Why Are You So Angry?

It never fails, at the end of a trollish attack, (btw even when there’s no evidence of anger anywhere) we get the question “Why are you so angry?”

Part of this is that our opponents seek to home in on a “feeling” they can use to discredit our thoughts, and when they can find no feelings in the writing, they presume “anger.”

Remember, there’s absolutely no reason to disagree with the holy writ of Marx and Engels, unless you’re angry. Or stupid. But when one admits to membership in Mensa (long since lapsed, mind, since well… the local chapter is not about beer and bad puns as was the one I joined for) it’s hard to use stupid. So we get “angry.” Mind you, some precious snow flakes also accused me of not knowing enough US history to “understand.” Yeah. It’s true that US history only became a topic of interest about five years ago (before that I was studying other areas/times) but that just means I haven’t delved into the details available only in doctoral dissertations. I would still stake my knowledge of history against theirs any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I actually am not angry. Sometimes I am mightily irritated, but the only time I was even vaguely angry was when someone took my publisher’s words and twisted them to rally his drooling followers who couldn’t carry reading comprehension in a microscopic bucket. Oh, and before that when the Middle School carried on a full court covering up for the harassment of younger son by making him clinically depressed. Note both are specific and the precipitating incidents involve people I care a great deal about and in my publisher’s case respect immensely. (Oh, I respect the boy too, but he’s my son. The main emotion is protective.)

In fact, most of the people I know on this side of the fence aren’t angry. Anger is a very specific emotion that clouds the mind and in my case causes a berserker attack (you really don’t want to test that in person. No. Seriously. At least not without my husband nearby, because he can hold me back. He’s the only person who can. Every other time, if I start crying and my voice gets really high, and particularly if I’m trembling, you want to clear the area. This is not a brag. It’s a fricking nuisance. Holding those back hurts. D*mn the great great (etc.) grand who arranged to trip when the Vikings raided.)

Normally I don’t rise above “peeved.” This is on purpose, because if I go over “peeved” I’m in territory where it’s hard to control myself. The circumstances in which I lost control either were very sudden and without warning, or where I couldn’t get idiots to stop pushing after I started shaking and crying. Some idiots think this means “easy prey” and not “I’m fighting like h*ll not to kill you.” And peeved might look very scary because I’m a Latin female, yes, and frankly just a little annoyed can lead to yelling and screaming and peeved can lead to throwing things (usually books, usually at my sons who btw tower over me by a head and besides I’ve got lousy aim.)

Last time I rose above peeved was reading Irene Gallo’s comments, and fortunately being on this side of the keyboard, I couldn’t reach through the monitor. When hands started shaking on keyboard, I went upstairs and perpetrated violence on waxed floors, which more or less fixed it. Or at least got rid of the strength to do anything.

But I think the trolls who as “Why are you so angry?” though it’s mostly an invalidating technique are also aware that we have reason to be angry. H*ll, they’d be angry if they were us, right?

And so… and so, I’ll give the reasons we have to be angry.

  • We’ve been lied to since we were born. I’m fifty and all through my education, in Portugal and here, I was told that government could fix everything, that I shouldn’t trust private individuals, that having the “best men” in charge would lead to paradise.
  • Evidence of the mendacious nature of the above has been hidden. The cesspool of corruption and evil that was the Soviet Union, not to mention its satellites gave the lie to all such notions that if government were all powerful life would be perfect. However, the news media in most of the world never reported it, and chose instead to continue with the lie.
  • The lies were pervasive, all encompassing and utterly divorced from reality, and media, entertainment and government still cling to them.
  • They do this because they want power over us. The socialist and communist regimes always end in total and pervasive control over everyone. A sort of neo-feudalism, but, unless history really lies, less effective and more hellish than the real feudalism. Possibly because devoid of noblesse oblige. When communists, socialists or the democratic party say “we care for the little people” and “we’re against the rich” what they really mean is “we want to own you. We want to control your every decision.” That makes everything they do and everything they say a scabrous lie. It doesn’t even matter which of them are in on the lie and which are stupid enough to believe it. The whole fiction is a stomach-churning horror.
  • Their mucking around with the world as if their lies could be made into truths by being repeated often enough have caused not just the 100 million deaths of communism, but probably the same number from lost wealth (turns out, yeah, a rising tide raises all boats. Or in other words, no, you economic illiterates, our poor are NOT worse off than medieval poor, and let’s not consider further back), lost scientific advancement, lost medical advancement, lost opportunities. The one thing socialist regimes, from the pinkoish fringe to the deepest red are good at is creating stagnation. And stagnation kills and prevents the saving of lives that could have been saved. It also casts a greyish patina of dreck over everyday life. I’m not sure that ranks up there with death, but it does create a lot of miserable lives. I know that adherence to socialist poison has destroyed a lot of arts. A minor ill? Perhaps. But man doesn’t live by bread alone.
  • Anyone who goes against the Marxist line and points out that they’re lying gets persecuted and there are attempts to destroy them, ranging from professional to real destruction. Peter Grant and I should be grateful all they did was tar us with racist, sexist, homophobic and neo-nazi, particularly when those accusations are risible to anyone not deep in koolaid guzzling territory.
  • They’ve taught lies to children. I remember vividly when my younger son – then 6 – on a grocery trip broached the difficult question “Mom, how come none of the girls I know are like girls in shows and movies? They don’t want to have adventures, and they don’t want to play rough.” Um… yes. That was the beginning of explaining the “big lie” to him. He’s smart. He tumbled on to the economic and ecological and all other sides of the lie on his own. (He owes me posts, but he’s worse than I. His post on the engineering of climate is 7k long. I promised to help him shorten it. Ah!)
    Not all kids see through the lies. So you end up with a generation that thinks communism is a really good idea and just never had a chance. (And for the record, communism is a good IDEA. As a thought experiment, it’s just about perfect. Who wouldn’t want to end poverty and strife. It’s just that in practical life it would need angels to administer it. We don’t have angels. Fresh out (idiots in my future history try to CREATE them) so what you end up with is corrupt bureaucrats pretending to be angels and acting like the other sort of angels. The charred ones who smell of sulfur.)
  • They point out the flaws of the system we live under, not to fix them but to invalidate the whole system. This while hiding the giant flaws of their proposed system.
  • They will attack us while protecting horrors like Isis and the Cuban dictatorship whose systems are a million times worse, because their intent is not to improve the world but to bring us down, so they can have power.
  • They keep acting like their intentions are pure and this makes them untouchable. This might have been believable before the fall of the USSR, but now? All I see through their smug “purity” is their hands dripping blood.

“Why are you so angry?” Well, I’m not. I’m righteously indignant. The difference between the two might escape you, if you’ve never had righteous principles that are non-negotiable and not subjugated to the party line.

But here, in the place where there is right and wrong and where a system (and its subsystems) that has brought nothing but death, suffering and oppression to the human race definitely should NOT be giving another try, no matter how much you like the shiny power it would give you, there is such a thing as indignation as injustice, oppression and most of all d*mned stupid waste.

I have children. I want them and their children to inherit the stars, not the dull stagnation of the system that allows apparatchiks to lord it over all other human beings.

You should wish I was angry. That boils over and passes. It’s just an emotion after all.

Instead, I’m coldly, rationally indignant at your lies, your boorish disregard for others, your piggish greed for power.

And I tell you that you shall not pass.

440 thoughts on “Why Are You So Angry?

  1. Why am I so angry? It comes from dealing with those too stupid to pour sand out of a boot with instructions written on the sole. Why are you so stupid?

    1. Oh yeah — one more reason why I am angry: lies. Not even good lies, lies that, to believe, I would have to be as big a fool as you are. Lies that are disrespectful of my intelligence. In the immortal words of Det. John Munch: Don’t you ever lie to me like I’m Montel Williams. I am not Montel Williams. I am not Montel Williams.

      If you’re gonna tell me lies, at least pay me the respect of telling credible lies.

      1. Heh. The other day at Reason.com I encountered a rebuttal of the latest “Gunz are the badzzz!!!111!11” study, one that thoroughly dismantles the bad statistics of the study. It has made me determined to create some sort of “Gun Study Hall of Shame” website that links to every disingenuous anti-gun study, and links to the refutations.

        I don’t know when I’ll find the time to do this, but when I do, it will be because I’m so sick and tired of all the lies.

        1. And you’ll get a gazillion submissions, too. Some sort of limited wiki might be the way to go, and organize by broad category….

        2. Hit up Stranger at extranosalley.com His hobby is collecting gun control statistics and their provenance.

        3. Talk to me off line. I already did all the research for that, a loooong time ago. It doesn’t matter that the facts are known, the lies continue and they never change.

            1. Or maybe not. I was thinking yo need to make it look like a prog site.
              Which means incorrect terminology breadcrumbs leading slyly to the truth.

              1. I think he designed the site so searchers could look up the myth/fallacious claim, and the facts and correct information are organized there to help refute. You’re right, though, it certainly would serve to lead an anti to truth.

                1. All we would need would be a cover site to attract searches with links to any of the wonderful gun sites. THe guy in Arizona comes to mind, but not close enough to remember his name. Korwin? Yes (not bad :o)

                  We could totally do this. um… in our spare time. :o{

        1. Viking genes plus a family that didn’t particularly teach how to channel anger usefully?

          Yeah. Whether that’s because the culture dismisses it by saying, “Oh, Latin women are violent, everyone knows that,” or because you have the sort of parent who hated Super Mario Brothers due to it being a hyper-violent slaughter-fest, that sucks.

          It really, _really_ sucks. And being a socially awkward Odd makes it worse.

          1. I recognize Sarah’s description of rage though for me the terrifying thing is the last couple of times I went full zeker it wasn’t the hot rage but the cold intellectual emotionless rage. That very cold logic saved the target of my wrath as I knew that when I calmed down I wouldn’t thank myself. I’ve worked very hard on temper control after that the cold rage is terrifying to experience. It is like all emotions shut off and a combat computer comes online. You have all of the adrenalin and none of the unthinking emotion of the red rage.

            1. The calm combined with the red rage is the worst; Dealing with the smiling person who happily informs someone that “I am going to kill you, now…” in a dead-calm voice is absolutely the most difficult thing I’ve ever done like that–I’d rather deal with a dozen drunken idiots who want a fight. Between two of my senior NCO peers showing up, and the object of that skinny redheaded kid’s bloodlust taking off at a dead run that should have won an Olympic time trial, I think I only barely avoided the experience of hanging on to someone as they literally butchered another human being, and being unable to stop them. The look in that kid’s eyes was something out of nightmares, and I’m really, really glad I wasn’t the one he was looking at.

              1. I’ve hit that point three times in my life. Fortunately, only once were they in possible reach – and they had the sense to run extremely fast (and get in their cars and peel out of the parking lot).

                Yes, when that point comes, you don’t want to be the target – an evening spent with Hannibal Lector would be preferable…

              2. That is my husband. I’ve seen this once, thank heavens not directed at me. I don’t want to see it again. What saved the idiot at that time was getting in a car and speeding away.

  2. Hi – found you via Oleg, who is a friend. This is really a comment on the post below – I’m a doctor in my day job, so just wanted to mention that if you have eczema (and are therefore an atopic individual) and you want to wear gloves, make sure they are latex free. A large proportion of atopics will develop an allergy to latex on prolonged exposure. Latex allergy frequently gets mis-diagnosed as dishydrotic eczema. Cheers! -Charlie.

  3. Well said, and you’re NOT the only one by a long shot! They continue to scream their lies, hoping sheer noise will make something stick, but not realizing the ‘quiet’ from our side isn’t agreement, simply us waiting and choosing our own time and place to respond.

  4. And by the way, it will never cease to amaze me that the siren song of socialism continues to attract, despite a 100% failure rate (well, the Israeli Kibbutz model, maybe. But that had accountability for everyone, to everyone.)

      1. Ah but it’s only a perfect idea if you only allow it to brush the very surface of your consciousness. One of the many fundamental problems with socialism/communism is that it tries to deny basic animal drives and the resultant human drives. The entire concept cannot survive the question, “what if I want more than just the bare minimum, least common denominator?”. Oops, no, nobody can have more. Sorry Oliver, sit down and shut up. Everyone must have the same. And since not everyone is a hard charging, gotta’ do more, get more, be more kind of person then all those persons of accomplishment have to fork over their ill gotten gains that they got by working for it, so everyone can be at the least common denominator. But even if the hard chargers give up and just do the minimum required like everyone else, they’ll still want to do more in their heart of hearts.

        1. While, “no work, no eat” has a somewhat cruel demeanor, it is clearly a philosophy that equates personal actions with personal responsibility. “We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us”, the mantra of known Socialist States seems to be lies begat lies. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” is of course, the wolves outvoting the sheep on who is for dinner. “From each according to ability, to each according to need” begs the question of who decides.
          Since only the first quote, that of capitalism has any recognition of personal responsibility, it is the only one with sufficient motivation to work, in spite of how the remaining three certainly ‘feel’ nicer.

          1. The problem is that it appeals solidly to the Humanist types. Basically it would work fine if people where inherently good. But then people are not inherently good so it always fails.

          2. What people get wrong about the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, or more accurately what they forget or discount, is that the few must freely CHOOSE to make that sacrifice because they judge that the needs of a particular “many” outweigh their particular “few”. That choice cannot be made by someone else, it cannot be DEMANDED from or for anyone else. These people expect to be the few making the choice for the many, or at least the “other” few that aren’t themselves.

            1. Where they generally go wrong is that they are invoking it where no needs at all are involved, except sometimes for the few. They are perfectly happy to sacrifice the needs of the few to the convenience of the many.

              1. Of course, if they are the “few”, they are more than willing to forget about the views of the “many”. [Evil Grin]

        2. Depends on how it’s set up– some forms would allow for people to keep what they work for above and beyond their need, but there’s simply no way to make sure people are really fulfilling their “ability.” It collapses in jealousy (of those who do work for more) and distrust of the weak. (because you can’t be sure they actually are, rather than just lazy exploiters who are faking it.)

      2. I think another major issue is the very attractive “If I were in charge, I’d do it *right*” hubris that humans are particularly prone to. It was Hayek, if I recalled correctly, who called this “The Great Conceit”: the belief that a handful of bureaucrats will be able to run the lives of millions better than those same millions can run their own lives themselves.

        1. While, “I, Pencil” is a great response to these oh so smart technocrats I generally go with, “Ok, then tell me, how many socks will I buy next year, what colors, types, and sizes”. They mutter on about statistical analysis never realizing statistics describe the population not the individual members, and the less accurate the garbage in the greater the standard deviation on the way out.

          1. You haven’t encountered anybody hardcore, then, or you’d be told that you have too many socks and should need no more than, say, 3 pair, and you should wear each pair twice, and then go barefoot on washday, and all the other socks will be confiscated for those who need them more, and then the millions of excess socks will be recycled in a program costing billions of dollars, and it serves us all right for being hoarders and wasters who hate the Earth.

            1. LOL, you are correct, sir. I have been spared that level of insanity in direct contact. You can’t win them or their lesser brethren over anyway so I rarely even try.

              1. I like the really thick fuzzy socks – so it’ll have to be when they pry them off my warm dead feet.

                1. Sorry, the state sock commissary has run out of fuzzy socks. There are still several gross of “thin, sand paper” socks left.

                  1. Good news!

                    President Obama has just issued an Executive Order reclassifying “thin, sandpaper” socks as “thick, fuzzy” socks!

                    So now we have all the thick, fuzzy socks you want, at only a 47% markup for the Government’s assistance in making sure they were available to you!

                    1. In other good news, the Victory Gin ration has been increased from 4 liters per week to 3.5 liters per week (with Our Nero Zero in the White House, 3.5 liters of Victory Gin a week is pretty close to temperance…).

              1. It was my impression that bernie sanders were those blocks you wrap with sand paper in order to polish your mail.

                Except, isn’t it normally spelled differently?

                1. Maille is polished by placing it in a barrel of sand and having your page/squire roll it around the yard for a few hours.

        2. “…the belief that a handful of bureaucrats will be able to run the lives of millions better than those same millions can run their own lives themselves.”

          And, never forget: An essential first step in this program is to demonstrate that this “fact” is true; first, by destroying traditional culture, and second, by offering welfare benefits structured in such a way as to make the inability to care for oneself a self-fulfilling prophecy. Dalyrymple has written of his experiences dealing with the underclasses in the UK. Do not make the mistake of thinking that what he documents hasn’t come about by accident or misadventure–Nothing of the kind is possible, when the effects are so obvious and sustained. This is the result they want, and have been striving for so hard–A world of welfare beneficiaries, administered by the elites, who control every aspect of their lives, however badly.

            1. Like effing hell. *chuckle* They might *think* they want to pack folk like us into cities, but might complain when hogs are being butchered next door, or when they see men with guns walking out of said door, when they *smell* what makes tasty vegetable gardens (one of my favorite memories- city gal of my acquaintance’s first experience with actual horse manure. priceless).

              They just want us gone, so nature can return to its artificial parklike atmosphere. They might keep some of the kids, whom they think they can reprogram (and the youngest, they might), but us cantankerous old country folk? We’d end up against a wall quick as they could manage. We’re dangerous, not so much because of what we can *do,* but because of how we *think.* We think, we *know* that we are free. This terrifies them.

              They both hate a fear the free man, because there’s nothing he wouldn’t do. We respect and revere the same, because there’s nothing he *couldn’t* do.

      3. The Borg is a socialist collective. Look how eager people are to sign up.

        1. Actually, given real humans instead of Roddenberry-idealized human simalcra, there would be a measurable portion of Federation citizens willing to voluntarily join the Borg Collective just to get the shiny bits and the BorgCare insurance coverage, but that story would be a bit too challenging for STTNG to tell…

          1. The Borg would be more successful if they were better marketers. Instead they’re walking corpses with cybernetic limbs scaring everybody off.

            1. Note that the Borg had Queens (and, probably, Kings as well).

              Which is where Communism always ends up – a few hundred people (not even anywhere close to 1%) with just about all of the resources and power.

              Which is why I call the entire Leftist side Regressives.

          2. Well, given that Sisko’s father ran a restaurant for free…

            (They don’t have money, remember?)

            1. To be fair, he seemed perfectly willing to draft people to cook things for him until he could master it himself. 😀

      4. I’ve always called communism intellectual mind candy because it would just work so well if people followed the model.

      5. Actually, I’m not sure that it is, even in a fantasy.

        If you notice, its core mantra is “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs,” is missing both the noun and the verb. The sentence only contains the clauses being acted upon, but who is doing the acting, and what actions are they doing?

        1. “From Each according to his Abilities, To Each according to his Needs” is a pretty sweet deal, if you’re a needy incompetent, but it makes a slave of the capable and independent. Advocating such a position says an awful lot about the individual who does so, and which side of the equation he expects to be on.
          — Richard Chandler (10/15/04)

      6. It’s perfect if you’re an ant. Humans however are not ants.
        Communist supporters also are not ants, because ants WORK! While they just lie around and wait for handouts.

        The only thing I like about communism, is that all of it’s supporters are the first to be put up against the wall, when communism takes over, because they’re worthless, and a drag on society, so in the interest of humanity they must go, go, go.

    1. I find that many if not most people don’t/can’t think past the first responsive thought brought on by an idea or statement. Their thinking is so shallow it bounces off the surface tension of a water droplet on a table top. First.[dot]1 tier thinking largely eludes them, second tier and beyond thinking is clearly a conservative/libertarian conspiracy.

      1. Like alcoholism, its sufferers keep swilling greater doses of the poison and it is the innocent bystanders who get hurt.

    2. Which are failures, also. Although without megadeaths. Also see the Plymouth Colony. There seems to be some experimental size point, probably the one at which the administrators cannot be gotten at and lynched, at which megadeath is a sure and certain result.

    3. It’s true: the *idea* is a good one, but it just won’t work in real, imperfect-world practice. In the early days of the LDS Church (aka the Mormons), there was an attempt to live by the Law of Consecration (which is, yes, a form of communism). Naturally–and likely to no one’s surprise, least of all God’s–it failed. Fortunately, it did seem to limit itself to contention and arguing more than actual death (at least so far as I know), but it made a mess of things for awhile.

      1. I think spinning straw into gold is a good idea, no matter what effect it has on the value price of gold.

      2. To work, socialism would need perfect caritas (Christ-like love) and at least near-perfect knowledge, too.

        No wonder all the examples of sort of looking I can think up are religious….

        1. During an (unplanned) discussion of socialism one day, the students agreed after some thought that what works very well in the Franciscan convent outside of town probably would not scale up to 25,000 people or so. I left it there, but they got the idea. (BTW, I highly, highly recommend the sisters’ “pray-lines” chewy pralines. Highly recommend.)

          1. Even there, if you look, there is a hierarchy. Not of goods, but of power. Some animals are still more equal than others.

          2. And this is why, once monasteries/convents got to a certain size, they usually started spinning off daughter monasteries. Although that’s also a very fraught process with tons of ways to fail.

          3. Part of the reason why socialism works on small scales (families or communes of like-minded persons) but breaks down on larger scales (cities or nations) is information problems. A market is a system for conveying information about supply and demand. Even with the best will in the world, a non-market economy beyond a certain size fails because nobody really knows what others can supply, and with what difficulty; or will demand, and with what priority. And of course, everyone doesn’t have the best will in the world — the larger the barrel, the greater the chance of at least one severely rotten apple.

        2. This. “If men were angels no government would be necessary.” (Federalist 51) So the US government has checks and balances, playing off people’s ambitions (or sin) against each other. But socialism doesn’t. Anything will probably work on a small scale (like less than Dunbar’s number of households) but without checks and balances, doesn’t scale up.

            1. Odd how the same people who overstate the marital failure rate are staunch advocates of the “family” state.

              A cynical person (not that there are any of those here) might suspect the goodness of their intentions.

      3. My own suspicion, here, is that when Joseph Smith was translating the part about how great things were for three generations after Christ’s visit, he _really_ wanted to do the same.

        But I also suspect that the prosperity steamroller involved some combination of city infrastructures that had good synergy(like allowing for high-yield aquaculture) that had already been worked out in previous generations. So the natural setup was an aristocrat class that makes sure the peons do their jobs right, but the Christians managed to demonstrate that you didn’t actually need the aristocrat class, as long as everyone did their part honestly.

        It was never a good fit for frontier American life, and it’s an even worse fit for a culture where the technology is evolving rapidly. Tithing may be seen as a lesser law, but it’s so much more flexible that I suspect if we move towards the Law of Consecration again it’ll be by increasing the tithing percentage.

        1. Well, and I always read the Law of Consecration as NOT involving redistribution of people’s goods/possessions/income, but rather a “donate your surplus so that everyone has food/clothing/shelter” so there’s no poor/hungry/homeless/etc.

          Naturally, though, people wouldn’t interpret it that way, and in come the problems. :/ I strongly suspect it’s one of those things that really does require a…rather more perfected version of humanity than we’ve got or will have anytime soon…

          1. What??!!!! Think of all the people employed by bureaucracies to distribute those goods you would so casually have people “donate” directly! Consider how much of this nation’s (union dues paying) uncivil service employees depend on all of those “poor/hungry/homeless/etc” for their livelihoods!

            How heartless can you be to want to eliminate all of those good, union jobs (donating from their paychecks to underwrite propaganda informative messaging supporting their policies) that allow the “poor/hungry/homeless/etc.” to stay at home watching daytime TV, such as Tyra Banks, Dr. Phil, Bill Cunningham and Judge Judy) instead of wearing themselves out toiling to glean some rich capitalist pig farmers’ fields for them?

            You probably think those rich capitalist pig farmers agri-industrialists should be allowed to use vitamin enrichmed GMO crops that increase yields, resist insects & disease rather than practice sustainable organic farming practices perfected by paleolithic women!

            You’re disgusting.

  5. OT, but I just spotted Oleg’s pic of you – Evil but *Beautiful* Space Princess indeed!

  6. I get angry. I know I shouldn’t give the trolls what they want, but I need to work on self-discipline.

  7. I would still stake my knowledge of history against theirs any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

    Sweetie, *I* would put MY knowledge of history against the vast majority of theirs, and I’m probably in the bottom tier of history knowledge among commenters on this website.

    1. Ah, but Wayne, you and Sarah keep insisting that history is a set of fixed immutable facts. The true cognizenti know that history is simply whatever story those in power choose to tell the great unwashed. And a compliant media will gladly spread that story for them.

    2. I can just see it: From a corner of the Hunquarters-bar-coffee shop-Mad Scientists’ lab and BBQ, a newbie’s voice rises, asking,”Why are the sci-fi fans having a historical trivia contest?”

      And two-dozen Huns and Hoydens look up from their reference books and on-line database access devices and roar as one, “Because if you don’t know the past, you’re doomed to rewrite it!”

      And a little voice from the referee’s corner adds, “And make a hash of it. Again.”

          1. if you read comments in the reader on the WP bar, you can like comments that way. You do Follow ATH, right?
            Click reader, go down to the article and click on the title or comments. et viola
            like buttons

              1. Use the “commented” link to access the specific post you like and then use the WP tool bar to “like” the comment.

                Clicking directly should open it as a new window/tab or you can right-click and copy/paste.

                Alternatively, posting a “I wish there was a ‘like’ button” communicates your approval to the broader Hun community, so there is that.

                1. Res, please let me know if you got the Like I just attempted.

                  1. No evidence of it — your post datelines on my tab at 05:47 pm and the email arrived datelined as 05:48 pm; my computer imagines the present to be (DST) 06:02 pm, so unless WP is holding back my receipt the :like” wasn’t liked by WP.

              2. no. they are like the web page and nested that way. just with a like star and the ability to reply well ofter the web stops giving the reply link. Sorta a cross between the email and web

                  1. It is a good feature right up until the space provided becomes so narrow that the comment is essentially written vertically.

                    1. Here, that’s not a problem. The software stops indenting after nine levels deep, the same point at which the reply links disappear. It CAN get difficult to follow the discussion at that point, however, because some people using the reply links either from the WP site or the email links and some people using the available reply links here on the page can get all out of chronological OR logical order.

  8. I would still stake my knowledge of history against theirs any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

    Q: Lincoln was a member of the ___________ political party?

    a. Democrat
    b. Republican
    c. Whig
    d. Know-nothings
    e. both a & b
    f. both b & c

    Q: Which American president was a supporter of the KKK?

    a. Washington
    b. Jefferson
    c. Jackson
    d. Lincoln
    e. Wilson
    f. All of the above

    1. Lincoln started out as a Whig, but by his election had transferred to the new Republican party.
      Since the KKK was not founded until after the Civil War, originally in response to abuse by Northern carpet baggers seeking to punish the rebel scum though it turned ugly later, Wilson is the only president who could have been a supporter.

      1. Wilson was one of the worst Presidents in general, and certainly one of the most racist. He had a private showing of D. W. Griffith’s BIRTH OF A NATION at the White House and gave it lavish praise. If you’ve not seen the film, it portrays the KKK as the saviors of Southern civilization from the hordes of freed slaves intent on destroying everything and ravishing the white women.

          1. “He was the Progressive who brought us the charms of segregation.”

            He did bring us increased segregation, but remember that by 1896 segregation had enough steam that Plessy vs. Ferguson was tried in the Supreme Court. Wilson doesn’t seem to have held any government office until 1910. (Wikipedia says he jumped from university head to state governor at that time.)

      2. Also, Lincoln didn’t run in 1864 on a Republican ticket but the National Union party with a Democrat his running mate.

        However, once we get into his career as Whig, Republican, National Union we’re probably beyond the three nines level in the Progress category.

      1. My guess is that Craig is Black as “acting white” or “being an Oreo” are slurs thrown at Blacks who don’t support the “proper” Liberal Politics.

        I’m thinking that he’d find “Why are you so angry” less insulting than those slurs.

          1. Suck it up and laugh it off. It merely demonstrates the feeble-mindedness of their stances (it would unduly dignify their mewlings to call those arguments.)

            At least you are not Clarence Thomas, a man whose integrity and intelligence we can only hope will someday (undoubtedly not in his lifetime) be recognized by society at large.

            See: George Takei Should Stop Gaysplaining Black History To Clarence Thomas
            In a nasty, racist rant captured by a Fox affiliate in Arizona, former Star Trek actor-turned-gay rights activist George Takei lashed out at Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, calling him a “clown in black face.”

            Oh my. Rather than somehow defending or dismissing the institution of slavery, Thomas actually elucidated the logic that formed the foundation of the abolition movement to end American slavery once and for all: that humanity and dignity come not from government, but from God, who makes all men in His image.

            It is this fact — that we are all created in the divine image of our Creator — that demands that government recognize the rights of all people, regardless of their color or creed. Government, after all, does not create natural rights. It is merely granted the authority to safeguard them. What Thomas noted was that while slave owners could demean and degrade their slaves, they could never wrest from them the dignity inherent in being a child of God. Far from minimizing the evils of slavery, Thomas was highlighting the revolutionary truth that led to America’s founding: “that all men are created equal, [and] that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

            Takei, however, did not grasp this fairly elementary historical point. …
            Thomas was a teenager by the time his hometown of Savannah was desegregated. He almost certainly remembers separate water fountains, movie theaters, schools, and buses. He didn’t just hear about Jim Crow laws; he lived under them. To Thomas, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. wasn’t just a brave man on the television, he was the preacher around the corner preparing to change American history forever. Savannah, after all, is home to the church where King, Jr. first practiced his historic “I Have A Dream” speech.
            Clarence Thomas does not need George Takei to patronizingly explain to him how hard life was (and is) for many black people. Thomas may not have legions of Facebook followers clamoring for his next pun or picture posted by an army of comedic writers on his payroll, but he is one thing that Takei is not: a black person with a God-given right to his own opinion. And maybe that fact is what makes Takei so angry.

            1. Any search for the really cutting racial slurs can quickly be found from the rage of Progressives against Conservative Blacks. Clarence Thomas has more character in his little finger than most of his detractors in their entire body.

              1. Any search for the really cutting racial slurs can quickly be found from the rage of Progressives against Conservative Blacks “Minorities.”


            2. Apparently Takei is freaking out because Thomas said that slaves were treated like crap but still innately possessed human dignity. Takei’s family was put in one of those Japanese relocation camps, and I’m quite sure that his family members worked very hard to demonstrate that they still had innate human dignity despite horrible conditions. People can be evil and act against one’s innate human dignity or they can be good and honor that dignity in the most helpless humans. But Thomas is right; American legal theory, as based on English common law and on the ancient and medieval concept of natural law, says that any human has innate dignity because of being a human “created equal.”

              Now, it’s barely possible that Takei is having a Buddhist moment where he believes that humans and plants and animals are all just the same stuff at different stages of reincarnation; but no, he apparently is thinking of “dignity” as a synonym of “social status” or “ability to present oneself nicely in company.” Which is not the legal sense of the word.

              1. So anyway, the obvious problem is that Takei’s version of “dignity” is a temporary situation, but the natural law version of dignity is a permanent quality. Takei is unknowingly saying that legal slaves really can become 2/3 of a human or totally nonhuman by virtue of the power of an owner or the state; whereas Thomas’ version says that an unjust law or person cannot change or remove the essential human-ness of its victims. Takei says that we are only worth what society says at the moment, whereas Thomas says that all humans have eternal worth.

                Insert obvious traditional backing by “made in the image and likeness of God” (Gen. 1:26), by the Jewish and Christian belief that great heroes are not diminished in worth by being captured or defeated, and by the Christian belief that God Himself got whipped, mocked, beat up, and executed. But it’s not like the Japanese don’t believe in toughing out injustice, either.

                I suspect that it’s a case of “read until outraged,” because obviously Thomas is defending black people’s humanity more than Takei’s “human until whipped” theory. And that’s sad, because Takei used to be a smart guy.

                1. Yes, Thomas is saying dignity is inalienable while Takei is arguing it is bequeathed by government external authority.

                  Takei probably still is a smart guy — that is the easiest to fool. What he is not is wise, a different quality entirely; knowing that difference is the beginning of wisdom.

                  1. Based on numerous comments over at Ace of Spades, Takei actually is *not* a smart guy. He’s apparently the guy who never seems to realize that everyone’s laughing at him instead of with him, and there have supposedly been multiple instances of him demonstrating this unfortunate trait.

                    1. Apparently George’s defense consists of “It isn’t racism when I do it: —

                      As posted (and rebutted) at thefederalist[DOT]com/2015/07/02/george-takei-clarifies-actually-black-face-isnt-racist-at-all/

                    2. HT: Instapundit

                      That pounding oughtta leave a mark on the lira that, francly, will never ruble out..

                  2. Wesley J. Smith, who writes the Human Exceptionalism blog at National Review Online picks up on the quote which triggered Takei:

                    The heart of his opinion begins by quoting the immortal “all men are created equal” phrase from the Declaration of Independence. He then proceeds to apply that crucial insight from the American founding. From his dissent:The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits.

                    The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away…

                    Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from—not provided by—the State.Slavery did not strip its victims of their inherent dignity. It was evil precisely because they had inherent dignity.

                    1. I swear, as God is my Witness, I thought that HTML would fly!

                      The heart of his opinion begins by quoting the immortal “all men are created equal” phrase from the Declaration of Independence. He then proceeds to apply that crucial insight from the American founding. From his dissent:

                      The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits.

                      The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away…

                      Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from—not provided by—the State.

                      Slavery did not strip its victims of their inherent dignity. It was evil precisely because they had inherent dignity.

                    2. In other words, it’s not evil to buy and sell animals or plants or rocks or fields, or to make animals and waterfalls and fields do work for us, because they don’t have the innate dignity of being sapient beings. Slavery can only exist and be evil against humans or other sapient beings.

                      (There are offenses one can commit against the innate dignity of animals, of course, like deliberate cruelty. But that’s evil in a different way, because you’re taking cruel advantage of creatures that aren’t sapient like yourself.)

          1. I think the term they prefer for Hispanic “traitors” is coconut: brown exterior, white interior. I forget the ToO (Term of Opprobrium) they employ for People of Asiatic Exterior Descent to denounce “Yellow on the Outside, White Inside” — banana, perhaps?

            Funny how those most quick to denounce racism are the ones most obsessed over race. It is rather like the elevator fart: the one to first complain is usually the one full of gas.

            No, it makes no sense, but that isn’t actually the point, is it?

            1. Banana. And “apple” for American Indians,( er Native Americans, um, First Nations, eh, enrolled members of federally recognized tribes,) who prefer to follow the Western tradition.

              1. Oops! Just realized: what is yellow on the outside and white on the inside? A Twinkie!

                I guess Sarah might be a deep-fried Twinkie — I don’t have any idea what those look like.

          2. Hmmm…and here I was trying to decipher whether nutter butter referred to appearance (levels of pigmentation, that is), ethnicity, or attitude. I’m too new here to have broken the code.

            1. What? Somebody broke the Code? Dang-it! I told those kids to put in a safe place! Now, who’s gonna sweep up those pieces?

              Not the Who, the Boomtown Rats:
              They can see no reasons
              ‘Cause there are no reasons
              What reason do you need?

              Tell me why?
              I don’t like Mondays.
              Tell me why?
              I don’t like Mondays.
              Tell me why?
              I don’t like Mondays.

            1. Ooh, and chocolate for her black heart!

              (…somehow, simisweet chocolate heart seems to cross signals on the whole “blackhearted” thing, even before the racial aspect gets involved)

        1. Paul you right, the slurs came from a people I once call friends, when I told them I didn’t vote for the you know who.

          1. Crap. How did we ever get to a place where trying your hardest to do your best and to look out for your own and families self interest is something to be cursed and belittled? Can’t someone come up with a pithy way of calling a person a brain washed zombie that doesn’t know what’s good for them? In this pocket universe of fine authors surely someone can coin something good.

            1. I hate to reply to my own post but I read the gibberish I posted and realized it could be taken in a way not meant. I’m sorry for your loss, Craig. It’s worse than awful when your friends and/or family turn on you. Worse still when they do it for all the wrong reasons and it’s them hurting themselves and others.

              1. My own mother has lost her mind. She’s now convinced I’m a dangerous extremist and she’s not a socialist, she’s a social democrat and proud of it.

  9. ■They keep acting like their intentions are pure and this makes them untouchable. This might have been believable before the fall of the USSR, but now?

    “The way to hell is paved with good intentions.” That saying has been around since before I was born. The above was not even believable before the fall, probably not even before the creation of the USSR.

    1. This!
      Their belief is that good intentions are somehow justification for any damage their actions cause. Somehow “I had your best interest at heart, but you died” fails to impress me as a mantra I can live with.
      What brings out my anger is that they insist that such intentions with horribly damaging results are not only justified, but deserving of praise and granting them the authority to continue on their same path.

    2. The road to hell is a giant 16 lane highway (one way) paved with adamantite bricks. Along side it also run two high speed maglev tracks (also one way).
      The construction company used is ‘Progressives B Us, LLC’.

    3. Yes, but time was it usually meant good intentions that were never carried out and faded.

      Nowadays, I think the alleged good intentions that did do evil predominates.

      In my experience, half the time, it’s used by people who want to feel morally superior with minimal effort — having no good intentions means they did better even though they did nothing.

      1. What, like “rather than think about the evil that is alive in the world today, and what is necessary to combat it, I’ll make a picture with a hashtag and a pout, and shut off my brain, turn a blind eye to the dangers, and congratulate myself and others similar that We Did The Right Thing, while scolding anyone who might actually want to fix the problem!”?

        1. Related. But subtly different. The sort of people who self-righteously declare that they are not self-righteous or priggish or even as this Pharisee.

  10. Rand and Heinlein kept me from believing the marxist lie, however I believed the central lie of feminism that men and women are the same until I was in my 40’s and started reading PUA blogs. My life would have been much different if they had not told me that lie as a child & teenager.

      1. In fairness we must acknowledge that they also endeavor to make men into handicapped women (only, with none of the privileges.)

        They could give lessons to Procrustes.

    1. Try being a girl who doesn’t WANT to be a cad– or maybe you sort of did, since I’m guessing you weren’t the sort to be a cad; you’re told that you’re a freak, when really you’re normal and healthy.

  11. Public service announcement:

    (Chris Muir soooooo needs to draw Sarah angry! Can we get a kickstarter going?)

    1. I had to hold back some jokes about the new Avengers movie when Sarah was talking about how her husband is the one that can keep her from hulking out. (Black Widow does “lullaby time” to de-Hulk doctor Banner.)

    1. “We have to force of history behind us.”*
      “We have a Hoyt!”

      *Or whatever the progs claim to convince themselves of their “inevitable” victory…

      1. I strongly suspect that we have four Hoyts. May the devil help them (if he is brave enough) because they need it and God won’t.

  12. It’s like the ubiquitous misuse of the word “hate”. Anything they disagree with is labeled as “hate” and thus can be discounted without having to examine it. An inconvenient truth is just “hate speech”. I try not to hate anyone, it’s an ugly corrosive emotion that profits me nothing. However, I am told how full of hate I am, simply because I question the official orthodoxy.

    1. Who knew hate could feel so… mellow.

      (I work on a help desk. I know what hate feels like. People who disagree with me are mildly annoying. People who can’t create a password to save their life (haven’t tested that – yet) and insist the problem is somewhere besides between the keyboard and chair… *deep cleansing breaths*)

      1. Oh, I miss my old help desk days. I used to send Scott Adams stories for Dilbert (back in the early 90s). A couple of times he used them. Keeping track of the craziness made it a fun job. I was doing that back when the company I worked for was switching from dumb terminals to PCs, and when the secretaries were switching from typewriters to PCs.

        1. Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie, anyone?

          My husband’s done a fair bit of help desk. Right now he does the office call sort.

          1. I was on a corporate helpdesk supporting 72,000 employees starting in 1993. Banyan was our network software. No wireless anything . OS2/Warp at first – Lotus Notes, and of course AS400 support, IBM Mainframe, Unix was pretty new. It was so much fun!

            1. And I suppose your wired network was 4Mb token ring, but it was eventually upgraded to 16Mb 🙂 Sounds a lot like MCI when I started there in 1993. Except we had the DEC VAX series, a more odious system and software never existed. I was brought in as senior engineer on a team of folks bringing in corporate PC class file, print services, and centralized applications. Started with Netware and then downgraded to NT3.5.

              1. Yes, it was a token ring network. We had Banyan Vines software, and I was an admin. It’s amazing how things have changed since 1993 – when I transferred to the Sprint help desk.

      2. If you haven’t read User Friendly, you should. I don’t think he updates it anymore, but it’s still a lot of fun.

        1. Yes, I have it on my webcomics bookmarks. I definitely sympathize with Greg. 🙂

    2. Followed closely by being phobic. If you disagree with them about anything then you are phobic.

        1. Sweetie, no wonder you’re a basket case.
          Good thing you just had a restful relaxing vacation at Libertycon.
          Ow, my tongue just stabbed my cheek.
          Check your e-mails, they promise next year will be better.

        2. Hm, I may have to tell Dear Husband not to look into Colorado Springs– he’s got major allergic reactions from living in Seattle, same complaint.

        3. I was going to say idiot-phobic. And don’t forget a88h0l3-phobic.
          Of course now there is also trans-phobic and intersectional-phobic.
          I don’t know, or care, what those last two mean, but I’m definitely burdened here. 😉

          1. I’m phobic-phobic. Stupid people who invent their own fictions to be afraid of and expect me to accommodate them freak me out, and the proglodytes live for just that. There can be no peace with people who run around screaming “Eek! A conservative/capitalist/gun owner/straight/Christian/gun-owner/dick carrier/reader/whatever. They make a virtue of their hysteria and expect uscto accommodate them.

      1. This is why I want to go up to a person known for using such accusations and scream, “AAAAAAAGH! It’s a [Insert group type here] person! Get it away! Get it away!”

        1. or … “You’re triggering me! You’re triggering me!” and swell up into a Hulkish pre-attack posture.

      2. Every time someone “invents” a new phobia, I think how it would be nice if taking a copy of DSM-5 and beating in the skulls of people who do so was legal, as long as you remember to say something to the effect of “no, you jackass, you do NOT get to manufacture mental illnesses!”

        1. It must be a phobia, of a type not yet diagnosed, because why else would you disagree with their brilliant and enlightened views*?

          *Their views must be brilliant and enlightened; their 6th Grade teacher said as much when rewriting their answers on the state-mandated communist core American History (Revised Edition) and Math Calculator Mastery exams.

    3. You might enjoy this reprint of an old essay:

      because of this quote:
      What is tolerance? Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. But what is more important than the definition is the field of its application. The important point here is this: Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error.

      America is suffering not so much from intolerance, which is bigotry, as it is from tolerance, which is indifference to truth and error, and a philosophical nonchalance that has been interpreted as broad-mindedness. Greater tolerance, of course, is desirable, for there can never be too much charity shown to persons who differ with us. Our Blessed Lord Himself asked that we “love those who calumniate us, for they are always persons,” but He never told us to love the calumny.

      1. “There is nothing mean about a judgmental insistence that our fellow citizens are morally responsible to others and to themselves. Personal responsibility cannot be compromised without indignity and injustice for all.” (p. 109, Somers and Satel, _One Nation Under Therapy_.)

          1. One of the problems with the modern idea of “rights” is that the modern idea of “rights” means that the government has to give things to people.

            The “old fashion” idea of “rights” is “this is what the government can’t mess with”.

            Thus the modern idea of “rights” requires Big Government while the “old fashion idea of “rights” limits the size of Government.

            Oh, I seem to remember that Prussia had a very good welfare system for its time.

            Prussia wanted to keep the commoners “happy” so they didn’t challenge the Rulers’ Power. [Sad Smile]

    4. Their opinions are correct by definition. Since you have no logical reason to doubt them, and your disagreement makes them “uncomfortable”, you must be driven by hate.

  13. I always thought when they ask “Why are you so angry?” it was straight up projection. Everything else they accuse us of is projection, it just seems logical. They do *seem* angry. Even when they win, lol.

  14. This seems surprisingly apropos today:

    Alexander Schalck-Golodkowski was a most ingenious conman. The world at large never knew about him because he stayed in a little circle of corrupt political and financial insiders with whom he was doing his dirty businesses. In a mind-blowing interview that I had with Günter Mittag, the East German minister of finance, I first heard something about Golodkowski. The collapse of Communism allowed Mittag to speak more freely. Communist East Germany, he said, had always been an economic disaster, so much so that he had never dared tell Erich Honnecker, the Party first secretary, the truth that the state had no money. Mittag made up the numbers. For cash to keep up the pretenses, he turned to Golodkowski, giving him permission to do whatever he thought might be profitable. The measure of Golodkowski’s success was the CIA’s preposterous judgement that East Germany had the tenth-largest economy in the world.

  15. Once you start looking at things through the lens of “How does this affect the accrual of power for the involved parties…?”, one really starts to see things that can only enrage one.

    That’s one reason I’m reacting so badly to this set of most recent outrages from the Supreme Court: I can see exactly where both of these are taking us, and I’m not seeing an upside. On the one ruling, the Court has graciously provided the SJW types with a weapon to use against the established churches and conservative structures in society, that of gay marriage. For an exemplar of how this is likely to work out, over the long haul, examine the results of similar changes to Canadian law. Dawn Stefanowicz is, admittedly, not an unbiased writer on this issue–But, she does outline exactly where our “activists” want to take us with this issue.


    Read that, and look at the long-term effect on wearing down the “norms” of the various churches and other institutions. Consider: Why this? Why now? And, realize that this is merely an opening wedge, a ploy–The intent is to teach the institutions fear, and to lie. When they’re cowed by the oh-so-reasonable gay marriage issue, it will be so much easier to do the same thing with other issues, like euthanasia and the rest of the SJW/Left’s social power ploys.

    Here in the US, there are going to be issues with getting past the First Amendment, but the second Supreme Court decision of recent days is going to make that a lot easier, in that we now have precedent for the Court to find things in the Constitution and in the written law that aren’t even there, in the fairy-tail pursuit of the “intent”.

    The only comfort I have is that I know damn good and well that the people who are really the source of all this could care less about the gays and the people who need Obamacare; those groups are going to be the first ones up against the wall, when they start asking questions after the revolution: Right now, they’re simply useful idiots, tools with which to gain power. They’re never going to realize what they’re actually enabling until its to late for them–And, the rest of us. The revolution always eats its young, but the appetizer before that stage are always the enablers, who are held in utter contempt by the power players running them from behind the scene.

    The laughable part of all this is how transparent it is. The same left-wing pack of power-seekers at one and the same time is supporting/enabling the Islamist elements that delight in throwing gay men off of buildings, while at the same time doing their best to use gay marriage as a tool to tear down the institutions in the West that might best offer an alternative to resist the coming depredations of the Islamic cult on the body politic. Think they care, about the gays? Yeah, right–That’s why they’re enabling the growth of the Islamic Caliphate. It’s not about Islam, or gay rights–It’s about eliminating the structures in the West that have resisted their authority and final ascent to power over the rest of us. I’ve no doubt that these power-perverts haven’t quite thought this through, but the end game isn’t here yet. It may be amusing to watch, as they try to stamp out the fires of Islam they used to wreck what’s left of Western culture. Maybe they’ll manage to make it work, and win through, but I think we’re just going to see a huge mess that nobody is going to benefit from, least of all those of us who aren’t vying for the power in the first place.

    They’re engaged in a war on Western culture, and the majority of us are too feckless to recognize this fact. We need to wake the hell up, and at least start seeing things for what they are–The manner in which this BS stalking-horse of gay marriage has gone through is something that should scare the living hell out of every American citizen worthy of the name. It wasn’t done openly, via legislatural process, it was done in the opaque darkness of the courts–Which is precisely where they’ll chop down the rest of the Bill of Rights, and likely in the name of forcing the rest of us to acquiesce to this whole gay marriage thing. I’m not angry at the fact that they’ve made it legal for the gays to marry, but for the foolish way that the gay community has grasped at this straw, not realizing how much damage they’ve thus done to the cultural commons and precedents with regards to the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

    It’s not a lot of comfort to know that when the time is right, the same tools will be used against them. And, brutally so–I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see gay sex outlawed as a threat to public health, a la the way we’ve demonized and made tobacco illegal. While, oddly, making marijuana legal… Odd thing, that: Ask yourself why that is, and how it is never commented on: Tobacco bad, marijuana good… They want to make it illegal to smoke tobacco in your own home, now, in New York–While some of the same activists and agitators are trying to make marijuana legal there. Huh? Makes no sense, at all–Until you analyze this through the lens of asking “Whose power does this accrue?”, and “What group or institution does this denigrate?”.

    1. Thirty-five years ago, while on a brief visit to Britain I discovered the practice of mixing marijuana and tobacco in a cigarette. I wouldn’t have imagined that it would be such a short time until the marijuana was useful as a blind to the tobacco smoking.

      1. I wonder how long it will be before additives to tobacco are on the market, that make it smell like marijuana? I don’t give it very long until tobacco is illegal, and marijuana is completely legal to smoke across most of the US, probably in the name of “stress management”. Pot is going to be a civil right; tobacco, a health menace that has to be stamped out.

        You can’t look at this crap and not wonder at the patent bullshit being pulled, here–Or, despair at recognizing how few of us even see the outlines of this. It’s like “they” are playing a sick game with the body politic, jerking it first one way, then the other–All in the name of power accrual. Pot was first made illegal, and then the laws enforced with draconian glee: Now, most see that as bullshit, and disobey. So, make tobacco illegal, and then enforce that with the same draconian glee, and most people will nod their heads wisely, and say “It’s for the health of us all…”, while lighting up their spliffs and joints…

        Next turn of the wheel? Make pot illegal, as a public health menace. While legalizing tobacco in recognition of the damage trying to suppress it has done… After making the criminals of the world wealthy, as they smuggle it in to support the habits of the no-doubt evil “nicotine fiends”…

        You know what? I’ve just decided that the majority of the people living in this country are a bunch of utter f*****g morons. They manifestly deserve everything they’re about to get, and all I’m going to do is sit here on the sidelines and laugh my ass off. I just don’t give a f**k, any more.

        1. I recall reading reports of studies claiming to find (is that sufficiently weasel-wording?) an inverse correlation between cigarette smoking and Alzheimers’/Dementia. This is likely a result of its stimulation of blood flow through the cerebrovascular system and an ability to deter the formation of plaque in the little grey cells.

          Interestingly, it appears to be both vasoconstrictor and vasodilator (Google: “is nicotine a vasoconstrictor or vasodilator” for an interesting array of results.)

          Is it unreasonable to conclude that by banning tobacco use the government is trying to ensure dementia in the citizenry?

        2. The ‘war on drugs’ was won, when the Feds were granted the right of ‘asset forfeiture’. An interesting concept where individuals are no longer allowed to carry cash and the Government can seize it without due process, or in fact, any crime being committed. Tobacco is less of a health risk than it is a ‘money farm’ for lawyers.

          1. Y’know… It’s odd, but I don’t recall anyone asking me if I “granted” the Feds the right to do that sort of thing. Seems to me, the way I remember it, they granted it to themselves, without a lick of consultation with me or mine.

            The day is coming when their “Mandate of Heaven” ends, and their legitimacy along with it. They have only themselves to blame. Personally, I think there are going to be a lot of law enforcement officers that are going to come to really unfortunate and probably personally undeserved bad ends because of things like this, as they try to figure out why they’re suddenly dealing with mob violence directed at them in heretofore “safe” communities.

        3. There are several tobacco shops on the No Go list at my husband’s reserve command, because they’re known to mix pot in with the tobacco. Probably for a similar reason.

    2. Over in Austria and Germany, apparently this is the Summer of the Environment. Not officially, exactly, but there are hard-core anti-pollution/anti-plastic displays in various museums, all the government TV stations are running environmental shows even more than usual, and there are water-themed art, culture, and civic events all over. It’s so blatant that it turned my stomach, even though I do enjoy some of the well-photographed animal and river shows on Austrian TV (the ones that focus on the critters and not so much on eeeeevil humans). That plus the usual AGW the glaciers are dooooomed stuff makes me wonder what’s up. New energy restrictions and regulations? Is it to get people used to a lower standard of living and/or higher taxes if Russia cuts off the natural gas this winter? Who will benefit from all this push?

      It did kick-start that idea I had two years ago about a Green, feudal and isolated Europe and how to go about writing the set up (and how it fits into the next story series/possibly book.)

      1. Now’s a good time to push stuff. There are a bunch of stressors, so people are prone to not being calm, and they don’t want people taking time to think and analyze.

  16. Excuses excuses. It’s what I’ve grown to expect from “Angry, right-wing” blogs like these….


  17. “Some idiots think this means “easy prey” and not “I’m fighting like h*ll not to kill you.”

    Most of them! Hell, I used to misinterpret it in myself for a long time. I was always ashamed of it, (the trembling and tearing part, not the smashing part).

    1. I keep mistaking it for “I’m freaking out for no reason” when it’s actually “I am responding to implied threats, usually from body language.”

      Although I did once have someone accuse me of trying to intimidate them– a do-nothing paper pusher who wasn’t doing his job because he was getting a degree in Islamic studies during work hours.
      Thankfully, the chief was just around the corner and heard my incredulous response to the effect of no, I was cracking my knuckles because it was cold enough that ice was forming in the hanger bay and my fingers hurt.

      (Helped that the guy in question was a foot taller than me, half a foot wider, and if he got down to a healthy weight would still be massively heavier than me.)

            1. You don’t want to “keep” your foe’s knees. You want to hit their knees so that it’s easier to defeat them. [Evil Grin]

    2. Scottish heritage rears its head occasionally. Red hair is a warning. If you see a red-head turn bone white and start shaking, clear the area. If they turn red all they’re going to do is yell. If they turn white, run.

      Red heads: Do -not- let the dragon off the leash unless you’re going to -die- right there. So not worth it when the red haze clears and you’re surrounded by wreckage.

  18. Reblogged this on The zombie apocalypse survival homestead and commented:
    Sarah tells it like it is!!

    “You should wish I was angry. That boils over and passes. It’s just an emotion after all.

    Instead, I’m coldly, rationally indignant at your lies, your boorish disregard for others, your piggish greed for power.

    And I tell you that you shall not pass.”

  19. My sympathies on the berserker rage. My own Viking ancestry has left my brain with the firm conviction that there is no point to anger without resulting to physical violence. Since physical violence has never been an useful response to the situations in which I’ve been angry, it just leaves me crying and then with a raging headache.

      1. Its the post-rush shakes and the throwing up that get me. The actual rage part is kind of addictive. Have to be careful about that. Tai Chi helps a lot.

        1. I don’t actually throw up, but then I can count on two hands the times I threw up in my life. Something to the design of my stomach. I’ve found alcohol helps, bizarrely. It’s a depressant.

          1. Alcohol changes your blood pressure. The headache is from the adrenaline dump spiking your core BP by clamping down peripheral blood vessels. That’s why you turn white.

            The throwing up is you body dumping drag. The adrenaline shuts off your digestive system, so what’s in your stomach isn’t useful. Extreme berserk reactions include shitting yourself, more dumping drag. Thank God I’ve never had that one.

            What’s fascinating in all this is that these berserk reactions are NORMAL. You’re built that way, that’s how it’s supposed to work.

            What is not normal is work and social situations triggering this kind of reaction on a regular basis. When you’re an Odd, this shit happens all the fucking time. That ain’t right. That’s other people pushing your buttons either on purpose, or with a vast disregard of what might happen.

            My solution was a decade of Tai Chi and a lifetime of self employment. Tai Chi kept other people alive when I tried the occasional non-self employment experiment, like being a physical therapist.

            Age seems to be helping too. I haven’t needed to kill anybody on the highway in weeks. That used to be a daily thing. It’s a testament to the power of martial arts and meditation that I wasn’t a killer in my 20s.

            Another answer that occurs to me for the “Why are you angry?” troll is “Why are you pushing the big red button on my forehead that says ‘safety off’? Do you think nothing is going to happen?”

            Leftists are the kind of people who throw rocks at a chained up dog and then have it put down for barking. Imagine their surprise when the chain breaks.

            1. Ah! The Odds. Of course Odds will get triggered more frequently, but I was thinking we have an awful lot of berserkers here. I don’t think I’ve met any in person. I was thinking it has something to do with lines which cannot be crossed. Which implies a thoughtful morality missing amongst the sheep.

              I’m definitely going to steal the chained dog metaphor. Thanks

              1. The only way you’d know is if you angered them, or if they told you. Since you’re basically civilized, unless you bring it up in conversation, how would you know?

                1. From never seeing anyone stand up for themselves or others. Granted, you don’t get to see everyone being tested. Still, it’s given me a low opinion of 99%. Now I’m thinking, maybe they just aren’t equipped.

    1. Remember “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.”. The competent use it a lot earlier.

      1. True. But I have led a very peaceful (sheltered) life and have never been in a situation where violence was an appropriate response.

        1. Moments like that are an ideal time to practice the calm that comes from cleaning weapons and sharpening blades. It’s very zen. Once you attain peace, then begin to train with them…

          Afterwards? Allow your path to come to you. Like as not, in these troubled times, it will. And, instead of being exhausted from the rage, you will be centered and properly prepared.

        2. Remember, approach every situation with patient reason and logic, but always have a backup plan on how to most efficiently kill everyone in the room.

          1. I like the civilian version: Be polite, be professional, and have a contract. (That is even better than a plan to kill everyone, because you get them to sign agreement to the fine print. It provides many, many options to make my life better without having to resort to the tedious messy cleanup and hearing loss from firing without ear pro at close range.)

        3. Me too. I always wait for The Time before I start the hitting. The Time is when God tells you to hit the son of a bitch. It feels like your personality shuts off, and out of the silence comes a stroke that falls naturally like a leaf falling off a tree in autumn. And because your ego isn’t involved, it strikes like Jove’s freaking lightning bolt.

          So far, in almost 60 years of Demanding Social Environments, its only been The Time once. But when The Time came, I was ready.

          That guy was surprised as hell. ~:)

          But then later I threw up. 😦 Because the dragon must be paid.

          1. The Light of Madness, as it rises in the eyes, is a most excellent warning sign; when you look into soul-windows, and see only the Beast, it is too late to apologize or rectify. Pray simply that you were not the one who goaded the Beast awake.

            While the Beast reigns, restraint sleeps; hands itch for weapons, fingers for throats, and the nostrils lust for the scent of fresh, red blood. Slaking that mad desire requires red ruin, and the wreckage of lives–Nothing else answers. Nothing.

          2. This.

            And this is why, when I was just a teenager starting out in martial arts, my mother took me aside and made me solemnly promise never to hit anyone in anger. Once I had made that promise she waited a couple beats, then said that malice aforethought, however, was perfectly acceptable.

    2. At some point, H.L. Mencken’s line about hoisting the black flag and commencing to slit throats is going to become a reality for a lot of people. I’m not sure where my trigger point lies, but I am becoming increasingly certain that I have one, a point past which I will enter a state where I simply will not care about the aftermath.

      In my case, it will likely be something so esoteric that most people will be sitting there goggling, trying to figure out why I targeted those particular throats, and I’ll be frothing at the mouth trying to explain and justify it all. Nobody will get it, but I will feel one hundred percent justified. The sanity hearings afterwards ought to be interesting…

    3. Me three. I once cleared a dorm floor of students during a 20′ walk from my room to the exit (and then left a dent in the steel fire door). One of the Neo-pagans later said that I had looked like the Morrigan.

    4. Yeah! What is it with the headache?
      It doesn’t happen if you actually get some violence. Which puts them even closer to the edge they can’t see.

      1. Somewhere I heard a definition of stress as something like “stress is the result of forcing yourself to not kill somebody who really deserves killing”. [Evil Grin]

        1. “He needed killin’.” is considered a legitimate defense in Texas, I understand.

          In Ontario, burn marks on your house and a video of the unprovoked firebomb attack by multiple assailants are not a legitimate defense for a warning shot. No, really. That’s not enough to convince a Crown attorney not to press “attempted murder” charges.

    1. Pointed that one out yesterday. It’s worth highlighting again; he gets what is going on, here.

      In short, we’re being gaslighted by the left, yet again.

    2. Except. Pragmatically, successful democratic nations have pretty much universally opted for socialism.

      There are a lot of government interventions that are better done than not. I still remember a friend coming in, out of college, to start out servicing some power supplies for a vacuum manufacturer. No one was available to train him on the supplies as the old tech and designer had both been electrocuted. Turns out that 100 kV at a few amps is more apt to cause small explosions than heart failure. They lost another guy before the redesign. So, yah, workplace safety has pluses. So does the EPA. And food inspection. And, yes, these all have minuses. But, on average, they reduce life ending risks or promote public goods (like being able to breathe). Public schooling and vaccinations tend to pay for themselves. And, free or inexpensive medical care tends to enable risk taking and thereby brings us closer to interstellar travel. Of course, all of them s can be overdone…

      The Germans who’ve visited generally see a system with basic income and paid education in exchange for lowered salaries as better. To the point that they look at us with muted horror. It turns out that eliminating people who actually don’t want to work from the workforce is startlingly efficient…

      Otoh, gun control bores me. Overall, between effects on crime and mortality, for similar cultures and wealth levels, a lack or surfeit of legal guns doesn’t seem to accomplish much. I haven’t seen any studies with effect sizes that are important. I did look for a while. That said, I am loyal to the US and risk adverse and, rationally, a surplus of sniper rifles is a safeguard against tyranny…given that guns don’t seem to make much difference otherwise…might as well not ban them.

      Honestly though, I am reasonably satisfied with this nation. I think military spending is a bit high; medical care is too inefficient; and wealth inequality is increasing a lot, possibly unsustainable. But, in the other hand, these lovely machines we have built will someday be able to make sense of this vast edifice and at least help people understand what is going on.
      And heck, within a few decades, police brutality will probably decline substantially.

      On anger though, I’m a bit German. So, ‘that wasn’t nice’ is a pretty big thing. My wife is Korean, the cultures differ. ‘You fking @#%, I will fking murder you where you stand.’ (Cue thrown crockery…at the floor)…is probably a bit milder than my prior statement. My point being, some people may not be used to how you talk.

      1. “Except. Pragmatically, successful democratic nations have pretty much universally opted for socialism.”

        Remains to be seen how long that can remain true; the only real difference between Greece and Germany is the scale of the government involved, and how long it took for them to run out the available slack in the system.

        Germany has had a pretty successful run at things, and a great deal of their success has been due to the fact that they were able to rely on US defense spending for both a lot of basic R&D and slack in their economy–Were they required to spend the money they would have had to in order to remain out of the Warsaw Pact as a vassal state, and do so without the subsidy of US defense coverage, odds are pretty damn good that they’d be bankrupt if their vaunted “social benefits” schemes kept pace with the ones they could afford in our history.

        None of these “socialist nations” have managed well, over the long haul: Look at the UK, and wonder at the dissolution of its industrial base and workforce, all enabled and created by the forces of socialism. What you’re saying is a benefit is merely a marker that there’s a lot more ruin in these economies than they’ve managed to work in our lifetimes. It remains to be seen how long it will all last–I personally thought the inherent contradictions would put paid to the Euro within a decade, but it seems to have lasted a bit longer. How much longer? Who knows… But, the handwriting is on the wall.

        The problem with a government-enforced socialist paradise is that there are no controls over it–Just like the cancer, or the hypothetical “grey goo” of nanotech fame, the government regulators eventually intrude into everything, as is their nature. And, when they’ve completely gummed up the works, what happens? Stasis.

        There is a reason a lot of those Germans you describe throw up their hands in horror–They’ve taken up the mentality of the domesticated animal, and cannot imagine a world where they are on their own, responsible for their own lives. This is the essential difference between the mentalities, and from the wistful way you write, I think you truly want to be domesticated, as well. Do remember, however, that domestication comes with its own set of problems, namely that you’re now beholden to your masters, and they may well decide that you’re more fit for the slaughterhouse than the dairy barn. Domestication always implies a situation where there are owners and cattle; do not for a moment fail to remember that, and that the odds of you ever being anything other than the fatted calf aren’t good.

        1. Yes, West Germany without the US defensive shield equals East Germany.

          As for domestication, owners always provide medical care for their animals until the cost exceeds the expected returns. Then it’s time to call the knacker.

      2. Pragmatically, successful democratic nations have pretty much universally opted for socialism.

        This is not a valid argument. The question is: “How’s that working out for them?” The answer is: “Greece.” Also known as: “If all the other nations jumped off a cliff” fallacy. Entrenched bureaucracies have been proven more inclined to pursue their institutional interests at the expense of the public interest, ergo such states are inherently contrary to the public interest no matter how many nations adopt such policies.

        There are a lot of government interventions that are better done than not.

        Another invalid argument. There are a lot of government interventions that are not better done than not. Don’t invite me to list them. The fact that many squares are rectangles does not rebut the claim that many rectangles are not squares.

        … on average, they reduce life ending risks or promote public goods …

        I refer you to “the seen and the unseen.” Just because a particular policy reduces life ending risks or promotes public goods does not make that policy the most effective means of achieving those goals with lowest public cost. If government required daily intake of 1,000mg of Placebo there would be a public benefit; that does not constitute a good argument for such policy.

        The Germans who’ve visited generally see a system with basic income and paid education in exchange for lowered salaries as better.

        What Germans think is hardly a historically strong argument for public policy.

        gun control bores me

        Most Huns are strong proponents of gun control, believing that you should be able to place three shots within the diameter of a quarter at reasonable distances.

        wealth inequality is increasing a lot, possibly unsustainable

        Take this up with the Clinton Foundation and the CEOs of failing Obamacare exchanges. Frankly, i think using government to address “wealth inequality” is on a par with hiring weasels to guard your hen-house.

        within a few decades, police brutality will probably decline substantially

        I think the greater concern is criminal brutality, but that’s probably just me.

        1. ““within a few decades, police brutality will probably decline substantially”
          Socialist “utopias” usually go the other way, particularly if the effort to federalize the police is successful.

          1. For example, see Venezuela. The only reason Germany hasn’t gotten to that point, as of yet, is that there’s lot more “ruin” available in the German economy. The more they try to prop up the EU, however, the less of that there will be. Personally, I think we’re going to hear of Poland propping up what’s left of Germany in few generations, assuming Poland isn’t sucked into the vortex with them…

          2. Oh, it will decline dramatically…. it won’t be called that. Similarly, in major American cities, we’re seeing the British practice of police refusing to acknowledge crimes by minorities.

      3. I realized this comment contained a couple of peeves that haven’t been petted in a while, so I’m going to give them a few strokes:

        I think military spending is a bit high; medical care is too inefficient …

        These are essentially (at best) meaningless assertions.

        As Heinlein has noted, there is nothing as expensive as a second rate military. The issue here is not whether military spending is too high but whether it is well-allocated.

        I seriously doubt anybody complaining “military spending is a bit high” wishes to advocate that next earthquake, tsunami or hurricane we reduce military spending by not sending an aircraft carrier to lend a hand. Nor, I suspect, are they inclined to complain because American pilots are flying too many missions over ISIS to too little effect because asinine RoE prevent dropping any !@#$! ordnance on the b@st@rds because they may have civilian human shields hostages amongst their number.

        I don’t believe for even a moment that the Huns here think every dollar of military spending is spent well; just ask some of them about the F35 being built while the A10 is being shut down.

        But “a bit high” is a nebulous term that refuses to take responsibility. How high is “a bit”? How would you reduce spending, would you cut military advisers to allied nations, reduce in-field training or combat deployment? Would you revise military procurement policies to make the process more efficient (do you even know what those policies are and how they affect efficiency?)

        Unless you can address those and myriad other factors your opinion on military spending is simply simple-minded.

        As for “medical care is too inefficient” — I cannot think of a single human activity that is not too inefficient, including the conversion of ingested materials into muscle, fat, nerve cells and energy. This is another of those “feelz good” statements that is the social equivalent of wearing a shirt with the legend “I’m with stupid” and an arrow pointing straight down up.

        I don’t even want to get started on how to reduce the inefficiency of health care provision because doing that entails questions that tend to explode. Just one example: as all people die, optimum efficiency would require we simply execute anyone any time they apply for health care attention.

        Declaring “I am for good things at lower cost” is a statement with all significant terms undefined.

        And people wonder why I get irritable.

        1. “How high is a bit?”
          Easy. 12.5¢, or half of a “shave and a haircut”.

        2. I’ve been in defense acquisitions. One of the reasons why I got out of the Air Force is that I didn’t want to spend my career being part of the problem. Right now our defense acquisitions bureaucracy is so screwed up and so sclerotic, and so parasitic on its mission that we could spend $infinity and just get more bureaucrats instead of more bullets. We have reached the defense acquisitions singularity.

          We have a few wizard weapons: one or two of each, in university and DARPA labs. They never make it out to people in the Army: I hear stories from (one of my acquaintances) of cannibalizing display tanks because no one has the parts to keep their broken down hand-me-downs from the 80s rolling, and how he keeps running into outright lies on the property books because the person who tries to straighten all of it out becomes personally liable for the fact that Tank A is in fact far inferior Tank B without any of the supposed upgraded equipment it is supposed to have.

          Our magazines are shallow. My biggest fear is that we could spend $infinity on our military, and still fold like a wet blanket if we met the resistance of an organized enemy. The only thing that is keeping us safe right now is that the Islamic states are cavemen, and the Russians are about as corrupt and resource starved as our own forces are.

          1. The attentive reader will note that this supports my contention: the problem is not in the amount we spend but in the way we spend it.

          2. Given that I expect to be fighting the government within 5 years, this is not necessarily a completely bad thing.

        3. F-35? Heck, go read the archives at Commander Salamander’s place about the continuing saga of the hole-in-the-water known as the LCS (for Little Crappy Ship). Which I suspect will join the F-35 in textbooks about how NOT to design/modify/spec-out weapons platforms.

      4. Pragmatically, successful democratic nations have pretty much universally opted for socialism.

        When someone else is going to pay the bill, a whole lot of people are willing to go out for dinner. From memory, those places have mostly charged it to the next generation. Who they aren’t raising, at least not in the numbers that they’d need to pay the bills.

        Yes, government is a tool which can do good things– now look at the EPA and the FDA, and see how they’ve gone off their purpose and into activism. (FDA inspection of slaughter plants used to outlaw horse meat, for example. They required inspections, and then refused to do inspections.)

      5. By the way, part of why our military spending is what it is, is because we’re providing military security for those “successful, democratic” nations. They keep promising to increase their military spending so it’s it’s only ludicrously low, but only one even got close to the goal last I heard. The poor Brit military was pulling helos out of museums to try to hit their commitments.
        (I’ve got great admiration for the militarizes that are working their rears off to pull their weight– especially when their socialist inclined governments keep underfunding them for the jobs those governments agreed to do.)

      6. “Except. Pragmatically, successful democratic nations have pretty much universally opted for socialism.”

        Translation, we are still fighting the Nazis. They just switched tactics after Adolph died in his bunker. The new tactics are less obvious, the end game will be the same.

    3. I keep saying this. You can’t allow them anything. That’s why Sad Puppies is genius. Them doing what they always do makes them look like what they are: insane assholes.

  20. I’m a bit angry at the fashion industry, I guess, because they are working so hard to convince my wife & the girl kids that they have to have straight hair to be beautiful. That sells an evil amount of products.

    1. I’d be angrier about why they feel the need to convince pre-pubescent girls to dress like twenty-something sluts, with thongs and see-through crop-tops… The hair care products are affordable; the rest of the baggage coming with that wardrobe that’s de riguer isn’t.

      1. I have, half a dozen times, been in a public place and seen matched mother/daughter pairs dressed like they were out for a night at the local S&M club.

        The last pair… my imagination gave up at trying to figure why they chose to visit the local Wal-Mart 10 AM dressed like Bondage Barbies. Ten in the evening, maybe… but in the morning?

        1. I was “a wee bit” displeased when two of the younger students said that they would be wearing big shirts and leggings when they went to compete in a regional music contest. I suggested nice skirts, because leggings are NOT slacks/trousers/pants. “But I play cello.” So wear a full skirt, like symphony cellists do.

          1. Yeah. Full skirt, full skirted dress, and long, mid-calf seated or longer. Or long skort, or slacks.

            Come on, girls. We have an excuse to wear long swirly skirts. Any time we want. Cellists have the most fun! (But put down the ‘cello before you start twirling, okay?)

            1. But… But… They make such wonderful bludgeons, when the boys get too feely…

              1. No, no, no. Kirk, you never bludgeon with a ‘cello: it’s hard on the ‘cello. We have sharp, pointy endpins for a reason. Just run them through.

                Didn’t you know there was a reason the ‘cello section can’t walk through the door posted ‘no weapons’ to enter back stage without cracking up?

                1. I dunno… The cellists I’ve known certainly used their instruments as bludgeons. Of course, that was cased, so maybe I’m mistaken about the finer points of cello-fu.

                  1. Kirk, a person can slam into a properly cased ‘cello, knocking it flying and bouncing, without causing any damage. All you have to do is retune it. (My kids prove this regularly.) Our cases will take anything up to but not including airport conveyer belts. This is why we buy them tickets–that, and they really don’t like temperature changes.
                    When you consider that our instruments are generally the single most valuable item we own, if second to anything it is our house, you see why our cases are like that. However, the instrument inside is much more fragile than the case.
                    They’re also insured, of course, but one really can’t replace a handmade instrument, the best one can do is get a different instrument.

                    1. It is possible that my experience of cellists has been limited to those who only played government-owned instruments and/or just DNGAF. We used to have the 56th Army Band barracked not too far away from us, and they had a small string section for a little while. I don’t know what happened to them, but for a few years, at least, there were a couple of seriously gonzo chicks who were over there doing cello and a few other things for the band. I still haven’t quite grokked what role they played in a marching band, but I do know that they were a law unto themselves. As in: “Those chicks with the big violins are crazy; stay the hell away from them…”. Not that they were around much, either. Seemed to spend a bunch of time on the road, doing stuff with other than the I Corps Band.

                    2. The ‘cheap’ side of ‘cellos of decent quality, which is to say new or fairly young instruments by luthiers with not much reputation, would be about $10,000. A good new instrument by a well known luthier runs about $70,000. When you get into the old instruments, you get into ‘loaned by the Smithsonian’ territory, because no musician can afford to buy them.

                      Also, you can buy a neck strap, sort of like what a saxophonist uses, for walking with a ‘cello. Those are usually used by strolling string quartets at very high end restaurants. A ‘cello generally doesn’t fit well with a marching band–wrong tone, etc. But the Army is weird: they call a band what the rest of the world calls a symphony orchestra.

                    3. I’m still trying to remember what they did; offhand, I can’t recall a single march that calls for a string quartet, and the image of them actually marching with them in a military manner boggles the mind. But, they were around, and were always loading on the buses or the vans to go somewhere and do something, soo… We uncouth beasts of the field only watched, with amusement, as the band members fought for primacy amongst each other. As I said, the “chicks with big violins” seemed to do a good job of holding their own, and what interaction we had with the band off-duty generally included some gossip about their goings-on. Apparently, “law unto themselves” was the deal. I’m not at all sure what the hell their jobs were, because, as I say, there was little scope for strings, and the only “special band” I know about was a jazz ensemble. But, there they were, a string section of about four-five women in their late twenties-early thirties, ranked about SSG, so they had to have some musical seniority going.

                      Army bands are just plain weird, to the rest of us. When a band member comes in as a SFC, with no prior military experience, based solely on musical skill…? And, takes a senior position in the band, as a musician? Decidedly odd, to those of us who did the majority thing, and became just plain Soldiers.

                    4. An example of a cello with a strap for mobile playing. (I first saw this from a Steampunk String quartet (Stringpunk?) playing at last years Wild Wild West Con.

                    5. They did flashmobs at the Smithsonian? (Or was that a different branch of service?)

                      Musicians are weird. Cellists are on the weird end of musicians. Don’t fret about it. Probably what they did was make the conductor blush–this is a usual cellist activity. ‘Cellos lend themselves beautifully to innuendo–just look at how we hold them–and musicians are generally, like writers, decidedly out of tune with the world.

                      And if I’m weirder than usual tonight, it’s just post-gig high, okay? Not to worry. Which reminds me, I really need to go write down my tips. I’m trying to be a responsible musician here.

              1. Eh, if you are male, and there is enough fabric to keep the world from knowing just how authentic you chose to be (or not to be), try it and see. Ladies? Well, most kilted skirts I’ve seen won’t let you, ah, hmmm, cover the basics while playing. (As in they are not full enough. We will not mention those little short plaid things jokingly called “kilts”.”)

                1. “We will not mention those little short plaid things jokingly called “kilts”.”

                  I believe the technical term for those is “Butt Ruffle.”

                  1. If you wish to know if it will work, sit on a chair with your knees about eighteen inches apart. Hike the skirt up about six inches to allow for the depth of the instrument which will be cradled by your legs. Do you flash your audience? (This is the moving ‘cello in and out of playing position posture, as when you are about to stand and bow.)

                    1. If you’re traditional, the sporran should hold things down enough to preserve your modesty. If you’re wearing a utilikilt style, good luck.

                    2. Sir Thomas Beecham, rehearsing with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, once turned to one of the cellists and remarked: “You have between your legs an object which should give pleasure to millions, and all you can do is sit there and scratch it.”
                      — found on the internet.

          2. As those who saw me at LibertyCon already know, I like dresses, full skirts, and corsets, shawls and jewelry. For years, I’ve worked in environments where I had to wear jeans and shirts (and often hard hats and Class III safety vests.)

            The feminists who are so proud of dressing like men clearly have forgotten the power and beauty of being a well-dressed woman, just as surely as those who try to flaunt their sexuality usually end up looking like meat on sale. I prefer to work with a mysterious power that they have no ability to handle, called modesty.

    2. It has been my conclusion that you have to like your hair (your self) in order to be beautiful — that true beauty stems from innate human dignity and self-acceptance. Well, that plus appropriately symmetrical features, a good BMI and the right chest/waist/hip ratios.

      Whether hair is straight, kinky or bisexual matters less than whether you are dissatisfied with it.

      1. *Calls up-thread* Pat, I’ll hold RES down if you want to get a couple spray cans of White Rain (TM) to douse the wallaby with.

    3. They work equally hard to convince ladies with straight hair that it must be curly. It’s a neat trick, but pretty much everybody female falls for it.

      1. Pretty much every female who looks in a mirror sees imperfections (even when none exist) and almost any male who looks in a mirror sees near perfection.

        But male and female are exactly the same, so any failure of men to see their imperfections is merely additional evidence of their inferiority privilege.

        1. Tell that to my spam box….

          Although, to be honest, the majority of those are more about performance.

      2. The grass is greener on the other side. I think the fashion industry is always promoting whatever is hardest to achieve for the most women. Food is scarce? Fat women. Food is plentiful? Thin women. To be pale if you have dark skin, to be tan if you have pale skin. Never to be satisfied because if you were, you wouldn’t buy our products.

        1. Not the fashion industry, I think. Those are signals that you have access to a better standard of living than other people.
          Consider: When food is scarce, if a woman is fat it means she/her family can afford a lot of food. When food is plentiful, if a woman is thin it means she has the time and money to not eat fast/prepackaged food all the time.
          As to skin color, that goes back to the outdoor jobs vs. indoor jobs. When most jobs were outdoors, pale skin meant you could afford not to work. Now that most jobs are indoors, tan skin means you have time for such leisure.
          All generalizations, of course, but you get the idea.

  21. Sometimes what will provoke me is when someone comes up with a “counter argument” that’s been refuted countless times already. (You might even call it a “bargain counter argument”.)
    I’m tempted to ask these people, “Do you honestly believe that in all of the history of people studying this topic, some of them for their living, that you are the first person to think of this?”)

  22. “Piggish greed for power” … it is the only reason I can see thinking person to get on this bandwagon. Usually those folks are the first to be killed during that bright new era. I’d rather have what my forefathers fought and died for– (and not what they fought and died for in Europe).

  23. Well, speaking as a conservative, I AM angry. I wish conservatives would stop trying to prove how nice they are, and instead get tough. The reason people think Republicans are a bunch of corporate dweebs is that they ACT like corporate dweebs, always trying to explain themselves.

    Anger doesn’t always cloud your mind. A perfect zen-like state might be preferable to anger, but it isn’t the norm. More often the alternative to anger is fear, which does cloud the mind. This is why Republican talking points often sound like they are targeting frightened old ladies.

    For example, when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a cunt (sorry, I won’t write “c*nt” because I am NOT a frightened old lady) and her son a “retard,” most of the conservative response was along the lines of “oh no, he said a bad word.” Being ANGRY and not suffering from mind-clouding fear, I took a different route. I could care less that Bill Maher said a bad word. I care more about WHY he said it: specifically, he hated her and her son because she had made a difficult decision not to abort a child with Down’s Syndrome. He, like all other leftists, forces his sexual conquests to abort his bastards so he can continue his evil hedonistic lifestyle. Honestly, which is a more effective argument: “Bill Maher is a big meanie who said a bad word” or “Bill Maher is a vile sexual predator who loves aborting his own children so he can continue getting his dick wet?”

    While we’re on the topic–PLEASE stop using the word “hypocrisy” and trying to find it. When you say “Bill Clinton is a hypocrite because he treats women badly while supporting women’s rights,” the message you send is that it’s just fine to support the murder of unborn babies but that it would be slightly preferable not to make your motives in supporting it so damned obvious. Instead, look for consistency: “Bill Clinton supports abortion, which makes perfect sense since he uses it regularly.”

    Another example: it isn’t hypocritical for anti-gunners to attack people; rather, it is entirely consistent with their aim, which is to disarm those of us whom they fear will outbreed them so that they can then exterminate us and continue on with their “Roofie, abort, repeat” lifestyle.

    Go ahead, Sarah, give anger a try.

    1. I struggle with this on a daily basis … do I “punch back harder” or take the higher road?

      I often reach a point where my snark comes roiling out. It is inevitable then that I be called out for being hateful for it, while at the same time, expected to endure insults to my person, faith and life choices with complete and total grace and gentle kindness. Recitation of facts, reason and logic soars over the heads of leftists as they spew their vile spleens at me. Eventually I lose patience and walk away. Husband Rich takes a different tact – he says he knows he will not change minds by arguing facts against those who refuse to listen, so he states his case and that’s that. I dunno … I used to consider myself a liberal and a feminist (please don’t throw stuff at me! I changed! Really!), so somehow MY heart and mind changed, and probably not on their own, but by actually considering the facts, reason and logic of conservatives and libertarians.

      It is a quandary.

      1. I used to consider myself a liberal and a feminist (please don’t throw stuff at me! I changed! Really!)

        Nobody here is inclined to throw things at you for such a reason — most of us will even doubt you have changed; it is the “liberals” and “feminists” who have changed, having drunk the Marxist Identity Kool-Aid and now demanding you drink it too.

  24. “…having the “best men” in charge would lead to paradise…”
    – Maybe. Sometimes. But even when that’s true, we don’t have a political system that can identify and put the “best men” in charge of useful things in a consistent way; instead we have a system that attracts and rewards mediocre performers with a talent for political campaigning. Yeah, it’s better than alternatives – but not good enough to turn it all over to the managers.

    1. The problem is, there are no “best men”. To be what you’d need to be to fit that description, to make it possible for those men to do what would need doing… They’d pretty much have to be God, himself.

      Which ain’t happening, from my read of the Universe. I don’t think that even God had the hubris to try running the place in the detail needed to suit the fantasies of these utopia-builders; there’s a damn reason free will features so prominently in his design.

      1. When you consider that, by definition, the “Best” persons are the ones who don’t want to exercise such power you realize that we’re going for second-best, at best.

        1. I’m going for “You mind your own goddamn business, over there, and I’ll mind mine, over here…”.

          In the WWII-era play Schlageter, by Hanns Johst, there’s this classic line often attributed to that utter asshole, Herman Goering: “Wenn ich Kultur höre … entsichere ich meinen Browning!” [Whenever I hear of culture… I release the safety-catch of my Browning!] (Act 1, Scene 1).

          Personally, I like to rephrase that as “When I hear someone from the left say that they want to “help” me… I clear my holster, to make sure can reach the butt of my pistol cleanly–Because, sure as hell, I’m going to need it soon!”

    2. So we need to put the Good Men in Charge. [Nervous Grin]

      1. How about “None of the above…”, and we all just mind our own business?

        Sarah’s vision of the Boni is one of the more frighteningly plausible near futures I’ve seen described in literature, and I’d just as soon not see any of that crap come to pass. Especially the Boni.

  25. Always makes me laugh when Leftists ask me “Why are you so angry?”

    I’m not angry. I already decided what needs to happen. That didn’t take long to figure out, once I started paying attention. Pretty obvious, really.

    Now I’m waiting. I’m waiting for The Time to come. That’s when Jove’s lightning bolt falls like the autumn leaf from the tree, and you’re almost a bystander even though it came out of you. You can’t plan for it, you can’t hurry it, you can’t force it. Indeed, it may never come. No point getting all worked up about it. You just have to stand ready and let it out when it gets here.

    Until then, I’m just… waiting.

  26. Not angry. Exhausted and fighting despair. Some days I give in, which I understand is what they want. The place I’m in professionally is neck deep in their values. Still trying to find an escape hatch.

  27. Trolls can go die in a fire when they use “why so angry?” to dismiss an argument.

    Also, it’s not that there aren’t reasons to be angry about the state of the world.

    However, I’ve seen a few bloggers here and there that seem to get mode locked into obsessing about politics (specifically being angry about it). Politics, being about people trying to dominate and enslave other people at the point of a gun, is a rich source of outrage, and on any given day there is someone doing something outrageous to someone else. I wonder if it’s healthy though to continue focusing on it long term: Especially if it is about events that you can’t do anything about. It seems like it monopolizes the attention, leaving little room for creativity/other thought. I know it sucked up far too much of my time back when I actively followed the news/debated on forums. (I probably still follow random political news more than I should) (Eventually, it seemed to me that it was monotonous, and that the news itself attempts to amplify the outrageousness of it, because outrage is addictive and generates traffic.)

    I’d say that it is important to let other people know they aren’t alone from time to time, philosophically. The totalitarian left *wants* you to feel alone, shunned, and crazy, and makes a point of trying to reinforce those beliefs, so it is important. It is important to at least keep things that will affect you directly and that you might have some control over in your awareness.

    But beware of becoming “professionally angry”, or in wasting too much of your valuable time and attention obsessing about the ubiquitous outrage of the day.

    1. Not just bloggers get that way. People like myself get the same way.

  28. Thanks for this. Coldly rational indignation is beyond my ken though. Straight from mightily irritated to bludgeon the nimrod has seemed to be my default. But hey, I’m Irish and German by heritage.

  29. put the best men in charge
    I thought we did. a little more than two hundred years ago, the problem maybe that those that have followed are like Xerox copies. getting a little worse year after year, copy after copy. slowly, like boiling a frog. (raising the temp. so the frog does not notice)
    please note I said best men, not perfect

    1. The thing was, we didn’t put them in charge of much–just making deals with foreign powers, coining money, delivering the mail, and protecting the nation from those who would harm it.
      Used to be it was theoretically possible for someone to go their entire life without encountering a federal employee other than the postmaster more than once or twice. Not anymore.

        1. Google up “Ovcharka” or “Caucasian Mountain Dog”. Closest thing you’re going to find to a canine bear that is used for hunting/protecting flocks against Russian wolves. Seriously one-person dogs, and utterly insane. Acquaintance of mine had one, and told me that if anything ever happened to her, the dog was going to have to be put down. Her partner wasn’t even trustworthy, to the dog. Said dog had been acquired in order to deal with a feral dog problem harassing goats and sheep, and upon reaching late puppyhood, pretty much eliminated the feral dog problem within the span of months. The ferals apparently did not learn quickly enough to leave the flocks alone, and the Ovcharka was not recognized as a threat.

          Did I mention that the ferals included a couple of fully-grown Rotts and Pit Bulls? Did I mention that they pretty much wound up as Ovcharka chow, generally as soon as they got in reach of the immature dog?

          I honestly don’t know which would come off worse: A Kodiak bear, or that damn dog. The Kodiak would probably take it on sheer size and mass, but the dog would probably drive the bear off through sheer bloody-mindedness and fury. Think “canine wolverine”, and you’ve about got the Ovcharka character. Lovely dogs–If the owner is around. If not? You are probably going to need surgery to get put back together, if you violate it’s territory or flock.

  30. There was the time online where I asked for evidence for an assertion, and got three rounds of “Huh? I don’t get it”, and then she took off on declaring I was doing it as an attention-getting ploy and all she could do was try to feed that. . . .

    I was kinda peeved with the blogger, who let her get away with it.

  31. Their mucking around with the world as if their lies could be made into truths by being repeated often enough have caused not just the 100 million deaths of communism, but probably the same number from lost wealth (turns out, yeah, a rising tide raises all boats.

    (*nods*) A lot of people miss this, because it’s easy, because we cannot easily see the benefits foregone from the businesses not started, or which were started but failed, and the industries that died in the cradle because of excessive governmental regulation and taxation. Nor do most people get the connection between wealth and human longevity — not just the obvious ones involving individuals being able to afford medical care and economies being able to support health care systems, but the inobvious ones of easier working conditions, better diets and better housing promoting longer lives. Consider what happens to the person with a serious respiratory disease who must take the arduous mass transit ride and walk a mile to get food, as opposed to the one with access to cars and taxis. There’s literally no good way to measure the hidden costs of socialism.

  32. regarding anger…
    Had to have a short conversation regarding morphine use with the doctor in the Hospice where my wife was for a brief time. She kept insisting that that the smoke she was blowing up my ass was reality. I finally told her that I would dance this dance with her at the moment to avoid upsetting my wife – but that we would talk outside the room.
    Told her outside that I was the most mellow, calm person she would ever want to meet UNLESS someone was threatening or causing pain or grief to me or mine. I suggested she look up the term “controlled sociopath”. And after pointing out a few possibilities to her, we got along fine.

    And of course everyone dancing around socialism here should remember the remarks of Thatcher to the effect that the problem with socialism is that eventually its practitioners run out of other people’s money. Which is exactly what is happening in Europe now. The money tree in the US is dying – and the funeral promises to be very ugly.

  33. It just occurred to me that, in many cases (See Peter Grant’s reaction to Irene Gallo’s statements), the answer to, “Why are you so angry?” is, “Why are you making such vile, disgusting, and completely f&^%ing BASELESS accusations?”

  34. “I’m not angry. Angry is when I track you down, stake out your house, and snipe you at your front door. If your goal is to make me angry, you may wish to re-think it.”

  35. We’ve been lied to since we were born. I’m fifty and all through my education, in Portugal and here, I was told that government could fix everything, that I shouldn’t trust private individuals, that having the “best men” in charge would lead to paradise.

    So I was playing Dice Wars and thinking about watching 1776 tomorrow.

    I was nine most of the bicentennial year (I turned 10 that November) and remember watching the music on TV during the bicentennial. I wanted to live to see the tricentennial. I believed in Freedom, Liberty, Honor, and so on.

    Then I’ve seen what passes for politics as an adult. More importantly I’ve seen what passes for history.

    The later has taken the real toll.

    It isn’t that I believe the Progressives lied. It is their constant lying about history and their constant turning of it into propaganda has made me cynical about not just their history but the one I learned at 9, 10, and 11.

    The only analogy I can make is finding proof that three of the four Gospels were created in the late Third Century by the supporters of Constantine and grafted onto this little know Jewish sect for political reasons.

    After that how long could you sustain belief in the remaining Gospel and the various Epistles?

    It seems like every thing is lies and the few things you trust turn out to be lies too (for example, in politics, that the GOP wants smaller gov’t…after 2003-2007 that can’t be seen as anything but a lie…in relationships that women want funny and interesting men to raise families with when it seems more and more just want sperm to create children and not raise a family with any man…substitute you own favorites).

    So I am angry…or I was…now I’m just tired and really could give a damn if the whole thing collapses the day after I die because I can’t tell what is built on lies and what isn’t any more.

    I wish I could still believe in William Daniel’s John Adams who was obnoxious and disliked and didn’t care because the truth was to be won.

    So, yeah, I’m angry…I’m angry at people who lied to me so much I don’t trust anyone or any story. That is a horrid thing to rob from even one person much less a significant part of a nation.

      1. I get that. I’m am learning in a very real and direct way why men without children are such a danger. It isn’t, as I long thought, that you will burn it down but that when you hit your peak years for productivity and leadership that knowledge that you won’t live forever fails to inspire you. Instead of building to pass on to your children you figure you don’t have long left so might as well enjoy it.

        American feminism and it out and out disposal of men as part of families is the real death of us all. It took the people who did the majority of the non-child raising work and made sure they had zero reason to do it.

      2. Also, read original documents on the founders. There was agiography going on, yes, but in the end, by their fruits thou shalt know them and they created the freest and most prosperous nation on Earth. Ignore the tarnishing of their character by proggies. They were men, not gods, but they were most of the time honorable and learned men. The truth is out there.

        1. They were men, not gods

          I have heard that at least one of them was obnoxious and disliked, and another of their leaders could depress a hyena

  36. “The one thing socialist regimes, from the pinkoish fringe to the deepest red are good at is creating stagnation.”

    Doesn’t that go back to what you were explaining to me the other day, about how Marxism is based on the assumption of a fixed pie? If you don’t believe it’s possible for the pie to grow, implementing policies to grow the pie would be insane. How can we reason with people who work from such a broken assumption?

    1. I generally start by asking how many people in the world had flush toilets and clean water in 1900. And when the last famine, real non-political famine, was. It throws them off balance and you can gently (or firmly) push from there.

    2. Stagnation typically occurs when economic resources are allocated according to what experts determine people should want which, with surprising unexpectedness, often is not what the people want.

      Stupid people.

  37. With all respect due to one of my favourite authors, I would disagree that communism is a good idea, or even socialism. Indeed I believe any form of socialism to be an evil ideology, despite the fact that most adherents are of course not evil.

    Socialism means that the government is in control of the means of production and the distribution of the results. This control and distribution can be loosely summed up as the common phrase “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.

    Both parts of that phrase are dehumanising. They do not allow the choice.

    I do not wish to give according to my ability. The path I have chosen in my life does not give the largest amount of value to society. I choose my work not solely due to its utility to others as measured in a free-ish market by the money I can earn, but by a balance between money and the enjoyment and excitement I get from the work. I could have joined the airlines as a pilot and be very well-paid, but that is often a deeply tedious job. So I have flown smaller aircraft and worked in the training industry, much more enjoyable but less well-remunerated.

    On the other side sometimes my need is enough. I will do less work, for less pay, and live on what I get. Sometimes I want more than that, and I work more not for need but for my own desire, when I want something enough that it is worth sacrificing my time.

    How can this work under socialism? A command economy will demand of me the work that the commanders need, not what I wish to do. Anything else betrays the system. A controlled distribution passes out exactly what the controllers think I need, as made by the command economy, between them deciding what I will have.

    1. It is not Sarah’s contention, I think, that communism/socialism constitute a good idea.

      The more accurate phrasing might be “an attractive idea” — one which, like cupcakes, promises more than it is capable of delivering and one which we accept because we want to believe the lie.

      Unfortunately for humanity, what communism (socialism) actually is is a compelling idea, and that compulsion raises its cost far above what its general benefits.

      Its specific benefits tend to be one reason it is so compelling a philosophy.

      1. Oh, it sucks as an idea usable in the real world. It would be more accurate to say “it is an irresistible thought experiment to a certain type of intellectual.”

    2. There is no disagreement here. I don’t think socialism is a GOOD idea in the sense it will work in the real world. Just that it’s a glittery self-contained idea that can’t help but attract a certain type of mind, partly because its “logic” can’t be disproven (since it’s not part of the real world) and therefore makes them feel SOOOOOOO smart.

      1. Everyone who supports it imagines themselves in the role of the one being sustained by others on the claim of their “need,” rather than the one having labor extorted from him on the argument of their “capability.” It is not accidental that, when put into practice, one of the first consequences of socialism was civil conflicts in which food-producers were murdered en masse, followed by starvation due to the fact that all the local farmers had been killed.

        1. I don’t think that’s right– although it’s probably right for the majority of those who think about what it would involve for them, personally, it still leaves two flavors of idealists. There’s the folks who picture themselves as being able to be The Hero if only that nasty old system wasn’t in their way, and the folks who don’t think about how it would benefit them at all. (Since this has been an issue before…yes, it is entirely possible to not have an opinion on specifics when you don’t have enough information to form a reasonably informed one. I know I don’t have a view on where I’d end up in a perfect socialist system, I oppose it because of my views on human nature. Even if I benefited at one point, the system wouldn’t work without stuff that simply isn’t there.)

          1. Yup. I’ve been having an argument with a Sweet Young Thing (SYT) in a Facebook thread featuring hand-wringing over Rand Paul’s statement that Americans need to work more.
            The SYT wrote: “You mean if I believe that you have the right to carry a firearm, I conscript the fire arms dealer, and the factory too? Good to know that’s how it works.”
            I replied: “You are not conscripting the arms dealer. You are presumably buying the gun, which means you and the dealer both consider yourself better off after making the trade than before.
            The dealer is not conscripting the factory. He’s buying guns from the factory, which means he and the factory owner both consider themselves better off after making the trade than before.
            Conscription means taking the goods or services, whether the provider feels like making the trade or not.”
            SYT: “So what Mr. Paul appears not to understand is that I believe I have the right to healthcare, and I believe that the providers of that healthcare should be paid. Have you ever heard anyone advocating against paying doctors?”
            Me: “No one’s keeping you from buying all the healthcare you want.”
            SYT: “Well, I’m fairly sure that the fact that I’m not a millionaire is keeping me from that. But how is “be paid by someone else for doing your job” conscription in your world?”
            Me: “Conscripting someone else’s money. How much of others’ money do *you* think you have a right to?”
            SYT: “If we’re arguing about money, your’e going to lose. Because the conscription of money to pay for unnecessary wars to kill others is a hell of a lot less ethical than the conscripting of money to pay to save lives.”
            Me: “The point is, claiming you have a right to any good or service means claiming you have the right to conscript someone else to provide it for you. And you can’t make it somehow less coercive by conscripting one or more third parties to buy it for you.
            How much of your time and money can I claim a “right” to?
            What if I really, really, really think I need it?
            By now, if you don’t see the point, it’s because you don’t want to.”

            So “to each according to his need” boils down to the Rocket Raccoon question: What if I really, really want it?

            1. The painful thing is you can pretty much bet that she’ll be pulling out a lot of quotes from very good, smart people about humans having a right to this or that… when the word “Right” doesn’t mean that, or didn’t when they said it.
              The Catholic Church (at least in a wide range of teachings) recognizes a right to housing; it’s in the sense of rights used in the phrase “you’ve got no right to ____.” It’s not an entitlement, it’s a statement about what someone would have in a perfect world. It’s closes to the “negative right” theory.
              So a right to healthcare in that context would be that others can’t stop you from trying to fix something that’s broken in yourself, and that those expressing sacrificial love towards you should consider helping with that need. (Governments and groups cannot express love. It’s an individual thing; governments can just either make it harder, sometimes for good reason, or get out of the way.)

              Once again, they go yanking bits out of philosophies they not only don’t understand, but that they don’t recognize is different from the inside of their heads!

              I don’t know if that will help you with the Special One or not; I’ve taken to turning on Fulton Sheen’s talk on freedom when I run into those guys, but it’s at least half because he had an amazing speaking voice.

            2. Of course, it’s probably useless because they think wars are TO KILL PEOPLE.

              Of course wars to kill people are immoral. That has no effect on wars for other purposes, such as “stopping those guys from killing people and/or taking stuff.” They both involve killing, yes, but the goal is different.

                1. Not so long as privileged, ignorant racists/sexists/deniers like you don’t STFU, get in line, fall into step and stop asking disruptive questions.

              1. Some, but maybe not in anything close to a positive direction.

                So wait, if I believe that people have the right to a service, and I pay for the service, that’s conscription in your world? How does that even work?

                If we’re arguing about money, then we’re arguing about taxes, not healthcare. Because right now the US government spends more than civilized countries that provide healthcare as a right, and that doesn’t even account for what individuals spend.

                So, are you arguing about taxes, or are you arguing about healthcare. Because if it’s healthcare, then I actually don’t understand how you can claim conscription if we’re paying for the services we believe are a right.


                You must be in graduate school.

                How you manage to maintain the disconnect between money and health care puzzles the living daylights out of me. I’m starting to think you’re trolling this thread.

                1. I can never figure out what they are talking about. They just spout non-sequiturs. If you do pin down something they said, they start name calling. I decided it was a waste of time talking to them, beyond a few amenities.

                  1. As best I can tell, the ones that are serious are likewise upset at you– those non-sequitur are their argument. They say them, and you’re supposed to acquire all of the context, assumptions and information that they’ve rolled into it.

                    It’s like telling a fish that no, you can’t just swim up to a cloud; they think you’re crazy or lying, and usually they won’t pay freaking attention to what you actually say when you do try to explain the whole thing.

                    1. Crazy years, crazy years. I quit trying to talk to them. My mother was the last one I had the “conversation” with. I let slip that I was registered Repub and ran the county TP mailing list and she started trying to subtly figure out if I had suddenly become a racist terrorist extremist hater gun nut. I reminded her that she had told me at 16 that communism didn’t work and had she changed her mind? She was very reluctant to engage, I assume because she didn’t want to use “approved” tactics on me and had no actual thoughts or arguments. Every time I asked her something she didn’t want to answer, she’d go away for a week or two, then come sliding back with another loaded question. After 6 months or she finally got a little angry and said, “I’m a social democrat!”
                      No kidding, I gave up then.

                      On a lighter note, I see violent crime is up 25- 50% over last year in many cities. The economy hasn’t even gotten that bad, yet. ;o}

                    2. The police are intimidated and the thugs are feeling justified. What a surprise.

                  2. I know the feeling. On a review of The Gulag Archipelago on a Goodreads, a leftist is indulging in spouting pro-Communist propaganda. Even quoted Engels at us as an authority about social structure.s

                2. Final salvo (for me, anyway):

                  SO wait, if I have a right to vote that means you don’t have the right to not work at the voting booth? I think you are a bit confused about this. IF you choose to offer a service to the general public then you may not discriminate in who you offer that service to. This is true for doctors, as well as bakers. And it is true now, without any universal healthcare.


                  That’s an incredible reach. Why don’t you just admit that you like the thought of forcing others to cater to your needs?


                  What’s an incredible reach? Your example was about discrimination (the baker), and I just explained why that already applies today.


                  The baker was an example of what makes forcing others to supply goods and services coercive. Fining a small bakery over a hundred thousand dollars to force them out of business is extremely coercive. If you have a “right” to a doctor’s services, and he planned a vacation or wanted to retire, you must ultimately be willing to apply the same kind of coercive pressure to that doctor, or admit that his or her right to a life trumps your rights.


                  Regarding Item 2: Having to pay for things is the nature of society. I have to pay for Bush’s shitty war, and you have to pay for children to get vaccines. I think one of these is a hell of a lot more compelling than the other.


                  So what? Having to pay for someone else’s needs is not. It’s a gift that we as a society, or as members of a society may choose to give to others for various reasons. If you have no choice about paying for stuff for other people, you are being coerced. You may choose to call it anything you like, but you’re putting whipped cream on a dung heap.


                  So what I still don’t get is what about “universal healthcare” involves compelling anyone. It doesn’t change the current discrimination rules.


                  I know you don’t understand. By now, this should be abundantly clear to everyone except you. (I never had any real hope of making it clear to you.)


                  In any event, I’m tired of trying to penetrate a closed mind, so I’m unfollowing this thread now.

                  1. The Federal government controls the supply of health care providers through a number of restraint of trade regulatory means, from limiting the number of medical schools, limiting the number of slots available in medical schools to limiting the licenses for providers.

                    The Feds also use their monopsony power to set reimbursement rates below costs while denying practices to charge for the additional amount required to stay solvent.

                    But there’s no coercion involved, right?

                    She also misrepresented the facts in the baker’s case; the bakery was not refusing to provide services to the clients, the refusal was to provide specific services of a creative nature.

                    Unless SWT wants to argue that decorating a cake is not a creative service? In which case why does the purchaser care which specific baker or florist or photographer is providing the desired service?

                    As for paying for “Bush’s war … that would be the war that Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Christopher Dodd, Joseph Biden, Max Cleland, Evan Bayh, Tom Harkin, Mary Landrieu, John Edwards, Jay Rockefeller and Herb Kohl voted for? In fact, The Dems controlled the Senate (50-49-1), with a majority of them (29-21) voting for the Iraq Invasion ( and some, such as Teddy Kennedy, voting against it because of the professed conviction that Iraq had WMD.) As we have seen since, the Senate Majority Leader decides what comes to the floor for a vote, so the war was as much Harry Reid’s as George W Bush’s.

                    Not that such facts matter to such as SYT.

                    1. She seems completely unable to grasp the notion that when you coerce someone to do something, that’s coercion, and coercion is by definition coercive.
                      Since she lacks the slightest hint of a clue in that regard, there’s no point trying to engage on anything more complicated like trade-offs.

              2. And now she’s trotting out the “providing universal health care costs less” trope.
                My response:

                However…. since you’re changing the subject, I take it you’re ceding the point about coercion?

                1. If one has a right to healthcare, then the only doctor working in a rural area cannot logically take a vacation, move away, or even retire without violating one’s rights.

                  Maybe ask if she supports forcing a doc to continue working past age 80, if there are no others within X distance?

                2. Plus, OF COURSE someone who doesn’t much care if you live or die deciding on what treatment you get is less expensive than when people can go “well, it’s expensive… but I don’t want to die, so I’ll pay it.”

                  1. Mia liked to watch Doc Martin on Netflix. I found it very informative about socialized medicine. The Doc didn’t fair to well with it either though he seemed mostly unaware of why things went wrong. The writers obviously weren’t unaware, nor on board. Seemed odd for the BBC

                  2. Plus, OF COURSE someone who doesn’t much care if you live or die deciding on what treatment you get is less expensive

                    I’ve had some experience with “socialized medicine”/”national healthcare”. It has not been good and does explain “cheaper”:


                    Just one case:
                    UK1: When I was in the Air Force, I lived in the UK for two years. One of my co-workers was married. The small base we were assigned to did not have its own hospital. Any medical care beyond cold and flu bugs that wasn’t severe enough to be evacuated was handled by local UK hospitals. This included my co-worker’s wife’s pregnancy.

                    It was a second child so the pregnancy was “routine” (It Says Here). She had a problem with hemorrhaging with the first child but a second was “routine”, by policy. The doctors were warned of the problem but a second pregnancy was routine. After the child was born, she started bleeding. She bled to death in the hospital. A “routine” childbirth (even though the first had had the exact same problem and the doctors had been told that) and she bled to death in the f*king hospital.

                    Oh, your wife died? Too bad, so sad. But how could we know something like this could happen since it was a routine pregnancy? You told us? But it was a routine pregnancy.

                    1. No, not a spoon. In a hospital, a scalpel is routine. A spoon might have been classed “non-routine” and gotten extra help sent.

                3. Well, she hasn’t dodged completely away.

                  Nope. I’m trying to separate out the concepts that you are conflating. There are two questions: (1) is providing government-supoprted healthcare coercive to those that provide healthcare, and (2) is having to pay for such healthcare for others coercive to the population at large. You are the one who keeps raising point #2. You have yet to explain to me how (1) is actually an argument that has any rational basis.


                  Ok, item 1: Yes, it is. If you have a right to the provider’s service, that means the provider doesn’t have the right to refuse. (Sure, maybe you can go somewhere else, but we’ve established that gay couples have the right to compel bakers to provide wedding cakes for them, even when another bakery across the street is perfectly wiling to do the job.) The case is even more telling in rural areas where the doctor in town may be the only doctor for miles around.
                  It’s the same situation that we have in cases of eminent domain: Sell your house to the government for what they offer to pay, no matter how much you don’t want to.
                  You have yet to make the case that this is not coercive.

                  Item 2: ” is having to pay for such healthcare for others coercive to the population at large.”
                  The key word there is “having”. Think about it.

                  Anyone care to bet on whether she’s in graduate school?

            3. Responding here, because it’s too hard to figure out where to respond further down the thread.

              I don’t think you’ve yet made a Cluehammer-size distinction between negative and positive rights (unless you did it elsewhere). Her responses to you seem to have no understanding that the Bill of Rights enumerates things that the Government is forbidden from doing, whereas the “Right to Healthcare” is claiming that every person MUST receive the benefits of said right.

              This is the root of why it is conscription. The basis of a Right to Healthcare is that everyone MUST receive healthcare, even if all doctors in the region are already overbooked. They can’t tell the person, “I’m sorry, but I have no more time in my schedule.” And the only ultimate solution to that is either to force people who have no inclination to do so to become doctors (and damned if I want to go to one of them!), or else reduce the level of care until the doctors can keep up with the demand.

              Apologies if I have reiterated something that came way before the current point in the conversation, but while those of us here understand the distinction, your opponent does not appear to understand it at all.

    3. If we were genuinely Good, it would work just fine. This is because being both Just and Wise, we would know what we actually need. Once we were fed, clothed, and sheltered, we would then decide what is the most Prudent use of our time and labor — and we would do so without Sloth and Greed and Pride, which makes it very hard to figure out what exactly we would do.

Comments are closed.