Almost The End of the World


Even though we’re routinely accused of being “angry” — I don’t see how anyone can look at the replacing of our constitution with the ideals of the French revolution, sometimes in its more Leninist or Maoist incarnations and not be outraged — I’ve very rarely seen real anger among conservatives and libertarians.  Outrage, sure, particularly when our civil liberties are invoked or when they try to bring here the policies that have failed everywhere they were tried, but not anger.  Not personal, seething anger that must find an outlet.

Honestly, the reason that hasn’t happened is for the same reason we’ve failed to do our own long march: libertarians and conservatives don’t tend to make politics their religion.  We already have a religion, thank you so much, and other, richer sources of satisfaction and fulfillment than politics.

We have family and work, hobbies, and a rich life beyond politics.

Or should I say we did?

In the relentless drive of the progressives for a totalitarian society, one that controls every aspect of your life (because they think that’s why their paradise has failed to materialize.  If only they can control everything we think, do, and every way we express ourselves, and all our sources of amusement or achievement, this time they’ll win for sure.), they have come for our families, our jobs, our hobbies.

I suspect I don’t need to expound on the hobbies, not with this crowd.  Sure, this is my job too, at least for now, but it is also my hobby.  I’m one of those weird people who don’t play games, don’t watch (much) TV, but read a lot, even while doing the other things I do, like furniture refinishing, art or sewing.  Often in audiobook to leave my hands free.

And we know what is happening to our hobby.  We’re not allowed to read (or write) unless we do it in a way that furthers the coming of paradise. And if we try to do anything about what is considered “good” or looked upon with respect in the field, all out war breaks out and we are vilified and our character destroyed in unimaginable ways via rumors and hate campaigns.

I understand it’s the same though, even in hobbies that though I engage in I don’t participate in fandom, like fiber arts.  And I know why I dropped out of my last art class five years ago.  It was an adult class, so a hobby.  We won’t go there.

Then jobs… I don’t need to expound on that, do I? the latest was the scientist who pointed out that talents and INTERESTS don’t have the same statistical distribution in males and females.

Any of us, particularly any of us who are statistical anomalies, know that.  I have always had mostly male friends because of my interests in space, politics (not of the females uber alas persuasion, but the individual freedom persuasion) and economics.  I don’t dislike females, nor do I avoid making female friends.  There are just a limited number of females who are interested in what I’m interested in.  I’ve always had women friends but usually one or two at a time.

Is it culture or genetics.  At this point, what difference does it make? The undeniable thing is that the distribution of interests and abilities is not equal across genders (or regions, or places of birth — science fiction readers were few and VERY odd in Portugal, even without adding in the female thing.)  It just isn’t.  To treat humans as though they were widgets and demand equal numbers (statistically) of everything is a form of insanity.

Sure, feminine interest in STEM — or lack thereof — could be a function of culture.  Though so far the scandinavian cultures who’ve bent more out of shape to be gender-impartial are also the ones in which more women are turning their backs on stem.  Because they can choose.

Is it a matter that can be debated.  Sure.  Is it a matter that should lead a scientist to be fired for expressing an unapproved opinion.  No.

We’ve in fact reached the levels that if you express an unapproved opinion, you might as well be a recusant in Tudor England.  They won’t tear you limb from limb and your entrails burned before your eyes while still living (yet) but they will make it impossible for you to earn a living (and have made it quite clear they’d do the other if they could.)

Families…  The new generations have been poised, men against women, and the women convinced that all their reverses are because of men.  The birth rate is plumeting, and gee, I wonder why. This is probably the most lasting wound from the philosophy that hates humans and wants us all gone.  They won’t get their way. Barbarism will come first.  But we don’t know how many people it takes to maintain civilization, and how many of those MUST be sane. They’re striking at both ends.

Then there’s the economy.  Yeah, we’re doing fine.  But how long can we continue improving and producing when companies all over have become convinced they have to hire statistically by exterior characteristics, because that’s the diversity that counts?  Never mind.  Every industry I know is teetering.

None of which means we’re going quietly into that good night.

Because we’ve awakened.  Not too early.  Probably not too late.

You see, there’s still more of us than of them.  And we look at the world and people as they really are, which, as they spin further and further from reality, is almost like a superpower.

We’ll find ways.  Like indie for publishing, other avenues will open.  Because we’re strong, we’re creative, and we’re not going to give up.

It would be stupid to give up in the face of people so blinkered that they believe humans are widgets or that silencing people changes their thoughts — instead of making them angrier and more determined than ever before — or that if only they can control every aspect of our lives everything will be paradise, when they’ve failed to bring about paradise in their lives, their jobs or their hobbies.  (On the contrary.  There’s ever more place settings at the cannibal feast.)

And yes, now I’m seeing anger on the right.  A lot of it.  It’s a quiet, determined anger of the “this is mine, and you can’t take it” variety.  It grows in the centers of our greatest loves in family and jobs and hobbies even.

The left is juggling lit torches near powder barrels and thinking they’ll somehow stay intact through the explosion.

And we’re trying to avoid the explosion, but also determined not to let them have their way.

This is ours. You can’t take it.  Besides, you’d just destroy it.

We’re bracing, digging down, getting ready for impact.  When it all falls down around our ears, we hope to have built enough around, over and under that things will go on with minor glitches.

This nation will survive.  Civilization will survive.

Because this is ours.  You didn’t build this.  And you can’t destroy it.


391 thoughts on “Almost The End of the World

  1. Yeah, I keep seeing this phenomenon in friends. I call the “if I throw a rock straight up in the air and don’t move it won’t hit me when it comes down. Someone threw the rock at me from over there.” syndrome.

        1. You cannot break the laws of physics*. But the laws of physics can certainly break you.

          *You can’t. Really. but what you might be able to do is find other laws of physics that might circumvent he one that’s in your way.

            1. Indeed. A “law of physics” is a summary of what has been learned, typically cast in mathematical form so it doesn’t just represent the known experiments but also generalizes beyond them. There is then an expectation that future experiments will also produce results conforming to that expression.
              And in particular, “laws of physics” are approximations derived from limited knowledge and measurements of limited accuracy. When more or more accurate observations are made, a “law” might end up being invalidated as merely an approximation. A nice example is Newton’s law of gravitation, which was close enough until new more accurate observations of the the orbit of Mercury, around 1900, demonstrated that it was wrong. Along came Einstein with General Relativity, which gets it right — for now.

    1. Or as Hal Clement put it at a convention once, “Reality is what will kill you if you close your eyes, let go of the steering wheel, and step on the gas.” (Which is by now, long after he said it, eerily close to a good description of too much of Nut Wing Democrat policy and philosophy.)
      I miss Mr. Harry Stubbs considerably, I do…

      1. So do I. He was a frequent guest at Millennicon, the now-defunct local convention, up until his untimely demise, and he was always a lot of fun. He was event a great panelist early on Sunday mornings.

    2. That is not elegant or concise enough to catch on…even before you consider it has way too much truth in it to be comfortable.


  2. The leftoids forget they need us. Not as targets, not as something to be rid of. They need us to make what they do get past us viable in some small way.
    I recently commented that the worst thing about Hong Kong is giving it to the Communists. After the original poster agreed, a local added “it’s okay we practice capitalism”. That is exactly why it is bad. Without Hong Kong, and Macau, and the money they drain into the reds, China’s communism is even worse off. Giving them the enclaves of profitability is only adding to the longevity of their murderous regime.

    Here the leftoids drive is out of places until they start to collapse under the weight, then they want to force those still there to stay, in order to try and pay the Piper.

    1. On the one hand, you’re right. Though Beijing appears to be trying its best to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

      On the other hand, China has spent a lot of time split up into smaller pieces of China. And my fear (because those periods of time tend to be *very* bloody) is that China has the potential to end up in smaller pieces again within just a few decades. If that happens, then having Taiwan and Hong Kong as locales that are under Chinese (as opposed to foreign – say, British) control are probably the best chance that the citizens of the geographical region currently referred to as China will have to be truly free.

      If China ends up in a civil war, it will likely devolve into regional blocs (it probably won’t start out that way, but it will likely quickly end up that way) fighting with each other for ultimate control. And both The Republic of China and Hong Kong will likely end up as important locations within the regional blocs (it doesn’t matter with the ROC wants to get involved or not; it’d get dragged in regardless because what I’m describing for the rest of China is effectively the ROC’s current status with regards to the PRC). If the regional blocs containing either of those islands ends up having a say in China’s ultimate fate, then we might see the Chinese become a free people. Otherwise, it’s anyone’s guess.

      And the governments of both islands prove that the Chinese are more than capable of handling democracy.

        1. Never said it would be easy. And I noted that such times tend to be very bloody, with horrifyingly high body counts. But they’re the only chance that the Chinese people have.

          And ROC is gonna get dragged into it whether they want to or not if such an event occurs.

          1. Oh, and speaking of China, Bingbing Fan, who was discussed in the comments a week or two ago, has emerged back into the public.

            And yes, the government had her. She’s expressed proper condolences for her greedy ways, and is supposed to pay some pretty hefty “penalties”.

            1. They need her producing, but need to control the message (or make her better at hiding the methods) and they know a short term arrest and confiscate everything will not be good long term.

    2. “Red Hen” went ‘woke’… and the community around it is now going broke. If/When they cut out the diseased tissue, they have a chance of recovery. Until then… that fever must really suck. Oh well.

    3. Giving them the enclaves of profitability is only adding to the longevity of their murderous regime.

      Who is John Galt?

      Mind you, I find all kinds of flaws in the logic of that book but sometimes….

      1. wish the money folk there had moved to ROC instead of just biting the bullet and paying the reds. iirc Hong Kong has the highest number of Rolls Royces per capita of any city on earth. The PRC is always trying to get the most out of the place without overly angering those they milking.

  3. In one of Thomas Pynchon’s novels, a man who has become an anti-Nazi Resistance leader is described in the words: “A neutral man finally goaded past his limit.” I remembered this passage when Lindsay Graham delivered his very righteous rant.

    1. I have to believe that the left and the Democrats (getting harder and harder to tell them apart any more) are shocked at what a hornet’s nest they overturned with their shameful attacks on Brett Kavanaugh. They would have been far better off to remain silent, let Trump’s appointee slide, and then take the House back from complacent Republicans. Instead I fully expect the anger brought forth by their nasty sneaky tricks will rebound upon them manifold. I for one will crawl should I have to to the polling place this November and again in 2020 simply to cast my vote against the leftwing agenda.

      1. Like the criminal who has been caught and invents the most absurd, transparent lies in order to stave off conviction, sentencing, and prison, but whose antics only convince the jury of his guilt, the Democrat leadership is in desperate fear that the voters will turn them out.

      2. “I have to believe that the left and the Democrats (getting harder and harder to tell them apart any more) …” You can tell a difference, Please to tell me how you do that, for I can NOT do that.

        1. The Progressive Left are the dingbats who topple Civil War monuments, and are actually surprised when people object. The Democrats are the members of the Political Class who thought that aligning with the Progressive Left would keep them in power forever.

          Her Shrillness, Hillary the (would be) first, Queen for life, may have Leftist impulses, but at base she is a career criminal/politician.

          The Antifa fascists are Leftists. All you need to see,to tell that is how SHOCKED they are when somebody insists on driving through their stupid roadblacks.

          Right now the Republicans are divided between those who were comfortable being the perpetual losing party, as long as they were still AT the party in DC, and those who have come up recently from the grass roots and have’t forgotten what they were elected to do.

          At the moment the latter seem to be making some headway. If November is a big disappointment for the Democrats life could get interesting.

          1. If it *is* a massive disappointment for them, I would expect them to double down on the crazy and maybe even do a purity spiral.

            They really don’t understand how this stuff looks to anyone who isn’t them, do they?

        1. When I came to Alabama in 1984 it was a solidly blue state, to the point where if you wanted to vote in most elections you registered as a Democrat because the Republicans didn’t even put up a candidate.
          But a long period of dirty sleazy politics on the Dem side gradually moved the state solidly over to the red side. People here did not leave the Democratic party, the party left them.
          Eventually this culminated in a Dem primary so incredibly filthy that it got an unknown Baptist preacher elected governor. Baxley/Graddick was the primary kerfuffle, and Guy Hunt was the first Republican governor in over 100 years. Of course the machine got poor Guy slapped with trumped up charges and eventually removed from office, but before long a large number of old school Democrats jumped ship and declared as Republicans.
          Jeff Sessions was one of our Senators until he got tapped for AG. Special election held to fill his seat, massive crossover voting by Democrats to make sure the worst candidate won the primary, and once Roy Moore did the orchestrated hit job on him claiming sexual misconduct began and continued until it got enough Republicans to stay home to get the Democrat elected.
          So should I still be amongst the living in 2020 it will be my distinct honor and privilege to hobble in to the polling place and cast my vote for Donald J. Trump and against Senator Doug Jones.

          1. When it came down to Luther Strange vs. Roy Moore, massive crossover voting is not the best explanation for Moore winning.
            McConnell made a massive mistake when he didn’t tell Strange to back out of the primary and throw the RNC behind Mo Brooks.

          1. Oh, I was echoing you… figured I’d try to start a trend. And also, it’s true. So very true.

            1. True for me. I don’t know if the Odious Kate Brown (LLLLL-D Oregon Gov) can be de-elected, but I’m sure as hell going to vote against her.

              The only commercials that make it past the skip button are a few seconds from the teacher’s union saying the world of education will end if the R gets elected. They seem to think that’s a bad thing. No idea how many others in this state will buy that, but I’m hoping for a Red Tsunami, and perhaps some surprised D politicians in Oregon.

              1. “I don’t know if the Odious Kate Brown (LLLLL-D Oregon Gov) can be de-elected, but I’m sure as hell going to vote against her. … hoping for a Red Tsunami, and perhaps some surprised D politicians in Oregon.”

                What I am planning & hoping for too.

    2. Lindsay is getting better by the day. He told a protester demanding a polygraph for Kavanaugh, “Why don’t we dunk him in water and see if he floats.”

      I mean, Lindsay Graham, the Maverick in Waiting, is to that point.

      If that isn’t a signal to the Dems/Left/Press (but I repeat myself) you done f*cked up, I don’t know what will be.

      1. Well, you see, the people who weren’t die hard Trump fans and are offended by this, are only doing so because they aren’t Genuinely White ™, and hence are offended by naked anti-Irish racism. The newer, browner electorate aren’t offended by anti-Irish racism, because the Irish are quasi-white, and Brown will never vote for White. The Republicans are only competitive in elections because of a small rump of 100% Genuine White voters. Many of them will continue to not support Trump because of their racial hatred for half-Scots.

        It is impossible for there to be a consensus in this country that rule of law, including innocent until proven guilty, are a workable and valuable compromise, because everyone understands everything in purely Marxist terms.

        And Merrick Garland was a child molester.

        P.S. I have no information that would lead me to believe that Garland really was a child molester. Beyond that Obama nominated him. Even then, the deep flaws of Obama’s nominees covered a wide range. “Republicans blocked Garland for partisan reason, and he wasn’t a molester” explain things sufficiently and much better than “Republicans knew he was a molester, and blocked him officially for partisan reasons, but secretly because the evidence they had, much stronger than Ford’s testimony, was too weak to go public with.” The latter has only the advantage of being a perfectly odious thing to say, and illustrating the hazards of guilty until proven innocent. There are much better ways to offend people, and to make the last point.

          1. Certain of the NeverTrump folks on twitter are pretty ticked about this thing in the Senate. If Trump has lost support from being Trump, these events could have been precisely calculated to drive those former Republican supporters back into the fold. And the effing Democrats are blind to that possibility, that their strategy could backfire. And because Republicans ‘love to lose’, they aren’t going to do some of the things that could clue in the Democrats or as fully alienate the voters.

            1. That is one of the interesting aspects of this: Barrett was the Trumpian pick: Kavanaugh was the mature/boring/non-controversal Bush faction pick.

              By picking this fight, this way, they’ve driven Bush in to Trump’s faction. That’s kind of a big deal.

              Had they not blown up the world over Gorsuch, they would have been able to filibustet Kavanaugh for someone less conservative, and likely made it stick. Here, they’re just burning bridge after bridge.

        1. I expect it will now be standard opposition research to review high school yearbooks of all candidates, either appointed or elected, for high government office.

          I pity the people assigned to review the yearbooks of Dick Derb-in, Diane Sandbag, Schmuck Chumer, Cory Booker, Kameltoe Harris, Faucahantas, Richard “Da Nang” Blumenthal, Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters

          1. Ah! But Nobody would dare “review the past” of the woken ones! 😈

        1. Curiosity on my part but while I remember the line in the book concerning the “danger of giving the orphans red-meat”, I don’t remember if it was used in the musical Oliver.

          Anybody remember?

        2. Clearly I read too much wrongfic, because Senator Graham’s behavior changes make me wonder what he was being blackmailed with and how he knows it’s gone.

          More likely he figured out the magic of not caring what others say.

          1. I have a couple hypotheses, no preference between them, nor do i insist on them:

            1: Graham (and Collins) have shifted to strengthen their opposition to the Democrats because they believe that someone has their back. (Trump, Kavenaugh, etc.) Some people are not first into the breach.

            2: Graham & etc. realize that the leftists hate them anyway, so why not get tough. They know no that nice ill get them nothing.

            3: your idea here. 8<)

  4. The undeniable thing is that the distribution of interests and abilities is not equal across genders

    One of the things that ticks me off about that one college commercial “The word in which we live equally distributes talent.” Horse Hockey! No matter how hard I train I’ll never be a professional athlete. Nor will I ever be an astrophysicist. There are just some things that I’m never going to be good enough at to do them. And there are a lot others that I have no interest in.

    1. Agree.

      I am a damn good programmer/designer. But I will never be able to compete with someone who looks at binary, decimal, or octantal, & translates it into alphabetic automatically; don’t care what gender they are. Yes, I have worked with such individuals. On the OTOH I have abilities, they will never match.

      In the field. I can’t keep up with someone whose stride is double mine. Don’t care if we are hiking for fun or for work. I’m was never going to be packing 60#’s very far or very long; not without early long term health consequences.

      1. Yep. As much as I want to be able to play guitar like Jimi Hendrix and Eric Clapton, I will simply never be able to, even if I practiced for 50 years straight, because I simply do not have the talent for it. Period.
        The left ignores this reality because their absurd vision requires equal results regardless of individual talent, ability or drive. Every widget must be identical.

        1. A mediocre talent with a massive work ethic can get better than a lazy talent. But a talent with a work ethic is in another league entirely.

      2. I’m pretty far out there in the range of things I can do, and I could learn to do that alphabetic conversion, but I wouldn’t be able to be a serious historian, because I would keep having bleed over in my understanding of different portions of history. I’d be the source of memes showing a historical figure making references to other historical figures who were born centuries after the first had died, or talking about foot-travel times of a couple of days for distances of a couple hundred miles because I got the geography wrong in my head (another thing I would have problems with). Things like that.

        1. “There are 10 kinds of people in the world . . .”

          Context is everything. ROFLOL 😉 Didn’t say I can’t do the conversions. Just can’t take a complicate string without taking “pencil & paper” to it.

          Besides that has to be the oldest programming/binary joke in the book …

    2. The ones I really hate are those who insinuate that strong talents in one arena are sufficient proof that you must be deficient elsewhere.

  5. I don’t want to be angry all the time. I’ve seen what that does to the other side. So it’s better to laugh at them. Or ignore them. It’s gotten to the point that they want us to be outraged. They thrive on it. So the best response is a giggle. Or a yawn. And let them get angry about it.

    1. I used to be angry all the time and had to stop. I couldn’t live with myself and was seriously on the verge of harming someone. And the things I was pissed about have gotten worse rather than better which doesn’t make the taking a step back any easier. But, then again, I don’t want to be like *them*, either.

      1. There is a time for anger. But I prefer to be like the Ogier in the Wheel of Time and “put a long handle on my ax”, as it were.

        1. Gandalf the Grey: “Slow to anger, quick to laugh.”

          Keep your anger, but control it, channel it, use it.

          1. This. Very useful as fuel, otherwise not so much.
            Be a rocket engine, not a launch failure.
            It’s a deep art I’m sure I’ll never perfect, but still a most useful art.

            1. If you’re a naturally inclined introvert like myself, it requires that anger to fuel the letters, e-mails, and phone calls to our representatives; otherwise we just shrug our shoulders and say, “What good would it do?” It requires the control to write precisely, concisely, accurately and without the invectives that would get us labeled as nutcases and round-filed, deleted, or hung-up on.
              It certainly requires that anger to make the push to go to the town hall meetings, stand up before everyone, and ask the questions that need to be asked; such as, “How is this good for the community, and did you know or consider these X,Y, and Z negative consequences?”

              1. ” otherwise we just shrug our shoulders and say, “What good would it do?””

                My current congressthing and both my state’s senators are Democrats. Hard-left too, all three of them. What good, indeed, would me writing to them do?

                1. I’m a Granite Stater. I have to deal with Senators Hassan, Shaheen, and Shea-Porter and Kuster (not in my district.) Thing is, if you don’t communicate to them what you want them to do, they can say whatever they want. This way, I can at least write an editorial to the Union Leader and Fosters to call them liars if they say nobody has ever complained about X, Y, or Z.

    2. The problem is that some of them see your seeming lack of interest as a challenge. They’re *trying* to shock. And if you won’t be shocked, then they’ll just try harder.

      1. “You will be made to care.” — The Left
        “You have made me very caring. You might not be glad you did.” — The Normals

    3. They overlook that critical bit that if ‘we’ get Truly Angry we will SOLVE the problem. Not ‘talk it out’, not ‘manage it’ but SOLVE it. And we’ll reach for the strongest solvent(s) available as we want it DONE so we won’t have to do it again. We might hate ourselves in the morning, but WE (or ours, anyway) will have that morning.

      But it seems just like that bit of fiction, nobody listens and comprehends “Don’t make me angry. You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.”

      Yeah, for so long ‘we’ have been largely quiet. Like a clock… or a timer.

      Do I long for such? Oh HELL NO. It’d be a utter mess, and that’s if things go well. But some seem bound and determined upon discovering a minefield to go tap-dancing on it.

        1. Aye, I know/knew someone who could and did cuss up a storm. If she *stopped* cussing, the Right Move was to RUN. Really D*** Fast. For cover. Some… did not realize this.

        2. These. Especially the second, as quoted

          Very early in John Ehle’s “Trail of Tears” and long before the Removal itself, there was an interesting interaction between the Cherokee and the incoming Scotch Irish (very much the “deplorables” of their day).
          The Cherokee, like other local tribes, were used to a certain level of raiding and (to use the word precisely) viking — the eastern equivalent of “counting coup” etc. — giving and receiving. (Q.v. also the classical Irish “Cattle Raid of Cooley”.)
          The newcomers, basically, did nothing (but take their losses).
          This went on, until, “suddenly” they counter-attacked.
          And kept on, until surprisingly to tbe Cherokee, far more damage was done than the sum total of what had provoked it.

          It was a surprise because they simply didn’t understand the progression from “Treating Our Neighbors Right” to “Making Allowances for Bad Behavior” to “Handling the Problem” — click, click on the socio-cultural strategy selector dial.

          You don’t need any Celtic blood to be an Implacable Scot, then or now.
          And the Cherokee were probably listening both better and smarter then, than… others… are doing now.

      1. Reminds me of the Gun debate. The Anti-gun fanatic screaming and crying about how violent gun owners are and how scared he/she/xe is, and all gun owners are murderers. “Blood in the streets! BLOOD IN THE STREETS!!!”.

        Leaving the pro-gun side to note “If we were anything like we are constantly being described, they would all be dead already.”

      2. Re: “Do I long for such? Oh HELL NO. It’d be a utter mess, and that’s if things go well. ”

        Look at it as a logic problem. As I see it, there are four basic options:

        1) We can do nothing, and lose fast.
        2) We can keep fighting the way we have been fighting, and lose a little slower.
        3) We can fight the way you’re talking about, and lose.
        4) We can fight the way you’re talking about, and win.

        Now, how many of those choices lead to our side winning?

        (Of course, there is a fifth choice: we can fight the way we’ve been fighting, and win. However, I find that extremely unlikely – on the order of one or two percent. Do you see a higher probability?)

          1. Are we, Sarah? I’d like to believe we are, but I just don’t see it. How many otherwise-sensible people do you know who honestly believe Trump is a Russian agent, and that Brett Kavanaugh is a serial rapist? Five seconds of rational thought about either one shows how stupid and obviously wrong those charges are — but the media says they’re true, so people believe them. And those aren’t isolated cases. Wherever I look, on whatever subject, the lefties always win. They might win slow, or they might win fast, but they always win. And any attempt at a counter-movement is methodically annihilated. Look at what’s happening to Trump, look at what happened to the Tea Party. The only bright spot in my lifetime has been gun rights — and even those wins are being taken away again, state by state, as the Dems find new ways to outlaw guns and liberal judges ignore the Supreme Court’s plain words in order to uphold those laws.

            I’ll tell you, I half expect that the vote tomorrow to confirm Kavanaugh will be canceled — not because McConnell doesn’t have the votes, but because those hordes of zombie sheep protesters in Washington will storm the Capitol Building and shut down the Senate. And the media and the Democrats will cheer them on.

            What a lovely precedent that will set, hey?

            1. I’m not holding my breath. Kavanaugh will be confirmed or he won’t. But this one battle isn’t the end of the war. If Kavanaugh isn’t confirmed, I HOPE that Trump is smart enough to just start shoving Judge after Judge from his infamous list of Judges through until one sticks*.

              That would leave the Democrats with either blocking all SCOTUS votes completely (if they win the Senate), which could only stir up the Republican base. Or continuing the S#!T storm of sleeze against each and every nominee, which could only stir up the Republican base. I hate to use the cliche of Kavanaugh becoming a martyr, but if the cliche fits…

              It might sound odd, but I think just letting Kavanaugh be confirmed might be the best possible outcome FOR THE DEMOCRATS at this point.

              * Personally, I’m rooting for Judge Amy Coney Barrett, because I just love to watch Feinstein crap herself, and I desperately want a shirt with the quote “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern” on it.

              1. If they *don’t* confirm him, it will be almost impossible for the Democrats to pull the same circus tricks on the very next candidate. They’ll try other tricks, though.

                Personally I wonder if everyone else said “no” because who else wants to submit themselves to abuse like that, and it’s not as though it was a surprise, after all.

                1. No, I imagine they would try the same thing, but more so, especially the protesters. Because it worked, at least in their view, so you do it again but more so. *shudder*

            2. I know zero otherwise-sensible people who believe that. All of them are nonsensible in other ways. Not in all ways, but in several other ways.

  6. I saw a Facebook post by a smart person (the person will remain nameless).

    The person was claiming that people would get “tired” of the authoritarian nature of the “red area” and flock to the urban areas.

    It was sad to think that this smart person thought conservatives were “authoritarian” and liberals weren’t.

    No, since my temper was already going sky-high, I didn’t respond to this person’s post.

    1. PS, besides my temper, the person does write stuff that I enjoy reading. 😦

        1. I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve

          1. lol
            Except now we know most of “you” (Dems) much more than I should like; and like most of them not at all.

    2. That’s what I really don’t get. Who doesn’t actually realize that life in cities is less free than life elsewhere? That’s not saying that people don’t like the trade off! But when you’re living so close together everything is regimented and your neighbors get a very big “say” in how you live. All the way to what color you can paint your fence, if you can *have* a fence, to exactly where you can park and when, to if you can even have friends over for a party at your apartment, and when. If you can rent your extra room or let someone move in with you or not.

      If that’s not “authoritarian” it’s just because someone thinks that the rules make sense and don’t mind them too much. But that’s a stupid definition. Authoritarian isn’t defined by what you *want* to do, it’s defined by what you *can’t* do. It would be like defining Prohibition as not being Prohibition if you didn’t actually *want* to drink anyway.

      1. Rural life means I can start my compost pile without anyone’s permission. Rural life means I can target practice in my back yard, without anyone’s permission.
        Rural life means I can let my dog out to do his business without anyone’s permission.
        See a common theme here?

        1. I prefer suburbia myself. Closer to necessities of town but half way to rural. A small town, maybe a county seat, is as rural I could see myself. Even if I was 30 years younger. I can’t see myself as a farmer’s wife.

          1. I am a child of Greater Suburbia. I could go down to a small town on the West Coast (where proximity to larger towns is pretty close), but I’m a sociable type and isolation would drive me crazy. (Crazier.)

      2. “Fence”? “Park”?

        What kind of elitist *are* you? Only the nomenklatura have detached houses and personal vehicles…

      3. I strongly suspect that most of the people who have the (very odd) idea that life is less authoritarian in the cities are people who have never spent much, if any, time in rural areas. And I’m not talking about the bedroom communities around big cities, which can be nearly as left-wing as the cities themselves.

        It’s a crying shame that so few people now have any real connection to working farms or to other rural occupations. It’s been several generations since the majority of our population could honestly say they were raised on a farm, or at least among farmers (or loggers, or miners, or fishermen….). I don’t believe that the change has been good for our culture, our families, or our country. And yet, how would we go back?

        1. The closest connection I have to rural living is through my husband. There’s a family farm, where he spent his summers. His niece’s husband has a vacation home far from every where else in MS.

          I grew up in New York City. Living there is very different than anywhere else. It cycles between not bad and dreadful.

          1. As a life-long resident of the NYC metro area, speaking of NYC have you noticed how many leftists are nostalgic for and want to bring back the days of the 1970’s when Times Square, etc., were absolute dumps filled with hookers, pimps and drug dealers and the movie Death Wish was an accurate depiction of what a literal hell-hole the city was.

              1. Daniel Henninger (of the WSJ) commented on that several years ago. He’d lived through the 1970s, and had less than zero sympathy for people who want NYC to be “raw and edgy” again.

                1. They want to believe that they won’t get the dirty Times Square aspect, but all the “interesting” things that they missed like Warhol and Studio 54 and their ilk.

                  It’s like a kind of regression to a childhood they never had.

    3. By “authoritarian” he probably meant “bigoted”. Which isn’t what the word means in any sense anyway. (And it’s rather bigoted toward those fly-over people as well.)

      In any case the “liberal, non-authoritarian” cities had better figure out how to build housing around those all-imposing rules, or there isn’t anyone who’s going to be flocking there, even if they wanted to.

      1. Authoritarian is any ideology opposed to leftism, the only true source of freedom.

          1. But Comrade, some people here estimate my abilities at concealing my true nature very highly. It is impossible that I could be a remarkably twisted doctrinaire leftist?

              1. I recently realized that some of my ‘Romans did it, ergo opposition is racist against my culture’ has been driven by a cold rage against the double standards. I’ve been angry about it for almost twenty years, and that flavor of jokes helps me cope.

      2. It might just be social authority as in “everyone knows your business” and the corollary, that they’re freely commenting on it, sometimes to you, will you ‘nil you. Great when you’ve got a new puppy you need to socialize, or are unexpectedly homebound, less if you’re a bit of an odd duck and at all sensitive, or just really introverted.

        There’s a lot of freedom in people not caring about you (and therefore, you get to vice versa)

      3. It’s the stereotype of the small town, church lady, etc. A lot is the want of libertinism (I won’t deny that there isn’t bigotry and similar that gets wider exposure because smaller pool to hide in but there is a difference between leave alone and celebrate), while other is the ‘how can i be happy if I have to pay or work. Imma artiste’.

        1. Yes, the progs have done much damage by placing libertinism over against “moralism”, and defining that as the only possible realm of “authoritarianism”.

    4. I have said before that civilization begins at the city limits, but some are confused as to which side is which. (And yes, I know I now live in the wilds, if not in the wildest of such.)

      And, to put it bluntly and.. scatologically, why are rural areas red?
      They *know* what bull**** smells like and won’t vote for it.

        1. ….can you define “suburban”?

          I can’t stand the places where the driveway is bigger than the “yard,” but we’re right on the edge of a city, the kids have places to run that ARE NOT my livingroom, I’d call it sub-urban but the folks in apartments think it’s rural….

          1. The tune Subdivisions has a line “the far unlit unknown” and that’s the rural (ish.. most places have had excessive lighting for decades now).

        2. I suspect I’d find it less irritating than full on Big City but less livable than a small(ish) town. Other than network access/speeds, a few miles outside of a small town seems ideal to me. A place where neighbors aren’t so close they much care what I get up to and vice versa. $HOUSEMATE once commented that where I spent many years was problematic as any trip was at least a 5-10 minutes drive to/through town, whereas living in the City meant everything was ‘right there’… except it was still a 5-10 (or more) minute drive to get anything, and the drive was a harrowing frustration filled thing.

          1. Who lives 10 minutes from where they work? I drive 15 minutes to reach the edge of Albuquerque. I drive another 25 minutes to work near “down town”. If I found a job on the *other* edge of town it would be too far.

            1. I do.. if the traffic is bad and the lights (all three of them) are against me. If all are green and nobody is doing Ye Olde Standard (Or Less) on the one street where the limit is 10 mph higher… it’s 5 at most.

              Then, once upon a time I had a job 30-40 miles from home and I had a roughly 35 minute drive. Just like the guy who lived downtown. He boggled that my drive was so short… I would “get on the slab* and go” and had one traffic light and perhaps two stops signs the whole trip. He.. had lights upon light upon lights and no matter what time he left home, Mr. Slow (the SAME ONE, EVERY TIME) would magically, tragically be right in front of him.

              * not even Interstate

            2. 9-14 minutes to work for me, depending upon traffic lights. Unless my normal route is flooded, then 16-25 minutes because of the extra 7-10 traffic lights on both of the two next best routes. Not that I’ve been counting or anything. 🙂

            3. With my first job when I got here, I was ~10 minutes from work (if the timing was right going by the schools). When I needed another job, for a while my commute was 3+ hours – each way. (That was a Monday morning/Friday evening commute, and stay locally during the week.) Last two jobs I’ve had are 35 minutes to 1.5 hour commutes, depending on accidents and tunnel traffic. I really don’t like having to cross the river for work*.

              (* Unless someone wants to buy me one of those new plane-cars. I’d gladly do a blog write-up about it as payback. Two, even.)

          2. Having lived in all 3, I’ll take being stuck with Satellite internet and long drives to get anything. (10-15 min into town. 45 min to an hour for ‘big things’). I’ve got 10 acres and a small house for under 80k. My son has a lot of examples of men being men, to bolster his father and grandfather’s influence. My daughter gets to avoid the worst of the city crazies and introduced to proper Formidible Women other than just her grandmother.

    5. I do KINDA understand where they might be coming from. There are a-holes who are (at least in their minds) aligned on “our side”, who are vocal about things like making it illegal to be gay, or that “Freedom of Religion” only means we are free to serve G-d (I got THAT lecture from the owner of a company I worked for. Better bet I kept my Pagan mouth shut or he would have fired me on the spot). WE roll our eyes at them because we know what a tiny minority they are and that they’ll be kept from the levers of power.

      But how do the Leftists know that? Why should they trust it?

      1. Unless you live in the country, or better yet, your SO is of country descent you will not understand what country really is.

        1. There’s a lady I’ve met recently who moved to the area (just south of the state capital, and 170,000 people) from the Bay Area, and keeps saying how “country” it is here. (Approvingly, mind you. She loves it.) We all laugh at her, because while it is a 20 minute drive to the nearest farms, only someone from a heavily urbanized area would think of a six-digit population city in the region of the state capital as “country.” (Especially this state!)

          I do wish that more of the political arm of this state would realize how important the agricultural end is here. California doesn’t feed the nation the way the Midwest does, but it’s where all the tasty stuff gets grown, and we just can’t keep building on the arable land. (Which also happens to be floodplain, c’mon already.) There’s plenty of land that isn’t good for farming that should be first choice.

      1. It has some accuracy– for describing the trailer-park city-culture-but-living-in-a-small-town types who ran for the city as soon as they were able, and eventually come back because they can mooch off of mom and dad, and welfare goes further in that situation.

        Not so much otherwise.

      2. It’s not romantic. It’s different. And different towns are different, too. It’s not all one sort of thing. You really can’t choose not to interact with people, though. It’s sort of like family in that you can’t choose ’em.

        I recall one of my college teachers way back when, or perhaps an essay we had to read in the class… yes, I think it was an essay. It was about this woman who moved to a small town and was offended that all of the farmers who didn’t understand her would talk about the weather. She took this personally. I remember reading it and thinking that weather actually matters to farmers and *she* was the one unable to connect to the concerns of others, and that they were trying to be friendly even if they didn’t “get” her at all. And then she wrote essays about her superiority, so were the fellows making purposeless small talk about rain this afternoon wrong in *any* sense?

        1. People laugh at California giving out weather alerts for freezing temperatures, but it’s still agricultural, and it’s important to farmers. Especially citrus.

          1. People forget that Orange County not being mostly farmland is a recent development. The history of the Anaheim Pepper was particularly of interest….

            (Short version, a guy in Orange County had bred a pepper that was kind of like a Poblano, but slightly milder and easier to preserve. He started canning it and selling it. Did pretty well for himself, guy’s last name was Ortega. Yes, *that* Ortega.)

    6. Remembering back to one of those quizzes you see on Facebork that purport to tell you your political bent, I think that they are USING an incorrect definition of what “authoritarian” means.

      Without being able to remember enough details to give an accurate recounting of it, it struck me that they were talking about people RESPECTING authority, rather than the actual restrictions on freedom that it should mean.

      1. On “respecting authority”, there’s also “respecting the position that the person holds” and some individuals elsewhere were upset that Judge Brett wasn’t “respecting the position of the Democratic Senators”.

        I argued against that complaint and should have said that he showed the proper respect of a person accused of “witchcraft” toward the witchhunters. 😈

        Of course, it was “interesting” to listen to the people complaining that conservatives didn’t respect President Obama’s Office.

        After all those people didn’t respect Republican Presidents including Trump. 😈

        1. It amazes me how often the folks who talk about “respect the position” will not consider that ANYBODY ELSE has a position worthy of respect– yes, even “just” a citizen, or freeman, or nominee.

          1. Nod.

            The Democrat Senators and the News Media showed no respect for Judge Brett as a human being. 😡

        2. Position does not get respect. It gets, at most, professional courtesy. Respect is always earned. The ‘Respect muh authoritay’ types get mocked for good reason – there is nothing TO respect there.

    7. I’m very glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I got to the second paragraph. As for this red, rural area, the most authoritarian folks around have four paws and bark if they have to go outside. OTOH, it avoids a mess on the floor, so they have several steps above the Antifas.

    8. It’s built into social science theory that authoritarianism is a conservative trait. There’s a construct called “right wing authoritarianism” that is used to measure it. Somehow no one has thought to call it “authoritarian” to come into a business and tell the owner what products they must produce, or what methods they must use, or who they should hire to produce them, or how much they should pay, or what they should regard as grounds for termination, or any of a hundred other business decisions; and there is no support for an “authoritarianism” measure that counts belief in such laws and regulations as authoritarian. Nor to call it “authoritarian” to demand that people give a stated percentage of their income to help a designated group of other people in need. You could think what you liked, and believe what you liked, and say what you liked, and associate with people who agreed with you (at least, in the pre-identity-politics era), but the minute money touched your hands you lost any right to make your own decisions. In fact, believing that you had that right was itself counted as “authoritarian.”

      I think that’s insanely stupid. But it has the blessing of social scientific survey research behind it.

      1. Somehow no one has thought to call it “authoritarian” to come into a business and tell the owner what products they must produce
        No, because they have been trained in marxism. It’s an assumption within marxism.
        And, it’s one of the reasons I now will not call what we should be doing “capitalism”. I call it “free market” or “mostly-free market”. Because “capitalism” is based on marxist assumptions.

  7. The problem with “build around, over and under” is that the progressives are still supported while they try to tear it down.
    Ayn Rand apparently wrote a best case in “Atlas Shrugged” rather than a dystopia. The alternative seems to be a massacre, not a civil war, which is an attempt to win territory, but a ethical and philosophical cleansing where the aim is to wipe out the opposition as one would wipe out a pack of rabid dogs.

  8. I ended up going to Costco on a Saturday. One rather nice up-side to that was that there were several families with small children getting lunch. (Small children are an upside you say?) Well, yes. Because at least two absolutely adorable families had flocks of four. Adorable little things as alike as peas in a pod in the image of their mothers, from toddler to lower elementary and sweetly behaved as Mom hovered around them managing their meals.

    So clearly *someone* is having children.

    And according to Costco there’s no ethnic weighting to that. The millennial Asian mom with her peas in a pod, the millennial blond lady and her tow-headed quartet. The lady with her head scarf and a little boy conked out cold asleep and draped over her arm and the side of the cart like a noodle. So many others.

    Of course people with larger families tend to shop at Costco, but people *are* having children. And more than one or two.

    1. I live in a district where the Democrat candidate wants to tax families of five or more for ‘irresponsible breeding’.

      Somehow ‘what we do in our own bedrooms’ only applies to Gays.


      1. Remember, if the Left gets its way eventually that which is not forbidden will be required.

        The Left is determined that abortion not be forbidden.

      2. The Queen and I would be in trouble, we have nine little Sith apprentices.

        Demographics considered, you’d think the “pay for my stuff” crowd would want us to breed. Who’s going to pay for their stuff after they’ve aborted all their offspring?

        1. “…we have nine little Sith apprentices.”

          Excellent. Our plan is coming together nicely.

        2. Good work there! Wish there were more big families like yours! I wanted at least six, husband (now ex) didn’t want any, we compromised and had three. Would have loved to have had more.

          But. Of his two siblings one had no children, the other has one. Of my four siblings, one has one child, one has three, and one has two, the other has none. When you average them out, we aren’t making replacement rate. And it’s worse when you go down to the next generation.

            1. We always said five… after the fourth I figured we were probably good enough.

              The fact is, though, that a very lot of people struggle to have one or two, or any at all. So those who manage more are just taking up the slack and that’s a good thing.

              1. Same.

                But when one isn’t quite competent at securing the participation of a second person…

            2. I wanted three, which is just as well since my body let me know that pregnancy probably wouldn’t go well in the future. (Gestational diabetes was part of it, the last round—there’s also the fact that my teeth got bad every pregnancy, and a few other indicators.) My siblings and I average three per, so that’s a decent replacement rate.

            3. Sometimes I think I would like to have managed more than two. But considering that (a) we got married fairly late (34 and 31), (b) my wife had health problems with both (pre-eclampsia, so that both had to be induced early), and (c) the two that we do have are pretty darn spiffy, when the thought pops up I put a pillow over it and think instead that I’m way more blessed than I deserve.

        3. They’re not interested in the future. They want your money NOW, and if you have a large brood, then you’re getting too much of their money back on your tax return.

      3. %$&# that. As the third of seven children, I get really annoyed when people insult my mother or say my siblings shouldn’t exist. And while I haven’t had the opportunity of have children of my own, I love my nieces and nephews and I will kill and die for them. They are my investment in the future.

  9. > have to hire statistically by exterior characteristics, because that’s the diversity that counts?

    Except when you’re talking feetball or basketball, where they’d scream bloody murder. Always good bait back in my internet trolling days.

    Obviously, 51% of each team should have two X chromosomes, and the entire team should be chosen proportional with the latest national census data on race…

    What? You don’t want that much diversity and equality? Whyever not?

    1. Honestly, since the sorts that make the noise don’t tend to like sports anyhow, they are very unlikely to care that sports are ruined for anyone else.

      1. Note that is not true in the converse. I have zero fondness for sports but find “diversity for diversity’s sake” to be silly.

        If I knew that mere kneeling could mess up the NFL, I’d have tried to get it going years ago. I am not FOR the kneeling (‘bad optics” barely begins to describe it) but the NFL getting zorched? That I enjoy. Yeah, I ‘experienced’ more than a few football fans years ago. So, if they wanna shoot themselves in the foot, I am all for them using a .45 rather than a .25 so they do it really well.

        1. Oh, hell. Any fervently followed passtime attracts a percentage of imbeciles. Look at what happened to WorldCon.

          I used to derive great pleasure from watching my Lady and my Father watch football together. They enjoyed each-other’s company in that passtime so much.

          In general, I don’t get the attraction in watching other people do sports. I can totally understand doing them yourself, though I don’t like it myself. But, hey, lots of people don’t understand the pleasure I get from reading.

          As for the NFL…..*shrug*…..they should have fired Colin Whatshisface the moment he started his nonsense. From what I can tell his level of play had dropped below what was needed for his career to continue, and he started the kneeling business solely to attract attention he wouldn’t have gotten otherwise. He’s just ‘Mau Mauing the Flack-Catchers’, to use Tom Wolfe’s apposit phrase.

          1. they should have fired Colin Whatshisface the moment he started his nonsense. From what I can tell his level of play had dropped below what was needed for his career to continue, and he started the kneeling business solely to attract attention he wouldn’t have gotten otherwise.

            There’s a rumor (take with appropriate salt) that his initial “protest” wasn’t a protest at all. He was sitting on the bench SULKING because he was no longer the starter, then he had the brilliant idea to spin it as some great social justice stand.

            1. The other rumor is that it’s due to influence from his girlfriend, who’s apparently been involved in some of that sort of stuff before.

              1. His girlfriend, a former MTV v-jay, is an outright revolutionary Marxist who wants to overthrow the “capitalist-oppressive America” and replace it with a Cuban/Soviet/Communist China style “people’s republic”. Kapernaeck of coruse goes around wearing shirts depicting one of his heroes, Fidel Castro. It’s not the protest against excessive use of force by police at times that has so many people angry at him (libertarians share some of the same concerns re militarization of the police but recognize it is not driven by racial animosity in most cases but simply the way police have been co-opted into being the armed forces of endless rules and regulations by a far too powerful state) but his support for Marxist revolution when the very system he wants to overthrow made him a multi-millionaire. It should also be noted, he is the one who left the 49er’s-he opted out of his contract thinking he could get more money and playing time elsewhere. He has no-one to blame but himself.

                1. Also, apparently none of the kneeling athletes have ever watched Game of Thrones, where “bend the knee” means accepting the authority and sovereignty of the ruler over oneself. By “bending the knee” to the Flag, they are actually, unknowingly of course, engaging in an action that is an expression of affirming the Flag, not protesting.

          2. “In general, I don’t get the attraction in watching other people do sports. I can totally understand doing them yourself, though I don’t like it myself. But, hey, lots of people don’t understand the pleasure I get from reading.”

            Triple Ditto; especially the reading. I would add “unless my child/grandchild is playing”. Other than that … *whatever* … I do miss the “civil war” & “commercial fest” parties that have gone by the wayside for a variety of reasons. Latter, the nail in the coffin, was the NFL players stupidity. Oh well, I can still catch the commercials online the next day.

            1. I went to a big 10 school, where unless you had an M or an O on your jersey, you were toast. The Frightening Illini was entertaining, so long as you had very low expectations.

              We were in the down period after one of the many U of I cheating scandals. They’d get good, get busted, be awful, then started to cheat again. Rinse and repeat. It made for a certain cynicism about football.

              1. 🙂 Hey. I grew up in one town & went to school at the other who had several years of Civil War games where the final score was tied at … zero. The Green/Yellow “O” & the Orange/Black “O” … Got degrees from each, so officially a platypus with strong beaver sentiments … (only because it irritates the neighbors) … never been to a game at either school.

                1. The Green and Yellow ‘O’ seems to be more popular in Klamath Falls, though Fred Meyer’s tries to be bipartisan. OTOH, beyond a few benighted souls wearing SF 49ers gear, it doesn’t hurt the [Oakland|LA|who cares] Raiders that one of the local high schools has appropriated the logo.

        2. The kneeling was the last straw for me and I’d been a Bronco’s fan since the 70s.

          It wasn’t even the kneeling per se, but the “we can’t do anything about it”.

          This in a league where a kid takes his team to the playoffs and wins a game his season as a starter but gives fired and can’t get another spot because his Christianity was too controversial. Yes, I know Tebow wasn’t the greatest QB but there were guys the next season started their third and fourth years as starters who’d never made the playoffs, much less won one.

          And sneakers for 9/11 victims couldn’t be worn in Saint Louis but Hands Up Don’t Shoot coming out onto the field was fine.

          And then stickers on helments in Dallas honoring officers shot by a BLM inspired nut weren’t acceptable, but BLM inspired kneeling was something they couldn’t do anything about.

          Seems to me the NFL picked a side and showed their middle fingers to me.

          Now I play games, tabletop games, on Sunday afternoon.

          1. “It wasn’t even the kneeling per se, but the “we can’t do anything about it”.”
            This – and your list.
            If anything lit the slow fuse to the powder keg of conservative anger, it was the endless ingratitude and hypocrisy on the left.

            1. The Green Bay Packers and the 27 star WTF flag hasn’t helped matters, either. Before kneeling, I’d watch a little bit of the Super Bowl, but since, fuggetit. The Subaru commercials will show up elsewhere anyhow. Love them dawgs.

        3. I don’t care about sports at all, but I appreciate that other people do and that it’s a sort of bonding activity, the sports fan rivalries, and healthy escapism similar to a lot of entertainment. Sports serve as a social focus for a lot of people and I can’t see a way that this isn’t an overall positive for the world. I don’t *have* to like sports or care about them to understand the societal value of this type of social activity that spans other sorts of divisions. I don’t care and *can’t* care about the game or who wins. That’s not the point. *My* feelings are not the point.

          I can still be upset at those who are trying to break what is healthy and positive about sports, who (for the most egregious example) want to take those other divisions, the ones that people set aside to bond over one team or a friendly rivalry, and force those divisions and those conflicts and that social rending into a sphere primarily valuable for *not* having them.

          It’s actually quite similar to any other sort of fandom, really. If you can’t have even your fandom in common with people who are very much unlike yourself religiously, politically, economically, or anything else… what good is it at all?

          1. I honestly object to the big league highly-paid sports on philosophical grounds. I don’t think there is any value at all to spectator sports. There is a lot of value to participating in sports — the participant to choose whatever suits them as a physical activity, of course. There’s some value to the socializing and to learning to work as a team (in team sports), and quite a bit of value in maintaining a degree of physical fitness. But personally the only sports I care for are the local ones — the high school football game, the little league baseball team, the community swim team. Those are the ones that I think have real value, because of the benefits already mentioned and because they can bring a community together.

            Big league sports, just like big government, has gotten too big, and doesn’t allow much participation by the ‘little people’ anymore. There isn’t (in my view) much value in going to watch a big league game at the stadium, and hardly any value in sitting on one’s backside on the couch watching it on TV. There are lot better ways to use that time – like taking the grandsons out to the park or the back pasture for their own game of whatever is appropriate for the kids and the season.

            1. There’s a value to spectator sports. Factional identities calibrated off of sports teams have the capability of displacing alternative local tribal identities. The sports rivalries might safely absorb sentiments that might otherwise be used in internal warring.

              I have very little interest in sports, but in my younger years I thought they grounded energy that might otherwise manifest in civil wars.

              I’ve since decided I better like the ‘cost of escalation is too high for most people’ explanation for the relative peace in the US these days.

              But a decline of interest in sports might explain modern woke tribalism if the first explanation is correct. It would be interesting to see trustworthy studies.

              1. ((shrug))

                Some people enjoy watching them. Enough that make a winning team a valuable, worth spending millions on capital assets (the players).

                Or should we say that the people enjoying it are having fun wrong?

              2. “Factional identities calibrated off of sports teams have the capability of displacing alternative local tribal identities.”

                That’s more or less exactly what I was trying to describe.

            2. Community doesn’t have to be geographic– and given the utter mess of every school I’ve been at or had peripheral involvement in, I can’t stand high school sports unless it’s extreme B team, and frequently the coach has delusions even then which drives out healthy involvement– but I have seen positive value to pro sports. Once saw a fender bender which was solidly placed to put my husband and our family, including small children, as witnesses to a REALLY UGLY road rage incident. We’re at the point where husband and I were both trying to figure out how to reach our concealed weapon.

              Both dudes jumped out to beat each other…and were wearing Seahawk Jerseys.
              Instantly it flipped to a “oh, man, this SUCKS, I’m so sorry– ” and “nah, man, I came around that blind corner too fast” and when we left they were helping each other figure out how to fix the very minor fender damage.

            3. And spectator sports played by professionals are boring.

              I will occasionally get a kick out of something in a Little League or high school football game. The one time I was taken to a pro baseball game I spent the whole time watching the people in the stands.

              1. I’ve always found spectator sports are best with a crowd. The game gives a framework for people who normally don’t have much in common to talk about.

            4. Have to disagree with you there, because taking that line to its logical conclusion would say that no entertainment has value unless there is participation in it.

              Professional sports are entertainment. Nothing more and nothing less.
              Despite the stories of the “football widows” (or baseball, or what-have-you), I see a LOT of families downtown when there is a game day, so it’s something for families to do together, and gives them something in common to talk about.

              Ironically enough, sports below the semi-pro level have less (in my observation) family involvement than pro sports, with normally just one parent attending games*. There’s more of a community involvement, however, as more people will talk with other people from other families while watching the games.

              * Two things about youth sports: 1) High school has fewer parents and more students attending, but still not many full families, and 2) Are there REALLY as many kids who are upset because a parent was never able to make it to their games as it sounds like from TV? Because once I got to the game, I didn’t care who was watching.

              1. I went to a small school and we did sports sometimes but didn’t really expect our parents to go to games because they were usually milking the cows. They’d do what they could to make sure that we could participate if we wanted to but they weren’t Parent Boosters in any sense.

                Somehow I never once felt unloved.

          2. It really came down to the “Ya gotta” aspect and the refusal to deal with “No, I do NOT gotta anything.” And it was a case of where anythings sports meant pain (not a physical issue, as such) well, I learned. I learned damn good and well, I learned. Someone wants to be fan or player, well, alright, but the instant I “gotta” they can go lick lightsockets. For studio lights.

    2. of course, this means team of less than 7 should exclude blacks, on the basis of that their 14% of the population comes in at <1 in that case…

        1. Are there any Mexicans in the NBA? The Lakers should be half Mexicans. LA is the 2nd largest Mexican city in the world.

      1. And lest we forget, the playing areas need to be ADA compliant. Especially hockey… all that ice would seem to be a significant safety risk for the mobility challenged.

        1. You can tell that to the guys who do wheelchair hockey. Yes, it exists. Yes, most of the players are former military. No, I don’t want to be in the same building with you when you do.

            1. They sit in low chairs with a single long skate blade on it, and use a stick with a little spike tip for propulsion, plus the hockey stick.

  10. Because this is ours. You didn’t build this. And you can’t destroy it.

    Agree, agree, and we’ll see.

    They’re giving it the college try (and using colleges to do so, no less).

    we don’t know how many people it takes to maintain civilization

    This is my concern. I honestly think, “not many,” but that number depends on the vast majority of the population not actively trying to destroy it. That’s a big assumption in this day and age.

    How many builders does it take to offset one internal destroyer (I suspect more than one)? Call that N, internal destroyers d (I refuse to capitalize them), B builders, and M the minimum builders without internal destroyers.

    The question is does B > Nd + M?

    I think to win we need to winnow the number of active destroyers. I think we are rapidly approaching the the time when I need to add “by any means available regardless of moral or legal consideration” to that sentence.

    My one consolation is I suspect they will force the issue of means before we get too close to B.

    1. I thought the Navy was already trying to reduce the number of active destroyers with their new ship construction program that produces ships that need to remain in drydock all the time.

      1. I thought they were actively engaged in destroying their ships by running them into freighters?

        As someone who has stood bridge/lookout watches on Navy destroyers I still fail to understand how you actually run into a merchant ship.

        Recently ran into an old Navy buddy and that was literally the first thing he said to me ‘How the eff do you hit a merchant ship?!’. Not hey, good to see you after 8 years.

        1. I heard tell that there were two female officers on one of the colliding ships, and they weren’t talking to each other.

          1. So … the ship crashed because it failed the Bechdel test?

            Ouch. I might need to get surgery to remove my tongue from my cheek; it’s really gotten wedged.

          2. Over at Chicago Boyz there was a link in the comments of one of the posts that asserted that two specific female officers, whose duties included communicating so that the ship did not run into objects, were feuding and refusing to talk to each other.

            1. FWIW, I have not heard that from anybody who was actually connected with the Navy in any way– and it’s the kind of thing that the grape vine would eat up. I SHOULD have heard it from some of my buddies, in the context of “yeah, I heard that they really weren’t talking” type thing.

                1. Issues:
                  The rumor came out AFTER the investigation, and while the DC men are indeed strong and very able– they’re actually tested on it– the OFFICER for them is NOT GOING TO BE GOING DOWN INTO PLACES.

                  Their CHIEF does that, the officer sits with the officers.

                  That’s actually what caught my eye– it’s like folks watching Star Trek talking about the Captain being incompetent because he didn’t beam down to check stuff out first hand. That isn’t his job.

                  1. Note:
                    Really small ships might be different, but that’s REALLY small ones– I also gathered from what our DC chief said, that 15 or so years before I was in it was different, the officer was much more involved. That would’ve been 80s ish?

              1. And I was confused in my memory. No communication that shift does not prove feuding.

                1. Especially if they’re both on the bridge. 😀

                  Which is not uncommon, NOW– my husband got caught in the middle of some drama because he was the guy called up by his division officer to fix some computers.

                  The computer was unplugged. Which he discovered when he reached in the back to unplug it to “fix” it.

                  Thank God, he was quick– acted like he unplugged it, pulled it out, re-seated several cards, examined stuff, plugged it back in, mentioned vibration can loosen cards.

                  But all the officers were up there, there wouldn’t be any recorded coms for that shift.

                  1. Brilliant – my commendations for quick thinking.
                    I used to do computer “trouble shooting” over the phone, and my first question was always, “Is it plugged in?”
                    Sadly, the answer often was, “Oh….”

                    1. I once had to report an ID-ten-T error on myself for a related issue.

                      Came back from lunch one day, couldn’t connect to the network. Rebooted, still no good, so I called the help desk. Then the guy in the next cubicle told me he’d been using my network port to test a laptop… He hadn’t plugged my cable back in, and I forgot to check, since it had been working fine a half hour previously. So I got to make another call to the help desk.

                    2. Lost a day of work once because I didn’t power up the disk packs on the mainframe.

                      And I’d even *had* the job previously that involved phone conversations of “Is it plugged in? Are the little lights blinking?”

          3. I’d heard that as well. The thing is, they don’t just get info about contacts from Combat Information Center. At least not when I was in. You had people physically standing lookout at the front and back of the ship (forward and aft lookout). Their entire job is to do things like keep Mark I Eyeball looking for things in the water like. . .other ships. We would usually try and beat the CIC people to spotting contacts. Though they’d usually win in the day and we’d win at night. (Light pollution beat radar, especially with NVG).

        2. By making it so they channel “smart” people, especially women, into the job of WATCH THE WAY WE’RE ACTUALLY GOING and allowing people to be utterly incompetent and stay in the job because if you boot them back the spot goes unfilled.

          Guy on my ship was one of eight for the job; only two were able to actually do it. Poor guy was constantly exhausted.
          My shop had the same staffing levels, but instead of incompetent we were simply at six bodies instead of closer to two dozen, plus guys who were supposed to be sent to us from surface who didn’t exist.

          Basically, at least when I was in, most of the ships were seriously understaffed but were doing more with less, because you want to have room for incompetents to be removed.

          But we didn’t have that room, nobody was willing to boot the incompetents and there wasn’t anybody to replace them….

    2. > winnow

      Number of military in USA, all branches plus reserves: about 2 million.

      Number of police in USA, “sworn officers with arrest powers”: about 1 million. (fake-cop “Law Enforcement Officers”, hard to estimate, since some jurisdictions classify school crossing guards, bailiffs, building inspectors, etc. as LEOs)

      Number of armed deplorables and dregs: at least 150 million.

      Gonna be a lot different from calling SWAT to murder some guy in his own house.

      1. And that’s KNOWN gun owners. And not counting what the Truly Outraged can do with a few common, everyday grocery (let alone hardware!) store items. Stuff *ox* can think of has scared people. Imagine millions of people actually good at this ‘thinking up stuff’ thing?

        1. Remember Pumpkin Chucking is limited in range because of the Pumpkins. Replace Pumpkins with something solid and the range becomes MUCH greater.

          1. The dude who runs the catapult (no, it isn’t really, no I can’t remember the proper name, he calls himself Rat Flinger) can gage on the fly where kids need to be for the bag of Cheapest Candy He Could Find Before Each Show.

            It’s different candy each show. He has the kids go in a different spread by if it’s all the same weight or not.

            The bean bag rat, yeah, that can be explained by knowing the area and experience.

            The candy?

            … way.

        2. Tent or garden stakes, latex gloves, a trowel, and a fish tank net to recover ingredients from the toilet.

          Can make your day very, very bad.

          1. Manufacturer of black powder from the basics is a pretty disgusting process, but it’s all-natural recycled materials!

      2. Speaking of SWATting– of all freaking places, SEATTLE is publicising a private route to fight it, rather than “make friendly with the local cops so they know your house”– company called “Smart 911” provides a database for, say, the base in Tacoma saying “don’t bother with these three gates, they exist but they are locked, and the roads behind them are blocked by concrete barriers” or similar stuff.

        Seattle is a covered area, so they are suggesting that anybody who has issues go to the PRIVATE COMPANY and give them relevant 911 information.

        I think this is bleeping awesome, although I haven’t gone through their privacy program, because if THEY screw up and give folks your information they are liable.
        The cops jack it up? Um. Ooops, sorry? And that’s before the unauthorized access by officers issues, like Phoenix Jones ran into.

    3. Advantage, the active destroyers generally can’t resist going beyond what is safe when they THINK they can.

      Thus, a lot of the philosophically hard-core “transgressives” take the line as a challenge.

      Part of why the transgressors have to paint themselves as victims. See for example, the “you shouldn’t have shot my poor boy who was just robbing you at gun point, he was a good kid who wouldn’t hurt anybody”.

  11. I must say, tangentially related to this, that as a Californian I have an odd quandary. The two candidates for the Senate are both Democrats (California law prohibits write-ins in general elections, please note). One is Feinstein, whose actions in the Kavanaugh hearings I’m sure everyone knows about. The other is De León, who’s younger and more overtly socialist, but who has criticized Feinstein for her conduct (which isn’t to say he wouldn’t do just the same if he were in the Senate). I really feel that Feinstein ought to be driven out of office for her abusive conduct. But is that sufficient reason to vote for someone else whose positions are just as bad, or worse?

    1. Is it worth voting for a Nazi who would have less seniority and authority who is running against a slightly less extreme Nazi would has already committed serious crimes, and would would be punished in a just world? Keep in mind, that losing this election might be the only worldly punishment the latter Nazi would ever face.

      Pray, and vote your conscience.

        1. Consider also that shooting her in the head (at the ballot box) is the only way to indicate that her actions (as opposed to her beliefs) are unacceptable and NOT accepted. Or in French terms, “To encourage the others.”. Voting for a socialist, then washing hands and getting very drunk, may be the only way you (with millions of others) have to STOP the tactics that were used on Kavanaugh. Who cares about punishing her, punishment is for the redeemable.

          1. Just don’t vote for senator. I wonder how many votes are cast for senator than for Governor. Of course I voted with my feet fifteen years ago. Southern California was a great place to grow up.

        2. Yeah, that had occurred to me, but I wasn’t sure. I’m not that good at remembering details about so many of the regulars.

          But, if there are no theistic entities, believers have reported results. Could an atheist replicate that? Possibly so, with contemplation, meditation, etc… Soul searching might be an appropriate term. Even if you believe that you are a meat robot in a purely material universe, it is theoretically possible to benefit from thinking about a problem, admitting that you do not have a good answer, and considering your values. It might not bear fruit right away, probably will not, but continuing to regularly spend time quietly admitting that this is a decision you haven’t made yet, that will be difficult, may be of help. Not all decisions are fast and easy, and there are some classes of difficult problem that aren’t solvable with trade studies or other such technical tool.

          1. I’m not that good at remembering details about so many of the regulars.

            Maybe we need a program so people can be up to date on the regulars who, despite some claims, are not all white Morman straight men born men.

              1. I’m tempted to suggest you try for geeky disgruntled “former Catholic” guys who aren’t pissed about it, but my motives would probably upset you both….plus, if you can tell they’re former Catholics, they’re usually just pissy and ill-informed.

                There ARE honest to goodness suitably geeky (on both religion and fandom) guys, I get the idea they’re not very common, though. DAng, I miss those neighbors….they loved the Mormon Church as much as I love the Catholic.

                1. I could handle that… probably a difference in how your browser renders the page vs. the way mine does.

                  Back in the ancient bad old says, I could *tell* QModem what colors I wanted a page rendered in…

      1. I’d like the idea of getting a less senior Demoncrat in that position. On that note, DiFiChiSpy sure looks awful in the latest photographs. I don’t think things are working the way she plotted. [VBEG]

        1. I do have to say I’m satisfied to see that her accusations against Kavanaugh failed. And I’ll be even more satisfied if she has succeeded in offending enough voters to keep the Democrats from making any electoral gains.

    2. In the case of Feinstein vs De León, if elected De León won’t have the Seniority on the Democratic side that Feinstein holds.

      IE He may be worse than Feinstein, but won’t have the power of Feinstein. 😈

      Of course, I’m not a California voter. 😉

      1. The California Democrats managed to push through what I believe is called an ‘open primary’ whereby the top two vote getters, regardless of party, run in the general election. This allows the Democrats to run pretty much unopposed. Watch out for it where you live.

        1. Oh gawd. How did they manage that? It’s bad enough if “open primary” means that the other side can vote in your primary for the candidate they think would be easy to beat (Trump, har har har) but just taking top two vote getters out of a single free for all? Why not just have the *election* then?

          1. Think of it like a runoff – the two top vote getters might only have 40% between them, but winnowing out all of the 5% vote share types means that you are more likely to have a win with 50%+, rather than something in the 30-40% range

          2. My theory is that both the Democrats and the Republicans thought it made sense to keep people from voting for Libertarians, Greens, or other third parties in the general election, either by their being on the ballot or by writing them in. See the shenanigans that have been going on in New Mexico lately over Gary Johnson’s Senate candidacy.

            But it’s also possible that the Democrats just rammed it through. California isn’t quite a one-party state, but it’s not much more than one and a half parties.

            1. Ha! Which touches on MY voting quandry. I want the democrats to loose and loose as hard as possible. So do I vote for Johnson? Or do I vote for the other guy?

            2. California is a two party state: Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. And funnily enough, spell check wants to auto-correct Mesheviks to Bolsheviks, so we know which faction is doing the nitty gritty programming of spellcheck.

              1. The “jungle primary” which is the proper name for the open primary system, was actually enacted by Democrats in order to try to prevent Republicans from running in the general election for state offices in counties and cities where Republicans still have a significant presence. Basically, the idea being that the Democrats would overwhelm the Republican candidates and thus keep them off the ballot, ensuring that Democrat is elected in the general election. Indeed, the big “upset” of the California primaries this year was that a Republican got the second spot in the governor’ race, preventing the Democrat from San Fran from facing of against the Democrat from LA. The last thing the Democrats want is for any Republican to have a chance to get elected. It is why they are so anxious to end the Electoral College, why the push jungle primaries, and why they don’t want voter ID. Indeed, they are seeking take redistricting out of the hands of state legislatures and put it in the hand of “academic experts” who will of course be leftists.
                The Democrats have made it very clear that as an institution, they want complete and total power and seek to achieve it “by any means necessary”.

                1. The Jungle Primary does get hilarious on occasion when a heavily Democratic district splits the primary votes between too many candidates, and two Republicans end up running in the General Election.

                  And yes, it does happen.

                  1. It sounds to me as if the “parties” ought to have some sort of “process” prior to the voting in order to narrow their own field and concentrate on one candidate during general voting instead of many of them… it could be called a “primary.”

                    Or, failing that, a smoke filled back room ought to do.

            3. It gets justified as a spoiler prevention method.

              Nevermind that you could stop that by saying “if you go for the nomination of a party, you can’t run as an independent for the election” would do the same.

              that wouldn’t protect the incumbents.

              1. Depends how its written. IIRC Alaska has a sore loser law preventing the losing primary candidate from appearing on ballot. But they can be written. It’s why we still have murkie.

            4. I haven’t been following– did Johnson actually bother to follow all the relevant laws for once?

              The last time I was watching him– I think it was a bleeping DECADE ago, if not longer– he was whining because his campaign couldn’t be bothered to file on time and got barred to prevent spoilers.

          3. They told the @#$@## “independent minded” that it meant the two most popular people would run off.

            In Washington, it’s AKA “incumbent Protection System”. We’ve avoided it…narrowly…there.

        2. And on the other hand, it could ultimately work much the same as the rule change that made it impossible for a minority party to block a supreme court appointment.

          And I’d suggest to William that it would be easier to take the new guy down at the *next* election. (Though Diane is getting sort of ancient.)

        3. If I had any skills in organization, I’d try to push through an amendment where the primary led to the top two *or* any candidate who got at least 20% of the vote, whichever led to a greater number. Because I really hate having my choices being between “person from D party” and “another person from D party who is virtually indistinguishable from the first.” (“Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.”)

      2. The California Republican party is “terrible.”

        I cannot convey what an insult this is, but it was given to me as a POLITE description by my grandmother-in-law who is a life-long Republican Navy Pilot wife who has lived in Cali since at least the 70s. She’s in her 90s and SCARY.

        They’re bad enough she considered not voting for president AT ALL.

        1. I had an internet friend claim that he was raised a California Republican, but wouldn’t vote for the party because of their platform. I asked him what it was, and he proceeded to recite the DEMOCRAT platform from the 2008 convention as if it had always been the Republican national platform – and used it as an excuse to vote Democrat.

    3. I think I’d vote against Feinstein just on the grounds that she’s crossed a line up with which we shall not put. I’m sure her replacement will cross even more lines eventually, but let’s start out by punishing the one who’s already in there.

    4. The California Senate race this year is just a confusing mess at this point. One more item should be noted that you didn’t mention – the California Democratic Party has endorsed De Leon, even though Feinstein is the incumbent.

      At this point, I’m somewhat inclined to just throw up my hands and ignore that spot on the ballot.

        1. Maybe she is acting on the orders of the Chinese government? After all, it is rather implausible that for all those years she had no idea her driver was a Chinese government spy? I mean claiming Feinstein is an agent of the Chinese government has more plausibility and basis than anything Feinstein has accused Kavanaugh of.

    5. Vote for Feinstein.
      She is older, obviously mentally deficient, and will continue to screw things up for the Democrats, who can’t advance anyone to her positions while she is still there.
      The young guy will have too much energy and might actually accomplish something.
      Plus, he & his buddies will keep criticizing ChiDiFi and distracting her, but he would have their support.
      Revenge is a dish best served cold.

      1. I was just thinking the same thing. And I was thinking the opposite yesterday. But if the party endorsed the other guy, vote for Diane.

      2. I would not have considered voting for Feinstein even before her stunt at the Kavanaugh hearings. I’m debating whether to vote for De León (in the hope of throwing her out, pour encourager les autres) or leave that section blank (because they’re both Democrats). Feinstein’s not going to become an option.

  12. Regarding the original post:

    What the Left reads is “Gentlemen. I love war. I love …”
    What the Alt-Right reads is “Gentlebeings. I love losing. …”
    What the huns read is “Ladies and Gentlemen, despair is a sin. I think this is what is happening, and I am persuaded that it is legitimate grounds for hope. Love Truth, love beauty, love goodness, love your children.”

    1. Well said!

      If you don’t already, maybe listen to some of Dr. Ray’s podcasts– try a friday, he does “look back Friday,” it does much better in depth consideration.

      Even if you are not only not Catholic but view the idea with horror, the guy has some very good philosophy and is not HOSTILE to Wester Civ, which is nice.


      Incidentally, I’m starting to think a hell of a lot of the “alt right” at the Insta-place are straight up bots, because they’re just moronic. “Hey we are starting to build up popularity NO BEAT THEM OVER THE HEAD AND CONDEMN THEM FOR BEING LATE!!!”

      In the words of my navy peeps, Dafuq?

      1. There’s one guy over there who, during the primaries, said “If Trump doesn’t get the nomination I’m seriously considering voting for the Democrats.” I immediately called him out as a moby. He’s still posting, but under a different name (his username used to be (word)12345 except with different digits, and now it’s (word)(other word) with the same avatar. But I can’t remember his old username to point other people to his posting history).

        There’s another guy who’s playing the Internet Tough Guy to the max, including literally advocating for targeting the families of one’s political enemies.

        And besides those two that I strongly suspect to be mobys, there’s the ones who have taken a peeve to each other and insult each other every time they get.

        When Instapundit started allowing comments, it was neat for a while: there was a lot of humorous banter going on. But now it’s gotten down to the level of Youtube. Darn shame.

          1. Already have for several of them, but sometimes I succumb to “someone is wrong on the Internet” syndrome and want others to know that there’s a counterargument to what that idiot said. I’m trying to wean myself off of that, though. (And nowadays I hardly ever bother going to the comments over there, so it’s becoming a moot point.)

            1. Yeah, I spent dang near a week arguing with a guy who insisted it was safer to have narrow lanes, and two days later offered a study that said side-impacts at intersections that were narrower were fewer than at intersections that were wider*.
              No corrections on data. Study mentioned in the synopsis that it was cruddy.

              He demanded I justify pointing out that narrow lanes meant idiots spent more time in my lane.

              Never did support his claims….

              *if you instantly went “hey, high speed intersections are wider,” you thought more than he did. Even when it was pointed out. But dang, did he have the “insult and they’ll agree” playbook down.

              1. I don’t spend nearly enough time driving in the U.S. these days for that to be the first thing I thought of offhand. But… yeah. Some people get wedded to a theory and don’t want to hear about contrary possibilities that might explain the data better. (E.g., the people who think that IQ is genetic only, and therefore the average IQ of 60ish across Africa is a sign of racial inferiority… rather than the much more plausible explanation that IQ gets raised by good schooling (see the Norway study) and therefore is likely lowered by bad schooling, and Africa is FULL of kleptocratic governments who steal the pay that was supposed to go to schoolteachers.)

          2. I considered, and refused to register to comment on the Disqus sites. I’ll look at a few comments, and occasionally see a name familiar from better blogs. 🙂

            I also refuse to sign up for any Blogger/Google accounts to comment. I’ll use Google for maps (they still admit we exist), but that’s pretty much it.

            1. There are quite a few blogs out there I’d like to participate in, but I’m not going to create a Google or Disqus account to do it.

              Of course, the blog owners might view that as a feature…

  13. I truly hope, and will vote my part, that come November, that anger will emerge through the ballot box in those places where the ballot boxes can be trusted.

    I started several stories about “what finally kicked off the Revolution” back before November 2016. Happily, I have not been in the mood to revisit and finish them. The Prog-Left had better hope that mood does not return.

    1. I’ve used the line that someone is a few neutrons short of criticality. (Same sense as “He’s a taco short of a combination plate.”)

      But it seems some, in another sense that some just HAVE to add that ONE neutron more…. and…. well…. then some Ted Taylor type might get his cigarette lit.

  14. George Orwell – “So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know fire is hot.”

  15. Don’t know if you listen to Scott Adams’ podcast, but yesterday he was pointing out that being on the cusp of total doom looks very similar to being on the cusp of victory: see the Battle of the Bulge or Midway. He looks at the attacks the left are hurling right now, and he sees desperation, not strength.

      1. If I thought they were bears, I would be worried. They remind me a lot more of the yappy little rat-dogs that don’t know when they are barking at a great dane who passed somebg bgger than they are through his bowels that morning.

        Mind you, there are a lot of them.

        1. Rat-dogs can still take out your tendon.

          Folks laugh at me for never letting the little bastards get behind me…but they tend to also be the ones going “oh, no it’s so cute, they don’t REALLY hurt…” and warding the blighters off unconsciously.

          1. My step brother had three toy poodles. There was a “Beware of Dogs” sign on the gate. Electric company meter reader ignored the sign and went in anyway. Those three little terrors shredded his pants and ankles.

            Idiot sued in small claims court. He made a good case that the dogs should be put down. Then stepbro entered one photo into evidence. The judge saw the “Beware of Dogs” sign and asked the meter reader if he had seen the sign. He said yes but ignored it because they were just ankle biters.

            The Judge broke out laughing.

              1. Out here you need the signs and a “reasonable fence” for the size of the dog and the breed. So waist high fence and angry ankle-biters? Reasonable. Pit bull or Rottie? Ten foot height, solid wood or other serious “keep dogs in and people out” fence.

                1. I don’t know the (il)logic used, I just know of cases where a burglar sued the homeowner after climbing the fence with the “Beware of Dog” sign, got chewed, and won the lawsuit.

              2. I’ve heard “Beware of Dog” is admitting you have a dangerous animal on the premises if something happens. “Do Not Enter Dog on Duty” … OTOH is not admitting liability, but denying general access & informing of their presence.

                1. The first one is stupid – dogs will defend their humans and territory from intruders, and if their argument is ‘dangerous animal, must not allow’ I look forward to the hilarity and rage that shall follow. Look for various gun control similarities to be made by the pro-intruder and criminal side.

                  1. Didn’t say it made sense 😉

                    We don’t post. No reason for someone to be behind the fence, and gates are locked.

                    As for the dog? The whole neighborhood will hear her, good luck saying she isn’t there. She’s only available to go out back if we are home, if we aren’t she’s inside. She is NOT going to be quiet if you step on the property; well if you walk by in the middle of the street, to be honest. Training to stop the latter.

                    Anyone at my front door, yes, the dog alarm will go off. Anyone breaking in, the house alarm will go off & you will get mauled, not by the dog. House alarm will cause her to hide under the bed, but a cat, or two, will nail you running over you, because of the alarm. Beware the dog? HA. Beware the cats.

                    1. I am glad to live in the land of “Do not enter this field unless you can cross it in 9 seconds the bull can do it in 10.” though I wish the neighbor would keep his dogs in a fenced yard. I’m going to run over one of the car chasing suckers one of these days and there won’t be anything I can do about it. (They do not seem to be aware that one cannot herd cars as one herds cattle.)

      2. I’m concerned about what’s going to happen in the week following the election in November.

        1. I’m glad that I don’t have to visit the left side of the state until near Christmas. I’m also very glad it’s a solo trip and I can be a bit more free in taking appropriate defensive measures.

      3. And here I thought “viewing with alarm” of the bear was more of a traditional Democratic past-time, dating all the way back the halcyon days of summer 2016.

      4. “”Now ye go down in the morning with guns of the newer style,
        That load (I have felt) in the middle and range (I have heard) a mile?
        Luck to the white man’s rifle, that shoots so fast and true,
        But — pay, and I lift my bandage and show what the Bear can do!”

        (Flesh like slag in the furnace, knobbed and withered and grey —
        Matun, the old blind beggar, he gives good worth for his pay.)
        “Rouse him at noon in the bushes, follow and press him hard —
        Not for his ragings and roarings flinch ye from Adam-zad.

        “But (pay, and I put back the bandage) this is the time to fear,
        When he stands up like a tired man, tottering near and near;
        When he stands up as pleading, in wavering, man-brute guise,
        When he veils the hate and cunning of his little, swinish eyes;

        “When he shows as seeking quarter, with paws like hands in prayer
        That is the time of peril — the time of the Truce of the Bear!”

        Eyeless, noseless, and lipless, asking a dole at the door,
        Matun, the old blind beggar, he tells it o’er and o’er;
        Fumbling and feeling the rifles, warming his hands at the flame,
        Hearing our careless white men talk of the morrow’s game;

        Over and over the story, ending as he began: —
        “There is no truce with Adam-zad, the Bear that looks like a Man!”

  16. Speaking of outrage, I just want to know who that guy I’ve been seeing in videos is and what he’s done with Lindsey Graham.

    On second thought, I don’t care who he is. Can we keep him?

      1. Oh heck no! L.G. 2.0 is greatly to be preferred. Burn, sprinkle with holy water (or appropriate adult libation) and bury the ashes at a crossroads at midnight, just to be certain.

          1. If we presume blackmail, perhaps the son in law inherited McCain’s files.

      1. Neither he, Vichy, nor most of NRO cared when they used paid accusers and forged evidence against the deplorable Trump or that hick Xtianist Roy Moore. “Not our sort, dearie.”

        But Kavanaugh? He was their sort, on Romney’s short list and all. What most of them seem to have realized is that Col Schlicter called it: The Left hates you and want you dead, no matter how much reaching across the aisle you do.

        1. Oh, yes, because a public statement by Mitchell McConnell Jr. would be JUST the ticket to improve those situations, right?

          “Gosh, the Republican Senator from Kentucky is on their side! THAT will sway the undecided!”

          I have no idea what “most” of NRO thought of anything, but a lot of the objective information on Moore came from different articles there and likewise the wide range of articles about the issues with the anti-Trump dosser that can actually be shared in polite company are from NRO. (it’s amazing how many of the hard core Trump fanboys cannot write without using obscene language)

          1. Narrator: Where someone who has never lived in AL, and has no family in AL currently, and has admitted she hasn’t read the columns in question, thinks she can tell someone who meets all those qualifications, what went on. Riiiiiight.

            1. Thanks for demonstrating your amazing ability to assume your conclusion, even if it means changing the stance from the entire stable of NRO writers to the columns published on NRO.

              Once again, your powers of mind-reading are far less than persuasive.

    1. I suspect this Kavanaugh mess has convinced him that the Dems have no intention of playing by the rules. I think that comes as a personal betrayal to him.

    2. Narrator: “Watch closely. We’ve replaced Senator Graham’s Geritol with Pure Testosterone crystals. Will anyone notice the difference?”

  17. This is ours. You can’t take it. Besides, you’d just destroy it.

    We’re bracing, digging down, getting ready for impact. When it all falls down around our ears, we hope to have built enough around, over and under that things will go on with minor glitches.

    This nation will survive. Civilization will survive.

    Because this is ours. You didn’t build this. And you can’t destroy it.

    “This we’ll defend” (US Army motto).

      1. Twitchy has been fun of late:


        Hatch waves off protesters screaming at him.

        Protester “Don’t you wave your hand at me. I wave my hand at you.”

        Hatch: “When you grow up, I’ll be glad to.”

        Protesters triggered, melt-down, scream at the 84 year-old Hatch, “Why don’t you grow up!!!”

        I’m crying.

        5:47 PM – Oct 4, 2018

  18. It’s the end of the world as they know it, and I feel fine.

    Rasmussen Reports
    Verified account

    Today’s @realDonaldTrump approval ratings among black voters: 35%. This day last year: 23% @POTUS @realDonaldTrump

  19. Speaking of Democrats going insane, have you seen how ballistic they are going over the fact that the FBI report doesn’t help their cause and are now claiming that the investigation was “fixed”. Ironic given the evidence that the Obama DOJ and FBI did fix the Hillary investigation as well as illegally spying on Trump.
    Needless to say, Democrats are calling for “fighting” and “war” to “killKavanugh” and at the same time denounce anyone critical of them as engaging in violent rhetoric and hate speech. They have made it clear that their idea of “justice” is the Mao’s Cultural Revolution Redux currently taking place in colleges and high schools (and even down to pre-school) where show trials and forced confessions are the norm and where people who disagree are subject to Red Guard tactics and kangaroo courts. They have also made very clear that they intend to impose this on society at large, and what the Senate Democrats have done is simply implementation of this.
    When the leftist mob screams that they think entire groups of people should shut up and die, they mean it literally and if they ever have the power to carry out their desires, they will seek to achieve their goal. History has proven that when leftist gain complete unchallenged control and demonize entire groups as “enemies”, concentration camps and mass graves (or ovens) follow. Indeed, this time around the leftists will proclaim it justified as necessary to “save the Earth” by reducing the population to a “sustainable level”.
    This will not end well and I suspect the next “World War’ will actually be global civil wars, as one can see this conflict coming to head not only here in the USA but in Europe as well.

    1. There will be a return of Religious was in Europe as it is decided if the Muslims are going to take power or not. The BIG question is will the people fight or submit. The traitor leaders will run away with load of money of course and try and mess up some other country.

    2. When the leftist mob screams that they think entire groups of people should shut up and die, they mean it literally and if they ever have the power to carry out their desires, they will seek to achieve their goal. History has proven that when leftist gain complete unchallenged control and demonize entire groups as “enemies”, concentration camps and mass graves (or ovens) follow. Indeed, this time around the leftists will proclaim it justified as necessary to “save the Earth” by reducing the population to a “sustainable level”.

      I said that recently, I believe. The problem is, it seems unlikely for us to react until they actually START doing that, or some line is crossed (I’m still wondering what it’ll take for the push back) and then the war begins…

      Tangent: I’ve been rereading some favorites, and a character’s bitter observation really struck me, in reflection of the insanity that really came out re: Kavanaugh.

      “So many lives ruined, because some bitch liked to play games.

  20. Many of you may not remember the late 1960s. The left collectively went ape-s###, including mob actions, riots, terrorism, and all sorts of nasty/violent idiocy.

    The ’68 Democrat convention was -epic- lunacy.

    Nixon won handily.

    Doubling down, the Left assured a Nixon landslide in ’72.

    I think they may have forgotten what happens when the Left gets violently busy, and starts becoming -convincing- at it.

    The dems have been trying to sustain peak angry for two years. It requires redoubling of effort. It is hard to sustain.

    And what they are actually doing, is driving their opposition to the polls, perhaps in -epic- numbers.
    Look at how they did so in 2016. They haven’t slacked since then.

    At this rate, Trump may wind up with a second term with super-majorities in House and Senate.

    Not tired of winning yet, Mr. President.

    1. Many of you may not remember the late 1960s.

      My dad was a young teen, my mom barely squeaked in as a teen for them….

      Most of what I was TAUGHT was happy clappy bullshit, and I dislike cussing. (I once said shit and my entire shop jumped backwards because I “don’t cuss.” I view it as giving valuable information to the enemy.)

      I really need to read “Days of Rage.”

    2. And 8 years after 1972, a good number of the Radical Leftist had settled down, gotten jobs, started families, and voted for Ronald Regan.
      My mum for instance.

        1. My recollection from Romney is that 49% were government dependents, either employees or welfare.

          1. Romney was also engaging in some bad stats. A good chunk of those people either had been net taxpayers in the past, would be in the future, or were otherwise productive members of society.

          2. Remember, for instance, that people whose income tax liabilities are zero include, high school graduates who worked only half the year — college graduates in August who worked a quarter of it — entrepreneurs whose businesses are being set up and bring in no income — and others whose status will last a few years, or maybe no more.

        2. It’s not exactly a media blackout, but every now and then a new trickle of information comes out about the progress of the multiple voter fraud investigations started after the election.

          It is far worse than I thought… but even that couldn’t give them enough votes to put the Witch into the Oval Office.

        3. The Bolsheviks were a minority as well (and prob even well less than 25%) and yet managed to take power, create the Soviet Union, and rule it like a living hell on Earth for 80 years.

    3. The only thing they remember is that they took down Nixon.
      Of course THEY didn’t the Republicans DID.

        1. did it to myself last night. was going to watch the MotoGP race in Thailand. just too far off scedule so I went to bed late, set an alarm and caught the Chequered Flag show after the end and after the few minutes of race highlights for all 3 classes went back to bed.
          Sleep when you can Milady

          1. I try. The last week however, has been plagued by those annoying dreams where you dream you’ve woken up, and have spent several hours doing the things you’re meant to do… then wake up, late morning, exhausted… and realizing “Oh bloody hells, I dreamed all that.”

            That’s just not fair, brain. Serious foul. ;_;

    1. You know, a part of me thinks this is what they want, as they unmake civilization.
      The other part of me thinks “Are we sure Puppet Masters wasn’t prophetic?”

      1. Trust you to come up with Puppet Masters. ~:)
        Still, if it was Puppet Masters or reptilian kitten eaters from Planet Zongo,it is difficult to say what they’d be doing differently.

      2. It’s all part of the “never let a crisis go to waste” credo that they use as a pretext to expand government power and to impose their insane Marxist vision that they would have no chance of getting people to accept voluntarily. This is the reason why they keep getting more and more hysterical about “global warming” even as observations prove all their models are patently wrong. It is because it has never been about climate, but a pretext to impose global socialism and trying to sell it is necessary to “save the Earth”. In fact, the only thing the Earth needs to be saved from is leftists.

  21. To treat humans as though they were widgets … is a form of insanity.
    Yes. Fundamental difficulty with making the ‘totalitarian utopia’ thing work – some portion of humanity will NOT fit into the “shut up and get back in the mud, peasant” mold.

    1. Which is why leftism is inherently totalitarian. In order for leftists to achieve their goals, even if they don’t start out as totalitarians, they will inevitably go that route, whether slowly or fast, because human nature is that some people will refuse to accept being widgets.

Comments are closed.