More Prizes For Good Girls or a Letter from Sarah to the Political Goldfish

More Prizes For Good Girls or
a Letter from Sarah to the Political Goldfish

Yesterday I kind of lost my temper.  It was Facebook.  I got just one too many reminders that we were celebrating International Women’s Day.  And didn’t I want to show solidarity?  And celebrate women?

Look, it’s not my fault.  I was bit by International Socialism as a child and it’s the sort of thing that causes an allergy for life.  Oh, yeah, and International ANYTHING day is a socialist thing, because they never fully realized that they didn’t control the whole world.  Or they didn’t care and just wanted to make their rubes believe they were worldwide.  The Happy People of Brutopia celebrated whatever day they were ordered, and they marched in orderly ranks past the red draped stands, and Socialism would Conquer the WORLD.

Right.  So that was part of why I blew up.  I hate “International” this and that, and the idea behind it.  Whatever good it is supposed to do never actually works where needed, and it does very bad things everywhere else.

Bad things?  How can a day celebrating women be a bad thing?

It is a bad thing in many, many ways: first, what in particular are we celebrating about women?  That they’re women?  Hoo, women exist.  Great prizes for good little girls for existing.

Yes, I know what gets accreted to it: women who fought for equality.  women who still fight for equality in dangerous places (like say Afghanistan), women who’ve invented things, women who’ve done special things.

And that’s fine and dandy, but WHY are we celebrating IN PARTICULAR women who did these things?  It is impossible to avoid the feeling that it’s not normal for women to do these things, and that’s why they need to be PARTICULARLY celebrated for having them.

I mean, I want to make clear that I do admire people who do admirable things.  I just find the implication that doing admirable things while female is not that unusual; that we are not, in fact, impaired children who need to be given special prizes for existing.  Why else would you celebrate WOMEN who do special things more than anyone else who does special things, unless it is because women are naturally inferior and can’t do special things.

So eventually I boiled over, and posted this on the book of faces:

“Women’s Day” is how you know we’re speshull. Or at least that society at large considers us short bus speshull. Treating any group of people as though they need special recognition is like saying “Well done! We didn’t expect you lot to do anything. We’re so proud of you.”
I’m human and I partake of human achievement. What actually is between the legs of the people being celebrated couldn’t matter less to me. Or what they like to do with said equipment.
Unless we’re celebrating sex gods or goddesses, this is just nonsense and giving the impression some animals are more equal than others.
I’m celebrating by hoisting both middle fingers aloft. Lookit my matched set!

I confess I didn’t follow all the answers, partly because I’m trying to finish a book, but two of the answers I got were sadly illustrative.

One was the inevitable man asking me if I’d give the finger to all the women who fought for equality and bringing up the inevitable example of the  young woman in Afghanistan who got shot for fighting for female education, and saying that “She should just have told those women they were whiners and should shut up.”

Need I say that admire everyone who fought for equality under the law, and still fights.  And need I also say that International Women’s Day does nothing to advance that fight?  Thinking that declaring an International Women’s Day will make the barbarians of Isis realize that women should have equal rights is typical of the Disney generation, who thinks everything bad is just a big misunderstanding and can be resolved with a song and dance or a big demonstration of some sort, with painless virtue signaling from “enlightened” people.

And yet, the lowest US infantryman sent to Afghanistan did more to advance the cause of freedom and human dignity, and, yes, female equality before the law than all of the “International Women’s Day”s of the world.

This man’s posturing made me think of pouty Michelle Obama holding up a sign saying #bringbackourgirls, which of course did not do anything, and certainly earned no respect from the Boko Harum who went on, selling and raping and destroying the women they’d taken, completely unimpressed by Michelle Obama’s twitter posturing.  As they should be, since they come from a world of force and barbarism, where, to be fair, they never watched Disney movies, and were therefore never exposed to the awesome power of the photogenic pose.

Then there was the woman who informed me that she taught self defense to children and women (Good for her.  But why ONLY to children and women?) and that International Women’s Day was needed till the body count dropped.

That statement confused me, because it’s so stupid it’s not even wrong.

First of all, I’m fairly sure that anywhere not currently under active invasion by military-age refugees bent on treating their hosts like occupied people, the body count IS falling.  All body counts.  At least in the US and other Western lands, violent crimes have been falling.

However, pardon me if I ask WHOSE body count?  I presume from her statement that she teaches women and children to defend themselves that she thinks women and children die in disproportionate numbers from violence?

Look, one person, any sex, any race, any age, dead by violence is one too many, but in point of fact, most of the people who die by violence are men.  Always were.  Always will be.  Yep, they are more physically aggressive than females.  It’s the testosterone thing.  They are stronger than us, period.  They are also by nature protective.  Which means many is the man old and young who dies protecting his family. And the young men who have died protecting their tribe are countless, from tribal warriors to men who die in combat today.

That’s who men are.  And no, it doesn’t mean that if we got rid of men we’d get rid of violence.  I went to an all girls’ school.  Women are as capable of violence.  Different violence.  Women are more likely to hurt children (look at crime statistics) and women are more likely to kill by stealth and by poison.  We are by nature weaker, and our thought is less direct, but deeper, more interconnected and lending itself better to plotting and convoluted plans.

It’s who women are.  And it’s not all bad.  Throughout history women have plotted and connived and worked to keep their tribe safe.  Not just people like Elizabeth the first, many of whose actions were of necessity what a man would do, just with a different slant, but people like the legendary Portuguese baker who attracted the enemy one by one into her bakery (by baking bread, when both besieged and besiegers were dying of starvation) and killing them one by one with the oven shovel.

And it’s not all bad.  And those women who fought for equality, be it equality for themselves because women were despised, or equality for their sons and husbands, who were slaves at the time, were and are awesome and should be celebrated, no matter if they use their own means to do it.

But… where does International Women’s Day do that?

Where does it even keep a single woman or child in a perilous situation or an unjust land safe?

Teaching women and children self defense is admirable.  Getting them guns is even more admirable, because no matter how much you scream “equal” women and children are NOT physically as strong as men.  And so the very few bad men among the whole of them find them easy prey.  It’s impossible to make them equal.  But Mr. Colt did so.

What didn’t do so were soviet style strikes and calls for an International Women’s Day.

In a free society, in the west, all that does is allow the mean girls’ club to try to elevate themselves at the expense of other people, be it men or women who disagree with the mean girls.  That too is part of what women are, the social schemers and social climbers at other’s expense.  Oh, not all women.  Just the women who are the fair counterpart of the men who would abuse their strength to enslave the weaker.  (I tell you, those two sets deserve each other.)

And all it does is make men look at it — yes, and women too — and wonder why, if women really aren’t inferior we make such a big deal of acts of heroism and strength performed by women specifically.  I mean, if women are equally capable, shouldn’t we celebrate HUMAN achievement, male and female?

I do.  I salute those who worked for freedom, for justice, for equal laws for themselves or others: male or female.  I salute those who freed us from brutality and bestiality.  I ache for my brothers and sisters in societies where women are chattel, because even the boys and men are wounded.  You can’t separate the human species in two halves and hate one and love the other and not hurt all.  And that’s why I ache for boys raised in this lunacy where they’re blamed for crimes that not only they never committed but crimes that their ancestors haven’t committed, generations out of mind.  I ache for American boys held responsible for the crimes of barbarians living under Islamic  dictatorship, as though all men and all boys were interchangeable widgets.

And the goldfish?

Well, some friends of ours had a goldfish, in a bowl.  And every time the goldfish swam from one end of the bowl to the next, he’d look SURPRISED as though he’d never been there before and it were all utterly new.

The thing is, we’ve seen all this “international day for this and that” “Solidarity march for this thing and the other.”

Sure, it can work, properly targeted.  Notice that the Polish solidarity was not for political freedom for Poland “and everyone else in the world because we’re all equally oppressed.”  No, by directing the light of world outrage at a particular place, with a particular regime, it worked.  Or at least it helped the real fight on the ground.

So, you want to fight for the equality of women?  Shine the spotlight on Iran, on Afghanistan, on all the places in the world where a woman can get killed for talking back.  Name, shame, denounce.  Strip the mask for those who apologize for those regimes even among us — many of them “liberal” — and make them own the horrible things they’re allowing to be done.  Be ready for resistance from the victims you’re trying to save, too.  This is all they know, and our ways are foreign.  Yes, one or two will get it, but not all.  But fight there, where the fight is.  Be relentless.

But don’t say “And all the women in the west who are equally oppressed” because that’s bullsh*t and you know it.  Even the country I grew up in, which is objectively sexist (or was when I grew up there) in that every woman is considered inferior to every man, is not EVEN CLOSE to the hells where women get slaughtered for talking back, for learning to read, for being seen with a man not their husband.

As to the imaginary “micro-aggression” of American feminists, those are more often than not the excuse of power hungry females who have nothing else to recommend them, as to why they should be at a the top of the pile.  They have neither beauty, grace nor brains, but they have vaunting ambition, and use the plight of other women — real women, in other lands — as a springboard to arrogate to themselves unmerited accolades and power.

The only thing they have in common with true female heroes is that they have a vagina, and that’s not enough.  Heroic women, though methods tend to be different, have more in common with heroic men than with loudmouth, pampered women who give themselves airs, because they have a vagina.

And it is to those political goldfish I wish to speak: We don’t care what you were born with.  In fact your displays and tantrums, more and more, make the rest of society view you as inconsiderate brats who refuse to grow up. And yes, the rest of society includes grown up women doing grown up things.  But what you are doing is very dangerous.  In your effort to seize unmerited power and acclaim, you’re putting down every other woman, reducing us to a powerless and inferior group, at the same time that — frankly — you make sure no one wants to hear another word from you.  And they will think you’re typical women.

This is how real oppression returns.

Women in the west wouldn’t be where we are without many determined women.  We also wouldn’t be where we are without many determined men.  And without men agreeing with us that equality before the law is right and just.

Convince them otherwise, and you lose everything.  Your posturing and mewling of victimhood will win nothing.  And it could lose us all.

It is said that at least one Catholic saint spoke to the fish, and the fish listened.  I have no such hope with the political goldfish, locked in their blinkered “Wants” and who believe life is a Disney movie.

Fortunately they are a minority.  Most women, like most men, are decent human beings.

It’s type to stop listening to the loud mouths, and get to work.


394 thoughts on “More Prizes For Good Girls or a Letter from Sarah to the Political Goldfish

        1. I saw a zine at ECCC last week entitled “Drawing while Caffeinated,” and said to my husband: “Isn’t that like breathing while oxygenated?”

          In other news: Brave really hates google comments. Makes me wonder what’s up with them.

    1. If they really wanted to proclaim women’s accomplishments, shouldn’t they be shouting them from the rooftops, rather than removing women from everything?

      Indeed, it should be argued that “International Women Day” should do something to highlight the work women do, rather than shut down the work that they do.

      1. BINGO.

        Instead, we have International Men Only Day.
        Women? Who needs them?
        Homosexual relationships uber ales!

        *pardon me while I vomit into my round file.*

        1. Sadly you do actually find those. Some real misogyny on display from time to time.

  1. …and International ANYTHING day is a socialist thing, because they never fully realized that they didn’t control the whole world.

    I was about to point out that International Talk Like A Pirate (for which I have little use) is an exception, but then $HOUSEMATE pointed out that pirates are indeed good Socialists: They take from the “rich” and give to… themselves.

    1. Oddly most pirate crews are extremely corporate. If you look at the mechanics of how the crews worked they are very capitalist running dogs.

    2. Biggest piracy steals were cloth (and clothing) and medicines. I think it was Blackbeard who famously asked for a medicine chest ransom for a hostage.

    3. I recommend looking up the book “The Invisible Hook,” a marvelous study of how economics and public choice theory apply to piracy, based in part on the actual articles adopted by pirate ships.

      1. Not disputing the scholarship, but you don’t have to look far to find historical examples of groups having asserted one set of values yet living by other sets.

        1. I’m not particularly interested in that, because it’s old news. I’m more interested in the actual economic and political organization of pirate ships, which was interesting and more sophisticated than I expected.

            1. More generally, it seems to me that a lot of historical democracies, republics, or anarchies have started out as communities of bandits or pirates. The Vikings who settled Iceland, or the Israelites of the time when “there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes,” or the Romans of the Republic, all sort of fit this. Of course their conduct toward outsiders isn’t very libertarian! (Though GURPS Alternate Earths II has a great joke about Vikings: “Q: How do you tell the difference between a pirate and a merchant? A: If you’re armed, he’s a merchant.”)

              When I read the Chinese classic Water Margin (an enormously long novel about superheroic outlaws, which seems to be the wellspring of every trope of martial arts movies—if you ever have time to read it, The Marshes of Mount Liang is a first-rate translation), I was struck by the running contrast between the haohan (“good guys”), who settled their differences by honest fighting, and the bureaucrats who were almost invariably corrupt, abusive, and manipulative. It was sort of like the Robin Hood mythos at enormously greater length and with more superpowers. When everyone knows that officials can’t be trusted, it’s natural to glamorize robbers, I think.

              “Now as through this world I ramble
              I see lots of funny men.
              Some will rob you with a six-gun,
              Others with a fountain pen.”

              1. Dang it.
                Of you can get your hands on them, they made some really excellent strategy/jrpgs back in the PS1/PS2 era called Suikoden that, I’m told, are based on Water Margin.

            2. I was particularly interested in the fact that many men turned to piracy because it offered them a better deal than the navies of the day.

  2. Very well said (finally got some chores done and some coffee drank).
    I keep running across these feminists and I have built up a healthy level of disdain for what they are screeching. Trouble is that they have spread their poison far and wide and it’s starting to show in certain areas of culture. It’s going to take a massive amount of detoxing to rid us of these beliefs, if it’s at all possible.

    The pendulum swings back and forth. Soon it will swing back from this madness and I hope it doesn’t swing too far in the opposite direction.

    1. Tissue necrosis setting into the flesh of society. Once it dies, it has to be cut out before healing can begin. Regeneration? Don’t hold your breath. You may be better served by simply trying to birth a whole new generation for replacement of this one.

      1. I wonder what the societal equivalent of screwworm fly larvae would be.
        (Medical-grade maggots: used to treat necrotic tissue because they stop eating when they run out of dead tissue.)

    2. Trouble is that they have spread their poison far and wide and it’s starting to show in certain areas of culture. It’s going to take a massive amount of detoxing to rid us of these beliefs, if it’s at all possible.


      I never ran into the type of guys they claimed were everywhere until well after they got really loud, and the ones I spoke to… amazingly, took several of them a while to realize I’m female… and the subject came up, were a reaction to the nasty “feminist” twerps.

      Not that it excuses them becoming the male version of those jerks, and not that they’re not doing damage to trying to fix real problems by the whole “men’s rights” shtick that is exactly the same thing they (rightly) object to these female twerps pushing, but the point is that you’re right. The “female empowerment” people are creating exactly the problem they claim to be solving.

      1. exactly the same thing they (rightly) object to these female twerps pushing

        People, when pushed, tend to push back.

        It sometimes seems as if the whole point is to encourage people shoving one another around rather than engaging in meaningful discussion about shared values and goals. See, C. S. Lewis on whether “The Patient” should be encouraged toward pacifism or a patriotism.

      2. Yep. And then they pull the dictionary definition defense of gynosupremacy that masquerades as feminism. Court, DC, work, contracting, draft, etc all put their negatives disproportionately on males. But try and speak on any of that and you are evil mysoginst.

      3. I’ve been tempted by the men’s rights thing. I volunteered at a VAWA-funded legal aid office, see, so I’ve kinda seen first-hand–been a *part of–the ways in which the deck is, under letter of law and absolutely intentionally, stacked against men in at least that area.

        (I’ve been tempted to tell Tales from Legal Aid. But it all winds up in wild sputtering when I try to start.)

        …but damned if everything I hear from that direction isn’t from such *jerks*. Ugh. So I’ve been just sympathetic to men’s issues.

        1. Ditto. Though more than sympathetic to some others ( The Art of Manliness or Men of the West, say vs. the MGTOWs) because I have a misandrist streak.

          People do have prejudices, bigotry does make you stupid; so the wise move is to bend over backward to mitigate the one that you possess. What’s not kosher is running about insisting that everyone and his horse has to do likewise because um… you’re some kind of pattern card and sine qua non of humanity?

      4. if you damn a person solely based on the outward, if you proclaim them guilty of crimes that they haven’t committed because they look like people who did, well, a good number of those people are going to become that very thing you condemn.

        1. You’d think the dumb-****s that are reacting to the “feminists” would figure out that applies to their gender-flipped feminism, too.

          1. Seems like they believe that reversing the polarity of a sexism (or racism, or…) will counter it. The problem is one of absolute value though: changing the sign won’t make it go away.

      5. creating the problem they claim to be solving

        And if that phrase doesn’t express everything Marxism in a single phrase, I don’t know what does.

  3. What all these International [insert identity group] Days are are just more attempts by the left to validate their categorizing everyone into one or another identity group as a way to deny their individuality. Honestly, I’ve never even noticed any of these days; they have pretty much zero effect on normal people in the real world. Well, you might notice them on the 11 PM news and smile at the silliness of the marchers…

    1. Heaven help me, I just called someone a socialist sexist pig on my facebook page. And you know what? It is true.
      And yes, he did try to cow me into submission by telling me that International Women’s Day was started at a socialist and social democrat meeting. I sh*t you not. And implied my opposing it meant I should give up the right to vote.
      Assuming I have a vagina therefore I have to vote a certain way IS the ultimate in sexist oinkdom. HOW is it possible they don’t SEE it?

      1. Just tell them that you value all people for who they are individually and for what they do personally. And that the fact that they only see individuals as ciphers made up merely of the identity group traits that they recognize is the most dehumanizing thing they could possibly do. They are fundamentally (in all meanings of that word) anti-human.

          1. Or maybe, “Do you feel so inadequate as an individual that the only way you can obtain self-worth is by identifying as some particular group? You really need to grow up, child.”

            1. I didn’t feel like fighting with the particular group of ladies (they aren’t a political bunch: they’re a Celebrate All The Things bunch-and one lost her dad last week), so I’m in their “International Women’s Day” pic on Instagram, wearing my “A Republic if you can keep it, did you think it would be easy?” t-shirt. They did have me read the shirt to them-the cursive is difficult-and seemed unsure what to say–they would’ve known what to make of it if it were Independence Day or Veterans Day, but it wasn’t the *right day* for it! This week sucked and I wear that shirt when I want to feel better.

              Okay, this whole year sucked. Next, please!

              1. Then perhaps not a confrontational approach, but a Socratic one:

                “International Women’s Day? What does that actually mean? What are we supposed to be marching for?”

                And when they say something like “equal rights” or some such, you can start getting into what inequalities do they actually see rather than just imagine or hear about from some ideologues.

                1. Perhaps you don’t know any ladies like these: politics is something to turn the tv off over, and they block anyone who posts political stuff on facebook. “Look, we took a picture together for XXX Day!” Doesn’t matter what day, just an excuse to celebrate and be with friends. They really don’t see a difference between an Independence Day pic and an International Women’s Day pic.

                  They are very good for my mental health–they don’t tend towards pessimism like I do. I’m definitely the Odd in the group–which is saying a lot, when the Goth/Wiccan gal is not the Odd one–but they really don’t care. The closest we got to touching on the topic was a brief topic of who has time to take off work, anyway, and elementary teachers taking off would hurt poor working single moms more than anyone else, and how is that pro-women? These ladies do NOT have time to take off work for Days–self employed, the lot.

                  1. So they’re just looking for Nothing to Celebrate Day? You might mention to them that they really don’t need an excuse to do this, they can do it anytime they like.

                    1. There’s an actual holiday (and it’s international, because more than one nation came up with it on their own): St. Never’s Day (no dia de São Nunca)

                      You can celebrate any time you observe something that you’d previously described with, “and… x will happen when hens have teeth!”

                  2. Sigh. I know those people. They tend to get a little scared of me… I somehow stick out at odd angles. They try to love me, they do… but I make them nervous.

                    1. Self-employed woman working for her food, home, family in the uncertain world of writing; AND successful? Damn right you’re a threat to them.

                  3. Heck, my husband was a male version of this when we married, and one of my best male friends still is. That last one is heading for a reckoning, because he doesn’t pay attention beyond the headlines, and so says the most appallingly leftist things without knowing. Once or twice I stopped him in his tracks and asked questions about what he really knew of x subject. But I try not to because it makes him uncomfortable. And he means well. But…

                  4. Ah… so the subversive idea would have been to hum/sing Peggy the Pin Up Girl?

                    Peggy Jones had her picture took
                    It got in “Life” and it got in “Look”
                    Then the cameras began to click
                    And that my friend really did the trick

                    Then her fortunes began to climb
                    She appeared on “The March of Time”
                    All the boys in the Army camps
                    Wanted her picture on postage stamps.

                  1. So essentially anything other than abject agreement is confrontation, eh? Nothing much to say in that case.

                    1. That is kind of the point of groups. If you don’t want to be in it, you leave it, you don’t try to split it up.

              2. Sometimes the point of arguing can be lost, especially when (as you perceived) the only people present are useful idiots simply trying to be supportive.

                And yes, the world sucks; they call it gravity but it’s really just one giant suck.Eventually, some bright morning, We’ll fly away.

              3. they’re a Celebrate All The Things bunch

                That can be fun, although I’d push them towards the stuff that’s actually fun… like International Wine day a week or so back. ^.^ There is non-alcholic wine, too, and the “Fre” brand wasn’t too bad. (Um, for comparison’s sake, I was pregnant and just REALLY wanted a dang glass of wine. Sparkling cider would probably substitute just as well for Fun Things.)


                Yesterday was PEanut Clusters Day!

                And today is…. Get Over It Day?

                Get Over It Day
                Get Over It Day
                9th Mar each year
                Tagged as
                People & Relationships
                Let’s face it, everyone is guilty of holding on to the things that hurt, annoy, confuse or anger us. What means the most is how long we hold onto them, or how we let them go. For some it is hard to get rid of the feelings and over time the feelings may grow and become a problem. It’s time to make life a little lighter and participate in a newer holiday – Get Over It Day! It is a day for exactly that.

                History of Get Over It Day
                This day was created out of the need to let go of the hurt of a breakup. Jeff Goldblatt is the one who created this holiday when he couldn’t get over the hurt from a break up. In a need to help himself, and others, the day took off. Spaced between a holiday devoted to love, and one all about fun and joking around, it is the perfect time to try to heal and move forward.

              4. I didn’t wear red in honor of the day. Also, I deliberately shopped for things I could just as well have bought later. and went to work, of course.

      2. Again and again and again gobbledygook.

        By their behavior the progressives prove that they consider most people not as individuals, but as tools who left on their own are unable to think clearly or make the correct choices. The progressives believe that they are the ones who should be wielding the tools.

        1. The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder. Adam Smith

          1. … in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might chuse to impress upon it. — quoting Adam Smith

            We have people whose attitude is : if it is just as simple as that we will just have to train the people to want what we know they ought.

      3. Is it still ‘mansplaining’ when a progressive man is trying to tell a woman she’s wrong, even if he’s using progressive, feminist dogma?

        1. I’ve never been overtly accused of “mansplaining,” but if I were I like to think I’d respond, “Thank you! I’m glad I could be of help in making it clear to you!”

    2. I read an article on Medium yesterday or the day before arguing in all seriousness that the 5-year-old white kid who wanted a haircut so he could look just like his black friend was actually a demonstration of white privilege because only white people can “not see color”. They argued that instead he should be brought up to see race and view everything through that lens…just as they do.

      John Roberts is right: The way to end discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

      1. Ah, I see. So not being racist is demonstrating “white privilege.” If they succeeded in making all whites as racist as they are, I don’t think it would work out as they imagine…

        1. And the problem is they are getting close. The worst elements of the alt-right are where the twenty somethings are leaping to. They find the left lied to them about… everything, so they assume the opposite is true.
          I’m fighting to save THEIR LIVES. And I might not succeed.

              1. Please tell me that your two twenty somethings are far too intelligent for such crap.

                1. They’re busy with serious studies on serious subjects. They’re better at ignoring stupidity than I am. And both of them roll eyes at the “inverse left.”

          1. Some of that went on in Eastern Europe after the collapse of the USSR—people turning to rancid far-“right” groups in reaction. Just trading totalitarian collectivism’s Ford brand for Chevrolet brand, of course. The way to stop getting electrocuted isn’t to reverse polarity but to cut the power.

          2. Admittedly I find I straddle the two. There is a color/culture (the identity politics has pushed color to become culture shorthand sadly) issue right now and good for goose, good for gander is a common thought process. Plus the general contrariness. And the general fecklessness that the current alignment has shown makes many mistrustful. The farthest reaches of philosophy I can disagree with but once you make the least offensive parts of a philosophy (evolutionary differences in groups for example) just as damning as the furthest people will gravitate to radicalism.

            1. File under “may as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb”. These SJZs, sowing the wind, have no idea what whirlwind they are setting themselves up to reap.

              1. Eyup. Plus the vitriol tossed around willy nilly targeting reps for not agreeing that from each according to their success to each according to their politics. The idea that preplanning and delayed gratification are important (you know, maybe no phone or cable for health insurance or savings, or that a $500/year cost for a house absolutely not affect finances, else you gotta figure something else out. Your first repair will eat that easily)

        2. You’re racist of you treat all races the same, and you’re racist if you treat them differently. There’s no way to win.

        3. Did you miss the mobbing of Jagi Lamplighter* a few years back?

          If you don’t know her, she’s got a very legitimate claim (if she’d take it) to being the World’s Nicest Person.

          Which, of course, made the bullies show up….

          Since she’s actually nice, rather than “nice,” she didn’t change just because they yelled at her. Which made for extra explosions.

          *Mrs. John Wright, lady who wrote the Rachael books, lady who’s running the Superversive blog/group/movement based on Tom Simon’s essay. Lots of ways the name would be familiar.

          1. I remember hearing about it. I’m not really one of the con-going crowd (outside of LibertyCon), so I only ever hear about such things after the fact. 😦

            But these occurrences are exactly what I mean when I say that such things don’t have the effect the perpetrators imagine they will.

          1. Interesting phrase. I’ve believed for some time that the progressives behave more like a cult than a political movement. For example, they refuse to listen to alternative points of view, are convinced they are correct, react violently when their illusions are shattered, cannot persuade another person through logic, etc…

        1. That article is a sad attempt by someone to hang onto the past. Racism, by and large has seen it’s day. Sure, the last vestiges of it will be around for a few more generations, can’t change that, and there will always be pockets of it here and there just like you still find pockets of people who don’t believe in medicine, or electricity. Or people who think Dinosaurs didn’t really exist, and the fossil record is just a trick from Ol’ Scratch. Hell, If you look hard enough, you can probably find people who still believe the world is flat. (I am in no way implying any connection between any of these ideas, just pointing out similarly outdated beliefs).

          Sad thing is, people like the person who wrote that article Jay linked just serve to slow down progress. In spite of what the article says, people “not seeing color”, or more like “people not giving a crap about color” – since literally “not seeing color” is really only possible for blind people – Is indeed EXACTLY where we need to go. That is, if the over-all goal is equality for all.

          Unfortunately, in spite of what they say, equality is rarely the true goal of these people. The real goal of these people is to keep people divided into nice easily controlled groups in order to maintain control over them. That’s the real racism of today. Hell, next to that, the relatively rare “I hate _____s” is almost honest (and perhaps preferable, because it can be easily ridiculed, which is what it truly deserves).

          1. Unfortunately, in spite of what they say, equality is rarely the true goal of these people.

            When liberals say equality they don’t mean the same thing as when conservatives/libertarians/constitutionalists mean when we say equality. I mean equality under the law, the right to be judged as an individual, the right to achieve and advance based on merits and effort. What they mean is equality of outcome. In a truly equal world of their vision, there would be pizza places run by Chinese, and Chinese restaurants staffed by persons of Italian descent. If a position was vacated by a female Albanian dwarf, the only person who could fill it would be another female Albanian dwarf. Qualifications wouldn’t matter, only slot filling so all positions in all areas matched the societal breakdown of ethnicities/gender/whatever. With emphasis on the whatevers- can’t have them underrepresented anywhere.

            1. Another way to put it:
              you know those adults who, when a kid took their toy and deliberately broke it, would make you share yours with the toy-breaker? And if you were all given a pack of cookies, and you savored yours while the other kids scarfed them, would make you give some of yours away?

              That kind of “equal.”

                1. Me, too.

                  It took me a long time to figure out that it wasn’t because I was “selfish” or that it still bugging me wasn’t a matter of (insert sneer here) ‘still being hung up over that’– it’s the injustice, and for such a freaking stupid reason. It’s either “make the brat who did something wrong shut up, the Good Kid won’t cause problems” or applying a theory at the non-maiming reducto ad absurdum level. How does anyone who has been around kids more than two minutes NOT realize that they’re teaching the kids to not value their toys and not savor the treats, because either way you’re not going to be allowed to have them for long?

                  1. I’m more on the side of “you broke it, too bad, now it’s gone.” How are they supposed to learn to protect things if they get replaced every time they’re broken?

      2. I saw that picture, both of those boys looked so sweet. There is a special place in hell for those who want to ruin that friendship and innocence.

        1. The best way I could describe the reactions was:

          Normal Person: D’aww… how CUTE!
          “Anti-racist”: They must learn to judge by race!

          *insert facepalm emote for “anti-racist”*

      3. I remember that incident. The ones complaining about it are some of the most broken people I’ve ever encountered.

      4. I wonder, since the movements to end racism seem to have originated in the Caucasian West, could minorities who are fighting racism be accused of “cultural appropriation”?

  4. And didn’t I want to show solidarity? And celebrate women?


    Solidarity as it is presently used, sends up a red flag, and identity politics is a poisonous thorn in the backside of society.

  5. Can’t think which book I read it in, Probably from the “Notebooks of Lazarus Long” where he said that a woman that strives to be equal to a man is selling herself short. Why would she lower herself like that?
    Men and women are NOT equals. Each has it’s strengths and weaknesses that when combined compliment each other and society.

    1. Whenever women have insisted on absolute equality with men, they have invariably wound up with the dirty end of the stick. What they are and what they can do makes them superior to men, and their proper tactic is to demand special privileges, all the traffic will bear. they should never settle merely for equality. For women, “equality” is a disaster.
      From The Notebook of Lazarus Long as reported in Time Enough For Love by Robert Anson Heinlein.

      1. Yes that’s the one I was thinking of. I got a decent paraphrase of the gist at least.

        1. ooo. I wish you hadn’t done that. Now I have the Vatican Rag as an earworm.

  6. I saw a number of people on the book of feces posting links/stories about the Kurdish women fighting in Syria. Now those ladies have my respect and they are doing far more for female equality etc. than any of these stupid strikes and marches. Someone, IMHO, should do the same in Nigeria

      1. It’s a common tactic where you piggyback on someone else more successful or influential and say that since you use the same words you are due the same respect.

      2. Or keep marching until you get to Nigeria or Kurdistan, after learning how to use an infantry weapon, and bring one along.

  7. Bu … bu … but having a vagina must be important! Look at what men* will do to get one of their own to play with!

    Besides, Cate Blanchett says hers** has a moral compass!

    Frankly, I think the moral compass of males is more useful; it has a pointer.

    *men, in this instance, does not refer to those persons possessing a certain minimal level of moral gravity but rather to the category of persons possessing outies.

    **Oh, look it up. Wot am I, your personal assistant?

    1. Somebody should tell this Cate Blanchett person that masturbating with random objects, especially ones used for, say, camping, is likely to result in a nasty infection. And how the hell did she get it stuck?

      Seriously, she spells Kate as Cate? Or did you misspell? I don’t read about these vapid little twits; I have high blood pressure already.

      1. It’s a valid alternate spelling (from Catherine), and anyways, you’d want to blame her parents. Just be glad it’s not Caitlyn/Kaitlin or any of that ilk with the thousand variations.

        1. On the one hand, I agree. OTOH, actors (or their publicists or their studios) choose the names under which they ply their trade, so it is possible she did an in depth analysis of which letters are most prone to falling off theatre marquees and determined thereby that “C” was more stable than “K” — or perhaps she consulted a numerologist for the preference?

          I will note she won acclaim for her portrayal of Queen Elizabeth in two (? ain’t gonna bother looking it up; two seems right) films without, apparently, learning anything memorable about the person she played.

  8. On the one hand I advise eschewing Fatuousbook as it is an endless source of such irritations. On the other hand, if such irritations continue to produce such pearls as this essay, maybe it is worthwhile.

    On the other other hand, I need a drink.

      1. And some people aren’t stopping. Saw a link to the Stampede Girl from 2 years ago that was caught in a public threesome and how she was a “hero”. *sigh* My feed is slowly becoming an echo chamber because of all the leftist idiots I am silencing. Unfortunately it’s best for my mental state currently.

        1. Yep. Actually causing issues in my family because mother slowly unhinging from it.

        2. Thinking about some more, if that’s what she/they desire, that’s her/their lookout… but hero? No. Will I have some judgment of her/them? Yes. She/they don’t like it, too bad. I have some judgment on the folks going 25mph in a 40mph zone (on dry pavement in good weather) and then slowing for the GREEN light, too.

    1. I try to limit my FB viewing to 5 posts on family within 2 removes pages per day, 1 friend’s page, and whether there’s fencing tonight on the club’s page during inclement weather.

  9. Rule of thumb: having an International [InsertGroup] Day is a sure sign of group inferiority and wrongheadedness. It marks the group and its advocates as “spayshul” …

    … in a Ralph Wiggum way.

    1. Too spatial. Taking up too much space, whether physically or in column-inches or such. Could they be more temporal, please? And then fade into history and only reappear in silly articles about ‘Stupid Crap People Used to Believe’?

      1. …And folks, I’m not making this up, but women protested the duly elected new president by… wearing vagina costumes. No, I’m not making this up. They needed safe spaces and trigger warnings… no, not the kind that goes bang, it was for stuff they were scared of.

        Do you want to know *why* people got behind i.d. laws and eliminating all protected classes? This is why. People were so confused they thought equality meant being better than the other guy. That if you disagreed with them you were literally Hitler! Look it up!

        The scary thing, the really scary thing is, people forgot about all this mess. The nutty, bogglingly insane crap that went on, as well as the dangerous stuff. Did you know people rioted because a guy was invited to speak somewhere once? Rioted! Really! Big fires and thugs throwing sh*t at policemen. And nobody got arrested for it! All because a guy they didn’t like, who was also literally Hitler (his clone lab musts have been effn’ *busy*) was going to speak. Other folks got attacked for the same sort of thing.

        There’s a reason we call this period “The Crazy Years,” folks. You just can’t imagine the stupid, the crazy, the weird stuff people got up to those days.

        1. I think we need to start to start emphasising things like “We should even let Hitler or Pinochet speak on College Campuses, even if they were to personally come — we should let them make their case, then ask pointed questions, and afterward write pointed essays and give detailed lectures as to why they are wrong. If we don’t do this, we’ll never understand their appeal, nor understand how they come into power. Heck, we should even invite people like Stalin, Fidel Castro and Che Guevera to speak at our campuses — and you can’t get more discriminatory and evil than that!”

          We need to make it clear that the only time it’s ok to punch a Nazi Fascist in the face, is if that Nazi Fascist is trying to kill you, or do you substantial harm.

          And we also need to make it clear that Communists are just as bad as Nazis, if not worse!

          1. I was about to ask what on Earth you had against the founder of the US Forest Service (Gifford Pinchot), then stopped and went back and read again, more slowly.

            Allergy season has mushed my brain.

            1. Gifford Pinchot was quite tied up the with Progressives and was partly responsible for Theodore Roosevelt deciding to enter the 1912 presidential race, which helped hand the presidency to Woodrow Wilson, which helped accelerate the rise of Progressivism. Therefore, animus towards Pinchot’s quite understandable, at least from “a certain point of view.” [twisted smiley goes here]

        2. I still can’t figure that one out.
          If you truly believe that the President is a sexual predator, then why on God’s Green Earth would you dress up as the very thing you think he preys on?
          That’s like dressing up as Bambi and going for a walk in the woods on opening day of deer season.
          Should have been there with three doctors, a judge, and a steady stream of cops to haul them away to the state mental health hospital as quickly as the doctors could legally declare them mentally incompetent.

          1. Are you looking for sense? Remember that the Women’s March had, as one of its speakers, a convicted rapist.

            1. Yes, but her victim was a man, so that “doesn’t count” and/ or was a “blow against the patriarchy” /prog

  10. “…And those who push us down that they might climb
    Is any killer worth more than his crime?
    Like a steely blade in a silken sheath
    We don’t see what they’re made of
    They shout about love, but when push comes to shove
    They live for the things they’re afraid of
    And the knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them…”
    (Rush, “The Weapon”)

  11. “Treating any group of people as though they need special recognition is like saying ‘Well done! We didn’t expect you lot to do anything. We’re so proud of you.'”

    Couldn’t help but be reminded here of one of my rather guilty favourite quotes from Dr. Samuel Johnson: “Sir, a woman preaching is like a dog walking on its hind legs. It is not done well, but you are surprised to find it done at all.”

    I understand perfectly why this ticks off nearly every woman who hears it but I still have to snicker to myself every time I think of it.

  12. I celebrate Caitlyn Jenner for proving that men make the best women!

    Also for making the whole day effectively meaningless.

    1. I don’t.
      Hard enough for heterosexuals looking for a lifemate to raise a family with. Let’s see, subtract out all the homosexual males, subtract out all the asexual males, subtract out all the transexual males, that leaves you a rather smaller population to select from; and the first two groups contaminate the selections with decoys to waste your time on. This GBLTQ advocacy and especially transgender fanaticism is exactly the same as releasing billions of sterile mosquitoes to crash the natural population. It works a bit too well. And I just have this feeling that a certain group behind them specifically wants this.

        1. Same sex earners stereotypically will not have children and have higher incomes in some cases. As a result higher tax revenues. Plus no children so gotta import breeders to keep the Ponzi going. Plus add on the legal danger for the guys who are in any way awkward and you get a toxic stew.

  13. Four legs good. Two legs bad! I will work harder. Napoleon is always right. Now while I am in touch with my inner proletariat horse I look at humanity from the outside and I touched on this in your facebook comments. You shouldn’t need women’s day, black history month, gay rights, group of peoples lives matter, the completely baffling to me argument about where you can pee, where who or what you live your life with or sleep with or how you dress or anything. These days and issues don’t exist because you want equality. You don’t want equality and never did if you did you would be celebrating humanity. You want special treatment because you are…. (fill in the blank)

  14. Each and every woman who cradles and rocks and feeds the future does to create a good one than all the women who demand free contraception and unlimited rights to abortion combined.

    Every woman who refrains from yelling at her three-year-old for crying does more to advance civilization that any three who go march in a parade.

    Every one who covers herself in dignity does more to create respect for herself and her sisters than any number who go baring all and daring men to think and their worst.

    Every one who thanks her husband for sacrificing his own wants and doing an honest day’s work to support his family when he would rather be doing something else, instead of cursing him for something he didn’t do creates more happiness than all of them together who get on Facebook and bellyache about how oppressed they are.

    1. Every woman who refrains from yelling at her three-year-old for crying does more to advance civilization that any three who go march in a parade.
      I have been learning how much of an accomplishment that is. I have definitely not been on the good side of that. :p

      1. Uh oh. Listen to an old man. Do whatever it takes to stop yelling at that kid. Seriously, -whatever- it takes. You will be glad later, even if you have to change every cell in your body.

        When the kid grows up strong and straight, your sacrifice pays out.

          1. This being the Internet, filled with trolls and the likes of f-ing crapestros f-atron and The Vile G combing the comments for juicy scandal, I will not share on this subject.

            Except to say, particularly for hot-headed Scots: whatever it takes, do not yell at that kid when they’re little. Find another way.

            1. There is a proper time, place , and way to yell at kids. “STOP!” and “DON’T TOUCH THAT!” are pretty much on top of my list of things it’s OK to yell. But they need to now that if you’re yelling, they really need to be paying attention, because there’s a reason behind it.

              1. Agreed. We covered that with “good hitting vs. bad hitting” as well as sin/error, repentence and forgiveness is for EVERYONE.

                But yes, until they get some kind of language, “just don’t” is probably the watchword.

                1. *laughs* Our youngest daughter is not quite 2, and she’s had enough English to understand “the cookie is under the red towel on the counter” since about…14 months?

                  Yes. We tested it. It was much amusement. She wasn’t even in the HOUSE when dad hid it!

          2. Odd how a supreme feeling of confidence and self worth can be mistaken for diffidence. I pity the fool who attempts to intimidate either of the boys.

            1. No, I mean about their own intelligence and ability. You don’t face their “I’m not smart enough for x” moments. THEY say it’s nothing I did, or their dad (who at any rate was the nice one) did. It’s just living up to our example. Which is nice. But I think they see us bigger than we are.

              1. Now that is a viewpoint of theirs that you’ll have to address face to face.
                Obviously, viewed from behind you will appear bigger than you really are.

        1. I know, I know. I understand. Trouble is I have decades of bad habits I have to curtail will I am dealing with civilizing my spawn. And I am not a young man.

          1. Me neither.

            Try giving up alcohol, and television. The urgent need to kill someone is reduced a very great deal just by changing those two things.

            Try yoga and/or Tai Chi and/or meditation. Try two herbs, Holy Basil and L. Theanine. Those things worked for me. I got it done, barely. It was hard, but necessary.

            Do whatever you need to do. It’s your job.

            1. Don’t drink much (about once a month when I have time and/or money), no t.v. or cable. I just need some time alone occasionally or time out and about. Hard in the winter. Things will get better when He can start talking and communicating.

              1. Sounds like you are on the right track, sir. Congratulations, you have just exceeded 95% of men. Good on you.

        2. Note: Yelling is fine if it’s “HOT HOT HOT!” or “GET OUT OF THE STREET!”

          You’d think those wouldn’t be necessary with proper planning, but those little buggers are fast.

          1. Emergencies are different, of course. But you know what I’m talking about. The every-day crap. The kid needs to be screamed at -never-, is what they need.

          2. For children the warning of HOT HOT HOT makes sense.

            It’s the adults who pull things from a just-used microwave who all but scream HOT HOT HOT as they handle something without any precaution (oven mitt?) that seem amiss. I got a nasty look when I pointed out, “You just put it into a machine for making things hot!

            1. Yes, the nasty look means, “I know I’ve just been stupid, I don’t need you to point it out to me!”

                1. I work at McD’s. I complain about something being hot 🔥 when I pull it from the microwave all the time. I also complain about the walk-in freezer being cold.

                2. I do that, but it’s not that I don’t realize it’s hot– it’s rather like cursing. Saying “hot, hot, hot” while I juggle the stuff from side to side works better than getting a hotpad or something.

                  This is partly because I’m very clumsy and forgetful– I manage to seriously burn myself more using a hotpad than not, and if I let it cool in the micro I forget it’s there entirely.

            The first was when he advanced on the cat with a screwdriver. Yes, he REALLY did think the cat was a robot.

        3. For years I thought my propensity for bad language was a family trait that missed my father. One uncle talked as bad as I was inclined to do. My father seldom used foul language.

          Then I moved out, and to my amazement, my father had quite a invective vocabulary.

        4. Note:
          yelling means different things and has different effects for different folks; my family yells a lot– my husband’s doesn’t, although they’ll raise their voices when they’re excited.

          Main result has been that bullies yelling at me don’t get the results they wanted.

          1. My family yelled a lot. Partly temperamental, partly mom is deaf. This has translated to my family now. My kids, talking enthusiastically to each other, downtown, could be heard two blocks away. or across a con hotel, according to Kate Paulk, who’d track us by sound.

            1. ….pretty much my entire mom’s side of the family is deaf.

              And Elfie’s grandfather was a Navy pilot, other side worked at Boeing. Nuff said.

      2. I on the other hand have been known to start walking away from my tantrum-throwing three year old, with “I’m going home now. Write to me when you learn how.” I never claimed to be nice, but it worked.

        1. This. You never reward bad behavior. A tantrum usually was a one time thing, because we ignored the tantrum thrower. Any sort of “showing out” in a store meant all negotiations were off. We were never buying the cause of the “showing out.” Ever. That took only once.

          1. My son has Asperger’s Syndrome and was prone to meltdowns and tantrums, (Rather like his old man, I dimly recall, but was *I* ever that bad?) so it took repeated, persistent application of the “Tantrums will not get you what you want. Try something else” principle. Eventually, even he got the idea.

            1. The youngest had sensory issues, and could melt into tears JUST because he was tired. By and large he was the good one, though, and the only time I yelled at him was to make myself heard when he and his brother were either fighting or talking at the top of their lungs. I still yell then “NOW SHUT UP, TURN HERE. YEP. NOW YOU CAN RESUME ARGUING.” For a while they were known as the “Perpetual roving argument” but they enjoyed it immensely, so…

              1. When any two of our 4 boys were fighting, the wife would yell to get their attention and tell them to take it outside before any blood got on the carpet…..

          2. Note that the hardest of all behaviors to shake is that which was irregularly rewarded. Never must mean never. Or else you have to start punishing it to counterbalance.

            1. This. Anything we promised we did our best to see that it was done, whether it was reward or punishment. We also stuck by it, and since my wife and I are like-minded in this regard, there was no playing one off the other. That consistency, I think, has a bigger effect than the type of punishment.

          3. My daughter loathes, just loathes the calm phrase: It’s too bad you did that. Now I have to say, no.”

            On the other hand you will get Miles Vorkosigan levels of reflexive renegotiation.

        2. The specific incident that prompted this was just Wednesday when I was waiting to see my cardiologist. It wasn’t even a tantrum. Something Had Gone Wrong in a little girl’s two-or-three-year-old world and her mother was (probably) making it worse by barking at her. Nothing major; I came and sat down next to them, which was just enough of a distraction that they both quieted down.

      3. Remember, every mother and father that ever existed did the very best they could to raise their kids.

        This is a 100% correct statement if you think about it.

        Yeah, that drug abusing, drunken, physically and sexually abusive parent that barely feeds their kid, beats them daily, yells at them constantly, is still doing the very best they can to raise their child.

        It sucks, but the point is, that’s all they’re capable of doing with what they know, and how they were taught. They don’t have the tools of being good parents taught to them as kids, or they’ve rewired their brains chemically and can’t figure out how to do better. And you can’t help them until they have an epiphany that (1) they need help, and (2) they have the drive to seek help. What you can do, if you so desire, is to provide a safe place for their children to escape to, and a better example of how to be a decent human being and parent. (And you don’t have to do it as a government-approved and sponsored, taxpayer-funded foster parent either.)

  15. The Happy People of Brutopia celebrated whatever day they were ordered, and they marched in orderly ranks past the red draped stands, and Socialism would Conquer the WORLD.

    Sometime in the ’70s I happened across a magazine, I forget which, that had a story about such a thing going on in East Germany.

    The cover photo was a large group of East Germans marching in a parade carrying large red banners with GESUNDHEIT in yellow letters. I figured Brezhnev must have sneezed.

      1. Some of the students from from the Christian college here in town once decided to disrupt the leftist protest against the college’s founder by doing that.

        They had signs like “Stop the war in Azeroth” and “This is a sign”, and wandered around among the leftists being cheerful, while the ladies offered hot cocoa to the protesters.

        I decided that If I ever had a chance to join that kind of protests disruption, I’d carry one that said “End Road Work” in the font and color that the DOT uses for such signs.

        1. I fear the potential unintended consequences of oddly appropriate signs, such as “Deliveries In Rear” at a gay pride protest, or “Left Lane Only” at an anti-Trump march.

        2. They had signs like “Stop the war in Azeroth”

          ❤ ❤ ❤ ❤ <3<3 ❤ ❤ ❤ <3<3 ❤ ❤ ❤ <3<3 ❤ ❤ ❤ <3<3 ❤ ❤ ❤ <3<3 ❤ ❤ ❤ <3<3 ❤ ❤ ❤ <3<3 ❤ ❤ ❤ <3<3 ❤ ❤ ❤ <3<3 ❤ ❤ ❤ <3<3 ❤ ❤ ❤ <3<3 ❤ ❤ ❤ ❤

    1. Ohhh, so yes! (I find myself slipping back into Cold War terminology and mindset these days. Am I losing it or am I just reading the zeitgeist a little too well? Probably a question best not answered.)

        1. If I post from my smartphone, the ’email’ and ‘name’ lines are reversed. I don’t know if it’s a browser thing or a ‘WordPress is Special” thing, but it’s a thing. I’ve caught myself before hitting post at least a couple dozen times. Might be the same thing got you?

          1. Found the problem. For some reason the computer jumbled two tabs and added the user ID I had just entered into an academic software site to WordPress. After the third odd-ball moment, I flagged down our IT gal and she exorcised the computer and fixed the problem.

        2. Obviously your insights about “slipping back into Cold War terminology and mindset” were correct and we face a gnu dei coming.

      1. Not losing it. The ‘Cold War’ as we knew it might be over, but the memetic minefield (see: Gramscian damage) has yet to be cleared. And unlike physical mines, the damn things reset and ruin mind after mind after mind.

          1. In that sense, we’d largely lost before the Cold War started. Statist thought was dominant among much of the political class even before the Russian Revolution, and Progressivism and various other Leftist ideologies were already en vogue among the so-called intellectuals. The subsequent efforts to be counter the Soviets during the Cold War didn’t much help on this front, either. Soviet propaganda certainly didn’t help, but it seems like much of the influential elements of our nation were already half or two-thirds down the road to the Soviet viewpoint already.

          2. The longer I live the more I think we lost WW1. We definitely lost WWII. The only thing missing from Canada that started in Hitler’s Germany is the Jew hatred. Everything else, from healthcare to environment, it’s Adolph’s dream setup.

            See International Women’s Day as an example, they had that in Nazi Germany.

            Lefties are currently beavering away to bring the Jew-hatred back. A pox upon them and their houses.

          On a different level, in the 1930s members of CPUSA (the Communist Party of the USA) got instructions from Moscow to promote non-representational art so that the US’s public spaces would become arid and ugly.**

          Americans hearing that last one tend to laugh. But the Soviets, following the lead of Marxist theoreticians like Antonio Gramsci, took very seriously the idea that by blighting the U.S.’s intellectual and esthetic life, they could sap Americans’ will to resist Communist ideology and an eventual Communist takeover. The explicit goal was to erode the confidence of America’s ruling class and create an ideological vacuum to be filled by Marxism-Leninism.

          1. That might explain the “grey goo” stuff in SciFi the past few decades. Plus attempts to exert control over genres like videogames and such.

            1. Naw. Read Hemingway for grey goo, which likely was influenced by the great disillusionment of WWI. Just have something good to read close by to purge it out of your head.

              What I have a strong suspicion about is the mem that there was no real difference between either side, so what was the point of war. That does reek of “Lay down you arms and submit.”

              Now there doesn’t seem to be that much difference. OTOH, that was after eight years of Democrats, so . . .

  16. Over the years, the point of International Women’s Day has been revealed. It is not for women. It is not even -about- women. Its about making men feel guilty for being men.

    Sorry, Lefties. Fail. I don’t feel the least bit guilty. The most I get these days is a tiny twitch of irritation that you’re still pounding away with this crap. What a waste of time and money.

      1. Not in Canada. Public funding means its -my- money. Oh yes, public money for IWD. Big time. Liberals just luuuurve it.

    1. Unfortunately, many man have bought into the guilt trip.

      I suspect the increase in transsexuals to be a symptom of that indoctrination from an early age on the more vulnerable of our boys.

      1. I’ve argued that possibility to my husband on several occasions: you have these little boys “insisting” that they’re girls at an age where they’ve just developed an ability to imagine things but before they have the kind of solid rational abilities to even understand the concepts of sex-status and gender identity.

        So, two possibilities exist: Kids say all kinds of things like “I’m a dinosaur” before they get the abstract fantasy/reality divide figured out, but there’s real money and political power to had “believing” claims about being a different sex rather than an extinct reptile.

        The other, is as you say: single mom, hates dad (usually one of the many skeevy boyfriends she hooked up with who dumped her), has no self-control, and little self-worth (see good reasons to get dumped) and has this little male person under her thumb who, to paraphrase Thackery, sees her as God. No wonder he wants to be something that mommy doesn’t despise.

        There’s a special hell for those parents, and all their opportunistic enablers.

        1. “about being a different sex rather than an extinct reptile.”

          Hey, it won someone a Hugo….. 😎

  17. My only take is eye rolling and a decidedly politically incorrect slogan. Make that two. Three. Four. Anyway, did resolve not to reach things on the top shelf or do heavy lifting for any woman making a big deal about it. Didn’t run into any. Not unusual around here, where nearly everyone goes “That’s nice” over most special days, weeks, and months. And an odd thought about IHOP.

    It’s just more virtue signaling. Didn’t think anything more about it than this. Just another reason to wave a banner and say “Look at me!” Then they shoot dirty looks at those who don’t participate. “Don’t you support women?” Wonk, wonk, wonk.

    The way this sort of thing works is that at the end of they day they put away the banners and flags and go to sleep thinking they are very good people, when they’ve done nothing more than pat themselves on the back. The thing about virtue signaling is that it’s long on the signaling and short on the virtue.

    1. Just another reason to wave a banner and say “Look at me!”

      Kevin Williamson, yesterday:

      Andy Warhol’s Revenge
      … As rising standards of living relieve us of a great many ordinary material pressures that have shaped the behavior of human beings for as long as Homo sapiens has existed (and before that, I suppose) and changes in technology create new, immediate, low-cost opportunities for performance, the most desirable commodity is not money but attention. (“Attention must be paid,” and all that.) The obvious example here is Donald Trump’s long career as public figure before he entered politics. It was bad publicity (a tabloid divorce case) that began to make Donald Trump a household name; it was more important to his career as a celebrity that he be written about than that he be written about positively. A thousand other lesser examples come to mind.

      The easiest and cheapest way to force people to pay attention is to be at odds with them: to be a victim, to be offended by the use of ordinary words, to insist that your toilet preferences be made a matter of federal law. To be pleasant, content, and deferential is to be unnoticed, which in the age of social media is akin to ceasing to exist for a certain sort of person.


      [B]abies cry because they desire attention and have no other means of making their needs known. What is peculiar is that the same holds true for adult students at Middlebury College and gender-dysphoria sufferers in Texas. Andy Warhol prophesied a future in which everyone would be famous for 15 minutes, but I do not think that even Warhol — a man who occasionally painted with urine — understood exactly how truly and thoroughly infantile his future — our present — would be.

      Williamson is, like all of us you, occasionally wrong, but he is also occasionally right. Fundamentbook and Instasham and all other socialist media outlets emphasize the juvenile over the restrained, prioritize attention-seeking above being of service to your family, your community, your nation, your species. It isn’t important to do good and necessary and important things, what counts is being seen to (appear to be) doing such things.

  18. ‘And didn’t I want to show solidarity? And celebrate women?’

    No, not really. In my, admittedly bias opinion, celebrating one, at the exclusion of the other, is in fact discriminatory. I am angered by the whole “women’s (fill in the blank) day/month/service” Do these platinum plated morons not see that they are diminishing men? Men’s health, physical and mental, is every bit as important as women’s. My brother’s health is no less important than a woman’s, but because he is a white, southern, male, his illness is ignored by these self-serving hypocrites.

    *deep breath*

    Sorry if I sound like I am ranting. Dealing with labyrintitis and a bit hair triggered. No, I do not support these people in any way shape or form. By focusing on one at the exclusion of the other, they are diminishing the whole.

    1. Show solidarity? Why, with whom and to what purpose?

      Not A Big Fan Of Ceding My Rights To Independent Thought

  19. I tend to strongly mistrust those who cry loudly for equality. Under close inspection you generally find that what they really want is complete role reversal with them ensconced in the cat bird seat.
    The good Reverend Doctor King never asked for equality. What he said was, “I dream of a day when a man might be judged by the content of his character rather than by the color of his skin.”
    From memory, so the words might not be exact, but I hope I captured his meaning.

  20. As a mother of daughters, I hate this time of year. It makes most of my education site’s “suggestions” freaking useless! “Oh, look, women who did amazing things!”

    Like…being a performer? Seriously, they’d never put Wild Bill as a suggested history thing, but they put Annie Oakley as a major historical figure? “Look! A girl who can shoot!” My kids: “…can’t all girls shoot? Grandma is a good shot, and mommy is really good….”


    Florence Nightingale, cool, especially since my kids have an idea of what slap-dash medicine is like. A whole sheet on a war time advertising icon? Sorry, Rosie the Riveter is cool, but shouldn’t they kind of… you know… find out about the world war that was going on, first?

    All the non-token guys get mentioned in a network of the cool stuff they did. The Pushed Because They Are (Group) folks are divorced from the whole– alienated.

    1. The banality of their celebration indicates the insipidness of their thinking.

      This, more than anything else, engenders depression about the state of our civilization. When I was thirteen certain of these types of [our group] celebration encouraged me, but I then grew up. (With acknowledgement of those in the front rows bearing rotting vegetables, I amend that last phrase to “and then I grew upward.”)

    2. Interesting your mention of Florence Nightingale. That led me to an interesting thought. Are there any famous male nurses? So I consulted the Oracle of Google and it gave me several sites with listings of the top 10 famous male nurses. The ONLY person I recognized in the list was Walt Whitman, and he of course is famous for his writing, not his nursing. None of the other men ever raised a blip in history taught in any of the schools I ever attended; and not in any of the textbooks my kids used either.

      1. If she was just famous for being a nurse, it would be different– but she, as all the summaries say in one way or another, invented the modern idea of what a nurse is.

        It’s like how Roy Rodgers and Dale Evans’ daughter with Downs changed the way that was dealt with– treatment and as much mainstreaming as possible, rather than warehousing.

        1. I’m conflicted when it comes to people with Down’s Syndrome. And I know a couple. Generally nice people, but socially inept, even less on forethought before acting. So painfully close to being able to be independent but just can’t get there and will always need someone trusted to provide that extra 10% to keep them from being easily victimized. But that’s for a different discussion I think.

          1. Definitely a sliding scale of how much help is needed– it’d probably go in a discussion of things like mental illness and physical disability, which would probably be a bit too explosive even for here.

          2. (For folks wondering why it’d be too explosive: it’s a freaking Grand Theory of How To Deal With Really Broad Groups, some of who DO actually need extreme action. Holy define-your-terms-incredibly-carefully, Batman; the difficulty in conveying exactly what you mean alone makes the risks involved in intense theology discussions look simple.)

      2. Fame is probably not the best metric, as I suspect few people can name ten famous nurses, period.

        Of course, I suspect most people, given a chance to name ten famous doctors would find themselves including Dr. Seuss and Dr. Who.

              1. I would TOTALLY WATCH THAT!

                It might even make Sully or whatever the Romance Cover Dude she was with watchable, rather than obnoxious.

                (Seriously, what a bunch of smarmy, sanctamonious lines they gave that guy– ‘Indians don’t need a clock to tell them when to eat.’ Dude, your tribe has been shown to be starving to death as a normal course of things, and the guy you just smirked at has a meal that will actually taste better if it’s eaten at the right time.)

        1. Here’s a bunch more: Doctor David Livingstone, Doctor Evil, Doctor Albert Schweitzer, Doctor Moe Howard, Doctor Larry Fine, Doctor Curly Howard, Doctor Vincent DeVita, Doctor Leonard McCoy, Doctor Beverly Crusher, Doctor Ben Carson, Doctor Henry Jekyll, Doctor Phlox, Doctor Jonas Salk, Doctor Albert Sabin….

          1. Dr. Doctor, Mr. M.D., Dr. Mrs. The Monarch (nee Dr. Girlfriend), Dr. Venture, Dr. Quest…

            1. I’m just posting this, because I found this obituary for Dr. Doktor, son of Dr. Doktor, to be mildly amusing for people with a warped sense of humor similar to mine.

                1. One of my oldest son’s childhood buddies actually went to medical school and graduated and is now Dr. Slaughter…….

            2. Doctor Pierce, Doctor McIntyre, Dr Hunnicutt, Dr. Burns, Dr. Potter, Dr. Winchester…

              1. Dr. John, the Saw Doctors, Dr. Robert, Dr. Feelgood, Dr. Love, Dr. Ring-Ding and …

                … of course, Which Doctor.

        2. William Hartnell, Patrick Troughton, Jon Pertwee, Tom Baker, Peter Davidson, Colon Baker, Sylvester McCoy, Christopher Eccleston, David Tennant, Matt Smith and Peter Capaldi (for eleven).

          No, if they won’t count Peter Cushing, I won’t count Paul McGann.

            1. Usually not.

              If you started with that you would have to consider other candidates, such as Rowen Atkinson, who played Who for Comic Relief. I, for one, would rather not.

        3. Mengele, Vesalius, Herophilos

          Hojo, Mayuri, Nii Jianyu,

          Skinner, Freud, Jung,

          Ed Teller,

          The state board does not license me to practice medicine, why do you ask?

          (I cheated by looking up the spelling of two, if I had cheated more maybe I would’ve had more than four partial lists.)

    3. Yep. Again I note the fact that textbooks spend more time on GW Carver than George Washington. Plus all the sex stereotype targeting for careers, such as girls in stem and such. If you don’t have the drive to get involved you’re gonna get run over.

    4. My son just did his Famous American project on Grace Hopper. We chose her because she was a mathematician and computer programmer, both things he’s interested in. Not because she was female. (The second choice on his list was Richard Feynman, for similar reasons.)

        1. Take Back Halloween (a site with costume ideas for women that are more interesting than “slutty [whatever]”) has a page on her. Apparently she’s the one who invented compilers. My son made no real mention of that in his speech, though he did talk about her work on the Mk1 and Mk2 ballistic computers.

          1. My dad’s grandmother knew her. ^.^

            Be an awesome choice for a costume, honestly– she’d walk around with wires as long as a signal could go in… I can’t remember what fraction of a second, but it was a great way to get folks to VISUALIZE how fast it is.

      1. Ah, Amazing Grace Hopper. When she became an admiral, she chose the Jolly Roger as her personal flag as a nod to her expertise at midnight requisition.Isn’t it a tradition in the navy to fly the admiral’s personal flag when the officer is on board?

        1. Having encountered the Admiral a couple of times during my college days, that surprises me not at all. I still have one of the “nanosecond” wires she passed out somewhere.

  21. Look, one person, any sex, any race, any age, dead by violence is one too many, but in point of fact, most of the people who die by violence are men. Always were. Always will be. Yep, they are more physically aggressive than females. It’s the testosterone thing. They are stronger than us, period. They are also by nature protective. Which means many is the man old and young who dies protecting his family. And the young men who have died protecting their tribe are countless, from tribal warriors to men who die in combat today.

    The bad side of defending their tribe is where most of our gun deaths come from– gang warfare. 😦

    1. “The bad side of defending their tribe is where most of our gun deaths come from– gang warfare. 😦”

      That’s a different thing. They are protecting their paychecks. Drug trade, you know. Legalize the drugs, and that whole thing goes away almost like magic.

      And when it goes away, there is an immediate commercial real-estate crisis. Because that is what keeps that gang-war thing stuck. Commercial real estate.

        1. I thought he was not, and almost did my usual ‘No, murdering all the druggies is more plausible, feasible, and realistic. Also libertarian, because relative to old Norse law, our current murder statutes are oppressive tyranny. Okay, there are good, sound, and compelling reasons not to pursue mass murder as a policy solution. But this problem is legitimately complex and difficult.’

          Except less organized and articulate, as is my custom when I am extremely angry.

          1. Murdering all druggies is . . . libertarian

            Seems you somehow managed to go ahead and do it anyway.

            What have you been smoking?

            1. If Foxfier hadn’t cheered me up, I would’ve overlooked some stuff.

              It is possible that none of my insanity is chemically induced. It may be that it is all congenital, developmental, and poor maintenance of such conditions. It may be that I am thinking about things outside of the bounds of our culture. It may be that you are blind.

              I am told that a libertarian case for legalization is that we have no grounds to object when someone solely causes their own death. This is not the current state of US law and custom.

              Outlawry in old norse and anglo-saxon legal tradition seems to be a custom that would partly match the requirements of the libertarian proposal. Outlawry was apparently practiced in the 19th US before big government usurped that authority and effectively banned the practice.

              If the government has no foundation to object to a stoner who gets himself killed through poor risk assessment, then in addition to changing drug laws we should also adjust homicide, manslaughter, and murder laws.

              If Libertarianism can pick and choose which of a set of logically linked laws they wish to have enforced, they are more about norms of American culture than about freedom.

              1. The adjusting of murder/homicide laws would also prevent the harm that can and does come from slow self-murder, and additionally would prevent damage to the property of others either by incidental abuse or the end-point of littering with a biohazard.

                I think I prefer the current functional system….

              2. It is not true that as a libertarian you may have no objection to someone intent on harming strictly themselves. You may try to influence the person by cajoling them, bringing moral suasion, etc..What you may not do is use force against them to prevent them from harming themselves. True, this is not the current state of US law and custom, but then there are a lot of things in US law and custom that are not libertarian.

                And you seem to be conflating drug use with suicide, variously slow. In some instances this is true, in other, I would say vastly more, instances this is demonstrably not true. If drug use = suicide, there might be a sick but valid case for ‘helping them along before they can hurt anyone else’, but since it is not true there is no such case. A good friend of mine had serious substance abuse issues in his teens. He eventually beat them and went on to get his name on a number of patents for agriculturally-based biodegradable plastics. But your ‘solution’ would have had him up against a wall.

                And there have been some rumblings in libertarian circles of some sort of techno-outlawry as an alternative to the current punitive state apparatus involved in dealing with miscreants We have today some of the framework of that is already in place. See credit scores or, in the PRC, ‘social credit’ scores. Unfortunately, we see some of how that would work out in the way SJWs use instances of supposed badthink to hound their opponents out of their careers and ‘polite’ society

                Again, society or government (the two are not the same, though they are oft conflated) or the family or a random individual may object all they want to a person committing suicide. What they cannot do, in a libertarian society, is use force to prevent it. This would have no effect on laws or other strictures related to murder, etc. which relate to actions which harm others. And that seems to be the sticking point. You apparently see a logical connection between harm to self and harm to others, libertarians do not. Except, and as Foxfier has intimated here and stated elsewhere, ‘we’ ought not to be forced to deal with the effects of the person’s actions. That we are, as a result of current US law and custom, shows that, again, US law and custom are not libertarian, though I suspect the custom is more so than the law.

                1. If drug use = suicide, there might be a sick but valid case for ‘helping them along before they can hurt anyone else’, but since it is not true there is no such case.

                  Not actually logically true; that only works logically if a thing must be always successful in order to be suicide, and if it is only in cases of attempted killing that preventing harm to others.

                  I can’t remember what the fallacy is named, but ‘if A and B then C’ can’t be moved to ‘Not A or not B so not C,’ unless it’s ‘if and only if A and B then C.’

                2. I’m simply trying to exploit an argument for legalization I’ve seen, which was purportedly on libertarian grounds.

                  I’m not trying to equate all recreational drug use with suicide in this thread.

                  Consider the media poster children for police brutality. (Even if they were maliciously chosen, and very much do not represent the real cases of police misconduct which do exist.) People who go wandering under the strong effects of a dissasociative analgesiac are going to hurt themselves in ways pain avoidence would have otherwise prevented.

                  Sometimes people end up dead while they are high.

                  Who is liable?

                  1. Cops and society? Free range asylums simply cannot provide a good psychiatric standard of care. Moving down this path would seem to go in the direction of reinstitutionalization, and requiring people to be institutionalized while they are high.
                  2. The parents in such cases where the dead are minors?
                  3. The status quo answer?
                  4. Solely the person who chose to get high?

                  The people who have made that argument for legalization on Libertarian grounds have heavily implied that we would not be seeing endless riots over ‘police brutality’ and lawsuits for ‘wrongful death’ whenever a PCP berserker gets shot trying to tear someone’s face off, or someone with an impaired risk assessment high tries to forcibly disarm an armed man. The implicit claim is that they can deliver legal changes to prevent such lawsuits from having standing, and societal changes so that people would accept such deaths peaceably.

                  That might well amount to a special carve out in the death statutes for people whose autopsy tox screens show that they were high. Or some sort of shield law. Anything of that sort robust enough to stop the griefers would be so strong and so easily used that it would be abused on a massive scale.

                  Given an exemption of that sort accepted as validly libertarian, the example of Planned Parenthood suggests that there might be no further issues with an organization systemically making use of said exemption.

                  There are biological reasons why, for certain substances, self harm and harming others are not necessarily distinct.

            2. I’m a bit more discriminating. Not into murdering druggies; they’re doing it to themselves the slow way anyhow. I don’t have a problem putting them down, euthanizing them, killing them, etc., if they pose a direct and immediate threat to your life and limb. e.g. someone high on PCP attacking you. But a heroin OD? Inject them with Narcan and if they wake up great; if not, don’t beat yourself up over it. Have a niece doing methadone treatment and the poor gal is seriously messed up in the head barely keeping her head above water.

        2. I’m not joking. Its serious as a heart attack.

          Somebody owns those crappy buildings in Chicago in that neighborhood where they’re whacking each other every day. The rents for those crappy stores where the drug deals are made? They would make your eyes water.

          The guys getting shot are contesting for FRONTAGE. They want that spot where everybody comes to pick up their crack. Location, location, location.

          Who’s the -only- guy who did anything about it? Giuliani in New York. First thing he did was fire half the police department. Then he busted all the street level punks. Then he busted the crappy storefronts for health and building violations. Then he had all the broken windows and so forth fixed, and kept it that way. The crime rate dropped by double digits.

          Why are they not still doing that? Because the people who owned the crappy buildings are big cheese real estate men, REITs and so forth. Its bad for their business.

          How can you tell this is what’s going on? Aside from Giuliani and his testimony to anyone who would listen, if you plot murders on a map you will find very tight geographical clusters inside major cities. ALL the murders happen in this section of streets, -no- murders happen outside it.

          Why do you have to come to a science fiction writer’s blog to get this information? That is another interesting question, isn’t it?

          1. I’m not joking.

            That’s too bad. The magical thinking of legalizing drugs making everything better was funny when I thought it was parody; it’s just dehumanizing as a serious suggestion, same way that “criminals only do it because they’re poor” dehumanizes them.

            1. It doesn’t make -everything- better, because as you say, then you have all the collateral damage of “unrestrained” drug use.

              What it does is take all the profit out of the illicit drug trade, and the first thing that happens there is the murder rate drops by double digits. Then real estate crash, as the -billions- of dollars from the illicit drug trade vanish off corporate balance sheets in big cities.

              The real question is how much damage to society is being done by the drug themselves, compared to how much by the prohibition on those drugs. The prohibition is the reason there is an illegal trade in the first place, and that trade is booming.

              Recall how the world did not end when US alcohol prohibition was repealed.

              Shortly, here in Canada we will be doing the experiment for you, because weed is going to be getting legalized Real Soon Now. My prediction of this apocalyptic even is it will be a yawner. Nothing will change at all except where the weed gets sold and who makes the profit from it. It may have a microscopic effect on housing prices, it will no longer be lucrative to gut a suburban house and grow weed in it.

              Incidentally, I am very much -not- in favor of drug use, I’ve seen the wreckage up close and personal. The thing is, if you want it to stop you have to be practical about what is going to work. The example of Broken Windows is instructive, because it works. The problem with it is the policy is politically unacceptable. Too many sacred cows are being gored. Big Money guys won’t let it happen. Because it works. See De Blazio.

              Legalizing street drugs and controlling the price with taxes attacks a different layer of the thing, thereby getting around that piece of politics. Ultimately one has to realize that drinking and drugging are destructive behaviors that have been around since beer and poppies were discovered. It sucks, but we have to deal with it.

              1. What it does is take all the profit out of the illicit drug trade, and the first thing that happens there is the murder rate drops by double digits.

                Or they move on to other illicit markets– which is what has happened with the pot trade in Washington.
                The Cartels haven’t stopped, they just moved over to other drugs. Pills are popular.

                Legalize all drugs? There’s still slavery in various forms, and stolen goods. Stolen goods are always popular, and they can just as easily be drugs– when your price was “zero,” you can easily undercut those who have to pay production, taxes and losses.

                1. I’m inclined to legalize all drugs. First of all, that will crash the costs of the drugs, which will lead to an initial spike in users, ODs, deaths, etc. That’s an acceptable cost of implementing legalization as it will lead to a drop in criminal gang activity trying to control the market. It will also result in emptying prisons of non-violent offenders, stop the disenfranchisement of drug users, increase the numbers of people seeking help with their drug addictions (no more fear of prosecution.) Now cheap drugs still mean that dead broke users will engage in criminal activity to scrap up enough to afford their next fix. THAT behavior still needs to be illegal and all the appropriate negative consequences applied to it.

                  1. It will also result in emptying prisons of non-violent offenders

                    That’s a myth, you know. A very popular one, but every time people go to get good, solid evidence… it evaporates. “They had drugs” is second only to “they had a weapon” in ease of demonstrating, and the usual trifecta is “violating parole.” Which was generally not for jay walking.

                    Last really big study I heard of, there was less than 1% who MIGHT be the classic “non-violent drug offender.”

                    I’ll see if I can find one link I’ve got which looked into some of the popular poster children then at stats.

              2. From Colorado, on weed legalization, you’re going to have ONE big issue for about a year: traffic. People do not realize stoned will get them arrested while driving. It was insane. It’s now smoothing out.

                1. the ATF added a line to form 4473 that reminds people that weed is still illegal at a federal level so if you use weed even if legal in your state you need to answer ‘yes’ to the question as to if you take illegal drugs

          2. But what about all the drug using population that doesn’t have access to those locations to purchase in?

            If it was solely the illegal drug trade, wouldn’t there be similar competition for and murder spikes at other markets? Or is the drug using population really concentrated around those big city hot spots?

            1. I don’t know the answer to that question, it is a good one. The thing is, high murder rates and high crime rates are geographically concentrated. We know that for sure. The areas of Chicago responsible for those 700+ murders per year are well known and not large.

              We know that drug use is a thing in the peaceful suburbs, and in rural areas as well. But there’s no murders there, beyond the low level background noise. People are not getting whacked in drive-bys on the main street of Scarsdale NY, right?

              I expect its a simple thing, like the criminals don’t leave their turf, because the cops will bust them anywhere else. Therefore the customers drive in, and one neighborhood becomes the drugstore for the whole region. Cops only let you deal on -this- street corner, not that one. Etc.

              1. The correlation they’ve found is large numbers of fatherless boys allowed to basically go feral and form gangs.

                Back in the 80s it was noticed that gangs took the place of an extended family; that’s why you have things like a Very Special Episode of Walker: Texas Ranger where he’s getting the kids into healthy kung-fu groups, following a sane and civilized set of adults.

                But this is all so long ago that “going to college” was usable to indicate “will finish maturing around sane, productive adults.”

              2. Or what Foxfier said.

                Or perhaps it is the same reason the leftist rent-a-mobs these days aren’t burning down Tulsa and Amarillo. The big cities are controlled by a political establishment that profits politically from having such on tap.

                There’s not a conclusively single answer complete with a simply easy solution.

                1. The leftists in Amarillo get together down town (or did before all the &$(#*$ing road construction started) and wave signs at city hall. Or go to the [redacted] coffee shop or the [redacted] Store and hold meetings and public forums. Something about 1) being outnumbered and 2) concealed carry… Plus people here are a lot more willing to listen to you if you work, then preach, so they tend to get pulled into charitable work and end up too tired to stand around beating up on cars and waving signs.

      1. “That’s a different thing. They are protecting their paychecks.”

        Look up the phrases “polar bear hunting” or “knockout game”, and get back to us.

        There is was and always will be gangs defending tribal turf. Drug legalization is not the panacea it’s pushed as.

      2. If gangs and gang warfare were simply about drug trafficking maybe. A cursory check on the crimes associated with the top gangs indicates their criminal activities include murder, prostitution, rape, kidnapping, robbery, carjackings, home invasions, extortion, trafficking in stolen goods and racketeering.

  22. Beware Facebook!

    You have far more important things in your life than going to a place where idiots and attention seekers throw mud at everyone, even if they do have collections of your friend’s pictures in the lobby. WWGD*?

    In defense of the international, the International Geophysical Year was pretty good.

  23. Then there was the woman who informed me that she taught self defense to children and women … and that International Women’s Day was needed till the body count dropped.

    Adults who hurt children aren’t primarily limited by the ability of the children to physically harm them.

    Even a sixteen year old girl outmatches a three year old.

    Force on force is so obviously a losing proposition that I ended up investing most of my efforts into what I called ‘counter predation strategies’.

    These included attempting to find and remove the psychological vulnerabilities that a predator would exploit. Including certain assumptions about children and the rights of desire that are very common in our culture.

    I am not impressed by this woman’s ability to teach children the stuff that would make them less vulnerable to adults trying to murder them. I suspect her students might end up more vulnerable.

    I don’t know how to teach it, how much is dependent on personality, or whether the psychological cost makes it worth teaching.

    I’m not saying that one would have to be staunchly opposed to abortion and to divorce in order to teach kids how not to get hurt. I do not think enthusiastically applauding divorce and abortion is compatible with effective teachings of that sort.

    ‘All women’ no more prioritize the interests of a specific child than ‘all men’ do. ‘All women are trustworthy’ or ‘all women share interests with me’ is fundamentally a mistake in defensive thinking for children.

    1. “Force on force is so obviously a losing proposition that I ended up investing most of my efforts into what I called ‘counter predation strategies’.”

      Here is wisdom.

  24. I got just one too many reminders that we were celebrating International Women’s Day.

    Indeed, you couldn’t even get away from it on your own blog. Sorry.

  25. …and International ANYTHING day is a socialist thing, because they never fully realized that they didn’t control the whole world.
    Does this mean that International Harvester is a socialist front, or does it mean that International Harvesters harvest socialists and throw Soylent Green out the back end (at least of the combines)?

      1. Pity. Here I had thought that a company had figured out a way to make socialists useful and in one of their pet causes (ending hunger) too.

        1. That’s OK. I’m planning a post on the topic, and intend to include an IH combine just because they are bright red and seriously cool.

          1. One of my sisters used to claim that an IH combine was her dream ride. She never got one as her daily driver, though. And yes, we’re all a bit strange…

            1. Might have been a bit difficult to maneuver through traffic and drive under bridges/through tunnels . . .

              1. A few mods and you wouldn’t have to worry about maneuvering through traffic. You would maneuver the traffic through it!

            2. I got to ride one during ‘bean harvest up in Really Flat State. They are serious machines and are amazing to watch at work.

              The owner really bugged the neighbors because he had John Deere tractors and an IH combine. You just don’t DO that – you gotta go all red or all green.

              1. Oh, there are lots of variations on that. IH red, Case red, Massey-Ferguson red…not to mention Minneapolis Mouline yellow and Ford gray… Well, Massey was sort of a red-orange… New Holland was blue, but we didn’t see many of those.

            3. My dream ride is an M60 tank. Got to drive a couple in the Middle East during Desert Storm. Do NOT want to pay the fuel bills for them though. They are definitely not economy cars!

              1. From what I hear, the sound systems in them aren’t all that wonderful either. Too much ambient noise…

              2. I’m too tall for one… and if the Army says six feet is the height limit for an M60, you know the actual limit is probably 5′ 10″

  26. What I and others have noticed is that “Equality under the law” actually means “Lots of special privileges under the cops and courts”. It makes one wonder if ANY woman should be respected in this area as they all, however sane, get the privileges.

    1. You ARE aware when I say “equality before the law” that’s what I mean? right?
      If I’ve ever had the advantage of anything, it’s news to me. Then again, I’ve never been to court on ANYTHING. So? What am supposed to? Commit suicide to be respected?
      You do realize your criteria is as crazy as the feminists asking you to prove you’re not a rapist, right?

  27. Heh.


    Here’s How Many Girls Have Been Aborted Come ‘Day Without A Woman’
    gender wage gap aside, keeping abortion legal and Planned Parenthood funded with taxpayer dollars were the two issue most important issues to them.

    In a statement released before the strike, the organizers said: “In the spirit of women and their allies coming together for love and liberation, we offer A Day Without A Woman. We ask: do businesses … align with a sustainable environment or do they profit off destruction and steal the futures of our children?”How ironic that pro-abortion enthusiasts should label their big protest a “Day Without a Woman” when close to 750 million girls have been aborted since 1980.

    According to Margot Cleveland at The Federalist, statistics at the Guttmacher Institute show that the worldwide abortion numbers for just girls alone equals more than double the population of the United States.

    “Today, then, while our privileged sisters enjoy their pity party over the election of Donald Trump—which is really what the strike is about—the rest of us can pause and pray for the women the world is really without, and for those whose lives are worse off because of their absence.”

    1. Every time I see the buzzword “sustainable” my BS meter pegs and I lose interest in whatever propaganda they were trying to foist off on me.

      1. The company decided a couple of years ago to adopt “sustainable” as one of the corporate buzzwords and encourages everyone to have a tagline in their emails that mentioned it in regards to “think twice before wasting paper to print this email.

        This is what I put in mine….
        “Notice: It’s OK to print this email free of any “eco-guilt.” Paper is a biodegradable, renewable, sustainable product made from trees. Growing and harvesting trees provides jobs for millions of Americans. Working forests are good for the environment and provide clean air and water, wildlife habitat and carbon storage. Thanks to improved forest management, we have more trees in America today than we had 100 years ago.”

          1. But what about the Tonermites, their habitat harvested and crushed to produce the powder with which we fix our words?

      2. I don’t have any problem with the word “sustainable”; so long as you’re talking about closed systems; such as a long cruise spaceship environment. A farm can be considered a closed system; provided it’s big enough and has enough resources to start with. But there isn’t a city on the planet that’s “sustainable’. The closest conceptual cities are the arcologies of which Jerry Pournelle’s Todos Santos is a good example, and that was surrounded by the farms that supplied it.

    2. Drat. Copy/Paste error. Revise and Extend remarks:

      Feminists joined together Wednesday for the “Day Without a Woman” strike, and the gender wage gap aside, keeping abortion legal and Planned Parenthood funded with taxpayer dollars were the two issue most important issues to them.

      1. I forget what were the figures I saw for George Soros’ funding of those protests, but I recall them being on an order of magnitude sufficient to fund Planned (Un)Parenthood operations for a decade.

        1. Searchengine turns up a Free Republic headline saying Soros gave $246 million to the cause … Planned Parenthood’s Consolidated Financial Reports say operating expenses in 2016 were $247 million (rounded up).

  28. I hate “International” this and that, and the idea behind it. Whatever good it is supposed to do never actually works where needed, and it does very bad things everywhere else.

    I know that IHOP isn’t all that great a restaurant, but really…


  29. “on all the places in the world where a woman can LEGALLY get killed for talking back.”

    A distinction too many Leftists fail to make. And it’s an important one.

  30. I hate “International” this and that, and the idea behind it.

    But…but…International Talk Like a Pirate Day? 😉

    Jokes aside, one of my favorite “strong women in history” is not someone I found on a “women in history” or even “strong women in history” or anything “women” at all. But at a site named simply “Badass of the Week”. The Sikh Warrior Saint Mai Bhago:

    Unlike many of the folk at that site, Mai Bhago was badass enough to overcome all her foes and live to a ripe old age. I can imagine her before the Valkyries on her death (mixing mythoses–mythes?–a bit here) explaining, “I tried to die in battle, but. I. kept. winning. Do you really want me on the other side come Ragnarok?)

    No “women’s day” needed. Badass enough to hold her own among the strongest people, the greatest heroes, in history.

  31. Two comments…
    “At least in the US and other Western lands, violent crimes have been falling.” I’m not so sure. The way I understand it is, yes, it has been falling in the USA. It has been going up in a number of other western countries, in particular those who have worked to eliminate the right of armed self defense. More guns, less crime, after all.
    The other comment: this “woman’s day” thing is a nice place to apply my standard technique of swapping the labels. Propose an International Men’s Day and see how much abuse you’ll receive. Ok, so if that’s bad, why is a woman’s day good?

  32. I was just thinking about last Wednesday’s “Women’s Day” protests and it occurred to me: does anybody know whether the protest organizers took the day off to demonstrate the importance of women? Or did they show up for work?

  33. “Teaching women and children self defense is admirable. Getting them guns is even more admirable…”
    This reminds me of my favorite quote from one of my favorite literary heroines, Eowyn:
    “The women of this country learned long ago, those without swords can still die upon them.”

Comments are closed.