It is NOT the end of the world as we know it. -Amanda Green

It is NOT the end of the world as we know it. -Amanda Green


Over the last few days, something strange has been happening here at According to Hoyt. Instead of the usual collection of folks who take umbrage at anything Sarah says because she is too conservative or too white or too much of a traitor to her sex (or whatever the current attack of the day might be), there has been a spate of folks coming here and telling her she doesn’t understand. She doesn’t understand US institutions. She doesn’t understand history. She doesn’t understand tyranny. Well, you get my drift.

If got so bad at one point yesterday that I checked to make sure I hadn’t fallen down the rabbit hole. Nope, I was still where I belonged and not a rabbit or a Mad Hatter was to be seen. So, I checked usernames and even asked her for a couple of IPs to see if some of those commenting weren’t actually some of our favorite trolls just trying a new tact in an attempt to trip us up.

As far as I could tell, that didn’t appear to be the case, at least not for the most part. So did someone put something in the water or are we just in a very long full moon? I’m not sure but here’s what I think about their objections – thhhppp!

Okay, my mama taught me better manners than that. So let’s see if I can be a bit more verbal in my response. Sarah knows better than most anyone who comes to this blog what tyranny is. She understands, because she has lived through such things, the impact a revolution can have on a country. She knows what it is like to have friends and family simply disappear because they didn’t say or do the approved thing. To accuse her of not understanding tyranny is to show your own ignorance, or maybe your self-appointed superiority.

But I’m not here to defend Sarah. She can do so much more eloquently than can I.

What I do want to address is the idea that the creation of a viable third party would solve all our ills as well as the belief that collapse and revolution are the only options left for us. Third parties and independent candidates have come and gone since the founding of our nation. In recent memory, we have the presidential campaign of Ross Perot in 1992. That year, George Bush was squaring off against Bill Clinton. For a time, he pulled better polling numbers than either of his opponents. I remember how everyone was looking at him and declaring him the first viable third party candidate for president since Teddy Roosevelt.

But polls don’t always translate into votes and votes don’t always translate into Electoral College votes. Despite the fact Perot received more votes than any third party or independent candidate since TR, he received no – I repeat NO – electoral votes. And, folks, without electoral votes, no one, no matter how many popular votes they can, get be elected president. That is the strength and the weakness of our system. It is also why we won’t have a third party president for a very long time. For that to happen, we have to start at the grassroots level by focusing at our local then our state and then our federal elected offices.

It isn’t something that will happen overnight. In fact, we have a better chance of changing the Republican Party from the inside before that happens. Oh, wait, there is a movement already in place that is trying to do just that. It’s called the Tea Party and it has been making strides on the local and state level. This past election showed that it is starting to get a foothold on the national level as well. But until it has enough members on the Hill to get key committee appointments, legislation penned by its members can and will be hung up in committee.

Unless, of course, we make enough noise at home and the incumbents start realizing that we are no longer satisfied with the status quo.

Of course, there is another side to this. Those members of the Tea Party – or any other non-traditional win of either party – have to stop coming across like screaming lunatics. That will scare folks off even more quickly than the hatred of the status quo.

As for the stance that America is about to fall into collapse and the only way to avoid it is to revolt now, well, get real. Yes, times will get tough if things continue as they are right now. But this won’t be the first time this country has faced hard times, nor will it be the last. However, if you really think we can go into armed conflict here and not have outside forces taking advantage of it, you are more than naïve. The moment we turn on one another, our allies will step back and wait for the dust to clear. They will no more want to get involved until they see where the cards are falling than they want such rebellion in their own lands.

But our enemies – and gawd do we have enemies – will leap into the fray with one intent. They will use the desire to tear down the government to destroy our country. It won’t be like the movies either. They won’t invade Denver and leave the rest of the country alone. No, our bases overseas will be attacked. Our trade with other countries will be disrupted. Debt will be called in.

Do you really think ISIS and its ilk will sit still in their neck of the world and wait for the dust to settle here? Oh hell no. They will use the cover of our own fighting to move in and destroy what makes this country great. Lives will be lost, many more than most of you think. I don’t know about you, but I’ll do just about anything to keep that from happening.

So instead of sitting there, whining about how bad things are and how there is nothing we can do, I challenge you to quit sitting on your hands and start trying to change things. How many of those who attacked Sarah for not understanding the current situation have actually tried to run for office or have served on local or state committees where change can be implemented? How many have actually been to countries where tyranny is an everyday reality?

Am I saying there is nothing to be worried about? Far from it. I am not liking one little bit a lot of things that have happened the last twenty plus years in this country. But I am seeing steps being attempted to change things. Unless and until I see the president, whoever he or she might be, announcing that martial law has been declared and elections have been cancelled, I will continue to believe that we can implement change without actually taking to the streets in open rebellion.

Color me naïve is you will, but I have seen what real oppression looks like and we are far from it in this country. Can we get there? Yes, given time and an electorate that decides there is no reason to stand up and make those running for office take note that we are tired of things going as they are.

Otto von Bismark said, “People never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election.” So study the voting records of your elected officials. Let them know that you are keeping track of what they do and will not hesitate to vote them out if they fail to vote in the way that best represents their constituents. Learn all you can about the candidates – from all sides of the spectrum. Has that candidate for city council lived in your town for long? Has he or she attended council meetings, taken part in city planning sessions, have they even voted in the last umpteenth elections? If not, ask yourself why they want to run for office and what their qualifications are? Listen to what their platform is and question them. Go to the meet the candidate functions and see if they actually show up to those or if they are ghost candidates. In other words, do your homework.

Then go out and spend time trying to get the candidate on whom you can place your confidence in elected. Vote. Volunteer to be a poll watcher. You don’t have to be the “official” watcher. It is those who watch the watchers who actually help keep the system from breaking down too much. Most of all, if you see something going on, whether it is in violation of the election laws or is your elected official not doing his job, don’t be afraid to speak up. Shout it from the rooftops, but do it only when it is a valid complaint and it is best if you do so when you have something to back you up.

In other words, quit bellyaching and then not doing anything else. That simply makes you part of the problem, a very annoying part.

289 responses to “It is NOT the end of the world as we know it. -Amanda Green

  1. I personally have thoroughly enjoyed the last few days. Great entertainment. And Sarah IMHO has more than held her own, as is only fitting since it is her domain hearabouts. My only fear is that it takes her away from her primary job which at this time I believe is to get and remain healthy, care for the family, and write some kick a$$ books. Troll thumping and SJW fantasy trashing is great sport as long as it’s not taken too seriously, so I say bring it. If it starts to elevate blood pressures then there is always YouTube kitty porn to calm us back down.

    • It has been fun, from the sidelines. But it has also been enlightening in a sad sort of way to see those folks coming here, accusing Sarah of being something she isn’t — or of having done things she hasn’t — and to see how that impacts her. You are right. She needs to be focusing on getting well and on writing. Instead, her attention has been here, trying to explain what she said to folks who don’t want to listen. Oh well, I say we play whack-a-troll. That would be fun for at least us. 😉

      • I read a little bit of it on Saturday, then decided I had more productive things to do. It’s not like anything was being solved.

    • BobtheRegisterredFool

      Boom, boom, chicka, chicka, meow, meow.


  2. It’s always a lot more fun to damn everything than it is to put your head down and shove. And the prospect of years of steady political activism is far less alluring than the prospect of, as P.J. O’Rourke put it in another context, running around the hills with a Kalishnikov.

    • Absolutely, until you realize the other side is shooting back and they might just be a better shot than you are. Something those advocating an armed uprising don’t always think about.

      • Having known a number of Soldiers (and Sailors, and etc) over the years, my benchmark for “time to start an armed uprising” is “Has the Army decided it’s had enough?”. That might change if the LIRPs ever showed signs of making real headway in the military subculture. In the meanwhile, it has the advantage of insuring that, in the event of an armed uprising, I’ll be on the side with the better shots.

      • Running around in the hills with a rifle isn’t appealing at all. I don’t think anyone is advocating a revolution. They’re only saying it will happen.

        • Oh there are a couple of lunatics that are (I think, they aren’t very coherent) advocating for one, but you are right none of the regulars are, although some of us think it will probably happen.

          I myself say it is preventable, and we need to work at preventing it, but I don’t think we will be successful. To use a metaphor it is like a football team that is down 17 points at the two minute warning. They shouldn’t just give up, they can still win, I’ve seen Joe Montana and the 49ers do it, as well as a couple of others; but if I was placing bets, I’d be betting against them. But they better play hard and give it their all, because that is the only way they have a chance of winning.

          • BobtheRegisterredFool

            I haven’t been paying enough attention to the newbies to be certain that there is more than one of them.

          • I’m not sure the score is as uneven as you think. The thing is there are a lot of quiet people out there. Quiet people with strong opionions and I”m seeing signs of them getting fed up. I’m also seeing signs of kids in schools realizing they’re being sold a bill of goods and checking things out for themselves.

            Also, a friend is in teaching, and Academia is actually starting to swing back to more even handed treatments of history, at least out here. The signs are there, but societies do not move rapidly most of the time. I think we’re in for a rough ride, but I don’t think we’ll crash and burn.

            • EXACTLY Wyrbard. Being in touch with the younger generation (What, I mentor. Also, I like kids so anything eight and up tends to talk to me. I talk to them like adults, you know?) we won’t crash and burn. I won’t see us where I wish we were, but my grandkids might. Ca Ira.

  3. People who want revolution from the ugly two party system remind me of couples I have known who have nasty personalities in a horrible marriage because nobody should want to be married to either of them who decide that to repair it they will now have children – and that will somehow magically make everything right.
    They are predictably wrong, but it still happens against all good advice often enough that most of us of a certain age have seen multiple examples. The electorate if they are aroused sufficiently may provide the commonly cited 3% necessary to create chaos and fighting in the street.
    Just like the aforementioned couples can not be dissuaded, the elements of society who want to burn it all down are short on reasonably listening and heavy on lighters.
    I admire Sarah and Amanda for their optimism, but have to point out that we also have multiple models in history and the present world – Greece being a current example – of governments who promise change when the people demand it and then lie to them and enrage them by doing exactly what the bums they just threw out did. So I have little hope people are going to suddenly act reasonably and come to agreement. It would interfere with the looting of everything by the avaricious class.

    • Mackey, I am anything but an optimist. However, I have seen what these folks so blithely say we already suffer here in the US. I know that just throwing our hands up in the air and saying we have to take up arms and overthrow the government isn’t the way to accomplish anything, not when we have so many folks who want to help us fall from the highest mountain already. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I do not have any wish to give ISIS or anyone else an opening to come marching through our land.

      • I suspect that those who advocate destroying the old and building anew don’t really know what would be entailed in successfully carrying off such a feat.

        • I get the sense that they kinda line up with the other end of the fringe in thinking that if the US withdraws behind its moats, the rest of the world will either go away, or play nicely with each other forever more.

      • What bothers me is that the new characters who are urging revolution are doing and saying exactly what a government agent provocateur would during the nastiest parts of European history.

        • Me too, Charles. And it makes my neck prickle.

        • Many if not most of the terrorist plots discovered have involved “law enforcement” encouragement leading to entrapment. I suspect the ones we really have to worry about are smarter than that. Sadly government provocateurs have a long history in America.

  4. “Those members of the Tea Party – or any other non-traditional win of either party – have to stop coming across like screaming lunatics.”

    The Democratic lapdogs we call the MSM have a vested interest in preventing that.

  5. Color me naïve is you will, but I have seen what real oppression looks like and we are far from it in this country.

    The fact that people can post posts openly expressing their desire for the violent overthrow of the government without repercussion should indicate something.

    • see my responses in the other thread 😀

    • Do not confuse an absence of action with an absence of interest. There is a long history of interest in those who look crossways at the government, from the 18th Century Alien and Sedition Acts through Fred the Feds at radical meetings. I don’t know if there was ever a skit where it turned out that a 1970s radical cell was made up entirely of undercover agents, but there should have been.

      • You know I get really tired of arguing both sides of an issue, but interest with absence of action is not tyranny.

        • The biggest problem I find with arguing both sides is that people seem to forget your points on one side or the other, and act like you’re solidly on one side, not merely trying to provide a balance to the viewpoint that someone else has given.

          I’ve even found myself defending Obama a couple of times against some over-the-top accusations (although that’s a pretty high bar to meet).

          • “I’ve even found myself defending Obama a couple of times against some over-the-top accusations (although that’s a pretty high bar to meet).”

            The problem with that is every time you think something is over the top, Obama raises the bar.

            • I’m baffled by the attacks I read on Michelle. Ok, she’s a Political Left nitwit, one each. But I run into attacks on her personal appearance.


              She’s the best looking First Lady in my lifetime. Doesn’t mean she isn’t an idiot; her school lunch program is a textbook example of why First Ladys should not foment policy. And she does have an unattractive snarl. Given the pillock she’s married to, I’m not surprised. But saying she’s ugly makes no sense.

              • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                It’s over-reaction IMO to the “Glorious Obama” mind-set.

                Mind you, when I saw Obama calendars (early in his first term) for sale, I thought “WTF?”.

                As in, why is a President (and his wife) so important to have calendars made of them?

                While I acknowledged the “importance of the First Black President”, I didn’t see it that important.

                Oh, while I didn’t vote for him, I also wouldn’t purchase calendars of a President I liked.

              • You have weird tastes in women?

              • Like most First Ladies and most politicians’ spouses, Michelle Obama has average good looks, and can rise to pretty and presentable if she puts in the effort. Effort involves a) smiling and b) dressing well. (For some reason, people don’t like a spousal unit to be too good-looking. Maybe envy, maybe worry about undue influence.)

                With her body type, and with the advantage of being able to buy tailored designer outfits, there is no reason why Michelle can’t look good wherever she goes. But she doesn’t. She usually wears awkward outfits or she misjudges formality. This is not what one expects from an African-American woman in the public eye, so it makes her look even worse than her outfits do. (Nor does she look awkward in an adorkable way which simply ignores fashion.) Oddly, she seems to assume that optical rules about prints versus solids, or color matching rules period, don’t apply to her because she is so awesome. Also it would be nice if they actually fit, or if she stopped having a love affair with trying to look like a sausage.

                Nor is this a matter of Michelle going with black fashion over white fashion. She is equally cackhanded with both. (To be fair, I think most of her hangers-on are not good fashion advisers. Her mom always dresses okay, though.)

                This makes the US look bad, and is an embarrassment to persons of her ethnic group. (It’s always pretty sad to see pictures of other black ladies meeting up with the First Lady, because she is routinely the most expensively and worst dressed, and they are routinely trying to look like they don’t notice.) Many women notice this, and tend to take it poorly. Some men notice it without noticing, and read her as ugly instead of realizing that she wears ugly clothes, or clothes that look ugly on her, or clothes that look ugly when put together.

                I will say that the woman never wears embarrassing makeup, so either she does a good job herself or she has a reliable helper. But that makes the lack of dress sense even more puzzling.

                • Oh, and her hair is always okay. Going minimal was a good practical decision that she seems to have made early in life. (Although not spending hours with a beautician does sorta cut her off from an important source of women’s knowledge and opinion, especially in the African-American community.)

                  • Now, I will say that in the last year or so, her hair has gotten to be an asset instead of neutral, and her fashion choices have gotten better. Since Sasha and Malia always look good, possibly they are helping out, or possibly someone has finally explained that she should usually wear solids in flattering colors and flattering silhouettes, instead of picking clothes for an imaginary woman who exists only in Michelle’s head.

                    But about half of her choices are still bad, and many of her clothes bunch up in a way you shouldn’t tolerate from a designer.

                    And I am one of the least fashion-minded women in Creation, so if I notice, everybody is noticing.

                  • I only started making cracks on her appearance when the magazines started hailing her as the most beautiful woman ever.

                  • Her hair is not minimal, it just looks that way. Since she’s African American, which generally means some European and/or Arabic genetics, she might have gotten lucky on the hair genes, but if she’s got the classic African hair, it takes a lot of work to get it like that. She’s getting it straightened and that requires massive amounts of moisturizing to keep it from breaking. A lot of the gals I know who look to have hair like hers actually wear wigs, which you can see she isn’t: you can see hairline in a number of those pics.

                    • I think she means “minimal” as compared to things like the ladies who work at the Galley in Pensacola– their hair tends to be awe-inspiring and elaborate.
                      (Really awe inspiring– I think I made a lady’s week when I stood there staring at her hair and finally asked how on earth she got her hair to do that. Thankfully she did take it the way it was meant, and apparently she told the other ladies, but I couldn’t help myself– the closest way I can describe her hair is that it was like a really elaborate wedding cake, and it managed this with the legally required hairnets.)

                      Those need to be relaxed and the hair protected, and then there’s the upkeep on the style– both weekly-servicing wise and the hoops you’ve got to jump through for sleeping.

                    • Yes, I meant minimal vs. hair-weaving and braids and piling up and such.

                      Although her current relaxing thing looks like it takes longer than what she was doing before.

                • I think that her obsession with obesity and nutrition have made her be criticized far more than she would be otherwise, because she is laying down dictates to things like the Education community, while her figure makes her not a very good spokesperson for the policies she pushes.

                  • Why does she HAVE policies? I search in vain for an office of the first lady in the constitution. But who pays any attention to that old rag anymore? It upsets be that she is FUNDED for this foolishness.

                    • I think it went something like:
                      First lady is well-known
                      Well known people have influence
                      Influence should be used for Nice Things
                      Nice Things are done by First Lady with her influence
                      All power is the same, so influence due to being famous for being married to the president should mean you have actual gov’t power.

                    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                      Add to this, “a dislike of the idle wealthy”.

                      Any wealthy woman had to be seen as more than “somebody who sits around enjoying her husband’s money”.

                      Never mind that a wealthy woman might be busy managing her husband’s household (even with servants doing the actual work), she had to be involved in “important work outside the household”.

                      The role of a “Social Matron” isn’t valued as much anymore so the First Lady had to be seen as active in some other role.

                      It didn’t have to be an actual political role but it did have to been seen as important.

                    • It probably dates to the old tradition of upper class women to have Causes to keep themselves occupied.

                    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard


                    • Presidents have policies; First Ladies have causes. Example: Ladybird Johnson’s Beautify America. Which led to decades of “A spot Ladybird missed” jokes.

                    • I thought most of that dealt with making sure her daughters weren’t riding in convertibles.

                      h/t to Robin Williams. 😀

                • Birthday girl

                  Michelle Obama’s Mirror has the scoop on how/why these things matter …

              • she’s not physically ugly, but not the stunner (to me) some have claimed, but her personality is fugly. That is one unpleasant woman. Even in a favorable photo or video, she comes across as a person I would not even deal with.

                • And personality does have an impact on attractiveness in the long run.

                  If Charlize Theron spent her days running me down as a person because I believe certain things, I’d find her to be the least attractive person on the planet.

              • She’s the best looking First Lady in my lifetime.


                Guess there’s all kinds of taste, but good heavens, I can’t agree. She’s not an ogre, but she dresses so badly that I can notice, and emphasizes stuff she oughtn’t, plus the facial expressions.

                • I actually feel sorry for her, because I recognize the fashion trap into which she’s fallen: it’s the “I’m famous so I must wear haute couture” trap, emphasized by the makers of haute couture who want a famous canvas on which to display their postmodernist art.

                  Sadly, wearable art is not the same as flattering clothing, and most designers in love with fame don’t give a damn about form or function or flattering the body. She didn’t railroad over the flattery and desires of the couturiers until she found a style that was functional and flattering, and is left with looking as ill-fitted as your average runway model.

                  I learned this lesson long ago, when at lunch with a very well dressed friend of mine. As we ate our salads at the Nordstrom’s cafe, she frowned in puzzlement at some giggling women walking past, and said softly: “Damn. That outfit is well over a thousand dollars, the shoes are at least three hundred, and it still looks like trash on her. Poor thing.”

              • William O. B'Livion

                Often the difference between ugly and pretty is attitude. She has one of the ugliest and most ungrateful attitudes since the Declaration of Independence.

                Many men also find typical black female characteristics to be unappealing.

                Many folks instinctively know that when attacking a man attack his masculinity (hence Obama is Gay) and when attacking a woman attack her appearance.

                She is not generally an attractive woman, but a large part of that is her attitude.

          • Wayne, shuttup. He TOTALLY is a space lizard. Sheesh.

            • No, no, I get that. 🙂

              I think they were trying to claim that he’s right handed, or something, when he’s totally a southpaw (in other words, I have no recollection of the details, I just remember having done it).

            • YOU TAKE THAT BACK!

              The Cardassians are pretty flipping bad, but they’re psycho in their patriotism– totally different from Obama.

              :very serious nod:

              • Christopher M. Chupik

                It’s always useful to have a Cardassian on your side.

                • Just not behind you…..

                  • Christopher M. Chupik

                    My favorite Garak quote is when Bashir tells him the story of the boy who cried wolf, and Bashir explains the moral:

                    “”Are you sure that’s the point, Doctor?”
                    “Of course. What else could it be?”
                    “That you should never tell the same lie twice.”

                    • Pretty much any time Garak was being a smart-mouth was my favorite Garak quote, including when Bashir shoots him– and he’s delighted. 😀

                      Fell in love with the character with the “Why, I pretend to be their friend– and then I shoot you. What? I read it in a book, once….”

                • You know I read that as “It’s always useful to have a Kardashian on your side.” the first time.

                • Patrick Chester

                  *tries to think of Garak as “on your side” and brain segfaults*

                  • He is rather a totalitarian Treebeard, isn’t he?

                  • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                    It’s quite simple. Garak is always on “his side”. You can trust him only when “his side” and “your side” need the same result. [Wink]

              • I apologize to the Cardassians for the insult.

        • Here’s a question: Was George III and North tyrants? The colonists thought so, especially when moving trials to the Admiralty Court. But where they really tyrants?

          We could make a strong argument that the US has never experienced true tyranny, in spite of the proposition that taxation without representation was tyranny.

          • “Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found. Liberty inheres in some sensible object; and every nation has formed to itself some favourite point, which by way of eminence becomes the criterion of their happiness. It happened, you know, Sir, that the great contests for freedom in this country were from the earliest times chiefly upon the question of taxing. Most of the contests in the ancient commonwealths turned primarily on the right of election of magistrates; or on the balance among the several orders of the state. The question of money was not with them so immediate. But in England it was otherwise. On this point of taxes the ablest pens, and most eloquent tongues, have been exercised; the greatest spirits have acted and suffered. In order to give the fullest satisfaction concerning the importance of this point, it was not only necessary for those who in argument defended the excellence of the English constitution, to insist on this privilege of granting money as a dry point of fact, and to prove, that the right had been acknowledged in ancient parchments, and blind usages, to reside in a certain body called a House of Commons. They went much farther; they attempted to prove, and they succeeded, that in theory it ought to be so, from the particular nature of a House of Commons, as an immediate representative of the people; whether the old records had delivered this oracle or not. They took infinite pains to inculcate, as a fundamental principle, that in all monarchies the people must in effect themselves, mediately or immediately, possess the power of granting their own money, or no shadow of liberty could subsist. The colonies draw from you, as with their life-blood, these ideas and principles. Their love of liberty, as with you, fixed and attached on this specific point of taxing. Liberty might be safe, or might be endangered, in twenty other particulars, without their being much pleased or alarmed. Here they felt its pulse; and as they found that beat, they thought themselves sick or sound” Edmund Burke.

          • “In other countries, the people, more simple, and of a less mercurial cast, judge of an ill principle in government only by an actual grievance; here they anticipate the evil, and judge of the pressure of the grievance by the badness of the principle. They augur misgovernment at a distance, and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze. ” Edmund Burke

          • Well, other than the small settlements wiped out by Tory led Cherokee you might be right. Or maybe the colonial opponents to George that were put on prison ships?

            • There was also a bit of quid pro quo in South Carolina, so that’s not a good example. It was also war, and things go on in war that isn’t normally considered polite behavior. The jailing of political opponents also happened in the American Civil War, yet few would call Lincoln a tyrant.

              • BobtheRegisterredFool

                The British government wished to limit colonist expansion into areas they deemed set aside for Indians. This was actually one of the things the colonists had a problem with.

                There were other groups of Indians that decided to side with the Tories in that war. I recall that the group that scalped the girlfriend of a red coat was to the north.

                The Tyrant Lincoln narrative was absolutely critical to justifying what Democrats in the south did after Reconstruction. Okay, I think it was in his basic job requirements, but I have an expansive view of the Executive power.

                • Bob, in response to the Cherokee raids, one of my ancestors marched into Cherokee villages, killed the inhabitants, and burned them to the ground. This was in response to the Cherokee raids. Harsh, but it ended it. So when I speak of quid pro quo, it’s not an idle observation.

                  The point is whether this was tyranny. I submit it was war.

                  • BobtheRegisterredFool

                    I was not talking about Cherokee.

                    A fair amount of first generation immigrants had come from an endemic raiding warfare environment, or were not far removed from same. Many of these ended up on the frontier, in contact with Indian raiding parties.

                    England had become more settled.

                    The frontier populations lived where they pleased, and were in a bloody intermittent conflict with various Indian tribes.

                    At the time of the Revolution, England had the ambition of limiting the movements of the frontier populations. Controlling the frontier colonial populations this strictly would have required tyranny. If it was illegal to settle a place, they did it anyway.

                    Even if they could never have managed it, wanting may been tyranny anyway. Why? Because the reason they wanted it was for the welfare of Indian populations. Which were aliens, as you say, in a state of war with the population they actually governed.

                    • Burke famously pointed out that little problem:

                      “But if you stopped your grants, what would be the consequence? The people would occupy without grants. They have already so occupied in many places. You cannot station garrisons in every part of these deserts. If you drive the people from one place, they will carry on their annual tillage, and remove with their flocks and herds to another. Many of the people in the back settlements are already little attached to particular situations. Already they have topped the Appalachian Mountains. From thence they behold before them an immense plain, one vast, rich, level meadow; a square of five hundred miles. Over this they would wander without a possibility of restraint; they would change their manners with the habits of their life; would soon forget a government by which they were disowned; would become hordes of English Tartars; and, pouring down upon your unfortified frontiers a fierce and irresistible cavalry, become masters of your governors and your counsellors, your collectors and comptrollers, and of all the slaves that adhered to them. Such would, and in no long time must be, the effect of attempting to forbid as a crime and to suppress as an evil the command and blessing of providence, INCREASE AND MULTIPLY. Such would be the happy result of the endeavor to keep as a lair of wild beasts that earth which God, by an express charter, has given to the children of men.”

                    • The backdrop of that was the French and Indian War: Britain gained territory from France, and both the Indian allied with the French and Quebec was uneasy. The Indians for the huge issue in siding with France was they didn’t like their dealings with the British, and Quebec because they were Catholic. George III wanted to limit, and Britain made a deal with the Indians: No expansion, except by treaty, beyond such and such limit. This meant no settlers showing up on their doorsteps without permission. Colonists showed up anyway, were attacked by the Indians, and when they complained to the Crown were told they were where they had no business in the first place. Then Britain made a buffer zone in front of the boundary to limit confrontation.

                      After things heated up in the colonies, George III wanted to make sure Quebec didn’t join in the fun, and expanded their borders and allowed them to remain Catholic and basically keep French Law. Yes, it was also to punish the colonies, but it was also to keep a region that wanted no part of Britain and had few colonists from Britain from becoming rebellious.

                      Now: Neither fits the definition of tyranny. If so, then the US was guilty of the same in restricting expansion except by treaty. The US also went one better: Look up the Trans-Oconee Republic. The colonists like neither one, but when you come down to it, few Americans love every law that comes out of Washington, either. The difference to the colonists what that they had no say in these goings on by having no representation in Parliament.

                      If you’re looking for tyranny, you’ll find none in restricting settlement.

                    • . Colonists showed up anyway, were attacked by the Indians, and when they complained to the Crown were told they were where they had no business in the first place.

                      Dimes to donuts they were told that even if they’d already been there.

                    • No bet.

                    • BobtheRegisterredFool

                      The war between the frontier and the Indians had long predated the French and Indian wars.

                      George neither really knew where the frontier populations were, nor was really in control of them. His choice to cut a deal with the Indians was adhering to the enemies of the frontier.

                      Given the later use of Indian factions that committed atrocities against Tories, it wouldn’t at all be surprising if in absence of the revolution, George had armed tribes that would raid onto territory he would’ve supposedly be protecting,

                    • Europe had a long history of using Indians both as buffers and proxy troops. The Spanish relied heavily on the Apalachee, which was why the colonists and the Creeks targeted them in Queen Anne’s War. Later the British used the Creeks and Yamassee as a buffer, then that blew up in the Yamassee War, which likely why Oglethorpe used the idea of a buffer colony to sell the idea of Georgia.

                      So yeah, the British used Indians against the colonists, just as they had against the Spanish and the French. No surprise there. Just as they again used Indians against the Americans in the War of 1812. Was that tyranny? No, and is not a definition of tyranny,

                • BTW, the Lincoln part is the suspension of Habaes Corpus. When the court ruled against Lincoln, his first impulse was to jail the judge. He didn’t follow through with that, IIRC.

                  • BobtheRegisterredFool

                    There was that scheme that never went anywhere to assassinate Jeff Davis.

                    • In time of war, or, in the point of view of the North, in time of rebellion. There are very few niceties in war, not even the Pig War, where British and American military basically said “You’re fighting over a what?

              • “- yet few would call Lincoln a tyrant.”
                I would without hesitation.

              • There were a heck of a lot back then that called him a tyrant.

                • BobtheRegisterredFool

                  And while doing so explicitly is politically dangerous these days, there are a lot that hold to the underlying theories behind that label.

      • Did you know that the Alien and Sedition Act contributed substantially to the distruction the party that passed it?

    • Without repercussion? You sure? After all, unless you have 6 figures plus of spare cash ( or can convince someone like Judicial Watch) to go on a legal fishing expedition hoping they missed some e-mails, you’ll never know what drove the decision to audit you this year, to decide that landscaping your yard is an EPA or zoning violation, or that you’ve committed one of the three felonies a day that the myriads of regulations ensure you commit.

      It’s easy to enforce the law on people who are inclined to be law-abiding, which means those of us in the middle, mainly: We have enough to lose that there’s a real cost to breaking the rules, but we don’t have so much that we can conduct our personal and professional lives as though we had sovereign immunity. The people in the middle cannot go about their ordinary business — working at a job, driving a car, renting or owning a home, traveling — without preemptively complying with all manner of government mandates. But millions of illegals can flout the law with impunity — and their well-off enablers in Washington can flout the law with impunity, too. When the law does not apply to the lawmakers and law-enforcers, you are not being governed: You are being ruled.

      Read more at:

      This is about as far from BUSHITLER as you can get.

      And yes, you can work to elect better people, protest, etc.; I’ve done all of those things, and I’ll continue to do so. What should be sinking in is that that peaceful process works only as long as everyone is mostly playing by it, and there’s a growing block of data points that says our “rulers” aren’t even pretending to. What then?

  6. There are times when I remember an article about telling whether people were telling the truth by looking at their brain scans — lying uses different skill set, and so different parts of the brain — and sigh. How long will it take to make that science practical?

    Mind you, the technology percolating through society would produce stunningly ugly consequences. But I think the end result would improve society.

    • could never be used in court , at least not in the US.

      • Sure it could. Even now, voluntarily. Later — well, that’s the percolating process.

        I suspect that the first step might be demanding that police asking for warrants be told they need to verify that they actually had probable cause and weren’t just making it up.

        I would expect the Fifth Amendment to go down in flames. Possibly to be succeeded by one that requires the police to use the tech to verify that they have probable cause, and the lawyers that they aren’t engaged in fishing expeditions or some such.

        Especially when some idiot criminals try to use the tech because they are so conceited that they think they can beat it.

        • The early Telzey stories deal extensively with lie detectors in court.

          • And with how one could possibly maintain rights. Although it turns out later that there is cheating going on, too.

            • Of course, from another point of view, an actual lie detector would maintain rights. Everyone from gangmembers to police could prove actual innocence, and in cases of actual guilt, we all have our rights protected because those who infringe can’t get away with it.

              • I know that is the way it works these days, but I shouldn’t HAVE to prove my innocence. Remember that little phrase, “innocent until proven guilty?”

                • To which they would retort that was a protection against tyrants trying to railroad you, and against malicious persecution. If both of those are rendered more effectively innocuous by use of an effective lie detector, why keep around the old protection?

                  Not that the change-over would be pretty.

                  • Why should I have to waste my time proving myself innocent? And why should I believe that your lie detector is effective? A tyrant would tell me it reads brain waves and can tell whether I am lying, same as you are saying, doesn’t mean it is so.

              • Of course, from another point of view, an actual lie detector would maintain rights.

                No, because there would still be situations where “this person is not lying” doesn’t prove anything except they’re not telling a deliberate falsehood. As they always point out, you’re going to get as many versions of an accident as there are witnesses.

                You’d have to have a God-Knowledge machine.

      • Professor Badness

        I don’t think it could be used in courts because no system would ever be fool proof.
        Once you’ve studied some psychology and brain chemistry, (which I’m sure many here have) you know that some people can alter their own memories/perception to believe anything is possible. This can happen with individuals that would otherwise seem completely normal.
        Such a test would work on normal people. But the outliers would make it nonviable as solid proof in court.
        You could still use it, but the jury would need to know that it wasn’t 100%.

        • Ah, but they’ve also found that constructed memories get recalled using yet another portion of the brain!

          • How does this truth detector account for brain injuries and malformations, of the sort that leave people functional, and the ability of the brain to make do, reroute, and improvise?

    • How long will it take to make that science practical?

      Information on what situations it fails at.

      Outside of TV, interested folks know that DNA isn’t the 100% magical wand, and we keep finding more ways it’s not guaranteed.

      Then it will have to overcome the resistance caused by lie detectors being over-trusted — they’ll have to show they’re not detecting being upset about lying, or trying to translate the way they think into something that will make sense to another person, or trying to give only relevant information, or any of a dozen other things I can think of that would show up when you’re reading someone who is saying something they know is false but doesn’t actually indicate “they are lying.”

      • Growing pains.

        besides, being upset is ruled out from day one — it wouldn’t change what portion of the brain is used.

        • Kind of like how a woman giving birth to children with DNA that doesn’t match her mouth swab is ruled out from day one?

          The “being upset about it” is what the ‘lie detector’ detects, roughly– what is the equivalent for the brain scan?

          • Professor Badness

            In theory, the brain scan would see that an answer was coming from the imaginative part of the brain, i.e. a lie, or from the memory centers.
            It would work for questions they hadn’t planned for, but coaching would put the answer in their memory centers rather than the inventive areas of the brain.
            You could also look for evidence of cognitive dissonance in a brain scan, but that wouldn’t be 100% either. Some people are always full of dissonance, (you know who you are), while others can easily fit lies into their personal reality. *cough-SJW’s-cough*

            • In theory, the brain scan would see that an answer was coming from the imaginative part of the brain, i.e. a lie, or from the memory centers.

              And just from the top of my head, I was able to come up with several things that weren’t even an attempt to withhold information– if you add in the right not to implicate yourself, and a generalized fear of being thought poorly of, it gets even worse.

              Yours about coaching is another good example– and brings in what level someone believes a thing on. I believe the stars are distant suns; I believe my kids are mine!

              In theory, it’s very simple. Part of why my first reaction is to find out what things they’ve found that will break it– because there’s ALWAYS something that will break it, and if they can’t list one they either haven’t looked hard enough, or it’s a second (third, fourth, fifth….) party that doesn’t know enough about it.

              • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                If a perfect means of finding the truth is discovered, somebody will immediately start working on a way to fool it. [Wink]

                In one of my SF worlds, there’s a “Memory Scan” device which in theory could be a “Truth Machine”.

                However, since nobody wanted a holder of “top secret” information to be “memory scanned” by the “enemy”, a method was found to “block memories”.

                Since, intelligence agencies wanted to protect the spies that they had placed into the enemy’s organizations, a method was found to create “false memories” to protect the spies.

                Then there were people who had “reasons” to find out what info was being protected by the “blocked memories” method, so methods were developed to get pass the “memory block”.

                Even those who developed the “false memories” method wanted to protect themselves from spies using the “false memories” method so they worked out methods to detecting “false memories”.

                Of course, as new “counter-methods” were developed, methods were developed to counter them and the cycle continued. [Smile]

              • ” if you add in the right not to implicate yourself”

                Well, are people going to stand for your having a right not to implicate yourself when those who are prosecuting can prove that they are not doing it out of malice or for other illegitimate motives?

                • Way too many people recognize it’s possible to lie without ever actually saying something untrue.

                  That aside, they don’t have proof they’re not doing it for illegitimate motives, they’d have evidence from the very thing they’re trying to legitimatize.

                  • that’s why you come up with direct questions with yes or no answers and criminalize trying to evade them.

                    • Evading them according to whom?

                      Have you quit beating your wife, yet?

                    • No, “Are you prosecuting this out of malice?”

                    • And before you are allowed to question people, you are put under it yourself and must avow that you will ask only relevant and non-leading questions.

                    • Professor Badness

                      Two words, “Cut Out.”
                      If you prosecute with malice, you just hire/assign someone else to do the actual work. They get interrogated, and no ill will is found.

                    • You ask, Who assigned you this task? and question them as well.

                      Indeed, you could root out corruption in a large corporation or bureaucracy by demanding recursive testing: every layer is responsible for interrogating those under them.

                    • Professor Badness

                      Assuming they know.
                      Transparency has long been a problem in beauracracies.
                      And that sets aside the ability to plead the fifth. We’re still not allowed to force an answer out of someone.

                    • Transparency will be less of a problem when you can interrogate everyone in a bureaucracy at a rate of one every five minutes.

              • Professor Badness

                Exactly my point.
                Thank you.

            • Actually, recalling things you have experienced and things you made up also use different brain portions.

              I would expect to see coaching dropped like a hot potato with witness urged to think as little as possible about what they would testify.

              • Professor Badness

                Really? Most of my exposure to the science of brain chemistry is in the field of education, so I wouldn’t claim to be familiar with all parts.
                Thank you for the education.

                • Assuming they haven’t found a new discovery that invalidates the original. . . .

                  Hey, we can dream.

  7. I’ve been intrigued by the absolute surge in the number of candidates running for the various seats in the Amarillo, TX City Commission this spring. Now granted, it appears that a lot of people have a lot of beef with the current and past commission members, especially concerning what is starting to look like an utter boondoggle of a “downtown revitalization” plan, but some of the candidates are truly from out of nowhere. And others are known local activists/gadflies that have been running for office for the last 40+ years. The regional newspaper is doing a pretty decent job of covering all the candidates, their platforms and funding sources, but still. ‘Tis interesting.

    • Thought about running for office once. Like most geeks I have the people skills of Brussels Sprouts, but the only one running was not liked at all. Thought about making cards that had my name, what I was running for, and my slogan: “I’m not [insert opposing candidate’s name here].”

      We almost ran a friend as a joke. Made some fake campaign cards on the computer, and we dropped them off at strategic locations. It was to needle an incumbent who didn’t get along with this person at all. There was enough favorable response that we started a collection for the qualifying fee, but unfortunately, our “candidate” pulled the plug on it.

      • William O. B'Livion

        There was enough favorable response that we started a collection for the qualifying fee, but unfortunately, our “candidate” pulled the plug on it.

        And that is why we can’t have nice things.

  8. I don’t have the time to wade through all the previous comments, but I am glad to hear some push back to this ‘let it burn’ sentiment. Working from the inside seems a much smarter plan to me.

    And I was very intrigued by Sarah’s idea that Boehner is being blackmailed (or something like). I’m not conspiracy minded by nature, but the last few years have me rethinking a few things. I used to think the people who thought Obama was a muslim were out there, but now I’m not so sure.

    • When I learned that McCain completely flipped his public opinion of John Kerry over the course of a trip to China (? Somewhere in that vicinity), I became open to the notion that the Dems could very well be influencing some in the GOP with either blackmail or bribery.

      • ??????????

        What Republican were they influencing in your example?

        • Apparently, McCain and Kerry went on a trip to China together, and when he got back, they had gone from McCain hating Kerry to being best buds. A turnaround that quick, I figured, had to mean that Kerry had gotten something on him.

          Yes, I know he’s been pretty much a RINO for some time, but I wonder if it didn’t start with some shenanigans like that. Maybe I’m wrong, or the account I read was wrong, I don’t know for sure.

        • I know, right? (BAAAAAAAAAAD Man.)

          • Oy. I’m slow today. Didn’t understand bearcat’s comment until you responded to it.

          • I do recall being extraordinarily torqued off at Bush ham handedly using his position as party leader to handpick the squish Frist as Senate Majority leader, when the solidly conservative Larry Craig was deemed a shoo in before he involved himself, in direct violation of tradition and deportation of powers.
            Then Craig got busted for soliciting anonymous gay sex, and I was forced to reconsider.

            • Separation of powers. Curse you, autocorrect!

            • “Then Craig got busted for soliciting anonymous gay sex, and I was forced to reconsider.”

              I always found that story a little odd myself. If I was in a public restroom and some guy in the stall next to me was tapping his foot, I might assume he was constipated, or listening to a Walkman, but that he was attempting to solicit sex from me would never cross my mind.

              • On the same token, it sort of does explain some conversations in the library after college shortly after I left the bathroom. :/

              • Apparently it’s one of those “in the culture” things. If you know what to look for, it’s immediately identifiable. If you don’t know what to look for, then it seems fairly innocuous.

    • I don’t think blackmail is required. Boehner was put in an essentially untenable political position by the Senate, and McClellan is looking at the number of seats in play in 2016 – and how many of them are Republican thanks to the 2010 wave – and doesn’t want to risk his majority. Add in the fact that the EO has been stopped by the courts (for now) and the countervailing political pressure to kick the can down the road would dominate.

      • Do you believe McClellan can be so politically naïve as to believe that he is actually putting his majority at LESS risk by gut-kicking his base?

        • Yes. Remember that this is the guy who publicly gloated over defeating tea party candidates in the primaries.

          The other thing to remember is that he’s been in the Senate 30 years. He learned The Way Things Work in a completely different age, before Obama and Reid’s will to power trip. I don’t think he has the mental flexibility to effective lead today.

        • YES. Establishment republicans think their base is more left than they are. They watch/read the MSM

      • We do all realize his name is McConnell, right?

        • I prefer “Vichy Mitchy” myself. YMMV.

          • I rather like Vichy Mitchy myself. I mean, the nickname, not the — ew– guy.

          • I don’t see him as actively collaborating so much as the progs have completely gotten inside his head, much like Lee was able to predict the moves of every Union general he faced (the only advantage Grant had was that he didn’t care how often he met Lee or what Lee did to his army, he won every engagement, even if he had to withdraw).

            • The advantage Grant had was that he was a businessman, who understood that this was a business war: if you have the troops and supplies to spend, you can buy the victory. All he needed was a political leadership that understood that too and was willing to pay the price to do it.

              As long as Lee was fighting other professional soldiers (Lee was career military; Grant wasn’t), he knew their moves and could win.

              “The world’s best swordsman doesn’t fear the world’s second best swordsman; he fears the worst swordsman, because he can’t predict what the idiot will do.”

              Lee couldn’t wrap his head around the new style of industrial war. Ironically, the one who came closest was Forrest (also not career military), which is why he is said to have proposed the idea of sending a couple of divisions of cavalry through the upper Midwest right after harvest time. Lee and most of the other generals were horrified by the notion….. but it might have won the war. Can’t invade if you’re losing your supply base… or spending the troops to secure it.

              • Don’t forget that Grant went to West Point and served with Lee – and pretty much every other senior officer in the Civil War – in the Mexican-American war. Lee absolutely predicted what Grant was going to do. The entire Overland Campaign consisted of Lee figuring out Grant’s route to Richmond and setting up a blocking position. The big advantage Grant had was that he refused to care about what Lee did to his army. He knew every time they met Lee got weaker without replacement while Grant could replace his losses. Lee would block, Grant would try to push through, fail, and then – and this is where he differed from his predecessors – find another route to Richmond, which would force Lee to march south to block him again.

                Lee and the other generals were horrified by Forrest’s idea because it would have been monumentally stupid. Two divisions wouldn’t have been enough to seriously hamper the Union’s supply base. The Midwest, even back then, was BIG. So you either split your 16,000 men into small parties that invite defeat in detail or you only hurt a miniscule portion of the Midwest. Either way, those 2 divisions are gone, and the Union could buy food from overseas. It might delay Union offensive operations for a year, but it would invite a March to the Sea across the entire front.

                • Of course. The difference is that a) Grant performed far more poorly than Lee. at the military art as taught at the time, and b) Lee stayed in while Grant didn’t. Militaries develop habits, and like any other bureaucracy are slow to change. Grant could see that things had changed in ways Lee didn’t.

                  Yes, it would have been a costly exercise. Of course, if there had been an attack on a couple of state capitals or large cities, how loud would the cries to station enough troops and supplies to prevent another one? Troops guarding Springfield or Chicago (and the railways between them) aren’t invading anywhere. And delay for a year might very well have been enough. By 1864, the Union was war-weary enough that they might have voted for a Democrat (and nearly did anyway; Lincoln himself said that only the 1864 victories allowed his re-election).

                  • The Union already had substantial garrisons in place to “protect” border state capitals. The further from the front you go. the smaller a garrison you need, because any raiding party is going to suffer casualties simply from the distance, never mind any pursuit forces. A deep strike on (say) Chicago could probably be held off by the citizenry, at least long enough for the raiders to be surrounded and destroyed.

                  • ” Grant could see that things had changed in ways Lee didn’t.”

                    Not so sure that Lee didn’t see that things had changed, so much as he really couldn’t do a lot about it. You have to play the hand your dealt, and use the resources you have available. Lee played a pretty dang good hand, he just didn’t have the cards to win. If you just looked at the numbers, well you remember the saying about winning the battle but losing the war? Lee won a lot of battles, but he lost the war, it wasn’t even the availability of men so much, it was supplies. The munitions factories were in the north, as were most of the factories producing uniforms and other clothing, and even food was having to be shipped in to the South and was much more vulnerable to raids and interruptions than the North’s supply lines.

            • And the men knew that Grant would do whatever it took to win the war. So even though they believed that he didn’t care about them (which wasn’t true), they followed him. Because they knew that while the Grant was going to put them at risk in his battles, they’d be at even greater risk if the war continued to drag on.

        • Not anymore. You have to admit the new name is more fitting.

          • The Other Sean

            Frankly the new sobriquet that has been applied to the Senate majority leader leaves me to wonder who should be more insulted, McConnell or McClellan’s ghost.

  9. To be a leader means that you give loyalty and thus receive loyalty. John Boehner is and was a weasel who does not understand loyalty. E.g. John was one of the coup leaders against Gingrich–ironically what caused the coup to fail that time was that the coup leaders double-crossed the No. 2 guy-Dick Armey who was originally game and proposed Bill Paxon as the new leader. Dick developed a sudden pang of conscience and told Gingrich whence the coup collapsed. Soon Paxon and Armey found better opportunities outside of elected office. DeLay lasted a bit more but was brought down by a vengeful prosecutor in Texas. Thus, by the time Hastert dropped off of the twig in 2007 after the disastrous 2006 elections, no one wanted the job of minority leader–thus Boehner. Since then Boehner’s chief of staff and now former chief, Tom Feehery has become the power lobbyist to get to Boehner. Tom hates the Tea Party far more than Democrats because reform threatens his income–thus we get the super lobbyists sponsoring groups such as Fred Malek, another DC corporatist and Boehner friend, running ads against Republicans who were holding up the Homeland Security Bill. Boehner, of course, denounced these ads to maintain appearances but notably they still ran.

    BTW, Sarah was impressed that 2/3rds of the Republican caucus voted against the Homeland Security funding. Beware of the power of Kabuki, any student of Congress will tell you that leaders generally know in advance the outcome of the vote–that is what whips are for. They allow members to go their own way if the leader knows that enough votes are around for passage. If there was massive grass roots opposition that seriously threatened the leadership, the Rules Committee would simply allow an open rule on the legislation–which means any individual can file an amendment which generally can kill the bill through a thousand cuts. A privileged motion can be made to move to direct vote when the Senate refuses conference which is what happened in this case, but that can be overruled by the Rules Committee. Dems were threatening to make such a motion and the leadership favored “taking immigration off the table” so we saw no action by the leadership to block it. Any serious opposition where the passage of the clean Senate bill was in doubt would have been taken up in calling a Republican only caucus. What we saw was window-dressing and the outcome was staged. My rough SWAG guess is that about 30 -40 members who have created the new Freedom Caucus for Republicans represents the true opposition. I trust these people as they are putting their district budget on the line and risking retribution of the leadership for public opposition to the leadership in the House. The old Republican Study Group which was the conservative voice of the House under Boehner became co-opted by the leadership (Scalise got his reward for cooption and firing long time staffer Paul Teller by becoming majority whip (no. 3). While this is inside baseball, search out stories about the new Freedom caucus and how anonymous Republican staffers are trashing these individuals in the two months since its founding.

    Some very recent coverage of the specifics of the Freedom Caucus.

    • You want leaders. That’s the difference between us. I want representatives.

      • That is point that needs to be made, over and over. Our President is NOT our leader. He’s our employee, delegated with running things for a few years. Neither are our senators and represesentatives. Or mayors and chiefs of police. They all work for us.

      • We do need leadership in Congress. People who can convince other representatives to go their (our) way.

    • If the Nay votes were Kabuki, there would have been a hell of a lot fewer than 75 Yea votes. With Democrats, only 31 votes are needed to pass a bill.

    • “…but that [forcing a floor vote on the Senate bill] can be overruled by the Rules Committee.”

      At which point the GOP takes all of the blame for shutting down DHS. Boehner was already getting enough flak even when he could claim that the House had done its job in passing a bill.

      This fight was lost in the Senate, specifically when McClellan refused to nuke the filibuster, either of the House bill or – better yet – of the conference agreement.

  10. In fact, we have a better chance of changing the Republican Party from the inside before that happens. Oh, wait, there is a movement already in place that is trying to do just that.

    I think pert of the issue is we’re NOT trying to change the Republican party; we’re trying to focus and clarify, remove influence from folks who came over because they didn’t like X in the Dem party, but they wanted to keep the Y and Z, not paying attention that it caused (eventually) X.

  11. I think part of the problem is the difference between “Soft Tyranny” and actual Tyranny. We have a LOT of soft tyranny going on, the John Doe investigation is one, the Perry case here, is another. No one is disappearing in the dark. Getting arrested for not being happy with their gov’t (was that a knock at the door?) … etc.
    Now, it is annoying and is worth anger, but it is not a case for insurrection … yet … as the fix is exactly what Our Lady Sarah called for. If we get that done and this still happens then just maybe there is a case for getting hard core on it. But it will take a bit of time.
    What we have is far too many people who think it is worse than it actually is and sadly advocating making it far, far worse, and more than likely making it so it stays worse forever.
    An analogy I used when I worked at the airport driving a fuel truck was folks are seeing a minor leak from the bottom tank fitting and want to grab a blow torch and burn it to the ground instead just emptying the tank, then dismantling the pipework needed to get at the gasket. Yeah, the torch is faster at ridding the leak, but it ain’t right, and it solves nothing because you are left with nothing to work with. The right way is a bit of work. What say we actually try the right way until we get to where the leak is?.

    • Part of this is not understanding the SHEER SIZE of our country. Like the people lamenting the children’s crusade invasion as “there are more of them than us. it’s over.” Oh, for heaven’s sake. EVEN if it were 7 million. It’s not. It’s apparently closer to 1. BUT even if it were. You know president Mierdas touch has brought over half dead-brains. A drain on society sitting in a corner doing drugs, but there it is. BUT there are THREE HUNDRED PLUS MILLION OF US. We’re fucking up more kids every year than the invasion that just came over. Calm down and work.

      • And progressives don’t actually like kids. So we get the next generation, if we want ’em. And we’ve got good stories, which the kids really like.

        • Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to stop them from trying to come up with new ways to influence the education of those kids.

      • Especially dumb is all the lamentation that McClellan and Boehner have given Obama his amnesty and thus completely changed the electorate. Say what you will about the executive orders, they don’t make anyone a citizen. Illegal immigrants are going to suffer the same forces against voting as any other working stiff, plus the fact that if they get caught THEY GO TO JAIL. Illegal aliens are going to vote in 2016, but they’re going to do that with or without those executive orders.

        • Well…

          aside from the small detail that one party keeps loudly insisting that voter fraud is a myth. And any and all attempts to combat it are racist distractions by the other party.

          iirc, Bush 43 ended up firing some of his attorneys because they refused to spend any time looking into voter fraud when he directed that the Justice Department should spend more time on it.

          • Right, which is why the executive orders were meaningless from an electorate point of view. They didn’t make anyone a citizen, and any illegal immigrant willing to vote was doing it already – probably multiple times.

    • Professor Badness

      I second the motion!

  12. It is those who watch the watchers who actually help keep the system from breaking down too much.

    This might be a key point– systems do break down. Goal is to make sure you don’t take a sledgehammer to it when you just needed to restart and check that your cards were seated properly.

  13. I didn’t want to wade into the older threads, but I thought that I would just share this here: Cake.

    • Yes – what government ever has reduced taxes and treated their people better as they aged? Most get worse. It’s a characteristic of human activities. They start with high ideals and vision and then do whatever is needed to perpetuate themselves. How to fix this? I don’t know.

    • That is what I grew up calling “crazy cake”. And it is good.

      Also, I always use coffee for the liquid in my chocolate frosting, learned this from my mother who always used it, because her mother always used leftover coffee in her frosting. I’ve tried it with water or even milk, but coffee gives it a better flavor.

  14. Splitting off into a third party only helps the dems… They have a strong enough base to be able to steamroll both a Pub and a ??? candidate, The real issues (IMHO) are two. Lack of good representation in DC across the Pubs spectrum, and the good old boy network of staffers and lobbyists whose sole purpose in life is putting more money in their pockets, and damn the constituents they are supposed to be serving. The only ones that get past the gatekeepers are those with money. And all those ‘minons’ hate the Tea Party with a passion, since they’re calling for smaller government. I keep seeing references to the military taking over, and that’s not going to happen. The majority of the military votes Pub/Ind in just about every election, but they WILL NOT try a revolt. They honor their oath to defend the Constitution. Anybody that thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

    • And a good number of us who are naturalized honor the constitution too. We remember our oaths.

    • Their oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic?

      • Oh, I’m sure if there were something blatantly unconstitutional, like suspending elections, orders to arrest or fire on US citizens, or failure to recognize elections, the military would act. But failing that the prevailing attitude is to let the political process work it out. You don’t break out the 80 lb sledge to drive a tenpenney nail.

        • And failing that, what you would likely end up with is a massive cluster. Yes the majority of the military is conservative, but until you get something blatant enough to swing a HUGE majority of them over into active resistance, what you would have is a patriotic portion who who think it is their patriotic duty to actively resist, a patriotic portion who think it is their patriotic duty to stop such resistance and protect those currently in power, a portion (arguably less patriotic than either of the first two) who want to stand aside and not be involved, but seeing as military bases where this would all break out, are realitively small, they would likely be caught in the middle. Then break down the first portion into those willing to fire the first shots at their fellow soldiers whom they have served beside, in and those willing to fight the “powers that be” but not to start a shooting fight with their barracks buddies that they shared a pizza with last night. Then break the second portion down the same…

          Yeah, when they do something blatant enough to swing the majority of the military into endorsing active operations against the powers that be, it will be all over for the powers that be very shortly, (and likely enough for the rest of the US also) but unless they are stupid enough to do that, the military is a nonentity.

          • Which is a Good Thing.

          • It’s been my contention that if the country did dissolve into civil war, the active-duty military would laager up and make sure no unfriendly visitors came calling.
            Mostly because the probable President in such a scenario would not trust the military to fire upon those he wanted to, and the generals would not move without orders.

            • What probable president? In a civil war?

              • This is based on my guess about what it would take to crank up civil war in the near-future.
                1. A president disliked to the point of hatred by large swathes of the country, who doesn’t really care about that because he holds them in contempt.
                2. Some kind of event that can get both sides of the country hot, bothered, and angry enough that both sides start shooting at around the same time, due to their mistrust of the president.

                Some prerequisites for both of these:
                1. The second part of the first requirement, given the current cultural environment, almost that guarantees the president at the time will be a liberal.
                2. However, among many, even a man as liberal as the current POTUS is not considered liberal enough to handle certain situations properly.
                3. Thus the mistrust by both sides of his ability to “properly” handle whatever the event would be, and the deep-down uncertainty on his part that the military will do as he says.

                I should clarify that such an event is somewhere below “And then 60guilders was flayed alive over a period of weeks” on my list of desired outcomes.

                • 60, I was going to make a joke about how #1 would never happen, then I remembered your original statement that such a president would defend the homeland, from, say ISIL… THIS ONE? ARE YOU KIDDING?

                • I mean he said in his bio he’d pick Islam’s side. You might want to read this, btw, if you have a strong enough stomach:

                  • I actually did read that, and some of the pushback. I think the article linke has the right of it.
                    And while I suspect that our current President is a useful idiot–I am not yet to the point that I believe him to be a fellow traveler–I think that the military would be inclined to take a more…mmmmm…proactive view.
                    They might not act without orders regarding enemies domestic. Foreign? They will almost certainly do so.

                  • I did read it. That’s one reason I’ve been somewhat more pessimistic than usual.

                  • 60, let in enough immigrants without checking, and they’ll BE domestic.

                    • If that happens — IF — and the media doesn’t hush it (What, Fort Hood) there’s a good chance of being dropped in the Khaki head first, society wise.

                    • Sarah, it has been and is happening for quite a while, what with visa overstays and the like. See 9/11 hijackers.

                      Read some of the stories in Vox’s latest anthology “Riding the Red Horse” for some of the likely scenarios.

                      But, hey. immigration enforcement just hasn’t been the “hill to die on.”

          • William O. B'Livion

            Generally speaking the lower ranks are conservative (say most of the E and the lower O levels), but there are many at the top who are progressive (at least in the sense that they believe in central planning, expertism, federal power and redistribution). If push came to shots I expect that there would be more than a bit of fratricide and balkanization among the forces.

            • See Oathkeepers. And in 2000 I was working at Air Force Standard Systems Group in Montgomery. When Gore and his crew started pulling shenanigans, I wasn’t surprised to hear E1s and E2s making disparaging remarks. I was a lot startled when I was hearing Lt Cols and 20 year Master Sgts saying to general agreement that he would have a hard time crewing Air Force One.

  15. Actually, a third party could be interesting, if it didn’t overreach. The Conservative Party in New York was a considerable power for many years; it’s endorsement could pretty much decide the Republican Candidate.

    • Still does. A Democrat can win without a second party endorsement. A Republican without the Conservative Party endorsement is usually DIW. There are currently 8 parties with automatic ballot lines.

    • Especially in a country that had national structures for the kind of multiparty tickets that New York does.

      Problem is, it’s not this country.

  16. I have become convinced that many of the “let it burn” wannabe revolutionary types, both Left and Right, are LARPers.
    If they were really really convinced that an American tyranny was to break out at any moment, they wouldn’t be on the internet spamming walls of text about it.

    • BobtheRegisterredFool

      I thought everyone knew this.

      American culture has long included every flavor of complaint about the political situation.

      White Wolf’s American: The Catherd LARP rules have been for over a decade the go to source overseas for understanding the American condition.

      I think our current volume is due to a Nara high school teacher offering extra credit.

      • Okay, I tried Googling that, and couldn’t find anything.

        • BobtheRegisterredFool

          Okay, I’d planned to do a bit on how CNN and MSNBC are actually streaming video of such LARPing from Europe. I can’t pull it off tonight.

          I was attempting a parody of the World of Darkness, the basis for a very popular type of Live Action Role Playing.

  17. But I feel fine . . .

  18. Patrick Chester

    …I still feel fine.

    (Will be trawling through the comments later, just wanted to throw that in.)

  19. “…there has been a spate of folks coming here and telling her she doesn’t understand. She doesn’t understand US institutions. She doesn’t understand history. She doesn’t understand tyranny.”

    Just like the U. S. born black girl at my company telling a Rwandan black girl co-worker (whose sister was hanged for being Tutsi) that she (the Rwandan) didn’t understand oppression.

    • Wow. That IS terminal dumb.

    • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

      There were people who claimed that Obama wasn’t a “real” African-American because he didn’t have ancestors who were slaves. [Frown]

      Oh, this was before he became the “Great Black Hope”.

      • Pretty sure he did, on both sides.

        • Just not very recently.

        • Actually, from what I gather, HIS African ancestors SOLD other blacks to Arab and European slavers. You didn’t think it was all Ed Asner skulking around the jungle with a butterfly net chasing that poor visually-challenged young man from Star Trek, did you?

          • And his American ancestors owned slaves. This fits him so well…

            • Guess that’s why he was so comfortable with saying babies should be left to die in broom closets. Just excess inventory, according to his DNA…

            • BobtheRegisterredFool

              His Grandparents, who raised him, were Democrats, from Kansas, who apparently never considered leaving The Party.

              There are two possibilities.

              One is that they were leftists first.

              The other is that they were fundamentally loyal to the Democratic Party. That perhaps they put blood first, but if not for that might have stayed in Kansas. If the Kansas Democratic Party was like the Oklahoma Democratic Party, there are some quite unpleasant possibilities for what values they had.

              If Obama was raised in that, if he were a Bull Conner ‘anything for the betterment of The Party’ sort, how would he treat minorities any differently?

              Of course ‘a lying amoral communist loon’ explains things just as well.

              • My grandparents were *goes to check*…. younger than my grandparents, who were also from Kansas. (Moved to Oregon and Met Cute; they just had a lot more kids than the Dunhams, and his mom had him way earlier than my mom!)
                They were probably Democrats, although that would’ve ended well before I was born. Reagan was a matter of course choice for president; as I understand it, Obama’s grandfather at least was a communist type Democrat, and chose friends accordingly.

            • Can we call the Whitehouse the Big House now?

            • I end up reading this one almost as often as “Gods of the Copybook Headings”.

              His vows are lightly spoken,
              His faith is hard to bind,
              His trust is easy broken,
              He fears his fellow-kind.
              The nearest mob will move him
              To break the pledge he gave —
              Oh, a Servant when he Reigneth
              Is more than ever slave!

          • It wasn’t? You mean…TV…LIED to me?

            How will I ever learn to trust again????

          • Not unusual. It tends to strip the gears of those who don’t realize the involvement of various peoples in the slave trade.

          • That, too.

            The odds of anyone on this planet not having slave ancestors are infinitesimal. Even lower than those of not having royal ancestors, where the odds are also infinitesimal.

  20. Sarah tabled four alternatives in her post “Cake or Death.” These included Stay-the-course (which you are also advocating), Third Party, civil war, and Let-it-burn. I have argued that all of the above are flawed because they ignore the root problem that plagues our body politic. We have passed the de Tocqueville threshold in this country and now more people vote for a living than work for a living. This has set in motion a vicious cycle which corrupt politicians buy votes using borrowed money and use it to seduce our weak-minded citizens into an entitlement addiction. Even if you succeed in getting rid of bad actors like Boehner and McConnell, this very large and growing voting block will replace them with equally corrupt politicians that promise evermore government benefits for the ever growing parasite constituency. Stay-the-course will just slow the rate at which we steer into the ditch.

    • And yet you still haven’t outlined your brilliant course of action (I don’t count that checklist of points that basically said, ‘Yeah, here’s how to figure out if we’re boned. When you find out I’m right, you figure out how to solve it), so that we can see your brilliance and bow down to it.

      Just like the damn VileProgs: “Hey! {Issue of the day} is WRONG!!! You need to fix it!” Except they never make suggestions beyond, “Stop what we’re doing there.” Never any recommendations for what we can replace it with.

  21. Totally off topic.

    I know the Duluth Fire Hose pants have been discussed on here a few times, and I just went to order me another pair or so. Thought I would give those of you who wear them a heads up that they are being discontinued and replaced with something they call Duluthflex Fire Hose pants. Which are made of a ridiculously lightweight 8oz cloth. Some of the different styles are still available in a variety of sizes, although the doublekneed logger pants like I preferred are not.