They Don’t Know When to Stop Shoving


To every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction.

This is not just physics.  It’s life.

I mean it doesn’t even need a second person involved.  If I push too hard on the writing/working, I’m going to get sick, and it’s going to cost me way more time than it would have taken if I just took the occasional day off now and then.  (Yeah, despite that I never learn.  Part of it is that the twenty year old in my brain doesn’t get the body is older.)

But it turns out that the Ancient Greeks were right.  Not about that, no.  Or that.  And good Lord, definitely not that.  But they were right about the whole balance thing and middle of the road and stuff.

The problem is that most people interpret that need for balance as “there is no right or wrong, so we should both give a little.”  Which is stupid, because there is right and wrong, particularly about what to do to societies and economies, and how to run both (to the extent they can be run) those and industries, etc.

Watering the right way with half the wrong way is not going to work well.  Most of the complaints about how capitalism “just doesn’t work” aren’t about capitalism, but about “capitalism” watered down with socialism.  And the problems it causes are …  well… those of socialism.  Including adulterated markets, excluded people, and general economic misery. Which then the “right thinking” people suggest more socialism to solve, and that taken in half…  This is known as “How to kill an economy in slow steps.”

No, what you need balance in is not “middle of the road decisions” but “voices.”

Because you know, there’s wrong or right, but there’s always the chance we’re wrong.  I know, I know, unpossible, but it’s possible.  Or at least that we’re interpreting something wrong.  And sometimes dissenting voices, no matter how crazy, show us where we went off the rails.

Look, everyone has different experiences, and sometimes it causes them to know things we don’t.

Take the whole open borders thing.  As someone who has acculturated, I can say “Oooh, bad idea.” And I have some (if not indisputable) authority to do that from.  Authority that’s as little appreciated on the left as among Libertarians. And yet, I KNOW it would be a bad bad idea, and I know the results are not what they’d expect.  Not because acculturation is impossible, or because culture is genetic, but because it’s very, very difficult, you have to be wholly committed to it, and the more people you ask to do it, the greater the failure rate.  (Particularly in an anti-assimilation culture, but that’s something else.)

Or take Europe.  Our left is convinced it’s all that and a pair of new skates.  That’s because they either visit or go on local reports from either a biased media, or the people who always lived there and only know the US from (also biased, against us) movies or TV.  This is why they’re so ready to trade all we have for the European model.

But I lived there long enough to know the tragedy of the missing squid farms.  Yes, they have things we don’t have, like “security” and more “equality” of outcome, for those who consider that a plus.  The problem is it’s done at the expense of innovation AND opportunity, particularly for young people.  Europe ain’t bad, for an old age home, but I wouldn’t want my kids growing up in it.

Anyway, these things I know because I lived them, and anyone with SOME honesty has to stop and at least consider them before dismissing them because my experience is too particular or whatever.

The problem is the left, partly because they’re an heresy of Christianity, and therefore religious in nature, as their “ideal systems” get disproved has hardened into a position of not wanting to hear any other opinions.

This is not just uncomfortable for the ones silenced, it’s a problem for the left too.

Look, this is akin to turning off your fire alarm because your cooking keeps setting it off.  One day you’ll be tired enough and leave something on on the stove and go to bed… and die of smoke inhalation.

What the left has done, partly to keep their converts who as I pointed out are mostly young and mal-educated, is to stop the fire alarm.  Or at least to stop every contrary opinion they can and de-legitimize the others.

Last week, when I was arguing from something I KNOW a lefty told me to stop watching Fox news.  Or someone at Fox news.  Because he’s been told all disagreement comes from Fox News which is not legitimate.  Or something.

I don’t watch Fox News.  We haven’t had a TV in the house for close on to 20 years.  Dan watches some movies and series on the computer, but that’s it, and even then it’s not a regular thing.  And at any rate, what I was telling the idiot was something (I THINK in Europe) which I’d experienced myself

But they’ve turned off the fire alarm.  That means we don’t get to salvage (read pick away) their newly indoctrinated and misinformed, true.

But it also means they missing the size of the backlash forming.

Again and again, we see their “leaders” say things that beggar belief.

Hillary Clinton thinks she lost, not because we couldn’t trust her further than we could throw her lardbutt, or because even were she and Trump the same (turns out, no.  Interesting) that she was the one the press covered for and fawned on, and thus less capable of being checked, but because she’s insufficiently SOCIALIST.

Novelist after novelist, sports team after sports team, public figure after public figure come out and solemnly declare they don’t want anyone to the right of Lenin to buy them/support them/help them.  One after the other they tell more than half of the country that we’re bad and evil, and call us a lot of things we not only aren’t but despise.

And then they wonder how they got Trump.

They got Trump because they silenced the fire alarm.  They told my kids, even in high school, after Obama’s win that there would never again be a Republican president.  They told everyone from their publications that the Republicans were now a small regional party.  They published magazines with covers proclaiming “We’re all socialists now.”

They thought they were safe picking (yes, she is crooked) Hillary, because they were destined to win every time anyway, and it was her turn.

They turned off the fire alarm.  Their house is full of smoke and they don’t notice.

This is a public service announcement.  In the culture wars, in economics, everywhere, stop pushing.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.  You guys called us “reactionaries” but apparently have forgotten what that means.

I think the socialist way is dead wrong.  I think the internationalist way is not only wrong but will kill the west.  I think that feminism as it exists now is insanity.  I despise the idea some races are better than others, which is why I oppose stupidity like “White Privilege.”

But the left is pushing these ideas so hard the reaction that is starting to build is horrific, and if it reaches its full blow up, will take with it things like acceptance that the weaker have a right to live, or that charity is a good thing, or that women aren’t mentally handicapped children, or that we should judge the individual, not the skin color.

It will in fact destroy western civilization as we know it, as effectively as the full blown progressives would destroy it.

I don’t want that, you see.  I believe in life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  For everyone.  And I believe in being left alone.

So… we need to take off our gloves and get them to stop pushing.

Before it’s too late.




296 thoughts on “They Don’t Know When to Stop Shoving

  1. No right or wrong, so we should both give a little?

    Says the cannibal who thinks i can do without one of my kidneys.

    Because musical mockery says it all.

  2. Europe has security. So tell me, oh so wise progressive EU fan, in which countries can women still go out at night by themselves, almost anywhere, aside from those parts of big cities that everyone with a brain avoids anyway? And I mean without hesitating or thinking twice about routes and what’s been whispered in the office recently?

    A lot of ordinary folks are getting really tired of that kind of “security” where the government keeps you safe from information but not from assault or insult. (Yes, I’ve been looking at the Gatestone Institute again, why?)

      1. I want them to be a lot more pro-active, but this isn’t a bad tactic.

        Do something that will trigger the security to pull you into the back– without telling whoever is taking you that you have done so– and you can at least ask for help.

        1. The thing is, would you trust the authorities in a country where “put a spoon in your underwear”is considered better advice than “put a derringer in your underware, and cap his ass,at the first opportunity” to do anything but turn you back over to your ‘loving family’?

          1. They’ve got a much better grasp on what a young teenage girl is going to be able to get a hold of, for sure.

            Hell, if you are able to get a freaking gun IN THE US, the the immediate next step is to walk into the freaking police office, because you are not being kidnapped BY YOUR FAMILY to another country to be mutilated, sold and raped.

          2. No. But with me mood being what it is this week I’m trying to opt on the ‘civilized’ side of the line vs the ‘barbaric’ side that I really want to be on.

            Cap his ass, smash his head in with a cast iron frying pan (they’re not just good for cooking!), stab him repeatedly in the nuts (cut’s down on rape), and any or everything else you can think of to disable that wannabe rapist POS.

              1. *Sigh* Yeah 😦 Teenage girl vs full-grown male. . .99.9% of the time I’m putting my money on the guy, even if he is a piece of crap. Add in any type of combat training and/or experience and it gets worse.

                Unless girls have really changed since I was teen, I don’t think many of them spend much time figuring out how to kill someone or even if they’ve even contemplated if they would be able to kill someone.

                1. Teenage girl vs full-grown male. . .99.9% of the time I’m putting my money on the guy, even if he is a piece of crap.

                  Oh, it’s worse.

                  Usually, when we can identify who set up the killing, it’s her mother. And aunts. Sometimes older sisters. Younger sisters if they’ve avoided whatever made her think she has human rights.

                  Brothers, uncles and fathers are usually the muscle.

                  1. Cousins, too. And if your parents won’t sell you, your uncles or cousins might kidnap you and sell you off for the brideprice money. Why? Because your parents are shorting the clan!

                    1. And modern Establishment feminists are defending this kind of vermin.


                      Proof, as if one needed it, that Western ‘feminism’ is almost exclusively concerned with the minor irritations of upper middle class white women.

                    2. But the clan protects the rights of women collectively. Honor killing serves the feminist agenda, and hence is proper.

                      It only doesn’t make sense in ideas about women based on individual rights.

                  2. And it can be a helluva big step to a child or teen to start resisting your closest family violently, especially when they probably have treated you at least sort of halfway well before it. Because the instinct is to comply. And it’s family. The people who wiped your nose and fed you and mostly likely comforted you when you got scared of the monster under the bed. She can’t really believe they’d hurt her even if she is feeling rebellious and can figure out what is happening and doesn’t want it to happen, she still WANTS to trust them.

                    A spoon, and asking for help from some outsider, is a lot smaller step, and a lot easier to take.

                    1. (And leaving comments works again for me. I lost a couple earlier when attempts just came up with the “sorry can’t post this comment” answer).

                  3. I’m guessing something to do with the ‘honor’ of the family?

                    I think it would be easier to understand them if they were actual space aliens. At least then there wouldn’t be the assumption that there are similar values in place. (One would hope anyway).

                    1. The biggest “step” that I had to take to start understanding the Middle East was realizing how danged Christian* a lot of the assumptions in America and Europe and civilized countries in general are. Frankly, that’s at least in part because the Christian assumptions make building up a recognizable civilization a lot easier– and we tend to do business with “good” people, so they at least FAKE decency, signal “hey, we’re nice people.”

                      The Middle East…doesn’t. Not the nasty bits.

                      And they are the normal ones. Once you figure out what to look for– the way they are is pretty much normal for humanity, historically.
                      Us with our pretty stories about all humans being of equal moral worth are the strange ones, and it’s expensive…short term. Pays off only in the very long term.

                      *Lots of Jewish, too, but it’s easier to see the differences between Christian and Jewish because we’re similar, and seeing where we’re the same and it’s not just a human thing is hard.

                    2. I’m guessing something to do with the ‘honor’ of the family?

                      If your brother was a serial killer, would you turn him in?
                      Say, he’s Unabomber 2.0.

                      I’m going to assume yes, with various “if I can’t stop him otherwise” versions.

                      OK, now imagine the cops won’t do anything. They don’t see any problem with him being the Unabomber, or there just ARE no cops.

                      …what do you do?

                      You stop him.

                      He’s your brother, it’s your responsibility.

                      A matter of honor.


                      Breaking the authority of the family/tribe/clan– that was as much of a life and death thing as a direct serial killer is; some places, it still is, there’s a reason that Christians are targeted and it’s not all about “hate.”

                      *looks at dinner plate* Not hungry any more, sorry if it got anybody else….

                    3. I took that “step” when I began to realize just why the Hebrew Law in the Old Testament was as “fair” as it was. It’s all there, if you choose to actually carefully read it and figure it all out. Probably the biggest giveaway is when certain cities are explicitly set up as places that people who accidentally kill someone can flee to, where bounty hunters aren’t allowed to follow them. You don’t set up something like that unless you’ve got a *really* good reason to do so. And it shouldn’t take more than a few minutes’ thought to realize what that reason is. Once you do that, the rest falls into place.

                      It’s sort of funny, really. The old Hebrew Law was about transferring judicial authority away from the tribal structure (with its feuds) to the national authority. The later Christian Law focused on forgiveness (that’s not to say that the Old Testament doesn’t talk about the importance of forgiveness; it DOES if you know where to look) instead of seeking the government’s help for every little slight.

                      And then Islam comes along, and tries to send everyone back to the tribal feuds again.

                    4. Nine months in Iraq and the Old Testament made so much more sense. I’d had an intellectual appreciation (mostly from early Genesis) that the Laws were an improvement, but how MUCH didn’t hit the back brain until I went over there.

                    5. The thing that struck me with the sheer, beautiful, insanely long term build up was that you can’t go from Tribal to Christian format. It’s death.

                      You have to go through that middle part with all the training to learn, on a cultural level, that justice is better than retribution.

                      Once that is done, you can add on Mercy– but you’ve got to have the Justice or the Mercy is broken, you can’t tell it from weakness or whim.

                    6. There’s an interesting triad from Justice to Mercy to Grace. Grace is a lot harder than Mercy, which is harder than Justice. The US is somewhere between Justice and Mercy, which isn’t that bad for a government. I doubt you can get Grace anywhere outside of a celestial source.

                  4. Makes sense. I’ve read some interesting works on ‘high’ and ‘low’ trust societies. They seem to have skimped on some of the finer aspects of various ‘low’ trust cultures.

                    Thanks for the enlightenment!

                    For the ‘honor’ of the family I can see stopping my brother from being a serial killer. That argument seems a lot murkier when it comes to murdering my sister because she didn’t like the husband mom and dad picked out for her. I can see where with some twisting of morality and perspective the ‘honor’ of the family could be more important than little sister’s life. Especially in a society that sees women as chattel.

                    1. *shudder* I don’t know if it’s quite how it “looks” to you, but for me it’s like looking through water– moving water, at that, although fairly clear. I can sort of see what’s going on, I THINK that I understand this movement and that, but I don’t really understand it. I can just sort of see what’s going on, well enough to fairly accurately predict how it would work, and to guess WHY they do it.

                      I can’t really grasp the idea of not doing what your parents order as being on par for evil-and-wrong with serial killing, either, but I can see it in action.

                      The “try to get it” thing is where the cultural relativism is supposed to be used, after all; just saying “that’s evil” won’t let us understand.
                      Of course, the decent human beings part is where we get it, and STILL know it for evil.

                    2. How can your family maintain the sort of alliances it needs to remain powerful and so safe, if that sort of thing is allowed?

                    3. What is the effective unit of trust, ruling and loyalty?

                      Where you have no functional alternatives, betrayal of your family may be considered on par with high treason.

                      As Americans, we have to think in terms of a community mixed from fifty different families coming from fifty different societies. You can’t think in terms of communal rights to human beings, because social enforcement is impossible. Thus we have individual rights. It was impossible for us to make anything else that would actually work, and the rule of Hobbes is to be avoided.

                      Some of our current political troubles stem from an incorrect perception that we have more consensus than we do, and can make communal rights work.

                      The immigration issue. Some think it impossible that one would care so much over a line on a map that one would kill one’s own flesh and blood for profaning it. Some do not see such defiling as a crime deserving the same treatment as the serial killing Foxfier discusses. Such people would naturally assume that those who think otherwise are being racist in being willing to apply those standards to those who are not kin.

                      I take moral instruction from the execution of Remus by Romulus. There are things more important than kinship, even of blood and milk. You shoot your own rabid dog.

                      Isn’t it wonderful that we’ve been able to make a semi-functioning compromise work between such different perspectives?

                  5. It’s absolutely monstrous and against everything I believe in. Parents are supposed to protect children. Not marry them off into virtual slavery and certainly not kill them for being ‘bad’.

                    I’m with you on the parental thing. I had my little rebellions but when it came to the big stuff I’d do what my parents wanted. They’re the people you’re supposed to be able to trust most in the world.

                    ‘Cultural relativism’ seems to be yet another one of those Leftist things they use to get their way or excuse what should never be excused. Especially since it’s pretty much one-way and no other cultures are expected to understand ours.

                    1. Keep in mind that “marrying for love” was actually not as common as we like to think it was. Particularly in the upper classes, marrying was frequently about forming and maintaining alliances. In many parts of the world (including parts that aren’t particularly fond of Islam), your parents still pick your spouse for you. You might not meet your spouse before your wedding day. Several years ago I had an Indian co-worker who went back home to marry the woman that his parents arranged for him to marry (he brought her back to the US with him afterwards).

                      The fact of the matter is that most of the time (there are exceptions), two people who are sufficiently determined can make the marriage work.

                    2. A review by an Indian man of Pride and Prejudice — after starting out with the observation that the opening sentence made him feel so much for Mr. Darcy and Mr. Bingley — went on to observe that Charlotte Lucas’s observations about Jane and Mr. Bingley are spot on, that his long and happy arranged marriage did not turn on their knowing each other beforehand.

                  6. Case in point, notable primarily because authorities didn’t back down:

                    Mom jailed for tricking teen daughter into forced marriage
                    LONDON — A woman in Britain was sentenced to four and a half years in prison Wednesday for forcing her teenage daughter to marry a relative in Pakistan almost twice her age.

                    The sentence follows the first successful prosecution in England under laws against forced marriage.

                    The victim says she was 13 years old when she was forced to enter a marriage contract with the man, 16 years her senior. She became pregnant and had an abortion.

                    She says that as her 18th birthday approached in 2016, she was tricked into going to Pakistan for what she thought was a family vacation and made to marry the man instead.


                    Passing sentence, Judge Patrick Thomas told her that she had “cruelly deceived” her daughter and shown “cowardice and deceit.”

                    “She was frightened, alone, held against her will, being forced into a marriage she dreaded,” the judge said. “You must have known that was her state of mind. Yet for your own purposes, you drove the marriage through.”

                    [END EXCERPT]

                    Emphasis added.

                    1. Now, imagine the judge saying that about a girl (or boy) who was justly afraid to go to school. . . .

  3. I’ve made the same arguments re Jihadis. They have no idea what buttons they are pushing, and they think they’re winning because there hasn’t been a massively lethal backlash yet.

    I would really like to avoid that on the domestic front, as well.

    1. I think that since the jihadis see mostly our politicians and media they really have no idea. I’ve done a little reading on the culture and most of them don’t understand the idea of restraint in war. (I think that’s also one of the problems with the modern Left, since most of us have ignored them for so long they think we’re weak and by not protesting like they do, are acknowledging they are right).

      1. Number one and number two reasons why we are not protesting like they do:

        (1) We’re too busy working at our jobs.

        (2) We’re too busy trying to raise our kids without them being brainwashed by the protestors.

        1. We’re too busy trying to raise our kids without them being brainwashed by the protestors predators.


      2. My analogy is we’re the big guy at the bar who just wants a few drinks after a really tough day to unwind a little. The Left is that yappy little twerp full of Little Man syndrome and Dutch courage trying to start something, and encouraged because the big guy isn’t doing anything.
        And the big guy knows he could end the twerp right now, but doesn’t want the legal hassle that glassing him Glasgow style would entail.

        1. Nice summation.

          At the same time, the longer that yappy little twerp goes on, at some point it’s going to become worth the headache to shut him the hell up.

      3. > and most of them don’t understand the idea of restraint in war.

        Understanding isn’t the same as agreeing.

        This is something that they don’t get either. That what we are doing now is, relatively speaking polite and gentle.

        1. To be fair, we do have a history of re-building countries we’ve destroyed. A little restraint now makes re-building a little cheaper after the shooting is done.

      4. I’ve done a little reading on the culture and most of them don’t understand the idea of restraint in war.

        And they have no idea that it is possible to push us into Total War footing. It would be VERY difficult, but it could be done, if they do all the wrong things. It would be something remembered for a long time. It would be very short. But it would be very ugly.

        1. It would be VERY difficult, but it could be done,

          It becomes easier every time they prove that restraint doesn’t work with them.

          Because restraint is much more difficult to do.

          1. Restraint while still fighting effectively, yes; that ISN’T the restraint we’ve been showing. Our restraint (foreign AND domestic) has been much more along the lines of this:

            It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
            To puff and look important and to say: —
            “Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
            We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

            It’s too hard, it’s too messy, and it would require admitting that we’ve paid Danegeld too many times already.

      1. I’m more for sending in tanks, machine gun crews and a couple SEABEES with jackhammers.

        You know, that up close and *personal* touch.

        1. And auction off pieces of the Kaaba to cover expenses? You evil nasty man, you.

    2. The jihadis in Europe may awaken the forces that brought the world industrial genocide, rather than just the hit and miss military marches through the countryside that were popular before.

        1. Admitting what they had been steadfastly denying for years is more the news. The Rohingya were known to be a group so bad in behaviour that they couldn’t even flee to neighboring Muslim countries when the Hindus and Buddhists had enough of their shit and started doing unto the Rohingya what the Rohingya did to the Hindus and Buddhists. When the whole crying at the mass media started about the ‘Rohingya plight’ oh, nearly ten years ago, it did not escape my notice that practically every country around them refused to take in the Rohingya ‘refugees’. The massacres and general trouble making and criminal activity the group made was something of a local ‘known thing’ – to the point even other Muslims didn’t want them around, because Rohingya were also known to start trouble with other Muslim tribes in the region. Naturally the MSM ignored that.

    3. The jihadis really, desperately, need to have a nice sit-down and talk with the Japanese about how ugly life gets when you piss off the United States. I expect they have one hell of a power point presentation on the subject…….

      1. Wouldn’t help. They would assume that we’ve gotten totally ‘soft’ and lack the will we once had.

        I’m still placing decent odds on Iran trying to nuke Israel and Israel taking most of the Middle East out. If I was Israel it would be my plan anyway.

        1. The Samson Option?

          Although they seem to have a good heavy dose of prevention rather than a pound of last-ditch cure, too.

          1. I think if they didn’t have that prevention going on the Middle East would look far different than it currently does.

            1. Other than Himself seeming to still put a thumb on the scale here and there, I’d agree with you.

              Was going to write something about how they would be all in the sea…but I don’t think He’d let that happen, even if by somehorrific happenstance THEY would!

              1. If it is Himself then he has my thanks. I mostly like the world the way it is. Could use some improvements, but not quite the ‘Nuclear Re-modeling’ type of improvements.

        2. Actually, most of the Middle East is playing fairly nice with Israel these days. It’s becoming increasingly clear to *everyone* that something(tm) needs to be done about Iran. And the Israelis are a good to have around if you don’t like the Iranians. No doubt partly as a result of that, you have recent events like the heir to the Saudi throne (who’s also performing a *massive* shake-up of the Kingdom) making negative comments about the Palestinians. So if the Iranians did push too far, then it’s possible that only Iran, Syria, and Turkey will feel the wrath of Israeli destruction.

          Also, I strongly suspect that Assad is quietly figuring out how to transfer his loyalties from Tehran to Moscow.

          1. Current Saudi heir is a refreshing change because he’s not stupid.

            Probably still insane, though not malicious, and definitely not stupid.

            So far more dangerous, but, less likely we’ll have to fight him.

            Kind of like Putin, though I’d be more worried about the Saudis than Russia.

          1. which is why the previous administration had to kill the missile defense system.

      2. The Japanese wouldn’t give them the time of day. The very few Muslims that live in Japan are heavily monitored, so I am told by Japanese. They don’t trust Muslims, most likely because they did their homework, and they see the shit that Muslims do elsewhere when they get to a certain percentage of population.

  4. Y’know, you can completely flabbergast people who accuse you of watching Fox News by saying, in a voice full of contempt: “Fox News? Please, they’re far too liberal.”

    1. I find the “What is on Fox News? How do you know – do you ever watch it?” an effective rejoinder. Especially coupled with an observation about the probable motives of those slandering Fox News. You can even note the utility of watching the enemy’s propaganda broadcasts.

      1. Fox News, Washington Post, New York Times, Union Leader, couple of different tv stations, couple of radio stations. I used to get US News and Time Magazines, except they because so polarized and stupid that I was throwing them barely read into the fireplace.

        1. One of the few things I miss about living in Washington DC and environs is being able to read the Washington Times, Washington Post, and The City Paper (DC edition). Between Right wing, Left wing, and ‘Receiving Radio Venus on their bridgework’, I could ususally triangulate.

          Also, in those days the Post still employed people who could freaking WRITE. No, they weren’t up to the Menckens and Runyans of days gone by, but they weren’t the intellectually insultin snore-fest that is the New York Times.

          1. The Washington Bezos has suffered a severe onslaught of Trump Derangement Syndrome and it is seriously tainting their product. That their primary customer base is the Deep State acts to increase the echo in their chambers.

            Plus, I think they’re now getting their water cooler water from the same supplier as the NY Upper West Side Shopper.

  5. George Orwell – Inside The Whale : So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.

  6. But the left is pushing these ideas so hard the reaction that is starting to build is horrific

    Quoting Screwtape:
    “Consider whether we should make the patient an extreme patriot or an extreme pacifist. All extremes, are to be encouraged. Not always, of course, but at this period. Some ages are lukewarm and complacent, and then it is our business to soothe them fast asleep. Other ages such as the present one are unbalanced and prone to faction, and it is our business to inflame them.

    “Whichever side he adopts, your main task will be the same. Let him begin by treating the Patriotism or the Pacifism as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of the partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him into the stage at which religion becomes merely part of the “cause” and his [faith] is valued chiefly for the excellent arguments it can produce in favour of the British war effort or of Pacifism. Provided that meetings, pamphlets, policies, movements, causes, and crusades mean more to him than prayer and and sacraments and charity, he is ours–and the more “religious” on those terms the more securely ours.”

  7. The left won’t listen/believe us when we tell them “this is how you’ll get more Trump”. They can only push us so far, but they believe they can push us much further.

      1. They are convinced of their “absolute moral authority,” which is almost always a sign of somebody going off the rails. Because nobody currently treading the Earth has absolute moral authority, not even the Pope.

          1. This Pope Francis is almost enough to make me want to join the LDS; except I’m totally turned off of joining any hierarchical religion. Speaking of the LDS, glad to see they’re pulling their boys out of the BSA and forming their own youth organization.

            1. Whatever one thinks of LDS otherwise, you can’t fault ’em on common sense.

              And they seem to mostly raise decent kids, too.

              1. There may be a big sex abuse scandal about to break open in the LDS, unfortunately. Or it may be one or two bad apples. Hard to say, at this point.

                Common sense is lacking in one big area-that of private interviews of young people by minimally trained adult men.

                It’s been in the local rag, and an SLC rag, so what few details are public are out there.

                1. A Canadian TV show recently did an episode on this. ( CTV’s W-5 “No Witnesses] It is looking like there might might be a fire under that smoke.

                2. (LDS here 😀 ) And yeah, I think there’s going to be the blowing up of some scandals. And I truly believe it is a combination of a couple major things: First and foremost, people are people, and some people are gonna behave badly in positions of power, no matter what. Yes, we believe our leaders (down to the local level) should be called to their office via inspiration from Himself…but in practice, well, humans ain’t that great at listening. Not when they’ve already got it in their head that “I think so-and-so would be a great bishop/stake president/whatever” and aren’t interested in anything else. Second, as Holly said–these folks don’t get much in the way of formal training. We have a lay clergy, and you don’t get to pick your jobs at church. (You can turn them down when offered, but there’s a lot of cultural pressure not to. I did once, it was very liberating!) I know that, when presented with varying shades of horrifying problems a lot of our leaders (particularly the local ones, but I’m sure it can and does go all the way to the top at times) freeze up. They don’t want to seriously consider that so-and-so has committed rape. They’ve known him for decades. They’ve had him over for dinner. Surely the Lord would have told them if he was doing something so awful, or stopped him?!?! (Human nature always forgets how free will works, sigh. No, Himself isn’t going to intervene 99.9% of the time–He promised not to, ’cause we make our own choices.)

                  Additionally there is the problem of how we vote in the LDS Church. Technically speaking, when someone is called to any position within the church–all the way up to prophet–they must be sustained by the congregation(s). The process goes something like this: leader with authority to call to gets up in the meeting (usually our sacrament meeting, at local levels) and says ” has been called to . All in favor please manifest by a show of hands.” (Pause for showing of hands.) “Any opposed please indicate?” And anyone who has an issue has the opportunity to raise their hand and indicate they have a problem. After the meeting, they can then talk with the leader about their concerns.

                  Of course, this runs headlong into the issue of tribalism. No one wants to be the monkey who stands out and disagrees with the rest of the group (along with the added pressure of the fact that, technically speaking, we believe our leaders, right down to the nursery level, have been called to that position because the Lord wants them there for some reason (sometimes for their own good, sometimes for others, which leads to smoking dumpster fires, alas, because humans.)) And so generally speaking everyone unanimously goes along and says they’re fine with it, even when they aren’t.

                  I’m hoping that’s beginning to change. People need to speak out when they know something is wrong, or when someone isn’t qualified to be in (Even if it’s for relatively innocent reasons, like the bishop I had who is, mostly, a decent kind of guy but can’t run his OWN life competently, let alone be a guide and protector to everyone else in the locality.) But that’s a hard change, I know. I think the breaking out of some truth-telling about abuses (and they are neither sanctioned nor in any way considered okay) will help. I hope so, anyway. Still, gonna be a lot folks losing their faith over it, and that’s always rough.

                  1. Also LDS here. I’m going through that right now. I recently voted to oppose a local leader for a position. On the one hand, I think I see a pattern of subtle bullying, on the other, I could be mistaken and this all a misunderstanding. I’m trying to quietly and carefully work through this without damage to anyone’s faith or good name.

            2. They’ve apparently wanted to for some time; their idea of a Boy Scout troop is quite different. (I have this from several LDS friends, at least one of whom says he’s happy to be able to put his sons in a “regular” troop without guilt now.) And all of my summer camp counselor friends—including the LDS ones—are breathing a sigh of relief, because the LDS mandated that every teen boy join, which made for a lot of “don’t want to be here” types, and to make things worse, they’d often appoint leaders who also didn’t want to be there.

              “Mormon Week” was a cause for dread. LDS troops could be awesome. But you get a run of donwannabehere types and it turns sour quickly.

              1. On the other shoe, The International scouting movement has caved on what “morally straight” means to the point of requiring access to condoms at the next World Jamboree this summer.

              2. Not only “donwannabehere” types, but since every LDS male 7 – 17 is registered, whether actually participate or not (LDS has 3 types of Scouts, Hurrayfullparticpation, donwannabeherebuthereanyway, donshowupperiod), which skews the numbers for the LDS units to much higher than other units. Which in turn gives the LDS more say than actual participation numbers should. At least with our districts & council.

                LDS Adult leadership could be problematic too. Have worked with some good leaders that are LDS. Problem is most, even if they do want to be BSA leader, they have a HUGE problem working with women BSA leaders. Have a troop where the scoutmasters are women, because dads can’t … & it is not fun. I do not appreciate being ignored (when I care enough). Their bad news, I didn’t work traditional jobs & was often the only women working with bunch of men, ignoring me just was not happening; & I’m not extroverted, much more introverted by far, just learned not to let some things go.

                Had one incident toward the end of some training, where I’d been out of the room & came back. There was a lot of chuckling & laughter going on, I missed something. Later our scoutmaster told me that one of the LDS leaders had told my husband to “control his wife”; neither one of them (scoutmaster & hubby) could figure out which one (with a whole lot of other non-LDS leaders) started laughing first. Our scoutmaster was thrilled when we joined his troop because he knew we were both extremely experienced backpackers!!! Never told me who the Jack-A was. No biggie, I knew who had my back.

                1. Later our scoutmaster told me that one of the LDS leaders had told my husband to “control his wife”

                  *gets the giggles*

                  Oh, my, I bet….
                  Someone says that to my husband, they’re likely to be informed that I am controlling him and that’s the only reason the first speaker isn’t dead.

                  1. Oh, man, if someone had said that to most of the men I’ve ever gone to church with–or if they’d been stupid enough to say that to their wives–there would have been blood on the walls. O.O

                    “Control your wife.” *snorts*

                    (As an aside: such nonsense is NOT taught by the LDS church. However, there are still plenty of unreformed troglodytes amongst the membership, alas…)

                    1. Eh, culture is culture– I do have an expectation of husbands keeping their wives from flying off the rails, same as I expect it of wives with their husbands. A matter of guarding the weak points for your other half.

                      It’s the idea that someone would presume to say such a thing, in public, is what would trigger the snark. 🙂

                    2. /*Eh, culture is culture– I do have an expectation of husbands keeping their wives from flying off the rails, same as I expect it of wives with their husbands. A matter of guarding the weak points for your other half.*/

                      Yes. Both ways. Plus, introvert here, don’t normally speak up (am in Computers for a reason …), just don’t want to, or feel I need to.

                      /*It’s the idea that someone would presume to say such a thing, in public, is what would trigger the snark. 🙂 */

                      Yes, snark triggered. What made if funnier was the observation I made, I just made it first before the guy could. One of those so obvious that it shouldn’t have had to be said, but needed to be said. I just spoke up first.

                2. I was a summer camp counselor for four years and the dynamic of troops with female leaders was just weird. So I promised myself that I wouldn’t be one, no matter how well I thought I could do the job.

                  Now, if my daughter wants to join the BSA (no guarantee that she will; she’s a different temperament than I am), I’ll gladly step up to be a leader. No problem. Different dynamic indeed.

                  (And yeah, I was one of two or three females on staff at the time. I heard about a few bad jokes at my expense. Thankfully, the balance has skewed a bit since then and the jokes have shifted too.)

                  1. Yes. Different dynamics. Too easy for (me at least) to slip into “mom” mode, regardless of the scout. I learned. I also stepped out if there were enough leaders without me. [Although heard through the grapevine that some scouter’s wives considered the Hilton roughing it. Repeated to my dad that hubby laughed at me when I stated “Oh, you mean I don’t have to go?”, my dad laughed for a week (he was suppose to take my side!)]

                    Difference between whether troop gets to go to summer camp or on outings or not; weekends covered, week long not. Plus who had the outdoor experience & knowledge, could go backpacking (& not die, or be more trouble than a novice scout, even after training).

                    In Scouting & Venturing, it is the youth that are to lead & teach. Adults are just there. But the wrong novice adult. Don’t get me wrong, car camp outs, the scouts often practiced on the novice adult, teaching them too. But a lot of adults didn’t seem to stick it out. It is one thing to hear that it can rain/snow on camp outs anytime of the year. Youth take it in stride. I grew up with it. Most 30+ adults, not so much.

                  2. /*(And yeah, I was one of two or three females on staff at the time. I heard about a few bad jokes at my expense. Thankfully, the balance has skewed a bit since then and the jokes have shifted too.)*/

                    Trust me, I can relate. Would hope scouting environment it wasn’t as bad as working in a Forest Crew. When your maiden name is the same as the lead in a popular porn movie at the time, & you had no idea what the heck they were talking about, because you were 18, & a tad protected/naive (major understatement FYI). I did not hear *about* jokes, I heard them directly … didn’t understand them (then), but were not said behind my back.

                    [Yes, looking back, should have reported it, but given the period, nothing would have been done. What would have I reported?: “they are being mean, crude, & rude” answer would have been: “well, yes”]

                    1. It mostly wasn’t crude jokes, but the one I took personally impugned my intelligence in terms of what I took on a hike. (“Books” (one small tree identifier) and “too much water” which I had been ASKED to take as backup for the Scouts.) I mentioned it to another guy who had been on that same (14 mile+ hike) and he was totally on my side.

                      Note that it wasn’t the most intelligent thing to choose to be the only female on a hike with 20-something guys and teenaged Boy Scouts, in terms of “Why are you so slow?” “Dude, you are running uphill.” But hey, we all made it, and somehow nobody caught the nasty stomach bug that felled a third of the camp while we were out that day, yay.

                    2. Hey. Tip of the tail of the dog, here. Was NEVER with the group regardless of Hike, or Backpack. Was content to be drag. Most 11 year-old scouts have longer legs than I do; & speedy I am not. OTOH, I go (or did, over 60 now, & still overweight) & go all day. Required to keep the group together? Put me in front. FYI. Perfectly willing to admit to it. Answer to “you are slow!!”, is “yes, that’s new?” /sarcasm

                      Climbing the South Sister. Easy. Scoutmaster took the novices out at 5 AM. Second leader took younger, but more experienced scouts out at 5:30 AM. Senor scouts, Star & above, regardless of age, started at 6 AM. I stayed at base camp with everyone who didn’t want to make the climb. Everyone was to meet at the crest, just before the last scramble to the top at 7 AM. That the last scramble to the top got scrapped, was not because everyone didn’t meet the goal … the lighting storm that blew up & headed directly for the summit, caused that.

                      All three groups were together when Scoutmaster stopped the scramble to the top. Everyone got back to camp & we had it packed up to get down further off the ridges around Mirror Lake. Just didn’t get out in time before it hit, so we had to practice storm safety as lightening struck the peak & it hailed, hard (not big, just a lot). OTOH we were able to immediately move out when Rangers showed up & requested us to; offered to help but they said we were more help getting on our way, so we did. There were A LOT of people 100% unprepared. Mostly day hikers from closer trail heads. Understandable why they didn’t want troops help, essentially they were doing triage & mostly sending unprepared people back down, as scouts we wouldn’t have had that authority.

            1. He’s kind of old, so “communism is the future,” and from a country captured by socialism– so he’s got not a clue what his assumptions are, adn how far off they are, and how much he lives in a story.

              And for the love of… he talks like a lefty, too. All the same quirks and emotion-over-meaning junk.

                1. Eh, this isn’t his fault; my childhood parish has been “like that” as long as we’ve been going. Bishops can cause it, and then there’s natural sorting– while Francis has gotten some of the folks who seem to be more Democrat than Catholic into the pews fairly regularly, that means that the parishes where they DON’T like it are now more orthodox, too, having more people avoiding those politics.

                  The problem is FINDING it!

                  1. Maybe; and it is probably is dependent on parish to parish (the last mass I sat in on that wasn’t a wedding talked about global warming, and the prayers and psalm responses, and the songs sounded awkward and disssonant to me, having been changed in wording. That was in the Philippines too! Recently!) The church closest to me had a lot of social justice stuff, very Liberation Theology slanted things, which is seriously off-putting. VERY different from the tone of the sermons the few times I could attend a church back in Townsville, in 2013.

                    Mind, the prayer that the priest said over the crucifix I brought to have blessed was very… how should I say it… ‘old fashioned’ sounding, even though it was at the church that has that very lib-theo bent in the newsletter.

                    1. I know English fairly recently got a new, more accurate translation– and yeah, it is pretty awkward sounding, even beyond the “what I’m use to” aspect.

                      If you’d popped into our new parish, your eyes would probably roll out of your head from the pastors letters, the few weeks we don’t have very liberal Bishops doing different group letters…but the young priest is wonderfully orthodox, and even the liberal older priest really believes the stuff he pushes.
                      To the point of offering mass on the Juarez border, when the current cartel moving in likes making a point about how they’ll shoot anybody who doesn’t pay protection. “Enough” protection, too. And getting more upset about the kids being dead, than “zomga guns.” Contrast with the substitute priest, who didn’t seem to much care about dead kids, just what he could shoe-horn in.

            2. See RES’s comment at 2:54 and consider Socialism vs Christianity in the Pope.

            3. Isn’t he from Argentina? Isn’t that next door to Chile? Didn’t the whole senior Catholic establishment in Chile get disciplined or something recently after stuff came up about covering up child molestation?

              1. Half of it is that the Pope got embarrassed, from my reading between the lines– he trusted a summary from a friend who’s a Bishop, basically that there wasn’t any, acted on it with his standard checking when he thinks he knows what is going on (that is to say, none) and got a huge push back for calling those who claimed abuse liars. and basically demanded that the entire hierarchy submit their resignations.

                Last I heard he’s going through them.

                No idea what the extent of the actual abuse is, but there’s always folks looking to use it. 😦

          2. This Pope almost legitimizes Dan Brown by making it plausible that the senior leadership of the Catholic church is not serious about believing that their theological positions are the correct ones.

      2. Is there a way to dry up their funding? If it weren’t for Soros (which we can’t stop) and tax payer money (which we should be able to stop), they’d have to actually work.

        1. One reason they’ve got their mad on for Scott Pruitt is his edict that EPA was no longer going to fund activist lawsuits demanding the EPA regulate the O2 content of air. Mick Mulvaney declaring that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would no longer accept fines in the form of funding for “Consumer Activists” is another step in the right direction.

          So long as Tom Steyer is financing “IMPEACH!” idiocy his contributions to Lefty causes are not so significant but serve a reminder it’s not just Soros.

      3. “You’re on the wrong side of history!” they bleat, completely unaware of how many people thought history was on their side… and found out history doesn’t particularly give a damn.

        1. Their tendency toward two-dimensional thought blinds them to the fact that they will inevitably prove to be on the under-side of History.

      4. Which is somewhat ironic given how much they seem to like “realistic” stories that are about the protagonists (who are often not heroes in any way, shape, or form) failing miserably.

    1. The Democrats election numbers tanked a couple of days ago. I never believed in the Blue Wave anyway, but if this is an indicator at all (dubious) it bodes poor,y for the Left.

      So, if they get a Red tide in 2018, you think they’ll believe us about ‘this is how you get more Trump’ then?

      1. I’m pretty sure that no one wants the Trump of their Imagination… but I might be willing to endure it, just on principle.

      2. If I have a particular horrible fear, I think they want the Trump of their imaginations.

        Specifically, the sexual ones (lots of unresolved Daddy issues…).

  8. Sigh – so many lefties are in a tight little bubble, frightening themselves into fits, whispering horror stories to each other about the dangers posed by the caricature-conservative … who really only exists in their fevered imaginations.

    1. Andrew Klavan uses this anecdote to describe this effect:

      Early on in a life spent studying the art of storytelling, I came upon an interesting example of narrative power. In his encyclopedic study of mythology, The Masks of God, Joseph Campbell quotes an essay by German ethnologist Leo Frobenius. Frobenius tells of a little girl who plays with three matchsticks, pretending they are Hansel, Gretel and the witch. After a time, she lets out a shriek of terror. When her father asks her what’s the matter, she replies, “Daddy! Daddy! Take the witch away!” In her imagination, the matchstick has become the witch she pretended it was.

      Something similar has happened to the Democratic Party and its communications arm, by which I mean so-called journalists and Hollywood entertainers. They have convinced themselves that their duty to defeat the demonic evil of Donald Trump overrides their obligations to do their various jobs. Instead of governing, informing and entertaining us, they have spun out a fairy tale of heroic resistance against authoritarian wickedness, conspiracy and corruption. And now, like the little girl in the anecdote, they are shrieking in terror because they believe Donald Trump is what they pretended he is instead of what he is in fact.
      At the Box Office and Voting Booth, Leftist Fantasies Bomb

      1. I just hope that keeps on happening. The classical liberal types and conservatives who are acting now also seem to have a lot more people who aren’t really THAT interested in politics, and due to that have a tendency to stop paying attention after one or two fights have been won and it looks like things are starting to balance out a bit. If too many of them now turn their backs and go back to living their lives the current situation may still be more of a temporary setback to the left than the beginning of the end.

      2. You could really see it happening as it happened. The outrageous make-believe campaign rhetoric just never stopped. Trying to terrify everyone into voting for Hillary (who is the bestest, most honest, motherly, and caring woman on the planet, hated only because she has a vagina) didn’t work. They’d so convinced vulnerable subpopulations (trans kids, others) that if Trump won they’d DIE that they were utterly traumatized when he won because they *believed* the campaign rhetoric of fear and horror. And it’s as if something broke and a largish segment of the population got stuck in their own fantasy.

        Or maybe they just don’t want to admit they were lying?

        It’s important to remember and to point out that they WANTED Trump. They were lying about all the other opposition candidates as well, lest we forget just how terrifying and scary a *Dominionist* Ted Cruz was! I was told outright that Cruz was far far “scarier” than Trump! So they chose Trump.

        And they got Trump.

        And reality became broken.

    2. Oh, he exists. The same way the dedicated Maoist revolutionary exists on the Left. To the sane people on his side of the divide, he’s an embarassment…..right up until the OTHER side goes completely bugf*ck, and then he becomes semi-respectable.

      This is what I resent most about the Progressive establishment; they are so competely divorced fromreality that they make the likes of the KKK look sane on some subjects, and thereby respectable.


  9. The issue, of course, is that they have no interest in reducing school shootings, it would deny them their strongest argument for abrogating Americans’ rights under both the Second Amendment and the First (making certain topics or speakers unchallengable certainly seems an abridgment of the freedom of speech.)

    A Solution To The School Shooting Problem
    By Sarah Hoyt
    There has been another school shooting and the left, as usual, is screaming for more gun control.

    Despite the fact that no “scary” weapons were involved, despite the fact that the student was, in fact, carrying explosives, explosives that pretty much every kid who can read or even listen can figure out how to make online.

    Banning guns and disarming the peasants, that very ancient dream of the left (and all statists) will in fact not prevent school massacres. It will just change the way they’re carried out to explosives, or perhaps knives.

    Yes, there is validity and a lot of merit in saying that one way to prevent school massacres is to arm teachers and teach the children techniques of self-defense. When my own kids were in urban schools, middle through high school, the school policy was to lock the kids in the classroom if there were a gunman in the building. Or, as I called it “making the kids sitting ducks to anyone who can shoot out the lock.” My instructions to the kids, if they were in a place they could go out the window and the alarm sounded? They were to break the window and run out. If it were a false alarm, we’d deal with the school.

    But those are also half measures. …


    Which bring us to my proposal.

    I propose we abolish public schools. …

    1. No to mandatory annual state testing. That would let the state dictate curriculum and method.

      We’ve fought this for years. No. Just absolutely, under no circumstances, no.

  10. > I propose we abolish public schools. …

    I’ll emphatically agree. It’s prison for the crime of being a child.

    Whatever they see their job as, it has nothing to do with education, particularly after “no child gets ahead.”

  11. > And I believe in being left alone.

    And that’s the fundamental difference between you and them, and why they’re *never* going to stop pushing. That’s the one thing they can’t abide. You’re going to march in lockstep with them, or they’re going to try to take you down.

  12. Buses. The weapon of choice will become school buses.
    (1) They’re everywhere. Supply isn’t an issue.
    (2) They’re easily accessible. Of course, kids have to be able to get on and off them several times a day.
    (3) They’re easy to use. Most are automatics nowadays. Although I have to admit there are more and more kids nowadays who don’t know how to drive a car, much less a bus.
    (4) They’re easier to start and steal than guns and ammo.
    (5) Short of the Las Vegas massacre, a school bus can kill and maim more people than any mass shooter has managed to date in the U.S.
    (6) It’s harder for bystanders to disarm or stop a school bus than it is to stop a shooter. In some respects that school bus is harder to stop than an armored car – bigger tires, higher ground clearance, higher point of view for driver, similar mass and power.
    (7) A school bus is it’s own getaway vehicle.
    (8) What you can do with a school bus if you have time to enhance its lethality is much worse than any number of bump stocks.

  13. “The right answer is always somewhere in the middle” says the twit on my radio, in context clearly meaning between the two “acceptable” argument sides.

    I don’t know what else she said, because I turned it off– the sheer falsehood, and CHEAP falsehood at that, made it a solid ‘no.’

    Moderation between real extremes is generally a safe bet. Moderation between statements is stupid, and just encourages extremes— for example, know a gal whose roommate is always horribly uncomfortable (according to roommate) if the house isn’t EXACTLY their preferred temp. Everybody else reserves “horribly uncomfortable” for actually uncomfortable, not “this is less than perfect.”

    When roomate almost killed the pet ferrets because roomate’s temp is good five degrees beyond what they can safely live in, things got ugly.

    1. Okay. So if a gang wants to murder me, and I want to live, we should settle for them leaving me half dead?

        1. Yep. Frank Fleming covered it the other day in a tweet. I think there’s always going to be tension in the Middle East when there’s people who want to kill the Jews and Jews who don’t want to be killed and neither side is willing to compromise.

          1. Which, for me, brings it to that the Islamopests want US dead or enslaved and the Israelis want to sell us stuff. It gets very tempting to wipe out the Islamopests and let the Jews have the oil.

            1. I think they’d be happy to just be able to blow off the “death to the Jews” folks’ political attacks….

        2. /sigh
          If this was a Western, the proper reaction to the obscene “shut up” would be to put a bullet through them.

          Restraint Michael. Who’s the adult here? Breathe.

        3. Until very recently the answer to the question of: “If a man wants to have sex and a woman doesn’t” was “It isn’t rape if he supports abortion rights.”

          Just as it isn’t misogyny, harassment or sexism when the “she” is conservative.

          If it were not for double standards the Left would have no standards at all.

          1. Nowadays, it’s not rape if the perpetrator can call the victim “homophobic” or “transphobic.”

    2. The incentive you create, by saying the right answer is in the middle, is for the people who oppose you to take more extreme positions, so that the middle will be further over on their side. Straightforward bargaining: If the seller asks for 500 quatlus, you don’t offer 450 quatlus; you say, “I wouldn’t give you 10 quatlus for that piece of junk!”

      1. This is where the concept of the Overton Window provides a useful framing of the importance of defining the middle.

    3. Local “Azteca” Mexican nationalists, their pickup trucks displaying murals of proud airbrushed Aztec warriors and beautiful Aztec maidens in front of the pyramids of Tenochtitlan, may in their heart of hearts hanker for the human sacrifice of the old days. It may be a core of their belief system that they are called to replicate the mass murder of hundreds if not thousands of people at each festival day, tearing out their still beating hearts as an offering to their bloodthirsty gods as the blood splashes down the pyramid steps.

      And here I sit, believing murder is wrong.

      So if we are to compromise, meet in the middle, does that mean they only get to kill 50 people each festival day?

      1. *sad* With the Cartels, we’re finding out that yes, they DO think that’s perfectly OK.
        (Yes, there are neo-Aztec gangs. And even the vaguely Christian flavored gangs use Aztec symbols.)

  14. The fun (as in not) part is when someone can’t deny the fact that backlash is *deliberately* being sought, so they explain how creating a backlash works out in the end because gay activists trying to be offensive has resulted in acceptance for gays now that all the “activists” have moved on to some other group to “help” them by deliberately creating backlash.

  15. On topic- they pushed too far again- without yet realizing it. Trump cannot block people from his personal Twitter account because it violated their first amendment rights. The obvious follow up is- Twitter cannot ban anyone because it violates their first amendment rights to access Trump’s Twitter account. Of course, I imagine the full appeals court will shoot the 75 page opinion down.

    1. I was wondering the same thing when I read about that. “Does this mean Twitters’ days of ‘shadow bans’ are no longer allowed?”

      The only thing I can see is that Trump is a very public figure. (Though I think that verdict was total BS).

      1. Basically because he is govt, blocking anyone from his personal account prevents petition for redress of grievances. I’d agree if it was .Gov mail or possibly even the potus account but this is more akin to his cell phone number than the soapbox.

        Since Twitter is private co and not govt its good that it prevents undesirable from speech

        1. I’m wondering if this means that someone elected to public office *must* get a Twitter account.

          1. Nope. The pillar they are standing on is that he publicizes future decisions on his account. So because he does so it’s a government account and he cannot block “because of politics”. Of course posting ‘feel the burn you Russian traitor’ or straight up threats every minute will be seen as political.

            And congressrats who have folks like the DC or journalists blocked will be free to continue because we don’t have laws, we have edicts from black robed tyrants.

        2. Well…. not exactly. Under Section 230 of CDA they are supposed to be operating as a “common carrier” to obtain liability protection from defamation by the users; censorship should have knocked that out long ago. This ruling could allow leverage off of that.

          1. In a sane world, maybe. Seems a stretch to me in reality since it’s all on who decides what the law is.

            1. Well, duh. Which is one major source of my current pessimism. So we’re aware of the crap the Left is pulling. Great. With our legal system, what are the ACTUAL, not theoretical, legal options for dealing with it?

      2. Taken to the logical conclusion, every government official must accept every phone call, and read every letter, that is directed to them. When an adult judge gets hold of this case, it will be overturned quickly.

        Twitter/Facebook/etc. are not required to give every person a voice on their platform (there could be a problem for them if they banned people on the basis of their being in a “protected” group under Equal Rights legislation – but they are not doing that; political views/parties are not under that umbrella).

        What is going to get them, though, is that they have foolishly given up their “neutral platform” status. The phone company cannot be sued for slander because you passed on the latest juicy and false gossip about your neighbor, using their platform. But your local newspaper can be included in a libel suit if they print your letter with that gossip. Because the newspaper performs “editorial” functions, they are responsible for what appears on their platform. By now performing “editorial” functions, the social media companies have opened themselves up to the same liability. (There have always been exceptions to that, of course – exercising “editorial” functions to block fraud, solicitation of criminal acts, harassment, etc. has not been interpreted to remove the “neutral platform” protection – the phone company, for instance, can shut down service to a scam phone bank sweatshop, or a sexual harasser.)

        1. We had an incident over this when I was working in IT support for a particular city government. Long story short, there was a guy who was known for harrassing his own city officials about various problems that were the End of the World for him, but barely rated as a nuisance for anyone else. For some reason, he decided to take his actions to the city that I was working for. And, unsurprisingly, the mayor decided that he didn’t want this guy’s e-mail diatribes clogging up his inbox.

          So one of the mayor’s assistants contacted IT. And one of my co-workers was asked to set the mayor’s e-mail box so that it would block the guy. My co-worker said he could do it, but warned them that the guy would get a response e-mail stating that his e-mail had been blocked. He was told to go ahead and do it anyway.

          By the way, my co-worker wisely decided to save the entirety of the conversation.

          So, not long after, this guy sent another e-mail to the mayor of the city that I was working for. And that e-mail got blocked. And the guy got a response indicating that his e-mail had been blocked. And he went public with this. There was an uproar, the block was rescinded, and my co-worker did NOT get in trouble because he’d saved all of the conversations to show that he’d warned that this exact thing would happen just as he’d said it would.

          Instead, heads were put together to find another, quieter, work around.

          Thing is, the expectation among many was that the mayor MUST allow random citizens to e-mail him about every little thing. I took the opposite view, i.e. that the mayor had the right to block whomever he wanted. There are plenty of other ways that could be used to bring something to the mayor’s attention (and the guy was well aware of this, since he would show up at the City Council meetings), and e-mail Inboxes sometimes need to be reserved for critical stuff.

          1. Not using a system that allowed auto-sorting to folders? I don’t use the “spam” functionality in Outlook, I just send all of the garbage addresses to a “Junk” folder – which the senders never know about.

            1. It was Outlook, and they could have set it up to auto-sort. But apparently whoever it was that contacted my co-worker insisted on blocking. I don’t know why. Auto-sort might have been what they eventually used to quietly resolve the problem.

  16. Those in charge of the mass media are drunk on their own ink, and about as credible, coherent, and capable of reliable observation, restraint and good judgement as any other drunk. Right now I have the sense that they are getting likkered up for mob violence.
    When their fantasies of a blue wave and reversing “Trumpism” are shattered in November, will it bring them to their senses? Possibly, but I doubt it.

      1. I don’t either, bud I’d just as soon not be in the same county with them when it happens and the REAL backlash kicks in.

      2. We’re watching it play out in the Con Wars right now. After the Blue Wave is shown to be yet-another media fantasy, they’ll ramp up the BS some more. I expect student unions at Ivy League and other Lefty universities to start trying to kick out students and staff with “Fascist” leanings.

        In our little SF/F Nerdiverse they’ll ramp up witch burnings and pre-emptive exclusion of people from cons etc. There will be a new Ringo-quiddick or Correia-gate every week. I expect people like Scalzi and Nora J.K. to be declared apostate for being too Conservative.

        I’ve got lots of popcorn, y’all are welcome to share. ~:D We can watch them roll around under the bus.

        1. Either that, or they’ll show up and try to set up either a confrontation or some kind of false accusation, like they planned with Jon Del Arroz, only without announcing it in advance.

      3. When that doesn’t work we’ll say no more and cap their asses. They don’t want to ” awaken the sleeping giant and fill him with resolve.”
        this cold civil war will turn very hot.

        1. From some of the conversations I’ve had with others I don’t think they are all that far from that point.

          I think one of the major saving graces is that Antifa has been shutdown hard when they’ve tried their crap outside of deep blue areas.

          1. Speaking of the Antifidiots; has anyone heard anything further about the Charlston incident? It’s been so damned quiet that I’m inclining more and more to the belief that the slob who ran the Lefty girl down is probably going to prove an embarassment to the Left. Something along the lines of the Antifidiots were attacking his car and he gunned it to get away…

            I may have mentioned this before. Keep in mind, I have NO evidence beyond a knowledge that the Lefty Hobby-Protesters are prone to do some VERY stupid things when they get each-other going.

            1. It’s been fairly quiet on the Antifa front. The last story I remember about them was the one from Georgia? Where they went to protest some actual white supremacists and were smacked down pretty hard by local LEO for wearings masks. They were all sorts of butt-hurt over getting charged. There was also something about some in Denver about a month or so ago.

              I think the MSM may have finally figured out that airing Antifa assaulting people and destroying property was hurting the Democrats more than helping them.

              1. I seem to vaguely recall something about the Feds investigating whether to classify Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization. Also, there have apparently been at least a few incidents in which the local DA decided to go ahead and throw the book at the members instead of engaging in “catch and release”. Both of those would tend to cause the more casual members to think twice about getting involved in Antifa hijinks.

                But apparently that didn’t stop TNC from having Antifa as the group standing up to Hydra in a recent comic book.

                  1. Come to me when he is convicted and removed from school job for being a felon. Too easy for one juror to believe “they had it coming” and hang jury.

                1. Apparently DHS and FBI have included them as domestic extremists, including prior to the election. But these are the good guys that we were in ww2.

                  Been another dust up over deplatforming elsewhere where site dumped folks for being in a chat group that included alt right. A pogrom run by folks in a chat room that talked of tossing bombs and molotovs.

              2. Last I heard they were whining because their sponsors hadn’t come through with their promised money.

                Since the “Nazis” started punching back and they weren’t getting paid, I guess it was back to their basements and game consoles…

            2. Fields is apparently scheduled for trial on first degree murder charges – starting on November 26th. It was pushed that far out by mutual agreement between the prosecution and the defense counsels.

              Now, whether that is to deny the Left ammunition before Election Day, or to preserve them from embarrassment – I have no idea.

              1. That just seems to be begging for a repeat of the BART cop shooting years ago. Cop screwed up badly, grabbed sidearm vs taser (allegedly). All the mobs wanted a murder 1 and DA obliged. Neglected to include lesser charges like manslaughter. Found not guilty because jury didn’t feel he met that level of depraved indifference.

                Accelerating into a crowd of people can definitely be called wanton disregard but when the cause of death was from being struck by another vehicle it seems like it’s the same.

                Used to be that murder 1 was either especially depraved or planned. Heat of moment I am not a fan of that idea at all. Especially since this will be a tarring trial vs one just on facts.

            3. If you mean Charlottesville, an independent investigation has pretty much determined what we all knew: Democrats Gov McAuliffe and the Mayor wanted violence so they could revoke the permit the federal judge said they had to give, and they arranged for violence to happen.


              “When violence first broke out, according to two witnesses Chief Thomas reportedly said “let them fight, it will make it easier to declare an unlawful assembly.” “

        2. The left do not grok firearms. To them they are magical wands of power that you only have to wave to get compliance from those you threaten. It is for them that the term spray and pray was coined, that and untrained jihadi cannon fodder.
          When the inevitable meltdown occurs, and as the left continues to double down on stupid I cannot see any other outcome. they will resort to force since that’s always worked in the past, for some select definitions of worked.
          And when that happens they will, as Louis L’amour was want to say, be shot to doll rags.

    1. I think it is wrong to simply assume that the blue wave will not happen. Is everyone here who is wanting a red wave actively engaged in volunteering? Go work for it.

      I’m not certain of my own position, but I am sure that my forecasting is not to be relied on. If your forecasting is better than mine, use it for your favored cause.

      1. The Republican Party in my safely Blue district isn’t even fielding a Congressional Candidate…possibly because the last one got clobbered 75%-25%). If I weren’t so convinced the opposition would tear me apart for being totally unqualified, I’d run myself. (Don Quixote for Congress? What a campaign slogan!)

      2. Yeah, I actually expect the Dems to claw back a couple of seats in the House, but not a majority. And I don’t think the Repubs will lose control of the Senate.

        1. I’m hoping Missouri voters finally manage to give McCaskill the old heave-ho. She should have been gone six years ago. But she managed to beat her poor electoral chances by manipulating the Republican primary into picking Todd Akin as her opponent.

          Given the amount of national mileage that they got out of that man, the Dems should have given her an award for what she did.

            1. Yeah, well, from what I understand she was behind all *three* of the potential Republican candidates six years ago. And then Akin had a really bad interview…

              1. I can count on the middle fingers of two hands the number of Democrats who have had a “bad” interview in the last fifty years: Teddy Kennedy going blank on receiving the question of why he wants to be president and Sen. Byrd’s unforced “White N-word” explanation — and both happened on live TV where the footage couldn’t be “lost.”

                OTOH, Republicans often suffer from bad interviews they never gave: Sarah “I can see Russia from my house” Palin and Dan “I would have studied Latin in high school if I Had known I would someday visit Latin America” Quayle.

      3. Doing what I can to keep McSallyCain from getting the nomination for The Flake’s seat, which is where I think my efforts are best invested. The Democratic field, as usual here, is entirely made up of Grijalvistas; the survivor of their primary is always a sacrificial victim.

    2. When their fantasies of a blue wave and reversing “Trumpism” are shattered in November, will it bring them to their senses?

      Like other apocalyptic cultists when their Ragnarok fails to occur as scheduled they will redouble their hysterical fervor.

  17. We’re all learning what many non-Leftists have strongly suspected for years: that politically connected Leftists will abuse governmental power to punish people they don’t like. So the pushing has apparently been going on long enough that pushing back now means pushing against our own government, or very, very close to that. It’s so bad I don’t like talking about it because it makes me sound like a conspiracy nut. But I have a hard time not seeing it that way.

    On the one hand, that would be an almost unbelievable departure from American values. On the other hand, it’s happened before so it’s not unthinkable.

  18. It just makes me giggle every time I hear a Democrat talk about axing the tax cuts. Sure they try to make it SOUND like they are just talking about the corporate tax cuts and those for “The Rich”, but I’m seeing the polls. Trump is getting the credit for getting the economy moving, and people are starting to understand that the tax cut had a BIG part in that. So go ahead Dems… Run on “We are going to raise taxes!” (giggle)

    1. The Dems want higher taxes? Fine. Impose a 25% Sin Tax on Democrats. No exemptions, no deductions, one-quarter of their gross income. The Navy needs new ships.

        1. Pfui. Just attend their cries of anguish when their subsides/incentives get trimmed.

          Perhaps we could pass laws requiring their earnings from a film be no greater than seven times the lowest paid employees on set … calculated on an hours worked (not sitting around in a trailer drinking cappuccinos) basis.

    2. What’s funny is that up until Obama, the Dem presidential candidates at least pretended that they were going to keep taxes low. Bill Clinton even ran on a middle-class tax cut (and then right after taking office, announced that he’d learned that the Federal finances were such that he wouldn’t be able to follow through on his promise).

    1. Nope. I’ve been following a few new forums lately and the desire to call out these ignorant clowns keeps getting stronger.

      1. ‘Clue’ stenciled in really big letters on a 2×4? 🙂

        I could see ‘sense’ being a viable option as well.

    2. My mother came out to visit in July of ’16. I haven’t talked politics with her in forever, but had thought she leaned right. (I grew up in Chicago ‘burbs when they counterbalanced Chicago.) Not true; occasional digs at Trump, and “how could you not support Hillary?” said to my wife. $SPOUSE stated clearly that she had no desire to hear Trump insulted. We didn’t insult HRC (not with company present, anyway), and we expected reciprocity.

      After she went home, no discussion of politics. I didn’t do the happy dance for Mom in November, and she didn’t whine. Until l’affair Stormy. She did the weekly phone call (I usually call her after 60 Minutes ends in Chicago because she watches it regularly. It’s been decades for me, but fine.

      She called early one day, proclaiming she was going to watch the Stormy Daniels interview.

      I don’t quite recall the wording, but I mentioned that it was consensual sex, versus Bill’s rape of Juanita Broaddrick. Point made: Don’t talk leftish politics; #3 son will push back. We still talk weekly, but politics ain’t on the agenda.

      1. I’m not even sure anything really happened between Mr. Trump and Ms. Daniels. Early on, I figured that he might have actually slept with her. But the more I listened to her and her lawyer, the more skeptical I became. The utter depths that her lawyer has rapidly descended to (for instance, releasing Cohen’s financial records that been leaked to him) suggest to me that there’s nothing to the claim.

        1. Trump is on his 3rd wife. Is not a widower. Spousal cheaters, cheat on their spouse. So the Daniel story truth does not matter. Only thing I care about is was it even close to Rape. Everyone, even the left, are claiming loud & clear “NO”. The rest is between him & his current wife. The rest Ewww, TMI.

          That he was a spousal cheater is not new news. It was known at the Nov 2016 election date. Find another topic.

          1. Ayup. The only really damning news in the Daniels Affair is the poor judgement exercised in picking a partner. Although he was presumably not seriously planning a run for elected office that exercise in judgement was likely more casually committed.

            All in all it is probably worth it for the exposure of Leftist hypocrisy and the opportunity to throw Bill Clinton’s, Teddy Kennedy’s, and JFK’s briefs in their faces.

            1. Given that at the time of the alleged hookup Trump was a rich powerful man with media connections and Ms. Daniels was an attractive actress with a strong desire to acquire powerful friends I suspect there may be some doubt as to who precisely picked who. It’s not above belief that she saw an opportunity to parlay her assets to advantage and more or less flung herself at trump. Hard for some men to say no when offered a tasty tidbit with no apparent downside.

              1. It’s not above belief that she saw an opportunity to parlay her assets to advantage and more or less flung herself at trump.

                What!!??! A “porn star” seeking to use sex to advance her status by exploiting male sexual desire? That’s crazy talk! I am sure she was simply exercising female empowerment.

        2. Ditto.

          I think Trump’s guilty of being the kind of guy a decent number of people would believe randomly hooked up with a porn star. (In part because of the image he encouraged.)

          Main thing I’m disgusted at is the number of people pontificating about how anybody who isn’t as upset about a blackmailer’s claims as they are trying to call on Christian morality.
          Gee, and here I thought that malicious gossip was a bad thing, not something we’re required to heed….

          1. IMO the people pontificating are the types who would love to have sex with that woman and who sneer at Christian morality (especially about sex). 😦

            1. Eh, I’ve seen it from a bunch of the Catholic and very Christian bloggers, too.

              Yes, it is very oddly one-sided in application. However did you guess. -.-

          2. It’s been a while but isn’t gossip, both telling and listening, listed right along side the worst sins? As in… it IS a worst sin?

            Claiming that you have a Christian Obligation to get on an outrage-gossip train is a bit like saying that because God is Love that you have a Christian Obligation to accept sex with whomever wants it… which isn’t a random example as it’s been done!

            1. It can be a sin against charity– generally fornication, never mind cheating on your wife, is worse, because I can’t think of non-romance-novel or farce type setups where that’s venial–but this is really obviously done with malice, and calculated malice. That makes it a mortal sin.

              The desire to cause harm… *shudder*

              Even the folks who are not flatly stating that the whole point is to cause damage to his reputation and thus presumably think there’s a greater harm being avoided should be recognizing the guilt they’re claiming is serious enough (by their explicit statements) that it’s not a venial thing. They should be explaining how, exactly, spreading a claim of a blackmailer is balanced, when the past 30 years shows that actual physical violence is not noteworthy.

              Presumably, it’s detraction; it could be calumny if people are pretty sure that it’s false, but spread it anyways.
              Both tend to get covered by “gossip.”


    3. Sadly, some of those leftists are family members.

      They aren’t dumb…but, when you soak in so much madness, some of it has to rub off.

      And, they’re at an age where they want to do the “right” (i.e. moral) thing, and the Left sounds…moral? Correct? It’s about slaying evil, and defeating monsters.

      I want to slay monsters, too.

      The worst of which wear human faces and cry for “kindness” and “mercy”-on their terms.

      1. I know. I have some, sigh.

        One is “must take care of me”. Although expect a temporary switch when inheritance kicks in, if it kicks in (what do you mean share?). It’s in trust to prevent it from be piffled away. Don’t know where the courts will land (I just get the popcorn & get the gossip). If the inheritance does come through, once it is gone (& it will be quickly), it’ll be back to “take care of me”, whine, whine.

        The other one, I’m not sure what happened. They’ve worked hard for what they’ve got. They are generous with charities & their time, & their kids have been raised to be that way too. Fine. Just surprised they’d agree with the government that government knows better how to distribute & spend their money. Love them to death, but discussing politics, no, not.

        1. Scenario 1 is a close-ish fit for some of my family. To quote the country song, “My Give-a-damn’s busted”. I’m very happy we’re a long way away from those relatives. No knocking on the front door…

          1. They know better … no knocking allowed. They’ll have made their bed. We may not know the total numbers. But the trust is in the millions.

        2. The TL;DR version is a form of Dunning-Kruger effect-they believe in their own competence in their field of work, so they clearly also believe that other people are competent in their fields of work.

  19. They turned off the fire alarm. Their house is full of smoke and they don’t notice.

    Why am I thinking of that meme image showing a dog sitting in a burning room? “This is fine.”

  20. What makes this all interesting is that the Spygate affair, amongst others, is providing Trump with a causus belli…he can turn loose the Militia to Restore the Rule of Law.

  21. Europe enjoys socialism-lite only because its underwritten by US defense spending and pharmaceutical research (among others). I think it’s time for the US to pull its permanent military presence out Europe altogether, so they can truly understand the costs of their “free” stuff.

    1. Yeah, you know, I believe in free trade, but if I were dictator, I’d consider telling all those countries where pharmaceutical sales are a state monopoly, “As long as you continue to have that monopoly, and use it to bargain drug prices down below US prices, we will sell you established drugs, but you will never get any new drug invented in the US, because you aren’t paying the costs of developing it.”

      1. The US has successfully gone after Airbus in the international courts due to the fact that Airbus is basically a company that’s “owned” by multiple European governments, and is essentially subsidized by those same governments..

      2. I know that Canada has told the drug companies that if they do not toe the line (cost of production +, no allowance for R&D) Canada will not enforce their patents and will in fact encourage Canadian companies to violate them.

        1. I don’t know about Canada, but I did read an article (last year, IIRC?) that most drug companies had decided to start selling drugs to some of the nations that were ALREADY ignoring their patents, at approximately the same prices that those nations were already paying, just to have SOME revenue from them (and it probably allows them to ramp up to more cost-effective production levels, too).

          1. The actual per-unit cost to produce pharmaceuticals is relatively low. The cost to research, develop, and test pharmaceuticals, then to engineer, design, construct, validate, qualify, and commission the plant that produces them, OTOH, is rather high – especially if they’re paying a premium to get the plant operational so as to maximize time for exclusive exploitation in the USA before the patent expires. And, of course, there’s the costly advertising to maximize US sales, because US sales are where most of the profit comes from that keeps investors happy, and funds additional R&D.

            The fundamental problem is that the US consumer is effectively underwriting the cost of global drug R&D because the USA is the only nation where there’s much profit margin. Nobody has identified a politically-viable means where the R&D (and testing) funding spigots don’t get turned off if the US government forces lower drug prices.

            1. What do people think of a “Respect our drug patents, or the troops and equipment come home.” position?

            2. In addition to all those above-listed costs for new pharmaceuticals, there is the sobering reality that -most- drug research programs -fail-. The potential drug doesn’t work, or the side effects turn out to be too bad to be acceptable.

              If one in ten of your study drugs works, you are -wildly- successful. If one in a hundred, you are still successful.

              Starting from scratch “hmm. What does -this- molecule do?”, it is about two successes out of -one thousand-.

              You have to come up with that “dry well” money -somewhere-. Because you re going to burn quite a bit of it trying to find something that pays off.

              1. Very good point. The proceeds from the sale of successful drugs need to cover the cost of the R&D and testing of drugs that ultimately failed. In some cases they need to pay for costs for canceled engineering/construction costs, too. Three weeks into my job, the biggest project our office was working on got outright canceled with design for the plant about halfway done and the foundations and structural steel already complete, because of testing results on the drug the plant was going to produce.

                1. The MS treatment my stepmother was on 20 years ago was $1400 for a month. Medicaid would only pay for it every other month. It was never going to get any kind of economy of scale

                  1. Some of them, though, might – as they certify additional conditions for treatment. I know that Humira was only for severe psoriasis when first introduced – now it’s been extended to three or four other autoimmune disorders. (Still too costly for me to continue with it – the arthritis is slowly catching up with me, although the skin condition didn’t come back quite as strong as it was before – go figure.)

    2. “Europe enjoys socialism-lite only because its underwritten by US defense spending and pharmaceutical research (among others).’
      So much this. Should the USA take our troops home, you would see the Euro welfare state disappear right quick, followed by the EU.

      1. Trump knows it and Angela Merkel’s reactions to Trump’s prompts for the Euroweenies live up to their NATO spending commitments indicates she know it too.

      2. Things in Europe are now so militarily weird that -Poland- is in a position to invade and crush -Germany-.

        Russia has certainly noticed that their former captives are getting decidedly …. dangerous.

        1. Poland isn’t really in a position to invade Germany specifically because it needs to keep its forces home to defend against Russia, but I jeez yeah, the world has changed.

              1. If they decide to go blood and steel again, I say let it burn itself out with no interference from this side of the ocean.

                1. I say we do exactly what people say we need to and don’t engage in foreign wars or overseas imperialism.

                2. Nah. Nip it in the bud before it gets started with a friendly reminder of what happened the last time the Germans tried to take over Europe, and back it up by putting another couple of armored/mechanized brigades in Poland.
                  Forget the French, unless they start up-arming as well.

                  1. Agreed, based on past experience they’ll insist we notice AFTER making a huge mess, otherwise, and then blame us.

  22. They published magazines with covers proclaiming “We’re all socialists now.”

    They’re banking on the children knowing nothing about the past. They’re waiting on the older folks who know about it to die faster, more frequently.

    This is how the younger people in East Berlin knew NOTHING about World War 2. The veterans who had fought in it had been instructed to stay silent (or else), and it had been summarily excised out of history. The walls of the Iron Curtain served two purposes – to keep the people inside the cage of Communist/Socialist thought and control, and to keep outside influences out.

    What has been happening now is that familiar, and no different; what is scary though is we’re seeing it in so many things, such as in SFF, and fandom, and the media.

    1. The difference is that the alternative media exists now – and more people (especially the millennials) are accessing it. I don’t know how many places I’ve seen the “Miracle of Gaza” video pop up lately as “humor” – which has pretty much demolished the “Palestinian victims” propaganda except among the most heavily indoctrinated.

      1. Miracle of Gaza?

        The alternative media is still at risk of being shut down and silenced by the big, left-leaning conglomerates, which feel that their bottom line is secured by the apathetic and with ‘well they don’t have real alternatives.’ To some extent, they’re right.

        I had more to say, but I’m very exhausted, and brain is going “cookie cookie cookie.”

        1. I believe that’s the one where the allegedly-dead guy stands up and walks away (not realizing that the cameras are still rolling), or in a more recent case, the guy limping around on crutches suddenly runs away very very fast (without using the crutches he supposedly needs) when he sees incoming danger.

          1. There’s also the one where the blanket-covered “corpse” just has to scratch his nose……

        2. Video of guys supposedly “martyred” in charging the Israeli border.

          Problem being, it’s a pretty old video of a “demonstration.” They’re laying there under sheets with writing on them.

          Then somebody’s nose itches….


          1. Been going on for decades. Remember over ten years ago when it was described as “Pallywood”. Amazing what you can do with the right equipment and tight camera shots.
            See also “Green Helmet Guy” I think.

            1. Yeah, I can remember the first leaks when I was in late high school!

              Have you seen the “red tricycle” collection? Guy packed a spotless red tricycle around because the color and pathos made his pictures sell better, only got caught because it was ALWAYS spotless, surrounded by dust.

            2. Of course, there are the idiot reporters who when a Palestinian woman shows them the “bullets” that she claims were fired into her home don’t realize that the “bullets” haven’t been fired.

              IE: They are bullets ready to be loaded into a rifle not bullets actually fired by a rifle. 😦

    1. IIRC it’s a sarcastic comment that goes “The US prevented us from having squid farms”.

      IE If a given country doesn’t have something, it’s the fault of the US. 😦

      1. No.
        It’s “you never see the missing squid farms.”
        I.e. if you have a welfare state and innovation drops, you can point to “look, they’re secure in their income. Their kids have education” whatever, but you never see the missing squid farms on Mars that would have existed otherwise.

  23. Trump may kick the can a little further than the Dems – but nobody is willing to make the hard choices that will stop the economy from going off the cliff. It just isn’t going to happen because too many people of both parties feel they have a RIGHT to loot us. It would take bringing anti-trust action against medical providers and actually reducing the size of government. Not on the agenda for anybody. They are the household $500k in debt and spending $10k a month more than they make and they agree to cut the extra channels on the cable to fix things…

      1. Actually I agree with the article – but anti-trust laws would address this if applied. They could not charge different prices depending on who was paying and refuse to quote prices. Nor could there be restraint of trade by various private associations telling the hospitals who can have how many beds or who can buy an MRI machine.

        1. So… you want private individuals to have to pay a lot more because of the costs of the providers dealing with insurance companies. Because that is what would be the result of not being able to charge the insurance companies more.

          1. And yet – you go to a cash payment – prices up front clinic like the Surgery Center of Oklahoma ( ) and everybody pays a LOT less. How is it they aren’t charging much more?
            Alternatively – there are lots of procedures for which you can fly to Japan or India and have the work done and still come out ahead after travel costs.

            1. They don’t have to deal with either the paperwork, the insurance company deciding not to accept a charge, having to carry that balance for the month or three until the company pays, Medicare or people randomly vanishing without paying their share of the bill.

  24. OT, but I thought folks here would find this both fascinating, and awesome.

    (Well, I do!)

    I think this is awesome, because the potential application (besides allowing for an alternative to abortion that doesn’t kill the child) is that babies who are miscarried / born too preemie could be put on life support.

    And what is fascinating and exciting to me is, this started from the ‘pop a baby into a ziplock sandwich bag to keep them warm’ brainstorm.

    1. Finally read that one. Then could not resist tripping the one murderous idiot that always shows up when abortion is talked about. (I’m “RealityObserver” over on Disqus.)

Comments are closed.