HIS Revolution- A Future HE can believe in — by Amanda S. Green


HIS Revolution – A Future HE can believe in –  by Amanda S. Green


Bernie Sanders is no longer the only supposedly Democrat (but really a socialist – kind of sort of) on the national political scene. The news is rife with the so-called wisdom of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. I say so-called wisdom because, let’s face it, she has repeatedly shown she has less knowledge of economics than I do (terrifying when she is an economics major). Then there’s the fact that, for a politician from New York, she has an appalling lack of knowledge about the Israeli-Palestinian issue. There’s more but, damn, the woman is a mess and yet she is now the media’s darling. As for the Democratic Party, she presents a huge issue for them. On the one hand, she is bringing in media attention that isn’t focusing on Hillary Clinton. On the other, she is out to defeat sitting Democrats across the nation, causing instability within the party, a party desperately trying to regain the majority in the mid-term elections and then the White House in the following election.

So where is our friend Bernie in all this? Well, he’s right there with her. They’ve been making appearances together, rallying the troops. He has become the senior statements of the socialist arm of the Democratic Party. Hell, he has become the sane one. I’m not sure whether to laugh, cry or run for the hills. But it does mean we should take another look at what Bernie has stood for and then, after that, what Ocasio-Cortez is saying and why we should be concerned.

Several months ago, I snarked commented on the preface to Bernie Sanders’ book, Our Revolution – A Future to Believe in. I thought, with so much attention going to Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders right now, I’d look back at Our Revolution and see if there is any substance in what Sanders and, by extension, Ocasio-Cortez have to say or if, as I suspect, they are all feelz and not much more.

I’ll admit, I managed to get to the second page of the first chapter of Our Revolution before I started laughing. Remember, this is supposed to be Bernie’s book on his form of revolution and how America needs him and those like him and how only they can build the right sort of future. In this first chapter, he writes about how, during the 2016 race, he returned to the neighborhood in New York he grew up in. There’s a description of how he and his family lived in a 3 ½ room rent controlled apartment. He lived there with his brother and parents for the first 18 years of his life.

So, all these years later, he returned. He couldn’t believe how small the apartment seemed. He couldn’t believe his family of four sat at a table and had dinner there. Oh, and the building was sooo much more dingy than he remembered.

I’ll admit it. That’s where I had to put my tablet down and laugh. The thought of this rich socialist – and isn’t that a contradiction in terms? – having a hard time believing he grew up in such a small apartment tickled me. Of course, the apartment seemed small compared to the large homes (dare we say mansions?) Bernie and Mrs. Bernie live in now. Besides, how many of us haven’t experienced something similar as adults when we’ve revisited a place from our childhoods? Something that seemed huge to us as a kid looks very different through our adult eyes.

But where I lost it was on the “more dingy” comment about the building. Of course, it looked dingier. The building was 57 years older than the last time Bernie lived there. Unless it had undergone a major renovation and gentrification, just the passage of time would make it look dingier. But Bernie apparently didn’t consider that.

He goes on to discuss how being Jewish and learning about the Holocaust had a huge impact on him.

No question about it. Being Jewish. The loss of family, including children my own age, in the Holocaust. The rise to power of a right-wing lunatic in a free election in Germany. A war that killed 50 million people, including more than one-third of all Jews on the planet. All of this had an indelible impact upon my life and thinking. (OR, pp 8-9)

Now, here is the first place since the introduction where I wanted to wall my tablet. Sanders, like so many liberals today, conflates being “right-wing” with Nazism. How many times have we seen this same sort of thing on social media, aimed at Trump or others simply because they are conservative or aren’t walking in lock-step with the liberals? As Bill Flax pointed out in Forbes:

Very little of Hitler’s domestic activity was even remotely right wing. Europe views Left and Right differently, but here, free markets, limited constitutional government, family, church and tradition are the bedrocks of conservatism. The Nazis had a planned economy; eradicated federalism in favor of centralized government; considered church and family as competitors; and disavowed tradition wishing to restore Germany’s pre-Christian roots.

There’s more. Bernie describes growing up. His parents weren’t political but always voted Democrat. His brother is the one who brought politics into the home when, as a student at Brooklyn College, he joined the Young Democrats and campaigned for Stevenson in 1956. After a paragraph or two about how he was so glad his brother could join him on the campaign trail during his presidential bid, Bernie bounces back to his childhood (have I mentioned that reading this book is like watching a tennis match? You are in the present and then in the past and then at another point in time without transition or warning. I may get whiplash before this is over).

While they weren’t poor growing up, there wasn’t much discretionary income. Money was often a point of contention in the Sanders household. “Painful arguments. Bitter arguments. Arguments that seared through a little boy’s brain, never to be forgotten.” (OR, p. 10) This is when I put on my best Ann Richards’ voice and say, “Poor Bernie”. What child doesn’t have memories of at least once when they heard their parents argue and knew things were going to Hell in a handbasket? My parents rarely argued where I could hear it. The one time they did, I knew it meant they were going to get divorced. They didn’t. In fact, they had a healthy marriage and continued to do so until the day my father died.

His total lack of acknowledging the things that apparently scarred him aren’t anything unusual – or unreasonable – drives me crazy.

How much money your family had determined the quality of your baseball glove, which brand of sneakers you wore, and what kind of car your father drove. (OR, p. 10)

How many of us, no matter what our income, have had the discussion with our kids – or our parents – about not being able to afford something that little Johnny down the road has (or why Johnny might not have something we do)? Not everyone makes the same money and not everyone places the same importance on things the way you do. But having to shop for bargains seems to have scarred poor old Bernie. Being fiscally responsible so damaged him, he apparently had only one option – turn into a Socialist and a good one at that because he has plenty of money, more than he really needs, which he holds onto even as he tells the rest of us we need to give, give, give to even the playing field for everyone else.

What I learned playing on the streets and playgrounds of Brooklyn was not just how to become a decent ballplayer and athlete. I learned a profound lesson about democracy and self-rule. (OR, p. 11)

He goes on to describe how, without adult supervision, he and his pals played in the streets or on the playgrounds. They figured out what to play, what the rules were, and worked out their problems. What he doesn’t talk about was how they were a small number of kids having to come to a decision. He doesn’t take into account how the more people involved, the greater the stakes, the more conflict will arise. There is a reason why the great socialist experiment has yet to be successful. Human nature will win out every time and, like it or not, that includes greed, self-interest and more.

In another of those tennis match-like moments in the chapter, Bernie writes about how, at the age of 19, he left New York for Chicago. His mother died a few months earlier and he was going to attend the University of Chicago. Now, finally, we get an explanation for why his father had been so frugal when Bernie and his brother were growing up. Why Bernie waited until now to tell us, I don’t know. I can guess. If he told us back when he wrote about how these money arguments had such a negative effect on him, he’d have lost the impact and we’d all have pointed and laughed.

My dad had dropped out of school at the age of sixteen in Poland. Having lived through the Depression, he worried a lot about money and making a living. (OR, p. 16)

Of course, Mr. Sanders worried about money. Of course, he didn’t want his wife or his sons spending on things they didn’t need. He had a reason. How many men and women who lived through the Depression didn’t react the same way? But, had Bernie added that bit in earlier, it would have lessened the impact and changed the narrative and we must never, ever change the narrative.

He spends the next 10 pages or so describing his time at the University of Chicago. He read. He ran. He got involved in political movements and fighting racism. He got married. He and his wife bought 85 acres of woodland in Vermont and build a “nice outhouse”. He approved of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Where Hillary’s “What Happened” needed an editor, this book really needs one. It is truly a flow of consciousness piece of – well, I’m not sure what. Perhaps as an audio book it is better than it is in print. If you imagine Bernie reading it to you, it might not be as bad. All I can say so far is I’m not impressed. We’re more than 25 pages into the book and I have yet to know why he ran for president, what this so-called revolution is or why it is a future to believe in. The only thing I can say is there is snark-worthy material here.

(As an aside, I will return to the Sowell essays but life is such right now that I need snark when I can get it. It is also why this post is a day late. Stuff has been happening to completely throw me off-schedule and I didn’t realize yesterday was Thursday until Sarah pinged me. So, apologies to you and to her and I promise to get back on schedule next week. – ASG)

Help Amanda drink enough to keep snarking.  We’ll collect for her liver transplant later.
Hit her Pourboir jar now!


180 thoughts on “HIS Revolution- A Future HE can believe in — by Amanda S. Green

  1. “So, all these years later, he returned. He couldn’t believe how small the apartment seemed.”

    Isn’t that sort of, like, almost a universal experience for people in the U.S.? Grow up, move away, experience the world, raise your own family, then visit your old childhood home and be surprised at how tiny and dingy it seems compared with your memories?

      1. No problem. That was basically my reaction when I read that part of the book — and no, he didn’t draw that conclusion.

    1. Everywhere, not just the US. I thought my Middle School was shiny and HUGE (and I hated it.) Years later, the college lost my track record and I had to visit every school to recreate it. (They switched my record with that of a friend that flunked the 9th grade exam and thus couldn’t go on. We had ONE different middle name, out of six for each.) They couldn’t unf*ck it and were trying to dump me (not joking) from my sophmore year. So I took two sick days and rebuilt my record by going to each previous school and getting certified copies of my record. (That’s how I figured out what had happened.) That massive place of terrors turned out to be a tiny, dingy building.

      1. I remember walking into the school I went to for first to fourth grades, which as a child I thought was huge, and thinking how small it was, and how could I have thought it was so huge.

        1. Due to a stupid board, the school I went to kindergarten at. I returned to as a 7th grader (don’t get me started on that!) and it was so much smaller, then again I wasn’t 5 anymore.
          Now it is a church school or something, and it seems even smaller to me. The elementary school I went to for 1st through 6th seems the same size as always. The highschool is not there any longer. Only a part of it still stands as they tore down the oldest portion (built in 190x something) then removed the street and connected it to the town elementary building, and moved the middle school to there. Our middle was rented from the catholic church, and that too was torn down after the move. Going back to the church for funerals (too many relatives died last year), I am surprised at how small that block looks. How did the school and its gym fit on the one small block? The new high school is now up where I used to live. I used to ride a bike year’round into town, because it was far shorter than taking the bus (I got out of bed when my sisters got on the bus), so I could have gotten up even later.

      2. My youngest brother had the same reaction when going by the county junior high he attended as well as the high school. Me? Other than a year here and a year there, I’ve lived here in the area of the county seat where both schools are located. I’ve not had enough distance to allow my mind to filter the memories for me.

      3. Opposite experience here. I returned to my tiny highschool only to find it had blown up to 25 times its size. 😛 (All the “free” federal school expansion matching money, not gone to waste. (Nevermind that it’s only matching, and our city still has to pay for half.)

        It’s in there somwhere, behind the gigantic concrete brutalist arch and under the football stadium sized new wing.


    2. Years later, I visited the place where my brother and I lived when we were in preschool. I remember it pretty well – in some parts, vividly well. I was knocked out by how tiny it was – a little cottage, back in the hills, at the end of a dirt driveway, off an unpaved private road which got so muddy that when it rained my parents had to leave their car a mile and a half a mile away, where the mailboxes were. I really think it was more of a guest cottage, that the owners rented out. The other thing that boggled me – I could look out of windows that had been above my head!

      This was the place where my father found it necessary to teach us about snakes…

    3. When his new point of reference is multiple large houses, yeah, a 3.5 apt will seem small.

    4. On one of our first trips to Philadelphia I took The Spouse out to see the first house my parents owned.  It was just outside of the city limits in one of the first suburbs established on the train lines.  No, the house wasn’t quite so big and the yard was not as spacious as I remembered.  The ancient oak tree in the front yard remained monumental.

  2. “I say so-called wisdom because, let’s face it, she has repeatedly shown she has less knowledge of economics than I do (terrifying when she is an economics major).”

    What I find hilarious is when people try to use that as a defence for her: “How dare you say she’s ignorant? She has a degree in economics!” Doesn’t mean she’s not ignorant, just means that she didn’t get much value for all that time in school.

    “How much money your family had determined the quality of your baseball glove, which brand of sneakers you wore, and what kind of car your father drove. (OR, p. 10)”

    Paging Captain Obvious! Senile Socialist is joyriding in the Obvious Mobile!

    “If he told us back when he wrote about how these money arguments had such a negative effect on him, he’d have lost the impact and we’d all have pointed and laughed.”

    Oh, Bernie doesn’t need to worry about that. I was pointing and laughing anyway.

      1. Have not yet seen Ocasio-Cortez myself, but when a couple of commentators who are usually pretty fair say things like “I think she’s mentally challenged” …. that tells me all I need to know. Great, another Maxine Waters, except with a hammer and sickle.

          1. The bright side is Maxine Waters and her antics are doing a great job of alienating the middle/moderates from the Democrats. When a politician goes mouthing off about how she was sent by God…

            1. But she (that Waters woman) did get elected. Several times. Can’t have such a big family just them voting her in would have been sufficient, now can she? Who voted her in?

              1. it helps the elections there are pretty much one party soviet style affairs, though her district isn’t one anyone with much sense is going to come out of anyhow (see her near equal from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee) and is set up to ensure it remains so.

                1. Yes. The Gerrymander is alive and well, and woe betide any legislature who dares attempt to re-draw those borders.

                  1. I suspect Congresswomen Waters and Lee come from very specially gerrymandered districts. That is they comply to the 1965 Voting Rights act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965) which has a tendency to lump minorities into a district so that they can “have representation”. Perhaps 50+ years ago when written this seemed like a good idea, but what it has wrought are essentially set asides which create these incredibly incompetent candidates who just have to basically show up (c.f. Hank Johnson who thought Guam might tip over…) to win. Like any set aside it tends to head for the lowest common denominator. In addition places like Texas with republican legislatures throw other liberal/ democrat leaning regions into Congresswoman Lees district to make sure other districts stay solidly in the republican camp. Its an old trick and really they’d rather not have to fight a competent rational member from that district. WIth Madme’s Lee and Waters and Mr Johnson this is NOT an issue…

              2. Oh, don’t get me wrong, pohjalainen, Maxine Waters is still going to get reelected come November. As TXRed mentioned, Waters represents a gerrymandered district. The possibility of a Republican winning that seat is essentially nil. However the media is giving the woman a lot of coverage nationwide, which helps provide another “crazy Democrat” example that impacts the nationwide perception of the Democratic party.

              3. See, California has a Primary system that lumps everyone from every party into the same primary, and the top two go to the general election. This ensures that most republicans, Libertarians, and so called Moderate Dems are never on the main ticket in most of the state. Add that California has no voter ID, Voter registration via Drivers License application, and oh by the by will allow Illegal Aliens to get a drivers license, and generally fights any and all attempts to end voter fraud, you get a state with cities full of human excrement and maps to avoid it.

                1. “Non-citizens” also are about to get to vote in some local elections here in California.

                  Voting in Federal Elections will still be prohibited, of course. But it’s anyone’s guess how effective the enforcement will be when someone is allowed to vote on everything except who moves into the White House.

                  1. And if Vichy and Ryan had an ounce of backbone between them, they would announce, today, that “As co-equal branches of government, neither the House nor the Senate will seat any member whose districts include any area that allow non-citizen voting. The Supreme Court has no say in this matter.”

                  2. well, we all know illegals certainly wouldn’t break the law or anything like that. . .
                    I am to the point that any state or locality that makes fraud easier gets their vote tally reduced to a fraction depending upon the scope. Cali would be mayhap 1% of the vote count. That district in Milwaukee that got 110% turnout would be 5%, East St. Louis would be maybe 20%, I think the did a half-hearted purge after they got caught.
                    Paper Ballots, picture ID, vote counted on site publicly, 100%.
                    Milady’s State of Colorado would need to make a change.
                    Yeah, that’ll never happen, though.

    1. Sheesh. What kid doesn’t look at the other kids’ sneakers and grumble because they don’t have the latest [make and model]? With my cohort it was Air Jordans.

      1. Me.

        I never understood that bit.

        Oh, I might like their jacket, or wish I could wear that kind of shirt–so I know what you mean, but sneakers weren’t really my thing.

        1. I just wanted a pair of Adidas because the cheap no-names from Shopko lasted a 1/4 of the time. I recall my mom finally relenting with the threat “This is the only pair I will buy you this school year then.” and lo, they lasted the year and I was still able to wear them in to buy my next pair (though she decided on Nike, and I stepped right through them first day of gym. She ranted and got her money back, and I got another pair of Adidas).
          Now I go to Shopko to get my shoes, but it isn’t no-names. They are a Pay-Less outlet so they have New Balance that fit me well in non-annoying colors.

      2. I sure there were others available when I was growing up but we pretty much all wore Keds, and if you played sports that needed some ankle support there was always Converse.

      3. I didn’t care about sneakers. I wanted BOOTS. My aunt sent me a pair of lovely brown leather ones which I wore against the usual styles of the day (everyone wore sneakers) and I was told they looked like ‘elf shoes’; intending to make it an insult; I went “Oh, cool. Thanks.”

        I also wore heeled oxford-style like shoes, and the closest thing I had to sneakers were these big, heavy things from CAT (the same as the construction machine company) that my Dad sent to me. They FINALLY wore out …I think when we moved to Australia for good. I was pretty physically active back in the day, and I wanted shoes that would let me walk everywhere I wanted… and kick the crap out of a person if they were stupid enough to lay hands on me.

        Fashionwise, most of the folks at the time were into grunge-rock, I went for denims and comfort in my teens. So they were very unprepared when I showed up in a slinky black number and high heels for the prom. *evil grin* I had very sexy legs, and according to my husband, they are still ‘silky leg heaven.’

    2. Lots of courses of study are relatively worthless if you only put in the effort needed to pass. Getting an actual benefit requires a decent curriculum, standards, and a certain amount of deliberately internalizing the material, and using it to grow.

      Economics is an interesting field. One, it isn’t very testable. So you can build all sorts of mathematical models, and be unable to really reject any of them as conclusively wrong. We know that some of them are garbage, but this is largely through thought experiments and making assumptions. An economics curriculum devised by a garbage theorist is not of the same validity as one designed by someone with half a clue. Her degree is a Bachelor’s in Economics and International Relations, per wiki. From that, it is not clear how much her economics coursework tested her ability to manipulate the models, and how much it tested her assumptions. Wiki says she worked as a bartender after graduation, which suggests that the degree wasn’t designed to prepare her for a specific job, and that searching for undergraduate research might be fruitless.

      The quote about realizing about the low barriers to entry in politics only after working on the campaign of Nazi Sanders does not suggest a perfect grasp of practical economics.

      The highschool academic performance does not suggest a severe developmental disability, unless she was handed the stuff because of affirmative action. Weed can cause learning impairment, she wouldn’t have been a minor for all her university time, has anyone checked the Boston PD records to see if she had ever been picked up?

      1. it also doesn’t help when the material you get all too often is garbage as well. Ain’t like they are teaching her Sowell or Friedman.

      2. Wiki says she worked as a bartender after graduation, which suggests that the degree wasn’t designed to prepare her for a specific job…

        A BA in economics precisely does not fit one for anything in particular, and therefore finding a job will be difficult for those incapable applying the learnt analytical skills more generally. See https://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2015/04/29/career-advice-for-economics-majors/#1e5ec8cea99e for details of how to approach the search. It’s clear from her discussions that what she absorbed was socialist cant rather than the analytical approach.

    3. Does anyone know what exact degree she holds? Because I vaguely recall that there are two tracks in Economics; one where you do the freaking math and one where you don’t (and presumably talk in airy generalizations).

      Anyone else recall something about this?

      1. If it is Econ with an IR second major, that suggests to me that it was a qualitative and comparative track. (“Look at the GDP of the US and the GDP of Sweden compared to social welfare expenditure per capita. What does this tell us about national priorities” sort of stuff.)

      2. Bachelor’s in Economics and International Relations from Boston University’s College of Arts and Sciences.

        1. Hard to tell what that actually means, which is probably some of the point.

          Of course, to a great extent a degree is what you make of it. I know a young man who was majoring in Political Science with a minor in Arabic Languages. He finds both fields fascinating and I figure he will be in high (and well paid) demand all his life. OTOH, give little Miss Ocasio-Cortez the same education, and she’ll still probably be odds on favorite for “Diplomat or politician most likely to offer a Saudi Prince a Ham Sandwich….by accident.”

  3. I left the house I grew up in when I was 14 (and have only driven past it since) and we moved into the house my dad built, so I never had that “it’s smaller than I remember” phase. Also, I don’t remember my parents arguing about money. Seems like a mostly idyllic childhood.

    1. I don’t remember my parents arguing about anything.

      Now I’m sure they disagreed plenty of times but mostly they went to the other room and discussed matters quietly.

      Oh, this caused some problems for my sister as her husband grew up in a home where his parents loudly “discussed matters”.

      By the way, the problems were solved years ago and they’re still married.

      Amazing considering my sister. 😈

      1. My parents argued all the time … after we were all in bed. Don’t remember about what. Don’t remember dad’s voice. Heard mom fine. But then mom’s voice Carries (capital C meant), even at a whisper, & my room wall shared with the living room.

    2. We got lucky with houses, with the smallest I lived in (as a kid) a 3 bed/1 bath ’50s house fresh from the developers. The basement did seem huge to me, but I turned 8 as we moved away.

      Money was frequently tight. I think we were all right in the Detroit area in the ’50s, but when we moved in 1960, there was a steep recession and the old house didn’t sell for a year. I wore a lot of hand-me-downs (’twas the youngest) and play items weren’t very new for a while. I don’t recall arguments about money; it was a given that there wasn’t enough. OTOH, Dad had anger issues, so it was a wise idea not to bug him about such things. Still, all three of us managed to make it through college (one a two year program) with a combination of funds, with some support from our parents.

      Mom did say (much later) that makeup sex was really good after an argument, but they managed to argue without raising my notice.

      1. We weren’t poor growing up. But never felt we were rich either.

        Dad & mom built the house in 1963, that mom still lives in. Most the more expensive parts of the house dad got at cost because of what he did for a living (clear black walnut paneling & a lot of it, among other things).

        We didn’t eat beef. But did eat a lot of lamb (great uncle raised them), salmon (because we caught them), & hunted meat. Hunted meat is considered today’s standard to be expensive by the time you count the gear, rifles, & bullets. Maybe. Hunted off of extended family properties, the rifles weren’t new, & dad made appropriate bullets for everyone he hunted with.

        When I reached High School I was expected to buy any extra cloths I wanted beyond the basics for school the folks provided. Okay. Didn’t need more (still don’t, my clothing budget is $0).

        BUT … then “not rich” to me back then is we couldn’t afford a horse or even riding lessons …

        1. my sisters were stunned to learn how poor we were growing up
          We had a trailer on 20 (later 10 after dad sold half) acres and mom sewed a lot of our clothes, then dad quit his job and started a business that was not going to be big enough to really support a family. Then, after me and the oldest sister moved out, the folks relocated to Memphis and both worked well paying jobs. The fact we had Christmases where none of the gifts were wrapped (couldn’t afford wrapping paper And gifts) or lunch was sometimes elbow macaroni with tomato juice because that was all there was other than what mom was making for supper (venison hamburger and gravy over mashed potatoes, because dad shot a deer) didn’t sink in.

          1. Yes. We were definitely solid middle class.

            Didn’t help that compared to cousins, for different reasons, on either side, we WERE poor.

            One set was very, very, rich. They were successful developers/home builders in Grants Pass …

            The other set was always crying “poor”, except they paid cash for everything, 40 acres, pay cash, then pay it back as mortgage to themselves with interest, build house, repeat above, cars/pickup/RV, horses, cattle, etc., repeat & rinse. Plus they didn’t exactly buy new vehicles every 2, 3, or even 5, years. In fact I think he still has the old late 50’s or early 60’s chevy pickup for going up those really beat up road, that newer pickups are too wide to safely take.

            OTOH another cousin whose baby sister was born with Spina Bifida with all the medical complications & bills, even with very good to excellent insurance (uncle worked for RR) noted when she was much older that she never understood why they suddenly had money after her sister died at age 13.

            1. sad to say that if you’ve got a kid like that (very special needs etc) you are better off being actually poor, or very very rich, or you will be hurting financially. Former neighbor’s oldest son was a Hydrocephalus kid who at 15 was almost a 2 year old in mentality, just before they moved he got to where he could stand if he leaned against his dad. 0bamacare killed his “Cadillac” plan and they moved down to Houston in part because his company offered higher pay for him there, but if he got much more of a raise he would lose some of the financial assistance via free goods/therapy from a few places.

              1. Yes. Cousin was physically handicapped, but kid lucked out in that she was very intelligent & the type of kid that her schoolmates flocked to her & her wheelchair rather than exclude her from their playground activities. She had surgery after surgery for shunts to move water off of her brain because her spine couldn’t. Not to mention the infections those shunts are/were(?) known for.

                Plus Uncle was an engineer. So, a lot of the physical equipment used today for kids is based off the crude equipment he came up with for her. Kid ready to crawl, floor scooter. Need something to encourage her leg muscles to stretch & straighten out, braces. Ditto for standing. They were living in Arizona when she actually took some steps, but she never really walked.

                They were responsible for main streaming (that school districts took it too far is NOT their fault). Local school wanted to warehouse kid in special ed. Given all the medical costs they couldn’t afford private school; this was the 70’s (they would have home schooled today).

        2. I thought of our family as “upper middle class” for a long time because I had exposure (through church work) to actual “poor.” We were more in the solid middle, pushed a bit toward the lower end due to family size, but my family knew so many tricks to make the money stretch that we never felt deprived. (My dad’s fantastic garden, for one. I was nearly an adult before I realized that most people thought that lettuce was an essential component of salads, since that doesn’t grow here in the summer. Also see museum memberships.)

          But I went to a program that dealt with GATE kids, and most of my classmates were actually in the upper middle-class to outright rich segment of society. And I went to a private high school where a classmate told me I should ask for a car for my sixteenth birthday (and then was horrified that she’d offended me when I explained why that wasn’t an option. I wasn’t offended. She was sweet to worry, though.) So I’ve constantly been surrounded by people with more money to spend. And you know what? I’m probably better off, and I knew it even then.

          1. Car at 16? Ha Ha Ha … oh, you’re serious.

            Didn’t have one until I was 19 & I had to take fall term off to pay the loan on it. Trust me I needed the car. Then it was wrecked 9 months later. Took a few weeks before we (gave mom & dad ALL my money & they helped) could replace it. (Should have charge for parents to show their teens “this is what could happen & she wasn’t speeding or doing anything wrong, totaled car & lucky to not be dead or in hospital.”, but, public safety message …)

            Kid got a car at 16, but that was because hubby insisted. Kid got a car that was 16 months old, had 48,000 miles on it. Not sure I would have gone along with the car at 16 if conditions hadn’t been what they were.

            Hubby was transferred from Eugene to Randal Wa (middle of Hwy 12 at the base of Mt Rainer & just north of St Helen). Any other time we probably had moved (for a change I wasn’t working, would have been the wrong thing to do, but we would have moved.) As it was, kid had just started HS & his Eagle project & hubby refused to move. So hubby took up the TT to live in & commute home on weekends (did I mention housing options were limited? to non-existent). Rather than have hubby drive either of our existing vehicles, that got lousy gas mileage, we got a new car (FYI, gas savings alone more than paid the monthly payments on the new car); this is how the kid ended up with a 16 month old car with 48,000 miles on it. Conditions to get the car at 16 were, besides his license:

            1) Dad had to be transferred back home. We had the 3rd car in the first place for dad’s commuting.
            2) Eagle Earned
            3) HS GPA had to be above 3.5, which he had to keep up to keep the car.

            Car is 17 years old, has well over 100K miles on it, kid still drives it.

            1. I didn’t have a car “of my own” until after I was married. The car we used prior to that was his, passed down from his parents. But I walked all through college.

              1. “Car” — If it’d just been for college, yep, would have been in the same boat. In a way I still was after I got the car, during school sessions, as college parking permit was just a suggestion or “hunting license”.

                When summer work the option is walking/biking 10 or 15, or more, miles on the mountain highway, with no shoulders, when there is no, none, public transportation, & co-worker ride sharing is iffy at best … Managed it the first summer, because one of my neighbors was on the same shift as I was. It would have been stupid to continue to do that.

          2. “And you know what? I’m probably better off, and I knew it even then.”

            Yes. Agree. Have watched cousins down south implode, now that both parents have died. Forget probate or federal & state estate taxes. Even with a Will & Trust … lawyer’s already employed. Sadly, everyone except their parents saw this coming for a long time. Time is here.

            Other cousins, not imploding, but only one of the 3 will inherit everything, for reasons, & it is not the oldest. Parents know exactly what is happening & they have their will setup accordingly to achieve this end.

            1. I’m on the trust with my mom. I’ve told her she’s not allowed to make me use it for another 15-20 years. (All of us kids are fine with not inheriting anything because we were raised right. There are heirlooms, though.)

  4. You need to remember the audience. It’s not for the adults, or even for readers or political geeks. Its for the schoolchildren who have the book put on a reading list.

    That is fertile ground, as the current ground shows.

  5. The kids figured out the rules on their own, therefore socialism works (or at least he seems to imply that is a foundation for his socialistic beliefs). But they also go home when the game turned into fights over who got to do what and whether that rule trumped this rule. And they started fresh the next day. And the strongest kid still got his own way the most.

    1. Yep. And the one who owned the ball and glove or the football or basketball, etc., had a bigger say in what those rules were because he could take his stuff home and end the game.

  6. Bernie is politically color blind. He sees Nazi, and sees only nationalist. He’s totally unaware of the fact that they were also socialist, a nasty fascist combination.

    Bernie is really into having stuff, isn’t he? And it has to be the latest, the greatest, designer stuff on the market.

    Wait, a democratic socialist of today saying it was okay for kids to play in the streets or playground unsupervised? Oh the humanity!

    His Mom died a few years before he turned 19 and left New York? Hmmm. Unless she died from violence or accident, it occurs to me that his mother may have been terminally ill from some chronic disease, and that would definitely be a reason why his family didn’t have much money growing up. Might also explain why his father was so angry; he couldn’t stop his wife from dying. And yes, the use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without mentality is definitely one of the big scars of Depression survivors.

    1. “And yes, the use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without mentality is definitely one of the big scars of Depression survivors.”
      I was raised by grandparents who lived through both world wars and the Great Depression between them. They were business people. Grandpa owned and ran a bakery as well as other businesses in our small town. Grandma, having graduated high school, kept the books. They were always careful with money, but never stingy, tithing to church and donating to charities. But we had a garden big enough to feed us and put canned veggies away in a root cellar, and a big freezer that easily held a quarter beef from a local farmer.
      I take exception to the use of scars, I’d say rather serious life lessons. And point out that for the vast majority of people prior to around 1900 that was not unusual, but simply life as they knew it.

      1. Uncle Lar, I agree with you about it being a life lesson for most folks. But to read Bernie, it scarred him and he never got over it. I kid you not, he writes about how that shopping trip with his mother and her attempts to save money that day is why he doesn’t like shopping today. It doesn’t matter if there was a valid reason. It inconvenienced him so it was bad. Gag.

        1. Which simply reinforces my impression that Bernie is the very model of a f@cking snowflake. What does not kill us is supposed to make us stronger, not turn us into sensitive precious flowers. Gag indeed.

      2. Mom was barely pre-Boomer, and grew up with stories of the Depression, even though her parents did OK. I remember canning produce and having a huge vegetable garden before we moved here, and buying a freezer so we could get an entire half lamb and other discount meats. Dad’s even more frugal, but yes, they supported charities and bought Sib and I books.

        1. My mom lost her father in WWII at a time when veteran pensions for dependents had very strong restrictions. You couldn’t use the money for food, for example. So she said they ate a lot of oatmeal, and it’s a wonder she still likes it.

      3. It was pretty damn normal in flyover country in the 1960s and early ’70s, too. Even if you had extra money, waste not want not.

        1. It was perfectly normal in Southern California in the ’50s and ’60s, for that matter. Still is in the far northern parts of the state, come to think of it.

    2. Oh Yes, on that last sentence. When we settled my grandmother’s estate, cleaning out her house involved removing enormous numbers of plastic bags, each carefully folded so they stacked neatly in the boxes. Which in turn were stacked neatly in the back of a closet. I had never realized just how big those closets actually were, until we got everything out of them and disposed of (whether by handing them down to family and friends or by having them hauled off by the junk dealer). In the kitchen we found squares of aluminum foil, each with evidence of having been cleaned off and reused multiple times.

      The weird thing was, the house never looked cluttered. If you’d gone to visit, you’d have the impression of a very tidy and meticulous elderly lady who kept an impeccably spotless house. (Unfortunately, I seem to have gotten my housekeeping skills from my grandmother on the other side, whose home was always full of teetering stacks of stuff, whether it was bills, newspapers, or half-finished craft projects).

      Both those houses have long since been torn down, along with the house where I grew up. So I can no longer go back to them, save in memories and dreams.

      1. So far we’ve gotten to help with the estate clean up from depression survivors 3 times. Each experience was different. Each time each family groups went home & pared back belongings. Getting rid of stuff that wasn’t in use, or was duplicated.

        My paternal grandmother’s home was immaculate & very tiny. She had folded fabric scraps & yarn stored EVERYWHERE. When clothing wore out too much to be repaired or reworked it was saved for patch work quilting material, either part of the back, front, or internal lining, depending on type & physical shape of the thread. I don’t know how much canning supplies she had.

        My maternal grandparents threw nothing away. Toward the end the house was in shambles & realistically we should have gone in checked everything, pulled out, grandpa’s paintings, a few pieces of furniture, & turned the rest over to the fire department. It was that bad. As it was we really couldn’t do that. Had to go through everything. Pulled out probably 2 or 3 thousand dollars in coin, & cash, they had put somewhere & forgot it. As it was we burned a lot of stuff, & took load after load to the dump. Property was sold to someone who “fixed up the house” and resold. Now? Property is vacant (rumor in foreclosure) & blackberries, & poison oak, have all but covered the house.

        In-law. Helped MIL after FIL died. They had 3 cat leashes (for one cat). Just about all his tools, one was okay, backup was good, & backup for the backup, was even better. Ditto for fishing equipment. We ended up with all of both because BIL as a mechanic had his own tools, & he didn’t need anymore fishing equipment. If I’m lucky our kid gets to deal with that fallout, but I suspect I’m going to have to. I will be brutal. Never used any of it. It is all in storage either in the garage or shed.

        I’ve heard anecdotal evidence that my actual experience is mirrored across demographic for depression era adult survivors. My parents are too young to remember the depression, the scarcity of WWII, old enough to remember that vaguely.

        OTOH when it comes to camping/backpacking equipment, we are almost as bad. And we were both born well after the depression or WWII.

        1. My depression era mom went the other direction. She never again wanted to have to use anything that was repaired, patched, or refurbished ever again. When we cleared the house, there were a few old towels.

          Books, on the other hands . . . ODG! The books had taken over the house, the garage, the big plastic shed (probably purchased for the purpose). Printed matter (not newspapers, TG!) was sacrosanct.

          1. Yep – found out a few years ago that Mom had vowed as a teen that her kids would never wear socks that had been darned, since the darning was uncomfortable. She was frugal otherwise, but that was her thing, so when we were kids, if we holed a sock, it was just made to be gone.

        2. Some day, over ginger-beers and in person, ask me about MomRed and “the box in Grandpa’s garage.” If Grandfather hadn’t been dead, MomRed and Aunt L would have strangled him.

          1. We had to constantly retrain mom with her folks stuff; she was willing to just shovel it into dumpsters. It was bad. Way worse than we thought it was going to be. I mean you’d move furniture & there would be dead rats, mice, &/or snakes. Not to mention the dust & dirt & smell. No garbage. But still it was bad. Could have been worse. As my sister said her actions were reminders of when as kids we didn’t clean up good or fast enough, she’d come storming in & anything not correct would be thrown at you, did not matter what it was. Her aim wasn’t bad either which into days climate would not be good as, at least me, bruise easily & they stick around. Add to the fact she & her siblings were flat out told by the county they couldn’t move their folks to somewhere safer weeks before they died. Then they died within 2 weeks of each other. Granted they were 95, but still, what logic?

    3. If I said “years” before he left for Chicago, I meant months. As for his father being so angry, I’m not sure he was any more angry than most folks who lived through the Depression, had several children and were the only breadwinner in the family. Yes, they lived in a rent controlled apartment. But then there’s Bernie who wanted more than the others had — remember that leather jacket and how it had a negative impact on him because his mother did what so many other mothers and wives have done over the years? She shopped around for the best buy — it’s just that Bernie couldn’t get what he wanted when it wanted, whether it was the leather jacket or ball glove or shop at the more expensive market.

      Bernie’s really good at setting up the scenario that best fits his narrative but, when you get further information from him (like learning his father immigrated from Poland, lived through the Depression and was a paint salesman — not a job that paid a great deal), you realize how careful he is not to give the full picture until you’ve already, hopefully, bought into his story and won’t hold reality against him.

      1. Sort of reinforces my impression that Bernie is a greedy bastiche who wants what he wants when he wants it and by the way someone else had better pay for it.
        And as Maggie Thatcher famously stated, the real problem with socialists is that sooner or later they always run out of other peoples’ money.

    4. The best I can find out is that she died from “a failed second heart surgery after having rheumatic fever as child.”

      Which yeah, fits.

    5. Just perusing the Wikipedia on Sanders.
      “Sanders’s older brother, Larry, said that during their childhood, the family never lacked for food or clothing, but major purchases, “like curtains or a rug,” were difficult to afford.[28] ”
      Doesn’t sound very different than other middle class Americans during that time and location.

      1. When I was growing up, we might not have money for stylish clothes or the latest games, but when something basic (like the washing machine or a heating stove) needed to be fixed or replaced, the money was always there.

        That’s how I know when we’re really, truly broke — when we can’t afford to replace something basic and have to hobble it along for months or years while we try to get it moved forward to the front of the line before other, more urgent, things cut in front of it. We went half a heating season with a flaky furnace that was using a semi-compatible logic board that had to be rebooted several times a day. Another time, the bottom panel fell out of our storm door, and I had to replace it with a piece of cardboard from some huge box we got a wholesale purchase in, and protect the makeshift repair with plastic sheeting.

      2. Yeah, in the mid-60s, the 19″ black and white TV was bought on time. Dad did a lot of the work on the house, with help from friends and family. My grandfather being a contractor didn’t hurt at all, but Dad put the sweat in sweat equity.

  7. Right Wing: Socialst party always calls Social Democrats that. The lunatic who runs the Left Bloc and the mesuggah who runs the Communist Party used to call the Socialists right wing.

    No one should be forced to read Das Kapital, 8th Amendment is there for a reason.

    Economics: All students (and many Trumpkins) should have to watch Firing Line, Free to Choose. (Unfair trade is only unfair to overpriced goods and services.

    1. To the Left/Democrats (but I repeat myself), anyone to the right of V.I. Lenin is considered far right/alt-right and prime recruiting material for the KKK. They are convinced that communism has only failed because 1) the evil USA thwarted the righteous communist people’s republics (i.e,. socialist-totalitarian police states) and 2) the people running those prior communist regimes got corrupted, but the people who will impose communism now are “pure” and therefore it “will work” this time. This is utterly delusional and contrary to human nature, reality and what history has shown to be fact, but leftist ideologies themselves are fundamentally based on delusion.

  8. So many of them RELATE to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez because they are ding-bats as bad or worse than her. No mystery.

    1. Caught a snippet of whatever-in-the street interviews with the people at one of her rallies. Free stuff, but how to pay was a blank. The closest to a coherent answer (no, I didn’t say useful or sane), was “tax the 1% and coprorations”. My favorite was “from taxes, and then from the government”. Beat my head on the steering wheel for that…

  9. I’m sure this aging socialist is just the right figure to motivate the young people of America to vote Democrat.

  10. It has occurred to me that the lefts big problem with the Nazis is the nationalism. You can be a butcher as long as you aren’t a nationalist butcher. Che, Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin. Promoting of the international socialist dream. Loved of the left. But be a nationalist butcher like Hitler and it doesn’t matter if you’re a socialist you are evil.

      1. But wait, hasn’t Bernie very emphatically stated that he is a NATIONAL socialist, during the 2016 primaries? It appears that history is in danger of repeating itself with the communist and national socialist factions of the Democrats fighting each other for supremacy. Of course since both want to put all of their political opponents in mass graves, it is the equivalent of watching Isengard and Mordor fight each other.

            1. Look, before anything else, he just wants your stuff.

              Philosophies come after motivations.

              1. Trailing thought; do you think it would help if legislation was passed to the effect that nobody who ran for High School student government could hold public office?

  11. Must say that if The Bern did nothing else, at least he clearly demonstrated the high moral standards of the Democratic Party. Or lack thereof to be precise. They tried harder to ruin his run as candidate than they did to get HRC elected, that because of course she was a shoe-in, or so they firmly believed and all the ever so clever polls confirmed.

    1. And now, I truly think the Usual Panjandrums are running scared. They hand-picked Her Shrillness, and she went over like a concert of atonal ‘music’…ie only the terminally hip had any enthusiasm for her.

  12. Nazis “became” right wing when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union ahead of schedule and Stalin used them turning right wing as the excuse for ever signing the non-aggression treaty. Before the attack, they were the Communist’s Cousins To The West.

    1. And up until the point that the Hitler attacked the Soviets, the left loved the Nazi’s, who got praised in such outlets as the NY Times (the more things change, the more they stay the same). And Hillary is still proud of her “Margaret Sanger Award”, named after the same Margaret Sanger who was a regular at KKK meetings, was a vocal supporter of the Nazi’s (whose own eugenics ideas were taken partly from hers) and who advocated using abortion to get rid of “the weeds and undesirables”, i.e. non-whites and Jews. And Hillary and company are proud of Sanger to this day….because she is the founder of what is now known as Planned Parenthood.
      Everytime the Democrats yell Nazi at someone, they are simply projecting, as they are really describing themselves.

  13. He goes on to describe how, without adult supervision, he and his pals played in the streets or on the playgrounds. They figured out what to play, what the rules were, and worked out their problems.

    Just what does this have to do with Bernie’s chosen political ideal? If he want’s the “kids” version of the huge government socialism he wants to foist on us, the kids would only be allowed to play in parent-approved places, and play by parent-approved rules… And they would only be allowed to have the amount of fun that the most bored kid there was having, and not a giggle more! It would be completely unfair if any one kid had more fun than any other kid!

    1. Kids working out how the rules work on their own is more of a free market analog.

      1. And they were able to make rules and settle any differences without an iota of government intervention or regulation/ Imagine that. Bernie’s “lesson” is not the lesson he thinks it is.

        1. And if you didnt want to play by those rules, there was other groups on the playground playing by other rules. He seems to conveniently skip that.

  14. I had some thoughts I was going to share in response, but I’ve got to run, so will simply leave a link to a reassuring Washington Times article titled “More Americans than ever find Democrats out of the mainstream”:


    This of course leaves me pondering to what extent the Democrats wackiness is hurting them, and to what extent President Trump may have shifted the Overton window.

  15. How much money your family had determined the quality of your baseball glove, which brand of sneakers you wore, and what kind of car your father drove. (OR, p. 10)

    From the man who suggested that it was a waste to have more than one deodorant available.

    He goes on to describe how, without adult supervision, he and his pals played in the streets or on the playgrounds. They figured out what to play, what the rules were, and worked out their problems.
    So, is Bernie advocating for the big daddy federal government to let the people get together with whom they choose and then work out what they want and how to manage that? 

    When I consider he has suggested that we really only need one kind of deodorant available I don’t think so.

    1. He also said “people have too many choices”. He thinks that we are simply too stupid to make decisions for ourselves, and indeed that is a fundamental belief of the Democratic Party at this point. Recall how every time that people voiced disagreement with Obama’s proposals, it was always “we didn’t get them, we didn’t understand them, we didn’t know what was good for us”. There is an absolute totalitarian arrogance wherein the leftists believe they must rule us for our own good. Indeed, Woodrow Wilson, who is really the father of the modern administrative state, was a firm believe in “rule by experts” and is really the first American “progressive” (a term I hate because there is nothing related to progress in what they want to achieve). FDR and later LBJ just simply ramped up the steroid dosage.

    2. “How much money your family had determined the quality of your baseball glove, which brand of sneakers you wore, and what kind of car your father drove. ”

      And this somehow worse than those things being determined by your rank in The Party?

      And generally speaking all the good consumer goods in such countries have to be imported because the local product is tatty right out of the box.

  16. And today Bernie posted on his Facebook page “To afford a two-bedroom apartment, a worker making the federal minimum wage would need to work 122 hours a week. The current $7.25 an hour federal minimum wage is a starvation wage.”

    So apparently to Bernie “starvation” is having less than two bedrooms per person.


    1. $884 per week in rent!?! No wonder I have no desire to live anywhere east of the Missouri River. Ye doggies.

      1. The median asking rent for vacant rental is north of $750 a month in the US. 

        San Francisco has the highest average cost of a two bedroom, $1,956.  Washington, Boston, New York City, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia and Seattle all average at over $1,000.  Chicago, Denver, New Orleans, Minneapolis, Houston and Atlanta also run over the $884 mark.

      2. Hmm … about what I paid for a two-bed, two bath portion of a fourplex in Zaragoza, in the 1990s – with a humongous living room and nice-sized yard. (In a nice upscale neighborhood, yet.) An old tech school friend of mine was paying that much for a no-bedroom studio flat in suburban NOT OK neighborhood LA at about the same time. She was on a government worker salary, and that was the best that she could get.
        When I finished up in San Antonio in the mid-1990s, I bought a small house (1,100 sf, two bed, two bath and garage, small yard in an OK neighborhood on a 25-year mortgage) for a monthly payment of about the same. The appraised value of that house is now a little more than twice what I paid for it. I mildly curse the decades that I spent, pouring money down a rental rat-hole. Of course, overseas, and government money, but still…

        Bernie is, I am afraid, ‘away w’ the fairies’ when it comes to economics. He is a sponger who never managed to rise above poverty level, until he glommed onto elected office and the bennies accruing thereof.

        1. In the 1980s we became acquainted with an extended family that sold their home in Southern California, came to the Piedmont of NC. With the proceeds from the sale of their former home they purchased two houses and started a business.

          Regional costs vary greatly. It is also good to keep in mind that areas that have been costly or inexpensive do not necessarily remain so.

          1. “It is also good to keep in mind that areas that have been costly or inexpensive do not necessarily remain so.”

            They tend to remain so so long as there is a local Democrat administration….right up until they turn into Detroit.

      3. Not that it is stated, but at that it is $3830 & change per month. If rent includes all utilities then, maybe. But, yes, if that amount really is representative of popular city living costs … holy cow.

        Son really hasn’t tried to get an apartment because with rent & utilities it’d be well over the net percentage of earnings recommended, making it difficult to rent without roommates. His current roommates he can count on paying their share of the expenses, doing their share of the chores, & allows his cat. They never see him as he works nights. Bonus he inherits everything when they pass away in 30 years or so. 😉

    2. I think all of these socialists with multiple homes and milt-million dollar fortunes should lead by example and redistribute all of their own wealth first before demanding that others do so. They never will because they view themselves as above the peons and entitled to rule us and get rich off of us.

      1. Or when they are not using that house, the authorities should allow the local homeless and drug addled to make free use of the place – after all, any private property allowed by the state must serve the public good, amIright?

    3. Bernie would ask you why you are so heartless about the plight of the single parent without child support who is working a minimum wage job.

      1. And I would tell Bernie that’s what private charitable giving is for, if the person actually needs help. It’s not a matter of being unsympathetic, and it is not heartlessness. It is simply an understanding that any government that is given the power to try to fix every ill will inevitably result in the great ill of putting people in mass graves for disagreeing with that government,. History has proven this.

        1. Ah, but he CAN’T believe that. If he admitted that to himself, he would also have to admit that he is a charlatan and a mooch. And his mind isn’t strong enough to face that. He’d break.

          There are very few David Horowitz’s in the world; people who were passionately for the Radical Left who had the strength of character to admit that they had been totalitarian thug fans and move on.

      2. About that plight, two observations:
        Anyone in such a situation obviously made some very poor life choices.
        No one in that situation who is a legal citizen, and a good many who are not, is without access to a great amount of assistance money either government or private charitable.
        And as a further aside, minimum wage is not and never was intended to be a living wage for anyone supporting themselves let alone a family. It’s always been an entry level starting wage there to give new hires the opportunity to earn a bit while they learn how to be responsible employees.

        1. Every time the minimum wage goes up the number of entry level of jobs are suppressed.

          The Spouse has often observed that by the time things stabilize the cost to go to a movie remains an hour and a half of the minimum wage.

          1. Rent control results in higher rents due to scarcity of rental properties, thus the non-rent controlled units are much more expensive then they would be otherwise. Additionally, rent control takes away incentive and often even the ability to invest in regular maintenance much less improvements.. It is no surprise that Comrade Bernie’s childhood rent controlled apartment looks dingy; it’s rent controlled, and the landlord is luck if the increases cover taxes, water, sewer, trash removal, and bare bones maintanence., much less actually upgrading anything.

        2. Re poor choices: I note there is an aspect of greed inherent in the local Silicon Valley phenomenon of people living in RVs across the suburbs because they cannot afford local rents: They have transportation (not just the RV – they drive to work), they live in a society that does not require travel permits to relocate, and the rest of the country beckons with it’s low rent, albeit at lower rates of pay. But here in the valley they make (a lot) more money, at the cost of living in an RV on some residential street with the built-in requirement of having to move it every 72 hours to avoid official attention.

          I also note somehow the truly wealthy areas do not have people living in these RVs cluttering up their manicured streets.

          Choices are driven by incentives. What Comrade Bernie and his Nationalist Socialism want to do is control both the incentives and the available choices, and as noted here, that never actually works, and when it doesn’t the reaction inevitably leads to mass graves.

      3. Kinder to kill them outright rather than subject them to the suffering of living under socialism, or the pain of being cruelly murdered by the communists.

          1. But wait, I have done everything I am supposed to do in order to be welcomed to the Divine Treasury. 🙂

    4. Of course, it would never occur to Ol’ Bernie that typically with hard work comes raises and upward mobility,. With very few exceptions, one does not have to remain at minimum wage if they apply themselves.

      “If”, “effort”, and “apply themselves” being the operative words here.

  17. If you want to know what life would be like under BernBern and Occasionally Cortex, just look at Canada.

    Shooting on Sunday night in Toronto, designated a mental health issue by the government and the media, after making us all wait 24 hours for what the cops knew before the guy’s body was room temperature. Trudeau tweets his condolences FROM THE BEACH, because he’s paddle surfing in BC. (No really, that’s where he is. I’m not kidding.)

    The media dutifully reported all kinds of mental health stories, wonderful immigrant stories, and gun control stories. The Toronto Star went so far as to blame Toxic Masculinity. Nobody mentioned that Trudeau was paddle surfing.

    Here’s the National Post, Canada’s “conservative” newspaper”

    Today, making use of all this media cover, the federal Liberals floated a handgun ban.

    And that’s why they’ve been lying about “mental health issues” all week. So they could use the crisis to get something they want. And the media is pushing them along as hard as they can.

    That’s what BernBern and Occasionally Cortex will be doing. They’ll be passing gun control, and laws requiring Twitter and Farcebook to shadowban anyone they say, while spending tax money to prop up the failing companies. Google will be nationalized and made part of the DHS. The borders will be abolished and the Mexicans will move in wholesale.

    You’ll be thinking fondly of Hillary Clinton. Scary notion, right?

    1. As usual, they waste no opportunity punishing everyone who wasn’t responsible for the shooting.

    2. Google is how Chinese intelligence penetrates the US. /hypernationalist-paranoia.

        1. When you note how overseas donations were “not tracked” by Dem campaign organizations, you realize it was not given, but sold.

        2. Local government as well. I got an ear-full about a Chinese developer down in the Metroplex* who agreed to make some apartments low-rent in a new building in exchange for tax breaks. He went on and made the whole thing $$$, and the city council is, according to my source, not doing a darn thing, and not revoking the tax discount. A lot of other folks in the city are wee bit perturbed, as you might imagine.

          *The Dallas/Ft. Worth agglomeration is called the Metroplex. The sprawl farther west is Aus-tonio (Austin/San Antonio). Houston is just the city that eats everything in its path.

  18. Bernie bought 85 acres and built on it while in college? Where did the money come from?

    1. Especially that he never actually had a job; his only “job” his entire lief has been working in government once he got elected. The entirety of his multi-million dollar, mulls-mansion fortune has been amassed as the direct result of his being a government official, no different than his hero Fidel Castro (and how sickening is the large number of Democrats who openly mourned that murderous bastard)

      1. Translation: Bernie needs a prosecutor, because he’s on the take.

        No honest man got rich working for Uncle Sam. Hell, even a Congressman tops out around $220K/year.

        1. To prosecute what? They make it all legal. Either officially or they launder it thru someone. Foreign national says they have dirt? Law firm and superpac.

        2. My answer to that is to make the position of Congressman salary free. on the grounds that no man who can’t live off of his graft is smart enough to do the job.

    2. At the time (mid 1960s) it was purchased for $2,500.  

      In 1965 the minimum wage was $1.25. So that property would be equivalent of pre-tax and with holding of 2000 hours (50 weeks) at minimum wage. 

    3. At a wild guess, selling weed. If so, probably the least crooked thing he’s done.

      Where else does a college student (whose sick mom just died leaving his Polish immigrant paint-salesman dad alone in the world) get the down payment of an 85 acre farm?

    4. The Soviet Union. They used to pay their agit prop agents in cash so it couldn’t be tracked. So they got rooked for millions of dollars. And no, I’m not joking, though I’m surmising in Bernie’s specific case.

          1. It must have surprised Bernie when Putin’s FSB handlers contacted him using the correct code words and counter signs – I’m sure he thought he was off the hook when the KGB went dark.

  19. So he didn’t get the latest, greatest stuff until he got them for himself as an adult. In his infinite wisdom, to prevent other kids from ever being scarred like he was, he wants to “help” us all avoid that by having everything be equal and limit the choices so Mom doesn’t have to go to multiple stores to find what is in the budget.

    1. How come I have the image from the early part of Moscow on the Hudson of standing waiting in line without even knowing for sure what, if anything, will be available when you finally get to the front.

      The only way to make sure no one has more or better than anyone else is to severely limit what is available to anyone.

      (Except the ones that are deemed as more equal.)

  20. I’ve been hoping that now will the winter of our discontent be made a glorious door into summer by this son of New York …

    If This Goes on It Still Won’t Be the Handmaid’s Tale
    By Sarah Hoyt
    I’ve been waiting for someone to accuse me of hypocrisy for liking Heinlein’s Revolt in 2100 (“If this goes on…”) and hating Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale.

    Mind you, I’m a libertarian which means being accused of hypocrisy is my bread and butter, and if it doesn’t happen at least twice a day I start feeling a little off.

    The left, for instance, is fond of accusing me of hypocrisy for the stuff I write, since my moral and religious standing should not allow me to do that. Not that I have a moral or religious stand (or rather I do, but often in a different direction from every other human being). In other words, I’m often enough accused of hypocrisy for not matching their strawman of me, so that I expect to be accused of hypocrisy at the drop of a hat.

    But there are substantive reasons why “If this goes on…”/Revolt in 2100 is a worthy contribution to speculative literature, while Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tail survives only by being mercilessly inflicted on school children by their progressive elders. …

    1. *Snort* I was informed by a young woman that there is no such thing as a libertarian, only Democrats who want to smoke pot. I bit my tongue and ignored her. Wrong place, wrong battle.

      1. I’m of a mind that a true libertarian is simply an anarchist who has reluctantly concluded that some rules, regulations, and laws are necessary so that people might live together with a minimum of death and destruction. Those restrictions are still evil, but unfortunately necessary ones.

    2. Yeah, smush together If This Goes On with Col. Kratman’s Caliphate and you get my current worst case look-ahead, with the U.S. reaction to the fall of the EU being an actual full-on Imperial America, far surpassing what the lefties have been bleating about for all these years. I can see that Imperium Americana having both a religious aspect and the forms and labels of the Old Republic pasted over a banana-republic structure.

      Col. Kratman’s take has the U.S. falling back towards a Republic after the dude-in-charge dies, while RAH’s requires a war. I fear the latter is more realistic, and any war on that scale would make the Balkanized US of Friday or Schlichter’s stuff look positively optimistic.

      Here’s hoping we keep walking the edge of the knife and avoid thsoe futures.

    3. I’ve not read THE HANDMAIDEN’S TALE. Every summary I’ve seen of it makes it sound like somebody’s badly writted D/s porn, which makes me wonder a lot about the Feminista Left.

  21. Ontario throws out Liberals, installs comservative government! NEVER DESPAIR!

    1. There was never any choice there, once the Liberals dirty tricks squad got rid of Brown for us. Even Tim Hudak couldn’t have lost that election.

      Did y’all know that Doug Ford just reduced Toronto City Council from 47 seats to 25? That was SWEET!!! And the screaming, that was really nice. The shrieks as sacred cows were gored all over the place.

  22. He spends the next 10 pages or so describing his time at the University of Chicago. He read. He ran. He got involved in political movements and fighting racism. He got married. He and his wife bought 85 acres of woodland in Vermont and build a “nice outhouse”.

    Waitwaitwaitwait, backup. How did he earn his *money*? And how did he do it while at University of Chicago.

    1. I grew up bottom-end-of-middle-class (possibly far poorer than even I remember) too, and I remember a lot of the money worries that he does. (Though my reaction was much different. Instead of whining about how none of us had nice things, I was terrified that the nice things we did have were beyond our means.)

      I went to college, and I did pretty well (for a student). I still ate the same dorm food, lived in the same dorms, worked my ass off at the same courseload, and did far more ROTC stuff on top of it (and never slept, and …). But I wasn’t going into crazy-debt doing it because I won a military scholarship. I didn’t suddenly have “buy property” money out of nowhere. (Hell, I *still* don’t, and I’ve been working for years). I didn’t own a damn thing of my own until a year or two into my Air Force career.

      My parents climb out of poverty was a desperate decades long struggle at building their business. Even today, where we are is precarious. So forgive me if I level a bit of socialist anger at ‘instantaneous Disney-princess wealth from nowhere’: We got ours by working desperately hard at things people needed. How did he get his? And if not fulfilling a need, which of us ended up really paying for it?

      1. I think a lot of what got Trump elected is the feeling on the part of many small business owners that they are always one bureaucratic hissy-fit away from being regulated out of existance.

  23. “He goes on to describe how, without adult supervision, he and his pals played in the streets or on the playgrounds. They figured out what to play, what the rules were, and worked out their problems. What he doesn’t talk about was how they were a small number of kids having to come to a decision. He doesn’t take into account how the more people involved, the greater the stakes, the more conflict will arise. There is a reason why the great socialist experiment has yet to be successful.”

    On one hand, that sounds ironic, in that Sanders is describing a group of people self-organizing an activity, and achieving spontaneous order, without having a central authority telling them what to do. That seems like a perfect metaphor for market activity as opposed to state planning. It’s ironic that Sanders doesn’t realize what he’s praising.

    But it also seems odd that you’re saying that this doesn’t work when you have a large number of people involved and more at stake, and that this is why socialism fails. Haven’t you just offered an argument in favor of socialism, an argument for not trusting people in a large society to organize things for themselves, but for reserving voluntary cooperation to small and unimportant activities and having the state step in with everything else?

    1. I’m not Amanda but Nope.

      Some “oversight” by a government is necessary but there are plenty of activities that can be done by private organizations independent of government.

      In addition, in many cases the government oversight can be done by local governments not the central government.

      IMO for most matters requiring government oversight, a local government can do the job easier than the central government. Generally speaking, the local government is there and can react to changing situations easier than the central government hundreds of miles away.

    2. Additional thought, “not socialism” doesn’t equal “no government”.

      IE You can have “government oversight” without socialism.

      Consider Socialism as the Playground Director mandating what games (including rules) that the kids must play.

      Government oversight can be seen as the Playground Supervisor who allows the kids to organize themselves but steps in when “things go too far”.

      1. You may be making those distinctions, but it’s not clear to me that Amanda was. So one point of my post was to suggest that maybe she hadn’t formulated things with enough precision, and invite her to clarify.

        To take your analogy, for example, a game played by kids may need someone to stop the biggest kid from bullying the others, or all the kids from harrasing the one who doesn’t fit in, or one kid from taking away another kid’s bat or getting into a fistfight with another. As long as you don’t have that sort of abusive behavior, you can rely on self-organization with reasonable outcomes. And I think self-organization still works with much larger groups, and indeed with major countries is the only viable method (as Haldane wrote in “On Being the Right Size”); and on the other hand, abusive or violent behavior can be a problem even with quite a small group. (I think it was David Friedman who said that the use of force is so poor a solution to the problem of scarce resources that it is relied on only by small children and great nations.)

        1. Since I’ve never seen Amanda take a “government is never necessary” position, I assume that she holds the same distinctions that I made.

Comments are closed.