I Can Feel It Coming

Yesterday, late in the day (we had vent cleaners, a process that unexpectedly took something like 7 hours, and I was trying to prevent stupid cats from running out to tangle with coyotes and wild turkeys) I finally sat down to read my compadre’s Dave Freer’s blog post.

It was about many things — okay, it was mostly about manure, because you can take the monkey out of the jungle, but… — but in the middle of it he mentioned something about CNN’s CEO admitting they’re in trouble and saying they need to hire more center and center-right reporters.

I thought the Monkey was seeing things — you know, manure has dangerous fumes — so I checked it.  And son of a borg, he was right.

For a moment, for just a moment, I felt as though the ground shifted under my feet.  It wasn’t big or strong, mind, more like a couple of earthquakes I lived through that were so small they barely registered in the richter scale.

The thing is, as with a lot of those, there’s a good chance they’re foreshocks.

I should explain for those of you who arrived late — didn’t you read the schedule?  Is that popcorn?  Do you have enough for everyone? — why this is such a shocking event.

For as long as I’ve been alive — probably longer — the intellectual/publishing/arts/administrative/and lately most managerial establishments have been solidly left.  So solidly left that when a company was in trouble you could count on the roll left.  The process went something like this: get in serious trouble through alienating your audience, roll left, die.

The roll left didn’t save the institutions.  Maybe management was so stupid as to think it would save them.  But I doubt it.  If they got any statistics — it’s iffy.  Most fields that have fallen to the left treat statistics like magic incantations, and look at them as though they were thing that can augur success if treated right.  It’s a process akin to reading the future in the entrails of the sacred goose.  And in some of the fields in advanced stage of leftist necrosis like publishing, they prefer not to get them at all because they might show bad things — they knew they were competing with all the other media and all the other similar institutions for the eyeballs of 1/4 of the population.  (Particularly in the last fifteen years when the other eyeballs have got some place else to go.)

What the roll left did, though, was make sure all the managers and everyone with fiduciary capacity was on record as being “one of the good people” i.e. a member in good standing of the left wing.  Which meant that when their institutions died, they got other jobs.  I’ve followed a particularly lefty magazine editor through four magazines killed, and always falling upward into bigger jobs.

Because that’s how it worked.  For almost 100 years, the left has been safely in charge of the “heights of culture” and cultural institutions and safely indoctrinating anyone graduating from college in the soft sciences into believing that Marxism is as scientific as the poor deranged founder believed.  (Even though no one who has seen it in action up close and personal thinks it is more scientific than Elizabethan views of the cosmos.)

That meant the key to personal upward mobility in any of the soft fields, was to display your badge of leftism as loudly as possible and the more loudly you displayed it, the farther you got.  (Which by the way explains what has made most of our field unreadable.)

So imagine my shock when CNN can in public make noises about hiring center and right of center reporters.

We know they won’t be center and right of center.  I mean when you’re looking from the extreme left, the things that look like center are kind of funny.  (Remember when they thought that George W. Bush and Romney — ROMNEY — were far right?  Good times, good times.)  I mean, even Fox that imagined bastion of right wing isn’t right wing.  Well, right now, by backing Trump they’re kind of European right wing, but not American.  For that matter, by being American right-wing — ie “the government is not the boss of me.  I am the boss of me” — I am invisible to their radar and when they call me “right wing” they mean the European soil-and-blood right wing, which is almost hilarious.  In a bitter-laugh sort of way.

BUT the fact that they’d consider looking at any reporters to the right of Lenin — hey, Pat, have you applied? — and that they’d announce that in public is a seismic shift of global proportions.

So, what happened?

Part of it is time.  There seems to be a clock tolling the maximum time of socialist regimes upon this Earth.  If they go total balls to the wall communist that seems to be 70 years.  No one knows if the socialist insanity would have about the same maximum half life if it didn’t get help from the parts of the economy not yet taken over and from well meaning sympathizers (our government) in other countries.  However, throughout most of Europe the wheels are coming off the various degrees of socialist insanity.  (“No time to have another drink, the lights are going out.”)

Time is their enemy because of that leftist necrosis I mentioned, above.  Why?  Because leftism is a religious cult that often (though not always) runs counter to reality.

What do I mean by that?  Aren’t leftists — or to call them by their proper name, socialists of various stripes — as competent as other people?

Sure.  Sometimes more competent.  And in the beginning years of socialism, a lot of them were the brightest of their kind.  Which is why so many of those bright young things, in the turn of the twentieth century, got pushed up the ladder very quickly.

But those were the days when socialism was scientific.  Psychology, you see, would get quantified and become a hard science.  And then nothing would remain between government and the creation of a better race of men, one that would live in harmony with socialist principles in an Earth where we’d study war no more.

Mind you, the creation of that socialist race, that harmonic humanity that would live in joy in communal prosperity, would require killing vast numbers of people: as George Watson shows in The Lost Literature of Socialism, even such luminaries of both socialism and our field as H. G. Wells believed that attaining this socialist utopia required eugenic genocide and the destruction of everyone who didn’t fall in line with it.  (To give him credit, H. G. Wells didn’t want to do it along the lines of race. And speaking of it being better to read the artists without knowing the craziness they believed, H. G. Wells and Jack London were what I read when most people read picture books.  Ah, well.)

The problem is that psychology never became scientific, and meanwhile genetics did.  Sure, sure, we still have idiots who believe we can breed men like cattle, but they’re not anyone who has actually LOOKED at the genetics of humanity, which are far more complex than cattle genetics (possibly because it now seems possible, instead of homo sap overcoming the competing human species, it loved them to death.  I.e. it absorbed them genetically) and in which traits you’d never think of as linked ARE in fact linked.  And then there’s epigenetics.  Trust me.  I have friends who study this stuff, and I try to listen to them for as long as I can keep my head from hurting.  It’s not very long.

What this means in practical fact is that socialism hard or soft has broken over 100 million eggs and so far not an omelet in sight.

And so, as the “scientific” side of socialism started to visibly fail, it became important to hire not for competence or intelligence (as was done in the days when they were convinced that the future was inevitably theirs) but for one quality only: belief in the shibboleths of the left.  And the more those failed, the more the quality of people who believed in it changed.  Oh, they aren’t stupid.  Not exactly.  At least MOST OF THEM aren’t.  But they are those who are willing to believe or fake belief in a murderous/freedom depriving path to a supposed utopia that never comes.  Weirdly — coff — those attributes don’t relate well with functioning in a sane way in the real world.  (I know.  You could knock me down with a feather!)

Which means sooner or later socialist necrosis sets in.

But the problem with socialism is that it destroys the idea of freedom and personal responsibility, usually early, usually in the schools.  So in the absence of innovative technology and alternate channels, when socialism fails the society/field/profession just… dies.

Thank heavens for the sons of Martha, and their innovative technology and the internet and all that.

Which brings us to where we are.  This is not the beginning of the end — I think — of the left’s cultural dominance in Western society.  But it’s starting to look like hte end of the beginning.

Remember though there is a lot of money, a lot of power on their side now.  While portraying the right as on the side of the rich, they’ve been recruiting the rich and entrenching their privilege for almost 100 years.

It’s not going to be easy and simple.  But there are sudden cracks in the perfect lie presented by all the public outlets.  There are… dissonant notes in the music of the socialist pied piper who has been piping us to our death in soft, slow notes.

I don’t think those cracks will show to those not obsessed by politics for 20 years or so, but who knows?  I could be wrong. And sometimes, in a preference cascade, where falsification of preference has taken place (and at least in publishing the problem has been that you couldn’t tell them anything but what they wanted to hear and have a career.  So they were/still are completely unprepared for the indie revolution when it hit them), can be startlingly fast, a tsunami where things change in the blink of an eye.

It could happen here.  The thing to remember is that it’s unlikely to happen in favor of liberty.  Liberty is hard.  Self responsibility more so.  (Take guns.  Yesterday idiots accused me of being ammosexual.  To anyone who knows me, that’s insanity.  I hate shooting for the same reason I hate driving: because I’m not very coordinated and my eyes are funny and I’m afraid of flubbing.  But as with driving, if I want to live as a free human being, there is no alternative.  I must be responsible for my locomotion and my self-defense.  And that’s all.)

So in the confusion that follows a seismic movement, it’s easy for another form of socialism to sell itself.  Socialism, only now with more blood-and-soil!  The government is not your mommy.  It is now your daddy.  Surrender yourself to the government.

Arguably that form is even more short lived, though they DO tend to have snazzier uniforms.

It is important in the maelstrom building, to remember your principles, and to keep your head.  Schadenfreude will be rife (Really, did you bring enough popcorn for everyone?) but Schadenfreude is not a philosophical or political theory.

Remember the vision of the founders.  Hold on to that.  Statists of various stripes will come out of the woodwork to offer you the easy way out and the snake oil.

But in the end we win, they lose.  Things will just be really choppy on the way there.

Stay the course.

 

243 responses to “I Can Feel It Coming

  1. Those minor earthquakes can cause some to get headaches…lets hope it is those on the left who get them.

    Having just visited family where we were assured that Merrick Garland is absolutely in the mainstream I fear what CNN will hire for center and center-right reporters.

  2. … saying they need to hire more center and center-right reporters.

    Problem being that they are so Far Left they think Mother Jones and The Nation are Center-Left publications. For decades the Washington Post hired reporters from The New Republic but wouldn’t touch resumes if they listed the National Review.

  3. Interesting that I am seeing the 70-year socialist death-spiral figure here and in a couple of other internet watering holes. People thinking about an existing problem often come independently to a similar conclusion.

    • Which other sources did you see the 70-year figure in? I saw it once on Instapundit, but that wasn’t an independent source because it was on an article that Sarah had posted.

      • Oh, lord – I can never remember – Belmont Club, perhaps? Rantburg, or Ace of Spades. It seemed to me that it was like one of those memes that start to appear everywhere.

  4. Good, it’s not just me. I read an article from Mother Jones the other day that made sense. That’s not supposed to happen. I’ve seen two different articles that had leftists saying “Maybe we have problems getting gun control passed because we really don’t know anything about guns.” It’s been weird these past couple weeks.

    • Some years back Mother Jones had a scathing article on the conditions of those working in factories providing military goods during the Clinton administration, and it was none to kind to Al Gore at that. Just one of the things they noted was that the companies got a number of exemptions, including paying below minimum wage.

      • Some 16 years ago, they also had the best published report on the second Sagebrush Rebellion. They didn’t agree with us, but ceded that we had a valid point, and that the people whose lives were being impacted by the changing federal regulations about public land use really ought to have a say in the matter.

        It was miles better than anything National Review or Reason managed.

        • For anything not on fiscal matters I tend to be disappointed in reason. Pretty heavy contingent of Mexicans, dope and sex libertarians there.

          • The Other Sean

            Hey, there’s nothing wrong with sexy librarians!

          • Reason lost me as a subscriber when their managing editor advocated for mandatory vaccinations. When a supposedly anti-government, anti-coercive publication calls for the use of force to implement policy, it can no longer bill itself as libertarian.

            • Libertarians are not anarchists. The government can certainly use force to prevent people from spreading disease. Enforcing quarantines, even, and that would be far more disruptive.

              • Depends on the libertarian.

                And the difference between enforced vaccination and enforced quarantine is that an un-vaccinated person has the *potential* of being a danger to The Public, while a disease-ridden patient is an active threat to same. Much as gun owners have the *potential* to become criminals, but we should only use the power of government to address those who actually threaten or harm others.

                And I’m no rabid anti-vaxxer; I recently got my Tetanus booster because, in my estimation, the minuscule dangers of exposure to the vaccine is far less a threat to me than the potential of getting lockjaw if I should scratch my hand on some rusty metal. But that was a reasoned decision; no one held a gun to my head to *make* me get the shot. If it’s really a good idea, you should be able to get folk to do ‘the right thing’ by convincing them, not coercing them.

    • I’m reminded of how they were trying to co-opt the term ‘Reality Based Community’ a decade or so back.

      But you can’t be ‘Reality-Based’ when your consensus on what reality actually is was formed through ignoring reality in the first place.

      That they’re starting to realize they don’t know the reality is an interesting sign. Don’t know if it’s a good sign or a bad one, but it’s interesting.

      • Don’t know if it’s a good sign or a bad one, but it’s interesting.

        Based on observations of human behaviour throughout History, some will double down on denial, some will attempt to alter course and over-correct or even steer off into the festering branches of the tidal metaphor.

        The most important effect might simply result from their abandoning assumptions that Conservatives are crazy, evil, unreasonable, etc. (well, there they have me: Conservatives are et cetera.) and interact as if there are sound reasons for conservatives holding the opinions we have. We have seen this with Juan Williams and Bob Beckel on Fox News — once they are forced out of their comfortable “Conservatives are all sexually frustrated puritans who hate the poor/coloured/women and like seeing people die” zone and forced to interact with Conservatives as real, reasoning people with values not intrinsically different (it is just the conclusions we reach from reasoning matters out which differ) then honest dialogue becomes possible.

    • The left, the media especially have all these myths and mythologies about guns and gun laws. The amusing thing is that in the last couple three years every single time the media goes to do a sting on a gun store and show on camera how easy it is to buy guns or resell them or the like they seem to go all afoul of actual gun laws that they don’t have a clue exist.

      This leads to the reporter getting into trouble for one reason or another. On reporter recently got turned down for a gun purchase and when he demanded to know why they told him his domestic abuse charge and another for drunkenness or the other meant he couldn’t buy a gun. He turned it into a special attack on him rather than going “oh hey, they gun laws in place actually work and catch people who shouldn’t be buying guns.”

      • The left, the media especially have a deep abiding fear of common Americans. They are convinced we are troglodytes driven by base impulses, ready to run rampant over any minority group who seems to threaten us. This is why whenever a violent crime story is reported the race of the assailant is only reported if the perp is white. It is why they turn their spines to pretzels to avoid reporting “islamic Extremist.

        Forget the revelations of History that such abominations as slavery, Jim Crow and the Klan were tools of the Left and expressions of their core philosophy.

        They live in constant fear that most of us would do to them what they desire to do to us.

        • Not so much tools of the Left as tools of collectivists. The American Left has been able to get away with pretending that it was for the individual against the collective, largely due to Jim Crow and the Klan. Now the mask is coming off.

          • The Klan & Jim Crow were useful to the Left pretty much as the Sturmabteilung (SA) was to Hitler and the Nazis: useful idiots for forming up the herd.

            • Begging pardon; I failed to make clear that the distinction between the Left and the Collectivists are trivial.

        • Forget the revelations of History that such abominations as slavery, Jim Crow and the Klan were tools of the Left and expressions of their core philosophy.

          Actually, as Left and Right go, these were neutral. The first touches on a forbidden topic and I’m not about to go there. The second, which I in no way justify, is possible to wrap your head around after knowing more of the background and putting fear into the equation. The KKK, through all incarnations, has often served as a tool of the Democrats to suppress opposition votes. Yet reprehensible things are not automatically leftist any more than they’re automatically right-wing.

          For example, to claim the KKK is/was a tool of the Left is to claim that Democrats were always Leftist. As I type this, I’m reminded that tougher than nails Republican Teddy Roosevelt.can be classified as a progressive.

          Perhaps it’s better not trying to put modern labels on things of the past, unless they themselves embraced those labels. I have absolutely no problem calling Joe Stalin a Commie or Benito Mussolini a Fascist.

          • BobtheRegisterredFool

            I have on this web site argued that the Democrats dating back to the civil war era were essentially leftist. I’ll admit that one of our regulars then mounted a counterargument with a list of examples.

          • For example, to claim the KKK is/was a tool of the Left is to claim that Democrats were always Leftist. As I type this, I’m reminded that tougher than nails Republican Teddy Roosevelt.can be classified as a progressive.

            You mistake me — I was not saying the Leftists were always Democrats. Grover Cleveland stands in direct refutation of any such claim, although it is a mistake the Dems are unlikely to ever make again, just as the GOP has sought to keep its Mugwumps safely corralled, demanding they hold their noses and vote for whatever hack Liberal-approved candidate the party nominates.

          • There is almost no large scale action and mindset that cannot be reasoned into. Herds don’t just stampede in random directions but are driven there for one reason. One of the things I see in spades among blindered authors is writing anyone outside their mindset as just a collection of shibboleth and stereotype vs a living, breathing person who thinks differently. There is never a reason for disappointed parents or social dislike or ostracization of the gay main character except that the ostracizers are bigots. Never mind other stuff like aforementioned racism

            • BobtheRegisterredFool

              Americans will do anything for Freedom. Anything. There are and have been some extremely bizarre theories about what constitutes the service of Freedom.

              But enough about me. Let’s talk about what’s wrong with someone else. 🙂

            • This. It’s a seductive trap and none of us are immune. Maybe it’s a form of mental shorthand.

      • They recently made a fuss because a reporter did not run afoul of anything and successfully bought a gun in only 38 minutes.

        I understand that after they assured everyone he didn’t keep it but turned it over to somebody or other, the store duly contacted the police to report that they now had reason to believe it was a straw purchase.

    • Hell, GAWKER was yelling that the current “Screw due process!” bill the screaming Democrats are pushing is awful, racist, and all the other things it is. Even Vox had a piece saying the same about the watch lists, and trying to screw with people based on them.

      • I read where even Mother-effing-Jones complained it was making them sympathetic to the NRA.

        But rest assured, the House Dems are fundraising the heck out of this stunt.

        • Add the ACLU to the queue:

          ACLU Opposes Latest Effort To Bar Those On Terrorism Watch Lists From Buying Guns
          [SNIP]
          “The ACLU strongly urges you to vote against the Collins Amendment because it uses the error-prone and unfair watchlist system, along with vague and overbroad terms, as a predicate for a proceeding to deny a firearms permit,” the ACLU officials wrote in the letter. “The Collins Amendment relies on both the No Fly List, by codifying its criteria, and the Selectee List, by direct reference.”

          The ACLU letter goes on to detail concerns with the due process protections in the amendment, stating that the amendment would provide even fewer protections than the amendment proposed by Sen. John Cornyn earlier this week — which the ACLU also opposed.

          Finally, the organization warns that the Collins amendment “would impose a notification requirement that could result in a new ‘watchlist’ broader than any that currently exists.” This is so, the ACLU argues, because the amendment would require officials “to be informed of each application for a firearm by any person who has been on the master watchlist at any point over the past five years—even if the person has been cleared of any wrongdoing, the investigation was otherwise closed, or the person was long ago removed from the list.”

  5. Dangit, your post title alone managed to conjure up a Phil Collins tune in my head. (Oh, Lord)

    Your prediction that anyone CNN may likely hire as a “conservative” will more likely resemble the “conservative” guys on the NYT payroll seems spot-on.

    If they had any sense, they’d try harder than that, but then it wouldn’t be CNN.

  6. Regarding Fox News, when you drop their acknowledged “op-ed” hosts (Hannity, O’Reilly, e.g.) — hosts who admit their preferences more readily than do Tom Friedman or Paul Krugman — the news coverage is pretty balanced. They only seem right-wing because they cover Hillary according to the same standards as they cover Trump; their is no presumption of credibility or innocence for her, any more than there is for The Donald.

    Even studies which have found in favor of FNC:

    Let’s take a look at peer-reviewed academic studies of media bias and see whether Fox News is biased.

    Here’s a UCLA study on media bias.

    Excerpt:

    Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS’ “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

    Only Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume” and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

    The most centrist outlet proved to be the “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.” CNN’s “NewsNight With Aaron Brown” and ABC’s “Good Morning America” were a close second and third.

    “Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill,” Groseclose said. “If these newscasters weren’t centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators.”

    The fourth most centrist outlet was “Special Report With Brit Hume” on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC’s “World News Tonight” and NBC’s “Nightly News” to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

    “If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox’s ‘Special Report’ as ABC’s ‘World News’ and NBC’s ‘Nightly News,’ then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news,” said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.”

    Here’s a Harvard University study on media bias.

    Excerpt:

    The programming studied on Fox News offered a somewhat more positive picture… of Republicans and more negative one of Democrats compared with other media outlets. Fox News stories about a Republican candidate were most likely to be neutral (47%), with the remainder more positive than negative (32% vs. 21% negative). The bulk of that positive coverage went to Giuliani (44% positive), while McCain still suffered from unflattering coverage (20% positive vs. 35% negative).

    When it came to Democratic candidates, the picture was more negative. Again, neutral stories had a slight edge (39%), followed by 37% negative and 24% positive. And, in marked contrast from the rest of the media, coverage of Obama was twice as negative as positive: 32% negative vs. 16% positive and 52% neutral.

    But any sense here that the news channel was uniformly positive about Republicans or negative about Democrats is not manifest in the data.”

    From the Washington Examiner, a study of the political contributions made by the mainstream media.

    Excerpt:

    Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

    The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

    By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.

    […]The data on contributions by broadcast network employees was compiled by CRP at the request of The Examiner and included all 2008 contributions by individuals who identified their employer as one of the three networks or subsidiaries. The data does not include contributions by employees of the three networks who did not identify their employer.
    https://winteryknight.com/2015/01/16/is-fox-news-biased-two-peer-reviewed-studies-shed-light-on-news-media-bias/

    fail to recognize that the tilt of the MSM tilts the opinion of the public, moving the center leftward because of the innate presumptions inherent in the MSM’s coverage.

    The whole blog post is interesting and worth the reading, but to pick just a couple examples of inherent bias:

    Only Fox ‘News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume” ‘and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

    The average U.S. voter’s views are shifted Leftward by the biased news reporting, thus creating a somewhat self-fulfilling prophecy effect.

    Fox News stories about a Republican candidate were most likely to be neutral (47%), with the remainder more positive than negative (32% vs. 21% negative). The bulk of that positive coverage went to Giuliani (44% positive)

    Giuliani was widely considered a Leftish GOP candidate, with his only “conservative” positions being an emphasis on “Law & Order” — as opposed to CSI 😉 — and Fiscal Reality Responsibility. He supported Gun Control, Higher Taxes and about every “liberal” position on “social issues.”

    • > peer-reviewed

      Their peers, or mine?

      • Peers at it…

        Hmm. You know, it’s hard to tell. 😉

      • Did you happen to see this at Power Line yesterday:
        ACADEMIC BROWNSHIRTS MARCH AGAIN
        Over the last few weeks we’ve offered various academic absurdities, drawn from the fine work of the Twitter account of RealPeerReview. The anonymous person behind this Twitter account posted abstracts from publicly available academic journals. And that was precisely the problem: the mere exposure of the mediocre and politicized “scholarship” that emerges from the campus dens of identity politics is all that is necessary for the wider world to see how preposterous it is.

        Apparently even the academic crusaders against the neo-liberal cis-patriarchy don’t actually want people reading their junk either, because, as the Daily Caller reports, the RealPeerReview Twitter feed has been shut down amidst threats to expose the identity of the person behind it (who is apparently an academic social scientist). …
        [SNIP]
        Special Monday bonus: The Daily Caller’s list of the “13 Dumbest Academic Papers That Actually Got Published.”
        — — —

        The sad secret is that much of their stuff is so putrescent that not even their peers will review it.

        • The newest version of “they wanty us to shut up, we want to hand them a megaphone and step back”?

          • We want them to tell us about it in detail.

            The details are what generally screw them up… details can be CHECKED, they’re hard to carry on emotion and presumed agreement.

        • One of the few things I miss about academic life is getting to read the latest papers going round the Anthro/Sociology/Psychology campus. Dramatic readings were sometimes held in the lounge where woefully underpaid grad students, researchers, tutors, and aides gathered. SJW word soup battling evo-bio is not even the worst of it. By far. *chuckle*

        • That is funny to me because I catalogue for the publisher mentioned in one of the examples above and I regularly see all kinds of similar academic nonsense.

  7. But the problem with socialism is that it destroys the idea of freedom and personal responsibility, usually early, usually in the schools.

    During aforementioned trip to visit family in the northeast I had to explain to them that those textbooks used in the public system that I have reviewed are no longer teaching that this is a Democratic Republic. And I also mentioned that Wilson was KKK … which apparently came as a surprise to one of the family.

    While it was soundly defeated in the end, at one point the state of North Carolina proposed not requiring any U.S. history before the end of reconstruction at the high school level – arguing that all that was before this period was amply covered in grade school. Yes, this was under a Democratic state administration.

  8. > CNN can in public make noises about hiring center and right of center reporters.

    Erm. The Overton Window for the media has shifted so far left they probably think Lenin would be “center.”

  9. First, I think an apology to Elizabethan views of the cosmos is in order. Second, don’t reject National Socialism for its ideas, reject it for all the cows that will be spared from being part of those ‘spiffy uniforms’.
    I hope that enough of that unique American experience remains in our national hive mind to resurrect freedom and liberty from the ashes of multiculturalism. Perhaps the myth of USAians will remain alive. “Pursuit of Happiness” is the radical idea of the Declaration of Independence, and as long as the concept is alive, there is hope.

    • I was about to post the first.

      By Elizabeth’s reign people were starting to do observations again to start testing theories of the cosmos. Although I have no brief of support of that over promoted hack Copernicus, who did not place the Earth in the Heavens due to science but in rejection of traditional Fallen World theology and actually used more epicycles than Ptolemy. (that’s right boys and girls, the theology that placed the Earth at the center was not due to the Earth’s importance but due to its imperfection), or that pompous jackass Galileo (helpful hint, if you’re worried about the Church and a personal friend of the Pope do not make said Pope the character of the fool in you dialogue challenging the Ptolemic universe) I do willingly champion Tycho Brahe who revolutionized astronomical observation despite being the last great naked eye astronomer, invented his own system of the heavens that worked better than Ptolemy’s or Copernicus’s although geocentric, gave the first full refutation of Aristole’s unchanging heavens, and laid the groundwork for Kepler to full understand the motions of the planets and building a working heliocentric model.

      Carl Sagan did much to rehabilitate Kepler and put him in his earned place but left Brahe a buffoon.

      So, inventing new methods of doing science, creating the accepted model of your latter life in your field (when Galileo wrote proclaiming Copernicus Brahe’s system had already replaced Copernicus among serious astronomers), and laying the groundwork for the system we still use today from your observations is about 100x more science than Marx ever did. All by a man who died two years before Elizabeth and thus is the standard for Elizabethian understanding of the cosmos.

      • But do you f#$&(+$ love science, BRAH?

        • Yes, I like new techie toys like all the others in the ” f#$&(+$ love science” crowd.

          Unlike them I also understand what parallex is and how scientific knowledge is an endless cycle of theorize and experiment…and unlike them I can give the scientific objections circa 1550 to a heliocentric solar system and discuss how they were refuted.

          Most of them figure everyone born before them were just idiots and “science” is just something they take on faith.

          • But you don’t look down your nose at the past so how can you?

            • Sir Issav Newton said: “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

              Which is why it is so important for modern scientists to bury those giants in the sand.

      • “that’s right boys and girls, the theology that placed the Earth at the center was not due to the Earth’s importance but due to its imperfection”

        The way I’ve seen it phrased is that the Earth was at the center of the universe much the way that the a**hole is at the center of the body–and meant to serve much the same function.

        • The Earth is the bottom of the universe. All the dross dropped down here.

          Witness that when Dante and Virgil reach the very bottom, Satan’s there. And they have to climb down his gigantic and fortunately hairy body to get out. Except that they can only climb down to his waist. From his waist to his feet, they climb up, because that is the point to which all things fall.

      • The Elizabethans at least ‘progressed’ as new ideas/techniques came along. Modern Progressives are locked in the myth that Marx knew economics.

  10. Psychology, you see, would get quantified and become a hard science.

    From the Health & Science section of today’s Washington Post:
    Unable to replicate findings, psychologists are left with fundamental doubts about their field

  11. > I hate shooting … because I’m not very coordinated and my eyes are funny and I’m afraid of flubbing.

    I’m a lousy shot too. But I still enjoy shooting. I just use bigger targets than the other guys…

    > But as with driving,

    I love driving. I hate *traffic*.

    • That’s what they make shotguns for. Think a big metal fist, very hard, and traveling very fast.

      • I have several shotguns… but I burned a lot of ammo mastering the Art of the Machine Gun.

        And, at fifteen dollars per second to operate, I quickly added the Art of Reloading…

      • Professor Badness

        In traffic? That doesn’t sound very safe.

    • I find that smaller targets make me a better shot.
      “Aim small, miss small”.

  12. The problem at CNN is maybe deeper than any of us realize. Some years back, someone I knew went with a group of youngsters on a class trip that included a tour of CNN. As it happened, the week before CNN had devoted considerable air time over a certain incident that just happened to be where that group came from. So when the guide asked where they were from and they gave the name of a town that had been mentioned daily on CNN for a week, that should have rung a bell, right?

    Uh-uh. The guide said he wasn’t familiar with it. I told my friend that they should have mentioned the incident CNN had reported on, but they said they didn’t want that associated with their group. Whatever. But it’s significant that someone at CNN did not recognize the name of a place where CNN crews had been for several days just the week before.

    I hope it was due to employees of CNN not watching their own programming and nothing more. Assuming that it was, if CNN’s people doesn’t watch their own shows, why should anyone else?

    • I’ve worked at two newspapers, and in my experience most journalists are as dumb as a bottle of Liquid Paper. They don’t know ANYTHING — no history, no science (a few specialist science reporters excepted), no law. Their cultural references are TV shows and pop song lyrics. And since I was a proofreader I can say with confidence that not a man jack of them knows how to spell.

      They love to adopt a pose of knowing cynicism but are in fact shockingly gullible — hence all the various hoax stories that get published. They often fall for con men, especially if the grifter wraps his con in a cover of social-justice outrage or corporate wrongdoing. (I know of one TV journalist who bought into — as in, actually invested money — a perpetual-motion machine scam, because the promoter claimed the “big oil companies” were suppressing his discovery.)

      This is actually one reason I can’t believe in an organized media conspiracy, for any purpose: they’re all too damned dumb to pull one off. But in their lemminglike conformity and lack of imagination, they display a kind of emergent conspiracy-like behavior, reminiscent of how ants can seem to act with purpose and intelligence.

  13. Yesterday idiots accused me of being ammosexual.

    Funny how the Left drives everything down to a single denominator. Guns are phallus compensation, you’re “ammosexual” (BTW – the only documented instances — of which I’ve ever heard — of orgasmic response to killing are those of criminals and Leftists) rather than engaging in reasoning outward from fundamental principles (such as you demonstrate.)

    • Come on now, an ammosexual does not have an orgasmic response to killing, they just use .50 cal and larger cartridges for intimate purposes.

      • Weirdly an ex boyfriend had a fantasy involving a cartridge. He was also leftist. Oh, and ew.

        • That a leftist has a fantasy involving a cartridge surprises me not at all…they are in love with death. I suspect most necrophiliacs who have political identities are leftist as well.

      • On one of the AK forums a member posted pictures from the crawlspace under his house, where the floor had collapsed from the weight of a ceiling-high stack of 54R spam cans.

        Oops. You really *can* have too much ammunition. At least, too much in the same place…

    • So, if supporters of the 2nd Amendment are “ammosexuals” does that make gun-grabbing politicians rapists and their supporters in gun-grabbing “submissives?”

      (I wish to apologize to anyone in the kink community offended by the comparison made in the last clause.)

      • Well, given we have at least one submissive here who enjoys shooting quite a bit I would say no.

        “Pussies” would work but not “sissies”. “Idoitos” and “SerfWannabees” are also options.

        • Hoplophobes? Victima Impedimeantia? Sheep? From the recent news, perhaps “Kuntzmen” would be applicable, if male. I hold women in general to a *slightly* higher standard, as I’ve known ladies of even strongly leftist persuasion to waiver or even come down solidly on the “I will cause immanent violence” side when her little ones are threatened, so I can’t think of something sufficiently vile to describe a XX gene that won’t even fight to protect her *children.*

          • Trying to be fair, even the most anti-gun folks that I can think of are not opposed to violence to protect those who they care about.

            Folks on the right *do* seem to have a higher rate of “caring” when it comes to rubber hitting the road and they don’t know people, but I think that may be an artifact of abortion conflicting with Christianity, which is where the majority of those I know who are on the right get their “caring” categories.

            • *thinks* A fair point. And they’re rarely opposed to violence being enacted on their behalf, if the victim of that violence “deserves it.”

              My thought process stemmed from those idiotic “if you’re going to be raped, urinate/defecate on yourself,” and the “I was mugged and had it coming because white privilege” statements, as well as a certain acquaintance that really does seem to believe “violence is never, ever the answer.”

              To your latter point he caring categories on the left don’t seem to have moral absolutes attached as often as those on the right, either. Absent that foundation, it’s hard to take a stand on something because it is *right.* You have to go with “because it *feels* right,” instead.

              • It sounds like you have some folks who really do have courage in their convictions– kind of like Peter Singer, I wish they had other ones, but I can at least respect that misapplied virtue.

              • It is probably appropriate to reference Arnold Kling’s “3-Axes” and note that Progressives are focused on the Oppressor/Oppressed axis, not the Civilization/Barbarism or Freedom/Coercion axis.

                Such a diagnostic surely provides a more nuanced mapping of political orientation than the standard Linear “Left/Right” model or even the 2-dimensional plotting beloved of Libertarians, but it makes discussion quite a bit more complicated.

                But the logic of “I was mugged and had it coming because white privilege” is quite obviously sensible when viewed along the Prog axis.

                • And when the sun is shining, the roof don’t leak no mo. *chuckle*

                  The discussion is better complicated, I think. Let it be rowdy and wild, let the topics run into the weeds of legalities and back again, let there be nothing too terrible to discuss for the sake of liberty. The Oppressor/Oppressed axis is too simple- heck, all three are- to get at it all.

                  Still, an interesting way of looking at things.

        • I’d call the supporters voyeurs…as for the former category…I’ll play the role of Ms Bobbit

    • And given how they bend over backwards for every psychosexual condition up to and including pedophilia shouldn’t the left be at the forefront of 2A?

    • “Guns are phallus compensation, you’re “ammosexual” (BTW – the only documented instances — of which I’ve ever heard — of orgasmic response to killing are those of criminals and Leftists)”

      You’re a little off the mark, here–Taking pleasure in killing is not something reserved solely for the mentally ill, the criminal, or the left. There is nothing quite so… Mmmm… What would be the way to describe it? Cathartic…? Purifying…? As is the emotional quanta surrounding killing the bad guys, especially when you’re intimately familiar with what they did to become “bad guys” in the first place. I don’t know that I’d characterize it as “orgasmic”, but it definitely is an experience that can become quite… Addictive?

      There is a reason a lot of high-functioning sociopaths gravitate towards the military. They get to kill under circumstances that are not only socially acceptable, but positively lauded by the rest of society. Transpose Audie Murphy from a combat zone, and he’s a mass-murderer–And, if someone like him ever told you that they didn’t actually enjoy what they were doing, while they were doing it? They were lying. There is nothing like the feeling of surviving a combat action, and leaving your enemy dead at your feet. Period. End of story.

      Anyone telling you differently is a liar. Someone tries killing you; you kill him instead–The endorphin rush from that is a lot like what happens in rape victims that orgasm during their assault. You’ve been taught all your life that killing is wrong, and yet the “combat rush” and ensuing endorphin cascade are like nothing you’ll ever experience anywhere else in your life. Your biology has betrayed your culture, because you’ve been conditioned all your life that killing is wrong, while your body reacts to having done so and survived with a rush of chemicals that you just don’t get anywhere else. Why do you think that so many become “addicted to war”?

      • Civilization is there to tamp down that biological response in normal situations. War is abnormal and there is a reversion. Heck. Even high risk sports get it.

        • Civilization doesn’t deal with it at all effectively. They ask defenders to go out and perform what are considered atavistic tasks, and then when they return, having successfully performed those tasks and survived…? They are then excoriated and excluded by “polite society”.

          The Navajo tribes deal better with this aspect of the “warrior necessity”, and our inability to do so is a huge component of what goes into making PTSD such a huge issue for many returning combat troops.

          A huge part of that is that attitude RES alludes to in his post, and what he says there about “only the criminal and the insane enjoy killing…”.

          Fact is, most normal people are going to “enjoy” killing, and even experience a wash of endorphins in the post-kill phase of combat the likes of which the average person has no clue about; serial killers are indeed probably experiencing a lot of the same “combat rush” when they make their illicit kills. This is a completely natural thing, and one that is fully in keeping with evolutionary drives. Survival is rewarded, in more ways than one.

          And, it’s quasi-sexual in nature, in that it is assuredly a primal drive, that exultant spasm of endorphins that cascade through your mind when you recognize that you’ve survived, and your enemy lays dead or supine at your feet. We don’t talk about this, but the sudden dislocation that takes place in someone’s mind, when they’ve been conditioned to think that such things are solely the province of the mentally ill or the criminal…? Damaging. Profoundly so.

          And, since we don’t ever talk about it…? It’s one of those secrets about the services the civilians and most servicemen will never know: A lot of us flatly enjoy killing. Life is never the same, never quite as clearly delineated, bright and clear, as when you’re engaging the enemy righteously and killing him. You’ll never hear anyone admit it to you, if you’ve never been there to “see the elephant”, but the intensity and the vibrancy of the whole thing can actually rival or overshadow sex.

          If you ever wonder why some people do crazy shit like put on wingsuits, and do base jumps in the mountains, flying like a stooping hawk and coming inches away from outcroppings…? Yeah. That feeling is analogous. It takes that kind of intensity to “make it happen” with those endorphins getting dumped into your cranium.

          Most human beings never “get that”, but I guarantee you that there are a lot of us who would have that same feeling, were they assaulted unexpectedly, and then manage to prevail against their attacker. And, of course, who will then likely need counseling to cope with that unexpected fact.

          • Perhaps I am experiencing more trouble than I realized with WP. It has hung up on several comments today, including losing a lengthy one about how 1776 misrepresents John Dickinson, Judge Wilson and Richard Henry Lee.

            I am quite certain I never said anything to the effect that “only the criminal and the insane enjoy killing…”. The closest reference I came to that was referring to Karla Faye Tucker as “the only documented instances — of which I’ve ever heard — of orgasmic response to killing are those of criminals and Leftists.”

            Emphasis on the orgasmic.

            Which, I submit, remains different from “enjoying” it or experiencing a “wash of endorphins in the post-kill phase of combat”.

            Do I not say sufficient stupid things for which I deserve reproving that people have to take things wholly out of context or insert words where I said naught?

            • Huh. I took what you were saying as a paraphrasing of SJW thought, and was addressing that. That initial “You’re” in the paragraph following my cut-and-paste shouldn’t have gone in there that way; I meant that to be a more general thing than directing it at you particularly…

              The problem with this medium is that you’re often writing impromptu what rightfully ought to be a carefully considered and worded essay, and with my usual genius for doing so, I’ve managed to screw up the intended direction of my thoughts. Mea culpa.

              • Thanks for the clarification. Having suffered inflicted my share of edit malfunctions I appreciate the attendant problems.

                The Progs being all about the Feelz it is not surprising that they attribute all actions to feelings.

                Because you know they’re all about the feelz,
                ‘Bout the feelz, no logic
                They’re all ’bout the feelz, ’bout that , no logic
                They’re all ’bout that bass, ’bout the feelz, no logic
                They’re all ’bout the feelz, ’bout the feelz

            • BobtheRegisterredFool

              I had that impression about 1776. It fit the needs of how they put the thing together, they didn’t use much time for doing a proper job, but I would hardly take it as authoritative.

    • We had a gloriously tentacled, tightly spiraling, ammo night. NTTAWWT.

      • I have no idea what that could possibly mean but it squicks me the heck right out nonetheless. 🙂

    • Hmmm. I recommend “Style is the Rocket” Either here
      https://bondwine.com/2012/06/08/style-is-the-rocket/
      or in his collection, for the part about rockets.

  14. *pulls little popcorn wagon into blog* I got three bags of plain, three of butter, two kettle-corn, two caramel, two caramel-with-nuts, four hot cinnamon, two “evil cheese take it away after I have one more bite,” a strawberry, a peach, and one tutti-fruiti that was on discount. And a popcorn ball.

    • You seem to be hosting the Popcorn Ball.

      • There’s a local shop that gets national gourmet food awards for their flavored popcorn. Why not share? And Sarah did say to bring popcorn. Alas, I can’t find carb-free, grain-free popcorn anywhere.

        The popcorn ball is for someone who wants to get even with a relative with a 5-8 year old kid without “getting even” if you know what I mean.

  15. Speaking of fore-shocks, I wrote this over at the Monster Hunter blog , on Mr Correia’s post reminding folks to nominate in the new Dragon Con awards

    Here: http://application.dragoncon.org/dc_fan_awards_signup.php

    Just a side note: If you haven’t read Dave Freer’s Changeling Island, get a copy and consider it for the best YA of the year. I only mention it because it’s my favourite SF&F YA of 2016 (and there’s a lot of good stuff, including a new John Flannagan).

    In the same line Royden Lepp’s Rust graphic novel series had a new book out, if you’re looking for great story and beautiful art, that doesn’t go either grey-goo or squick-inducing Sexx0rs-n-swearing.

    And a shout out for Son of the Black Sword for fantasy, though there’s also Iron Chamber of Memory by Mr. Wright. Between Baen and indie, we’re spoiled for choice for these awards. Doesn’t that make a nice change?”

    I should add that for SF there’s Through Fire, Aeronaut’s Windlass, and God, Robot as terrific contenders for the straight SF slot, or possibly the SF alternative history category.

    Spoiled for choice!

    • Can anyone point me to background on the new awards. I know this kinda of thing was discussed and I know DragonCon is the logical place (I had to come into the office on Saturday of it last year and couldn’t park due to the parade route) but this is news to me.

      • Dragon con’s own site (follow the awards sign up link above and noodle through until you find the link to the FAQ / background whatsit is a good place to start. HTH.

  16. prevent stupid cats from running out to tangle with coyotes and wild turkeys

    Watching a cat stalk a wild turkey is funny as hell. Coyotes not so funny. I shot one last year trying to get to our cat who found a convenient tree to get in. Cats are a favorite snack for Coyotes around here.

  17. The thing to remember is that it’s unlikely to happen in favor of liberty. Liberty is hard. Self responsibility more so.

    I have a friend on FB. Nice person. Mostly on the conservative side. Nevertheless we have frequent disagreements. (No. Really.) Some of them are about parenting–she has certain ideas on how a “proper family” should be. I am of a different opinion when it comes to my own. But the big ones are about liberty. She’s big on restricting people’s rights “for their own good”. Doesn’t even realize that she’s doing exactly what the Left is doing with things like “ban big gulp”.

    But the latest was this proposal to ban people on the “no fly” list. This person is completely down with that. Of course it’s a good idea to keep enemies of America from being armed.

    Um. Due process?

    Apparently that doesn’t matter. This person claimed that no more than 10% of the people on the list were US citizens and that the Bill of Rights only applied to US Citizens anyway.

    (Eyebrows go up)

    So 10% of 47000 people on the list as of 2013 (most recent numbers I had–and it had doubled in each of the two previous years so the extrapolation is concerning) don’t matter? And on this US citizen thing, which rights do you want to deny my wife (a permanent resident who, for reasons of her own, decided to keep her Japanese citizenship). Do you deny her Free Speech? How about Freedom of Religion? Does she get denied RKBA? Does protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure not apply to her? How about protection from forcibly being made a witness against herself? Due process? Trial by Jury? Cruel and Unusual punishments?

    Which rights would she deny my wife?

    This is why we can’t have nice things. The right may be less infected with the “people who want people to be controlled” disease, but it’s still epidemic.

    • Sorry, but anyone who wants to impose restrictions on others “for their own good” is by definition not conservative at all. Populist, maybe, but not conservative.

      • They use a different definition of “conservative.”

        Very different.

        Radically different.

        • Yet another reason they’re not conservative. Only the left continually redefines well-understood terms in attempts to make their arguments seem reasonable.

          • Anybody who’s a conservative but isn’t well-taught to think (by himself or others) is going to be subject to the prevailing opinions of the leftist culture that’s in power. There’s all kinds of silly stuff I used to reflexively believe when I was younger, even though I was ardently conservative in any area I actually knew something about. The results ranged from embarrassing to soul-endangering, and there are some things I said when younger that my older self would die before agreeing with.

            • That would be a larval conservative, I think. They have the inclinations, but not the knowledge or reasoning skills required to understand just what conservativism means.

            • Any structure — physical or philosophical — is only as strong as its foundation.


              I learned that lesson while quite young (before Belafonte exposed his philosophical phlaws in public.)

              • You’ve gotta have a strong cornerstone for your philosophy, lest your ideas collapse.


                You want a solid building block.

          • In fairness to the Left, that is just about the only way their arguments can be made to seem reasonable.

        • *wry* Depends on the definition of “doing it ‘for their own good'” that’s being used.

          Some of the really big blow ups we’ve (collective we, not you and I specifically) had on this very blog consisted mostly of arguing that out, after all.

          The “if one kid is hitting another with a stick on the playground, do you take all the sticks away or do you give everyone a stick” form of “for their own good,” obviously true; it inherently puts the choice-maker in the position of being the responsible adult supervising a large number of children for a short time, as well as neatly passing over the whole “and if the kid won’t give you the stick?” problem.

          • I agree that putting citizens in the position of children is an inherent problem with the metaphor; that said, even in the case of the kids, I think it unreasonable to take the sticks away from anybody who wasn’t misbehaving with them.

      • “For their own good” is the flashing arrow that says “SOCIALIST.”

        It doesn’t matter what they call themselves, or what other things they might believe or promote, that’s the key to their whole ideology.

        • This is the “Free speech, but…” argument I’m forever hearing out of the Lefties. There is no ‘but’, speech is either free, or un-free. Lots and lots of seemingly intelligent people are all over the un-free bandwagon, having forgotten (or never learned) that regimes change, and a restriction that was going your way may turn right around and get used against you after an election.

          • “Next election, the other guys get the Big Stick.”

            Unfortunately, a great many people aren’t capable of that level of abstract thought.

            • Everybody who wants that Big Stick seems convinced they will never have to relinquish it. They think it is a Magic Stick and the public will never tell them where to stick it.

              • RES, in my experience Leftists are so convinced they are “on the right side of history” that it would break their little brains to conceive of being on the wrong side of the law.

      • I’d argue that it’s not libertarian, but as to not conservative? That depends on what you mean. I’m not convinced that conservative is always libertarian, and I’ve met conservatives who aren’t aware of the meaning of “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,” and never ask if some of the things they support could be abused or turned against them.

        • I agree that libertarian and conservative aren’t exactly the same thing, but there are certain things on which both philosophies agree. That forcing citizens to do things they don’t want to do “for their own good” is desirable is something both philosophies are adamantly opposed to. The libertarians take the principle to its extreme perhaps, but the general principle is definitely central to both libertarianism and conservatism.

          • A positive vs a negative “for your own good” thing.

            Arguably, any laws at all are “for your own good”– in the negative form.

            Forcing people to buy health insurance? That’s a positive “For your own good.”

          • I disagree. Libertarians have a stronger sense of “leave everyone alone,”: while a conservatives can and have argued about the greater good. Offhand the main difference I’ve noticed is that conservatives tend to adhere more closely to the Constitution than liberals, with liberals invoking “living document” while conservatives cry foul.

            • *waggles hand* Libertarians tend to work from a rather strictly limited and immediate definition of “harming others,” while conservatives are more likely to try to balance long-term interests.

              For a silly example of the extreme expression of each, on one hand you have “you have no right to object to them swinging their fist until it has actually hit you in the nose” and on the other you have allowance for an area town to make rules about “reckless swinging of a fist” for those who swing it around without a really good reason.

              (this example brought to you because a line from a country song is stuck in my head: Reckless discharge of a gun, that’s what the officer’s claiming. Bubba hollered out, reckless, hell– I hit just where I was aiming.– Bubba shot the jukebox last night)

        • What’s sauce for the goose is not always sauce for the gander. You do have to draw distinctions, starting with “You robbed a bank and I didn’t, which is why I get to put you in jail and you don’t get to put me.”

          One would probably describe compulsory classes on budgeting and other such skills for people on welfare as being for their good, before one got into the advantage the rest of us get.

    • The Left has no regard for Due Process (except when it advances their purposes, e.g., when ‘their” president is revealed as a sexual predator) or any other restriction on their ability to panic the herd,

      This person claimed that no more than 10% of the people on the list were US citizens and that the Bill of Rights only applied to US Citizens anyway.

      The list is not on the public record, so (in addition to your excellent arguments) the question remains: how does she know?

      Grant anonymous government officials to put names on lists curtailing fundamental civil rights and pretty soon nearly everybody’s (although surprisingly few government officials’) name will be on that list. How long until making appropiate campaign contributions greasing a few palms is required to not be on that list, or possibly to get a rival’s name on it?

      • The list is not on the public record, so (in addition to your excellent arguments) the question remains: how does she know?

        Oh, I called her on that one. She also claimed it was easy for someone wrongfully added to get off it.

        Some (most) people just don’t get the idea of liberty.

        • Said I was “very cynical.”

          If so, it’s because I’ve cracked open a history book or two.

        • It’s my understanding that unless you are a celebrity or politician it is extremely difficult to get yourself removed from that list, bordering on impossible.
          And you might inquire of your argumentative friend how she feels about the fact that she could find herself on such a list with nothing more than an anonymous phone call to the right agency.

          • And you might inquire of your argumentative friend how she feels about the fact that she could find herself on such a list with nothing more than an anonymous phone call to the right agency.

            I’d already pointed out “anything government can do for you it can do to you.”. Her response: “I’ve gone X (a bit younger than me) years without being added to any such list. I’m not worried about it.”

            *Headdesk*

            • “I’ve gone X […] years without being added to any such list. I’m not worried about it.”

              *tick* *tick* *tick*

            • I would point out that one salient factor in your favor is that she very well could be on any number of lists with no way to know until she attempts to do something that a particular list prohibits.
              But it seems clear from your account that your friend is content to be a subject of an all powerful government rather than a citizen of a free republic. My condolences to her and to you for having to put up with her.

              • To be fair, quite a lot of people in practice tie their definitions of a government being “too powerful” to the criterion of “does it prevent me doing anything I want to do?”. One can be quite sincerely against the idea of a “too powerful” government without perceiving a government’s current power as meeting that threshold, so long as one has been lucky enough not to be bothered my it.

                (Or to say the same thing more pithily, this is another one of those issues where it can depend fantastically on whose ox is gored.)

        • If you’re a Senator from Massachusetts, sure. otherwise the only way you find out you’re on it is when you go to get on a plane….

          • So long as we’re deep-sixing Due Process where firearms are concerned, perhaps an amendment could be inserted allowing police to reinstate “Stop & Frisk” searches?

    • The right may be less infected with the “people who want people to be controlled” disease, but it’s still epidemic.

      (crooning)
      People.
      People who control people,
      Are the haaaaaapiest people in the world.
      We’re children, controlling other children
      And yet letting our grown-up pride
      Hide all the need inside,
      Acting more like children
      Than children.
      Controllers are very special people,
      They’re the luckiest people
      In the world.
      With one person, one very special person
      A feeling deep in your soul
      Says you were free,
      Now you’re under control.
      No more hunger and thirst
      But first be a person
      Who needs people.
      People who control people
      Are the happiest people
      In the world!

    • Bill of Rights only applied to US Citizens anyway.

      One could make a good argument that most of the amendments do not apply to non-citizens (although the status of legal residents would be open).

      The reasoning is most of the amendments describe the right being protected as “The right of the people”. In general, using text elsewhere, “the people” refers to citizens. The three instances in the Constitution itself are the Preamble, Article One, and the forwarding to the states. I think it is obvious that “We the People” in the preamble refers to citizens of the United States. In Article One it is in reference to the House of Representatives, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States”, which again clearly indicates citizens. Finally, in the forwarding to the states we have, “That the preceeding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled, and that it is the Opinion of this Convention, that it should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof”. Again this clearly refers to citizens.

      What is interesting is not all of the Bill of Rights uses the formulation “the people”. It is in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth. Those that directly deal with crimal cases, with the exception of the Fourth, use “persons” or “the accused” in the Fifth and Sixth respectively or not at all, in the Seventh and Eighth. Textual usage of person in the body of the Constituion clearly indicates non-citizens as well as citizens as is made clear in the very first usage which is in Article Two: “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States” (emphasis mine).

      The stick in the craw is the Fourth which refers to the people and would seem to allow for searches and seizures of property against non-citizens at will. I am not sure if the separation on Warrants extends the protections in the first clause to non-citizens. Unlike the Second Amendment clause issues, the two clauses in the forth form a pair of independent sentences joined by an “and” so such argument isn’t completely out of bounds.

      The Fourthteen’s inclusion is based on its first section which specifically limits it to citizens. The final part, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” could be read as extending protection to non-citizens who are legal residents but those outside its jurisdiction, which arguably includes a large class of non-citizens, as not covered.

      While treating non- legal resident non-citizens different may not be a wise choice I think there is a conherent argument it is a constitutional choice. We must reject the left’s belief (which increasingly has traction on the right) that all good things are required by the constitutin and all bad things forbidden by it as opposed to reading its text and seeing what is and is not allowed.

      • I forgot to mention the Third Amendment which mentions the owner of the house being used for quartering. It would seem an abseentee foreign landlord is protected under the Third Amendment.

        The Third is seeing interesting jurisprudence on police commendering property these days.

        • Well an interesting question comes when there are forced backdoors into phones or personal property. The soldier needn’t be in the room to take use of your belongings.

      • The position I took is that you have one of two positions:

        1) Rights come from “God” (or are innate in being human). The Constitution only recognizes them and forbids the government from violating them.

        2) Rights are a social construction. They are what people agree to, using “government” as a tool. However, what this means is that your “rights” are what government allows you to do at any given time, neither more nor less.

        Now, it may be that some things can fall into one category (“Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness” being the classic example of the former, “Right” to vote of the latter) But either a right is innate, in which case it applies to everyone, or its not.

        Now, the US government has a limited jurisdiction. We can’t realistically enforce universal right in, say, China. But within our own jurisdiction, rights, at least those of the first type, are universal, citizen or not.

        • 1. That is sorta kinda what they meant by “Inalienable.”

          2. Those are not rights, those are privileges. The label is not the contents.

        • So, if we view all the rights in the Bill of Rights to be Inalienable what distinction exists between the citizen and the non-citizen?

          Can we bar a non-citizen from voting in a House election for example?
          Are current laws barring non-citizens from purchasing a gun unconstitutional? What about current laws barring non-citizens from giving money to political campaigns?

          The usage in the Bill of Rights distincting what rights Congress is entailed to protect for anyone in the US versus which ones it would not be entailed to protect for non-citizens under my reading seems very specific and very much in the spirit of the Founders.

          Facing the law my reading says that non-citizens must receive the same treatment once arrested and brought to court as citizens.

          It does not prevent Congress from barring non-citizens from carrying arms which I think is current gun law (non-citizens are in some cases restricted from buying weapons). It would not prevent Congress from barring foreign agents from speaking, thus limiting sedition or attempts to influence US government policy against that of the US via interfering with elections, nor would it limit their ability to arrest or detain foreigin individuals which is pretty consistant with some historical border protections. Finally, it would exclude them from the reserved rights both individually and as citizens of the several states.

          What it would do is require the government, having seized a foreigner, to try them with the same protections as a regular citizen.

          The US government first and foremost exists to protect the rights of the citizens of the United States. In a perfect world that would never be at cross purpopes with protecting the rights of non-citizens within its borders. In the world we live in those two can conflict and I believe the Founders were wise enough to both see that and leave openings in the Bill of Rights for their successors to respond accordingly.

          • Can we bar a non-citizen from voting in a House election for example?

            If you’ll look you’ll see I covered that. Some things can be category 1. Other’s (voting was an explicit ecample) category 2.

            In a perfect world that would never be at cross purpopes with protecting the rights of non-citizens within its borders. IIn the world we live in those two can conflict.

            If the rights of one person can conflict with the rights of another, what do you do when they are both US citizens? Which one gets their rights protected at the expense of which one?

            Individual rights either can be in conflict, or they cannot. If they can, then they can just as easily be if the individuals involved are all US citizens as they can if some are not.

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights…” (Emphasis added).

            So, if rights can “be in conflict” why do you only consider that conflict between citizens and not-citizens? Is there some magical barrier that prevents citizens from having the same conflict between them?

            • If you’ll look you’ll see I covered that. Some things can be category 1. Other’s (voting was an explicit ecample) category 2.

              My bad, however, you did not approach my other two examples:

              1. Can the US government ban non-citizens from purchasing fire arms?
              2. Can the US government ban non-citizens from giving money to political campaigns?

              I find it hard to believe you place both of those in category #2.

              So, if rights can “be in conflict” why do you only consider that conflict between citizens and not-citizens? Is there some magical barrier that prevents citizens from having the same conflict between them?

              Nothing prevents the same conflict but the government of the United States exists to protect the rights of only group: US citizens. If the US government becomes so attached to the rights on non-citizens that they begin to fail to defend the rights of citizens you will soon find lots of people also quoting Jefferson but a different part:

              That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

              I would argue the person you were talking about this with has started to believe in altering or abolishing some current protections not unlike became common in the 70s when governments in the US seemed more interested in the rights of criminals than law abiding citizens. I think the rise in anti-immigration sentiment is another version.

              If we actually took took Islamism and the actions of its adherents seriously this would not be a topic of discussion. Part of taking it seriously does including using some of the tools we have in place such as the ability to bar entry (despite it infringing on the Right to Pursue Happiness and Freedom of Movement).

              • 1. Can the US government ban non-citizens from purchasing fire arms?
                2. Can the US government ban non-citizens from giving money to political campaigns?

                “Can” as in can they pass a law doing so and enforce it? Clearly they can.
                Are they right in doing so? That’s a whole other ballgame.

                I consider RKBA a fundamental right (and have discussed why elsewhere) and consider the law forbidding non-immigrant aliens from purchasing firearms from dealers to be wrong. But the courts haven’t asked me. And the courts have done some very strange things.

                The “money in politics” is an issue that has become complicated. But the “fixes” almost invariably make it worse. When you increase government power, you make influence over that power more valuable. That drives up the cost. When the response to that is to give government more power, it doesn’t relieve the problem, it exacerbates it. People who can pay more. Laws against it merely mean people find ways around it–or design them in since the very politicians who benefit from this are the ones who would end up passing any such laws in the first place. If government were cut back to its legitimate purpose, it wouldn’t be an issue. It’s only an issue because government has gone far beyond “to secure these rights”.

                If the US government becomes so attached to the rights on non-citizens that they begin to fail to defend the rights of citizens you will soon find lots of people also quoting Jefferson but a different part:

                False dilemma. Securing and enforcing the rights of people does not require any such dichotomy.

                I’ll ask you the same thing I asked that other person: Which of the Bill of Rights would you deny my wife and why?

                That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

                If the government would just do that, we wouldn’t have to worry about citizen/non-citizen.

                • Which of the Bill of Rights would you deny my wife and why?

                  The right to determine which of the rights reserved to the several states in joining the Constitutional Republic shall, in her state of residence, be distributed between the state and the people of that state as discussed in the Tenth Amendment. She is not a citizen of the state despite being resident and thus should not be afforded a vote in whatever method the people of the state use for making such a determination.

                  The right to petition government for redress of grievences outside of those already enshired in existing civil or criminal law, i.e. petition to vote or being a signatory to petitions that will presented as evidence of support of citizens of a state for a given addition or repeal of a law of that state that is formal in nature such as a petition to place a candidate on the ballot. It does not mean denying her appeals of rulings for or against or requests for application of civil or criminal law against those who have harmed her which, even by my reading, would violate the Bill of Rights.

                  Barring further information about your wife I can make no affirmative declarations but some conditionals:

                  1. If she has been convicted of a felony in her nation of citizenship that, if it had occurred in this one, would ban her from certain professions (freedom of association) or gun ownership that she be barred from such until she completes the process she would have had to in your state of residence to have such bans overturned.

                  2. If she had been found to be a member of certain organizations whose only purpose or whose priniciple purpose in the US is the violent overthrow of the US government or waging violence against it citizens she be denied the right of speech specifically in advancing the goals of that organization, that she be denied the right of assembly with other members of that organization, and that she be barred from the purchase of firearms.

                  Of course, in both those cases I’d argue someone’s right to be in the US is null and void but freedom of movement and pursuit of happiness are God given so we can’t infringe them.

                  • The right to determine which of the rights reserved to the several states in joining the Constitutional Republic shall, in her state of residence, be distributed between the state and the people of that state as discussed in the Tenth Amendment. She is not a citizen of the state despite being resident and thus should not be afforded a vote in whatever method the people of the state use for making such a determination.

                    I’m sorry but I keep looking through my copy of the 10th Amendment, but the word “vote” doesn’t appear anywhere in there. That is really reaching. In fact, the 10th is completely silent on how those powers (note that it says powers, not rights–because governments don’t have rights, they have powers) are to be apportioned, only that they do not belong to the Feds.

                    The right to petition government for redress of grievences outside of those already enshired in existing civil or criminal law, i.e. petition to vote or being a signatory to petitions that will presented as evidence of support of citizens

                    She doesn’t have the right to write to the Congressman “serving” (Carson–hack, spit) our district? She doesn’t have the right to write to our Senators? She doesn’t have to right to draft a petition and ask others to sign it?

                    The right is to petition. It isn’t necessarily the right to get what you want from said petition.

                    1. If she has been convicted of a felony in her nation of citizenship that, if it had occurred in this one, would ban her from certain professions (freedom of association) or gun ownership that she be barred from such until she completes the process she would have had to in your state of residence to have such bans overturned.

                    And this is different from a US Citizen how?

                    2. If she had been found to be a member of certain organizations whose only purpose or whose priniciple purpose in the US is the violent overthrow of the US government or waging violence against it citizens she be denied the right of speech specifically in advancing the goals of that organization, that she be denied the right of assembly with other members of that organization, and that she be barred from the purchase of firearms.

                    Funny, I seem to remember US Citizens also being forbidden from belonging to organizations whose principle purpose is the violent overthrow of the US Government. Something about “making war on them, adhering to their enemies giving them aid and comfort.”

                    Your examples of “rights” she doesn’t have as a non-US citizen are also rights (of the first class) that US Citizens also do not have.

                    • I’m sorry but I keep looking through my copy of the 10th Amendment, but the word “vote” doesn’t appear anywhere in there. That is really reaching.

                      Let’s see:

                      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

                      So, powers not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people.

                      So, we acknowledge a body of rights not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. We also acknowledge certain of those rights are denied the states specifically (which is part of the purpose of the Bill of Rights but such denials are not limited to it…Article IV contains such provisions).

                      Thus there is a body of rights which citizens of a state may choose to delegate to that state. What ever could be the method for doing so?

                      The Constitution, among the many limitations insures that to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government. It would seem a republican form of government would include the selection of representatives. Such selection, at this time in all states is done by…what’s that? Oh, voting, yes.

                      She doesn’t have the right to write to the Congressman “serving” (Carson–hack, spit) our district? She doesn’t have the right to write to our Senators? She doesn’t have to right to draft a petition and ask others to sign it?

                      The right is to petition. It isn’t necessarily the right to get what you want from said petition.

                      Gee, talk about a reoccurring inability to read and selective editing:

                      i.e. petition to vote or being a signatory to petitions that will presented as evidence of support of citizens of a state for a given addition or repeal of a law of that state that is formal in nature such as a petition to place a candidate on the ballot.

                      Emphasis added to make sure you saw the qualifier. That said, I think it is well within the Constitution for Congress to vote reject all correspondence from non-citizens. I just think such is not a pragmatic or measured solution to a “problem” (assuming it exists which I in fact do not) of undo persuasion of Congress. I do think, however, allowing non-citizens to circulate or sign petitions that are formal in nature, that is carry the power of law, to compel the relevant officers of the state to place a ballot measure, bill, state constitutional amendment, or candidate on the ballot are reasonable and measured items to not allow those who are not citizens of a given state to do. Someone who is a legal resident from Ireland has no more business signing a petition to put a candidate on my local ballot than someone from Houston here on a six month employment contract.

                      In fact, such movement between states within the window to register for an election is the reason I have missed two off year elections. In both cases I relocated in the first week in November and voted near where I left absentee, as I would not be a citizen during the period the election selected representation for despite being eligible to vote, nor in the place I went because I was ineligible to vote even though I would be represented by those selected for the entire period covered by the election.

                      Maybe I just like violating my own God given rights.

                      And this is different from a US Citizen how?

                      Her nations of citizenship is not the United States. Do any states enjoin felony restrictions on those citizens convicted of felonies in foreign nations?

                      Funny, I seem to remember US Citizens also being forbidden from belonging to organizations whose principle purpose is the violent overthrow of the US Government. Something about “making war on them, adhering to their enemies giving them aid and comfort.”

                      Please show me where mere membership in or assembly at a meeting of the The Texas Nationalist Movement or The Republic of Texas.

                      “Making war on them, adhering to their enemies giving them aid and comfort” are actions. Mere membership or avocation does not qualify as many, many cases have shown (with some qualifications on avocation similar to that on fighting words and with respect to members of the US military).

                      In fact, it is quite easy to find and join many organizations advocating violent overthrow of the US government in whole or part. We don’t arrest members, although the police may observe them closely, for such membership or assembly. Only when they make affirmative actions in furtherance of such goals.

                      I wouldn’t silence a Texan merely for membership in The Texas Nationalist Movement or for attending a meeting. I see no reason to have such restraint concerning a Saudi passport carrying member of the same.

                  • Which of the Bill of Rights would you deny my wife and why?

                    The nature of the question raises a different question in turn, as it would seem you are a citizen: Why hasn’t your wife accepted American citizenship through her marriage to you?

                    But the fundamental difference in Rights would hinge on the fact that she does not enjoy sovereignty (although under Leftish Creep actual American citizens are ceding that, as well), hence a right to vote or contribute money to the servants of her choice (although if the candidate has, for example, disabled the protections on his web site that preclude non-citizen donations, she can enjoy that privilege without having the right) and the government has the option, unlike with you, of telling her, “Leave our country and never darken our hand-towels again.”

                    • Why hasn’t your wife accepted American citizenship through her marriage to you?

                      Because she chooses not to. That’s all the answer anyone needs.

                      hence a right to vote

                      I don’t believe the word “vote” comes up anywhere in the Bill of Rights.

                    • As the Bill of Rights is a series of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the word “vote” need not be present in those amendments themselves for it to be addressed by them.

                      Further, the Bill of Rights should be considered in light of the argument that such specific enumeration of rights was considered unnecessary, “because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.” [ https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/ ]

                      As only citizens could be party to the Bill of Rights, it by definition is limited to citizens although its actions as a restriction of the powers and authority of the Federal government may act to the benefit of non-citizens / resident aliens. From that perspective, it is also necessary to delve into the rights of citizens within their states — a topic which surely exceeds the scope of any discussion in these premises.

                    • As the Bill of Rights is a series of amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the word “vote” need not be present in those amendments themselves for it to be addressed by them.

                      I was asking about the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Voting is not one of them. That voting is covered elsewhere does not change that.

                      As only citizens could be party to the Bill of Rights

                      So you’re of the “rights are granted by government” position rather than “rights are inherent/granted by God” persuasion?

                    • Do you routinely ignore other arguments made by a person you’re challenging?
                      https://accordingtohoyt.com/2016/06/21/i-can-feel-it-coming/#comment-376463

                      The Constitution and Bill of Rights constitute a contract by which the people, through their States, assign to the Federal government certain authorities to act as their agent, exercising the sovereignty thus delegated. The authority thus granted exists only as defined by the contract and is non-binding on any parties not incidental to the contract, even though they may receive incidental benefits by the actions of the contracted parties (e.g., security in their homes and person by virtue of the bar on Federal authorities’ intrusions into <Icitizen homes due to the inherent difficulties of distinguishing between the two categories.)

                      Rights exist separately but equally from the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which is why restricting such discussion only to the Bill of Rights guarantees incoherence.

                    • This is perhaps starting to get more heated than it should be so this is going to be my last word.

                      The Constitution and Bill of Rights constitute a contract by which the people, through their States, assign to the Federal government certain authorities to act as their agent, exercising the sovereignty thus delegated.

                      What you’re missing is that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights. This, in fact, was one of the major arguments of the Federalists against including such a Bill. Why a statement forbidding the government from interfering with Freedom of the Press when the Constitution granted them no power over the press? (I forget which of the Federalist Papers that was in but it was one of the ones Hamilton wrote.)

                      The Rights are pre-existing. The Bill of Rights merely forbids the government from interfering with certain rights. Cruikshank v. United States, for instance, stated that RKBA was not a right granted by the Constitution nor dependent on that document for its existence:

                      “The right there specified is that of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html

                      The Bill of Rights does not grant rights. It’s a restriction on government from infringing on rights which already existed.

                      The Founders were pretty clear on this point. Rights are pre-existing. The Constitution delegates (Tenth Amendment) to the federal government certain powers, and forbids it from infringing on certain enumerated rights which are not a complete list (see Amendment 9). And from whom are these powers delegated if not the people in the first place. And how can the people delegate anything related to rights if they do not possess those rights in the first place? The people have to possess the rights before they can delegate them to the government.

                      Thus, rights come first. They come with being human. There are certain duties and privileges to which the word “right” is sometimes applied (voting being one) that come with the particular form government might take, but that’s something different.

                    • If heated it is because of failure to read what has been written. Referring to my linked comment:

                      thewriterinblack | June 21, 2016 at 2:29 pm | Reply
                      The position I took is that you have one of two positions:

                      1) Rights come from “God” (or are innate in being human).

                      2) Rights are a social construction.

                      RES | June 21, 2016 at 3:29 pm | Reply
                      1. That is sorta kinda what they meant by “Inalienable.”

                      2. Those are not rights, those are privileges. The label is not the contents.

                      How anyone can see that as a claim that the Bill of Rights “grants rights” confuses the heck out of me. Even accepting my contractual basis underpinning the Constitution, no contract for agency can “grant” rights to the principal, as all rights are initially the principal’s to begin with, including rights of action against an agent who violates the contract.

  18. P.S. Do read the FAQ part when you sign up. There’s easy ways to spoil your ballot, and the D.C. folks have chosen a different time frame than most awards.

  19. Back when I took Cultureal Anthropology in college (required 2 semesters of “social sciences” so it wasn’t my fault) one block was on “revitalization movements”. Cultures under stress often have these revitalization movements. In these movements they tend to “double down” on their core beliefs. An example given was the “Ghost Dance” of certain Native American tribes.

    Sometimes this results in a Renaissance. Most often it’s a last gasp of a dying culture.

    I have suggested this as a factor in the rise of Islamic terrorism. I now suggest it as a factor in the Left becoming increasingly shrill in recent years.

  20. BobtheRegisterredFool

    Some of the #NeverTrump set claims that Fox has been very badly in the tank for Trump. It is said that CNN has been doing better because they were more even handed covering the GOP Primary. I dunno.

    • The Other Sean

      #NeverTrump’s just sore some of Fox News’ big names decided to jump off, the #NeverTrump bandwagon, or had never jumped on in the first place. Until Trump started gaining a major lead in delegate count, I’d say they were on average mildly anti-Trump, with a few majorly anti-Trump talking heads. At least that was my impression.

  21. Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
    The harsh fact is that almost nobody watches CNN or believes in Socialism. Along with the fact that the media and distribution models are changing with leveling of the internet. As for Socialism, the screeches get louder and louder as they get ever more irrelevant.

    • No but many with the handles of power believe in the fascist state necessary for communism and the graft and power that accompany it

  22. Noted for MSM mockery purposes:
    Columnist fails gun check, blames store owners
    A newspaper columnist is crying foul after a gun store rejected his application to purchase a firearm following a background check that uncovered his “admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife.”

    “Gun manufacturers and the stores that sell them make their money in the dark,” the Chicago Sun-Times’ Neil Steinberg wrote in his column following his failed attempt to purchase a rifle.

    “Congress, which has so much trouble passing the most basic gun laws, passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence. Except for the week or two after massacres, the public covers its eyes. Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters … that’s a different story,” he added.

    [SNIP]

    “Mr. Steinberg was very aggressive on the phone with Sarah, insisting he was going to write that we denied him because he is a journalist. ‘Journalist’ is not a protected class, [by the way],” the store said in an explanation made available to the Washington Examiner’s media desk.

    “We contacted his editor and said that, while we don’t normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here’s why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He’s free to believe or disbelieve that’s why he was denied, but that is why he was denied,” the statement added. “There was no ‘We’ll see you in court!!!!’ type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn’t really our problem, is it?”

    [SNIP]

    “Our transaction took nearly an hour because we chatted. Mike [a store salesman] used to read newspapers but doesn’t anymore because of opinion writers like me. He knew whether it was legal to bring the gun to Chicago — it’s not. He was friendly, candid, so I asked difficult questions. Did he ever feel guilty about the people killed by the guns he sells? No, he said, that’s like asking a car dealer if he felt guilty if someone gets drunk and kills somebody in a car he sold. It seemed a fair answer. I asked him if I could quote him in the newspaper, and he said no, I couldn’t, so I’m not quoting him,” he wrote.

    Steinberg submitted his paperwork and waited.

    • Apparently prosecutors in 2005 dropped the domestic abuse charge in exchange for Steinberg going to alcohol rehab for 28 days. So though he wasn’t lying about not having been “convicted of domestic abuse,” he was definitely charged first.

      Well, maybe it’s not fair that the gun store “had a bad feeling” about selling dangerous tools to a guy with not-quite-a-record. But if you want to prove that gun laws are lax and end up proving they’re restrictive, you should be happier about it.

      • I’d guess that it combined with his behavior– seriously, he directly asked the guy if he felt guilty about people dying from his guns, that would make me a bit skittish– and the straw purchase story from maybe a day or two before where the store might be losing their license even though they are the ones that contacted the ATF
        http://freebeacon.com/issues/gun-store-contacts-atf-virginia-police-undercover-cbs-news-purchase-ar-15/
        the store owner didn’t think it was worth the risk.

        I don’t know about you, but I could weave one heck of a hit piece off of “I spent an hour talking to the owner, including repeatedly talking about killing innocent people, and in spite of my record they sold me a gun” type story.

        • ….Ugh. Hadn’t heard the store was in trouble, shouldn’t be surprised.

          • It’s gotten enough attention that, like the Fast and Furious store that was being prosecuted for a sale it was *ORDERED* to do, they should be OK.

  23. It could happen here. The thing to remember is that it’s unlikely to happen in favor of liberty. Liberty is hard. Self responsibility more so.

    –snipped aside about guns–

    So in the confusion that follows a seismic movement, it’s easy for another form of socialism to sell itself. Socialism, only now with more blood-and-soil! The government is not your mommy. It is now your daddy. Surrender yourself to the government.

    It is here when I think a lot of us, myself included, need to look back and realize we have harmed liberty.

    Seriously, we have nominally been champions of liberty but in the name of expedience we have supported not-quite-so-socialist socials (the GOP) or sure I love liberty but legal pot and/or winning every argument is what liberty is to me (the LP).

    We have let liberty be sold as easy and as not that different from socialism and as sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Sure, we all get together and watch The Sacred Musical but did we model what we taught liberty was, by the policies and politics we endorsed via supporting the two named parties, for the past 20-40 years?

    I used to blame the rise of Trump and the Alt-Right on the GOP and I still do in terms of direct causality. However, I can’t help but wonder if instead of working to elect Dole and W, when the world had a breather (I know when 9/11 happened but on 9/11/2000 I didn’t know that) and instead a lot of people like me had taken over the LP or started a new party in someplace like New Hampshire or Wyoming or Alaska that was really about liberty in sense of “mind your own business and then do what you want” if we’d have a real choice between a candidate of Freedom and either Trump or Hillary today.

    We might have preserved liberty better than most socialist states but I’m not serve we, her champions, served her that well.

    • What is the The Sacred Musical?

        • Featuring Sarah Hoyt in the role of John Adams.


          She’s just got to Heaven and she won’t sit down.

        • BobtheRegisterredFool

          Watched it for the first time this week. Some of the choices seem a bit too informed by the 1970s. Parts of it don’t work very well for me.

          I liked it, especially considering that musicals tend to be very hard for me to tolerate.

          • West Side Story: engaging in a gang war while singing. There are some things that just shouldn’t be set to music.

          • Some of the choices seem a bit too informed by the 1970s.

            Given it premiered in early 1969 on Broadway and had its road tryouts in late 1968 and thus probably was being worked on before I was born being informed by the 70s is a huge achievement 🙂

            • BobtheRegisterredFool

              I would have said sixties, except that I went by the movie’s release date. My error, and all those decades look the same to me.

              • Bright line divisions between decades are a mook’s game and should not be acknowledged by the discerning. Many of the attitudes of that show were indeed informed by the posings that became popular in the Seventies — remember, back in the old days a posture that occurred in NY might take a few years to sweep the country.

              • What may strike you as strange then is the fact that much of dialogue in 1776 is lifted from the journals and letters of the founders.

                Yes, John Adams referred to himself as ‘obnoxious and disliked, it cannot be denied.’ Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was ‘to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent.’

                Franklin was already an abolitionist, as were a number of the New Englanders present. It was by then a matter of regional contention.

                On the other hand, there are some inaccuracies, to name a few off the top of my head: North Carolina was a leader in the independence movement. With the Halifax resolves, it became the first state to authorize its representatives to the Second Continental Congress to discuss and vote for independence. Judge Wilson was not John Dickinson’s patsy, he was a respected jurist and student of history. He was critical to the writing of the Constitution and served on the Supreme Court. John Dickinson was the author of Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania. True, he was devoted to the cause of reconciliation, but he wanted to have his full rights as an Englishman recognized by the crown.

                • BobtheRegisterredFool

                  No, I don’t think that was it.

                  I wasn’t deeply engaged during a section going from from Mrs. Jefferson’s song through the end of the slavery discussion. (Assuming I even have the order of scenes right.) (I understand they needed more or less those songs in those places for pacing.) It may have been that my lack of engagement alone is the issue.

                  Mrs. Jefferson singing whatever it was with Franklin and Adams, considering mixed company, public and strangers, struck me as being at bit too informed by the mores of the sexual revolution. Which may simply be my ignorance of the revolutionary period.

                  The scene with McNair, his assistant, and the messenger sitting around talking tastes somehow like class warfare activism.

                  I’m fairly sure emphasis on slavery as property was quite present in the original documents. However, I was already thinking too much, and thought that it may also have been used as a reference to Marxist notions of property as theft.

                  The characterization doesn’t bother me so much, as two months of parliamentary procedure involving very many intelligent principled men is hard to condense, and they needed to generate tension somehow.

                  I thought the heat, the flies, and the stench were well done.

                  • Ah, hem. I think you are reading between the lines what is not exactly there. It really was the fact Thomas Jefferson played the violin that drew the attention of the widowed Martha Wayles Skelton to the shy young man. She herself was musical, playing the piano with some skill. They would play duets together.

                    As to strings are unstrung…well, yes. I had a friend who never got past the beginning of 1776 because of what she viewed as the crudeness and irreverent language. I have wondered how she would have dealt with reading primary documents of the time. Forfend someone should sit down and explain much of what went on in the Shakespeare which she had shared with her children.

                    A note, for those who are into musicals — the song, He Plays the Violin, is written so that the singer is echoing the tonal structure of playing a violin, which is tuned in fifths.

                    .

  24. I was shocked to learn that about Wells, particularly after War of the Worlds. The novel seemed to be about promoting empathy that Europe should have for its colonies by having England face colonization and extermination for being backward and in the way of ‘superior’ civilization.

  25. I think the decision by the FBI/DoJ to censor mentions is Islam, ISIS, and Allah from Mateen’s phone transcripts was a wake up for some. And for the pushback against that insanity to actually have worked so quickly, that might be another indicator of a tidal shift.

    The modern Media being Enemy Number One-ish in our society, big players in that industry realizing that they have an obvious bias problem is clearly an encouraging sign.

    • What I think really woke people is how half-arsed a job they made of it.

      As explained by Rich Lowry:
      If the FBI Had to Describe 20th Century Enormities

      The FBI has now reversed course, but this is how its absurd redacting might have rendered enormities of the 20th century:

      “The kamikaze pilot launched his attack on the U.S. aircraft carrier after proclaiming his loyalty to the Great Empire of [omitted] and its Emperor [omitted].”

      “The S.S. division was utterly committed to [omitted] Germany and its leader [in German], the author of My Struggle [in German].”

      “The cadres rampaged through China during the Cultural Revolution at the behest of the Chairman of the [omitted], who urged them to [omitted], one of the sayings collected in his Little [omitted] Book.”

  26. Don;t worry, your world is not about to be upset. The Kabuki for ostensibly centrist press outlets requires talk about “tacking back to the center” before making the hard left roll. CNN might hire a few mildly left-of-center people to represent the center, but when they actually try to hire some right-of-center people, CNN will realize how bad their reputation with the right has become and decide that regaining the trust of the right is too much work so they will just make the left roll.

    Seen it before, Newsweek’s been doing that dance move for years, remember when NewsDailyWeekBeast hired Micky Kaus to woo back the right and prove their centrist bonafides?

  27. Probably closer to 200 Million than 100 Million. 60M-90M in China (depending on whose number one uses), 40M-60M in Stalinist Russia/USSR, 30M combined in WW2, dozens of other, smaller hellholes. Zimbabwe’s seizure of previously effective farms are probably responsible for 30M+ Africans starved since 1980, not counting war deaths, etc…

  28. Yesterday idiots accused me of being ammosexual.

    I’m starting to think some folks have a serious issue with grasping appreciation, enjoyment or even merely choosing the lesser of two evils as anything but sexual.

    • BobtheRegisterredFool

      Almost makes one wonder if we don’t have a bunch of undiagnosed, untreated mentally ill people who have been told that all of their problems are really sexual.

    • Well since all Republicans and rightists are prudes like the church Lady and deserving only of scorn they have to be sexually repressed and mocked like teenagers with bagger or ammosexual taunts

      • Yeah, it’s amazing how we both hate sex and are useless breeders.

        • Nonono. You’re just allowed missionary for procreation with masks and lights off before you go to your separate beds.

          And after convos I’ve seen here I know I have to have tongue thru cheek when I write that.

          • That or you’ve been reading confessors’ guides from the Russian Orthodox Church between 1200-1600. If a married couple followed every requirement and restriction exactly in the most strict edition of the guide, there were about 65 days a year you could have sex (but you were not supposed to enjoy it). I suspect the average Russian believer followed those about as well as the late medieval Catholics did when the monastics took over writing the confessors’ guides (which led to other churchmen saying “No,no, you’re going a little overboard here.”)

            • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

              Then there’s those so-called sex hating Puritans.

              A Puritan husband would be publicly shamed if he didn’t have sex with his wife.

              Of course, this means that his wife would not be seen as a “bad woman” if she complained to her friends about the lack of marital sex. [Very Big Grin]

              • I’ve heard that bit about the Puritans (where a husband would be publicly shamed if he didn’t have sex with his wife) pretty often, which probably reflects the circles I run in. But I haven’t been able to find a source so far, which kind of hinders me re-quoting it. Do you have a good source?

                • Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

                  I saw it in “Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America (America: a cultural history)” by David Hackett Fischer.

                • It’s a myth, a canard, a falsehood promulgated by the Patriarchy. As Feminism has proven, no (true) woman could possibly want sexual intercourse with a man as all such is rape. This myth merely demonstrates the oppression of women under Puritanical social mores.

                  Progressivism: Making facts fit the narrative for over a century.

            • SheSellsSeashells

              My high school best friend was raised in a hellaciously strict Baptist family; they were Bill Gothard fans and it showed. (Good people. Really good people. Just legalistic.) We got bored once and cross-checked a calendar with the days Bill Gothard said God said it was okay for couples to have sex; I think we came out with 73 days during the calendar year.

      • Saw part of an episode of the TV show ‘Dharma and Greg’. Greg was photographed having sex with his wife while running for office.

        The bit from the in-show TV news the next day included the following (paraphrased) – “We’re not sure of his political affiliation. He can’t be a Republican, because he’s having sex. And he can’t be a Democrat, because the person that he’s having sex with is his wife.”

  29. Randy Wilde

    What this means in practical fact is that socialism hard or soft has broken over 100 million eggs and so far not an omelet in sight.

    But that just means we’re due to get it right, right?

    • BobtheRegisterredFool

      Gambler’s fallacy and something to do with sunk costs.

    • The Other Sean

      They say practice makes perfect, but it has also been said that stupidity consists of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

  30. “Scientific” Socialism lacks the most basic of tools, it has no means of calculating value so of course the values they pursue are totally disconnected from reality. Von Mises Socialism should be required reading for politicians.

    • No, just go with Smith’s The Wealth of Nations. Less obviously partisan, more comprehensive, and the size of it should be a useful winnowing process.

      • It needs to be rewritten with equations instead of long rambling equation-esque text. That and s/corn/grain/. It took me ages to figure out how England managed to have “Corn Laws” before they even knew about maize.

  31. Reality Observer

    Ah, the travails of moving… I fear the time-viewer got knocked out of alignment, Sarah, better have it checked. The Elizabethans had a better grip on the cosmos than M & E ever did on economics (or people).

    In fact, I think you’d need to get back to the point where some people thought they could fly with wings made of wax and feathers to find an equivalent lack of reality-based ideas…

  32. I believe there’s a tide-change, simply because more… and more, and more people are discovering that no, they aren’t actually a tiny minority – as the MSM have portrayed them to be – for years now. In large part this is because most of us aren’t politically active or aware. All we want to do is live our lives, and so long as something isn’t right in our faces, annoying us, unless this is the center of your life… well we don’t care enough. That’s why ‘none of these guys’ actually wins every election by a straight count of the whole demos. But eventually it does to piss even those people off (the relentless PC, the erosion of jobs, the denial of real problems with forex islam) – and suddenly the fact that 3/4 of the population doesn’t support the left is starkly apparent.

    A few years ago being a non-leftist was the kiss of death in publishing, and a lot of other fields. Now it isn’t. The entire ‘feel’ has changed as people who were (and often still are) silent realize they’re not as alone as they thought.

  33. Aaaaandddd the hiring has begun:

    Three days after being ousted from the Donald Trump campaign, Corey Lewandowski is becoming a political commentator for CNN.
    http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/23/media/corey-lewandowski-cnn/