This Little Light of Mine

boat-2624054_1920

The time has come to speak of many things, none of them as romantic as wax seals and kings, let alone dodos, but all of them things that must be talked about.  And I don’t mean just on this blog, or just by me.

People who have read this blog know I often refer to having “come out.” While this is the appropriate term, it has nothing to do with sexual inclination.  At least, I don’t think we’ve reached the kind of societal bizarro-unanimity about orientation where it is needed to come out as straight. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t think so, and part of it is the reason that we must speak of things.

My coming out was of a political nature.  My gay libertarian friends (with perhaps one exception) assure me it was much harder to come out as libertarian or anti-Marxist than to come out as gay. It was more likely to materially damage their social life and professional prospects.

And I came out of the political closet in more than full knowledge of this.

Having grown up when and where I did, in a country riven by political divisions, and having had a vital grade held hostage but having been told I could have it if only I would join the Communist Party (and refused, knowing full well what that meant for my prospects in the sciences, yes) I didn’t suffer from the happy-go-lucky notion that my leftist friends would simply smile and say “Oh, you’re libertarian. That’s interesting. It’s at odds with what I think libertarians are. Would you explain to me why you have these ideas?”

For one, I’d lurked enough in leftist circles in both Europe ad the US to realize it was not just a set of political beliefs but a deeply held identity. I had to. The experiences above had schooled me early that the left was zealously guarding the avenues of approach to certain professions.

In Portugal, the only way I could make money from writing was journalism, and it took me about ten seconds of interning in a newspaper to realize that I could refuse to join a party (the excuse being I didn’t like to be tied down/do meetings.) It was weird, but “acceptable.”  Or I could join a bizarre, laughable party (when pushed, I told people I was a monarchist.)  BUT if they viewed me as in serious opposition to leftist ideas and leftist solutions, they would make sure I never worked anywhere where I might have access to mass communication or even the minds of the young (which was my fall back position. Teaching.)

This dominance of what was until recently a fairly narrow channel of access to the public minds — and those on the right who say we ceded it can f*ck right off. No. The left is very good at running purity tests above competence tests. Part of the reason their skinsuited institutions tend to collapse, yes, but also a road to total domination.  — has twisted the left into something very odd.

Not only has their absence of conscience-checkers: i.e. journalists who’ll track them down with the same ruthlessness they track down republicans (anyone want to imagine what would happen to a Republican president who had it on with a woman under his authority while in the oval office? Because I bet you money it wouldn’t be “it’s just sex.”); partly because of the reporting and uniformity of voices everywhere from education to news reporting to the arts, to entertainment, the left became convinced that its opinions, its view of the world, its beliefs were “What everyone who is smart and good believes.”

People were educated in this. I was. Essays with Marxist points of view were rewarded, for instance, and those that didn’t have them were derided.  The “right” conclusion to take from history was the Marxist one, etc.  Every educated person believed this way.

Humans are social animals. We want to identify with those who are seen as smart and/or good. We want to climb the hierarchy.

It is permissible to say socialism has flaws, but not that the whole system is a pile of manure. You can be a concerned socialist trying to fix (minor) glitches in the “best” system, but not to say it’s just an oligarchy and the oligoy are not the best in this case, and it stinks to high heavens.

If you say something like that you’re for individual liberty, they turn this around by saying you want the strong ruling the weak, because everyone knows without pervasive government interference/control, it ends up in feudalism. Because that’s the way humans are.  (The fact that they don’t see that humans in government are also just humans is… amazing. Like government rinses away all your bad instincts, instead of power corrupting.)  (They base this, btw, on things like the very corrupt and incapable of reproducibility Zimbardo experiments.)

Anyway, because the concentration of mass media and communication in leftist hands, their point of view became not just one point of view, but the only point of view. And because people with different points of view were invisible, they became demonized.

This is very human, very tribal. It’s “those people there, over the hill, they’re real bastards and not at all like us.”

Only the hill was a mountain of self-censorship and character assassination.

And you knew — if you were in the slightest way aware of social currents — that it would hit you if you ever stepped outside the “tribe.”  You still do.

When I started reading dissenting points of view from what “everybody knows” I felt dirty. I would have a physical reaction where I started shaking and sometimes felt nauseous. I actually believed the demonization of certain people as racist/sexist/homophobic, and wouldn’t read them for fear of contagion.

Except, you see, I’m broken. I have a mental defect which got me in more trouble as a young kid than I care to mention: I run towards that which scares me.

It doesn’t mean I embrace it. (Mostly when I ran towards, say, the sound of boys being violent I ended up fighting them.  OTOH when we first lived in a big city in the US, which scared me because of the image of big cities in the US projected in Europe, I ended up loving it.) It means I have to go see what it is, so it will stop scaring me.

So I kept reading things that they told me were evilbad.  Yes, Sowell was one of the first, starting with his newspaper columns. And very persuasive, because, you know, economics are and I’d observed some of the bad effects of the stuff he said was bad  in Portugal, first hand.  At some point someone gave me Hayek.  Someone and I’ll never know who, because my entire circle at the time was very liberal and I was NOT a public figure, sent me a subscription to Reason, back when it was Virginia Postrel’s thing. Weirdly, reading fiction by those evilbad racist, sexist, homophobes was the last barrier to come down.  The conclusion?  Well, I do in fact think some of those people nurture beliefs as authoritarian as Marxism, if different. But the vast majority of them writing evilbad fiction, are really just writing fiction. And some of them are incredibly skilled and shine a mirror on things I’d never questioned, and make me think (which is not the purpose of fiction, but it’s one of its values.)

At first it felt like going insane.  And I knew better than to mention my increasingly unorthodox opinions in gatherings of writers.

One of the things the left utterly believes is that the right is not as creative.  It’s one of those things in which having the megaphone and preventing anyone else from being heard (certainly from being heard without consequences) fails them.  See the reasoning is this:

If you’re right wing (which for the left is defined as anyone outside of the narrow band from Lenin to Stalin) you support the status quo. You are a good boy/girl who has never questioned anything he/she was taught, and therefore you are not a creative person/someone who takes risks.

I’m not even sure that was ever true, as the status quo can be questioned from well outside the authoritarian left. BUT even if it were ever true, it’s not so in the most recent 50 years (my lifetime.)

In that time, as detailed above, the heights of culture have been commandeered by the left.  “Everybody knows” is leftist. Leftism is a positional good, to which all the rich flock, so they can think of themselves as good and smart too. The education is overwhelmingly leftist and more so the further you advance. The good boys and girls or as I used to say in Portugal “the children of good families” are all hard core left (partly because of guilt because their model of the world tells them that they or their ancestors did something wrong to become rich, and partly because that’s the way to keep/stay in power.)

This means if you dissent, they’ll suddenly “realize” you’re not just evil bad, but stupid and not creative. Because to think otherwise would require them to question their whole system.

Also, and more importantly, advancement in the arts can be had for the price of spouting “impeccable” leftist opinions, whatever those are at the moment (like most top down systems, they change at the whim of those on top).  Life on the easiest setting, you could call it.  This doesn’t mean all leftist authors are horrible (or artists, or film makers) but that if you are a mediocre creator, you can get very far and advance in the hierarchy by being more lefty than thou.

This means enough non-entities have made the upper echelons that they feel threatened by EVEN LEFTISTS with a particle of creativity.  Which explains Hollywood. And possibly the mess that most publishing is (though frankly, there’s many other things in there.)

This in turn means that they must hold onto the idea that they are teh most creative! ever! by virtue of their politics, and that giving the other side a voice is crazy talk, because that tribe over there is not creative at all! They’re just saving the public from our drek! Really! (The number of times I heard that in meetings and mailing lists where no one knew what I was is not even funny.)

Which in their minds justifies everything they do keep us out. Starting with character assassination and threats.

The problem with this cycle is what I said above: the fate of skinsuited institutions.  When you hire and promote for ANY OTHER REASON THAN COMPETENCE (and that includes the old “because you’re of good families” not just Marxism) you corrode the very foundations of what makes institutions/industries work.  You create a venal, non-functioning system which destroys itself.

And we can’t afford that. We just can’t. Not without a few billion deaths.

In many ways civilization, as in, that which has allowed humans an unprecedented level of wealth and security on this planet like nothing our ancestors even could dream of, is threatened.

It is threatened not just because Marxism is uniquely dysfunctional and out of touch with reality, but because it’s become not only the only voice allowed, but THE pathway to power and recognition.

Whenever an opinion or in this case a system of opinions becomes dominant enough to present a non-meritocratic path to power, society will die.  This was true of the Catholic Church when Europe was a de-facto theocracy. It’s true of the Muslim countries, stagnant for 700 years. And it’s true of socialist dominance in Europe.

I don’t remember the Heinlein quote, so I’ll paraphrase: I’ve never yet heard an opinion or an idea so dangerous that it must be suppressed.

I’ve heard revolting ideas, sure. One of them being that everything we do is predestined, or that humans are fungible, and should think like their various groups. Another being that you need to be controlled for your own good. Or that your skin color dictates what and who you are.

All of those are revolting and vaguely insane (i.e. at variance with reality.) Or sometimes not “vaguely” but “out there” insane.

That doesn’t mean they should be forbidden or that expressing them should be suppressed or demonized. Sometimes what the crazy person proffers as a solution is not just wrong, but nauseatingly wrong.  BUT what they’re SEEING has validity. They just misdiagnose the problem.

Which means more discussion is needed, not less. More study of history is needed, not less. More introspection is needed, not less.

Some of my opinions (a lot of them, if you consider I started as an European which means a species of socialist) have undergone marked changes. Some of them in recent years.

I’ve come to the conclusion, for instance, that open borders and free movement of people on a global scale, with no national checks, is insane, PARTICULARLY for a country of laws. Because culture has real heft and is not quickly changed (in the individual it’s painful to change. In the group it takes generations) opening your borders to all comers means dissolution.  Turns out most humans don’t really believe in laws, or at least not in laws that apply to them.

And on drug legalization? Still for, for philosophical reasons, but I think in the long run, in a socialist/welfare system which denies opportunities to young people legalization is just a way of distributing Soma.  It’s a way of keeping the population anesthetized so they don’t rebel. (Who knew? Turns out opium is the opium of the people.)  Meaning I think we need to legalize drugs to stop oppression and stop oppression to legalize drugs.  You could say I’m evolving on the subject. (Which mostly means I get shouty if prodded. Because it’s not done baking.) Again, I still think legalization is needed to defang government. I also acknowledge given our current society not only isn’t it a magical panacea, but it has serious problems.

I changed my mind on open borders not by refusing to talk to people, but by reading a ton of history and having a ton of arguments with both history and friends.

Is my opinion now better? Well, it’s more congruent with reality. Meaning it explains a lot of things better.

Part of the reason we’re in this trouble, is that the left has managed to push anyone who has doubts about their credal system into the closet.  And that coming out of the closet gets you labeled as a lot of things you SURELY aren’t (Well, some people are. The problem there, though, is that we now tend to assume they aren’t, because this is used so much. Ask me how I found that out) like racist, sexist, homophobic and whatever the latest denunciation is, up to saying libertarians want rule by the strongest. (Which indeed DOES correlate really well with wanting the governments — the most powerful bodies of rule in our world — made small and powerless, retaining only enough power to administer equality before the law.  It makes perfect sense, if you turn it around and shake it like a snow globe. Or wear your pants on your head and sing to Cthulhu. Or something.)

And it’s not just being called things, and suddenly assumed to be stupid (and the smarter you are, the more they tell everyone how stupid you are. See mediocrities and feeling threatened.)

The left knows its house of non-meritocratic cards, its system of privilege and despotism, cannot withstand challenges.

So they will try to erase you. Particularly if you’re a creator. They will try to vilify you so much that people are afraid to crack open one of your books, even if it has bloody nothing to do with politics (see the reviews of my shifter series complaining about my politics.) They’re afraid to look at your drawings. They’re scared of watching your movies. They’re afraid some invisible contagion will reach out and make you a leper like them, that other tribe, those evil weirdos.

The left will also, as we’ve seen in recent years, attempt to make you unemployable, and threaten your family and loved ones. Even if your job isn’t in one of their “fields.”  Even if you’re just a Catholic school student, in fact.

I get all this as reason for not coming out of the closet.  I even get it as reason for singing in the chorus of lefty eructations and never questioning it.

I once wanted to tell stories and have them read SO MUCH that I came close to selling my soul for it.

But in the end, you can’t tell stories if you’re lying to everyone, including largely yourself. Not the stories you should tell.  Instead, you tell maimed/hampered things, like birds with their wings cut off.

And civilization can’t save itself if it’s lying to itself about the causes of problems, its own past, and… well, everything, really, in order to stay congruent with “the one true philosophy.”

Whatever that philosophy is.

Recently family and friends have told me to stop slaying dragons and go back to writing fiction, because the dragon slaying is killing me. It’s making me bleed out, in non-physical ways.

And sure, as a friend whose opinion I respect told me “Your blog is not going to markedly change the course of the country or the world.”

He’s not wrong.  I can’t do this alone.  I also appreciate his idea that I can do more through fiction. He’s also not wrong. Except it takes time.  And I’m not sure we have time. We are skating on the rim of hell. It’s going to take a miracle, as is.

No, I can’t do it alone.

Yes, all I EVER wanted to do was write my stories. And I want — need — to do more of that.

Yes, I DO realize all of you out there have really important reasons why you stay quiet.  THE most important reasons. Jobs, family, children, vocations. Food on the table and roof over your heads. The thing that is more important than life itself for you. Whatever that is.

I’m not making fun of it. I GET those reasons. I even get, trust me, the desire to do something and be recognized for something SO MUCH that you can’t let even deep conviction get in its way.

All I’m saying is that it’s later than you think. Judging from the insanity stalking abroad, with a scythe in its hand (and a hammer in the other) and pants on its skeletal head, it’s probably later than I think.

This little light of yours, you’ve got to let it shine.  Come out, come out, wherever you are.

Oh, yeah, they can hit you, and make your life hell. (Although, after a while, honestly, the whisper campaigns against you are so ridiculous that you have to laugh. They bear no relation to reality.)

BUT there is life, here, on the other side of blacklisting yourself.

Right now, perhaps for a brief period, there are ways to get around their control. Indie is one, of course. But there are others, for other professions.

Doesn’t mean it won’t hurt you like living hell or curtail your prospects. I wouldn’t lie to you. It will.

Perhaps there are things worth the sacrifice, the civilization we leave our grand kids being one of them.

Consider, consider very hard whether its time to walk out of the closet, carrying your light, and bringing it into the world.  Consider if the price is worth it.

Lest darkness fall.

Be not afraid.

372 responses to “This Little Light of Mine

  1. One reason I suspect the Great Courses/Teaching Company is doing so well is that it provides people with college courses without the entanglements and politics of college. Yes, some of the profs are slanted one way or the other. That comes with tenure, I fear. But it’s not force-fed at the student. You can listen to and/or watch history, science, math taught by good lecturers without being lectured by administrators or sitting through mandatory struggle-sessions. And I’m still going to own the DVDs after Mizzou, or Occidental, or Evergreen State, and the other hyper-Woke colleges finish going down the toidy and collapse.

    • You can also help at the prof without hurting your grades. And it is easy to stop and look up what he is talking about.

      It is also interesting to see that people whose books one respects, sometimes had professors of which they speak with affection as great mentors, but who.are pretty far into wackyland in their own lectures.

      Amy-Jill Levine was Brant Pitre’s professor. Holy crud, there is an odd couple. Listening to her Old Testament lectures was like, “No, argh, objection, no — heyyy, that makes sense — no, argh, objection, no….” But I wasn’t sorry about it.

      And Bob Brier’s History of Ancient Egypt lectures are a freaking bargain.

      • I would love to take Dr. Harl and Dr. Aldrete to a bar and just listen to them yack with each other.

      • Amy-Jill is a character and a half. Mom and Dad Red took a short course with her had had a ball.

        • People tend to have forgotten that a great teacher is not somebody who fills your head with [subject matter]. A great teacher does not teach you math. biology, history or economics … a great teacher understands the task is to take young heads full of mush and teach them to think. Thomas Sowell is a great teacher, Robert Heinlein is a great teacher.

          For too many people thinking is labor, not fun. And they call us odd!

  2. Paul (Drak Bibliophile) Howard

    Amen! Sister Sarah! 😀

  3. When I “joined the internet” as more than a lurker I thought about whether to use my real name or not. Obviously my field (open source) more or less requires the use of a real name for cultural reasons, but what about beyond that?

    In the end not hiding was the only reasonable option: between my own experience, and the reports of others (particularly our host) it is all too clear that silence eats your soul. Not that this is any great virtue on my part….. the trail has already been made. And people like Milo or Trump are already absorbing most of the flak.

    This dominance of what was until recently a fairly narrow channel of access to the public minds — and those on the right who say we ceded it can f*ck right off. No. The left is very good at running purity tests above competence tests. Part of the reason their skinsuited institutions tend to collapse, yes, but also a road to total domination. — has twisted the left into something very odd.

    *blink*

    Hadn’t really thought about the “we ceded the fight” meme before. I think it is a Happy Lie. There is a strong element of “I totally could have beat up that guy!” to it, after all look at the patheticness of the opposition. But it might also act as a salve for the far worse reality of being utterly unprepared to fight the sort of shadow culture war that went on for most of the 20th century.

    All I’m saying is that it’s later than you think. Judging from the insanity stalking abroad, with a scythe in its hand (and a hammer in the other) and pants on its skeletal head, it’s probably later than I think.

    The leftist meme-plague is now regularly telling its members to arm up. It’s Late.

    • It’s a tad late for them to arm up. Use of firearms and especially used of hand arms requires a modicum of skill, and it isn’t acquired overnight…though a lot of history can be explained by which side thought they had a way around that.

      Oh, they can beat up mildly leftist reporters they disapprove of, but if they ever come it contact with genuine ‘bitter clingers’ their lives are likely to be full of interest and incident…if brief.

      • Yeah. It amuses me endlessly that these dumbasses think Tim Pool and Andy Ngo are ‘conservative’. They’re ‘conservative’ only because the Antifwok crowd are working to go further left of Stalin or Mao.

        • I think the cold truth is that Antifa isn’t Left OR Right. Antifa is ‘Hey, we get to block traffic, shout obscenities, and beat on people and nobody will stop us, so long as we stick to this simple script!’

          Antifa if the Hobby Protester taken to toxic levels.

          • Antifa IS the Hobby Protester taken to toxic levels.

            Sorry. I’m tired and my fingers are turning into fungers.

          • no, they’re left. very very very left. like, anarchocommunist left… there’s a reason they picked antifa, and black and red.

    • I somewhat fell into posting pseudonymously; I have employed my initials, RES, as my signet since High School if not prior, and just fell into that when I went online. It was only after I realized that many Leftists will make arguments from identity — and more importantly, attack arguments on basis of identity — that I committed myself to being an avatar of pure reason. Folks can attack my logic, my facts, my interpretation of fact and my understanding of human behaviour and history — but they cannot disallow any argument on basis of my complexion or plumbing.

    • Hadn’t really thought about the “we ceded the fight” meme before. I think it is a Happy Lie. There is a strong element of “I totally could have beat up that guy!” to it, after all look at the patheticness of the opposition. But it might also act as a salve for the far worse reality of being utterly unprepared to fight the sort of shadow culture war that went on for most of the 20th century.

      Funny, from this side, the “there’s no way we could possibly oppose that!” looks like the happy lie.

      Same way my parents couldn’t possibly homeschool. Same way that was OK to demand that I hold the Catholic faith, but not that I be taught it. Same way it was OK to demand I hold to pretty much anything that wasn’t popular liberalism, but not that someone ACTUALLY STAND UP AND TEACH ME THE STUFF I AM SUPPOSED TO DEFEND.

      Not asking for a Sparticas last stand, here, just some kind of freaking hint!

      ….but no, I had to go to Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers, National Review.

      The same places that the old folks are oh so quick to scream are horrible and evil and bad because they’re not pure enough are the same ones that were actually able to be BOTHERED to make an argument.

      • Well yes.
        If there’s one thing that Boomer Conservatives and Millennial Liberals have in common, it’s that the current sociopolitical situation that they find so displeasing is In No Way Their Fault.

        • In fairness, if you are only forty, and liberal, it is a little forgivable to think that politics is showing up for the protests and nothing more.

          • I went to the protests where I came from expecting that we were going to get the whole rifles aimed at us thing. It just so happened that my friend and I who were at the EDSA shrine (for the second one, not the first) were there on the overpass, leaving (we were close to heatstroke) when the police threw in with us. But we’d run out of water, so home we went.

            Apparently I liked to draw up anti-Marcos banners and stick them to my little treehouse. And also protest against my Dad if he didn’t take us to the zoo. I was three. My Mom laughed at my Dad and said that’s what he got for having his colleagues and friends making the things at our home.

      • Well, to be fair, when I grew up Catholic in roughly the 1970s and 80s, going to catechism classes and getting all the mandated training, the local church was far more interested in supporting the unionization of the grape pickers and making moral pronouncements about how obviously we had to support all the Liberation Theology crap that the Soviets were stirring up in Central America than in giving us a solid grounding in depth in support of two millennia of church reasoned arguments.

        By the time youngins like Foxfier went through the mill it was even worse.

        And nowadays, when the Pope hisownself is the product of Liberation Theology, well, there you go.

        • My mom was a CCD instructor in the late 70s– right up until the local priest demanded that she tell the classroom full of high school kids that sex outside of marriage was totally OK if you “really loved” the person.

          Quoth mom: what 17 year old boy ISN’T sure he’s whatever is needed when it’s a matter of sex?

          • … sex outside of marriage was totally OK if you “really loved” the person.

            Daughtorial Unit’s reaction to it being “okay in a committed relationship” with a sniff and the observation, “Committed relationship? You mean marriage?”

        • It broke her ability to teach Catholicism; so we only got what the local CCD had….

          Coloring books, felt banners and singing Jesus loves me were a strong theme up into high school. -.- Thank God for Jimmy Akin and his Theology of the Living Dead.

  4. I must read in greater detail later, but at the moment rest beckons. As for party affiliation, I’ve had the good fortune to reside in states where one registers as a VOTER rather than as a Party Member. If I *had* to declare such, I might well claim membership in the Cocktail Party – after all, how can I be expected to endure such utter nonsense stone-cold sober?

    Alas, I fear all too many are not Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, or even Socialists… but more members of a Librium Party – going through it all tranquilized. Make your own Prince Valium joke. Ox go stack Z’s now.

    • I am inclined to eschew Party identification on the grounds that experience has led me to conclude that the label often does not match the contents. I am inclined to support the Republican Party as (generally) the more conservative party (which is damning with increasingly faint praise) aka The Lesser Evil. I would happily support a Libertarian Party but cannot support the Libertine Party. Their recent presidential nominee’s unconcealed antipathy toward religious liberty did little to convince me they were ready to govern.

      Thus I remain a wallaby without a party, a position I find entirely congenial.

      • aka The Lesser Evil
        I really should stop getting my politics from toss-away lines in movies.
        I thought it was the Lesser Weevil we were supposed to choose.

        • I once considered running for office, but I lacked the cotton parasites to lease out. Lessor (of) weevil… so I realized I hadn’t a chance.

    • I’m a Republican because I want to vote in the Republican primaries. Though recently it has occurred to me that I might want to switch my registration so that I can vote for the least destructive Democrat.

      • Bingo. Many people fail to understand the Party system entirely. They want to vote for ‘the man’ not the organization. Well, if the man doesn’t have an organization behind him and around him, then he’s left out of most of the horse-trading.

        And horse-trading is what representative government is all about. The Democrats despise it (though they do it constantly) because we’re supposed to do what ‘the experts’ tell us is best. As if ‘the experts’ have a better track record than, say, the Divine Right of Kings.

        *spit*

        Mencken wrote that Democracy was the theory that the common man knew what (e wanted and deserved to get it, good and hard. And that sounds very cynical and curmudgeonly. BUT it grants the common man his agency, which few other systems of government do.

        • I tend towards Churchill’s observation that Democracy is the world’s worst form of government… with the exception of all the rest.

        • I have long argued that there is only ONE single vote which you can be confident an elected representative will cast: the vote to organize the legislature. You could vote a Democrat right of Limbaugh to represent you in the House, but that will still mean the House is organized with Speaker Pelosi and Committee Chairs Nadler, Schiff and so on.

          Even John McCain could be relied on to support McConnell over Schumer for majority leader, and Grassley & Graham for Senate Judiciary Chair over DiFi and Leahy. Scroll through the lists of standing committees in each chamber and look at the ranking minority member to know what you are choosing when you vote.

          As in the military, you do not get to choose alongside whom you fight – only against whom (and not always even then.) As Rumsfeld noted, “You go to war with the Army you have.”

          It takes a real piece of [art] to do as Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords did. One reason I so admire Phil Graham s that when he switched parties he had the integrity to resign and stand for reelection with the new label.

      • Or, depending on the district, vote for the most Looney-Tune Dims in hopes that enough people would get so turned off by their shenanigans that they’ll vote for the other person, or stay home. Of course, something like that wouldn’t work where I am now; this is the district (I refuse to say ‘we’ since I wasn’t in it) that sent Omar to D.C.. Sorry . . .

        • I live in Oregon. East of the Cascades, we’re pretty solidly Rightwing Deplorable, but at the state level, the loonier the leftie, the more likely they are to get elected.

          In the primaries, now we try to send (or keep) the GOPe people home and support more spinally solid candidates. We’re making some progress.

          • “The Republican Party is no better than the Democratic Party” is one of the handful of big lies that prevents the coagulation of a critical mass AGAINST the totalitarian Left. What one is against can matter more than what one is for. There are no totalitarians on the right in the US. OTOH, the Totalitarians control the Democratic Party. If one buys, as I do, Sarah’s exhortation that it’s later than we think, then eschewing the Republican Party out of some personal sense of idealism or purity or intellectual superiority is an indulgence the US and the world cannot afford for long. The massive cohort of self-described Independents is now a plurality in the US. The message that sends is that the two parties are equally valid. This is false. Those who love liberty ought to say so – to include registration as a Republican. The Democrats will purge the party of the leftist totalitarians if they are forced to because the Leftist has become anathema— as the racist is rightly anathema.

            • I agree. Republicans have many reasons for their issues and they’re less than ideal. but we should always remember Heinlein’s Maxim. If there’s no one you want to vote for, there’s always someone you want to vote against.
              And the current democrats are too dangerous to even allow near POWER.

            • Hear, hear.

              (It would also pull the Reps back to the right, since we have so many abandoned sane Dems as Reps, now.)

            • ‘The Republican Party is no better than the Democratic Party’” is one of those almost right statements. More accurately, one should say, “The Republican Party is no worse than the Democratic Party.” And even when it is bad it is usually much better than the Dems. Bad Republicans merely want to steal your tax money and impose unenforceable laws. “Good” Democrats merely want to steal your tax money and impose unenforceable laws. Bad Democrats also want to steal your property, your Liberty and your Rights.

              But other than that they are all much the same. Politics will forever attract those eager to abuse power, and such people will cling to whichever party offers that power.

            • pardom the typing. keeping the foot at level of heart makes a challenge for typing.

              One issue we have/had in OR with the GOPe is their reaction to being turned down at the primary; lots of “if you won’t select our candidate, we’ll withdraw support at the party level or support the Dem.” Had that happen locally in the 16 election where a primary loser went Dem. Still got curbstomped by the Deplorable candidate.

              If it’s GOPe or a Dem, I’ll vote R, but we keep trying to find better candidates. The loony left is managing to anger and arouse the republicans in state. Glad the repub state legislature did the no-quorum rick, and managed to make it stick.

              • One issue we have/had in OR with the GOPe is their reaction to being turned down at the primary

                There is a strong similarity to Hillary’s “It would be OUTRAGEOUS to refuse to accept the validity of an election which I win, but any election YOU win is prima facie invalid!” Too often the GOPe is willing to allow Deplorable Candidates to lose in primaries so long as they pledge fealty to Party but unwilling to accept the responsibility to do the same if the Deplorable Candidate wins.” We saw too much of that from GOP president wannabees in 2016, demanding Trump swear to support the primaries winner and then turning up their noses when called to do the same in turn.

                Sorry – had enough of that “Heads I win, Tails you lose” nonsense in grade school. Pull it as an adult and you forfeit my support even if I preferred you over the Deplorable Candidate.

                • 2016? Heck, every election since 2006. I still haven’t forgotten or forgiven what they did to Sarah Palin.

            • “The Democrats will purge the party of the leftist totalitarians if they are forced to because the Leftist has become anathema— as the racist is rightly anathema.”

              No, they won’t. They will simply lie, and make up the difference with still more lying via vote fraud.

              You’re assuming a fact never in evidence, namely that being a pathological liar is NOT a requirement to become a Leftist. The only question is whether they believe their own lies. These are people we cannot live with.

        • I think that’s how we ended up with Trump… Dem voters in open primary states voting for the most Looney-Tune Republican candidate and so giving him extra push early on. After all, we *know* that Hillary *wanted* to run against him most of all. I’m sure that the same line of thinking was produced independently by a whole lot of people who realized that they could vote for him and help that happen.

          • One of the pleasures of being old and retaining memory is that I recall when the Democrats’ most-wished for Republican presidential nominee was that nut-case washed-up Hollywood actor, Ronald Reagan.

            Be careful what you vote for; you just might get it.

            • I watched the election results come in on TV. Spent the whole evening watching them post the numbers, until they showed that Carter had 55% of the electoral college and vote, so it would be a waste of time to go to the polls. And then Carter had 75%, and was calling for Reagan to “do the right thing” and resign. And then when things were finally counted, Reagan somehow came out with 489 electoral votes to Carter’s 49.

              Strange, how that happened…

              I’ve watched them try similar tricks in other elections. They work it very hard in states that cross time zones. “Don’t bother, it’s all over.”

              Ri-ight.

              • //They work it very hard in states that cross time zones. “Don’t bother, it’s all over.”//

                Yes. One of the BIG factors in the Oregon Vote by mail. After Carter’s loss, and the obvious news trying to influence the Pacific Time Zones, well, okay, anything west of the Mississippi. First tried tying the hands of the media, that they couldn’t predict before all voting precincts closed. Yes, that worked …. NOT. I know there is a huge chance of fraud in mail in votes. A lot of the more conservative voters I know. Vote EARLY … They just turn it in manually, day of election, to try and thwart “how many votes do we need to win” contingent. Though personally, I’d like to see not only signature on the envelope the ballot goes in, but requirement to put on the Oregon Driver’s License / State ID (same, just not allowed to drive.) Or passport.

                Yes. I know all the arguments of voter id requirements. I think they are screeching BS.

                • county clerk here is honest, we’ll drop off ballots at the clerk’s office when we get them. only submit via mail in minor elections and if pressed for time. no idea why,but we get a lot of odd year local stuff, like party reps: pick 3 w/ 3 on ballot.

                  • … we get a lot of odd year local stuff

                    It is generally far easier to fix control turnout in off-year votes, with issues not being swamped by Big Election (e.g., president, governor) event. In off years the only people likely to turn out are a) those paying attention and b) those paid to attend, with little to no c) wandered in off the street to vote.

                    While theoretically a good thing, ensuring that the votes of people paying attention count more, the problem tends to be that it is far easier for activist groups (e.g., Teachers’ Unions, party “regulars” and Contractors Groups) to determine the outcomes even when (especially when) it is against the greater public good.

                    The locals here really like to submit bond issues for off-year votes, for example, and are even known to run them in primary elections when turnout is typically lowest. Remember, these are people making their livelihoods from stacking the decks.

                  • I’d hope the Lane County Elections Clerk is honest. As already mentioned we also hand in our votes. Close enough to the county office that last minute isn’t a hardship. Off cycle voting, they get mailed in. Typically what is huge under vote. Vote on the issues. The choose one and only one running, or choose 3 and only 3 running? Why bother.

                    Now if there was a “none of the above” option, I might express my opinion. Been tempted to do that on the write in spaces. Knowing my luck with enough under votes, and others, “none of the above”, “who cares”, “IDK”, might actually win!!!! So I refrain.

                    If it’d was Eugene officals overseeing, I’d be suspect, given the 56 history of their shenanigans regarding the Santa Clara area … Hey, that’s what you get when you sue to invalidate a vote, and succeed. When the person is just old enough to realize what is going on politically. Too young to vote. Not too young to learn … To pile on other unsuccessful shenanigans, as the years go on.

              • Feather Blade

                The 2016 election is the first one that I can remember in which the news media were not calling the race hours before the Pacific Time precincts closed.

      • There IS no least destructive Democrat. The most moderate Democrat you can imagine will still be at the beck and call of the insane Dem leadership.

        • allowed to vote off the party line only when the party knows they have the vote in the bag. Chet Edwards was one such, He helped get Pelosi the Speaker Seat the first time, and in sewn up votes got to “Vote His Conscience”, but in the big matters his chain was yanked hard to get him in line to railroad the public. I was happy when Flores sent him packing, finally.

      • No. Vote for the most beatable Donk, or the Donk that will cause the most trouble for its own Party.

        • but we can’t nominate occasionally cortex she’s not old enough..

          and Swallwell already dropped out.

  5. One, the strong don’t rule the weak when everyone has the same strength. That’s what the 2nd Amendment is all about. Of course if you don’t have the “intestinal fortitude” to use that right to it’s fullest, including killing someone trying to murder you, rape you, kidnap your children, or invade or burn your house down, then yes, the strong will rule the weak, and you failed the natural selection test.

    I’ve also come to the conclusion that the Progressive Socialist-Democrat Left supports drug legalization for precisely the reason of being better able to control the population of non-thinking, non-striving people. Especially as they support legalization of non-perscription drugs that are abuse; but absolutely want to maintain complete control over actual medical use of drugs, and restriction and control of any new ones. That promotes their absolute control over both healthcare providers (jail those who give too much or save too many people), and absolute contol of life or death of those who actually need those drugs.

    Sarah is not the atomic bomb of conservativism. She’s not likely to rock the world, and she’d probably burn out like a nova if she did, leaving a cooling cinder of a white dwarf in a sterilized solar system. But she is, and can be, a domino. Just a small block of wood with a couple of spots on it. By herself, not much. But when you push her so that she pushes 2 or 3 more, who each do the same, the effect builds until you can move tens of thousands of more just like you. Yes, your blog does change the course of the country and the world. Sure, 10,000 is only 1% of a million. But that can be (and is!) enough to change elections, and those do change the course of the nation, and the world.

    Some of your most thought provoking posts I will post links to on my FB page. So you’re not just reaching me, you’re also reaching at least a dozen more like me. And so on and so forth. I’m sure many of your other constituents here do the same. Sure, you might get a troll or two backtracking into here (most of them just stop with screaming at me because really, most trolls are too damn lazy to actually do any work or thinking.) Yes, your fiction is entertaining and I hope your keep writing more. But your political essays are also of value, and maybe even of high enough value to collect and publish on their own.

    • But she is, and can be, a domino.

      Every person who raises their head and is not struck down by the wrath of Zeus.

      Every failed attempt to silence someone.

      Every purveyor of cancer-memes that goes under or fails.

    • The Progressive/Socialist Left supports drug legalization to whatever degree it does (and I see little evidence of anything beyond legalizing marijuana) because they want to USE those drugs themselves. Oh, a few may imagine that the masses will be easier to control if drugged to the gills, but there aren’t really all that many users of illegal drugs…maybe a little over 2% of the population (according to every time I’ve checked the DEA figures, anyway, and I figure the DEA is unlikely to downplay those numbers.).

      Or maybe, considering HOW marijuana has been legalized in places like California, they think they can get more control of that population if they ‘legalize’ it, but tangle the users in a morass of red tape.

      • Ah, but evidence seems to support that the Left have engaged in a sloe, iterative approach for decades. They gain an inch and never back down, then gain another inch. MJ is a gateway drug for them, once it gets legalized, then they’ll most likely work on others. Heck, aren’t magic mushrooms semi-legal for anyone of native American ancestry? (That might explain Lizzy Warren’s delusions!) Sure, the rank and file don’t seem past the end of their noses. But those working behind them, the organizers, what are their goals?

        • Peyote is legal IF you a member of the Native American Church, and can prove it. And they disapprove of abusing the stuff, interestingly enough. Colorado’s thinking about legalizing all the other magic mushrooms, however, which could lead to some interesting results if people don’t really do their homework on “edible vs. magic vs. lethal.”

        • Thing is, MJ is a lot more valuable. Hurts judgement, hurts motivation, apparently screws with emotional control long term, and kills people slowly or with induced stupidity. It makes people less likely to see downsides in Democrat policies, and more likely to be failures bitter at the success of others. Downside is that the modern stuff might make folks too crazy to be tolerated.

          • Having seen secondhand (I don’t and will never do drugs, but I had friends who did pot) how MJ ate away at people’s brains, while leaving their egos intact, I’m never going to support MJ. My friends were the ‘casual’ potheads too.

            And yes, it does all of that, which you described, long term. I knew a person who, before he took MJ, would have described Obama as an empty suit candidate. When I saw him again a few years later, he thought Obama was AWESOME because ‘he’s so popular, there has to be a reason, not all people are idiots.’ (Considering old version him actively thought nearly all people were idiots about SOMETHING, it was a bit alarming to hear.)

          • And, in some teenage users, it causes psychotic breaks. But we don’t know why yet, or what the underlying factors are. One day they’re OK, they get into modern weed, and then oh Lord disaster strikes.

            • We know the generalities of why, not the specifics yet. The generalities we could infer from the delicacy of the brain once psychiatric efficacies were shown. That people were arguing that psychiatric efficacy was grounds for decreasing regulation gives me serious reservations about the looseness of our criteria for suffrage.

            • Which to me signals it’s probably an interaction between modern weed and one or more of the Ritalin family they love to dose kids with. Which one do they give up?

      • I’m convinced drug legalization is all about (1) its proponents getting reelected; and (2) getting non-addicts to eventually pay for the addicts’ drugs and the taxes imposed on them, because they have more money. Drug prices and crime will both increase, exactly the opposite of what is always claimed.

        • The counter argument to this would be, “So, where’s my free beer, huh?”

          • Not a good comparison.

              • Sorry for the delay.

                Not a good comparison because from the discovery of alcoholic beverages until about 150 years ago, alcohol was the safest storable beverage in the world. Humans have centuries of nearly universal use of it, and everybody understands the hazards of its abuse. None of that can be said of marijuana.

                In my state, legalization efforts were focused on the medical necessity of its use for children suffering from seizures. (Ahh, “for the children!”) A year later, it’s about making sure it’s available in smokable form and edibles instead of oils. Insurance is covering all this, and depending on what happens next year, might subsidize home grown weed. For personal medical purposes, of course, and would never result in illegal sales or smuggling to non-legalized states.

                My point is not whether it OUGHT to be legalized, just why it’s happening: political power and money.

                • Worse, the “legalization for the children” argument actually greatly delayed the actual medical application — just released in the last year or two, constant issues because it cut off both support from those who actually wanted to help kids but thought that smoking it was enough, and those who recognized the “legalize for medical reasons” argument was a hoax.

                • Thanks. I had a very rough idea it was something like that, but you’ve made it nicely plain.

            • Yeah, as someone who is interested is supporting most arguments against legalization, I really gotta agree with brother ox here.

    • Are you remembering that Lefty failure of a man (more than the usual Proud Lefty) who WITH GREAT PRIDE said he would rather be killed by a home invader than fight, at ‘least he would die, with his ‘conscience’ intact’?

      Y’know, the one who nearly everyone derided as happy to die, ‘conscience whole’ so the home invade/sr could rape and murder his wife and kids, when folks found out that he HAD a wife and kids? Coz I am.

      • “My principles are more important than my family. Besides, we’re just cohabiting for convenience, and the children actually belong to the State anyway.”

        • Of course, he and his ilk don’t want to put out a sign boasting of their gun-free status…..

  6. Donald Campbell

    The “Conservatives are status quo unoriginal thinkers” is a strawman. I identify somewhat conservative because… Great idea! What are the unintended consequences? Status quo has the advantage over, bold, new, daring because the consequences are well known.
    I identify libertarian, because it resonates well with my values. Do what you want, leave me alone, accept the responsibility and the consequences for your actions.

    Now, neither system is ideal. Not Conservative: Change and incremental improvements where consequences can be identified and managed is better than rigid status quo. Where the Left fails here is in their refusal to admit to their failures [aka Democratic Socialism is not Communism, and somehow, it will work this time]. Not Libertarian: Some people can not be responsible for their actions. Defending our liberty is ultimately a collective effort. We need a state, but not The State. PsyCorps is Mother, PsyCorps is Father! Yes, there is a problem with that.
    Ultimately, Heinlein’s Bernardo de la Paz has the right of it: Rational Anarchy. I could even manage Rational Libertarian, because their rule set I mostly agree.

    I stop for Red Lights neither because it is the law, nor because I fear of being caught. I stop because it is a moral obligation to those I share the road, with which I have a social contract restricting all our liberties and actions to avoid mutual accidental damage and death. Hurricane Isabel left our area without power for 9 days. The drivers at complex intersections spontaneously self organized so well, that you knew before entering a police controlled intersection. Why? The traffic flowed much slower where the police allowed drivers to abdicate self responsibility.

    • Now, neither system is ideal. Not Conservative: Change and incremental improvements where consequences can be identified and managed is better than rigid status quo.

      Important more often than not is the realization that many kinds of change simply cannot be predicted, and couldn’t be stopped without worse consequences even if they could be predicted.

      Which is the brick wall the progressives are currently smashing into.

      • It strikes me that the entire construction of the term “conservative” isn’t something that really exists outside the realm of the imagination of the left–At least, the way they define the term. It’s like “capitalism”; it’s a term they invented and used, which became a set term in arguments because they used it…

        Like “capitalism”, there really is no “conservatism”. It’s not really an ideology; it’s just the way we’ve always done things, the default state of human nature. If you ask a person of the left to define either capitalism or conservatism, they’re going to trot out a laundry list of things that exist only in their own minds, and which a not-left person would gape at and say “What…? I don’t believe that… I don’t think that… I don’t do that… I don’t live my life that way…”.

        It’s like the way that most of the really dangerous gay-bashers out there are mostly deeply closeted gays themselves; the rest of us simply don’t care what you do sexually, aren’t threatened by it, and really are only concerned if what you’re doing is out in public and frightening the horses.

        But, the left and the LGBTQWTF crew persist in labeling anyone who isn’t on-board and approving of their lifestyle choices as being intolerant and bigoted. Most of the real intolerance comes not from the straights, but from the closeted who’re threatened by the “out” gays, and kinda jealous of them for flouting expectations.

        The real civil war is between various flavors of nutters, TBH. There’s a vast middle that really just doesn’t give a rat’s ass, and who wants to get on with life. Problem is, the nutters are dragging us into their little swinging-purse fights, and we’re going to have to decide what we’re going to put up with. I think the real troublemakers are maybe only five-ten percent of the public, and they project way bigger than they actually are. It’s edging up to the point where we’re going to have to do something, which ain’t likely to be pleasant for any of us.

        • It has been said that “Conservatism” is not an ideology, it is a process of the mind. It respects Chesterton’s fence and inclines one to check whether a wall might be load bearing before taking a sledge hammer to it. As Prof. Haidt has observed, it involves thoughts in arenas to which Liberals are blind, deaf, and dumb — concern for process being as important as results, for protecting sanctity, and a respect for the received wisdom of tradition.

          “Conservatism” is committed to alignment with the things that are immutable and avoiding getting crosswise of them; it is faith in the gods of the copybook headings and belief that there are always consequences.

          • Yeah. I identify as conservative because at times I talk myself out of mad schemes to reform society which I dearly want.

            The left, for reasonably coherent definitions of left, has championed policy changes for many decades. I think those policy changes are probably bad, and should be reversed. But because of unplanned changes in that time, a society without those policies is not one we have any empirical knowledge of. There would be substantial risks in making my desired changes at any speed. Furthermore, the complexity of my desired changes make clear fair impartial assessments of impact impossible. The political faction capable of acting so blindly on so extensive a program of changes would be very dangerous to permit to exist.

            Add in leftwing factions currently acting in big ways, needing strong medicine to reverse or to mitigate the damage, and I am in a pretty pickle.

            Could any policy platform testify to my positions, or is a pattern of behavior at most the best that I could possibly do?

          • That’s a near-perfect expression of how I feel about it all, but I reject the left-applied term “conservative” to describe it.

            I think that it’s a dangerous thing to let the other side in a conflict define the terms and set the conditions for things. Especially with basic framing terms like this one–They’ve managed an excellent bit of PR flim-flammery with this, because while defining their “other” as “conservative”, they’ve been able to define themselves as “progressive”. You analyze things, and they’ve managed to thus neatly frame their opponents as elderly fuddy-duddies that are out of touch, whilst they are forward-looking and changing with the times… Which is, thanks to their hard work, universally regarded as being The Better Thing.

            As with the term “capitalism”, I suggest we find our own, after examining specifically why they chose that set of terms. Marx chose to describe and frame traditional economic activity with a term that implies solidarity with one of the more objectionable aspects to the general public–Investment of capital, which looks to be unfair and profoundly against the working man. The definition of “the rest of us”, those who are not of the left, as reactionary “conservatives” is not something we should accept. The term has become polluted with all the freighted weight of decades of negative BS perpetrated by the left. We need something new and different, that actually expresses better how most of us really feel, which isn’t anything like what that straight-jacket term “conservative” would imply.

            • As with the term “capitalism”, I suggest we find our own

              My only disagreement with this is I expect it to be fruitless. Whatever term we come up with they will quickly torture and abuse into some straw man of their conjuration. I’ve seen the process employed too many times over the last sixty years to believe otherwise. Worrying about this is treating a symptom and not the underlying disease. We need to expose the Left for being liars, slanderers, fibbers, fabulists, libelers, prevaricators, and a thousand other synonyms for peddlers of falsehood. They most be exposed and the general public be taught to recognize them for the predators they are and realize there is no truth in them.

              • Once they’ve invested in a label, however…? It would be wise, I submit, to get off the “X”.

                At the very least, they’ll have to go to the effort to associate the new name with all that baggage. That’s worth something, I think.

                • That strategy works for the left, probably because they are a cult of ever shifting dogma and official history. If you have a habit of acknowledging consistent history, it comes off as weakness and lack of conviction to the undecided.

                  I think that is one of the lessons to take from Trump. He, Romney and McCain were all labeled conservative by the media. Trump was the one who never backed down or tried to soften his image against attacks.

                  • Trump is definitely of the school of “I don’t care what you call it, I say it’s spinach!”

                    You cannot win at Calvinball by following the other guy’s rules. Call them fake news and force them to defend for a change.

                  • the “Far Rightwing Conservative” tossed at Trump was never going to stick when he spent so many years paling around with Bill and Hill, and all their other crony leftoids. That was one reason many of us were leary of the man, especially those who knew some of his long background.
                    Luckily he had decided to get back at 0bama and Hillary for insults, and made removing their legacy the priority.

                • Are you kidding? Look how quickly they slathered their paint all over the TEA Party. Their minds are so filthy they went to tea-baggers in no time flat, and paid no price for their homophobic libel.

              • Some symptoms (i.e., fever) have to be treated.
                Maybe this is one.

        • As for “Conservatism” a few years ago I would have said that there are at least three major factions that overlap heavily, but are not necessarily compatable:

          * National Security Conservatives

          * Social / Evangelical Conservatives

          * Libertarians

          After looking around more there seems to also be:

          * Secular Conservatives (almost a “none of the above” category)

          * Conservative Inc.

          The primary common factor is “we aren’t the communists or their sympathizers”. And with the betrayal of the Tea Party, followed by 2016 we now have huge swaths of the base in open revolt against Conservative Inc.

          Which is also why it isn’t overly dangerous for the Democratic party to implode and leave the “right” as a single party. Because the “right” will promptly fragment the moment the pressure of a common enemy is lifted.

        • I consider myself to be fairly conservative. My concern about the LGBTQWTF crowd consists of at a national level if their proliferation is a significant driver of our population replacement reduction and consequent loss in national power that goes with a population drop. I also have concerns about child and sexual abuse by members of that population, but I’m not sure those percentages are any greater than child and sexual abuse by the rest of the population. Lord knows we’ve seen enough ministers, priests, and law makers who are sexual predators of anything on two legs.

          • The percentage of teachers who abuse is higher than the percentage of priests who abuse, per the US Dept. of Education’s own numbers. The critical difference, though, is that for decades teachers have been removed at a *whiff* of abuse. (I say this as a Catholic who is gravely upset at how our clergy has handled the whole situation.)

            • kenashimame

              The Catholic Church’s reaction has been pretty much proving the old axiom: The coverup is worse than the crime.

            • In fairness to The Church (not in defense; never in defense of that) the problem has stemmed in large part to the adoption of the therapeutic model in the Sixties (or so I’ve read.) Rather than chastising the perp (aka, operant conditioning) the idea was to treat it as a trait that could be moderated by psycho-therapeutic treatment. Which might be true, if you’ve got a fully trained psychotherapist. Instead they simply shuffled offenders around hoping they’d get over their desires.

              And of course some of those abusing priests were otherwise very capable at their jobs, rising in the hierarchy particularly as others were unaware of their predilections or conditioned to overlook such minor … responses to temptation. After all, the same set of skills that made one a capable seducer tended to make the person an effective church leader.

              The fact that we have long overlooked female teachers seducing their charges (something which, as you note, used to bring immediate ouster in those antediluvian days before teachers’ unions) is a sad expression of cultural bias, one which studies have shown to be as damaging to boys as male teachers preying on students is to boys. Sure, “doing it” with the hot teacher is a fantasy of many a teenage boy, but then, so is drinking liquor, driving fast cars and shooting up the schoolhouse and we do not condone living out those fantasies.

              • The thing about manipulators is that they tend to be *good* at manipulation.

                I know far too many cases of people who shouldn’t be allowed to interact with the general population, let alone children, getting ridiculously generous custody agreements. (Can’t get into much detail, but oh lordy the stories.)

              • Those cover-ups were going on for a long time before that, though.

                The Catholic Church’s upper hierarchy fell victim to Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy sometime around the turn from the first to the second millennium, and frankly the fact that it’s done so well for this long is a miracle.

                • When Napoleon told a cardinal that he could destroy the Church, the cardinal said that the Catholics had been trying to do that for centuries, and much harder.

            • Sadly, depends *strongly* on which district.

              Check out the San Diego area bastard.

              “spoonfulls of semen” should get it for you, if you can bear to search for it after that.

        • It’s like the way that most of the really dangerous gay-bashers out there are mostly deeply closeted gays themselves; the rest of us simply don’t care what you do sexually, aren’t threatened by it, and really are only concerned if what you’re doing is out in public and frightening the horses.

          Or if it causes you and others harm.

          ACTUAL harm, not “I want an excuse” harm.

          The arguments aren’t hard to find.

          The issue is that the activists have conflated “disagree” with “gay-bashing” and suddenly folks take “I think your actions are a bad idea” to be the same as “die, die, DIE IN A FIRE!!!!”

        • Problem is, the nutters are dragging us into their little swinging-purse fights, and we’re going to have to decide what we’re going to put up with.
          I think one of the issues is there really aren’t ‘enough’ nutters on the one end. So the prog nutters have to find a villain. And their choices pretty much include… ‘normals’*. So, off they go to fight their moral-equivalent-of-war with folks who just want to be left alone.

          (* Yes, ‘normals’ actually includes us Odds, when we’re talking people who mostly want to be left alone.)

    • I obey traffic regulations solely because it makes my behavior easier for other drives to predict. Yes, occasionally some imbecile takes advantage of me, but for the most part even the BAD drivers ( and I count myself no better than mediocre) want to not hit me.

    • I would contrast conservatism and principled libertarianism (as opposed to the “libertarians” whose definition of liberty starts with pot and ends with prostitution) as the difference between the jurisprudence of Scalia vs Thomas. Scalia said “I don’t like this outcome, but it’s what we should do because we should be bound by precedent.” Thomas says, “Screw that; I only care about what the Constitution actually says and don’t care about the tradition that has accumulated around it.” Thomas may be fun to read, but Scalia did do more to advance liberty by working within the system instead of trying to tear it down.

      • Thomas isn’t trying to tear the system down though. He’s the one holding fast to the original intent and wording. In fact, by trying to advance compromises with the original Constitution, one could argue that Scalia was the one working to tear it down.

    • *Psicorps.

      and the quote is “The Corps is mother, the corps is father!”

      That’s what happens to you when you quit an ensemble series noisily if jms has control!

  7. Would you explain to me why you have these ideas?

    Wellllllll … they will ask that, but they are likely to phrase it somewhat differently. Still, “explain,” “confess,” “po-tay-to,” po-tah-to.” The important thing is that you acknowledge they are right.

    Thinking for yourself was all well and good in the distant past, when man led a solitary life, red in tooth and claw, brutal, nasty and short but in this modern era we have professional thinkers, experts who’ve every kind of training except practical. There’s no space iin a complex modern society for individual thought, that would lead to chaos.


    So be a good girl and do what teacher says so we can give you an “A”.

  8. The left is very good at running purity tests above competence tests.

    In large part because they define purity as an essential component of competency. Competency without purity is untenable to their thought.

  9. anyone want to imagine what would happen to a Republican president who had it on with a woman under his authority while in the oval office?

    I was hoping one of the Republicans grilling Fish (sorry – Mueller; he just looked like Abe Vigoda) would bring up some of the attacks Billy jeff launched at Ken Starr’s probe and ask how those differed from Trump’s.

    OTOH, Jane “Strange justice” Mayer and the New Yorker graciously demonstrated the Standarde Double by defending Al Franken over conduct far more egregious than that for which they’ve hounded Clarence Thomas these last twenty-eight years.

    • Timothy E. Harris

      Alleged conduct which the good Justice has consistently denied.

      • And for which the evidence is far, far, far weaker than the evidence against Franken. Imagine the MSM reax if two Republican senators ever made a “waitress sandwich*.”

        *A sexual position in which a man sits on a chair while a woman (such as a waitress) sits on top and a second man sits on top of her, as immortalized by U.S. senators Chris Dodd and Ted Kennedy in 1985. The two senators made a “waitress sandwich” while their dates were in the bathroom.
        https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=waitress%20sandwich

  10. It is permissible to say socialism has flaws, but not that the whole system is a pile of manure.

    That’s not pure socialism. Pure socialism, like pure hydrogen, can not long exist in nature. Or maybe I’m thinking of phosphorus — one of the volatile elements, I am sure.

    • Pure socialism can exist, for a generation, if all parties are volunteers and submit to a Higher Power. America has a history of Christian splinter-sects of this nature that were quite successful…for short periods. Of course there is also a history of such groups failing miserably.

      But once a society reaches a level of complication greater than a small community, the State (or what-have-you) cannot possibly make the necessary decisions FAST enough, even if all said decisions will be correct.

      And this is where the core of modern Progressivism reveals itself to be just one more would-be elite lusting for power; there exists just exactly the kind of ‘let’s consult everybody concerned’ mechanism for running an economy that the Progressives often claim to want. It’s called the free market (with some provisions for the enforcement of contracts).

      But the free market won’t put the buttinskis in charge. So they HATE it.

      • It comes down to the “Keep in Crunchy” essay from 1988. Crunchy is when you immediately know the consequences of your actions; soggy is when the consequences are delayed. Socialism can work when the situation is crunchy enough, e.g. a small group on the edge of survival. Capitalism fails when the situation is soggy, which is why big companies can be just as inept and incompetent as a socialist government. Granted, soggy companies tend to fail much sooner than soggy countries.

      • If I recall rightly, the Amana Colonies managed it for a few generations, but they not only had the Higher Power thing, but what might be more critical: A relief valve. True Believers would/could stay, but dissent? Well, alright, then leave. NOT “you need to be enslaved and re-programmed.. er.. re-educated.” Maybe not *easy* but at least _possible_.

        The amusing(?) thing is that when the Great Depression hit and they were overwhelmed with freeloaders who were NOT True Believers they had a vote and went personal-property/free-market quite literally overnight.

  11. everyone knows without pervasive government interference/control, it ends up in feudalism.

    Whereas, with pervasive government interference/control, it ends up in feudalism.

    • The idiots making that claim don’t even know what feudalism IS. They think it’s the same as the Divine Right of Kings, and it ain’t. Feudalism, in theory, is a network of interlocking oaths, voluntarily entered into, and running both up and down. It never really existed for long, and there were always exception as to who qualified. But it would be vastly superior to governance by The Annointed.

  12. … he vast majority of them writing evilbad fiction, are really just writing fiction.

    In properly organized an managed Marxist state there is No Such Thing as “just writing fiction.” All writing is either in support of Marxist themes or is evilbad encouragement of wrongthink.

  13. … if you dissent, they’ll suddenly “realize” you’re not just evil bad, but stupid and not creative.

    David Mamet and Andrew Klavan provide some perspective and demonstration of this. When talent and skill deserted them they turned to pandering to the Right-Wing to salvage their careers.

  14. The number of times I heard that in meetings and mailing lists where no one knew what I was is not even funny.

    Part of the experience of being not obviously Jewish or Gay that Black people miss. Of course, as Ken Hamblin used to observe, When the storm troopers come into the tavern the Jews can eat bacon, the Gays can fondle ladies and the Blacks …

  15. I don’t remember the Heinlein quote, so I’ll paraphrase: I’ve never yet heard an opinion or an idea so dangerous that it must be suppressed.

    I am not sure about Heinlein, but I am sure about this line:
    Stephen Hopkins: “Well, in all my years I ain’t never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about. Hell yeah! I’m for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea!”

    • I didn’t have a chance to read this post until after work, but confirming that quote* was my first reaction to our hostess’s Heinlein quote-from-memory.

      *It never ceases to amaze me that I can carry in my pocket a device that lets me watch feature films on demand.

    • Maybe.
      There are certain topics that, if you bring them up of your own free will, I will conclude that you are probably some kind of potential threat to me and mine and react accordingly.
      Ex.: Should we bring back slavery/institute Communism? Should we lower the age of consent?

      • no, you really want them discussed out in the open.
        it allows you to know the dangerous/stupid ones right off

      • Prior to the 20th century, there wasn’t really an age of consent, and the working and middle classes tended to have their first sexual experiences in their early 20s, if I recall my research correctly.

        Post Sexual Revolution, the age of consent isn’t stopping pre-teens from having sex.

        So while the age of consent may be necessary as a stop-gap measure to curb the worst impulses of those who are too afraid of the law to try to get away with common law felonies, seems like it accomplishes about as much as gun-free zones.

        -Albert

        • Your last paragraph doesn’t quite have it right.

          Age of consent laws are more like laws prohibiting felons from owning firearms.

        • several states have another age of consent bracket for teenagers together.

          • In Texas the age difference between teens is one of the ways to define statutory rape. But below age 13? Nope! Not legal at all, in any way.

        • kenashimame

          Putting the age of consent around 18 started in Europe in the Victorian Period, as an anti-prostitution measure.

      • It’s scary how many of the obviously bad ideas nobody knows the arguments against.

  16. Part of the reason we’re in this trouble, is that the left has managed to push anyone who has doubts about their credal system into the closet. And that coming out of the closet gets you …

    … sacrificed to their false god. In America (at present) the human sacrifice is virtual but it won’t be long until we follow China’s lead.

  17. … in the end, you can’t tell stories if” you’ve sold your soul. Because then your stories are not infused with your soul and remain dull lifeless things, false to the reality of human behaviour.

  18. Epstein injured in prison.

    If Hillary really does murder problems, Epstein is a candidate for a potential problem.

    Suppose Mueller lives another five years, and has clearly developed Alzheimer’s. That would make obvious a certain context of the investigation. 75 is old enough for frail health. He is also a candidate for a potential problem.

    So, could a list of potential problems be built and watched for improbable occurrences of death?

    • Mueller’s performance in front of Congress certainly seemed that of an elderly, befuddled man. I’d almost say he was either on meds, or forgot to take them. But his testimony, such as it was, combined with his seeming poor hearing, problems with understanding, and inability to remember facts or even where in the report something is, while never seeming to wander into perjury, make you wonder just how “feeble” he really was.

  19. We’re in the part of Oregon where it’s still legal to have opinions to the right of Lenin, but the SJWs in the west keep trying to stamp out such rude behavior.

    There are now two petitions being circulated to recall our not-so-beloved Kate Brown from the governorship, as well as one demanding her “it’s not a sales tax if we call it something else” sales tax be put to referendum. I was happy to see the local GOP office had both Ditch Kate petitions, as well as the tax one. (There’s games afoot with the last one; petition started when the bill was signed, then the people in Salem amended that one, so Kate wants to throw out all the old signatures. Sounds like another fight brewing.)

    Completely off topic: Tomorrow morning I’ll be getting bunion surgery. Non trivial procedure, but yet another day surgery setup, with so-so risks. It’s not my first go-round, so I’m only mildly nervous*. Still, any thoughts and prayers will be cheerfully accepted. If I make it to a keyboard tomorrow afternoon, anything loopy from me will mean I made it. Anything non-loopy might mean the dogs learned how to type.

    (*) Eye surgery in ’17 and ’18, serious nervousness for round 1, not bad round 2. I’m splitting the difference for the foot, though it’s a bit rough for $SPOUSE. She’s packing her crochet project, and possibly her bible. Day or two ago, it was only the bible, so I think she’s a bit less nervous.

    • My wife had bunion surgery last year, definitely keep it elevated, cool packs, and watch for swelling, they wrapped her foot waaaay too tight. There’s “kneeling” carts you can get for about $100 that make movement for the following weeks easier than crutches.

      • The doctor recommended using a walker; the local hospice’s thrift store had a nice rolling walker for all of $19.00. (Not sure how many times it’s changed hands; I gather it’s really common.) I’m above the weight for the 250# rated seat, but it stabilizes the frame and I can stick a tray on it when I want something to go back to the office.

        Bought folding crutches and an all-terrain cane. If the stainless pins cause trouble and have to come out early, I could end up in a cast. Whee.

        $SPOUSE is up to speed on the vehicles I was doing the driving in. She likes the newer Subaru Forester quite a bit. I might have to take measures to get it back after I’m released to drive. 🙂

        Other chores are done, can be done by $SPOUSE, or are Good Enough. Had the preop phone call with the surgery center. After I get there, it’ll be time to let God and the surgical team take over. My part starts again when they’re done.

        • Good Luck Pete. Hope for a fast recovery, and hit those therapy exercises diligently!

          • Thanks!

            I’m going to be stiff a while; half of my daily stretches won’t be feasible until I can put pressure on that toe. The doctor said “You can start driving soon, but if you have to jam on the brakes, it could get ugly.” It’s also a load on the foot to get into the utility tractor (and use those brakes). I expect/hope to be good enough by the time snow starts. A hydrostatic compact tractor is the new goal for the capital expenditure piggy bank.

    • Good luck and fast recovery

    • I sold comfort shoes for a long time and have two pieces of advice I hope you take.

      First, feet are the part of the body furthest away from the heart, which means they heal very, very slowly. Consider the recommended “how long to stay off your feet” guidelines as minimums, because it is very easy to reinjure the surgery site necessitating an even longer recovery.

      Second, bunions are caused by the biomechanics of your walking, running, and standing. Thus, getting a bunionectomy without changing your shoe wardrobe is about as effective as gastric bypass without changing your diet. Make sure that the shoes and orthotics you have are the right ones for your feet, and you’ll almost certainly have to go to a comfort shoe boutique to get a sales person who knows enough to actually help you. (Among mall/chain stores, The Walking Company is the only one at all likely to be able to help you, and even they’re a crap shoot.) In your case, bunions are often the result of too much pressure on the big toe joint, so you probably need more support for the head (distal end) of the first metatarsal.

      • I’ll try as much as possible. The house is passable for a walker; would not want to try a wheel chair. I have last year’s birthday present, a really good recliner, with the Kindle and a wall-o-fiction available.

        Research also says it’s genetic. I have distant memories of an uncle with some nasty toe issues. I already go for the larger sizes (14 EE at minimum), and I”m searching for brands with better room in the toe box. Interestingly enough, my Redwing steel toed shoes are the most comfortable. I used to try to get away with a size too small, but after I retired, I spent a *lot* more time on my feet. Both $SPOUSE’s and my feet grew…

        The only decent shoe store in the county is currently closed; no word if it’s temporary. If necessary, I hope to find something over at Medford, OR. Beyond that, we have Famous Footwear, WalMart and not much. I keep hoping for Sasquatch Supply to become a reality. 🙂

        • I buy New Balance and Dunham (New Balance’s line for non-athletic styles) for my husband because they’re one of the only brands that go up to EEEEEE. Yes, that’s 6E. Even those we have to get too long for his Fred Flintstone feet, but you can’t really get non-bespoke shoes any wider.

          Yep, feet grow over time; the ligaments holding the 26 bones together just start to give up. A good check as to whether you’ve gone up enough is to feel the toebox from the inside. If there’s an indent from your toenail, it’s still too short. On width, pull out the insole that comes with the shoe; if you’re spilling over the side, you’ll need more width. You can see arch support needs by pulling out the insoles in your worn shoes; spots worn through show where there’s too much pressure, while spots that are barely worn show where you need more support to pick up some of the pressure from the worn spots. One of my tricks when I sold shoes was to cut cotton tongue pads in half longways and stick the halves under the arch of each insole to add support.

          Most European brands have their normal toeboxes big enough for a EE; Keen is one of the few American brands that do. (I wear steel toe Keens for work myself now.)

          And I’m always happy to answer questions; in an alternate universe, I didn’t go to law school, became a pedorthist, and actually make a living doing something I love.

          • became a pedorthist
            Ummm… I’m assuming hoping that’s not what Epstein is accused of…..
            (Even so, it sounds … like a guy who does braces for dinosaurs.)

            • A pedorthist is to a podiatrist what the optometrist is to an ophthalmologist. But yes, it is a terribly confusing name.

              • It’s all Greek to me…………

                (I figured it was something like that. But, Fun With Words.)

          • Thanks! Orthotics are taken care of. Got my first set in the early 1990s, and got a slightly revised version a few years back. Between the heel/achilles tendon stretches and the orthotics, that’s one area where my feet are OK.

            I don’t think I helped the bunion on the to-be-operated foot when I dropped a chunk of steel tubing on it. 2 x 4 x 1/4″, and I dropped one end of the 10′ length on my foot. It hurt like the dickens and (says the doc), crunched one of the big toe bones on that foot. Had an impressive bruise and it took a year for the toenail to start resembling normal.

            That motivated me to get steel toed footwear.

            The big problem right now is finding shoes roomy enough in the toebox. Redwing is a good match, as are Carolina boots. (Quality on them is all over the map. The current pair lasted several years, while the previous pair died in a summer.) The RW steel toed shoes are good, while Nike Air Monarchs and some 14 EE SAS’s are barely acceptable. New Balance in sizes stocked around here are tight. We’re a low population area, and there’s not enough industry anymore to have a good selection of workboots. (If I were a logger or wildland firefighter, different story, but I hate those high heels. They remind me of a Weird Al Yankovic song…)

            • now that Shopko closed I will have to get my New Balance shoes online (Payless had moved into the Shopko stores when their stores started closing up). I have found that their EEEE fits well style to style so it is find the model I like and order away! For boots, I have been using the latest Doc Martens. Seems the move to China has made the Steel Toe box wider. I can get away with a “regular” 9 without damage to my toes. Drawback is they don’t last like the old English Doc non-safety toes I used to get for working at the airport, but work pays $100 bucks a year for new boots, so next go-round I’ll get another pair o’ boots. I used Thorogood in the past, but they stopped making the boot I liked and fit the best (9 EEEE side zip composite toe waterproof). I had those for 3 years and lack of insoles was why I stopped wearing them (they have some odd shaped ultra-thick design I wasn’t able to replicate).

          • New Balance runs true to size-a fifteen ee in one style is a fifteen ee in another-and are very good at shipping and delivery-I suspect they’re engaging in some sort of black magic, but I’m not looking too closely-next day air actually got here in two business days! And to our house, even!

            It really isn’t a joke when I say that standard takes 5-10 business days, two days takes 5-10 business days, overnight takes 5-10 business days, and fifty percent chance of delivery by neighbor’s sons if shipped via USPS.

            I hope New Balance can keep up whatever they’re doing.

            • Years ago, we started to use a mail drop in town. It’s a 40 mile drive, so most of our pickups are weekly, but they’re on the UPS and FedEx route, so we’ve been able to count on them. Also, being a business, shipping is cheaper to them. If it’s critical, we can ask the people to give us a call when it shows up, though tracking works really well. (Best for UPS; FedEx is OK, USPS has poor granularity, but you know when it’s delivered.)

              We’ll either use the PMB (Private Mail Box) designation, or simply a # number. Some mailers think it’s an apartment. Note it’s a Really Bad Idea to call it a P.O. Box. That used to send our mail to the main post office in town, regardless of the rest of the address.

              Well worth the $100 a year we pay.

              • When we got a new pastor at our church, he grabbed us one Sunday after church service and asked where in the heck we lived. See, he’d gone to the address we used and couldn’t even find an apartment building. He drove around for a half hour before he gave up.

                Yes, we use a mailbox store, and part of his trip was driving around the Food Lion parking lot…. 🙂

                • OR DMV uses both mailing and physical addresses. PHYs addy is crazy; what the zipcode varies w/ phase of moon, Center for one is 24 road miles away, maybe 15 by air. The other is a quarter mile away. smh

          • Actually, I have seen some on line sites that sell up to 9E width. Note that those are usually specialty shoes / medical clothing outlets.

            https://bignwideshoes.com/products/502-blk?variant=12360695119895

    • At least it’s not Bunyan surgery, as using a giant axe to treat foot problems (at least IMHO) seems a bit risky.

      Seriously, hope things go well for you tomorrow.

    • Good luck and heal quickly and listen to your doctor and $SPOUSE. 🙂

      • Heading into town shortly for the fun and games. Wish me luck!

        • Got a followup call from the doc, The 2 x 4 steel tubing whack gave a lot of scar tissue, and (though the primary care doc looked and didn’t find any, I do have gout. Had a bad flare a year or two, but Xray said arthritis. I think I have both, with Ibuprofen keeping me from climbing the ceiling.

          The comfy chair lets me keep foot at heart level. Nobody expected it to be key for recovery. Cue Monty Python. 🙂

        • OK, what did I mistype?

          Got a followup call from the doc, The 2 x 4 steel tubing whack gave a lot of scar tissue, and (though the primary care doc looked and didn’t find any), I do have gout. Had a bad flare a year or two, but Xray said arthritis. I think I have both, with Ibuprofen keeping me from climbing the ceiling.

          The comfy chair lets me keep foot at heart level. Nobody expected it to be key for recovery. Cue Monty Python. 🙂

  20. I would take exception to the idea that the “conservatives”, whateverinthehell that actually represents in terms of concept, “ceded” anything. To anyone.

    This isn’t a case where there were two equal groups competing for the “prize” of controlling the culture. This is a case of a hostile takeover by an intellectually fraudulent insurgency, akin to an organized crime “bust out”. They moved in on legitimate organizations and entities, performed their takeovers in the shadows, never doing anything honestly or without subterfuge. There was never a contest, because you don’t have a contest where there’s only one side.

    So, to frame this as the “conservatives” giving anything up, or fighting unsuccessfully in a fair fight is insane and wrong. This was never ever clearly framed as a contest between equals–It was always a mugging in a darkened alley.

    Had these weasels ever come out and clearly said what they planned, then there would have been a contest. Instead, they did everything under the surface, in the shadows and darkness, away from anyone’s awareness. It’s a covert operation, top to bottom, side to side, forward to back.

    I’d also take exception to that whole deal where we allow them to frame the issues and terms of discussion. “Conservative” is really one of their words, a straw man just like “capitalism”. It doesn’t represent the views of a majority of us, who hardly comply with the straw-man version of “conservative” in anyone’s eyes. What that term actually is would be a convenient shorthand for those short of intellect, who’ve turned it into something with the moral weight and oppobrium of “Nazi” in their own eyes. And, most importantly, the eyes of that disengaged middle they’re fighting for control over, in order to weaponize them against the rest of us.

    Cede the language, the terminology, and you’ve lost half the ideological battle. I’m dead set against letting them write the labels, although that usually winds up working against them, in the end, once they’ve so thoroughly polluted the usages of the terms they villify others with.

    In short, there hasn’t been a “fight between conservatives and the left”, except in the imagination of the deluded left. They’ve set up straw man after straw man, knocked them down, and declared victory while the rest of us are sitting there going “What the hell just happened…?”.

    You want to “win” this fight? I’m not sure you can, to be honest: You’re fighting the fundamentally insane and out-of-tune-with-reality types, and the only way you can win a battle with those sorts of people is really to not have the damn thing in the first place. The essential mistake we’ve made as a society is in listening to these loons, giving them a place at the table, and then giving their ravings any credence whatsoever.

    There really is no “conservative movement” out there. Never was–There was just that demonized segment of the public that sees reality more clearly than the leftist loon, who were vilified under the term “conservative”, and who mistakenly allowed similar loons with vaguely similar views to speak for them. In the end, it’s all statist freaks on both sides, Republican and Democrat both. By and large–It’s the friggin’ Uniparty running Washington, DC, for their own benefit.

    What to do about this? Stuff the idiots back into their boxes. Because it’s not just the “left” that’s the problem–It’s the same sort of idiot on the “other side” who really isn’t any better than the other. Those of us who’re not insane, which pretty much includes anyone without bumperstickers or membership in a political organization, need to wake the hell up and shut all these assholes down. The nutters are out of their cages, and direly need stuffing back into them, because we’ve allowed them far too much power in running society.

    • Ceded? Only in the sense that the Amerindians ceded the land to the cowboys and farmers. It is in the nature of how battles (and wars) are waged that the more relentless faction will eventually crowd out the faction inclined to fight a battle and then return to its preferred pastimes.

      The question, of course, is how much territory can they grab before commanding our attention to such a degree that we commit ourselves to war.

      • That’s my point… You only have a war when there are two sides that recognize they’re fighting. When there’s just the one, it’s not a “war”, it’s a hostile takeover via infiltration.

        And, the sideline mainstream observers only see what the left falsely frames as “conservative”, think “Well, that’s not me…”, and fails to recognize the nature of things, that they’re being attacked themselves.

        • Yes – I was commenting for the benefit of those whose eyes glazed over after your third paragraph.

          • That’s not glaze. Glaze is what comes on doughnuts. Mine are paragraph-induced temporary cataracts!

      • The question, of course, is how much territory can they grab before commanding our attention to such a degree that we commit ourselves to war.

        They are pretty close. Large scale counter-pushes are coming from the center and center-left with increasing frequency.

        • I read that there are those criticizing the new Harriet Tubman biofilm on the grounds the lead actress is a Brit and the role should go to an African-American. Leave aside their moronic tendency in other circumstances to refer to every Negro, whatever their national origin, as African-American, they are missing the main point here: that role should only be played by somebody who has actual experience of enslavement and escape.

          Saul Alinsky’s playbook for the win! Admittedly, it is difficult to practice reductio ad absurdum because they have so often already crossed the line into absurdity ere we have arrived at the party.

          • I really hope that the Tubman film is good.

            Complaining about casting is getting really old and I wonder how long the complainers can keep that going. The contests of wokeness are already at a point beyond absurd.

    • So, you’re in violent agreement with what I said?

    • Much the way the Irish government ceded the Dublin Post Office in 1916, you mean?

  21. At least, I don’t think we’ve reached the kind of societal bizarro-unanimity about orientation where it is needed to come out as straight

    There has been for years pressure on tween and teen girls to be bi or at least heteroflexible. I think we’re seeing it more with boys as well, although there is a big trans push (a scary big trans push there as well as in the kink world to claim CDs are all trans).

    So, yes, I think for the generation under 20 coming out as straight will be a thing one day.

    • *musing*

      You know, girls are much better prey, if you’re aiming at sex. Even humiliation, girls are easier.

      If you want abject domination, or have a sex-based bias, that’s when you go for boys.

      *********

      For those wondering, yes, the “girls must be bi” thing is at least 20 years old. Especially if you’re not a highly sexual female.

      • the ‘girls must be bi’ thing is at least 20 years old

        Has it really been that long since the “two chicks kissing to entertain guys at parties” became a thing?

        My, how Time flies.

        When it comes to “the fiddly bits” my perception has been that each side finds their own a bit squicky but is fascinated by the sort the other side uses. I guess it depends on how you feel about doing the maintenance for them.

        • Oh, gads, not math, RES, really?

          K, it was a mildly “edgy” thing when I was not quite able to drive, so that’s 97 or so on, and “edgy” is “videos on MTV had them doing it obviously enough that even I saw it.”

          So add five years.

          Quarter of a century?

          Only 11 years after the lame “I kissed a girl and I liked it” lame attention grab, though.

          • I’ve no problem with math, but the older I get the more things in the rear view mirror are farther than they appear. I’ve just been dealing with the “trauma” of remembering sitting in K-6 classrooms and watching the Mercury launches — I was already old when the whole “Girls just wanna have fun” thing was going on and “Hot” was the thing for a gal to be. I just hadn’t looked at the calendar and said “It’s been HOW many years?!?”

            Shucks, I remember when Derek Jeter was a highly touted rookie and I guess he’ll be going into the Hall of Fame next year. It seems like only yesterday Michael Phelps was THE swimmer, and Beloved Spouse mentioned to me not three days ago that some 19-year old kid had just broken one of his records* by over three-quarters of a second!!! Geeze, such records get broken by hundredths of a second, or at most by tenths, not by quarters!

            *200-m Butterfly. Phelps set record of 1:51.51 a decade ago, new mark is 1:50.73 Phelps first set the world record in that even eighteen years ago (extending it five times) when the kid who just broke it was still being potty-trained.

            • I just hadn’t looked at the calendar and said “It’s been HOW many years?!?”

              Was at the local liquor store and the guy asked me why I was snickering.
              I told him that the year on the “we won’t sell to you” (for tobacco” was about the time I’d hit the Navy.

              Dude let out a gorgeous chuckle and we had a good 10 minute chit-chat on “kids these days” because he graduated the year I was BORN.

          • LOL
            On “not math”

        • Longer. It was around in my day. So nearer 40.

          • Well, guys have like it as long as I can remember, but I’m not talking about bfs wanting a threesome (or thinking they did).

            I’m talking a broad social pressure from adult channels that range from embracing acceptance to suggestion.

        • RES, there was actually an acronym for it: LUG, “Lesbian Until Graduation”. Judging by a couple of conversations I’ve had over the years, the motivation was two- or possibly 3-fold:

          1. It was a way to “explain” to various guys why they were being turned down that they more or less couldn’t argue with.
          1 a. If a young lady wanted to go out and get a drink after work, she could go to the “gay bar/club” and have one unmolested: the guys in there weren’t interested, and the girls could tell it was a pose. (I got that one from the 24 year old assistant manager of the B.Dalton I was working in while I was in college.)

          2. Despite all the protestations about how much violence and discrimination they might face, on the typical college campus having a badge of “victimhood” that really couldn’t be checked without attempting rape had its’ advantages. That one may have gotten more common these days, or not: see 1a, where nowadays demands to “prove it” seem to be on the rise.

      • Girls might be bi, at least in the general, sort of way.

        For a while, though, certainly when I was a teenager which adds a few years to you guys I think, sexual attraction was the ultimate virtue and the idea that one not *act* on that attraction was old-fashioned prudishness and enforced inhibitions.

        We ended up with a lot of things from that including the idea that should a married person sexually desire someone not-their-spouse that it was right and good to divorce and marry the other. It wouldn’t even be your fault because no one can control who they “fall in love” with.

        And what does “bi” matter if you’re expected to behave yourself until marriage? Sort of like that line in Barrayar where the rival Count is trying to ruin Cordelia’s marriage by dropping the “Aral is bi” tidbit and she answers, that he was bi, now he’s monogamous.

        But really, society (with the exception of weird faith based groups) has been pushing this notion for a long time that it’s *wrong* not to express your physical attraction no matter what that happens to be.

      • I didn’t know how long, but thinking of the first article I saw, yeah, must be at least 20.

    • >> “So, yes, I think for the generation under 20 coming out as straight will be a thing one day.”

      In Living Color was way ahead of you:

    • Don’t have a link to hand but Truth Bomb Mom on the Book of Faces related the story of her son, having seen the case of some gay folk coming out, decided, in all seriousness, to “come out” to TBM. He basically thought that’ was just how it was done.

  22. “Neither do(es a person) light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.”

  23. I’ve heard revolting ideas, sure. One of them … being that you need to be controlled for your own good.

    Hm, this one has some hint of accuracy, though.
    It’s just incredibly open to exploitation– it’s like arguing diet advice. You *cannot* gain weight if you take in fewer calories than you burn.
    Issue, we’re pretty iffy on how many calories people actually burn, other than we know that folks’ bodies can start to do more with less in conjunction with a variety of stresses.

    I spend all day controlling people for their own good! Every dang one of them spent the better part of a year located slightly below my heart, first, though.

    I’m picturing a bunch of sliding bars for how close you are to the problem, and how dire the result is, for how this works….

    (Partly because I’ve noticed a tendency for some folks to consider “have any influence” to be “controlling.”)

    • I think the core of that accuracy lies in the presumption that, “If you will not exercise self-control you will be controlled by something/somebody else.”

      This is part of why it is so important to have friends/a lifemate upon whom you can rely for feedback … and why it is so bad for those you rely upon to use that leverage for their purpose rather than your own.

    • > we’re pretty iffy on how many calories people actually burn,

      We’re even iffier on how many calories are in any given food item. They no longer even pretend to have done testing; the charts are wholly imaginary. (previous system burned things and measured their heat energy, the newest system they can just guess without having to bother with any lab equipment. So it’s easy to calculate the food values for asphalt, Diesel fuel, or sawdust…)

      Which is why you can rigorously count calories and not lose, or sometimes even gain, weight. The charts are sacred; if you’re not losing weight you’re a liar or a cheat.

      • “Calories” seems to be one of those terms, like “organic” and “natural” and “global warming” that are used without any recognition of the loosey-goosey meanings underlying them. Particularly in food, where the physics term “calorie” has been impressed into use without any consideration of its specific meaning.

      • The old “burn it” method is kinda useful for keeping your calories high enough to not trigger starvation mode, at least.

        • Except we do not “burn” calories, not that way. Instead we “burn” them in chemical reactions, the efficiency of which depend on with what enzymes and proteins we blend them and in what sequence we process them. This is why gut biome, insulin resistance and other factors determine the actual rate of “burn” and not some imaginary furnace. It is why two people, consuming identical diets, can gain or lose weight quite differently.

          • *waiting on awesome bio-tech that can actually look at that*

          • When I was in grad school, a university dietitian and I had a good laugh at the “recommended caloric intake” programs. According to the most popular ones available to non-specialists, I needed 1800 cal/day to maintain weight. In reality, I needed 1400, so I had to go to a monitored 1200/day plan in order to lose. Metabolism et al really do vary within a population, to put it mildly.

          • Not sure how Weight Watchers calculates their food point values; but they don’t have a 1 to 1 relationship with caloric content.

            • I don’t know their process, either, and am not a dietitian so I speak only as a thoughtful (well, I am undeniably full of something) observer. My guess is they’ve moved to recognize the Atkins principle that not all calories are the same, that 100 calories of protein produce a different number of calories in the digestive system than do 100 calories of carbs.

              Frankly, my sense of the science is that we’re at about the Freud-level of psychiatry: a few critical insights that have lead to utterly wrong conclusions, but which can eventually be used as basis of actual knowledge. The Blind Men figured out there is an elephant in the room but have yet to determine arrangement of its components.

            • Geoff Withnell

              WW (they are not calling themselves Weight Watchers any more) use the point system to encourage a healthy diet. Hence fruits, vegetables and lean protein such as chicken breast, are zero points. Have they got calories? Of course, and fruit has significant amounts of sugar, let alone carbs. BUT, do you know anyone who got seriously overweight by overindulging in fruits, vegetables and lean protein? Even more important than the difference in calories is the difference in a pound of lean muscle body weight and a pound of fatty tissue body weight in calories burned. WW isn’t a diet, it’s a change in lifestyle. Full disclosure: I was a WW member for years and lost a significant amount of weight. I recently quit because they seem lately to be more interested in pushing products than helping people get healthy.

              • Yes. Yes I do. Know someone who got seriously overweight by indulging in fruits.
                If your metabolism has issues with sugars, you cannot and should not have them. Your body doesn’t actually know the difference between sugar from fruit and sugar from a candy bar. It processes the two exactly the same. An apple is a snickers is a reeses.
                My son spent his entire life on “an healthy diet” and being massively overweight. He’s now eating low carb and is almost normal weight.
                Humans are very different. There is no one-size-fits-all-diet.
                My skinniest acquaintance lives on carbs and junk food. I have found, since we discovered my son’s issue, my only way to lose eight is to be under 20 carbs (and walk three miles) a day.

                • My skinniest acquaintance lives on carbs and junk food.

                  Whoops! My eyes traversed that and saw ‘carbs” as “cats.” I don’t make puns, I merely mis-scan a tremendous amount.

      • >> “previous system burned things and measured their heat energy, the newest system they can just guess without having to bother with any lab equipment.”

        [glares angrily]

        FUCK me. When did this change?

        • 1990-ish. Plus they get to apply handwavium to the charts to make the figures come out like they want.

          Oh, and those labels with the calorie numbers on every packaged food item? There’s a lot of slack there… and they don’t necessarily have to change the label after substituting items in the package. Though mostly that applies to using artificial sweeteners instead of sugar or corn syrup. Ever wonder why your “regular” soft drink had a nasty aftertaste? Some or all of the HFCS was replaced with artificial sweetener, because it’s cheaper… and the FDA specifically allows them to do this without changing the label. Because healthy, or something. So if you happen to have bad reactions to one of those sweeteners, sucks to be you.

    • TBH I meant the left thing “every step you take, every move you make” we’ll legislate. And adults, OBVIOUSLY.

      • Yep, which is why I felt the need to block the obvious counter-argument.

        Because, honestly, a lot of the stress in philosophy seems to be rooted in “I am a pure being of philosophy” vs “Dude, children, reality check here.”

        It’s not disagreement, it’s more a matter of focus.

    • “Every dang one of them spent the better part of a year located slightly below my heart, first, though.”

      Maybe that’s the problem. Do Leftists even have hearts?

    • I’ve long said “You will be governed. Either you do it yourself, or others will do it for you.”

      Parenting is largely teaching the little ones to control themselves – at least if done properly (and barring the ‘impossible cases’).

  24. I’ve come to the conclusion, for instance, that open borders and free movement of people on a global scale, with no national checks, is insane, PARTICULARLY for a country of laws. Because culture has real heft and is not quickly changed (in the individual it’s painful to change. In the group it takes generations) opening your borders to all comers means dissolution. Turns out most humans don’t really believe in laws, or at least not in laws that apply to them.

    I haven’t quite figured out how to phrase it, but yes, this.

    Look, most of the Libertarians I know are American.

    And we have a couple of FREAKING HUGE blindspots– two of them are:

    Risk: an American usually goes “wow, that was really close– I only missed being t-boned by that semi because I happened to have a bad feeling and slammed on my brakes because I thought I maybe saw something. I should be more cautious at this intersection in the future.”
    A crud ton of the rest of the world, including Mexico, goes “ah haha! Behold, my skill! I do not need to take any precautions, because I AM THAT DAMNED GOOD!”

    Second is the idea of looking forward when putting in effort. (See? Poorly phrased.)
    Americans tend to go “Hey, build it right the first time, and you won’t have to again.”
    A lot of the rest of the world goes “build it right the first time, and somebody will kill you and take it. So do just good enough for what you need.”

    • “Hey, build it right the first time, and you won’t have to again.”

      The formula for excellence in any endeavor. Swiss optics and watches, German tools, long time ago USED to be American Automobiles and a bunch of other things. Come to think of it, my MAGA hat from the Trump campaign qualifies; damn good hat made in America.

    • That second point reminds me of the guy who theorized that there are seven (or nine, or whatever) different Americas, based on cultural influx. And that a large part of the “lazy” areas came from populations afflicted with thieving overlords, as in the Irish. (Didn’t Sowell write about that?) Anyway, cultural history telling you that “if you build it, they will come and take it from you,” is a huge disincentive to making things better.

    • > “build it right the first time, and somebody will kill you and take it.

      Or, “build it right the first time, and the government will take it from you, you dirty capitalist pig.”

    • Total tangent, but one of the things that my husband has taught me is that “building it right” depends on what, exactly, your goal is (yes, including the far-distant ones).
      He’s an engineer by training, even though he got out of the field a long time ago, so the early examples were engineering. You can’t build a bridge that will never fail, for instance. The law of diminishing returns means that, after a certain point, every small fraction of durable improvement will cost you very dearly.
      So you pick a reasonable maintenance schedule (with cushions), *stick to it*, and don’t waste your resources trying to build the impossible bridge, just build the fifty-year bridge and check back later.
      Later he’d gone back to the family business of distressed properties, and told me that, when talking to folks getting into the house-flipping business, there’s a certain phrase you hear a lot that corresponds 1:1 with failure: “I’m going to do it right.” Phrased more honestly: “I’m going to spend money I have no hope of ever recouping, on a lot of it on things nobody cares about.” The *moment* you start thinking (realistically–a concept in short supply) about what someone would actually be willing to buy the property for… you start taking shortcuts.
      (They don’t have better houses in the end, either. They tend to grossly underestimate time/money requirements of all things, so you’ll wind up with something ridiculous like a perfectly-presented deck with the finest accoutrements… and having run out of money before they realized the electrical entrance would have to be replaced before the town will turn the power on, or a new septic system dug.)
      This isn’t to take away from doing it right the first time–you absolutely want all fifty years out of that bridge, and nothing you do to that house should have to be redone by the owners in the short to middle term.
      But the “whole picture” idea of how much to do by all means should include how much is reasonable to wrong out of it. A kingpin that survives 300,000 miles when the rest of the car dissolves at 100,000 is overengineered.

  25. Charlie Foxtrot Charlie

  26. Is it too late for me to crawl back into the closet and hide who I am and what I think??? 😉

  27. up to saying libertarians want rule by the strongest. (Which indeed DOES correlate really well with wanting the governments — the most powerful bodies of rule in our world — made small and powerless, retaining only enough power to administer equality before the law.

    This one I can see the logic!

    First, start with the really crazy libertarians. The ones who DEMAND that only those voluntary associations of which they approve can be allowed.

    So, I can’t pair up with you and Drak against someone who goes “Hey, I’m friendly, I’m friendly– OOOPS! I ran you over! But hey, you’re bad because (thing that appeals to most of the rest of folks).”

    That, very obviously, means the rule-gamers get ahead….which will almost always be a single, very strong guy who is highly intelligent and probably cheats like a mofo but doesn’t get caught.

  28. I don’t remember the Heinlein quote, so I’ll paraphrase: I’ve never yet heard an opinion or an idea so dangerous that it must be suppressed.

    [Yul Brynner Voice]”Let him speak, that men may know him mad.”[/Yul Brynner Voice]

    That statement was put in the mouth of one of the “bad guys” of that movie and turned around to bite him but even so I think it speaks a great truth. As another fictional character put it:

    “When you tear out a man’s tongue, you do not prove him a liar. You only show the world that you fear what he might say.”

    The proper response to odious speech is not censorship but more speech (according to the very non-fictional Amy Alkon, and something that I have been saying albeit not quite so pithily for literally decades).

    As for “in the closet” I never was. I’m not temperamentally suited to hiding in closets. This has, in the past, cost me in various ways but I have always stood for what I believed. Sometimes what I believed has changed–as one grows and experiences, one learns more and sometimes adjustments have to be made but I’ve always been very much pro-liberty pretty much in line with Goldwater’s “The Conscience of a Conservative” (long before I’d ever read the book in fact) to maybe a bit “more so.”

    As for spreading the light, I try, in my own small way, with the little voice I have. I do try.

    • Shucks, WiB, if we’re throwing movie quotes about:


      “When you make up your mind to hang a man, you put yourself at a disadvantage with him. Why should I be civil to you?”
      The Devil’s Disciple, from the 1987 BBC production, starring Patrick Stewart as Anthony Anderson and, in the scene above, Mike Gwilym as town black sheep Dick Dudgeon, about to be tried under the mistaken idea he is the Rev. Anderson, with Ian Richardson as General Burgoyne.

    • Yul Brynner Voice

      Dude, don’t stop speaking in Yul Brynner voice.

      Dude was like #1 cultural ambassador for my husband’s old office, converting sweet young things into “old movies are awesome.”

      • Never was into old movies myself, so hearing the name always makes me think of “One Night in Bangkok.”

        • I got Juuust enough classic to swoon.
          Seriously, The King and I.
          Is ’nuff.

          • Meh. Yul’s no Rex Harrison (Anna and the King of Siam, 1946)

            The casting-purist Twits would be going insane. Of course, that isn’t even my favorite Yul Brynner role.


            Wow – worst trailer for a great movie … Ever!

            • The only Yul Brunner movie I can think of offhand is “Westworld.” That one was pretty good, though.

              • The Magnificent Seven(which yeah we know is just Seven Samurai…)

                • It also becomes “Battle Beyond the Stars” and “A Bug’s Life” in later incarnations.

                  • and a certain director got his career started as a modelmaker on “Battle Beyond the Stars”

                    (Akira Kurosawa, the director of Seven Samurai, also made the prototype martial arts action film- Sanshiro Sugata, in 1943. For anyone with even a passive interest in the genre, you need to watch it because it is where most of the tropes of the genre came from. This message brought to you by your local film school graduate who took a class on him.)

              • “Draw. Draw. Draw.”

                Never seen the original movie but I know Brynner’s voice well enough that even imagining this creeps me out.

              • Brynner starred in Catlow (1971), based on a 1963* Louis L’Amour
                novel. Co-starring Richard Crenna** and Leonard Nimoy It is worth seeing. Once.


                There seemed to be a trend around 1970 to make so-so L’Amour westerns with major stars. 1968 brought us Sean Connery and Brigitte Bardot in Shalako, based on L’amour’s 1962*** novel. Wiki claims it is a cult classic, which may be true for certain values of cult and classic.

                *Not his best period.

                **Anybody remember him?

                ***Still not his best period.

            • I most sincerely hope that the … um … lyricalish bit in the trailer never appeared in anything other than the trailer. Ever.

          • Yep, you’re female. :p

          • He’s just so awesome.

          • The Magnificent Seven. Not the remake, the 1960 original (well, as original as you can get with an adaptation of Kurosawa) with Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, James Coburn, Charles Bronson, Robert Vaughn, and…

            It just does not get any better than that.

  29. Was that Yul Brenner quote from “The Ten Commandments”?

  30. The matter of censorship is no small problem for any free thinker; however, there is another issue that will now haunt the remains of the left for the foreseeable future. Namely, the lack of dialogue.

    You see, for the past fifty years, the American left had to engage the other side in conversation, trying to gain a foothold, and then use that to obtain popularity and acceptance among the general populace. Simply put, they were at a disadvantageous position, so they had to talk their way out of it.

    But now, the trend is reversed – leftist speakers fear going on any conservative-leaning venue, lest they’re accosted by inconvenient questions and facts. And on the home front, they’ve resorted to open censorship, trying to vilify and outright block any idea against their agenda. They patently refuse to have a civil conversation on any matter, so long as there’s the slightest chance it might not go their way.

    Thing is, they jumped the gun. They went draconian too soon, before they had the actual solid power in the political and business circles; before they had the critical mass needed to determine policies and practices unilaterally. So now, their open hostility to any form of dialogue, any discussion where they can’t just cry racist and shut down the other side, has begun taking its toll. Because for anyone else, there’s no reason to engage in dialogue in the first place.

    Meanwhile, even left-controlled social platforms hold a wealth of right-to-center content, with people having the chance to explore conservative ideas directly from the source, rather than the skewed version presented in the formerly mainstream media. And subsequently, they can shoot down any attempt at dialogue, since they’d already be aware of just how pointless that would be.

    All in all, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If the left doesn’t want a real conversation on any sensitive issue, well… I can live with that. They, on the other hand…

    • I’ve been alive for the last fifty years, and cognizant for most of those.
      I’ve NEVER seen a leftist in any country engage the right in dialogue.
      They straw man, talk over their opponents and put words in the opponents mouths.
      What you’re detecting as their now being “afraid” is their loss of control of the narrative.
      That’s all.

      • Roger Ritter

        When the left says they want a dialogue on something, it really means they want a chance to lecture everybody who disagrees with them. No opposition voices are necessary, and they won’t be tolerated.

        • The Left saying they want a dialogue, consider it akin to when your “partner” announces, “We need to have a conversation.”

          You can count on your side of that dialogue consisting of “Uh-huh.” “Yes, I understand.” “No, that hasn’t been fair.” and “I will try to make it up to you.”

        • Yeah, that’s kinda what I meant. I guess dialogue wasn’t the most accurate word for it. To reiterate, they had to engage people in conversation, using the advantageous positions they had in mass media in order to force their point. It’s basically a large-scale version of “I’m an atheist, debate me”. But now, fearing the rising prominence of conservative speakers and debaters in pop-culture – people who could talk back, and be heard aloud – they started blocking all forms of bilateral communication. They thought they didn’t need the whole charade anymore. And we’re all seeing how well that’s turning out.

          Most importantly, I suspect the reason the left has gone full “reee” right now, especially in the entertainment industry, is the realization that the charade never worked in the first place. That the people who disagree with them are far from being the isolated groups of uneducated reactionary rednecks they imagined. That shutting down the conversation means that they would be the ones actually left out. And that, most likely, they won’t get a second chance to try again.

          * * *

          As for things back here, to quote a Soviet classic, the East is a delicate matter. For one, strange as it may seem, Socialism is often regarded as the conservative side, with all requisite cliches – old folks pining for the good old days, a focus on law and order over social issues, preference for a strong military over foreign-appeasement diplomacy etc. And that’s not going into cultural tastes in entertainment and fiction… I might get into more detail if an occasion arises, but for now I’ll just say that Western conservatives probably have a lot more potential friends East of the Wall than they ever considered.

      • Indy’s background is more first hand knowledge of eastern Europe. His information on fifty years ago in the US should be weighted less heavily. My information on fifty years ago in the US should likewise be weighted less heavily, for different reasons.

    • Dude, no.

      Last 50 years would basically mean “since the 70s.”

      No way in hell has the Left been having trouble talking since the 70s; if anything, their issues have involved Grandma smacking them for screeching profanity at the dinner table.

      IF that.

  31. “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    “No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.”

    “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

    “A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.”

    “The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.”

    “If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

    “Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters.”

    “How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!”

    “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man. We must not conclude merely upon a man’s haranguing upon liberty, and using the charming sound, that he is fit to be trusted with the liberties of his country. It is not unfrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their own liberty, — to oppress without control or the restraint of laws all who are poorer or weaker than themselves. It is not, I say, unfrequent to see such instances, though at the same time I esteem it a justice due to my country to say that it is not without shining examples of the contrary kind; — examples of men of a distinguished attachment to this same liberty I have been describing; whom no hopes could draw, no terrors could drive, from steadily pursuing, in their sphere, the true interests of their country; whose fidelity has been tried in the nicest and tenderest manner, and has been ever firm and unshaken.

    “The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people.”

    “Every one knows that the exercise of military power is forever dangerous to civil rights; and we have had recent instances of violences that have been offer’d to private subjects….”

    “Nil desperandum, — Never Despair. That is a motto for you and me. All are not dead; and where there is a spark of patriotic fire, we will rekindle it.”

    All Samuel Adams, all relevant, all available to any of the USAin faith without being restricted to any other manner of religion.

    -Albert

  32. It is hard to step out of the shadows. I see crazy people. Lot’s of crazy, freaking NUTS people.

  33. Your friend is wrong. Your blog does make a difference.

  34. analytical-engine-mechanic

    Inter sidera, ibi libertas.

    Granted, this remark is not original to me**. And granted, I don’t really even speak / write Latin (at least not without such mental prosthetics as Google Translate), so this might not be the best way to say it. It isn’t (so far as I know) anything even one of the Romans ever thought, back in the day, alongside such classics as “caveat emptor” and “inter armes, silent leges.”

    But I still think “Among the stars there is freedom” (my best retro-translation) is worth contemplating, doubly so in the present context.

    Consider those lights in the sky (especially if you have Wyoming- or Montana-grade dark skies to see them in). And all the spacious freedom they illuminate, for now just beyond our reach. And then consider how you might echo that light, here and now and usefully, in a way that really helps real people (not, e.g., Marxo-fantasist vaporings about what people ‘ought to be’ instead).

    Granted, as others have said with both vigor and rigor, faith without works is dead. But why stop right before the really fun (and scary, and maybe even also dangerous) part?

    You wanna live forever? Or would you rather your species did?

    Sometimes I think a big part of the answer to Fermi’s Paradox (where *is* everybody else, with all that “out there”..?) is simply — faith. How much faith an intelligent being, a tribe, a nation, a planet, a species has to have, simply to get all the way from the opening montage of ‘2001’ on the plains of Africa to the opening montage of ‘2001’ in orbit.

    Toavoid all the manifold Traps For The Unwary strewn between. (Karl Marx, I’m a-lookin’ right at you.)

    Not mindless faith in stubborn folly, but a realistic, “streetwise” working faith in Something or Someone, not least that now near-mythical someone once known simply as Your Fellow Man (fellow Deplorable?). Or even those all-too-real Gods of the Copybook Headings. Run the course, claim the prize.

    But no prizes, nothing at all, for not even finishing.

    [WARNING: reading S. Hoyt’s often outrageously inspirational writing, then watching another (spoiler: successful!) Falcon 9 launch, may do this to you.]

    ** references:

    “And then we’re going to the stars. Because that’s where we belong. It’s right there, in our flag.”

    And Our Flag Was Still There (ATH, July 4th)

    “The universe waits human colonies. (All species colonize. The ones that don’t die.) There’s amazing knowledge to gain. The stars are calling us. And in the stars there’s freedom.”

    Messages and Beliefs (ATH, June 13th)

    • TheOtherSean

      “(Karl Marx, I’m a-lookin’ right at you.)”

      You’ve got to be careful about that. I’ve heard that “when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you” – and what greater abyss can there be but Marx and his followers and their works?

  35. you support the status quo
    This is why I’ve come to hate “conservative” as a label over the years. It has some usefulness as it pertains to “conserving” what we – America – were founded on/as. But it certainly isn’t what I’m about nowadays – we’ve got almost nothing left to conserve at this point.

    I’ve been a radical for a number of years now.

    Which, ironically, is exactly what our Founding Fathers considered themselves.

    • I read an essay once that made the same point and came to the same conclusion. “Conservatism” it said, lacks a guiding principle since it’s just about slowing change not adhering to any particular creed. You get to the same place the progressives are going, only slower.

      It was an essay from a Christian point of view and argued that we ought to actually try to push our government toward guiding principles… the Constitution, for example. It wasn’t arguing for a theocracy. And the essay argued that this wasn’t conservation it was radical.

    • “Conservatism” is not a philosophical system. It’s not even a political philosophy. It is a tool for making decisions.

      The opposite of “conservatism” is not liberalism. The opposite of “conservatism” is rash judgement, of leaping before looking.

      “Words mean things.”–Rush Limbaugh, American radio commentator

  36. At some point…I can’t talk about some things with people that I know.

    People that I know…dear God…it’s like I’m the only non-vampire in a coven. And, there’s no chance for me to bring in enough sun to get them all before they get me.

    What’s worse? They can only see solutions in the past.

    (An observation, has anyone seen that they have an obsession with trains? Way too many socialists and their ilk get a hard-on for a long train…)

    • Hmm.
      Keep a list of who they are.
      Keep enough ammo on hand to take care of everyone on the list, plus a dozen of their friends for each of them?

      Came home tonight to find somebody had parked an antique Chevy pickup half blocking my driveway on my property, and nobody around it. So I got out of my truck, walked around the vehicle, reached inside, opened the glove compartment and took out the registration, jotted down all the information on it, stuck it back in, and was getting back into my truck when this fellow walks up and asks if I’m trying to steal his truck.

      I said, “Nope. But when you park on my property and half block my driveway, aren’t just standing in your vehicle, and I don’t know you, I’m well within my rights to do whatever it takes to figure out what you’re doing there.”

      At least he had the good sense to not argue with me.

    • “An observation, has anyone seen that they have an obsession with trains?”

      Only passenger trains. They have no interest in freight rail, without which the US economy would be crippled in short order.

      • Trains of all sorts, but they get the biggest erection on erecting new passenger train routes, especially light-rail routes.

        I keep thinking this idea I have for a demand-driven subway system might work, but it’s hard to explain…

        • It’s going to be on-demand buses…

          • Very close to my idea, think “mass transit Uber,” but distributed and built to be easy to expand and maintain.

            • This was in operation in the little town in Ohio where I was an exchange student in 1980. It was a van, its route varying daily depending on who bought in. It was run by a little old lady with a map and a phone.
              With computers, it should be trivially easy.

              • It should be ridiculously easy. Flat fee for a “general transit” pass, willing to pay more for a more direct ride you can and the more people going there, the cost goes down.

            • Santa Clara County (aka Silicon Valley) tried dial-a-ride in the 1970s. The experiment didn’t last long (that try, anyway), because you could call in and request a ride, but God help you if you needed to be somewhere on a schedule. OTOH, Klamath County is doing a similar system up here, on a much smaller scale, but it seems to be working. Doesn’t hurt that the service area is a whole lot smaller.

              The guy largely responsible for the California Bull-excrement train was key for the light rail in SC County. It generated an enormous number of (union) jobs, carefully favored the downtown merchants who paid for the priviledge, and in my experience, utterly sucked as a passenger. The train trundled through downtown at a blistering 10 mph, ran in the median strip of the main drag north of downtown, and had a confusing set of signals for the trolley.

              Not long after the route opened, I met the first ace; 5 crashes in intersections with confused drivers. The county thought crossing gates were an unneeded extravagance.

              They expanded the system a lot since I left, but I doubt it’s a whole lot better. For my 10 mile commute, it took 30-40 minutes to get to and from work. A minimum of an hour if I took light rail, and I still had two miles to get home from the stop. Pfuey!

              • I blame the light-rail fantasy entirely on Judy Garland.


                And the people that lover, of course.

              • I rode the VTA Light Rail and it wasn’t a BAD idea…if it moved faster between stops. And, it didn’t support really only a very narrow area.

                Which is why I’m very suspicious of any light rail plans. The moment you build it, you’ve fixed your transit plans.

        • Feather Blade

          Tangential: The only good thing about Portland, OR (beside the zoo) is that they use both buses and trains in their mass transit system, and have the train tunnels set up so that the buses can use them too.

          Allowing them to take advantage of the exclusivity of use of railed transit and the flexibility of non-railed transit.

      • I am not entirely in agreement; while they publicly declaim freight rail, one of their biggest backers, Warren Buffet, holds major stakes in that sector, and their obstruction of gas & oil pipelines certainly seems a boom for freight.

        Certainly they seem avid to pull a train on the American public …

        • Therein be the reason they are so well financed against pipelines, Warren’s got the lock on transporting the goods by train. Who cares if it derails in some Podunk town of deplorables and pollutes the beloved environment when he is helping them block the far safer Keystone Pipeline.
          Got a similar situation going on here in Michigan now.
          At the Straights Of Mackinac, a ship was dragging anchor (all the way from Escanaba) and snagged the pipelines and cables run across the lake floor.
          Someone decided that the smart thing to do was to make a tunnel, fully ventilated etc, and run the lines there, allowing easier maintenance, room for expansions with lower environmental impact, and the companies involved would gladly carry the largest brunt of the costs. Our fine governor decided it HATES the idea, and the greenies are fighting to have any and all pipelines along the lake bottoms removed.
          We do so well with female Dem governors! Looks like she wants to top the damage the Bimbo from Canada did in her terms.

      • Ah, but if our rails are filled with noble passenger trains, they can crowd out the icky freight trains….

      • TheOtherSean

        Except when it comes to the new (almost entirely) privately-funded, privately-operated train system in Southern Florida, which neither leftists nor conservatives feel like bringing up anymore. Many on the left vocally opposed it because they wanted a government-owned line that would use profits to subsidize unprofitable lines, and because the owners were not constructing the entire planned route for speeds as high as the left wanted. Many conservatives opposed it because they are worried the system will be popular but unprofitable, and that they will eventually be on the hook to subsidize it with tax dollars. Not nearly so much has been heard from either camp since construction picked up and operation began.

    • An observation, has anyone seen that they have an obsession with trains? Way too many socialists and their ilk get a hard-on for a long train…

      Or any other top-down controlled means.

      ECars works.

      Anything where someone besides the folks are in control.

    • Yes. Marxists have a hard on for the 30s. In the age of telecommuting they think the solution to too much driving is… trains. In the age of indie they shout “unions”. In the age of highly specialized jobs they want to bring in illiterate manual laobrers. Etc. etc. etc.
      They’re progressing towards the 1930s, heaven help us.

      • Mind you, there were some nice things about the 1930’s. Women’s clothing was interesting at times. Some of the movies were good. Some of the music was good.

        The rest, including the fundamental assumptions of how society works? No thank you, please.

        Now, if they were trying to aim for a 2030’s that I could enjoy, we might be having a different discussion. What’s worse, I think our Marxist “colleagues” are thinking of the 1830’s more often than not.

      • The wonderful thing about trains, from a Marxist perspective, is that they enable a very small group of activists to shut down an entire economy. Subway strike in NY? Not much work getting done. Put all your food and consumables on the rails and a “workers’ action” has you by the short & curlies. Sections of the country not getting with the program? Cut back on the train service, running fewer cars fewer times a day and claim it is because ridership is down — who’s going to prove otherwise?

        Setting out rail lines and determining the stops is a terrific project for politicians. Once in place they are much harder to move than bus routes, so businesses will pay through the nose to get those advantageously sited. It is also a justification for forcing people into tenements deluxe high-density housing because it simply is not cost effective to run trains to suburbs where sprawl has reduced population concentrations below effective levels for train service. Okay, maybe once a day in and back out, set to hours convenient for government officials, bureaucrats and business executives.

        The Thirties were also the high water mark of union power in America and the rest of the world, so why wouldn’t Marxists get chubbies thinking about a return to those halcyon days of yore?

        • Heinlein wrote something along these lines (“The Roads Must Roll”), only the technology was giant multistrip conveyor belts for passenger and freight transport. Part of the workforce was corrupted with an ideology called Functionalism, which told them that the workers in the most critical economic functions had every right to run things, and they shut the road down. Functionalism was fictional ideology, but clearly modeled in part on Technocracy, which was a very real thing in the 1930s)

      • “[mass transit] that is, taking the 19th century’s solution to the 18th century’s problem, and applying it to the 21st century…”
        – Tom Simon, accordingtohoyt, November 28, 2016

      • The 1930’s had problems with trains. At least in the early thirties, they still allowed private ‘motor cars’ on the rails. Some of these failed to obey scheduling and caused nasty wrecks. An early version of ‘Flying While Democrat’. P.S., did you ever get a link to my book? Whine, whine, puppy face.

  37. Speaking being closeted, in Europe do they come out of the wardrobe?

    • They have closets in Europe. It’s just that, instead of clothes, shoes and guns, they keep water in theirs. Go figure.

  38. Sarah,
    Have you read John Ross’ book, “Unintended Consequences”? If not, may I suggest it to you? It can be found on the internet for free. I would be very interested in reading your comments on it.

  39. Could you go into more detail as to why you think that the current ways of getting around the gatekeepers may only exist “for a brief period”?

  40. ritchietheriveter

    This in turn means that they must hold onto the idea that they are teh most creative! ever! by virtue of their politics, and that giving the other side a voice is crazy talk, because that tribe over there is not creative at all! They’re just saving the public from our drek! Really!

    That is seeing the world, not as Left vs. Right, but as Normal vs. Ignorant/Evil.

    Progressives are the new fundamentalists of our day … who see their gods on video screens and in their mirrors, making them particularly virulent because they do not recognize Callahan’s Principle of Leadership: a man’s got to know his limitations.

  41. Sarah, thank you for sticking your neck out and paying the price for it. Always the lovers of freedom are few. I believe we few need a common and visible organ through which to find the overlapping core principles that are absolutely necessary to sustain our liberties. It cannot be a party. And it will require a willingness to set aside our natural desire to be right, to abjure purity tests, and to focus unflinchingly on the threat you so eloquently identify: the Left. Libertarians and American conservatives have far more in common than separates us. We ought to join forces, and do so vociferously. That would be a formidable intellectual, moral, economic, and even political force.

    • Most of the Libertarians (Reason Magazine being their NYT) will NOT give up on open borders, and that’s a deal breaker.

  42. “They’re afraid some invisible contagion will reach out and make you a leper like them, that other tribe, those evil weirdos.”

    Oh, it will. The invisible contagion is certainly there, in those Conservative books. I worked pretty hard to put it in mine, let me tell you.

    We are engaged in a meme war with the Left. Its been going on since before Marx was sponging off Engels in Paris. (I’m convinced Marx invented the whole thing so he could cadge free drinks from credulous rich idiots and it all got out of hand.)

    The advantage the Left has is that their ideas are very seductive, very attractive, particularly to those of little ability and less means. Free lunch every day sounds great, right? Their DISadvantage is that everything they say is either wrong or a deliberate lie to cover up that they’re wrong. There ain’t no free lunch, and they have to pedal like hell when someone notices. “Those eeevile Conservatives STOLE your free lunch!”

    Conservatives remain confused that Lefties are A) 100% wrong B) know it and C) lie about it. We think it ought to be enough to point out that there ain’t no free lunch. We’re always surprised when they scream “THAT’S THE GUY WHO STOLE YOUR LUNCH!!!” and then a mob forms.

    The evil contagion they fear is the Truth. If they are shown in a book or a movie that there ain’t no free lunch, never was one and there ain’t never going to be one, they will never be the same. They won’t be able to pretend well enough to convince their friends. Those friends will immediately sense that they don’t believe in the free lunch anymore. Rumors will start. Sidelong looks will happen. Eventually, and suddenly, they will be labeled a Conservative!!! and they will be under the bus.

    Lately we can see this machinery operating with the TERF thing, “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists.” This is a group that has gone from “Special Pampered Pet” to “ANATHEMA!!!” with breathtaking speed, and the reason is they found out there’s no free lunch. In this case, they finally hit the wall of Truth, that men are men, and women are women.

    Lesbians don’t like men. That’s the point of being a lesbian, pretty much. If a man “declares” himself to be female and puts on a dress, lesbians will not care. Lesbians will not date “people of penis” nor quietly allow then in their locker room. Because lesbians don’t like men. The dress is a lie (just like the cake is a lie), and they won’t play along.

    So now they are under the bus, and very fucking confused that the evil Conservative men are being so conciliatory and helpful. Lifelong QUILTBAG freakazoid Feminazis are peddling their fruitbat man-hatred at the Heritage Foundation building so Antifa can’t get at them. Because one lie too many.

    No wonder Lefties can’t stop themselves from foaming at the mouth over Larry Correia’s idea that an assault rifle would come in pretty handy for fighting werewolves. It would, obviously. Silver semi-frangibles in .308 at 500 rounds per minute? Hell yeah, that’s monster killin’ ammo! They can’t have people thinking that being a victim sucks.

    No wonder they lose their shit at Sarah Hoyt’s notion that America is worthy and something to be preserved, to the point where the USAians become a persecuted minority in future tyrannies. They would, obviously. Rights are granted by God, and limited power is granted to government by the governed? They can’t have people thinking there’s a God, and that government is a thing that ought to be -limited-.

    Fuck ’em. They’re wrong, they know they’re wrong, and they LIE about it. Let them feel the light of the sun, and stand revealed for all to see. Let the shame burn them right down to their bones.

  43. “They’re afraid some invisible contagion will reach out and make you a leper like them, that other tribe, those evil weirdos.”

    Oh, it will. The invisible contagion is certainly there, in those Conservative books. I worked pretty hard to put it in mine, let me tell you.

    We are engaged in a meme war with the Left. Its been going on since before Marx was sponging off Engels in Paris. (I’m convinced Marx invented the whole thing so he could cadge free drinks from credulous rich idiots and it all got out of hand.)

    The advantage the Left has is that their ideas are very seductive, very attractive, particularly to those of little ability and less means. Free lunch every day sounds great, right? Their DISadvantage is that everything they say is either wrong or a deliberate lie to cover up that they’re wrong. There ain’t no free lunch, and they have to pedal like hell when someone notices. “Those eeevile Conservatives STOLE your free lunch!”

    Conservatives remain confused that Lefties are A) 100% wrong B) know it and C) lie about it. We think it ought to be enough to point out that there ain’t no free lunch. We’re always surprised when they scream “THAT’S THE GUY WHO STOLE YOUR LUNCH!!!” and then a mob forms.

    The evil contagion they fear is the Truth. If they are shown in a book or a movie that there ain’t no free lunch, never was one and there ain’t never going to be one, they will never be the same. They won’t be able to pretend well enough to convince their friends. Those friends will immediately sense that they don’t believe in the free lunch anymore. Rumors will start. Sidelong looks will happen. Eventually, and suddenly, they will be labeled a Conservative!!! and they will be under the bus.

    Lately we can see this machinery operating with the TERF thing, “Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists.” This is a group that has gone from “Special Pampered Pet” to “ANATHEMA!!!” with breathtaking speed, and the reason is they found out there’s no free lunch. In this case, they finally hit the wall of Truth, that men are men, and women are women.

    Lesbians don’t like men. That’s the point of being a lesbian, pretty much. If a man “declares” himself to be female and puts on a dress, lesbians will not care. Lesbians will not date “people of penis” nor quietly allow then in their locker room. Because lesbians don’t like men. The dress is a lie (just like the cake is a lie), and they won’t play along.

    So now they are under the bus, and very fucking confused that the evil Conservative men are being so conciliatory and helpful. Lifelong QUILTBAG freakazoid Feminazis are peddling their fruitbat man-hatred at the Heritage Foundation building so Antifa can’t get at them. Because one lie too many.

    No wonder Lefties can’t stop themselves from foaming at the mouth over Larry Correia’s idea that an assault rifle would come in pretty handy for fighting werewolves. It would, obviously. Silver semi-frangibles in .308 at 500 rounds per minute? Hell yeah, that’s monster killin’ ammo! They can’t have people thinking that being a victim sucks.

    No wonder they lose their shit at Sarah Hoyt’s notion that America is worthy and something to be preserved, to the point where the USAians become a persecuted minority in future tyrannies. They would, obviously. Rights are granted by God, and limited power is granted to government by the governed? They can’t have people thinking there’s a God, and that government is a thing that ought to be -limited-.

    Fuck ’em. They’re wrong, they know they’re wrong, and they LIE about it. Let them feel the light of the sun, and stand revealed for all to see. Let the shame burn them right down to their bones.

    • “The advantage the Left has is that their ideas are very seductive, very attractive, particularly to those of little ability and less means.”

      They’re also tremendously seductive to those who know themselves very fortunate in terms of wealth, safety, opportunity and other social capital compared to many others, and have enough guilt and empathy to be bothered or even vicariously outraged by this (which is to their credit) but not quite enough resolution to dedicate their lives personally to charitable works and gifts (which speaks less well of them, but is a flaw I share as well, so I can’t personally call anyone on this).

      The idea that you can permanently fix the social problems that create the disparities of Privileged vs. Disadvantaged appeals very strongly to anyone with more altruism than common sense, which describes a lot of young people anywhere and everywhen and a sizeable proportion of adults — especially in a society wealthy enough to keep people out of the School of Hard Knocks on a general basis.

      • kenashimame

        There is some truth to Churchill’s maxim: a man under thirty who isn’t a liberal has no heart, a man over thirty who’s still a liberal has no head.

  44. Pingback: Junior Ganymede » Link Roundup

  45. Interesting piece, as are all of Hoyt’s works. I especially liked the part about getting more grief coming out as conservative vs coming out as gay. I related (a little) to that, as I found that when I was an outspoken atheist, i was viewed as something of a colorful personality. When I subsequently became a christian, the same folks suddenly became quite uncomfortable around me. Hmmmm.
    Also liked the part about Lefties’ conviction that govt seemingly cannot become as corrupt and oppressive as a meritocracy based on individual liberty. This goes right to the nut of it all. Power corrupts. If you want a corrupt and oppressive govt, give it the power. If you want freedom, limit govt power as much as possible. That’s why I always define freedom and socialism as opposites of one another. The opposite of socialism is not capitalism, the opposite of socialism is Freedom.

    • If you’re an atheist, very few worry about you. You’re just one person.
      If you’re a Christian, they worry because HE has your back.

  46. Sarah, you have to stop this. Every few weeks or so you force me to write yet another comment declaring the latest blog entry your best yet. So this one is your best yet, most important, most moving. I say most moving because before I wrote this comment, I clicked on your link for “Darkship Thieves”, which I hadn’t read yet, and ordered it. Just because. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

  47. Sarah, a little mood music:

    Fight Song by Rachel Platten

  48. I am glad to proclaim that I have always “let my light shine!” That is why I always polish the lenses with finest grade Shinola. (At least, I think it is Shinola. Smells a bit odd.)

  49. Daniel Schwartz

    From the movie “1776”:
    Hopkins: “Well, in all my years I ain’t never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about. Hell yeah! I’m for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea!”

    • There’s a similar line in Revolt in 2100

      • I’m not saying Heinlein stole from Stephen Hopkins, but I wouldn’t bet he didn’t.

        Which is not to say that line might well not go back to the Romans and Greeks, whose relationships with their gods was somewhat less submissive than other ancient cultures.

  50. That correlates with Daughtorial Unit’s complaint that (then) current mores did not allow a gal to politely turn down a guy’s pass. Pressures on young women (young men, too, for that matter) to be sexually active are significant, and “acceptable” excuses for declining are ever fewer.