Can You Hear The People Sing


Yesterday, at coffee with friends, the following words were said “the Democratic party became communists so quickly everyone noticed.”

I’m not sure this is exactly true. Millennials by and large neither know what communism is, nor what the inevitable consequences are, and are all for the democrats because — I swear I heard this as a reason for voting for Colorado’s disastrous governor “they elect gays and people of color [ever so much better than the bigoted “colored people”] and women.”

And the fault is ours, and if we spend the decade in sackcloth and ashes, begging pardon on our knees, or if in the coming unpleasantness we get a bullet to the back of the head, we brought it on ourselves.  Because younger son was right. We didn’t start it, but Lord knows we didn’t end it, or tamp it down, or even object to it much. We let them bring, for instance “political correctness” that corruption of language that has seen both genders of stage puppets referred to as “actor” (when the physical act of acting is quite different for male and female) and we’ve let ourselves be maumaued into not calling things by their proper name, or using an expression instead of another, just because we were being polite. Well, that and because the rabbid weasels of the left would already, even in the 80s have destroyed our livelihood and our way of life, if we so much as spoke up. The land of the free was already in the grip of something that would make Mao, who invented the term political correctness blush. At least the Chinese had to be forced to say what Mao wanted to hear at the point of a gun. But we did it to ourselves. For politeness, and because “aunt Maggy is really nice. She’s just a little silly.”  And then it came to the point where there’s real pressure to use sewist instead of seamstress. Even though there’s a perfectly good word for men who sew and that’s tailor.

And you’ll say “what does that matter? Why would you take issue with such a silly thing?”

Because this battle was composed of a million silly things, and we let it slid, because they were little.  Except the left was pushing — like all crazy messianic cults — towards an end state that was so insane we weren’t even aware of it.

Like the idea there is no difference between men and women, when often men and women need interpreters to even know what the other one is actually saying.  No, seriously, being a woman and raised by males (well, females, too, but my brother and father were living gods, as far as I was concerned as a little kid) I often get thrust out into situations where I have to explain to some guy that no, the fact that some girl said the most heinous things about him doesn’t mean she really believes them, doesn’t mean she is a conspiracy theorist, and doesn’t mean she is irrational. It just means she’s really really angry and wants him to shut up.  Debating the accusations is useless, but if he explains what he actually meant/where the misunderstanding (if there is one) is, she won’t remember saying any of those things, and he shouldn’t.

Because you see, being weaker than males, and (statistically) smaller, women fight with words.  And when you fight with words, you give the beat down up front, so the other doesn’t have the social standing to come back at you.  But people who don’t understand evolutionary mechanics don’t get that.  And because they see fewer girls punch each other out (this is changing with grrrl power, btw, and I wonder how much of it is because the perception of having won a confrontation increases your testosterone. We do know that younger women have way more testosterone than our generation. Anyway, in younger son’s highly competitive high school the most common injury was from fights between girls. Interestingly and gratifyingly for students of history, this was of course mostly knife violence. In the school halls) they think women are more peaceful than men, which is where we get pages and pages of stories about peaceful matriarchies. In fact, trust someone who attended all-girls high school, an all-woman planet would be hell, but with more snide remarks and mocking (However if the story of a Chinese Empress (Look up “Human pig” and China, but only if you have a very strong stomach) and of a lot of queens and concubines who inherited from their husbands are to be trusted, then Hieronymus Bosch’s heartening vision of a demon sticking a pineapple up someone’s rear end is not out of the running.) Because men and women are different. Often very different, though neither sex are saints.  And some of us can interpret across the isle, which doesn’t mean we are free from the defects of our sex. (And some of the other. If you see me in Sarah-smash mode you’d never think I was peaceful. I do, after all, berserk, and that affliction comes from mom’s side.)

But we let them get away with all this, little by little, with language corruption. We let them get away with Herstory, a corruption that ANYONE who knows a word of Latin should wish punished with a pineapple. Same for Human.  And we didn’t tell them “This is crazy, you’re silly. Go home and try to put something in your head that’s not fertilizer.”

In effect we let a poisonous Christian heresy (no? Check your assumptions.  The paradise from which we fell by learning about private property? Check. The subjection of women by a conspiracy of males for six thousand years? Check. The final exegesis of the world when humans start being born as Homos Sovieticus, or whatever the crap they call them now — I suppose they don’t. Being immense racists, they just assume anyone who can tan is naturally this — the perfect collectivist, with not a shred of individual will or desire for property, check.) take over our body politic and indoctrinate our kids with vile Howard Zinn bullshit, that teaches them hatred towards the nation that has done more to eliminate barriers to equality before the law than any other in the world. We let our kids become convinced that we OWE the destitute of the world, because the way to become rich is not to have a less larcenous culture and government but to “steal.”  We let them be taught fake economics. And we stood by while they were told that if they are pale they are guilty of everything.  (Or even if they are merely tan like my boys.  I have to confess I tried and failed to have them form a band called “The Swarthy menace.”)

So, we’ll leave that aside, for now, but there’s worse. There’s much worse we did, though I want to tell you I fought it every step of the way, though not publicly, not where it counted, because baby needed shoes.

I knew when Clinton signed Motor Voter that it was the death knell for the republic. I really didn’t need to have it confirmed that they wouldn’t ask for proof of citizenship to vote. I knew they wouldn’t because “discrimination” and it might make someone with a tan feel bad. (As a person of moderate tan and who has an accent you can cut with knife, I’m upset that no one has asked me for proof of citizenship.) I didn’t need the stories like the Colorado Springs exchange-journalist who got registered to vote with a JAPANESE PASSPORT as ID, or my friend Francis Turner who practically had to commit violence to get them not to register him to vote with a British one.

And because civics are no longer taught, most Americans who haven’t gone through the process and don’t know anyone who has, think you become American when you cross the frontier. So even a lot of legal immigrants are innocently being told they have the right to vote.

Then there is vote-by-fraud -mail. I can’t even begin to imagine how something that not only violates the secrecy of the ballot, but is prone to forced votes by family members or roommates is constitutional. And yet it has spread everywhere.  Every time democrats gain even a little foothold, enough to do that, they go to all-vote-by-mail on the excuse that it’s cheaper (death is also considerably cheaper than life.) And people go along with it because it’s “convenient” as is the month of “early voting” before the elections that gives the left the number of ballots they need to “fake.”

And blatant, strutting fraud like the thing in Arizona last midterms? Is never challenged.

Which means we have no idea what support the left has.  I know it’s become fashionable to say we’re a 50-50 nation. But I don’t think that’s true. If it were, the left wouldn’t always be coming down, heavily on the side of facilitating fraud (and btw, they have perfect mental cover for that. They’re doing what’s good “for the people”and their work will eventually bring about paradise. Enough cover for all the useful idiot fluffy bunnies.)

The left has no idea what support it has either, but it felt secure enough in its mechanisms to secure election, that it thought it could unmask.  I want you to contemplate that.  The great unmasking started with Obama, and they’ve been sneering about putting us in camps ever since.

And they thought they could get away with it.  They might yet, in 2020. If we don’t start fighting back with everything we have.

Do you like a communist dictatorship? No? Sure, it will have a veneer of “they were elected” because those always do. Pretending to the will of the people is part of their cult.

Yes, their cult is receding. Even millenials will/are waking up and at any rate, a lot of them just keep quiet for the same reasons we did.  They’ve hit the high water mark. You can tell for all their mumbling about “populism” and their sheer rage and fury at 2016. You can tell by the clowns they field as candidates. Most of their nomenclature can’t pour piss out of a boot with instructions written on the heel. Which is why all of their power structures are dying, and every field they’ve taken over is in trouble.

They might still secure an “electoral” victory. And then we’ll Venezuela until we get pissed, shoot our way out of it (why do you think they’re mad after gun control and red flag laws) and then the backlash will be unimaginable. Like, if you ever said something about a Dem not eating babies, they’ll shoot you or hang you from the lampposts.

I don’t want that. No, I don’t think there’s anything good about communism. But there are the maleducated, the well meaning, and the crazy. And going that way won’t be good for the republic.

Also, frankly, given my health issues, years of starvation and deprivation are bad, ‘mkay?


That means we have to work now.  First, lie to the polls. Answer them and lie to them. Lie like a rug.  It’s important they don’t realize the number of votes they need to fake in advance. Remember how low DT’s numbers were?  Like that. (And don’t believe the polls after you lie to them, for St. Gell-Mann’s sake.  What are you? Dim?)

Second vote on the day and as late as you can on the day.

Third, destroy any ballot you don’t use. DO NOT THROW IT AWAY IN TRASH.  The dumpster-rats of democracy harvest those and use them.

Fourth, speak up.  You get there and someone has voted for you in advance? Speak up.  Make noise.  Make it clear that you will not sit still for this. Make it clear you’ve had enough.

They can throw their utopia all they want to, but they can’t force us into it.  We’re Americans. We’re proud. And we intend to continue being both.



304 thoughts on “Can You Hear The People Sing

  1. Look, the communism I noticed – they’d been at least pink as long as I’ve been paying attention and a few times they went full on Red. But all the other stuff? The Oppressionfests and Identitarian Wars? I confess I hadn’t know they were even near that particular patch of weeds, much less were grazing chowing down heartily!

  2. “And the jackboots all were polished.
    And the uniforms were neat.
    They all were so polite that day.
    They smiled so bright and sweet.
    They looked just like the boy next door;
    They did it all so well.
    They looked a lot like you and me —
    We did it to ourselves”
    — Joe Bethancourt, ‘We did it to ourselves’

    1. But when you listen to the whole song, he’s positing the threat coming from the right. Given the circles he moved in, and the fan base he had, he couldn’t afford anything else.

      Leslie Fish is getting hammered because an active Wobbly isn’t 100% on board the Hildebeeste train, and won’t give up her guns, and…..

  3. For what it’s worth, I don’t get mad at folks who are older than I am who didn’t stand up to the creeps– unless they’re lecturing me about how I should take the hit!

  4. I fear it may have just gotten worse. If I’m understanding this right, they now no longer need to corrupted the vote tallies. Now they just need to get to the electors.

    Summary: electors can now “vote their conscience” instead of being bound to their state’s popular vote.

    Much easier to get to 271 people (and/or get their own stooges in place) than run coordinated fraud campaigns across multiple states.

        1. OTOH, that same argument torpedoes the “Force Electors to vote according to National Popular vote”.

    1. There are many areas they are working on corrupting. Sec of State is one, as is having the state’s electors vote with the National majority of votes is another. Allowing electors to “vote their conscience” is part and parcel, but some of the “reasonable” or just not quite that effing stupid have pointed out how badly that can bite them in the arse.
      Hillary was worried Trump was going to snarf the popular vote in his loss and rob her of “legitimacy” in her glorious victory. Which why she gotv in Chicago and NYC.
      If they win by subterfuge like flopping electors, or removing a won State by flipping it to a popular vote, I expect things to be very much not pretty.
      Be even more glorious if it bites them in the arse like Reagan win total that flips their sure electors to a Republican by their own rules. Which I am certain they will ignore if that becomes the case.

      1. I’d love to see CA go R because of that stupid idea.R for Trump would be even better….

      1. From the other side of the world: My mom was telling me how the LGBT groups in the Philippines are trying to push the Senate right now to approve SOGIE (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Equality) law/bill, which would give ‘transsexuals preferential treatment regarding the bathroom issue’ and also had gay marriage buried in the bill itself.

        The whole ‘transgender and bathroom’ problem started when someone decided to march up to a public restroom marked ‘Womens’, said he was transgender, and was refused by the female guard.

        It’s getting rather irritating, really.

        1. It’s getting rather irritating

          Just wait for the UTIs to accumulate from all the ladies holding their water waiting for the room to clear.

        2. The US restrooms don’t have guards, and no one cares. I had a female friend who looked more masculine than most men and favored jeans and flannel shirts. We’d go to the bathroom in a gaggle and no one questioned her. There was no one TO question her. None of the other patrons even said “boo” though.
          BUT they still started the issue by saying “I should be allowed to.”
          It was never an issue. No one cares. if you can pass, go wherever you want. And even if you can’t, no one says boo.
          Hell, both older son and I have a joke — particularly when we got out in one of our plotting sessions (we plot at each other, usually after a late night drive to a diner or cafe that’s open all night) — that we go to the other sex bathroom at least 25% of the time. Not on purpose, mind you. We usually only realize when we come out. 😀 And trust me, neither or us is even the slightest bit ambiguous.

          1. It was never an issue. No one cares. if you can pass, go wherever you want.

            Reminds me of my standard speech for new employee induction: if you are discreet you can do x, y, and z; if you are indiscreet you will find yourself barred from even the things presently permitted.

            Some people don’t have an interest in being discreet, they’re about being in your face.

          2. That’s the funny thing too; we used to have the REALLY effeminate gays/crossdressers/transgenders just walking in to the girls’ bathrooms as long as they pass enough and act all effeminate and are usually with the gaggle of girls (and even if they’re alone.) The first time I ever encountered that, it puzzled me for all of five seconds, then “Gay, nobody else is reacting. Okay.”

            There was no problem, until this asswit DECLARED their status and tried to go in. And as far as I know, there usually aren’t guards at the restroom, so this person may have waited until there was one there.

            And it may be that particular one didn’t look feminine enough or act feminine enough.

            1. Men in women’s bathroom with more than one STALL. Are they looking under the doors & walls? No. Then who cares. Yes … call 911, if they are lucky, after the screaming starts …

              Women walking into men’s bathroom with the urinals fully public? Uh, YUK. Someone else mileage may vary. But even unoccupied … ewwwww.

                1. At one time (cannot speak for present because I’ve had no cause to visit the venue in decades) our local sports & concert venue, known hereafter as The Coliseum (that being what the brilliant creative minds of this city designated the structure) featured urinals in the Ladies’ loos as well as in the Men’s facilities. This was premised on the thought* that women, rather than risk the interior of a stall, would prefer to lift skirts**, straddle the porcelain, pull their pantie crotch to one side and wet down their shoes.

                  *I’m being generous in so designating this impulse

                  **It is best we not attempt envisioning how gals in slacks, shorts, jeans or other variants of pantaloons manage this process

            2. There aren’t guards at the nursing rooms in the mall, either, but I know that they showed up when a guy was hanging out in there acting… notably odd.

              Which greatly shifts the situation in the direction I had been thinking, which is:
              if someone wants to make sure you’re not allowed to remove them from a place no matter what, they are planning to do something which will make you want to remove them.

    2. Two things: the way our electors are selected it is highly unlikely their conscience will not comport with their state’s popular vote. Sure, in 2016 they tried to pressure electors – how’d that work out? They may try bringing even greater pressure in 2020, but that tends to make the kinds of people chosen as electors just dig in their heels. And is likely to seriously annoy am awful lot of the people in that state, people likely to react badly if they see pressure on an elector to betray them.

      Look at what is happening in Joaquin Castro’s district with the Trump donors he doxxed. Look at what happens every time they call for a boycott of Chick-fil-A. They have no understanding of who they’re trying to push around. They won’t like it when we push back yet they’ve convinced themselves we never will.

      1. The problem comes when electors are chosen who are not cognizant of their role and duty, or who choose to go against their state’s voter’s express wishes.

        1. My understanding — and sure, things change, especially when somebody’s* plotting — the electors are chosen by the political apparatchiks in each state.

          A quick running of the search engine reveals:

          Who selects the Electors?
          Choosing each state’s Electors is a two-part process. First, the political parties in each state choose slates of potential Electors sometime before the general election. Second, on Election Day, the voters in each state select their state’s Electors by casting their ballots for President.

          The first part of the process is controlled by the political parties in each state and varies from state to state. Generally, the parties either nominate slates of potential Electors at their state party conventions or they chose them by a vote of the party’s central committee. This happens in each state for each party by whatever rules the state party and (sometimes) the national party have for the process. This first part of the process results in each Presidential candidate having their own unique slate of potential Electors.

          Political parties often choose Electors for the slate to recognize their service and dedication to that political party. They may be state elected officials, state party leaders, or people in the state who have a personal or political affiliation with their party’s Presidential candidate. (For specific information about how slates of potential Electors are chosen, contact the political parties in each state.)

          The second part of the process happens on Election Day. When the voters in each state cast votes for the Presidential candidate of their choice they are voting to select their state’s Electors. The potential Electors’ names may or may not appear on the ballot below the name of the Presidential candidates, depending on election procedures and ballot formats in each state.

          Sure, there are loopholes in there big enough through which a determined group of lawyers could drive an Abrams, but the delegates to a party convention are pretty much the embodiment of the partisan of the partisan. Not likely to find a lot of faithless among their choices as electors, especially now they’re forewarned.

          Emphasis added

          *Not saying Soros and others aren’t working on it

          1. You don’t need to exploit loopholes. All you need is “It would be a shame if you don’t vote your conscience and little Abby and Andy accidentally drown in the bathtub. Do we understand each other?”

            1. Just like a scene early on in The Sopranos, S2, when Bobby Baccalla threatens someone to vote “the right way” in a union election. He tells the guy “If i voted for that guy, I might as well put a bullet, here, here and here”.

      2. I’ve spent a number of hours trying to find out how the electors in my state get their positions. Depending on the source, they’re either appointed by the legislature, appointed by the Governor, elected at large, elected by the Legislature, or they just occur spontaneously near election times…

      3. They mistake politeness and restraint for weakness.

        If they keep pushing, they may find out they’ve erred in their presumptions.

  5. *shrug* I honestly think we’re heading for Civil War 2.0 and their ain’t no stopping that train. It’s only a matter of when. I’m honestly surprised it didn’t happen sooner. During the Obumfuck years would not have stunned me and I was expecting it then. Hell! We the People should have marched on D.C. and hung a great number of the fuckers on BOTH sides of the Congressional aisles for the complete and utter CLUSTERFUCK they made of the finances with 8 goddamn years of “continuing resolutions” instead of you know…actually doing their goddamn JOBS. Among other things… making a budget, passing it, and fucking STICKING TO IT! Instead of grandstanding to keep their seats in wholly unearned splendor.

    1. When it starts — if it starts — I think it will begin with the gun grabbers. They’ll show up at somebody’s “compound” to do their “mandatory voluntary buyback of stuff we never sold you” (aka: confiscation with payment in scrip) and the homeowner will object, with escalation from there.

      But not even in New York are the rural sheriffs inclined to pull that Charlie Foxtrot, so it will be Urban vs Rural with the Suburbs caught in between. Makes a person wonder what it would involve laying sufficient siege to a city to reduce its food imports beyond the replenishment level.

      There are other potential flashpoints, of course, but one thing is certain: Unlike the prior one(s) this will not divide so neatly into states for and states agin. A lot of locales will be like Maryland in the 1860s: heart in one camp, body in the other.

      1. It’s the anniversary of Ruby Ridge this week.

        Given the Bundys, I’d like to think the feds have learned something about rural folks. Not entirely sure, though. Is Fed the Fred around anymore? Did y’all learn?

        As far as ‘laying sufficient siege’, RES, main transport lines. Trucks, trains, ships. Think, buddy, the cities rely on just a couple arteries. Some of them worse than others–Seattle, I have family there, scares me. Long Island’s worse–also have family there, that’s why I’ve looked at them. Passes and bridges make me an unhappy auntie. An earthquake each could turn them into port-only resupply.

        1. New Orleans.
          I10, US90, US61, and the Causeway
          all but 61 and outside of NOLA, 90 on the west side go over a bridge to get there and little work would long term block any of them. 90 has the GNO and a high one over Lac des Allemands
          River Road up stream both sides is too easy to mess up as well.
          it is more so for trains
          east west and over the river. 4 lines to stop, multiple trestles over water for all of them as well but for one line on the west bank that just has a ton of small spans.
          Not much to block the river either.

      2. Makes a person wonder what it would involve laying sufficient siege to a city to reduce its food imports beyond the replenishment level.

        For Atlanta I would concentrate on isolating ITP from the rest of the world. 285 is a complete loop offering excellent fields of fire to prevent egress. It would take a few days are most to build the required positions, especially with heavy equipment. After that the interstates and the US numbered highways would need significant blocks, as would the red and gold line. I’ll probably blow the various overpasses to facilitate that and put gun posts in the rubble.

        Back of the envelope, “I am Navy, not ground pounder” says covering that is the job of 2-4 divisions using the current TOE. I suspect one of our many ground forces vets will be along to correct my calculations at the least.

        1. I’ll probably blow the various overpasses
          You mean “I would”, not “I will”, right?

    2. I don’t think it’s going to be a repeat of the Civil War, with armies facing one another on battle fields. It’s much more likely to be Balkanization and guerilla warfare; sabotage; and, yes, probably prison camps and mass extermination at least attempted. It won’t be pretty and that’s for sure.

        1. Yep. The war between 1861 and 1865 had more hallmarks of a war between nations than any recent civil war. Would actually be fighting over common rule as opposed to territory

          1. That’s why we call it the War Between the States. Shows my bias, sure. Also is the most accurate term. When I’m pissed off at some iconoclast I use another name.

            1. The war of Northern Aggression?
              Look, my sympathies are Southern, but the insanity was on both sides. And the ruling class in the south was as fracking insane as our current idiots (and just as fond of slavery.)
              Note the North was not much better, but it was at least willing to move with the times. Which is sort of the issue we have the ruling class now. They aren’t. And Lor’ they don’t want to give up their slaves.
              I do know the average southerner who fought and died didn’t have slaves and most of them weren’t fighting to keep slavery legal, either. It was a “my homeland” thing, or why men have fought since the beginning of time.
              Under: “My sympathies are southern” — the North on winning made the central government so powerful it took us down the path we’re now. I also get the South wasn’t evil.
              BUT in a way there was no “good” side.
              The coming war will be MUCH worse than that.

    3. I was fairly certain that Obama was going to be assassinated in office, and was kind of surprised there was never a credible threat against him.

      Hillary I know would have been assassinated within 6 months, and possibly in less that 3 of “winning” election to the Presidency. The only question being who would avoid tripping over the horde trying to get to her long enough to kill her.

      1. All American president assassinations were from the left. I’ll be surprised, should Trump win in 2020 if there’s no attempt. The leftists, meanwhile, are safe.

        1. I fantasize about the day that a Republican President is attacked by some Leftwing nut…and shoots the ninny D.E.A.D.

          Probably never happen, but if it ever does it will be someone like Trump.

          1. Andrew Jackson, IIRC, was attacked by an attempted assassin– and the comment went something like “thankfully there were two strong men standing by to restrain the president, or there would’ve been a murder done.”

              1. Dude was late 60s, and going off of my family, if they are still moving, don’t risk it!
                Cohen’s Silver Horde. Nuff said.

                    1. If you ever see me reach for the frying pan, I’m past talking to. Dan can stop me. It hurts like hell, and I shake and cry restraining the berserker. The kids MIGHT be able to. Don’t know. Never had to have them do it. Dan can. With two words. Usually “Sarah, NO.” Though “Don’t kill” also works…

                    2. “Don’t Kill”

                      “Right! Killing is too good for them! I want them to suffer!”. 😈

                    1. Ahem. Please restrict your fetish discussions to private messaging.

                      (Wallabies can do many wonderful things, but rarely can we resist a straight line.)

                    2. Oh dear. I was actually thinking of the time Grandpa talked Grandma down from shooting a porcupine that was eating her cabin.

            1. So far that’s been true. However, I suspect that someone from either the active duty military, or possibly a veteran, probably would have been the one(s) to do the deed in this hypothetical instance. I’d even go so far as to say someone from the SS or law enforcement might have done it; but they’re probably only half as likely as the first two. Still much greater than zero chance. Best bet would have been an ultra patriotic Vietnam vet, probably a widower, army infantry or maybe a marine.

              1. For Clinton, military wouldn’t have done it.

                Mostly because she actively treated all military— reserve, active, vet, whatever– as a threat.

                That’s one of the reasons I wouldn’t vote for her against Hitler. When someone insists that they are a good target for those who swear their lives to the protection of the country, they might be right.

                That said, SS very possibly would’ve done it, depending on how evil she got.

                1. I lived in DC during some of the Clinton years, and the buzz was that Her Shrillness treated her protection detail so badly it was even odds that if she were attacked, they would point and shout, “There’s the Bitch!”


                  1. During Obama years, she singlehandedly flipped my husband’s entire office from “Clinton” to “anybody else” by….flying on one of their planes.

                    She treated the military as an active threat, was abusive to her SS guys, and even the Seattle liberals were going “dude, anybody but her.”

                  2. That’s true. I was stationed at Andrews for a couple of years during the Clinton Administration. Blanche Dale, wife of Billy Dale, formerly of the White House Travel Office, and primary target of Travelgate, worked for me as my office admin clerk. Her entire family was subjected to years of abuse and prosecution several agencies of the Federal government on Hillary’s order, merely to provide “cover” for her decision to fire the travel office and install Clinton cronies in place of the civil service workers there. Blanche actually suffered a stroke from the stress and she never fully recovered functionality from it, left her with a limp and blindness in one eye. EVERYONE in that office, and many other White House functions, were terrified that if they spoke up, that they would receive the same treatment Vince Foster got. Yeah, the “investigation” said he committed suicide. If any of you believe that, I’m sure we can convince you that socialism is the salvation of the world too. Point is, there were/are people who would have taken her out, or tried, just out of sheer self protection, and to hell with the consequences.

                2. she literally treated them as hired help. I dont know if it was SS or the state cops in arkansas, but she expect them to carry her bags…

              1. Comparing Andrew Jackson to Hillary Clinton fundamentally misunderstands both people.

                The modern-day politician he most resembles is Trump.

          1. likely with 0bama, but certainly during Bill, security can be spotty. Security (official) is SS and military in plain clothes, and mostly volunteer unless numbers are low then assignments are given, so those who treat the SS and Military like crap don’t get good coverage. They get a lot of folks who’d rather be elsewhere. Bill had no problem. everyone liked him. Hillary not as much, but some did like the bint, so she got decent coverage, AlGore had almost all assigned coverage. no one liked him.
            Judging by the follies that came out during 0bama’s term, I don’t think he or the wiffy were well liked. It was like they didn’t even try some of the time.
            Yet still no attempts worth a spit. Thankfully.
            Then again he had that shield of :President Joe Biden”.
            That stopped a lot!

              1. The thing that made Creepy Slow Shotgun Joe more dangerous, IMO, was that he knew how to – and was willing – to work with they system. Obama was as ineffective as he was precisely because of his “take my ball and go home” mentality when he didn’t immediately get exactly what he wanted.

              2. if elected Joe might have been. If due to the loss of Barry, between teh stupid and evil, too much damage would likely be done.
                I did worry over some zealot false flagging to create a martyr, and give Joe all the ammo he needed to really turn things bad.

                  1. A bit. Mostly, just the fact our side needs to about have gone well past doing it the “by the book, and it ain’t working cause they burned it” stage before going to such an extreme.

                  2. As we learned from the JFK assassination, nothing so ennobles a mediocre (liberal) president as martyrdom.

          1. He’s got the Pence shield. The most likely assassins of Trump Would Not Want President Pence. 😈

            1. I am not sure that is a factor, given the extent TDS has maddened so many on the Left. I think anyone sensible enough to be concerned over a Pence presidency is too sensible to attempt assassinating Trump.

            2. They still seriously considered the 25th Amendment route. Thinking that somehow they could get to Hillary as President if they just dug far enough.

              So, I don’t think the Pence Shield is that effective. At least not with deranged folks.

          2. Without a serious attempt on his life reported.

            We’ve no way of judging how many credible threats have been disrupted. Given the fact that an assassination attempt tends to pull support around the target, can we trust the media to report a failed attempt that was not so public there was no way t kick sand over it?

            1. I would not want anybody here concluding I am paranoid about the Gaslight Media and do not trust anything they report. I am inclined to believe, within two standard deviations, their reporting of the time and I accept that the weather immediately outside my window is probably congruent with their reporting.

                1. South-central Montana… finally in mid-July got to normal highs in the mid-90s, but one day this week with high of 52… apples are turning red and some trees are already yellowing. Potatoes have already quit. We’ve only had about a dozen days all summer without rain. If this is a record-hot summer, I’d hate to see their idea of a record-cold winter.

                  1. Willamette Valley too. I think I’ve ran the portable air conditioner maybe 10 times all summer; even then haven’t started it up until 11 AM, at the earliest.

                    Now. Fall has been in the air since we got back from Canada, Aug 12. Very crisp and cool in the morning. Cool breeze flowing even as it warms up mid afternoon. Still could have an hot fall come late September, early October … I’ll laugh if Willamette Valley has a repeat of the ’69 snow …

                    Well for a bit … store is a lot further away than when we were growing up. Do NOT want to shovel snow off of mom’s flat roof. At 85 she doesn’t belong up there … so, if Willamette Valley gets 4+ feet of snow again, you’ll hear me cackling laughter … then swearing, around the world, it’ll be so loud. As we hoof the required ladders and shovels over to her house a mile away … won’t be driving. Plows still aren’t plentiful enough to clear out main streets, let alone neighborhoods, if it gets that bad (they don’t clear them now).

            2. There have been rumors among the people that watch the MOVEMENTS in the white house. (Like where people were when. Not my pidgin, but I’ve come across them.)

              1. Some peculiar videos are around of a couple of strange events during motorcades. Never shown on respectable media…

          3. I understand there have been a couple dozen serious attempts, all foiled early enough to not be noticed by anyone else. And not publicized for the obvious reason of not giving the crazies needless publicity.

        2. And the left will cheer, the Democrats will excuse it, and will pretend that the years of assassination fantasies they pushed had nothing to do with it; right before the full-fledged hot civil war starts. :Left is already trying assassinations, such as with Steven Scalise and other Republican members of Congress, and the Democrats/left excused that and pretend it never happened.

          The Democrats are fully on board with use of political violence against opponents in order to seize and keep power. This will not end well.

          1. The left is fully on board, except they demonize guns and those who use them. The Deplorables are likely to be better at violence than the Ninnies of the Left. And the Left, having started it, will have the gall to be surprised.

            1. They expect us to just fold. Part of it is the image they have of us. We’re “old” and they’re “young.” this is why during sad puppies, with me being by far the oldest of the main quartet, the other side told us to hurry up and die. And the person saying it is three years younger than I and OLDER THAN ALL THE OTHERS.

              1. The young may have imagination. But they forget that we were young once too, and we’ve had a lot more years to come up with stuff than they have.

            2. Oh, there are now very leftwing groups arming up. $SPOUSE is making noises about moving closer to town. I’m thinking that it’s 50 miles closer to the formal range. (The informal one has “rattlesnake” in the name. Nope.)

              1. Something key to remember is that, while the leftists don’t themselves arm up, they (the technocrats, anyway) are surrounded by proxies who are armed. And I don’t think we can count on all of them being USAian enough to not fight for those technocrats.

                (I mean bodyguards primarily – there’s LOTS of them out there. And, of course, gov’t – of whom some portion of the armed folks are leftists or support gov’t blindly.)

                1. History indicates that when civilizations collapse the bodyguards are among the first to loot take their suddenly worthless paychecks in trade goods.

                    1. For a prime example, see Mick Mickerberg and the Social Alpha, in Under a Graveyard Sky.

                2. and then someone uses a backhoe to sever their internet connection, and suddenly the technocrats aren’t.

      2. > never a credible threat against him.

        …that we ever heard of.

        On the other hand, his psychotically over-the-top security cause both Los Angeles and NYC to ask him not to come back.

        The Secret Service shut down airspace over most of Southern California when AF1 was incoming, and the shut down freaking *Wall Street* when he was in the area.

        1. The frontage road around Moffett field got closed down every time Billy hit the Silicon valley ATM machine. Screwed up a few of my Friday afterwork bike rides.

          1. When I worked at NOLA International, for Billy Boy and during GWB’s first term they shut down the airport service road and I10 (but not Veterans Hwy) as well as stopping all movement on the ramp. Then post 9/11 but before the second term started, they just shut the service road and stopped ramp movement, but not “Get everyone off the ramp” . . . those of us working were allowed to still fuel or toss bags off, but couldn’t drive around for a few minutes, then when he was last there, very late ’03 iirc, I was driving down the service road as AF1 landed on the runway right beside me (something that big should not stay in the air moving that slow. landed long, took the fist taxi cut off so no hanging about.) and they didn’t bother with anything being stopped on the terminal side.

      3. Because right wingers who skilled enough to do the job and mad enough to contemplate it also know what the fallout would be. And it would be bad.

      4. During the early Obama years I spoke to a Black gas station owner who was CONVINCED that Obama would be gunned down…by a disgusted Black man.

        Make of that what you will.

          1. My gut reaction to Obama was that he seemed likely to set back race relations at least 20 years. Fortunately he was so incompetent that, while they did get worse, I think the decline was due to the Left as a whole.


      5. I have always thought that Obama was intended to be assassinated, to put the unelectable Biden in office. But Obama proved such a good figurehead that the plan was put on hold (and Biden was just as happy to have the perks without the workload). Besides, so long as Hillary headed State, the Approved People were in charge anyway.

        But remember how Hillary suddenly resigned for ‘health reasons’ and about then Obama got way more interested in golf than government? I think he’d lately discovered he’d been scheduled to be offed, and that Hillary’s faction was behind the plan. So the deal went like this: You resign from State and leave me alone, and I won’t tell the world about your little plan and get you strung up for conspiracy to commit. And then the puppet, being neither suicidal nor stupid, made himself scarce for the next two years.

        Which would also explain why Obama didn’t endorse Hillary 2016 in any meaningful way. And why her health magically improved as soon as she declared her candidacy.

        1. She quit SecState to give Benghazi and maybe the email thing time to blow over before 2016. Obama wanted her gone because he did not want to spend energy defending that.

          Obama was always interested in golf. His efforts grew less rewarding as America elected more Republicans to Congress and Senate. Became easier to give up.

  6. Of course, the problem with “Can You Hear The People Sing” is “are they the correct people”. 😈

    Lefties don’t like it when they hear the “Wrong People Talk or Sing or Vote”. 👿

      1. Well, I suspect *anyone* would freak if they heard me singing, but I suspect that’s because I can hold a tune very well. 😀

          1. YAY!
            (Anyone who complaims it’s difficult is not singing it right. It’s set to a friggin’ PUB TUNE, fer cripes’ sake!)

            1. There’s a secret.

              Go off-key. Start at the very bottom of your vocal register. The tune is set up to force a falsetto, if you start low you can cover the full song.

          2. It’s best if sung after several drinks, and then with as much gusto as you can muster. I think we’d all be better going back to our musical roots.

            Here’s the original tune sung properly that the SSB was set to. “To Anacreon in Heaven”

            1. Me too. I can’t carry a tune in a bucket, as the saying goes. Doesn’t matter how low of a register I start the Anthem or God Bless America. Won’t be in tune. So with gusto it is.

  7. We’re stuck with vote-fraud by mail, but at least in our county, the clerk seems to be honest. Barring a trivial (party council members, of whom we know none) election, we use the drop-off at the county clerk’s office.

    Locally, we’ve had mixed success at getting rid of GOPe types in office, though some of the non-establisment types have been rotters, and we’ve been very pleasantly surprised with one guy who appeared to be Establishment. Stealth law-n-order type, who seems to think that if we’ve put laws on the books, they should be enforced. Ticked off a bunch of illicit pot farmers.

  8. > they go to all-vote-by-mail on the excuse that it’s cheaper

    In the next incremental step, they’ll save everyone the hassle and postage and just vote for you… it’s for your convenience! And environmentally friendly!

      1. Nah, that’s the step after that… until the final step of, “It’s inconceivable anyone would not agree with us, so we can just dispense with all this election stuff that’s just a hassle anyway…”

  9. I think I’ll start using “That deserves a pineapple,” or somesuch variant as a pithy and useful phrase every chance I get!

  10. Here in NC we have a special congressional election in Sept, early voting is already started … and is being pushed.
    Yeah … no thanks, I will cast my ballot on the day of, and after work.

    (Tis Congressman Jone’s seat, who passed away earlier this year)
    And the scheduling of the election seems to be deliberately … designed to decrease the turn out.

  11. I know a Lovecraft fan who said she never understood the mindset of some of his characters, the ones who work toward the goal of summoning the Great Old Ones, who will destroy the earth. But I get it.

            1. WP decided to not tell me you replied.
              My usual answer for “They didn’t do it right” is “The Nazis and Fascists say the same thing”

  12. Hmm your local election officials seem particularly loosey goosey with ballots if they’re just throwing them away (or worse letting you do so). Where I am we use paper ballots that you mark either by connecting two arrows with a black marker or filling in an oval with a black marker. I managed to thrash and make a mark across 2 ovals in a local election. I took it to the officials (2), who together 1) marked that a ballot had been destroyed on a sheet, 2) took it and TOGETHER placed it in a shredder in my sight, 3) Gave me a (DOUBLY) signed slip that I took BACK to the place where the ballots were handed out 4) at that point my name and address were requested again (though no ID, although I was known personally to at least one of the officials, small town) 5) I was then issued a new ballot (and admonished to please be more careful 🙂 ). The slip I brought was placed in a folder. I presume there is a count of the paper ballots which must be verified at the end of the evening.

    And yeah vote by mail seems like a highly suspect mess with NO checks and balances.

    1. Vote by mail ballots are sent in by the dead and in multiple (vote early and, especially, often)
      But that is easier than the trunksfull “found” to push Franken into the win.
      “Look! Our guy/gal/other won by a bunch b first time!”
      So what if 100 voted via the same address for a 2 bedroom ranch style and 1000 from a CVS.

    2. Tregonsee — it’s fraud by mail. Lots of people who didn’t intend to vote threw theirs in trash. And it turns out the dems went dumpster diving in CA and CO among other places.

      1. My husband and son get called in to verify their signatures every vote; both have lousy inconsistent signatures. I guess they already know which ones are fraud-do-not-verify-signature-on-outer-envelope to not verify. We turn in at the county boxes late on election day.

      2. Indeed vote by mail seems like fraud waiting to happen particularly if you send it out to all the addresses in the voting roll (which seems to get culled somewhere between rarely and never). Even requested ballots would be prone to being grabbed.

        Surprisingly in Massachusetts (home of the original Gerrymander, accept no substitutes) we do have a yearly census. It is ostensibly for verifying the voter roll, Actually as far as I can tell most towns are fishing for unlicensed canines. Also it’s fed into the jury pools. One lady noted her cat (with a fairly human name) in the census (not required at all) and he received a summons for jury duty. It was a bit of work to get him off the list lest he be charged with a crime of not appearing for jury duty and being adjudged a felonious feline.

          1. Cat would get a ballot in Oregon too.

            I can just see someone voting for the cat, then using the cat’s paw for a signature …

            Any bet on whether the ballot would be shredded?

            1. I think most political parties prefer cat’s paws for their office-holders, rather than as their voters.

        1. “felonious feline.”

          Anyone else thinking of the Partridge Family episode when Danny (suppose to be 10) got a draft notice? The only way to clear it up was to have him show up for physical and induction with mom in tow? Everything else had been tried, including taking him to the local federal representative.

          I can just see the cat getting a jury summons, and the owner having to show up to the summons with the pissed off cat (both forms), in it’s cat carrier.

          Doubt I could do it now. In ’85 hubby was transferred from Longview WA to Eugene OR, in March. He had to have an established resident within two weeks in the Eugene area (he did, with a driver’s license, although we used mom’s address because we knew his apartment was not our final address). Even tho the household didn’t move until June because of me. He got a jury summons in April. He had me call to let them know. I remember t he conversation:

          Me: “Hey, my husband got a jury summons for May for the county. He’s been transferred out of the state, effective last month, permanently.”
          County: “Okay. He can defer to another time.”
          Me: “Uh. What?”
          County: “I said he can defer to another time”
          Me: “Uh. Okay … He. Has. Been. Transferred. Out. Of. State. Permanently.” (Like if I said it sloooowwwwly enough …)
          County: “Okay. When will he be back?”
          Me: (sigh) “He will not be back. I’m joining him when we can move the house stuff.”
          County: (pause) “Oh. Okay. Excused.”

          I mean. Come on. Really?

        2. I went and looked. Story is from 2010, Cat’s name was Sal, last name of family Esposito, so Sal Esposito. Was in Boston likely North End, Sal (short for Salvatore) is NOT uncommon in that highly Italian district, so reasonable mistake ( Lady got the summons and in those days it was a post card (not prepaid cheap SOBs) that had check boxes and no room to write. Lady selected the does not speak english box which was certainly true. Deferal was denied (that box is a common dodge apparently), longer form came back and ultimately they the court that Sal was a cat and he was excused. I’m surprised cat was old enough, though we did joke that our 18 year old cat Spike could get a license, smoke and vote. Always pictured him with a cheap cigar in a Crown Vic (he was elderly for a cat) headed to the polls.

  13. Lord knows we didn’t end it, or tamp it down, or even object to it much.
    I certainly tried to. I fought it my entire career. And it nearly cost me once or twice.

    doesn’t mean she is irrational. It just means she’s really really angry and wants him to shut up.
    Ummm, that’s kind of the definition of “irrational”.

    I really didn’t need to have it confirmed that they wouldn’t ask for proof of citizenship to vote.
    Nope. Knew it from the beginning.

    Then there is vote-by-fraud -mail.
    Something that has always bugged me, because absentee balloting with the military has always been a goat-rope. I have long thought that state teams should travel to the larger bases at set times (the same time for each base) and do in-person absentee balloting. The mail-in system produced LOTS of failed votes (that didn’t arrive on time and such) and some measure of fraud. (Smaller bases would have to be covered in some fashion, but the mail system is even worse for them.)

    The once I voted as a civilian by absentee was in the registrar’s office, at their little voting booth, filling out the ballot by hand and sealing it and handing it over. And it was because I would be on business travel when the election rolled around (aboard a Navy command ship, as it happened).

    The great unmasking started with Obama
    They thought finally getting one of the Chosen Minorities elected meant they had finally broken our resistance. Because some number of them actually believed their PR about us all being racist and such, and if *that* was overcome, then it must mean the battle was won and they could simply pursue the Philistines across the landscape.

    But, as with so many thinks* the left believes, it just wasn’t so.

    Do you like a communist dictatorship?
    No, no, NO, comrade! It is a People’s Democratic Republic! See, there’s all the good things right there in the name! The power is the people’s (eventually, and we need a strong gov’t in the meantime) and they will democratically elect (from a single person on the ballot) the people who form the republic (who are the people who choose who goes on the ballot).

    (* I caught the typo, but it seemed appropriate, so I left it.)

    1. GWB: no, the woman is not being irrational long-term. Once she calms down (and it’s usually a matter of hours) she can be talked away from whatever crazy she said. IF she remembers it, which is doubtful. Just like a guy might punch another in the heat of anger (at least in more open times. Now, maybe in elementary) and then he’s done, and ready to engage in conversation.

        1. Men don’t understand this. Right now they’re handling having work places with men and women by saying “Women win, always.” That’s unhealthy. What they need is orientations.

          1. It’s not even that HARD.

            If they’re flailing around, verbally? Same as the guy flailing around, physically, or punching walls.

            Yes, it’s annoying, and yes, it indicates “back off NOW they are on the edge,” but good heavens, they’re CREATING situation that rewards loss of control.

            Oh, wait, they’ve been doing that since the 60s. -.-

            1. >> “It’s not even that HARD.”

              It is for some of us. I’m pretty sure I’m an aspie – I definitely have trouble reading people, among other symptoms – and ended up going volcel rather than deal with female dishonesty.

              1. This is me having absolutely NO sympathy on females sometimes flying off the handle vs the standard of male dishonesty WRT sexual fidelity.
                Try again when it’s not expected that a chick will fuck for dinner and she’s at fault if the 80% standard use birth control fails.

                Yeah, they both suck, are bad, and shouldn’t happen.

                That said.

                You want to play battle of the sexes, there is all KINDS of junk to go with, and “sometimes they get excited and say stuff they don’t really mean” isn’t even KIND OF restricted to women.

                1. >> “This is me having absolutely NO sympathy on females sometimes flying off the handle

                  I wasn’t referring to that specifically. Even things like pretending to like a guy you don’t can cause problems (though falling for that sort of thing can LEAD to women flying off the handle).

                  >> “vs the standard of male dishonesty WRT sexual fidelity. Try again when it’s not expected that a chick will fuck for dinner and she’s at fault if the 80% standard use birth control fails.”

                  It may have just been the Aspergers, but I was never into that. And yes, I can see why that sort of thing would piss women off just as much as female dishonesty does me.

                  >> “You want to play battle of the sexes,”

                  Actually, I don’t. It took me a long time but I eventually figured out the evolutionary reasons behind some of the behavior that drove me to celibacy. As much as I hate it and don’t want to deal with it anymore I understand now why it has to be the way it is – certain parts of it, anyway – and wouldn’t try to change it.

                  >> ‘“sometimes they get excited and say stuff they don’t really mean” isn’t even KIND OF restricted to women.’

                  Agreed, but I think women are more prone to it on average.

                  1. Agreed, but I think women are more prone to it on average

                    Only if you remove the huge honkin’ section that males are more prone to from consideration.

                    Which, given that you’re very unlikely to be a target of it, is understandable– but if you’re taking the stance of “I am not involved, I’m moving back, I am an observer,” then you need to observe. Not just comment on what chapped your ass before you pulled back.

                    Most of the folks here are probably diagnosable as Aspergers. Heaven knows I’ve sat through enough monologs from my mom complaining about how she should’ve had me diagnosed.

                    Look, just because YOU didn’t get bit by something doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening.
                    Especially if you’re not the target audience.

                    Chicks who like a guy? More likely to fly off the handle.
                    Guys who like a chick? More like to exaggerate their fidelity.

                    It’s like if I (a very short person) started going on and on about the problems of being short, while utterly ignoring that people bang their head when they’re tall.
                    I don’t even have to be doing something wrong, I’m just IGNORANT of the way that being tall has down sides.

                    Now imagine you’re my moderately tall husband, listening to me go ON AND ON bout how much it sucks to be short– while he’s got bruises on his forehead.

                    That is what the “oh, gosh, I don’t know when girls are just blowing steam” thing is, from here.

                    1. I suspect I’m like younger son: have some of the symptoms of autism, including the messed up sensory input. To this day there are clothes that “scratch” that no one else feels that way about, but when I was a kid it was EPIC. And I have absolutely NO instincts. Where I fail to fall in the spectrum? I can learn what is going on. And was always VERY interested in people. so most of the time I don’t even ping the radar. (Nor does son. Unless he’s nervous, or in an unfamiliar situation, when he can come across “asshole” when he’s actually just not reading things right. I’ve been explaining … )

                    2. >> ‘but if you’re taking the stance of “I am not involved, I’m moving back, I am an observer,” then you need to observe. Not just comment on what chapped your ass before you pulled back.’

                      I’m not exactly sure what you’re referring to here.

                      If you mean the part about male dishonesty, I wasn’t claiming to be an observer on this issue. You just seemed pissed off – partially towards me – and I was trying to diffuse things.

                      If you mean the part about female dishonesty, I already said that I spent a long time trying to understand why women acted that way. And that was AFTER I went volcel because of it, so I did exactly what you’re demanding.

                      >> “Look, just because YOU didn’t get bit by something doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening.”

                      When did I suggest otherwise?

                      >> “That is what the “oh, gosh, I don’t know when girls are just blowing steam” thing is, from here.”

                      You said it wasn’t hard to tell the difference and I was pointing out that it sometimes is. That’s IT. I wasn’t trying to make light of anything. Sorry if this is a sensitive topic for you, but from *HERE* this conversation feels like you flying off the handle at ME.

                    3. From what you’ve said, you are responding to “female dishonesty” that hit you.

                      Which, as I sad, is understandable.


                      Framing stuff around that, while ignoring the male behavior which was publicly obvious but not hitting you… is an issue.

                      >> “Look, just because YOU didn’t get bit by something doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening.”
                      When did I suggest otherwise?

                      When you talked about female dishonesty but ignored the publicly celebrated male dishonesty?
                      I don’t hold you guilty of what jackshits did, but I draw the line at pretending it doesn’t happen, given that it’s notorious and even celebrated. We’re all trying to understand folks, here.

                    4. I hate when the “reply” option disappears because you’re too many levels deep in comments. Hopefully this ends up in the right place.

                      >> “Framing stuff around that, while ignoring the male behavior which was publicly obvious but not hitting you… is an issue.”

                      Alright, I think I see where you’re coming from now and perhaps I was unclear.

                      My point was about some of us having a hard time reading people, not about women in particular. I was just using female behavior as an example because that’s what was being discussed and that’s what I had relevant personal experience with.

                      >> “When you talked about female dishonesty but ignored the publicly celebrated male dishonesty?”

                      When was it mentioned in this thread prior to you bringing it up? Was I suppose to inject it even though it was beside the point I was trying to make?

                      >> “I don’t hold you guilty of what jackshits did, but I draw the line at pretending it doesn’t happen”

                      I DON’T pretend it doesn’t happen. I just didn’t see the relevance.

                    5. I hate when the “reply” option disappears because you’re too many levels deep in comments. Hopefully this ends up in the right place.

                      I got to the point where I’ll hack the bleepin’ thing.
                      If you hit reply, and then open the comment you want to replace, you can copy the number and it’ll send a reply to that comment even if you don’t have the button.


                      When was it mentioned in this thread prior to you bringing it up?

                      You were directly replying to an example outlining the male vs female — female verbal, male physical– and pointing out that yes, you CAN tell when someone is randomly flailing around.

                    6. >> “You were directly replying to an example outlining the male vs female — female verbal, male physical”

                      But you weren’t angry at me because I didn’t mention male PHYSICAL behavior. You were upset because I didn’t mention male DISHONESTY, which is a different subject.

                      >> “and pointing out that yes, you CAN tell when someone is randomly flailing around.”

                      Physically, yes, but that’s not the same as being able to tell when someone is lying.

                      And as for flailing around verbally, I’ve been on the other side of that. I’ve had times when I’ve found myself getting nervous and talking in a way that made me sound like a liar not because I WAS lying – I wasn’t – but because I was in a situation where I was worried someone might THINK I was lying and it was important that they believe me. So I don’t automatically assume that someone else talking like that means they’re being dishonest; they might just be bad at talking to people.

                    7. You might want to go back and read it again, because it’s pretty clear that you totally didn’t get the point about saying-things-with-words-you-don’t-mean and saying-things-with-actions-you-don’t-mean being two sides of the same coin.

                      You now seem to be pulling in lying as well, rather than the original subject of people throwing the kitchen sink in when they fly off the handle.

                    8. >> “You now seem to be pulling in lying as well, rather than the original subject of people throwing the kitchen sink in when they fly off the handle.”


                      Fox, I explained last night that reading when people are lying is what I was talking about from the beginning. If that was a sudden tangent from the original topic then I understand why you were confused initially, but you don’t have that excuse any more now that I’ve spelled it out. I don’t know why you’re determined to ignore what I’m actually trying to say, but if you keep doing that then this conversation isn’t going to go anywhere useful.

                    9. So far you’ve explained three different things and keep switching between them kind of at will, and have repeatedly explained something is normal that isn’t……

                    10. >> “So far you’ve explained three different things and keep switching between them kind of at will,”

                      In THIS offshoot of the conversation I was saying that reading how sincere people are isn’t always as easy as you were making it sound. In the other offshoot – the one where I was responding to Sarah saying that not all women are dishonest – I was talking specifically about shit tests.

                      As for the third, I’m not sure what you’re referring to. I don’t recall trying to discuss any other major topic beyond responding to things that you were saying.

                      >> “and have repeatedly explained something is normal that isn’t……”

                      I disagree with you that it isn’t normal, although I’m not sure that we’re talking about the same thing.

                    11. In THIS offshoot of the conversation I was saying that reading how sincere people are isn’t always as easy as you were making it sound. In the other offshoot – the one where I was responding to Sarah saying that not all women are dishonest – I was talking specifically about shit tests.


                      It was explicitly about the subset of “woman throwing kitchen sink into accusations” which was, also explicitly, and repeatedly, by at least two different people, directly connected to a guy blowing his top and flailing.

                      I have to go pick my husband up, now, so I won’t be responding further.

                    12. >> “Good. I don’t think any progress will be made on this.”

                      I agree. I was about to suggest dropping it myself once I realized neither of us even wanted to have the same conversation as the other.

                      Sorry about all that mess, Sarah.

              2. Not all females are dishonest. Not all females are that volatile, either. Or at least not “volatile to blow off steam.” If I come after you, I want a piece of you, period. But I have self control.
                Eh. My husband and my son found good ones. They’re out there. And usually as annoyed at what’s available as the guys.

                1. *nod*
                  I am very moderate in my speaking.

                  If I totally explode at you?

                  I TRUST you to try to finagle through the jibberish to figure out what I mean.

                  There are…uh… three people with a pulse right now that I will do that with. One isn’t biologically related.

                  I still had to learn this stuff, because I’m a woman, and because women do this stuff sometimes.

                  I’ll blow up in a context, sure. But random throw everything and see what sticks? Nope, only if I trust you.

                  But I know SOME women will do that, at a much lower trust level

                2. >> “Not all females are dishonest.”

                  There is ONE form of dishonesty – the shit test – that I think all biologically normal women practice whether they want to or not. That’s because it’s tied to deep-seated survival and mate-selection instincts and you don’t get to just turn those off.

                  As for the rest, yes, I realize it’s a spectrum. But I also think the women who DON’T do it to at least some degree are damned rare.

                    1. You an’ me both.

                      I notice that a lot of the “women are dishonest”/”men are dishonest” is a biological thing, but…..

                    2. >> “At risk of my sanity, what is the “shit” test?”

                      Heh. Relax, your mind is safe. Think “bullshit,” not feces.

                      Basically it’s a character test. A woman will say or do something not because she really means it but to see how a man reacts.

                    3. As a recent discussion here acknowledged, a woman saying on a second date that she “wants twelve children” is just such a test.

                      Unless, of course, that woman is a descendant of Elizabeth Bathory.

                      Men will, although possibly subconsciously, subject a woman to a similar test, which is one reason why a guy won’t ask a girl on a second date if they have sex on the first. No matter how enlightened he might be, there is something in the back brain that says, “If she did that with me, in how many other ways is she lacking in judgement?”

                    4. As I recollect, you were a participant in that sub-thread but not the one defining that statement as a test of sincerity.

                      And certes, the number of children she is willing to (attempt to) bear and he is willing to (attempt to) support is something which wants discussion before finalizing a merger.

                      When it comes down to offspring, short of adoption, the old adage about a breakfast of eggs and bacon applies: the chicken is involved but the pig is committed.

                    5. Female testing a male (through snide remarks, flirting with another guy, being bitchy, or whatever) to see if he’s really as strong (and as interested) as he presents himself.

                      Pretty good description:
                      What is a shit test?

                      Simply put, a shit test is an easy way for a woman to test what kind of a man you are. It’s a way for them to throw a verbal curveball at you to see how you react, and based on that, she’ll be able to determine how much of a catch you are.

                      She’s looking to figure out how real you’re being, so she knows whether or not to let her guard down and trust you. Once she knows that you’re not just taking her for a ride, she can be herself and start letting you in.

                      Not too different from female dog snapping at an interested male, to see if he’s tough enough to pursue her (if he backs off, he’s not worth having; if he snaps back, he’s stud material). Valuable selection tool for fitness (prevents low libido males from breeding), but not always so pleasant for the potential mate.

                    6. This “smells” like one of those things where there’s a vast and elaborate theory to try to study female behavior, the kind that completely misses that it’s just human behavior by females……

                    7. More — it is culturally shaped human behaviour by females. Even within a single over-culture, such as America’s, various sub-groups will have distinct and different methods for shaping interaction.

                      It is a cause of much inter-group conflict, such as when a gringo mistakes a senorita’s flirting for more serious interest.

                    8. >> “This “smells” like one of those things where there’s a vast and elaborate theory to try to study female behavior, the kind that completely misses that it’s just human behavior by females……”

                      Men might do it to some degree, but it’s FAR more pronounced in women. As for my ‘elaborate theory’ as to why, the short version is what I mentioned earlier: it’s such an important part of female mate selection and survival strategy that the instinct to do it is basically hardwired into them.

                      As for the long version, it would be too much for the comments even if we weren’t already so many nested levels deep. If you want to hear it I can write it up, but either we’ll need a better venue or we’ll have to talk our hostess (or someone else with a blog) into accepting it as a guest post.

                    9. Men might do it to some degree, but it’s FAR more pronounced in women. As for my ‘elaborate theory’ as to why, the short version is what I mentioned earlier: it’s such an important part of female mate selection and survival strategy that the instinct to do it is basically hardwired into them.

                      Or, as Sarah and I (and I think a few others) have both tried to tell you, that’s not normal at all.

                      Yeah, women will sometimes lose their temper, same way that a guy might lose his temper, and the reaction of the person they’re around can destroy the relationship– basically, you find out they’re not as safe as you thought they were– but it’s definitely not a mate selection habit.

                    10. >> “Yeah, women will sometimes lose their temper, same way that a guy might lose his temper, and the reaction of the person they’re around can destroy the relationship– basically, you find out they’re not as safe as you thought they were– but it’s definitely not a mate selection habit.”

                      I think we’re having two different conversations here. I’m not talking about flying off the handle; I’m talking about shit tests. They’re not the same thing. You’re right that the former isn’t a hardwired mate selection instinct (though a shit test can take the form of it). But the latter is.

                    11. We’re on at least three or four, by my count. That’s why I suggested you might want to go back and read over it again, because when I did so you seem to be bouncing all over the place.

                  1. Can’t get down another nest-layer for proper reply, but anyway: shit-testing is NOT cultural. Animals do it too. It’s fitness testing of potential mates. And sometimes it gets out of hand with animals too (male suddenly has enough of the female’s crap and beats her up or even kills her).

                    Humans are not immune to millions of years of evolved instinct, tho we’re (usually) somewhat better at controlling our reactions.

                    1. What is done is not cultural, but how it is done is cultural. Culture determines the mode of expression of the behaviour.

            2. That’s one thing I’ve never been able to figure out. It’s pretty natural for men to want to pound on something when angry or frustrated. Except in self-defense situations, pounding on the person you’re angry at is a social no-no. Logically, if they guy can redirect that violence while he still has some control, it’s physically healthier than bottling it up inside to explode uncontrolled later. So how come men’s work places don’t have a big old punching bag for us to beat the ever loving stuffing out of rather than having a coronary or going postal on people?

              1. I don’t get it, either, I was two seconds from being written up for damaging gov’t property by hitting a wall.

                I guess you’re supposed to provide the materials yourself and hide it, or something?

                The new (ish) thing where they have gyms at work is nice. I know I get a lot of miles out of our elliptical when I want to DO something.

              2. I have discovered a baseball bat, and large empty plastic bottle is a marvelous portable frustration scapegoat. It makes a satisfying sound, but cannot do any damage when it lands (remove cap). It needs to be a wood bat, and played on a grass field.

                If we do not deal with anger, it festers. It will kill you, or someone you love.

          2. But once an individual…male or female…is in a leadership position, especially a position with formal authority over other people, they need to learn to moderate and modulate any blowing off of steam. “Women are just like that” or “Hispanics are very emotional” shouldn’t be an unlimited license.

            1. Sure. I get that. However this is before people get to that point. WAY before.
              And yeah, Latins are LOUD. She says, having realized we’re okay if we only have ONE son around. (I was unusually restrained even as a kid. And for those who have met me in person, yes, that’s restrained for the culture I was raised in.) Both boys? The house suddenly becomes LOUD. part of what we’ve tried to instill is “This is not cultural here. We don’t care if this is your temperament. People will perceive you WEIRD if you act like that.”

              1. I’m loud. I’m an England. Goes with the territory. I’m not even sure if it’s a physiological thing or just something we pick up early, but none of the family I’ve met, including those whose mothers were Englands, are quiet people at all. We can hold conversations at impressive distances.

        2. And how are men supposed to tell the difference between what is meant and what is just blowing off steam? At best, they can only tell what has some semblance of rational and what is completely out of left field.

          1. Because if they LOVE the woman they will KNOW she didn’t really mean it. You know because men can read women’s minds.

            1. Because if he LOVES the woman he will KNOW it is his fault.

              Ain’t you never been with a woman? It is always his fault, until and unless she apologizes, at which point it will never be spoken of again.

          2. If they had taught mind-reading in school, I would have flunked it. I certainly flunked telling the difference between non-serious playground teasing and outright bullying.

            1. I got removed from my position as EPO in bootcamp because I didn’t know that a palm-heal-strike to the face would stop a quarter inch before it hit and become a “talk to the hand,” and responded accordingly.

              For all the bitch involved screamed, I am still not sure she was telling the truth that she wasn’t going to try to drive my glasses through my face. Heaven knows future interactions didn’t support the idea.

              That still doesn’t mean that a guy punching a wall, or yelling and flailing, is suddenly a physical threat; nor does it mean that a woman screaming and failing for the last half hour suddenly means absolutely everything she just said.

              Hell, most men can’t manage that.

              1. But her accusations can require the man to defend himself from multiple white knights. They are NOT harmless.

                1. WEll, no, that requires that they actually file a complaint.

                  Which the problem child will do both against men and women.

                  If they’re filing accusations, THEY ARE PAST THE JUST SAYING STUFF BECAUSE THEY’RE PISSED STAGE.

                  1. The only time I’ve ever worked well with other women was when the other women were like me … we were used to only working with men. Professional occupational hazard. We were still the minority. Had no compulsion to group together in solidarity.

                    Had the “solidarity” tried on me in a class. Uh, no thanks, I’ll just wander over there …

                    1. Never ran into problems at work. If only because I got along with me, myself, and I, the only female, employed, at least in that section. The one job I did share with other women were just like me, we were used to working projects with the guys.

                      Where I got into trouble was design class. First project group was assigned. The *queen bee didn’t take to me kindly. Something about my not going along with the program when they chose to work together during my blacked out hours. Funny how subsequent groups didn’t have any problems with the exact same restrictions.

                      * Same queen bee that loudly asked how I could get pregnant just before graduation, at the end of the next term (I was 6 1/2-ish months).

                    2. Well. Yes. AFTER almost 10 years of fertility tests and treatments, and a miscarriages or two. Timing could have been better. Was not looking sideways at a miracle. We’d kind of given up.

                      Kid was born exactly 7 days after my last final. Last term was interesting. It was mid morning. Kid would wake up and start kicking and dancing. Even with loose maternity clothing, he was very, very, noticeable.

                    3. I’m fairly sure you and me and would work fine together, because we get “it’s the job, not fuck-fuck games.” And yeah, there are men who for some reason were trained in female social styles. They are the WORST chicks in the universe. I could name names.

                    4. Yes. We would get along.

                      Ironically. I grew up with girls. No brothers. But then we camped, fished, and hunted, because that was what was expected of us.

                      Never was in an all male (well everyone else) environment until college.

                      Somehow I got the appropriate training or memo …. YMMV on which.

            2. Mind-reading only works where there is a mind to read. A hysterical female (or a male with majority of blood lodged below his heart) is by definition bereft of mind and cannot be read.

              I strongly recommend Dave Barry’s essay on the difference between Men and Women.

          3. If it goes completely over the top crazy in zero minutes, it’s blowing off steam. A woman can tell by feel. I suppose men could get used to telling, too, if they knew the code.

            1. Generally, all you need is context.

              Being intimate is also useful.

              IF they sound like a pycho leftists but aren’t, based on other interactions?

              It’s a lady blowing steam.

              A psycho leftists goes there first and always when challenged.

  14. What’s next? Gen Z? Tim Pool said that Gen Z were majority conservative even if just a little bit, reversing the trend of Millennials. I have no idea how he determined that.

    1. It’s pretty much common knowledge among culture warriors that are on the front lines. Milo was saying it a few years ago for example.

      1. Seems to be true between two sons, too, younger being “on the flipping edge of gen z” just like I am on the flipping edge of x (and most of my friends are x) and the traits… seem to be true.

        1. Nah. We’re the same age. The whole notion of a 20-year political generation is nonsense. It’s closer to 10, maybe 12. We’re Baby Busters…the sods who got stuck cleaning up the mess the Brat Boomers left.

          1. That’s what I’ve felt like – that (starting with working to sponsor and resettle Vietnamese refugees when I was in college) I have spent my whole life cleaning up the messes that the 60ies Baby Boomers created.

            1. For the most part the 60ies Baby Boomers created no messes, or no more than any other generation. The greatest percentage of them served in their nation’s military when called and settled down to quietly productive lives afterward.

              What you were cleaning up after was the Media creation labeled the 60ies Baby Boomers, something with little basis in reality. Keep in mind that all such demographic artifacts are Media constructs intended to manipulate the populace, no more real than stage thunder produced by rattling a metal sheet. (And the Media has proven itself full of sheets.)

    2. I’m not sure how anybody would decide what Millennials think; other than the obnoxious and disliked, folks don’t tend to admit bad-think.

      1. I don’t care how Millennials think — I care how individuals think. It isn’t as if I trust the polling of them any way — been through that with Gaslight Media lies about how my generation thinks.

        Similarly, current polls reporting Trump losing to a bunch of the Democrat nominees are worse than total crap. Until we narrow it down to likely voters and look at polls by states it is all just so much battlespace preparation by the other side. These are the same polls which had Trump losing badly on freaking election day in 2016 — why would I believe them now?

        1. “These are the same polls which had Trump losing badly on freaking election day in 2016 — why would I believe them now?”

          Exactly. If polled I plan on lying through my teeth. Every. Single. Time.

        2. If you look at the popular vote totals, the Nationwide polls were well within the margin of error, and IIRC were quite accurate.
          The reason pollsters got it wrong was that they neglected to poll in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, thinking that they were safely blue. Not this time.

          1. Exactly – the nationwide polls do not show what they purport to demonstrate. The pollsters and media know this and do not present the information with appropriate caveats. They are a tool for shaping popular opinion, not for informing public awareness.

      2. Seeings how the term seems to just be applied at random to anyone under 40 who does something stupid, besides the fact that there’s no clearly defined age group…

        Let’s just put it this way. According to some definitions, I’m a Millennial. I hear people referring to these idiot kids as Millennials. I have nothing in common with said kids, who have no idea what I’m talking about half the time. What the hell is a Millennial anyway?

        1. Generation Y; those who graduated about the turn of the century to those about 22, because over-extending it to insanity is what generations do.

          The 9/11 generation is Millennial.

        2. Meh. They call me a boomer. In 1968 I was learning to write and passionately interested in being able to color between the lines someday. Summer of love? Only if you include my stuffed bunny!

  15. I’ve got good news for you, Sarah!

    While attending the Annual Conclave of Liberalism, I attended a panel with Paulo Bacigalupi of “Windup Girl” and “Water Knife” fame (BTW: both are pretty good if you can get past the “this is INEVITABLE!” rhetoric).

    He apparently abides in the Centennial State like you and he woefully bemoaned to the audience that it’s a “solidly red” state.

    [Eye pick up. We need and eye pick up on aisle three!]

    1. Oh, I know it is. They just fraud like crazy. The people are fundamentally okay. Which is why the few antifa shenanigans got shut down fast.
      As for Paolo, he’s a member of the young communists club.
      A) like my dad, I find I’m too old to read communists.
      B) He’s too old to be innocently beguiled. To the knowing communists I have only one offer: “May Saint Augustus of the rotary blades lift you up above the waters. Briefly.”
      And as for you, I met someone — name evades me — who styled himself your friend. (I might have signed a book for you. If not send me a pm/email and I’ll send you a signed one, anyway.) He assures me you’re no crazier than the rest of us. WHY do you keep torturing yourself with that pit of villainy?

      1. Jim of the Greenbeard, yes. He is my friend & got an autograph in the MH collection for me. Had I known you’d be at Fyre, I might have run down for the weekend (three hundred miles to SLC is doable.) When I send my Larry stuff for sigs, you show up; when I send my DarkShip books…not so much.

        Will you be doing either LTUE or Fyre next year?

        As for WC? I’m pretty much done. I had this one planned since London in ’14. Plus, Ireland trip. 2024 has a Glasgow bid which tempts me, but I could always save up and do Britannia/Eire/the continent WITHOUT shrieks of “Raciss! Muh pronouns! I’m sorry for whiteness but I’m a victim too! REEEE!”

        With a side of “OrangeManBad!” of course (who here doesn’t think the Donster will be on his last half year as POTUS about then?).

        Sorry for the double post, WP decided to hug my original comment for a while before releasing it to the world.

        1. I should be at Fyre. I THINK. I’ll probably not be at LTUE (haven’t applied yet, because the timing is bad this year.)
          Both boys are looking at Utah as one of the possibilities next year. Which would mean we relocate thataway in another 5 years or so, finances permitting and depending on grandkids.

  16. Good news, Sarah!

    While attending the Annual Conclave of Liberalism, I went to a panel featuring Paulo Bacigalupi (of “The Windup Girl” and “The Water Knife”, both of which are pretty good if you can stomach past all the “this is INEVITABLE!” hysteria.)

    The political element of environmentalism came up, and after the obligatory “OrangeManBad!”, Bacigalupi, another resident of the Centennial State, described it as a “solid red state”.

    So see, things are looking up for your neck of the woods!

    [Eye pick up! We need an eye pick up on aisle three!]

  17. Ah, yes, human pig and Chinese Empress. That would be the wife of Liu Bang, founder of the Han Dynasty, correct? Fortunately, she got too greedy. So when her reign of terror ended with her death, the rest of the government exterminated every last member of her clan (didn’t want to leave anyone alive to pursue a blood feud).

    Yes, that included the sitting emperor (grandson or great grandson of Liu Bong). They declared that the emperor’s mother had secretly adopted him, and handed the throne over to Liu Bong’s fourth son.

    There’s a Chinese tv series (about 80 episodes) on Netflix that’s a dramatization of the “transition” from Qin to Han China. The lead eunuch in the Qin court is a real piece of work, and an excellent example of just how crazy people get when power is involved. He also shows just how badly an “insistant terminology” environment can screw things up.

    The mothers of Liu Bong’s four sons are all present, though only three of the sons appear (the mother of the not yet born fourth son gets a divination from a fortune teller that reveals her son’s future significance). There’s bad blood between the two relevant mothers, though no indication is given of just how ruthless the wife will eventually be.

  18. My perspective is a little different. I grew up with THE NATIONAL REVIEW in the house, and started paying attention to politics in the mid-1970’s. And I gradually came to the conclusion that the Left’s rise peaked with the resignation of Nixon.

    See, against The Man Who Pardoned Nixon, the best they could muster (after what I’m told was truly vicious infighting) was Jimmy Carter. They were so sure they could do better in four years time that they completely failed to back Carter. Then Carter won the nomination again (because, Ted Kennedy?!? Really!?!) and then lost to Reagan. And then Reagan won again, followed by Bush the First.

    And meanwhile their grip on the Republican Party began to slip (seriously, Nixon was a Big Government type, a RINO).

    They’ve managed to make headway since, but it has cost them more political capital than they got back, generally.

    They are going nuts because the rank and file are being told, “Just one more election and we’ll have total control!”, and it keeps not happening. And the higher-ups know that control is slipping through their fingers, and they don’t see how to stop it,

    When I first started following politics, it was assumed that handguns would be banned in my lifetime. The Left confidently thought ten years. The Gun culture pessimists hoped they could hold out for longer. But pretty much everyone agreed it would happen, and soon.

    Then the Gun Control people began to lose. Last I looked there were only nine states that still had what are called ‘may issue’ laws on concealed carry. All the others either are ‘must issue’ or ‘Constitutional Carry’ (any citizen who may own a gun is allowed to carry concealed without a permit). If I had toldmthat to the Gun Control activists in 1976 they would have laughed scornfully.

    Gun Control isn’t the only crack in the facade, but it’s the one I’ve followed most closely.

    1. Posted quickly because Word Press was going funky. So, cntd;

      The Left’s position reminds me of the tide in an inlet near where I spent the summers as a boy. It was an old cranberry bog that had been cut through to by a hurricane back in the early decades of the 20th century. Great place to hunt hermit crabs. But what I’m talking about was that when the sea had past high tide and was retreating, the inlet would still he feeding into the pond…because the sea was still higher than the level the pond had reached. But sure as fate, when the sea got low enough, the pond would start draining, too.

      The sea has been retreating for a while. Hold on. The Pond will catch up.

    2. About Mr. Carter …

      Two things in his favor: He was credible in the South, a region the Dems still needed and could hope to carry. Second, he benefited from the aforementioned vicious infighting amongst more liberal Dems. Third … ummmm …

      Three, three things in his favor: He was credible in the South, a region the Dems still needed and could hope to carry. Second, he benefited from the aforementioned vicious infighting amongst more liberal Dems. Third, he had (as had McGovern before him) been in charge of the committee rewriting the rules (following the McGovern shellacking) governing selection of the party nominee, something which gave him a significant advantage.

      It is useful to remember that the party still had a significant remainder of Wallace supporters — voters who largely endorsed Democrats’ domestic policies but rejected their foreign policies — and were only competitive, not dominant in California (aka: Reagan Country.)

      Oh, and there was the fact Carter had a military record; woeful as it was, the Gaslight Media could still shine it up and prevent anyone taking a close look … something they tried to repeat with Kerry in ’04 but apparently something in the culture had changed and interfered with their efforts to chrome-plate Kerry’s war record.

      1. apparently something in the culture had changed and interfered with their efforts to chrome-plate Kerry’s war record.

        Yes, “something” did. Something also killed the book Arming America (which was the turn around point for gun control). Something allowed massive pushback repeatedly in various subcultures as they have been invaded. Something got Trump elected. Something something something, whatever could it be? 😛

        And there are people who still think the internet is causing the problems and not merely revealing them….

        1. Yep. The internet. The loss of mass media prestige. Tech is changing how people live. But communism is a belief of mass production and mass everything. They can’t adapt.

          1. They can’t adapt in large part because although they style themselves as intellectuals, they don’t actually understand how much of the technology they use day-to-day works. True intellectuals are curious about the world around them. These ninnies are only interested in the world inside their own heads.

            Tom Wolfe remarked on it in one of his essays in HOOKING UP. The literate novels they write (or review in the New York Review of Books) take place in a fog of fashionable neurasthenia. They may nominally take place on Long Island or Connecticut, but the characters never look around themselves, nor does the author. Steinbeck reported on the world around him. But American Intellectualism turned its back on the real world.

          2. Unfortunately, the tech does mass surveillance really well. Where they’ll fail is in what to do with that info.

        2. ARMING AMERICA wasn’t the turning point for Gun Control. That had happened when the march of the Shall Issue laws started in the late ‘80’s. ARMING AMERICA was simply an act of incredible idiocy by an academic who thought he was unassailable.

          Ok, the gun culture jumped on him, but what cooked his goose was scrutiny by other academics. The Leftwing tilt of the Universities looks far more monolithic than it actually is. Or, for all I know, he may have been scuttled by pro Gun Control academics who feared his obvious fraud would undermine their cause.

          In any case, by the year the silly book was published more than three fifths of the states had Must Issue laws or didn’t require a permit at all.

      2. Speaking of those who control the party rules for the Democrats…

        It looks like Tulsi Gabbard’s getting the wrong kind of attention from her own party. First Google accidentally dropped her ads right after the first debate (where she experienced a sudden spike in interest from the public). And now American Greatness is noting that the Democrats seem to be going through increasingly ridiculous arguments to explain why Gabbard’s three percent in the polls doesn’t qualify her for a debate that someone like Julian Castro is allowed to participate in. AmGreatness suspects that it’s payback for Gabbard’s take down of Harris in the last debate, which apparently hurt Harris badly in the polls.

        Incidentally, Google blames the ad thing on automated algorithms that detected the spike in attention on Gabbard ads, and thought that something nefarious might be going on.

        1. payback for Gabbard’s take down of Harris in the last debate, which apparently hurt Harris badly in the polls.

          What hurt Harris in the last debate was her inability to take a punch and strike back. Whatever else the Dems want in a nominee, the ability to trade punches with Trump is the sine qua non.

    3. Thirty years ago the only way to lawfully carry a gun in my state involved a badge.

      We whittled away at that, bit by bit – sometimes with NRA opposition – and now we finally have our Constitutional rights acknowledged again. No plastic cards any more, unless you want to buy one to get recipricocity with some state that requires one.

      Meanwhile, Vermont, once the gold standard for gun rights, has
      had its legislature whittle away their rights, one “common sense” law at a time…

      “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

    4. It wasn’t just gun control. it was command and control economy, etc.
      But their attack on voting is unprecedented. yes, it’s also a sign of their weakness, but still.

      1. their attack on voting is unprecedented

        Not exactly unprecedented. They mass-produced votes a plenty back in the old Machine days I understand there was at least one Republican Machine, in Philadelphia, but history is replete with them being run by Democrats: Tamany, Pendergast, Daley, the Fitzgerald Machine in Boston … Wikipedia reports “A local political machine in Tennessee was forcibly removed in what was known as the 1946 Battle of Athens.” Wikipedia also advises:

        In the 1930s, James A. Farley was the chief dispenser of the Democratic Party’s patronage system through the Post Office and the Works Progress Administration which eventually nationalized many of the job benefits machines provided. The New Deal allowed machines to recruit for the WPA and Civilian Conservation Corps, making Farley’s machine the most powerful. All patronage was screened through Farley, including presidential appointments. The New Deal machine fell apart after he left the administration over the third term in 1940. Those agencies were abolished in 1943 and the machines suddenly lost much of their patronage.

        So, not really anything unprecedented.

        The Progressive Movement was propelled at least in part as an antidote to the Machines, as was development of the Civil Service as alternative to patronage jobs.

        As for selecting who got to vote … read about the history of Reconstruction in the South, or the various Jim Crow laws established to ensure that none of the “wrong” people managed to cast votes. Louis L’Amour tells of “shoulder strikers” in New York city’s Five Points neighborhood (they were also the subject of at least one movie, Martin Scorses’ Gangs of New York) when Irish gangs got out the vote for party bosses. It features, in passing, in his novel, The Iron Marshall and in several other of his books.

        Part of the enmity between Hamilton and Burr derived from the tactics used in getting out the vote in the 1800 election that delivered the presidency to Jefferson. So no, not unprecedented in the slightest.

          1. Acknowledged – but mostly just a matter of form, for substance unchanged from times long since.

    5. Have to read the fine print in a lot of those “Constitutional carry” states though. We did that here in NH, but you’re still not allowed to carry a loaded weapon in a vehicle UNLESS you have a concealed carry permit issued by the police department or selectman’s office. It’s sneaky and insidious, and a bunch of people have been nailed under it. And of course the anti-gunners are still trying to get CC overturned; so you can never let your guard down.

  19. Presented without additional comment:

    “The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky explains that in the freest nation in the world, our system of government and our very liberty depend on free and fair elections.”

  20. Is it okay if I just drop this here? Filed under “I’ll Believe It When I See it”

    Justice Department inspector general reportedly completes FISA abuse investigation
    by Daniel Chaitin | August 22, 2019 10:35 PM
    Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz has reportedly completed his investigation into alleged Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuses by the Justice Department and FBI.

    The Hill’s John Solomon made the announcement Thursday evening on Fox News.

    “What I can report tonight, Sean, is that the IG has completed his work on the FISA abuse report. It’s expected to be transmitted as early as next week to Attorney General William Barr and that will begin a process of declassification,” the investigative reporter told host Sean Hannity.

    “I think we are still on track for that timeline, I’ve been saying on your show: mid-September to early October seems the most likely release point,” Solomon said. “It’s going to be a tough report,” he added.


    Meanwhile, Barr’s “investigation into the investigators” is underway, and the attorney general has said he is working very closely with Horowitz. The inspector general can recommend prosecutions, and U.S. Attorney John Durham, whom Barr tasked to lead the review of the origins of the Russia investigation, has the ability to convene a grand jury and subpoena people outside the government.

    Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, a close Trump ally, has promised a “deep dive” into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation after Horowitz completes his work. Over the past few days, the South Carolina Republican has said he expects Horowitz’s findings to be “damning and ugly” for the DOJ. Graham also said he plans to meet with Barr this week to “talk to him about how best to tell the story” and predicted that after his report is released Horowitz will deliver “chilling testimony” in front of his panel.

  21. Regarding a recent theme here:

    A Republic, If You Can Keep It: Or, Why Victimhood and Fear Won’t Preserve Liberty
    By David French
    Thirteen years ago, I filed a lawsuit on behalf of two brave young women — Ruth Malhotra and Orit Sklar. They were students at the Georgia Tech, they’d faced unconstitutional censorship at their school, and they sued to challenge four blatantly unconstitutional policies, the school’s speech code, its speech zone, its student-fee-funding policy, and a “safe space” training program that explicitly condemned traditional Christianity.

    If you think outrage mobs are new, consider what happened next. Ruth and Orit faced a torrent of campus hate. Ruth (an American of Indian descent), was called a “Twinkie” (yellow on the outside, white on the inside), and online posts photoshopped swastikas on her face. She faced rape threats and death threats. One emailer threatened to throw acid on her face at graduation. We sought police protection on her behalf, simply so she could attend class in peace.

    I’ve told this story before, but here’s a part I haven’t fully told. In spite of the fact that there was a vibrant Christian and conservative presence on campus, Ruth and Orit fought largely alone. In fact, one large campus ministry was angry at them for defending the Constitution, claiming it was making their life more difficult on campus. I had to fly to meet the general counsel of a major campus ministry to justify my decision to fight for the Constitution. I met with tenured Christian faculty and urged them to stand with Ruth and Orit, and while some offered (appreciated) private support, the public silence was deafening . . . and shameful.

    The silence emboldened the Left. Their assault on Ruth and Orit was largely unopposed, but Ruth and Orit had courage. They persevered. And they won.


    Silence (and sometimes outright opposition) from fellow Christians and conservatives was so common that it became a standard part of my warning to clients. “If you file this case, I’m with you every step of the way. I’m here for you morning, noon, and night. But on campus you’ll be alone. You’re fighting for people who won’t thank you, who won’t support you, and might even oppose you.”


    I was there. I remember the shout-downs in class, activists calling employers of conservative students (including federal judges) trying to pressure them to withdraw job offers. I remember activists putting the faces of conservatives on gay porn and taping the pictures on the walls of the school. And I remember the vicious backlash at pro-life speech and the abusive calls to “go die” for defending rights of conscience.

    I also remember how easy it was to feel alone, that the number of Christians willing to raise their head above the foxhole was a small percentage of the Christians on campus. The rest said that it was too hard. They had too much at stake. Maybe later, when they were more secure. Then you could count on them to make their stand.

    But the ones who did stand made an immense impact, one that endures today.


    Decades of legal battles (that required personal courage) have opened up free speech in the United States to an unprecedented degree. But legal victories can’t make speech easy. And thus, in places like the American college campus, conservatives (including conservative Christians) must have the courage to exercise the liberty that other men and women have so bravely secured.

    Mollie Hemingway, for example, called a blog post written by a man named Matt Shapiro “so, so good.” It’s quite thoughtful — and worth pondering — but what really caught my eye is that Shapiro was a student at Georgia Tech during Ruth and Orit’s case, and he did more than most. He actively defended Ruth and Orit in class. Here’s how he described the result:

    If you’ve never been in that situation, it is exhausting … just as an intellectual exercise. It is your mind against the minds of 30 of the people you respect and admire. They came at the topic from 15 different angles with a variety of metaphors in a variety of passions. And you have to respond to every one. You try to turn down the heat, but it’s impossible. You try to meet the metaphors where they are or come up with competing metaphors, but it’s a struggle. Smart people are good at arguments. It’s possible to hold your own against one person at a time, but when the whole group comes for you it’s overwhelming. It’s not a competition, but even so they gain moral points if they let their passions overflow a bit and you lose points if you can’t maintain your cool.

    Then he says this: “It was not fun. It was a week of my life lost not to arguing a positive point but to trying to defend my position of *not* condemning these two women who ended up winning their case in court.”

    We can lament Shapiro’s lost week, but these women spent years of their lives in their effort and endured death threats. Yet they persevered.


    Shapiro thinks I “deeply underestimate the nature of the threat to conservatives.” What? Talk to me after you’ve stood alongside a small group of Christian clients surrounded by an angry intimidating mob of more than 100 protestors. That was 19 years ago. Talk to me when school officials put up pictures of someone who was seen stalking your kids’ school so teachers and students will know to call the cops if they see him. That was seven years ago. Talk to me when someone tries to SWAT you. That was six years ago. There is nothing new under the sun.


    Look, we’re human. It’s understandable that we want the defense of our values to be relatively easy. We want the blowback to be manageable, and above all we don’t want to risk anything truly precious. Thank God that Ruth and Orit and the many other students who stood alone did not give into that fear, and don’t think for a moment that they risked less than you. Don’t think for a moment that their road was easier than yours.

    Never in my life have I seen such victimhood on the right. Never in my life have I seen conservatives more eager to rationalize passivity and seek the aid of politicians to make their lives easier. They look to politicians — even incompetent, depraved politicians — and cry out, “Protect us!”

    Protect you? You have the Constitution. Use it. You have nondiscrimination laws. Use them. You have the power of your voice. Use that. Otherwise, your liberty will start to slide away, cultural change will eventually lead to legal change, and your grandkids will one day ask what happened to our free nation. Your answer? “Well dear, defending liberty was hard. So I chose not to do it, and those damn politicians failed us.”

    Is that a good answer? No? Well, prepare to give it anyway. That’s the price of a life ruled by fear.

    1. First, 13 years ago IS relatively recent.

      Silence (and sometimes outright opposition) from fellow Christians and conservatives was so common
      That’s funny coming from David “Christians Shouldn’t Be Like That” French.

      1. David French is the very definition of the types of people Jesus referred to as “Pharisees” and “hypocrites”.

  22. When you start a post with “Can you hear the people sing?”, you’re not talking about anything good. Because the final verse ends “The blood of the martyrs will water the meadows of France!” I’m not willing to be a martyr, and I won’t martyr anybody else unless I’m forced to. But if push comes to shove, I’ll do what I need to do to survive.

    1. Heh. To borrow from Brecht & Weill in a different musical context, “If somebody is to martyr I’ll be that one, and if someones to be martyred, that one’s you.”

      You warn us with appropriate caresses
      That virtue humble virtue always wins
      Now please before your moral verve oppresses
      Our middle’s empty there it all begins
      Oh you who don’t in our despair and your desire
      may learn the simple truth from this our song
      whatever you may do whatever you aspire
      first feed the face and then talk right and wrong
      for even saintly folk may act like sinners
      unless they’ve had their customary dinners
      What keeps a man alive?
      What keeps a man alive
      He lives on others
      He likes to taste them first then eat them whole if he can
      Forgets that they’re supposed to be his brothers
      That he himself was ever called a man
      Remember if you wish to stay alive
      For once do something bad and you’ll survive.

    2. I’m willing to be a martyr.
      But, understand that I won’t go quietly, like some.

      No, I came into the world naked, screaming and covered in someone else’s blood, and I’ll go out the same way, if you insist on martyring me.

    1. Sigh. Suppose to be reply to “cat’s ballot” and tregonsee314 response – “I would rather either of my cats voted than A. Optional-Cortex.”

Comments are closed.