Hate Thy Neighbor – Dave Pascoe

Hate Thy Neighbor – Dave Pascoe

I’ve had it. I’m done with this cunning façade. I was here to gather information on you Enemies of History, but I’ve spent so much time among you people that I’m even starting to think like you. I saw some People of Melanin Blessedness (please, PoC is so last election cycle) at Meijers last night, and was pleased that they appeared to have Made Something of Themselves, instead of feeling Compassion for their Downtrodden Existence and wondering how I could help them organize against the oppressive might of Institutionalized Racism in this so-called United States.

The evil I’ve heard uttered (so to speak; I mean, I haven’t actually heard most of you, you, you individuals speak. I mean, not in person, but I’m sure you’re full of hatey hateness, you haters) in this place, well, it’s just so, so, so very evil! You all probably beat your spouses and children and kick puppies and boil kittens. Worse, you write heroic F&SF and believe wymyn and male humans have biological differences. Differences, besides … um, well, you know. AND! You have human win! Haven’t you read any of the recent Hugo winners? Now those are some Suitably Progressive, Forward Thinking real writers: artists who know their place is to guide the next generation of Thought Leaders.

As I said: I Can’t Take it Any More, and I’m Done With You.

Forever.

***

***

Not really, but that’s exactly the kind of pabulum we’ve come to expect from the usual suspects, is it not?

The issue here is one of instruction- well, sort of. Kinda. There’s a lot of what is often called “education” going on, but the most significant – and most well-learned – lessons are about hating. Specifically, hating anybody one is directed to hate. This is Vileprogism 101, in which the young are inculcated to respond to authority figures without thought or reflection. (To be a bit more even-keeled, you can usually indoctrinate the young in any philosophy you like, provided you get them early enough.) This method is most effective when the authority figures in a child’s life all agree. Parents and grandparents who – consciously or because they were brought up the same way – eagerly look forward to the workers’ paradise to come, tovarisch, combined with the earnest pedagogy of those trained in expert teaching methods, imparting expertly-designed curricula designed by experts. EXPERTS, I say, you haters.

When these forces combine – aided and abetted by moneyed interests and powerful institutions – the skulls full of mushah, I mean, young minds eager for Truth and Beauty become Compassionate with a capital K. Which, in our current age, seems to mean they blame those who came before them for the evils they’ve been told they’ve taken in with their mother’s milk. Or formula, for those who swing that way (it should have been milk, which is Sustainable and Green and Good for the Earth and the Environment, not that you’d care, you backward clingers. I bet you’re personally responsible for Global WarmingClimate Change the Coming Ice Age, aren’t you!) Logic tends to be absent, as that would get in the way of hating people, instead of hating ideas. Classism, sexism, and racism are taught in oblique and sidelong ways, reducing individuals with agency to simple cogs in the great human machine. Women are interchangeable, men are interchangeable, one white person with another, one black person with another, and everyone exists for the furtherance of the quest for power. After which, when differences are finally abolished by imperial fiatdeclaration of the people, guided by the benevolent hand of the Great ManWomanPerson, that power can be given up and we can all have a big picnic, join hands and sing an appropriately non-discriminatory, non-patriarchal, non-white kumbaya.

The means for the Guiding Hand (or appendage of your preference) to acquire this power is through hate. Simple, ugly hate. Hate the White Men who kept black people in slavery, who conquered and raped and pillaged and took to enrich themselves. Hate the white men today who didn’t commit those atrocities, since they benefitted from them (any benefit you derived is both just and far too little compared to what you deserve). Hate the white women, who also benefited (but not too much, since they’re women and therefore oppressed throughout the world) and the cultures that enabled them to do all these horrible things.

And of course, the key is to do it under a cloak of inclusiveness and diversity. Mandatory diversity. It doesn’t matter who is actually best for the job, so long as you get you checklist all checked.

Look, I don’t hate leftists. On the contrary, I have many friends who lean in that direction (and the “I can’t be racist: I have plenty of [COLOR] friends” defense and how that somehow proves racism needs its own post at some point) and we often have good times discussing – if not political philosophies – then shared interests. Shows they can’t be too far to the left, as those who consider Lenin to be a bit too conservative embody the “everything is political” mentality.

No, I don’t hate the people; I detest the philosophy into which most of them have bought. The idea I lampooned above, in which those who disagree are accorded a moral status somewhere between child rapists and parasitic insects. In which people are not people, but widgets. It’s pernicious, that notion. And it’s infected the far right, as well. Just read the comments. Not here, as we have far higher standards of taste. Or at least, of grammar. No, the comments on more mainstream conservative publications. They attitudes are often the same as you’ll find on any from the Daily Kos, Slate or the Huffington Post. Lots of ad hominem attacks, lots of unreasoning anger, lots of advocacy of violence.

It’s not helpful, and playing by the Left’s book is akin to getting into a battle of wits with a fool. I, for one, don’t want to be dragged down to their level and beaten with experience. Or even with a board with a nail in.

Working against us are out deep suspicion of institutions and our consequent tendency to not organize sufficiently. This was pointed out in the comments – two days ago? – where it was observed that while we think of people as individuals with personal agency, our enemies move in lockstep with locked minds and hobbled feet.

And there’s an advantage. They’re big, but they aren’t nimble. Far from it. Look at how Larry’s Sad Puppies 2 campaign got the entirety of literary (as in those who read books and involve themselves in the process, not lit-er-a-choor) scifi fandom in an uproar. He predicted their actions and reactions, and they did exactly as he said they would. He had genuine flexibility of thought on his side, and all they could do was react as their programming dictated. We’re seeing this in national and global politics, where the champions of the left institute policies, and when those fail, they flail about. They attempt to rewrite history. Not “100 years ago” history, but “last year” history. Living memory is mutable (ask Speaker, or ping the elder Hoyt Spawn) but it’s hard to change recordings of the Placeholder in Chief saying “yes” one year, and “no” the next on the very same subject.

What does this have to do with hating, or rather, not hating our neighbors? We – and here that’s the greater we of all those the left would re-educate given half an opportunity – need to not resort to the tactics of our enemies. Not wholesale, at least. There’s a high road, and we should be on it. At least when it comes to motivation, and somewhat in our actions. I think we do fairly well, here. Honestly, our biggest dustups have been family affairs where we’ve disagreed with each other on relatively minor points. But in the greater community of Odds (and of Targets of the Left, and don’t think the categories don’t have a parity approaching one) we need to be, if not voices of compromise, then voices of reason. Ambassadors of good will, though never quislings to our principles.

Basically, we don’t hate the people. These are our neighbors, our family, and our friends. They’ve made choices with which we cannot agree, and that certainly creates friction. Heated words will be said; names called. That’s inevitable, especially when dealing with humans. But. Don’t stoop to hate. Not of the people. Don’t hold them in contempt. Shun them if you must, consider them wastes of flesh and air, but be careful you do not erase their humanity in your displeasure. If for no other reason than that we are not them. We do not do as they do. Don’t hate thy neighbor.

89 thoughts on “Hate Thy Neighbor – Dave Pascoe

  1. Specifically, hating anybody one is directed to hate

    Yup

    Which, in our current age, seems to mean they blame those who came before them for the evils they’ve been told they’ve taken in with their mother’s milk.

    Yup

    Hate the White Men who kept black people in slavery, who conquered and raped and pillaged and took to enrich themselves.

    I’ve heard it said more than once that America was founded by slaveowners and got rich because of the work done by slaves. It is one of the many lies taught that must be rebutted.

    A good way to start is by pointing out that slavery was the legal in every one of the 13 Colonies by order of our British overseers. Once independence was declared, laws started being passed against slavery starting with Pennsylvania in 1780 (while the Revolution was still underway).

    By the time of the Constitution, or very soon after, seven of the 13 original colonies had taken steps to end slavery.

    The colonies that didn’t end slavery became the poorer and weaker part of the nation hence their defeat in the Civil War four score and seven years after the founding.

    To say that America was founded on slavery or got rich off of slavery is laughable on its face when history is looked at honestly.

    It should be further noted that the South was backward and agrarian during the Jim Crow era and never did become an economic engine until it ended.

      1. As you say, ultimately slavery is simply uneconomical in the long run. Unfortunately, with the development of Whitney’s cotton gin that crop became very valuable and required massive amounts of hand labor to grow and harvest which was a huge incentive for slavery on the larger plantations. Once the production of cotton was mechanized that single economical factor would have disappeared, and slavery would have died out as it was in the process of doing everywhere else. That it still exists in many parts of the world today is absolutely counter intuitive from an economical sense, but says volumes from a social and cultural perspective, as well as a reliable indicator of the evil that mankind is capable of.
        Interesting story regarding cotton and the southern mindset. When I moved to the South I studies its history as best I could. During the great depression the bottom fell out of the cotton market. I assumed that southern farmers, like those I’d known in the midwest, would have planted large truck gardens to at least provide for themselves and families. Not so, I discovered. What they did was plow up their yards to plant even more cotton. The attitude was that only sharecroppers raised their own food. Real landowners sold their crop and bought their foodstuffs. Still run into some of that today. My town finally put in a mass transit bus system because they kept getting beat up in national reviews for the lack. But when you look at the routes they are all designed for the disadvantaged. Having lived in cities where everyone rode bus, metro, light rail, or such I miss the ability to occasionally leave the car at home. Raised the point with some long term residents and invariably got, “but why would you ever even want to ride a bus when you have a perfectly good automobile?” Eventually marked that as simply a subject to avoid.

        1. What reason do you have for imagining the VileProgs grasp economics, or order their affairs through its practice? Mostly it seems to serve as post-hoc justification/explanation for them.

          For many the primary benefit of slave-holding is the sense of superiority it grants, a benefit money cannot otherwise buy.

          1. For many the primary benefit of slave-holding is the sense of superiority it grants, a benefit money cannot otherwise buy.

            Two observations – I think transference along these lines explains a lot of the vitriol from the progressive camp, as it does on other issues that resolve to power and restraint. They cannot conceive of not wanting this power and resulting status over other human beings, so everyone else must want it too.

            And second, interestingly this is almost word for word the explanation offered to me by an Egyptian engineer now living in the US when I asked him why anyone would want to follow Moslem tradition and marry more than one wife.

          2. They grasp the inevitable result of poor economic planning quite well just as soon as it impacts their lifestyle. Such would have given up slavery simply because it was unsustainable, not out of any altruistic consideration as that is foreign to them.
            Their significant blind spot, unfortunately for the rest of us, is that when they do start to feel the pinch their immediate reaction is to steal everything they can get their hands on.
            Thinking on what I just wrote, as the vileprogs plans always fail and they always claim it’s because we didn’t try hard enough, spend enough, they will always feel the pinch, and will always attempt to steal everything they possibly can. Trouble is the fable about that golden egg laying goose just does not translate into vileprog speech, so there is nothing stopping them from destroying the very things that fund their madness. A self correcting situation for certain, but not without painful cost for both them and we innocent bystanders.

        2. Raised the point with some long term residents and invariably got, “but why would you ever even want to ride a bus when you have a perfectly good automobile?”

          Depends a lot on what the other folks riding it think– folks tend to live up, or down, to what they think the expectations are.

          I considered using transit over here at one point– then I started paying attention to the folks at the bus stops… would NOT want to be in a small area with them, let alone a small area that’s on four wheels. Even without kids, I’ve got “Good Victim” scrawled on my forehead.

          I think that’s part of why there’s a push for light rail. The riders expect something different, so even though it’s horribly inefficent compared to buses they tax anyone with a car to get it. (Plus the sales tax, plus…. K, I’m digressing.)

          1. Light rail works in certain situations (I’m thinking of the Denver setup, which is consistently rated top or near-top for public transit in the U.S.) It works really well for fixed locations that are not going to move, such as stadiums—in Denver, you have park & rides at the outer corners, and direct routes to all the major sports venues. Huge boon to sports fans who don’t want to fight traffic. There’s also a couple of areas of high-density business, such as downtown and the Denver Tech area. So in cases such as that, light rail is perfect because it won’t need to move over decades of time. But buses are more flexible in many circumstances, unless the routes are badly designed. (We live eight miles away from my husband’s work along a major thoroughfare, but our local bus system (we’re not in Denver anymore) is a “hub” system rather than a grid, so for my husband to take a bus would require ninety minutes to two hours of travel time, which is ridiculous.)

            1. I have a lot easier time of it on bus travel, since I work in downtown. There are Park&Rides for express routes which have less than 5 (I don’t really know how many, but that sounds about right) stops between the P&R and downtown. Takes 15-30 minutes for the 10 mile ride, counting rush hour traffic.

            2. Here in Seattle it seems like not two weeks go by that there isn’t a “XYZ light rail is off line because of a rockslide” type announcement.

              Heck, if they’d just go the GoogleBus route and require subscriptions for people to ride it would be better….

            3. There essentially two kinds of “light rail”. One is run along dedicated corridors and only stops at fixed stations at more-or-less set times. The other is imbedded in the middle of surface streets and stops at stations and stoplights.

              The former “works” most of the time because it can funnel people into a moderately dense urban core and then fan them back out to less dense housing areas faster than driving and cheaper than having to pay to park.

              I’m facing (at the end of September) having to commute downtown 3-4 days a week, and living near Buckley AFB, no, the Denver light rail doesn’t work (it doesn’t work for me, therefore it DOES NOT WORK!!!! (Only 4)).

              These sorts of systems work especially well if the metro area and the government allow people (meaning companies, families and organizations) to alter their lives around it. Which is to say build the stuff and let it run a generation. This allows developers to put housing of various sorts near the stations knowing that they’ll have people who want to use it for a long time.

              The sorts of “light rail” that are embedded in public roads absolutely suck, almost never work out well for the community, but “work” in the sense that they flow tax dollars to consultants and developers. Anyone advocating that sort of system is either a fraud or an idiot.

            4. Out here in Silicon Valley the light rail setup is basically A) kinda-sorta a mechanism to feed the hockey venue, and B) a feeder for the folks who transfer to a commuter train line up to San Francisco.

              What it does not do is effectively transport to either of the current largish employment hubs, basically up towards Apple/Google/Facebook-land (which are not close together at all, but are generally in the same general direction) or up another direction towards where Cisco’s center of mass lies, which has a fair number of other cubicle-farm companies in the same area.

              If this area had a structure where all the work was in the official downtown area, the hub-and-spoke light rail routes that were constructed would be perfect, but there are only a few companies, like Adobe, that are really downtown.

              Overall, the hugely vast majority drives. Not recognizing that, which is basically the premise behind our light rail system, is why it runs mostly empty all the time.

          2. I rode the bus occasionally in the last couple of years when I was working for someone else – and it was both horrifically inconvenient. It took me an hour and a half to get too and from work, whereas with my car it was a commute of half an hour, maybe even twenty minutes off-rush-hour. From my neck of the woods, there was only one bus an hour. Fail to catch it – I was screwed.
            There were also three transfers involved – and at least one stop with some … interesting denizens waiting for it. I think they were drug addicts, judging by their … appearance and conduct.
            It disturbed me that I was usually the only person wearing a business suit riding that bus. On the upside, the driver/conductor usually recognized me after a couple of days and produced the transfer ticket without me asking for it.
            Unless public transport is fast, convenient, reliable … those who have any choice at all won’t touch it with a ten-foot pole. Just my .02.
            Likely why the prog-rulers-that-be are so keen on public transportation. They wish to remind us of how small and helpless that we really are.

            1. Reliable, quick and inexpensive were the trinity that came to my mind– and I consider “very low chance of being assaulted” to be part of “reliable.”

              Folks will accept just two of the three, but only those with no option will take only one.

                1. What is it with authors and that part of Colorado? I mean Heinlein, L. Neil Smith, and the Hoyt’s, its ridiculous. I know Colorado has more than its fair share of weird but really.

                    1. If California could charge an export tax on weird, or better yet on crazy politics they wouldn’t have budget issues.

                    1. Lady, you lead a horde and fling carp. You’re female but conservative and Damien hates you. That’s weird. Not bad but weird. 🙂

                2. Never used the buses in the Springs but I lacked a car at one period in the Denver area. It still seriously annoys me when people “praise” the idea of “mass transit” for everybody.

                    1. Surely you don’t expect the commissars and high party members to ride with the hoi polloi, do you?

            2. The automobile is freedom in the American psyche. The road still speaks to that part of us we inherited from brave ancestors who braved seas and crossed continents. That part that says “if it gets too bad, you can always leave.” Independence and hope, that is the auto, the two intangibles the left truly want to crush.

              1. Bah. In Portugal: small roads, unorganized traffic, hellish parking situation, no one takes the bus who can afford to drive. Because EVERY bus service in the world I’ve ever tried becomes capricious, impossible to deal with, slow and unsafe.

                1. Well, that too but you must admit the American love affair with cars is part of our national makeup.

                2. Cars are about flexibility, accommodating change. Transit is about predictability, cost. Different strokes for different folks – but most peoples’ lives are made better with at least some ability to accommodate change easily.
                  The statists like control, which is easier with predictability, so they tend to ignore or deprecate the need for flexibility.

          3. Pulled a hitch in D.C., worked downtown and lived in Virginia across the river. Never drove to work, always took the Metro. That system is light rain done right, well policed, kept clean and efficient. But D.C. has the business and population density to support such a system. Very few places in the US meet that requirement.
            Spent a good bit of time in a college town with a central business district, a concentrated system of college buildings, and a collection of bedroom communities. They had a bus system that did continuous loops every 20 minutes or so. Great system for students and such, but it worked mainly due to a very compatible layout of destination nodes.
            What the powers that be in my current town of residence did was lay out a bus system that connects the projects, the malls, the government offices, and not much else. Anyone that works for a living simply cannot get from home to work without a long involved series of transfers. The PTB see nothing wrong with this, and point to poor usage of the system as justification for why it was a bad idea in the first place.

            1. *nod* The thing that made me believe that it’s a matter of expectations is the bus in Pensacola– I took the one from the base to the mall all the time. Now realize that folks were horrified because they were on *all the other buses,* not the one with a bunch of young, strong, sober, lose-your-job-for-being-stupid guys.

    1. Slavery is an economically-inefficient way of arranging for labor, compared to the employment of free workers. This is disguised from the point of view ofthe slaveowners because:

      (1) It offers them immediate status rewards; they have the power of life and death over other human beings (something they know even if they construct elaborate theories denying their slaves’ humanity), making not only their slaves but other free people see them as a superior class. One also gets the power to abuse them in ways which no free workers would tolerate This was IMO the biggest reason why slavery in the Old South long outlasted the historical point where the economy was still simple enough for it to be an even remotely efficient or sane organizational choice.

      (2) There is an obvious front-end benefit; when you have bought the hale young slave he can work for you and you don’t need to do anything but give him food. What’s less obvious is that you’re going to have to take care of him when he’s sick or injured, or lose your sizable investment, and that if you don’t keep on taking care of him when he’s too old to work you are likely to face rebellion or flight by the other slaves who — being human — can figure out that they will be old and helpless too someday.

      (3) It’s also hard to see how the economy will change in the future. A big property employing free laborers can change its mix of crops or even its committment to farming as opposed to making money off land other ways with ease, simply by hiring, firing or retraning employees as required. A slave plantation can’t do this, because slaves are purchased (or born) not hired; if one manumits or simply abandons them one loses huge capital investments (even if they were born to your plantation, since the slaves had to divert effort to bearing and caring for them), and slaves have no incentive to accept retraining and every incentive to sabotage your efforts.

      (4) This leads into the biggest purely economic problem with slavery, which is that if you motivate slaves by financial incentives they will work for their manumission (and hence no longer be slaves after a time); if you don’t, then your only incentive by which to motivate them is negative (“pick this cotton or get whipped”). Negative motivation, applied to beings as smart as any other humans, is just asking for sabotage. Which is precisely what slaves in the Old South did. They managed to make their labor worth far less than its theoretical maximum value by breaking tools, deliberately doing jobs wrong, and so forth. What was worse, as one of the justifications for the slave system was the supposed incompetence and stupidity of the slaves, there was a limit to the extent that one could call them on it.

      Finally,

      (5) The most insidious way in which slavery made the South poor was the effect that it had on the Southern whites. It made them despise rational intelligence, because rational intelligence would lead them to condemn their own system as immoral: in particular they destroyed their own freedom of speech to prevent other white people from condemning the slave system. It raised the young of their upper classes in an environment where they were surrounded by slave servants, corrupting their own morals with the obvious temptations of absolute power, and leading to adults who had grown up in the belief that they could get whatever they wanted by just demanding it in a sufficiently imperious manner.

      This led to exactly the same contempt for manual labor as did Classical slavery, with exactly the same effects on economic and technological development: it choked it off. The rich whites wouldn’t dream of being seen doing manual labor (an attitude which started in the late 18th century and had become crippling by the tmid 19th century) and the poor whites emulated the laziness of the rich whites as much as possible. What’s more, both rich and poor whites scorned education, and there was thus only a tiny native pool of potential clerks and mechanics to run an advanced capitalist economy.

      The South’s weaknesses were made manifest in the most direct fashion in the American Civil War. And the smaller population of the South can also be blamed on slavery — slavery was a less attractive system both for European immigrants and diplomatically for the several States. Only those States dependent on slave plantation agriculture were likely to feel enough secessionist sentiment to join the Confederacy, or even to try all that hard to remain neutral. Elections are non-violent civil wars, and the American Civil War can be viewed as the most violent election America ever had. And the slaveholders lost that election.

      1. Another question I like to ask leftists: Is slavery business or government?

        They invariably say “business”.

        I say well if you think of the slaves as assets and inventory to be amortized or merchandized you will consider it business. If you think of the slaves as human beings compelled through force to behavior they otherwise not choose you will consider it government.

        It usually shuts them up.

      2. ” One also gets the power to abuse them in ways which no free workers would tolerate”

        OTOH, that is very rare for sanity reasons. People tend to be harder on rental cars than their own. Sure, you could take a sledgehammer to your own car if you so choose, but — why would you?

        There were jobs in the South that were deemed too dangerous for slaves. (So you hired Irishmen.)

  2. “As the good Lord said, love they neighbor. Unless thy neighbor is a white Christian cismale heteronormative Republican, in which case, kill the bastard!”

  3. Yes– I saw an interesting notion in effect in the early 90s. If you have color then you can’t be racist. In the same token if you didn’t have color you were automatically privileged and successful. As a person who grew up in a trailer and backwoods, I disagree.

  4. Kumbaya, you guys, Kumba . . . oh, wait. I use “guys” as a gender neutral collective, but some people might not understand, and be offended.

    Kumbaya, you peeps, Kumbaya . . .

  5. Quoting Prof. Walter Raleigh (yes, that really was his name):

    I wish I loved the Human Race;
    I wish I loved its silly face;
    I wish I liked the way it walks;
    I wish I liked the way it talks;
    And when I’m introduced to one
    I wish I thought, “What Jolly Fun!”

    Or, as Ebenezer Scrooge would say, “Bah! Humbug!”

    1. You’ve got to be taught to hate
      To hate all the people your relatives hate
      You’ve got to be carefully taught.

      Exhibit 3 in the “It’s a warning not an action plan” file

  6. Taking the high road doesn’t prohibit us from mining the low road does it?
    There comes an end to civility. These people will kill, imprison and utterly destroy us if given the chance. Never forget this. The millions of victims of the left forgot to their detriment. The homegrown version is even more destructive as they will turn your progeny on you as well.

    1. Yeah, maybe it’s the sites I frequent, but the “violent rhetoric” I hear from the right is focused on defense, not starting anything. I see lefties demanding government round up all the “stupid red-neck gun owners” and the right responding that they won’t go quietly.

  7. I take great umbrage at your assumption that there is a guiding appendage. Right thinking people know that all knowledge and wisdom issues forth from hoo-has that glitter. Out with the outies, in with the inies!

    Or so I’ve heard time and time again from a certain group of somewhat opinionated folk who might just have an agenda of sorts motivating them.

    1. To be fair, in their formative teen years, they saw lots of behavior from cismale heteronormatives that appeared to be guided by those GHH’s.

  8. Hate is the enemy of Reason.

    Reason is the enemy of our “enemies”.

    The enemy of our “enemy” is our ally. Do not cripple allies.

  9. Look at how Larry’s Sad Puppies 2 campaign got the entirety of literary (as in those who read books and involve themselves in the process, not lit-er-a-choor) scifi fandom in an uproar. He predicted their actions and reactions, and they did exactly as he said they would.BLOCKQUOTE>
    There is a word for what Mr. Correia did: Breitbarting.

    It means comprehending the opponent’s playbook so thoroughly that you not only operate inside their OODA Loop, you can twirl it.

    1. Dang! What the heck happened to the </ in front of that second BLOCKQUOTE?

      Sigh, I was being so careful, too.

          1. No, that would be interfering with even beginning a blockquote, not with successfully culminating it. This is more like pria-quotism.

            Yeah, I know I’m going to language hell for that one.

                    1. Exactly.

                      Of course, the soaped carp would need to sprout two wings to be able to alter it’s ballistic trebuchet-imparted trajectory and miss Wayne, but that would strain the rhyme, so, sorry Wayne…

  10. We – and here that’s the greater we of all those the left would re-educate given half an opportunity – need to not resort to the tactics of our enemies. Not wholesale, at least. There’s a high road, and we should be on it.

    Amen.

    If we do, we lose what makes us any better.

    Rather die at the foot of the hill than be killed fleeing.

          1. The problem is not that it capitalized the “I”s, it’s that you used square brackets. WordPress doesn’t convert those in comments. You need to use angle brackets ( “<” and “>”). Then it will show up italicized correctly.

            1. Thank you. I was thinking message board when I was using the tablet and not WordPress. Was also still working on my morning coffee. 😦

  11. Dear Dave,

    I haven’t read more than the first couple of paragraphs and I feel this desperate, burning urge to tell you it’s your fault that my keyboard just got done being wiped clean of hot chocolate. Well, partially. My brain, which seems to enjoy tormenting me, voiced the whole flouncy rant you wrote in the most flamingly effete gay voice that would not have been out of place on Will And Grace.

    That was hilarious. (Seriously. Pinky swear.)

    Cheers,
    Shadowdancer.

Comments are closed.