw it on the TV. Reagan slowed the encroachment but couldn’t stop, much less reverse it. Gingrich barely slowed it (more like they slowed its acceleration.)
        You can serve your conscience or you can serve the State. In the end you have no choice but to answer Alexander Pope’s question:

        “I am his Highness’ dog at Kew;
        Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?”

        As the Grail Knight advised: “Choose wisely.”

        We’ve not yet tried Milton Friedman’s method:
        “I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office.”

        Write GOOD books, let people see there is a human wave.

        1. We’ve not yet tried Milton Friedman’s method:
          “I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office.”

          I missed this, RES. You are very right. Howard Zinn and Saul Alinksy were never elected officials and they pretty much set the agenda for Clinton and Obama and the old media.

        2. RES,

          Yes, but not everyone that needs to hear the message if human wave will read the books? People tend to congregate in their echo chambers.

          Or as someone pointed out freewill; as if that you might fail is a reason not to try. 

          Outreach; so as, to expose the next generation to these ideals that we hold sacred in the hope that every few generations we do not need to water the Tree of Liberty with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.

          The full quote:

          “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty…. And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

          Wave Theory of Economics / The Business Cycle: Are future generations doomed to forget the hard learned lessons of the past and repeat them.

          We get the State that we deserve.

          1. I might rephrase that last bit as “We get the state that we tolerate.”

            Books alone won’t carry the message — we need Human Wavers in the popular entertainment. One mildly successful movie or TV show will reach ten times what the most successful books do. And HW messages prove “unexpectedly” popular again and again. They don’t even have to be (at best are not) primary themes of the story. Dolores Umbridge does far more to promote HW than Atlas shrugging.

            1. RES,

              I like that I might be even mire acurite if we combine the sentiments into: You get the State… ( or government… I never did get around to answering what the difference was. Government is how the staye is organized and determined what kind of state you have, but it is not the totality of the State. Other parts or aspects it’s people and culture along with a diffined and controlled territory.) To continue:

              You get the State you deserve, and you keep the State you tolerate .

    2. Any doubts that pictures were taken of those showing up in support of the Cliven Ranch?

      Two other aspects:
      Even folks on the right have bought into attempts to associate “burn it all” type folks who were forcibly removed by the CB ranchers (the two crazies who tried to join and then went and shot two cops before being challenged by Joseph Robert Wilcox, killing him and then killing themselves) with the group. Heard Medved make that mistake either yesterday or the day before….

      I see almost no mention that part of why the Bundy Ranch thing didn’t get nastier is that the gov’t employee folks who were being given probably illegal orders told their imported superiors to go jump in a lake. This would go against the “faceless minions of the gov’t” talk which makes a dangerous confrontation much more likely.

      1. Good point. A lot of government people are human beings and pretty decent ones. It’s important to recognize this and try to appeal to it first regarding confrontation.

      2. I’ve read (not in hard copy so I can’t vouch for it) that a bunch of the field guys from Customs and Immigration/ICE/ whatever they call it now told their bosses that if the Feds insisted on forcing that town in CA (at gunpoint just about) to take the busses of illegal immigrants, they would all quit and let the media know exactly why. Between that and the hundreds of protesters at the receiving end, the Feds backed down.

        1. I know a lot of folks were calling into the radio station, and that the cops weren’t even faking being enthusiastic about moving protesters that were in the road blocking the bus. For once, there was some kind of reason for the usual “it’s a lefty protest, we won’t do our job” thing– the protest was of illegal-six-ways-from-Sunday importing of supposed minors. (You can’t move cows across state lines with no health checks like that, and they’re moving known illegals with health issues kids?)

  30. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke

    The systems make it very very easy to do nothing. That is the core of their psychology. Counter-examples must be promoted and propagated, “pour l’encouragement des autres.

    1. Dang — this was intended in reply to

      Bill Lawrence | August 23, 2014 at 4:13 pm | Reply
      Good point. A lot of government people are human beings and pretty decent ones. It’s important to recognize this and try to appeal to it first regarding confrontation.

      Stoopid WP.

    2. Yes! RES, Yes!

      We must teach an propogate our beliefs and morals faster than they teach their.

      The only deference I see in our positions is where we draw the line of when to stop pushing back.


Comments are closed.