HRC: Turning Mourning into a Movement – by Amanda S. Green

HRC: Turning Mourning into a Movement – by Amanda S. Green

Or how many sides of her mouth can she talk out of at the same time?

I knew when I saw the title of the next chapter in Hillary Clinton’s book, What Happened,  that I’d be chewing nails, real nails made of metal, before I finished. “Turning Mourning into a Movement” could mean only one thing. This was going to be Clinton’s attack on several things I hold dear — our first responders and the Second Amendment. Boy, was I right. Unfortunately, I hadn’t anticipated just how hard she’d try to cast herself into the role of the only person in the country — and possibly the world — who could end gun violence in the USA.

For four pages, Clinton describes meeting with different mothers who lost their sons or daughters to police shootings. The bravery of these women in not only surviving but persevering in the face of such loss is touted as if no other mother had ever lost a child. For four pages, we are left with stories that basically let us know just how Clinton feels about police officers and other first responders and it isn’t good.

Finally, on the fourth page of the chapter, Clinton writes,”Treating everyone with care and respect is especially important for the men and women charged with keeping us all safe.” Especially important for the men and women charged with keeping us all safe. Think about that for a moment and then think about how she doesn’t say anything about how those they serve and protect should treat them with respect and care. Yes, there are bad cops but the good ones far outnumber the bad ones. But that doesn’t figure into Clinton’s narrative.

Just as I was about to launch the book against the wall — yes, yes, I know. I’ve had plenty of opportunities before this but this chapter was really getting on my nerves and I was only five pages in now — I came across this:

One hard truth we all have to face is that we all have implicit biases. I have them, you have them, and police officers have them: deeply ingrained thoughts that can lead us to think “Gun!” [w]hen a black man reaches for his wallet. (Pg. 177)

On the surface, one could almost feel a touch of hope for Clinton actually having a clue. Not only does she admit everyone has implicit biases, but she admits SHE has them. Wow, could it be that she is finally admitting she isn’t perfect?

But wait, what if it’s a trap? What if she’s just trying to lull us into a sense of brotherhood — oops, sorry. I used the wrong word. I should have said “sisterhood” — before she drops the other shoe and tries to bury us?

So I looked at the quote more closely than I had on first reading. Yep, that niggling in the back of my mind was right. Clinton, or a very clever editor, set those clauses up in such a way it becomes an indictment of cops. Cops, all cops because of the way she phrased the first sentence, have that implicit bias. It doesn’t matter who the cop is, what his or her racial background might be or their training or the circumstances in which they find themselves. It all comes down to that bias. Riiiight. Pull the other one, Hillary. And congratulations, you almost got me to fall for your line of crap. But I’m on to you now. Let’s see what else you have to say.

Acknowledging this during the campaign may have cost me the support of some police officers and organizations who seemed to think my concern for dead children and other victims showed a presumption of wrong doing by police. (Pg 177)

Now why would any officer ever think that, Hill? I can call you that, can’t I? We’re “sisters” after all. Surely, they couldn’t have taken your words at face value and come to the reasonable conclusion that you would happily sacrifice them upon the altar of political correctness and social justice cause du jour? I’ll note here as well that she does not answer this so-called misconception by officers that she might have held a “presumption of wrong doing by police.” Instead, she continues on and it finally becomes clear what the purpose of this chapter is: She is positioning herself for holding office again — or going to work for a PAC of some sort, be it the Clinton Foundation or more of her high priced public speaking engagements. This chapter is her setting herself up as a champion of those done wrong by the police and, I know this will shock you, the leading advocate for gun control.

She is subtle, unless you really take time to consider her words, in this chapter. That means police officers and all of us doing everything we can to understand the effects of systemic racism that young black and Latino men and women face every day, and how they are made to feel like their lives are disposable. It also means imagining what it’s like to be a police officer, kissing his or her kids and spouse good-bye, every day and heading off to do a dangerous but necessary job. (Pg 177)

Hmm, cops and their families and those who support them have to “understand” this “systemic racism”. Implied in that is that we have to give them breaks others won’t get in the same situation. Funny how Clinton only mentions blacks and Latinos. What about Native Americans? What about others who have come to this country looking for a better life? I guess they don’t count because they aren’t of the right skin tone or country of origin. That sounds pretty racist to me. How about you?

Anyway. . .  Cops are to “understand” and yet all she wants the other side to do is “imagine” what it is like to leave for work at a dangerous job. Hell, the way she described the job, she could be talking about a coal miner, a fire fighter, a pilot or construction worker or many other professions that have nothing to do with law enforcement. It is another subtle way of showing how little respect and concern she has for the cops who put on the uniform each day and risk their lives to protect us.

As I flip through the pages of this particular chapter, I come across a note I made in preparation of writing this post. Simply put, I quit counting the number of times she wrote about meeting with the mother/daughter/sister/wife of someone killed by a cop. The way she frames it in this chapter, it’s amazing she ever had time to meet with anyone else on the campaign trail. Of course, it was all a lead up to her real point — gun control and her positioning herself as the only politician to ever stand against the NRA and al those against gun control even though she knew it might not be a wise political move.

After these searing political experiences, (the NRA funding of campaigns to oust a number of Democrats in the late 1990s and then Al Gore’s defeat in 2000) it became conventional wisdom that it was safer for Democrats to say nothing at all about guns and hope the NRA stayed away. (Pg 180) What? Does she remember the same Democratic Party that I do? When did they ever stay silent on their pet project of gun control?

Here’s where her disconnect with reality once again rears it head. She takes time to explain how she understands gun ownership is important to many in this country. For some, it is ingrained in their culture. For others, it reminds them of the pioneering spirit of the Old West. Others look at it as a right (Duh. Second Amendment, anyone?) Yet, later in the chapter, she gleefully recounts how she pounded on Bernie Sanders because he voted against a certain gun control bills because he knew it was how his constituency wanted him to vote. I never thought I’d be one to step up and defend Sanders but I have to here. He, at least, remembered that he represented the people of his state in the Senate. That means he has to take into account what is important to them. That’s something I’m not sure Clinton has ever taken seriously. She has an agenda and she’s going to follow it and damn anyone who gets in her way.

On page 184 of the book, Clinton did what I feared she’d do. After spending page after page describing all these cases where cops killed civilians, usually young black men, she decided to find an instance where a cop was killed to help sell her point that we need stronger gun control laws. What incident did she choose? The ambush in downtown Dallas in the summer of 2016. Five officers from DPD and Dallas Transit Authority were killed. Nine more were wounded, as were two civilians. Not once in the single paragraph she mentions the ambush in does she say anything more than they were killed by a sniper. She conveniently left out the fact that sniper was an African-American male who set out to kill not just cops but as many white cops as he could. That didn’t fit her narrative. All she cared about was using the deaths of these officers, and the three killed two weeks later in Baton Rouge to make her very limited political point.


I could go on, but you get the gist. No matter how much she protests in the chapter that the voters misunderstood her message about gun control, that the NRA took what amounted to a political hit out on her to keep her from office and that Trump is evil because guns or something, her message was all too clear. She wanted to do away with what she called a “loophole” in the law that allowed sellers to release guns to purchasers if, after the three day waiting period, their background checks had not been returned. In other words, she wanted to give the government the option of simply sitting on background checks indefinitely, effectively preventing people who could legally own guns from purchasing them.

If that’s not enough, she wanted legislation that would allow victims of gun violence and their relatives to be able to sue not just the shooter but the seller of the gun AND the manufacturer. Now, I can see being able to sue the seller if you can show negligence in how they conducted the sale or if they had reason to believe the gun might be used for illegal purposes. But the manufacturer? Think about the chilling effect on the making and distribution of firearms in this country if that became law. How long before liberal judges started handing down monetary judgments so high the manufacturers could not afford to remain in business.

Or look at it this way: Joe Blow walks into the local Cabelas and legally purchases a semi-automatic weapon. It doesn’t matter what make or caliber. It’s a gun and goes bang. He passes the background check. He buys his ammo and takes it and his gun home. A year or more down the road, something happens and Joe decides he’s had enough of his neighbor getting up at 0630 every Saturday and mowing his yard. So Joe loads his gun and walks outside. Five minutes later, the neighbor is down, shot by Joe. The cops are called and Joe is arrested. He stands trial — or pleads out.

Now, that neighbor or his survivors file suit against Joe for shooting him. That’s their right under the civil statutes of the state. But they know Joe doesn’t have any real money. So they file suit against Cabelas for selling him the gun. Oooh, then they realize someone has even deep pockets than the store and that’s the manufacturer. Neither Cabelas nor the manufacturer had any reason to suspect Joe would do something illegal with the gun but, under Clinton’s gun control legislation, they are liable.

So, when are we going to start arguing for the same standards to be applied to knife makers and car makers, etc? We aren’t. Why? Because Clinton and those like her aren’t interested in making sure the victims and their families are financially recompensed. No, they are interested in doing all they can to not only limit our right to bear arms but to drive firearm manufacturers out of business.

But we misunderstood. After all, she kept telling us, “I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns. I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.”

Riiight, like criminals are going to worry about getting a fun legally. All her proposed laws would do would be limit the availability of guns to those who will jump through the legal hoops to buy them.

With each day that passes, with each page of her book I read, I am more and more grateful she was not elected President. This time, the American electorate got it right.

(You can find the other installments in this series at the following links: What Happened or How I Suffered for this Blog and had to Share, Grit and Gratitude, HRC Gets Caught Trying, A New Deal, A Square Deal or How She Wanted to be the Next Roosevelt, and It’s All His Fault.)

[I know this is hard to watch, imagine what it must be like to read the book.  If you want to help finance Amanda’s liquor bill and at this rate eventual liver transplant, use this address  Send the woman a drink-SAH]

341 thoughts on “HRC: Turning Mourning into a Movement – by Amanda S. Green

        1. If she likes mushrooms, there are false morels. Especially if she happens to like true morels. Gyromitra Esculenta?

          Just make sure the cook is careful when preparing that dish, we don’t want any collateral damage. Especially not for her to drop when doing the dish and before she has eaten it. And tell her not to boil it beforehand (that makes it fairly safe to eat).

    1. The part you have to remember is, any *other* candidates the Democratic Party will be practically interchangeable with Hillary.
      “Deviation will not be tolerated”.

      1. Unless some of those who have started stepping up to oppose Pelosi’s leadership, especially after her comments concerning Conyers being an “icon” (or words to that effect) this weekend. It is going to be interesting to see just how much of a split develops in the party as more and more allegations come to light against some of their more “beloved icons”.

        1. I thought Pelosi’s term was especially apt. Conyers is an icon, an empty symbol devoid of intrinsic worth, revered for what he represents in the minds of worshippers.

          1. LOL. Have you seen how fast she is trying to backtrack from her comments now? She’s going to hurt herself with such abrupt changes of direction. VBEG

      2. “The part you have to remember is, any *other* candidates the Democratic Party will be practically interchangeable with Hillary.”

        Which is why I am always so surprised at the vehemence with which they support / enable their crooks and predators in Congress and Presidency. Why not just let the scum go, and elect a “clean” clone?
        Answering myself: (1) there are no clean clones; (2) pols like the Clintons are a sunk cost: the replacement doesn’t get the bribes with the job, and they buyers have to start over.

    2. No, I’d rather inflict Nothing upon her.

      (Yes, there’s a reason the first letter is upper case.)

        1. That may be where she is headed when she dies. Or she will find out that she is like somebody who sold Manhattan for a few beads and a blanket and then exists long enough to see what others did with it. She allowed herself to be swindled, in a major way, and gave up something really, really valuable for a pretty mostly worthless toy which didn’t even last her lifetime. And now has to face a very, very long time without even that toy and with the real prize well out of her reach.

          Okay, since I am a pagan who believes that souls probably get second, and third, and lots of chances – not necessarily humans, but their souls – maybe she will be given a chance to fix it. Maybe she even might if she, for example, gets reincarnated in a more humble position – several times – without the temptations which were too much to her now. Who knows. But obviously she does not have the force of character to deal with temptations. Both weak and stupid.

          1. You know, sometimes the most vexing thing about some people is that they seem to be doing the equivalent of dancing on cliff’s edge, and more so, an unstable one, while deriding those who try to make them see sense. You both feel sorry for them and hope they’d fall off at the same time.

            With her there was and still is the added worry that she just might get where she could first tempt and then force enough others there to dance with her that the collapse would become inevitable. And maybe then take also those who had the sense to stay further away down too because right now they can’t get off that cliff.

  1. Cripes, I knew she was a horrible candidate. I just didn’t realize how awful she was. You guys didn’t dodge a bullet, you dodged a SMOD when she lost.

    (And Hillary Clinton is STILL not the president). 🙂

        1. It may be a clear liquid in a mason jar (sadly not *that* kind of liquid), but I’ll raise my glass to that.

          HRC: Still not the president. Ain’t ever gonna be. May she continue to spoil the well for leftism! Confusion to the enemies of freedom, etc., etc.

          1. Hill (sisterhood … uhhh never mind). Anyway, may Hillary, Pelosi, and a few other democrats, continue to be the democrats gifts that keep on giving. Maybe conservatives will get their super majority, plus get rid of some of their own dead weight, who have been in power too long.

            1. We may (MAY) be seeing a slow sea change in the Republicans. It seems like we may be seeing the states getting more Conservative and/or Libertarian legislatures and governors. Some of this is climbing onto the National stage … to the distress of the Usual Suspect Republican establishment who are all about being the Loyal Opposition and are really uncomfortable playing hardball (not to mention bad at it). But it isn’t going to happen all of a sudden, with a supermajority in 2018, or 2020. They’ll be divided for a while.

              If the Democrats keep going full-on fascist, with idiocy like the Antifa morons, the Republicans may (MAY) have time. But we shouldn’t expect to get away without some more Socialist Moron presidencies.

              1. Ehh, give the poor punks some slack. If you’d spent your formative years dealing with the New Deal coalition, you’d still be in loyal opposition mode yourself.
                But yes, right now what’s critical is whether or not the Democrats go into full circular firing squad mode or can pull off what they did in 2006 and 2008.

            2. … plus get rid of some of their own dead weight, who have been in power too long.

              I am not sure that it is that they have been in power too long, but that they have not and have adapted accordingly.  They are now hide bound in their roles as the loyal opposition and that habit of thinking is hard to break.  

              At any rate, we need to find conservatives of a Constitutional bent to replace them and for a number more seats.

    1. She truly exemplifies the candidate who will do whatever it takes to court the portion of the electorate she thinks will help elect her. In this case, she went with the BLM supporters, etc. What she failed to take into account is the fact they are not the ones who will vote election in and election out. Nor did she consider that, even if they did, they are the minority of voters right now. So she pissed off a number of people who otherwise would have voted for her. As I’ve said before, many people didn’t vote FOR Trump but AGAINST Clinton.

        1. Kind of like Kaepernick. Moans and complains, takes a knee on national television, didn’t vote.

        2. I expect more than a few may be among those remunerated for their trouble of coming out on election day.

        3. My observation (which may be mistaken) is that there is a faction within the protesters of various Liberal/Progressive causes that basically treat protesting like a hobby. In a way they are 1960’s recreationists, sort of like Civil War recreationists. But sonce the ‘history’ they have of the 1960’s counterculture is a Progressive fantasy, they get awfully weird…as if there was a faction of the Civil War recreationists who treated THE WILD WILD WEST as canon.

          I expect that any of these Hobby Protesters who are offered money take it, just as the Civl War enactors were happy to take part in the GETTYSBURG film.

          An honest history of this part of the Protest subculture would make fascinating reading, but probably won’t get written.

          1. Wouldn’t mind so much if The Wild Wild West (TV series) was true history. Don’t recall too much progressivism being smeared in my face.

            1. Not too much progressivism in WWW, but lots of ahistorical weirdness. Kinda,like the Progressive Left’s “No bad Socialism, no good Capitalism” history.

      1. It was almost a negatively perfect campaign; she antagonized her opponent’s supporters, thereby ensuring they would get to the polls if they had to drag their own entrails behind them to do so. She appalled this Republican voter who might have stayed home or voted against Rump otherwise. She focused her efforts on low value populations who, to the extent they would vote at all, would vote for the Democrat candidate under almost all circumstances. And she and her people projected a “we can’t lose” aura that was picked up by her Media lapdogs, giving unenthusiastic Democrat voters the excuse they needed to sleep in on election day.

        To be a worse candidate she would have had to arrange for something out of the Grand Guignol.

        I must say I have NEVER understood her reputation for intelligence. Her behavior is, and always has been, ostentatiously stupid.

          1. If that was true (that she was the smartest woman of her or any other generation) it would be way past time to disenfranchise women. If we were all less intelligent than Hillary Clinton, we would have no business voting on important matters. If we had less understanding of current issues and the Constitution, we would have no business helping to make those important decisions that affect our country and everyone in it. Heck, if we are all less intelligent than Hillary Clinton, no woman should be allowed to own or run a business or do anything else requiring any higher thinking skills.

            1. Misogyny is the suggestion that there exists a man smarter than a given woman, particularly if the woman in question is the feminist defining the misogyny.

              In truth, a great majority of us aren’t at the absolute peak of human ability and intelligence. The more official word is that someone is the greatest, the more likely it is that said claim won’t be backed up with the results we develop by evaluating for ourselves. Overselling someone as the peak of [disadvantaged minority] ability is likely to backlash.

              That said, I suspect my own calculations have too many false positives for mental deficiency.

              1. I rather suspect that many in the top percentile of raw intelligence (useful intelligence, knowledge capable of being applied in the real world) are keeping their heads down. With all the public acclaim of intelligence, and whom it is lavished upon, it wouldn’t be “smart” to be seen assmart, but not following the approved creed. At least in some circles.

            2. It ain’t a matter of smarts or intelligence. Delusions affect matters, too. Smart people operating under invalid assumptions reach far worse conclusions than dumb folk working from those same axioms, while even simple folk employing sound premises can reach positive results.

              Of course, smart people understand the importance of reviewing one’s assumptions and develop systems for constantly checking their results to prevent going far astray.

          2. I could make a REALLY nasty comment on what believing that mist do to one’s opinion of women….but we’re seeing that play out, aren’t we?

            My Mother used more intelligence to plan menus than Her Shrillness exhibited in her entire political career.

                1. We live in San Diego and the only sticker I felt comfortable putting on the car said “ObiWan Kenobi- Our Only Hope” Having EAA and NRA emblems on the window already was risky enough.

                  1. If I lived in one of the Peoples’ Republics (California, Massachusetts, etc.) I would be powerfully tempted to have made up stickers to put next to “Friends don’t let friends vote Republican” stickers, which would read “Like the KKK with the Negro vote”

                  2. I can see why NRA might be a risk, but EAA?
                    Alright, I grew up in WI and Pa was a private pilot, and…. but… I just don’t get why EAA would be any issue.

                    1. I suspect it’s because any prog (who actually knows what the EAA is) seeing that would have a reaction along the lines of ‘How can you waste money on such a self-indulgent hobby when there are children starving in Awfu(dg)istan?’

                      I once had a bumper sticker that read “All the Way with NRA” and a reproduction of the National Recovery Act eagle. Made for some interesting conversations. ‘You mean you *don’t* support one of FDR’s hallmark initiatives?’ Is it odd to anyone else that that NRA eagle looks a lot like the one on the logo for the NSDAP?

                    2. It was jarring to encounter the NRA eagle advert in color in an otherwise B&W publication the grandparents kept around. I think I still have it. I recall an article about how the new Pentagon building or maybe something at Fort Knox would be “proof against bombs” – a phrasing I’d not encountered until then.

          1. Not too surprising; the Socialist Left has always had an unhealthy fixation on ant colonies. It’s what turned my Mother Conservative; she kept reading about Socialist Paradises that sounded an awful lot like ant farms.

          2. Someone brought that up in an opinion article today, with regards to the local controversy about Milo Yiannopolous giving talks in Australia.


            The link on the main page (at present anyway) is titled “How dumb can we be?” (subtitled: THIS guy is the controversial alt-right hero the left loves to hate. But all the outrage against him is playing right into his hands.)

            I read through it, with my morning coffee, chuckling to myself. Bit sad I couldn’t go to one of the talks, but watching the local REEEEE has been entertaining.

            1. A while back, someone in a Facebook post dismissed Milo with the comment, “He’s just a troll.” My response to that was along the lines of, “Sure, he’s a troll, but he trolls for free speech!”

              If there’s one thing that trolling is particularly appropriate for, I think that’s it.

                1. That’s the thing – he trolls people with speech that shouldn’t get them upset. Sortof like writing “teddy bears are nice for kids” and having an entire blog flame you over it. You might find the person who does that to be dislikeable in any other instance, but you’re willing to support them if they bring out the sorts of people who actually hate teddy bears for kids.

        1. Not so stupid that she and Billy haven’t been able to dodge the consequences of their actions for 4 decades. The number of people who have taken a dive for them is unfathomable. /sigh

            1. Weasel is such a nice descriptive word that so rarely gets a chance to be applied to a woman.

            2. There is a difference between smart, wise, and clever. Bill and Hill have the same low cunning as weasels – they are very clever. Bill is both more charismatic and wiser than Hill – in that he may not have a moral compass centered on anything other than what he wants, but he’s wise enough to know that you have pay attention to others in order to manipulate them into what you want.

        2. I have a feeling she might be book smart but she has no people smarts. But she has proven to be a good manipulator behind the scenes. It’s just when she steps out from behind the curtain she fails miserably.

          1. “Book smart” consists of giving the answers expected. It has no relationship to actual smarts, and is the antithesis of innovative thought. She is the embodiment of her caste, the presence of the status quo, aka the reason for this mess we’re in.

          2. I get the sense that she can’t “read” people the way Bill could. She’s too indoctrinated to bother making the effort, because she knows the One True Way. Bill at least would get along to go along so he could keep his gains.

            1. I think that was a result of her arrogance. She couldn’t possibly have to schmooze people, because she’s so obviously smart they’ll see it her way. Or they’re all idiots – obviously.

              1. I totally agree. I believe it’s arrogance above all else. Everything in this book about how she was the best person– not just candidate — for the office, the only person to deal with gun violence, etc., prove it.

                1. I was always very amused by the line her campaign used frequently last year – “Best qualified and prepared candidate ever” – based upon her being a lawyer in a podunk Arkansas law firm for 20 years, then first lady for 8 years, then secretary of state for 5-6 years. Hell, Bush 1 was more qualified if you base qualifications upon public service. In fact, based upon those credentials, GHW Bush was the most qualified presidential candidate ever to run.

                  1. I do not know that Trump won before people in the voting booth went, “Well… choice T sucks.. but choice H… oh, Hell, T it is.” but I am fairly sure Hillary lost at “Basket of deplorables.” After that it was, admittedly in retrospect (helluva place, retrospect.. things almost make sense there. Almost) it was just matter of how hard and all.

                    Or maybe that Air Mail cocktail is having an effect (I know, I know, but it’s still THIS subject… and I still managed to leave the absinthe corked. After all, things could actually get worse. I will NOT make the mistake of asking or saying how.)

                    1. The “basket” comment was the inflection point for her polls, not the Comey presser, so the actual data points toward her arrogant disdain for the electorate being the shorter answer to the title of her book.

                      I note that our Dear Reader has not yet mentioned reading the word “deplorable” so far.

            2. You have evoked this image, I cannot distinguish whether it is Gene Wilder or possibly Andy Kaufman, ranting “They’re stupids, stupids!” overlaid on HRC’s visage.

        3. She focused her efforts on low value populations who, to the extent they would vote at all, would vote for the Democrat candidate under almost all circumstances.

          She didn’t do that very well.

          (As to Grand Guignol, I rather like Alice Cooper.)

          1. There’s nothing wrong with Grand Guignol in it’s place. But to kill her chances more thoroughly, Shrillay would have had to be caught procuring underage girls for Bill, and baking their remains into meat pies afterward…which is Grand Gignol.

            It’s also too much work, and she’s formidably lazy, as well as stupid, immoral, and criminal.

        4. I suspect that Hillary is well above average intelligence, in the “it takes a genius to be this stupid” sense. That said, my *prime* reason for voting against her was neither her corruption nor her political positions — though both of which would have been sufficient. My primary reason for voting against her was quite simply that everything she controls turns to shit. Look at the state department. Look at Libya. Look at her campaign. Look at the health reform she tried to spearhead under her husband’s presidency. It’s a very consistent pattern and I didn’t want it replicated in the entire country.

    2. Every not and then I have to look at the latest demented anti-Trump news just to make sure I didn’t dream the whole thing.

    3. “(And Hillary Clinton is STILL not the president). 🙂 ”

      I still comfort myself with that, here a year later, on my black dog days. Thank You, Lord of All.

  2. chewing nails, real nails made of metal, before I finished. “Turning Mourning into a Movement” could mean only one thing. This was going to be Clinton’s attack on several things I hold dear — our first responders and the Second Amendment. Boy, was I right. Unfortunately, I hadn’t anticipated just how hard she’d try to cast herself into the role of the only person in the country — and possibly the world — who could end gun violence in the USA.

    Alright, ALREADY hit the “This calls for absinthe” level. And I am still refraining from the rectified spirits… tempting as that is. I have SOME sense. Which I am apt to lose very shortly.

      1. I have an empty Bailey’s bottle. Granted, it’s been empty for a while and I keep it around as it fits an inverted angel food cake pan fairly well. Hillary is NOT PRESIDENT. And I am baking a confetti angel food cake in celebration (alright, in celebration of a friend’s promotion, but still… President NOT HILLARY. Hu-freaking-zzah!!!).

        Tea. I think I need some tea. From a brick of tea. The GOOD stuff, yes.

    1.  Unfortunately, I hadn’t anticipated just how hard she’d try to cast herself into the role of the only person in the country — and possibly the world — who could end gun violence in the USA.

      one … two … three … four … five … six … seven … eight … nine … ten … sigh!


       ‘…and possibily the world…’  


      All this in spite of the fact that she earlier established how much trouble she had with American Alpha males with attitude.  But guns — O, hey she can handle that!  

      Dream on lady. Just, please, kindly, will you take it off stage?

      1. Oh, I knew she was never one to doubt her own abilities but this goes beyond the pale. She not only made the kool-ade, but she drank it all as well. It’s why she can’t admit she holds any real responsibility for her loss. Even as she gives lip service to having made wrong decisions, etc., she finds a way to blame someone else for it. Hell, I keep expecting to find an illustration each time I turn a page that depicts her in a Christ-like post, walking on water and curing the lepers.

        1. Hell, I keep expecting to find an illustration each time I turn a page that depicts her in a Christ-like post, walking on water and curing the lepers.

          Snicker oh I can imagine.

        2. It has nothing to do with her abilities to end gun violence and everything to do with her abilities to persuade a portion of the public that she (whom they already believes walks on water and pees Chardonnay) can perform such miracles.

          And she probably can end “gun violence.” Henceforward it will be known as “pistol aggression” or “firearms force” or “gunpowder abuse” or some similarly jejune euphemism.

            1. Eh, there are others of theirs I like better. 🙂

              Within Temptation’s “Our Solemn Hour” works better for clearing ear-worms.

            2. I prefer Holst as a palate cleanser.

              Mars (first movement) is also my go-to for mood setting whilst plotting out capital ship battles. And you seriously can’t tell me John Williams *wasn’t* aware of what he was er… paying homage to, let’s say, when he wrote the Imperial March for Star Wars.

                1. Giving it a listen now, I think you’re right. There are quite a few old classical themes that pop up again and again… Not that there’s a thing wrong with that. I like classical.

                  It does remind me a bit of the Pachabel rant that Peter Grant linked up a few days ago, though. *chuckle*

              1. While classical music can work well, I find the most effective ear-worm blockers are Broadway show-tunes. These offer words, an excellent aid in recollection and structure which also involve a greater portion of the mind, being verbal as well as musical.

                Of course, some folk have ably succeeded in merging the two, such as Flanders & Swann’s “Ill Wind” or the entire Borodin-based score of Kismet..

                1. I have The Bells of Christmas stuck in my head right now. Maybe I should sing Abdul Abulbul Amir a few times to clean it out, but it’s the one Julie Andrews sang on the old Firestone records.

  3. Interesting, that phrase “… my concern for dead children”. That too is fake news — the people being killed are not “children”. The claim they are is just another part of the victim disarmament effort by Hillary and her co-conspirators.
    On the effort to destroy the gun business by abuse of liability, there’s a precedent for that sort of thing. Several decades ago, the infamous Teddy Kennedy pushed for punitive taxes on ammo. Same sort of argument: no, we’re not trying to outlaw guns — we’re just trying to tax it into non-existence. (Except perhaps for our rich friends in Hollywood, and people like Feinstein, who keep their guns while shouting no one should have guns.)

    1. Just as it is selective reporting not to talk about the criminal backgrounds and current activities of some of those who have been killed. Fortunately, most of the country doesn’t buy it.

      I’d forgotten about good ole Teddy’s attempts. Of course, I do my best to forget about pretty much anything that particular Kennedy did. If he isn’t a prime example of what privilege and politics can do to keep you out of prison, I don’t know what is.

      1. About Teddy; I have always had the creeping suspicion (and ‘creep’ is always an appropriate word for that family!) that a lot of what he did in terms of sleazy dealing was a desperate subconscious attempt to keep the Democrats from making him run for President. Oh, he did it a couple of times, when there really wasn’t much chance of being elected, but the ‘two out of three’ thing had to work on him mind…

        1. Considering family history, can you blame him? Joe, Jr., had been groomed from birth by Joe, Sr, to be the first Irish Catholic to be president. He was killed in WWII. That left JFK and we all know what happened to him and then, later, to RFK when he ran. If I had been Teddy, I’d have done everything in my power not only to stay out of a presidential race but out of politics as a whole.

          1. I recall that Junior died testing a rather dangerous plane-as-bomb weapon. I get the idea that the Kennedys loved to take wild chances. Glory addicts? (IRC, JFK should have been 4F rather than in the Navy…)

            1. IIRC, he wasn’t testing it, it was an operational deployment. They were taking bombers whose airframes were nearing end of life, packing them with explosives, and equipping them with some sort of autopilot. They were like cruise missiles, only a minimal aircrew, pilot and copilot, would have to perform the take off, set the autopilot, and then bail out.

          2. He wasn’t going to be ALLOWED to butt out of politics, but I thi k the way he approached politics may have been influenced by a hoe that it would disqualify him as a Presidential candidate….

              1. Speaking of typos in that vein….
                When I lived on Guam, one of the downtown malls (odd, because it had a strip mall outdoor section, and a small indoor section) had a sign listing some of the stores further down. The sign had seen better days, with letters missing all over – either completely gone or faded terribly. But one poor footwear business had it the worst:
                A-1 HO STO
                That was what the sign read.

                    1. When I got my pet monk parakeet, Rhys firmly banned that I name the bird after anything food related. Given how clingly Riley is though, and how he’ll fly from his perch onto someone’s shoulder, enough incidences of him doing so while I’m in the kitchen has lead to ‘you silly chicken nugget’ as an affectionate chide.

                  1. When I first moved to Cincinnati, I saw at a strip mall a veterinarian office in a strip mall, with a leather goods store on one side and a Chinese restaurant on the other.

                  2. For a number of years my wife and I got a laugh every time we drove by this one strip mall. The big roadside sign was topped with just PUPPIES and right below that was Mattresses and the third row was Cleaning.

                    Yah, if you have a store full of puppies on your mattress it’s going to need cleaning!

      2. Sadly, I have an online aquaintence who bought the blm lies. When she was a TEA Party supporter, she was lied about by the very same people whose word she is taking as gospel. Sad. I only hope she comes to her rather high senses again. I think living in Portland has broken her.

          1. I was going to inquire wtf with her sisters or hubby, but they seem to have gone away as well. 3 sisters, the hubby and her mom are not listed in her friends, nor do I see the two sisters I also kept up with on the twitters on my list any longer.

        1. If she’s living in Portland, she wouldn’t dare say anything else. Antifa conducts open attacks on people they identify as not Antifa.

        1. You mean they are wanting all the ammo in CA to be better at defeating the cops vests and going through walls so stray bullets will kill more bystanders?

          Soft Lead Bullets save lives! 🙂

        2. California also passed a ballot proposition to require background checks on ammunition purchases. And you’re not allowed to purchase ammunition out of state and bring it home to evade the background check.

          I’ve also been told that the bill bans internet sales of ammunition (to avoid the background check), so it likely runs afoul of the interstate commerce section of the US Constitution. Though as some justices in Maryland recently demonstrated, whether or not a court will pay attention to that problem depends heavily on the specific justices on that court.

          1. Questions: 1) What about those that self load their own? 2) How do they stop someone from going out of state and buying, or someone bringing ammunition in from out of state? 3) what about those carrying open carry or with a concealed? Inquiring people wanna know.

            1. That’s fairly easy: They have plainclothes officers (or civilian volunteers from Brady / Antifa / etc.) staking out the gun stores near where the roads cross the border, recording license plates. And of course, most people don’t think anything about using credit / debit cards to buy ammo.

            2. Concealed carry is legal in California. The catch is that you need a permit granted by your County’s Sheriff. And in blue enclaves, it’s pretty well-known that even if you have someone with a history of violence actively stalking you, you’re not going to get a concealed carry permit unless you’re either a.) a celebrity, or b.) donated substantially to the local Sheriff’s reelection campaign. And if you have to ask how much to donate, you can’t afford to donate enough.

              I’m not sure what the open carry laws are in California, but I wouldn’t recommend it in most places. At minimum, you’ll get a lot of unfriendly law enforcement attention.

              1. At least for Lee Bacca, word was that a $10k donation would get you a permit even if you’d made a couple trips to rehab for illegal drugs.

              2. as for open carry, unloaded upen carry used to be legal statewide and loaded open carry legal in teh less populated areas. then UOC got bumped in populated areas, due partly to some folks being very public about it, and they are working on making it totally illegal statewide. Peruta, which…almost got CA shall issue, was over the UOC laws.

          2. part of why they hates the Trump.
            He keeps appointing judges who, you know, actually follow the constitution, and they themselves are to blame for not being able to block them.

          3. And you’re not allowed to purchase ammunition out of state and bring it home to evade the background check.
            Hmmmm, pretty sure *that* would be unconstitutional, as an import law, too.

            Of course, “unconstitutional” ain’t what it used to be…….

              1. It all comes down to what the courts decide. The new law up in the Northeast seems to pretty strongly run afoul of Heller. But the 4th Circuit en banc said otherwise. And the US Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

                I would hope that the courts would be more willing to go after something blatantly unconstitutional like this. But you never can tell.

            1. Laws may be passed that are unconstitutional, unfortunately it happens frequently in such times as ours.  So, has someone with (recognized) standing challenged it in court yet?  Since California is in the Ninth Circuit, the case would probably have to crawl on up to the Supreme Court before the law might be overturned.

              1. Passing laws which are unconstitutional? The nerve! Do the legislature/executive/judiciary know this sort of thing is ongoing? If only there were some parliamentary procedure in place in legislatures to prevent such things! If only executives had a way of indicating constitutionally problematic elements of laws, such as issuing clarifying statements at signing ceremonies. If only the courts weren’t full of Posners who imagine the Constitution merely a guideline having no authoritative legal status!

    2. Significantly, her only concern is for those children dead at the hands of cops and not the far greater number killed by their racial “brothers.” As Baltimore and Chicago (should) have learned, there are worse problems than “police violence” and greater predation than that wrought by (presumed) biased police.

      OTOH, while I am loath to argue in defense of Teddy Chappaquiddick, many of his legislative proposals were not intended to become law. Their purpose was to push benign-sounding unworkable legislation that Republicans would protect the public from, but at a cost of generating fodder for Democrats’ attack ads: “Sen. [Conservative] voted to allow your kids to be shot!”

      1. Had Trevon Martin or Michael Brown been shot by black gangbangers, neither would be remembered today.

      2. OTOH, while I am loath to argue in defense of Teddy Chappaquiddick, many of his legislative proposals were not intended to become law. Their purpose was to push benign-sounding unworkable legislation that Republicans would protect the public from, but at a cost of generating fodder for Democrats’ attack ads.

        You’re still not arguing in favor of him by making that point.

    3. — the people being killed are not “children”.

      In HRC’s progressive mind everyone of us in the nation (who are not a proper part of the leadership class) are ‘children’ who need the care of a benevolent government firmly guided by her hand. 

  4. When I saw the first part of the title
    Turning Mourning into a Movement
    I immediately thought of a different kind of “movement”. I knew then it had to be the next chapter in Amanda’s daring expedition into the jungle of Hillary’s dark heart and mind.

    1. You are soooo bad. VBEG. Of course, in many ways, it is that sort of movement. It is a bunch of crap — I’m tempted to use a much more graphic phrase — pouring off the pages of this book.

    2. I was about to say that a toilet take fresh water in, and Hillary out, but sewers serve a noble purpose and so that would be going too far. Perhaps Minamata bay in the 1950’s…

  5. There are at least four parties contributing to a lot of these shootings by cops, at least of the ones that are publicized by as police misconduct.

    The dead man himself, for getting high and acting stupidly around a cop. The mother or parents, for being so negligent as to permit their kid to be high, and to be in a pattern of behavior that results in behaving stupidly around a cop. The cop. Voters as a whole for being satisfied with the open air free range asylum for people who are high, which naturally results in a certain amount of death to being shot by police. If you are going to put all the blame on a single party, the person himself makes the most sense. As for other parties, why not also prosecute the mothers for the distress these incidents cause to cops? The harm to careers. Etc.

    Considering even Warsaw ghetto alone, if we are concerned that cops are killing excessively, gun control is not any sort of solution. If the police force really were willing or interested in those sorts of exterminations, gun control would help massacre, not prevent it. That people are willing to consider more gun control is evidence that they aren’t truly convinced that cops are excessively violent. That people are willing to keep the current gun control is further evidence.

    Item: Maybe we should hold public schools responsible for their production of criminals?

    I’d initially guessed that her title was about mourning for her loss, and a movement to get her the office.

    1. If the police force really were willing or interested in those sorts of exterminations, gun control would help massacre, not prevent it.
      Exactly. Cops are bad and unnecessarily violent, so naturally cops are the only people who should have guns. *smh*

      1. If you are waiting for Liberals to be coherent in their arguments you will be a long time about it. Their consistency tends to be subtextual, expressing a goal of civilizational destruction.

    2. Somewhere in here belongs the militarization of police forces, combined with the unaccountability created by strong (and unethical) p9lice unions.

      How many peoples’ lives have been made horrible (or far too brief) because some imbecile decided to go after a possible Pot bust like he was planning to Normandy landings?

      And my pet hate is the unctious Police official who comes out after one of these clusterfucks and intones “all relevant proceedures were followed”

      Well, if all relevant proceedures were followed and a bunch of cops broke into the wrong house and killed an innocent man, maybe the bozo who wrote the proceedures needs to be crucified alongside the cops.

      1. Strong unethical police unions are an issue, procedure based policing as a cure for litigation is an issue, and I think that if we are going to employ cops like infantry, we should just use infantry.

        Thing is, I’m only reluctantly opposed to summary execution for drug use. The national media pretty much never covers incidents involving drugs where I feel the use of force is clearly excessive. For ex, I don’t really think it was excessive that McDonald was shot to death. The issues I have with police conduct in that case are a) covering it up like they had done something wrong (the cover up was clearly criminal and wrong) b) not prosecuting or fining the mother. I can forgive b, but not a.

  6. IIRC, being able to go for the deep pockets of manufacturers is what did a number on the manufacturers of small aircraft in the US a good few years ago. A pilot gets killed in a twenty-year old Cessna? No matter how the AC was maintained or operated in the twenty years since – sue the manufacturer! They’re the only ones with deep pockets. And eventually, there went those manufacturers.

    1. Yep. Other industries have been hit as well. Then, after they are either bankrupt or have left the country for more business-friendly locales, the politicians wonder what happened and how they can build the tax base back up. What happened is political stupidity was at play and the only way to build up the tax base is to tax the individual — which we don’t like and will let them know about.

      1. I seem to remember manufacturers of industrial equipment being sued because some 100 year old piece of machinery manufactured by a company that was bought out 50 years earlier didn’t have safety guards on it that were mandated 20 years ago, and operator error got someone injured. Usually the operator…

        1. A friend got sued for such; his business sold a table saw and several years later, the operator got cut on the blade. Somehow it was supposed to be my friend’s fault that the customer removed the guards after the sale and the operator didn’t put them back on. The only good news was that my friend won the case.

          1. And paid how much in legal fees, etc.? The whole idea is for the firearms companies (and anyone using a gun in self-defense) to be punished by the process until they are broken by it.

            That’s why one of the best parts of TX self-defense law is that if the shooter can’t be prosecuted successfully they also can’t be sued.

        2. You wanna really spike your bloodpressure? Consider the Love Canal scandal. The company follwed BETTER proceedures than the law required at the time. When the township told the company it was going to acquire the land, the company warned them there were toxic chemicals under it, took the officials out to the site and showdmthem test borings. The company only sold the land under political pressure and tried HARD to get the township to understand what they were proposing to build on.

          Township ignores the warnings, does just about every possible thing wrong, and the company gets sued.

    2. Once upon a time a pilot flew his Cherokee until it ran out of fuel. Being a reasonably competent pilot otherwise, he made an emergency landing on an Interstate. The touchdown speed on a Cherokee is close to traffic speed, so he used his momentum to coast up an exit ramp and into a gas station. Somebody saw an airplane parked at a fuel island, and stared until he ran off the road.

      He sued Piper.

      1. That doesn’t surprise me. It’s why we have people suing McDonald’s for serving hot coffee that burns them when they put the paper cup between their legs and it spills. It’s why drug manufacturers have to tell you not to take something if you are allergic to it. Too many people don’t want personal responsibility, not if they can get someone else to pay for their screw-up.

      2. That would be like the dumb boys who stared at Cedar (twenty, about to be married, with long blond hair and all fixed up) as we drove down the road, and drove themselves into the median and then spun clear across the three lanes of traffic to the shoulder in their convertible, deciding to sue Cedar because she was a pretty girl and had distracted them from their driving. They CHOSE to stare at the pretty girl instead of paying attention to the road.

        1. I strongly believe that if I take a rolled up copy of the NY Times to smack my dog, that dog ought be able to sue the NY Times for enabling the abuse.

          And I don’t even have a dog.

    3. I got to watch liability concerns nearly gut the general aviation industry back in the early ’70s. Piper, for example, sold the Cherokee Fliteliner 140 for about $20K around 1970ish, the similarly equipped Cherokee Warrior 140 three years later cost our FBO just over $100K. The Warrior was a nicer plane, but not that much nicer.

      Around the same time, some fellow flying a Beechcraft Bonanza into instrument conditions (he wasn’t rated for IFR operation, nor was the Bonanza), ending up by dropping vertically down into some midwest farm land. The civil suit that followed attempted to hit Beechcraft for something on the order of $4B in damages, claiming they’d enabled the guy to kill himself and three friends.

      The suit failed, but Beechcraft spent a lot of money defending against it. And it wasn’t the only case.

          1. It is a wonder nobody has yet succeeded in bringing a RICO action against certain portions of the plaintiff’s bar. Some cases seem clear efforts at abusing legal process as a form of extortion.

      1. > Beechcraft spent a lot of money defending against it.

        I never understood that sort of thing. If I ran a company like Beechcraft, I’d hire my own lawyers as employees. That, or play “let’s make a deal” among the local established firms in expectation of future need.

        1. IIRC Corporate Lawyers can be as expensive as Private Firm Lawyers (or more expensive).

        2. The problem is that the suit can be filed against you wherever some idea used your plane-or-other-tool to commit suicide-by-stupidity. Your corporate lawyer won’t know the local law, the local culture or the local judges. The first — well, let’s say you had a corporate stable of lawyers qualified for the bar in all fifty states. They *still* won’t know all the city laws. This isn’t just a matter of the tool being legal where it was sold; this is a matter of, oh, getting the lawsuit thrown out at the first hearing because there’s an obscure city law the deceased was violating, and that takes precedence.

          And then there’s the local culture and judges. This might not matter, but then again it might — you might have a prickly local judge who will wind up ruling against you every time s/he has discretion (which is often) because of something the lawyer from headquarters had no way of knowing was offensive.

  7. The main point is that Hillary never addresses the REASON why cops might have a bias (statistically justified!) in assuming a young black male not in a suit and tie quickly reaching for his wallet might be instead pulling a gun.

    “She has an agenda and she’s going to follow it and damn anyone who gets in her way.” Yep, which pretty much describes most of the peopel who voted for Obamacare. They failed to represent the people who voted for them, and steam rollered us all with their agenda to provide a gravy train for the government and the insurance companies.

    As you say, is there any other product made and sold in the U.S. where we can sue the company because a purchaser decides to use it for an illegal purpose? Acid attacks? Nope. Steak knives? Nope. Automobilies? Nope. Use of drain cleaners, kitchen and bathroom cleansers, rat poison, insecticides, scissors, baseball bats, various lamps and decorative art around the house as murder and assault weapons? Nope. Unlike guns, ownership of any of those things is not specifically protected by an amendment of the Constitution. But nobody ever sues those companies because of illegal use. And those who try are laughed out of court. Oh, and most big stores have deeper pockets than individual gun manufacturers. Cabelas, Walmart, etc, won’t go out of business, but Remington or Sig Sauer might.

    BobtheRegisteredFool, the second stage of the gun controllers is to castrate the cops by removing their normal carrying of firearms under the same model as Great Britain. Only the guards of the elite, or the sanctioned SWAT teams will be permitted to have firearms.

    The shame is that Hillary Clinton doesn’t have the courage of even a war criminal like Slobodan Praljak.

    Don’t get me wrong. I don’t have any great love for law enforcement as an institution, especially those at the national level. Those at a local level, the stereotypical beat cops, that actually have and adhere to a code of honor and public service, that’s different.

    1. Yeah, they are playing for their revolutionary end game. Which they don’t realize is never going to happen, and hence is an exercise in futility. In fairness, it is their church.

      There may be some way of reaching the pro gun control voters or the anti police ‘brutality’ voters for whom those aren’t merely known excuses for policies that would support the mass murder of Americans.

      1. No. They aren’t playing for a,revolutionary endgame. That would be too honest. If you assume that the Progressives have never given up eugenics and the Democrats have never given up on “keeping the Darkies down”, everything about their policies makes perfect sense.

    2. Remington or Sig Sauer might
      Remington most definitely will, given their current shaky status (without any lawsuits).

        1. Remington has been behind the financial curve for some time now. They have massive debt, and aren’t putting out the exceptional quality firearms (compared to price*) they used to (by some accounts, anyway). And, now the slight, still uncertain, maybe-maybe-not downturn in firearm sales is going to hurt them further.

          (* When your prime line is a bolt-action that costs twice what a decent semi-auto costs, you’re probably limiting your customer base.)

          1. And I notice in a different article, they were the ones sued over a trigger assembly that would fire even if you weren’t pulling the trigger. That cost a lot.

          2. Most of Remington’s product line is ancient.

            Granted that small arms are fairly simple and there’s always from for the classics, but they’re in the same position as a car company that only built reproductions of the ’57 Chevy, ’63 Corvette, and ’65 Mustang. They’d make steady sales, but a big chunk of the market would hold out for a newer design with all the mod.cons.

            1. Yes, it can be a valid business model, but your customer base is going to be a niche. If you try to capitalize on trends without changing your business model, you won’t be likely to succeed.

            2. American Rifleman had good things to say about their new pistol. Didn’t pay much attention; I’m more-or-less set, though $SPOUSE asked for another Ruger LCR; this time in .22LR. Waiting to see if any of my eye issues means out-of-pocket expenses. So far, so good, but the day-surgery hospital bill!?! Yikes!

              1. I wouldn’t touch a Remington R51 with Nancy Pelosi’s hand.

                For those unfamiliar with the debacle, the R51 is a kinda-sorta-lookalike of a pistol they made in the 1930s. Despite the exaggerated styling it sold reasonably well, until thousands of owners found out they were grossly unreliable, probably as a result of being packed with machining swarf or dirt, mis-machined parts, etc. Looked like they’d been made with hand tools by North Korean slave labor.

                Remington reluctantly set up a warranty return program, which was a story in itself. Eventually Remington made good on them, but they’d been betting the farm on $BIG PROFITS from the R51.

                Apparently the revised/updated/QC’d guns perform reasonably well, but the R51, on top of their continuing Model 700 quality control problems, has cost them many customers who will *never* own a Remington product again.

            3. that’s because their newer designs aren’t great. See the semi-auto pistol they keep trying with…

          3. For about all my life, Remington has been on the lower end of things. Browning was considered the firearm you should get if you could afford it, with Winchester toward the middle and Remington below that. Have not been impressed with Remington circa 1970s – 1980s firearms. Their big local draw was the semi-auto in 30-06, which was more affordable than Browning. Seem to recall the Winchester bolt action was preferred over Remington. And a quick check shows they’d dropped their old semi-auto rifle line, and the AR style no longer seems to come in .308 Winchester.

            I thought they’d cut a deal with a Czech company to sell a Mauser action, but that was years ago. No sign of it on their web site.

            Sigh. I really don’t know what to look into these days. Every autumn, my fancy turns to hunting rifles (it should in the spring, where I’d have time to practice before deer season), and I start gazing at rifles. It seems like most have quality issues now – Winchester, Marlin, Remington – and I don’t even know about Browning anymore, and Springfield Armory is a bit pricey. So it’s always looking at shotguns, thinking about Mossberg, and calling it a season.

            1. What I hear from those who know:
              -For bolt action, Steyr and CZ have a pretty good reps.
              -For AR’s, Colt, Daniel Defense, Bravo, and Knight’s are the business, though S&W makes a workable cheapie.
              -For Semi Shotties, Benelli& Beretta.
              -Mossberg pumps are still regarded as tanks.

              1. Savage makes a pretty good bolt action. Accurate, good action, reliable. At least they did about five years ago when I was looking, and nearly fell in love with ’em.

                I still want a Henry in 30-30 lever action, though. They just settle right back on target like it’s home. Weight provides decent recoil damper, not that you really need it with 30-30. Just feels nice.

                1. Have hunted with an early 1960s model 30-30, the type with just the squeeze-the-lever safety, and wasn’t terribly enthusiastic about it. It might have to do with the stock being too short for me and a bit narrow. It was enough that I developed a flinch that took a while to get over, and before that I was used to shooting 4 dram equivalent 12 gauge shells in a single shot with no flinch at all.

                  A good brush rifle, though, where most shots are 60 yards or less. Were it not for the price of ammo, I might have sprung for a nice 45-70 a couple of years back. That was a Marlin, and those supposedly have the deep rifling while their 30-30s have micro groove. Have heard bad things about Marlin actions lately, though.

                  Brush conditions are why I’m not comfortable with bolt actions. Given I used to hunt with that single-shot shotgun with spare shells between my fingers to speed reloading, that might be an odd thing. But I’d have to fire many a round before I found a bolt action comfortable. Oh, the issue with a fast follow-up at that range is most hog, though a second chance with bear would be very nice if it came to it. No, I don’t hunt bear, but that doesn’t mean a bear won’t take a notion to hunt me.

                2. Oh, and something I don’t like about the Henrys are how you have to load them. With a Winchester or Marlin, it’s just put the bullet in through the side of the receiver. With the Henrys, it’s at the end of the magazine tube.

                  1. True, I’m not a fan of the loading. Heck, My old SA-22 isn’t the most fun to load- even though you can do speed loaders with a fat soda straw. *chuckle* I can put up with it, as I’m not in competition with anybody and I shoot slow anyways. It’s a YMMV thing.

                    Marlins I do like- the old style, not what they’ve come out with recently, I agree. The old 1895’s in 45-70- no idea when the one I shot was made, this was back in the early ninties- was a nice one, indeed. No way I could afford one today. The reproductions and the new line (if it’s what I heard), yeah, I’ve not been impressed with the word on the street.

              2. I’d take the thing about Mossbergs with a grain of salt; during my first Nightfall, we had a Mossberg catastrophically self-destruct in the hands of our Entertainment Director during the stunt show. Luckily he wasn’t injured, beyond a couple of scrapes and some singeing.

                We kept the remains of the receiver in the Tech Department for a while as a piece of modern art.

            2. Well, there’s always old iron… I’m a fan of Mikhail Timofeyovich’s designs, but my 1957 BSA Featherweight .39096 is My Precious. And I just picked up a hundred-year-old Stevens 520 12ga pump, which is a Browning design.

            3. I’ve gotten generally excellent products from Ruger, and in the one instance I had a problem (reassembling the Mark 3 22/45 pistol… which is the sole reason they put out the Mark 4; trained gunsmiths had problems with the Mark 3), the factory service was efficient and free because warranty.

      1. Remington, alas, has fallen into the hands of the beancounters, who have taken a much respected name and ruined it.

      2. How a company that makes the 870 can go out of business on their own is just bad management.

  8. ”Treating everyone with care and respect is especially important for the men and women charged with keeping us all safe.”

    Like she, when she was Secretary of State, cared for and respected Ambassador John Christopher Stevens?

  9. I noticed something particularly interesting in your summary of Clinton’s stories, Amanda. And it raised a question. I’m wondering:

    How many times did she meet with the brother/father/son of someone who had been killed by a police officer?

      1. Grandfathers also.

        I can tell you that my grandfathers were a positive influence on my survivability.

        If a young man I were particularly close to were killed, I would sooner or later have to wonder about the causality of the incident. What choices did they make? How did the behaviors I role modeled influence their choices? Presuming I were alive when it happened. I am fortunate to be alive.

        A man naturally has a different perspective once they are past the point of being too distraught to think. Standards of behavior are different for men and women. Women can expect to get away with behaviors men cannot. A big man who thinks will realize, because they have learned not to, that doing certain things will get them killed. It’s a bit humbling.

        If you are collecting samples to turn into political polemic, you want to select the ones that don’t include factors that work against your case. In this case by sampling women, probably ones that don’t understand manhood.

        And rumors of Hillary’s habitual violence suggest a feeling of entitlement as far as others’ restraint is concerned. Me, I know I’m big enough that a cop can reasonably assume that I could be a danger to them. I have a temper, and I’m not always satisfied by my self control. There are behaviors I avoid, and patterns of behavior I avoid, because I consider how a cop or a court might interpret them.

      2. There is a significant level of correlation between absence of fathers’ presence and probability of death by violence or incarceration for criminal acts, a much greater level than that between race and violent death. Publicizing such data would counter far too many foundational myths of Liberalism, however, and thus is relegated to the outer darkness along with studies about correlation of teen girls’ promiscuity and the presence of fathers in their lives, and studies about negative emotional and physical health effects of abortion.

        Denzel Washington not withstanding.

        “I grew up with guys who did decades [in prison] and it had as much to do with their fathers not being in their lives as it did to do with any system,” he said in an earlier interview with Reuters.

        “By the time we got to 13, 14, different things happened,” Washington explained. “Now I was doing just as much as they were, but they went further … I just didn’t get caught, but they kept going down that road and then they were in the hands of the system. But it’s about the formative years. You’re not born a criminal.”

        The critical point is that blaming “the System” absolves individuals of personal responsibility, and we all know that abandoning personal responsibility is the route to the White House.

        1. You’re not born a criminal.
          Oh, I would disagree with Denzel there. Babies are born barbarians. If left on their own (while given enough care they actually do grow up), they will develop into … exactly what they are at birth: self-centered, demanding, grasping creatures with nothing in mind but satisfying their own appetites, and no thought given to others, and minimal morals. IOW, a pathological criminal.
          It is by raising them that we are supposed to civilize them and train and educate them into being men and women.
          If all you’re doing is breeding them, you *will* get criminals.

    1. But, but, they’d have guy cooties!! Ewwwwwwwww.
      [deleted comment about identifying paternity among certain sub-cultures]

    2. I noticed something else.

      How many times did she meet with the parents, widows, children of the murdered police officers? Has she *ever* stood in the 600 block of E street, NW on May 15th?

    3. Not once that I remember reading. Of course, she probably wouldn’t mention it because it wouldn’t fit her narrative of “sisterhood”.

    4. Why would she bother with mere men when it’s the women whose vote she is courting. (Never mind that I wonder how many of those men killed by officers had fathers.)

  10. Regarding Hillary’s reference to the DPD targeting: She conveniently left out the fact that sniper was an African-American male who set out to kill not just cops but as many white cops as he could.

    Micah Johnson was not only out to kill white cops, he had advocated, on Facebook no less, violence against whites in general and Jews in particular.  When his home was searched bomb making materials were found.  He was preparing to commit violence guns or no guns. 

    1. I know. Which only compounds my anger with her. I freaking hate the way she — and others like her — craft the narrative to fit their purposes.

    2. and you can buy bomb making materials at a grocery store…

      but try to buy too much sudafed in one day….

      1. I recall that when I first met her my Mother-In-Law used to purchase sudafed in a great big glass jar, none of this blister packaging or signing off on it back then.

  11. If that’s not enough, she wanted legislation that would allow victims of gun violence and their relatives to be able to sue not just the shooter but the seller of the gun AND the manufacturer.

    Gaah. That old “talking point”. The old “why should gun dealers/manufacturers be shielded from liability for their products”.

    What the folk who make that argument don’t say is that the form of “liability” they’re insisting on is something nobody else is subject to. Nobody sues Ford because someone ran a red light and caused an accident in their F150. Nobody sues Anhauser Busch because a drunk driver killed Grandma. And nobody sued Ginsu because Lorena Bobbit used a knife to whack off her husband’s willie. At least not successfully.

    As for guns, let somebody be harmed because their gun failed to fire in a defensive situation due to a preventable manufacturing or design error, or a chamber or barrel burst leading to injury to the user, or a poor design discharge without the user pulling the trigger and that would be valid cause for a suit. And, oh look, they can be sued for that. (Why Sig Sauer was so prompt on getting a fix and recall on the P320.)

      1. FWIW, I know a woman who found a burglar in her home, grabbed her revolver only to have the burglar too close for her to bring it to bear. She proceeded to pistol whip him, which was enough to cause him to run out the door – into the fist of her husband.

    1. a poor design discharge without the user pulling the trigger
      I think a manufacturer did get successfully sued for something like that recently, didn’t they? (That’s probably why you use that example.)

    2. Not quite true. As discussed above, that kind of insanity almost destroyed the light plane industry before they got tort reform through.

  12. Can some of Hillary’s animosity for police come back to the Arkansas troopers covering for Bill’s indiscretions? She hates Bill for what he did to her and since the cops were involved they are evil as well.

    1. No. She’s playing out the playbook, which calls for blaming the cops, while setting policies that guarantee there will be more incidents and strengthening the Police Unions so there will seldom be any consequences. Result; a population of (the Progressives clearly think) subhumans who both fear the State the Progressives run and look to it for all their needs AND a police arm that feels embattled and thus is further bound to the State that supports the Unions that protect it.

  13. A couple of thoughts:

    First, I do actually agree with Hillary (Father forgive me) that cops need to have a higher standard of behavior than the general population. They are the ones that society has authorized to do violence on our behalf. They owe it to us not to abuse that power. Now, the vast majority of the time, it seems that they do use it well; even most of the “highly publicized shootings” turn out to be justified. But none the less, as agents of the state, cops have to be held accountable and not try to pull things like the stupid publicity stunts where they pull people over to hand out ice cream cones or whatever.

    Second, the NRA. Dems love to talk about the NRA like they’re some kind of powerful necromancer working behind the scenes of American politics, but the thing the Dems never like to talk about is HOW the NRA works its black magic. Oh, there’s some vague talk about politicians “being on the NRA’s payroll,” but it isn’t about money; the NRA are minnows in the political campaign ocean, and no one votes against gun control for fear of losing an NRA contribution. No, the reason people are afraid of the NRA is that if you vote for gun control, they’ll tell everyone that you did so. And all their members will get pissed off and vote against you. And all the people who aren’t members but are broadly in sympathy with their views will get pissed off and vote against you. In other words, the NRA represents the views of a lot of Americans, and if you want to “take them on,” you have to take on the voters behind them.

    1. The NRA did not generate that opposition to gun control. Groups heavily influential in shaping that opposition. 1. The Democratic Party, in particular for activism between the mid 1860s and the 1950s. 2. The German national socialist worker’s party. Activism during the 1930s and 1940s. 3. World Communist Parties. Activism dating from the 1920s to the current day.

    2. The Police are certainly to be held to higher standard, but Hillary, the Democrats in general and the MSM are upholding the standard of Judge Lynch. An officer who fires a gun is guilty until proven therwise

      As fr the NRA’s influence, this is a classic case of 3-D politics. Support for gun control is broad and shallow — the proverbial “mile wide and inch deep” of political issues peripheral to our day-to-day lives. It would be nice if it worked, but nobody who gives it serious thought believes it could work as promoted (which is why the cynical suspect hidden agendas.)

      Support for gun rights, OTOH, is narrow but deep and persistent. It may be no more than five to ten percent of the electorate, but it is a five to ten percent that will vote that issue, and vote more assuredly than a teachers’ union faced with required competency testing. It might swing no more than ten t twenty Congressional seats, but those are seats that make a minority into a majority.

    3. I would be well pleased if the Cops and the Prosecutors were consistently held to the SAME standards as private citizens. They aren’t. When a cop or a prosecutor who conceals exculpatory evidence in a capitol case is put on trial for attempted murder, then a lot of the problems will go,away. More will disappear whenthe moron who leads,a,no-knock raid on the wrong address that ends in a cop being killed by a panicked citizen is tried for causing that death, just as a criminal whose companion dies during a crime can be tried for the death.

  14. In reading this could not help but recall the countless stories and rumors that abound about how badly the witch has always treated her protective detail, which she has enjoyed in some form or fashion nearly all of her adult life, or at least back as far as when she was first lady of Arkansas. Heard many a tale of abuse and disrespect towards the very agents tasked with keeping her safe and alive. Never seemed to me to be a mark of high intelligence that.
    Then there was that occasion during the campaign where Trump or one of his people suggested that perhaps given her opinions Hillary should volunteer to disarm her Secret Service bodyguards, or simply dismiss them as unnecessary. The media, fair and honest as they always are (coff), took that as tantamount to a death threat.
    And let us not forget the infamous Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 which actually did have one good result. It put the fear of Ghod and the NRA into the hearts and minds of every pro gun control politician as they watched the Democratic lead in congress evaporate as a result of its passage. Of course in all other aspects the law was a total failure having been based primarily on cosmetic features of weapons that could be rather easily designed around.

    1. Someone posted a second-hand story about HRC losing it and throwing things at Bill when he was Pres. The Secret Service pulled her aside later and pointed out, per the story, that protecting the president included protecting him/her from attacks by spouses if needed. Apparently HRC added that to the long list of reasons why she did not like police/military/security people.

      1. During the Clinton administration I was active in DC area fandom, which includes a lot of people with ties to various law enforcement agencies. Word at the time was that there were betting pools on whether her detail woud protect her if somebody tried to kill her, with good odds they would clear out of the way crying “there’s the bitch!”and pointing.

        1. The only case of a guard not hating her I know of is a personal acquaintance who said he got along with her, and admitted she didn’t much like her SecServ detail at all, and military body guards got similar treatment. He was Air Force, so he was the least “military” of her guards, maybe that is why she was sorta nice to him. Also, he said no one liked AlGore at all. So 90% of the whole detail hated Hillary, but all of them hated Gore
          says a lot about the man

    2. yes, she apparently treats her protective detail like ‘the help’, including expecting them to carry her bags.

      1. Because when the shooting starts you want the person charged with interposing his body between yours and the shooter to be heavily encumbered.

        Or perhaps her protestations about threats to her are not sincere.

        What am I saying!? HRC insincere? That’s crazy talk.

  15. How is gun control working out for Great Britain?  Apparently it is not going too well.  

    Yes, Britain Is Bleeding: Violent Crime Rises In England Despite Gun Control is from an NRA site, but among the citations are England’s Office for National Statistics, the Evening Standard, the Guardian, the Telegraph and the New York Times.

    New numbers released by England’s Office for National Statistics are exposing the fallacy of gun control and crime reduction “across the pond.”

    The country, which has tightly restricted gun ownership since 1996, has seen double-digit rises in criminal activity across the board in 2017, including a 26 percent rise in knife crime (the highest since 2011), 27 percent rise in firearm crimes and 19 percent rise in overall violent crime.

    According to the Evening Standard, the city of London has seen a 47 percent rise in knife crimes, including “214 killings, 391 attempted murders, 438 rapes, 182 other sexual assaults, and 14,429 robberies. There were also more than 18,500 assaults involving an injury or intent to inflict harm with a blade and 2,816 threats to kill with a knife.”

    According to The Telegraph, latest figures confirm London is more dangerous than New York, noting New York and London have similar populations (about 8 million), but in London burglary is six times more likely, rape is three times more likely, and the risk of being robbed is 50 percent higher.

    The causes remain uncertain, although The New York Times blamed hate crimes, terrorism and Brexit.

    The Guardian reports that police staffing has fallen steadily in the last eight years and numbers are now at their lowest levels since 1985. Of those that remain, more than 90 percent are unarmed in London. Metropolitan Police announced earlier this month that, due to budget cuts, they would stop investigating “lower-level” offenses such as theft, burglary and assault. As the NRA reported earlier this year, support for arming British police has steadily risen, yet despite prominent terror attacks in 2017, no changes have been proposed.

    There’s no estimates on how much armed civilians would reduce crime: The very suggestion is met with sharp criticism, while Britain’s self-defense laws are notoriously strict and geared towards protecting attackers. There are more than 1.3 million shotguns and more than a half-million other types of firearms in the United Kingdom.

    A report earlier this year from The Guardian betrays an even darker secret: Crime may always have been this bad, and the National Office is only just now adjusting its methods to record it properly. For example, the homicide numbers reflect nearly a hundred manslaughter cases from 1989 only now showing up on the register.

    “The Office for National Statistics is clear that much of the rise in violent offenses recorded by police is down to better recording by forces but also believes some of the increases may be genuine and clearly there is more we must do to tackle the violent crimes which blight communities,” the Home Office minister told The Guardian.

    In other words, in seeking to mitigate fears of a statistical crime wave that may owe partially to better documentation, authorities are admitting the criminal activity may always have been there, and official records are only now catching up. This may be supported by the ONS Crime Survey for England and Wales, which polls civilians rather than law enforcement about existing crime. The civilian survey shows no increase in self-reported crime in the past year. (Civilian surveys are of course unable to reflect certain crimes such as murder.)

    There’s no evidence to suggest what works for one culture and country would work for another. But increasingly, the evidence doesn’t indicate gun control is working for the United Kingdom. Given the rise in acid attacks in England and Wales, which has led to a new movement for acid control, it’s clear that making laws affecting the supply of weapons does not curb the demand for violence.

    Crime measurements aren’t always complete, and are more complicated than any one issue. However, for gun control advocates who point to European societies for gun control, the argument is becoming increasingly ineffective, if not downright embarrassing.

    David Burnett is a critical care registered nurse based in Lexington, Ky., the former president of Students for Concealed Carry, and a frequent contributor to A1F Daily.

    1. I have any number of times quoted UN violent crime statistics that make it clear that the rate of such crimes in the UK is five times that of gun drenched America. I always get pushback from Brits claiming either that it’s apples and oranges, or falling back on the statistics for only gun crimes.
      Did some research and it is quite true that the two countries track violent crime differently, but the simple truth is that since the Brits don’t bookkeep crimes until and unless someone is charged the real numbers are even worse. As for only listing gun crimes, well obviously someone dispatched by knife or club must be much less dead than anyone shot.
      As the saying goes, there are lies, damn lies, and government statistics.

      1. This is merely a personal preference, but if I am going to be slain by a violent thug I would much prefer being shot over being stabbed or bludgeoned. Presumably, Liberals do not share my preferences, a fact of life to which I have long become accustomed.

          1. It says something that we’ve now evolved Liberals able to proudly brag of sympathizing with their poor muggers. They are (so far as has been reported) stopping short of bringing their muggers home to help clean out the apartment, however.

        1. “A bullet can go anywhere, but a sword has to go somewhere.”

          (Or words to that effect, from a Heyer novel. The gentleman was intimidating someone who wanted to fight a duel with him. Guns were not terribly accurate back then, and some people “deloped” by firing into the air. But a duel with swords usually ended only at first blood, so somebody was bound to be bleeding at the end.)

      2. yep, a murder is only a murder if someone is charged with it… giving them artificially low murder stats

          1. IIRC they have a category that sorta fits (violent deaths, I think?), but but isn’t often used.

        1. Thank you for providing the link, have been otherwise occupied.

          The Spouse and I had to run to the veterinary who works with exotics on the other side of the next county to the west in order to pick up one of The Daughter’s mice. (The Daughter was unable to do so as she had dropped off the mouse at the vet on her way out of town to go to the beach for her birthday.)

          On the bright side, we got to listen to a large portion of David Tennant’s audio reading of the eight volume of the How to Train Your Dragon series.

          1. Oooooohhhhhh!!!! I love those readings! The only comparable reader I know of is Peter “Baldric” Robinson reading Pratchett and Diana Wynne Jones. Tennant’s hilarious to the point where I’ve looked at buying the dead tree editions and passed — they just wouldn’t be as wonderful.

            There are other readers of audio books whom I enjoy, but none so perfectly merge the arts of writing and reading performance of a story. Hatchett Audio managed a real coup, signing Tennant to those readings before he’s even done The Doctor.

            Your Spouse is a lucky person to have somebody with whom to share those readings!

            1. One correction, it is Tony Robinson.

              His readings of Pratchett are excellent. They are also dangerous to listen to when driving, as keeping an even hand on the steering wheel and foot on the gas peddle is next to near impossible when you are experiencing paroxysms of laughter.

              1. Good Grief!!! Peter Robinson is the former Reagan speech writer (the man whose hand crafted the “Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall.” phrase) and host of Uncommon Knowledge.

                mutter mutter two out of three ain’t bad.

  16. Every November, I will make one Toast to Barack Hussein Obama.

    Why? For the essential national service he rendered in 2008, and again in 2012, when he prevented that vengeance-harpie from turning the Oval Office into the weapon-of-mass-destruction of her presidential ambitions.

    For -those- two accomplishments, I will Toast Mr. Obama, with sincere gratitude. -Nothing- he did, or failed to do, will ever hold a candle to what disasters that vengeance-harpie would have caused.

  17. “Turning Mourning into a Movement”?

    The way they did for Minnesota senator Paul Wellstone?

    We will win! We will win! We will win!

  18. OK, I must admit, for an instant I wondered how on Earth or any other planet HRC had managed to hear one of my favorite anthems from youth choir. “Joy in the Morning” includes the line “You turned my mourning/ into dancing;/ My joy now hath no end.”

    (No, not the very famous Natalie Sleeth anthem of the same title, which is also good.)

        1. I can attest that she has indeed attended church. This lack of lightening should be sufficient proof that The Author is benevolent, for any who doubt His nature.

      1. Still thinking of the scene from Star Trek II where Spock enters the warp reactor containment and brings main power back online.

        I hope you’re wearing gloves too.

    1. You evil evil person to suggest that.

      I suggest that you be assigned extra duties on the team cleaning Fluffy’s den.

  19. Publishing drinking their own ink – who nu?

    Publishing in Cloud-CooCoo Land
    By Sarah Hoyt
    Years ago, when I was a raw beginner, I lived in a small mountain town where most of the inhabitants were artists or potters or the like.

    At the time, I was struggling to sell a few short stories a year, and I remember repining against fate, and getting very upset, because all these beginning potters and artists could sell their learning product directly to the public at street fairs and arts and crafts shows. Meanwhile, my net was zero or worse, as I sent stuff out and it came back rejected.

    Well, old me is jealous of new me. Nowadays a lot of the young writers I advise are getting paid for learning. Sure, most don’t make a lot, but most didn’t make a lot under traditional publishing. And a lot of them make more than I ever did, not just as a beginner.

    So imagine my surprise at coming across this article. In which someone calling himself an author laments the inability to make a living from writing.

    His post is so full of fallacies that it demands, nay, begs a thorough fisking.


      1. Ain’t it? That author ought to have a blog! Although a blog might take too much time away from paying articles.

    1. You could maybe buy a cup of coffee in ten years.

      Wow! If I buy Sarah a SINGLE cup of coffee in under a decade, I manage to economically outclass ALL of Europe?! I is rich!

    2. Oh geeze, just got to the ebooks silliness.
      Let’s see…
      I have, on my ‘desk’ (an Ikea table pressed into desk service)
      one..two.. three.. four. yes FOUR physical books – ALL softcover.
      And THREE copies of a library (Kindle, other tablet, phone – ALL capable of displaying Kindle collection & “speaking” Audible. And that, mind, withOUT KULL – so far.)
      Care to guess which will STAY on my desk?
      Hint: “sand” beats cellulose.

    3. If I only felt an urge to write something that was in my head and demanded to be written. Or had that “I can’t Not Write-itus” disease. This Doug fellow make me want to start writing stuff JUST so I can tell his Author’s Guild to go piss up a rope.

  20. Cloud-Coocoo – Sarah, you ROCK. But we all knew that already.
    I keep hoping that if enough fact and logic hammers pound on the unaware long enough, some of them may finally start to think.
    Vain hope, I know, but I am a hopeless romantic in some ways.
    P.S. Thanks Amanda, for saving me from the doses of brain bleach I would have needed had I read that vile tripe myself. Have another drink, I think that I now will also. I think that this calls for a MacAllan.

  21. Hillary’s writing is plodding, sanctimonious, dull, and frankly, childish. Setting aside the content for a moment, what publisher would have ever accepted a manuscript like this? She lives in her own world, and if she had become president, she would have tried to take us all along for a ride in her hell.

        1. I checked it on Amazon yesterday to get a reading on book weight and noted the price is essentially down at Trade Paper level, remarkably low for a book which has been out as long as this one. It is barely one price drop ahead of being remaindered.

          It might make a thoughtful gift for Liberal members of the family this season.

    1. The Alternate Hypothesis is that this is a brilliant work of fiction, a depiction of a woman going mad and interpreting events through the fog of her delusion. First Person Narrative can be very difficult to carry off, but this might be one of the most superb satirical novels of the last several decades.

      1. So if it is -fiction-, “What Happened” is basically a re-write of “Flowers for Algernon”, but with the protagonist never having any sort of -actual- functional genius, just the -delusion- of it.

  22. Too broke to buy you a drink, but if I die unexpectedly in the next year I will leave you in my will one extremely experienced liver for a possible transplant, which you will probably need if you continue to read our Hillary.

  23. Hillary writes: “we all have implicit biases.”

    This is the “What do you mean ‘we,’ white man?” construction (named for an old joke involving the Lone Ranger and Tonto–

    Sometimes “we” is you and me, us, the usual.

    The royal “we” includes me and anyone with me. (E.g., We are not amused.)

    The editorial “we” includes the people who agree with them. (E.g., We think Joe X is the best candidate.)

    The WDYMWWM, which also might be called the “Obama” we, means “you losers, but not myself or anyone as superior as I am.” (E.g., “We all have implicit biases.”)

    It’s a passive-aggressive and infuriating construction.

    1. Not wanting to be critical, but you left one out. There’s also the “we” which means somebody (not the speaker) is about to get pissed all over by the speaker. (NB: often known to accompany the Royal We.)

Comments are closed.