So Creative!


It never fails.  Sooner or later, in a  gathering of conservative/libertarian writers or artists, someone asks the same question “How come in all the creative professions, everyone is leftist.  Are right wing people just not that creative?”

I get very tired of it.  Okay.  I get very angry at it.  It is a bit of internalizing of enemy propaganda that drives me up the walls and tears divots off said walls on the way.  Particularly since the explanation that someone immediately comes up with is that “liberals” have to be more creative, since they’re going against what is established, while “conservatives” are by nature less creative, because, of course, they’re just going with established conventions.

That particular piece of nonsense has only one answer, really “Say what?” followed, possibly by “Are you nuts?”

For the entirety of my life, the left HAS been the establishment.  All the art works, all the news reports, all of the social sciences shout the beliefs of the left.  It is those of us who challenge the base assumptions of Marxism who have to figure out things from first causes, and to step out of conformity and make ourselves targets to everyone.  So that’s an explanation that works fine, maybe for another world and another reality with a completely different history, but it has absolutely nothing to do with our current reality.  Which, now that I think of it, is a lot like most Marxist theories.

So, what explains the “greater creativity” of the left.

Greater creativity?  Prove it, tovarish.

I mean, Hollywood has seemed to lose creativity and get more enamored of remakes in the same proportion that it’s got rid of all its conservatives, or even from anyone to the left of Lenin.  What remains of the fields they have taken over, and whose skins they wear demanding respect is as creative as a kindergartner who paints the circle blue instead of green.

Second, let me see, how do we explain that fields where all the gatekeepers are leftist are dominated by leftists?  Dur. I don’t know, it must be a mystery.

Seriously, that is the only explanation needed and in most cases the absolute truth.  Only in most cases?  Sure.  Sometimes they hate us for things that are neither craft nor politics based.  (Note I’m not sure that’s NOT the case with me, since I seem to have people love me or hate me on site for no reasons I can discern.)

This is when people say “but they don’t ask your politics.”

Sure.  They don’t.  Only sometimes they do.  As an older, not in the closet rightish colleague told me when I was complaining that the things that happened to my books were uncanny, but it couldn’t be political animosity, because I was deep in the political closet: “they know what you laugh at.  They know when you look offended.  You’ve given yourself away a thousand times without even realizing it.”

And it’s true.  The left, in control of any field, will make the most inappropriate political jokes, the most outrageous statements against anti-Marxists.  They will perjure themselves on the consequences of their philosophy, and they will abjure known facts of history without a qualm.

It’s almost impossible for anyone who has fought free of that miasma not to react to its being displayed so openly.  And I’m not going to tell you those tests aren’t intentional.  Witch hunts are a permanent fixture of the left side, like any intransigent religion.

Heck, lately they tend to assume if you’re not singing in the choir and proclaiming the silly cause du jour from the mountain tops you must be a “right wing extremist” or whatever they’re calling people not exactly like them today.

So, there is an effort to keep libertarians/conservatives off the field, and amazingly the field is full of liberals. You’d have to be a Marxist to invent some self-flattering cause.

The good news in a lot of these fields is that the worm is turning and turning fast.  The official gatekeeper picked offerings are in fact less and less palatable, while the indie or well less than official side picks up speed.

That is because we, thank heavens, retain creativity.  We’ve had to, in order to form the opinions we do have in the face of an intrusive and unforgiving establishment forever on the hunt for heretics.

Other things we had to develop include resilience and the ability to debate.  Note, it’s not our side claiming that words that disparage us endanger us, or that we need safe rooms.  We might now and then opt to stay away from the crazy people, but that’s because they’re so tiring, and besides, as grandma said “with the insane, I’d not even go to heaven.  They might push me down from there.”

We’re battlers, not afraid of trying new things, not afraid of experimenting with new ways to reach the public.

So, yeah, the creative establishment in every field is leftist now.  Doesn’t take much to figure out why. It is leftist because the gatekeepers selected for Marxists confusing “leftist social message” with “artistic worth.”

But a million pathways to success open every day.  And we, the goats, who have always operated differently from the rest of the band, are the ones better equipped to exploit them.

I feel like saying with Elizabeth I “This is the day the Lord has made, and it is wonderful in our sight.”

But instead I say: Build under, build over, build around.  Stop wondering why so many leftists are in positions of power.  Political nepotism does that.  It also destroys everything it takes over.

So be ready for taking the weight when the traditional institutions crash.

Now go and create.


362 thoughts on “So Creative!

  1. Particularly since the explanation that someone immediately comes up with is that “liberals” have to be more creative, since they’re going against what is established, while “conservatives” are by nature less creative, because, of course, they’re just going with established conventions.

    In a word: PTUI!

    I just wish you could hear it pronounced with the emphatic punch that Maury Chaykin brought to it.

    1. My response would be rather similar to what I say when folks question me about “socialization” (the eternal homeschool boogyman):
      if it’s so great, when is the last time you saw a really great result from it?

      People who have noticed you can pick the bad guy in 90% of shows in the first five minutes, and if you can’t they are either not shown or they had to hide information. (such as using counter-factuals without mentioning it until the big reveal…say, Catholic honor killings, for one wince-worthy example)

      1. We home educated The Daughter from sixth grade through High School graduation. One of the reasons she was pulled from school was the lack of oversight or guidance given in socialization. (The Spouse and I did not believe it was acceptable that a child should not suffer a possible concussion during an unsupervised class change at the hands of another child who was on permanent in-school suspension.)

        I would begin my answer the question of home education and socialization with another question: ‘How much of your life do you spend solely in the company of people your own age?’

        1. ‘How much of your life do you spend solely in the company of people your own age?’

          Particularly where “your own age” is defined as “born between the same October 1st and September 30.” A couple of days either way, and that person is out of your school peer group.

        2. Yep.
          My kids are socialized with normal social situations, same way that I (and every other well socialized adult that I know) was.

          This was a handicap in school.

          Nuff said.

        3. We did socialization playing with the other kids in the neighborhood after school. Perhaps this is another reason for the ban on unsupervised kids, it puts socialization totally under the control of the schools where they can protect the bullies from negative consequences.

          1. …it puts socialization totally under the control of the schools where they can protect the bullies from negative consequences. [Emphasis mine]

            And once again I am reminded that the only treatment that actually works is the one that would horrify so many. The one that Slappy Squirrel advocates. “But that’s Escalation!” “No, it’s Massive Retaliation.”

            1. According to my mother, apparently having a group of the bullied turn on the bully, tie him to a telephone pole, and prepare to set him on fire (they were stopped shortly before lighting the sticks), is pretty effective.

        4. I wonder if this age group siloing helps explain something.

          First an article and a quote

          There were no “teenagers” before World War II. Ask those still living who raised their children before then. Or spend a rainy Saturday in the basement of your library, comparing old Life magazines from before the War and after.1

          Instead of Teenagers, there were Youths. Youths were young people who wanted to become adults. However confused, wayward, or silly they acted, however many mistakes they made, they looked to the future. They knew that adult life was different than a child’s life. They planned to grow up, leave childhood behind, and become adults. They were aware that life is more than youth.

          The Teenager has no such horizon. Beyond the “Teeny” world there is no adult life, no past with heroes, no future with goals.

          From the first time I read this I thought it had a very real point. There was a clear divide when I was in HS between those who wanted to be adults (I actually use the word grown-up more as adult has become about sex and cussing not responsibilities) and those who didn’t.

          I wonder if age group tracking is a big part of that. By separating you from the majority of the world and letting you deal with one adult at a time, in a semi-antagonistic fashion often, do you devalue becoming an adult?

          1. For a given definition of grown-up – I was always a bit nervous about the whole “grown-up” thing, until my very mature, very adult, very responsible CPA-on-the-Auditing-Standards-Board father told me he still didn’t know what he wanted to be when he grew up, which made me feel better about it.

            1. My mom, as far back as I can remember, was very loud about how stupid it is to try to tell kids that they have to know “what they want to be” to be grown up. Focus on doing, and keep looking, but you have to do being a grown-up to be a grown up.

          2. Notice all the FB memes about the horrors of “Adulting”- the longer you can put off responsibility, the longer they want Someone Else to come and do the adulting for them.

            1. I think those may depend on the population you’re getting the memes from; the ones I see are self-mocking. “Hey, I figured out how to do this basic thing and got all excited– lookit me, I’m adulting!”

              Usually it’s one of those things that “everybody knows” so NOBODY BOTHERED TO TEACH PEOPLE HOW TO DO IT.
              And then they howl because, oh, you don’t know how to fry an egg “properly.” Or your steaks aren’t done “right.”
              And usually the complaints are about that helpful. “You idiot, why don’t you know how to do this thing that not only were you never taught, but that I can’t even tell you what you did wrong?”

              1. One thing I figured out early as the household cook (actually my mother made sure I was equipped, but I figured out WHY); you really need a good cookbook so basic that it doesn’t assume you know how to scramble eggs.

                Mother’s was THE JOY OF COOKING (look for a classic edition), but there are others.

                1. Hey! No peeking at my bookshelf!

                  When my oldest son graduated high school, his present from both grandparents was a copy of The Joy of Cooking, a Betty Crocker classics cookbook, and a 3-ring binder that printouts of each of the various family recipes that he’s enjoyed (and helped cook) up to that point. Between the used car, the cookbooks, and an old refurbished laptop I had lying around, he liked the cookbooks the best.

                  1. Mother learned to cook from the cookbooks Fether had accumulated as a bachelor. She had seen far to many young men marry in large part because they couldn’t cook for themselves, and was determined to give me the skills I would need to avoid that trap (outdated thiugh it might sound). I was cooking barious family favorites by the time I entered high school. I find it relatively easy, which reinforces my belief in the existance of talents because I have known people who can take the same recipes I use and make an inedible mess. Every time.

                    And there are talents I clearly lack, too. I’ve hammered some rudimentry skill in drawing into my thick skull, but the results only rarely have any grace.

                    I wanted to be a cartoonist or a comic artist. Oh well….

                2. A few DVD’s of “Good Eats” are an entertaining way of getting both the hows, and the whys behind the hows.

                  1. Robert Rodriguez observes in one of the special features on the “Once Upon a Time in Mexico” DVD that “Not knowing how to cook is like not knowing how to (common term for the procreative act).”

                    1. He also makes a good point that you need to know how to cook half a dozen favorite dishes—you don’t have to worry that you need to know how to cook everything.

                3. When I set up housekeeping on my own, one of the first purchases was the Betty Crocker Cookbook.

                4. Momma had learned basic southern home cooking from various female family members while she was farmed out to her grandfather during WWII.  Her go to reference was the 9th edition of Fannie Farmer, but by the time I was really aware that one cooked from books Momma was working her way through the brand new Mastering the Art of French Cooking.

                  The edition of Fannie Farmer I first purchased was a later edition and left much to be desired as far as I was concerned. I was extremely happy to find a copy of the 9th edition of Fannie Farmer in a used book store.

                  1. I’ve got a semi-recent Fannie farmer (though it seems to have avoided most of the pitfalls of the truly modern versions) and one of the 50s Betty Crocker’s. (There are a couple of others, but they’re a little more specialized.)

                    I also managed ot get my hands on what seems to be a faithful reprint of one of the really OLD Fanny Farmer from the late 1800s/early 1900s (I’d have to look to see which). With instructions for how to deal with wood stoves and when to put what course in or on to cook so the heat was right. Very useful for an author.

                5. My mom gave me a copy when I was, mm,13? She said I would want it later in life, even if I didn’t think much of it at the time (I wanted fiction books, can’t even remember author now.) She was right.

                6. This is a problem with translating many old (pre-20th century, certainly, and possibly pre-19th) recipes – there are too many assumptions of things that are supposed to be common knowledge.

                    1. One of my biggest obstacles to decent baking was that no one really explained to me what, “…until a toothpick inserted in the center comes out clean,” actually meant. I thought it meant clean, which typically resulted in significantly overcooked cakes, etc.

                    2. Grandma Annie’s (or Great-Aunt Verona’s depending on which brother you ask) Ice Box Rolls: 2 pks of fast yeast, 1 stick of butter melted, 4 cups of water, “a little” sugar or huney, “a pinch” of salt, add 4 or so cups of sifted flour, mix, repeat with flour until consistency to start kneading …

                      /* sigh */

                      Hint: Don’t double the known ingredients above.

                      FWIW: Add A LOT of Flour, before you can get it to the correct constancy.

                    3. My mom thought that my grandmother was sabotaging the recipes– until she saw her actually cooking, and realized grandma did not even realize she was adjusting the recipes on the fly. She’d glance at it, or breath deep near the pot, and then add stuff that never made it to the list; taste it and add salt, or taste it and not add the salt that was on the recipe….

                      Exactly the way that someone who can cook does, with the added issue of very, very uneven ingredients!

                    4. Kind of how I cook actually. I will follow a recipe once maybe twice, then after that I am flying on a wing and a prayer. Good example is my tomato sauce. bunch of celery, bunch of carrots, and a bunch of onions. Toss in galric (lots) couple cans of stewed tomatoes and let simmer for a few hours. Can of tomato paste, basil, oregano (palm full each) and maybe some other stuff. Blend till smooth cool and freeze….Recipe? ummm….

                    5. I’ve tried that once or twice. Let’s just say I’m not allowed near a grill or campfire or allowed to experiment, period; & former two are not where the fun occurred. Now remember I was a new bride …

                      1) Cayenne Pepper Powder is just a spicier version of Chile Powder & use the same amount, right?
                      2) Chicken & Dumplings take noodles, but not enough that when you go to dish it the entire contents of the pot comes out on the serving spoon (solid).

                      Plus a whole lot of lesser oops, I think we’re eating out tonight … in the last 40 years. Let’s just say if something “new” is presented for dinner, both kid & hubby groan “mom’s experimenting again” … even if I present a certified recipe!

                    6. Well I have had a fair bit of experience in the kitchen from a young age. Mom wanted to ensure her boys didn’t have to get married to eat. 😏
                      As to cayenne pepper, grew up with a bottle on the dining room table for our mom. So I also learned about spices at a tender age.

                    7. Cheater trick for a few years in the future:
                      Each kid cooks at least one meal a week, including doing dishes and returning the kitchen to the pre-cooking state.
                      They’re to either draw from the pantry or make sure the stuff needed goes onthe shopping list,a nd isn’t too dear.

                    8. Start with baking. It’s more finicky and teaches one to follow recipes. As well it only uses an oven rather than a stove. Downside, it’s very messy in the beginning. Upside, watching them eat their very own muffins or cookies is worth it. According to my mom on the last part at least.

                    9. We’ve only had one inedible result:
                      Turkey curry. (Japanese style)

                      It was horrible.

                      Of course, Elf ate his own cooking for nearly a decade before he married me…other folks’ cooking does have a way of being more forgivable when you’ve got a gut level expectation of “I am cooking!”

                    10. Oh, now those two examples struck me as so funny that I can barely type. Because I have been there, at least for the second one. Well, maybe not the WHOLE pot, but a big chunk.

                      Also, I’ve eaten a lot of experiments that no one else would touch over the years.

                    11. 😉 relatively brand new (gift) crockpot; left nothing behind. After 40 years, I’ve still not told him that one … Supposedly I took Home Ec in middle school, earned my cooking merit badge (GS), & cooked while away from home.

                      Just egg & cheese sandwiches, weren’t going to cut it for the rest of our lives … Part of the problem is, if its not “throw it on the stove, or in the oven, when timer goes off, it’s done” I can’t be bothered. Thus, allowed to do the baked potatoes, but NOT allowed to touch the steaks, and so forth.

                    12. Oh, wait! I DO have one where it turned into one giant mass – of Ramen noodles, of all things! In college one day, a handful of us guys just wanted a snack, so we decided to do a half-dozen packs on the stove. I turned away for just a couple of minutes after putting them in the boiling water, and when I turned back, they had congealed into a solid mass with tentacles.

                    13. One of my funniest stories did not even involve food, though. I had made a couple of bowls on my new lathe, from a Maple tree we had to cut down. When you turn green wood, you have to make a blank, with fairly thick walls, then let it dry out, then finish it. Well, I had seen where you could speed up the drying of smaller pieces in the microwave.

                      Little did I know that the time between steaming and smoking was so short. My microwave STILL (two years later) has hints of maple smoke smell in it.

          3. Teenage dreams are, mostly, vague and unsupported. There are exceptions, but they tend to be the kids who latch onto something and work like little sosofbitches to master it, and still how many Lynyrd Skynyrds are you going to get in a given generation?

            Adult dreams get built. The Panama Canal was an adult dream. Going to the moon was a child’s dream; the Apollo missions were an adult one.

            Liberals create social movements with the life expectancy of mayflies. Their ‘Artists’ are even to nasty little in-jokes like Piss Christ or Fountain.
            Andres Serrano is going to be forgotten by 90% of even art historians when people are still marveling at Three Soldiers by Frederick Hart. Rudyard Kipling’s poetry and prose will be remembered and read with pleasure long after the PC poets and novelists of the present are footnotes, if that.

            I won’t say that Conservatives and Libertarians are necessarily more creative, but right now a Liberal creator works under a handicap of too-easy approval. In consequence, far too much of their work is half-formed at best.

              1. It seems crystal clear to me…but then I also think that Art needs some constraints. For example; we put on PIPPIN at my high school. There’s a line that The King says (of his b*tch wife) that in the original goes “Sometimes I wonder if the f*cking I’m getting is worth the f*cking I’m getting”. Now, at peast in the 1970’s you can’t say that in a high school play when there will be grandmothers in the audience. So it was edited to “Sometimes I wonder if the fornicating I’m getting is worth..”etc.

                Tell me that isn’t funnier. If the author hadn’t been so determined to be modern and unfettered he would have used the better line. The original is blunt and blunt is rarely as funny as clever.

        5. ‘How much of your life do you spend solely in the company of people your own age?’

          Might well be put, “How much do you want your kids to be learning from equally callow and ignorant teenagers?” Better they spend time in the company of their elders and learn.

        6. What do you think your kid is an /alpha/?

          Better they learn that they are to live with their gamma cohort and not even aspire to be better than they out to be.

          Just be grateful they don’t have to socialize with those awful epsilons.

          Now go drink your Soma.

      2. Old saw, but a truism:
        I used to worry about the lack of socialization of my kid because he was homeschooled.
        So I started beating him up and taking his lunch money a few times a week.
        Now I don’t worry about him missing out on any socialization so much.

        1. Pretty much. Your kid also misses out on learning where to buy the best drugs, the latest gang signs, and how to cuss out adults and get away with it…

          1. Denying your kid the socialist socialism of public schools puts them at tremendous risk of never understanding why those sneakers are hanging from the power lines.

            1. Ah, I knew I was missing something.

              As a graduate of a private school, why are there sneakers hanging from the powerlines?

              1. Uh. I graduated from a public school. Why are those sneakers hanging from the power lines?

                1. They signify that drugs may be purchased within the house at that location. Or that the homeowners are unaware that draping sneakers from the power lines is a way of so signalling.

                  One of many gang signs taught as part of modern urban education.

                  1. Or a sign that some poor kid had his gym sneakers taken from him on the bus, because bullies.

                  1. It’s not only regional, but depends on the gang. Yes, that means that besides the “don’t screw around with power lines” obvious reason not to do it, you do risk getting illegal attention if you screw around that way.

                    There are some subtleties in how exactly it’s done to make stuff clearer.

                    The gang currently moving into Tijuana skip the powerline part, and put a sneaker at the site of a death to indicate it was a “hit.” (I can’t even keep the Sunni and Shia straight, don’t try me on the dang gangs; I look more at traits, like “these guys will gleefully violate traditional aversion to slaughtering priests” and such.)

                1. Tradition – that you will never set foot in the place again. My last morning in Korea, I threw my worn-out gym sneakers onto the power line outside the AF Barracks. There were already a number of pairs hanging there.

      3. “If it is so great why do public schools have mass shootings, but no homeschoolers make the nation news shooting up their family.”

        Because, believe me, if there was an example, even if it had to be twisted twice around a bollard to get there, the Democrats with Bylines would run with it push “common sense education reform” that banned homeschooling 24/7.

        1. A friend and his wife homeschool their children. His term for “school shooter” is “suicide by parent.”

          His older daughters have gone on hunting trips with him. Besides tracking and marksmanship, he’s also stressed conservation. “If you shoot it, you eat it.” They know how to use the block and tackle to get a deer up and how to dress it out.

          I asked if he’d established the difference between shooting for food and shooting burglars. “Hmm, maybe I better go over that…”

          1. As both her parents served in the Naval medical core during WWII, at one point Momma was farmed out to her Grandfather’s oversight.  He lived in Blackshere, Georgia.  Momma was given the chore of caring for the dogs of all the local family men who were away serving.  She was also provided a rifle to use if necessary to shoot threatening varmints.  The family rule was that, other than those varmints, anything she shot she would have to skin, butcher, cook and eat.  Momma told me that after killing a squirrel and finding out her grandfather held her to the rule she was much more careful.

          2. > If you shoot it, you eat it.

            Good thing they don’t do Steel Challenge for fun.

            Must suck after a day at the range. Although I guess there’s lots of fiber in the targets.

            1. That’s how you know you’ve got a REALLY good knife.

              Or, you did when you started, anyways.

        2. They were trying to make that abuse family in California into a “homeschooling family”– didn’t work. At least three states tried to put in restrictions based on it, too; that’s part of why we’re in HSLDA. (They show up and are NOISY.)

          There was an attempt to make the Sandy Hook guy a “homeschooler,” which fell through.

            1. I was so focused on praying that there really was only one bomber– not two copy-cats– that I didn’t really notice, but you’re right.

              The only noise I can find actually sourced is from a concern troll group called the “Coalition for Responsible Home Education.”

              Which I recognize from the earlier attempts to call publicly educated with any element of being at home “homeschooled,” and from a bunch of other attempts to get major regulation on home schools.

              It’s amazing how most of the outrage has the exact same phrases as the press releases from that group…..

                1. It wouldn’t be so annoying if they didn’t so often have just enough differences– in the frilly bits– to pass as different sources, rather than rewrites. Heck, just flat republish the things.

                  But this gives the illusion of an actual movement, rather than one activist group that surprise surprise wants to draft me into their @#$#@ cause.

                  1. I once belonged to a mailing list type thing for a group for the “Separation of School and State”, which notion I still wholeheartedly endorse.

                    One conversation thread was sort of interesting though as someone who was all for this and supportive suddenly says something like “but who will decide on what books schools have to use?”

                    I’m a control freak by nature (eldest child, etc., etc.,) so I recognize it. (At one point in childhood I distinctly remember being shocked and amazed that people could move to another state without *permission*.) People can be convinced in their own minds that they’re on your side or the side of freedom right up until someone gets to make a decision or choice (or purchase) that doesn’t have to go through an approval process.

                    1. Oooh, you probably know this tidbit, but I’ll bet someone else here doesn’t– the stats on school drop-out rates are garbage.
                      They can’t keep track of what kids move, as opposed to transferred, because there is no reporting to a prior school required; in the three states I knew details of back in the 90s, they just reported completed or not. I think in Cali they had a thing to report as a transfer if it was in the same district, but other than that it only gets recorded in a non-standard manner.

                      So if you have military kids, who take their transcripts with them rather than having the school write back for them? “Dropout.” Family moved? Dropout.

                      At least, according to the activists– schools just say they didn’t graduate from their school…..

                    2. I know the part about moving students is true, we were talking about the hit that transfers have on the graduation rate when I was sitting on the committee for the Northwestern accreditation renewal for the charter school my sons attended.

                    3. `but who will decide on what books schools have to use?`

                      Who* will watch the watchmen?

                      School Choice always inevitably runs into this problem. Sometimes it is the issue of madrassas, sometimes it is a question like that Afrocentric school school that got into a fight with the Washington Times back in the Nineties.

                      People asking such questions always miss the critical point: we are not choosing between a perfect system and a number of imperfect alternatives, we are choosing which failure modes are more acceptable. Having a national school board dominated by unions committed to the belief that whatever happens no one of their members is responsible and the problem requires more spending, more central control, less liberty is no more tolerable a situation. Great Taste & Less Filling only go together in advertisements.

                      All miss the point that there is simply no way you can get away from the question of accountability, all you can do is shuffle it about and hope it doesn’t land in front of lunatics.

                      *Based on ticket and DVD sales, not all that many folks.

                    4. Foxfier, I said something like which seemed to be appreciated.

                      I’m not sure anyone bothered to say either “the school board” or “the parents.”

                      The whole conversation had been about how preferable it was to allow a multitude of independent choices rather than insist upon a centralized sameness, which can’t help but reduce the total information in society by limiting everyone to the same set of instruction.

                    5. Hm, suggests a metaphor to the effect of intellectual diversity being similar to genetic diversity– there will be horrific mutations and many negative crosses, but it prevents extinction via situation change.

                    6. Oh for pities sake, I forgot which symbols I couldn’t use.

                      I said: “Sits staring at computer screen. Blinks.”

                    7. “I’m a control freak by nature (eldest child, etc., etc.,)”

                      But, my control extends to “me”, not others*; & I resent the heck out of those trying to control me, accept it (legal, pay check, etc), but form my opinions, heck no.

                      *Well, cats, dogs, & children until they are old enough to form their own opinions (like 30 … 😉 ), but not people. Didn’t say I was successful at herding the cats, but …

            2. I think I found why it was dropped– he had 30 hours of college credit when he graduated high school, so besides the whole “graduated half a decade ago” thing, so he probably spent a couple of years at college.

              Kinda kills off the whole “if only he’d been at a school” thing.

          1. This is my shocked face.
            Wait, let me try again.
            This is my shocked face.
            Damnit, are the batteries in this thing dead?
            Okay, this is my shocked face.

            I think I wore it out.

    2. On arguing with liberals. I don’t. Anymore. Because there is not reasoned discussion. All I hear is an endless series of Leftist talking points — which have no internal consistency, which ignore glaring contradictions, and which obviate all of economics, history, genetics, psychology, any science — and which get louder and more frenetic and finally lead to the ad hominem, “Racist, sexist, homo (and other) phobe!!!”.

      I am reminded of the trial of St Joan. For heresy, of course. And in which no evidence of such was presented. Her defense against a purely political set of charges was reasoned and truthful. Some clergy sitting in judgment were threatened with death if they ruled in her favor. Recordings of the proceedings were falsified.

      She was burned anyway.

      1. … there is not reasoned discussion. All I hear is an endless series of Leftist talking points

        They tend to confuse room 12 with 12A.

  2. Oh yes, they are great in creative in products of the mind in which everything is a matter of opinion and there is no measure of performance.
    Thus you get art that is indistinguishable from monkey scat hurled against the canvas. That suits their taste.
    But the artist in brass who designed their bathroom faucets and the workmen who comes out and fix it when it wears out are contemptible as they have to get their hands dirty.
    The fellow who can fix their car when it stops running are not their social equal – the horror – to even have to speak with them.
    The fact is, the glorious ones can’t figure out which way to turn a nut to get it off. And the nut doesn’t give a damn for their opinion which way it should turn.
    In fact from what I have seen from my wife’s fascination with the ‘Survivor’ TV show – without the deplorables – I suspect the glorious ones would have live without even having fire in their society.

    1. The fellow who can fix their car when it stops running
      Pfft. These people live in urban studio walkups. Now, if you mention the guy who maintains the subway or fixes taxis, that’s different. Those people they can disdain with urbanity.

    2. Actually, you often get actual monkey scat hurled against the canvas. At least that leftist can said to have gotten their hands (or maybe gloves) dirty.

      1. It’s almost Screwtapeian- they gave up the classical values of beauty as being too bourgeois, and now art is pretty much splattered feces.

  3. Thank you. I was beginning to feel a bit lonely out in Right field with nothing to look at but a slow motion train wreck – the motif libéral du jour at Starbucks, the claims of sexual harassment by a porn star, the destruction of the religious Left in Syria…

    I looked at your profile photo on Gratavar and find you’re quite photogenic.

    Now I’m off to collect a little sanity and get back to work.

  4. “Conservative” isn’t “no change” but rather “be cautious about changing things you don’t fully understand and carefully consider the ramifications of any change you make rather than just diving in.”

    Yet what is fiction, particularly Science Fiction, but an exploration of the possible ramifications of various possible changes? Exploring changes, warning of possible dangers, considering challenges that go with any potential benefits, before actually making them in reality is a very conservative thing indeed.


      10th principle.

      Change happens, and it happens in different things at different rates. Human nature changes slowly if at all, some of our most important institutions are very, very slow to change and other areas (fashion, technology) change rapidly.

      So to do people (individuals) adapt and change at different paces. Some embrace change, some have more trouble with it.

      The conservative seeks to balance the existence of change in some areas, and the need for change in others against the (relative) permanence of human nature, and the disruption to the social fabric.

      1. And, the conservative understands that not all change is good.
        For the prog, change = progress.

        1. Old saw of unknown provenance:

          There are two kinds of fools.
          One says, “This is old, and therefore good.”
          The other says, “This is new, and therefore better.”

          1. Thing is that a old “thing” has proven it’s function over time. It’s failure modes are there to see (if one looks), and there is a body of knowledge in how it works.

            This new thing? Yeah, there’s a reason for the term “bleeding” edge.

            But new is important and useful, and everything old had to be new once.

    2. > “Conservative” isn’t “no change” but rather “be cautious about changing things you don’t fully understand and carefully consider the ramifications of any change you make rather than just diving in.”

      That’s precisely how the Amish view things… and just because they might choose not to adopt some technology doesn’t mean they don’t know how it works.

      The USAF has a base in Delaware. Some years ago they decided to extend one of the runways, and ran into some trouble. Much of the land they wanted was owned by Amish, and the Amish didn’t want to sell. Offering them bigger chunks of (taxpayer) money didn’t work, because Amish generally aren’t motivated by money. So they tried the “eminent domain” route, and found out that the farmers were neither ignorant nor without political clout of their own.

      Last I heard, the runway extension was still on indefinite hold.

      If the Fed had offered an attractive deal on land, the Amish might have been willing to move. But bureaucrats are wired to money and power; not land.

      1. That’s an interesting thought. One problem with eminent domain issues is that waving money around doesn’t solve the problem. Not completely. Land, permits, even some at-public-expense construction…that’s often what it’s going to take.

    3. The original definition of conservation (nature-type) was wise use of resources for the most good over the longest period of time. Pretty much the same with social and fiscal conservatism, as far as I can tell.

      1. “Conservation means development as much as it does protection. I recognize the right and duty of this generation to develop and use the natural resources of our land but I do not recognize the right to waste them, or to rob, by wasteful use, the generations that come after us…”

        Theodore Roosevelt said that in 1910. The first sentence is literally engraved in stone, in the lobby of the American Museum of Natural History. The concept of sustained yield that was so central to early American conservationism has largely disappeared, replaced by a “conservationists” who desire to keep all Federal lands in a “pristine” state, and keep people off it as much as possible, whether those people are hikers, off-roaders, bicyclists, campers, miners, loggers – with the occasional special exception for those who wish to build solar and wind power facilities.

  5. Yes, the Left is creative. For example, let’s ask a leftist to come up with observations about things:

    Me: Describe free exchange between people (I refuse to use Marx’s name for it).
    Leftist: Racist, sexist, homophobic
    Me: Describe the books of Robert Heinlein.
    Leftist: Racist, sexist, homophobic
    Me: Describe the new Rosanne show.
    Leftist: Racist, sexist, homophobic
    Me: Describe D&D
    Leftist: Racist, sexist, homophobic (no, really,

    See, four totally different areas: economics, literature, drama, and games, and look at the creativity our typical leftist implies. Much more creative, thoughtful, and intellectual than the opinions a deplorable, redneck moron like me could provide.

    1. The fact that such mindless dreck can get published in a “scholarly” journal proves once again that “l’empereur est nu et il se branle” (the emperor is naked and fapping).

      1. I see the steady ‘sexist, racist, homophobe’ cant as a more adult form of putting your fingers in your ears and loudly repeating ‘Nyah, nyah, nyah.’ Their goal is to deny standing to your arguments while they assure that they go unheard.

        I predict that we will see steadily more hysterical behavior and wider ranging attempts to shut down speech from the left as they try to retain control.

        1. I think he was referring to the specific article about how D&D indoctrinations people in and reinforces racism/sexism/badthinkism/nonapprovedism/etc.

      1. I note that if you want to view the actual article rather than just peruse the abstract, purchasing the item, sorry, purchasing a day’s access to the item, will cost you FRN 42.50. Of course, if you want to extend that access to a month, you get it for the low, low price of FRN 250.00.

        Uh, no.

  6. I was trying to explain this stuff you my folks a couple weeks ago, and they stared at me like I had two heads.

    They may think I’m a conspiracy nut now.

    1. /sad

      Thing is, it even makes sense; if one side thinks they must view disagreement as evil, while the other views it as disagreement, who is going to be OK with being around the other?

      See the Kevin Williams thing, where co-workers objected to someone who hypothetically thought that currently legal homicide, if made illegal, should be treated like other illegal homicides including capital punishment. They did not consider it worthy of consideration that he was a narrow escapee of that currently legal form of homicide, having been born slightly before it became legal to a mother who would have used it, and thus their belief it is an inherent good is effectively declaring he should have been killed, personally.

      1. Weren’t a fair number of the people displeased by his position calling for his death too? I’m not sure many of them would have been that upset has his mother aborted him.

        1. Eh, that’s kind of a reflexive thing these days. “I choose to read what you said as calling for my death, so death to you, too!”

      2. The interesting thing is if they really cared about what he thought they’d know Williams opposes the death penalty. From there they could conclude that the hanging comment was a rhetorical device, not a policy proposal.

        Oh, hell, they probably did. The people in that mob are for the most part people who have demonstrated they are not worth a presumption of good faith.

        1. In that particular instance the facts of what WIlliamson believed or had said were irrelevant. It was an exercise in hunting for a bloody shirt they could wave as justification for their previously determined aggression against him.

  7. Judging by the SciFi movies and TV shows available the last ten years, The Lefties and liberals are the -least- creative pack of follow-the-leader idiots ever. I will add that hipsters are more nervous doctrinaire followers of propriety than my Victorian Grandmother. (Who was an actual Victorian Scotswoman, just made it in right at the end before Vicky died.)

    May pox and ruination find them all. I am a goat, and they are not my tribe.

    1. They have to be. One toe out of line, one excuse to attack you, and they’ll fall on you like sharks at feeding frenzy. See current Starbucks brohaha.

      1. A few years ago, Starbucks stepped out of (Leftist) line when it was found out that their corporate policy on firearms was for each store to follow the laws where the store is located, and they refused to change the policy to make it more restrictive. So, if open carry was legal in the area, Starbucks refused to forbid it in the store. The Leftists went NUTS! (And some open carry fanatics also went nuts and showed their asses)

        Eventually, Starbucks kinda-sorta caved and the CEO sent out an open letter saying “Please leave your guns at home”.

        My guess is there are some on the Left who have been waiting for the chance for some payback.

    2. May pox and ruination find them all.
      Well, their non-Victorian behavior has managed to resurrect several forms of pox from the not-so-distant past. So all that was old is new again.

    3. Of course they are more nervous. Your grandmother’s doctrine did not change hourly, theirs does.

  8. I have said it elsewhere: the progressives are convinced that politics is talent, and talent is politics. Specifically, their kind of politics. It doesn’t help that many artsy-fartsy people — I include myself in the congregation — are eccentric and/or flakey on a number of meat-and-taters practical concerns (cough, self discipline, cough, money, cough) thus they forever seek a Caretaker who will handle all the ugly business of life. So that they the Creatives can go forth and art without worry. Somebody else will do the chore of looking after them.

    People who fall outside of this fuzzy sphere of belief — and it is a belief system, make no mistake about it — are viewed with suspicion, if not outright hostility. Especially conservative or libertarian Creatives who have half a clue about money matters, or who understand that the world needs pipe-fitters and ditch-diggers more than it needs crucifixes in bottles of urine. Because progressive Creatives are high on their own supply. Civilization will whither and crumble away without their delicate, sainted insights into the tragedy of the human condition.

    So, the progressive Creatives (as progressives are always want to do) seek to control the institutions. To ensure that their paradigm is the only paradigm. And to self-fulfill the prophecy. Controlled-entry access. Like a gated community.

    “Why are so many Creatives left-wing? But sir, that is the very nature of the universe!”

    1. “they forever seek a Caretaker who will handle all the ugly business of life”.
      sounds like they want to be children forever with mommy and daddy taking responsibility.

      1. They do, and have never considered that the people who take on the boring responsibilities wind up running things. Which is why you see a whole lot of Leftist in bureaucracy.
        Stalin was mocked as “Comrade Card-Index” when he was the lowly Party secretary… right up until he used that to become the Leader.

        1. Why bother doing anything, when you can stand there telling the people doing the work what they “should” be doing.

          1. “…you can stand there telling the people doing the work what they “should” be doing.”
            That doesn’t really work at the DMV or TSA line.

    2. As a believer in free speech, I have no objection to the crucifixes in urine existing. I just object having to pay for it.

      1. As a believer in Free Speech, and a graduate of a prestigious Art School, I do have a problem with it IN ADDITION to having funded it.

        It’s dull, boring, stupid and shows no craft or ability.

        Which means it *should not* be in a Museum.

        1. Well, of course, the thing is vile. But I definitely believe in fighting for someone’s right to say something, even if it’s vile.

          The Museum, if it’s funded by my tax dollars, I completely object to. If it’s a private institution, I can just choose not to go.

          1. Something can be “vile” and still be done with modicum of talent, a level of craftsmanship and an intent.

            Saturn Eating His Own is one example It is saved in it’s horror by the mythological reference.

            Much of the work of Hans R. Gieger is even more “vile” in subject matter, and even more…appropriately rendered with a master painter’s touch. Totally insane, but painted about as well as anyone could.

            Oddly enough I can’t get to Cordair’s site (really good art in most senses of the word) because ‘Denied Category “Art/Culture;Nudity”.’ but is wide open. That later might not be safe for work, depending on your environment.

            1. I think some artist use “vileness” and controversy as a cover for a lack of talent.

              1. Of course.

                Mattress girl, for one, who’s work was only vile in that it was based on a lie.

      2. I object to it existing– but I use words to call the guy a hypocritical moron, I don’t wish to maim him so he can’t do it again.

        1. As I get older, I’m getting more itchy on the breaky/maimy thing. Not likely to follow up on it, because i have responsibilities I can’t just abdicate, but definitely more itchy.

      3. Eight or Nine years ago, older son went to an art awards presentation ceremony, as one of the award winners. As part of the presentation, one of the speakers talked about how they didn’t consider the content of the art in question, and that all art, even offensive, had been considered without prejudice.

        Thinking of the “Virgin Mary done in elephant dung” piece that caused a bunch of uproar several years before, I opined that I would bet if someone did a representation of Obama in dung, people would be calling for their head on a pike.

        1. Oh, I don’t say that it’s art, or good or right. But I defend the right for all people to speak freely, even it what they say is utterly disgusting. But I also have the right to call that content utterly disgusting, and question anything getting awards, or even attention, because that’s MY right to free speech.

          I think we need vile speech, though, and to hear things we disagree with. I think it, I don’t know, keeps things more honest?

            1. Oh yes! It’s completely one-sided. But that’s a whole different battle (well, it should be, but yeah, the tolerance for free speech is completely one way, and that’s the real problem. But let’s face it, scratch a leftie, find a Nazi).

              I swear, this whole extremist left business currently keeps making me think of Savonarola, and the religious type of competitive virtue signalling. But that’s because socio-fascism is a replacement for religion.

            2. There s a big difference between art which offends thee and art which offends me, and if you weren’t such a deplorable racist sexist homophobe philistine you would recognize that.

            3. To be more precise:
              They are not tolerant at all. They just believe that art which fails to offend them should be protected, as opposed to holding that all art which offends others should be treated like the art that they are offended by.

        2. After the Death of Harold Washington, the first Black Major of Chicago, some art student (IIRC white) painted a picture of him in drag calling it “Mirth & Girth” as Major Washington was over-weight.

          Some Black Chicago Aldermen stomped into the place where the picture was being displayed and attempted to destroy it. 😦

          Ah, here’s a wiki article on this:

        3. I’m just over here trying to figure out how you can “judge” art without considering its content–you have to consider what it’s attempting to do before you can even begin to look at how well it’s doing it. You can’t determine if it’s a good representation without considering what it’s representing. You can’t consider whether it’s successfully evocative without considering what it’s trying to evoke. And you can’t say whether or not it “speaks” well, until you know what it’s trying to say.

          1. Well, I wasn’t quoting. I’m pretty sure they were only trying to say that it didn’t matter, in the context of the competition, whether the work was considered offensive or not.

  9. They need the myth that they are the revolutionaries fighting against the entrenched forces of – whatever.  

    This allows them to feel noble, even when what they produce lacks nobility.  

    It allows them to shift the responsibility by explaining away any and all failures as due to the actions of the entrenched forces.  

    It gives them reason to exert more control, because it is obvious to them from their failures that the entrenched forces have yet to be overcome.

    1. They’re still fighting the Victorians. If you listen to them, America (and Canada!) is some Dickensian nightmare and they are all plucky Oliver Twist. They’re calling plays from a playbook that was written in the 1930s, with a chapter at the end added in the 1960s.

      Their Science Fiction: they tell and re-tell two (2) stories. Frankenstein, and the War of the Worlds. The odd one will get very adventurous and re-tell Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, or possibly Moby Dick.

      They are the Creative Ones. Uh huh. Fur shur.

  10. The leftists are very creative, especially when it comes to financial reports. Anyone ever figure out how a movie that had $10M production costs, made over $50M in ticket sales, but yet doesn’t make a profit? It looks like a shell game.

    There are some conservative people in Hollywood who have done some great and original films in the last couple of decades. The problem is you need to have the clout and name recognition of Clint Eastwood or Mel Gibson to get them recognized in the Hollywood media.

    1. Creative book-keeping in Hollywood is as old as the hills. 
      In the 1970s Cliff Robertson discovered this, when, as a result of the IRS sending him notice for undeclared income, he exposed David Begelman of Columbia studio.  In the process the self-serving accounting procedures of several studios were also exposed.  
      In the next decades James Garner exposed this as well.  From an article in The Hollywood Reporter:

      The affable star then went a second round with a studio, Universal, in a case that started in 1980 and lasted nine years. Garner claimed he was ill and could not work due to repeated injuries on The Rockford Files (he did most of his own stunts).  Universal sued him, alleging he actually was on strike because he did not believe the show had accrued a $9 million deficit after five years and 100 episodes.  Instead, Garner alleged, Universal was “creatively accounting,” two words that are now part of the Hollywood lexicon.

      Garner fought Universal again over some $2.2 million in syndication royalties for The Rockford Files, which Universal claimed was taken up by distribution fees.

      There were others in Hollywood who fought the studios, but these two were particularly public about it. 

      1. The movie business is notable both for the blatant abuse and for the staggering amount of money involved.
        But those same or very similar practices were adopted with enthusiasm by the music industry in the ’60s and ’70s and apparently by all the traditional publishing houses to this very day.

      2. So unlike in the “left=creative” trope above, in this as in much else in Hollywood we see a true correlation: Hollywood studio execs are predominantly leftists, and leftists, absent any constraint on their behavior save appearing to not be leftist enough, are often disgusting dishonest cheating scum, so Hollywood studio execs that are disgusting dishonest cheating scum are no surprise when encountered.

        1. Hollywood executives are Capitalists, and as they are often very amoral capitalists they know just how bad a capitalist can be. These executives are surrounded by actors and union managers, who are generally leftists, who they have to keep happy in order that they, the executives, can continue to enjoy the fruits of capitalism.

    2. If it doesn’t hit the news, it didn’t “really” happen.

      I’ve had conversations about which side is more corrupt, with the leftward throwing out an example of corruption on “my” side and I meet or match it with an example from “his” side.

      It always ends up bogging down into “that can’t really be that bad, the news didn’t cover it.”

      1. See the people who say, apparently in all seriousness, “I miss the Obama administration, when there were no scandals.”

          1. Since there was no publication there was no scandal. It can only be a scandal if mass media pushes it.

      2. Everything “hits” the news. The thing is, if an item supports a leftist progressive narrative it sticks, in fact gets done to death until everyone knows of it. But if that item supports a conservative viewpoint it’s deemed not news and ignored.
        Our media have become rather skilled at lying to us not only in what they tell us, but even more in what they don’t.
        Consider, every shooting covered in excruciating detail, unless committed by a protected class, then never mentioned again. This ignoring the statistical fact that shootings are far less frequent than in times past.
        As for defensive gun use, well now that simply isn’t news. In fact such incidents must be covered up as their reporting could cause the public to get the entirely wrong ideas about the necessity of relying on government for their protection.

        1. Woman shot by ex boyfriend:
          gets lots of airtime.
          Woman beaten to death by known violent ex, who was released from jail, the cops weren’t allowed to tell her, the purse five feet away from her body had the restraining order…and the pickup time for the hand gun she’d bought, but was on the waiting list for.

          That one never made the news outside of the immediate area, and the last part we only knew about because the lady was my mom’s classmate for an ag course.

        2. “Everything “hits” the news.”

          No, not really. I worked for a news station (radio, but it was in the same building and eventually off the same room as the TV side), and the only things that were guaranteed to get to the reporters were the things off the AP feed. Everything else had to be tracked down in person—and not everyone has the same talent for tracking down a story. As a newsreader (definitely not a reporter), all I could do was snag the AP feed and the TV scripts and work them into something on the radio—and I got to pick what went on.

          (Very small market, thankfully, so I got to talk about things like salmon runs a lot.)

      3. From a number of posts on Facebook: “We didn’t have [during Obama’s terms] any scandals that embarrassed us.”

        That, of course, is easy to achieve when you’re utterly shameless.

        1. There were no scandals during the Obama administration. A scandal consists of scandalous behavior plus publicity. The major media made certain that there was no publicity, so there were no scandals. (Fox and PJM do NOT count as publicity as no right-thinking person views them.)

        2. And when you have four broadcast TV networks and two cable news nets covering for you.

    3. “The leftists are very creative, especially when it comes to financial reports. ”

      No need to tell me that, darling. My statements are some of the greatest fiction publishing houses put out, including the bizarre detail of sometimes getting the same numbers for books of completely different genres with different publishers. and I mean to the last odd digit. Something like 131 books sold per year (I sell more than that of my books on Amazon, even the really old ones.)
      It doesn’t pass suspension of disbelief, but by gum, they demand I belief.

      1. As I heard it, one of the key factors leading to the creation of the SFWA was “creative accounting” that led to two authors getting vastly different sales figures… for the two halves of an Ace Double.

      2. They get away with it by virtue of the fact that the costs of bringing legal action and conducting an accounting audit exceed the probable benefits of an accurate accounting. So even if you win you’re out of pocket and branded a troublemaker difficult.

      3. One of the main reasons I am an indy author. There is no one fiddling the sales figures to benefit them, and screw me out of a dime.

  11. Talk to the people who actually design and build their own aircraft, cars, or firearms, and the skew will be solidly to one group.

    Talk to the people who “create” by rearranging furniture, vandalizing property, or assembling 1.5 second sound clips into “music”, and the skew will be solidly to the opposite group.

  12. In the case of writers specifically, this notion is quite bizarre. Consider that fiction is basically about the thoughts and actions of individuals. “Collectivist novel” is a contradiction in terms. While Asimov’s Foundation series is overtly collectivist, the story hangs on the actions of individuals in that swamp. And dystopias set in collectivist hellholes are all about the individuals who rebel.
    SF in particular is full of non-leftists, be they conservative or libertarian. Heinlein, Pournelle, James Hogan, A.E. van Vogt, Poul Anderson, Neil Smith, H. Beam Piper, Rolf Nelson, Sarah Hoyt… the list goes on and on. Leftist SF writers? There’s Asimov and Clarke, both of which fall in the “ok when read just once” category. There are probably some others who don’t expose the reader to their views, which is just fine.
    Outside SF? Still plenty. Most thriller writers I can think of (Clancy, Dale Brown, Dean Ing, Matthew Bracken, etc.).
    Other art forms? Do they even still exist? I define art as “an artifact that communicates with the observer”. Only a tiny fraction of the stuff created by self-proclaimed artists is art by that definition.

    1. Thrillers seems to be the one place in publishing where being to the Right doesn’t get you blacklisted, because they sell. That said, I’ve noticed some fitful attempts to try and push leftie thrillers from people like Richard Clarke and Valerie Plame in recent years. Doesn’t seem to have moved the needle much.

      1. Generally, thrillers either thrill or they don’t — and if they don’t there is no number of favorable reviews that can make the public give a [EXPLETIVE DELETED].

        Insert rant (or go see Correia) about if a chicken sandwich tastes delicious no degree of denunciation will deter people from eating it.

        1. It appears denunciation will sell more. I’m not a huge Chik-fil-A fan (and I live in Atlanta) but every time one of these crusades against them comes along I eat there more often. I just don’t use my middle fingers to hold the strips.

          1. When they make it to our section of Oregon, I’ll have to give them a visit. In-n-out opened a shop in Medford, and drew huge lines for weeks. I liked Larry’s prediction of the pearl-clutching once they go to New Yawk.

    2. I will note that Clancy (at the cowriting stage of his career at least) was an example to me of ‘dont preach’. One of the first Jack Ryan jr books that came out in 2009ish the president was (to me) a poorly veiled Obama expy and turned me off. Up to red rabbit I did enjoy his stories.

      1. I regard “Rainbow Six” as the last true Clancy work…and even that showed a co-writer’s touch. That book had a major error totally unlike Tom Clancy at his best.

        1. It’s been a while since I read 6. What was the error? I liked the final scenes where the villains were exiled in the jungle… Fitting.

      2. Same here. I never finished “Rainbow Six”- it just wasn’t as good as the earlier books.

        1. It’s OK…but the whole business about the eco-terrorists using a misting system to hit the Sydney Olympics? They had to move those Games to September precisely because it was cold in August.

          FWIW, I was in Adelaide in August of 2000. Temperatures were in the 40s.

          1. I’ve been to Adelaide (got my throat cut there) and when I read that I thought “Hey, it doesn’t get THAT hot there”.

            Then I realized you meant F, not C.

            I got my PADI cert in Brisbane in June. The water was *cold*

            1. Yup. We were actually up at the Monarto range for the World Muzzle-Loading Championships. And that cold tends to soak in after a day on the range.

              1. I remember watching it snow in Ballarat and farther up in the mountains when I was there one June. Wislon’s Promentory was colder, IMHO. Even the penguins looked like they wanted thick sweaters.

          2. Housemate keeps telling me that I would probably like living in Adelaide, except I keep pointing out that if the place regularly hits upper 40s to 50s, I will die there. I have problems with dry heat; which doesn’t make me sweat. I have discovered I have been unable to cool my core body temperature without cold water immersion and ice packs, so I am more susceptible to heatstroke.

            …wait, 40 F or C?

            1. He’s talking F.

              No way it was 40c at the end of winter.

              Adelaide is a pretty nice town, but the Royal Adelaide Hospital could use a backup generator. Well, maybe they have one now, I haven’t been there since 2012.

              Just saying.

      3. That president actually appeared in the Debt of Honor and Executive Orders books in the 1990s, so I think he was modeled after a previous presidential slimeball..

        I read sbout a chapter of <Dead of Alive before deferring reading. I have two more in the stack, but I doubt I’ll get to them this lifetime.

      4. The first Jack Ryan Jr. book was ‘The Teeth of the Tiger’, which came out in 2003. That was a bit early for Obama.

        That’s also the only one that I read. I can’t remember whether I didn’t go any further because there was something about the writing that I didn’t like, or because the basic idea behind the organization in the book left me feeling so disturbed.

        (iirc, a private group of “patriotic individuals” who surreptitiously eavesdrop on secret communications between government intelligence agencies and carry out operations to help the United States – up to and including the assassination of bad guys – without the actual knowledge of the government)

        1. Must have been the length of time between me reading that one and it’s sequel or whichever I’m thinking of (involved yucca mountain). Didn’t remember the history of the president

          1. From Debt of Honor Vice President Kealty (the Clintonoid type) was forced to resign over a sex scandal. (IIRC, he drugged the victim…). Jack was appointed VP, the Capitol was destroyed, and thus Jack became POTUS. Kealty made an unsuccessful attempt at un-resigning, but later became president for later books, roughly the same time I lost interest in reading Tom Clancy (Incorporated) material.

              1. Wow. Really missing the political point of the Ryan novels, both Sr & Jr. Don’t buy them except at a discount, but do read them. But take them as pure adventure/thriller. Good guys (Ryan’s) stumble onto something bad involving Terrorists (Take over/destroy world, regardless of source or “type”), & have hidden sources for help or get-out-of-jail/trouble-free (the Campus). Younger Ryan’s problems usually involve an attempt at a relationship, but otherwise ??? Yes, the Keatly character is the left “I know better, so more government, where I am in charge, & the rules don’t apply to me” … but otherwise, again ???.

            1. I kind of viewed Kealty as a Ted Kennedy stand in. Although the distinction between Teddy and W.J. Clinton was that Mr. Clinton
              never left a young lady in an submerged inverted vehicle (to the best of our knowledge).

              1. W.J. Clinton knew how to arrange to have others take care of such minor chores. Such as Hillary (although Billy did advise “put[ting] some ice on that.”

  13. The writer Andre Maurois remarked that people who are highly intelligent, but not in any way creative…who are not capable of formulating a system of thought on their own…tend to throw themselves voraciously on those systems they come across, and to apply them more vigorously than would their originators. I think this applies to a high % of academics, and to many in the so-called ‘creative’ industries as well.

    1. Are you arguing that academics are “highly intelligent”? That may be true occasionally, but I would argue it isn’t a generally accurate statement. Now, if you meant they have high opinions of their own intelligence, then I would agree.

      1. Academics are often very specialized. Don’t know what they don’t know.

    2. I would argue that you cannot be “highly intelligent” and not be somewhat creative.

      But we probably don’t have consensus on what that means.

      1. By chance would you consider being able to “see” how stuff connects to be imaginative?

        I notice many people only consider “making new things” to be creative. Most of the time, anyways, unless the connection someone “sees” is unknown to the person saying “Wow, that’s creative” as well.

        1. If it nothing ever gets out of your head, then no you’re not creative, or at least you’re on the left side of the curve there.

          You have to make *something* to be creative. As in “Create”.

          Creative, exists in a two (at least) vector space, one being “never let a new idea in his head, much less formed one” to “spins out new ideas like the ticking of a clock”, and the other being “never produces anything” to “extremely productive”. Look at Vernor Vinge. Along the “new idea” vector he does pretty good. But his output is, well, you wait a while, you know?

          Does the woma…person doing scrapbooking or quilting count as creative? What about the (usually) woman running a loom? These might be pretty far out on the “produces something” vector, but not so much along the “new ideas” vector.

          I assume that “Academic” these days means “PhD, or striving towards”. By definition a PhD has created *something*–their dissertation–which is supposed to be new knowledge. Maybe outside their discipline they’re lost. Heck, maybe their *discipline* is lost. But generally there is this notion of “publish or perish” in Academentia, and like many things I no longer know how true this is. Most academics are like most other people, they may have one thing they are good at, and most of their work is a variation on that theme.

          Incredibly few people create something utterly and completely new. More (Geiger, Bosch, Dali) can show us something outside our experience.

          Take the work of Marcel Duchamp ( v.s. someone like Audrey Flack or Charles Bell ( or

          Both are showing us EXACTLY what is already there (in Duchamp’s case LITERALLY). Creative? I would argue that Ball and Flack are, and that Duchamp should have been pilloried.

          What about the impressionists. 4000 paintings of the same haystacks? Lots of output, I’ll say that. Fauvists? Pretty colors!

          If you limit the adjective “creative” only to people who produce “new” work then we have to talk about what constitutes “new”.

          Most of western music uses the same “system”–the seven note major scale and seven note minor scales. Folks played around with other scales, but that’s *most* of what we get. Rock music is an even tighter “system”, but there’s been a marvelous amount of creativity within that–both originality and output.

          1. I think it was Kim du Toit who wanted to use the proverbial time machine and go back and bump off Duchamp and one of the modernist architects for crimes against civilization.

          2. Given publish or perish and their recent output Piled high and Deeps have to be very careful. In the fiction sense.

  14. “liberals” have to be more creative, since they’re going against what is established
    They look more “creative” to those for whom unorthodoxy is the greatest feat. That’s sadly, the prime driver.

    a kindergartner who paints the circle blue instead of green
    See? The wee one did not what xe was told, but what xer wanted, so … creative!

    Worse, that worship of unorthodoxy has been king in the “arts” for close to a century now. Which, weirdly, makes it the true orthodoxy.

    But, they’re really still hung up on trying to kill G-d. And, of course, so many of the peasants still cling to Him. So, they obsess with fundamental morality and ‘bourgeois values’, trying to strangle the Almighty. And unorthodoxy somehow becomes “creativity”.

    1. They don’t have what it takes to kill God. That was Nietzsche’s crucial (and misquoted and misunderstood) insight. He realized killing God meant becoming Him and all that it entailed.

      Then again, he also predicted the resentment the murder would create in the people who claimed to do it and the bloody cost (as in he said millions) it would cost in the 20th century.

      Oddly, all those leftists quoting him don’t discuss those parts of his writing.

        1. Yep…”God is dead” is not a celebration but a criminal accusation when it first appears in The Gay Science.

  15. I will say that one advantage that Leftists have in the creative fields, beyond the obvious one of the gatekeepers, is a bit more of a willingness to gamble on their talent. Your average conservative recognizes that (a) he is responsible for his own life, and (b) the odds of earning enough in a creative field to support yourself are low (cue the old joke about the difference between a large pizza and a guitar player, the pizza can feed a family of four). Thus, the conservative is more likely to choose a field like accounting or engineering and simply create as a hobby. The average Leftist is more willing to mooch off his parents and friends while creating his masterpiece, and if that masterpiece isn’t recognized by the public, well, that’s the fault of the stupid people who don’t know genius when it’s in front of them.

    1. On that same basis, conservatives are far less inclined to subsist on “the kindness of strangers” — something almost required of artists while they develop their skills and build their portfolios. Liberals deem themselves possessed of a right to be supported no matter how little they apply themselves to their trade.

      They are also far more likely to be drawn to trades which don’t require you show up on time and do any actual, measurable work. Thus they are a glut on the market for those business models which allow people to sleep all day, drink all night and complain about the public not understanding their work.

        1. It was interesting as Covenant wore on last night to see the average age of the crowd decline as the old farts who had to work went home (me, I’m a vet, I’ll sleep when I’m dead so I did the whole show) and the kids who can sleep until their 11am class stayed.

            1. Synthpop/EBM band, more VNV than Apoptygma Berzerk:


              If you are interested and have Spotify, Rhapsody, or Google music (or check YouTube for it) the live album In Transit is my suggestion for a good entry point.

              1. Ehh, I didn’t know about it far enough ahead of time to plan going. Driving home from DC would be a little much

                1. I think we were the first stop in the US tour so check the website.

                  I was a little disappointed. They had some sound problems early on and there were song I hoped to hear and didn’t. I was amazed they did not do “Dead Stars”. However, they did do “Call the Ships to Port” and an a capella version of “Happy Man” opened the encore.

        2. And those man-child guys who really do expect their girlfriend to take over mommy’s job as well as being good in the sack, and those users who have no restraint or concept of marriage as a joint operation…….

      1. Liberals also tend to be the ones who think they can pay creatives in “exposure.”

          1. Many _have_ died of…

            * Orvan looks at his tea. “Tea. Not cocktail. I know you’re Pu’er but you needn’t go overboard about things.”

    2. “The average Leftist is more willing to mooch off his parents and friends”

      Don’t forget the taxpayers.

  16. Progressives as creative? Have you ever seen any of their “performance art”? It all boils down to “WTF?” and “SMDH”. Seriously, nothing they create is of lasting beauty for interest.

  17. They can dominate a field because they make the people who don’t follow in lockstep afraid to say anything. And now that they’re pre-emptively banning conservatives because they *might* make someone feel uncomfortable just by sharing the same venue with them, they can make the echo chamber just a little more echoey.

    1. This has long been the case in Hollywood where conservative technicians learn quickly that their opinions are not desired and, unless they comfort the star they can result in dismissal (“I yam a delicate artiste and must, must be provided a safe space in which to remember embrace my lines.”). Conservatives, OTOH, such as Wayne and Eastwood enjoy a bit of give and take and are mostly concerned whether their liberal co-workers can hit their marks and deliver their lines.

      1. I am a sensitive artist…I am a sensitive artist.
        Nobody understands me because I am so deep.
        In my work I make allusions to books that nobody else has read,
        Music that nobody else has heard,
        And art that nobody else has seen.
        I can’t help it
        Because I am so much more intelligent
        And well-rounded
        Than everyone who surrounds me.

        I stopped watching tv when I was six months old
        Because it was so boring and stupid
        And started reading books
        And going to recitals
        And art galleries.
        I don’t go to recitals anymore
        Because my hearing is too sensitive
        And I don’t go to art galleries anymore
        Because there are people there
        And I can’t deal with people
        Because they don’t understand me.

        I stay home
        Reading books that are beneath me,
        And working on my work,
        Which no one understands

        I am sensitive…
        I am a sensitive artist…

  18. Thank you– I started writing again. Each time I do better and each time I fall from it. But, I’m with you. I noticed the non-creativity when I was in the US Navy. Some of the folks who were starting to talk about this philosophy had to be managed all the time. The ones who were really “creative” could be let go to do their work and finish it.

  19. I think there *is* a fundamental difference. Individualists create great art (I would suspect that very nearly all truly great art is created by individualists), while collectivists get their self-worth from membership in a group. Nearly all artistic scenes have an ‘in’ crowd — what Wolfe called ‘le monde’ — and acclaim, fawning reviews, and being talked about as the next big thing by the ‘makers of fashion’ depend on being part of the ‘in’ crowd. Of course the ‘in’ crowd for the last century has depended on being one who pushes the outer frontiers of taste, which explains so much of what has happened to the arts. But collectivists have to signal their membership in the collective. Individualists don’t have so wave the flag for individualism (after all, to an individualist, this is self-evident — we see the world as made up of individuals, and there’s nothing special about being an individual — we’re all individuals). So you just don’t hear as much self-identification from individualists, while collectivists are always eager to wave the Party Banner.

    1. Interesting. When most people visualize the “in” crowd, I think we view a circle, with everything outside that circle as the “out” crowd.

      What your comment made me visualize was instead a donut. As they’ve “pushed the boundaries” and the “in” crowd has become that fringe, the boundaries for their crowd push outward, while contracting behind them. This leaves behind the rest of the folks that used to be “in” (back in those dirty years of repressed womyns and QWERTYsoup folk) still where they used to be, but the boundaries have passed them by.
      Those folks are now in the hole of the donut.

      1. while contracting behind them.
        Errrr, expanding behind them? Is there a math/geometry term for pulling the bridge up behind you as the circumference expands?

  20. I’m going to recommend a look at Scott Alexander’s piece at , which talks about differential association, and by implication about the vast number of subtle clues people give to their political orientations through all sorts of indirect things. Though I don’t think it always works; virtually everyone in C’s and my circle of face to fact friends is somewhere on the progressive spectrum, which is certainly not what we would prefer. But by some subtle signaling process we might be conveying the message “we are people of the Left.”

  21. I’ve noticed on Twitter whenever someone on our side is making news, there’s almost always at least one person who says, “What, are they *still* around?” Conservatives and libertarians are supposed to be something society moves beyond. So when we persist, when we don’t fade away, it terrifies them.

    I know that certain award-nominated muckrakers who may be reading these comments will accuse me of “not letting go”, or “re-litigating Sad Puppies” but screw those guys. The reason they’re still angry at us, two years after we bowed out of the Hugo Wars, is because we scared them. For a few short years, they had to deal with the fact they weren’t the only voice in fandom. We weren’t something of the past. We are here, now, and we want to be heard. They were disrespected on their own turf. The orderly progressive takeover of the SF field was interrupted.

    It’s the same reason that the British Left is still driven into a frenzy by the mere mention of Thatcher, long after they’ve undone everything she did for the country. They will never recover from having been challenged. Ever.

    1. A huge chunk of where the level of vitriol against Trump comes from. He was aggressive, arguably to excess and wasn’t trying to merely manage the transition to the USSR.

            1. Here in California we’ve got some billionaire (I think) who keeps running ads on TV pushing for Trump’s impeachment. And he’s apparently running lots of ads pushing that message for the 2018 mid-term elections.

              The fact that they have yet to find anything impeachable is irrelevant. More than one congresscritter has made it abundantly clear that they are convinced that what we know right now (i.e. nothing at all) is more than enough to justify voting for Trump’s impeachment.

              1. It’s Steyer, he’s a billionaire, and he understands something lots of people don’t: Impeachable isn’t a legal offense, it’s strictly political. If you can persuade 50%+1 of the House and 67 Senators to go along with it, they can remove President Trump from office because they don’t like the color of his tie.

                The ONLY reason they haven’t is they don’t quite have the nerve in the face of a guaranteed civil insurrection. Especially since they’ve been able to hamstring President Trump (with Vichy Mitchy’s and the rest of the GOPe’s obvious support, BTW) pretty well without it.

                1. No, no – it is only for High Crimes And Misdemeanors that a president may be impeached. You may not remember it but it was all over the airwaves, newscables and legacy news media as recently as 1998. While nobody was quite sure whether that “and” meant he had to have done both or either the bien pensants were quite clear about those having to be HIGH. I think that means the president must at least have a buzz on but they were more emphatic than precise on that.

                  Snark aside, you are entirely correct: it is purely a matter of political will that is required for impeachment and all of their specious reasoning is a veil to clothe their naked ambition. Given their betrayal* of the Constitution and open warfare against the elected administration the Dems are slightly worse than the Republicans, abusing their prerogatives to unprecedented degree and forcing the Republicans to similarly abandon long-standing precedent (e.g., the filibuster) if only to keep the Congress operational.

                  IT is for their adherence to the sole standard of “Will to Power” that I propose the Democrat Party be renamed the Nietzsche Party and their members be known as “Freddies.”

                  *Presumably all and any here can come up with several examples extemporaneously and my listing in detail is thus unnecessary.

    2. We’ve been relegated to the outer reaches of the world. They want us all stuck in Outer Mongolia with no internet access. They assume Flyover country is the same thing and are dumbstruck that the cold tundra wastes of ND not only has internet access, but large campus of Microsoft programmers.

    3. The Left was touting the great Leninist/Fascist experiment in Europe, and if the USA didn’t jump on the bandwagon that would be the end of us.

      Notice which one lasted. Yet it doesn’t sink it.

    4. Some years ago $HOUSEMATE found some ‘internet fame’ and after a while there’d be some little reference or other to that and someone would comment “Aren’t his 15 minutes of fame over yet?” And right about then, the phone would ring… and the “15 minutes” would get a bit longer. The interesting part of this? NO active promotion was engaged in. This just happened.

  22. It depends a bit on how you define “creative.” A good auto mechanic is creative, as is a good engineer, a good physicist, heck, even a good accountant (although few thank her for that.)

    What they refer to as “The Creative Arts” are mostly concerned with emotionally manipulating people, and they get much more practice at that, such as by throwing a tantrum any time somebody not of “The Cool Kids” sits at their lunch table.

  23. There was some study or other that found that liberals did actually differ from conservatives in that they were less likely to have an aversion or “ick” response to ideas outside of the accepted norm. So, if one were to go by that, a liberal might be more able to contemplate and explore something that is somewhat transgressive, though that hardly applies to creativity, only the subject of the creativity (and the length to go to for shock value when you’re unlikely to be shocked.)

    It also has another really serious problem. There is a group that has even less of an “ick” response to new and different ideas or ways of doing things than liberals and is even more able, then, to contemplate systems that are transgressive in whatever sense.


    1. But where was “accepted norm” defined. Calling someone dressed like a man who looks like a man ‘sir’ brings as much or more response as a passable crossdresser in the bathroom to the other side.

      1. And who knows how they defined the study individuals? It almost has to be self-identified, right? And then there’s answering questions about how you feel vs. answering them about how you’re supposed to feel, or all your friends feel vs. (as you said) whatever the accepted norm was as you were growing up and what you were conditioned to view as ordinary.

    2. > differ from conservatives in that they were less likely to have an aversion
      > or “ick” response to ideas outside of the accepted norm

      Conservative means different things in different contexts.

      There are many of us who are by nature…libertarian or libertine (take your pick) who are also awake (as opposed to “woke”) enough to see where that leads.

      Conservative prescriptions are not nearly as fun, but they get food on the table and working bridges. That’s less unfun than the alternative.

    3. People with jobs and kids and volunteer work and all the other things that make the world go, are tired. It’s easy to run around shouting, Look at this cool new thing! when you don’t have any responsibilities using up your brain and energy.

    4. *laughs* Yet butcher an animal in front of them, and …

      (My response to seeing an animal butchered? Remember all the stuff I read in the encyclopedia. “They cut the pig’s jugular didn’t they?” Three year old me had a good memory. Later: “Hey! That heart looks a lot like a human heart!” Relative next to me, visibly disturbed: “No it doesn’t.”)

      1. IIRC, the study was a bit biased in what “outside the norm” ideas they were willing to test– and a related one for subconcious testing of an “ick” reaction, such as recognizing a really nasty wound was bad, found that it was self-identified conservatives who had sane responses. So it wasn’t that liberals were tolerant, it was that they didn’t object to the same things.

        That one by the liberal psychologist– name started with an H, can’t remember– that identified that conservatives were looking at different things, that made sense. More, and different, vectors.

        1. That one by the liberal psychologist– name started with an H

          That would be Jonathan Haidt, who is no longer a liberal.

          From Wikipedia’s summation of basic principles:

          The five foundations
          Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm

          Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating

          Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal

          Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion

          Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation

          A sixth foundation, liberty (opposite of oppression) was theorized by Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind, chapter eight, in response to the need to differentiate between proportionality fairness and the objections he had received from conservatives and libertarians (United States usage) to coercion by a dominating power or person. Haidt noted that the latter group’s moral matrix relies almost entirely on the liberty foundation.

          A large part of Haidt’s insight was the realization that Liberals are almost completely blind to the sanctity and liberty dimensions, which is why arguing those dimensions with them is similar to the famous Far Side cartoon:

          1. Thank you! My brain was coming up with “Hyatt”– which was not helpful, for obvious reasons– and I knew someone would recognize it.

    5. ” liberals did actually differ from conservatives in that they were less likely to have an aversion or “ick” response to ideas outside of the accepted norm. ”

      Or to anything. Conservatives reacted to an image first with fear or disgust — that is, prioritizing threats — and liberals treated everything the same.

      That is, liberalism is a threat to life and limb if the liberal is not carefully protected.

  24. I thought for sure I’d posted a comment to this earlier, but it seems my contribution vanished without a trace. So, either the blog owner deleted it, xor I’m crazy and didn’t post it, xor there’s a bug in the blog engine that’s deleting my posts, xor the bug is really a feature. All are equally likely.

    Thanks for writing this, as it inspired me to finally get back to work. Nice missive.

    1. Posts from new commenters often get held up by WP requiring the Blog Moderator (Bloderator?) to review and authorize the post. This is necessary to prevent swamping by (for example) bots offering to sell products enlarging things which a sizable percentage of those regularly here do not have or investment opportunities involving partnerships with Nigerian vice-presidents.

      Trolls, OTOH, are permitted to post until they become tedious, repetitive and flavorless.

  25. A-bloody-men! The Left isn’t creative, they just spout the propaganda points du jour. Hollywood? Remakes, sequels, and bad adaptions of books – very little of which show any creativity. The same tired tropes, done the same tired way. Books are the same – when I can date a book set in the far future by the use of 1995-vintage fads, the writer has blown it. I won’t even mention stupe-coms, the idiocy in those was always obnoxiously predictable.

    Build around? Nah. Charge right through them, they’re demoralized as Hell!

    The Left hasn’t figured out that modern technology has changed the whole entertainment industry. The Old Age of recording studios and film is giving way to a New Age of home studios and home videos. I won’t even mention publishing…that’s a decade ahead. When self-published books are getting made into major films, you know the Old Left has been completely bypassed.

    Two words: Lindsey Stirling.

  26. I think part of the reason “conservatives” seem to be more creative in the visual and musical arts is discipline. They (we) are willing to do the work of learning the craft needed to duplicate the past works, and then use those skills to make our own new paintings, sketches, songs, what have you. We have a foundation to build on. The “liberals” don’t want to bother with old stuff that will interfere with their vision.

    1. Oh, yes. Two words: Bryan Larsen. Brilliant painter – who has blasted the art schools because they don’t teach the technical aspects of painting any more.

      1. Requiring people to learn technical skills is oppressive and constrains the free flow of creative talent.

        It says so, right there in the course catalog.

        1. Credentialism and networking. Your poop splatters that look like it was done by a 4 year old are meaningless as art unless you can fit it out with the right sort of art school nonsense filled with “meaning”, and it won’t be accepted unless the right people give their approval.

          1. this is one reason i went to a smaller film school that actually teaches you how to use gear rather than the more expensive ones where you spent 2 1/2 years or more in theory classes before they let you touch a camera.

            1. I went to a school that wasn’t a film school of any kind—there was basically one cranky old professor teaching the video side of the broadcasting department. But he was good—there was one class in which he showed us a training video that he’d been hired to update, and we were supposed to find out everything wrong with it. There were many things wrong with it, from not white-balancing, to scripting issues (they made one bond payment to a referee for a challenge sound like a bribe), to making it look like boats were going to crash—and this had been done by a prestigious film school. (More like “pretentious”; this was an early-live course for us.)

              One thing that’s nice about working on ancient equipment with no resources is that you learn.

              1. we didn’t have ancient equipment, we just didn’t have the expensive equipment…

                and yes, i mean film gear expensive, not hobbyist expensive.

                1. We had studio-grade equipment—from the 1960s. Well, some of it may have been from the 80s. We learned to line-edit even though computer editing was available, because may as well learn the harder way.

            2. The old “New” Hollywood directors said that their best education in actual film making came from working for Roger Corman, who gave them no budget and no time.

      2. Okay, that has me thinking about Athena and her future. Can anyone recommend good art schools/programs that do develop technique? A double plus would be in a program in a state like Utah or Texas that allows “campus carry”.

        1. I have a degree in Fine Art from the Schrewl of the Art Institute of Chicago.

          My eldest has a similar degree from Mississippi State in Starkville.

          We’re both in the IT industry, and we both have been since shortly after graduation.

          So I’ll give you the advise that I gave her and she didn’t follow. You, being not my child, will at least listen 🙂

          Do NOT get a degree in Fine Art. Get a degree in the Humanities, get a degree in Business. Get a *minor* in Art History from some place that teaches HISTORY not HERSTORY, and then take as many art classes as you can fit into your schedule.

          STUDY art history. STUDY techniques, materials and the milieu that created the art.

          That said, might be a place to look. They are, IIRC one of two colleges in the US that get NO government money. We’re trying to get our youngest into their charter school over in Golden.

        2. Larsen wound up studying illustration…then picked up painting technique on the side.

  27. There’s one other factor at work. Conservatives have a certain degree of professional courtesy and pride. Sure, we’ll steal plot ideas – any half-competent would-be author can’t read or watch something without trying to mine it for ideas. But we don’t copy verbatim. We twist things. Change them. Invert them. Anything but a bland copy job.

    1. They can’t even do a half decent bland copy job. They’ve got to mock, deride, and add unfunny funny stuff to the serious bits, and cram in hip, socially relevant material besides.

        1. Followed by the painfully unfunny/unfun remakes of “Ghostbusters”, “The Lone Ranger”, “21 Jump Street”, or “The Empire Strikes Back”.

            1. Might be a reference to “The Last Jedi”, which was sort of ESB all jumbled up, out of order, and nowhere near as good.

              But the last part is a given for this particular topic.

              1. It is. TLJ sort of kind of follows the basic idea of ESB- a setback after a major victory, the main character gets Jedi training, the B-team is in peril, and so on. It just wasn’t that good. The pacing was awful, and even though I liked it in the theater, there was a bad lingering aftertaste.

          1. The director said on the commentary track that he had never read the book because he didn’t want to “pollute his vision.” That vision specifically being “war makes fascists of us all.”

            I might have enjoyed the movie if they hadn’t tried to pretend it was Heinlein. (And if they’d not had the WHITEST freaking people in “Bwenos AIR-ace,” ye gods.)

            1. Someone (it might have been Mike Pondsmith, of R. Talsorian Games, though I might be misremembering) claimed that Verhoeven never really had any intention of doing Heinlein’s story. Rather, Verhoeven had written a script, and people that he knew noted that it resembled Heinlein’s book. So Verhoeven purchased the rights so that he could slap the name on it and get more attention than he otherwise would have.

        2. There’s this animated Starship Troopers movie that was done by the director who did the first Ghost in the Shell movie – it was entertaining and well done, in my (easy to please) opinion. What really got me while watching it was “How the hell did they get away with the Hillary Clinton stand-in?” Found out at the end that the whole thing was made in Japan, and… yeah, well there you go. (Worth watching, IMO.)

          1. There was an animated Starship Troopers series that was quite good and yours truly worked on.

  28. Sarah is right. If there is a political or philosophical discrepancy in creative fields it’s no more complicated than the fact that the gatekeepers gatekeep.

    And these days they aren’t even being shy about admitting it either.

    Nor keeping themselves to gatekeeping creative fields. Now it’s about gatekeeping the tech industry, medicine, business.

    You can probably still be an engineer. Or ditch digger. At least for now.

    Really, next thing you know someone will be explaining that the reason that there aren’t conservative computer programmers is because the conservative brain doesn’t think that way and they just aren’t very good at it.

    1. The Left was warbling about epistemic closure on the Right only a few years ago, yet their closed loop thinking is little but question begging, assuming that which they claim to prove. Theirs is a taught illogical conclusion, often practiced by Democrats to deny equal rights to African-Americans.

  29. Just to bring it back to the original point, I would not say that Leftists are any more creative by virtue of their politics. But it is true that artistic people do tend to be more Leftist by nature, always have been. They are more connected to their feelings, more empathetic, and tend to look at the world with their bleeding hearts. I mean, socialism has always *sounded* good, even if it has zero practical application.

    This is not a problem, so long as these artists don’t end up going into full SJW mode, and you can often make them see that their desires can be better met by avoiding coercive policies, if you can talk to them at the right time, in the right way. Not an easy task, I fully admit, but more productive than pigeon-holing and name-calling.

    So, basically, if you are looking for more allies for your cause, at least try the honey before you break out the cattle prod.

    1. Nope, nope, nope, miles and miles of wrongitude. All these things you’re saying leftists are, I know conservatives and Libertarians who are.
      The only reason you think this is because you’re looking at a highly gate-kept set.
      <Hits buzzer. Thanks for playing.

    2. As for “always were” our right and left are not what they were, and that alone gives the lie to your attempt at propagandizing.
      See, the right used to be about the established systems and control, the left about the new ideas, and equality before the law.
      That changed, and yet “artists were always leftists.”

    3. Which was rather Kipling’s point here:

      “Jubal sang of the Wrath of God
      And the curse of thistle and thorn —
      But Tubal got him a pointed rod,
      And scrabbled the earth for corn.
      Old — old as that early mould,
      Young as the sprouting grain —
      Yearly green is the strife between
      Jubal and Tubal Cain!

      Jubal sang of the new-found sea,
      And the love that its waves divide —
      But Tubal hollowed a fallen tree
      And passed to the further side.
      Black-black as the hurricane-wrack,
      Salt as the under-main-
      Bitter and cold is the hate they hold —
      Jubal and Tubal Cain!

      Jubal sang of the golden years
      When wars and wounds shall cease —
      But Tubal fashioned the hand-flung spears
      And showed his neighbours peace.
      New — new as Nine-point-Two,
      Older than Lamech’s slain —
      Roaring and loud is the feud avowed
      Twix’ Jubal and Tubal Cain!

      Jubal sang of the cliffs that bar
      And the peaks that none may crown —
      But Tubal clambered by jut and scar
      And there he builded a town.
      High-high as the snowsheds lie,
      Low as the culverts drain —
      Wherever they be they can never agree —
      Jubal and Tubal Cain! “

  30. It’s the old association fallacy in action. If Bob the Artiste has gobs of talent and accomplishment plus outspoken Leftwing views, then if I hold Leftwing views, I too have talent and accomplishment.

    It’s kind of funny that the Alt-Right racialist have adopted a similar POV- if people of accomplishment are white, and I’m white, then I’m a person of accomplishment.

    1. The half-cured: they realize that white=bad that they’ve been told is bunk, but just reverse the positions, rather than stepping away from the paradigm.

      1. If you try to tell them that, they’ll just come back with the question of “why do you hate white people?”.

      2. This is a really common result– as various hobby horses I ride around here show. 😉

        Not sure if it’s human, or if I finally have a normal flaw in sharing the “this is bad, try the absolute opposite, rather than using some freaking sense and ADJUSTING it” response.

        1. It’s said that the devil sends errors in pairs, so that by avoiding one, you can fall instead into the other.

      3. A real danger.

        You notice that Ayn Rand and Marx are as one as to the question of whether the economy is really dependent on one and only one set of people in it; the difference is whom they credit.

        1. I’m not sure which group you’re thinking of for Rand. Her utopian community, Galt’s Gulch, included a lot of industrial entrepreneurs. But it also included a banker, a judge, a doctor, two philosophers, a composer, an actress, a sculptor, two physicists, several college professors, a writer (who is basically Rand’s Stan Lee cameo!), a young railroad executive who had been on the way up when he went on strike, a truck driver, and a mother who wanted a sane environment to raise her children. I think it would be hard to define these as a “class” in any meaningful sense.

  31. Tangent:

    A little known Artist that deserves a damn sight more attention than he ever got; Viktor Schreckengost.

    (Sorry about no link, but my web-fumis weak)

    Also, I remember reading about a Polish (?) scultor who did an amazing Trumpeter of Krakow (arrow through the throat) in a fantasy/art deco style, but I’ve long lost the magazine (cover story on Captain Harlock) and don’t remember the name. Any ideas?

        1. Going off the cup, I think I know who inspired the Batman cartoon when I was little.

          I’m also amused that I never really thought about one guy designing the look of bikes– and I know my dad shared one of the bikes he designed!

  32. The good news is that Son One, the artist, while starting out as horribly indoctrinated in liberalism in grade school, high school, and college; has had much of that curbed by exposure to the real world while working as a sales manager, gaming referee, and event setup and running. Still can’t tell him anything, but the Socratic method and throw out a couple of examples to question, and then drop it seem to be spreading the bread crumbs.

  33. Good point. I don’t agree with lefties, so I have to figure it out on my own.

    So I must be a creative! Yay!

  34. Unconventional thoughts:

    Of Conservatives And Conventions
    By Sarah Hoyt
    I became aware that something was going on between ConCarolinas (a science fiction convention in Charlotte) and my friend John Ringo, in a tiny private group on Facebook. This is literally the group for my innermost circle, the people I trust.

    They were talking about Ringo being Mau-Maued out of ConCarolinas.

    I perked my ears up at this, first because of course, ConCarolinas has been a Baen adjacent con, meaning that Baen authors have more or less always attended, and I’ve heard stories of “so we were at con Carolinas, when—” and second because I lived in Charlotte for seven years and still have friends there.

    It’s been known for years – as long as I’ve been published in SF/F – that conservatives get invited to be guests of honor at conventions far less often than leftists in SF/F and infinitely less than red-diaper-babies in SF/F, but ConCarolinas seemed like a weird place for a conflagration of snowflakism.

    I went over to John Ringo’s page and read about it. As far as I could tell, a bunch of people on Twitter had been badgering both the con-committee and the other (very leftist) guest about inviting someone who was… what the heck was he? I don’t know.

    In the beginning, the accusation against him was that he was “Puppy Adjacent.”


    Puppies seem to be the Baen of the Lefties’ existence.

    1. From what Sarah quoted, Ringo worked hard spinning it, but the torlings got what they wanted without a fight.

      His business and his call, but a plain old “well, f*** y’all then” would have been more respectable than that “those berries were probably sour anyway” jive.

      > “I’m a New York Times best-selling author”


      1. John’s point is, more likely than not, he’s sold more books than the rest of the guests…

        likely… combined.

    2. I am of the opinion that the concom for that con should ban anyone who said anything that could be construed as a threat on Twitter or FB… or they need to admit their harassment policy is a scam.

      Also, Baen should put the con on a ‘no go’ list.

    3. I see that our old annoyance the Creepy Fellow has written about Sarah’s post. What would that guy do without us?

  35. Maybe I’m not creative. Creativity, it could be argued, requires following through. I’m still working on that part.

  36. One advantage of growing up in a small town when I grew up was that a small town library had a small town budget and consequently kept older books on the shelf longer than customary. This meant I grew up not reading the classics exactly (though I read those too) but reading just generally old books.

    Which is why I think the switch that came about in publishing in the mid-eighties was so obvious to me. New books (when we got them) were all similar in outlook/politics/characterization, but the older books had more actual variety. I didn’t see it consciously at the time (being ten or so) but what I was seeing was the winnowing out of different viewpoints and the solidification of the monoculture that publishing would become. It wasn’t that way before. The older books I read were written by conservatives, liberals, far-left whack jobs, fence sitters, whomever, it was varied as much as it could be given the small sample size possible (I was reading upwards of 300 books a year but that’s not enough to make much more than a sizable dent in the stacks of even a small town library) but the emergent monoculture changed all that and made sure books became safe for those with certain political leanings (all the way from left to left).

    The differences between authors were muted. Characters became ‘correct’ in a narrowly defined sense because the monoculture couldn’t understand that other people would like characters that they themselves wouldn’t like. Less differences. Less surprise. More structured. In all ways but one much less creative. The one way? Adding people with superficial differences (gender, color, orientation), while at the same time making them the same (bland. Oh so bland. Blandy bland bland. Bland.).

    So when I first heard someone spout that canard about conservatives not being creative I was floored and insulted even though the person saying it was clearly thinking they were making a compliment (Something like; ‘I can’t believe you’re a conservative! You’re one of the most creative people I’ve ever met, ideas fall off you like rain and you’re a conservative?’), like I was overcoming some kind of handicap.

    Not being college educated I’d only been peripherally aware of that thesis but since I knew what books had once been I had laughed at it and assumed only the most far left and pretentious of twatwaffles believed it. To see it in the real world? And stated so baldly as if it was a fact that everyone knew? Took me aback but I still tried to talk it through and explain from my perspective what I had seen, read, and understood. The basic argument being if conservatives are incapable of being creative why in the past was it much closer to an even split in author’s political leanings? Why in the fifties and sixties were conservatives able to be creative? What changed in the fundamentals of conservative people that sucked all the creativity they had evidently had before out?

    Apparently the answer was Reagan.

    I wish I was joking because that’s not a bad punch line.


    1. Reagan was polarizing… in that his election caused the left to magnetically align into the single-mindedness it now has. Or at least that accelerated what was already taking place.

      Hrm.. this might explain why my choice of A/V entertainment tends to radio shows and ooold TV shows, and NOT modern “cinema” which makes me wonder if I forgot to flush. I’ve been accused of “living in the 1940’s” and well, consider that the entertainment had to be good enough to sell during the Depressions (the word “recession” so they didn’t have to publish ‘depression’… marketing of failure, you know…) and the War. It was good or it failed. Today? Evidently not much pressure to be worth a damn. From time to time I am somewhere that has a TV and marvel that the stuff being televised isn’t failing faster than You’re in the Picture. Fortunately such places are generally willing to serve me a Manhattan – or two.

      1. Reagan saw and successfully pursued the strategic opportunity to destroy the Soviet Union. Or at least force it to complete its self destruction. Ford, Nixon, and Eisenhower did not.

        The Soviet Union recognized at least some of that threat, and directed their disinformation systems against Reagan.

        The Left didn’t like their New Jerusalem being revealed as Gomorrah and smote by the invisible hand.

      2. So they decided, since the arrow of history points to them and it is certain the ah future belongs to them, the reason they failed at that point was that they’d been INSUFFICIENTLY LEFTIST. Yeah. Same now. WIth more cowbell.

        1. I think I, of all those here, can truly say that what they have is not cowbell but something rather more relating to the other end.

          And the arrow of history is digital. The middle digit, generally.

  37. The reality is it’s almost impossible for a leftist to understand either art or science. Art requires being able to see points of view different from your own. Science requires accepting facts that may be uncomfortable.

  38. There have been quite a few leftist authors who have made bank writing tales about the failures of political leftism. George Orwell and Stanislaw Lem to name two. Much more recently (and still alive) is Hugh Howey. SHIFT, the prequel to his WOOL series, has Democrats as the bad guys unleashing killer nanobots on the world to eliminate everyone except their carefully chosen selection invited to the Democratic National Convention held at a nuclear waste disposal site – which turns out to be underground survival silos. For decades their system maintains a cloud of nanites above the silos to kill all who go outside. The endgame is to rebuild society from the sole surviving silo out of 50. But the main architect of the plan wants to kill everyone, including the occupants of whichever turns out to be the final silo.

    You might think such a tale would have to be written by a dyed in the wool conservative. I made the mistake of looking up Howey on Facebook. Hooo boy, surprise surprise. He’s a far leftist who is not at all averse to enjoying the capitalist fruits of writing popular fiction. He bought a sailboat and took it on a trip around the world.

    I read SHIFT and WOOL and some of the in-universe stuff by other authors, but after learning Howey’s actual political leanings I’m just not interested anymore.

    Leftists seem to love writing leftist caused apocalypses and dystopias, with conservative protagonists, often achieving some measure of victory or even smashing the whole rotten thing. Nineteen Eighty-Four notably did not, Winston Smith failed to achieve his (and Julia’s) freedom and ended up subsuming himself into the system. It was easier to avoid the abuse by going along.

Comments are closed.