Nostalgie de la Boue

When my parents got married, the priest who married them gave them as a wedding gift the book he had written (and I think self-published.  It had that look.)  It was called Impious Men, and in it he had collected all the more salacious bits about historical horrors: Roman Emperors, other rulers who slept with horses or bathed in the blood of virgins, the craziest bits of the Aztecs, perhaps.  I don’t know because I never finished the thing.  I read a bit here and a bit there, in the sort of mood one watches a trainwreck.

You see, I discovered it when I was in my teens, while looking for something among mom’s emergency reserve food storage (which got tapped into quite often when price controls unexpectedly failed to work and bring abundance, and store shelves were bare.)

I think I was looking for canned fish, because I was alone in the house with my brother and had to cook something for dinner.  Anyway, in the middle of all of it, towards the back, hidden under the reserve toilet paper, was this book. This was a weird place for even mom to store a book, so I’m going to assume she had the same reaction to the stupid thing that I had.

This was an age at which I read EVERYTHING, including the instructions on medicine I never intended to take. But I left that book unfinished.  It was just — bizarre.

I think the man was very serious, and trying to catalogue these actions by these men.  I’m sure the ending moral was something about how these men lacked a moral compass.  Oh, h*ll yeah, they lacked a moral compass, but there was more to it than that.

Look, I am not a good person.  I’m going to admit if I were Empress of the known world tomorrow there are some people (I have a little list) who would be sent to a deserted, heavily guarded isle, and never allowed near civilization again.  Other than that, I suspect the worst I would do would be to become incredibly lazy and spend night and day surfing the net for cryptozoology or whatever.  I might also give people very odd gifts.  You know, my older son totally needs a pet elephant.

But the stuff this man catalogued was just… incredible.  Incredible in the original sense.  In my early teens, I read it going “Good heavens, I’m sure this is exaggerated, the equivalent of Rome’s tabloids.”

It might have been.  Some historians think so.

But as the sewer of wikileaks runs out into the open, and as people whisper of pedophilia, and rituals that whether they are occult or not, are definitely disgusting and bizarrely boring at the same time, I keep thinking “maybe that stuff in antiquity was true too.”

It’s hard for normal people to believe.  The mind cannot accept a world where ever greater defiance of other people’s taboos, ever greater depraved lunacy, brings nothing but ennui.

And yet I completely understand how the left got where it is.  Having conquered the media/industrial complex, they are always painted in the best colors.  Even Hillary’s corrupt and possibly treasonous handling of secret information (no matter what they tell us, 40% of this nation had or has secret clearance.  We know how anyone else in her position would be treated.  Prison is the beginning of it.  We certainly wouldn’t be giving them a chance at the presidency.  Except most of the people don’t know anything about what she did or how awful it was, about the horrors of wikileaks (and stop kidding us there too.  No, the Russians did NOT change every email) about the kakistocracy of the Clinton foundation.  They know nothing, because the MSM is now fully and openly partisan. They keep talking about how qualified Hillary is, but nothing about how criminal Hillary is.

And that is the problem.

Humans are social apes.  We are human within the confines of society.  As in ape bands, we do things to establish our dominance and that we’re special.  For those of us with no morals whatsoever these can be very bad.  For those of us who are raised or who accepted an ethos of “defiance over rules” and “Morality is for the little people” it can be worse.

We call this nostalgie de la boue (A desire for the mud.)

Sure you can trace a straight line from the romantics wishing to go back to a simpler life, or to idolize the middle ages over their own time, to our present pedophile, treasonous, bodily secretion eating lunatics.  But the difference is the romantics were kept in check.  there were people who despised them and ridiculed them.

Now the ID is enthroned, and these people, truly, have run out of room to establish that they’re all that.  (This is perhaps complicated by the fact that when it comes to handling anything real they are extremely incompetent and must know so, right?  I mean, they must know they’re not that good.)  So all that is left to them is to continue breaking more and more and worse and worse taboos, to continue pushing the envelope, to continue breaking other people’s morals (they have none) in a show of their dominance.

And the problem is that they don’t really enjoy any of it.  They’re doing this partly because they can, partly because they think that’s what everyone else would do in their position, and partly because they don’t know what else to do with themselves.  But the hammer doesn’t fall, some of us — the few who know — are disgusted and despise them, and the vast majority of people know nothing of this.

Our would be elites are vastly unhappy people, aping both daring and pleasure, and consumed by enui and meaninglessness.  They’re not alone.  I was recently re-reading the Black Count and the things they mention almost in passing, such as that the court of Louis XV engaged in orgies in the dark, where you did whatever, with whatever sex.  And yet they were all bored and filled with self-loathing.

That is the lot of those for whom the sum entire of their lives is following their increasingly more bizarre appetites.  Humans are a scavenger species.  We are made to strive. Their liberal privilege means they can’t strive.  No matter how bad they are they’ll be acclaimed as good.  Like the Roman emperors, they can’t get anything but adulation.

Whatever happens on Tuesday, look for this to get worse.  As long as the MSM has control of the public opinion, look for the dive into the mud to get worse and worse.

But historically there is a limit to how deep that dive gets.  Historically it all ends in “Aristo, Aristo a la lantern.”

In the end their “pleasures” for all the harm they can cause to innocents, are just the repetition of other similar “pleasures” which leave no trace behind except horror and disgust.  The world moves on.  They’re not world altering or life-changing, except where they kill millions of people through intention or incompetence.

In the end they’re nothing but dead men walking.

In the end we win, they lose.


392 thoughts on “Nostalgie de la Boue

  1. In the end those of us left alive win and they lose.
    It already has gotten much worse of late under a benevolent socialist regime and depending on tomorrow could get even worse. And the other option I fear might in fact fix a few minor things, but more than likely will result in near total government paralysis. Of course that’s not necessarily a bad thing unless we’re talking about acts of external aggression.

    1. I’d love to sit back and watch regulatory paralysis for a while, until a lot of people figure out how to dig around and dodge some of the “brilliant” ideas for the last 20-30 years or so. Defense paralysis not so much.

          1. Having established “When the Congress refuses to act the president must” as sufficient cause for executive disorders, and perfected the methodology of administrative regulatory creep (who knew Title IX’s crafters intended to bar discrimination against Transgendered people?) the Hillary maladministration eagerly awaits gridlock.

            They will act as rulers to establish facts on the ground and challenge defenders of liberty to reverse them.

            A compliant* MSM will continue to ask if their words and questions are acceptable in the sight of their idols.

            *I was going to call them lapdogs, but lapdogs have scant choice in their behaviour, having been bred that way.

            1. Regarding the MSM and lapdogs, I’d have to say we must by now be on our third or fourth generation of red diaper babies, so your first instinct could very well be correct. Between nature and nurture the precious idjits have a terrible struggle to think for themselves, don’t they though.

    2. In the end those of us left alive win and they lose.

      I agree with the latter but there seem to be too many scenarios where they make sure we all lose (I guess that is where your “left alive” modifier comes in).

    3. Don’t you mean the children who manage to be born and subsequently survive to have children of their own win? I, for one, am no longer looking at this fight on a single generation basis.

    4. It already has gotten much worse of late under a benevolent socialist regime

      I’d argue that we’ve already started to move beyond that. The ACA is arguably a fascist program. The health insurance companies are still nominally independent of the government, but they’re only allowed to sell health insurance policies that are essentially written by the government. Don’t want abortion coverage on your policy because you’re male? Tough. Don’t want birth control on your policy because it violates your religious principles? Too bad.

                    1. Mustard is found in southern NC, as well as SC. Northern and eastern NC use what is called a “white” sauce. Apple cider vinegar, a little ketchup, brown sugar, salt, and cayenne pepper. Served with hot sauce (frequently Texas Pete’s) which you add to taste. Far superior to that mustard stuff.

                  1. There’s a local BBQ joint that has a sauce they call “Wrangler” that combines their regular vinegar, mustard, and molasses based sauces into one. It’s got just a little bit of a kick and it goes well with beef brisket, roasted turkey, and roasted chicken. Alas, they are not open on Monday.

  2. When rational people start sounding like Old Testament prophets you know your attention was engaged elsewhere when you were told to “duck and cover.”

  3. To be fair, the Roman idea of pietas has two sides. The child or person under authority has to act with respect, but the father or authority figure has to act both with fairness and gentle tenderness. That is why you can say that God the Father is pious toward us humans.

    And that is why you can say that great wacko villain kings are impious down toward their people, as well as up toward God. To say the least. (But American politicians are supposed to regard the people as their bosses.)

  4. Comparing Clinton to the Roman Emperors of old seems to be a bit of a stretch to me. Trumps seems more likely, but then again they’re both criminals in their own way.

    1. Someone give her the links, please. It’s not Clinton herself, though there is garbage there and enough, including her KNOWINGLY getting a pedophile off the hook for assaulting a 13 yo girl, or knowingly conniving with her rapist husband.
      What I mean is her entire entourage and hangers on are old-Rome corrupt, including a prevalence of pedophilia, strange cr*p (sometimes in food) and I’d bet you money, if we dug deep enough, snuff sex.

      1. At first I was bewildered by the “spirit cooking” hashtag I saw. Then looking into things, it was… as you say, a strange combination of morbid (perhaps not the best term) and dull. The term “banality of evil” comes to mind, though it’s not quite the same thing… I hope. I did see one alleged(?) occultist comment on it all, “It’s performance art at best.” seemed to sum it up. Cargo Occultism, perhaps?

        For what it’s worth, nobody has summoned me. Not via magic anyway.

          1. You are not alone. My initial thought was back to a very simple chemistry set with an alcohol lamp.

            But considering what the alleged “ruling” (ptui!) class is doing, innocence and decency is now the counter-culture.

              1. And with occult overtones, though the “artist” denied occult intent and none of them believes in the supernatural. Or do they? Self same artist cut a pentagram on her stomach with a blade. So one wonders.

                  1. My thought, exactly. I am not altogether confident that Blasphemy is less for being play-acting or sincere. At a minimum you are raising yourself above petty morality, and that is dangerous enough.

                    Traditionally, most warnings against dabbling in the occult (Ouija boards and the like) are not cautions against transgressing G-d’s laws but against asking for trouble.

                    1. Perhaps that is because their Lord is fed whether or not they believe in him, so long as their adherents do not believe in Him?

                    2. It isn’t. In some ways it’s more dangerous because you’re not EXPECTING anything real to happen or go wrong. So when it does there’s no defense anywhere insight. Lukewarm is dangerous.

                    3. Foxifer, If I recall correctly, “The Satanic Bible” written by Anton Lavey pretty much says this in the first part of the book. It’s been a long number of years since I read it though, so admittedly my memory might be a little foggy.

                      However, you can’t really take that as “all Satanism”. I have long said that there are two strains of Satanism (probably more, and I would bet there is some cross-pollination). The first group I would refer to as Laveyan Satanists (I don’t know if anyone else uses this term). I have known some of them, and a few I would hazard to actually call good people (in spite of the whole Satan thing). This is why I read “The Satanic Bible”, I had a friend who joined that religion and I wanted to know what I was likely in for by keeping that friend. It’s actually not all that obnoxious as far as religions go (as long as you can get past all the “Hail Satan”s… sometimes loud ones… in the middle of restaurants). It’s funny to note, that particular friend wasn’t changed all that much by the experience; what really destroyed that particular friendship was when he drank the Obama koolaid and instantly turned into a complete Obama loving, better-than-you, ass hat (Geesh… I don’t care if you vote for the guy, just quit screaming “Racist” every time I disagree with a policy decision).

                      The other Satanic group I don’t know a whole bunch about, although I have met a couple people who belong to this group. I usually don’t like to generalize about people, but damn, those guys were real smile-at-your-face then you-knew-I-was-a-snake-when-you-put-me-in-your-pocket types. Granted, I’ve met people from other religions who were also like that, so whatever.

                    4. The personality that led to one led to the other…what, you think ability to deal maturely with others is likely in someone that makes a show out of CHOOSING evil?

                    5. There are also synergies. Like Satan Obama hates humans and wants human life made much worse/poorer. Like Satan, Obama despises free will and people who won’t be slaves.

                    6. Wyrdbard’s comment I very much agree with. Playing with something potentially dangerous, just playing with it, can be much much worse than actually practicing when the participants at least are supposed to take it seriously and study it before doing it.

                    7. I think Sunday’s Curtis cartoon is appropriate to this discussion. And I have to wonder- cartoonists try to write a week of more in advance. Was the cartoonist influenced by current events- or was it random chance it appeared now, at this time with this discussion going on nationally?

                    8. Dabbling in the occult, at least for some people, is kind of like juggling dynamite without knowing it. Most of the time, if you drop it, it won’t go off. From time to time, however, someone makes a little mistake and is surprised by the disproportionate result. As a far younger man, I actually taught some teenagers (early college and some friends still in HS) a set of symbolic images which their subconscious could process effectively (based on the 4 elements) which, if one believed in the occult, were also tools to allow them to execute the psychic equivalent of self-defense. The teenagers in question had started by playing with some things and, depending on what you believe, (a) sort of accidentally dismantled their inherent defenses against some of the more supernatural-type things out there, (b) attracted some very hostile/negative energies, and/or (c) filled their subconscious with a fairly powerful set of symbols with which they were ill prepared to deal. Suffice it to say, by the time I got involved, these teenagers were tripping (sometimes involuntarily) without the benefit of hallucinogens – and some of those were bad trips indeed.

                      You may not believe in the occult. There still remains much of the world we don’t understand and the human mind is a crazily powerful thing.

                    9. As MarkM pointed out, there is stuff not understood. And I recall ESR saying that ritual is sort of a symbolic programming for the mind. So even if there are no supernatural ‘creatures’ or such at all, it could still be possible to screw up one’s own programming. So looking at things both ways:

                      If the supernatural is real and the kids attracted attention, he gave them some defense from it.

                      If the supernatural is not real and the kids introduced buggy code to themselves, he gave them a software patch.

                1. It appears this is much ado about … well, not nothing, but about the wrong things.

                  This performance artist has written a book and done various “installations” which, according to the WaPo:

                  Abramović’s mention of “Spirit Cooking” appears to refer to her 1996 artwork that consists of a book with recipes “that serve as evocative instructions for actions or thoughts,” according to the Museum of Modern Art’s gallery label describing it. The recipes range from the implausible to the impossible. One calls for “13,000 grams of jealousy.” Another instructs you to stand “on top of a volcano” and open your mouth “until your tongue becomes flame.” Another — the one that seems to be generating the most interest among conspiracy theorists — says to “mix fresh breast milk with fresh sperm milk.”

                  Again, this isn’t an actual recipe book for eating dinner, and there’s no evidence that the recipes were served at the 2015 dinner at the artist’s house.

                  Abramović, known for her often controversial and dangerous performances, has done a “Spirit Cooking” installation where the recipes were written on walls in blood, accompanied by a video projection and a participatory piece where viewers could press their heads against a stone installed on a wall. It might not be everyone’s taste in art, and the footage documenting that 1997 installation is potentially disturbing, but it’s still art.

                  And apparently John P had to skip out on this particular party, although there are indications he routinely associated with such events

                  In an interview with Art News, Abramovic said that the dinner was “just a normal menu, which I call spirit cooking. There was no blood, no anything else. We just call things funny names, that’s all,” and that the dinner was a reward for donors to a recent Kickstarter campaign.

                  which hardly seems much better.

              2. I was once offered a white russian cocktail made with fresh breast milk at a party. A young mother, freshly single again, was at her first party after 9 mo. of pregnancy, then a few months of being practically chained to her baby, and she started…. um… leaking. Which oddly segued into much giggles as her and her best friend ran off to the bathroom to make said drink. The a-hole… I mean guy… of her drunken affection who had been feeding her drinks all evening wasn’t happy that his suggestion was taken, but he wasn’t allowed to watch so he refused to drink it when they returned. SO, she shopped it around a bit. I, of course, refused because THAT was a Hot Mess I absolutely didn’t want to be involved in. Eventually she found a taker, and when I left a while later she was happily kanoodaling said taker in the corner. It all seems to me to be an odd thing to base a relationship on.

                1. It all seems to me to be an odd thing to base a relationship on.

                  Since when has shared bad taste ever caused a relationship to founder? When you start with standards at the bottom things can only go up, right?

              1. And oddly not as interesting as the crazy old coot.

                If nothing else I see no metal songs written in 70 years about anyone in Hillary’s inner or outer circles.

                1. Oh, now you’ve done it. You’ve planted the seed.

                  Now there will be an entire genre of Hillary Metal.

                  Something else for a future generation to blame us for not standing up and preventing.

          2. Yeah, they took a really cool phrase and used it for something that’s not only totally unrelated, but stupid.

            It’s like when those stupid Norse neo-Nazi idiots started using Celtic knotwork, so I can’t use it.

            1. I have the exact opposite problem: I *really* would like to co-opt the Soviet hammer-and-sickle for freedom (one attempt I drew has a rattlesnake wrapped around it, with the words “don’t tread on me” or “life free or die” on the hammer, or sickle, or snake) because, hey, Free Market Individualism has done *far* more to satisfy the goals of Communism than Communism has *ever* done…but I’m *severely” icked-out by what was done under the hammer and sickle, that I can’t bring myself to do it…at least, not beyond hunting down prototypes (or re-doing them) and putting them online for people to see…

            2. Don’t give it to them. At least there are still quite a lot of other people using Celtic knotwork so it should be a bit easier than taking swastika back (especially since there are laws about using the swastika in some countries…). As it is now we mostly just give any symbol any such group wants to their sole use. I don’t think we should give them anything that easily, not even symbols. Maybe we should keep using them, and using them so widely that they do not become something connected only to the thieves. Think what it would be like if the swastika painted on the wall might as well mean something totally opposite to the Nazi ideals? It would lose a lot of its current power.

              1. I was going to get a tattoo in the navy… naturally, they ban gang signs. :/

                Bit more of a risk to others to get it now. (Yeah, there are health laws… but there are also idiots.)

        1. One of the best examples of the “banality of evil” is CS Lewis’s “That Hideous Strength”. The mixture of utter depravity (a technical term) and beauracracy is…. eye opening. Lewis’s great talent was in revealing Evil to be the small-minded, boring, petty, depressing thing it really is rather than the rock-star glamor that we often imagine.

          1. The first thing that came to mind with this post is Tiberius’ Leap. The second was Caligula’s Porch. Seems that Caligula built his palace abutting the temple of Castor and Pollux, so if you went to see the emperor, you had to go through the temple. Modern historians said “Oh, no, that’s propaganda: Caligula would never do that. Then archeologists found he did.

            Getting back to Tiberius, his debauchery doesn’t seem to have made him happy. For all his excesses, the Old Goat died a miserable man. And on his death the crowds yelled “To the Tiber with Tiberius!”

            1. Debauchery rarely yields happiness, for its primary driver is novelty, and how much novelty can one stand before the novelty of it becomes old?

              Becoming jaded is the burden one bears from such pursuit.

          2. He also has a scene in Perelandra where he illustrates the small-minded, petty nature of evil. When the Un-man (who is, quite literally, the Devil incarnate, or at the very least a major demon) is taking a break from his grand evil schemes, he/it passes the time by continually calling Ransom’s name. When Ransom finally says “What?” the Un-man answers, “Nothing”, then goes back to calling Ransom’s name, just to harass him and keep him awake. Not because it’s part of any grand scheme, but just because he/it takes pleasure in tormenting people, whether the torments are large or small.

        1. Yes. Given that, do you understand why the one whom the press doesn’t strain to cover for is to be preferred, even if one isn’t done taking showers after that vote?
          I do appreciate the idea of people who say “at least she has experience” but given her PERFORMANCE which is only perhaps slightly superior to Kerry’s and both of which amount to “making the world burn for profit and stubbornness” I think her performance counts AGAINST her.

          1. After casting the ballot, a “Silkwood shower” might be in order. I’ve already decided that Tuesday is a No Alcohol day, in the interest of simple survival.

                  1. Sadly only movie I’d be Interested in is hacksaw and that would just kick me more. Have a couple moonshot and ww2 docs just gaining dust because I can’t watch them and see what we have lost

                    1. Oh I’m not thinking it will be bad. My issue is that it reminds me that men like that are becoming rarer and are hated. Last time I tried to watch earth to moon I was sick to stomach because country could not do it again

                    2. Yeah, I was really grateful no one I went to see Doctor Strange with suggested 3D (nor was it on offer). I’m not a fan of the medium anyway, but thinking about all the trippy stuff in 3D…::shudders::

                      It is, however, excellent to cheer you up. It was far funnier than I was expecting–the best thing about many of Marvel’s movies is that they don’t shy away from the inherent silliness of their source material.

                    3. I was worried it would be overdone but it wasn’t. They got the details right without hitting you over the head with it and I think that was one of my favorite things about the movie.

                1. I got this rye whiskey to make old fashioned while the wife was in the UK. I’m really digging on the rye for some reason…maybe I’ll pick up a bottle of the brand I almost bought as an early b-day gift for tomorrow.

                2. Tomorrow my drink will be “Dark + Stormy” and several of them – in my own (cheap) version – Cruzan Blackstrap rum (about $12 here) and Vernors ginger ale – a good sharp complex flavor hiding a BIG hammer.

                  1. I got turned onto kirk and Sweeney 18 yr. But sadly I have a training Mtg tomorrow so probably won’t be able to avoid election info before I can go escape to tamriel and cut things

                  2. Vernor’s is good (if only they used real sugar…) and Sioux City ginger beer isn’t bad. either. Used that with Kraken and it’s odd how the combination of rum, ginger, and lemon manages to produce a note of chocolate.

              1. No cable, save as net connection.
                Now as for Wednesday… well, now.
                I might even try an Aunt Roberta cocktail.
                It’s.. it’s.. oh, it’s probably close to motorfuel.

                1. At a guess the presidential race will be decided before 9 PM. It seems that Trump cannot win unless he carries Florida and North Carolina, while if he carries Pennsylvania he has a good chance of winning the day. All of those, along with Michigan will have polls closing at 8 PM. With Michigan and Minnesota closing at 9 EST we ought have a good sense of how the night s turning. The Senate may not be decided until very late.


                  1. I really hate it when the news people call it that early.

                    It’s an obnoxious attempt to disenfranchise west coasters who have jobs.

                    1. In California, Oregon and Washington the Democrats have effectively disenfranchised the voters; I hardly think we can blame that on the networks.

                      Minnesota & Wisconsin polls close at 9 ET and Iowa at 10 ET — if Trump is still around and claims those, everybody else is voting down ballot. For some state that means important votes. In California, with a choice between Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez, two Democrats, not so much.

                      It does seem to me that pop stars and actors performing at campaign rallies ought be barred from donating their appearances when they clearly constitute in-kind contributions.

          2. Sports history is replete with losing managers and coaches being hired because “at least he has experience.”

            The Chicago Cubs won the World Series after over a century of losing teams because they looked beyond “experience” to evaluate what that experience was.

            1. At the airline I worked for as a mechanic I knew the writing was on the wall when they hired an executive with Actual Airline Experience (instead of the incumbent CEO’s history in hotel management) to run the company, and a quick search of his history showed organizations such as Braniff, Eastern, Western, et other airlines that NO LONGER EXISTED. Place went into a tailspin (so to speak) and 9/11 put the final nail into the company’s coffin.

          3. “Experience at being a complete failure” may not be the kind of experience best fitted for the position she’s trying for…

            There’s the Peter Principle, and then there’s incompetence that blows the Peter Principle out of the ballpark.

        2. Nyah – snuff sex leaves you the awkward problem of body disposal. The true pleasure such venal folk find tends to be in the corruption of others, thus they seek to degrade rather than slay.

          I leave it as an exercise for the enlightened to argue which form of destruction is the more venal.

          1. The Germans had a solution for that. Though I read the government was going to pass a law against cannibalism after a couple of high-profile cases.

          2. Depends on where you are.

            In the US, yes, it’s probably difficult to get rid of the body.

            In quite a few places outside of the US, on the other hand…

      2. In fairness, last I heard Podesta didn’t go, although I’m willing to be corrected on that score.
        The fact they figured he’d be interested, however, is disturbing enough.
        Also, side note, I’m pretty sure that snuff sex was never on the menu. That seems like it might be a little over the top for our present elites. Orgies, though, I could believe.

        1. Actually there is a group in the_donald subreddit that is trying to find out if Podesta and his brother were in Portugal May 3rd, ’07 for that exact reason.

        2. If you want to have trouble sleeping, go down this rabbit hole:
          It starts with redditors pouring over the wikileaks notice that the Podesta brothers seem to have a pizza obsession, but the way “pizza” is used it becomes obvious that it is a code word for something else. Why in the world would they be talking in code in emails where they openly talk about everything from insider trading with illegally obtained classified documents to blackmailing Chelsea Clinton? But do YOU think weird comments like
          “The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related. Is it yorus?” and ” Would love to get a pizza for an hour” are really talking about pizza? Hmmmm… Then it starts to get weird.

    2. Look up the “artist” that offers “spirit cooking.” I did enough damage to my search metrics finding the details about supposed performance art that involves the sexual fluids of both sexes in stuff you’re going to eat.

      Her behavior towards those who have to deal with her from a position of service is why I haven’t taken Clinton supporters who say Trump is an ass seriously. (He acts like a high school jock that hasn’t gotten the concept of manners very well, but not an active psychopath.)

      1. You think if Trump had thrown lamps at someone we wouldn’t have heard?

        I’ll admit, one thing that softened him to me was a remark from one of his subordinate managers. She said that she liked his visits because he did come in adversarially but if you had a point and explained it he would often go with it. He made sure the decisions were thought thru.

        Can we guarantee this is always true? Of course not. But we have been witness to dozens of snap judgements that have killed hundreds. From 911 to Iraq to about the entire ME policy to Obamacare.

        1. He’s a pig, from what I can tell– but pigs can be very charming animals. It’s bad because he doesn’t seem to aspire to be, well, a good Christian gentleman.

          This is rather radically different from Mrs Clinton, who seems to have contempt for the very idea of Christian behavior.

          Just because they are both wrong doesn’t mean they’re equally bad, especially if one might be inside of operational tolerances.

          1. Ya. Not necessarily a role model for children but I also know a bunch who are no less explicit or forward in their speech but trust them with my life. As do (unknowingly) thousands of others.

            I would rather have someone who has made missteps and paid for them vs someone who maid missteps and was promoted for them.

            1. Less worried about his speech than his behavior, but at worst he sometimes takes unjust advantage–Hillary doesn’t even see that it’s there.

              1. Ya. I don’t doubt but the history of these election reveals also makes me question some of it. But won’t be first cad nor last.

              2. Claims about his behaviour are she said/he said and indicate more about the listeners’ confirmation bias than about Trump. As for his revealed words … I’ve heard plenty of women say as much or worse about men. Face it, there are plenty of women who are round-heeled for powerful men (one reason feminists defined rape, pre-Lewinsky, as resulting from such power imbalances.)

                Given the number of jokes women have made about men having a convenient handle with which to lead them, outrage over Trump’s remarks rings rather like prostitutes defending their virtue.

                For a more direct comparison, look at the reported treatment of Hillary’s Secret Service detail with how Trump praised his detail Saturday evening.

                1. Thinking more of the facts like emminent domain abuse, or using his power selfishly. (Even then, I have to give him credit for generosity to those who cannot help him any more than they already had, where he could gain nothing by it. What was Jesus’ line about how even the gentiles love those who love them?)

                  1. Or the apparent matter of stiffing people on bills when he thinks he can get away with it.

                    I can believe a lot of him, because he willingly associated with Bill Clinton. I don’t know for certain on he said, she said.

                    Dropping the sexual misconduct oppo now serves more to neutralize the Clinton stuff, which might otherwise erode their base.

                    1. Oh, I think they get a perverse glee from accusing their foes of crimes they commit. Thus attacking Trump for sexual predation … which is likely intended more to suppress his support than raise hers.

                      Here in NC we’ve been inundated with ads from Harry Reid’s and Chuck Schumer’s PACs, telling us how Republican Richard Burr has enriched himself in Washington — something which the Dems have largely perfected.

                      This goes beyond pot and kettle … it is more like the ebon pot calling the aluminum kettle black.

                    2. Stiffing people on bills seems to be a standard NY State practice for big developers, not just Trump. Often a result of subcontractors not reading their contract carefully enough to ensure that at a minimum, their costs would be covered. When your contract says- “Payment in full upon satisfactory completion” and a punchlist of 100 items appear, well, job’s not complete. Then, when that’s done, “Here’s a list of other things we found wrong with your work.”, and this can go on forever…

                      Experienced contractors sign contracts that get them paid at each step, and walk away if the payment isn’t on time and in full. How did they get that experience? When they were younger, they signed a contract that said- “Payment in full upon satisfactory completion of the job”…

                      Is it right? Absolutely not, especially in a moral sense. Is it legal? Most of the time, yes.

                    3. On the other hand, there have been cases where the contractors Did Not Do The Job Correctly and people have rightly withheld payment until the job was correctly completed.

                      I don’t know if this is what happened with Trump but I doubt that the News Media would publish the correct details of what happened.

                    4. Trump’s apparently refusing the pay the bill he ran up with his campaign pollster.

                      In the primaries there was discussion of a fundraiser for a military charity where the charity apparently did not see the money.

                    5. They wouldn’t say which charities were getting it, then after news stories saying that only a few charities had seen ANYTHING from anyone even slightly connected to Trump came out, they started doing stuff.

                      Either htey lied about how much they got, or they were stealing it.

                    6. Or the apparent matter of stiffing people on bills when he thinks he can get away with it.

                      At one point I was arguing with someone that claimed that was a slander, and found quotes from Trump explaining that he would pay someone only part of what he’d agreed to, and tell them that it would cost more to make him pay the rest than they’d get because he’d fight it in court.

                      Ditto several other supposed slanders.

                    7. Hillary did finally settle all debts outstanding from her 2008 campaign … in 2013. No doubt her inability to charge fr speeches during her service as Secretary of State affected the delay.

                      Search on [did hillary’s 2008 campaign ever pay all their vendors]

                1. *Shrug* It’s just their really open philosophy, honestly applied. I’m more horrified that it isn’t waking folks up.

                  They don’t believe religion is real, it’s just a quaint custom thing.

                  If they actually bothered to take it seriously, they wouldn’t keep being shocked when the Pope, for all he’s a liberal squish, is still Catholic. His prudential judgment may be so far from what I’d consider prudent that you can’t see it with a telescope, the sources he trusts for objective facts may be unworthy of trust, and I think he’s making some horrible choices, but he’s not going to say it’s OK to slaughter babies, or the sick, or the old.
                  He’s not going to go “Oh, nevermind, wymyn priests are cool.”

                  They simply cannot figure this out.

                  1. Of course not. They have no morality other than the one they made up themselves, and those are all of the people they associate with. Of course they don’t get it.

                2. Well, remember they think anyone with a brain in religion is running a con because it is impossible for the intelligent to believe in that stupid stuff (unlike sophisticated things like spirit cooking). So, they believe the Catholic priests just make up dogma between molesting choir boys (note: you child is less likely to be abused in a church than a public school….which one does the law force you to attend) and thus will change said dogma if bribed enough.

            1. Hillary has openly stated

              “All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

              Snopes tried to word dance this, but their explanation says more about their bias than it does about Hillary’s actual meaning, which is that religious beliefs will have to be subordinate to the Progressive Agenda.

          2. Occasionally, someone has a story about Trump being kind and generous to them. Let’s just say that if even one of these stories is true, that puts him a league ahead of Hillary. No one has anything kind and generous to say about her.

            1. Seriously, the stories of how badly and rudely she treated the lower-level staffers, military members and Secret Service people have been circulating for decades.
              I started contributing to a mil-blog in 2002, started by a smart-ass AF mechanic stationed at Andrews AFB. He did not say much about his various brushes with VIPs – he was part of the ground crew for AF-2, and there was a nondisclosure agreement involved, But he did once confess that the only people in the Clinton Admin who were pleasant to the help on AF-2 were … Tipper Gore and Louis Freeh, of the FBI.
              I also had a friend in Korea – an AF SP who had come off the White House protection detail. He was there during Bush 1, and was very fond of Bush 1 and Barbara, who was a lovely, lovely person, according to him. (He was apparently one of her favorite agents. She called him Timmy, which was comic as he was one of those six and a half-foot tall guys with a strong resemblance to one of those concrete traffic barriers.) He took one look at the Clintons arriving, and asked to be transferred.

              1. A family friend of my parents retired as a marine colonel in the DC area, having served two (IIRC) tours in Vietnam and elsewhere. He passed along stories that were pretty damning if unverifiable.

                Gone now … I wish I’d thought / had the chance to ask his opinion of Oliver North.

            2. No one has anything kind and generous to say about her.

              That isn’t quite true; let me fix that for ya:

              No one not on her payroll has anything kind and generous to say about her.

              1. Well, no one not on her payroll has enything kind and generous to say about her save the media, but given how the press act as though they are not on her payroll but rather demonically posessed by her, that’s not a surprise.

      2. He’s a lousy choice, but a far less lousy choice. Having had a Governor that said stupid things, it doesn’t seem as horrifically offal (not a typo/braino) as the alternative. I’d like have something better, but… well, we gots what we gots, and that’s all we gots. Dadgummit.

          1. Voted. Here in “Hooterville” I cast the 36th ballot of my ward & precinct after waiting in line for a few minutes, not long after polls opened.

            Two theories, not mutually exclusive:

            1. A lot of folks voting before work to be done with it.
            2. Folks here are P.O.-ed and just can’t wait to fire off those votes.

    3. Yeah, it is deeply offensive to some of the better ones to compare them to Trump and Clinton.

    4. If the current day and near future were a Japanese video game, it might be Hillary no Yabou, with current day being early turns where you do a bunch of procurement.

      There’s audio of her joyfully gloating about using a polygraph to get off a man who raped a teen girl.

      She was kicked off the Watergate investigation for ethics violations.

      Whitewater was essentially her collecting bribes for Bill when he was a governor.

      She ran the victim blaming operation that covered for Bill’s womanizing.

      Her choices between 2000 and 2016 never surprised any serious observer, who used the theory that she very badly wanted to be president.

      Bill collected bribes for her when she was Secretary of State.

      1. “There’s audio of her joyfully gloating about using a polygraph to get off a man who raped a teen girl.”

        Is it my dirty mind or could that have been phrased better?

          1. There is a case for ‘No.’ a) It is very apparent that I did not do an ideal job of wording that sentence. b) It could be argued that I’d done the best that I could do at that time.

            I’m not persuaded by b), and what first came to my mind was ‘Yes.’ I wasn’t satisfied by that answer, and didn’t have a better one to give.

  5. I’m steeling myself up for a good round of sullen, stubborn Irish democracy, myself.
    And a rather more cheerful thought – no matter how the vote goes tomorrow, there is another thing we can do – boycott the hell out of those people, enterprises, institutions, publications who have done so much to degrade and insult those of us residents of Flyoverlandia. The last thing we can do – vote with our pocketbooks. They cannot force us to watch their TV shows and movies, subscribe to their cable channel, buy their books, magazines and newspapers, buy tickets to their concerts and games.
    Starve the progs, feed those who stand up for the Usains.

    1. I’m afraid boycotting won’t be enough. Witness the NFL, for example: They’re going to do more of the same right up until the whole sorry edifice collapses, and all the while, the powers in those organizations are going to be going “Oh, my, whatever could be going wrong for us…?”. Same as the New York Times–You can’t convince me that the people who were running that paper back in the old days, like before the 1930s, would have looked at the decay in market share and revenue, and then kept right on doubling down. They weren’t that delusional. The ones running these organizations today? They not only are that delusional, they’re that crazy, too.

      You’re not going to see “Irish Democracy” or boycotting work to stop these people; those measures will simply drive the progressives to more and more active measures. They lack the common sense, the voice whispering in their mind’s ear “This may not be a good idea, to push things this far…”. The only thing you can count on is that they will keep doubling down, and the more “Irish Democracy” they encounter, the more they’ll double.

      The only thing that’s going to stop these people, I am afraid, is the cold hard reality of outright rebellion, as in “Bullet Box”. We’ve seen that the soap box isn’t working, because they’ve seized all the high ground in the media market, and we can see how they are suborning the ballot box as we speak. The Soros project to capture the various secretaries of state should have earned him a bullet in the back of the head by one of our CIA operatives, for daring to meddle in our elections. Instead, he succeeded, and the Stupid Party let him get away with it. At this point, I’ve quit considering them foolishly stupid and feckless, and I have now come to regard them as co-conspirators in the whole sorry mess. Both parties need to die, whatever happens in this election.

      I don’t look for this cycle of stupidity to end until there’s enough social pressure built up behind the dams erected to burst them, and that’s still a ways off. But, I also don’t see these dipshits stopping anything they are doing until the gloves come off. There is, I fear, a massive paroxysm of violence somewhere in our future, one that is going to make the French Terror look tame.

      And, unfortunately, that’s going to happen in large part because the idiots of Progressivism aren’t going to let anything else budge them from where they are, at the pinnacle of the machine.

      My personal suspicion is that Hillary wins tomorrow, and in large part due only to massive vote fraud and the subornation of the legal system. Anyone else with her record would already be in jail. Instead, the crazy old bitch is likely to be perched on top of the system, and her sick enablers like Podesta are going to be running the show while she drinks herself into oblivion. And, how long it takes them to crash the machine enough to engender the inevitable revolt? Who the hell knows. I don’t.

      Personally, I think the Republic is dead. It has been since 2008, and what we’re seeing now is only the twitches. Whether or not the corpse reanimates, I wouldn’t venture to predict, but I strongly suspect that the Federal Government is going to be a dead-letter issue in the next few decades. Along with a bunch of the rest of us.

      1. Boycotts seldom have immediate results. The NFL is sheltered by television contracts extending past 2020. If the NFL doesn’t figure it all out, they won’t collapse until after that point.

        With publishing, it’s a game of attrition. If they can’t figure it out, then they will eat their own and the remaining publishers occupy a small boutique market.

        That said, we haven’t see a real, honest to goodness, boycott. That would mean churches, synagogues, and others turning the rascals out. That would mean baring them from clubs. That would mean refusing to do all business with them, including selling them the food they eat and the cloths they wear. It means shunning.

        We haven’t seen that. Frankly, I’m of the opinion that churches should have done it a long time ago.Call yourself a Christian but oppose Christian doctrines? No communion or church membership for you. At one time churches did such. Now they lack the backbone.

        1. Today that would mean politiking from the pulpit. The IRS Would slam foot down so hard and fast heads would spin. And doubt most churches willing to give up (or can afford) exemption

          1. Politicking is endorsing a specific candidate or party. This does not mean you cannot censor someone due to behavior. The Roman Catholic Church would be well within it’s authority to excommunicate Roman Catholics who oppose church doctrine without endangering their tax exempt status. The same for every other religious denomination.

            That’s seldom done these days, maybe because they’re afraid if they do it will drive people away from the churches. But I can just about guarantee that if churches take what they believe seriously enough to turn out members, then the world will start to take churches seriously again.

            1. You have much more faith in letter of law than I do. Saying that Nancy or Harry is a hideous example of the faith would be seen by the partisan govt as an endorsement of opponent. Remember, religion is only the strange ceremony you do within your home or church. You shall not act on it outside.

              1. Actually, it’s the feeling that there’s none so free as those who have nothing to lose. If the IRS is going to come after churches regardless, there’s nothing to lose. And churches existed underground long before the first cathedral.

                Of course, if the IRS does come after churches in force, then there’s no reason not to politic from the pulpit, either.

                1. Ah. Does make some sense. Sadly the large ones that actually need to get that out won’t. They will remain the happy social club of Sunday morning.

              2. One notes that the Catholic Church excommunicated legislators in the 60s for voting for segregation.

                Yeah. I don’t have any faith in the precedent either.

                1. But that was for a ‘good thing’ forbidding marriage within church to support mortal sin and limiting abortion are ‘bad things’

            2. Formal excommunication has always been an issue of last resort– the goal isn’t to look good, it’s to try to save their soul.
              Yes, even the soul of the worst lying, murdering, fill-in-the-sin-here is of value.

              There are rules of automatic excommunication, some of which are based on stuff that only the person sinning would actually know, and some of them are waived on a regional basis.

              In American culture, there’s a good chance that formal excommunication would give the bad side of the person sinning what they “want”– something external to blame their bad feelings on– and kill off the chance of them getting better.

              1. It also serves another purpose: to prevent the corruption of the congregation. See 1 Corinthians 5. It both is a measure to bring a person to correction, and to protect other Christians from a bad influence.

                Could it push someone over the edge? Yes. But the consequence of inaction is that it says to both church members and the world that such matters are minor things.

                1. Called “giving scandal” in Catholic theology– trying to ballance it with not assuming the worst of folks, and some other stuff, is a prudential thing. (See prior ‘bad choices in prudential judgement’ thing.)

                  Of course, the ‘assume it’s no big deal’ thing requires ignoring actual teaching……

        2. What will have immediate impact is the drop in advertising rates due to declining NFL viewership. Some people are going to be making a lot less money there, and that’s going to cause Questions To Be Asked of the owners even before the TV contracts come back up.

          Also, I understand the look-ahead to what those TV contracts rates are expected to be is something the accounting folks track for the owners on a regular basis, so they already are seeing the likely impact of allowing player political demonstrations on field.

          1. ‘Some people’ would be the broadcasters. The NFL, as pointed out above, is protected from any revenue drop until its current TV contracts expire. The only way the NFL loses out in the meantime is if ESPN actually goes bankrupt. —Which may happen, but it won’t be because of declining viewership. ESPN extorts a certain fee per cable subscriber, whether they watch it or not. Once cord-cutting is widespread enough to start putting cable companies into Chapter 11, the money will no longer be there for ESPN to extort.

            1. It isn’t a subject I’ve much delved into, but I believe that standard advertising contracts are priced according to a presumptive base viewership, such that failure to achieve the minimum promised number of eyeballs results in lower payments or “make good” spots — essentially provision of free commercials to the advertisers to make up for the diminished viewership.

              So there may indeed be direct penalties for lost viewership.

              1. There are indeed direct penalties for lost viewership. But it is the broadcaster that suffers those penalties, not the league. In the case of the NFL’s current contract with ESPN, the NFL’s money is guaranteed regardless of viewership.

                We are seeing a similar thing here in Canada, where Rogers (one of our four big media companies) paid far, far too much for the national rights to broadcast NHL hockey. They are shedding staff everywhere in the company, reducing production quality, cutting every corner that can be cut – much to the disgust of their customers – because they are paying the NHL far more than the broadcast rights are actually worth.

              2. It also assumes there are no back-channel deals where advertising revenues in local markets would normally flow ad revenues to owners. Given the very very slight interactions I’ve had with folks in the pro sports business, I’d be extremely suspicious of any assertion that all deals and dollar flows are public.

                1. In baseball, the one sport (other than politics, which isn’t really sporting) I follow the teams often have an equity share in the regional sports network which produces and markets the broadcasts. This has produced major income flows for the Yankees, Dodgers and Cubs, to name the primary beneficiaries. That is money which does not get pooled with the league, so any hit there is directly felt.

                  Whatever the arrangements, these teams are often signing players to long-term contracts and if ratings droop their next broadcast contract may not cover their commitments. We can but hope, eh?

        3. “That would mean refusing to do all business with them, including selling them the food they eat and the cloths they wear.”

          At which point, your business will be the next Memories Pizza. At best. At worst, she will find some way to apply Federal law and your business will be the next Gibson Guitars.

          1. If not the next Waco. The Clintons just love turning anyone who opposes them into object lessons.

            Should Trump lose tomorrow . . . how long will it be before the Democrats utterly destroy him personally and financially?

      2. I’m afraid boycotting won’t be enough. Witness the NFL, for example: They’re going to do more of the same right up until the whole sorry edifice collapses, and all the while, the powers in those organizations are going to be going “Oh, my, whatever could be going wrong for us…?”

        The answer to that is obvious: not enough motorcycles.

          1. What’s great is I don’t even need to go read upthread and look at which one this is about: Your excellent comment works universally, applicable to every single reboot/remake that I’ve ever seen.

            1. I can think of a few remakes I think outpaced the originals.

              Ford remade The Three Godfathers (1916) as 3 Godfathers (1948) although the addition of sound arguably entails an additional dimension that materially alters it.

              Howard Hawks remade The Front Page (1931) as His Girl Friday (1940) with Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell replacing Adolphe Menjou and Pat O’Brien in the leads. Some folk praise Billy Wilder’s (1974) remake with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau, but while arguably superior to the 1931 film I don’t hold it up against the 1940.

              Beau Geste (1939) remade the 1926 version, replacing Ronald Colman with Gary Cooper in the title role. I wouldn’t want to argue over Noah Beery vs Brian Donlevy in the role of Sgt. Lejaune/Sergeant Markoff … both films are probably superior to the Marty Feldman The Last Remake of Beau Geste (1977).

              Preferences vary over the various versions of A Star is Born, although generally the Streisand/Kristofferson version (1976) comes in third behind the Garland/Mason (1954) and Janet Gaynor/Frederick March (1937) editions. The Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga version, due out in 2017 will probably not displace the other three in the standings.

              The Three Musketeers seems to get remade every couple of decades, but I will rate the Richard Lester direction of George MacDonald Fraser’s script in 1973 as far superior to any other, including the 1948 Gene Kelly version with the Ritz Brothers.

              1. OK, I’ll grant you His Girl Friday as a superior “reboot”, and I prefer the 1970s Three Musketeers / Four Musketeers over the others I’ve seen as well. And I like the Christopher Reeve Superman over the prior or subsequent attempts.

                For more modern remake/reboots, I stand by my original assessment.

                1. I will concede the modern reboots/remakes are a damning indictment of the modern filmmakers’ inability to understand why the originals were beloved in the first place.

                  I might be inclined (assuming you were buying the beer) that Batman has improved with every iteration, but that starts with such a low standard in 1943 that it would have been hard not to. The Michael Keaton version in 1989 arguably set the stage for the relaunch of comics-based films … but the sequels pretty much vitiated any affection for the character. Christopher Nolan’s 2005 version is arguably the high point, but Ben Affleck’s interpretation largely wastes that.

                  Star Wars … well, it is better than the “prequel” trilogy, but six hours of blank film would have achieved as much.

                  I think the recent version of Disney’s Jungle Book (any relation to the work of Rudyard Kipling is purely coincidental) might be considered better, but I never much liked the fully animated version and thus might not constitute an unbiased opinion.

                  But over all I agree; given twenty bucks and invited to buy a DVD of either an original version or a post-2000 remake f any film … I’d buy a pitcher of beer.

                  1. The single biggest modern remake/reboot that at least started superior to the original is Battlestar Galatica. The mini-series was great and the first episode, 33, remains the single best bit of military sci-fi every put on film/tape. Script wise I think that episode ranks with classics such as Starship Troopers (including a pretty good lecture on the nature of command by Starbuck of all people) and The Forever War. Most of the rest of season 1 was very good although perhaps the fact the very first episode was the best was a warning.

                    Unfortunately, like the X-Files they had a story arc but no idea of where to take it and succumbed to the “hey, we can go one more season” instead of wrapping it up (my guess as to the final conclusion was pretty close meaning it could have been wrapped up in 3 seasons as a nice, tight story).

                    1. I was impressed with the pilot too, and agree the first season was OK. But when the producers slammed the essential driving core of the story to a shuddering halt to insert a gratuitous and massively forced “US IN IRAQ BAD!” set piece, turning all the rounded characters into flat cardboard cutouts, they blew the whole darn thing – I stopped watching the new Galactica at that point and never watched again.

                    2. The writing for Tigh alone was amazing…they actually got the function of the XO in the chain of command from the formal (XO runs DC so the Captain can fight the ship) to the informal (it is the XOs job to yell at you so the Old Man doesn’t have to) to the protective (when Tigh tells Adama it’s his turn for 15 down before jump and when Adama’s aid points out it is Tigh’s turn Tigh responds, “If the Old Man is so tired he doesn’t remember whose 15 down it is then it’s his”).

                      A drunken washout who I watched turn into an XO we’d all be proud to serve under was a great character.

                1. Quite right; mea culpa. The Gene Kelly version in 1948 featured Van Heflin, Gig Young and Robert Coote (Van Heflin!!????) as Athos, Porthos & Aramis. No wonder I’ve never been able to pay attention past the first five minutes.

                  I allow as Frank Morgan is a great choice for King Louis, and like Keenan Wynn for Planchet. Vincent Price as Richelieu I don’t know about — I don’t think George Sidney the director to prevent his eating all the scenery.

                  Don Ameche is a capable light comedian, but I have trouble with him as the buckleswashing D’Artagnan. Might be worth watching for Joseph Schildkraut’s King Louis, and Douglas Dumbrille might make an intriguing Athos. Miles Mander is an interesting choice for Richelieu although I wonder he wasn’t confused by playing Aramis that same year, in The Man In The Iron Mask, which featured Louis Hayward in the title role, with Joseph Schildkraut as Fouquet and Alan Hale as Porthos.

                  Yes, I do love me some vintage character actors. I shall have to make a point of reviewing the two (three?) films and trying to ignore the leads.

            2. Actually, of the 70s dystopias I think Rollerball has the most potential for a reboot off the top of my head. The generic corporations (energy, food, etc) of the 70s dystopian leftwing scifi would be replaced by major conglomerates with a media company for the soma that rollerball is and pet politicians (who would be paid off with Jonathan E.’s lover…Bill Clinton is a better version of that character than any corporate CEO could every hope to be).

              It is there.

              Then again, the creativity such a remake would take is generally not used for remakes and, sadly, is not present in Hollywood.

              Editorial aside: No one has explained to me why the new Ghostbusters was a triumph of feminism. How is taking four of the most talented comic actresses of their generation (I don’t know if they are but that was the line) and having them remake a movie made by four of the most talented comic actors the prior generation a feminist triumph? Would the feminist triumph be having them make their own movie in hopes of creating something as iconic as Ghostbusters?

              The only feminist thing about the remake is instead of being entrepreneurs starting a business the big payoff at the end was government funding.

              1. 2016 Ghostbusters was a feminist triumph because they said so.

                Apparently being an epic waste of film stock (OK, digital storage) of a movie and being a feminist triumph are mutually compatible.

    2. They have already proven they can force you to pay their servants for no value. Could go the BBC route, or enforce packaging with internet by law, or more. Legal or right is no barrier for the ruling class.

      1. Oh, you mean like mandatory health insurance? Once the concept of ‘too stupid for your own good’ takes hold, there is no limit to their mischief. Why should your ‘negative right’ of freedom of the press stop the ‘positive right’ of socially uplifting journalism like the subsidized New York Times? You can still sulk off to your alt-right tabloid rag, after you have paid the mandatory fee for ‘right thinking media’.

        I am afraid we have already arrived. The fallacy of Irish Democracy isn’t the Irish part, it is the democracy part. You multilingualists might do better, but I see democracy already replaced by something like: demopathia – tragedy of the people, demomorphia – numness of the people or dumb masses, demoalgiatude – the state of the pain of the people. When you can call approximately 25% of the population ‘deplorable’ without any negative consequences, it already shows the contempt the so-called ruling elites hold for you.

        1. I know what I said recently, and I still want nothing to with certain.. organisations.. but you know, those are some nice presses they have there. Be a shame if they should find themselves lacking flowing electrons or ink or sommat.

        2. Revisiting the concept of “negative” and “positive” rights gives opportunity to suggest a distinction which meandered into me brain a few days after we last visited the topic.

          The negative and positive refere to the government’s relation to those rights. Negative rights are defenses against government interference, things the government cannot take from you absent due process and just cause. Positive rights are benefits the government must do for you … and thus not rights at all, but philological games played to deceive citizens while they are converted to subjects without predicate.

          1. If we must apply mathematical terms to crap by Government how about negative rights are called ‘real’ rights and positive rights are called ‘imaginary’ rights. Positive/negative is so one dimensional, let’s at least make the playing field a plane. That makes a lot more sense anyway, since positive rights aren’t rights at all, they are just bread and circuses. (hopefully clown-free)

            1. Ooh, I like those: real and imaginary rights. And here I thought I was doing good with independent and dependent rights.

                  1. No; they are the feudal ones…they just think they’ll be the lords of the castle.

                    Imagine the rude awakening if they get what they want and learn knights are actually the jocks who kicked their asses in junior high school.

    3. “They cannot force us to watch their TV shows and movies, subscribe to their cable channel, buy their books, magazines and newspapers, buy tickets to their concerts and games.”

      Imagine PBS and National Endowment for the X writ large.

            1. I suspect that having a program be popular would be counted against it receiving further funding. If the Proles like it it must be bad, right?

              Maybe we could like it ironically?

              1. I was just recalling … here in NC the state public television network used to make a big deal out of fundraising (Big-Beg) week, urging viewers to call in and pledge, or better yet, subscribe! during your favorite show(s).

                Wellllllll … the obvious problem with that is what if you had more than one (improbable as that may seem) favorite show on public television? Do you subscribe during each of them (rather awkward) or simply split your donation between the favored shows, allocating portions according to your liking?

                As it turned out, there proved to be another, more serious problem. Viewers of the locally carried BBC favourite, Doctor Who, were so enthusiastic that they subscribed in job lots. Which meant that when the network’s bean-counters reviewed the donation patterns to determine which shows had the most audience support they discovered that hardly anybody donated during the Doctor’s show.

                Forget the number of fans who volunteered to take calls during the several weeks a year of fundraising, forget the number of people who subscribed to support their favorite British import — off it goes!

                Surprisingly, subscriptions dropped the following year, as did donations in general.

                OTOH, they still accept tax-dollars from the state government, federal government and foundation for public television.

                1. I would think that online donations would be able to get around that issue. Donate online and it gives you a click-list to mark down which programs you adore, so that you don’t have to donate at a particular time and you can mark all of your favorites.

                  1. I confess the events described were back in the Nineties, so that would be before internet. For reasons I no longer recall, I stopped watching anything on NC public television around this time in 2000.

    4. I’d focus a bit more– boycott those who worked to make public denouncements of Trump pretty much required for being in polite company.

      I am appalled at Joss Whedon putting actors he directed on the spot by even asking them to do a political spot, when if he has the slightest sense of reality he has got to know that failure to do it would destroy their ability to make a living at their profession.

      It would be like being outraged at that woman who worked under Clinton having done “volunteer work” for the Clinton foundation, rather than outraged that nobody realized what a horrible idea it was to even allow her to volunteer for her supervisor’s namesake foundation.

    5. Hm, it’s not showing up and didn’t say it was being checked……

      Attempted repost:

      I’d focus a bit more– boycott those who worked to make public denouncements of Trump pretty much required for being in polite company.

      I am appalled at Joss Whedon putting actors he directed on the spot by even asking them to do a political spot, when if he has the slightest sense of reality he has got to know that failure to do it would destroy their ability to make a living at their profession.

      It would be like being outraged at that woman who worked under Clinton having done “volunteer work” for the Clinton foundation, rather than outraged that nobody realized what a horrible idea it was to even allow her to volunteer for her supervisor’s namesake foundation.

    6. Ah well, other comment will show up, or not, as it wills…

      To make the point Iw as going to make in response to it:
      these guys are GOOD at hiding behind the innocent, either by making it so they have to either not oppose them at the cost of being able to make a living, or by lying to them so that they’ll take the heat.

      In military terms, shoot the officers, not the conscripts. (While I lost respect for RDJ when he did some clips in the anti-Trump TV slot, I lost a hell of a lot more for Joss in that he even thought it acceptable to ask.)

    7. Boycotting is a tool of theirs, imposing personal costs for political reasons, and ought be used sparingly. However annoying I find Randall Munroe’s XKCD panel today, it is not sufficient reason to stop visiting that page.

      OTOH, directing one’s efforts to supporting those with whom one shares basic values is generally proper, all other things being equal.

      1. Boycotting is a tool of theirs which has boomeranged on them much as of late. Think Chick Fil A. And the uncentralized boycotts by legions of disgruntled citizens have been having their effect. Think Target. And NFL.

      2. I’m at the age where when I see such, I’ll set a warning flag. Munro got that with the Global Warming with Hockey Stick chart. Sheeze, that’s been debunked a while. This morning’s panel tripped the breaker. If I’m going to see politics in a strip, give me Day by Day. FWIW, I’ve been reading Sluggy Freelance since near the beginning (went back to the start to catch up in the late ’90s), and while I suspect I know the author’s political bent, it doesn’t show. Similarly, Freefall. There, I have no clue as to the author’s politics. It’s just fun, with a bit to think about.

  6. Right at the moment, we’re still stuck in the middle. I can only hope that the beginning of the end starts sometime soon. When I start rooting for the SMOD, you know things are starting to go bad.

    1. I spent the weekend going over edits on the first of the Powers novels (Austro-Hungary 1913-1936ish). How does a character who is, at core, a potentially decent person cope with a world that spins into chaos and evil, and that refuses to leave him alone? Does he hide in a safe refuge until he has no choice but to fight, does he do whatever he can, however he can, as long as he can? I don’t like working on the third book, because it feels a little too close to the moods floating around right now. People are people, and keep acting like people, and it makes me twitchy. (That and I’m running with a low ratio of caffeine to blood at the moment.)

      1. Honestly that is why I am completely stalled on edits. An honest FBI agent right now just seems a lie. And I can’t square story with reality.

          1. It is depressing to be presented with a choice between a sick career criminal and an idiotic crony capitalist, isn’t it? I am reminded of that scene toward the end of Ghostbusters: “Choose the form of your destructor.”

                    1. As a diabetic, I’d be a goner either way.
                      Still, the vision of someone jumping in the creatures mouth and then eating their way out has a certain appeal.
                      Like that scene from Alien, only funnier.

                    2. Chuck Norris would squash him between two graham crackers and a chocolate bar, and no s’mores would be heard from him.

            1. Folks whose judgement and information I trust say that the Comey is a genuinely honest guy who’s willing to sacrifice himself for a worthy cause; their summary is that he must be in a situation where his sacrifice would actually cause harm.

              I have very little trouble seeing this, because that’s pretty much the standard MO.

              1. I just don’t trust it. After the persecutions thru past few years between Baltimore, Zimmerman, and others I do not trust justice in the US at all anymore

                  1. I know. But just had about every chunk of trust I had had as a child ripped apart and sending me into alcoholism and depression. Doesn’t help that my income is solely from supporting the beast

                    1. As someone pointed out– they get a thrill from destroying things.

                      Don’t let them destroy you. They are wrong, or we wouldn’t be here.

                    2. aacid14,
                      Do you mind if I shoot you an email on this? There is something that gives me some measure of comfort, however cold, and it might help you.

                    3. I saw it. Nothing I’m unaware of, just the aspects of how much the feds own states now and the damage that can come. I grew up among the Northeast liberals. They will seek vengeance and the benign neglect shall be only when you actively need aid. Those that think differently are not human to them, merely enemies to be destroyed. That is honestly what is driving me nuts.

              2. Folks whose judgement and information I trust say that the Comey is a genuinely honest guy who’s willing to sacrifice himself for a worthy cause

                From what I’ve been getting, this is getting to be how I think of the guy too; as well as trying to do justice where he is able without getting the bullet through the head / accident while trying to do the best of teh right thing as he can. There was some tech related stuff that was spun to make him sound utterly horrible; the original speech wasn’t anywhere near as bad as it was made out to be.

                Supposedly (grapevine stuff, so I can’t confirm) the FBI resisted hard against the kind of partisan rot that happened to the IRS and paid heavily for it in funding and worse.

          1. Though it is difficult to give Comey any benefit of the doubt, another thing to consider is without an indictment there will be no reason for a Presidential pardon.

              1. Remember, vote Hillary to make history by electing the first President to #PardonHerself.

                Yes, I honestly believe she would and not understand how anyone could object.

                    1. Pshaw. If Hillary garotted Bill immediately upon taking the oath of office you still couldn’t get 35 Democrat senators to vote for her impeachment.

                      And I have my doubts about Lindsey Graham & Susan Collins.

                    2. And John McCain and several others.

                      Looking at some of the GOP Senators I think it is fair to say President Hillary will have a Democrat working majority in the Senate.

                1. I don’t think that there will be a pardon if Hillary wins. A pardon would imply that Hillary did something wrong.

    2. Stuck in the middle? As in: “America is at that awkward stage. It’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” – 101 Things to Do ‘Til the Revolution (1996) Claire Wolfe

  7. The mind cannot accept a world where ever greater defiance of other people’s taboos, ever greater depraved lunacy, brings nothing but ennui.

    Hey, that sounds familiar– kind of like the first half of the backstory for the Superversive thing. (Essay now, book soon)

    Basically, if your high comes off of destroying, what do you do when there’s nothing left?

    1. if your high comes off of destroying, what do you do when there’s nothing left?

      Invent an interdimensional portal?

  8. I’m glad you mentioned the Ancien Régime, even if in passing. A while back I did research on the Regency, in preparation for a campaign, and I was struck by how much the Bourbons and their hangers-on were like the trashiest media figures of today, complete with scandal sheets telling of their exploits. Though it took more courage to publish a scandal sheet when you faced breaking on the wheel rather than just being sued for millions of dollars, I suppose. Warren Lewis’s The Scandalous Regent (a wonderfully written book; I like his prose style more than his more famous brother’s) was especially worth reading.

    And of course there was the constant French background of the government spending tax revenues several years ahead of what it had collected, largely on la gloire, and buying into John Law’s proposals to make up for it with printing press money. And the official sale of monopolies, and the wholesale corruption. What’s amazing is how long they kept the horrible spectacle going.

    1. You know how you can make wonderful connections in your head and miss the blindingly obvious? It’s only a year or two ago that I figured out why that period of time is called the Regency. (“Oh, that’s what you do when your king is insane!”)

      1. That’s the English Regency, I think, made necessary because of the madness of George III (“An old, mad, blind, despised and dying king,” as Shelley called him). The French Regency was for the more usual reason: Louis XV was still a child when Louis XIV died an old man (I think there were three generations between them), so the duc d’Orléans was put in charge. Lewis has the whole story.

      2. Don’t feel bad…it was only this morning in the shower I realized that “Nine o’clock on a Saturday” in the song Piano Man means 9pm…forver I wondered why New Yorkers were drinking so much on a Saturday afternoon.

  9. Things are going as the Apostle Paul says in his letter to the Romans (a people who knew about depravity):

    And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

    Is that not a clear picture of what we see? The question is, as has been said, how do we avoid going down with them?

      1. Funny you should mention that book. It is what Beloved Spouse and I regularly give as wedding presents to those couples with whom we’re casually connected through our church.

        It contains a world of good advice for living amongst other human beings.

        1. Currently being strongly reminded of Ephesians 6
          “Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand the whiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, and powers AND SPIRITUAL WICKEDNESS IN HIGH PLACES”
          Seems strongly appropriate right now.

    1. (a people who knew about depravity):

      I can’t remember which historian type blog it was that pointed it out, but there are records of basically campaign accusations against other politicians that accuse them of using infants for sexual gratification– and the point of them isn’t “these are sick f-ers,” it’s “isn’t this guy a little too focused on the effort he’s putting into his sexual satisfaction? Just one or two of these is one thing, but all of them– he’s kinda debauched.”

  10. They are materialists, and what will such people do once convinced there are no negative personal consequences to whatever they do

  11. Having scanned summaries of the Wikileak revelations (and from what I understand, there is NO, none, zero, nichts, nada, zilch, borschtig evidence those were tampered with, altered or falsified in any particular by whoever hacked them — and such evidence would be easily found in the metadata) I have been most impressed at the utter banality, the pettiness, the jejune sniping at one another that has characterized the emails.

    They are certainly unlikely to replace the correspondence between the Adams and Jefferson households as favored reading.

    1. I very much doubt that there is tampering that way, anyway, since Russians (ask people like Nicki Kenyon and Marina Fontaine if you don’t believe me) would assume all Americans are that depraved. They were sold this for decades.

      1. Yeah, I saw a Trump endorsement that I figured probably came from a Russian because of that same assumption of American depravity. That and the user name. (I followed a link from Red State to a ‘opinion are my own’ boiler plate page for Patterico.)

  12. I’m reminded that when some act or notion is taboo, there is usually a whole set of excellent reasons for it. Mostly a taboo is the people of a society having learned from earlier mistakes, hoping to pass on that learning to the next generation.

    People much involved with breaking taboos for the sake of shocking the squares generally find out what all those reasons were the hard way. Disease being the first and fastest, usually.

    1. What worries me is technology and hubris pushing out reckoning until the solutions that had been learned decades ago are forgotten.

    2. My personal take on the whole “rape culture” hysteria on college campuses is that it’s what happens when people figure out what happens when traditional sexual ethics are tossed out the window but can’t stand the idea of admitting those darn squares were right about something, so flounder around looking for something else that might replace those traditional ethics.

      1. You forgot the seasoning the stew with a large dollop of “personal responsibility for thee but not for me.”

        That is what gives it the extra piquancy and adds bounce to the kangaroo.

        1. I saw that story this weekend and laughed myself sick. I’m guessing none of the judges will be on Hildebeeste’s short list.

        2. It seems very wrong to me that universities are allowed to even handle cases like this. Rape is a criminal matter, and should, I feel, *always* be handed over to the police. The fact that it isn’t is causing HUGE problems, I think…

          1. That’s because they know the stuff they keep local will get kangarood properly. Reading the lower court ruling as well as the appellate hearing stuff from the weekend, it’s very obvious that UCSD “case” would have been laughed out of court had any DA been stupid enough to try it.

            1. IIRC, in one instance where the accused rapist sued the college (Occidental College, I think), the judge talked with the defense attorney about the school’s rules regarding what qualified as rape. They got to the rules about too much alcohol voiding consent, which prompted the judge to ask the entirely reasonable question, “What if the guy’s the one who’s drunk, and the woman’s pressuring?” For obvious reasons, the only thing that the attorney was able to do was attempt to brush off the question without really answering it.

          2. I am very much in favor of removing that particular power from universities altogether. Setting aside the (frankly criminal) mishandling of cases–I shudder at the damage being done to *actual* incidences of rape. Talk about ensuring that victims–male and female alike–won’t be heard or believed, because some crazies on university campuses used rape accusations as a form of bullying/coercion. ::angry scowl::

            1. Some cynical people (not that I know any) might suggest that the damage you cite is the goal, not incidental. The purpose seems t be “achievement” of Social Justice, which has no correlation to actual justice.

              1. Heh. I was just reading an article that a jury has basically found Rolling Stone guilty in the defamation lawsuit brought against them, and that it will probably end the magazine. And yet, the idiot owner is still wittering on about how we should all be grateful because the ‘campus rape culture’ thing is totally true, and that’s what was important in the article, not that it was full of lies. I’ve read that even some of the magazine’s once-ardent supporters are agog at this moronic disconnect from reality, and going “Er, no, there’s that whole journalistic integrity thing, and you *failed*…”

          3. IIRC, it’s some horrible legacy of Title IX that’s causing the colleges to need to deal with rape cases internally. If so, that part should be rooted out and destroyed and jurisdiction handed over to the local constabulary.

  13. I’m going to admit if I were Empress of the known world tomorrow there are some people (I have a little list) who would be sent to a deserted, heavily guarded isle, and never allowed near civilization again.

    You are a better person than me…there is a part of my mind I don’t visit and it would be greatly tempting to send certain people there for the rest of their lives.

    rituals that whether they are occult or not, are definitely disgusting and bizarrely boring at the same time

    Most Satanists and other people who are transgressive just to be transgressive are just plan boring. Transgression is like everything else; it requires real passion in the blood to be interesting. Most sexual “deviants” and “kinky” people are incredibly boring and drift out of those communities fairly quickly when they realize the people with passion are squicking them instead of the other way around.

    Our would be elites are vastly unhappy people, aping both daring and pleasure, and consumed by enui and meaninglessness. They’re not alone. I was recently re-reading the Black Count and the things they mention almost in passing, such as that the court of Louis XV engaged in orgies in the dark, where you did whatever, with whatever sex. And yet they were all bored and filled with self-loathing.

    This is why I hate the vampire fetish so damned much. All a vampire, even in the best portrayal is, is a creature of the id bored by his more daring daring vices. Hell, both Vampire:the Something RPGs revel in this to a degree. The only semi-positive portrayal of vampires I can stand is the Hollows novels because:

    1. It doesn’t shy from this too much to make them sexy.
    2. The dread the main vampire character faces about when she dies and becomes the soulless undead vampire she is fated to be (as the brief observatives of her undead mother and not yet undead father).

      1. I don’t think so, since in most of the oldest vampire myths they’re nasty corpses who won’t stay in their graves, and make people sick and die.

        I’ve seen some folks try to argue that Dracula made them sexy–but I’m pretty sure they’ve never read Dracula. (He wasn’t sexy in the book, AT ALL.) Possibly Polidori’s The Vampyre launched it, since he based his titular character off of Lord Byron? (Who was apparently considered sexy, but having read about the man he mostly strikes me as deeply neurotic, and probably had some kind of eating disorder…) And, of course, there was Carmilla (forget the author’s name), the first lesbian vampire, and I gather she was sexy. But…really, when you get down to it, that’s the Victorians (or Regency, in the case of Polidori and co) who launched the whole “vampires are sexy” thing for some reason. (I blame the Gothic and Gothic revival crazes.)

        And in the modern era…well, we can thank Buffy the Vampire Slayer (which at least was funny and entertaining) and Anne Rice for the uber-sexy versions, sigh.

        1. Ah. Ok. I thought it was part of the Dracula tale. I’ll admit I abuse the trope but more as mind control vs infatuation

          1. That’s actually a good description of Dracula’s ‘appeal’ in the book–it was ALL about the mind control. I admit, it’s been awhile since I read it, but I seem to recall that at no point did anyone claim that he was in any way physically appealing. (I could be wrong, though–but at the very least, Dracula didn’t start out as sexy in any way.)

          1. Not familiar with that one. Are they any good? (I only became aware of Anne Rice so as to avoid her, heh.)

              1. Bleh. Of course, I’m not a huge fan of the sexy-vampire trope in general anyway. I mean, I enjoy Buffy and Angel, but the vast majority of the trope…ugh.

                I think I tried to read some of her stuff back in middle school/high school, and was never impressed.

                1. I’ve liked the L.J. Smith stuff, though they are rather angsty. I my have been going through a phase.

                  1. Out of all the vampire series I’ve read, my favorite is the Saberhagen modern-day Dracula books.

                    1. I like those (at least the three I have read). Still. But they were more fun when I first read them, back in the day stories where the former villain had been turned into the hero weren’t yet common. Now they are more of a rule, any and all villains get their hero story, even if only in fan fiction when the original is still in copyright and nobody gets the permission to rewrite them like that. That got old a while ago, as far as I am concerned.

                    2. I’m mixed on that – the best villains are the ones who, if the story was told from their perspective, would be heroes.

                      Consider Zod in the latest Superman. Or Doctor Doom.

                    3. Maybe “hero” in the modern movie meaning… 90% anti-heroes….

                      They’ve got a nasty bit of confusion between making it so you understand why they did stuff and making them a good character.

                      For heaven’s sakes, when the Punisher is one of the more principled and sane ‘heroes,’ there’s an issue.

                    4. I remember early FF visits to Latveria, where Doom was the beloved and admired leader who maintained peace, prosperity, law and order in the land. Truly, if you value those above Liberty then Doom is by whom you will be ruled.

                      It was a nice subtle presentation of a world in which Doom was hero, and what such worlds cost.

                    5. I strongly disagree with this. The villain has to be more or less comprehensible, but just telling the story from their side should not make them a hero. If it does they’re not a villain they’re an ‘antagonist’. Or you’re making excuses that evil is actually okay. NOTHING will make me wall a book faster than an author who makes excuses for their villain.

                    6. Perhaps comprehensible is the better word, then.

                      The point being that a villain does not necessarily see himself as such.

                    7. Makes much more sense; the Nazis make sense, if you accept their premises.
                      They’re bad guys because some of their premises are unacceptable.

                      Kind of like Chesterton’s fence– everything is done for a reason, and “they’re booger heads” isn’t a reason.

        2. Carmilla is LaFaun and I’d consider her the first sexy vampire but nothing like Anne Rice’s creations or the even worse that followed.

          1. There was Louis Jourdan’s Count Dracula in 1977 (Frank Finlay* played Van Helsing) which focused on the lascivious side of the count. I vaguely recall this BBC production being adapted from the stage, but neither Wiki nor IMDb confirm that. It appeared in America as part of Great Performances.

            1979 brought George Hamilton to the role in Love at First Bite which, while a spoof, played up the seductive attraction of the vampire. Film/TV probably has more to do with the public’s imagination of the character, but if the books were out before that they might have influenced the filmmakers.

            *Porthos in Lester’s Three and Four Musketeers, along with Michael York, Oliver Reed and Richard Chamberlain.

            1. There were two versions of Bela Lugosi’s Dracula. One was slightly more provocative for audiences in Mexico and countries further south. While mild by our standards, it was a bit more than the US version, including the dresses of the actresses.

              1. I found that, upon accepting the idea that Dracula is actually the first techno-thriller, it worked a lot better for me in terms of interest. Because it’s not really horror, in my book (granted, I judge ‘horror’ by the standards of MR James and Sheridan LeFanu, but still). Also, I think, one of those that’s easier to listen to than actually read–I listened to it while assisting in a house remodel one summer. 😀

        3. I’ve seen some folks try to argue that Dracula made them sexy–but I’m pretty sure they’ve never read Dracula.

          He had the whole hypno-allure power-over-women thing, which got translated into “sexy” via movies when it became not PC to show women actually willingly submitting to a powerful man to form a union.

        4. I went to a great talk on why zombies were popular and one of the panelists brought up that popular monsters are a reflection of the fears of the day. (Zombies reflecting both a fear of contagion and loss of agency.) In this view, vampires started being sexy because sex and blood were huge issues when having sex could mean a death sentence down the line. However, Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee as Dracula predate the overall trope by quite a bit, and they were popular too.

      2. Nope. Medieval vampires were more likely — well, movie zombies.

        If you want a medievalish figure like the alluring vampire, what you want is the — ehem — Good Folk. the Love-Talker, for instance. When writers prettied up their elves and fairies to avoid accusation of witchcraft — it’s not for nothing that Shakespeare is at pain to have Oberon affirm “But we are spirits of another sort.” — they opened up a hole and the vampires moved in.

  14. If the nation survived James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson, it will survive the the winner on November 8th. But in both cases there was major trama.

    1. The nation didn’t survive Buchanan and Johnson. The Union survived, by force of arms, but the People’s understanding of what the nation was was materially altered. What followed was a shift of centrality of power from the states to The State which has greatly eroded our personal liberties.

      You might as well argue that since Rome survived the Augustus, Tiberius and Caligula it would survive Nero.

      1. NB: this is not an invitation to debate the War of Southern Secession, it is an acknowledgement that that war changed the US as fundamentally as Cromwell’s did England.

        1. One must, however, be careful not to attribute the gross and alarming changes of the Progressive Era to Buchanan or Johnson (or Lincoln). I see a hell of a lot of that online these days.

          1. Not to Andrew Johnson. There’s plenty of Progressive stupidity to lay at the feet of Lyndon Johnson. (Thankfully? Mounrfully?) There’s no change for Gary Johnson.

            1. I went to a play last week that was called 44 Plays for 44 Presidents. A lot of it was very funny, though some of the vignettes were not. The kid* playing Johnson also played Johnson, and had a monologue about waking up in the middle of the night and still being in the nightmare. Same monologue, both Presidents. It fit.

              *High school production, but that’s not a knock on the quality. This director is quite skilled at eliciting excellent performances from youth, and it’s better theatre than some of the local adult stuff.

  15. No matter how bad they are they’ll be acclaimed as good. Like the Roman emperors, they can’t get anything but adulation.

    Well, they can also get offed by their security detail, or poisoned by their wife, or strangled in the bath by their ‘friend,’ or poisoned by their brother, and so on.

    Not counting enduring the Senate getting all stabby during a meeting, as our own sadly away on campaign Gaius Iulius did, since it’s debatable whether he was a Dictator at the end of the Republican period or the first Emperor beginning the Imperial phase.

    1. Attitudes would have to change quite a bit for the Secret Service to do the opposite of their job.

      Of course, given Hillary’s apparent attitude toward her detail, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Secret Service agents assigned to her were less than enthusiastic about standing between her and a would-be assailant.

      1. oof-da
        That’s a stout one.
        I’m thinking slotting up some George Thorogood and drinking along. but I need Bourbon (the horror! could substitute Rye I guess)

        1. I most certainly approve of rye, yes. If it was in a mixed drink, the substitution *usually* works. By itself? Just fine. Of course, the name messes up the scansion, but… let George cover it. (Original recording has a slightly different order.)

            1. I know it’s well after Halloween now, but the pairing of rye with peppermint patties works far than what it might sound like. Downright dangerous combination, perhaps.

  16. 2500 years ago, Callicles put the current attitude thus: Virtue is the ability to reward your friends, harm your enemies, and indulge your every whim (which assertion occasioned perhaps the only time in Plato’s Dialogues when Socrates fully decloaked and went after it – if that attitude isn’t the enemy of all that is good and holy, what is?).

    Of course it’s boring – if you won’t draw the line, you can’t draw anything at all.

    1. Isn’t it early for that topic? Nothing where Hillary didn’t win will be written yet (although I’m sure there is grey goo where she ran in 2000 and won as Bill’s third term).

        1. Is there an alternate History where we have two 2016 presidential candidates who we can confident in regardless of who wins?

          Heck, I’d settle for one. SMOD: It Isn’t Too Late!

      1. Kratman’s State of Disobedience? I mean, it’s likely that no matter how things go down, he missed some details . . .

  17. (I have a little list)

    They’d none of them be missed.
    They’d none of them be missed.

    Because no one else has.

  18. She asked, ‘Will you do it?’

    William had decided that he should. He was a creature of habit, and on some things he would prefer not to dwell. He lacked the will to change. When he passed away, as one eventually will, it was found that Will had no will.

    1. Apologies, my bad — Been gone staffing at an Anime convention, got home Monday, exhausted but happy. You all know Tuesday was voting day. So a somewhat distracted me posted this attached to the wrong day’s blog … 😦

Comments are closed.