Here’s to the End of the Revolution by Amanda S. Green



Here’s to the End of the Revolution by Amanda S. Green

We’ve come to the end of Our Revolution, Bernie Sander’s self-aggrandizing, masturbatory ode to himself and to socialism. Thank goodness. I’m not sure I could have handled much more without walling my Kindle or drinking myself into a coma. It’s not that what he says is wrong, or stupid, or full of shit. It is all of that. But there is a danger to Bernie Hillary Clinton never presented, one we’re seeing taking hold in of our younger generation. Fortunately, many of them are like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez but there are others who aren’t terminally afflicted with foot-in-mouth disease. That danger is exactly what Sanders wants to foment and nurture and it is a rot at the very root of our republic.

I could spend the next six weeks tearing the rest of the book apart. I don’t think any of us really want that. Sanders spends much of the book repeating the same old saw. The United States could be great if we’d just follow Grandpa Marx’s rules. But, like all good socialists, he never tells us how we’re to pay for his grand programs, nor does he lead by example. It’s all a lot of “do as I say and not as I do,” especially when you start reading between the very broad lines.

So what does the book boil down to?

And do we really want to know?

The answer to the last question is “yes”. Well, to be honest, it comes down to a qualified “yes”. We might not want to know but we need to know. We need to know so we can counter his plans and the plans of those coming along after him.

Sanders, and this should be of no surprise to anyone, sees what he accomplished during his campaign for president as a “revolution”. It is one he wants to see continue. At least he doesn’t hide his goals. “The fight to defeat the greed of the billionaire class must continue.” (OR, p 445)

Now, that goal shouldn’t surprise any of us. The fact he actually vocalizes it might, but he’s been saying much the same thing for years. However, keep this goal in mind as we look at some of his other goals. Note also that it is only the evil “billionaire class” that must be attacked. Like so many other good socialists, he wants to protect his millionaire status. After all, he can’t be expected to share his wealth with the less fortunate.

“Demand that the media focuses on the real issues facing our nation and the world, not just political gossip.” (OR, p. 446) Pardon me while I laugh hysterically. First, he doesn’t define what those “real issues” are. I guess he expects us to assume they’re what he tells us they are. You see, we can’t be left on our own to decide what’s important or critical and what’s not. Second, he seems to ignore how his own campaign often looked at—and referred to—“political gossip”.

“This nation treats our children shamefully. We must focus on the needs of the young, especially the many who are disadvantaged.” (OR, p. 446) Now, there’s nothing wrong with this. We do need to focus on making sure the following generations are capable of thinking and doing, of continuing to build this nation and keeping it free. However, that’s not exactly what Bernie is talking about. All he mentions in this instance is educating our kids and making sure there are more educators and child-care workers.

What he doesn’t discuss is how the government already ties the hands of so many of our educators to the point they aren’t free to educate. In all too many school districts across the nation, teachers don’t have the freedom to adapt lessons or lesson plans based on a student’s needs or abilities. He doesn’t talk about the indoctrination happening in our schools today, an indoctrination that, if we’re honest, goes against another of his so-called goals. But more on that later.

“With so many Americans uninsured and underinsured, we need hundreds of thousands of new doctors, dentists, nurses, and other medical personnel. We should not be lagging behind many other countries in life expectancy, especially for lower-income Americans.” (OR, p. 446)

Ooo-kay, where to start? Let’s start with the obvious. Hundreds of thousands? Where is he getting his numbers from? More importantly, how are we supposed to pay for all these folks to get their training? Oooh, I know! The government is going to pay for it. Except, like all good Democrats and Socialists, Bernie never tells us where the government gets its money. Guess what – and I know you guys know this, but it is amazing how many don’t—that money comes from us. It comes out of your pocket and mine.


According to Bernie, we need a “radical change” to our criminal justice system. You see, our primary goal should be crime prevention and that requires “a whole new level of cooperation with educators, social workers, and employers.” (OR, p. 446)

Hmm, do you see anything wrong or missing with that statement? Where are the parents in this so-called radical change? Where is allowing judges and juries to assess sentences that will deter others from doing crime? Maybe I’m just a crotchety old bitch, but if you want to prevent crime, you need to do more than pat little Johnnie on the head and tell him not to do it again and then giving him what he wants. He needs to know there are consequences and those consequences will be applied.

And, before you get excited, he does bring in climate change. Be honest, you knew he would. Is there a liberal around who doesn’t love climate change, or whatever the name du jour for it is? All we need, according to Bernie, is “scientists and engineers who will develop clean and inexpensive forms of energy and transportation.” (OR, p. 446) Oh, and we aren’t to let the evil fossil fuel industry stop these ventures.

Of course, he doesn’t talk about the cost to develop and implement these new technologies. He doesn’t talk about the ecological impact that will have on the Earth. Nor does he talk about how he wants all this to be under the thumb of the government and not private industry. As with his argument that we need to be take better care of our kids, he doesn’t give us the rest of the equation—the impact of deploying socialistic policies on a nation. He can’t because then he would be defeating his own arguments.

“We need businesspeople who create and sell new and innovative products and services, and who treat their employees with respect and dignity, while protecting the environment.” (OR, p. 446) This is one of those statements like asking “do you still beat your wife?”. It basically says there are no businesses or businesspeople who currently create new and innovative goods and services. It also says these same businesses and businesspeople don’t treat their employees with respect and dignity. This sort of indoctrination is already undermining a number of offices around the country. “Dignity and respect” are being interpreted to mean an employer doesn’t treat you right if they hold you to a standard of conduct or production you don’t agree with. It’s all about the feelz and not about responsibility.

Screw you, Bernie.

Guess what he sees as the “great crisis” facing our nation? It “is the limitation of our imaginations. It is falling victim to an incredibly powerful establishment—economic, political, and media—that tells us every day, in a million different ways, that real change is unthinkable and impossible.” While I agree with him about mainstream media telling us that what we, the figurative unwashed and unrepentantly libertarian or conservative, want is impossible, isn’t he telling us the same thing? Isn’t he telling us that what we believe in is impossible and bad for the country. Isn’t he telling us we MUST move “forward”? Of course, he is. It is another instance of do as I say, not as I do. (OR, p. 448)

“We can overcome the insatiable greed that now exists and create an economy that ends poverty and provides a decent standard of living for all.” (OR, p. 448) There are so many things wrong with this statement, I’m not sure where to begin. First, like Trekonomics and its platform that the Federation was populated with folks willing to work in the mines when it was their time to do so, Bernie seems to think innovation will come about simply out of the goodness of our hearts. Yeah, nope. Yes, that is a motivation but how many of us are willing to invest years of hard work, not to mention money, and know we won’t reap the benefits of our efforts?

As for ending poverty, it goes beyond providing a “decent standard of living for all”. To begin with, who is going to pay for that decent standard of living? We’re already seeing in places like San Francisco and Seattle what happens when you raise the minimum wage to some artificial standard of living point. Businesses have to recover the loss of income from such increased expenditures. They do it in one of several ways: they increase the cost to their customers, they decrease hours their employees work, they fire employees or they close their doors. None of that helps the economy, not in the long run.

Bernie says one thing I can and do fully endorse, although he probably wouldn’t thank me for it.

We will not be able to accomplish those goals if we look at democracy as a spectator sport, assuming others will do it for us. They won’t. The future is in your hands. Let’s get to work. OR, p. 448)

He’s right. We can’t sit back and watch what happens, trusting others to do what we want done. Not when it comes to the political future of our country. We can’t trust the other side to sit back and trust their goals will be accomplished without them taking part. Believe me, after the 2016 election, the Democrats are pulling out all the stops to try to retake Congress in the mid-term elections. We’ve got a front row seat to their attempts to discredit Trump (not all that hard to do), using a complicit media. If we want this country to have a chance, we have to take action, we have to take part in the political process on the local, state and national levels.

I know some of you believe it is already too late. It may be. [Bullsh*t.  It wasn’t too late for Poland.  And in our history, going back to England, there was liberty recovered in the face of much greater losses of liberty. Defeatism is an excuse to sit on your ass and moan- SAH]

But I’m not ready to give up. Are you? [Hell, no. These are the death throes of communism.  They look scary, because death throes of movements always do.  But in the end we win, they lose- SAH]


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


142 thoughts on “Here’s to the End of the Revolution by Amanda S. Green

  1. Here’s to the End of the Revolution

    Yes please. That would be so nice.

    Pauses a moment and wonders, once that threat ends how the next threat will present?

    1. If Russia can be used as a model, then organized crime with a smattering of guerilla warfare* are what the next threats will be. I took Russian classes in college in the late ’90s, and my prof was someone who had been arrested under Chernenko for political dissidence, was released under Gorbachev, and fled to the US. One of the things she’s said that has indelibly stuck with me was that when she was a child, all the Soviet boys wanted to grow up to be cosmonauts and all the girls wanted to be ballerinas, but after the fall of the USSR, all the boys now (late ’90s) wanted to become mobsters and all the girls wanted to be prostitutes. Because organized crime was where the money and power were.

      It could be argued we’re already seeing some of that here between mass shootings, drug cartel incursions along the border, Antifa riots, the “Calexit” movement, and vandalism disguised as anti-racism protests. Although instead of becoming prostitutes, it appears our girls are being encouraged to become pink-hat-wearing-professional-feminist-victims.

      *In some cases, it’s hard to pin down what the motivation for that is, and the motives in the US will likely be different, but Russia suffers from a combination of Islamic terror, separatist terror (sometimes the same thing), and crime lords making pushes for power.

    2. MS-13 vs. the Tongs vs. other gangs, and some of them acting as proxies for third parties like China and Iran. That’s my guess. Some sort of criminal mercenary and state-actor combo, with non-state actors wading in to make use of the chaos.

      1. “MS-13 vs. the Tongs” … there’s a fight I’d pay to see… provided it was safely on the other side of the Wall…

        1. Wanna bet that when it comes time to make it into movies the MS-13 thugs are depicted as brave Latino outlaws and the Tongs and Triads as evil tools of Capitalism?

          1. Nope, because making the Tongs to look bad won’t play that well in China, and that’s the big market.

      2. To the extent that some of these groups are the result of the proxy war I am led to reference (slightly side ways) that the solution to your problem creates the next ninety-nine.

        Some of these organizations are no longer dependent on their initial sponsors and are now self supporting. That gives us much more to fear from them.

        And, of course, we have the neo-medievalist factions of Islam to contend with as well.

  2. “We need businesspeople who create and sell new and innovative products and services, and who treat their employees with respect and dignity, while protecting the environment.” (OR, p. 446)

    We need politicians who not only have read (and regularly reread) The Declaration and Constitution of the United States of America, but who take them completely to heart.

      1. Which is why the not only, but also the take them completely to heart.

        (Considering yesterday’s blog…) I have a grave problem with anyone who tells us that the Constitution needs to be augmented with a bill of positive rights. What positive rights? We already have true positive rights – as in your aforementioned “Shall not be infringed” portions.

        1. My answer to all the Prog-Left initiatives to bypass the Constitution is ; “Great! Well, you know the process for getting an Amendment ratified. Get started! Write up your proposal, and then start campaigning for it!”

          This is because I know goddamned well that 90% of them are too f*cking lazy to write their ideas down, and the remaining 10% are either too illiterate, too innumerate, or to extreme to write up anything that has the chance of a fiddler’s bitch.

          1. All true. However they are sneaky and insidious enough to whisper in our ears and try to hijack any Constitutional Conventions we try to convene. Be very careful. Here Be Monsters.

            1. No Constitutional Conventions. Amendments only. It IS a living Constitution, because we can amend it.

              I’ve always thought how the history of Prohibition is generally viewed misses something: We tried something. It didn’t work. We repealed it. Proper use of Constitutional law – indeed ANY law – in action!

              We should repeal more law.

              1. The left’s goal is to destroy the Constitution. Two of the favorite chants of the Democratic Party’s Bolshevik Street Army (i.e. Antifa and BLM) are “Our revolution won’t follow your Constitution” and “No borders, no walls, no USA at all”. They are deathly serious at achieving Obama’s self-proclaimed “fundamental transformation of America:into a Marxist Soviet Style “people’s socialist Republic”. The infighting between the different factions is simply Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky all over again

            2. There’s apparently a very serious movement right now to try and get one more state to sign the ERA, and declare that it is now a constitutional amendment in full force. This despite the facts that –

              – At least a few of the states that signed the amendment later announced that they had “unsigned” it, and
              – Congress enacted a deadline on how long an amendment could go before it *had* to pass or be considered dead, and the ERA is long past that time limit

              1. AFAIK, there is no general limit on how long an Amendment can be in limbo. The ERA failed because there weren’t enough states ratifying the proposal within the time limit set *within the proposal* (even after that limit was later extended). This is how we got the 27th Amendment incorporated in the Constitution @ 200 years after it was originally proposed. ‘Course, I could be wrong . . .

          2. Far cheaper and easier to stuff the ballot boxes and appoint judges who see it their way.

    1. The motivation to invest to create and innovate and sell… is money. Dirty, dirty money.

      The motivation for treating employees with respect and dignity is to retain excellent employees who will help the businesspeople make money. Dirty, dirty money.

      The motivation for working for some businessperson is also dirty, dirty money.

      The motivation for protecting the environment, and I do think we need *some* laws on this to keep an even playing field, is because the businesspeople breathe the air and have children to provide a future for. So maybe not dirty money, however, we all know how poor Al Gore is today, right?

      The motivation for fomenting class envy and government control of production is… dirty, dirty money. And power.

      Seems to me that money is far more innocent a motivation than money and power together. Putting money through a “public” service system doesn’t make it clean, it adds the element of power and makes it that much more corrupt.

    2. I love irritating lawyers by telling them the Declaration of Independence is the foundational legal document of this country.

      And it is. Without it, the Constitution is “merely” a violation of British law.

  3. I’m of Czech name, know or knew Cuban, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Ukrainian people.
    Other than the law, why an I not allowed to beat people like this to a pulp?

    1. I’m Portuguese of origin and have family in Venezuela and Brazil and according to ancestry Eastern European (Polish) Jews in my genetic makeup (which means a good portion of distant relatives perished in the Holocaust, inevitably.)
      What says I can’t join you in this endeavor?

      1. If we were going by morality, we could decorate half the lampposts in the country with dangling Socialists and Statist Stooges like Her Shrillness.

    2. Because they are in positions of power and control the police force.

      And who gets to be a judge.

  4. > “scientists and engineers who will develop clean and inexpensive forms of energy and transportation.”

    We’ve *had* that for more than half a century. But the greenies have decided eevul nukular pwrrrr makes their babies be born naked, or something…

    And, Karl help us, if energy were abundant and cheap, people might not listen to their betters, who prefer the proletariat to be kept on a short leash.

    1. Well, let’s be fair here. If we actually implemented widescale nuclear power, the greenies would have to find something else to whine about.

      1. Yes indeed! I realized early that “Alternative energy” meant any source of electricity that was in no danger of being practical. Thus, after jabbering about it for much of the previous decade, when Jimmy Carter proposed to spend money on a bunch of hydroelectric plants, suddenly the Greens were opposed.

        For them, Solar and Wind power are perfect; they must always be backed up with some other energy source, so they will never, EVER be practical.

        1. Hydro suddenly became ungood because of “teh environmentz.” So they’re letting dams disintegrate, and blasting some of them to rubble to “return the area to Nature.”

          Windmills are ungood, “da boidz” or something.

          Solar is ungood. Vast areas of black solar panels raise the ambient temperature, causing “climate change.”

          I guess they’ll all sit in the dark and power the iDevices from their halos…

    2. What both you and Matthew have said.

      And *all* energy is… energetic. There’s no getting around that. Physics you know.

    3. To many swampies, “physics”, “science”, and “engineering” are literally indistinguishable from magic. Bernie is basically telling them to chant harder so that the energy gods will bring us magic energy farting unicorns.

      1. The claims about climate and the environment are simply a pretext to justify what they are really seeking, which is totalitarian power to implement global socialism. Thus, as their claims are exposed to be wrong and often fraudulent, they ramp up the hysteria. We are once again seeing the Paul Erlich style claims that the Earth is overpopulated and population must be drastically reduced to “save the Earth”.
        The next genocide is going to be lauded and encouraged by the left as a necessary way to “save the Earth” and solve their self-declared crisis. The real crisis is that these power hungry socialist maniacs are anywhere near the levers of power and government.

      2. Jerry Pournelle titled one of his essays “Physics without Ex-Lax.”
        Because of an anti-nuclear guy bragging, “the only physics I ever had was Ex-Lax” — as if that was a qualification.
        The more things change, the more they don’t…

        And what would that development effort look like under a Bernie-cracy, anyway? Our triumphant return to space, a.k.a Ares/Constellation/ULA etc? (Space-X doesn’t count, privately done if gov’t rewarded.) That now-obscure early-Obama solar boondoggle, that lost several times what it ever made?
        Eek. I’d rather contemplate the finer details of Idiot vs. Mudpot.

        Many thanks and much gratitude to Amanda Green for wading through this and much other “dangerous goods” aka haz.-mat. Public spirit, in the public service.
        And if a non-toxic change of pace is desirable, I suggest Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s “Heretic.” Subtitled “Why Islam Needs A Reformation Now,” it’s a semi-insider’s look at why and how (p.3) “Islam is not a religion of peace” — why it matters, what to do about it, and why our PC/SJW bunch is not only not helping the few daring reformers, but actually undermining them.

  5. For all that his socialist schtick is pure nonsense, Bernie did the nation a favor by showing us how ready the Democrat base is to be pulled sharply leftward. Quite a number of conservative and libertarian men of good will, who sincerely wanted to treat their left-liberal neighbors as merely misinformed or misguided, have been disillusioned — almost entirely by the Sanders for President campaign and the magnetic attraction it exerted on so many Democrat voters.

    It’s been said, originally I think by Chesterton, that you cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reason himself into. That recognition will save Right-leaning persons a lot of breath and aggravation…and we have Bernie Sanders to thank.

    1. If Hillary hadn’t been SO horrible he might not have managed it. There’s always the crazy fringe guy that runs on either side during an election. No one generally pays him any mind. Which (I’m utterly convinced) is why Hillary *let him* run… plus it helped to keep up appearances that she wasn’t running unopposed (which she was). He got *all* the attention of anyone on the left who wasn’t thrilled with Hillary. And no one else was there to effectively offer an alternative.

      Maybe there’s a perfect storm and so many young people are now open to a socialist message (they also grew up being told that the jobs would never come back, were gone forever, and trying to even find work in Obama’s “recovery” would make anyone open to the idea that the world ought to work in their favor, particularly if they were doing as they ought.)

      People were ready for an economic message, and usually it seems to me, that Democrats win on “domestic” policy and Republicans win on “foreign” policy depending on what people are most concerned with any given cycle. Do you remember how Hillary was going to put anyone back to work? I don’t. But then I wasn’t paying much attention to her. Bernie and Trump were both offering a domestic/economy message.

        1. Am I better off now under President Trump’s year and a half in office than I was under all 8 years of Obama?

          HELL YEAH!

    2. My observation about friends who ought to know better is that the pull of Bernie and socialism is directly proportional to how much “government assistance” they receive.

      In an argument, one says to me, “So you want to take away all my disability so I starve?” No, I just want to not pay your disability when you receive more than I make from honest labor, especially when you blow 20% of it on comic books.

      1. Hey, my Lady GETS disability. And I tell the Lefty ticks “As long as my fellow citizens are voting for my Lady to get disability and medicare, we’ll take it. I think they shouldn’t feel obligated, and I’ll say so.”

        It seems to puzzle them….

      2. About 15% of my gross comes from my military pension; which comes out to about what I pay in taxes. I like telling people like that that they took away my pension to pay for their disabilities (and candy, cigarettes, booze, pot, etc.)

  6. > , who is going to pay for that decent standard of living?

    He’ll simply order the grant whor… er, “scientists” to develop replicators, and then we’ll all goose-step off into the glorious socialist future…

  7. Andrew Carnegie got rich… and people got inexpensive steel and the products made from it.

    George Westinghouse got rich… and people got electricity.

    Thomas Edison got rich… and people got phonographs and light bulbs.

    Henry Ford got rich… and people got affordable automobiles.

    Know what? I want helluvalot more people getting rich – and not by shuffling papers or bits.* Seems John Q. Public benefits from that.

    * Programmers excepted – shuffle the bits into a useful program that benefits people… good. [I have no problem with Bill Gates having gotten rich. I have a problem with his convincing people that crashes are normal, expected, tolerable things in the process.]

    1. Rich people pay a lot of poor people to work, who then become middle-class people.

      Poor people can’t pay anyone. This explains why in a socialist system, the P/e/o/p/l/e/ gov’t has to own the means of production, because otherwise no one gets paid.

      Great, now I made my brain hurt.

      1. See: Yacht taxes during the Clinton administration, was it?

        Demand, predictably, dropped… and the people building the yachts, just as predictably, suffered. Gee, economics really happens. Whaddyaknow?

        1. not to mention certain people moving their yachts to lower tax areas to avoid paying even more yacht taxes (often while telling us the taxes needed to be expanded to not-yachts and mayhap grandpa’s row boat)

      2. It also explains why socialist governments, like Venezuela, ultimately end up destitute and with rampant inflation. because ultimately their only source of money is to print more,. but the more they print, the more worthless it is.

    2. George Soros got rich… and people got paid demonstrations and riots incited by paid political “protesters” and untrustworthy mail-in voting and…

      1. The Irish economy got crashed, Eastern Europe had its politics subverted, and a shooting war was almost fomented between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, with tons of foreign financial backing. And that’s just what *I’ve* heard about, and I’ve been avoiding politics.

          1. I dunno. I’ve read a bit of his autobiography. It’s hard to really hate anyone when you’ve heard why they try to do what they do. (Disagree with them and think what they want will be disasterous, certainly!) (Assuming it’s sincere and not just a mask.) Soros seems to want to solve for some polyannaish “open-society” (the phrase is from Popper, I think, who was talking about epistemological systems and censorship/heresy-persecution): Soros means a world without any borders where people are free to move wherever, whenever, for whatever reason. (I think this might be due to the plight of the jews who needed to escape europe during the 1940s.) He sees nationalism as a threat to his utopia, so his political organizations work to undermine it. (As opposed to the natives of nations who see nationalism as them defending themselves from invasion and exploitation, establishing rules that defend their interests, etc.)

            He certainly needs to be prosecuted for any crimes he’s committed. He only has influence, however, because the internal politics of all the nations he messes with are such a backstabbing war between internal factions. (Our internal politics have been a century long knife-fight with the socialists.) AFAICT, he’s just the bad idea fairy of the ‘globalists’.

            1. My recollection is that he deliberately manipulated the currencies of Russia and England to collapse their financial institutions, among other actions. That’s going far beyond open borders and complete freedom of movement so that the Holocaust never happens again.

              1. How dare you remember things in a light and manner other than that with which he cares to have them shown!

              2. I’m going to guess his AUTO biography is the usual self-justification. Satan would sound really pathetic or good or something, if we read his autobiography.

    3. I don’t mind the crashes, though I avoid a lot of them by using Apple products, but I get annoyed when otherwise sensible people start talking about Self-driving Automobiles, and how that will be better than trusting humans to drive.

      Yeah. I suppose. Right up to the day that an undetected bug causes several thousand cars of the same make and model to suddenly turn right and accelerate, for no apparent reason.

      Several hundred dead (and on soon-to-be-bankrupt car manufacturer) later, and self-driving cars will be relegated, en mass, to the junkyard.

      To err is human. To replicate that error ten thousand time a second requires a computer.

      1. Self-driving cars will be a boon to the disabled, the elderly, the drug and alcohol addicted; and everyone who would have otherwise been killed by their bad driving.

          1. Of course the next step with self-driving cars will be government being able to take control of the cars “for the public good” for a multitude of excuses that will ultimately give government the ability to tell us when and where we can go.

            1. Well, the communications system in this country belonged to the corporations before WE ALLOWED CONGRESS to give the damn government permission to surveil us 24/7 without warrants. The government doesn’t just “take control” unless you tell them to, or allow them to.

              Do you have a LoJack for your car(s)? Those not only can tell the company where your vehicle is, but the code can be given to LE (i.e. the government) to disable the vehicle if they spot it. And yeah, that means you have to trust TWO different organizations with your security and safety.

              It’s all about limiting control by the government. Sticking your head in the sand because you’re scared of the potential misuses of the technology doesn’t solve any problems; and it still leaves the aforementioned demographics trapped in their homes. Unless you’re going to mandate a battalion of high school dropouts and illegal aliens be drafted to drive these folks around after failing and then being given commercial driver’s licenses under a version of affirmative action, while being waived through a fake background investigation, and then being paid with tax dollars coerced from you after they raise them again. Because they damn well aren’t going to take money from the disabled and elderly; to the government, they’re already negative producers of revenue.

              1. As I said, I’m driving phobic. Sometimes I can force myself, most of the time… not. (Yes, I’m trying to work on it.)
                But I’m also night blind. If something happens to Dan’s vision we can’t go out half the day in winter.

          2. As someone who has a driving phobia and is married to someone who has made his money in programming for 30 years, I disagree.
            Even getting uber isn’t cheaper or safer.
            Self-driving cars would be as unsafe as most airplanes, which are largely self-flying these days. The driver would be there to circumvent that turn left and acceleration. ALL models have overrides.
            What you’re saying is amazing what Heinlein said about INDIVIDUAL driven cars in The Roads Must Roll. “Everyone will die on the roads, if everyone has a car.”
            It wasn’t true then, and it’s not true now.

    4. More! Andrew Carnagie got rich, and used his wealth to spread the idea of free libraries. Without his grants, would we consider public libraries normal? Maybe.

      He did it cleverly, too. He would tell a town “I’m giving you the building, and a fund for a librarian and upkeep, but YOU have to fill it with books!”. So the townspeople were involved and emotionally invested from the first.

  8. There’s never a danger that socialism will work. It can’t because it’s premised on things that aren’t true. But I’ve never been able to change anybody’s mind about it by showing why it can’t work. They’re too emotionally tied to their belief in it, and it’s a different mental picture of socialism for everyone who believes in it. The facts don’t matter, only their feelings matter, and they’re too upset that their own particular ideal hasn’t been met to stop trying to destroy the existing system. So the best thing to do, I think, is to convince them that the whole idea is a scam and they’re being taken for suckers by con men.

      1. Awful thought… so what’s happened then is the idea of human nature itself has been uprooted from “sinful man” to “born pure” and needing to be corrupted by poverty or abuse or greed or example. Rather than teach children to be good, they must be taught to be bad… or they’ll be good because human nature is good.

        Except that it’s not. And human nature, while it can be somewhat taught to be “good” by fighting against it, will not change. So we’ve got one system that at least tries to work with human nature as much as possible with clear limits that are very focused… don’t *steal* from others, do not do violence to others. Respect other people’s selves and their property.

        And we’ve got another system that pretends that human nature is not only good to start off with but can be changed at a whim and *ultimately* can result in a communist anarchy where, because that moment of time has been reached when all of the external forces that make us “bad” are removed by the implementation of a perfect communist system which eliminates poverty, abuse, and greed… we will all spontaneously become perfect without jealousy or envy or even sloth anymore, with no more need for a State and we will be able to have the end “anarchy” state where we all sing kumbaya and wear flowers in our hair.

              1. Hegel deserves a lot of the blame as well as he is the other root source of Marx’s communism.

        1. “we will all spontaneously become perfect without jealousy or envy or even sloth anymore,”

          “They passed one resolution: — “Your sub-committee believe
          You can lighten the curse of Adam when you’ve lifted the curse of Eve.
          But till we are built like angels — with hammer and chisel and pen,
          We will work for ourself and a woman, for ever and ever, amen.””

      2. Which is why Socialism, which nominally operates on Altruism, always devolve to a system that runs on fear. And why Capitalism, which explicitly runs on greed, has room for private motivations of other kinds.

        1. I respectfully disagree that capitalism runs on greed. It’s not a designed system. The word “capitalism” is similar to the word “cis-male” in that it’s used to avoid having to talk about Leftists’ pet subjects in a negative light. For socialism lovers, it’s better to talk about “the capitalist system” than “the economic system when we’re not trying to control it.” Free market systems are not run by greed, but by the ability to choose how you use all of your economic resources. Yes, greed exists, but it’s independent of politics. It’s certainly not unique to any one economic model.

          1. I don’t object to using the word “greed” simply because I feel it’s best to put that little dose of rhetorical laziness right to bed. It’s like most moral things after all… it’s only damaging in excess. It’s what a person does in service of it that makes the difference. And yet it’s pulled out to wave about and avoid dealing with issues. Is greed bad? It depends what one does in the service of it. Is lust bad? It depends what one does in the service of it. A nice little dose of lust can strengthen a marriage and how sad would it be not to have any? It’s just that we call it “attraction” instead. Just as we call greed “ambition” instead, and then it doesn’t seems so bad. Almost like without ambition our entire world would be like having a marriage with no attraction or desire.

            And now (you can all thank me later) we can all have the ear-worm “Imagine” stuck in our heads for the rest of the day.

            (This is me, not being greedy, but SHARING.)

          2. I respectfully disagree. Capitalism runs on the assumption that people will always want to make deals that benefit them in some way, and that no deal occurs unless both sides see a profit. Free Market Capitolism recognizes that some of that ‘profit’ may come from keeping the Government’s stooges from belaboring you with a rubber hose, and that acoiding giving the government that kind of leverage on most deals generates wealth for everybody instead of just those favored by the Ruling Class.

            People may, and frequently do, rise above greed. But the appetite for ‘more’ is always there…a MUCH more reliable driver of industry than selfless Duty and one much preferable to fear.

            The Left says “Capitalism runs on greed”. Rather than argue with them, I say “Yes. And that is preferable to the alternatives.”

            It leaves them gasping.

          3. Capitalism runs on reciprocity (you and I agree between us on a mutually advantageous exchange of goods and/or services.)

            Socialism operates on extortion.

    1. This!
      It’s all a con, and they want to be conned, so they buy into the promise.
      Socialism looks so darned good in the advertising; they show the picture on the package of the towering, juicy hamburger, piled with cheese, tomatoes, onions and oozing condiments … but what you get when you open the package is a minuscule patty on a stale bun, a smidge of cheese, a paper-thin slice of tasteless tomato and a limp green lettuce leaf. That is — if you are lucky.

    2. Socialism is like AIDS. It has such a long incubation period before the damage start showing up that the ones who implemented it are usually dead and gone.

  9. I recently saw a video where the person describing capitalism, socialism and communism pointed out that true communism has never been tried: he pointed out that people are expected to voluntarily work to do what they are good at, and take what they need (and only what they need), without government oversight.

    In other words, it’s never been tried because it’s a pipe dream.

    What’s really bizarre, if you think about it, is that we’re supposed to get to this “communism” through a “dictatorship of the proletariat” where people are *forced* to take only what they need, and to give what they are able, and somehow, sometime after this dictatorship takes power, it’s supposed to peacefully wither away.

    In other words, communism is the pipe dream that is used to justify the power-grab called socialism. It’s further aggravated by a second pipe dream — the belief that we can have everything that capitalism provides by taking everything from those evil capitalists, and distributing it to all the virtuous poor — which ignores that resources are limited (particularly time, space, and energy), and that significantly large numbers of people have to *work* to put shape those resources into some sort of shape that others can use — and that if you take away those resources from the people doing the shaping, you don’t have the things that you promised to give to the poor.

    And there’s a deep irony in all of this, too: I have written blog posts and comments that illustrate how, ultimately, all the goals of so-called communists are accomplished through the free market: that is, the free market capitalists are, ultimately, the true communists!

    1. Once Sarah and a few other people pointed out that Communism is a religion, a lot of things made more sense. You have a fall, a redemption story, sacrifices to be made in order to achieve paradise, and the beautiful vision that can only be reached “in the future” when all men work together for the state until the state is no longer needed and all men are perfect. You even get the Tribulation, except Communism’s version is not nearly as poetic as that in the Revelation of John.

      1. Every left wing ideologue I have known has narcissistic tendencies, at a minimum, and they worship themselves as a movement which makes progressives behave as a perverse religion.

      2. That’s ’cause it’s a heresy of Christianity, recruiting from a Christianized population. Those aren’t qualities it needs in order to qualify as a religion. But a body paint and drum circle religion would have had a much harder time convincing as many that it was totally scientific, and that it could partake in their magical thinking about Science.

    2. See what I wrote just a couple comments above this about the creation of the point where people suddenly aren’t people anymore, but have reached beyond that…. as TXRed said, it’s a religion.

      A free market, on the other hand, only works at all by providing something of value to your fellow human beings. I work for my boss, providing him something he needs, so that he pays me, thus providing something that I need. We’re both working at providing other people with things that they also need. Etc.

    3. Remember Hillary’s “It takes a village”?
      Relatives and neighbors are important, but by a sleight of hand she turned that into a justification for government intrusion…the fascist.

  10. We got chilling insight into totalitarian mind the other day when Elizabeth Warren said Mollie Tibbetts’ mom should suck it up, buttercup and real issue was about parents being separated from their children at border.

  11. Marxism becomes perfectly understandable in its effects when you realize that Marx ‘needed’ to live _well_ beyond his means. As the High Priest of Communism, he got to define what people’s needs actually were.

    1. I hate to point out that this seems to be yet another similarity with religion… Oh, not usually I suppose but the Great Men, the old evangelists… and darned if I wonder if they weren’t contemporaries of Marx, same time frame, tended to let their families starve while they were out doing the Lord’s Work, on account of it was oh so important to save souls, certainly more important than paying bills.

      From anything I hear, Marx didn’t make up his philosophy while toiling for his bread, he sponged off of other people, so I guess that all makes sense.

  12. Maybe I’m just a crotchety old bitch, but if you want to prevent crime, you need to do more than pat little Johnnie on the head and tell him not to do it again and then giving him what he wants. He needs to know there are consequences and those consequences will be applied.

    Only a lad
    You really can’t blame him
    Only a lad
    Society made him
    Only a lad
    He’s our responsibility

    — Oingo Boingo

    (For those not familiar with the song, it mocks the idea described in the chorus above)

  13. Bernie’s latest piece of genius is attacking Disneyland in Anaheim California for not paying “a living wage.” Meaning that Disney doesn’t want to pay sweepers, cleaners and garbage men >$15/hr. They need too many workers to keep the place going, they can’t afford to pay that. Pure and simple.

    What’s Bernie doing? Trying to talk City of Anaheim into passing a $15 minimum wage law, to force Disney into “doing what’s right.”

    What will happen? Disney, after trying hard not to, will -close- Disneyland, take all the rides and stuff to Florida, and bulldoze the place. No jobs.

    Disneyland is about the only employer of any size in Anaheim. The whole fucking town will go broke.

    That’s what Bernie is busy with right now.

    1. no, they won’t, Anaheim knows which side of their bread the butter is on. Or they will build in an exemptino for Disney, like many other employment laws in Orange County.

      1. Which won’t save them when California enacts such idiocy statewide. Of course since California’s energy fantasies will result in no electricity to run the park’s rides anyway…..

        1. I’ll lay you odds that CA’s new minimum wage laws (it has already been done) has an exception for amusement parks already.

        2. Let’s see.. $15/hr… ignoring benefits, etc. for 8 hours, $120.
          Or… 15 KWh, at $0.15/KWh, for 24 hours… $54.
          Robot Employment Act. At least where anything can be automated – and it can be sold as “..of the future!”

      2. I certainly hope you’re right, Draven. But Bernie is out there basically fighting to close Disneyland, and all the hot-heads in Anaheim city council are on his team, making a big show.

        Its a testament to the moral turpitude of the Left that they pursue these kinds of campaigns at all. Here they are, attacking a legitimate company with spurious claims, in the hope of BREAKING the company and spreading misery behind them. What kind of asshole does that?

        1. or they get it passed and every Anaheim city council member that voted for it finds themselves in a recall election.

  14. “With so many Americans uninsured and underinsured, we need hundreds of thousands of new doctors, dentists, nurses, and other medical personnel.”

    “Hundreds of thousands” is a bit high, but we do most definitely need lots and lots of new doctors, nurses, etc. The estimates I’ve seen suggest we’re short by forty or fifty thousand in each of those categories. And the shortage is even worse in general practitioners, aka “family doctors”.

    * * * * * * * *
    My opinion is that the entire socialist/communist/”liberal” movement of mid-1800s Europe began because a lot of smart and talented people – namely the artists, writers, naturalists, musicians, composers, etc. – decided they were sick of their abilities not being valued and set out to Do Something about it. In this they were not wholly wrong; it’s shocking how many of the great artists, composers, etc. died in poverty, their genius only recognized after they were dead. They also believed (again, with some basis in fact) that the old hereditary aristocracy needed to be replaced, because it had led Europe into chaos and social breakdown. The problem was that being Europeans, with a three-thousand-year history of rule by aristocrats, they couldn’t shake the concept of a ruling aristocracy. They merely wanted to change who the aristocracy was. Mostly, they wanted _themselves_ to be the aristocrats. To that end, they defined a new aristocracy based on type and level of education, with themselves at the top of the heap.

    Unfortunately, being academics they never understood that the real world doesn’t work that way. Or that in the real world, power always eventually concentrates in the hands of those who are least afraid to use it — who almost by definition are the nastiest bastards the local population can produce.

    1. The cause of the flaw wasn’t that they were Europeans. It’s that they were human. A system that includes some form of democracy is pretty much the only way you’re going to avoid that aristocracy nonsense. And even then… One of the complaints against President Trump right now is that he essentially went straight to the top of the political aristocracy like a vulgar commoner instead of “earning” his way up.

      1. A lot of the effort to destroy Trump isn’t just about Trump. It is about the establishment ensuring that no-one ever dares challenge them again, and making sure that no-one will ever think about helping a non-establishment endorsed candidate either during the run for office or after the election.

    2. Here’s what I don’t get about that statement. What does increasing the number of doctors and nurses and such have to do with people being un- or under-insured?

      Health “insurance” is a misnomer, anyway.

      1. she wants to enslave hundreds of thousands of doctors and force them to serve everyone for nothing. After spending decades of their life in rigorous study. (America does doctors the hard way. In all of Europe and most of the rest of the world, it’s a 6 or 7 year degree out of high school. Here you have to take undergrad (and these days, as competitive as it is, and as few slots as there are, you usually have to take two undergrad degrees, or an undergrad degree and a masters) then apply (few people get accepted first year. Usually second, sometimes FIFTH) Then four years medschool and four to seven years internship where you get paid slightly above minimum wage.
        If everything goes well, my son will be able to practice as an attending physician by 34.
        BUT they’re just supposed to roll over work for free for all those uninsured. Because socialism.

        1. Hey, it works so well for Cuba, right? And look at the wonderful things the “barefoot doctors” did in Communist China, Comrade!

          /sarc, just in case.

        2. There was a time where we thought about having me join the medical profession. I ultimately did not, for two reasons: It was expensive as hell, and there was a glut in the supply, as it were, for Filipino nurses and doctors.

          That said, there are other members of the clan who are in the medical industry, so… I know, if only secondhand, how hard it is. To propose that these people all work for free is insane.

          Willingly donate their time and efforts? That’s a completely different story from demanding it via government fiat.

  15. Hey buddy, can you lend me a cup of victimhood? I’d like to be a hero and I’m afraid the mob will get me if I actually take a stand.

    Borrowed Victimhood Is Not Heroism
    By Sarah Hoyt
    I’m getting sick and tired of the vultures who borrow the suffering of others to plume themselves with, and in the name of that suffering demand an easier path through life, a smoother ascension through the ranks of various professions, and respect and reverence due to someone who has achieved something.

    In fact, the idea that being a victim is somehow the same as being a hero and deserves respect and adulation is one of the craziest paradigms (it applies this time) to infect our civilization.

    Being a victim is easy. All it requires is that you lie down and let someone abuse you. And no matter what your skin color, your sex, or the sex of whomever you choose to have fun with, there is always someone ready to victimize you.

    Being a hero requires standing on two, standing up and doing something about it. …

    1. If a definition of victimhood holds that the unemployed high school dropout son of a single mom in a broken down West Virginia singlewide trailer is more privileged than the daughters of Former President Obama, there’s something seriously bad wrong with the definition.

Comments are closed.