The Power To Destroy

There was a time — listen to me, children — when the left had the power to utterly destroy anyone they chose to.

They would descend in a swarm, find some little thing you had said, take it out of context, then pound you with it until you no longer had a job, a marriage, any friends willing to admit to knowing you.

Actually it wasn’t even required that they take something you said and take it out of context.  They controlled all the gate keeping positions and a whisper campaign could go out — the equivalent of having your papers stamped PU for Politically Unreliable — and depending on how much money they could make off you, you’d either be turned out without references (so to put it) or, in my field, be kept in midlist durance vile.  (In other fields there are equivalents, where you do all the work, but never get anywhere with money, let alone power.)

This is partly how they GOT all the gatekeeping positions, and kept them, or in other words, how they gutted all the important institutions of our culture and then wore the institutions’ skin, demanding respect.

The farce either worked for a while, or people like us saw through it, but there wasn’t a heck of a lot we COULD DO about it, so we shut up and pretended.

The difference was immaterial, really, since the result was the same.  The left had the power to destroy.

I would say the apex of their power was that amazing weaponizing of Mitt Romney’s innocent reference to “women in binders” (which meant women’s resumes in binders, and which meant he was bragging of AGGRESSIVELY seeking women for positions of power.)  Women in binders didn’t even mean anything bad, and couldn’t even mean anything bad.  But by repeating the words, and wearing  binders (!) to his events, the left projected the image that he wanted to do something unspeakable to women.

Note that their attempt at a much more grounded hit on Trump for using the word Pussy in a bit of locker room talk, netted them… nothing, except the usual academics and high middle class women wearing the usual vajazzled costumes while demanding respect.

Part of what’s adorable about this is that the left thinks they STILL have this power.  Well, their branding you sure destroys you in THEIR circles.  They just don’t GET that in a lot of fields and professions, their circles have become utterly irrelevant.

So it’s entertaining as all get out to watch them threaten me and my fellow rebels with the ruins of our careers.  Uh… we never had careers in the halls of the left.  Our careers are entirely outside their institution — sort of a parallel track — and we’re doing just fine, thank you.  In fact in terms of money we’re doing way better than the darlings of the left, by and large.  (Well, okay, my getting very ill and not having a new book for two years is an issue, but it would be an issue anywhere.)

They keep pulling the levers of the outrage machine and our public yawns, or points and laughs… at them.  This increases the outrage, just as the Pussy Hatters keep redoubling their impotent fury at the results of free and ethical elections.  It’d be funny if it weren’t so weird.

So, do they still retain the power to destroy, the way you know who is in charge of a society?

Sure they do.  Well, sort of.

If your career and your power comes from having penetrated their institutions they can at the very least still take you down a peg.  They can cancel your big book contract, or they can have you fired from the halls of academia.

Weirdly these days they need the RIGHT to cooperate in this kind of attack.  Their attack on Milo was the new new model for this.  “Find someone who also annoys people on the right.  Look for a sin the right would agree is a sin.  No matter how unsubstantiated the charge, the right will break a left piling on.”

Mind you, they can cost you a book contract or a job.  But they can’t prevent you from creating another job, or publishing your book indie.  They have the power to hurt — even with the right cooperating — but not the right to destroy anymore.

And the thing I don’t think the left understands, is that this level of outrage can be ginned up only a limited number of times.  And sooner or later even the right stops cooperating, because well, Lucy keeps moving the football.  (Granted they don’t catch on as soon as I’d hoped, but well, I have years of experience with socialist maneuvering that most of you are lacking.)

Every time the left pulls that lever for the outrage machine, they’re spending capital.  Every time they start a witch hunt, the skin suit slips a little and the respect we owed the gutted institution is lost.

It won’t be long till our only reaction to outrageous accusations is what it already is in Science Fiction outside their circles: point and make duck noises.

Anything we can do to accelerate that, from providing alternate paths to success, to refusing to join the outrage machine, only speeds up the time no one falls for their tricks.

They no longer have a monopoly of opinion-making sources.  And to sell their pov, they need a monopoly.

Go forth and have no fear.  For the times, they are achanging.



249 thoughts on “The Power To Destroy

  1. The Left hates us simply because we exist. There is no way to placate them other than suicide…and I’m not sure even that would suffice. Therefore, we have no reason to even think of placating the Left. We can go around them, over them, or through them.

    And we seem to be getting new deliveries of large cutting lasers every day. Going through looks like the easier option.

    1. Suicide is not what the Left wants. If our deaths were the goal, that would be easy to achieve.

      No, what the left really wants is the same thing Big Brother wanted of Winston Smith in 1984. They want corruption of our beliefs, and conversion of us so they can hold us up as examples of how powerful their position is; that even a diehard conservative or libertarian can see the error of their ways and choose the correct, Leftist Way.

      Successfully holding fast to a belief set requires a firm grounding in the fundamentals of morality. People need to know what is moral, why it’s moral, what the consequences of not being moral are, what the side effects of being moral are, and why morality with the side effects is preferable to the consequences of immoral behavior.

      Part of that moral instruction used to be done by the various religious institutions, reinforced by families, aided and abetted by the school system, and in some cases legally enforced by the government. Unfortunately, most of that instruction was only about what was moral, and never got into the rest. We had to take it on their AUTHORITY.

      That moral AUTHORITY is gone today. We found that government was mostly run by immoral, self-centered people who see us as nothing more than money machines that vote on command. We found that school systems were subverted into turning us even more into nothing more than ignorant money machines that vote and riot on command. We had the destruction of families as the goal of government programs. And we found our religious authorities were often immoral, self-centered people hiding behind the divide between the laity and the clergy; and to question them was to be virtually excommunicated and bound for Hell.

      Sorry if I’m sounding curmudgeonly this morning. Have to go to an aunt’s funeral tomorrow and put up with a considerable number of non-conservative / non-libertarian family members.

      1. But the left is largely failing in their intended corruption of our beliefs. More and more people are seeing them for what they really are, and are rejecting them.

      2. The problem is, if they can’t convert us, or at least force us to submit meekly to their ‘authority,’ they WILL kill us the next time they have enough power to do so.

        1. Fortunately, they seem to be deliberately alienating the “official holders of guns”.

          IE Would the police and/or military support the Left when the Left attempted to use violence against us?

          Things could still turn bloody but I can’t see the Left winning such a war.

          1. You are much more hopeful than me. The brownshirts already move on command. Weapons training is simple. At best pray for phyrric victory.

            1. Moving on command doesn’t win combat. Weapons training is only the beginning of fighting. If the flag goes up, the brownshirts will be hopelessly outclassed.

              1. If we have second civil war it will be quite bloody and probably be neither easy nor quick.

                1. though we would no doubt blockade to better effect. Remember that they have concentrated themselves in locations where they are dependent on our good will for food and water.

          2. The question is not “would the police and/or military support the Left when the Left attempted to use violence against us?“.
            The question is would the police and military actively join in the physical destruction of the Left, or will they stand back with a smile on their face.

            1. “Standing aside” or “Actively join in”.

              It might go a little faster if they joined into the “fun” but same result. 👿

          3. The left are already engaging in violence- throwing rocks, bricks, bottles at cops and anyone who is attending any event they are protesting.
            Police response has been near nothing.
            Look what they did at Berkeley “protesting” Milo.
            Don’t underestimate the left- look how many leftist revolutions/coups were successful since the early 1900’s.
            The thing about the left is the number of true believers willing to die for “the cause”.
            While I doubt many of the AntiFa
            crowd are willing to die for the cause, those backing them know plenty of people who are willing to die for the cause.
            I doubt the left has the numbers to win should they decide to start shooting those on the right who they view as the evil enemy, but those on the right who think they would overwhelm the left are in for a rude awakening.
            No one wants the left to go even more insane and start shooting their enemies- but those who think the left is only made up of special snowflakes should read a few history books on leftist revolutions.

            1. The successful Leftist revolutionaries of old tended to be “rough men” from the working class. Tough dudes with calloused hands.

              The modern Left has pretty much discarded the rough classes in favor of the wealthy and well educated. The working classes and rough men of today are the ones with the MAGA hats and “Trump” stickers.

              Modern Leftism is more about rich kid roleplay and nostalgia for the mud when it comes to talking about ‘Revolution’.

              1. That’s true, but…
                The dedication to the cause is a big part of why past leftist revolutions were so successful.
                It doesn’t take calloused hands or a history of manual labor to be an expert marksman, to toss molotov cocktails, to throw bricks and rocks, or made IED’s.
                Plus the left has organization and funding.
                How organized is the right?
                All the molon labe and they’ll get my guns bullets first internet bravado doesn’t mean a damn thing.
                The right is not organized at all and there is no right wing equivalent of Soros pumping cash into groups like AntiFa and BLM.
                The left is already off the ‘net,off their couches and cracking cops and anyone on the right in the head with bottles,rocks,and bricks-along with smashing bank windows and setting shit on fire.
                That shows they are willing and able to use violence in order to furter “the cause”.

                1. I smell provocateur, and would remind you that gold does not always get you good soldiers. Furthermore, the fact that they’ve experienced no pushback means that when pushback comes, they’ll run.
                  Everywhere where leftist revolutions actually succeeded, they were led by men who were accustomed both to giving and taking violence.

                  1. And as far as a “lack of organization” goes, that’s actually one of our strengths. To be organized, you need things like leaders and agenda, which gets people used to the whole idea of being a follower and going along with the flow.
                    As PJ O’Rourke pointed out, “…and pretty soon you get ideas, and then you get idealism, and the next thing you know you’ve got idealogy, with millions dead in concentration camps and gulags”.

                2. The places they are throwing bottles tend to be ruled by politicos who agree with the bottle throwers, and are coddling them.

                3. I would hazard that the real reasons the leftist revolutions have tended to succeed are that 1) everyone else believes it’s nothing much and will blow over, until it’s too late, and 2) the left is much better at infiltration and stealth, and therefore is just not seen by those who tend to trust their fellow man.

                  1. Typically, what happens first is the old, established regime falls, usually after a long and costly war (WW1 for instance).
                    This is usually followed by a weak, ineffectual government that nobody is happy with, and more importantly, has no established base or loyalty in the general population, and you can try to get in.

                    Communist revolutions don’t take in established nations.

                    In the case of a new, weak government, people tend to head more towards a more nationalist totalitarian system. When things get rough, people look to the olden days. Just ask the post WWI communist revolutionaries in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria, Poland, ect. You didn’t see really successful communist revolutions until after the Soviet Union was established post-WWII, and you stopped seeing them when the Soviet Union fell.

                    Professional training, professional advice, money, and a lot of weapons are pretty essential for your revolution to be successful.

                    In the case of a lot of 3rd world countries, you have a revolving series of juntas going back to the colonial days. In this case, the new junta calls itself socialist and got free weapons from the Soviets.

        2. They will try. Then they will find that they have aroused a sleeping giant. Unfortunately they will take the rule of law down with them.

          1. Unlike them, we care about history – and would preserve and rebuild the rule of law when they’re gone, should things ever come to such a pass.

            1. Indeed. This is why I write historical fiction — to engage the interest of citizens who may have had only the slightest knowledge of American history. Make a ripping good yearn out of it. As the AFRTS motto was and still is for all I know – inform AND entertain!

      3. People need to know what is moral, why it’s moral, what the consequences of not being moral are, what the side effects of being moral are, and why morality with the side effects is preferable to the consequences of immoral behavior.

        In a number of different forums (fora?) I’ve seen the comment that even *atheists* don’t want to live in a non-Christian society. They may not agree with the source of society’s moral code, but they sure agree that the overarching structure is important.

        Seems to me that the Left has been playing Jenga with the West’s cultural institutions for decades, and only a small number have realized the trouble they’ve caused. The rest of us can see the storm clouds on the horizon and are doing our best to batten down the hatches and ride it out.

        1. The reason nonconquest religion has survived is because it fulfills an important societal role. It wouldn’t be such a constant otherwise. In addition, properly used, it empaneled an authority above government. But we are making government god and that is the path to mass graves

        2. Dennis Prager has a video where he claims that believing in God is a requirement for believing that murder is wrong. I’m not 100% sure this is true — I can imagine concluding that murder is wrong through game theory or statistical analysis or some other means — but one thing is sure: rejecting God in and of itself is neither a necessary, and certainly not a sufficient, way to ensure a moral society. Heck, one of the things I’ve noticed about Greek myths was a certain…casualness..about killing people. Oedipus thought nothing of killing his father for a slight insult on the road. Sure, he had no idea that the person was his father at the time, but even so, no one seems to think it was a big deal for him to kill a random stranger on the street. (Similarly, it seems that while killing a baby outright was considered bad, piercing the baby’s feet and leaving him out to die seems to be ok…)

          In any case, even some atheists realize the danger of throwing out religion before they figure out what else they are losing in the process…

          I recently saw a Q and A where an atheist answered the question to the effect of “Are you concerned that you’ll go to hell?” with “an atheist is more moral than a religious person because the atheist chooses to do right even when he believes he will not receive a reward for it.” The answer over-simplifies things…but I can’t help but observe that an atheist who chooses to commit immoral acts is absolutely more immoral than a religious person who is moral only because he doesn’t want to face eternal punishment.

          And now that I think about it, who cares why a person is being moral? Why should I care if the only thing that’s keeping my neighbor from killing me is the fact that he believes in some fictional fairy sky being that will eternally punish him if he kills me? If we magically remove that one constraint from this man who is obviously less moral than an atheist with constraint, I’m dead!

          The surprise that some atheists are expressing — that a society without internal constraints is worse than one that has them — rests on the unfounded belief that everyone is naturally good, even when unconstrained. And worse — with the insistence that organized religion is a great evil — it’s not clear at all what kinds of institutions atheists have in mind to pass on moral values to the rising generation. How will children develop constraints, if they don’t learn the constraints in the first place?

          Ok, I need to stop there. I’m falling into a rabbit hole…at this point, I’m half-afraid that this comment will be a huge opening for a rabbit hole of comments as it is…

          1. an atheist is more moral than a religious person because the atheist chooses to do right even when he believes he will not receive a reward for it

            This contains an assumption about a correlation between morality and goodness which I am unsure is justifiable. To a Nazi or a jihadi, the killing of a Jew is a moral act, even a good one.

            The difference between the morality of believers and atheists is that the former assume their morality is objectively dictated and approved.

          2. Had one moron posting that only religion can turn good men bad. Pretty sure govt has done worse. Especially since crusades were partly political in nature.

            1. Partly political, partly religious, and partly population pressure. Note the Crusades stopped after the Black Death swept Western Europe and killed off a third of the population.

          3. I’ve been reading C. S. Lewis again (that time of year, ya know), and “The Abolition of Man” addresses this fairly specifically. It’s probably where Prager is sourcing his argument, consciously (directly?) or not. It also ties in Relativism (long rant on the subject avoided, again- talk about a rabbit hole, that’s a bloody sandworm hole) vs. objective truth. Interesting read, even if one is not Christian- I wasn’t when I first read it.

            Also note, Lewis’s argument is not specifically geared towards “it must be thus, because Himself made it so.” It’s more a formal logic argument for, call it Traditional Morality for lack of a better term. Some things, like “murder is wrong,” aren’t reducable via a “why,” they are because they are. Any moral code worth its salt needs a good foundation. Objective truths do this.

            1. CS Lewis wasn’t Christian for a good chunk of his adult life. Which may be why he seems to reach past the ‘chior’ of people who already.

          4. The simplest and perhaps oldest rebuttal (as in law it goes back to ancient times) is that murder is theft — not only of the victim’s life but of the victim’s literal value to others (family financial support, taxes, or labor).

      4. Yup, they need validation. They know that their position is wrong, they know that they are wrong, that they are (in many cases) evil. It makes them feel bad about themselves, deep down inside. So in order to feel better about themselves, they need to hear others tell them how good they are and how right they are.

        They need the ones who are ‘right’ and ‘good’ to be corrupted and destroyed, they need to hear those people tell them that they really aren’t bad, that they are in fact good. They need those people to stop showing everyone else just how bad and nasty they really are.

        And most of all, they need ‘acceptance’

      5. No, what the left really wants is the same thing Big Brother wanted of Winston Smith in 1984. They want corruption of our beliefs, and conversion of us so they can hold us up as examples of how powerful their position is; that even a diehard conservative or libertarian can see the error of their ways and choose the correct, Leftist Way.

        In the end the Left is people who get off on abusing people into Stockholm Syndrome.

        1. In the end the Progressive Left is a bunch of pseudo intellectual fuckwits who haven’t realized how ugly life is going to get when they finally piss the Unwashed off for the last time. They’re used to people like themselves, who have no beliefs they aren’t willing to set aside to avoid embarrassment or discomfort. They can’t imagine people who are actually willing to bleed and die simply to tell somebody to fuck off.

          Their realization is going to be epic.

          1. The appropriate dynamic for understanding this is that of an abusive relationship. After decades of codependency, the abused partner is no longer taking the bait, no longer responding according to the abuser’s script. Instead of seeking therapy, our Leftish national partners are hanging out in cheap bars drinking and telling one another how their partners “will fall into line if we just use more cowbell.”

            1. In some abusive relationships the abused never leaves and never fights back. However on a national level, there is only so much crud people will put up with. There will eventually be push back from regular people. I can’t tell you when it will happen but it will happen.

              1. That’s how we got Trump. They aren’t gonna like where we go from here.

                BTW – even more timely than when first posted:

                My Cousin Donny
                Posted on April 2, 2016 by jonosuchinsky
                So I just watched “My Cousin Vinny” for the first time last week. I know. Crazy that it took me so long! What’s better than a film with Marisa Tomei, the Karate Kid, and heavy New York accents? Not much. Except maybe one of my elaborate metaphors that equates today’s GOP bro-battle to this early 90’s courtroom comedy.

                That’s right. I’m. About. To go there.

                Donald Trump is Joe Pesci. He’s the outsider. The big talker. The guy who has a style all his own, with the kind of deluded self-confidence you wish you had. He’s there to clean up the mess.

                America is Ralph Macchio. We’re in a pickle. We need someone on our side. Someone who will defend our character, our interests, and make us great again. Donny says he’ll do the job. He’ll come to our rescue, and we are thrilled!

                The only problem is, he’s never done it before.

                Which, isn’t a yuge problem. I mean, he’s been around. He understands how the system works, so we’ll give Donny the benefit of the doubt.

                But then he starts talking. What is he saying? His verbiage is unorthodox, which, honestly, is very entertaining, but hey, our lives are on the line here! Does he even know how the system works? We want a guy who will be able to deliver what he promised.

                And so some of us get nervous. The #NeverTrump crowd is Mitchell Whitfield, Macchio’s friend. He freaks out and (for a bit) decides he’d rather go with the guy who’s been around the block. The public defender. A bit more, established, if you will. Sure he has an awful stutter, but he’s technically saying all of the right things.
                [END EXCERPT]

              2. These are the guys that gave us *The Burning Bed.* Implications just don’t reach them, eh?

  2. We’re already there, Sarah. Very few people give any credit to the major news outlets anymore. Heck, most of us don’t even bother to see Hollywood’s propaganda releases, and pictures that are anathema to them become box-office giants.

    If anything, we only notice them to say, “Oh, look a wolverine trying to threaten us from inside its cage! Isn’t it adorable? Now lets move on…”

        1. A wool verine?
          I don’t care if it identifies as a cotton verine
          or a linen verine
          or even a dacron verine.
          The identity is shoddy at best.

          1. Well, since verine is: “An alkaloid obtained as a yellow amorphous substance by the decomposition of veratrine,” I’m not sure how you would get any textilization (is too a word!) out of it.

            1. “just think of all the marvelous ways/ They’re using plastics, nowadays!”

              /Tom Lehrer

  3. Your point that they are expending political capital is particularly cogent, and it’s something that the left themselves don’t seem to get. They seem to believe that they have unlimited authority by virtue of their occupation of institutional positions. They do not seem to get that these institutions themselves only have authority through the consent of other people, and if the people withdraw their consent because they noticed the authority is being abused, the authority will evaporate.

    A good example of this is in TV journalism. The big networks once had tremendous influence. The left has used this influence to kill big stories and report falsely on other big stories. This worked well for them, until enough people noticed what was happening that they stopped believing the big networks uncritically.

    This is happening to the left in a lot of Institutions, and it may accelerate to their destruction because the people who make up the leaders of the left are very much self-selected right now for people who do not pay much attention to any trends that they are not themselves controlling. The point at which it will stop, is when more clever leftist leaders emerge. That will happen eventually, but not until the left become considerably weaker than they are now.

    Which is, I think, an entirely good thing.

    1. I read on Instapundit this morning that Mizzou (U of Mo at Columbia) has closed 4 dorms already and expects to close 3 more for LACK of students.
      Triumph of the Left, anyone?

    2. Actually, one would have thought that the political capital point would have become clear after Wisconsin. They spent a lot of political capital on the protests against Walker and his plans – and the state just keeps drifting away from them further.

    3. I saw a headline this morning about even 3-in-10 Democrats consider the MSM the “Opposition Party” … and that Nielsen is reporting a 33% jump in online news viewership.

      No telling how much of that viewership is simply people accessing the same old news sources except online rather than over the air or dead tree, of course. Nor whether that jump is from “hardly any” to “somewhat more” or from “rather a few” to “quite a few.” But it iindicates movement, and once you get used to viewing your news through links you are more open to spreading your nets a little more widely.

      1. Ma has given up on the local paper and views the TV with skepticism. The site she checks for important local news? The funeral home(s).

  4. Romney was possibly their last gasp. It wasn’t just b”Binders of women ” there were a few other things taken out of context. There are a few other examples now that shows the left and the “Outrage Machine” are steadily losing power and influence. Alas it’s not losing power fast enough.

    1. (Paraphrasing)

      Romney: “I know I’m not going to be supported by 47% of the American people, so I’m going to write off their votes.”

      MSM: “Romney’s writing off 47% of the American people!”


  5. “Weirdly these days they need the RIGHT to cooperate in this kind of attack. ”
    So don’t. I hate it when people I greatly admire who are small “L” libertarians (not you Sarah) begin their comments with ‘I didn’t vote for Donald Trump and don’t really like him but . . .’
    This just gives the “progressive drone the authority to ignore the rest of your comment.

        1. Only one thing concerns me about indie: Its strength is that it is an alternative – but it seems Amazon has achieved so nearly a monopoly in e-books that, were they to turn evil or foolish, the indie alternative would be greatly weakened.
          Perhaps a “plan B” would be a cooperatively-owned aggregation site, that linked to authors’ webpages and micro-publishers?

      1. While he’s more of a Statist than I’d like, President Trump has been more pro-American and less Big Government than any president since Reagan. I remain cautiously optimistic. Even better, Hillary Clinton is still not president. 🙂

        1. Trump wasn’t my favorite candidate, either, but he made no apologies for being proud to be an American and in his own blustery way told the “America Worst” crowd to kiss his backside, which is a big part of why I voted for him even with his flaws (see “blustery”, for starters 😛 ).

          And I’ll grant you that there is some pleasure (of the schadenfreude variety) to be had to replying to “it’s her turn” with the addendum of “… to lose.” 😛

        2. I didn’t much like or trust him. His position on the “repeal and replace” for Obamacare, for instance, was worrisome. However, the wailing and weeping and gnashing of teeth from the assorted knaves and fools who have been on public display the past five months has gone a long way to convince me that he’s not all that bad.

      2. Well, he wasn’t my first choice until he was.
        The choices in November were a little like the old story in Pravda, in which the Americans and Russians had an automobile race – and the result was described as “Russia came in second, and the Americans came in next to last!”

    1. I didn’t vote for him. I still can’t stand him. BUT between the Leftist meltdown and the MSM harping on the flimsiest of things with the smallest shred of evidence they can find (Russia influence being the big topic, but heck, every hint that Trump is a disaster when he seems to be doing pretty good for a new President), I’m about ready to vote for Trump just to spite all this spite.

      If Trump doesn’t go full-tilt Left, of course. (While I don’t necessarily agree with Trump on many of the things he’s done, his support for AHCA was my first major disappointment I’ve had with him.)

      There’s an organization called Indivisible that hijacked town halls for Representatives Chaffetz and Stewart of Utah. They are plastering “Missing” posters for Senator Cruz because they want him to host a town hall where they can mercilessly heckle him. I *REALLY* want to create a counter organization to do the same to Democrats. I’m sick and tired of these antics that do nothing but humiliate representatives and senators, and make constituents on both sides of the isle angry, because these town hall meetings become nothing more than heckling sessions, drowning out any opportunity for sincere questions.

      I have no idea what I can do to help organize a counter-push. It doesn’t help that I’m in the middle of Utah with four Republican Representatives and two Republican Senators, and I’m nowhere near a State with Democrat Representatives and Senators, so I can’t just drive* to a town hall meeting and heckle Democrats there.

      I can’t even think of a good name to counter “Indivisible”. “Freedom’s Flame” only just barely occurred to me….
      *Being in the middle of Utah means that it’s a two-to-four hour drive, minimum, just to get to another State’s border; getting to another population center where a town hall will be held will be at least another few hours’ drive.

      1. The NY Yankees lost their first game, rather badly, and I saw tabloid headlines proclaiming their season a disaster, a nightmare, a total collapse, doom & disaster. They won their second game and suddenly the tabloids were aglow with predictions of revival.

        Sports fans can be excused for bipolar idiocy, but it is a marathon, not a sprint, and the same applies to politics. Those who ride the tidal surges of emotion have abandoned Reason and will find no anchor, no North Star by which to navigate.

        It is one thing for adolescents to live the emotional swings, but the world is governed by adults who learn to master themselves and the chaos surrounding all. As Michael Caine recently observed, “Politics is always chaotic. In politics, you’re always going into areas you’ve never been before, so you’re going to get lost and then you’re going to find your way, and then it’ll be all right.”

        One other comment from Mr. Caine, explaining his vote for Brexit: “I’d rather be a poor master than a rich servant.” This is a concept incomprehensible to the dogs who beg at their masters table.

        1. That’s related to the (perhaps more American) aphorism, “It’s better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.”

          1. Well, it was a quote from Emiliano Zapata, who was Mexican rather than American, but who was trying to liberate his country from the dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz, so an honorary American in my eyes.

  6. > They can cancel your big book contract

    If they’re getting a commission, they’re throwing away their own money. Though the connection between “sales” and “profit” seems to evade a scary number of businessmen.

    If they’re on straight salary, it doesn’t matter what they do, so they can do whatever they want.

    1. They can only do whatever they want on straight salary until they have killed revenue to the point of them being affordable.

      1. I keep wondering, how long until the big international book publishers decide to divest themselves of the American SFF branches which seem to be doing so poorly…

  7. I am more and more of the opinion that the Left’s political capitol and power peaked with the ousting of Richard Nixon (arguably the most Leftwing Republican President ever elected, BTW). They had enormous political and social power and honestly expected to hold onto it in perpetuity.

    Then they elected Jimmy Carter.

    Carter was an accident, more or less. Is I understand it, the major factions of the Democrat Party couldn’t agree on a candidate. Everybody KNEW that against Gerry Ford they could run a talking dog, and win. So everybody wanted the nomination and nobody would agree to anyone else’s first choice. Carter was a compromise, and consequently arrived in Washington with no allies in Congress, even in his own Party.

    Which is why I will never vote for a third party candidate if that party has no presence in Congress.

    Carter was a disaster. Because the Left wouldn’t cooperate with their own President, he c]accomplished nearly nothing and was an object of loathing. The Iran situation, exacerbated by the way the Military had been messed up by politics, didn’t help.

    So Ronal Reagan won the Presidency, the Left collectively had hysterics for eight years, and they spent a great deal of political capitol and got very little back.

    In the meanwhile, technology was changing. It always does. People who actually study history (as opposed to dialectical bullshit) know this, and don’t get caught short by it. The Left had no clue. Talk radio caught them on the flanks. The internet blew them up amidships. In ways they STILL haven’t come to grip with.

    At the same time, history was being unkind to them. The problem with being a bunch of dogmatic jerks is that karma almost always runs over dogma. It’s all very well to spend decades prattling about the legitimate aspirations of a bunch of raving fanatics, but when evens prove them to be a bunch of mass murdering assholes, there you stand with your dick in your hand. Cambodia was one such event, and 9/11 was another. Naturally the Left learned from neither.

    For the last several decades the Left has been hemorrhaging political and social capitol. They get a lot from their control of the institutions, but I really think the last time they were getting in more than they were spending was when Nixon left office.

    1. I was old enough to pay attention in 1976, though not to vote, so I remember the campaign.

      Reagan made a solid run leading what was then known as the Goldwater wing, but lost out to the country club wing, who went with the bird-in-the-hand theory.

      On the D side Soggy Teddy stomped his damp feet and insisted It Was His Turn, but the D higher ups were rightly scared spitless of running this particular Kennedy. The mainstream candidate was Mo Udall, who was duller than Mitt Romney, though apparently a very nice guy and very funny in private. But there was no groudswell for Mo.

      And then there was Jimmeh, who ran as the ultimate outsider peanut farmer from Georgia, and his campaign was very smart – he organized network publicity for him going basically house to house, appearing to run a local campaign for a national office. In the end it was the outsider thing that did it – after Watergate the entire country was tired of Washington.

      Note from the electoral totals (Carter/Mondale: 297 Ford/Dole: 240 (shoulda been 241 but one faithless elector from WA voted for Reagan) that it was actually not anything close to a Carter landslide – If Ford had won Texas and any one additional state, Ford would have been finally elected to the office he held.

      The question is would Reagan have been elected in 1984 after two full terms of Ford?

      1. I remember reading somewhere that until his presidential run Mr. Carter always went by James Earl, only switching to Jimmy to avoid any connection with two other James Earls, Ray the King assassin, and Jones the large black actor.

        1. I remember reading somewhere that until his presidential run Mr. Carter always went by James Earl, only switching to Jimmy to avoid any connection with two other James Earls, Ray the King assassin, and Jones the large black actor.

          Actually, when he ran for State Senator in 1962, he did so as Jimmy Carter. A Google search for Images with the words Jimmy Carter State Senator 1962 turns up a campaign sign, hand-out, and card where he used the name Jimmy Carter. A photo of Carter taken at his desk while he was governor shows the name Jimmy Carter on the desk sign.

          1. Yah. Part of his aw-shucks just-us-folks schtick.

            A native Georgian friend told me about the ads he ran during his first run for governor. The ones that implied the incumbent wasn’t racist enough to be a proper Democrat or take care of the good white folks. Only broadcast out in the country, of course–for some odd reason the Atlanta voters never heard those…

            1. It wouldn’t have mattered if Atlanta had heard it back then or not. Atlanta went for Hal Suit. In that same election, Lester Maddox, who had previously served as governor, won the election for lieutenant governor.

              Something to keep in mind is that Georgia was – and is – sufficiently laid back that important politicians are commonly referred to by nick names that the rest of the country finds just gosh darn good ol’ boy. Ike was common nation-wide, but Nixon, who definitely did not go for gosh darn good ol’ boy, was commonly referred to as Nick. So it goes.

      2. Ford had no chance of winning. Ever.
        He was put in office by a compromise between the Dems and the Repubs. No way would the Dems have allowed in anyone who they thought could win.
        Also Ford was not really a very strong candidate for office. He didn’t have the charisma, and was portrayed as a buffoon constantly by the news media, 24/7.
        Also, after watergate, a lot of people wanted a change, so whatever democrat ran, it was pretty much guaranteed that they would win.

          1. I wasn’t particularly impressed with Ford at the time, though back then I wasn’t savvy enough to realize just how much spin the media was thowing against him.

            Years later, reading about the various Presidents, I came to realize that Ford while Ford probably wasn’t one of our best Presidents, he managed to leave office without getting anything of consequence stuck to him. He didn’t try to implement any Grand Visions, he just more or less maintained the status quo.

            No, he didn’t fix the Energy Crisis, or the economy, or any of the other ailments he inherited… and neither have any of his successors, so he can hardly be faulted for that.

            1. In many ways the most important quality needed in a president is the ability to do nothing. Most problems cannot be “fixed” (except fixed in place) by government and the best executive is one who gives the appearance of “working to solve a problem” while actually allowing market forces to cure the illness on their own.

        1. See the Electoral College results map at:

          Ford/Dole in red, Carter/Mondale in blue.

          Carter carried the South en bloc plus the traditional D strongholds back east. To modern eyes, what stands out is that Ford won the population centers west of the Mississippi except for Texas.

          It was closer than a lot of elections since then. Not impossible. And yes, with a candidate who the NY media did not mock endlessly, a Republican win would have been more possible, but Chevy Chase had to make a living, and he wasn’t going to get airtime on SNL-back-when-it-was-funny by lampooning candidate Jimmeh.

          1. Dan Aykroyd’s mockery of Jimmeh got plenty of airtime, too —

            — but the Dems have never fretted about horndoggery nor smarm in their guys, have they?

    2. What is often overlooked is that, just as George McGovern headed the committee that revised the Democrat Party primary and caucus system to create a more “representative” process after Humphrey’s 1968 loss to Nixon, so was Jimmy Carter at the head of the group which revised the party system after the 1972 disaster.

      Funny how that works.

      1. We should be wary to advocate a change in the system just because our favored candidate didn’t win. Sometimes your candidate didn’t win because they were a lousy candidate, and all the changes in the system won’t fix that.

        The problem with our system isn’t necessarily the rules (although it doesn’t hurt to examine them every so often), the problem is that the people running and people voting are going to do what they want to do, regardless, up to and including finding every way they can win within the rules (where within might even involve “how far can we bend these things”).

    3. “””Which is why I will never vote for a third party candidate if that party has no presence in Congress.”””

      One of the things that drives me nuts about the Libertarian Party is how they spend so much energy on the President, secondarily on Representatives, Senators and Governors, and *maybe* on State Representatives and Senators. They hardly ever run anyone on the local level.

      This is backwards from what they have to do to get power. They need local people first, because (1) we need liberty on the local level, (2) this is the pool from which to prepare people for higher levels, and (3) this is how you develop a base of support that can help you win higher elections.

      1. I’ve been suspicious ever since I met the first Libertarian candidate for POTUS (that man had no thoughts of his own) but more recently I’ve become convinced the Libertarian Party is a false flag operation run by the Democratic Party for the sole purpose of splitting the conservative vote in Presidential elections. Which would explain the lack of any serious interest in achieving lower office.

  8. A newly hilarious example of Lefties trying to use their power.

    Couple days ago, the VP of Sales for Marvel Comics came right out and said the his audience is tired of “diversity.” Because his sales are tanking.

    When the Hugos came out, two Marvel comics got nominations. The money quote is “Suffice it to say that the optics of this whole thing don’t reflect well on the publisher, but the Hugo nominations send a telling message to Marvel about just how the public actually feels about its “diverse books.””

    I thought, you know, that is actually true. A Hugo nom does send a message. The message is “Pull up, pull up!”

    The public already told you how they feel. They feel like they don’t want to buy your comic. The Hugo nom says that the same people nominating Ghostbusters for best SF movie because DIVERSITY!!! are nominating your comics.

    1. I stopped buying Marvel comics when they started pushing the sexuality/gender diversity meme. I could handle a female “Thor” as a “What If?” issue; but to completely overturn Norse mythology was a bit too far. How many gay superheroes are there now? And ideological flips! Captain America as THE secret Hydra mole? Nope.

      Supergirl pushing the lesbian relationship of the sister on equal time with hetero Kara and her boyfriend Mon-El.

      Arrow’s mostly anti-gun episode.

      At least the Power Rangers 1 in 5 non-cisnormal members is closer to real life ratios.

      Hollywood seems to be pulling out the stops to push this major disruptive and not necessarily beneficial social change.

      1. I stopped buying Marvel and DC in 1993, after being a collect-everything guy for ten years previous. I have a basement full of 1980s comics. I have Superman’s Wedding, I have Superman’s Funeral, I have Kitty Pryde’s first appearance in X-Men, all that stuff. I remember when Northstar was straight, and I quit buying comics before they went with the whole gay character thing.

        The reason I stopped was cost, storyline, and shrinking page count. $3.50 an issue for a comic that is half advertisements and the other half is Wolverine killing everything in sight? Full page blood-spatter panels? Nuh uh. The stories were getting just plain mean, too. Depressing.

        I spent a week at a comic book art camp last year, where I was surprised to learn that many industry people shared my opinion. The comic companies did hit the wall in the 90’s and things had slid down hill since then. The art was not great, and the stories were SJW tick-box all the way.

        The gay and trans storylines, the universe re-boots, the deliberate destruction of their own cannon of the last few years are a last-ditch struggle for market share and relevance. They abandoned their audience in the early 1990s, and now they are a movie studio that has a little sideline in comics.

        As to the Power Rangers, I love that movie. It is really fun. The introduction of the one gay character, for once, works in the movie as part of the story. That movie is well written, which is quite frankly amazing given how silly the TV show is. I recommend it.

        For me, none of this has ever been about gay characters in a story. I don’t care about that at all. My problem has been authors using gay characters to chastise me, the reader. I’m not going to pay money to receive a stern lecture about what a bad person I am, what a bad place the world is, and how we all deserve to die horribly. You want me to look at that, you pay me.

        1. The standing assumption for identity characters is that they are there for their identity. It is Ensign Gay who is a constant plot points vs Ensign Hikaro who does speak of missing his husband but he is still a helluva engineer and his stories are focused on him, not his proclivities. But today it seems that stories are more and more blatant (see law and order syndrome. Find rich white guy)

        2. Keep in mind that comics writers are somewhat desperate for respect, to be taken seriously. The artists have the advantage of secondary markets where they can sell their original art for significant sums of moolah (in fact, at one point there arose a problem of some artists designing their page layouts with that secondary market a little too openly in mind) but the writers are … let’s just say that a guy in a club bragging that he writes Spiderman is going home alone more often than not.

          The simplest way for hack writers to gain respect is to tick the politically correct boxes in their scripts. They don’t have to write better plots, more interesting characters or more nuanced interactions — they merely need make a character gay or “edgy” and voila: Strange New Respect!

          Frankly, I blame the X-Men revival of a failed comic with pretensions of relevance.

          1. From the first Fairly Odd Parents Crimson Chin episode.

            Timmy: “Who writes this stuff?”
            Crimson Chin: “A guy who lives in his mom’s basement.”
            Timmy: “Does it pay much?”
            Crimson Chin: “He lives in his mom’s basement.”

        3. The decade of the anti-hero. I remember it well, that was when I exited comics for the last time… My last comic purchase was Unsounded (webcomic Kickstarter- pretty darn good. Ashley Cope has got style and talent), and before that? Around ’94/’95, I think.

          It’s when the stories became zombified, to me. Goodness was trash, charity was sin, and virtue sold it on the streets. A good story needs conflict, conflict needs not just two sides one marginally less bad than the other, but two *different* sides with different goals, methods, and reasons for what they do.

          This is what set the classic tales apart from the retread. Sure there was stuggle. Of course there were moral crises. They *mattered* because the world was not writ in monochrome, stylistically (and morally) speaking. I tend to think the comics industry began to fail when they began to disbelieve in Evil. Disbelieving in Good was just an effect that followed. *shake shead*

        4. As to the Power Rangers, I love that movie. It is really fun. The introduction of the one gay character, for once, works in the movie as part of the story.

          Well, I’ll have to watch it again (because reasons), but as I recall it the character neither denied nor confirmed that she was gay. She remained quiet after one of the characters asked “boy trouble?” and complained about how her family wanted her to be normal after he switched to “girl trouble?”. It seemed to me to be pretty weaksauce as far as gay character introductions go.

          1. It was her big secret, the thing she didn’t want anybody to know. As secrets go, that’s pretty realistic for a kid that age. Good writing.

            Plus, they checked off the mandatory ()gay ticky box, and got the corner office a-holes off their backs. Double-plus good writing.

  9. Note that their attempt at a much more grounded hit on Trump for using the word Pussy in a bit of locker room talk,

    Okay, to be fair, it was more than just using the word, but explicitly talking about grabbing women by the pussy–i.e. committing pretty explicit sexual assault.

    However, the accusations that came of people claiming he did that turned out to be bogus–literally impossible to have happened as claimed. The thing is, one thing Trump is, is a consummate salesman. And part of being a consummate salesman is being able to “read” a potential customer. So, if he ever actually did grab some woman by the pussy, it was someone he read, accurately, as being totally down with it because “billionaire”. In short, exactly as implied in the “they’ll let you” part of the statement. And, so, it’s not sexual assault if the other person is OK with it.

    1. Frankly, that comment didn’t bother me in the least.
      After all, when you’re a military guy going through leadership school and the one favorite saying of your instructors that becomes yours is, “If you have a guy by the curly hairs, his heart and mind will follow.” then grabbing a woman by hers isn’t much of a stretch.

      1. I have spend just enough time in groups which were mostly men to get the impression that that kind of bragging happens as a matter of course in certain types of situations, and sometimes when everybody is a bit drunk it might be quite a bit worse, but usually most of the guys who say the stuff are ones who most likely would never actually do anything like it, at least not with any woman they didn’t know, if they did it would be only with a woman they already know well enough to know their move will be seen as play and accepted.

        It’s both reaffirmation of their gender, that they are, indeed, sexually attracted to women, as well as claiming – usually mostly as a joke, which tends to be obvious when you are there rather than just hear or read about it afterwards – that an attractive woman would of course accept it because women also desire them.

        Similar to when somebody angry about something might claim that “if somebody tried that in my presence I would beat the shit out of him” – except if it did happen most of them would not but would instead do whatever seemed most sensible at that moment, whether it was calling the police or trying to stop it by talking. They are not not so much telling what they’d actually do as they are telling how angry about whatever it was they are.

        As with Trump – to me the story gives the impression that he was bragging about his money, not about his behavior with women. That he is SO rich that no matter what he does women at least pretend to like it (because “rich” is one of those things which make a man attractive to most women…). Underlining his alpha male status. So presumably the focus was on that other guy there. One way of telling him that “I’m higher in the pecking order than you are”. Whatever he said might have even been completely bogus, something that has never happened, he just used it as one of the things he’d be able to do – unlike most men – due to his status as a very, very rich and due to that, very powerful, and due to that, as very alpha guy.

        1. (And what is a bit depressing to me personally, even when I was young and moderately attractive – merely plump instead of fat back then – men did seem to have a habit of seeing me more as “one of the guys” in those situations instead of remembering the fact that I was female… :/ )

          (Oh well. I was actually usually trying towards that, but have to admit that the fact that I also usually seemed to succeed was a bit wounding to my female vanity 😀 )

          1. It’s one of those impossible dilemmas, isn’t it? We all want to be treated as an equal and a friend, but also revered as a romantic inspiration. We want people to feel like they can count on us, but we don’t want them to take us for granted. We want people to value our input and take our advice, but at the same time we want them to make up their own minds and not run to us with every little question. Really, human beings are quite impossible to please. 🙂

              1. I guess so. Even when we are not personally interested in a man, or anyone in a group of men, it’s still quite nice if we notice that they are seeing us as attractive enough that they at least bother to flirt a little from time to time. Even if being treated as “one of the guys” is also sort of flattering, it’s flattering in a different way, and noticing that you are completely in that zone can make you doubt your chances of maybe getting out of it if you happened to get interested in somebody.

                1. Story of my life. I can’t help but feel that it’s somewhat exacerbated by being the girl who likes comics, sff, video games, and so on (ie, a classic geek/nerd), which puts you easily into “You’re cool and I want to hang out with you and talk about things we both like” but somehow almost never stretches to flirting/viewing one as a potential date or spouse.

                  not that this has made me give up the things I love, no way. But I’m with Pohjalainen, it does tend to wound one’s female vanity.

                  1. The risk of becoming too familiar too fast. Seems the ones who get pursued most often are the ones who seem at least a bit mysterious, and not so easy to approach. 😀

                    1. But don’t go too far in that direction either. Impossible drives them away too. Seems to be a balancing act – personable, maybe interested, easy to talk with but just a bit mysterious and not a sure thing…

                    2. If a gal wants to be pursued, best to have somebody let the guy know that he needs to do the chasing.
                      Men tend to be a bit thick at the best of times, and hints only really work if delivered via sledgehammer.

                    3. lol, it’s not just guys in that boat. Personally, I’d love it if a guy would just say right out “Hey, I think you’re interesting and I’d kinda like to go out with you” because I am completely oblivious to subtle flirting or other such signs…

                    4. There is a series of commercials from some credit card company based on the premise “Wouldn’t it be nice if people said what they mean?”

                      I suspect the ability to communicate on subtextual levels is possibly critical to long-term relationships and thus flirting is a filter for that trait.

                    5. Personally, I’d love it if a guy would just say right out “Hey, I think you’re interesting and I’d kinda like to go out with you”

                      Unfortunately, one of the things that many guys do learn is that saying that without the proper “preliminaries” (which guys like me don’t at all understand) is to just get slapped and possibly accused of harassment.

                    6. What WriterInBlack said but 10x…if she’s into you it’s cute but if she’s not into you it’s creepy.

                      Misjudge too many times early on and you’re creepy for life. Most guys realize their on that road and get off when they are just a “loser” and not a “creep”.

                  2. Uhm, you are aware that “being the girl who likes comics, sff, video games, and so on” means you are hanging out with guys who’ve got not a clue about how to flirt, right?

                    Sheesh. Might as well complain about your goldfish not whistling.

                    If flirting were crayons not only would these guys not be coloring with the 32-count box, much less the 64- or 128-count box, they’ve lost six of the crayons from the box of eight.

              2. Pretty much. You went from “cute gal” to “cool little sister” in their eyes.

          2. Early on in our marriage (before we realized what a train wreck trying to raise a child would be) my Lady lost over 125b lbs on a medically supervised diet, and guys we knew at Cons started hitting on her. Needless to say, her reaction was a scornful “Screw you! I have a man who married me when I was fat!”

            God, I love that woman to pieces.

            I once bought her a button that said “The average woman would rather have beauty than brains because the average man can see better than he can think” (I mean, once a guy has seen that button, what can he do except buy it?) and she wore often it until we lost it.

            1. Keep that woman she’s a treasure.

              My first wife lost 200+ pounds and decided to get the kind of man she wanted instead of the fat chick consolation prize she had.

              Bitter? Me? No, why do you ask?

            2. There’s a guy I know who is incredibly handsome, and the best-looking thing about him is the way he looks at his wife. He’s always looked at her like she is the most gorgeous creature on earth, even when she was not conventionally attractive (overweight).

              (They’re so cute.)

              1. Handsome guys generally discover that women can be every bit as shallow and superficial as men are accused of being — some take immediate advantage of this, others take a longer view.

                1. He told me once about a boss who sexually harassed him. He was probably all of 20 or 21 at the time, and shy, so he didn’t get her in trouble.

        2. Trump’s comment was actually quite contemptuous of women, albeit in a way which the Left and MSM (But I Repeat Myself) are blind to. He was expressing contempt for the hypergamous instinct exhibited by so many women, the way they are stupefied in the presence of powerful men. (This contempt is quite similar to that expressed by many women when commenting on the male reaction to, for example, another woman flaunting bodacious cleavage.)

          It is both a form of bragging and of lamenting that certain attributes make it impossible to know whether one is desired for one’s self or for one’s attributes (which is not to say the two are separable.) Just as many a woman worries her man will lose interest in her if her looks depart, so many a wealthy man can doubt a woman is interested in him rather than in his money. And just as a woman can feel contempt for a man who is manipulable by his libido, so may a man feel contempt for a woman whose lust is triggered by the size of his wallet.

          1. albeit in a way which the Left and MSM (But I Repeat Myself) are blind to.

            But it was contemptuous of women in a way very common to the alt-right and many communities adjacent to it…I’m not saying they are enough to win him the election (although the PUA/how do I get a date community is huge) but I think it solidified a flank while doing little damage.

          2. There have been a few singles groups I’ve departed because I got very, very tired of the men harping endlessly on the “women only want a guy who has a perfect body and a ton of money, they’re all terrible and I hate them all because they just use me” theme. (I usually pointed out to them that, just possibly, that indicated they were focusing on the wrong sort of woman and maybe ought to broaden their horizons a bit).

            But comparing those experiences with what you said…I hadn’t considered Trump’s comments in that light. I think you’re not wrong. (I also wonder if that isn’t in part why his preferred ‘type’ of spouse seems to be highly educated Eastern Europeans…) While I will not likely ever be a huge Trup fan…that does actually incline me to view those comments in a somewhat less cringe-y light. 🙂

            1. One thing about Trump and his ladies is that during the last campaign none of them came forward with “horror stories”.

              About the only woman who “came forward” was a porn-star who after she was invited to visit Trump’s hotel room complained that he tried to kiss her without permission.

              Come on lady, you sell “sex” and when a rich guy invites you to his hotel room, you’re expecting that he wants to ask you about stock tips not because he wants sex with you? 😉

            2. I ain’t sayin’ it’s right, but it is what it is. Don’t nobody what doesn’t worry about being used. Some simply choose the wrong strategies about protecting against it.

            3. As far as I know the mothers of his children started, but did not complete, a college education. (Unless that was a cover for being recruited by soviet intelligence.)

        3. If one hears Trump’s actual words rather than the hysteria… he said you _could_ grab ’em etc, not that he _did_.

          1. If the MSM bothered to hear Trump’s actual words on a lot of subjects, they’d have nothing to write about.

            1. They’re Liberal. When was the last discussion you had with a Liberal in which they clearly heard what you actually said rather than what they jumped to the conclusion you had said?

        4. “Similar to when somebody angry about something might claim that “if somebody tried that in my presence I would beat the shit out of him” – except if it did happen most of them would not but would instead do whatever seemed most sensible at that moment, whether it was calling the police or trying to stop it by talking.”

          Bill ‘awkins…

          “”An’ s’pose you met Bill ‘Awkins,
          Now what in the devil ‘ud ye do?”
          “I’d open ‘is cheek to ‘is chin-strap buckle,
          An’ bung up ‘is both eyes, too —
          Gawd — bless — ‘im!
          An bung up ‘is both eyes, too!”

          “Look ‘ere, where ‘e comes, Bill ‘Awkins!
          Now, what in the devil will you say?”
          “It isn’t fit an’ proper to be fightin’ on a Sunday,
          So I’ll pass ‘im the time o’ day —
          Gawd — bless — ‘im!
          I’ll pass ‘im the time o’ day!””

      2. Yes – that was pretty mild guy-trash talk by military standards. Both my daughter and I overheard much, much worse in our respective times in. And likely both of us had said things just as crude.

  10. drloss…”Very few people give any credit to the major news outlets anymore”

    I think there are a lot of people over, say, 60, who do use the major news outlets as their primary source of credible information. And younger people…say, those under 40…they watch and are heavily influenced by the pseudo-news pseudo-comedy programs.

      1. … I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland….”
        — Newton N. Minow, FCC Chairman, 1961

        “I don’t watch TV. It’s a cultural wasteland filled with inappropriate metaphors and an unrealistic portrayal of life created by the liberal media elite.”
        — security guard, Babylon 5 “Between the Darkness and the Light”, 1997

        1. That particular line from a security mook makes me laugh every time I rewatch B5.

          Him, and the not at all stupid guard in Titan AE.

      2. I still watch tv. It’s just that the internet is on, and television isn’t… at all, really, for years now. My tv is my monitor, because I can make the font big enough that I don’t need to squint. *grin*

    1. I’m not so sure about the over-60 cohort, to tell the truth. I’m in it myself; and I can tell you that I know very few who believe anything they see on TV without checking it somehow. As for the young folks watching the Daily Show et. al., yes I’m sure those have some influence, but I still contend that it isn’t as pervasive as Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor and Peter Jennings were back in the 60’s and 70’s.

        1. Not even that. I know some over 75s who stayed up practically all night to watch the returns. Every one said they enjoyed seeing the network anchors squirm. Every one.

      1. My folks certainly didn’t, but they were both scholarly by inclination (as opposed to academic) and accustomed to the ripe smell of fertilizer that accompanies Sophomoric thinking.

      2. Yah… and when you mention media bias or suppression of information, you get that pitying look, like you just claimed you beamed down from the mothership.

        [shrug] If they believe the news, they probably believe in the Tooth Fairy too.

        – TRX, “Won’t get fooled again”

  11. It won’t be long till our only reaction to outrageous accusations is what it already is in Science Fiction outside their circles: point and make duck noises.

    In my circles that is the response already.

    And the thing I don’t think the left understands, is that this level of outrage can be ginned up only a limited number of times.

    Yep, and they are going to learn a hard lesson from that. The people that outrage should be saved for are often much savvier than they are. They are walking right on the line letting that passion get dissipated knowing as it is they can expand their circle of action.

    I see it with predators in my community all the time.

    Hell, Trump is the prime example…they wanted to treat him like they did Romney and then were shocked people concluded he couldn’t be that different from Romney and certain within acceptable bounds.

  12. They just cannot internalize how much things have changed – todays reality is literally beyond their ken.

    I ran across a blog post this morning from inside the music biz that rhymes with this and what Sarah’s been saying, at

    Lots of good stuff – here’s a couple excerpts:

    4. That which is big may not be anointed as so.

    Forget the awards shows. Hell, look at the Oscars, those pictures they were honoring all had mediocre grosses at best. And the media is a tool of the companies purveying. Other than politics and wars, where newspapers have full time reporters, the rest of what comes over the transom as news is really glorified press releases. So you read about something and then it has no traction thereafter. Because it’s not that good and there is no base to sustain it and the press is not that powerful.


    8. Pull economy.

    You cannot push, that’s positively last century. Sure, you can grease the skids, pour some oil to get something started, but it’s only working if people are demanding more. And if they are not, you don’t have a marketing problem, you have a product problem. Marketing has never meant less. It’s seen as phony and manipulative. You lead with your product. And it’s either growing or failing. Either every day more and more people are watching your YouTube video or you need to make another one, that’s different.

  13. What’s really hilarious is that they still *think* they’re all powerful. Imagine how things will get when they finally realize no one’s buying what they’re selling.

    1. They’re still the biggest frogs in their pond.

      What they’ve failed to see is that about half of the people have moved on to a different, larger pond.

    1. I need a drink just reading that headline. And I’m a teetotaler.

    2. Somewhat appropriate that the award it’s up for is in fact sponsored by an alcoholic beverage…

      Is that novel on the list of Hugo nominations? If not, I can’t imagine why.

    3. Ugh. That’s not the least bit amusing. (Been teaching WWII and the Holocaust recently and am about to do the Great Leap Forward. That book is… No. Just no.)

    4. The comments – one claims to be a fourteen year old girl, and says things like “feminist weirdos”. That is somewhat encouraging…

    5. I read a quick summary of that. Women can shoot force lightning like Palpatine.

      What happens when some guy with a Faraday suit (buildable, sort of) shoots back with a gun?

        1. That would require the author to be able to imagine a woman who cares enough for a man to avenge him.

          1. Yep — even though the existence of the Honey Badgers ought present what the English would call “a clew.”

            Even more, what happens when many mothers find their sons have been killed by these sparkies?

            A good author would explore the social ramifications of such complex social connections; this author seems to be going full Mary Sue wish fulfillment. With such an attitude it is unsurprising she finds men hostile; she’s probably blind to the numbers of women who find her detestable.

            The idea has some actual promise, but I doubt the author (nor those praising her) have any concept of what the possibilities are. Questions present themselves — why only woomen, and does this ability to generate bioelectric shocks only affect men (if so, why so), how are transgendered women/men affected, what are societal responses when a woman electrocutes two senior senators who attempt to make her the filling in a “waitress sandwich — but I am confident this novel answers none of them.

            1. Even more, what happens when many mothers find their sons have been killed by these sparkies?
              Imagines Mum & Sis in that situation, and shudders.

        2. she gets killed. MESSILY. In fact, if women had this power,t he few women who’d use it would get killed in milliseconds.
          Damn brainless feminists don’t understand anyone touches my boys, I kill her. With pain.

          1. And if women were exempt from getting zapped, that would likely just make it worse.

              1. Given the “rules” of the universe, a 7.62 x 54 to the brainpan from 400 meters would be a better choice.

      1. What’s the difference between this and a taser?

        What’s stopping men shooting them from beyond their effective range?

        Are women going to go around cooking men just because they can? Do men go around beating women to death just because they can?

        But, up for an award.

        “former Guardian writer Naomi Alderman” is all you need to know.

        1. Are women going to go around cooking men just because they can? Do men go around beating women to death just because they can?

          Something tells me the author of this tale thinks men do exactly that.

        2. And the brief excerpt reads like torture fanfic; it’s not even particularly well-done. Okay, it sucks. But any amount of suck is good when it hits all the right revenge-fantasy buttons!

      2. …or they run into someone like Yoda who can use the Force to absorb Force Lightning?

        1. I also found this amusing because when I decided to do SWTOR’s Sith Inquisitor story, I used a human female and picked the “Sorcerer” advanced class.

          So I have a character who is a woman who can shoot force lightning like Palpatine. Though sadly not a “Beautiful (But Evil) Space Princess” more of a “Pretty (But Unusually Light-Sided) Dark Council Member” since a lot of the Empire-side LS choices are pragmatic villainy type things while the DS choices are just… stupid evil.

    6. Gain power…They are aware that the most prolific serial killer was a woman and that black widow is a trope for a reason. I mean, they do want the approval to do so but do have power to do so.

    7. Women gain power to kill men? That’s just what Sam Colt did – The lady wanders into any gun store and there you go.

      Wait, the author is a Brittanic Subject of H.M. the Queen. Right, then. No power to do much of anything. I sit corrected.

      1. Yeah… “All women are powerless against all men.” and “All men are rapists” and “All women get paid less then men” all come out of the same place….

        The speaker’s social circle.

        To all of which the only appropriate answer is “Stop hanging around with leftists, then.”

    8. Having clicked on that link, I now need a serious dose of visual cortex bleach and mem-erase. Right up there with Trigglypuff.

    9. What I find more interesting, is the initial world, in which half the population is unable to kill the other half.
      More so than all women suddenly get the most biggenest gun, making them the most biggenest badasses most easily and instantly..

      I’ll bet on my Gal with the .45.

      1. It’s the same setup as with the continuous gun-control bills. In their mentality, *of course* if you had a gun, you’d go out a-viking. The idea of peacefully minding your own business simply doesn’t register with them. Power is meant to be used to its fullest, all the time, or you might as well be one of the plebes.

  14. Come on, we’re all science fiction fans here. I can’t be the only one who sees the phrase “the power to destroy” and thinks of Dune. “He who has the power to destroy a thing controls it.”

    Thing is, that power is only useful if you’re dealing with someone who cares whether the thing is destroyed or not. Paul was able to use his control over Dune to conquer the universe because everyone else could not afford for spice production there to stop. If instead the Empire had already figured out how to make artificial spice, his threats would have gone quite differently: “So you’re going to destroy all spice on Arrakis, hmm? That’s unfortunate, but if you must, you must. Go for it. And then enjoy your desert, Muad’Dib, especially now that you’ve destroyed the only reason anyone else would have to come here or care about this place.”

    Likewise, I’m sure that the Left will enjoy the desert they’re making of traditional publishing as they slowly destroy all of the authors that made reading worthwhile. The rest of us will go off to the vast empire of indie.

    1. Actually, I found myself thinking more of the climactic confrontation of The Queen of the Damned, when Marius points out the one catastrophic flaw in the primordial vampire queen Akasha’s plan to rule humanity as its new, true god:

      “…I shall protect them–”

      “Protect them?” Marius asked. “How can you protect them from their most deadly foes?”

      “What foes?”

      “Disease, my Queen. Death. You are no healer. You cannot give life or save it. And they will expect such miracles. All you can do is kill.”

      One of the most critical limitations on the power to destroy is the realization that you cannot create or replace what you destroy, and the politicized Left has been strangling its own creative minds for generations.

  15. I really wish they would try to ruin my career.

    After all, in my line of work, leftists attacking me would be a badge of honor. 🙂

    1. I know. Now days, a shrill denunciation of something because it is anti-[whatever]ist, promotes gun culture, or is pro-military is to be desired, in terms of sales. Sort of like Robert Spencer using some of the death-threats against him as blurbs on his books about Islam.

      1. Well, since I’m a libertarian political writer, the leftists blasting me might actually land me work. 😀

      2. I can just see the ebook cover blurbs:

        “Dispicable!” John Scalzi

        “Racist!” Requires Hate

        “TOR would never publish it!” David Hartwell

      3. I wonder how much the Puppy thing improved Sarah’s sales. I suspect that more than a few people gave her a try because she is a White Mormon Male.

  16. “Every time the left pulls that lever for the outrage machine, they’re spending capital. Every time they start a witch hunt, the skin suit slips a little and the respect we owed the gutted institution is lost.”

    The more they tighten their grip, the more systems slip through their fingers.

      1. Moral lessons are always something that applies to someone else, because they’re smart enough to make [any improbable thing] work.

  17. The left live in an alternate reality, one populated by the very strawmen that they create out of whole fantasy cloth in their tiny pea brains.
    We saw this repeatedly with Sad Puppies. All authors not toeing the party line were of course white, misogynist, racist, homophobic, neo-nazis. Especially the minority and female ones.
    Same holds true for this entire Trump derangement syndrome in full force today. Hillary was perfect, so Trump had to cheat to win, and the Russians had to have helped him do it. That each and every leak was not manufactured rumor, but true reporting and damning as evidence of collusion and malfeasance on the part of the Democrats is completely ignored.
    And because in their alternate reality strawman Trump must have cheated to win they will out his crimes and he will be removed from office. And of course if that happens the country will rise up and demand that Hillary take his place. Wish I was kidding, but I’ve seen that very idea show up more than once in FB posts.
    The trouble with strawmen and alternate realities is that eventually the disconnect with true reality becomes obvious to the casual observer. Even when all the traditional mass media markets to their level best to hide the truth. This does of course hold true for alt right fictional realities as well, but since those don’t get nearly the media coverage the impacts aren’t nearly as great.

    1. Spend any time in their echo Chambers. The whole thing today is nuts. As if Garland would have been put in place if Billary had won. It would just be another token ideologue. Was just pushing the stance of McConnell, trying to get him to be browbeaten into putting a ‘moderate’ inverse Scalia onto bench. But because the GOP found its cajones, the Scalia seat was a yuuuuuge factor in the election. Just like Kennedy and Scott Brown.

      1. Funny how the ABA rating of Gorsuch is disregarded even though they have not generally endorsed Republican nominees. It took Bush ending the American Bar Association pre-screening of judicial nominees to get them to admit that a Republican choice for the Supreme Court could be well-qualified, and even then the admission was grudging.

  18. I took the Heatstreet link to the Bailey’s prize, and that’s truly crappy writing in the excerpts. Doesn’t mean the rest is good, or even just OK; I figure it’s representative of the whole.

  19. speaking entirely outside the subject do you think you have time to republish your other cosey mystery anytime soon, I was left hanging after the second one I read as an ebook.

      1. And then I’ll finish the fourth one within a month as quickly as I am able.

        Throw no challenge in the faces of the Fates.

  20. Like with 3d printers and design/manufacturing, the innernet is putting the power back into the hands of the creators. Now we just need a viable competitor to Amazon’s book bidness. Walmart’s can compete on the e-commerce side in general but would like to see an alternate marketplace for e-books in particular.

        1. a) Their search engine sucks for buying b) they insist on marrying their books to their reader, which is not the preferred device. Anyone who hopes to compete with Kindle has to be able to work with any device. c) as a writer, putting a book up with b & n is hellish. ALL of the other interfaces are hellish, in fact, compared to amazon, which means when Amazon adds the inducement of KULL it’s easier to ignore the others. d) OMG their crazy rules, like you can only have one account and it has to be under your shosh#. I have three companies, none of which use my sosh. Having it under my sosh makes tax time hellish. Another incentive to avoid B & N. e) Add to that that its bad search engine, which often has trouble finding an ebook by name and author, let alone to search by category/genre and find something you want, means it makes almost no money. f) whoever designed their categories and genres was doing drugs. Heavy ones. It goes on. And on.

          1. So it basically provides a craptastic exp for both buyer and seller. I ask b/c I never use it as buyer of e-books and I don’t have a finished work to sell (YET).

            1. Yeah. All the “competitors” who bitch about Amazon really only have themselves to blame. They don’t seem to UNDERSTAND “compete” doesn’t MEAN “whine” it means “outdo the other guy.”

        2. Not Sarah (obviously) but had shopped for Nook eBooks before I switched to the Kindle Store.

          B&N destroyed their eBook store in terms of easy browsing, easy downloads, etc.

          It’s so much easier to shop for new (to me) ebooks in the Kindle store than it is to shop in the Nook store.

          While I prefer to read ePub ebooks since I have found ways to deDRM Kindle books & convert them to ePubs, I do most of my ebook shopping in the Kindle Store.

          Note, Sarah and other indies have said that B&N has made it much harder to get their books into the Nook Store and Amazon has made it easy to get their books into the Kindle Store.

          So when I’m shopping for Indie eBooks, I’m more likely to find them in the Kindle Store.

Comments are closed.